Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
and optimization
A
Research Thesis
Presented to the Department of Petroleum Engineering,
African University of Science and Technology,
Abuja
By
Abuja, Nigeria
November, 2010
An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
By
Benson Oghenovo Ugbenyen
RECOMMENDED: ________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
APPROVED: ________________________________
Supervisor: Prof. (Emeritus) David O. Ogbe
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Date
iii | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
ABSTRACT
Well stimulation consists of several methods used for enhancing the natural producing ability of
the r eservoir when p roduction rate declines. A de tailed l iterature r eview of s ome of t he well
published stimulation models are discussed in this research. This d iscussion wa s preceded wi th
an introduction t o f ormation damage concepts and an o verview o f well stimulation m ethods.
Production decline curve analysis is combined with economic discounting concepts to develop a
model that can be used for optimizing stimulation decisions. The model is presented in the form
of a no n-linear programming pr oblem subject t o t he constraints imposed by t he p roduction
facilities, reservoir productivity and the stimulation budget approved by management. Production
data from f our stimulation ca ndidate wells, o ffshore Niger Delta was used to validate the m odel
developed by s etting up a m aximization problem. S olution to the p roblem w as ob tained using
non-linear o ptimization software. The r esult o btained was v erified u sing Wolfram R esearchs
Mathematica 7.0. The results s how that the o ptimization m odel c an be c ombined w ith
stimulation t reatment modules, de veloped f rom i ndustry w ide models, t o q uantify s timulation
benefits. C andidate w ells w ere t hen r anked ba sed on stimulation c ost, p ayout t ime a nd
stimulation b enefit. Hence, th e m odel i s valid f or stimulation ca ndidate s election; and i s
therefore recommended for use in optimizing stimulation decisions.
iv | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to my Lord Jesus Christ who has been, and will ever be the best role
model anyone could find. And also, to the good people of the Niger Delta.
v | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish t o sincerely a ppreciate G od Almighty for H is l ove, c are a nd wonderful works t hat a re
made m anifest i n m y life each da y. Also, m y s incere thanks go to my supervisor, Prof.
(Emeritus) David O. Ogbe for guiding me to success in this work, Dr. Samuel Osisanya and Prof.
Peters Ekwere f or s erving in m y thesis committee, and m y m other, M rs. G race Ugbenyen f or
being there always for me.
The following persons, among others, who contributed in no small measure to the success of this
work deserved to be acknowledged.
My friends: Lymmy B ukie O gbidi, Akpana Paul, R aymond Agav, Habibatu Ahmed, and
Christopher M udi who paid m e several v isits a t A UST t o c heer me u p. T he members o f H ope
Hall Parish, Redeemed C hristian C hurch of G od, Galadimawa, Abuja, who have always been a
warm family to me. Nature will not forgive me if I fail to thank Miss Esther Akinyede who was
kind to provide me with a laptop to continue this work when lightning storm damaged my laptop
on 14 th July 2010 a t Julius N yerere Hall, AUST, Abuja, and I got no help from t he University
even t hough I pl eaded f or assistance. I w ill n ot f ail to m ention Mr. Alfred Emakpose who
assisted me in no small measure to keep things straight when the odds were against me. Finally, I
would like to thank my wonderful new friends, who would be mad at me if I fail to mention their
names; Hatem, Adel, Amar, Fauzan and Andrew, who are here with m e as I write these lines at
The Beaches Hotel, Prestatyn, North Wales, where I neglected some of my schedule to put most
parts of this work together.
vi | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT......iii
DEDICATION.....iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....v
TABLE OF CONTENT...vi
LIST OF FIGURES......x
LIST OF TABLESxi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Near Wellbore Condition......1
1.1.1 The Composite Skin Effect......1
1.2 Well Stimulation: Definition and Objectives....1
1.2.1 Well Stimulation Objectives.1
1.3 Well Stimulation Methods....2
1.3.1 Matrix Stimulation....2
1.3.1.1 Matrix Acidizing Fluid Selection and Treatment Additives ....3
1.3.1.2 Benefits and Limitations of Matrix Acidizing Processes......4
1.3.2 Fracture Acidizing........4
1.3.3 Hydraulic Fracturing.....6
1.3.4 Recompletion....7
1.4 Gravel Packing......7
1.5 Stimulation Economics and Candidate Selection.....8
1.6 Objective and Procedure of the Study..8
1.7 Limitation of the Study.....9
5.1 Conclusion...84
5.2 Recommendation.85
REFERENCES..87
NOMENCLATURE..95
APPENDIX A: A SIMPLE WELL SCREENING FLOW CHART...98
ix | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 The Near Wellbore Condition
The skin effect can be o btained from a w ell te st. It m easures t he extent of da mage in t he n ear-
wellbore z one. The total skin effect obtained from the well test is a composite parameter which
consists of s kin c omponents d ue to mechanical c auses a di sturbance of t he fluid f low
streamline n ormal t o t he w ell, o r formation damage - alteration o f t he natural r eservoir
permeability. It is very important to be able to identify the formation damage component of the
skin s ince t his c an b e r educed by b etter operational practices, or possibly, b e r emoved or
bypassed by stimulation treatments. Formation damage can result from many different operations
such a s dr illing, cementing, perforating, completion/gravel pa cking, production, i njection,
workover, stimulation, etc.
Well stimulation is a way of increasing well productivity by removing (or by passing) formation
damage in t he n ear-wellbore r egion or by superimposing a highly conductive structure onto the
formation.
The objectives of w ell s timulation can be di vided into technical ob jectives and e conomic
objectives.
2 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Technical Objectives
Remove, reduce or b ypass t he f ormation damage, reduce sand production and cl eaning-
up the perforations.
Economic Objectives
Increase flow rate and optimize production from the reservoir.
Several stimulation t echniques e xist bu t t he commonly u sed methods i nclude matrix a cidizing,
fracture a cidizing, fracpack, ex treme o verbalance operations and hy draulic fracturing. These
methods h elp t o optimally increase well or reservoir productive c apacity by providing a net
increase in the productivity index. This increase in productivity index can then be used either to
increase t he p roduction r ate o r t o d ecrease the dr awdown pressure differential. Increase i n
production rate will eventually increase productivity. A decrease in drawdown can help prevent
sand pr oduction and water or gas c oning and/or s hift the p hase e quilibrium in the near-wellbore
region t owards s maller f ractions of condensate. Some of the m ost c ommon s timulation
techniques are discussed in the following sections.
Matrix stimulation is injecting an acid/solvent into the formation at below the fracturing pressure
of t he formation to d issolve/disperse materials th at im pair well production i n sandstone
reservoirs or to create new, unimpaired flow channels in carbonate r eservoirs. Mineral acids are
most c ommonly us ed in matrix s timulation hence t his t echnique is f requently ca lled ma trix
acidizing. Matrix acidizing is a near-wellbore treatment, with all of the acid reacting within a few
to perhaps as much as 10 ft of the w ellbore in carbonates. Matrix a cidizing l ower permeability
limit is 10mD for oil wells and 1mD for gas wells.
In s andstone, only a small f raction o f the m atrix i s soluble hence r elatively s low r eacting acid
dissolves the permeability-damaging minerals. Carbonate formations are different in that a large
fraction of the matrix is soluble (usually > 50%), hence acid will react rapidly with flow channels
and pores and creates new flow paths by dissolving the formation rock.
3 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
As a rule o f thumb, matrix acidizing i s a pplied only in situations where a well has a large skin
effect t hat cannot b e attributed t o mechanical, o peration o r surface p roblems. The r emoval of
damage by matrix a cidizing r equires t hat t he t ype ( or c ause) a nd location of t he damage be
identified before its removal is attempted. The damage identification process involves:
Examining t he well r ecords to i dentify o perations t hat might ha ve r esulted in formation
damage
Carrying out specific laboratory testing, such as a reservoir core flushing, to determine if
the identified operations did indeed lead to core damage for the particular combination of
the fluids in question and the reservoir formation
Examining t he da maged core with sophisticated a nalytical techniques s uch a s t he
scanning electron microscope to confirm the damage type a nd the damage location and
hence develop ideas on how to remove it.
The t ype of a cid u sed for a s timulation j ob i s a function of t he da mage t ype. Generally, a cid
selection guidelines are based on temperature, mineralogy a nd petrophysics. The most common
acids u sed a re h ydrochloric a cid ( HCl) a nd a m ixture o f hydrochloric a nd h ydrofluoric a cids
(HF/HCl) usually know n a s mud a cid. HCl is s uitable f or li mestone, d olomite, f ormation w ith
iron m aterials a nd C aSO 4 . H F i s mostly us ed i n s andstone, c lay, f eldspar, s and (spent on
material, n ot quartz or sand), a nd it is not used in carbonate formations. Acid m ixtures s uch as
acetic-hydrochloric a nd formic-hydrochloric a cids a re u sed i n high temperature ca rbonate
formation w hile t he formic-hydrofluoric a cid mixture i s us eful i n high t emperature sandstone
formation.
Additives help make acid treatments more e ffective. They are mixed w ith the treating fluids to
modify a pr operty of t he fluid (e.g., co rrosion, p recipitation, emulsification, s ludging, s caling, f ines
migration, clay swelling tendency, surface tension, flow per l ayer, friction pressure). The treating fluid
is d esigned t o e ffectively r emove or b ypass t he damage, whereas a dditives a re u sed t o prevent
excessive c orrosion, p revent s ludging and e mulsions, pr event iron pr ecipitation, improve
cleanup, improve c overage o f the z one and pr event pr ecipitation of reaction products. A dditives
4 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Matrix a cidizing is usually very economically a ttractive (low c ost), because r elatively s mall
treatments may improve the well performance considerably.
Some pr oblems a ssociated with matrix a cidizing a re: difficulty to i dentify the type of damage,
multiple damages with completing remedies, detrimental by-products o f stimulation, frequently,
ineffective o r p artially e ffective treatments. It involves complex chemical a nd t ransport
phenomena t hat, w hile effective i n r emoving one k ind o f damage, may cr eate a nother o ne.
HCL/HF blends ca n cr eate early damage in formations, however the lower the HF concentration
in t he b lend t he l ess chance there i s for damage creation. Acid placement and damage r emoval
from l aminated f ormations w here s ome perforations pe netrate very h igh-permeability la yers is
especially problematic.
Successful m atrix treatments r equire correct c hoice of fluid t o a ttack damage an d u niform
placement o f the s elected treating f luid. Improper f luid pl acement i ncreases reservoir
heterogeneity. Misapplied stimulation treatments a re costly a nd ineffective, o ften creating more
problems than they solve.
It is i mportant to note that not all da mage can b e removed by matrix acidizing. Whenever there
are insoluble scales (e.g. BaSO4) or acid s ensitive s andstones, other s timulation m ethods (such
as acid fracturing to bypass scales) are considered.
In this method of acidizing, acid is injected into the formation at a rate high enough to generate
the pressure required t o fracture t he formation. T he r apid i njection produces a buildup i n the
5 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
wellbore pressure until it is large enough to overcome compressive earth stresses and the rocks
tensile strength. At this p ressure, t he r ock fails, a llowing a c rack ( fracture) t o be formed.
Continued fluid injection increases the fracture length and width. The injected acid differentially
etches t he formation fracture faces as it r eacts, r esulting i n t he formation of h ighly c onductive
etched channels that remain open after the fracture closes. Two procedures are commonly u sed.
Acid alone i s i njected, or a fluid ( called a pad) that will create a lo ng, wide fracture is injected
and followed by a n a cid. A c onventional fracture a cidizing treatment involves pumping a n a cid
system after fracturing. It may be preceded by a nonacid preflush and usually is overflushed with
a nonacid fluid.
