SPE 38201
Matrix Treatment in Horizontal Openhole Wells: Design of Viscous Diverter Slugs
and Treatment Fluid Placement Optimization
Olivier LIETARD, Compagnie des Services Dowell Schlumberger
Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage
Conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 2–3 June 1997.
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
acknowledgment 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
Matrix treatments of openhole horizontal wells are extremely
difficult. Placement of the treatment fluids at the very places
where necessary, i.e. where damage exists, calls for diversion
techniques of superior performance, due to the length of the
section to be treated. Failure in achieving high diverting
efficiency results in either incomplete damage removal and/or
requirements for uneconomical volumes of treatment fluids.
Suspensions of particulate diverting agents build up very
efficient cakes, however are costly due to the huge depositing
surface. Therefore, the preferred diverting technique consists
in pumping viscous banks into sections of high fluid intake.
These banks are made of either non-Newtonian gels or foams
having downhole qualities in the 60 to 85% range.
The aim of the present paper is to provide modeling
equations for the radial placement of viscous pills around
openhole horizontal wells. Primary porosity reservoir rocks
are considered (usually 50- to 5,000-mD permeability
sandstones) as well as naturally fractured ones (mostly
carbonates). The pills are made of gels of Power-law fluid
mechanics behavior. The increasing apparent viscosity of the
gel with increasing distance to the well (due to decreasing
shear rate) is taken into account.
Fluid bank pseudoskin equations are derived and used to
optimize the diverting process. Optimization is either
achieved by the selection of the proper characteristics of the
viscous pill (e.g. n’ and K’ coefficients of a Power-law fluid)
or by the pill volume and injection rate at which the latter is
squeezed into the reservoir rock. Quantitative guidelines are
provided with the aim of minimizing the cost of the diverting
process as well as the duration of the matrix treatment.
Introduction
Vertical wells intercept relatively thin producing layers and
are therefore economically cased, cemented and perforated.
When diversion of matrix acidizing treatments is required in
such completions, particulate diverting agents can be used.
They deposit efficient cakes onto perforations walls. Although
the usual recommendation is to design at least one diverter
stage for every twenty feet of perforated interval, diversion
using this type of additive remains economical. Each diverter
stage usually requires half a barrel of a 3-% dispersion of the
particulate material into a convenient carrier fluid (in the case
of a conventional 4-SPF completion type).
Vertical openholes are already much more expensive to
treat: an 8.5-inch diameter hole calls for diverter stages seven
times larger than a perforated well. Horizontal wells, which
are so long that cementing and perforating options are
discarded due to their cost, need so many diverter stages that
the treatment would be prohibitive when using a particulate
material. As a rough estimate, the diverting agent on its own
would cost about 5,000 $ for every 100 ft of openhole section.
To alleviate this economical problem, various solutions
have been proposed. In a first step, wells where cementing is
mandatory (e.g. for further zone isolation) are perforated over
a small fraction of their total horizontal section.1 Indeed, in
primary porosity, thin isotropic layers, it has been shown that
partial perforation, when properly designed, does not
significantly impair the productivity of a horizontal well.2, 3 In
secondary porosity rocks, where most of the production comes
from natural fissures, perforation is even limited to very short
clusters across the zones of mud losses.4 In some instances the
total number of perforations is small enough for ball sealers to
be used as the diverting technique.5
Proposals for diversion in horizontal openholes are
numerous. The simplest approach consists of overwhelming
the clean sections of the well by pumping at high rate without
exceeding fracturing pressure.6 This might force some acid
into damaged sections, however the treatment cost remains
questionable due to the volumes and horsepower required.
Pumping acid through coil tubing and an inert fluid through
the annulus, whilst slowly pulling out from toe to heel,7 is
unfortunately not always feasible due to the increasing length
2 OLIVIER LIETARD
of the wells. Such a treatment also takes a significant amount
of time due to the low pumping rate through the coil tubing.
Most of the treatments performed nowadays hence make
use of viscous pills as diverter stages. A particular case are
foams, which build up their viscosity within the rock itself.8, 9
Treatments diverted with foams are rather difficult to design
due to the lack of knowledge about their rheology. On the
other hand, pills of gels, made of either polymers or
surfactant micelles, have well known properties (unlike
foams, they are not compressible). Intuitively, the diverting
efficiency should increase with the viscosity of the pill,
exactly as does the efficiency of a fluid in hydraulic
fracturing. Crosslinked gels would be preferred, however they
are either unstable in presence of acid (borate or zirconate
crosslinkers) or activated by temperature, which leaves them
in a linear state outside hydraulic fractures (titanate). For
treatments in carbonate reservoirs, there is fortunately one
gelled acid composition which crosslinks by reaction with the
rock within a limited range of pH and shows superior
performance as a diverter.10
The present paper addresses the general case of viscous
pills made of either linear polymeric gels or micellar systems,
where a design methodology can be developed.
