SPE
International
SPE 98823
Critical Success Factors for Well Stimulation
Erasmus J. Nnanna and Joseph A. Ajienka, Institute of Petroleum Studies, University of Port Harcourt
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 29th Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 1 -3, 2005.
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 Petroleum
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 Engineers, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes
without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian,
SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
ABSTRACT
The popularity of matrix stimulation as production
enhancement operation is evidenced by the abundance of
technical resources on the subject matter. Developments
in technology have continued to address the challenges of
the operation.
This paper identified three critical success for well
stimulation as good candidate selection, well-engineered
treatment design and improved field operations. The
approach was simple and involved a review of existing
case histories with a view to identifying issues that need
closer attention for the optimization of matrix treatments.
The use of the R-Factor for candidate selection was re-
visited and an expression that excluded BHP data and
rock and fluid properties was derived to ease the
calculation of this factor.
An attempt was also made towards the design of the
treatment volume of the acid based on the completion
details of the well. Charts were presented for this. Field
cases that illustrate the importance of this new approach
were also presented.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Introduction
Well Stimulation has continued to gain increased
importance as a productivity improvement method
especially as conventional oil reserves continue to deplete
and new frontiers demand advances in technology for
commercial viability. Several parameters affect the
productivity of a well. Whereas models exist for the
evaluation of well performance, the uncertainty arises
from the complexities involved in accurately predicting
downhole conditions at any given time in the life of the
well. Stimulation methods are used in improving the
performance of wells either by removing formation
damage or bypassing the formation damage through
induced fractures in the reservoir.
Most producing formations are impaired whether from
drilling, completion or production activities. This
impairment is the reason for productivity loss and
associated production gap from these wells. While
formation damage mainly arises from the drilling mud
used in the conventional overbalanced drilling of wells,
other forms of damage develop over time as the well
produces. It is imperative to characterize the source of
productivity impairment so that the right solution can be
proffered to avert loss of revenue due to wrong treatment.
Different forms of damage with the corresponding
“general” treatment have been identified1 For tight
formations, the formation damage may not be critical but
fracturing may be required to provide alternative flow
path to wellbore because of the low natural formation
permeability.
Well stimulation techniques have been developed over
the years for improving the performance of production
and injection wells. The two classes of stimulation
treatment are Acidization and Fracturing. Acidization
operation ranges from simple acid wash after a workover
or drilling operation to complex stimulation operations
involving formations with tendency of precipitating
2 E.J. Nnanna and J.A Ajienka SPE98823

insoluble products. Fracturing is popular in tight
reservoirs but is now also being applied in high
permeability reservoirs to by-pass deep near wellbore
Sp = 0.0340574 * θphase 0.704168 * Ln (8.5 * rwD) − 1.60449
+ rpD − 0.4121015 * hD *10.104463 * θphase − 0.663752
+ 4.197285 *10 − 4 e 2.92958rwD * θphase − 0.06525105