Treatment v olumes for fracture a cidizing a re m uch l arger t han for matrix acidizing t reatments,
being as high as 1,000 to 2,000 gal/ft of perforated interval.
As a ge neral guideline, fracture a cidizing i s us ed on formations with > 80% hyd rochloric a cid
solubility. Low-permeability carbonates ( >20 md) a re t he b est candidates for t hese treatments.
Fluid loss to the matrix and natural fractures can also be better controlled in lower permeability
formations.
Hydraulic Fracturing consists of pu mping a viscous fluid at a sufficiently high pressure (greater
than the formation fracture pressure) into the completion interval so that a two winged, hydraulic
fracture is formed. This fracture is then filled with a high conductivity, proppant which holds the
fracture open (maintains a high conductivity path to the wellbore) after the treatment is finished.
Propped hydraulic fracturing is aimed at raising the well productivity by increasing the e ffective
wellbore radius f or w ells c ompleted i n low p ermeability c arbonate or clastic f ormations.
Hydraulic fracturing i s t o improve productivity i n l ow-permeability f ormations, or to pe netrate
near-wellbore damage or for sand control in higher permeability formations.
Hydraulic fracturing is a mechanical process hence it is only necessary to know that formation
damage is present when designing such a treatment. When a well is hydraulically fractured, most
pre-treatment skin e ffects such a s f ormation da mage, perforation skins a nd s kins d ue t o
completion and partial penetrations are bypassed and have no e ffect on the post-treatment w ell
performance. Phase-and r ate-dependent skins effects a re either eliminated or c ontributes i n the
calculation of the fracture skin effects. Generally pre-treatment skin effects are not added to post-
fracture skin effects.
Hydraulic fracturing differs from fracture acidizing in that hydraulic fracturing fluids usually are
not c hemically r eactive, a nd a pr oppant i s placed i n the f racture t o keep the f racture open and
provide conductivity.
Propped hy draulic f racture w ell s timulation s hould onl y be c onsidered when the: well i s
connected to adequate produceable r eserves; reservoir pressure is h igh e nough to maintain flow
7 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
1.3.4 Recompletion
For wells with certain t ypes of da mage such a s pa rtially or t otally p lugged p erforations,
insufficient perforation de nsity o r low de pth of pe rforation, it m ay b e s ufficient t o r ecommend
recompletion technique. Hence the idea of recompletion is to increase the perforation density or
to increase the depth of perforations. The overall aim of this method is to increase production by
bypassing t he da mage. R ecompletion i s a lso u sed effectively in reducing w ater p roduction. I n
this approach t he w ell i s re-perforated at a new hi gher z one w hile t he pe rforations i n t he wa ter
zone are plugged off.
Gravel packing is used in w eak formations that have been producing sand or have the tendency
of producing s and. The gr avel m ixed in a ba se f luid is pu mped as sl urry to f ill all p erforation
tunnels and t he s creen/casing a nnulus. Productivity a nd l ife of t he gravel pack depends on
packing t he perforations w ith gr avel. If not pa cked, f ormation f ines c an invade t he tunnels
impairing productivity a nd also reducing the area open to flow. Re-completions in low pressure
reservoirs w here formation s and ha s be en pr oduced, can accept l arge volumes o f additional
gravel.
The evaluation of the economics of stimulation treatment must consider ma ny factors including:
treatment cost, initial increase in production rate, additional reserve that may be produced before
the well r eaches i ts e conomic limit, r ate of pr oduction d ecline b efore and a fter s timulation, and
reservoir and mechanical problems that could cause the treatment to be unsuccessful.
Selection of the optimum size of a stimulation treatment is based primarily on economics. The
most c ommonly used m easure of e conomic e ffectiveness is t he n et present v alue (NPV). The
8 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
NPV is the difference between the present value of all receipts and costs, both current and future,
generated a s a r esult of t he stimulation treatment. Future r eceipts a nd costs a re converted i nto
present va lue u sing a discount rate a nd taking i nto a ccount the y ear in which t hey will a ppear.
Another measure of t he economic e ffectiveness i s t he p ayout period (PO); t hat is, t he t ime i t
takes for the cumulative present value of the net well revenue to equal the treatment costs. Other
indicators i nclude i nternal rate of r eturn (I RR), profit-to-investment ratio ( PIR) and gr owth rate
of return (GRR). The NPV (as well as other indicators) is sensitive to the discount rate and to the
predicted future hydrocarbon pr ices. A s with a lmost a ny other e ngineering a ctivities, costs
increase almost li nearly with t he size of t he stimulation tr eatment but (after a certain point) t he
revenues increase onl y marginally or may even decrease. This suggests that there is an optimum
size of t he t reatment t hat will maximize t he N PV. Hence it i s i mportant to select stimulation
candidate wells that have potentials for maximum benefit.
Candidate Selection (Recognition) is the process of identifying a nd selecting wells for treatment
which have the capacity for hi gher production and better economic return. Hence in stimulation
candidate w ell s election, t he w ell s timulation treatment yielding the hi ghest di scounted rate o f
return is the treatment which, in principle, should be carried out first.
The goal o f t his r esearch i s to present a model for i dentifying s timulation candidates,
recommending stimulation treatment option and optimizing the stimulation process selected. The
model i s a lso u sed to rank stimulation candidates ba sed o n e conomics. Hence this research will
attempt to answer the question: given the need to stimulate several wells in a field, how do we
rank the wells ba sed on s timulation b enefit and w hat stimulation approach to use in or der to g et
the highest e conomic returns? To answer these questions, a m erit function is developed based
on production decline curve a nalysis and economic discounting concepts. In combination with a
good stimulation treatment module, the model can be used for ranking stimulation candidates.
The research procedure begins i n c hapter one with a n introduction to the c oncept o f skin factor
and w ell s timulation methods. S everal lit eratures o n f ormation da mage a nd s timulation models
9 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
are r eviewed in chapter t wo. Chapter t hree c ontains a w ell s creening m odule, design o f s ome
selected stimulation m odules and an o ptimization model w hich c onsists of an objective function
with constraint. The optimization model combines the concept of production decline curves with
economic d iscounting. The m odel de veloped i n chapter three is va lidated in c hapter f our using
actual field data from the Niger Delta.
This research is intended for stimulation candidate selection in the Niger Delta. Matrix acidizing
technique is the main stimulation technique that has been used up to date in the Niger Delta due
to t he g ood permeability of t he N iger D elta formation. H ence only matrix a cidizing t echnique,
recompletion and gravel packing are considered in the methodology presented in chapter three of
this research. Acid fracturing and hydraulic fracturing are not considered.
10 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Chapter Two
Literature Review
2.1.1 Definition
Civan1 defined formation d amage a s a g eneric t erminology r eferring t o t he i mpairment o f t he
permeability of petroleum bearing formations by various adverse processes. It is an undesirable
operational a nd e conomic problem t hat c an o ccur du ring t he va rious p hases of oi l a nd ga s
recovery f rom s ubsurface r eservoirs including d rilling, production, hydraulic f racturing, and
workover operations. Bennion2 viewed formation da mage as any process that causes a reduction
in t he natural inherent pr oductivity of a n o il a nd ga s pr oducing formation, or a reduction i n the
injectivity o f a water or gas in jection well. Bennion also pointed out that the formation da mage
issue is often overlooked because of ignorance and apathy. In many cases, the operators are not
seriously c oncerned w ith f ormation d amage because of t he b elief t hat i t can be circumvented
later o n, simply b y a cidizing a nd/or h ydraulic fracturing. B ut P orter3 and M ungan4 argued t hat
because formation damage is usually nonreversible, it is better to avoid formation damage rather
than deal with it later on using expensive and complicated procedures.
Invasion of f oreign f luids, s uch as w ater and c hemicals used for i mproved
recovery, drilling mud invasion, and workover fluids;
11 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
= 1 ......2.1
Equation 2.1 is k nown a s Hawkins7 formula. From t he e quation i t can be deduced t hat If <
the well is damaged and > 0; conversely, if > , then < 0 and the well is stimulated. For = 0,
the near-wellbore permeability is equal to the original reservoir permeability.
Generally, certain well logs may enable calculation of the damaged radius, r d , whereas pressure
transient analysis may provide the skin effect, s, and reservoir permeability, k. Equation 2.1 may
then be used to calculate the value of the altered permeability .
12 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
In the absence of production log data, Frick and Economides8 postulated that, an elliptical cone
is a more plausible shape of da mage distribution along a horizontal well. They developed a skin
effect expression, analogous to the Hawkins formula:
2
1 4 ,
= 1 ,
+ + 1 ....2.2
+1 3 2
Piot and Lietard9 expressed the total skin of a well as a sum of the pseudoskin of flow lines from
the f ormation face to t he pi peline and the true s kin du e to f ormation da mage. Economides and
Nolte10 shown t hat t he t otal skin effect i s a c omposite of a n umber of factors, most of which
usually cannot be altered by conventional matrix treatments.
The total skin effect may be written as:
= + + + + ...............2.4
The last term in the right-hand side of Eq. 2.3 represents an array of pseudoskin factors, such as
phase-dependent a nd r ate-dependent e ffects that c ould b e altered b y hy draulic f racturing
treatments. The other three terms are the common skin factors. The th ird term refers to the
damage skin e ffect as defined in equation 2.1. The fi rst term + is the skin effect caused by
partial completion and slant. Cinco-Ley et al.11 documented a detailed approach of estimating the
skin f actor du e t o partial completion a nd slant. T he pa rameters needed for t he estimation a re:
completion t hickness, r eservoir thickness, elevation, a nd penetration r atio. An e xample t o
13 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
illustrate the c alculation o f this s kin e ffect is do cumented b y Economides and Nolte10. The
second term represents the skin e ffect resulting from perforations. It is described by Harris12
and also expounding the concept, Karakas and Tariq13 have shown that:
= + + ..2.5
Karakas and Tariq13 also shown t hat a combination of the damage and p erforation skin e ffects
( ) can be approximated, for a case where the perforations terminate inside the damaged zone,
by:
( ) = 1 + = ( ) + ....2.6
is the damaged zone radius, and ( ) is the equivalent openhole skin effect (Eq. 2.1)
0.271
= 1.612 0.521
(0.043) .2.7
14 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
where is the invasion depth in cm, p is the pressure i n MPa, is the cumulative filtrate loss
in 3 , is porosity in percentage, and is permeability in 2 (~ Darcy).
162.6
(, ) = + ( 3.23) .......2.8
2
1
2
= 2.9
1690
In equation 2.9, is the time at w hich the two straight lines representing the damage zo ne and
undamaged formation intersect on a plot of log .
Amaefule et al18 expressed the damage ratio (DR) as a change in production du e to the effect of
the damage.
= =1 ....2.10
where and the undamaged and damaged standard flow rates, respectively.
2 ( )
= ...2.11
2( )
= ....2.12
+
1
=
.....2.13
+
where and in Equations 2.11 and 2.12 are the fluid viscosity and formation volume factor.
and are t he u ndamaged a nd damaged effective permeabilities, is t he thickness of t he
effective pay zone, and are the wellbore and reservoir drainage boundary fluid pressures,
and are t he wellbore and reservoir drainage r adii, and is the r adius of t he d amaged
region.
Combining equation 2.1 a nd 2.13, t he damage r atio can be e xpressed i n t erms o f the effective
skin factor , as:
= ....2.14
+
is as defined in equation 2.1. Equation 2.14 gives the production loss by alteration of formation
properties. Leontaritis21 stated t hat r apid flow o f o il a nd water i n t he near-wellbore r egion
promote mixing a nd e mulsification. T his causes a r eduction in t he hy drocarbon e ffective
mobility , because emulsion viscosity is several fold greater than oil and water viscosities. The
mobility is defined by:
= = ..2.15
and are respectively the absolute and relative permeabilities. High viscosity emulsion forms
a stationary block which resists flow. It is usually called emulsion block. If and represent
the v iscosities of oil a nd e mulsion, r espectively, a nd a s teady-state and i ncompressible r adial
flow i s considered, t he t heoretical u ndamaged a nd damaged flow rates a re g iven, r espectively,
by:
2( )
= ....2.16
and,
16 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
2( )
= ....2.17
+
Civan22 substituted Equations 2.16 and 2.17 into Eq. 2.10 to obtain the following e xpression for
the damage ratio:
1
= ...2.18
+
Equation 2.18 gives a means to calculate the production loss by alteration of fluid properties.
