Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 27401

Interpretation of Matrix Acidizing Treatments Using a Continuously

Monitored Skin Factor
F.R. Behenna, Halliburton Energy Services
SPE Member
Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE IntI. Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 7-10 February 1994.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroieum Engineers and are sUbject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum En!;lineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT
Several techniques for the real-time evaluation of
matrix acidizing have been presented over the years. 1 2 3
All rely on the calculation of the skin factor of the
formation during the course of the treatment as the
indicator for treatment effectiveness.
Two general approaches are currently used for
calculating the skin factor of a well during a matrix
acidizing treatment. The first assumes that a steadystate flow regime is in effect during injection while the
second uses a pressure transient solution to calculate the
skin factor during the treatment and assumes the well is
in an infinite-acting transient flow regime. Comparisons
of both calculation methods will be presented in this
paper as will the advantages and limitations common to
both methods.
Also presented are two field case
histories in which a pressure transient solution was used
to continuously monitor the skin factor during the
treatments. These case histories show in detail the
effect of the different fluid stages injected during the
treatments, including the effect of diversion stages. The
concept of using the derivative of the skin factor with

References and Illustrations at end of paper

respect to time to track the rate of damage removal

during acid injection or the rate of skin factor increase
during diversion stage injection is also introduced.
INTRODUCTION
Matrix acidizing provides an effective method for
removing or bypassing near well bore damage. The
method has been proven by many years of successful
One of the primary
application around the world.
advantages of matrix acidizing is the comparatively low
cost of performing a treatment in relation to alternative
stimulation methods such as hydraulic fracturing .. It is
because of the low cost of matrix acidizing treatments
that there has been little incentive to provide
sophisticated on-site treatment interpretation and post-job
analysis such as that which currently exists for hydraulic
fracturing treatments.
The advent of compact, PC based data acquisition
systems that can record real-time values of wellhead and
annulus pressure, injection rate, and fluid density now
allows the most important parameter in interpreting the
effects of matrix acidizing treatments, the bottomhole
treating pressure, to be calculated continuously as the
treatment progresses. Once the bottomhole treating
pressure and injection rate are known, the skin factor of
the well at any point in time during the treatment can be
calculated, providing certain

561

INTERPRETATION OF MATRIX ACIDIZING TREATMENTS

USING A CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED SKIN FACTOR

well and treating fluid parameters are known a priori, the

most important being formation permeability, net pay
height, initial static reservoir pressure, and treating fluid
viscosity.
A skin factor value calculated during the
treatment has several uses. Foremost, it provides a
quantitative measure of the effectiveness of the overall
treatment, with the final objective to end the treatment
with a negative skin factor or with a skin factor as close
to zero as possible. The observed trend of the skin factor
during the treatment can also be used to alter the design
of the treatment from the original design based on the
actual response of the well rather than the anticipated
response to the fluids being pumped. An example of this
would be to halt injection of an acid stage prior to
pumping the entire planned volume if the skin factor has
reached a steady value and it is evident that no further
benefit would be gained by injecting the entire designed
volume. A third use of having a record of the skin factor
during the course of the treatment is to evaluate the
effect of the individual fluid stages pumped during the
course of the treatment. This information could be used
as a basis for changing the stimulation fluids or the
volumes used on subsequent treatments and for
evaluating the effectiveness of diverting stages which
may have been pumped during the treatment.
Several different methods for calculating the skin
factor over the course of a matrix acidizing treatment
have been proposed. 1 ,2,3
The method proposed by
Paccoloni and Tambini uses the steady-state radial flow
form of Darcy's law:

.00708 kh (Pt'll - Pt)

~qt

In...! . (1)
Tw

where r b is defined as the radius around the well bore in

which the majority of pressure drop occurs and is
assumed to be 4 ft.
Prouvost and Economides 3 use a method which
takes into account the transient pressure behavior that is
in effect during the course of the injection treatment and
accurately accounts for the effect that changes in the
injection rate over the course of the treatment will have
on the observed pressure response. In this method, the
pressure history that would be observed in the treated
well with a specified set of reservoir and treatment

