,_

-.

Gii!B
e

m
.

].%xietyofl%t

roleum Engineers
_..l

SPE 35991
Development

of a Stimulation

Treatment

Integrated Model

K. M. Barlko, SPE, and C. T. Montgomery, SPE, ARCO Exploration

and V. L. Ward, SPE, Schlumberger
Dowell

Copyright
This

1996

papef

Dallas,

Texas

This paper
mformat)on
presented

SPE

2.5 June

was

contmned
by the

meetings

IIlustratlons

acknowledgment
Box 833636

reviewed
The

subpct

Computer

Conference

may

of where

by an SPE

ot

Program

Commdtee

following

Submnred

by the aumor[s)
of Petroleum

as

Engineers

to publlcatm

Perrnrssm

Richardson

Petroleum

by the Scc@y
mater! al,

of Petroleum

En~lneers

Inc

at the

for presentation
m an abstract

author(s)

are

Engineers

for presentation

held

be

presented

does

!ti off!cers

m mambers

rewew

to copy

The

and by tiom

the paper

TX 75063.3636

U S A

not

rew.w

of

o! the pap.w

as

ad ara subject

to

necessarily
PaWm

reflect
presented

any
at

by Ed,tonal

m restricted

copied

Contents
Engineers

Comrmttee.s
ot ttw Society
of
to an bstraci of not more than 300

abstract
was

should

presented

Wrtte

contain
Llbrarran

con%p!cuous
SPE

Technology

and C. L, Boney, SPE,

formation.
StimCADEm (Stimulation Treatment Integrated
Model Computer
Aided Design and Evaluation)
was
developed as an integrated software application used to
idcn(i~, prevent and mitigate formation damage. The goal of
StimCADE is to optimize stimulation treatments, rccognizc
failures and maximize job success.
Within ARCO, matrix stimulation treatments fail to
improve productivi~ in one out of three treatments].
A
summary of these failures is shown in Table 1. The current
practices for selecting wells for matrix stimulation arc
evaluating well production/injection
histories. offset WCII
performance
and pressure transient analysis.
Design
techniques to improve the wells pcrtormance arc based on
rules of thumb,
To improve ARCOs matrix treatments a real time
monitoring systcm was dcvclopcd based on Paccaloni 23and
This teehnique calculates a transient or
Provost4~ tiork.
apparent skin w. time as shown in Fig. 1. The adaptation
of this tcchniquc has improved the area of incorrect field
procedures.
Since then several authors have expanded on
these ideas by calculating a derivative skin vs. timc6 and
using an inverse injectivity plot *as diagnostic tools.
To prevent the usc of the wrong fluid, Expert systems
were developed by ARC09 and others 10-13. However, these
tools were based on rules of thumb, providing no analytical
solutions. Past cxpcricncc indicates that knowledge systems
are often discarded by the engineer after a fcw uscs and have
To overcome this
only found utility as teaching tools.
limitation, and to circumvent the loss of cxpcrtisc within the
industry, the expert systems provided within the ncw software
arc integrated to an analytical model.
This paper examines how to optimize matrix treatments
using an integrated design strategy. This softwtarc utilizes
expert systems Iinkcd to analytical acidizing simulators along
with several peripheral tools to achicvc the optimized
treatment.