The viscous skin effect is also expressed similar to Zhu et al23 as:
= 1 .2.19
where and denote t he a verage reservoir fluid and flowing well bottom hole pressures,
respectively, and is the additional pressure loss by the skin effect.
Mukherjee a nd Economides24 presented the f low ef ficiency o f v ertical w ells f or radial and
incompressible fluid flow at a steady-state condition as:
= ..2.21
+
= = 1 2.22
where and denote the formation permeabilities before and after damage, respectively.
Amaefule et al.18 presented a model that can estimate the economic impact of formation damage
on r eservoir pr oductivity, in t erms o f t he a nnual r evenue l oss by formation da mage per well
(FD$L) at a given price of oil, p, as:
$
$ = 365 .2.23
Li e t al26 and a lso L ee a nd Kasap27 stated t hat b ecause t he d egree o f damage variation in t he
near-wellbore region, i t is more appropriate to express t he total skin, used in any of the
equations above as a s um of t he individual s kins ov er consecutive c ylindrical s egments of t he
formation as:
= = 1 ..2.24
1
=1 =1
The optimal volume of a cid for a particular acidizing job may b e selected ba sed on a laboratory
acid response curve or an acidizing model28. These models consider both the modification of the
pore structure as it dissolves and the change in acid concentration as a function of both time and
position within the pore system.29
In their model pores are assumed to be interconnected so that a fluid can flow through the matrix
under the influence of a p ressure g radient, and as the acid reacts with the matrix the pores
increase in size.
Very m any models of the sandstone acidizing pr ocess have been pr esented ov er t he y ears. The
models o nly differ i n t he d etail in w hich they d escribe the chemical interactions b etween t he
acids and the formation minerals and the extent to which they handle or model complexities such
as multiple reservoir zones, diversion methods, wellbore flow e ffects, and other factors. T he
acidizing m odels c an be di vided i nto equilibrium m odels a nd kinetic models. T he equilibrium
models33-35 assume a ll c hemical r eactions a re a t e quilibrium a nd have been u sed p rimarily t o
study t he t endencies f or precipitation r eactions t o occur in a cidizing. T he ki netic models36-
40
consider the kinetics of the relatively slow reactions occurring in sandstones.
The t wo-mineral m odel l umps all m inerals i nto on e of t wo c ategories: f ast reacting and s low
36, 41 -42
reacting species; a nd it i s t he m ost c ommon model i n u se today. Schechter43 categorizes
fieldspars, a uthogenic clays, a nd a morphous silica a s fast-reacting, w hile d etrital c lay p articles
and qu artz gr ains are the pr imary s low-reacting mi nerals. This model a s presented by
Economides a nd N olte44 consists o f material b alances ap plied t o t he H F a cid a nd r eactive
minerals, which for linear flow, such as in core-flood, can be written as:
( )
+ = , + , (1 ) ..2.25
,
[(1 ) ] = .....2.26
,
[(1 ) ] = .2.27
where is the concentration of hydrofluoric acid (HF) in solution and is its molecular
weight, is t he a cid flux, is th e d istance, and are the s pecific s urface a reas p er unit
19 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
volume of solids, and are the volume fractions, , and , are the reaction rate constants
(based on the rate of consumption of HF), and are the molecular weights, and
are t he dissolving pow ers of 100% H F, a nd and are t he densities of t he fast- and s low-
reacting minerals, respectively, denoted by the subscripts F and S.
When t he e quations above are m ade d imensionless f or a c ore-flood of l ength with c onstant
porosity, two dimensionless groups were observed for each mineral: the Damkohler number
and the acid capacity number . These two groups d escribe the kinetics and t he stoichiometry of the
HF-mineral reactions. The shape of the acid reaction front depends on t he Damkhler number . The
acid ca pacity n umber regulates h ow m uch l ive acid reaches t he f ront, in ot her w ords, it
affects the frontal propagation rate directly.
The Damkhler number is the ratio of the rate of acid consumption to the rate of acid convection,
which for the fast-reacting mineral is:
(10 )0 ()
()
= ...2.28
The acid capacity number is the ratio of the amount of mineral dissolved by the acid occupying a
unit vol ume o f rock por e s pace to the amount o f m ineral present in the u nit vol ume o f rock,
which for the fast-reacting mineral is:
() 0
= (10 )0
....2.29
In equation 2.29, the acid concentration is in weight fraction (not moles/volume).
The dimensionless form of equations 2.25 through 2.27 can onl y b e solved nu merically in t heir
general f orm, th ough a nalytical s olutions a re p ossible for certain simplified situations.
Schechter 43 presented an a pproximate solution to these equations that is valid for relatively high
Damkhler number ( () > 10). Numerical m odels providing solutions t o t hese equations,
such as that presented by Taha et al.36are frequently used for sandstone acidizing design.
20 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Bryant45, and also, da Motta et al.46 shown that at elevated temperatures the sandstone acidizing
process i s n ot well d escribed by t he t wo-mineral m odel. These studies suggest that the r eaction
of fluosilicic acid with aluminosilicate (fast-reacting) minerals may be quite significant. Thus, an
additional acid and mineral must be considered to accommodate the following reaction, which is
added to the two-mineral model:
Precipitation Models
Walsh et al.33 described a local equilibrium model, a common type of geochemical model (that
considers a large number of possible r eactions) u sed t o study sandstone a cidizing. T his model
assumes that all reactions are in local equilibrium; i.e., all reaction rates are infinitely fast.
Sevougian et al.34 presented a geochemical model that includes kinetics for both dissolution and
precipitation r eactions. T his model shows t hat p recipitation d amage will be l essen i f either the
21 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
dissolution or the precipitation reactions are not instantaneous (i.e. if the reaction rate decreases,
the amount of precipitate formed will also decrease).
Permeability Models
Predicting permeability change a s acid dissolves some of the formation minerals and precipitate
is f ormed i s a necessary s tep n eeded to predict the f ormation response to acidizing. The
permeability increases a s t he pores a nd pore t hroats a re enlarged b y mineral dissolution. At th e
same t ime, small particles ar e r eleased a s c ementing m aterial i s dissolved, a nd some of t hese
particles lodge (perhaps temporarily) in pore throats, reducing the permeability. Any precipitates
formed a lso t end t o d ecrease the permeability. T he formation of carbon d ioxide ( CO 2 ) a s
carbonate mi nerals a re dissolved m ay a lso cause a t emporary r eduction i n t he r elative
permeability t o li quids.48The complex n ature o f the p ermeability response h as m ade its
theoretical pr ediction f or r eal sandstones impractical. For t his r eason empirical correlations
relating the permeability increase to the porosity change during a cidizing are u sed. Guin et al.49
however a chieved s ome s uccess when a more i deal systems su ch a s si ntered disks was
considered. Labrid50 presented the following useful relationship:
= ..................2.31
= [45.7( )] ..2.32
= 2.33
In Eq. 2.31 through 2.33, and are the initial permeability and porosity and and are the
permeability and porosity after acidizing. and are empirical constants. In Eq. 2.33, and
are reported to be 1 a nd 3 for Fontainbleau sandstone. I n E q. 2 .32, = 7 .5 a nd = 0.08
best fit data f or pha coides s andstone. The b est a pproach i n u sing t hese correlations i s t o select
22 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
the e mpirical c onstants b ased o n c ore f lood responses, if s uch ar e a vailable; a nd a lso, lacking
data for a particular formation, equation 2.31 will yield the most conservative design.48
= 1 2.34
where is the pore cross-sectional area, is the time, and is a pore growth function that does
depend on t ime. If > 0, s maller pores gr ow faster than l arger p ores a nd wormhole cannot
form; when < 0, larger pores grow faster than smaller pores and wormhole will develop. They
23 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
showed that if = 12, surface reaction rate controls the overall reaction rate, and if = 1,
diffusion controls the overall reaction rate. This m odel does not give a c omplete picture of the
wormholing process because it does not include the effect of fluid loss from the pores.
Mechanistic Models
Hung et al.56 considered fluid loss in their cylindrical model of the wormhole gr owth, a nd also
took i nto a ccount a number o f factors, i ncluding t he c ontributions of both a cid diffusion a nd
convection resulting from fluid l oss t o t he walls of t he wormhole where t he a cid reacts. They
found t hat the w ormhole velocity i ncreases linearly w ith the i njection rate i nto the w ormhole,
implying that t he v olume of a cid needed to pr opagate a wormhole a gi ven distance i s
independent of injection rate. The model also predicts that wormhole velocity will be constantly
decreasing because t he a cid flux t o t he end of t he wormhole i s de creasing a s t he wormhole
length increases ( grows). The w ormhole ve locity is e xpressed in t erms o f the acid ca pacity
number (which had been defined for a fast-reacting mineral in Eq. 2.29) as:
= ...2.35
where and are the flux a nd a cid c oncentration ( mass fraction), t he subscript o refers to th e
initial condition, the subscript e refers to conditions evaluated at the e nd or tip o f the w ormhole,
and L is the length of the wormhole.
Network Models
Hofefner and Fogler55 presented n etwork m odels in which the porous medium is approximated
as a collection of i nterconnected capillaries. T o model wormhole b ehavior, t he a cid
concentration i n each capillary is calculated a nd the radii of the capillaries are i ncreased as
dissolution oc curs. These models a ppear t o give t he b est r epresentation o f w ormhole b ehavior
over a wide range of conditions, but they are difficult to generalize for treatment design.
24 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Stochastic Models
If there is no damaged zone or if the wormholes penetrated beyond the damaged region,
1
13
= 1 + 23 ...2.38
Volumetric Model
= 2 + .....2.39
where , the w ormholing e fficiency, is de fined as the fraction of r ock d issolved in the r egion
penetrated by the acid, mathematically expressed as:
= .2.40
where is the number of pore volumes of acid injected at the time of wormhole breakthrough
at the end of the core. The skin effect during injection is expressed as:
2
= + ....2.41
2 2
If there is no damaged zone or if the wormholes penetrated beyond the damaged region,
1
= 1 + ..2.42
2 2
26 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
= ..2.43
1
1
1+
= 1 1 1 ....2.44
+ +
1 3
Kr is the effective surface reaction constant. K1 and K3 are the mass transfer coefficients for the
reactants a nd products, r espectively. Eq. 2 .43 and 2. 44 can be u sed t o determine t he r ate of
carbonate dissolution in any flow geometry, provided that a n appropriate expression for the rate
of mass transfer is available.
The f ollowing e quations d escribed linear flow of a cid dow n a fracture, with fluid l eakoff a nd
acid diffusion to the fracture walls.
( )
+ + = 0 2.45
27 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
(, , = 0) = 0 2.46
( = 0, , ) = () .2.47
= (1 ) ....2.48
where is the acid concentration, is the flux along the fracture, is the transverse flux due
to fluid loss, is an effective diffusion coefficient, is the injected acid concentration, is
the r eaction rate co nstant, is t he or der of the r eaction, a nd is porosity. Ben-Naceur a nd
Economides61, L o a nd D ean62, and Settari63 provided complex nu merical s olutions t o t he a bove
equations considering c omplications s uch as t he temperature d istribution along the f racture,
viscous fingering o f l ow-viscosity a cid through a vi scous pad, the e ffect of the a cid o n leak-off
behavior, a nd va rious fracture geometries. Neerode and Williams64 also pr esented a solution t o
the a bove e quations by a ssuming a steady state, laminar flow of a N ewtonian fluid between
parallel plates with constant fluid loss flux along the fracture. They presented the solution for the
concentration p rofile as a f unction of t he leakoff P eclet n umber. At l ow Peclet n umbers,
diffusion controls a cid propagation, while a t hi gh P eclet numbers, fluid l oss i s t he c ontrolling
factor.