562

SPE 27401

parameters for the injection rate data observed during the

treatment is calculated assuming a constant skin factor
(typically equal to 0). The actual pressure history during
the treatment is then compared to the theoretical value
and the observed skin factor at each point in time is
calculated from the pressure deviation. The method used
for skin factor calculation in subsequent examples in this
paper is similar to that of Prouvost and Economides in
that it uses a pressure transient solution and takes into
account the pressure transients attributable to injection
rate changes. This method however calculates the skin
factor directly rather than from the difference of the
theoretical and observed bottom hole treating pressure.
COMPARISON OF CALCULATION METHODS
There has in the past, been some question over
the applicability of using a steady-state flow
approximation for calculating the skin factor during matrix
acidizing or other chemical stimulation treatments
performed at matrix rates. 3 It has been stated that a
steady-state calculation method will result in an
overestimation of the skin factor during the treatment
and that the effect of rate changes on the pressure
response are not adequately accounted for. In rebuttal,
Paccaloni and Tambini state that the overestimation of
the skin factor caused by using a steady-state pressure
assumption is insignificant, and acknowledge that even
though some error will be present, that their method is
intended "for improving stimulation design, execution,
and evaluation and was not intended to be substituted for
skin factor values obtained from build-up or fall-off
tests. "2 There is indeed merit to both arguments on this
issue .
Figure 1 illustrates an example for a variable
injection rate and a changing skin factor comparing both
methods of solution for a hypothetical well for which the
reservoir properties,
injection rate, and skin factor
changes are listed in Table 1. This example includes
regions where the skin factor of the well is decreasing,
increasing, and steady over a given time interval. Figure
1a shows the true transient pressure response of this
well for the given injection rate history and reservoir
properties as calculated from the line source solution to
the radial diffusivity equation where the effect of
injection rate changes have been accounted for through
the principle of superposition. Figure 1b shows the
calculated skin response for the well using a transient
pressure assumption and a steady-state pressure
assumption. It is readily evident that the steady-state
calculation method results in an overprediction of the true

SPE 27401

BEHENNA. F. R.

skin factor over the entire course of injection.

This is
due to the fact that the steady-state pressure drop will
always be higher than the pressure drop in the infinite
acting transient pressure regime assumed for this
example (and that will very likely be in effect during the
course of an actual treatment).
It is also evident that each change in injection rate
causes an immediate fluctuation in the calculated steadystate skin factor that is not seen in the skin factor
calculated using the transient pressure assumption with
superposition. This is due to the failure of the steadystate method to account for the transient nature of the
pressure response after a rate change and the effect of all
previous rate changes up to the point in time of the
calculation. For the most part. these fluctuations do not
greatly affect the trend of the skin factor evaluation, and
the same general information could be obtained using
either calculation method as far as the magnitude of the
damage removed or caused during a specific stage. and
the rate at which the skin factor changes occurred.
However. in some instances, the effect of the rate
change does mask the true skin factor response.
particularly in the time period immediately following a
rate change when a steady-state calculation method is
used. As will be shown in case histories. the change in
skin factor resulting from contact with a specific
stimulation fluid or diverting agent stage can be very
abrupt. In such cases. information on how quickly the
formation reacted to a specific stage. which can provide
valuable clues as to what type of formation damage
might be present, could be lost when using the steadystate calculation method.

