Candidate Production Well and

Layer Selection Method for

Acidizing-water Shutoff Joint
Operation
Chao Xian*
Postgraduate College of Oil and Gas Engineering, Southwest petroleum
University Chengdu 610500, China; e-mail:406715957@qq.com

Liqiang Zhao
Professor National key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir and Exploitation;
College of Oil and Gas Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu
610500, China; e-mail: zhaolq@vip.163.com

Zhifeng Luo
Professor National key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir and Exploitation;
College of Oil and Gas Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu
610500, China; e-mail: 125987394@qq.com

Xitang Lan
PostgraduateTianjin Branch Company, CNOOC, Tanggu, Tianjin 300450,
China; e-mail: 635903359@qq.com

ABSTRACT
Acidizing -water shutoff joint operation technology is an effective method to control water cut and
increase oil production. For thick, multi-layer and heterogeneous reservoir, there are many factors
affecting the selection of well and layer in production wells for acidizing -water shutoff joint operation
and the relationships among various factors are complex and nonlinear. The traditional empirical
method and statistical method can not meet the requirements. To solve this problem, seven factors are
selected such as permeability, coefficient of permeability variation, skin factor, etc. Based on the
analysis of the effect of acidizing -water shutoff joint operation for production well, this paper
calculates the correlation coefficient between the factors and the increasing production ratio by
Pearson correlation coefficient method. And the relative importance of each factor is determined
according to the correlation coefficient. Then, the index weight of each factor can be decided by
FAHP. This new method was applied in a certain oilfield and concluded that the results are accord
with the practical effects. This method is reliable and simple, it can provide a powerful guarantee for
improving the success rate of acidizing-water shutoff joint operation for production wells.

- 4315 -
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4316

KEYWORDS: acidizing-water shutoff joint operation, production well and layer selection,

correlation coefficient, FAHP

INTRODUCTION
At present, most oilfields in China have entered mid-late oil exploitation stage. Specially, for thick,
multi-layer and heterogeneous reservoir, the conflict of the interlayer and inner-layer became
aggravated[1]. In order to control water cut and increase oil production, water shutoff and acidizing are
often taken[2-4]. But most of the acid will enter the high permeable layer when acidification, and a
small amount of acid will enter the low permeability layer, which can’t achieve the desired results. In
this connection, acidizing -water shutoff joint operation has been researched and practiced in field, but
the effect varies significantly. So the success of acidizing -water shutoff joint operation depends on
well selection. Taking into account the well selection factors are numerous and complex, the traditional
empirical method and statistical method are not applicable. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is
often used at present.[5-7]

For the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, it is necessary to decide the index weight of each
factor. At present, the main methods of weight determination are empirical analogy, statistical analysis,
principal component analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) adopts
the idea of combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis, so that the complex system is
decomposed[8]. However, the scale of the analytic hierarchy process has strong subjectivity. In order to
make decision more objective and reasonable, pearson correlation coefficient method was used to
calculate the correlation between each factor and objective function. Based on the pearson correlation
coefficient and FAHP[9], the author established a model of well and layer selection in production well,
not only does it overcome the blindness of the traditional method, but also avoid the subjectivity of the
analytic hierarchy process.

FACTOR ANALYSIS
Based on the physical property of reservoir and the development of production well, analyzing the
influence factors of water shutoff and acidizing and the parameters’ desirability. Nine factors are
selected as the index system of the selection of well and layer for acidizing -water shutoff joint
operation and they are average effective porosity and permeability, perforated thickness, water cut,
coefficient of permeability variation, rate of water cut, current formation pressure, remaining reserves
and skin factor[10,11]. The bigger evaluation index is, the better result is. Water cut was S type growth
with the development time, so it can be described by the Logstic cycle model(Formula 1).
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4317

(𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 = (1)
(1+𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒 −𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 )

where 𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 is the water cut, (𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is the limited water cut and here it’s equal to 0.98, t is the
development time, a and b is the coefficient.

By evaluating the logarithm of formula 1, formula 2 can be obtained.

(𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
ln � − 1� = 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 − 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (2)
𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤

According to the data of water cut in the production process, a and b can be obtained by using linear
regression analysis. Then the water cut at different times can be calculated and the rate of water cut can
be calculated by the derivation of water cut.

The nine evaluation indexes are standardized by formula 3.

𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 −𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 = (3)
𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 −𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 is the membership of index x, 𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is minimum value of x, 𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is maximum value of x.

