SPE 35197
Field Results Demonstrate Enhanced Matrix Acidizing
Through Real-Time Monitoring
Ding Zhu, SPE and A. Daniel Hill, SPE, U. of Texas at Austin
Copyright 1996, Society of Petroleum Englnes, Inc.
This p~ was prepared for presentation at the Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conference
held In Mldiand, Texas 2729 March 1996.
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 matenal, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any pos~ion
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, tts officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75063-3836, U.S.A., fax 012149529435.
Abstract
The use of an inverse injectivity versus superposition time
plot to diagnose the changing skin factor in a matrix acidizing
treatment has been presented previously by Hill and Zhu l . The
model has been extended to calculate skin factor as a function
of injection time or injected volume directly to help the
operator monitor and optimize the treatment. A Windows
program based on the theory has been developed to provide a
pretreatment test to evaluate the permeability and the initial
skin factor of the formation when they are not available before
the acid treatment, to calculate and plot the evolving skin
during the treatment in real-time, and to evaluate treatments
afterwards. It converts surface pressure, when measured, to the
bottom hole pressure for the calculation, and handles fluid
density and viscosity changes in real time. Several field
examples showed that the technique can be used conveniently
to monitor skin changes and diversion effects during matrix
acidizing treatments, The program is reliable and flexible in
acquiring and processing data, calculating skin, and diagnosing
matrix acidizing treatments.
Introduction
To monitor changing skin during a matrix acidizing treatment,
the theory for a standard injectivity test using the approximate
line source solution for transient flow during injection has
been adopted l ,2. The pressure transient response to injection
for multiple injection rates is
where,
_ 162.6Bp.
m- kh
b= m[IOg(~) - 3.23 + O. 868S]
CPjlCtTw
Society of Petroleum Engineers
and the superposition time function, Lltsup, is defined as
(4)
According to Eq. 1, a plot of inverse injectivity,
(Pj-Pw)/ClN, versus the superposition time function, Lltsup , will
yield a straight line with a slope of m and an intercept of b.
During an acid treatment, all of the parameters defining the
slope, m, do not change, leaving m a constant. Among the
parameters defining the intercept, b, the only one that changes
as acid is injected is the skin factor, s. As a result, each inverse
injectivity/superposition time point will lie on a straight line
having a slope, m, with its intercept depending on the skin
factor at the moment. Thus, a family of constant skin curves
can be calculated and plotted on a diagnostic chart of inverse
injectivity versus superposition time function before the
treatment, and the skin change can be monitored by locating
the inverse injectivity as a function of superposition time on
the chart.
This method is easy to apply in the field and the result is
comparable with other more complicated methods developed
before3 ,4,5, but it requires the user to read from the diagnostic
chart and interpolate between lines of constant skin to obtain
the skin factor in real time. The model has been extended so
that the evolving skin is calculated directly in real time as the
treatment proceeds, allowing the operator to monitor and
optimize the treatment more conveniently.
Skin Calculation From
Treatment Data
As mentioned before, the intercept of the inverse injectivity
versus Lltsup curve, b, is a function of skin factor and changes
during the acid treatment as the skin factor changes. The
intercept, b, can be calculated from the measured pressure and
injection rate; thus, the skin factor can be determined once the
intercept is known. Solving for the skin factor from Eq. 3, we
(1) have
s= -u:k(~ -IOg(~)+ 3.23]
CPjlCt Tw
(5)
(2)
The intercept, b, is obtained from Eq. 1:
(3) b --~
qN - mAt
i l sup (6)
2 FIELD RESULTS DEMONSTRATE ENHANCED MATRIX ACIDIZING THROUGH REAL-TIME MONITORING
and the slope, m, is detennined from Eq. 2. The superposition
time, ~lsup, defined by Eq. 4, is used to handle multiple flow
rate injection. It eliminates the effect of the flow rate change
on the pressure response and results in a smooth curve when
increasing or decreasing the rate, so that the curve represents
the skin change only.
The procedure for using the real-time monitoring method is
to first calculate the slope, m, which is a function of the
reservoir parameters and is constant during the acid treatment,
before the injection of acid (or any fluid that might change the
skin factor). Then, the pressure and flow rate are measured in
real time at a desired time interval during the treatment. For
each rate/pressure/time data point acquired, superposition time
is calculated by Eq. 4, the new intercept by Eq. 6, and finally
the skin is detennined by Eq. 5. The theory presented has been
implemented in a Windows program to apply the technique in
the field, and an example of computing the superposition time,
the intercept, and the skin factor at a given time is shown in