subject literature. 2 ,4
Advantages of the method of skin factor
calculation assuming a transient pressure response during
infinite acting radial flow which utilizes the principle of
superposition to account for injection rate variation are
that the skin factor output will be exact. assuming that
no error is present in the input reservoir parameters or the
injection rate and the bottomhole treating pressure. and
that the infinite acting radial flow regime is in effect.
This makes this calculation method suitable for
calculating the skin factor at regular. closely spaced time
intervals. Disadvantages of the method are that the
calculation procedure is much more complex than the
steady-state method. as the transient method with
superposition requires that every point in the injection
rate history be used in the most current calculation. This
necessitates that a PC receiving real-time values of
bottomhole treating pressure and injection rate be used to
make the calculations on location.
Some limitations on the use of a skin factor value
calculated during the treatment will exist regardless of
which method is used. The accuracy of the calculated
skin factor will depend on the accuracy of the input
reservoir parameters of permeability, reservoir height, and
average static reservoir pressure. Commonly. a good
estimate of permeability is not known since the desired
value is the effective permeability of the formation to an
aqueous fluid. which may be substantially different than
that of the produced fluid. Probably the best way to
obtain a realistic permeability estimate is to use injection
data obtained during the treatment.
Prouvost and
Economides advocate the use of an injection/falloff test
during the initial injection of an inert fluid during the
treatment. 3 This test is analogous to a build-up test in a
production well. Another method which can be used to
determine kw is from an injectivity test where pressure
and rate data are obtained during the injection of an inert
fluid. This test is analogous to a drawdown test in a
production well. and when applicable may be preferable
to a falloff test, as no shut-in period is required during the
test. Figure 2 shows an example of the determination of
kw from such an analysis. The calculated value of 43 md
was in excellent agreement with the operators estimate
of 50 md and was used for skin factor analysis during the
treatment. In this case, the well had been shut-in for a
sufficient period of time before the treatment for the
reservoir pressure to stabilize. Had this not been the
case. an injection/falloff test would have been the
preferred method of permeability determination.

In general. the advantages of using the steadystate calculation method are that the equations used are
simple and easily understood and calculation of the skin
factor is fast and can even be tracked by plotting
pressure vs. injection rate by hand on charts printed
before the treatment, enabling the calculations to be
made without the use of a PC on location in many cases.
Disadvantages of this method are that it will overestimate
the skin factor to some extent and that significant
injection rate changes will distort the skin factor output
for at least several minutes after the change occurs. For
this reason. the steady-state calculation method may not
be particularly well-suited to providing a continuously
updated skin factor value calculated at short. regular time
intervals, but rather to calculations of the skin factor
during specific points of interest during the job such as
after the stimulation fluid at the perforations changes or
several minutes after injection rate changes occur. Good
examples of this type of application can be found in the

563

INTERPRETATION OF MATRIX ACIDIZING TREATMENTS

USING A CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED SKIN FACTOR

In some cases, neither of these techniques will be

applicable, such as in gas wells or in high permeability
reservoirs where the change in injection pressure over
time may be too small to be resolved by the pressure
transducers typically used during matrix acidizing
treatments. In these instances, one must rely on the
operators estimate of permeability or on sidewall or
whole core permeability values that may be available.
Problems in calculation should also be expected
when foamed fluids or liquids commingled with gas are
used during the treatment, as one of the basic
assumptions of the calculation method is that a virtually
incompressible fluid is being used. The method may also
produce questionable results when friction pressures are
high, and it is not possible or desirable to maintain a
liquid filled annulus from which bottom hole treating
pressure can be calculated without friction pressure
effects. In this case, the accuracy of the pressure used
for calculation is only as accurate as the friction pressure
correlation used.
CASE HISTORIES
Two representative case histories are presented
below. The first example is a gravel packed water
injection well in a sandstone formation located in the Gulf
of Mexico. This example was chosen because there was
a very definite formation response to each fluid stage
pumped and because the large fluctuations in injection
rate and treating pressure make it difficult to determine
the formation response to the fluid stages without
calculation of a skin factor response.
The second
example is from a gravel packed oil production well in the
Middle East in which multiple slugs of oil soluble resin
carried in HCI were used to divert HCI and HF acid
stages. In this case, the calculation of the skin factor
during the treatment gives valuable insight into the
effectiveness of the diverting stages and the overall
effect of the treatment.
Example A
The treatment in Example A was performed on a
water injection well located in the Gulf of Mexico. The
planned procedure for the treatment was to maintain an
approximate wellhead treating pressure of 1800 psi
throughout the treatment by varying the injection rate
during the course of the job. The parameters used as
input for skin factor calculations are shown in Table 2,
and the treating fluid schedule specified by the operator
is shown in Table 3. In this case, the kw estimate of 100

