Advances in Matrix Stimulation Technology

Paccaloni, G.; Tambini, Mauro

doi:10.2118/20623-pa

Cited by 80 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, after being treated with HBF 4 , Paccaloni and Mauro (1993) reported a successful 5 years production of a silt and clay damaged well caused by mud acid previously. Meanwhile, Kume et al (1999) showed that the adoption of HBF 4 in treating the Niger Delta wells caused a mixture of both positive and negative results.…”

Section: Sandstone Acidizing Treatment Fluidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A numerical modelling and simulation of core-scale sandstone acidizing process: a study on the effect of temperature

Leong

Mahmud

Law

et al. 2018

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wide and comprehensive understanding of the chemical reactions and mechanisms of HBF 4 is crucial as it significantly influences its performance in stimulating a sandstone formation. In general, it is well-known that HBF 4 is able to provide a deeper penetration into the sandstone matrix before being spent due to its uniquely slow hydrolysis ability to produce HF. In the present study, a 3D numerical modelling and simulation were conducted to examine the capability of HBF 4 in enhancing the porosity and permeability of the sandstone matrix. The model is built in COMSOL® Multiphysics commercial software of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate the acid core flooding process on sandstone core. The model had been validated against the experimental data in the literature. The results matched with the measured plot data very well. The effect of temperature on the performance HBF 4 sandstone acidizing is evaluated in this study. The simulation results indicated that at low temperature of 25 °C, HBF 4 is not very effective, as justified in its poor porosity and permeability increments of only 1.07 and 1.23, respectively. However, at elevated temperatures, the porosity and permeability enhancement also become increasingly more significant, which showed 1.26 and 2.06, respectively, at 65 °C; and 1.67 and 7.06, respectively, at 105 °C. Therefore, one can conclude that HBF 4 acid treatment performed better at elevated temperatures due to increased hydrolysis rate, which is a governing function in HBF 4 sandstone acidizing. Overall, this model had provided a reliable alternative to optimize various other parameters of HBF 4 acid treatment. Keywords Well stimulation · Sandstone matrix acidizing · Fluoroboric acid · Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) · Finite element analysis (FEM) Abbreviations 3DThree

show abstract

Section: Sandstone Acidizing Treatment Fluidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A numerical modelling and simulation of core-scale sandstone acidizing process: a study on the effect of temperature

Leong

Mahmud

Law

et al. 2018

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With this in mind, the first consideration for effective placement of a matrix treatment is rate -which is the basis of the maximum pressure differential and injection rate (MAPDIR) technique (Paccaloni and Tambini 1993). The method is often referred to as the Paccaloni method.…”

Section: Acid Placement and Diversion In The Wellbore -Matrix Acid Trmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Art and Practice of Acid Placement and Diversion: History, Present State and Future

Kalfayan

Martín²

2009

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing need for highly cost-effective well production enhancement applications, acid stimulation is becoming increasingly popular. To be successful, acidizing procedures require distribution of stimulation fluids across and within the desired treatment interval. Historically, this has been approached with mechanical placement or chemical diversion of treatment fluids. Method selection can be crucial to treatment success -and an increasing number of options exist -each with its own set of limitations and uncertainties. Preferences and success vary for matrix and fracture acidizing -in vertical and deviated wellbores, in sandstones and carbonates and in cased and perforated, gravel packed, and openhole completions. Method selection and implementation can be daunting but greatly rewarding -calling for creativity and field experimentation.This paper focuses on the important role of acid placement and diversion, and the types, purposes, benefits and pitfalls of the methods currently in practice. The importance of treatment placement was evident and recognized in the earliest acid treatments conducted in the late 19 th century. Although this need has been recognized since the dawn of acidizing, at no point in its history has a diversion method found universal reliability and acceptance. Insufficient interval coverage is perhaps still the most common reason why acid jobs often fail to meet expectations. A well-conceived treatment in all other aspects of design (damage assessment, selection of fluids and additives, and volumes) can count for nothing if the treatment does not enter or cover those portions of the interval with the greatest need of stimulation.Since the first commercial acid treatments in the 1930s, mechanical placement has evolved from crude rubber "packers" to advanced coiled tubing technologies. Chemical and particulate diverters have evolved from chicken feed to specialized chemical systems, including self-diverting fluids. With chemical diversion, different methods have come into and fallen out of favor -replaced by new ideas, or those forgotten and subsequently revived.Within its historical perspective, this paper discusses present-day acid placement and diversion methods, their best applications and their limitations -with a view and emphasis on industry needs and direction for the future.

show abstract

“…Matrix acidizing for both sandstone and carbonate formations is a complicated process 8,9 . The appropriate volume of acid per foot of formation should be based on formation acid response curves or other appropriate acid stimulation design criteria, the details of which are beyond the scope of this paper.…”

Section: Matrix Acidizing With Coiled Tubingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19, r b is the radius affected by acid injection. Paccaloni 9 suggests that a value of 4 ft should be used, which has proven to be a good assumption and is based on experience with actual jobs. Equation 19 relates q i , p wf and s. To monitor a stimulation treatment, Paccaloni constructs a graph of p ti versus q i , with s as a parameter.…”

Section: Matrix Acidizing With Coiled Tubingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pushing the Boundaries of Coiled Tubing Applications

Sumrow

Economides

2001

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractThis paper offers a critical review of the capabilities and limitations of coiled tubing as used in matrix stimulation. A method to determine the effective reservoir thickness that can be treated, as a function of coiled tubing size, wall thickness, yield strength, length and well depth is outlined. The method allows the user to push the boundaries of coiled tubing applications to its practical limits.

show abstract

Advances in Matrix Stimulation Technology

Cited by 80 publications

References 0 publications

A numerical modelling and simulation of core-scale sandstone acidizing process: a study on the effect of temperature

A numerical modelling and simulation of core-scale sandstone acidizing process: a study on the effect of temperature

The Art and Practice of Acid Placement and Diversion: History, Present State and Future

Pushing the Boundaries of Coiled Tubing Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About