in

199S

selected

of the So.aety

Petroleum
words

of Petroleum

prepared

have not been

co frectfon
pcmtlon

society

was

and Production

P O

fax 01214.952-9435

Abstract
Past publications have indicated (hat matrix (rcatmcnt failures
To improve the succcss rate for
arc in the order of 30%0
matrix trcatmcnis, current work has been on real time field
monitoring
These systems calcrda(c the evolutlon of skin
during matrix stimulations, However, these systems can only
inform you how your treatment is performing. A need for a
syslem that op[imixes fluids prior to pumping is needed so
tha( an cnginccr can take trot advantage of monitoring acid
trcatrncnts.
This paper dcscribcs the dcvciopmcnt of an integrated matrix
stimulation model for sandstone and carborratc formations
that assists in determining formation damage, selection and
optimization of fluid volumes, provides a pressure skin
response of the acid treatment and forecasts the bcncfrt of the
[rcatrncnt. The model includes three expert advisors for (he
novice cnginccr, a kinetic based multilaycr rcscmoir rnodcl
model to dctcrmirre
rock fluid
and a geochemical
cornpatability problems.
Additional modules that provide
support for the user arc a scale predictor, critical drawdown,
ball scaler forccas[cr and a fluid database for the selection of
A production forecast rnodulc is
fluids and additives.
included 10 forecast the bcnctit of the stimulation,

Introduction
Formation damage can occur from nalural or induced
mechanisms that reduce the capability of flow between the
formation and the near wellbore region, (bus giving a rise to a
positive skin. To mitigate this damage, matrix technology
using rcactivc and non reactive fluids are pumped into the

Approach
StirnCADE is an integrated program designed to allow the
user to enter data, calculate and obtain results, Figure 2
75

2
K.M.6artko, C.T. Montgomery,C.L. Boney,V,L.Ward
SPE 35991
provides an overall schematic of the system,
Movement
i.e. they cannot be used to determine the effectiveness of
throughout the program is consistent with Microsoft
solvent systems.
products for ease. of use. The tool and status bar (Fig. 3) is
presented when the user opens the application. Several of the
menus are typical of other Microsofi o applications. The three
Module Description Advisors
distinct menus to this application are 1) StimCADE, 2)
Current Module., and 3) Tools.
By pulling down the
Three advisors which have been written under the Nexpert
StimCADE menu the eleven available modules shown in
shell, are provided for the user, The first advisor is the
Table 2 are displayed. Upon selecting a module the adjacent
Candidate Selection Advisor (CSA), The CSA helps a new or
menu item becomes active within that application. The third
inexperienced user
determine if the well is a suitable
menu Tools provides access to the consistency checker
candidate for stimulation and whether the user should
options, variable editor, unit management, graphics and
preceed with a matrix treatment or a propped fracture
reports. Navigation throughout the module is performed by
treatment. This is determined by running a quick darcy flow
selecting the appropriate buttons. The application is built so
calculation
or using the production
forecast module.
that a user can randomly move from one panel to the next.
Additional
questions
are centered around basic well
The program status bar is at the bottom of the screen. The
knowledge and information
from a pressure transient
status bar provides the user with information about the active
analysis. If damage cannot be determined the user is advised
field. The information provided is the input data, whether the
to perform additional diagnostics on the well such as Nodal
field is calculated or input, locked or unlocked entry, if the
analysis.
The Formation Damage Advisor @A) asks a series of
field is consistent and if the enty is calculated or user
entered, If the user inputs inconsistent data the user has the
questions and determines up to 18 damage mechanisms as
options to change the inconsistency or continue.
shown in Table 4. The FDA knowledge is based on in house
Help is provided within the application by selecting the
experience and ref. 14. This advisor is also built to suggest
question mark in the menu bar or pressing of the F1 key when
additional diagnostic work to further define the damage. For
the cursor is active in a field. Upon selection of the question
example, if a water analysis is not available the program
mark the user is provided help for the entire application,
If
suggests that it be obtained before proceeding. If analysis is
the user selects F1, the help for the specific field is opened.
available, then the user has the option to open the scale
Information within help provides the user with hints on input
predictor module,
parameters.
The Fluid Selection Advisor (FSA) is the third advisor
There are four levels built into the application as shown in
and is provided to determine treatment fluid type and volume,
Table 3, The first level is called the Xerox or photocopy
This advisor requires a damage type which can be obtained by
mode. This mode minimizes the design work for the user by
running the formation damage advisor or directly input by the
user. The expert system requires that the user has knowledge
using the experience gained on previous matrix treatments.
The user simply opens a previous data file, changes the well
of the reservoir. The FSA uses industry experience and rules
name and completion properties of the wellbore and the
of thumb 1617to determine the fluids and volume required.
program calculates the new displacement and treatment
The schedule is then imported into the schedule panel for
volumes.
The second mode uses artificial intelligence
further refinement using the kinetic models.
advisors to build a fluid schedule based on industry rules of
thumb, The system interrogates the user to determine the
suitability of the well for treatment (Candidate Selection
Advisor), damage type (Formation Damage Advisor) and
Matrix Design
The matrix design consists of three modules - Pump Schedule
treatment type and volume (Fluid Selection Advisor). Neither
Generator (PSG), Acid Placement and GeoCHECK,
the photocopy and advisor modes provide optimization or
The pump schedule generator is a 14 single phase design
real time analysis.
The third mode consists of a
module for matrix sandstone and carbonate acidizing which
thermodynamic/kinetic
model which optimizes the schedule
addresses wormholing.
The function of this module is to
by running the simulator through a series of time steps and
optimize the fluid and diverter volumes based upon a damage
examining the resultant
radius or reduction of skin. The skin is either input per layer
The fourth mode is the most difficult level, requiring the
or calculated based on prosity or flow rate per layer. When
running the PSG, step objectives per layer are required, The
user 10 know the damage mechanism as well as the chemical
step objectives are based on fluid invasion or live acid
interaction of the trca{ment fluids and the rock. This mode
invasion requirements. The result of this module is an
uses a geochemical model to determine when and where
optimized schedule based upon a skin reduction vs. time or
secondary reaction precipitation occurs from the treatment, A
volume 18, Diversion of acid is accounted for during the
skin vs. volume and time plot is provided by these two modes,
The model can
optimization of the treatment schedule.
Both modes are applicable only when reactive fluids are used
predict diversion for particulate,
foam, ball sealers and