564

SPE 27401

md was obtained from core data supplied by the

operator.
Figure 3a shows the wellhead treating pressures
and injection rates recorded during the treatment. The
arrival of each distinct fluid stage at the perforations is
noted on the pressure trace. For the majority of the
treatment, the wellhead pressure was maintained
between 1750 psi and 2000 psi by either increasing or
decreasing the injection rate. This makes it very difficult
to get anything other than a rough qualitative estimate of
the effect of a given fluid stage on the formation by
looking at this data. Figure 3b shows the real-time
output of the skin factor calculated as the treatment
progressed. With this output, the effect of each fluid on
the formation can be clearly seen.
During the first 35 minutes of the treatment the
injection water that was initially present in the tubing is
bullheaded into the formation by the 3% NH 4 CI preflush.
Over this time period, the calculated skin factor increases
from 26 to 29, indicating that the injection of this water
was causing damage to the formation. Once the NH 4 CI
preflush stage reaches the perforations, the skin factor
decreases slightly and then becomes stable, suggesting
that whatever was causing the damage during the
displacement of the injection water is not occurring
during the injection of the ammonium chloride.
As the 10% HCI preflush enters the formation, a
large and immediate decrease in the skin factor from 29
to 17 was seen that implies that some HCI soluble
material was contributing to the formation damage
present in this well. This damage appears to have been
completely removed by the first 20% of the total volume
of 10% HCI injected. As HCI injection continues, the
calculated skin factor becomes fairly steady and in the
latter portion of this period, begins to increase
significantly, indicating that at this point, HCI is causing,
rather than removing damage.
When the 7.5% HCI- 1.5% HF stage reaches the
perforations, the removal of damage is immediate and
dramatic. The skin factor value drops from 26 to 4
before the specific injection volume of the HF acid
mixture reaches 5 gal/ft. As the remainder of the total HF
volume of 25 galtft is injected, the skin factor continues
to decline to a slightly negative value of approximately
-1. The rate of the damage removal during this stage and
the small volume of HF acid required to achieve
apparently complete damage removal tends to indicate
that the formation damage in this well was localized in

SPE 27401

BEHENNA, F. R.

the very near well bore region, within several inches of

the perforations or in the perforations themselves.
The main damage removal stage in this treatment
was designated by the operator to be a 4% fluoboric acid
(HBF4 ) solution. Almost immediately after this stage
reached the perforations, the pumps lost prime and
injection was halted for approximately 5 minutes while
the pumps were re-primed. Upon resuming injection at 4
bbl/min, the calculated skin factor began a gradual rise
from -0.5 to a final value of 5. It has been documented
that HBF4 reacting on sandstone will produce a
borosilicate reaction product. 5 It has also been reported
that this reaction product can have the beneficial effect
of welding non-reacted formation fines to supporting
quartz grains, preventing their migration within the
formation during subsequent production. 5 ,6.7 In this
treatment however, it is believed that the formation
permeability was too low for this potential benefit to be
realized and that the reaction product caused partial
plugging of the pore spaces in the formation, which
resulted in the increasing skin factor value. Although the
increase in skin factor during the HBF4 stage increased
only from -0.5 to 5, the implication on the success of the
treatment was great. At the pressure and rate observed
at the end of the HF acid stage, the injectivity of the well
was 5.45 bpd/psi, while at the end of the HBF4 stage this
value had decreased by 48% to 2.84 bpd/psi.
Pressure and rate data for the final HCI and NH 4 CI
overflush stages was not recorded since once the tail end
of the NH 4 CI stage was displaced to the top of the
tubing, the stimulation vessel that performed the
treatment rigged down and displacement of these stages
was completed using the injection pumps on the
platform.
Based on the results of this treatment, a
subsequent treatment on an offset well on the same
platform was designed using a larger volume of HF than
was used on the well in Example 1, with no HBF4 stage.
Example B
The treatment in Example B was performed on an
oil production well located in the Middle East. The input
parameters for skin calculation are shown in Table 2 and
the fluids and volumes pumped are listed in Table 3. In
this case, the skin factor calculations were performed
after the treatment rather than in real-time as in Example
A. Prior to the treatment on this well, a build-up test
indicated the skin factor of the well to be 40. The value
of kw used for skin factor calculation was determined by