the Appendix.
Using Surface Pressure. The bottom hole pressure is
required to apply the real-time monitoring method, but in most
acid treatments, only the surface pressure, either on the
injection string or on an annulus, is measured instead of the
bottomhole flowing pressure. Surface pressure can be
converted to bottom hole flowing pressure by6
Pwf = ptf + ~PPE - ~Pf (7)
where Ptf is the surface pressure, Pwf is the bottomhole
flowing pressure, ~PPE is the hydrostatic pressure drop, and
~Pf is the frictional pressure drop. The hydrostatic pressure
drop is a function of the fluid density, and changes when a
different fluid is injected. The frictional pressure drop is a
function of the injection rate, fluid density, and fluid viscosity,
which may vary during an acid treatment. When a different
fluid is introduced to displace the old fluid in the tubing, as the
new fluid is pumped down, the hydrostatic pressure drop is
changing and can be calculated by
e ( P2~tnew + PI (qA
~PPE -_ gq gccos
A
L ) ) (8)
- ~tnew
where A is the cross-sectional area of the tubing, q is the
injection rate, e is the average inclination of the tubing, PI is
the density of the old fluid, P2 is the density of the new fluid,
L is the length of the tubing, and ~lnew is the time increment
after starting pumping the new fluid. Equation 8 reduces to
(9)
when ~lnew is greater than the time required to fill the tubing
with the new fluid. In a similar fashion, the frictional pressure
468
SPE35197
drop is different in the portions of the tubing string containing
different fluids.
The vertical depth of the well should be used in calculating
the hydrostatic pressure drop, and the actual length of the well
(measured depth) should be used in the calculation of the
frictional pressure drop. For a deviated well, these two lengths
are not the same. When coiled tubing is used to inject the
fluid, the length to calculate the frictional pressure drop should
be the actual length of the coiled tubing, which may be
significantly longer than the actual length of the well.
Pretreatment Test. The pretreatment test was presented by
Montgomery4 to estimate the initial skin and the permeability
of the formation if they are not available before an acid
treatment and is included in the program. Injecting an inert
fluid prior to the acid injection is required to conduct a
pretreatment test; however, this is a common procedure in
many matrix acidizing treatments. From the measured pressure
and flow rate, the permeability and the initial skin are
calculated by standard pressure transient analysis for a constant
rate injection. Even when the infonnation are known from
other sources, the pretreatment test is useful to calculate the
initial skin and the permeability as a check against previous
estimates.
Real-Time Monitoring Program
The program developed to execute the real-time monitoring
technique runs under the Windows environment on a PC.
When applied in the field, the computer which has the program
running can be easily connected to either a data acquisition
system or another computer provided by the service company,
which have the measured tubing head, annulus, or bottom hole
pressure and flow rate stored, through a standard RS-232
interface. The data are transferred to the computer in a string
format and then decomposed into arrays of numbers. The user
defines the channels containing time, pressure, and flow rate
and chooses the time interval to acquire data and calculate skin
factor. The calculation executes only if a full string is received
at the user-defined time and pauses if the acquired string does
not have enough data. The program is flexible in accepting
different formats of data, and several service companies'
standard data fonnats have been built into the program. The
inverse injectivity versus superposition time and log(t), the
evolving skin, and the bottomhole pressure as functions of
time are plotted in real time (Fig. 1). The data can be input
manually if necessary. The program also can be used to review
and evaluate matrix treatments after the treatment is completed.
Field Examples
Example 1. This treatment was conducted in an oil field
located in west Texas. The treated well is a vertical oil-
producing well completed in the San Andres (dolomite)
fonnation. The acid treatment consisted of multistage injection
SPE35197 A. D. HILL AND D. ZHU
alternating 15% HCI and diverting stages consisting of a
mixture of gelled brine and rock salt. The acid and the diverting
stages were separated by brine spacers. Surface pressure and
flow rate were measured from a data acquisition system and
stored in a control computer by the service company.
The data was gathered from the control computer through
the communication port and treated by the program in real
time. The program converted the measured surface pressure to
the bottom hole pressure accounting for the density and
viscosity changes. The skin factor was calculated by the theory
presented in this paper, and the stimulation and diversion
effects were clearly indicated from the calculated skin factor by
the monitoring program.
Table 1 lists the treatment information and the test results
for the field test, Fig. 2 is the rate/pressure record from this
