Distinguished Author Series

Matrix Acidizing
by Harry O. McLeod Jr.

Harry O. McLeod Jr. is a senior staff engineer with Conoco Inc. in Houston. He has
specialized in well completion and well stimulation for the past 9 years. Before
joining Conoco he was director of information services and adjunct associate
professor of petroleum engineering at the u.
of Tulsa. McLeod also worked in well
stimulation research for Dowell and Jersey Production Research Co. , and designed
and supervised well perforating, acidizing, and hydraulic fracturing as a production
engineer for Phillips Petroleum Co. McLeod received a petroleum engineering degree
from the Colorado School of Mines and MS and PhD degrees from the u. of
Oklahoma.

Introduction
Many excellent and useful papers have been written
on the subject of matrix acidizing. Included in this
article is an extensive bibliography that should be
useful to the engineer in the design and execution of
a matrix acidizing treatment in limestone or sandstone
formations. The first matrix acidizing jobs were very
successful in stimulating oil production in
carbonates. 1-16 However, most of the recent attention
to matrix acidizing concerns sandstones and the use
of various hydrofluoric acid systems. 17-52 Matrix
acidizing in carbonate formations still is beneficial in
high-permeability, damaged formations (50 md or
more) . Damage can occur during drilling, completion,
or production of a well. In carbonates with
permeabilities less than 10 md, acid fracturing
generally is used because much greater stimulation is
obtained with long, acid-etched fractures in low-
permeability reservoirs.
Although the acid systems used in sandstones and
carbonates differ, the same practices apply to both.
Well Performance (Need for Acidizing)
Successful acidizing depends on the presence of
damage and its location and intensity. The closer the
damage is to the perforations, the more easily acid
can get to it. Compacted or crushed zone damage
from perforating overbalanced can be removed easily
by acid, since only about V2 in. [1.3 cm] of dama§e
must be removed directly around the perforation. 5 - 55
Precipitates from previous acid treatments more than
1 ft [0.3 m] from the wellbore in sandstone or 5 ft
[1.52 m] in carbonate will be either impossible to
reach with matrix acidizing or too expensive to
treat. 56 Deep solid plugging will be corrected more
effectively by creating a conductive fracture through
the damage either by sand fracturing or acid
fracturing. Nonplugging damage (e.g., oil wetting)
may be several feet deep around the wellbore, but
0149-2136/84/0121-3752$00.25
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
DECEMBER 1984
reverse wetting surfactants can penetrate and reverse
the formation to a water-wet condition at reasonable
cost. Oil wetting damage usually is less severe than
solid plugging damage , so corrective chemicals can
reach the affected area easily _54
High-permeability formations (those with 100 md
or more) seem to be dominated by either formation
damage or tubing size flow restrictions_ This is
particularly true of gravel-packed offshore wells.
When well flow is markedly less than similar wells in
the same reservoir, most of the drawdown probably is
occurring at the wellbore through a small zone of
reduced permeability_
Most recent gravel-pack-damage research has
focused on gravel-packed tunnels and quality of the
gravel in the tunnel. 57-63 Current techniques have
improved so much in recent years that gravel-packed
tunnels usually offer little flow resistance when
perforating density is adequate. Nevertheless, reduced
flow through gravel-packed wells still occurs_
Current research focuses on (1) incompletely
packed tunnels and (2) formation-sand damage near
the entrance to the tunnels . Torrest 62 and Stein 63
described gravel shifting in tunnels when the gravel
pack is not packed tightly during placement. Damage
to formation sand before gravel placement will cause
premature pressure outs resulting from viscous fluids
entering damaged or reduced permeability near the
perforations_ Because of high pressures, pumping may
be halted before the gravel has concentrated
adequately in the perforation tunnels. If the pumping
stops too soon, the tunnels will be filled only partially
with quality gravel. When the well is produced,
formation sand will enter the tunnels, bridging on the
gravel inside the tunnel and packing the partially void
tunnel with formation sand, which is much lower in
permeability than the gravel. As the formation sand
fills the tunnels, the pressure drop through the
completion increases and the flow rate declines.
This type of damage can be removed partially by
2055
 FORMATION SAND
(DAMAGED)
i
£
I There are three main components to successful
I
SC
GRAVEL
Fig. 1-Gravel-packed tunnel with collapsed perforation.
acidizing, but the completion will never reach its
expected potential. A damaged completion may
produce only 50 to 100 BID [7.9 to 15.8 m 3 /d] oil
before acidizing and 100 to 300 BID [15.8 to 47.4
m 3 Id] oil after acidizing; whereas the potential of the
undamaged formation may be 1,000 to 2,000 BID
[158 to 316 m 3 /d] oil or more. The true potential of
the well can be reached only by replacement of the
gravel pack.
Less severe damage will occur if the gravel is
placed correctly in the perforation tunnel. If little or
no gravel is placed outside the tunnel, formation sand
will abut the tunnel entrance at the cement formation
interface (Fig. 1). If this formation sand is clean and
permeable, the pressure drop -caused by spherical
flow through the formation sand to the tunnel will be
small; however, if any damage exists from polymer
residue, pipe dope, or formation fines, the pressure
drop can be substantial and flow greatly reduced.
Damage can be removed with acid to achieve high
gravel pack flow potential. 61
Successful acidizing in these cases depends on the
severity of the damage and the choice of the solvent
used during the treatment. Success also depends on
(1) favorable response of the formation to acid and
(2) successful acid treatment execution. If damage is
moderate (less than 90% loss in permeability), acid
usually can dissblve the damage. If damage is severe
(more than 99% loss in permeability), acid may not
enter the perforation fast enough to dissolve the
damage. Much research and laboratory testing of acid
stimulation have been performed on permeable Berea
sandstone cores; however, little research has been
performed on severely damaged cores. More testing
also is needed in actual wellbores, where clean and
plugged perforations or perforation tunnels may exist
side by side.
Even in a damaged well, there may be significant
reservoir pressure drops during flow. Relative
pressure drops in the reservoir and in the completion
should be evaluated by accurate pressure transient
testing. 50-52 These well tests provide formation
permeability data and a skin factor that characterizes
the degree of damage. Skin factors as large as + 30
may occur and well productivities can be only 20%
of maximum, undamaged potential.
Before performing an acid treatment it is important
to analyze the source of the skin. Is the damage being
2056
caused by solids plugging, wettability alteration, or
some other condition that acid may not be able to
remove? These conditions could include insufficient
perforation density or two-phase flow (relative
permeability or capillary pressure) restrictions.
acidizing: (1) well preparation, (2) selection of
solvent to remove damage, and (3) formation
response to acid.
Damage Removal by Chemical Solvents
Selection of a chemical for any particular application
will depend on which contaminants are plugging
formation permeability. HCl will not dissolve pipe
dope, paraffin, or asphaltenes. Treatment of these
solids or plugging agents requires an effective organic
solvent (usually an aromatic solvent like toluene;
xylene, or orthonitrotoluene). Acetic acid effectively
dissolves calcium carbonate scale; however, it will
not dissolve ferric oxide (iron oxide) scale. HCl
dissolves calcium carbonate scale quite easily but has
little effect on calcium sulfate scales. Calcium sulfate
can be converted to calcium carbonate or calcium
hydroxide by treatment with potassium hydroxide or
sodium carbonate. HCI then can be used to dissolve
the converted scale. Calcium sulfate also can be
dissolved in one step with the sodium salt of ethylene
diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA). HCl will not
dissolve formation clay minerals or drilling mud.
Hydrofluoric acid (HF) must be used to dissolve these
aluminosilicates in rock pores around the wellbore.
Because different plugging solids require different
solvents for their removal, there is no universal
solvent for wellbore damage. Treatment based on
such a premise often will yield disappointing results.
It is important to know the specific material that is
damaging the formation around the wellbore. Never
pump solvent or acid into a well until the cause of
the damage and the best chemical to remove the
damage have been defined.
Formation Damage
To identify the damage or plugging solids that must
be removed by a solvent, you must be familiar with
the main types of damage that occur in oil, gas, and
water wells. 64 - 69 Oil well damage usually occurs
during drilling, cementing, perforating, gravel