Fuzzy fitness matrix A can be obtained by formula 4:

𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖2 ⋯ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

⎡𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊1 𝑥𝑥11 𝑥𝑥12 ⋯ 𝑥𝑥1𝑛𝑛 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
A = ⎢𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊2 𝑥𝑥21 𝑥𝑥22 ⋯ 𝑥𝑥2𝑛𝑛 ⎥ (4)
⎢ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⎥
⎣𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛1 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛2 ⋯ 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 ⎦

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
The linear correlation between each factor and the objective function are measured by pearson
correlation coefficient. The formula for calculation is as follows:
∑(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 −𝑥𝑥̅ )(𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 −𝑦𝑦�)
𝑐𝑐𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 = (5)
(�∑𝑛𝑛 2 𝑛𝑛 �)2 )
𝑖𝑖=1(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 −𝑥𝑥̅ ) �∑𝑖𝑖=1(𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 −𝑦𝑦

where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 is the membership of index x, 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 is the membership of index y, 𝑥𝑥̅ is the mean value of x and
𝑦𝑦� is the mean value of y.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4318

FUZZY ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS

The establishment of fuzzy complementary matrix

Fuzzy complementary matrix(R = (𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 )𝑛𝑛×𝑛𝑛 ) represents the relatively important degree between the
indexes on the universe of discourse U. Element 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 represents the relatively important degree between
index 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 and index 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 and the bigger 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is, the more important 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 than 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 . Here, 0.1—0.9 numerical
scale is used to quantitatively describe the relative importance between two indexes, as shown in Table
1. 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 is more important than 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 when 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 > 0.5 and 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 is more important than 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 when 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 < 0.5. In
addition, they are equally important when 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 0.5. In the past, the value of 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 are obtained by
experience and this may lead to erroneous results. In order to solve this problem, the correlation
coefficient is divided into 5 intervals: [0,0.2]，[0.2,0.4]，[0.4,0.6]，[0.6,0.8]，[0.8,1]. The important
degree of the indexes increased in accordance with the interval and indexes are equally important
when they are in the same interval. Based on this, the relative importance between two indexes can be
decided.

Table 1：Numerical scale of 0.1–0.9 of fuzzy complementary judgment matrix

Corresponding
Scale Definition Illustration
correlation coefficient
One factor is equally important to
0.5 Equally important [0,0.2]
the other factor
One factor is weakly more
0.6 Weakly important [0.2,0.4]
important than the other factor
Essentially One factor is essentially more
0.7 [0.4,0.6]
important important than the other factor
One factor is strongly more
0.8 Strongly important [0.6,0.8]
important than the other factor
Extremely One factor is extremely more
0.9 [0.8,1]
important important than the other factor
If the result of factor i comparing
Opposite to factor j is 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 , the result of
0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4
comparison factor j comparing to factor i is
𝑟𝑟𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 = 1 − 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

According to Table 1, fuzzy complementary judgment matrix R is obtained:

𝑟𝑟11 𝑟𝑟12 ⋯ 𝑟𝑟1𝑛𝑛

𝑟𝑟21 𝑟𝑟22 ⋯ 𝑟𝑟2𝑛𝑛
R = �⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯� (6)
𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛1 𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛2 ⋯ 𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛

Matrix A has the following main properties: 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is equal to 0.5 while i = j ; 𝑟𝑟𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 = 1 − 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ; 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑟𝑟𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 + 0.5，i, j, k = 1,2, ⋯ , n.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4319

Determination of fuzzy consistent matrix index weight

For the fuzzy complementary matrix, the formula 7 can be got:

𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 0.5 + 𝑎𝑎�𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 − 𝑤𝑤𝑗𝑗 �，i, j = 1,2, ⋯ , n (7)

So the index weight can be calculated by the following equation:

1 1 1
𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 = − + ∑𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘=1 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (8)
𝑛𝑛 2𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛

where 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 is the weight of the index i, and In order to ensure the weight of 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0, the conditions
𝑛𝑛−1 𝑛𝑛−1
a≥ must be met. Here, a = .
2 2

Here, let 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗 = 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 ,we can get the index weight matrix W:

𝑤𝑤11 𝑤𝑤12 ⋯ 𝑤𝑤1𝑛𝑛

𝑤𝑤21 𝑤𝑤22 ⋯ 𝑤𝑤2𝑛𝑛
W=� ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯� (9)
𝑤𝑤𝑛𝑛1 𝑤𝑤𝑛𝑛2 ⋯ 𝑤𝑤𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛

Calculation of judgement vector

We multiply matrix A by matrix W (formula 10)and that can get the judgement vector of each well.