565

varying the input permeability value until the initial

calculated skin factor value during the treatment matched
the value of 40 calculated from the build-up test.
This treatment utilized three separate oil-soluble
resin (OSR) diverting stages during the treatment to
attempt to achieve uniform placement of the treating
fluids across the interval. These diverting stages cause
"temporary" formation damage that restricts flow into the
formation at the sites of deposition until oil production is
resumed and the diverting agent is dissolved. This flow
restriction will cause a pressure increase resulting in an
increase in the calculated skin factor as the diverting
stage reaches the formation. The effect of the diversion
stages is easily seen in Figures 4a and 4b. Since a large
production increase was noted in this well following the
acid treatment, the apparent skin factor increase from 40
to 60 during the course of the treatment obviously does
not reflect the true damage removal achieved. To arrive
at a meaningful skin factor value that represents the true
effect of the treatment, the effect of the diverting agent
slugs must be removed from the skin factor response.
The effect of the diverting agent slugs is removed
from the skin factor calculation by shifting the actual
observed pressure response during diverting stages
downward by an amount equal to the pressure increase
attributable to the diverter. 3 This process is repeated at
each diverter stage to arrive at a modified pressure trace
that is used to calculate the skin factor during the
treatment without the diversion effects. The values
calculated from the original pressure are referred to as the
pseudoskin, since it includes "false" skin factor increases
from the diversion stages.
Examination of the calculated skin factor in Figure
4b reveals some interesting trends in damage removal
and diversion efficiency as the treatment progresses.
During the first acid sequence, the calculated skin factor
varies little during the HCI stage and decreases only
slightly during the HF acid stage. This response indicates
that very little damage removal was occurring during this
treatment sequence, most likely because the fluids were
A
entering an undamaged portion of the interval.
significant increase in pressure is observed during the
first diversion stage, suggesting that the diverter has
successfully reduced flow into the portion of the interval
which took the first treating sequence. The skin factor
during the second acid sequence shows a slow but
steady decrease during both the HCI and HF acid injection
periods.

INTERPRETATION OF MATRIX ACIDIZING TREATMENTS

USING A CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED SKIN FACTOR

A large increase in treating pressure is again

observed during the second diversion stage, indicating
further restriction of flow into the zones accepting fluid.
During the third acid sequence, the skin factor increases
slightly during the HCI acid stage, but drops sharply
during the HF acid stage, signifying that the two previous
diverting stages have successfully forced HF acid into a
damaged zone not contacted during the first two acid
sequences. The final diversion stage causes a treating
pressure increase equal in magnitude to that observed
during the first two diversion stages, even though the
volume of the stage is less than half that of the previous
diversion stages. This would suggest that the final
diverter stage is forcing fluid to enter less permeable or
more highly damaged zones due to the cumulative effect
of the diverting agent. This is confirmed by the very
sharp drop in the calculated skin factor during the final
acid sequence, which implies that the final acid sequence
has been diverted to the most highly damaged portion of
the interval where acid will be of the most benefit.
The key point of interest in this example is the
importance of the diverting stages in achieving damage
removal from this well. Judging from the skin factor
response during the first acid sequence, this treatment
would likely have failed to improve well productivity had
no diverting stages been used to force the acid stages
into the damaged zones in the interval. It is also
important to note that the magnitude and rate of damage
removal increased with each acid sequence following a
diverter stage. This implies that each diverter stage was
more effective than the previous stage at diverting acid
to the most damaged zones in the interval. This can be
attributed to the cumulative effect of the diverting stages
in reducing flow into undamaged zones, or zones treated
by previous acid sequences. Figure 5 shows the slope of
the skin factor curve during each of the four HF acid
sequences pumped during the treatment in Example 2.
This figure indicates that the third and fourth acid
sequences were responsible for the large majority of
damage removal during this treatment, even though the
volume of these two stages was only half that of the first
two stages.
DERIVATIVE ANALYSIS
Figure 5 also introduces the topic of what can be
learned by examining the slope of the calculated skin
factor trends during a treatment.
The increasingly
negative slopes of the lines with each HF acid sequence
indicate that damage removal in this well is occurring at
increasingly faster rates due to the effect of diverter