treatment, and Fig. 3 shows the skin plot generated from the
program. The periods of skin reduction indicate the formation
response to the acid treatment (stages marked 1 on Fig. 3), and
the periods of increasing skin are the response to the diversion
(stages marked 2). From Fig. 3 it can be seen that there was a
delay in the formation response to the injection, with the skin
factor increasing for awhile after the acid reached the
perforations and decreasing for a time after the diverter reached
the perfs. This could be caused by an error in estimating the
fluid at the perfs. The formation had positive responses to each
acid injection, and the skin was removed by the acid treatment
completely several times during the treatment. The diversion
was also effective, as indicated by the apparent skin increasing
after each injection of the diverting agent. Figure 3 shows that
the skin factor decreased to zero several times during the
treatment, which suggests that the treatment should be stopped
after the third acid injection because the rest of the treatment
did not add any benefit. Actually, the last couple of diversion
injections caused a significant increase in the skin effect, and
the last acid injection did not last long enough to reduce the
skin again to zero.
Example 2. This acid treatment was conducted at an offshore
field being waterflooded. The treated well is a deviated water-
injection well with a depth of 3,300 ft. The treatment was a
one-stage acid injection through coiled tubing, and the coiled
tubing length was 7,600 ft. The tubing pressure and the
annular pressure were measured at the surface. The coiled
tubing length has been used to calculate the frictional pressure
drop.
Communication was established between the control board
and the computer running the program, and the data was
acquired from the control board. The program processed the
data correctly at real time. A pretreatment test analysis was
conducted in this test to confirm the estimate of the reservoir
permeability and the initial skin.
The monitoring result for the example is listed in Table 2
and Fig. 4 is the rate/pressure record from this treatment.
Figure 5 shows the skin plot generated from the program in
real time. The skin factor was calculated by both the annular
469
3
surface pressure and the tubing head pressure. The result from
the annular pressure is more reliable because there was no flow
in the annulus; thus, no frictional pressure drop was involved
in the calculation. Obviously, the formation did not respond to
the treatment as expected. The skin factor increased as the acid
was injected, and the flow in the formation was not improved
by the treatment. A mixture of xylene and 15% HCI was used
in this treatment. The operator concluded that HF was needed
to remove the damage in this well.
Example 3. The third well tested was a water-disposal
injection well treated with a 30 bbl preflush of 15 wt% HCI,
followed by 60 bbl of 3 wt% HF, 12 wt% HCI mud acid, and
displaced with a 2 wt% NH4CI solution. No diversion
methods were used.
Figure 6 is the rate/pressure record from this treatment
and the skin factor response generated by the real-time
monitoring program is shown in Fig. 7. The initial skin
factor for this well was about 110 and remained constant as the
normal injection water was displaced from the tubing by the
HCI preflush. The skin factor then decreased gradually in
response to the HCI preflush, with the decrease beginning after
about 12 bbl of HCI should have reached the formation. The
response to the HFIHCI stage was more pronounced, but again
with a delay from when HF first reached the formation. The
mud acid stage was calculated to reach the top perforations at
about 27 minutes, at which time the skin factor was about 86.
However, the skin factor continued to decline at the same rate
until about 5 minutes later (about 10 bbl of injection), after
which the decline rate increased sharply. Finally, the skin
factor became constant at near zero at the end of the treatment,
when the 2% NH4CI solution had displaced the mud acid from
the near wellbore vicinity.
This treatment showed an obvious, pronounced decrease in
skin factor in response to both the HCI preflush and the mud
acid stages. The final skin factor of near zero showed that the
designed acid volume, which was only 7 gaVft of mud acid,
was sufficient to stimulate this well as much as possible with
a matrix acidizing treatment.
Conclusions
(1) A new method ofreal-time monitoring of the skin change
during a matrix acidizing treatment has been developed to
help the operator evaluate an acid treatment while it
proceeds. The method uses the relationship between
inverse injectivity and the superposition time function to
calculate the evolving skin from measured pressure and
flow rate.
(2) A Windows program based on the real-time monitoring
theory was designed to apply the technique in the field. It
can be used for surface pressure measurement, varying
flow rate, and varying injected fluid density and viscosity.
(3) Field examples demonstrate that the real-time monitoring
technique shows the reservoir response to stimulation and
4 FIELD RESULTS DEMONSTRATE ENHANCED MATRIX ACIDIZING THROUGH REAL-TIME MONITORING SPE35197