V(i) = ∑𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗=1 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 × 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (10)

According to the value of V, the oil well can be sorted for acidizing -water shutoff joint operation.
Then, selecting the layer of the well for acidizing or water-shutoff operation. The layer which has high
permeability should be selected to do water-shutoff operation and the layer which has low permeability
or large skin factor should be acidified.

FIELD APPLICATION
X oilfield is a very complex reservoir due to multi layer and heterogeneity. For the oil well,
controlling water cut and increasing oil production can not be achieved at the same time by acidizing or
water shutoff separately. So acidizing -water shutoff joint operation was adopted. There are many
factors that affect the effectiveness of the work and well and layer selection must be carried out
properly. In this study, 9 wells from X field as a sample database to evaluate the effectiveness of other
5 candidate wells. Typical characteristic parameters of each well are shown in Table 2.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4320

Table 2: Typical characteristic parameters of 14 wells

Well H,m φ 𝐾𝐾,mD 𝐾𝐾𝑉𝑉 𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 𝑊𝑊𝑉𝑉 Unp Pp，MPa S PR
A1 21 0.27 318.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 12 5 0.65
A2 25 0.29 1079.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.8 10 18 4.2
A3 29 0.28 885.4 1 0.7 0.8 0.8 11 20 5
A4 31 0.30 1675.3 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.8 14 37 10
A5 33 0.25 298.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.8 12 29 10
A6 34 0.27 672.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.6 12 15 8.2
A7 29 0.24 290.2 0,7 0.5 0.5 0.8 13 28 7.2
A8 18 0.22 489.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 11 10 2.4
A9 20 0.25 510.9 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.8 14 15 4.5
A10 25 0.28 891.2 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 15 15 6.5
A11 28 0.19 765.9 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 12 39 7.5
A12 25 0.21 909.3 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 15 15 2.2
A13 16 0.25 1350.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 14 12 3.5
A14 19 0.29 597.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 14 22 3.2
�—average effective permeability；𝐾𝐾𝑉𝑉 —coefficient of
H—perforated thickness；φ—average effective porosity；𝐾𝐾
permeability variation;𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 —water cut；𝑊𝑊𝑉𝑉 —rate of water cut； unp—remaining reserves of oil well；Pp—current
formation pressure； S—skin factor；PR—production-increasing ratio

The parameters in Table 2 (the first nine) are standardized by formula 3, and then the fuzzy fitness
matrix A is established as follows:
0.32 0.73 0.02 0 0.75 0.40 0.33 0.40 0
⎡0.53 0.91 0.57 0.80 0.50 0 1 0 0.38⎤
⎢ ⎥
0.74 0.82 0.43 1 0.75 0.80 1 0.20 0.44
⎢ ⎥
0.84 1 1 0.80 0.38 0.40 1 0.80 0.94
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.95 0.55 0.01 0.60 0.25 0.20 1 0.40 0.71⎥
⎢ 1 0.73 0.28 0.80 0.38 0.20 0.33 0.40 0.29⎥
0.74 0.45 0 0.40 0.50 0.20 1 0.60 0.68⎥
A=⎢
⎢0.16 0.27 0.14 0.80 1 0.80 0.67 0.20 0.15⎥
⎢0.26 0.55 0.16 0.80 0 0 1 0.80 0.29⎥
⎢0.53 0.82 0.43 0 0.75 0.90 1 1 0.29⎥
⎢0.68 0 0.34 0.20 1 1 0.33 0.40 1 ⎥
⎢ 0 0.18 0.45 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.33 1 0.29⎥
⎢0.05 0.55 0.77 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.67 0.80 0.21⎥
⎣0.21 0.91 0.22 0 0 0.20 0 0.80 0.50⎦
Then we calculated the correlation coefficient between each index and objective function
(production-increasing ratio) by formula 5. The results are shown in Table 3.
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4321

Table 3: Correlation coefficient between each index and objective function

index H φ 𝐾𝐾 𝐾𝐾𝑉𝑉 𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 𝑊𝑊𝑉𝑉 Unp Pp S
correlation coefficient 0.86 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.22 0.02 0.42 0.02 0.76

According to Table 3, fuzzy complementary judgment matrix R was obtained:

𝐶𝐶 𝐻𝐻 𝜑𝜑 𝐾𝐾 𝐾𝐾𝑉𝑉 𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 𝑊𝑊𝑉𝑉 Unp Pp S

⎡ ⎤
𝐻𝐻 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.6
⎢ ⎥
𝜑𝜑 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 𝐾𝐾 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2⎥
𝐾𝐾 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3⎥
R = ⎢ 𝑉𝑉
⎢ 𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3⎥
⎢ 𝑊𝑊𝑉𝑉 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2⎥
⎢Unp 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.4⎥
⎢ Pp 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2⎥
⎣ S 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5⎦

Then, we can get the judgement vector of each well by formula 10 and the results are shown in
Table 4.