Estimating the required pressure drop for efficient
diversion by a viscous fluid bank around openhole
horizontal wells
A viscous fluid bank around a section of a well should
manage diversion when the pressure drop through this bank
exceeds the pressure drop through the damage across another
section. Estimating the initial skin impairing the production
of the well therefore gives direct access to the required
pressure drop through the bank built by the first diverter
stage. Further estimates when acid dissolves the damage,
making additional diverter stages necessary, would require a
perfect knowledge of the distribution of the damage along the
well and of acid efficiency. The design methodology is
therefore limited to the definition of the volume of the first
diverter stage. Later stages, which are required to ensure full
coverage of the wellbore by the treatment fluids, are
conservatively assumed to have an equal volume and to
blanket an equal length of the openhole.
There are two ways of interpreting the skin value of a
horizontal wells. The conventional approach considers a
homogeneous damage all along the well, as did Hawkins11 in
the vertical well case: the skin is a simple function of the
severity (permeability impairment) and extension of the
damaged zone. Similar functions have been derived for
horizontal wells.12, 13 The big drawback of this approach is
that diversion is not required: the acid should complete the
removal of the damage at the same time all along the well,
since this damage is homogeneous. This fundamental
contradiction between the conventional reservoir engineering
description of the skin and its highly heterogeneous nature
SPE 38201
calls for a second, more realistic approach, which is
developed for the first time in the present paper.
We consider that the horizontal well, in its initial state, is
composed of two sections: a short, clean one (where damage
has been mechanically removed by the pressure drawdown
when the well has been put into production), and the long rest
of the well with variable degrees of damage extent. For the
sake of simplicity, we address the case of a well with no
stand-off in a large, isotropic reservoir. Its dimensionless
pressure when fully open to flow is:13
pD =ln(4 re / L) + (h / L) ln(h / 2π rw).............................(1)
We assume that the damaged section of the well does not
communicate at all with the reservoir. The dimensionless
pressure of the damaged well is conveniently obtained (and
slightly overestimated) by replacing (L) in equation (1) by (l),
the length of the open section. The initial skin of the well,
(Sl), is similar to the Brons and Marting14 pseudoskin for
partial completion of a vertical well, and is equal to the
difference of the dimensionless pressures:
Sl= ln(L / l) + [L / l − 1] (h / L) ln(h / 2π rw)..................(2)
The associated pressure drop (∆Pl) is of course:
∆Pl= [ µo B Q / 2π k h ] Sl............................................(3)
When a viscous fluid bank exists around a wellbore of
length (l), it induces a pressure drop (∆Pb) equal to:
∆Pb=[ µo B Q / 2π k l ] Sb............................................(4)
The bank will efficiently divert the treatment fluids for
any ∆Pb > ∆Pl - for equal values, the fluid is equally shared
between (l) and (L − l) - so its pseudoskin must obey:
Sb ≥ (l / h) Sl =[1 − l/L] ln(h/2π rw) − (l / h) ln(l /L)....(5)
When (l / L) → 1 (clean well), Sb → 0 (there is no need
for a treatment, hence no need for diversion), and when (l / L)
→ 0 (highly damaged well), Sb → ln(h/2π rw), which
generally takes values in between 3 and 5. (Sb) is maximum
for wells where the open length is 1/4 to 1/3 of the total well
length, and should be larger than 10, 20 or 40 when (L / h) is
respectively equal to 20, 50 and 100.
Naturally fissured reservoirs. In the most general case of
a matrix rock of negligible permeability (e.g. the vast majority
of naturally fractured carbonates), a system of conjugated
fissures of width (w) and spacing (δ) is at the origin of the
permeability of the reservoir and is equal to w3/12δ, as shown
by Muskat.15 All the fissures intercepted by a horizontal well
are initially invaded by the drilling mud. When put into
production, the well generally flows from only one of the
SPE 38201 MATRIX TREATMENT IN HORIZONTAL OPENHOLE WELLS: DESIGN OF VISCOUS DIVERTER SLUGS...