packing, production, acidizing, well workovers,
chemical treatments, and injection operations. (The
following paragraphs recommend HF only for
sandstone formations; HCl is recommended for
carbonates. )
Drilling. Whole mud may invade extremely
permeable formations with vugs or natural fractures
such as those in many prolific carbonate reservoirs.
These carbonates respond to large-volume, high-rate
acid treatments. Even high-permeability sandstones
(about 1,000 md) may be damaged by poorly
conditioned mud. Glenn and Slusser 70 showed that
high-permeability formations could be invaded to
significant depths by bentonite mud. However, if the
mud contains properly sized bridging particles like
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
barite, whole mud does not invade a sandstone. 71
Mud filtrates damage some sandstones because of
swelling or migrating clays.72-75 High-calcium muds
may cause near-wellbore calcium carbonate
precipitation if formation waters are high in
bicarbonate ion content. Damage by whole mud or
formation clays may be removed by appropriate HF
treatments for sandstones and HCl treatments for
carbonates.
Cementing. Damage by cement filtrate (which
usually contains calcium hydroxide or forms of
calcium silicate) is reduced by good fluid-loss control
in the cement slurry. Calcium hydroxide may be
removed with either acetic acid or HCI. Calcium
silicates must be removed with HF.
Perforating. Damage may be severe when
perforating overbalanced in the wellbore (hydrostatic
pressure in the well bore is higher than reservoir
pressure). Permeability around the perforated hole
may be reduced to from 2 to 20% of original
permeability, dependin~ on the nature of the
perforating fluid. 53-56, 5-78 Overbalanced perforating
will reduce permeability by compacting and plugging
pores with crushed formation fines, perforating
debris, and contaminants in the perforating fluid.
Perforation damage usually is removed with HF in
sandstone formations or with HCl in carbonate
formations.
Gravel Packing. Heavy damage in gravel packing
can be caused when high-density gel1ravel slurry is
pumped down into the perforations. 2 Pumping this
gel/gravel slurry down dirty pipe will squeeze pipe
dope, mill scale, and other contaminants into the
perforations. Squeezing poorly hydrated polymers into
the perforations also can damage both the formation
and the gravel. Damage by formation clays occurs
when perforations are washed before gravel
packing. 61 Such damage can occur easily in
formations with interbedded layers of sand and clay.
Perforation washing will mix these layers and plug
the permeable sand layers. If clay damage does
occur, HF can be used to remove it.
Where severe pipe dope damage exists, acid may
not penetrate the plugged perforation. The best
practice is to avoid squeezing pipe dope into the
perforations in the first place. Tubing may be cleaned
by pumping acid down the tubing and then reversing
to the surface. All dirty, spent acid should be
produced back to a pit or tank before the gravel
slurries are pumped into the perforations. Using
solvent/surfactant soak treatments may loosen the pipe
dope before acidizing the perforations, but if pipe
dope damage is allowed to occur, it is difficult to
correct completely.
Production. Damage to a producing well can be
caused by formation movement,79 scale formation
(precipitated solids),80-82 and casing leaks. 26 Whole
formation production (collapsed perforations) can
occur in weak or friable sands. This may be
corrected by gravel packing or some other method of
effective sand control. Fines migration also can
DECEMBER 1984
occur. 83-89 Fines can move through the reservoir and
bridge at or near the perforations to cause in-situ
filter cakes (plugging) inside the large pores in the
sand.
When casing leaks occur, either incompatible
formation waters or drilling mud residues may
contaminate the perforated interval. Casing leak
damage usually is treated with HF for sandstones or
HCl for carbonates.
Acidizing Damage. If acid is bullheaded down tubing
into a formation, pipe dope and/or iron scale (mill
scale) may be squeezed into the formation with the
acid. 26 The first acid that enters the formation
already may have spent itself on iron oxide scales. 90
Formations with either high concentrations of iron
minerals or low permeability and abundant clay also
can be damaged by acid injection. 90-93
Formations can be damaged easily by improper use
of HF. Spent HF will precipitate silica, calcium
fluoride, and other compounds, especially when not
enough HCl preflush is used to remove calcium
carbonate in the formation prior to pumping the
HF.56
Well Workovers. Workover fluids often contain
suspended solids that can plug formation pores. Some
produced brines contain corrosion inhibitors or
emulsion breakers from previous surface treatments
that tend to oil wet the formation. Pumping cool
fluids sometimes can cause paraffins or asphaltenes to
precipitate in certain oil-bearing formations. Residual
cement from casing repair jobs (or squeeze cementing
operations) may damage perforations. Wireline work
may loosen iron scale or paraffin from the tubing.
With all these possible forms of damage, it is
important to maintain detailed records of what is
pumped into and produced out of a well during
workover.
Workover fluid solids will settle into the rathole
during the workover. Borehole samples may be
collected with a wireline bailer and analyzed in the
laboratory to show what substances may have
damaged the formation.
Once the most likely cause of the damage has been
determined, choose the correct acidizing technique to
remove the damage. For example, organic solvents
may dissolve paraffin and asphaltenes. HCl dissolves
sulfide or iron oxide scales. HF dissolves cement
residue. Proper surfactants and/or solvents restore
water wetness to the formation.
Chemical Treatments. Scale inhibitors can oil wet
carbonates and corrosion inhibitor treatments can oil
wet sandstones. Damage cannot be prevented when
these treatments are necessary to keep the well in
operation; however, some inhibitors cause more
damage than others. 94 Variable degrees of damage
have been observed in corrosion inhibitor treatments
of gas wells. Atomized nitrogen treatments seem to
be less damaging than oil squeezes when injecting
corrosion inhibitors in gas wells. Sometimes severe
damage may be corrected by using tested
solvent/surfactant wash treatments.
2057
 930
Fig. 2-Good-quality channel sand, East Cameron field, off-
shore Louisiana.
Injection Wells. Injection wells may be damaged by
oil carryover, corrosion products, incompatible water
scales, and bacteria. 95 - 97 Damage from oil carryover
and associated contaminants may be treated by
solvent/acid dispersion. Corrosion products and
calcium carbonate scale are removed easily with HCl.
Calcium sulfate scale must be converted to an acid
soluble form or dissolved in one step with a soak of
EDT A. Bacteria must be destroyed by an oxidizing
agent (bleach) and/or special bacteria-destructive
agents before acidizing for complete removal.
Open communication and close working relations
between engineers and operating personnel aid well
problem diagnosis. Excellent completion and
workover files are essential to analyzing wells that
have been damaged.
Formation Analysis , wellbore condition help predict injection rates before
It is sometimes easy to dissolve plugging solids. The
key to success, however, is to dissolve the plugging
solids without damaging the formation. You must
know how the formation minerals will respond to the
acid used in the treatment and anticipate how the
spent acid will react as it invades deeply into the
formation. Solids dissolved near the wellbore may
precipitate deeper into the formation as they contact
other minerals that react with either live or spent
acid.
To maximize matrix acidizing, reservoir quality and
formation mineralogy must be analyzed first. 98-111
2058
10600
Fig. 3-Lithology variation in offshore Louisiana well (Ship
Shoal field).
One goal of formation analysis is to control or
prevent precipitation of reaction products in the
formation. Several contributions have been made in
this area by D.K. Davies. 98-100
Acid treatments for shaly, low-permeability
formations require more care than treatments for
cleaner, high-permeability zones. More positive
methods for zone coverage (e.g., opposed cup
packers, ball sealers, diverting agents) are required to
assure uniform acid placement in nonuniform, layered
deposits. Formations with a large amount of fines or
clay minerals must be analyzed to determine the best
acid, acid concentration, and appropriate additives for
successful stimulation. Estimates of permeability and
and after acid stimulation at injection pressures less
than formation parting pressure. Formation quality is
defined by depositional, detrital, and diagenetic
quality.
Depositional Quality. Well-sorted, uniform sand
from an offshore bar environment is the easiest to
acidize. River channel sand is usually of somewhat
lower quality but still can be acidized effectively.
Alluvial or submarine fans are of somewhat lower
quality because of rapid, intermittent deposition with
little or no reworking by ocean currents. Some of the
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 a c
"~
tTl
~
txI
~
'D
~