The conductivity ( ) of an acid fracture depends on a stochastic process. Nierode and Kruk65
presented the following correlation for the acid fracture conductivity based on the ideal fracture
,
width
= 1 2 .2.49
where
1 = 1.47 107 2.47 2.50
and for
< 20,000 psi: 2 = (13.9 1.3 ) 103 .2.51
28 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
In Eq. 2. 49 t hrough 2. 52, is the f racture closure s tress and is the r ock e mbedment
strength. The average ideal fracture width is defined as:
= 2.53
2(1)
where is the volumetric dissolving power of the acid, is the total volume of acid injected,
is t he fracture height, a nd is the f racture h alf-length. The conductivity varies a long t he
fracture; hence B ennet66 defined a n a verage conductivity ( ) that can be used to estimate the
1
= 0 ..2.54
For lower values of Peclet number (< 3), this average overestimate the well productivity, hence
Ben-Naceur and Economides67 presented a harmonic a verage which better a pproximates the
behavior of the fractured well as:
= ..2.55
0 /
Ben-Naceur and Economides67 also presented a series of performance type curves for a cid-
fractured wells producing at a constant bottomhole flowing pressure of 500 psi.
The fracture length, which is the conductive length and not the hydraulic length, is assumed to be
consisting of t wo e qual half-lengths, in e ach s ide of the w ell. Prats68 provided p ressure
profiles in a fractured r eservoir as a function of t he f racture h alf-length and t he relative
capacity, a, which he defined as:
= ..2.56
2
= .. ...2.57
= ....2.58
2
Prats68 showed t hat for a s teady-state f low, a fracture affects productivity t hrough t he
dimensionless equivalent (effective) wellbore r adius
which i s related t o the fracture h alf-
length or penetration by the dimensionless fracture conductivity .
= ...2.59
where is expressed in terms of the equivalent skin effect and the wellbore radius as:
= ...................................................................................2.60
= 0.5 .2.61
30 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Cinco-Ley et al.71 integrated t his i nto a full description of r eservoir r esponse by i ncluding
transient f low and pseudoradial flow ( where t he pressure-depletion r egion >> but i s not
affected by e xternal boundaries). Cinco-Ley et al.s descriptions presented in form of charts can
be used a s powerful reservoir engineering tools to assess p ossible post-fracture p roductivity
benefits from propped fracturing. The productivity index in the pseudosteady state flow regime
is expressed as:
2 1
= ....................................2.62
ln 0.472 +0.5 +0.5 + +
= 1.6, is t he optimum value of the dimensionless fracture conductivity for which the
productivity index is maximum.
Several techniques for stimulation candidate selection e xist in l iteratures a nd a lso i n practice i n
the i ndustries. Stimulation jobs ha ve w itnessed bot h s uccesses and f ailures, and in s ome c ases
yield less than the expected result. Stimulation failure is usually due to poor candidate selection,
inaccurate treatment de sign or improper f ield pr ocedures72. Nnanna et al.73 cautioned t hat
applying t he b est t reatment d esign a nd field pr ocedures t o t he w rong candidate w ill r esult i n a
failure, while a poor treatment design and good field procedures on the right candidate will also
result i n a failure. T hey a dded that t hough treatment design a nd field pr ocedures a re fairly well
understood, candidate selection ha s b een approached in different ways b y va rious o perators and
service companies.
Nitters et al.74 presented a structured a pproach t o stimulation candidate selection and treatment
design. T hey i solated t he r eal skin caused b y da mage ( the p ortion o f t he t otal skin t hat c an b e
removed by matrix treatment) from the total skin as follows:
= + + + + ...2.63
31 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
where is the skin du e to formation damage, is the total skin factor (Eq. 2 .1), is
the skin resulting from limited perforation height, is the skin due to turbulent (non-Darcy)
flow, is t he skin du e t o wellbore deviation, is the skin due to gravel packing, and
is the skin resulting from a small perforation. Nitters et al then suggested the ranking of
stimulation candidates based on the magnitude of the damage skin factor.
2 7+1
= = .2.64
1 7+2
where is flow ra te, is the s kin factor, and t he s ubscripts 1 an d 2 r efer t o before an d a fter
stimulation.
= ( + + ) 2.65
where + is the skin factor due to partial penetration and deviation, is the total skin
factor as d eternmined f rom a w ell t est. is t he pe rforation skin factor. h p is th e perforation
interval thickness and h is the thickness of the oil sand. They used the stabilized inflow equation,
approximating the natural logarithm of t he ratio of drainage radius t o wellbore radius a s 8 , a nd
the cu t-off of O nyekonwu80 to define a simplified R -factor which c an b e used for c andidate
selection. The factor is defined as:
32 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
= ............................................. 2.66
8+
They concluded that if R 0.6, then the well is a good stimulation candidate in the Niger Delta.
Afolabi et al.81 also presented candidate selection criterion that is based on minimum economic
reserve, productivity Index (PI) of less than 10bpd/psi, flow efficiency of less than 0.5 and the PI
decline rate that is greater than 30%.
The published literatures reviewed did not consider a detailed and efficient optimization process
for s timulation candidate selection, especially i n t he N iger D elta, a nd hence t he n eed f or this
study.
33 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Chapter Three
Methodology
It i s a ssumed that from well t est da ta, t he well pr oblem could b e diagnosed a nd then m atched
with either of acidizing, gravel-packing or re-completion. It is also assumed that all wells can be
acidized, recompleted or gravel-packed successfully if necessary.
Diagnose each well pr oblem. For w ells w ith s kin va lues s howing formation da mage problems,
acidizing i s t he r ecommended t reatment. Wells with m echanical pr oblems s uch a s pa rtially or
totally plugged perforations, i nsufficient perforation density, l ow de pth of perforation o r w ater
production, r e-completion i s r ecommended. I f t he pr oblem i s sand production, t hen gravel
packing i s r ecommended. A s imple screening module flow chart f or t his s ection i s s hown i n
Appendix A.
The treatment m odels p resented in t his s ection are to b e used f or the s timulation t reatment
design. The choice of which model to use is dependent on the nature of well problem diagnosed
and the result of the screening module.
The e xtent t o w hich a cid will penetrate a rock is dependent on both the rock properties a nd the
local acid reaction rate. The reaction rate in turn depends on matrix properties and other variables
like temperature, pressure, and composition of the reacting fluids.
34 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
The Niger Delta formation is c hiefly made up of sandstone. S andstone formations are of ten
treated with a mixture of hydrochloric a cid (HCl) a nd h ydrofluoric a cid ( HF) c ommonly called
mud acids. T he t reatment is done at l ow injection rate to prevent fracturing. The mud acid,
chosen because of its ability to dissolve the clay found in drilling mud, also will react with most
constituent of naturally occurring sandstones, including silica, feldspar, and calcareous materials.
Determine the present fracture gradient for the well. If the instantaneous shut-in
pressure value is not available, use the following equation to calculate the fracture
gradient:
= + ( ) ..3.1
where:
Predict the maximum possible injection rate that does not fracture the formation
using:
4.917106
, = .3.2
+
where:
Using Equation 3.2 with zero value for the skin effect gives the maximum pump rate during the
treatment.
If the injection fluid is N ewtonian, and at pumping rates that a re le ss than 9 bbl/min, t he coil
tubing friction pressure can be calculated using:
where:
This friction pressure component should be ignored if the pumping rate is greater than 9 bbl/min.
If p ipe or c oil tubing f riction pressure is co nsidered, the maximum s urface p ressure f or w hich
fluids can be injected without fracturing the formation is calculated using:
36 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
, = + ...3.4
where:
, = ..3.5
It i s a ssumed that t he a cid volume r equired is equal to the pore volume of t he damaged zone.
Also, i t i s a ssumed that a cid flows t hrough the porous media with a front t hat i s u niform a nd
stable, then the acid injection is piston-like and the first acid in is the last acid out. The mud acid
volume is estimated using:
= 7.48[(2 2 )] ...3.6
where:
In formations where the HCl solubility is moderate to high more HCl is necessary. The following
equation is used to calculate this volume and address the HCl-soluble materials:
(1) [2 2 ]
= 7.48 ..3.7
where:
a. Preflush
b. Mud Acid
c. Afterflush
In oil wells, inject a volume of diesel oil or hydrochloric a cid equal to the mud a cid
volume.
= ..3.8
where:
In sandstone it is difficult to increase the permeability above the natural state because of reaction
kinetics li mitations, r eaction stoichiometry a nd economics. In th is th esis, the maximum
formation productivity r atio for sandstone a cidizing, given s ome s et of reservoir parameters, is
defined b y the reciprocal of the flow efficiency, and is approximated from Equation 2.21, using
the semi-steady state definition:
38 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
0.472
+
= 0.472 ..3.9
where:
The approach considered in this section assumes that the well is already completed. The concept
of recompletion is either t o increase the p erforation d ensity or increase the depth of perforation
penetration in order to increase production. The procedure presented below is based on the works
of Strubhar et al.87
= 1 2 .3.10
where:
=
...3.11
where:
= + 0.5 ..3.12
1
= ..3.13
0.03
and:
= + 3.14
= ...3.15
where:
= cost per perforation, $
= number of perforations
40 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
The productivity index for a semi-steady state condition is u sed to define the productivity ratio,
and hence, defining the productivity ratio as the reciprocal of the flow efficiency, it is expressed
as:
0.472
+
= 0.472 ...3.16
where:
The f ollowing gravel pa ck d esign m odule is modified from Schlumbergers gravel pack design
and c alculation m anual. The vo lume of g ravel r equired i s de pendent o n t he formation
permeability, to tal l ength o f t he in terval a nd t he c ondition of th e well ( i.e. whether it i s a n ew
well or an old well). The ideal situation is that all perforation tunnels and screen casing a nnulus
be filled with gravel. The gravel pa ck d esign c onsidered is for re-completion of zones that ha ve
produced sands. The following steps are considered in the design.
100% or less of t his volume m ay be c onsidered as the e xcess g ravel. T his volume e nsures
complete screen/formation coverage by the gravel.
2 2
1 = 3.17
4144
where:
This volume must be filled up completely with gravel in order to have an efficient pack.
2 2
2 = .3.18
4144
where:
3 = ..3.19
where:
= 1 () + 2 + 3 3.20
where:
= total volume of gravel needed, ft3
= fraction of the blank/casing annulus needed to be filled (in this thesis, taken to
be 60% - 90%)
42 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
= 7.48 3.21
where:
= ....3.22
42
where:
= ..3.23
where:
= 1 + ...3.24
+
= ..3.25
43 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
where:
96
= ..3.26
2
where:
= + .3.27
where:
= cost of gravel packing, $
= cost of gravel, $/ft3
= cost of carrier fluid (base fluid), $/bbl
44 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
0.472
+
= 0.472 .3.28
At s ome point du ring the pr oducing l ife o f a w ell, t he pr oduction rate m ay become s o low and
well diagnosis may result in th e need f or well stimulation. Figure 3. 1 s hows the production
profile (production rate vs. t ime) of a well t hat a t some point during its producing l ife was
profitably stimulated. This figure shall serve a s the theoretical basis for the model developed in
the following sections.
Consider F igure 3.1. T he curve ABC r epresents t he well pre-stimulation decline curve profile.