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
damage where acidizing may fail.
………………………………………………………2
The literature is replete with case studies of stimulation Where:
operations in different parts of the world with varying
degrees of success 2,3,4,5,6,7. Ekejiuba 8 put the success hw h Kh
ratio of Niger Delta matrix stimulation operations at 80% b= , hD = ,
while Sibigem 9 presented a statistical analysis of the h rw Kv
failures according to the damage type and type of rperf  Kv 
treatment. Figure 1 shows the bar chart for the first case rpD = 1 + and ,
(failure as a function of damage type) while Fig 2 gives 2hperf  Kh 
the bar chart for the second case (failure as a function
rw
treatment type), respectively. rwD =
lperf + rw
Improving the success of matrix stimulation can be Having determined these skins, the removable skin factor
achieved through improved candidate selection, proper Sd, was determined from Eqn 3.3
design of acid jobs and application of best practices. hp
Sd = (ST + Sc +θ ) − S p ………………….3
This paper has identified these critical success factors and h
presented the optimizization of some of the design We adopted the same cut-off as Onyekonwu11 in the use
parameters which were baselessly assumed. An of R-Factor. A simpler expression for the R-Factor was
innovative application of an existing candidate selection obtained by using the stabilized inflow equation and
method was also developed for recurrent damage approximating the natural logarithm of the ratio of
evaluation and damage surveillance. drainage radius to wellbore radius as 8.
h Sd
R= * ……………………………4
Improved Candidate Selection hp 8 + S
The existing models for the deconvolution of the total We used this alternate expression of the R-Factor because
skin factor are contained in the commercial production it precludes the use the rock and fluid properties and/or
optimization software used in the industry .Such tools are BHP which may not be accurately estimated at the
useful in selecting candidates but the inherent limitations prevailing reservoir pressure. The procedure for the
of the skin models should be born in mind despite the selection of stimulation candidates therefore is outlined
tendency of the software to hide such details. Al Qahtani below:
and Al Shehri2 have developed a rather simple and • Monitor the trend in performance of the well
consistent method of evaluating the completion skin over time and established a persistent decline
effects. This work adopted their method and determined different from the expected natural decline of the
the damage skin factor based on the non-linear well.
summation relationship between the psuedoskins and the • Perform production test on the well and obtain
total skin as demonstrated by Yildiz10. performance parameters such as oil rate, FTHP,
GOR, Water Cut (or WOR) and the production
The method of Al Qahtani and Shehri combined the bean size
effect of partial completion and deviation and arrived at • Build a model of the well with any available
the equation below: system analysis software.
Sc + θ = (1 − b ) * b −0.73261 * Ln(hD1.2858126 ) • Estimate the value of the global skin factor and
deconvolve the skin factor based on the
*1.0043197θ − 4.477785 Equations 1, 2 and 3.
……………………………………………………..1 • Calculate the R-Factor and Check whether value
They also presented the equation for the estimation of the is up to 0.6.
perforation skin as: • If this condition is satisfied, the well is qualified
as a stimulation candidate.
The flow chart is presented in Appendix B.
3 Critical Success Factors For Well Stimulation
Damage Radius and Treatment Volume
It has been shown that main stage acid volume is usually
not engineered in the design of acid treatment. An attempt
has been made in this work to design this parameter by
combining the work of McLeod 12 and the Hawkins radial
skin model. The procedure for obtaining the damage
radius is outlined below:
• Review the completion report of the well and
determine the perforation strategy adopted;
whether it was overbalanced or underbalanced,
and also determine whether the brine or mud
was clean, filtered or unfiltered.
• Determine the expected reduction in the
permeability in the near-wellbore region as
presented by McLeod 12.
• Use the Solver Add-in the MS Excel to target the
already obtained value of the damage skin from
the Hawkins model by adjusting the damage
radius.
Table 1: Effect of Perforation Condition on Permeability Reduction
Fluid In hole
Case A) High solids mud
Case B) Low solids mud
Case C) unfiltered brine
Case D) Filtered Brine
(Source: McLeod, 1983)
Case A: High Solids Mud
From Table 1, a well drilled with high solids mud is
expected to have a permeability reduction between 0.01
and 0.03 of the undamaged permeability. The damage
radius was therefore determined based on this and done
for several values of damage skin determined
independently. The plot is shown in Figs 3 and 4 for
12.25” and 8.5” hole respectively.
These plots show the logarithmic linear relationship
between the damage radius and damage skin. A
maximum value of 200 for the damage skin showed a
possible damage radius of 30ft. Of course, no acid
system can penetrate this depth but this plot will be
useful for estimating damage radius for more frequent
cases of damage skin being less than or equal to 100.
