You are on page 1of 17

SPE 157429

Optimization of Limited Entry Matrix Acid Stimulations with Laboratory


Testing and Treatment Pressure Matching
Mary S. Van Domelen, SPE, Mohamad abd Hammoud, Maersk Oil Denmark, Gerard Glasbergen, SPE, Shell
(formally Halliburton) and Noor Talib, SPE, Maersk Oil Qatar

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers


This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Doha Qatar, 1416 May 2012.
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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In the Danish Central Graben, tight chalk reservoirs have been successfully developed through drilling, completion and
stimulation of long horizontal wells. One of the most successful technologies which has opened access to the far reaches of
several major fields is the Controlled Acid Jetting (CAJ) technique. CAJ treatments are performed with a treatment pressure
at formation below fracturing pressure and at the maximum rate possible. Diversion is via maximum rate/pressure, combined
with the limited entry technique; therefore diversion stages are not normally included in CAJ treatments. A horizontal CAJ
completion may range from 5,000 ft to as long as 20,000 ft, but is most often on the order of 10,000 ft. Acid coverage is
normally 1 bbl/ft of 15% HCl. Injection rates as high as 40-50 BPM are often required to ensure complete coverage of the
CAJ liner.
There are still areas to be investigated to maintain an effective optimization of the CAJ technology. One of these areas to
be investigated is the frictional pressure drop across the perforations (Pperf), which is influenced by the perforation
coefficient (Cp). Usually in the design and operation of the stimulation, Cp is assigned a specific value when calculating the
pressure drop across the perforations. Field experience and previous studies discovered that the Cp may change due to the
viscosity of the fluid injected.
This paper will present the results of a study of the perforation coefficient through laboratory experiments. A set-up for
measuring the pressure drop across an orifice for different types of fluids at different flow rates was constructed. The
perforation pressure drops were measured and then used to calculate the fluid specific Cp in order to clarify any changes in
relation to the viscosity.
The results of the laboratory study are utilized in a real-time CAJ stimulation diagnostic tool which has been used in
several different chalk formations. The predicted acid coverage of the long CAJ liners is shown to be very sensitive to the
assumed value of Cp. Overall, the outcome of this project was considered as a further contribution to the process of achieving
a better understanding of the CAJ stimulation in general and about the impact of the perforation coefficient in specific.
Introduction
Maersk Oil has developed numerous challenging, low permeability chalk fields in the Danish sector of the North Sea. The
fields are operated on behalf of the Dansk Undergrunds Consortium (DUC), which is a joint venture between: A.P. Mller Mrsk (39%), Shell (46%) and Chevron (15%). DUC reservoirs have been developed since the early 1970s when the Dan
Field was first placed on production. Fig. 1 shows the location of the DUC area with the major producing fields indicated.
These fields are located in the central part of the Central Graben, north of the Salt Dome Province. Ultra long horizontal
drilling (the Halfdan oil and gas accumulation was discovered by drilling a 30,000 ft long horizontal well from the Dan Field)
as well as Maersk Oils completion and stimulation technology of the horizontal wells, have been key to the technical success
in developing these chalk fields.
In 1987, MFB-14 was completed as the worlds 1st horizontal well equipped with a cemented liner which was stimulated
with multiple hydraulically induced fractures.(Anderson, 1988) During the 1990s Maersk Oil continued to pioneer hydraulic
fracturing of horizontal wells and made many contributions to the technologies critical for development of tight chalk
reservoirs.(Damgaard, 1992; Owens, 1992; Weijers, 1994; Cleary, 1993; Kogsboll, 1993) In the 2000s focus changed to

