Fluid Placement and

Pumping Strategy
Introduction
Cooper and Bolland,
1984 Damage depending on fluid-rock
interaction.

Unevenly distributed along the net thickness.

The natural reservoir permeability

(vary considerably)

MS tends to remove or bypass the damage.

Volume of stimulation fluid follows the path

of least resistance. ( LD of Damage, H K)
 Diversion(Technique)
• Is a technique used in injection treatments, such as matrix stimulation.

Objective of AP and D

• to ensure a uniform
distribution of treatment
fluid across the
treatment interval

S >0
 Diversion(Techniques)

There are three main techniques

of diversion:
Mechanical diversion
Chemical diversion
MAPDIR Technique

Without a diverter With a diverter

 Mechanical Techniques
• Ball sealers
which are rubber-lined balls added
to treating fluids to plug fluid-taking
perforations

Advantages
• More Economic
• Overcome drag forces
• Suitable for High K contrast
• Efficiently in vertical wells
 Mechanical Techniques
• Packers
Which enable isolating a given zone
during a treatment

Disadvantages / Advantages
• Expensive
• Need kind of intervention (Workover)
• Retrievable and Permanent
 Chemical Techniques
• Goal

Equalize acid injection rate per unit (Q/A) across the interval targets.

• Temporarily block paths of least resistance( K).

• Divert acid to untreated (damaged)zones
• Are materials insoluble in acid but highly soluble in water or
hydrocarbons
• Used to form a low-K filter cake at the sandface or to reduce
the injectivity of high-K zones with the injection of a viscous
polymer slug.
 Chemical Techniques

The more commonly used chemical divertes today includes:

Salt granules
• Low solubility in strong acid but soluble in
water formation
• Not be used in a formation that does no
produced water
• Combined particules , such as grade rock
salt and benzoic acid.
• Work best in perforated casing and with
médium K contrast.
 Chemical Techniques

Benzoid acid
• The most broadly applicable diverter type
• It has the ability to sublime directly into its geseous state,
about about +/− 230℉
• Benzoic acid particulates are added to wáter or acid
based carrier fluids (surfactant may be required for
dispersal

Foam
• It is useful in gravel pack completions
 Chemical Techniques
• Coiled tubing placement

The acid is injected across the zone of interest.

Is especially helpful for acidizing long intervals

Advantages
• Is important in horizontal wells or vertical wells
with long producing zones
• Is specific to carbonate formations
• Produce good results in terms of placement
 Choice of pumping strategy
• Importance of proper placement

• MS is performed in multilayer reservoirs containing

zones with wide injectivity contrasts (different K or
by uneven DS).
different permeabilities

uneven severity of damage

Causes
by vertical heterogeneities within a
completion interval

selective damage in some

perforations.
 Importance of proper placement

The natural trend of stimulation fluids is to follow the path of

least resistance

to invade the most permeable or least damaged zones

must be least
To optimize permeable
injected in
treatment
significant most damaged
results
volumes zones
 Example three – layer reservoir

Layer 2 is a high injectivity with high K=50 md, S=10, NT=50 ft

permeability and a lower skin effect.
K=500 md, S=5, NT=10 ft

The damage is removed more rapidly in the

highest I Z, an LV would be required K=100 md, S=10, NT=40ft

With diversion
Total volume =150 gal/ft × 100 ft = 15,000 gal
the same injectivity in the three layers
Assuming
150 gal/ft of perforated interval is required
in each zone to remove the damage
With no diversion
Total volume =45,000 gal, each layers have
different rate of Inyectivity
 Comparison of diversion methods

Presented a comparative study of the efficiency of the existing

Hill & Rossen (1994)
nonmechanical placement techniques.
Also considered particulate diverters, foams and viscous fluids.
they compared the evolution of skin effect for a hypothetical two-
layer case.
Paccaloni & Including the MAPDIR technique
Tambini
the MAXIMUM PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL AND INJECTION RATES
(1990) (MAPDIR) technique

The MAPDIR technique involves pumping at the highest possible rate

without fracturing.
 Hill and Rossen, 1994

Assumed that
initial skin effect of 10

K1=100 md
H1=1 ft first layer
K2=10 md
H2=10 ft Second layer

Involves pumping at the highest

possible rate without fracturing.

allows the
But of large into the layer
the MAPDIR reduction in terms of
acid volumes with lower
technique fastest of total pumping time
injected damage
skin effect
 MAPDIR Technique

Suggests pumping treating fluids as fast as possible below the fracturing limit
without using any diversion technique.

It allows a decrease of pumping time and minimizes the risk of treatment

failure caused by low pumping rates.

MAPDIR is not a true diversion technique (it does not modify the natural flow
profile, nor distribute stimulation fluids or remove all damage)

The method actually gives better results than diverting agents.

 MAPDIR Technique

Is sufficient to obtain full coverage of the pay zone if the K

contrast is less than 300 md and the PZ does not exceed 200 ft.

Case of carbonate formations

• they reported that relatively small volumes of concentrated
acid (5 to 10 gal/ft) led to a substantial skin effect reduction
•Allowing for reasonable injectivity of the zone for further
reduction
•Only for intervals with limited contrasts of permeability, and it
does not optimize fluid placement.
 Diverting agent properties
Physical requirements

Cake permeability
• Created on the reservoir walls by agents must be impermeable to the acid for the maximum
diverting effect.