Treating deeper damages can also be accomplished
with the new acid systems that can achieve deeper
penetration. In such situation, this plot will be useful
for estimating the treatment/ damage radius.
SPE98823
• The value of damage radius is then obtained.
• Plot the graph of damage radius against damage
skin on a semi-log paper, for 8.5” and 12.25”
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
holes.
The treatment volume can then be obtained for the
different holes sizes and porosities of 10%, 15%,
20% and 25%. The procedure for this is outlined
below:
• Obtain the values of the damage radius
already calculated as a function of the
damage skin
• Calculate the volume of the plug damage by
using the formula for volume of a cylinder
for a unit perforation length.
• Plot the acid volumes versus the damage
skin on a semi-log paper.
Pressure Condition Kc/K
Overbalance 0.01-0.03
Overbalance 0.02-0.04
Overbalance 0.04-0.06
Overbalance 0.08-0.016
Case B: Low Solids Mud
With this type of mud, the permeability reduction in the
near wellbore region is expected to be between 0.02
and 0.04. The variation of the damage radius with
damage skin for 12.25” and 8.5” holes are presented in
Fig 5 and Fig 6:
The plots show that at a damage skin of 200, the
damage radius is about 200ft. This immediately
indicates that the less the reduction in the original
permeability from the mud filtrate and particle
invasion, the more the penetration for a given
magnitude of skin damage. These graphs will be useful
for conventional acid design at skin values below 70.
This implies that for wells completed under this
condition, designing for total removal of skins above
70 may not be feasible.
Case C: Unfiltered Brine
The relevant plots are presented in Fig 7 and Fig 8. It
shows consistency with the prevailing discussion that
the less the reduction in original permeability in the
4 E.J. Nnanna and J.A Ajienka
near wellbore region, the more the penetration for a
given skin damage. Designing with this plot will
require the damage skin to be less than 50. This is to
retain the possible range of penetration of conventional
mud acid formulations.
Case D: Filtered Brine
This case shows yet a deeper penetration for the same
theoretical maximum damage skin of 200. The plots
can be applied to estimate the radius as far as the
damage skin is such that does not give a radius greater
than 5ft. The relevant plots are presented in Fig 9 and
Fig 10.
The above analysis was extended to particular cases of
common hole sizes and formation porosities to estimate
the treatment volume. Figures 11 to 14 presents the
plots for 12.25” hole size while Fig’s 15 to 18 presents
the same plots for 8.5” hole. These plots can be used to
decide whether it will optimal to circumvent the
damage through fracture acidizing or tip screen-out
(TSO)stimulation or to go ahead with matrix treatment.
Though the graphs where developed for initial plug
damage associated with drill-in and completion, the
case A graphs can be applied in a recurrent damage
situation since the particles and fines are deposited in
similar manner.
FIELD APPLICATIONS
Well PS 1
Well PS1 is deviated well drilled to a total depth of
9560ft. Review of the completion operations shows that
the well was completed with a high solid content mud
in overbalance conditions. The total skin factor
calculated from pressure transient test analysis was 113.
The operator desires to acidize this well in order
achieve the production target of the field. Therefore
there was need to evaluate the candidacy of this well
for matrix stimulation and also determine the optimum
acid volume that will remove the plug damage. Other
information is as contained in the table below:
Well Name PS1
Net oil sand, ft 26
Perforation thickness, ft 13
Hole Deviation, deg 56
Anisotropy, fraction 0.25
Sand Control IGP
Porosity, fraction 0.20
Hole Size, in 8.5
Qualifying this well for matrix stimulation will involve
determining if the R-Factor is greater or equal to 0.6
based on the simplified expression presented in this
work. Next will be to estimate the required acid volume
SPE98823
using the appropriate graphs. A feel of the damage
radius may be established by using the relevant plots.
The R-Factor for this well was determined to be 0.86
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
which is above the required cut-off of 0.6. Therefore
well PS1 is a qualified stimulation candidate. The
required acid volume was obtained from the
appropriate chart as function of damage skin of 52 as
8gal/ft of perforation. For the given perforation
thickness of 13ft, the volume of treatment should be
104gals. This treatment volume might have been
overestimated if the damage radius is selected
arbitrarily. For instance, considering the usual damage
radius of 3-4ft, one would have expected a minimum
treatment volume of 500gals! This of course represents
an over-design and waste of money.
Well IP 2
Well IP2 is a deviated oil producer that has been
recently shut-in due to mechanical problems. The well
was drilled to a total depth 12,000ft and completed with
unfiltered brine under overbalanced pressure
conditions. The analysis of BHP data acquired for this
well shows that the well has a total skin of 118. For
operational optimization, the operator is considering
matrix treatment as a part of the workover operation