76

SPE 35991

Develornnentof a StimulationTreatment Integrated Model

Producti& Forecast and Economics

The Production Forecast 33-34model is a single layer reservoir
model allowing partial completion,
dual porosity and
Reservoir
depletion
during
permeability
anisotropy.
production is taken into account, The Production Forecast
model is coupled to an economic module (o predict NPV and
payout based on the new skin predicted from the acid
placement module.

maximum rate. This is the same for the acid placement

module. The user either accepts this schedule or can cancel
the results and keep the previous schedule.
The Acid Placement 1923module is a 1d, 2 phase, tinitc
difference simulator which allows multilaycr contlgurations
up to 10 Iaycrs for computing pressure and skin evolution
Mineral dissolution is simulated
during matrix acidizing.
using a 9 mineral, three acid (HC1, HF. Fluoboric acid) model
which accounts for reaction kinetics, Local porosity change
during acidizing is correlated to a local permeability
modification and finally an overall damage skin per Iaycr,
The rock/ftuid simulator (GeoCHECK) 24-25 is a 1-d,
single phase tinitc difference geochemical model that also
predicts skin reduction but more importantly the precipitation
The geochemical model has been
of acid by-products,
tailored to acidizing by reducing the input to two acids, HCI
and HF. and 8 minerals. The acidizing equilibrium chemistry
accounts for approximately 14 elements and over 100 spccics.

Discussion
To test the performance of StimCADE various input data sets
have been run. An example run is presented here and is
based on information obtained in ref. 35. Inpu[ data and
information are shown in Table 6, The well has four
sandstone intervals with skin damage varying from 455 to 38.
To determine the skin per layer production data was input
into the skin analysis window. This window calculates a skin
based cm porosity, production/injection
or by directly
inputting a value. The PSG is executed to optimize the
treatment based on damage penetration and skin change. The
example shows that reduction of skin to zero was not
achieved. The simulator warned the user at the end of the
simulation that the treatment objective was not achieved and
the user either accepts the new schedule or cancels. For this
example PSG provided a pump schcdulc as presented in
Table 7.
To determine the effects of the treatment, the acid
placement module is opened and cxccutcd. A summary of the
treatment results are presented in Fig. 7. A final skin of 5.6
However, the model also
was obtained from the treatment.
lndicatcd that the final stage of clay acid was probably not
necessary duc to minimal improvement in skin.
Several
graphs are provided to the user to visually interpret the
simulator results. Two of these graphs arc prcscntcd in Fig 8
and 9.
Figure 7 shows the change in skin per layer by volume of
acid pumped.
The graph indicates that layer 4 requires
To fully
additional acid to remove the remaining damage.
optimize the treatment, the user needs to usc a di~crting agent
to place additional volumes of acid to the lower layer,