The w ell initial p roduction r ate is . At point B, t he w ell is c onsidered f or s timulation. T he
curve DEF i s t he r esulting pos t-stimulation production pr ofile. The p roduction r ate is the
abandonment rate of the w ell. The t ime is th e a bandonment t ime o f th e well if i t is n ot
considered f or a s timulation t reatment. The s timulation treatment i s in itiated at ti me
corresponding to the production rate . At time the stimulated w ell i s open for production.
Thus, t he difference between t he t imes and is the d uration of t he stimulation job. The
production l oss du e t o t he duration of the stimulation j ob i s r epresented by the shaded a rea
BCHI. The i nitial production r ate a fter stimulation i s r epresented b y which c orresponds t o
point D in Figure 3.1. The well is now produced along the curve DEF until the abandonment rate
is r eached a t t ime corresponding t o point F i n t he figure shown. T he a rea DEFH
represents the incremental production due to stimulation treatment.
The model formulated in the following section u ses the production profile described above and
an e xponential decline curve analysis with e conomic concept of c ontinuous discounting. The
derivation of the model for several cases of hyperbolic decline is presented in Appendix F.
45 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
D
Production Rate, stb/day
B E
C
F
I H G
Time, days
The stimulation productivity ratio is defined a s the ratio of the initial (maximum) production
rate obtained a fter stimulation t o t he p roduction r ate a t which t he well w as considered for
stimulation. From Figure 3.1,
= ...3.29
The pr esent va lue i nterest factor () for c ontinuous or daily c ompounding i s u sed i n the
following derivations and it is defined as:
= ..3.30
The u ltimate g oal o f well stimulation i s to exploit t he r eservoir p rofitably. I n optimizing well
stimulation processes, the measure of effectiveness is the net i ncremental post-stimulation
production subject to the limitations imposed by the system. Therefore an objective function will
be defined to maximize the net post-stimulation production. The objective function is defined as:
47 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
= ............................................................................3.31
where is the discounted production from stimulation, is the discounted production loss
from stimulation, and is the discounted production equivalent to total stimulation cost.
The e xponential d ecline curve analysis s hall b e used to derive the mathematical expressions for
each of the components of Equation 3.31. Before proceeding with the derivation, it is necessary
to define some of the variables in Figure 3.1. First, let us shift the time axis such that the time at
the start of the stimulation job is set to zero. Then let be the duration of the stimulation job
and be the abandonment time of the post-stimulation production profile.
The discounted incremental production resulting from the stimulation process is derived from the
area enclosed by DEFH in Figure 3.1 by:
= ( ) () ..3.32
where is the exponential decline rate per day. Substituting for and from Equations
3.29 and 3.30, Equation 3.32 is expressed as:
= ( ) ..3.33
Evaluating the integral on the right hand side of equation 3.33 yields:
= ()
()
= ()
() () ...3.34
The abandonment production rate for the post-stimulation production forecast is given by:
48 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
= ( ) .3.35
Substituting for from E quation 3. 29 and r earranging Equation 3 .35, the economic l ife
resulting from the stimulation treatment can be expressed as:
1
= +
1 1
= + .3.36
( )
+()
= ()
() ..3.37
+
( )
= ()
1
+
( ) ( )
= ()
()
.3.38
The concept of production loss is similar to the idea of opportunity cost. The production loss is
an essential component of the ob jective f unction that t akes care of the z ero-production time
during stimulation.
49 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
The discounted production loss du ring the stimulation pr ocess is derived from the area enclosed
by BCHI in Figure 3.1 by:
= 0 ()
= 0 .3.39
= () () 0
= () () 1 ..3.40
The t otal stimulation c ost, which includes site preparation cost, equipment mobilization &
demobilization cost a nd the stimulation tr eatment cost, can be c onverted to i ts e quivalent
discounted production as:
= .......................................................................................3.41
where is the total cost of the stimulation treatment in dollars, and is the price (in dollars) per
barrel of oil.
1
( ) ( )
= ()
()
50 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
() () 1 ...3.42
Let
= .3.43
1 = () .3.44
2 = 3.45
3 = () ...3.46
4 = ...3.47
(1)
5 = ......3.48
Therefore the objective function as defined in Equation 3.42 can be expressed in the form:
= 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 1 (3 1) .3.49
in the sub-surface and surface, limit production rates that ca n be obtained from the choice of the
stimulation treatment. These constraints are developed mathematically below.
The discounted revenue from any stimulation decision should be greater than or at least equal to
the discounted cost of the project. That is:
+ ..3.50
Using the definitions of Equations 3.33, 3.39 and 3.41; Equation 3.50 can be expressed as:
( ) + 0 ..3.51
By examining Equations 3.42 through 3.49, this constraint can be expressed as:
1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 + 1 (3 1) .....3.52
In a practical sense, this constraint is satisfied if and only if the value o f the o bjective function
is positive, that is:
0 ..3.53
The recovery from the stimulation should not e xceed the r emaining produceable oil i n pl ace
(reserve). Mathematically, this constraint can be expressed as:
( ) .3.54
52 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
where is t he remaining oil reserve in place during stimulation. Solving Equation 3.54 we
get:
[ ] 3.55
1
+
....3.56
Simplifying,
.....3.57
Let
1 = ....3.58
2 = ....3.59
Substituting Equations 3.58 and 3.59 into 3.57, this constraint can be written as:
1 2 ...3.60
The pr oduction r ate a fter s timulation should n ot e xceed t he maximum d esign capacity o f t he
flow string. In the case of gas wells, this constraint is imposed by the gas pipeline capacity.
53 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
The exponential decline equation for the post-stimulation production rate can be expressed as:
= ( )
= ( ) ..3.61
The m aximum production rate is obtained w hen the well is opened f or production just after
stimulation, i.e. at time = (see Fig. 3.1). Using this substitution in Equation 3.61, constraint
3 can then be formulated as:
therefore:
....3.62
where is the maximum design capacity (flow rate) for the well tubing string.
The total cost of s timulation s hould not exceed the maximum budget allocated by management
for the job. This constraint is formulated mathematically as:
..3.63
3.64
where is the m aximum productivity ratio t hat c an be o btained given the reservoir a nd
treatment pa rameters. I t i s t he productivity ratio obtained from t he d esign module pr esented i n
section 3.2.1 through 3.2.3.
The stimulation must, at l east, result i n a n i mprovement i n t he productivity r atio and must not
itself cause m ore damage to the formation. This constraint is imposed on the productivity ratio
such that it must not be less than one or negative. It can be formulated mathematically as:
1 .3.65
From t he design module pr esented i n section 3 .21 t hrough 3.23, i t c ould be observed t hat t he
input design parameters determine the stimulation cost (C) a nd t he maximum pr oductivity ratio
(F). For e xample, f rom the acidizing d esign m odule in s ection 3.21, it c ould b e seen that t he
stimulation c ost depends o n t he vo lume of acid pumped, and also the volume of a cid pumped
will d etermine t he extent o f damage r emoval ( productivity r atio). T his discussion shows t hat a
relationship can be formulated between the stimulation cost and the productivity ratio based on
the de sign m odule. Hence, in order to use the model presented in section 3 .3 as a n optimization
model, it i s necessary t o develop a stimulation cost v ersus productivity ratio r elationship ba sed
on the design module presented.
The combined effects of the treatment and reservoir variables are lumped into a stimulation cost
versus productivity equation of the form:
= ...3.66
55 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
where and are obtained from the power equation of the trend line of a log-log plot of
stimulation cost v ersus p roductivity r atio. It is this equation that in corporates the stimulation
option into the optimization model. Hence we must substitute Equation 3.66 into Equation 3.49
in order to use the model.
3.6 Summary of the Optimization Model
Combining the objective function a nd the constraints, the optimization model formulated can be
summarized as:
Maximize:
= 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 1 (3 1) .3.49
subject to:
1. Break-even Requirement:
1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 + 1 (3 1) ....3.52
1 2 ...3.60
...3.62
4. Budget Allocation:
...3.63
.3.64
56 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
6. Productivity Improvement:
1 ...3.65
The constants , 1 , 2 , 3, 4 and 5 are as defined in Equation 3.43 through 3 .48; 1 and 2
are defined in Equation 3.58 and 3.59; and are from Equation 3.66.
It is important to note that the optimization model is a non-linear programming (NLP) problem.
The o bjective function consists o f t wo variables, na mely productivity r atio and total
stimulation cost . The two variables are related based on the discussion presented in section 3.5.
This research investigated the matrix stimulation cost and performance data presented by Vogt et
al.88 An a ttempt was ma de to obtain a relationship between total stimulation cost and
productivity ratio . The data is presented in Table 1 of Appendix B. A regression analysis on the
data using M icrosoft Excel s hows a trend between pr oductivity r atio a nd t otal stimulation c ost
similar to the form presented in Equation 3.66. Therefore, to use this model, the stimulation cost
versus productivity ratio constants and must be obtained from the design module. The design
and op timization m odel included i n t he a ccompany compact di sk ( CD) of t his t hesis only
requires the input, stimulation design parameters, to generate the constants.
In this research, the model was solved u sing the Solver in Microsoft Excel and also Whats Best
10.0 LINDO S ystems o ptimization so ftware. The r esults obtained w ere v erified b y c omparing
the solution with t hat ob tained by us ing Mathematica 7.0 software developed by Wolfram
Research. The Solver i mplemented i n E xcel ( developed by Frontline Systems) u ses numerical
iterative methods (generalized reduced gr adient m ethod) to s olve e quations a nd t o o ptimize
linear and n onlinear functions w ith e ither c ontinuous or i nteger variables. But Solver has some
limitations hence t he ne ed t o verify t he r esults. Wolframs Mathematica 7.0 on t he ot her ha nd
uses several numerical algorithms for constrained no nlinear optimization. T he a lgorithms ar e
categorized into gradient-based methods and direct search methods. Gradient-based methods use
first d erivatives ( gradients) or second d erivatives ( Hessians). Examples a re t he sequential
57 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Based on the stimulation modules presented in this chapter, a computer model is developed using
Microsoft Excel. This model is intended for use in the Niger Delta and as such it is assumed that
all w ells can either be acidized, g ravel-packed or r e-completed. T he screening module i s n ot
included in the computer model because it is assumed that prior to the use of this model, the well
must have been matched with one of acidizing, gravel-packing or re-completion. Also, hydraulic
fracturing is not considered in this m odel because t he N iger D elta formation is made up o f
sandstone with good permeability.
58 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Chapter Four
The parameters i n t he following section were va ried a nd the values of t he o ptimal objective
function obtained are plotted against the productivity ratio f or e ach parameter va lue. The input
data used for the sensitivity analysis are presented in Table 4.1.
The p rice o f o il d etermines the amount of revenue derived from the s timulation. T herefore an
increase in the price of oil is a ccompanied with a n increase in the optimal point of the objective
function a s shown in Fig. 4.1. The price of oil is purely an e conomic input to the optimization
model. T he decision t o perform well s timulation depends o n t he current price o f oil. H ence t he
higher t he p rice of oil, t he greater t he benefit derived from s timulation. It is important to n ote
that b elow a pr oductivity ratio o f a bout 3 .2, the di scounted pr oduction will not c hange w ith the
price of oil, but the overall monetary benefit will reduce when the price of oil falls.
Fig. 4.2 illustrates the effect of the interest rate on t he objective f unction. The value of t he
discount rate was varied from 5% to 20%. The discounted production decreases with an increase
in t he discount r ate. The di scount rate can be viewed a s a n a dditional cost of stimulation. T he
higher the discount rate, the higher the cost of money and well stimulation, and consequently, the
lower the benefit to be derived from the stimulation job.