b d

Fig. 4-Scanning electron microscope photographs of signifi-

cant clay minerals (courtesy The Western Co.): (a)
N
~
kaolinite, (b) illite, (c) chlorite, and (d) smectite (mont-
'D morillonite).
 compaction and reduced permeability as reservoir
pressure declines. Because of their relatively large
CLEAR
size, shale fragments can be degraded by acid without
INHIBITED
UNREACTED HCI being completely dissolved; these partially dissolved
ACID ACID fragments can migrate and further reduce
(CLEAN PIPE)
permeability.
Clean, uniform quartz sands are easy to acidize
because secondary reactions are insignificant. Only
the damaging, plugging solids are considered when
REDUCED FERROUS
IRON CHLORIDE
selecting the acid. As sand quality decreases, acid can
(Fe+ 2 ) react quickly with formation fines or reactive grains
such as weathered feldspar; therefore, the selection of
an acid system becomes more critical.
Such considerations usually are not important for
COMPLETELY
carbonate formations. In carbonates, the overriding
FERRIC
DISSOLVED
CHLORIDE
quality characteristic is the formation permeability
OXIDIZED IRON
(Fe+ 3 )
and uniformity of porosity. 112-115 The more uniform
the formation, the easier it is to acidize. Very
heterogeneous formations require excellent zone
coverage (diverting) techniques to increase the level
IRON
PARTIALLY
HYDROXIDE
of success.
DISSOLVED
IRON OXIDE (RUST)
Diagenetic Quality. Abundance of acid-sensitive
.. ....:: " .1 " ' - _ - SLUDGE
minerals in the formation can cause severe problems .
One typical example in a carbonate formation is the
EMULSION W/PIPE DOPE
solution and precipitation of anhydrite, which can be
PIPE DOPE BALLS
dissolved near the wellbore, then precipitated in a
hydrated, bulky form deeper in the formation as the
(RON OXIDE COATING acid completely spends on highly soluble dolomite
(M(LL SCALE)
EXCESS PIPE DOPE
and calcite minerals. Anhydrite reprecipitation has
AT JOINT caused problems in the matrix acidization of
dolomites with 5- to 20-md permeability for injection
Fig. 5-Tubing cleaning with acid. wells in enhanced recovery projects. Some carbonates
are high in siderite or ankerite (iron carbonates).
Pyrites (iron sulfide) may be present. These minerals
are dissolved easily by HCl but precipitate as the acid
more difficult deposits to acidize are prodelta silt reaches equilibrium with calcite or dolomite. Iron
formations, which often are highly laminated sand sulfides precipitate at a pH of 2 to 3 and siderite at a
and clay layers. These layers may be about Ys to 2 in. pH of 3 to 4, whereas HCl will spend to equilibrium
[0.32 to 5 cm] thick. with calcite at a pH of 4 to 5.
Detrital Quality. Detrital quality can be quantified by Diagenetic mineral reactions usually are more
particle-size distribution and mineralogy (the quality serious in sandstones. Precipitates formed during an
of the deposited particles). As quartz content acid treatment can filter out and bridge on the
increases and grain size becomes more uniform, undissolved grain framework of the sandstone.
quality increases. Large volumes of unstable minerals Precipitates are less likely to be trapped near the
and formation fines reduce quality. There is great acid-stimulated wellbore in carbonates because of the
variation in this detrital quality along the Gulf of large, acid-etched channels.
Mexico coast. Figs. 2 and 3 show logs of two sands Two types of diagenetic minerals should be
with significantly different quality under microscopic considered in sandstone acidizing: clay minerals and
examination. The East Cameron sand in Fig. 3 is a HCI-soluble minerals. The four main types of clay
well-sorted, uniform sand with little fine material. minerals are kaolinite, illite, chlorite, and smectite
The Ship Shoal sand in Fig. 4 is more lenticular with (Fig. 4).
a somewhat lower permeability and more abundant Kaolinite is a hexagonal crystal plate found in
fines in the 10 to 40 micron [10 to 40 Ilm] range. stacks of crystals, often with the appearance of
The East Cameron sand was gravel packed effectively toothpaste squeezed out of a tube (Fig. 4a). These
and acidized for good productivity. The Ship Shoal clay particles are dispersed easily and can migrate
sand was difficult to gravel pack and acidizing could through rock pores bridging in smaller pore throats.
not help low productivity. They usually are controlled with clay stabilizers in
If a formation contains shale fragments mixed with the final overflush after an HF treatment.
stronger grains of the same size, it is classified as Illite is a fibrous clay (Fig. 4b) that can be broken
poor quality. Such formations occur on the west coast off or moved by high flow velocities or surges close
of the U.S. in some alluvial deposits. The shale to the wellbore. Pore throat bridging causes severe
grains deform under stress, leading to excessive damage. Low acid injection rates and controlled
2060 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
production rates after treatment will reduce damage.
Abrams et at. 37 described acid work on this
particular clay mineral.
Chlorite is a troublesome clay in sandstone (Fig.
4c). It usually is iron rich and partially soluble in
HCI. The iron is extracted from the chlorite leaving a
silica residue behind acid. 103 Chlorite must be
acidized cautiously or not at all. It is preferable to
select a completion procedure that will make acidizing
unnecessary. Deep, abnormally pressured ~as
reservoirs often have significant chlorite. 1 6
Smectite is not a problem in acidizing if it is
sparsely distributed (less than 3 wt %) in a high-
permeability formation. Smectite content of 5 to 10
wt% is a problem (Fig. 4d). Any aqueous fluid,
including acid, may cause great damage to the
formation. If smectite is present in large quantities,
gelled oil and proppant should be used in a hydraulic
fracturing treatment to stimulate the well.
Other significant diagenetic minerals usually are
soluble in HCI. Calcite and dolomite are dissolved
easily in HCI and cause no secondary precipitation
problems. In fact, if a sandstone contains 20% or
more of HCI soluble minerals, HCI alone can remove
damage. * Problems with dolomite and calcite occur
only when they are associated with other acid-soluble
minerals such as the iron compounds: siderite (iron
carbonate), ankerite (iron-rich dolomite), hematite or
limonite (iron oxides), and pyrite (iron sulfide). HCI
dissolves the iron compounds, which then can
reprecipitate as the acid completely spends on the
calcite and dolomite. Iron compound precipitation
may be prevented or controlled by iron-sequestering
(complexing) agents in the acid.
Acids and Additives
The kinds of acids to use have been discussed in the
section on formation damage; the concentrations of
acid to use are listed in Table 1. 26 Acid
concentrations are determined more by formation
mineralogy than by the plugging solid damaging the
formation. Various concentrations of acids will
dissolve damage, particularly small amounts of
damage critically placed around the perforations;
however, lower acid concentrations reduce precipitate
problems in acid-sensitive formations.
All additives should be tested in the laboratory.
Compatibility of both live and spent acid with the
formation fluids should be tested. There are no
universal additives for all formation acidizing
problems. Field results and laboratory testing need to
go hand in hand. A more thorough discussion is
provided by other authors. 116-125
Any potential incompatibilities between acid and
formation solids or fluids must be identified before
acidizing. 26,126-128 Fluid buffers may be used to
isolate formation fluids. Acid concentrations and/or
additives are tailored to formation mineralogy.
Surfactants should leave the formation in a water-wet
state for maximum oil or gas producing rates.
'Smith, C.F.: personal communication, Dowell, Houston (Dec. 3, 1979).
DECEMBER 1984
TABLE 1-ACID USE GUIDELINES
Carbonate Acidizing
Perforating fluid
5% acetic
Damaged perforations
9% formic
10% acetic
15% HCI
Deep well bore damage
15% HCI
28% HCI
Emulsified HCI
Sandstone Acidizing
HCI solubility (~20%)
Use HCI only
High permeability (100 md or more)
High quartz (80%), low clay «5%): 12% HCI and 3% HF*