SPE 157429

developing completion techniques to allow efficient acid stimulation of long horizontal wellbores. During this time, two new
technologies were developed: Fracture Aligned Sweep Technology (FAST) and Controlled Acid Jetting (CAJ). (Albrechtsen,
2001; Jorgensen, 2002; Hansen, 2002; Rod, 2005; Dons, 2007)
Prior to 1988, all developments within the DUC focused on the Upper Chalks which include the Danian (Ekofisk) and
Maastrictian (Tor) formations. Hydrocarbons were discovered in the Lower Cretaceous formation in 1977, however due to
the low permeability, development was delayed until 1993 when production from the Valdemar Field was initiated.
In the Danish Central Graben, the Lower Cretaceous reservoir contains significant in-place oil volumes. Fig. 2 shows the
thickness map of the Tuxen and Sola Lower Cretaceous formation in the Danish Central Graben. This formation historically
has posed a real challenge to develop because of the extremely low permeability. The low permeability is compounded by the
fact that the formation is soft, highly heterogeneous, and can have significant clay content in some areas. Although the Lower
Cretaceous chalks represent a wide spread play in the central North Sea, there are no producing analogs.
Thicker Lower Cretaceous reservoir sections in the Valdemar field have been successfully proppant fracture stimulated.
Acid stimulation is preferred for the thinner sections; however, early attempts at matrix acid stimulation were very
disappointing. Recently, the need to re-enter a well for maintenance allowed three zones to be selectively restimulated using
improved execution techniques and a more appropriate acid formulation. Production increase following restimulation of this
first well was very encouraging and the lessons learned were applied to a second well; this time a newly drilled well
completed in the Tyra Lower Cretaceous reservoir.(Van Domelen, et.al. 2011)
The subject of this paper is acid stimulation of the Lower Cretaceous formation. Three case histories will be presented,
one well in the Tyra Field and two wells in the Valdemar Field. All three wells are long, horizontal, multi-zone completions
drilled to measured depths of 25,000 ft (ca. 8,000 ft TVD). The focus will be on the optimization of CAJ stimulation
treatments.
Lower Cretaceous Formation
A comprehensive characterization of the Lower Cretaceous chalk reservoir is given by the Geological Survey of Denmark
and Greenland, GEUS.(Jakobsen et al. 2004) The reader is referred to this publication for detailed documentation of the
reservoir zonation and a description of the extensive analytical data sets, including porosity, permeability, clay content, and
hydrocarbon saturations from cores that have been used to quantify core-log correlations. The summary presented here will
be limited to the information directly relevant to acid stimulation treatment design.
The Lower Cretaceous formation consists of two discrete chalk-dominated units separated by an up to 6-ft thick interval
of black organic-rich marlstone, the Munk Marl Bed. Munk Marl is continuous though most of the Lower Cretaceous and is
often used as a marker during drilling. In the Valdemar field, the Lower Cretaceous is divided into 14 zones. Individual zones
are below seismic resolution, in the range of 0 to 60 feet, and are internally heterogeneous. Fig. 3 shows Lower Cretaceous
stratigraphy and reservoir units. The reservoir section under focus occurs within the Tuxen and Sola formations. The
sedimentary facies present include claystone, marlstone, marly chalk, chalk, and pebbly chalk. The marly chalk and chalk
facies are the most important components of the Valdemar reservoir section. Slabbed sections of typical Lower Cretaceous
cores, taken in both normal and UV light are shown in Fig. 4.
The Lower Cretaceous formation is characterized by a high content of Insoluble Residue (IR). The IR consists mainly of
clay with subordinate amounts of quartz, rare pyrite and organic material. The IR content ranges from ca. 6% within the
purest chalk facies of the Tuxen formation to up to 50% in the chalky marlstone facies. The clay-sized material is mainly
kaolinite with minor amounts of illite plus rare smectite and glauconite. The relative proportion of the individual clay
minerals is essentially uniform throughout the Lower Cretaceous succession.
Porosity correlations were developed from core data and by petrophysical evaluation of logs. The porosity varies
considerably, but is generally remarkably high (up to 48% in the purest chalk facies of the Tuxen formation). Fig. 5 contains
a plot of core porosity data versus IR, demonstrates the influence of clay content on porosity. While the primary variation in
porosity was linked directly to the IR content of the facies; factors such as pore pressure and depth of burial/compaction also
had an influence. The data showed two parallel trends with an offset of ca. 10 p.u. (porosity units) for the two main
formations.
The Lower Cretaceous reservoir rocks are characterized by very low to extremely low permeability. A permeability cutoff of 0.1 mD was used for the GEUS reservoir studies, corresponding to porosities of 20-30% and an IR of ca. 35%.
Measured gas permeabilities of core samples ranged from 0.01 mD to 4 mD, with predominance around 0.4 mD. Fig. 6
contains plots of core permeability versus porosity indicate a relatively narrow set of data points along a common trend line
suggesting that one single porosity-permeability relationship might be applicable to all reservoir units. Note that both the
Tuxen and Sola (Lower Cretaceous) formations have significantly less permeability than the Danian and Maastrictian (Upper
Chalk) formations.
Based upon the formation core data, the Lower Cretaceous would not be considered a good candidate for matrix acid
stimulation. The layered nature would limit vertical transmissibility, the low permeability would not lend itself to high
deliverability, and the high IR content raises questions as to the efficiency of acid reaction on the formation. It is well
established, however, that low permeability reservoirs can be economically produced via long, horizontal wellbores that
effectively maximize reservoir contact. In addition to maximum reservoir contact, it is important that the near wellbore region