diversion clearly and can be used to optimize matrix 5. Behenna, F.R.: (Interpretation of Matrix Acidizing Treatment
acidizing treatments. Using a Continuously Monitored Skin Factor) paper SPE
27401 presented at the 1994 Formation Damage Control
Acknowledgments Symposium, Lafayette, Feb. 7-10.
6. Economides, M., Hill, A.D., and Ehlig-Economides, C.:
The authors thank the sponsors of the Stimulation, Logging, Petroleum Production System, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
and Formation Damage Research Program at The University of (1994) 133-150.
Texas at Austin for support of this work.
Appendix
Nomenclature
An Example of Calculating Skin Factor. This
A = area of the cross section of tubing example will calculate the skin factor at point 4 in Table 2.
B = formation volumetric factor The information for the reservoir and the treatment are listed in
b = intercept of inverse injectivity versus L11gup Table 2.
plot for vertical weIl
Ct = total formation compressibility, psi- 1 From Eq. 2., the slope of the inverse injectivity versus
h = formation thiclcness, ft L1tsup , m, is
k = formation permeability, md
L = weIlbore length, ft
m slope of inverse injectivity versus L1tsup plot
for vertical well
= annulus pressure, psi = 0.0203
Pann
Pi initial formation pressure, psi
= bottom hole flowing pressure, psi and the superposition time from Eq. 4 is
Pwf
Ptf = tubing injection pressure (surface), psi
= injection rate at time j, bpm L1t wp = 1. 4r- ~.52 log( 298.66-288.86)
<lj .4 W
qN = injection rate at time N, bpm
fw = wellbore radius, ft
= skin factor
+ 1.47-~.4810g(298.66-291.85)
S 1.4 W
t = time, hr
L1Pf = friction pressure drop, psi
+ 1.4r-~.47 log(298.66-295.95)
L1PPE = hydrostatic pressure drop, psi .4 60
L1tsup = superposition time function
L1tnew = time since a new fluid is pumped, min
= 0.0186
= porosity
<l>
p density,lb/ft3 thus, from Eq. 6, the intercept at that point is
f.l = viscosity, cp
e tubing inclination b = 2r~4~~11qp - (0.0203xO.0186)