High feldspar (>20%): 13.5% HCI and 1.5% HF*
High clay (>10%): 6.5% HCI and 1% HF**
High iron chlorite clay: 3% HCI and 0.5% HF* *
Low permeability (10 md or less)
Low clay « 5%): 6% HCI and 1.5% HFt
High chlorite: 3% HCI and 0.5% HFt
• Preflush with 15% HC/.
.. Preflush with sequestered 5% HC/.
tPreflush with 7.5% HCI or 10% acetic.
tPreflush with 5% acetic.
Acid Design Methods
An acid design technique based on the work of
Williams 22 for HF injection is available in the SPE
Monograph Acidizing Fundamentals. 1 Although the
technique is based on studies of one sandstone, it
does show the important effects of temperature and
injection rate on live HF penetration. This SPE
Monograph dramatically illustrates the small depth of
invasion of HF in sandstone, particularly when
formation temperatures are 200°F [93.3°C] or higher.
Live HF usually will penetrate about 6 in. [15.2 em]
into the sandstone before spending.
Another practical acid design technique is based on
HF contact time of 2 to 4 hours.26 Acid practices
and results during the past 20 years indicate that HF
acid contact time is a correlating factor. In the 1960's
acid volumes of 200 to 300 gal/ft [757 to 1135
dm 3/m] at injection rates up to 2 bbl/min [0.32
m3/min] were commonly used. Over the years, both
the rate and volume have declined to about 0.5
bbl/min [0.079 m 3/min] and 75 gal/ft [283 dm 3/m]
respectively. The one factor remaining fairly constant
has been HF contact time with the wellbore. This
makes sense in that most of the damage is placed
critically at or in the perforations and time is needed
for acid to penetrate the more damaged perforations.
Well Preparation
Injection fluids must leave surface containers, travel
through conduits, enter a wellbore, and pass through
the perforations into the formation so that the solvent
can react with the damaging solids. Each of these
components through which the fluid travels must be
properly cleaned before pumping acid into the
formation. Surface containers must be cleaned before
being filled with acid. The best containers are rubber
lined and clean of any former components before the
2061
 acid and additives are added to the tank. Surface lines
through which the acid is pumped should be cleaned
with acid before the treatment. A small amount of
acid can be flushed through the lines and into the
waste pit before final hookup for the well treatment.
This may be accomplished in the step for cleaning
well tubing.
Fig. 5 shows the characteristics of acid being
pumped down tubing in a well. Pumping acid through
tubing removes solids deposited on the pipe surface.
Acid-insoluble solids like pipe dope, paraffin, asphalt,
and gypsum or barite scales may plug the perforations
or fill the wellbore. Acid-soluble solids like calcium
carbonate may just spend the acid, whereas iron
oxide or iron sulfide may precipitate in the formation
as the dissolving acid spends on other acid-soluble
minerals. Either acid cleaning the tubing and
reversing to a surface pit or bypassing the production
tubing with an acid-cleaned concentric tubing string
will prevent perforation plugging from tubing
deposits. 76
For high-pressure reservoirs, acid may be pumped
down the tubing close to the bottom and then flowed
back to the surface waste pit. A small amount of acid
pumped into the tubing removes all the rust scale and
excess pipe dope. If the reservoir pressure will not
. hold the acid hydrostatic column, foamed acid may be
used to clean the tubing. If the production tubing
cannot be cleaned properly, it should be bypassed by
using a concentric tubing string to pump the acid.
An extra advantage of using a concentric tubing
string is to circulate brine to clean out the rathole
below the perforated interval before acid injection.
When there are deep ratholes with accumulated
sludges, wellbores should be circulated to surface
pits. Injection wells may have accumulated corrosion
deposits and/or bacterial slimes. Old producing wells
may have loose scale deposits, hydrocarbon solids, or
produced formation fines.
Acid Placement and Coverage
A leading cause of unsuccessful acid treatments is
failure to contact all the damage with the acid. 26
Fluids pumped into a formation take the path of least
resistance. In a typical treatment, most acid enters the
formation through the least damaged or undamaged
perforation tunnels. When this happens, it is easy to
conclude that acidizing is very expensive and does not
work well. But acidizing works well to remove
damage if the type of damage is known and if the
treatment is designed properly. A well-engineered
acid treatment will not be effective unless it is
properly placed.
Numerous methods help control acid placement.
Selection is based on wellbore hardware, formation
characteristics, and field experience. 129-137
Opposed Cup Packer or Perforation Wash Tool.
The opposed cup packer or perforation wash tool
allows selective injection of acid. 61 Setting of cup
spacing is predetermined and can vary from 4 in.
[10.1 cm] to several feet. Generally 6 to 12 in. [15.2
to 30.4 cm] is the recommended cup spacing for
acidizing high-permeability formations. Fluid is
2062
pumped down the workstring and out a port between
the two cups. Pressure causes the cups to expand and
seal against the casing and the fluid to be injected
through the perforations.
High rates and/or pressures should be avoided
when using the cup packer method because they can
cause the cups to leak or turn over, or the tool to
separate at the port (the weakest part). An optimal
placement rate would be 14 to V2 bbl/min [0.4 to
0.079 m 3/min].
The wash tool should be tested above the top
perforations, then run below the bottom perforations
and tested again. Do not test a few "stands in the
hole." This causes the cups to expand and drag in
the hole, thus wearing out. The cups should be
retested every 25 ft [7.6 m] and after the job is
finished to ensure that no leaks developed during the
treatment. A four- or five-cup tool with two sets of
up and down facing cups will reduce the tendency to
leak.
Squeeze Packer and Retrievable Bridge Plug.
Another method of isolating perforated intervals is to
use a retrievable bridge plug and a squeeze packer.
The bridge plug is set in blank sections of casing
between perforated sections. The treatment usually
begins with the lower set of perforations and finishes
with the upper set. Inflatable straddle packers may be
used in a similar way.
Ball Sealers. Ball sealers can be divided into two
categories: those heavier (sinkers) and those lighter
(floaters) than the fluid. Sinkers have been used the
longest and usually require 200% excess and a high
pump rate. The high pump rate usually prohibits their
use in sandstone matrix acidizing, but they may be
used in limestone for matrix or fracture acidizing.
Floaters, or neutral-density ball sealers, were
developed by Erbstoesser. 34 The density or specific
gravity of these ball sealers is matched to the fluid
being pumped so better ball action will take place,
especially compared with sinkers. However, surface
flowback equipment must be modified to catch the
floating ball sealers during flowback. More
modifications and alternative uses were recently pro-
posed by Gabriel and Erbstoesser. 135
Ball sealers are limited in their use and should not
be used in (l) long intervals with high perforation
density, (2) wells perforated with more than four
shots/ft [12 shots/m], (3) low-rate treatments (14 to V2
bbl/min [0.4 to 0.079 m 3/min], and (4) gravel-packed
wells. Regardless of the type of treatment or ball
used, treatment will be more effective when density
of the ball is very close to density of the fluid being
used in the treatment.
Pre-Gravel-Pack Acid Treatments. One effective
way to divert acid in a treatment before gravel
packing is to use slugs of hydroxyethylcellulose
(HEC) gel and gravel-pack sand. Ammonium chloride
water mixed with HEC at a concentration of 90
Ibm/l,OOO gal [18 kg/m3] can be mixed in 5-bbl
[1-m 3] batches with 100 Ibm [45 kg] of correctly
sized gravel-pack sand. The combination of viscosity
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 TABLE 2-SUMMARY OF PUMPABLE DIVERTERS
WITH RECOMMENDED CONCENTRATIONS