being lined up to rejuvenate this well. The operator
wants to be convinced quantitatively that this well is
good candidate for matrix acidization and possibly the
required acid volume that will remove the damage. The
other details of the well are shown below:
Well Name IP 2
Net oil sand, ft 68.2
Perforation thickness, ft 20.8
Hole Deviation, deg 37
Anisotropy, fraction 0.25
Sand Control IGP
Porosity, fraction 0.18
Hole Size, in 12.25
This well presented an R-Factor value of 0.9 which is
above the accepted cut-off of 0.6. Given the completion
details, the required acid treatment was determined
based on the method presented in this paper as
900gal/ft of perforation. And considering the given
perforation thickness of 20.8ft, the requirement
treatment volume is 1800gal! It may be desired in this
case to remove only a fraction of the damage in other
limit the volumetric requirement for the treatment
which is still better than guesswork.
Well OP3
Well OP 3 was completed with internal gravel pack and
has continued to produce since it was kicked off.
Analysis of the well effluents has presented clues to the
possibility of fines migration. As a part of well
5 Critical Success Factors For Well Stimulation
intervention campaign being planned for the field, the
operator is considering the feasibility of enhancing the
production of this well through matrix acidizing. The
existing well test interpretation for this puts the skin
factor at 16.5.
The other details of the well are presented below:
Well Name OP 3
Net oil sand, ft 200
Perforation thickness, ft 61
Hole Deviation, deg 53
Anisotropy, fraction 0.25
Sand Control IGP
Porosity, fraction 0.25
Hole Size, in 12.25
Applying the analysis method suggested in this paper
gave an R-Factor of 0.28 which was below the cut-off.
Therefore, there is need to allow this well to continue to
produce until the need arises for production
enhancement through matrix acidizing.
Conclusion
The technology of matrix situation has been well
developed over the years. As operators continue to
squeeze the margin of productivity in existing assets,
the need for improved stimulation has continued to
receive a lot of attention in literature.
Improvements in matrix stimulation can be through
candidate selection, damage characterization,
stimulation design and field operations. These represent
the critical success factors for matrix stimulation.
Stimulating sandstone reservoirs presents a lot of
design and operational challenges. This is because of
the complex mineralogy associated with sandstone
reservoirs. Several formulations are now available to
handle some of these challenges.
This study has developed innovative application of an
existing method in the selection of stimulation
candidates. The R-factor may also be used for ranking
in where budget restriction and mutually exclusive
situations. The findings of this study are summarized
below:
• The success of any matrix stimulation
depends on proper candidate selection, good
job design and improved field operations.
• A simpler expression for the R-Factor was
obtained and excludes the rock and fluid
properties and/or BHP test data.
• An attempt was made in the estimation of the
damage radius based on two independently
existing works 12,13. The method considers
the condition under which the well was
SPE98823
completed: the type of fluid used, how clean
the fluid was and the pressure condition.
• We also presented charts for the estimation
of the acid volume required to remove
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
damage based on the completion condition.
Recommendation
Based on the results of this work, some level of
improvement can be applied in matrix
stimulation. The following recommendations can
be made:
• The simplified expression for the R-Factor is
handy and can be used in monitoring recurrent
damage such as scale deposition, fines re-
deposition and wax precipitation. Adopting a
cut-off of 0.6 would make it a good damage
surveillance tool and help in the scheduling of
stimulation jobs.
• Though the determination of the damage
radius and treatment volume is based on the
completion condition and therefore apparently
limited to initial plug damage, the first case of
dirty drilling mud can be used for production
damage. This is because of the similarity in the
damage mechanism.
• Adherence to documented best practices in
matrix stimulation is suggested for improved
result from the treatment.
Nomenclature
θ = angle of deviation, radians
∆P = Pressure drawdown, psi
θphase = Perforation phasing, degrees
∆Psd = Pressure drop due to damage skin
b = ratio of perforated thickness to Net Oil Sand
BSW = Basic sediment and Water, fraction
Dev = Angle of Well Deviation, degrees
Hd = Dimensionless perforation height
Ho = Thickness of the Net Oil Sand, ft
Hp = Perforated interval thickness, ft
hperf = Distance Between Perforation, ft
Kc = Damaged Permeability, mD
Kd = Damaged permeability, mD
Kh = Reservoir Flow Capacity
Kv/Kh = Anisotropic coefficient
lperf = Perforation penetration, ft
Rd = Damage radius, ft
Re = Reservoir external radius
rpD = Dimensionless perforation length
rperf = Perforation Entrance Hole radius, ft
Rw = Wellbore radius (based on the bit size)
rwD = Dimensionless wellbore radius
Sc+θ = Combined partial completion and deviation
skin
Sd = Damage Skin
6 E.J. Nnanna and J.A Ajienka SPE98823