SPE 157429

be, at the minimum, left in an undamaged state. Preferably, the entire section of the wellbore should be stimulated to a high
negative skin.
Acid Stimulation in Carbonate Formations and the Role of Wormholes
The goal of acid stimulation under matrix conditions in carbonate formations is to create highly conductive flow channels
known as wormholes that bypass the damage in the formation. These flow channels make the connection between the
wellbore and hydrocarbon-bearing formation; thus allowing the hydrocarbons to flow into the wellbore at a minimum
drawdown pressure. The wormholes are formed when the matrix of the porous and permeable rock is dissolved by reactive
fluids, such as hydrochloric acid (HCl). To obtain high negative skin, the wormholes must penetrate beyond the damage zone
and create a region of ultra-high permeability. The matrix acid treatment must be performed in such a way that deep
penetrating wormholes are generated. The three important treatment parameters that should be considered are fluid volume,
injection flow rate, and fluid type.
The factors affecting wormhole efficiency have been studied by numerous researchers over the past 30 years. Literally
hundreds of laboratory tests have been performed with many types of carbonate rocks and different test sample/injection
configurations. Several highly developed mathematical models have been proposed to predict the conditions under which
effective wormholing will occur. Glasbergen et al. (2009) presents an excellent review of the experimental and theoretical
studies available in literature and argues that laboratory wormhole tests under controlled conditions in linear cores are useful
to understand the mechanism of wormhole propagation. While industry may still debate the most appropriate laboratory
procedures for wormhole testing and the most appropriate method to scale the laboratory data to field conditions, it is well
accepted that there is, indeed, an optimum injection rate. It is further accepted that (in addition to the treatment parameters
mentioned above) formation parameters such as mineralogy, permeability/porosity/pressure profiles along the wellbore
section, reservoir fluid properties, saturations, and bottom hole (BH) temperature will greatly influence wormhole growth
rates and hence the efficiency of matrix acid stimulation treatments.
Prior to 2007, the general belief was that the Lower Cretaceous formation could not be effectively acid stimulated. It was
recognized that the acid-rock reaction would need to be studied in order to optimize acid stimulation and increase the
probability of economically producing the thinner sections of the Lower Cretaceous reservoirs. It was determined that core
from the Bo-2X well represented the closest analog to the reservoir targeted in the appraisal wells. Routine core analysis data
was reviewed to assist in selection of the most appropriate core samples to be used for the specialty acidizing testing. Fig. 7
contains a photo of a slabbed BO-2X core and a high magnification SEM photo of the pore structure. Detailed results of the
wormhole testes conducted with the Bo-2X cores have previously published.(Van Domelen, et.al. 2011) A brief summary
follows.
A total of 16 wormhole tests were conducted evaluating 5 different acid blends over a range of 10 injection rates. Fig. 8 is
a summary plot of all wormhole tests performed. Because the cores were not preserved, experimental deviations could not be
avoided. However, in all cases except the very low injection rates, clear there was clear evidence of wormholes forming. The
acid type had a strong influence on the wormhole efficiency. It is of interest to note, that while wormholes did form, the
characteristic pressure drop with increasing acid injection was not observed. This is consistent with field observations and
believed to be due to the low permeability of the core (e.g. continued resistance as the spent acid front is push ahead of the
live acid). The practical implication of the test results was that the Lower Cretaceous formation is indeed responsive to acid.
There was a minimum injection rate below which wormholes do not form. This is also consistent with field observations as
the higher pump rates (below fracture pressure) result in less incremental pressure increase with each additional incremental
increase in injection rate. There was clear evidence that slicked acid is notably less efficient than neat acid presumable
due to the polymer friction reducer plating out on the core face.
Controlled Acid Jetting (CAJ) Stimulation
Historically, horizontal wells with continuous reservoir sections between 10,000 and 20,000 feet have been used for the
development of the laterally extensive Maastrictian (Upper Chalk) reservoirs in the Dan/Halfdan fields, offshore Denmark. In
flanks wells, lateral open hole sections were initially stimulated by bull heading acid with disappointing results due to low oil
production, solids production and hole collapse. A new completion and stimulation technique was consequently invented and
implemented.(Hansen 2002, 2007) The completion method is named a Controlled Acid Jet (CAJ) liner since the distribution
of acid jetted onto the formation along the entire non-cemented liner is controlled by a number of pre-drilled holes.
Acid is pumped at high rates and exits the holes at high velocities resulting in jetting of the formation. By limiting the
number and size of holes, a choke effect is obtained and a significant pressure drop occurs between the inside and the outside
of the liner during stimulation. A non-uniform geometric distribution of the holes is used to compensate for the frictional
pressure drop along the liner section. This means that the average hole density increases toward the toe of the CAJ liner. The
open annulus outside the liner, in combination with the overpressure on the inside of the liner (due to the choking over the
holes) ensures that the acid eventually reaches the bottom of the very long liner, and the well is thus stimulated along its full
length.
At the initiation of the CAJ stimulation treatment, both the liner and liner wellbore annulus are filled with mud. A high
resistance to flow exists at the well bore face due to the mud cake. When the first acid hits the formation at the heel of the
liner, the mud cake will breakdown and as the acid starts to leak off into the formation. As soon as effective communication

SPE 157429

has been established, the stimulation pressure will fall, assuming constant stimulation rates. As the acid front moves along the
liner, a stimulated zone is created, where the acid mixes with the mud, breaks the mud filter cake, and true matrix stimulation
occurs as acid wormholes are formed in the formation rock. Eventually, when all the mud and filter cake is broken down and
residuals displaced into the formation, the annulus will be fully filled with acid. Fresh acid will continue to be jetted at the
predetermined distribution points along the CAJ liner, ensuring effective stimulation along the full CAJ liner. Fig. 9
illustrates the CAJ process for a typical Upper Chalk completion.
The CAJ completion and stimulation technique has proven very successful in Upper Chalk wells. As of June 2010 there
are a total of 77 CAJ liners producing from 647,575 ft of reservoir section, of which 62 are in the Dan and Halfdan fields.
Unfortunately, applying the CAJ concepts to the Lower Cretaceous involves two significant complications. First, drilling of
the Lower Cretaceous formation requires the use of oil based mud (OBM) due to formation compatibility issues, maximum
allowable equivalent circulating density (ECD), and drag associated when running the CAJ liner. OBM does not break down
in the presence of acid, as does the water based mud (WBM) systems used to drill the Upper Chalk formations. Second, the
permeability of the Lower Cretaceous formation is an order of magnitude lower than the Upper Chalks which contributes an
additional, significant, resistance to flow; thus limiting the maximum injection rates possible during a CAJ (particularly when
the requirement is to stay below fracture initiation pressure) stimulation of the Lower Cretaceous formation.
Therefore, it became necessary to optimize the CAJ process in order to effectively acid stimulate and produce thinner
sections of the Lower Cretaceous formation. Results of the first ever CAJ completion in the Lower Cretaceous formation
have been previously presented. (Van Domelen, et.al. 2011) The following sections will describe further optimization of the
CAJ process and discuss the execution and evaluation of two additional CAJ stimulations drilled in the flank section of the
Valdemar Bo field, approaching the Bo South hydrocarbon accumulation.
Laboratory Testing
One of the critical areas to be investigated is the frictional pressure drop across the perforations (Pperf), which is influenced
by the perforation coefficient (Cp). Usually in the design and operation of the CAJ stimulation, Cp is assigned a specific value
when calculating the pressure drop across the perforations. Field experience and previous studies discovered that Cp may
change due to the viscosity of the fluid injected. (Lord, 1994, and Lauritzen, 2011)
The main objective was to study the perforation coefficient, Cp, through laboratory experiments. The study was
conducted as part of the co-authors bachelor thesis project at the University of Southern Denmark.(Hammoud, 2010) A
laboratory set-up for measuring the pressure drops for different type of fluids at different flow rates was constructed. The
fluids used in the experiments were based upon 15% HCl acid with the chemical additives typically used in CAJ stimulation
treatments (corrosion inhibitor, non-emulsifying surfactant, and polymeric friction reducer/gelling agent). The friction
reducer is added to the acid to make it more viscous and to reduce the pumping friction during a CAJ liner stimulation. The
other chemical additives were mixed into the acid at concentrations representative of field conditions. The use of chemical
additives may change the surface tension and viscosity of the acid, and perhaps also Cp. To evaluate the overall effects, the
perforation pressure drop with each acid blend was measured and then used to calculate the fluid specific Cp in order to
clarify any changes due to the addition of the additives.
Overall, the outcome of the laboratory study is considered as a further contribution to the process of achieving a better
understanding of the CAJ stimulation in general and about the behaviour of fluid specific perforation coefficients. The theory
around the orifice flow and perforation coefficients will not be discussed in depth in this paper. Instead the principles behind
the laboratory testing will be discussed. As the purpose and main goal of the laboratory experiments was to study the
perforation coefficient, Cp, for different types of fluid, a short review of perforation pressure drop theory is required.
Since a CAJ perforation acts as an orifice, partial pressure loss recovery is accounted for in terms of a discharge
coefficient, also called the perforation coefficient, Cp. The orifice flow equation given below is used to calculate Pperf:

Pperf
Where:

0.2369 Q 2
Cp
2
4
N 2 C p Dp

0.2369 Q 2
4
N 2 D p Pperf

.(1).

Pperf = Total perforation friction, psi


= Fluid density, pounds/gallon
Q = Flow rate through each perforation, BPM/perforation
N = Number of perforations
DP = Diameter of the perforation, inches
CP = Perforation coefficient, also called discharge coefficient

Throughout the experiments N and Dp were constants and Pperf was measured at different flow rates (Q). The density ()
differed according to the type of fluid used. The measured values of Pperf were used to calculate the perforation coefficient.
Since the experiments are performed for a single perforation, the value of N will be 1, and therefore N will be negligible in
this study.

SPE 157429

Method Description & Approach


The objective was to test five different types of fluids (Sea water, Slick Sea water, 15% HCl, 15% gelled HCl and 15% InSitu Crosslinked Acid) through a pipe with a single perforation. The gelled HCl contained 1 gal/Mgal of the friction
reducer/gelling agent. The In-Situ Crosslinked Acid (ICA) contained 15 gal/Mgal of gelling agent. A pressure gauge close to
the perforation hole measures the upstream pressure, which is used in the further calculation of the pressure drop and the
perforation coefficient.
It was a challenging task to bring the CAJ stimulation process from field scale down to laboratory scale. Before designing
the test apparatus and experimental method, a number of challenges had to be identified and solved. The main challenges
were:
Flow rates at which the laboratory experiments should be performed at
Dimension of the constructed pipe
Size of the perforation hole
Procurement of the necessary equipment
It was decided to design and construct a pipe with a perforation diameter of 3mm (0.118 inch). A Johnson AccuLobe,
Positive Displacement Pump allowing a maximum rate of 35 liters/min and 12 bar pressure was selected. Using precalculations of the typical CAJ stimulation flow rates and pre-drilled CAJ hole dimensions, it was possible to design a
functional set-up for the experiments. It was concluded that a 3 ft (0.9144 m) long pipe (ID = 6 mm) of stainless steel would
be sufficient and provide a practical approach. The pressure gauge was to be placed 6 inches from the perforation. These
decisions are made along with previous experience with laboratory experiments. Fig. 10 shows a drawing of the laboratory
equipment set-up.
The test fluids were identified in advance of equipment construction. The selected fluids are shown in Fig. 11. The order
in which the fluids were tested decided based upon the pipes ability to resist corrosion. It is therefore chosen to run the
experiments using the fluid with the lowest corrosion effect (Seawater) first, and finishing with the fluid of highest corrosion
potential (15% ICA).
Laboratory Results: Perforation pressure drop as a function of flow rate
Fig. 12 contains a plot of the measured Pperf as a function of Flow Rate (Q). This plot is first used to analyze the base data
obtained during the experiments. It shows, as expected, that the perforation frictional pressure drop increases significantly
with increase of rates. This is in accordance to the physical principles and the orifice flow equation where Pperf is a function
of Q to the second power.
It is evident that there is a change in the slope at around 0.035 BPM. Upon further investigation, it was determined that
the data points below 0.035 BPM resulted in pressure readings below the lower limit of the pressure transducer. Data points
for rates below this point should be discarded. There is also a change in slope at the higher rates should also be discarded.
Again, this seems to be a limit of the pressure transducer, this time the upper limit.
The data shows two groupings of data: The non-viscous fluids as one set and the gelled acid and ICA as the other. If the
gelled acid and the ICA both contained the same amount of gelling agent, then it will makes sense that the gelled and nongelled acids would behave similarly. In the performed tests, however, the gelled acid contained 0.1% gelling agent and the
ICA contained 2% gelling agent, which explains the slight difference between the two curves.
The purpose of the friction reducer/gelling agent is to reduce the pumping pipe friction pressure and to keep the
perforation pressure drop low. It is interesting to note that in the Slick seawater, the effect of the friction reducer was
negligible. The data for the slick sea water fell between that of the demineralised water and neat sea water. However, in 15%
HCl acid, there was a notable effect on the measured Pperf due to the addition of the friction reducer. From a chemical point
of view, the gelling agent may react different in seawater than in acid. The polymer can be reacting faster with seawater and
forming easily a viscosified fluid unlike the acid, where the reaction process may be slower and more demanding.
The reason for the difference between the fluids added gelling agent (slick SW, 15% gelled HCl and 15%ICA) can
therefore be explain through the reaction process and the time that takes the gelling agent to react optimally in the respective
fluid. Therefore variation in polymer chemistry, molecular weight, or polymer activity may have affected the test results.
This is consistent with field operations where the pressure drop is measured from the stimulation vessel to the wellhead, and
it has been shown that the friction reduction performance of polymer friction reducers is different in sea water than in acid.
The difference is believed to be due to the rate at which the polymer, which is delivered in an oil based emulsion, inverts into
the treating fluids.
One of the intentions was to determine if friction reducer (gelling agent) affects the pressure drop across the orifice.
Examination of the data indicates that the friction reducer has an effect when added to acid, but negligible effect when added
to sea water. Additional viscosity also affects the pressure drop, as can be seen from the fact that the 15% ICA (which
contains 2% gelling agent) exhibited the highest Pperf at all rates tested.