I. Pre-Gravel-Pack Acid Treatments

Five bbl of a 90 Ibm/1,000-gal HEC gelled 3% ammonium chloride with 100
Ibm of correctly sized gravel pack sand.
II. Perforated Completions
A. Ball Sealers
1. Neutral density, or floaters: 50% excess.
2. Sinkers: 200% excess.
B. Oil-soluble resin or polymer: 0.5 to 5 ga1/1,000 gal
C. Benzoic acid: 1 Ibm/ft of perforations.
D. Rock salt: 0.5 to 2lbm/ft (do not use with HF acid).
E. Unibeads (wax beads): 1 to 2 Ibm/ft.
F. Naphthalene flakes or moth balls: 0.25 to 1 Ibm/ft (do not use in water
injection wells).
III. Gravel-Packed Wells
Oil soluble resins may be used as in. II.B.; however, they must be well mixed
and added to the acid as it is pumped or else the diverter may plug the screen
or gravel pack.

and sand packing helps divert acid to other
perforations. The unique feature of this method as
opposed to other "particulate diverters" is that the
perforation tunnel is packed with gravel-pack sand
instead of some other material that would prevent
gravel-pack slurry from entering the perforations
during later slurry placement.
Particulate Diverters. Selection of the optimal
particulate diverter is based on the kind of fluid
injected and/or produced. The diverter must be
temporary and easily removed; otherwise, there will
be a new kind of damage to be treated and
removed. 129-133
Oil-soluble resin (OSR) or polymer is one of
today's more common diverting agents. OSR is
soluble in toluene, xylene, condensate, crude oil, and
EGMBE (mutual solvent). OSR should be mixed on
site with a blender and immediately pumped, or
added to the acid "on the fly" with a chemical
injection pump.
If OSR diverters are mixed off location or are
allowed to stand for an hour or more, they will
clump and may cause pump failure or plug
perforations. OSR diverters should not be used with
solvent-acid mixtures, which dissolve the resin
enough to reduce its effectiveness.
Benzoic acid flakes or powder will dissolve in
toluene, xylene, alcohol, some condensates, and gas,
and very slowly in water. Benzoic acid is popular
because it is soluble in the fluids normally
encountered in most wells; however, if not well
dispersed or mixed, it will plug perforations. Benzoic
acid plugs do not dissolve fast because not enough
fluid can flow by it to dissolve the plug. One well
took 6 months to return to normal productivity after
being treated with caked benzoic powder delivered to
location.
Rock salt is used to divert acid treatments in
carbonates, usually in mixtures with benzoic acid and
polymer. Rock salt should never be used in HF
treatments or ahead of HF treatments because of
sodium fluorosilicate precipitation. Rock salt is
soluble in water and in dilute (less than 10%) HCl.
Unibeads™ (wax polymer beads) melt at specific
bottomhole temperatures (BHT). They also are
soluble in toluene, xylene, and some crude oils.
Knowing the exact BHT is critical when using
Unibeads as a diverting agent.
Naphthalene flakes (moth balls) are soluble in
xylene, toluene, condensate, and gas. Since they are
not water soluble, they should not be used in water-
injection wells.
A summary of pumpable diverters and their
recommended concentrations is given in Table 2.
Concentric Tubing. Concentric tubing should be
used as often as possible for matrix acid treatments
because it (l) allows the rathole to be circulated
clean, (2) permits better placement for acid contact
with all perforations, (3) bypasses production or
injection tubing debris, (4) can be acid cleaned on
surface before running into the hole, and (5) pump
rate is limited automatically to 0.5 to 1 bbl/min [0.16
m 3 /min] because of fluid friction pressure.
Density Separation. Another variable that
significantly affects acid treatments is the fluid (1) in
the rathole below the lowest perforation and (2) just
below the packer and above the top perforation. A
rathole fluid that is denser than the acid and a fluid
above the top perforation that is lighter than the acid
should be used. Failure to plan for this can cause
acid to end up in the rathole rather than the
formation. Acid left in the borehole can cause casing
leaks below the treated interval. The effects of
density segregation have been well presented by Hong
and Milhone. 133
On-Site Supervision and Quality Control
Field supervisors are focusing more on acid quality
control. 138-140 The following guidelines are quoted
from the booklet "Acidizing Quality Control at the
Wellsite" by George King and George Holman,
Amoco Production Research Co. 138
Quality Control Before Pumping.
1. Check service company ticket to be sure all
additives for the job are on location.
2. Circulate the acid storage tank just before the acid
injection into the well.