566

SPE 27401

stages. In this case, the lines were "hand fit" through

the declining skin factor trends, and hence are straight
lines with constant slopes. However, in many cases, it
may be of benefit to observe the derivative of the
calculated skin factor with respect to time, which is the
instantaneous slope of the skin factor curve at a given
point in time. This data can shed light on the rate of
formation damage removal during acid stages or on the
rate of skin factor increase during diverter stages.
Figure 6a shows the skin factor evolution during
a matrix acidizing treatment where 2% NH 4 CI, xylene,
and 10% HCI stages preceded the main 7.5% HCI-1.5%
HF stage. Figure 6b shows the values of dS/dt on the
same time axis. During the injection of 2% NH 4 CI, dS/dt
maintains a fairly constant value near 0, indicating a
nearly constant skin factor which would be expected
during the injection of an inert fluid. As xylene reaches
the perforations, dS/dt quickly reaches a highly negative
value of -105 hr- 1 , but just as quickly returns to a value
near 0 for the remainder of the stage, suggesting that
only a small amount of xylene soluble material was
present in the well, and that it was quickly removed by
a minimal amount of the solvent. The derivative data
observed during the HCI stage is similar in nature to that
of the xylene, with a negative value of dS/dt being
observed during the very first part of the stage, indicating
damage removal, and then a quick return to a value near
for the remainder of the stage, showing that no further
damage removal was occurring. During the HCI stage,
the maximum negative value obtained was much less
than during the xylene stage, signifying a slower rate of
damage removal.

The derivative response during the HF stage in

this treatment differs considerably from that seen during
the xylene or HCI stages. A local minimum for dS/dt of
-40 is reached soon after HF injection begins, but then
increases slowly while still remaining negative. The last
fifteen minutes during which this stage is entering the
formation produces a dS/dt value very near O. The
derivative response observed during HF injection in this
treatment shows the characteristics one would hope for
in such a treatment.
Damage removal is initially
occurring at a rapid rate as damage at or near the
perforation face is removed. As acid penetrates around
the well bore, damage removal continues, but the rate of
change in the skin factor decreases because damage
occurring at increasing depth from the well bore will have
progressively less effect on the skin factor.

SPE 27401

The leveling out of dS/dt at a value of zero at the

end of the stage indicates no further change in the skin
factor is occurring and that the well was neither
undertreated with HF, as would be the case if the
derivative value were still negative at the end of the
stage, nor overtreated, which would be the case if dS/dt
maintained a value of zero for a significant portion of the
stage injection time or if the value became positive.
Figure 7 illustrates another use for the derivative
of the skin factor with respect to time. This value shows
the values of dS/dt calculated during the diversion stages
in Example 2. Values other than those obtained during
the diversion stages are not shown. During each of the
diversion stages, the skin factor increased, therefore the
derivative response is positive. Figure 7 illustrates that
the maximum rate of change of the skin factor also
increased with each subsequent diverting stage during
the treatment. This strongly indicates that each diversion
stage is becoming more efficient at forcing treating fluids
into more highly damaged zones. The increasing rate of
skin factor decrease during the acid stages following each
diversion stage as shown in Figure 5 is further evidence
of this.
One unfortunate aspect of using dS/dt is that it
will amplify any "noise" in the skin factor data and will
almost certainly require smoothing before trends in the
rate of skin factor change can be clearly seen.
CONCLUSIONS
1.

2.

BEHENNA, F. R.

The steady-state pressure method and the

transient pressure method of calculating a realtime skin factor value during matrix acidizing
treatments will typically produce the same
general trends in skin factor evolution during the
treatment. The steady-state method however is
better suited to calculating a fairly small number
of skin factor values at specific points of interest
which occur at least several minutes after
significant injection rate changes take place. The
transient pressure calculation method is suitable
for calculating continuously updated skin factor
values at closely spaced regular time intervals,
since its output is not skewed by injection rate
changes.
Accurate values of the reservoir parameters,
bottomhole treating pressure, and injection rate
are required for either calculation method to
produce reasonably accurate skin factor values.
The most difficult parameter to obtain, kw ' is best

arrived at by using injectivity or falloff testing

during injection of an inert preflush.
3.