The effect of the exponential decline rate on the objective function is shown in Fig. 4.3. For this
analysis, the value of the decline constant was varied between 0.032/yr and 0.32/yr. It is noticed
that the smaller the exponential decline rate, the higher the stimulation benefit. The exponential
59 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
6000
5000
Discounted Production, bbl
4000
Oil Price = $50/bbl
Oil Price = $60/bbl
3000
Oil Price = $70/bbl
Oil Price = $80/bbl
2000
Oil Price = $90/bbl
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Productivity Ratio (F)
8000
7000
6000
Discounted Production, bbl
5000
I = 5%
4000
I = 10%
3000 I = 15%
I = 20%
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Productivity Ratio (F)
30000
25000
Discounted Production, bbl
20000
15000 D = 0.032/yr
D = 0.16/yr
10000 D = 0.32/yr
5000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Productivity Ratio (F)
decline rate is the parameter that controls the concavity of the objective function. The smaller the
value of the exponential decline constant for a w ell pr oduction pr ofile, the more the benefit we
could get if such well i s considered f or s timulation. In pr actice, w e ha ve no c ontrol ov er the
value of the decline rate constant. H owever, it gives u s a direct i nsight i nto candidate selection
for stimulation decisions. Smaller decline rate is desirable for profitable stimulation decisions.
The effect of pre-stimulation production rate on t he objective function is illustrated i n F ig. 4 .4.
The value of the pre-stimulation production rate was varied from 500stb/d to 1500stb/d. A higher
pre-stimulation pr oduction r ate indicates a higher r eservoir energy dr ive. T he main goal of
stimulation i s t o i ncrease pr oduction u sing t he r eservoir e nergy a s t he driving force in moving
the o il from th e r eservoir i nto th e wellbore. If t he r eservoir h as litt le or n o e nergy, stimulation
benefit w ill b e small. Th is is clearly illustrated in the figure. Since a higher pre-stimulation
production will give a higher optimal point in the objective function, therefore, from the figure, a
higher p re-stimulation production rate will give a higher optimal stimulation benefit. This
suggests that as production declines during production, there should be an optimal time in which
it is best to initial stimulation jobs. Because of the huge impact of this pre-stimulation production
rate on t he ob jective function, this pa rameter must be given a major attention in the selection of
stimulation candidates
12000
10000
Discounted Production, bbl
8000
6000 qo = 500stb/d
qo = 1000stb/d
4000 qo = 1500stb/d
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Productivity Ratio (F)
6000
5000
Discounted Production, bbl
4000
3000 qa = 100stb/d
qa = 300stb/day
2000 qa = 500stb/d
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Productivity Ratio (F)
The stimulation time r epresents the duration of time the stimulation job is performed. The effect
of the s timulation time on the optimal point of the objective function is s hown in Fig. 4.6. The
stimulation time is varied between 1 day and 3 days. The optimal point of the objective function
lowers as the stimulation time increases. This means that if more time is spent on the stimulation
job, t he p roduction l oss du ring t he du ration of s timulation will i ncrease, a nd hence, l owers t he
overall benefit d erivable f rom the s timulation j ob. Therefore i t i s b eneficial i f t he duration of
stimulation is reduced to possibly a day in order to get a higher return from stimulation.
In this section, the optimization model is applied with the acidizing treatment model to quantify
stimulation benefit derivable from four typical acidizing jobs, and also, to rank the w ells f or the
stimulation process. Production data from four wells: Well BU 1, Well BU 2, Well BU 3 and Well
BU 4 were u sed t o va lidate t he model. The four w ells completed i n M ay 200 4 are l ocated in
Bestfields, offshore Niger Delta. This high permeability field is located in a water depth of 200m.
The a verage pe ak p roduction recorded i n J anuary 2006 from e ach of t he four wells i s
7000stb/day. Production d ecline s tarts a fter a 3 -year peak pr oduction period. The a vailable
production data f or each o f t he four wells shows t hat t he d ecline pr ofile for e ach w ell i s
exponential. The wells are being considered as potential candidates for acidizing after a well test
confirms the presence of acid removable damage. The field data is presented in Table 4.2. These
data s erved a s input da ta for t he a cidizing d esign a nd optimization model. A dditional da ta used
were t aken from published l iteratures by Ofoh a nd H eikal89, Nnanna et al.73, Nnanna an d
Ajienka76, and Onyekonwu80.
The data in Table 4.2 are used to formulate the Bestfield Model, which gives an insight into how
the model ca n be used to optimize acidizing candidate w ell s election process in the Niger Delta.
The design and optimization model is available in the included CD.
In combination with the data provided in Table 4.2, lets assume that the remaining recoverable
reserve is 500 MM bbls, and the tubing maximum design flow rate for each well is 12500stb/d.
67 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
8000
7000
6000
Discounted Production, bbl
5000
4000
Stim. Time = 1 day
3000
Stim. Time = 2 days
Stim. Time = 3 days
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6
Productivity Ratio (F)
Also lets assume an average oil price of $80/bbl, effective discount rate of 10% and a maximum
acidizing budget of $1200000 per well.
Step A: Enter each well data given into the Acidizing Design and Optimization Model and
generate the Cost versus Productivity-Ratio relationship for each well.
The Cost versus Productivity-Ratio plots for each of the four wells was generated by the design
model. T he a nalysis i n t he following section is for Well BU 3. The a nalysis for t he Well BU 1,
Well BU 2 and Well BU 4 is similar, h ence o nly t he results w ere discussed. T he C ost ve rsus
Productivity-Ratio plot for the Well BU 3 data is shown in Fig. 4.7.
Step B: Obtain the relationship between the stimulation cost (C) and productivity ratio (F) in
form of power equation of a trendline through a log-log regression of the data.
= 87.156.499 .................4.1
The above relationship, a s presented in Equation 4.1 was obtained from a regression analysis o f
the simulated data generated by the design model using Microsoft Excel. The design model used
the Well BU 3 input data to account f or c ost as s hown in Equation 4.1 ba sed on t he damaged
radius of the well, which is one of the parameters with greatest influence on the acidizing design.
The acidizing design and optimization model will generate this equation once the data input step
is completed.
Step C: Use Equations 3.49, 3.52, 3.60, 3.62, 3.63, 3.64 & 3.65 to formulate the objective
function and its constraints.
The constants needed to define the objective function can be calculated easily using the equation
listed a bove. It i s i mportant t o point ou t that w hile u sing the a cidizing a nd d esign model
included in the CD, one does not need to calculate the objective function as presented below. The
program is designed to calculate the objective function, set up the constraints and then awaits the
user t o call a s olver pr ogram f or t he o ptimization step. Hence, S tep C i s only i ncluded for t he
purpose of proper understanding of how the model and its constraints were formulated.
70 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
The non linear programming model formulated a s a maximization problem using the Well BU 3
data is presented below.
1. Break-even Constraint:
From t he non-linear programming optimization problem presented a bove i t c ould b e seen t hat,
simply, we seek an optimum value for the productivity ratio which ha s a lower and upper bound
of 1 and 3.21 respectively. This is true because the limit sets by the facility constraints (Equation
4.5) is more binding than the maximum productivity r atio a ttainable given t he r eservoir a nd
treatment parameters (Equation 4.8).
71 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Figure 4.7 (a) and (b): Cost versus Productivity Ratio plots for Well BU 3
2500000.00
2000000.00
Cost, $
1500000.00
1000000.00
500000.00
0.00
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Productivity Ratio, F
(a)
1000000.00
Cost, $
100000.00
10000.00
C = 87.15F 6.499
1000.00
1.00 10.00
Productivity Ratio, F
(b)
72 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Step D: Find a solution to the non-linear programming model formulated in Step C above.
In this research, two different solvers, which use different a lgorithms, were used to get an
optimum solution to the model. The solvers are: Frontline Systems Microsoft Excel Solver and
Whats Best 10.0 LINDO S ystems op timization s oftware. T he solution t o t he model was t hen
verified u sing t he W olfram R esearchs Mathematica 7.0. The results a re discussed i n t he
following sections.
The Well BU 3 Model was solved u sing t he Microsoft Excel Solver and Whats Best 10.0, the
results a re presented i n Appendix C and D . The s olutions gave the same r esult for t he optimal
point.
= 106868.12
The o bjective function b ehaviour is viewed in the vicinity of the lower a nd upper bound of its
constraint. Mathematica 7.0 is us ed t o ge nerate t he pl ot shown i n A ppendix E . Also,
Mathematica 7.0 is us ed t o s olve t he non -linear pr ogramming op timization problem. The
functions NMaximize and Maximize are u sed a nd t he r esult for t he objective function i s
107012.6.7 bbls, w hile the va lue o f the pr oductivity ratio at the optimal point is 3.21. The input
syntax for Mathematica 7.0 is also included in Appendix E.
The results obtained using the Microsoft Excel Solver and Whats Best 10.0, is taken as the actual
value of the objective function at the optimal point. Hence, the following discussions are based
on this result.
This optimal v alue of the objective f unction is 106868.12bbls, meaning that i f this well i s
considered for s timulation, given that t he a ssumptions c onsidered i n section 4 .2.1 a re binding,
the benefit derivable is 106868.12bbls of oi l. The life of the well is estimated to be 19.6 years.
The payout time on the acidizing cost is also estimated to be 0.94 day.
The A nswer R eport for Well BU 3 in Appendix C, Section 1, shows t hat five o ut of t he six
constraints are not binding. The only binding constraint is the tubing string capacity. H ence, the
optimal solution was f ound within th e lim its o f a ll t he constraints. That is t o s ay th at a ll
constraints are satisfied. No constraint is violated.
The tubing string capacity constraint is binding, meaning that if the tubing f low capacity is
increased, there will be more benefit from this project, but on the other hand, this extremely high
rate w ill kill o ur w ell s ooner than la ter. In g eneral, f or a c onstraint to b e bi nding m eans any
movement to the right would still give a better result to the objective function.
From the sensitivity report it could be seen that the value of the Lagrange Multiplier associated
with th e flow string c apacity c onstraint is 31221.9668. T his gi ves a n i dea of t he fractional
change of the ob jective f unction i f t he flow s tring c apacity c onstraint c hanges b y 1stb/day.
Hence, if the flow string capacity is increased by 1stb/day, the benefit derivable from stimulation
will increase by 31221.9668 bbls. Hence, the v alue o f t he Lagrange Multiplier will help th e
stimulation design engineer to know i f it is necessary to increase the stimulation benefit by
adjusting the constraints. It also gives the estimate of the derivable benefit.
Considering Well BU 1, t he u ltimate s olution obt ained is s hown in A ppendix C, S ection 2 . All
constraints are n ot b inding, m eaning that t he optimum po int of the objective f unction w as
attained before any of the constraint bound was reached. Hence any shift to the right or left of the
optimum point will only decrease the stimulation benefit.
74 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
This m odel can be u sed e asily t o r ank stimulation candidates based on t he be nefits derivable
from t he stimulation operation and t he pa yout time. Since the ultimate goal of stimulation is to
increase pr oduction, the well with th e h ighest stimulation benefit and shortest pa yout t ime is
considered first for s timulation. Hence wells ar e r anked first to last in t he d ecreasing order o f
their stimulation b enefits (profits), provided the payout i s a cceptable b y management. The w ell
ranked first is then selected for stimulation before the one ranked second and so on.
The t able below gives a s imple stimulation ca ndidate selection c harts for the four w ells i n
Bestfield, offshore N iger D elta. Table 4. 3 is generated u sing t he a cidizing de sign a nd
optimization model. Each s olution p oint as o btained by t he model i s shown i n t he figures i n
Appendix C, Section 1 & 2. It is important to note that the payout time calculated by the model is
based on the stimulation design cost, site preparation cost (including equipment mobilization and
demobilization cost). The lease operating costs, federal and state taxes should also be considered
in calculating the actual payout time for this project.