Ball Sealer Placement

The Ball Sealer Placement simulator handles conventional
and buoyant ball sealers, For conventional ball sealersz both
the ability of the bail scaler to scat on a perforation, and to
stays in place arc evaluated
For buoyant ball sealers,28 the
placement velocity in the wellbore is evaluated against the
buoyant velocity, The result of the module determines if the
ball scats and stay in place. A typical output screen is shown
in Fig. 4, The ball scaler module is a stand alone tool that can
be used to perform sensitivity analysis. The module is also
used in the acid placcmcnt module to determine the pressure
incrcascs duc to placcmcnt of the balls.
Currently the
simulator is good for vertical wcllbores.

Scale Predictor
The Scale Predictor 29-7(model uses the same chemistry as the
GcoCHECK model cxccpt that it is tailored to scale
tendencies. The model is a batch chemistry model which can
hand]c ttvo fluids and accounts for bicarbonate and COJ
evolution, The scale model is accessible through FDA or as a
standalone module. An example of the input panel is shown
in Fig. S. The scale model currently identities eight scales
(Table 5).

Figure

8 is a graph showing

the bottomhole

pressure and

volume of acid. The acid placement simulator can

calculate a maximum rate based on the fracture gradient or
based on a maximum surface pressure or pump rate. In this
example the rate was maximized to the pump rate. The graph
indicates that there is plenty of room to incrcasc the pump
rate. A higher pump rate could have helped in placing
additional acid into layer 4.
As can be seen through this example, additional runs will
firrc tune the fluid volumes required to treat the well To
complete the fluid schedule with additives the user would
open the fluid editor, choose the vendor da[abasc and map the
fluids to the suggested additives, A customer report can be
generated or imported into the users word processing
program for further customizing.
rate vs.

Critical Drawdown - Perforation and Reservoir Failure

The Critical Drawdown predicts the maximum sand free
production rate for a given WC1land the maximum reservoir
depletion prior to subsidence, The primary components of the
rncthod arc prediction of rock strength, calculation of
maximum drawdown for perforation stability and rcscwoir
failure. The program uscs correlations from Morita 31 and
Wcingartcn 3: An example of the output of the model is
presented in Fig. 6.