The ability to observe a continuously updated

skin factor value during a treatment or in post
treatment analysis can
clarify formation
responses to individual stimulation fluids or
diverting stages that are not easily recognizable
when observing the treating pressure and
injection rate values alone.

4.

Examination of the rate of change of the skin

factor with respect to time, dS/dt, can provide
data on the rate of skin factor decrease or
increase not readily evident from the skin factor
versus elapsed time plot. This information may
help indicate depth and severity of formation
damage or the efficiency of diverting agent slugs
used during the treatment.

NOMENCLATURE
B=
h=
k=
kw =
Pjnj =
Pj=
qj =
rb =
rw =
S=
t=
Jl =

Formation volume factor, res bbIlSTB, m 3 /m 3

Reservoir thickness, ft, m
Permeability, md
Effective permeability to water, md
Bottomhole injection pressure, psi, kPa
Initial static reservoir pressure, psi, kPa
Injection rate, bbl/min, m 3 /min
Radius of formation cylinder in which the majority
of the pressure drop takes place, ft, m
Wellbore radius, ft, m
Skin Factor
time, hr
viscosity, cp

REFERENCES
1.

McLeod, H.P. and Coulter, A.W.: "The

Stimulation Treatment Pressure Record - An
Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool," JPT
(Aug. 1969) 952-960.

2.

G. Paccaloni: "Field History Verifies Control,

Evaluation," OGJ (Nov. 26, 1979) 61-65

3.

Prouvost, L.P. and Economides, M.J.:

"Applications of Real-Time Matrix Acidizing
Evaluation Method," SPEPE (Nov. 1989)
401-406.

567

INTERPRETATION OF MATRIX ACIDIZING TREATMENTS

USING A CONTINUOUSlV MONITORED SKIN FACTOR

4.

G. Paccaloni and M. Tambini: "Advances in

Matrix Stimulation Technology," JPT (March
1993) 256-263.

Thomas, R.L. and Crowe, C.W.:"Matrix

Treatment Employs New Acid System for
Stimulation and Control of Fines Migration in
Sandstone Formations," JPT (Aug. 1981)
1491-1500.

6.

McBride, J.R., Rathbone, M.J., and Thomas,

R.L.: "Evaluation of Fluoboric Acid Treatment
in the Grand Isle Offshore Area Using
Multiple Rate Flow Test," paper SPE 8399
presented at the 1979 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept.
23-26.

7.

J. Bertaux: "Treatment Fluid Selection for

Sandstone Acidizing: Permeability Impairment
in Potassic Mineral Sandstones," SPEPE (Feb.
1989) 41-48.

568

SPE 27401

Table 1
Steady State vs. Transient Skin Factor Calculation Example
p:
k:
h:
:

Time Interval
(hrs)
0.000-0.167
0.167-0.333
0.333-0.500
0.500-0.667
0.667-0.833
0.833-1.000
1.000-1.167

1 cp
100 md
100 ft
0.20

ct :
r w:
rb :

Pr :

Injection Rate
(bpm)

Initial Skin Factor

Final Skin Factor

1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
3.0
0.5
1.0

20
10
10
5
5
0
0

10
10
5
5
0
0
10

Table 2
Reservoir Data
Example 1
kh:
:

Pr :
p:
r w:

5600 mdft.
0.20
4700 psi
0.5 cp
0.52 ft.

Example 2
kh:
:

Pr :
p:
r w:

5e-6 psi-'
0.33 ft
4 ft
2000 psi

16,000 mdft.
0.27
1630 psi
0.5 cp
0.35 ft.

569

Table 3
Treating Fluid Schedules
Example 1
Stage Vol.
(gal)

Fluid

Stage No.