References
= 0.608- 0.0004
1. Hill, A.D. and Zhu, D.: (Real-Time Monitoring of Matrix
Acidizing Including The Effects of Diverting Agents) paper
= 0.607
SPE 28548 presented at the 1994 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New and the skin factor at the point, by Eq. 5, is
Orleans, Sept. 25-28.
2. Earlougher, R.C. JT.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5. s= ~(J1fiIL
~ <f.02lIT
- 10g( 100
O.24xIx5xIO-6xO.52
)+ 3.23)
3. Prouvost, L.P. and Economides, M.J.: (Applications of Real-
Time Acidizing Evaluation Method) SPEPE (Nov. 1989) 401-
407. = 25
4. Montgomery, C.T., Jan, Y., and Niemeyer, B. L.:
(Development of a Matrix Acidizing Stimulation Treatment
Evaluation and Recording System (MASTERS SPEPF (Nov.
1995) 219-224.

470
SPE35197 A. D. HILL AND D. ZHU 5

Table I-Reservoir Infonnation and Monitoring Results for Example I

reservoir pressure = 1229 psi permeability = 3.5 md formation thickness = 81 ft

porosity = 0.18 formation factor = 1.08 initial skin factor =30

time q Pwt s fluid at perfs

(min) (bpm) (psi)

1.0 2.1 1m 11 brine

;:1.0 ~.1 ~llJ~ 1 "
5.0 1.3 2153 7 "
I.U 1.0 ~lW lU "
9.0 1.0 ~1;:!;:! 11 "
11.0 1.0 218;:1 13 "
15.0 0.7 1823 9 xylene
21.0 U.I It!2;:! 10 "
27.0 0.7 1843 11 "
~.U U.I ~/~ 1\:1 onne
31.0 O.tl aJlU 15 "
;:!;:!.U 0.9 1959 lU "
37.0 0.9 191B 11 "
41.U 0.8 ll:11U 1;;1 "
43.0 0.1 1942 15 "
45.0 0.6 1943 18 "
4/.0 0.6 1963 1\:1 "
51.0 0.5 1\:104 ~ "
75.0 0.5_ 2053 3J aad
tlb.O 1.4 ~1~ I "
91.0 2.1 2U5O 2 "
\:I/.U J.9_ ~11;;1 4 gellea rocK salt
101.0 1.\:1 ~ 5 "
107.0 1.2 2213 10 aad
11;;1.U 0.8 2210 aJ "
11/.0 0.5 ~1tj;j ;;t> "
121.0 0.4 2174 45 "
125.U U.b ~1~ as "
129.0 0.5 2163 35 "
l;:!;:!.U U.~ ~1;jb ;j4 "
135.0 1.b 2233 1 "
147.0 2.1 2212 ;;I gelled rocK salt
153.0 2.1 ~ 0 aad
155.0 0.1 _204J 17 "
1~.0 2.2 1932 0 "
179.0 0.5 2193 31 "
1tl!:1.0 2.5 22U5 2 "
191.0 .?9_ 2201 u "
193.0 2.9 2051 -1 "
195.0 3.0 2293 0 gelled rocK salt
201.0 0.;; 22/4 63 acid
203.0 0.3 2234 5:! "
20/.U 0.3 2254 ti:j "
2Ul:I.0 U.4 2254 '1:1 "
211.0 0.4 2254 48 "
~~l.U 0.5 2223 37 "
229.0 3.0 221b 0 "
230.0 2.9 25aJ 3 gelled rOCK salt
237.0 0.4 2294 48 acid
2;j!:/.0 U.;;I ~ tij "
245.0 0.4 2294 52 "
251.0 ;;I.~ ~ 0 "
257.0 2.5 2512 4 gelled rocK salt
259.0 o.tl 24tlb a> "
261.0 0.3 2284 ffi acid
2ti/.0 U.;;I 22b4 tij "
273.0 0.3 2254 W "
2tll.0 U.;;I ~ r~ "
291.0 0.3 23J4 75 "
;;11;;1.0 \).3 ~ (t;) "
317.0 0.;; 2::114 II "
;;Il\:1.U 0.3 222ti JU "