SPE 157429

Laboratory Results: Orifice coefficient as a function of perforation pressure drop


Fig.13 shows the calculated orifice coefficients (Cp) as a function of the P (psi) for the different fluids tested. Examining the
plot it can be seen that the Cp values lies in the expected range between 0.6 and 1.0 (highlighted). This gives confidence that
the experimental set-up allowed proper measurement of the pressure drop across an orifice. As mentioned above, all data
above this range (above 1.0) should be discarded as these points were measured below the lower limit of the pressure
transducer accuracy.
Of significant interest is the fact that the experimental results indicate that Cp decreases in proportion to the increase in
Pperf. It is notable that the fluids with highest Pperf have the lowest values for Cp. This observation is consistent with raw
pressure data shown in Fig. 12. Since the 15% ICA has the highest pressure drop, it is the fluid with the lowest Cp values.
The next fluid which has the lowest values for Cp is the 15% gelled HCl. From a mathematical point of view, the Pperf is
inversely proportional to Cp2. Therefore, the specified variation in Cp would produce a great difference in the pressure loss.
This supports the tests results, and that the Cp value decreases due the increase in rate, which also causes the Pperf to
increase.
Fig. 13 summarizes the results of the laboratory testing with a plot of Cp as a function of Pperf. The oil industry has
traditionally defined the perforation coefficient as a constant. CAJ liner hole distribution are typically designed assuming a
Cp value of 0.56. The laboratory testing indicated higher values of Cp than normally assumed. The difference could be due
to the fact the orifice theory calculations are based upon straight-line flow (e.g. down a pipe with a restriction) whereas flow
down and out of a CAJ liner is bi-direction (down the liner, and 90 out the CAJ hole). The important observation is the
variation in Cp with fluid type, indicating that for proper design and evaluation of a CAJ liner, the fluid specific Cp values
need to be known.
Estimation of Zonal Coverage in CAJ Stimulations
One of the main success criteria in acid stimulation of CAJ-liner completed wells is the realization of full zonal coverage
along the liner. It is expected that initially the injected acid will be injected into the heel of the horizontal lateral. With
increasing injection rates the limited entry CAJ-liner concept will assist in obtaining improved zonal coverage. Simulations
using different models do indicate that indeed the zonal coverage along the CAJ liner improves over time with increasing
injection rate. Zonal coverage is strongly affected by (1) reservoir characteristics; (2) friction in the liner; (3) pressure drop
across the CAJ-holes; (4) acid action; and (5) initial fluid located in the CAJ-liner.
Evaluation of zonal coverage using direct measurements has not been performed. Running logging tools or fiber optics in
the long laterals is a major challenge. Therefore a real-time CAJ stimulation diagnostic tool was developed to derive the
amount of zonal coverage from pressure responses during pumping and following an instantaneous shut-in. The difference
between the pressure during pumping and the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) is a measure for the total friction in the
system. The total friction can be divided into pipe friction and pressure drop over the CAJ holes (jet friction). Under matrix
conditions no additional fracture or near wellbore tortuosity friction is present and any additional friction such as friction in
the annulus is negligible compared to pipe friction and jet friction.
In an ideal case with a uniform distribution over the CAJ holes and a preferably a bottomhole pressure gauge, the number
of CAJ holes open to flow can be determined using the below algorithm:
1. Measure flowrate Q, density , pumping pressure at wellhead Pwellhead and at the bottomhole gauge PBHGauge
2. Perform an instantaneous shut-in and determine ISIP at the wellhead ISIPwellhead and at the gauge, ISIPBHGauge
3. Determine pipe friction between wellhead and gauge and extrapolate to determine pipe friction to the location of
the first CAJ hole.
4. Determine the pressure over the CAJ holes

Pjet PBHGauge ISIPBHGauge Ppipefriction .(2)


5.

The number of CAJ holes that are open to flow can then be derived from equation 1:

0.2369 Q 2
.(3)
2
4
Pjet C p D p

During acid stimulation treatments ISIPs are being measured frequently to ensure the treatment is performed under
matrix conditions. This data can be used to monitor the progress of the zonal coverage of the treatment. A modification to the
above algorithm was implemented to include both friction between subsequent CAJ holes and allow for variations in CAJ