DECEMBER 1984 2063

 3500
r.r.i" -
3000 -
00
0
pO pC I!t-'" K - 15.9 ~D

/'

~
o ~ ....... --.
0....... /

o~/j
30 00 ,/
w
IX:
zobo V
~ 2000 ~
),-
1(~~
U1lDUp
w
IX:
I ;....-- r--
a..
o
<t
, --r-:r- .i .E-~
w
J: ~
...J
...J
W
I
3: 1000 I~ INJECTION BUILD-UP
1-
WITH WELL DAMAGE
0
0

o
0.1 10 100
TIME - MINUTES

Fig. 6-lnjection pressure buildup with well bore damage.

3. Check the concentration of the HCI acid with a
titration kit. Take samples of all acids and fluids to be
pumped for later analysis if needed.
4. Make sure that the service company personnel know
the maximum surface pressure and stay below that
pressure.
5. Check the pressure-time recorder for proper
operation.
Quality Control During Pumping
1. Watch the pressure response when acid reaches the
formation:
a. If the formation is sandstone, the surface pressure
should slowly decrease if the rate is held constant. If
the surface pressure rises sharply or rises continuously
for several barrels of acid, the acid may not be
removing the damage or may be damaging the
formation. Acid injection should be stopped and the
well flowed back immediately. Samples of the
backflowed acid and solids should be sent to the
service company laboratory for analysis.
b. If the formation is a limestone, the pressure may
drop rapidly and diverting stages may be needed.
c. If the treatment is an acid frac on limestone or
dolomite, the pressure may be stable or decline slowly
after breakdown. A rapid drop in pressure may
indicate need for fluid loss or diverting agent.
2. Note the pressure response when the diverting agent
reaches the formation. In matrix acidizing, the surface
pressure should rise slightly. If there is no diverter
response, more diverter or a different diverter may be
needed on the next treatment.
3. Never exceed the breakdown pressure of the
formation. (Do not fracture sandstone with acid, except
during very small-volume perforation treating operations
with a "perf wash" tool).
4. In acidizing sandstone formations, hold the pump
rate constant and keep the pressure below fracturing
pressure.
2064
Quality Control After Pumping.
1. Do not shut the well in after acid injection. Flow
the well back to tank or pit as soon as the flow line is
connected.
2. Collect at least three one-quart samples of
backflowed acid for analysis. Sample the acid backflow
at the beginning, middle, and near the end of the flow. If
on swab, get a sample from every other swab run.
Secure a lab analysis for:
a. amount, size and type of solids.
b. strength of returned acid.
c. total iron content.
d. presence of emulsions.
e. formation of any precipitates (besides iron).
3. Get the treatment report and pressure charts to the
office for evaluation and placement into the well file.
Acid Treatment Evaluation
Stabilized productivity may be analyzed when
formation permeability is known. Standard analysis
techniques are available for a semisteady-state flow
analysis. 6o Pressure buildup tests can also be run
after acid cleanup and after production stabilizes. 50-52
Postacidizing precipitation is implied if the acid
actually removed damage during injection, but
production remained unchanged or decreased. Acid
precipitates that plug the formation often are detected
by produced fluid sampling.
Transient pressures during the acid treatment may
be analyzed for formation permeability and well bore
condition. An example of analyzing acid injection
pressure transients is presented by McLeod and
Coulter. 141 The previous analysis is corrected as
recommended by Earlougher 51 and Kazemi. 142 Two
injection pressure buildups were analyzed before and
after acidizing. These two pressure transient examples
are plotted in Figs. 6 and 7. Table 3 gives pertinent
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 3500
I~
I
I }OOO -
3000 ~
r--::: BUILDUP 1;60----1
d--::2 INJECTION BUILD-UP
WITH DAMAGE REMOVED- - -
iii
Q.
I
.,..,.
,/
LIJ
a:
~ 2000 ./
~ ~=
CIl
LIJ 19 MD
a:
C~ ~
Q.
C
oct
10
~
LIJ
J:
~ "
~
LIJ
~ 1000
~l)V'
~
V
,,-
Vc
()

o
0.1 10 100
TIME - MINUTES

Fig. 7-lnjection pressure buildup with damage removed.

data, and Tables 4 and 5 show the calculations and TABLE 3-ACID TREATMENT
results. Before the acid treatment, the data in Fig. 6 EVALUATION DATA
indicate that permeability was 16 md and the skin
Assumed Well Data
was + 15. After acidizing, the data in Fig. 7 were
/J- = 1 cp,
analyzed to determine that the formation permeability
cjJ = 0.25,
was 19 md and the skin was reduced to -2. c = (10)-5 ps i- 1 ,
Stabilized water injection of 1,570 BID [2494.7 B = 1.0, and
m 3 /d] was obtained at a surface pressure of 2,000 psi rw
= 0.4 ft.
[14 MPa] when the well was connected to the lease Buildup Data
water injection system. Table 5 presents the Before acidizing:
calculated stabilized injection rate at a surface h = 27 ft,
pressure of 2,000 psi [14 MPa] using the data q = 0.35 bbl/min or 502 BID
provided from the acid treatment pressure transients. m = 190 psi/cycle, and
The calculated rate is 1,540 BID [245 m 3 /d] water, k = 15.9 md.
which is an unusually close match. Most data After acidizing:
evaluated from acid treatment records provide q = 2 bbl/min or 2,880 BID,
m = 910 psi/cycle, and
permeability and skin estimates within 10 to 25 % of
k = 19 md.
actual values, which is usually sufficient for
evaluating the success of an acid treatment. 143-146
Obviously the data in this example show the large
change in well bore condition before and after
acidizing. The injectivity increased about five-fold by treatments are successful even when the well is
this acid treatment. severely damaged. A complete and accurate well and
To use transient analysis techniques on acid formation analysis, treatment design, well
treatments, accurate data must be obtained. This preparation, job supervision, and followup evaluation
requires close supervision by both the service all are required to achieve maximum benefit from
company and the operating company. Constant matrix acidizing.
injection rates and an accurate pressure-time recorder
are required. Even better records are provided by a Acknowledgments
recorder that measures both rate and pressure vs. I thank the management of Conoco Inc. for
time. permission to publish this paper and the many
Conoco employees who have shared their knowledge
Conclusions and experiences with me during the past 9 years. I
Matrix acidizing can be very beneficial to many owe special thanks to Michael V. Till and Lewis B.
damaged oil, gas, and water wells, but not all matrix Ledlow, who have contributed to this work.
DECEMBER 1984 2065
 TABLE 4-INJECTION PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS References
BEFORE ACIDIZING (from Fig. 6, m = 190 psi/cycle)
General Acidizing
I. Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L., and Schechter, R.S.: Acidizing
162.6 qB
kh = Fundamentals, Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas (1979).
m 2. Grubb, W.E. and Martin, F.G.: "A Guide to Chemical Well
Treatments," Pet. Eng. (May-Nov. 1963).
162.6(502)(1 )(1) 3. Fitzgerald, P.E., Martinez, S.J., and Staadt, H.E.: "Acidizing,"
- - - - - - = 430 md-ft Petroleum Production Handbook, Vol. II, Reservoir Engineering,
190
T.e. Frick (ed.), SPE, Dallas (1962) Chap. 46.
and 4. Muecke, T.W.: "Principles of Acid Stimulation," paper SPE
10038 presented at the 1982 SPE IntI. Petroleum Exhibition and
k = kh/h = 430/27 = 15.9 md. Technical Symposium, Beijing, China, March 18-26.
Carbonate Acidizing
k 5. Azim, M.F.A.: "Where We Stand on Chemical Treatment of Oil
S = 1.151(P1hr-Pw -109---+3.23) Wells," paper 129 (B-1) presented at the Ninth Arab Petroleum
m cpJ1-cr w 2
Congress.
6. Horton, H.L., Hendrickson, A.R., and Crowe, C.W.: "Matrix
3.400-0 15.9 ] Acidizing of Limestone Reservoirs," paper API 906-10-C
1.151 [ -10 +3.23 presented at the 1965 spring meeting of API, Dallas, March.
190 9 (0.25)(1)(10) -5(0.4)2
7. Rowan, G.: "Theory of Acid Treatments of Limestone
Formations," 1. Inst. Pel. (1957) 45, 421.
1.151(17.89 - 7.60 + 3.23) 8. Guin, J.A.: "Matrix Acidization with Highly Reactive Acids,"
Soc. Pel. Eng. 1. (Dec. 1971) 390-98.
15.6. 9. Hendrickson, A.R., Hurst, R.E., and Wieland, D.R.: "Engineered
Guide for Planning Acidizing Treatments Based on Specific
Reservoir Characteristics," 1. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1960) 16-23;
Trans., AIME, 219.
10. Hendrickson, A.R., Rosene, R.B., and Alderman, E.N.: "New
TABLE 5-INJECTION PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS Technology Clarifies Acidizing Misconceptions," World Oil (July
AFTER ACIDIZING (from Fig. 7, m=910 psi/cycle) 1972) 63-67.
11. Nierode, D.E. and Williams, B.B.: "Characteristics of Acid
Reaction in Limestone Formations," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (Dec. 1971)
162.6 qJ1-B
kh = 406-18.
m 12. Harris, O.E., Hendrickson, A.R., and Coulter, A.W.: "High-
Concentration Acid Aids Stimulation Results in Carbonate
Formations," 1. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1966) 1291-96.
162.6(2,880)(1)(1 )
--'------'-'- = 514 md-ft 13. Harris, F.N.: "Applications of Acetic Acid to Well Completion,
910 Stimulation and Reconditioning," 1. Pel. Tech. (July 1961) 637-39.
and 14. Miller, B.D. and Bergstrom, J.M.: "Results of Acid-in-Oil
Emulsion Stimulations of Carbonate Formations," paper SPE 5648
514
k = -=19.0 md. presented at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
27 Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-0ct. I.
15. Ford, W.G.F.: "Foamed Acid, An Effective Stimulation Fluid,"
paper SPE 9385 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical
2,375 - 0 19 ] Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
S = 1.151 [ -10 + 3.23
910 9 (0.25)(1)(10) -5(0.4)2 16. Crowe, C.W., Martin, R.C., and Michaelis, A.M.: "Evaluation
of Acid Gelling Agents for Use in Well Stimulation," paper SPE
1.151 (2.61 - 7.67 + 3.23) 9384 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
1 .151 ( - 1 .83) = - 2.1 . Sandstone Acidizing
17. Lehnhard, P.J.: "Mud Acid-Its Theory and Application to Oil
and Gas Wells," Pet. Eng. (1943) 82-89.
18. Smith, e.F. and Hendrickson, A.F.: "Hydrofluoric Acid
Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs," 1. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1965)
215-22.
TABLE 6-ST ABILIZED WATER INJECTION RATE 19. Smith, C.F., Ross, W.M., and Hendrickson, A.F.: "Hydrofluoric
(calculate expected injection rate at dP =.1,940 psi) Acid Stimulation-Developments for Field Application," paper
SPE 1284 presented at the 1965 SPE Annual Meeting, Denver,
0.00707 kH dP Oct. 3-6.
q=--------
J1-B[ln(re/rw) + S - 0.75) 20. Gatewood, J .R., et al.: "Predicting Results of Sandstone
Acidization," 1. Pel. Tech. (June 1970) 693-700.
0.00707(19)(27)(1,940) 21. Farley, J.T., Miller, B.M., and Schoettle, V.: "Design Criteria
for Matrix Stimulation with Hydrochloric-Hydrofluoric Acid," 1.
(1 )(1 )(In 660/0.4 - 2.1 - 0.75) Pel. Tech. (April 1970) 433-40.
22. Williams, B.B.: "Hydrofluoric Acid Reaction with Sandstone
Formations," 1. Eng. Ind. (Feb. 1975) 252-58.
1,540 BWPD. 23. Gidley, J.L., Ryan, T.P., and Mayfield, T.H.: "Study of the Field
Application of Sandstone Acidizing," 1. Pel. Tech. (Nov. 1976)
1289-94.
24. Kincheloe, R.L.: "Matrix Acidizing Reduces Formation Damage,"
Pel. Eng. (Jan. 1967) 74.
25. Shaughnessy, C.M.: "Understanding Sandstone Acidizing Leads
to Improved Field Practices," 1. Pet. Tech. (July, 1981)
1196-1202.
26. McLeod, H.O., Ledlow, L.B., and Till, M.V.: "The Planning,
Execution and Evaluation of Acid Treatments in Sandstone