471
6 FIELD RESULTS DEMONSTRATE ENHANCED MATRIX ACIDIZING THROUGH REAL-TIME MONITORING SPE35197

Table 2-Reservoir Information and Monitoring Results Table 3-Reservoir Information and Monitoring Results
for Example 2 for Example 3

reservoir pressure = 1000 psi formation factor = 1 reservoir pressure = 1100 psi formation factor = 1
porosity = 0.24 formation thickness = 80 It porosity = 0.19 formation thickness = 360 It
permeability = 100 md initial skin factor = 20 permeability = 85 md initial skin factor = 100
compressibility = 5x 10-6 psr 1 viscosity = 1 cp compressibility = 3.5x10-6 psr 1 viscosity = 0.68 cp

Pwf from Pwf from s from s from fluid at fluid at

t q PI:m PIt Pwf PIt perfs time q Pwf s perfs
(min) (bbl/min) (psi) (psi) (min) (bpm) (psi)

288.86 1.52 2304.7 2304.8 al al acid 9.83 1.58 1942 110 HCI
10.83 1.61 1861 'dI
291.85 1.48 2304.7 2249.9 21 al " 11.85 1.61 1953 1U:1
12.85 T.6Z 20H 111
295.95 1.47 2314.6 2464.3 22 as " '13.85 T.6Z 1900' 102
14.85 1.62 1997 11:'
298.66 1.48 2294.8 2444.5 21 25 " 15.87 1.62 1901 102
10.51 .63 l"B7:r 97
311.83 1.24 2205.8 3225.0 23 56 "
17.38 1.63 1928 105
18.38 1.63 1873 <at
313.46 1.:l> 2205.8 2936.0 22 44
19.90 T.64 1830 91
316.17 0.44 1929.0 2074.9 52 65 20.90 1.64 1853 ~
"
21.40 1.64 1812 88
316.30 0.86 1938.9 2031.3 25 29 brine 22.43 1.64 1003 51
23.43 T.64 "003 87
317.11 1.18 2088.4 2602.0 23 41 " 25.43 1.64 1796 !b
27.45 TOO 1802 ffi Ht-/HGI
323.78 1.36 2255.3 2425.9 22 27 " 28.97 1.65 1793 l:Ib
:l>.48 1.65 1743 78
325.82 0.75 2275.0 2608.1 45 62 " 31.48 1.66 1673 ~

33.00 2.28 1671 ~

328.39 1.00 2255.3 2392.5 32 :E " 34.00 7.3Z 1638 44
35.52 7.34 1493 3.l
333.67 0.42 2116.9 2170.1 72 77 "
36.53 2.35 1422 Z3
38.00 3.14 1458 15
334.35 0.44 2097.1 2094.4 67 67 "
39.03 ~.f6 1444 11
40.03 3.16 1403' 14
334.76 0.42 al77.3 2102.1 00 71 "
41.55 3.18 1367 1~

2074.9 64 65 40.00 ~ l367 11

335.58 0.44 2057.5 "
46.05 3.23 1374 1~

335.98 0.42 2D47.7 2092.3 !Xi 71 " 47.05 3.29 1325 8

48.05 3.:D 1:l>4 I
336.12 0.43 2D47.7 2003.7 65 68 " 49.57 3.31 1269 4
SO.57 "3:33' 1Z4Z 2 NH4(JL
336.53 0.42 2037.8 2092.3 !Xi 71 " 51.58 3.33 1224 1
53.10 "3:35' 120f 0
336.80 0.42 2037.8 2002.6 !Xi 70 " 54.60 3.33 1229 1