SPE 157429

hole diameters and non-uniform flow. The modified algorithm is implemented in a spreadsheet and enables for real-time
analysis and monitoring the zonal coverage.
For the above described indirect measurement it is good to realize that uncertainties in the input parameters affect the
results. A sensitivity analysis of step 5 in the algorithm shows that the number of CAJ-holes open to flow is proportional to
the flowrate Q, Cp factor, the diameter squared and the square root of density and pressure drop. This implies that a small
variation in diameter has a large impact on the results while a small error in the density has a minor impact. In general flow
rate, density and CAJ hole diameter are directly measured and only small errors (< 2%) are expected that could cause an error
of a few percent. The laboratory results show that a larger uncertainty is expected in the Cp value that can vary between 0.56
and 0.9 and which is direct proportional to N. Another uncertainty is in the pressure drop: both determining the ISIP and the
extrapolation of the friction from the gauge to the first CAJ hole include uncertainties. In the absence of a downhole pressure
gauge these uncertainties are typically even larger. Since pressure drop uncertainties vary from case to case, we will address
these during the discussion of the case histories. The three case histories will show a variety of the applications of the
diagnostic tool. In two cases a bottomhole pressure gauge was present; in the third only wellhead pressures were measured.
Table 1 summarizes and compares the key well and stimulation data for the three case histories.
Case History #1: Tyra Lower Cretaceous Well TEB-23E
In TEB-23 the distance from the BH Gauge to the first CAJ hole is 6951 ft, mainly 4.5 inch tubing, similar to the diameter of
the tubing from the wellhead to the gauge. Therefore, a good estimate could be made of the true pipe friction. In Fig. 14 an
overview is given of the measured total friction (blue curve) and the division of the total friction between pipe friction (curve
in green) and friction over the CAJ holes (curve in red). An error of 5% in the pipe friction at 23 bpm flow rate would result
in a 70 psi variation in the associated jet pressure resulting in a 20% change of the pressure over the CAJ hole and
consequently in an approximate 10% variation in the number of holes open to flow.
For an assumed Cp value of 0.7 and applying the revised algorithm, the sensitivities for inaccuracies in pipe friction
predictions are shown in Fig. 15, where especially for the high injection rates the anticipated deviation of 10% is shown. In
fact an error of 5% is on the high side for ungelled acid, but can be realistic for the gelled stages because mechanical
degradation of the gel can cause a change in friction factor over time. A prediction of gel degradation as function of shear
rate could further improve the accuracy of the pipe friction.
The sensitivity of the Cp value on the zonal coverage is shown in Fig 16. Using the calibrated baseline pipe friction
correlation, the revised algorithm was used to perform a sensitivity analysis on Cp values varying between 0.56 and 0.9. The
results do show a very significant variation and show in fact the difference between a successful and a (partially)
unsuccessful stimulation treatment.
Case History #2: Valdemar Bo/Bo South VBA-6E
During the acid stimulation treatment in VBA-6E no bottom hole pressure gauge was present. Therefore no calibration of
pipe friction could be made and the division between pipe friction and pressure drop over the CAJ holes was based on
predicted values for pipe friction. Based on previous treatments, the friction calibration factors for ungelled acid was between
0.9 and 1.0, while for the gelled acids the friction calibration factors where between 0.25 and 0.4. Sensitivities on these
calibration factors were performed. A higher friction calibration factor implies lower pressure drop over the CAJ holes
resulting in a larger calculated number of holes open to flow. In Fig. 17 the calculated pressure drop over the CAJ holes is
shown and it appears that in all cases this pressure drop is high. This implies that in this case the pipe friction has an impact,
but the uncertainty is manageable and in all cases there is indication for a limited number of CAJ holes open to flow.
A sensitivity on the Cp factor indicates that in all cases the number of holes open to flow is less than 50% of the total
number of holes (193) present in the system. In Fig. 18 different scenarios are compared and show that even in an optimistic
scenario, 3000 foot of the liner remained untreated. Similar results were obtained using simulations that incorporated the
reservoir characteristics.
At this point, it is important to mention in this well, the OBM was not flowed out of the CAJ liner prior to stimulation. In
TEB-23E and VBA-9, the wells had the permanent upper completions in place prior to stimulation and the wells were flowed
until the solids content in the produced fluids were less than 0.1%. In VBA-6E, no attempt was made to pre-produce the
OBM and bulk mud and the primarily acid insoluble (finely ground barite) mud fluid loss agents were left in the well. Based
upon the high treating pressure and apparent lack of full zonal stimulation it has been demonstrated that it is critical to
remove OBM prior to a CAJ stimulation. Fig. 19 indicates that only about half of the CAJ liner was stimulated during the
treatment. At this point, it must be mentioned that the treatment was terminated prematurely due to pump failures. The total
acid volume pumped prior to premature shut-down was approximately 1.5 bbl/ft which was consistent with the other Lower
Cretaceous CAJ stimulations.
Case History #3: Valdemar Bo Well VBA-9
In VBA-9 a bottomhole pressure gauge was present and is located at depth 8780 ft. The distance between the gauge and the
first CAJ hole was 9270 ft and that part of the flow path consisted mainly of 3.5 inch tubing, whereas the tubing in the upper
part of the completion had a 4.5 inch diameter. Consequently the majority of the pipe frictional pressure loss was in the 3.5
inch tubing below the bottomhole gauge. The uncertainty was in this case history in fact not the Cp value, but the amount of

SPE 157429

frictional pressure loss in the 3.5 inch tubing. Two methods were used to come to a Friction Factor Calibration number to
predict the frictional pressure drop in the 3.5 inch tubing. From the measured data there are in fact two different ways to
determine the pipe friction from the wellhead to the gauge:
Pfriction,WH Gauge PWellhead , pump PBHGauge, pump Phydrostatic .(4)