Assuming a lease operating cost (LOE) of $4000 per month, the summary table for the Bestfield
Model i s shown i n T able 4. 3. The choice of which well is selected first for s timulation,
considering the stimulation benefit and the payout time w ill de pend on t he op erating companys
guidelines and criteria for making reservoir management decisions. The payout time for the wells
in th e Bestfield Model are fairly close, hence, i n th is research, th e stimulation benefit i s u sed t o
rank the wells. Well BU 3 will be selected first for stimulation before selecting Well BU 4, then
Well BU 2, and finally Well BU 1.
The price of oil is varied between $40 and $80 per barrel, and its effect on the objective function
is studied. Figure 4.8 shows the result obtained. From the result it is seen that the higher the price
of o il, the m ore the be nefits de rivable from the s timulation. However, w ith f acility c onstraint,
binding on the objective function, there is little or no difference in the benefit derivable from the
stimulation jobs. This suggests that if the price of oil increase, more benefits can be derived from
stimulation if the capacity of the production string is adequate. At productivity ratios less than 3,
the discounted production is insensitive to the price of oil.
75 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
160000
140000
120000
Discounted Production, bbl
100000
40000
20000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Productivity Ratio, F
The data used for this case study was taken from published literatures by Nnanna et al.73, Nnanna
and A jienka76, a nd Onyekonwu80. T hese data ar e u sed to formulate t he Well BU 5 Model. The
data for Well BU 5 is presented in Table 4.4.
Lets assume that the remaining recoverable reserve in the drainage area of this well is 2.5 MM
bbls, and the tubing maximum design flow rate is 10000 stb/d. Also lets assume that the price of
oil is $80/bbl, the effective discount rate is 10% and the maximum budget for the acidizing job is
set at $1000000.
Step A: Enter t he da ta gi ven i nto t he A cidizing Design and Optimization Model and ge nerate
the Cost versus Productivity-Ratio data .
The Cost versus Productivity-Ratio plot for Well BU 5 is shown in Fig. 4.9.
Step B: Obtain t he relationship be tween the s timulation c ost (C) a nd productivity ratio (F) in
form of power equation of a trendline through a log-log regression of the data.
= 27.826.187 .................4.9
The above relationship, a s presented in Equation 4.1 was obtained from a regression analysis of
the model generated cost data using Microsoft Excel.
78 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
1400000.00
1200000.00
1000000.00
800000.00
Cost, $
600000.00
400000.00
200000.00
0.00
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Productivity Ratio, F
Step C: Using Equations 3.49, 3.52, 3.60, 3.62, 3.63, 3.64 & 3.65, the non linear programming
model can be formulated as a maximization problem as presented below.
1. Break-even Constraint:
47.79 2.5 + 3231.562 0.4114163 6.187 + 466.5777 ...4.11
2. Remaining Reserve Constraint:
12500 3750 2500000 ..4.12
3. Flow String Capacity Constraint:
20 .4.13
4. Budget Allocation Constraint:
27.826.187 1000000 ....4.14
5. Productivity Improvement Constraint:
1 ..4.15
6. Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio Constraint:
4.79 ..4.16
In t his pr oblem, we s eek a n o ptimum value for t he productivity r atio with a l ower a nd upp er
bound of 1 and 4.79 respectively. Equation 4.16 is more binding than Equation 4.13.
The Well BU 5 Model was solved u sing t he Microsoft Excel Solver and Whats Best 10.0, t he
results are presented in Appendix C and D, Case Study 2. The solutions gave the same result for
the optimal point. The value of the objective function at optimal productivity ratio is:
= 10846.95
81 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
The o ptimal p roductivity r atio i s e qual to 4 .18. The o bjective function be havior i s vi ewed
Mathematica 7.0. The plot generate i s shown i n Appendix E . Also, using Mathematica 7.0 to
solve t he n on-linear pr ogramming optimization pr oblem, the r esult for t he ob jective function i s
10276.7 bbls, while the value of the productivity ratio at the optimal point is 3.97. The solution
using Mathematica 7.0 is also shown in Appendix E.
The slight variation in the results obtained is due to same reasons as discussed in section 4.2.2.
The Answer Report for Case Study 2 Section 1, in Solvers Result section of Appendix C shows
that t he six c onstraints a re n ot bi nding. T his m eans t hat t he o ptimal solution was f ound within
the limits of all the constraints. Hence no constraint is violated.
If we a ssume t hat t he stimulation budget a pproved by management i s $185, 000 for t his well,
then t he ou tput o f t his model will be a s shown i n Appendix C , Case Study 2 - Section 2 . T he
Answer Report Section shown that the budget allocation constraint is now binding. This means
that if management is willing to allocate more money to this project, there will be more benefit.
From the sensitivity report it could be seen that the value of the Lagrange Multiplier associated
with the budget allocation constraint is 0.0004047. H ence i f the stimulation budget is increased
by $1, the benefit derived from stimulation will increase by 0.0405%. This can be interpreted in
a much better sense a s $ 1 increase i n stimulation budget will r esult i n a n additional production
benefit of 0.0004047 bbls.
The a mount in d ollars, X, needed to be added to the present budget in order to get an optimum
result can be roughly approximated with the following relationship (valid only for this case):
100
..4.17
1100
82 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
For the above result the amount needed to be a dded i n order to get an op timum benefit i s
estimated as:
1000.000405185000
(11000.000405)
$7809
The effect of t he price o f oi l on the o bjective f unction is s tudied by varying the pr ice o f oi l
between $40 and $80 per barrel (Figure 4.11). From the figure it is seen that if productivity ratio
is less t han 3 , t he di scounted production obtained from t he stimulation will b e independent o f
price o f o il. H owever, for pr oductivity r atios gr eater t han 3 , t he pr ice o f o il b ecomes a
determining factor, i.e. the higher the price of oil, the higher the discounted production, hence the
more the benefits derivable from the stimulation. From Figure 4.11, if the price of oil is $40/bbl,
the d iscounted production w ill be 9000bbls, a nd t he t otal benefit would equal ( $40/bbl
9000bbls), i.e. $360,000.
As di scussed in pr evious s ections, this model c an b e used t o r ank s timulation c andidates based
on t he benefits derivable from the stimulation operation. The well with th e h ighest stimulation
benefit is considered first for stimulation. The knowledge of the stimulation benefit to be derived
if a constraint i s a djusted will a lso have gr eat i nfluence on t he c hoice of which candidate i s
selected first. As seen i n section 4 .3.3, ba sed o n t he v alue of t he Lagrange Multiplier,
management m ay be w illing t o allocate m ore m oney to the s timulation job, and this w ill ha ve
great in fluence o n which candidate i s selected first. But th e u ltimate decision will b e b ased on
the companys guidelines and criteria for making reservoir management decisions
83 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
12000
10000
Discounted Production, bbl
8000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Productivity Ratio, F
Chapter Five
5.1 Conclusion
This r esearch seeks a method to quantify stimulation benefits derivable from different candidate
wells, a nd us e the result t o rank economically profitable candidates. To achieve t his, a d esign
module was developed for a cidizing based o n t he works o f Schechter a nd G idley32 , a nd
Economides and Nolte86 . O ther design m odules were a lso developed f or gravel packing a nd
recompletion stimulation techniques.
The o ptimization model derived i n t his r esearch c ombines the o utput from t he stimulation
treatment de sign m odule w ith production de cline c urve analysis and economic c ontinuous
discounting c oncepts. The o bjective f unction is f ormulated in the f orm of a no n-linear
programming pr oblem with some c onstraints. Hence, a constrained optimization p roblem is
presented. The s olution o f the objective function seeks a m aximum di scounted production t hat
satisfies the constraints. The c onstraints considered i nclude those imposed b y the r emaining
recoverable oil i n p lace, t ubing string c apacity, maximum formation productivity a nd t he
stimulation budget approved by management.
To solve the objective function, a non-linear programming solver in Microsoft Excel and LINDO
Systems What is Best 10 were used to g et an optimum s olution. In all similar cases considered,
the s ame o ptimum s olutions were ob tained us ing either of t he t wo s olvers. Wolframs
Mathematica 7.0 was used to verify the solvers results. They were found to be within acceptable
significant figures. Hence the results are correct and meaningful.
Field data ob tained f rom Bestfield offshore N iger D elta were u sed t o validate t he model. F our
candidate wells were selected for acidizing based on a well test data. The four wells are: Well BU
1, Well BU 2, Well BU 3 and Well BU 4. The application of the model to quantify the stimulation
benefits for each of t he four wells r eveals t hat t he Well BU 3 will h ave the g reatest e conomic
returns. Hence, Well BU 3 was ranked first for the stimulation treatment. In all cases, when using
85 |An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
this mo del, stimulation decisions should be based on the cost of the project, payout time and the
stimulation benefit.
5.2 Recommendation
The following recommendations are presented to highlight areas of additional research to
improve the methodology and models developed in this research.
It is recommended that the model be used t o quantify stimulation be nefit derivable from a
stimulation decision o nce a well has been matched t o either of acidizing, gravel packing or
recompletion. F or e ffective use o f the model, i t i s r ecommended t hat t he l ease o perating cost
(LOE) and also, federal and state taxes be considered before ranking the wells for stimulation.
It i s al so r ecommended, for f urther s tudy, that a nother a pproach, other t hat t he pr oduction
decline curve analysis, that can be used to quantify the stimulation benefit be investigated. This
86 |An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
References
5. Amaefule, J. O., Ajufo, A., Peterson, E., & Durst, K., "Understanding Formation
Damage Processes: An E ssential I ngredient for I mproved Measurement a nd
Interpretation o f R elative P ermeability Data," SPE 16232 p aper, SPE Production
Operations Symposium, 1987, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
10. Economides, M.J., and N olte, K.G., Reservoir Simulation, Third Edition. Wiley,
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter One, p. 1-12
11. Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Miller, F.G.: Pseudoskin Factors for Partially
Penetrating D irectionally D rilled Wells, paper SPE 5589, presented a t t he S PE
Annual Technical C onference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (September
28October 1, 1975a).
88 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
12. Harris, M.H.: The Effect o f P erforating o n Well Productivity, paper SPE 1236,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (April 1966) 18, pp. 518528.
14. Economides, M.J., a nd N olte, K.G., Reservoir Simulation, T hird E dition. W iley,
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter One, p. 1-13
15. Yan, J ., J iang, G ., & Wu, X., Evaluating o f F ormation D amage C aused by
Drilling a nd Completion Fluids i n H orizontal W ells, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 36, No. 5, 1997, pp. 36-42.
16. McLeod, Jr., H. O a nd C oulter, Jr., A. W.: The Stimulation T reatment P ressure
Record An Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool Journal of Petroleum
Technology (August, 1969) p. 952
18. Amaefule, J. O., Kersey, D. G., Norman, D. L., & Shannon, P. M., Advances in
Formation Da mage Assessment a nd C ontrol Strategies, CIM P aper No. 88 -39-
65, Proceedings of t he 39th Annual T echnical Meeting o f P etroleum S ociety of
CIM an d C anadian G as P rocessors Association, Ju ne 1 2-16, 1988, C algary,
Alberta, 16 p. 65-2
19. Muskat, M., The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 1937
27. Lee, J ., & Kasap, E ., Fluid S ampling from D amaged Formations, SPE 39817
paper, P roceedings of t he 1998 S PE P ermian B asin O il a nd G as Recovery
Conference, March 25-27, 1998, Midland, Texas, pp. 565-570.
28. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C.A.: Petroleum Production
Systems, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall (1994) p.350
30. Dullien, F. A. L.: Pore Structure Analysis, paper presented at the ACS State-of-
the-Art Summer S ymposium, Div. Ind. Eng. C hem., Washington, D. C. (June,
1969).