Smech = Mechanical Skin

Sp = perforation skin 8. Ekejiuba, I (1996): “ Performance Evaluation of
Spc = Skin due to Partial completion (or penetration) Matrix Acidized Wells in Niger Delta”, Thesis, Dept.,
Ssc = Skin due to Sand Control of Petroleum Engineering, University of Port Harcourt.

ST = Total Skin
WC = Water Cut, fraction
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the managements of Institute of
Petroleum Studies (IPS) for permission to publish this
work and the management of EPNL for the
sponsorship.
References
1. Ndinemenu, F (2004): Stimulation and Workover
Course Note, IPS, Port Harcourt
2. Al Qahtani, A , Al Shehri, D (2003): “ The Ec-
Factor: A Correlation for Optimizing Completion
Efficiency”, paper SPE 81490 presented at the 2003
SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 5-8 April.
3. Uchendu, C, Nwoke, L, and Arhuke, J (2003):
“Effective Approach to Horizontal Well bore Clean-out
of Calcium Carbonate cake in Sandstone Reservoirs”,
paper SPE 85672 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual
International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Aug 4-
6.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
9. Sibigem, F.C (1999): “Matrix Acidizing Success and
Failure in Niger Delta”, Thesis, Dept., of Petroleum
Engineering, University of Port Harcourt.
10. Yildiz, Y (2003): “ Assessment of Total Skin
Factor in Perforated Wells”, paper SPE 82249
presented at the 2003 SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, 13-14 May.
11. Onyekonwu, M.O (1997): Principles of Bottomhole
Pressure Testing, Laser Publishers Ltd, Port Harcourt.
P91
12. McLeod, H.O (1983): “The Effect of Perforating
Conditions on Well Performance”, J. Pet. Tech.,
January, pp 31-57.
13. Nnanna, E.J (2004): “Critical Success Factors for
Well Stimulation”, MSc Thesis, Institute of Petroleum
Studies, University of Port Harcourt.

4. Kume, N, Uzoho, F, Ogoke, V, Abiodun, F (2001): “

Adding Value to Well Completion via Effective Well
Cleanup: Smart Thinking, Big Rewards”, paper SPE
71687 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 Sept-3 APPENDIX A: CHARTS
Oct.
45

5. Jiang, Z, Luo, D, Deng, Z, Kwee, K, and Gdanski, R 40

(2004): “ Improved Production from Mineralogy-Based 35
Acid Designs”, paper SPE 86519 presented at the 2004 30
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage 25
and Control, Lafayette, 18-20 Feb. 20
15
6. Enelamah, U.C, Akunna, P.O and Poitrenaud, H
(2003): “Successful Matrix Acidizing: Is Guess Work 10

Part of Your Design? Good Engineering Mitigates 5

Uncertainties” paper SPE 85683 presented at 2003 0
Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition, W aterBlock M ixed
Deposit
Scales W /Change Em usion Bacteria Silt& Clay Org.Deposit

Abuja, August 4-6. Type ofD am age

7. Nwoke, L., Uchendu, C., Arukhe, J., Essel, P., Fig 1: Percentage Failures as a Function of Damage Type
Ndinemenu, F., Vecchio, A., and Fatusin, S (2004):
“Phosphonic Acid Complex for Stimulating HF-
Sensitive Reservoirs- a Revolutionary Response”,
Paper SPE 89415 presented at the 2004 SPE/DOE
Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-21 April.
7 Critical Success Factors For Well Stimulation SPE98823