77

K.M. Bartko, CT. Montgomery,C.L. Boney, V,L. Ward

SPE 35991
6 Behenna, R. R.: interpretation of Matrix Acidizing Treatments
{Jsing a Continuously Monitored Skin Factor, paper SPE
2740 I presented at the 1994 SPE Formahon Darnage Control
Symposium, Lafayette, Feb7-10,
7 1[ill, AD. and Zhu, U.: Real-Time Monitoring of Matrix
Acidizing hrcluding the Effects of Diverting Agents, paper
SPE 2854t? presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept.25-28
8 Zhu, D.smd Hill, AD : Field Results Demonstrate Enhanced
Matrix Acidizing Through Real-Time Motoring,
paper SPE
35197 presented at the Permian Basin oil & Gas Recovery
Conference, Midland, TX,,March 27-29.
9 Blackburn, R., Abel, J. ,and Day, R.: ACLDW-Acidizing
Design with an Expert System, paper presented at the 1990
Conf on AJ in Petroleum Exploration and Production, College
Station, May 15-17.
Conclusions
10 Van DomeIon, M,, Ford, M. S., W.G. F., and Chiu, T. J,: An
1, Ncw software and computer capabilities have allowed the
Expert System for Matrix Acidizing Treatment Design, paper
development of a PC based matrix simulator.
SPE 24779 presented at the 1992 Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Washigton, DC Oct. 4-7.
2. Integrated technology for designing matrix treatments and
II Chiu, T, J., Caudell, EA. and Wu, F.L,: Development of
real (imc monitoring was not previously available.
Expert Systems to Assist with Complex Fluid Dmign, paper
3. The future usc of this tool will improve the success of
SPE 24416 presented at the 1992 Petroleum Computer
matrix stimulation treatments.
Conference, Houston, TX. July 19-22
4, Expertise and economic improvement of matrix treatments
12 Cram, R. S,, and Ilendrickson, AR.: ArI Investigation into the
can continue to evolve by using StimCADE as the ultimate
Application of Expert Systems to Matrix Design) paper SPE
technical documentation.
15602 presented at the 1986 Annual Conference and
5. An easy to use tool is provided to field personnel to
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Oct 5-8.
improve matrix treatments.
13 Matteine L., Coserrza, G. Paccaloni, G. and Beranger, A.: A
Knowledge Based Approach to Matrix Stimulation, paper SPE
6,
Industry involvement in the application and future
20966 presented at the Europec 90, T?re Hague, Netherlands
irnprovcmcnts
are provided
through
a Technology
Ott. 22-24.
Dcvclopmcnt User Club.
4

StimCADE Future Advancement

of
the
application
and major
Future enhancements
improwmrents of the StimCAf)E application will come from a
Technology Development User Club (TDUC). The TDUC
will act as a consortium to guide the evolution of StimCADE
through funding of major upgrades and new applications.
The club dctcmlincs the use of membership fees in funding or
partially fhrrding major upgrades, new applications and
research, It is intended to tap the knowledge of all users to
continually improve on the application with the intention of
making it a standard in the industry

14 SPE Repnnt Series No. 29 Formation Damage.

15 McLeod, HO.: The Planning, Execution and Evaluation of
Acid Treatments in Sandstone Formations, SPE paper 1I931
Iresented at the 1986 hnual
Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA. ,Oct. 5-8,
16 Kamkas, M. and Tariq, S M,: Semi-analytical Productivity
SPE
Models
for
Perforated
Completions,
paper
18247,prescnted
at the 1988 Annual
Conference
and
Exhibition, l{ouston, TX,Oct.2-5.
17 Bertaux, J.: Fluid Selection Guide to Matrix Treatments,
Doweli Schlumberger, 1988.
18 Surnotarto, U., Flill, AD., and Sepehrnoon, K.: An integrated
Sandstone Acidizing Fluid Selection and Simulation to
Optimize Treatment Design, paper SPE 30520 presented at
the 1995 Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition Dallas,
TX Oct. 22-25.
[9 Ilomas, R. and Faanin, V.: A Sandstone Acidizing Simulator
for Engineered Treatment DesIgnsA Field Study, paper IPA
93-23.122 presented at the 22nd Annual Convention, Ott.93.
20 Toubal ,1;.: A Matrix fnjection Simulator, The Mathematics
and its Applications Conference Series, flx~ard University
Press, NY ( 1992), 767,
21 Piot,B,, and Perthius, I i.:Matrix Acidizing of Sandstones,
Reservoir Stimulation, Schlumberger Educational Services,
1987
22 Schector: Oif We// S(imcdation, Prentice Hal], 1992.
23 Perthius,H, Toubal, E. aod Piot,B.: Acid ReactionSand
Damage Removal in Sandstones: A Model for Selecting the
Acid Formulation,paper SPE 18469,presented at the 1989

Acknowledgments
We thank the management of ARCO E&P Technology and
Schlumberger Dowell for permission to publish this paper.
Wc also thank the StimCADE Team and CAPSHER
Technology for writing the program.
StinlCADEmi M a registered trademark of Schlumbcrger
Dowcll,
of Microsoft
Microsofimr is a registered trademark
Corporation.