2066 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 Formations," paper SPE 11931 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
27. Paccaloni, G.: "Matrix Stimulation Planning," Oil and Gas 1.
(Nov. 9 and Nov. 26, 1979) 155-60,61-65.
28. De Ghetto, G.: "Chart Eases Field Use of AGIP Matrix-Stimulation
Method if Computer Program Not Available," Oil and Gas 1.
(Nov. 29, 1982) 76-77.
29. Fogler, H.S. and Crain, E.R.: "Stimulation of Gas Storage Fields
to Restore Deliverability," 1. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1980) 1612-20.
30. Lybarger, J.H. and Gates, H.R.: "SGMA Performance, Design-
Part 1: New Acidizing System Yields Sustained Production
Increase," Oil and Gas 1. (Oct. 16, 1978) 59-64. "Part 2: Proper
Reservoir Choice, Fluid Design Keys to SGMA Success," Oil and
Gas 1. (Oct. 23, 1978) 137-42.
31. Templeton, e.C. et al.: "Selt~Generating Mud Acid," 1. Pet. Tech.
(Oct. 1975) 1199-1203.
32. Hall, B.E.: "A New Technique for Generating In-Situ Hydrofluoric
Acid for Deep Clay Damage Removal," 1. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1978)
1220-24.
33. Hall, B.E. and Anderson, B.W.: "Field Results for a New Retarded
Sandstone Acidizing System," paper SPE 6871 presented at the
1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Oct. 9-12.
34. Thomas. R.L. and Crowe, e.W.: "Matrix Treatment Employs
New Acid System for Stimulation and Control of Fines Migration
in Sandstone Formations," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1981) 1491-99.
35. Kunze, K.R. and Shaughnessy, e.M.: "Acidizing Sandstone
Formations with Fluoboric Acid," paper SPE 9387 presented at
the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Sept. 21-24.
36. Abrams, A., Scheuerman, et al.: "Higher-pH Acid Stimulation
Systems," 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1983) 2175-84.
37. Abrams, A., et al.: "The Development and Application of a High
pH Acid Stimulation for a Deep Mississippi Gas Well, " paper SPE
7565 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3.
38. Holcomb, D.L.: "Low Surface Tension Hydrochloric-Hydrofluoric
Acid Mixtures in Low Porosity, Low Permeability Sandstones,"
paper SPE 1284 presented at the 1975 SPE Regional Meeting,
Oklahoma City, March 24-25.
39. Cardwell, P.H.: "Chemical Removal of Clays," Oil and Gas 1.
(Feb. 26, 1948) 130-40.
40. Wieland, D.R. and Vinson, M.E.: "Engineered HCI-HF
Treatments Provide Successful Stimulation in Cook Inlet," paper
SPE 4120 presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Meeting, San Antonio,
Oct. 8-1 I.
41. Vogt, T.e. and Anderson, M.L.: "Optimizing the Profitability
of Matrix Acidizing Treatments," paper SPE 4550 presented at
the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept. 30-0ct. 3.
42. Labrid, J.e., "Thermodynamics and Kinetic Aspects of
Argillaceous Sandstone Acidizing," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (April 1975)
117-28.
43. Hill, A.D. et al.: "Theoretical and Experimental Studies of
Sandstone Acidizing," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (Feb. 1981) 30-42.
44. Williams, B.B. and Whiteley, M.E.: "Hydrofluoric Acid Reaction
with a Porous Sandstone," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (Sept. 1971) 306-14.
45. McCune, e.e., Ault, I.W., and Dunlap, R.G.: "Reservoir
Properties Affecting Matrix Acid Stimulation of Sandstones, " 1.
Pet. Tech. (May 1975) 633-40.
46. McCune, C.C. et al.: "A New Model of the Physical and Chemical
Changes in Sandstone During Acidizing," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (Oct.
1975) 361·-70.
47. Fogler, H.S., Lund, K., and McCune, C.C.: "Acidization III-
The Kinetics of the Dissolution of Sodium and Potassium Feldspar
in HF/HCl Acid Mixtures," Chern. Eng. Sci., 30, 1325-32.
48. Crowe, C.W.: "Precipitation of Hydrated Silica from Spent
Hydrofluoric Acid-How Much of a Problem is it?" paper SPE
13083 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
49. Taha, R., Hill, A.D., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "Simulation of
Sandstone Matrix Acidizing in Heterogeneous Reservoirs," paper
SPE 13128, presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
Well Performance
50. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow
Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas (1977) 1.
DECEMBER 1984
51. Earlougher, R.e. Ir.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
Series, SPE, Dallas (1977) 5, 78-79.
52. Lee, J.: Well Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1982).
53. McLeod, H.O. Jr.: "The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well
Performance," 1. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1983) 31-39.
54. Allen, T.O. and Roberts, A.P.: Production Operations-Well
Completions, Workover and Stimulation, Oil and Gas Consultants
IntI. Inc., Tulsa (1978) 2, 115-16.
55. Klotz, J.A., Krueger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: "Effect of Perforation
Damage on Well Productivity," 1. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1974)
1303-14.
56. Walsh, M.P., Lake, L.W., and Schechter, R.S.: "A Description
of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms and their Role in Formation
Damage During Stimulation by Hydrofluoric Acid," paper SPE
10625 presented at the 1982 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, LA, March 24-25.
57. Williams, B.B., Elliot, L.S., and Weaver, R.H.: "Productivity
of Inside Casing Gravel-Pack Completions," 1. Pet. Tech. (April
1972) 419-25.
58. Penberthy, W.L. Jr. and Cope, B.J.: "Design and Productivity
of Gravel-Packed Completions," paper SPE 8428 presented at the
1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.
59. Maly, G.P. and Krueger, R.F.: "Improper Formation Sampling
Leads to Improper Selection of Gravel Size," 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1971) 1403-08.
60. Crouch, E.e. and Pack, K.J.: "Systems Analysis Use for the
Design and Evaluation of High Rate Gas Wells," paper SPE 9424
presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
61. McLeod, H.O. and Crawford, H.R.: "Gravel Packing for High-
Rate Completions," paper SPE 11008 presented at the 1982 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept.
26-29.
62. Torrest, R.S.: "The Influence of Placement Conditions on the
Response of Gravel Packs to Production, "paper SPE 110 II
presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
63. Stein, N.: "Designing Gravel Packs for Changing Well
Conditions," World Oil (Feb. 1, 1983) 41-47.
Formation Damage
64. Krueger, R.K.: "An Overview of Formation Damage and Well
Productivity in Oil Field Operations," Proc., SPE IntI. Meeting
on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing (1982) 79-104.
65. Krueger, R.F.: "Advances in Well Completion and Stimulation
During JPT's First Quarter Century," 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1973)
1447-62.
66. Patton, L.D. and Abbott, W.A.: "Well Completion and Workover:
Part 2-Data Requirements for Completion Planning," Pet. Eng.
Inti. (May 1979) 104, 106, 110; "Part 4-Formation Damage:
How to Identify, Prevent, Treat" (Sept. 1979) 66-74.
67. Braunston, RJ.: "Investigation of Well Damage History," Proc.,
SPE IntI. Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing (1982)
387-95.
68. Keelan, D.K.: "Core Analysis for Aid in Reservoir Description,"
1. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1982) 2483-91.
69. Keelan, D.K. and Koepf, E.H.: "The Role of Cores and Core
Analysis in Evaluation of Formation Damage," 1. Pet. Tech. (May
1977) 482-90.
70. Glenn, E.E. and Slusser, M.L.: "Factors Affecting Well
Productivity-II. Drilling Fluid Particle Invasion into Porous
Media," 1. Pet. Tech. (May 1957) 132-39.
71. Abrams, A.: "Mud Design to Minimize Rock Impairment Due
to Particle Invasion," 1. Pet. Tech. (May 1977) 586-92.
72. Mungan, N., "Permeability Reduction Through Changes in pH
and Salinity," 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1965) 1449-53.
73. Coulter, G.R. and Hower, W.: "The Effect of Fluid pH on Clays
and Resulting Formation Permeability," Proc., SPE Southwest
Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech U., Lubbock (1975) 115-18.
74. Walker, T.O., Dearing, H.L. and Simpson, J.P.: "The Role of
Potassium in Lime Muds," paper SPE 13161 presented at the 1984
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept.
16-19.
75. Thomas, D.C., Hsing, H., and Menzie, D.E.: "Evaluation of Core
Damage Caused by Oil-Based Drilling and Coring Fluids," paper
SPE 13097, presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
2067
 76. Maly, George P.: "Close Attention to the Smallest Details Vital
for Minimizing Formation Damage," Proc., SPE Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Houston (1976) 127-46.
77. Spies, R.J., et a!.: "Field Experience Utilizing High Density Brines
as Completion Fluids," paper SPE 9425 presented at the 1980 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
78. Jones, F.O. JT.: "Influence of Chemical Composition of Water
on Clay Blocking of Permeability," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1964)
441-46.
79. Krueger, R.F., Fischer, P.W., and Vogel, L.C.: "Effect of
Pressure Drawdown on the Cleanup of Clay- or Silt-Blocked
Sandstone," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1967) 397-403.
80. Shaughnessy, C.M. and Kline, W.E.: "EDTA Removes Formation
Damage at Prudhoe Bay," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1983) 1783-92.
81. Smith, C.F., Nolan, T.J., and Crenshaw, P.L.: "Removal and
Inhibition of Calcium Sulfate Scale in Waterflood Projects," J.
Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1968) 1249-56.
82. Tyler, T.N., Metzger, R.R., and Twyford, L.R.: "Analysis and
Treatment of Formation Damage at Prudhoe Bay, AK," Proc.,
SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield (1984)
11-22.
Formation Fines
83. Muecke, T.W.: "Formation Fines and Factors Controlling Their
Movement in Porous Media," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1979) 144-50.
84. Gruesbeck, C. and Collins, R.E.: "Entrainment and Deposition
of Fine Particles in Porous Media," paper SPE 8430 presented
at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
85. Gabriel, G.A. and Inamdar, G.R.: "An Experimental Investigation
of Fines Migration in Porous Media," paper SPE 12168 presented
at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
86. Khilar, K.C. and Fogler, H.S.: "Water Sensitivity of Sandstones,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1983) 55-64.
87. Hagiwara, T.: "Archie's m for Permeability," paper SPE 13100
presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
88. Veley, C.D.: "How Hydrolyzable Metal Ions React with Clays
to Control Formation Water Sensitivity," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1972)
860-64.
89. Coulter, A.W., Copeland, C.T., and Harrisberger, W.H.: "A
Laboratory Study of Clay Stabilizers," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1979)
267-270.
Formation Damage
90. Coulter, A.W. Jr. and Gougler, P.D.: "Field Tests Indicate Tubing
is Main Source of Iron Precipitation in the Wellbore," Oil and
Gas J. (Sept. 3, 1984) 87-88.
91. Crowe, C.W.: "Evaluation of Agents for Preventing Precipitation
of Ferric Hydroxide from Spent Treating Acid," Proc., SPE
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield (1984)
225-31.
92. Smith, C.F., Crowe, C.W., and Nolan, TJ. III: "Secondary
