Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 36

MATRIX STIMULATION ENGINEERING

Outline

Case Study Well


Matrix Treatment Definition
Stimulation History
Matrix Stimulation Engineering
Matrix vs. Fracture
Sandstones vs. Carbonates
Fluids and Additives
Zone Coverage
Problems
Conclusions
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
2

Objectives
Describe a matrix treatment and how they differ
from fracturing.
Describe Matrix Stimulation Engineering.
List 5 applications of matrix treatments.
Explain the differences between Sandstone and
Carbonate acidizing.
State Hawkins equation and describe its
limitations.
Describe skin and the components of total skin.
List the common matrix fluids and additives
3

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


3

Questions of the Day:

Is our Case Study well a candidate for


matrix stimulation, and if so what can we
do to enhance production?

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


4

What do we need to know?


Production/workover history
The production of other wells on the platform
Current skin
Damage: matrix and/or mechanical?
Production potential
Is this well a stimulation candidate?
Matrix
Fracturing
Tubing cleanup
Wellbore cleanup
5

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


5

What do we know?

Production 1200 BOPD @ 1450 psi FWHP


29 API gravity crude with no water production
~11,000 ft deep @ 218oF
Homogeneous sandstone (71 ft net pay)
Gravel packed completion with 40 ft. of perfs

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


6

Matrix Treatment Definition


A chemical treatment injected radially from the
wellbore beyond the critical matrix at a pressure
below the frac pressure to remove or bypass
formation damage

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


7

History of Matrix Stimulation

1895

Ohio Oil Company

HCl. 300% increase in oil. Corrosion.

1896

Standard Oil Company (SOC)

1928

Gypsy Oil Company (Getty/Gulf)

1928

(Herbert) Dow Chemical Co.

HCl patents: Frasch = HCl, Van Dyke =


H2SO4, corrosion
HCl used to remove scale. Rodine #2
inhibitor
Inhibition project

1931

Dow Chemical Co.

1932

Pure Oil Company and Dow

1932

Dow Well Services Group

Arsenic acid; Copper salts; Organic


compounds
500 gal. of HCl. Arsenic inhibitor. 0 to
16 BOPD.
Renamed to Dowell

1933

SOC

HF patent for sandstones

1935

Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.

Acidized sandstone using NaF. Poor


results.

1940

Dowell (Schlumberger)

Mud Acid used in GOM (liquid HF).

50-60

Service Companies

HF precipitates, Additives, OSRs

1965

Smith and Hendrickson

70

Service Companies, Shell

80

Chevron, Service Companies

NaF causes precipitation.


Recommended NH4HF2
Retarded Acids: Fluoboric and
Emulsified
Foam, CT, Green chemistry

90

Service Companies

00

Schlumberger

StimCADE, VES: OilSeeker, SelfDiverting Acids, Sandstone Acidizing


VES: VDA

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


8

MATRIX STIMULATION ENGINEERING

The practical application of scientific and


mathematical principles to Matrix Stimulation.
A process with a defined Methodology directed at
improved Matrix success and well performance.

Candidate Selection
Formation Damage Characterization
Fluid and Additive Selection
Treatment Design
Execution
Evaluation
9

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


9

WHY?
MATRIX STIMULATION ENGINEERING

10

Matrix treatment economic success rate < 50%


ROI higher for Matrix Vs Fracturing
Operators report:
25 to 50% of their wells have significant damage
Will not treat due to:
Not aware of the potential benefit
Management wont take risk
Operational mistakes
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
10

Well Stimulation

Chemical or mechanical methods of increasing flow capacity to a well.


Wellbore Clean-up : Fluids not injected into formation

Fracturing: Injection above frac pressure

Wellbore/Perf Wash
Not recommended on sandstones
Acid Frac
Propped Frac

Matrix Stimulation: Injection below frac pressure

11

Matrix Acidizing
Chemical Treatment

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


11

Wellbore/Tubing Cleanup
Tubing cleanup (TubeCLEAN) is a MUST before every Matrix
Treatment.

Prevents the injection of iron compounds, rust, and other deposits


into the perforations and formation during the main treatment
All residues must be circulated/flowed out

Carbonates: TubeCLEAN followed by bullhead of fluids to


bottom of perfs and flow back. Can circulate fluids across the
pay zone with CT in carbonates. Must be underbalanced to
avoid losses.
Sandstone: TubeCLEAN only. Pump acid to the bottom of the
tubing and flow back. Must be underbalanced to avoid losses.
Mechanical Techniques:

12

Jetting: Horizontal and Vertical wells


Blaster: Scales
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions

12

Acid Fracturing of Carbonates

13

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


13

Propped Fracturing of
Sandstone Reservoir

14

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


14

Applications for Fracturing Treatments


Wells without mechanical limitations
No concern with water/gas
Sandstone or carbonates
Soft and hard sands
Adequate space available
No environmental issue
15

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


15

Matrix Stimulation: Damaged Zone Around a Wellbore


Undamaged
Reservoir

k
SPE 73702
s = [k/ki (ln r i/rw)] + [k/ks (ln rs /ri)] - ln rs/rw
rs
rw

ks

Zone with
improved
permeability

ki ri

16

Damaged Zone
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
(Skin Damage)
16