70
1000

60

50 100

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
40
10
30

20 1

10

0 0.1
Foam M aterial M ud acid Clay acid Others 0 50 100 150 200

Type ofTreatm ent D am age Skin Factor,Sd

Fig 2: Percentage Failures as a Function of Treatment Type Fig 5 Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 12.25”
Hole: Case B

100 1000.00

100.00

10

10.00

1
1.00

0.10
0.1
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200
D am age Skin
D am age Skin Factor,Sd

Fig 3: Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 12.25” Fig 6: Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 8.5” Hole:
Hole: Case A Case B

100000
100.00

1000
10.00

10
1.00

0.1
0.10 0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 D am age Skin
D am age Skin

Fig 4: Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 8.5” Hole: Fig 7: Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 12.25”
Case A Hole: Case C
8 E.J. Nnanna and J.A Ajienka SPE98823

10000 Phi=25%
100000 Phi=20%
Phi=15%
10000 1000 Phi=10%

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
1000 100

100
10

10
1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 D am age Skin
0 50 100 150 200
Fig12: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage
Fig 8: Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 8.5” Hole: Skin: Case A
Case C
Phi=25%
1000000
Phi=20%
Phi=15%
100000 Phi=10%
100000

10000

1000
1000

100

10
10

1
0.1
0 50 100 150 200
0
D am age Skin 0 50 100 Sd 150 200 250

Fig 13: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage

Fig 9: Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 12.25” Skin: Case B
Hole: Case D 1.E+11
Phi=25%
Phi=20%
Phi=15%
Phi=10%
10000 1.E+09

1.E+07
1000

1.E+05

100
1.E+03

10
1.E+01

1 1.E-01
0 50 100 150 200 250
Sd

Fig 14: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage

0
Skin: Case C
0 50 100 150 200

Fig 10: Damage Radius as a Function Damage Skin for 8.5” Hole:
Case D
9 Critical Success Factors For Well Stimulation SPE98823

1.E+09 Phi=25%
Phi=25% 1.E+11
Phi=20%
1.E+08 Phi=20% Phi=15%
Phi=15% Phi=10%
1.E+07 1.E+09
Phi=10%

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E+05

1.E+04
1.E+05

1.E+03

1.E+03
1.E+02

1.E+01
1.E+01
1.E+00

1.E-01 1.E-01
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Sd Sd

Fig 15: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage Fig 18: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage
Skin: Case D Skin: Case C

10000 Phi=25% 1.E+09 Phi=25%

Phi=20% Phi=20%
1.E+08
Phi=15%
Phi=15%
1000 Phi=10% 1.E+07
Phi=10%
1.E+06

100 1.E+05

1.E+04

10 1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01
1

1.E+00

1.E-01
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 200 250
Damage Skin Sd

Fig 19: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage

Fig 16: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage Skin: Case D
Skin: Case A

Phi=25%
1000000
Phi=20%
Phi=15%
Phi=10%
100000

10000

1000

100

10

0
0 50 100 Sd 150 200 250

Fig 17: Treatment Volume as Function porosity and Damage

Skin: Case B
APPENDIX B: FLOW CHART FOR STIMULATION CANDIDATE SELECTION

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/05NAICE/All-05NAICE/SPE-98823-MS/1841321/spe-98823-ms.pdf/1 by SEPLAT Petroleum Development Co Ltd, Sonny Thompson on 21 February 2022
Build model of the wells in the field

Monitor Well Performance Trend

No
abnormal decline?

Yes

Order for a Production test on the

well(s)

Match the Production parameters in

the model
No

Any mechanical No Any appreciable

problems or lift change in the
system failure? skin?

Yes
Yes

Decompose skin and obtain

damage skin
Investigate the scope for
remedial operations
Obtain the NOS and
perforation thickness

Calculate the R-Factor for the

well

No
Allow damage to Is R-Factor
fully develop >=0.6?

Yes

Well is a good candidate for

stimulation