Deposition of Iron Compounds Following Acidizing Treatments,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1969) 1121-29.
93. Ewing, B.c., Pabley, A.S., and Callaway, R.F.: "A Synergistic
Chelation System for Acidizing in the Presence of High Iron
Concentrations," paper SPE 11795 presented at the 1983 SPE
Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Denver, June
1-3.
94. Crowe, C.W. and Minor, S.S.: "Acid Corrosion Inhibitor
Adsorption and its Effect on Matrix Stimulation Results," Proc.,
SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA
(1982) 50-66.
95. Barnard, P. JT.: "A New Method of Restoring Water Injection
Capacity to Wells Plugged with Iron Sulfide and Free Sulfur,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1959) 12-14.
96. Crowe, C.W.: "New Treatment Technique to Remove Bacterial
Residues from Water Injection Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (May 1968)
475-78.
97. Clementz, D.M. et al.: "Stimulation of Water Injection Wells in
the Los Angeles Basin by Using Sodium Hypochlorite and Mineral
Acids," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1982) 2087-96.
Sandstone Geology
98. Davies, David K.: Sandstone Reservoirs, presented at 1980 SPE
Gulf Coast Section Short Course, Houston, Feb. 26-27.
2068
99. Davies, D.K.; "Clay Technology and Well Stimulation," presented
at 1980 Southwest Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech. U.,
Lubbock.
100. Davies, D.K.: "Reservoir Stimulation of Dirty Sandstones," Proc.,
4th SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield
(1980) 41-48.
101. Neasham, J.W.: "The Morphology of Dispersed Clay in Sandstone
Reservoirs and its Effect on Sandstone Shaliness, Pore Space and
Fluid Flow Properties," paper SPE 6858 presented at the 1977
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct.
9-12.
102. Pittman, E.D. and Thomas, J .B.: "Some Applications of Scanning
Electron Microscopy to the Study of Reservoir Rock, " paper SPE
7550 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3.
103. Simon, D.E., Kaul, F.W., and Culbertson, J.N.: "Anadarko Basin
Morrow-Springer Sandstone Stimulation Study," paper SPE 6757
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 5-7.
104. Sneider, R.M. eta!.: "Method for Detection and Characterization
of Reservoir Rock, Deep Basin Gas Area, Western Canada," J.
Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1983) 1725-34.
105. Lindquist, SJ.: "How Mineral Content Affects Reservoir Quality
of Sands," World Oil (April 1978) 99-102.
106. Thomson, A.: "Preservation of Porosity in the Deep
Woodbine/Tuscaloosa Trend, Louisiana," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1982) 1156-62.
107. Almon, W.R. and Darmstetter, D.K.: "Delineation of Trends in
Reservoir Quality," paper SPE 7507 presented at the 1978 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3.
108. Sneider, R.M., Tinker, C.N., and Meckel, L.D.: "Deltaic
Reservoir Types and their Characteristics," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1978) 1538-46.
109. Crocker, M.E., Donaldson, E.C., and Marchin, L.M.:
"Comparison and Analysis of Reservoir Rocks and Related Clays, "
paper SPE 11973 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
110. Soeder, DJ. and Randolph, P.L.: "Porosity, Permeability and
Pore Structure of the Tight Mesa Verde Sandstone, Piceance Basin,
CO," paper SPE 13134 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
III. Hartman, J.A. and Paynter, D.D.: "Drainage Anomalies in Gulf
Coast Sandstones," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1979) 1313-22.
Carbonate Geology
112. Ham, W.E.: Classification of Carbonate Rocks, AAPG, Tulsa
(1962), Memoir I.
113. Black, H.N. et at.: "Lithology as a Guide to San Andres
Stimulation," Proc., SPE Southwest Petroleum Short Course,
Lubbock (1975) 77-89.
114. Ruzyla, K. and Friedman, G.M.: "Geological Heterogeneities
Important to Future Enhanced Recovery in Carbonate Reservoirs
of Upper Ordovician Red River Formation at Cabin Creek Field,
Montana," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1982) 429-44.
115. Powell, T.G. and Stevenson, G.M.: "Petrologic Evaluation of the
Silurian Interlake Formation, Vida Field, North-Eastern
Montana-The Key to Revitalized Exploration in an Oil Field,"
paper SPE 10139 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7.
Acid Additives
116. Smith, C.F., Dollarhide, F.E., and Byth, N.J.: "Acid Corrosion
Inhibitors-Are We Getting What We Need?" J. Pet. Tech. (May
1978) 737-47.
117. Woodroof, R.A. Jr., Baker, J.R., and Jenkins, R.A. Jr.:
"Corrosion Inhibition of Hydrochloric-Hydrofluoric Acid/Mutual
Solvent Mixtures at Elevated Temperatures," paper SPE 5645
presented at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-0ct. I.
118. Milligan, M.R.: "Sour Gas Well Completion Practices in the
Foothills, Western Canada," paper SPE 10078 presented at the
1981 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Oct. 5-7.
119. Gidley, J. L.: "Stimulation of Sandstone Formations with the Acid-
Mutual Solvent Method," J. Pet. Tech. (May 1971) 551-58.
120. Hall, B.E.: "The Role of Mutual Solvents in Sandstone Acidizing,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1975), 1439-42.
121. Gidley, J.L. and Hanson, H.R.: "Central-Terminal Upset from
Well Treatment is Prevented," Oil and GasJ. (Feb. 1974) 53-55.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
122. Coppel, c.P.: "Factors Causing Emulsions Upsets in Surface 142. Kazemi, H., Merrill, L.S., and Jargon, J.R.: "Problems in
Facilities Following Acid Stimulation," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1975) Interpretation of Pressure Fall-Off Tests in Reservoirs with and
1060-65. without Fluid Banks," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1972) 1147-56.
123. Knobloch, T.S., Farouq Ali, S.M., and Trevino Diaz, M.1.: "The 143. Crouch, E.C. and Pack, K.J.: "Systems Analysis Use for the
Role of Acid-Additive Mixtures on Asphaltene Precipitation," Design and Evaluation of High Rate Gas Wells," paper SPE 9424
paper SPE 7627 presented at the 1978 SPE Eastern Regional presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Meeting, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1-3. Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
124. Coffey, M.D., Thompson, J.L., and Carney, M.1.: "Solvent-Acid 144. McBride, J.R., Rathbone, M.1., and Thomas, R.L.: "Evaluation
Dispersions Solve Difficult Stimulation and Clean-Up Problems," of Fluoboric Acid Treatment in the Grand Isle Offshore Area using
paper SPE 4938 presnted at the 1974 SPE Rocky Mt. Regional Multiple Rate Flow Test," paper SPE 8399 presented at the 1979
Meeting, Billings, May 15-17. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
125. Jeffries-Harris, M.1. and Coppel, C.P.: "Solvent Stimulation of Sept. 23-26.
Low Gravity Oil Reservoirs," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1969) 167-75. 145. AI-Saif, A. S. et al.: ;, Analysis of Pulsed-Neutron Decay-Time Logs
126. Preckshoff, G.W. et at.: "Asphaltic Substances in Crude Oils," in Acidized Carbonate Forntations," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1975)
Trans., AIME (1943) 151, 188. 453-66.
127. McLaughlin, W.A. and Richardson, E.A.: "Acidizing Asphaltenic 146. Folmar, L.W., Williams, J.M., and Stevenson, E.K.: "Well
Oil Reservoirs with Acids Containing Salicylic Acid," U.S. Patent Spacing Performance, Relative Permeabilities and Acidization
No. 4,096,914 (1978). Effects in a Limestone Reservoir," paper SPE 1594G presented
128. Moore, E.W., Crowe, C.W., and Hendrickson, A.R.: "Formation, at the 1960 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Effect & Prevention of Asphaltene Sludges During Stimulation Oct. 2-5.
Treatments," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1965) 1023-28.
Zone Coverage and Acid Placement Nomenclature
129. Harrison, N. W .: "Diverting Agents-History and Application, "
J. Pet. Tech. (May 1972) 593-98.
B = formation volume factor, reservoir
130. Gallus, J.P. and Pye, D.S.: "Deformable Diverting Agent for volume/surface volume
Improved Well Stimulation," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1969) 497-504. c compressibility, psi - I [kPa -I ]
131. Crow, C.W. and Cryar, H.B. Jr.: "Development of Oil Soluble
Resin Mixture for Control of Fluid Loss in Water Base Workover
h thickness, ft [m]
and Completion Fluids," SPE 5662 presented at the 1975 SPE k permeability, md
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28- m slope, psi/cycle [kPa/cycle]
Oct. 1.
132. King, G.E. and Hollingsworth, H.F.: "Evaluation of Diverting
p pressure, psi [kPa]
Agent Effectiveness and Clean Up Characteristics Using a Dynamic /::.p pressure change, psi [kPa]
Laboratory Model-High Permeability Case," paper SPE 8400 q injection rate, bbl/min or BID [m3/min or
presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
m 3 /d]
133. Hill, A.D. and Galloway, P.1.: "Laboratory and Theoretical r dp radius of damaged zone near the
Modeling of Diverting Agent Behavior," Proc., SPE Production perforation, ft [m]
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City (1983) 253-60.
134. Erbstoesser, S.R.: "Improved Ball Sealer Diversion," J. Pet. Tech.
r p = perforation radius, ft [m]
(Nov. 1980), 1903-10. rw wellbore radius, ft [m]
135. Gabriel, G.A. and Erbstoesser, S.R.: "The Design of Buoyant S saturation, fraction
Ball Sealer Treatment," paper SPE 13085 presented at the 1984
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept.
p, viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
16-19. ¢ porosity, fraction
136. Hong, K.C. and Milhone, R.S.: "Injection Profile Effects Caused
by Gravity Segregation in the Wellbore," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1977) SI Metric Conversion Factors
1657-63.
137. Taylor, D.B. and Plummer, R.A.: "Gas Well Stimulation Using bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m3
Coiled Tubing and Acid with a Mutual Solvent," paper SPE 4115 cp X 1.0* E-03 Pa's
presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Technical Conference and ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11. gal x 3.785412 E-03 m3
Quality Control
138. King, G.E. and Holman, G.B. Jr.: "Acidizing Quality Control
Ibm X 4.535924 E-Ol kg
at the Wellsite," BookIet, Amoco Production Research Co., Tulsa, psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
OK. psi -I x 1.450377 E-Ol kPa- 1
139. Lybarger, J .H.: "Successful Well Work Demands Rigorous Quality
Control," Oil and Gas J. (May 23, 1977), 57-61.
140. Watkins, D.R. and Roberts, G.E.: "On-Site Acidizing Fluid "Conversion factor is exact. JPT
Analysis Shows HCl and HF Contents Often Varied Substantially Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive presentations that sum·
From Specified Amounts," J. Pet. Tech. (May 1983),865-71. marize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent developments
Acid Treatment Evaluation for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals
141. McLeod, H.O. and Coulter, A.W.: "The Stimulation Treatment recognized as experts in the areas, these articles provide key references to more
definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose:
Pressure Record-an Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool," To inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum
J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1969) 951-60. engineering.

DECEMBER 1984 2069