Darcys Equation
Pseudosteady State
Oil Well :
7.08X 10 3 k h (p p wf )
q=
r

o Bo ln e 0.75 + s

rw

17

Gas Well :

7 .03 X 10 4 k h p 2 p 2wf
q=
r

g T z ln e 0 .75 + s
rw

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


17

Hawkins Equation
k
rs
S =
1 ln
d
ks
rw
90% Damage
6 inches Radially

99% Damage
0.3 inches Radially

Damaged
Zone: 6

Damaged
Zone: 0.3

9 = rs

rw

18

kS

3.3 = rs

kS

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


18

Effect of Shifting an 80% Damage Collar


100
3-in collar
6-in collar

80
Percent of original productivity

12-in collar

rc-rx = collar thickness


80% Damage collar

60

rc

rx

40

20

Wellbore

re

0
0
19

1
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions

Inner radius of damage (ft)


19

The Critical Matrix


% of Total Pressure Drop

100.0

90.0

80.0
Q = 10,000 BWPD
k = 100 md
h = 200 ft
P inj = 4000 psi
Viscosity = 0.8 cp
r w = 3 1/16 inches

70.0

3 ft
60.0

Critical
Matrix
50.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Radial Distance (ft)


20

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


20

Applications for Matrix Treatments


Sandstone or carbonate reservoirs
Reservoirs with formation damage: skin
OH or cased hole completions
Horizontal or vertical
Gravel packed or Frac-Packed wells
Mechanical treating limitations
Water/Gas contact nearby
Remove damage in a conventional propped fracture
Economics: Propped fracture treatments are 5 to 6
times more expensive than matrix treatments
Operationally less intensive than fracturing
21

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


21

Treatment Selection
Gas Production vs. Skin

Gas Production (MMscf/D)

140

100
100 md-ft
md-ft
500
md-ft
500 md-ft
100
md-ft

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

-5
22

Skin

10

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


22

Sandstones: Clastic

23

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


23

Matrix Stimulation: Sandstone


Sandstone Stages
1. Pre-acid Preflush
Fluids @ End 2. Acid Preflush
of Treatment??
3. Main Treating Fluid
4
3 2 1
4. Overflush
5. Diverter Stage

24

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


24

Carbonates: Non-Clastic

Limestone

Dolomite

25

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


25

Matrix Stimulation: Carbonate

26

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


26

Matrix Fluids
Acid

HCl, HF, Formic, Acetic, Citric


Solvents

Xylene, Toluene, Terpenes

Emulsions
Brine
Alcoholic based systems
Foam
Viscoelastic surfactant systems

Diversion
27

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


27

Acidizing Additives
Inhibitors
Surfactants
Mutual Solvents
Iron Control
Friction Reducers
Clay Control
Specialty Additives
28

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


28

Problems
Proper diagnosis of the problem
Treatment design
Quality Control
Tubing contamination
Zone coverage
Precipitation of reaction products
Damage removal
Fines migration

Harry McLeod JPT (Dec. 1984)


29

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


29

Pumping Time
In general, 2-4 hours pumping time in a vertical well.
Horizontal = 6+ hours.
Depends on
treatment volume (formation size)
pumping rate (equipment limitations, frac gradient)
well temperature (corrosion effectiveness)
fluids rheology/friction pressure

30

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


30

Equipment Layout
water
acid

main
CPT

CT

solvent

C
P
T
31

w
a
t
e
r

g
n
i
or ent
t
i
n m
o
M uip
Eq

wind

Safety Area
Eye Wash

exit

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


31

Execution/Evaluation
Health, Safety and Environment
Quality Control
Step Rate Test
Real Time Evaluation

32

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


32

Nodal Analysis
6000

A1
1

Pressure, psig

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

4
0

1000

Inflow @ Sandface (1)


Inflow (1)
Case 2 ( 2)
Case 3 ( 3)
Case 4 ( 4)
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used

33

2000

3000

Not Used
Outflow (A)
Case 2 (B)
Case 3 (C)
Case 4 (D)
Not Used
Not Used

4000

5000

6000

Oil Rate, Bbl/D


Inflow
Reservoir Skin

7000

8000

9000

10000

Inflow
(1) 0.000
(2) 20.000
(3) 100.000
(4) 200.000

Reg: Authorized User - Schlumberger Inc.

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


33

Successful Matrix Stimulation


Definition:

A successful stimulation treatment is one that


yields the predicted production and ROI/Pay Out.

Requirements:

Candidate Selection
Formation Damage Characterization
Fluid and Additive Selection
Laboratory Testing
Treatment Design
Execution
Evaluation
Matrix Stimulation Engineering
34

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


34

Conclusions:
Matrix stimulation is a tool used for production
enhancement
Applicable in a wide variety of wells
Incorporates a variety of fluids and techniques
Should yield excellent ROI

Sandstone are very different from carbonates


The treatment must be properly:
Engineered
Executed
And evaluated
35

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


35

P.E.
The Value
Value of
of Repeated
Repeated Acid
Acid Treatments.
Treatments, Illinois
Illinois State
State Geological
Geological Survey
Survey (1934).
(1934).
P.E. Fitzerald:
Fitzerald, The
The whole proposition looks very simple but when studied thoroughly, presents many points to be
analyzed. Field work should always be checked by laboratory experiments and tests.
tests.

36

Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions


36