Table 4: The weight of each index for acidizing -water shutoff joint operation in X field
index H 𝜑𝜑 𝐾𝐾 𝐾𝐾𝑉𝑉 𝑓𝑓𝑤𝑤 𝑊𝑊𝑉𝑉 Unp Pp S
weight 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.15

According to the index weight in Table 4, the judgement vector of the last 5 wells in Table 5 was
calculated and the results are shown in Table 5.

Currently, acidizing -water shutoff joint operations had been carried out on the last 5 well in Table
2 and the production-increasing ratio were also got. As shown in Fig.1, the production-increasing ratio
increased almost with the increase of judgement results. Therefore, the index weight calculated by this
method is reasonable and can be used to help select the wells for acidizing -water shutoff joint
operation.

Table 5：Judgement result of each candidate well

Well A10 A11 A12 A13 A14
judgement result 0.60 0.59 0.34 0.45 0.33
 Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4322

0.7 8

0.6 7

production-increasing ratio
6
0.5
5
judgement

0.4
4
0.3
3
0.2
2

0.1 1

0 0
A10 A11 A12 A13 A14
well
judgement production-increasing ratio

Figure 1: Judgement results and increasing injection ratio of candidate wells

CONCLUSION
（1）Based on the Pearson correlation analysis, the primary and secondary relation between the
factors is determined, and the blindness and subjectivity are eliminated. Then fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process (FAHP) is introduced to determine the weights of each factor, which makes the decision result
more objective and practical.

（2）The validity of the correlation coefficient and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process established in
this paper is verified by the calculation of example wells, the decision result is consistent with the actual
increase effect. The method can effectively guide the demodulation of production well, and can greatly
improve the efficiency of the acidizing-water shutoff joint operation.

（3）The method established in this paper can be used for the acidizing-water shutoff joint of other
blocks for the selection of wells. and has a wide range of applications in other fields, such as acidizing
fracturing wells. It has certain popularization and application value.

REFERENCES
[1] Song Q, Sun Y, Zhou J. Quantifying the reservoir heterogeneity: A case study of clastic
reservoirs, Bohai Bay Basin, China[C]// Seg Technical Program Expanded.
2009:1760-1764.
Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4323

[2] Peng X, Feng P, Huang L, et al. Research and application of acidizing technique for high
temperature and low permeability sandstone reservoir in offshore oilfield[J]. Offshore Oil,
2008.

[3] Liu Xiaoguang. Acidizing technology of Bohai oilfield [J]. China Offshore Oil & gas
engineering, 1995 (4): 50-56.

[4] Liu P, Zhang L, Pan G, et al. On-line acidification technique for injection wells in offshore
oil field [J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (NATURAL SCIENCE
EDITION), 2014 (5): 148-154.

[5] Yin D, Wu T. Optimizing Well for Fracturing by Fuzzy Analysis Method of Applying
Computer[M]. IEEE Computer Society, 2009.

[6] Xiao Y, Guo J, Songgen S. A Comparison Study of Utilizing Optimization Algorithms and
Fuzzy Logic for Candidate-Well Selection[C]// SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition. 2015.

[7] Ding S, Jiang H, Liu G, et al. Determining the Levels and Parameters of Thief Zone Based
on Automatic History Matching and Fuzzy Method[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science &
Engineering, 2016, 138:138-152.

[8] Zhang J J. Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process[J]. Fuzzy Systems & Mathematics, 2000.

[9] Huang Y, Benesty J, Chen J. Using the Pearson correlation coefficient to develop an
optimally weighted cross relation based blind SIMO identification algorithm[C]// IEEE
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. IEEE,
2009:3153-3156.

[10] Zhao Liqiang and Zou Honglan Department of Petroleum Engineering. TEMPORARY
PLUGGING ACIDIZING TECHNIQUE AND ITS APPLICATION[J]. Natural Gas
Industry, 1998, 18(2):49-52.

[11] University C, Dongying, Zhao X, et al. Study on Decision-Making Technique of Oil Well
Water Shutoff in Integral Tract[J]. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field, 2006.

© 2017 ejge
Vol. 22 [2017], Bund. 11 4324

Editor’s note.
This paper may be referred to, in other articles, as:
Chao Xian, Liqiang Zhao, Zhifeng Luo, and Xitang Lan: “Candidate
Production Well and Layer Selection Method for Acidizing-water Shutoff
Joint Operation” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017
(22.10), pp 4315-4325. Available at ejge.com.