References
C. 1,, Jan, Y-M., and Niemeyer, B. L.:
I)evclopment of a Matrix-Acidizing Stimulation Treatment

1. Montgomery,

and Recording System, SPEPF(Nov. 1995)219.

G.: New Method Proves Value of Simulation
[)11& Ga.YJ. (Nov. 19, 1979) 155.
3
G : Field I iistory Veriiies Control, Evaluation Oil
& Gas J. (Nov. 26, 1979) 61.
4. Provost, L. P. and Economidies, M. J~:Real-Time Evalution of
Matrix Acidizing Treatments, J Pehdewn Sci. & Errg. ( 1987)
1, 145.
2.

Evhdion
Paccaloni,
Ilanning
Paccaloui,

Provost, L. P. and Econornidies, M. J.: Applications of RealTimc Matrix Acidizing Method, SPEPE (Nov. 1989) 40 I;
1runs.,AIME, 287.

78

SPE 35991
Development of a Stimulation Treatment Integrated Model
S111lad S\mposium on OIIliclci Chemistry, I louston, TX, Feb.
n-lo
24 f:ogler, 1I S., Lund, K and McCunc, C C, Predicting the
Table 2- Available Modules
Flow and Rcact]on of I [CM [F Ac]d Mixtures in Porous
Sandsknw Cores, .$IW(OCI 1976) 248-60 ;Irms, e.il.111i,261.
General
25 I.und,K and Foglcr, 1I S Acidizing V. The Prediction of the
Candidate Selection Advisor
Movmncnt
of
Acid
and
furncabdity
fronts
In
Formation Damage Advisor
Sa]]dstol]cs,()t,,n~./]g,g$cici.(1976)31,381-92
Fluid Selection Advisor
26 McCunc,C C , Foglcv, 11S., and Ault, J w,: A Ncw Model of
the Ihys].sal and Chemical Changes in Sandstone E)uring
Pump Schedule Generator
Acidizing, W}ll(oct 1975) 361-70.
Acid Placement
27. lhnwl,R.W., Neill, (i. ] I , and Lopm,R.G Faclors Influencing
Geocheck
optlmom f+all Scaicr f]erformancc, JPT (April 1963), 450Production Forecast
454
Critical Drawdown
28 C,abriel, (;.A. and Erbstoesscr, S,R,, paper S1}ll 13085
Scale Predictor
presented at the I)X4 Annual fcchmcal Conference and
Ball Scaler
}khibi[ion, I IoosIon, TX , Scpt 16-24.
29 l.i, Y-I [.: Theories of Chemical Equilibrium Calculations for
PR( J Watdlood
Geochemical Modeling and ARC() Scale
Predictor, ARC() ReporI RR 95-()(]13, May 1995.
30 LI, Y-1I., Crane, S.1). and Coleman, J K., A Novel Approach
Table 3- Design Levels
to Predict the Co-Prcclpitatlon of BaS04 and SrS04, S111
29489 prcsentml at the S111Production C@ations Symposium,
Xerox
[)klahoma Ci[y, OK April 2Jl, 1995,
Advisor
31 Morita, N et.al , A Quick Method to [)etwrninc Subs] dcncc
Empirical/Kinetic
Rcscrwolr Compactma, hi-Situ Stress Induced by Rescrvo]r
Geochemical Based
Dcplctlon> JPT (Jan 1989).
32 Wciogarten, J.S. and Perkins, r.K ,: Prediction of Sand
Produchon in C,as Wells Methods and Gulf of Mexico Case
Studies, SPE paper 24797 presented at the 1992 Annual
Conference, Washington, D.C., Ott. 4-7
Table 4- Formation Damage Types
33 I [urst, V.Il.. The Applicahon of the Lap]ace Transform to
Flow Problems in Ikservmrs, Trans. ALifE, Vol 186, 1949,
Drilling Mud
305-324.
Clay Swelling and Migmtion
34 Mathews, R.: Pressure Testing Build-up and FIOWIrest m
Emulsions
Wells, SPE Monogrf7ph Vol I
35 Schaible, 1) F , Akpan, 13,, and Ayouh, J., A,: Identifictition,
Scales
I:valwlt{om and Treatment of FormatIon Damage, Offshorc
Water Block
l,oulsltina, paper SP1l 14820 presented at the 1986 SPE
Nettability Changes
S!mposlum on Formation l)amagc
Control, [,afaycttc, I.A,
ParatT_rr/Asphaltene Deposits
Feb 26-27