2100
3550
1400
5600
500
4200

3% NH 4 CL
10% HCI
7.5% HCI-1.5% HF
4% HBF4
10% HCI
3% NH 4 CI

2
3
4
5
6

Example 2
Stage No.

Fluid

Stage Vol.
(gal)

Sequence 1

1
2
3

15% HCI
7.5% HCI-1.5% HF
15 % HCI + OSR Diverter

Sequence 2

4
5
6

15% HCI
7.5% HCI-1.5% HF
15 % HCI + OSR Diverter

530
530
515

8
9

15% HCI
7.5% HCI-1.5% HF
15 % HCI + OSR Diverter

265
275
235

10
11

15% HCI
7.5% HCI-1.5% HF

120
250

Sequence 3

Sequence 4

570

1330
520
540

[-

2800 .

Tranaient Injection Pre-;-sure

---

Injection Rate

2600

2400

2200 .

2000

.....L_ _-L

25

..L-_ _~'-----_--'-_ _- ' -_ _..L

'-----_--'-

---'1

' - - - _ - - - ' . _ _. . . . . L _ _ _

.---,

Skin Factor (transient pressure a"um plion)

---

Skin Factor

(S~eadY

state pressure assumption)

15

j
c:

i;j

10

5 _

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

E lapsed Injection Tim e (hrs)

Figure 1 - (a) Transient pressure response for given flowrate and skin factor evolution in theoretical
example, (b) Comparison of skin factor values calculated using transient and steady-state
pressure assumptions.
5900
q-3528 bpd

,.-0.5 cp
B-1 rb/stb
h-42 ft

5800

k- 162~ ~ ,.B _ 43 md

5700

-r

5600

5500
1.00

0.10

time (hrs)

Figure 2 - Determination of ~ from a constant rate injectivity test during injection of an inert aqueous fluid.

571

2500

--..------_ 4.0

~----------

2000 .

3.0

~
.......
~

~:

~bing Pressure

1500 -

::::l

::::l

injection rate

2.0

a..
C)

1000 .

c:
15

-.g~
~

1.0
500

o
30

-L.

...L-_ _.--L.

--'---- __

---l.

--'----+-"'-"--_----'_(.--la)

0.0

~-----,-:-----r--

20
'-

c:
32

en

1. Injection water is displaced into formation

2. NH4CI @ pelfs
3. 10% HCI @ perfs

10

4.7.5% HCI-1.5% HF@ perfs

5. 4% HBF4 @ perfs

o
(b)
0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Elapsed lime (hrs)

~ 3 (a) Tti:i~ pessue a"d irjEDiCll

rae tistayftr Exa'r'Pe 1, (b) caaJctsj skin faia" d.ri~ tte treaJ rErt

572

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 2.0

2400

BHTP

Injection Rate

2200

1.6

1.2

2000 .

(a)
80

Diversion Stage

Pseudoskin

60

Skin (minus diverter effect)

40

Fluid at Perfs

20

1. 15% HCI
2. 7.5% HCI-1.5% HF
3. 15% HCI + OSR Diverting Agent

(b)

o ---t--------,-- -----'-1-----,-------,-----,-----,-1- - 1 - - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - 1
0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00

Elapsed Time (hrs)

Figure 4 - (a) Boltomhole treating pressure and injection rate history for Example 2, (b) calculated psuedoskin and skin factors
during the treatment.

573

8equence1
8equence2

8equence3

8equence4

Figure 5 - Illustrates the increasing negative slope of the skin factor during the
HF acid sequences following each diverting sequence in Example 2.

25
20
L-

15

:.s2

10 -

ts
m
us:::

en

5
0
40
HF

NH 4CI

0
.-

--~....
L:...

..c:

-40

"C

-80

-120

+--1
o

I
1

I --,234
Elapsed Time (hrs)

Figure 6 - (a) Skin factor evolution during an HF acid treatment, (b) Derivative of the
skin factor with respect to time.

574

400

/~

/'

.'1

n
200

If\

1.0

I
1.2

1.4
1.6
Elapsed lime (hIS)

I
1.8

2.0

Figtn 7 - Derivative for periods from ExalTllle 2 corresponding to diversion stages.

575