31. Scheidegger, A. E: The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, The Macmillian
Co., New York (1960).
32. Schechter, R. S. a nd G idley, J . L.: The Change i n P ore Size D istribution From
Surface Reactions in Porous media, AIChE Journal (May 1969) 15, pp. 339-350
35. Quinn, M . A., Lake, L arry W . a nd S chechter, R obert S.: "Designing E ffective
Sandstone A cidizing Treatments Through Geochemical Modeling," S PE 38173
presented at the 1997 European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, June
2-3, 1997.
90 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
43. Schechter, R. S., Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.
44. Economides, M.J., a nd N olte, K.G., Reservoir Simulation, T hird E dition. W iley,
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter 13, p. 16-13.
46. da M otta, E.P., Plavnik, B ., S chechter, R .S. a nd H ill, A.D.: The Relationship
Between Reservoir M ineralogy a nd O ptimum Sandstone A cid T reatment, pa per
SPE 23802, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 2627, 1992b).
48. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C.A.: Petroleum Production
Systems, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall (1994) p.359
49. Guin, J.A., Schechter, R.S. and Silberberg, I.H.: Chemically Induced Changes in
Porous Media, Ind. & Eng. Chem. Fund. (February 1971) 10, No.1, pp. 5054.
53. McLeod, H .O. J r.: Matrix Acidizing, paper SPE 13752, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (December 1984) 36, pp. 20552069.
54. Shaughnessy, C.M. and Kunze, K.R.: Understanding Sandstone Acidizing Leads
to Improved Field Practices, paper SPE 9388, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(July 1981), pp. 11961202.
55. Hoefner, M.L. and Fogler, H .S.: Pore Evolution a nd Channel Formation During
Flow and Reaction in Porous Media, AIChEJ. (Jan., 1988) 34, No.1, pp. 4554.
56. Hung, K.M., Hill, A.D. and Sepehrnoori, K.: A Mechanistic Model of Wormhole
Growth i n Carbonate M atrix A cidizing a nd Acid Fracturing, paper SPE 16886,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, (January 1989) 41, No. 1, 5966.
58. Pichler, T., Frick, T.P., Economides, M.J. and Nittmann, J.: Stochastic Modeling
of W ormhole Growth i n C arbonate A cidizing with B iased R andomness, pa per
SPE 25004, p resented a t t he S PE European P etroleum C onference, Cannes,
France (November 1618, 1992).
59. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C.A.: Petroleum Production
Systems, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall (1994) p.400
60. Fredd, C.N. and Fogler, H.S.: Influence of Transport and Reaction on Wormhole
Formation in Porous Media, AIChE J. (September 1998b), pp. 19331949.
92 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
62. Lo, K. K., a nd Dean, R . H.: Modeling of Acid Fracturing, SPE Production
Engineering, (May, 1989), pp. 194-200.
63. Settari, A.: Modelling of Acid Fracturing Treatment, paper SPE 21870, 1991.
65. Nierode, D.E. a nd Kruk, K.F.: An Evaluation of A cid F luid Loss A dditives,
Retarded Acids and Acidized Fracture Conductivity, paper SPE 4549, presented
at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (Sept. 30Oct. 3, 1973).
70. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured
Wells, paper S PE 7490, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1981b)
33, 17491766.
72. Rae, P., and Di Lullo, G.: Achieving 100 Percent Success in Acid Stimulation of
Sandstone R eservoirs, paper S PE 77808, presented a t the SPE A sia Pacific O il
Conference and Exhibition held in Melbourne, Australia (Oct. 8-10, 2002).
74. Nitters, G., Roodhart, L., Jongma, H., Yeager, V., Buijse, M., Fulton, D., Dahl, J.,
and J antz, E. : Structured Approach t o Advanced C andidate Selection a nd
Treatment Design of Stimulation Treatments, paper SPE 63179, presented at the
2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference a nd Exhibition held in D allas, T exas
(Oct. 1-4).
75. Jones, L . G.: c ourse no tes, Formation Damage School, Mobil, Duncan, OK
(March 1989).
76. Nnanna, E; Ajienka, J : Critical Success Factors for W ell Stimulation, p aper
SPE 98823 p resented a t t he 2005 N igerian Annual C onference & E xhibition,
Abuja (August 1-3).
77. Al Qahtani, A., and Al Shehri, D.: The Ec-Factor: A Correlation for Optimizing
Completion Efficiency, paper SPE 81490 presented at the 2003 SPE Middle East
Oil Show, Bahrain (April 5-8).
79. Lee, W. J.: Well Testing, Society of Petroleum Engineers Textbook (1982).
82. Jennings, A. R .: Good Wells M ake th e B est C andidates for W ell Stimulation,
SPE Production Engineering (Nov., 1991), pp 371-376.
86. Economides, M.J., a nd N olte, K.G., Reservoir Simulation, T hird E dition. W iley,
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter Eighteen, p. 24-25.
87. Strubhar, M. K., Blackburn, J. S., and Lee, J. W.: Production Operations Course
II: Well Diagnosis, Lecture Notes for a Video-Tape Course, SPE, Dallas (1972),
pp. 525-544.
88. Vogt, T. C., Anderson, M. L.: Optimizing the Profitability o f Matrix Acidizing
Treatments, pa per SPE 4 550 (preprint) presented at th e S PE AIME 4 8th Annual
Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30- Oct. 3, 1973. (Revised manuscript, May
13, 1974).
Nomenclature
cost of perforation, $
index of anisotropy
horizontal permeability, md
vertical permeability, md
reservoir permeability, md
reservoir permeability, md
number of perforations
wellbore radius, ft
porosity, fraction
porosity, fraction
Appendix A
Mechanical
No Yes
problems? recompletion
(e.g plugged perf.)
Re-evaluate matrix
acidizing
well problem
Appendix B
Appendix C
Solver Results
CASE STUDY 1
(a)
114 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
(b)
115 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Appendix D
CASE STUDY 1
116 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
117 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
118 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
CASE STUDY 2
119 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
120 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Appendix E
CASE STUDY 1
Mathematica 7.0 inpretation of input data and results for Well BU 3 Model
123 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
CASE STUDY 2
124 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Appendix F
Where:
= hyperbolic constant
The general form for the discounted production from stimulation, , is expressed as:
= 1 (F.2)
[1+ ( )]
= 1 + ( ) (F.3)
1
= ( 1 + ) (F.4)
1
= (F.5)
= 0 1 (F.8)
[1+ ( )]
Note that the general form of the solution for and using integral transformations is of
the form:
1
= + (F.10)
1 1 1
Note that equation (F.13) is the most common form of hyperbolic decline curve.
Let:
1
= , (F.14)
and = (F.15)
= (F.16)
Where:
= (F.17)
1+ ( )
Where:
= the production rate before stimulation
= the productivity ratio
= the nominal decline rate before stimulation
Changing variables, we get:
= 1 + (F.18)
1
Such that: = ( 1 + ) (F.19)
and
= (F.20)
Substituting (F.19) and (F.20) into the original equation, (F. 17):
( )
= (F.21)
Integrating:
( )
= (1 + ) (F.22)
Simplifying:
( )
= + (F.23)
and:
( )
= + (F.24)
1
= (F.25)
127 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Where:
1
( ) 1
= (F.26)
= 1 + (F.18)
1
Such that: = ( 1 + ) (F.19)
and
1
= (F.20)
We get:
1
=
0 (F.28)
and
= (1 + ) (F.29)
0
Therefore:
= (F.30)
0
= (F.31)
Where:
( )
1 = (F.34)
2 = (F.35)
3 = (F.36)
4 = (F.37)
5 = (F.38)
6 = (F.39)
F.2.2 Constraints
The same constraints formulated in the exponential case also applied here.
The incremental revenue from any stimulation decision should be greater than or at least equal to
the cost of the project.
(1 + ) + 0 1+
(F.40)
Performing the integration and using the definition of given in equation (F.25) and using the
constants above, we get:
1 (2 3 ) 1 (4 ) 6 5 (F.41)
The recovery from the stimulation cannot exceed the remaining oil in place.
(1 +
(F.42)
)
= [ ] (F.43)
129 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
ln (F.44)
and:
7 (8 9 ) 10 (F.45)
where:
7 = (F.46)
8 = (F.47)
1
9 = (F.48)
10 = (F.49)
The pr oduction r ate a fter s timulation should n ot e xceed the maximum d esign capacity o f t he
flow string, i.e.,
(F.50)
(F.51)
The maximum attainable pr oductivity ratio from stimulation de pends on t he reservoir pr operties
and treatment parameters.
(F.52)
The cost and productivity ratio relationship can be formulated into the following equation.
= 100 1 (F.53)
Where 0 and 1 are the intercept and slope of a regression line through the data.
Equations (F.33) and (F.53) define the NLP model for the harmonic case.
Maximize:
= 1 (2 3 ) 1 (4 ) 6 5 (F.33)
Subject to:
1 (2 3 ) 1 (4 ) 6 5 (F.41)
7 (8 9) 10 (F.45)
(F.50)
(F.51)
(F.52)
= 100 1 (F.53)
131 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
To develop a closed form solution to the model, we shall consider only the case when = 2.
The solution form to the general case is given in equation (F.13).
= (F.16)
Where:
= 1 + (F.55)
2 2
Such that:
2
= ( 1 + ) (F.56)
2
and
2
= (F.57)
Substituting equations (F.55), (F.56) and (F.57) into (F. 54), then simplifying:
2
2
2
= 2 (F.58)
132 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
2 0.5 2
= (F.59)
0.5
2
3
= 0.5 + 1 3 2 3 (F.60)
2 +
where:
2 2 0.5
1 = (F.61)
2
2 2
2 = + (F.62)
2
2
3 = (F.63)
= 0 (F.64)
1+ 2
2
2 1+
2 2
2 2
= + 1 + (F.65)
1+ 2 2
Simplifying further:
2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2
=
+ +
+ (F.66)
1+ 2
We can define:
2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2
4 =
+ +
+ (F.67)
1+ 2
= (F.32)
We can define:
5 = (F.69)
Therefore:
= 5 (F.70)
0.5
3 8 6
= + 1 3 2 3 4 5 (F.71)
9 + 7 0.5
Where:
2 0.5
6 = (F.72)
0.5
7 = (F.73)
8 = (F.74)
9 = (F.75)
2
F.3.2 Constraints
The incremental revenue from any stimulation decision should be greater than or at least equal to
the cost of the project.
134 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
2 + 0 (F.76)
1+ 2 ( ) 1+ 2
Evaluating:
0.5
2
3
0.5
+ 1 3 2 3 4 + 5 (F.77)
+
2
The recovery from the stimulation cannot exceed the remaining oil in place.
2 (F.78)
1+ 2 ( )
2 1
= (F.79)
1+ 2 2
7 0.5 1 1
10 (F.80)
7 0.5 9
Where:
2
10 = (F.81)
The pr oduction r ate a fter stimulation should n ot e xceed t he maximum d esign capacity o f t he
flow string, i.e.,
(F.82)
(F.51)
The ma ximum attainable pr oductivity ratio from stimulation de pends on t he reservoir pr operties
and treatment parameters.
(F.52)
The cost and productivity ratio relationship can be formulated into the following equation.
= 100 1 (F.53)
Where 0 and 1 are the intercept and slope of a regression line through the data.
The equation (F.71), together with all the constraints considered, can be summarized as:
Maximize:
0.5
3 8 6
= + 1 3 2 3 4 5 (F.71)
9 + 7 0.5
Subject to:
136 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
0.5
2
3
0.5
+ 1 3 2 3 4 + 5 (F.77)
+
2
7 0.5 1 1
10 (F.80)
7 0.5 9
(F.82)
(F.51)
(F.52)
= 100 1 (F.53)
F.4 Summary