Table 1- Reasons For Failure

] Failure Number

Reason
] Incorrect

Field I 27

I
I

0/0

34

Procedure
Incorrect Design
Wrong Fluid
I Total

Mixed Deposits
Iron Hydroxide
Corrosion
Unfiltered Solids
Bacteria
Fluid Loss Pills

of Failures

1
I 30
] 22
1 79

] 38
I 28

Table S - Scale Types

I

Calcium Carbonate
Iron Carbonate
Magnesium Carbonate
Calcium Sulfate
Gypsum
Strontium Sulfate
Barium Sulfate
Iron Sulfide

79

KM. Bartko, CT.

Montgomery, C.L. Boney, V.L. Ward

SPE 35991

Table 6- Input Summary

# Layers
Frac[ure Gradient
Well Radius
Type Of
Completion
Resemoir Pressure
Bottomhole
temperature
Well Spacing
Damage Type
Permeability
Kh/Kv
Damage Radius
Mineral Composition
Quartz
Calcite
Feldspar
Kaolinite
Smcctite
Illite
Chlorite

4
0,8
8.8
Gravel Pack

psi/ft
in

5580
210

psi
F

160
Fines Migration
526
10
30

acre

0 t --02040

md
md
in

%
%

10

3
2
4.5
0,5

%
%

.
f4801w

. +.+
,20,4Q,,xI,8020D?20
Tim b Mlm.da

DATA INPUT
F D,-A..
yhp

I CALCULATION
~w~

!40

%
?40
YO

39
147
70
455

Fig. 2- StimCADE roadrnap

Damage
Skin

I
5%HC1
790
12%HC1/3% HF ] 1419 I
1789
2% NHrcl
1927
Clay Acid
2075
2% NI-Lcl

74
8.5
8.5
5.76
5,67

RESULTS

[
-,
El!!!!!!9

s.k..
c=
n..,, . V-

P7

%0

Cum.
(bbl)

iii

L=?.k.fi

Table 7- Output Summary

Fluid

Fig. 1- Skin vs. Volume

C.*
..,-

Undamaged
75
5

Mineral Composition Damaged

Kaolinite
40
30
Smectite
[Ilitc
430
Skin
Layer I
Layer 2
layer 3
Layer 4

10

Liquid
BHP
Over
Rate
(psi)
Frac
[ (bpm) ]
I Press
2
] 6000 I No
2
I 5660 ] No 1
2
5660
No
2
5646
No
2
5646
No

80

Fig. 3- StiwrCADE opaning screen.

Ip

SPE 35991

Development of a Simulation

Treatment Integrated Mcdel

Fig. 6- Critical Drawdown Surrurrary Output Wkrdow.

Fig.4.- Output Panel for Ball Sealer Module. This particular case
shows that all ball sealers will seat on the perforations

,m

1.-......,=
-i,
.....,JJ--=j
.,..-. - - I
1

+-

,,,,

,7<

,4,,

,,,,

Fig. 7- Skin vs. Volume. The maximum skin change occurred after
the first mud acid. Only marginal improvement seen with the
second stage of clay acid..
m

~ .

~.

T-

,,,

T,

Fig 6. - Scale Predictor Input Panel. Scale predictor can run with
one or two fluids mixed. A sensitivity analysis of percent fluid,
pressure and temperature can be made by selecting the sensitivity
check box,

-,* I }
-[l
-=;-1---1
---1-4--1

,m

~:_.-.l..l...
iJ
> 1 \_.._
,. ..1
m

,!B

la!

,ml,

-H,

Fig. 8- BHP/Rate vs Volume. The model was run with constant rate
checked.

81