Pfriction,WH Gauge ( PWellhead, pump PWellhead, ISIP ) ( PBHGauge, pump PBHGauge, ISIP ) (5)
In addition the pipe friction can be calculated using industry available algorithms. The results of the two described
methods to determine the frictional pressure drop from wellhead to gauge are shown in Fig. 20. For comparison the
correlation that was used to predict friction in 4.5 tubing. The correlation follows the derived numbers well, except for the
higher injection rates where a gelling agent was added for friction reduction. For each rate calibration factors for the
correlation can be calculated.
In Fig. 21 an overview is given of the friction calibration factor based on the ISIP and the hydrostatic method. A third
calibration factor is added which is a most likely calibration factor, which for the gel stages includes a reduction factor due
to mechanical shear degradation. The three calibration factors where used along with a Cp value of 0.7 to estimate the zonal
coverage. It is stunning to see that in contrast to the other cases, applying the different calibration factors has a dramatic
effect on the zonal coverage. This is illustrated in Fig. 22 where large fluctuations are shown. The large variations imply for
this particular case the reliability of the analysis is relatively low and that the presence of a bottom hole pressure gauge is not
sufficient to rule out pipe friction effects. On the other hand, the pressure drop over the nozzles was relatively low, which is a
qualitative indication that likely a relatively large number of CAJ holes was open to flow.
Conclusions
1. The CAJ completion and stimulation technique, developed for the Danish Upper Chalks needs additional optimization
before effectively applying to the lower permeability Lower Cretaceous formation.
2. A set-up for the measurement of the perforation friction pressure drop was successfully constructed and tested. The
choice of the pipe dimensions, perforation sizes and the different flow rates for the experiments were selected upon precalculations based on realistic field data from CAJ completions and stimulations.
3. A study of the perforation friction pressure, Cp, for five different fluids was successfully performed. The data indicates
that the friction reducer has negligible effect in sea water, some effect in 15% HCl acid and additional viscosity in gelled
acid affects the pressure drop and thereby the perforation coefficient.
4. The assumption that the perforation coefficient is constant (during the entire stimulation process) is incorrect.
5. A diagnostic tool has been developed, based upon the CAJ flow theory, to allow estimation of length of the total CAJ
liner which is stimulated. However, the predicted acid coverage is highly dependent upon the calculation of pipe friction
and assumed values for the perforation orifice coefficient.
6. In spite of the limitations, the diagnostic tool confirms that it is imperative to clean-up a CAJ line which was drilled with
oil based mud, prior to acid stimulation.
7. Further optimization of the CAJ completion and stimulation procedures must continue thus allowing deeper and thinner
areas of the Lower Cretaceous formation to be economically developed.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of Maersk Oil and Gas and the Dansk Undergrunds Consortium partners
(A.P. Mller - Mrsk, Shell, and Chevron) for permission to publish this work.
Table 1: Comparison of 3 Case History CAJ Completions and Stimulations
Well Name
Field
Perforated Interval
Length of CAJ Liner
Number of CAJ Holes
Average Spacing of Holes
Stimulation Date
CAJ/Openhole Annulus
Upper Completion
Total 15% HCl Acid
Maximum Injection Rate
Hole Coverage (Cp = 0.7)
Max. Acid Front (Cp = 0.7)
Percent CAJ Stimulated

TEB-23E
Tyra Lower Cretaceous
14,600 18,000 ft
3,400 ft
129
26.5 ft/hole
23-Nov-2010
Flowed to <0.1% solids
4-1/2 Production with BHG
1.5 bbl/ft
35 BPM
129 holes
~ 18,000 ft
80-100%

VBA-6E
Valdemar Bo/Bo South
18,550 23,890 ft
5,340 ft
193
27.7 ft/hole
26-Apr-2011
OBM remaining in hole
5-1/2 x 4-1/2 Frac String
1.6bbl/ft
27 BPM
44 holes
~ 20,544 ft
30-50%

VBA-9
Valdemar Bo
18,050 20,318 ft
2,268 ft
133
17.1 ft/hole
17-Jan-2012
Flowed to < 0.1% solids
4-1/2 Vertical x 3-1/2 HZ
1.5 bbl/ft
20 BPM
133 holes
~ 20,318 ft
Most likely 100%

SPE 157429

References
Albrechtsen, T. et.al. 2001. Halfdan: Developing Non-Structurally Trapped Oil in the North Sea Chalk. Paper SPE 71322
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in New Orleans, Louisiana 30 September to 3
October.
Anderson, S.A, Hansen, S.A and Fjeldgaard, K. 1988. Horizontal Drilling and Completion: Denmark. Paper SPE 18349
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, UK, 16-19 October.
Cleary, M.P. 1993. Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to Avoid Pre-Mature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures with
Adequate Proppant Concentration. Paper SPE 25892 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, 12-14 April.
Damgaard, A.P., et. Al. 1992. A Unique Method for Perforating, Fracturing and Completing Horizontal Wells. SPE
Production Engineering pp. 61-69. February.
Dons, T., Jorgensen, O. and Gommesen, L. Observations and Quantitative Analyses of Waterflood Patterns in a Chalk
Reservoir Using Seismic Data, Halfdan Field, Danish North Sea. Paper SPE 108531 presented at Offshore Europe held
in Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 4-7 September.
Glasbergen, G., Kalia, N., and Talbot, M. 2009. The Optimum Injection Rate for Wormhole Propagation: Myth or Reality.
Paper SPE 121464 presented at the European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 2729
May. DOI: 10.2118/121464 -MS.
Hammoud, M. 2010. CAJ Stimulation and Limited Entry Treatment A Study of the Perforation Coefficient, Cp. Bachelor
Thesis K-PR07-U07, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, University of
Southern Denmark.
Hansen, J.H. and Nederveen, N. 2002. Controlled Acid Jetting (CAJ) Technique for Single Operation Stimulation of 14,000+
ft Long Reservoir Sections. Paper SPE 78318 presented at the 13th European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen,
Scotland, UK, 2931 October. DOI: 10.2118/78318-MS.
Hansen, J.H. and Mogensen, K. 2007. Flow simulation in a well or pipe. World Intellectual Property Organization,
International Publication Number WO2007/134598 A1, 29 November.
Jakobsen, F., Ineson, J.R., Kristensen, L., and Stemmerik, L. 2004. Characterization and zonation of a marly chalk reservoir:
the Lower Cretaceous Valdemar field of the Danish Central Graben. Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 10, pp 2133.
Jorgensen, O. 2002. Using Flow Induced Stresses for Steering of Injection Fractures. 2002. Paper SPE/ISRM 78220
presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October.
Kogsboll, H.H., Pitts, M.J. and Owens, K.A. 1993 Effects of Tortousity in Fracture Stimulation of Horizontal Wells A Case
Study of the Dan Field. Paper SPE 26796 presented at Offshore Europe held in Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 7-10
September.
Lauritzen, J. E., and Mathiniussen, I.B. 2011. Single and Multi-phase Flow Loop Testing Results for Industry Standard
Inflow Control Devices. Paper SPE 146347 presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 6-8 September.
Lord, D.L., et.al. 1994. Study of Perforation Friction Pressure Employing a Large-Scale Fracturing Flow Simulator. Paper
SPE 28508 presented at the 1994 SPE Annulual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25-28 September.
Owens, K.A., Andersen, S.A. and Economides, E.J. 1992. Fracturing Pressures for Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 24822
presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Washington, D.C. 4-7 October.
Owens, K.A. et.al. 1992. Practical Considerations of Horizontal Well Fracturing in the Danish Chalk. Paper SPE 25058
presented at the European Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, 16-18 November.