Invasion
• Deep invasion of the reservoir rock by the diverter particles must be prevented. (minimum
problems in cleanup)

Dispersion

Deep invasion of the reservoir rock by the diverter particles must be

prevented. (minimum problems in cleanup)
 Diverting agent properties
Chemical requirements

Compatibility
•Must be compatible with the bulk treatment fluid and with
other additives(corrosion inhibitors, surfactants and
antifoaming agents

Cleanup
• Must be soluble in the production or injection fluids.
•they should undergo a rapid and complete cleanup
 Classification of diverting agents

Bridging and plugging agents

• Consist of large-size particles (from 10/20 to 100 mesh)

• Used as diverters in carbonate formations, where natural fractures are common

• their efficiency is limited by the high permeability of the cakes they create
(a cake formed with 10-mesh particles has a K between 20,000 and 40,000 md)

• the diverting agent does not penetrate the coating and allows effective
diversion through the development of low-permeability cakes.
 Classification of diverting agents
Particulate diverters

Water-soluble, for injection Wells

• it is agglomerates during storage, it is difficult to achieve
a constant particle-size distribution before injection.
• benzoic acid particles are hydrophobic, surfactants are
required to properly disperse the agent in the treating
fluid.

Oil-soluble, for production wells

• Are blends of hydrocarbon resins.
• They are totally inert in an acidic medium, quickly and
completely dissolve in the produced oil after treatment.
 Potential problems during diversion treatment

Decantation
• The best results are obtained when the solid additives are placed in a
water-base gel.
• Decantation problems occur with diverting agents because of their
small particle size and the low density of their constituent materials
Solubility
• Are slightly soluble in acid
• A portion of additives dissolves during mixing with the acid. Another
portion dissolves during injection.
• the effectiveness is always low (large initial concentrations are
required).
 Potential problems during diversion treatment

Particle-size distribution
• The particle size correspond to the petrophysical properties of the
treated zones (K and pore-size distribution).
• the resistance of the diverter cake may not be high to avoid fluid
penetration in the high-permeability zones.
Compatibility
• Rock salt should never be used as a bridging agent in (HF)
treatments or before HF treatments ( may increase the risk of sodium
fluosilicate precipitation).
• A problem is not anticipated when using sodium benzoate(this
compound is converted into benzoic acid in HCl)
Laboratory characterization

Injects slugs of diverting agent under constant pressure into parallel

cores of different permeabilities.

By measuring the time required to equalize the flow rates entering each
core

Pressure drops through cakes of DA were measured under various

wellbore and fluid conditions (temperature, flow rate, concentration of
diverting agent and nature of the carrying fluid)
 Laboratory characterization Hill and Galloway, 1984
measure the pressure
drop across a diverter
Filtration theory was used to express the experimental results:
cake

Δ𝑝 𝑅𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒 :cake resistance in (m–1)

𝑅𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒 = 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1 ∆p : pressure drop across the diverter cake(psi)
µu µ : carrying fluid viscosity(cp)
u : superficial velocity across the cake(ft/s).

By analogy with the pressure drop in a porous medium

the cake resistance can be defined as the inverse of the

cake permeability divided by the cake thickness.

• Allows correlation between the CR and the volume of diverter deposited at

the sandface
• can then be used to simulate the diverter effect at reservoir conditions.
 Laboratory characterization
Taha et al. (1989) and Economides et al. (1994)
extended the model

1
𝛼 : specific cake resistance (m/kg)
𝛼= Equation 2 𝝆𝒂𝒅𝒗 : density of diverter particles (kg/m3)
𝜌𝑎𝑑𝑣 ∙ 1−𝜑𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒 ∙𝑘𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝝋𝒄𝒂𝒌𝒆 is the cake porosity (%)
𝒌𝒄𝒂𝒌𝒆 is the cake permeability (md)

leads to the pressure drop ∆p across the cake:

𝛼 ∙ 𝜇 ∙ 𝑢 ∙ 𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑣 ∙ 𝜌𝑎𝑑𝑣 ∙ 𝑉
∆𝑝 = 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 3
𝐴

𝑪𝒅𝒊𝒗 : concentration of diverter particles in (m3) of particles per m3 of solution

V : total volume of diverter solution injected (m3)
A : surface of cake deposition (m2)
 Laboratory characterization
Darcy’s law across the cake:

𝜇∙𝑙∙𝑢
∆𝑝 = 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 4
𝑘𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒

The cake thickness 𝑙 varies with the diverter volume(m3) as:

𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑣 ∙ 𝑉
𝑙= 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 5
1 − 𝜑𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒 ∙ 𝐴

The cake resistance Rcake and the specific cake resistance 𝛼 are
related by
𝛼∙𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑣 ∙𝜌𝑑𝑖𝑣 ∙𝑉
𝑅𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒 = 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 6
A
 Conclusions

The design of particulate diverter or bridging agents requires checking

compatibility with the formation and carrying fluids

Particle size must be adapted to the pore-throat distribution of the formation,

and the diverter must be soluble in the reservoir fluid to help flowback.

Compatibility with the carrying fluid is required to ensure proper dispersion of

the particles and prevent dissolution or reaction with other additives.

Foam diversion has been used with success in long intervals.

 References

Hill, A.D. and Rossen, W.R.: “Fluid Placement and Diversion in Matrix Acidizing,”
paper SPE 27982, presented at the University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum
Engineering Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA (August 29–31, 1994).

Economides, M.J., Ben Naceur, K. and Klem, R.C.: “Matrix Stimulation Method for
Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 19719, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1991),
854–861.

Hill, A.D. and Galloway, P.J.: “Laboratory and Theoretical Modeling of Diverting
Agent Behavior,” paper SPE 11576, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1984),
1157.
Hill, A.D. and Zhu, D.: “Real-Time Monitoring of Matrix Acidizing Including the
Effects of Diverting Agents,” paper SPE 28548, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September
25–28, 1994).