472
 1.58 1942 110 951 i~~~l~~il tsup plot log(t) plot
.1.:.~.1....... 1861 91 ..... 8.1.9 . iii:::i!:! 04 X "- XX X
1.61 1953 1 09 911 ii::iii:i! X x x ">tx x~
~
1.62 2011 111 1030 i!iiiiiiii _ U x">w<. ""'"x
X
x
IOJ
3.85 1.62 1906 102 925 'i(( ... x
dplq 10.2
14.85 1.62 1991 115 1016 iiiiiiii:i
. = dplq o.~ x
A
x
15.81 1.62 1901 102 920 iii::::::: x 1\... IOJ
16.87 1.63 1873 . ....... 97 .......
893 itt:
. ... .... ::::::::::
0.1)( X:A
X
K
"%.

n
11.38 1.63 1928 105 948 :::::::::: i11i1'li11 ~ ). Jt "?OO
0.0 0.8
.j::>.
-...j 9:!11:i:I . ~B.:.~.o. . 1.:.~3.... 1873 97 893 ~:::::::: '0. 0.1U '0.5 '0.4 '0.) O.~
c.u
19.9 1.&4 1835 91 05G k' I
20.9 1.64 . 1853 94 874 ::~:::~:
............. ............... ~ ........... ,........ ....... ............. :::::::~:
SlOp ot pwfplot
21.4 . 1~6~;.1812 88833 M\ 150 r 2500
22.43 1.64 1803 87 824
........... .................... ......................
23.43 1.64 1803 87 824
198 OG81~1 5
1 G41 I'W' -\.
2!i43 , 50
~~::~ ~::~, ~~~~ :~: 1500
\~
... . 1
:: .. 1:1111111

~~::: ~::.: ~~;~!:.::~

0
0.9
111:1:1111
100~.2 0.9
i2s .... 1671 49ii.. rr:: 50
t(hr) t(hr)

Fig. I Output panel of the real-time monitoring program.

 8 .................................... . .. . . . ;:.................... ;:. bO'itoihlioiei)r~ssure .
2500
6 ..................... ..... .

000

50 100 150 200 250 300

injection time (min)

Fig. 2 Flow rate and bottomhole pressure for Example 1.

1 2 1 2 - 1 2 1 2: 1 2 1
70r, + ........ ,...... I .. _--. --~--

6Or ..

~
~ 4Or .. ,I + .... 1
c::
~
on

200 240 280 320

Fig. 3 The evolving skin factor during the treatment, Example 1.

474
 : :

bottomhole pressure
8 .....................-;.....-.",=-. . ;......................... +......................... +..................... 2300

--
E 6 ........................ :.........................;..................... ~ ...... . 2100
---e-
e .-
<.I:l

~~ 4 ............................................. ......... ............................. _.. . ... i............ 1900

'-
~
o
!+:

2mm,m;,mV' : :
~m 1700
fl ow: rate

80 290 300 320

310 330 34lr00
injection time (min)

Fig. 4 How rate and bottomhole pressure for Example 2.

70 .....................,....................... .-; ..........................~ ................. t;.

................... .....
60 ~

50

40 ...........................
.
.
. ..
using ~ular
:
BtP
:
30

20 .................... ~;:e:~~--..Ir'.

inject add ....-+-~: inject water

198~0~~~29~0~~~30~0~--~31~0~~~3~2~O--~~3~3~0----~~O
t (min)

Fig. 5 The evolving skin factor during the treatment, Example 2.

475
 81-, 1900

6 1700 __
'V;
0..
'-"
'-
4 .......................:.................................... . 1500 ~
:flow
:
rate :: :

2 .....................................\ ......,......................... l....,................... ~ ..... "".. i. .... -l1300

10 20 30 40 50 6d lOO
injection time (min)

Fig. 6 Flow rate and bottomhole pressure for Example 3.

100 v;y

801-i
I-.

~
~ 60 1-............................. ;......... .
c::
~
<I'l

401-

20

ihject HCI ....-+--..- in~t HF/HCI

5~------~15~----~2~5~--~~35~------4~5~~~~55
t (min)
Fig. 7 The evolving skin factor during the treatment, Example 3.

476