10

SPE 1574
429

R
Rod, M.H. andd Jorgensen, O
O. 2005. Injecction Fracturinng in a Denselyy Spaced Linee Waterflood The Halfdann Example. Papper
SPE 940449 presented at
a the SPE Eurropec/EAGE A
Annual Conferrence held in M
Madrid, Spainn. 13-16 June.
V
Van Domelenn, M. et.al. 20111. Return to B
Basics and Prooper Planning Opens the Poossibility to Accid Stimulate a Difficult Chaalk
Formation. Paper SPE 144159 preseented at the S
SPE European Formation D
Damage Conferrence held in Noordwijk, T
The
Netherlannds, 7-10 Junee.
W
Weijers, L. et.al. 1994. Geoometry of Hyddraulic Fracturres Induced from Horizontaal Wellbores. S
SPE Productioon and Facilitiies.
pp. 87-922. May.

F
Figure 1-DUC
C concession area in the Danish
D
sector of the North Sea

S
SPE 157429

11

Figure 2- Thicknesss map of the L


Lower Cretacceous formatiion in the Dan
nish Central Graben (after
Jakobsen
n, 2004)

F
Figure 3 - Loower Cretaceoous Stratagraaphy and Reseervoir Units

12

SPE 1574
429

F
Figure 4 - Loower Cretaceoous core phottos Bo-2X welll

Figure 5 - R
Relationship b
between insolluble residue and porosity in the Lowerr Cretaceous formation (affter Jakobsen
n,
2004)

S
SPE 157429

13

Figure 6 - Reelationship beetween porossity and perm


meability in the Lower Crettaceous formaation (after Jakobsen, 20004)

F
Figure 7 - Boo-2X core sam
mples used forr wormhole teesting

14

F
Figure 8 - Summary of Loower Cretaceoous Wormholle Tests

F
Figure 9 - Coontrolled Acid
d Jet (CAJ) Concept
C
Extrreme Limited
d Entry

SPE 1574
429

S
SPE 157429

F
Figure 10 - Experimenta
E
l set-up

F
Figure 11 - Five different fluids tested in the order listed

15

16

SPE 1574
429

Figurre 12 P (psi)) as a function


n of the Rate (BPM) for diifferent type oof fluids
20
000
18
800

FrictionalPressureDrop,psi

16
600

TotalFriction
JetFriction
PipeFriction

14
400
12
200
10
000
8
800
6
600
4
400
2
200
0
12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00

0:00

Time

F
Figure 13 - C
Cp as a functioon of the P ffor different fluids
f

ure 14 - Division between CAJ-hole


C
fricction and Pipe
Figu
fricttion for TEB--23
14
40

140

12
20

120

100

LowP
PipeFriction

Numberofholes opentoflow

Numberofholesopentoflow

BaselinePipeFriction

HighP
PipeFriction
80

60

40

Cp=0.7
Cp=0.56
Cp=0.9

8
80

6
60

4
40

2
20

20

0
12:00

10
00

1
14:00

16:00

18:00
Time

20
0:00

22:00

F
Figure 15 - Seensitivity on p
pipe friction for TEB-23

0:00

0
12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

Time

Figu
ure 16 - Sensiitivity on Cp for
f TEB-23

22:00

0:00

SPE 157429

50

200

1800

45

180

40

160

baselinePipefriction
Lowpipefriction
highpipefriction

35

FlowRate,bbl/min

1400

Numberofholes opentoflow

2000

1600

PressureDropoverCAJHole,psi

17

140
120

1200

30

1000

25

800

20

600

15

400

10

40

200

20

0
0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

Cp=0.7
Cp=0.56
Cp=0.9

100
80
60

0
0:00

0
16:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

Time

Time

Figure 17 - Pressure Drop over the CAJ holes VBA-6E.


Comparing sensitivities

Figure 18 - Sensitivities on Cp value for VBA-06E


1400

VBA-06E, Stimulation of CAJ Liner


2011

FrictionPressureDropfromISIP
1200

25,000

22,000

21,000

100

20,000

FrictionalPressureDrop,psi

23,000
150

1000

800

600

400

50

200

19,000

18,000
0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

0
Flow Rate

# of CAJ holes

Max. number
of holes
Acid Front
Time
since
Start Treatment

10

12

14

16

18

20

InjectionFlowRate,bbl/min

Well length

Figure 20 - Pipe Friction from Wellhead to Gauge for


VBA 9

Figure 19 - VBA-6E, zonal coverage over time

140

2.00
FrictionCalibrationFactorISIPmethod

1.80

120

FrictionCalibrationFactorHydrostaticMethod

1.60

averagedcalibrationfactor
ISIPcalibrationfactor
Hydrostaticcalibrationfactor

AppliedFrictionCalibrationFactor

Numberofholes opentoflow

FrictionCalibartion Factor

FrictionPressureDropfromHydrostatic
Correlationungelledacid

24,000
200
Acid Front Along Wellbore, ft

# of holes w. acid flow/ Treatment Rate ,bbl/min

250

1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60

100

80

60

40

0.40
20

0.20
0.00
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

InjectionFlowRate,bbl/min

Figure 21 - Friction Calibration Factor for prediction


friction in 3.5 tubing in VBA-9

0
12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00

Time

Figure 22 - Sensitivities for friction factor in VBA-9

You might also like