fissures.16 Its skin is similar to (Sl) in equation (2), with L = N
δ and l = n δ (and n most often equal to 1):
Sf =ln(N / n) + [N / n − 1] (h / N δ) ln(h / 2π rw)............(6)
Viscous fluid flow around openhole horizontal wells
and fluid bank pseudoskin estimate
Power-law fluids are considered. The validity of this approach
will have to be checked case by case, depending on the nature
of the diverting gel and on the shear rate. For instance,
polyacrylamide solutions show a stable viscosity below ten
and above ten thousands reciprocal seconds,17 with a Power-
law behavior in between. Shear rate equations are provided in
the next paragraph. In the case of flow into a natural fracture,
the shear rate might be large enough for the gel to be in the
Cross or Carreau behavior range.18, 19 Rheology tests would
have to be performed and pseudo n’ and K’ coefficients
derived within the adapted range of shear rate.
Porous medium case. The apparent viscosity of a Power-law
fluid in a porous medium is derived, as usual, from the
combination of its expression in a pipe of diameter (D)20 and
of Kozeny’s model of a bundle of capillaries:21
µ=(8u / D)n’−1 [(3n’ + 1) / 4 n’]n’ K’............................(7)
D =8 √ (k / 2φ) and u = U /φ...................................(8)
µ=[U √2 / √(kφ)]n’−1 [(3n’ + 1) / 4 n’]n’ K’.........…........(9)
This expression of the apparent viscosity of a Power-law
fluid as a function of its macroscopic (Darcy) velocity (U) in a
porous medium of permeability (k) and porosity (φ) has been
generalized by Cannela et al.22 to take into account tortuosity
effects23 and the variability of the effective pore radius to the
fluid rheology. 24 The √2 factor next to the velocity in equation
(9) is replaced by a (Cc) factor called the shear rate
conversion constant:
[ (3n’+ 1) / (1 − n’) ]
Cc=√2 ε λ ...........................................(10)
This factor reduces to √2 when both (ε) and (λ) equal 1,
and when the shear rate is large (e.g. more than five hundreds
reciprocal seconds for a solution of xanthan gum25).
The velocity (U) of radial flow around an openhole of
length (l) is simply U = Q / 2π l r at the distance (r) of the
axis of the well. Assuming a constant injection rate (Q), the
viscosity at any dimensionless distance R = r / rw of the well
is:
µ(R)= αp R (1−n’) with αp = γpn’−1[(3n’+1)/4n’]n’ K’......(11)
and γp= Q Cc / [2π l rw √(kφ)]....................................(12)
3
(γp) is the Newtonian shear rate at the wellbore within a
porous medium.
The fluid bank pseudoskin is estimated from a generalized
form of Hawkins’ equation:11
Sb, p =1 ⁄ R [αp R (1 − n’) / µo − 1] dR/R............................(13)
Sb, p =[R (1 − n’) − 1] αp / (1 − n’ )µo − ln(R).................(14)
When n’ → 1, [R (1 − n’) − 1] / (1 − n’ ) → ln(R) and αp →
K’, therefore Sb, p → [K’ / µo − 1] ln(R) which is the correct
expression for a Newtonian fluid of viscosity (K’) displacing
the reservoir fluid of viscosity (µo). An other interesting limit
case of equation (14) is for a very shallow invasion with a
bank thickness b << rw:
Sb, p (b)≅ (αp / µo − 1) b.............................................(15)
Equation (15) readily shows that maximizing the bank
skin (and therefore the diverter efficiency) is achieved when
(αp) is made as large as possible. Equation (11) infers that
this is obtained with a gel of large (n’) and (K’) (both) under
low shear conditions. Equation (12) shows that low shear
means low (Q) into large √(kφ) / Cc rocks. Optimum diversion
with viscous fluid banks therefore requires low pumping
rates, which is opposite the usual way acid jobs are performed
in horizontal wells.6
Natural fractures case. The apparent viscosity of a Power-
law fluid in a fracture of width (w) is:20
µ=(6u / w)n’−1 [(2n’ + 1) / 3 n’]n’ K’..........................(16)
If (Q) is the constant injection rate into one single
fracture, then u = Q / 2π w r at the distance r < δ of the axis
of the well. The viscosity at any dimensionless distance R < δ
/ rw is:
µ(R)= αf R (1−n’) with αf = γf n’−1[(2n’+1)/3n’]n’ K’.......(17)
and γf= 3Q / (π w 2 rw ).............................................(18)
(γf) is the Newtonian shear rate at the wellbore, at the inlet
of a natural fracture.
The fluid bank pseudoskin is:
Sb, f=[R (1 − n’) − 1] αf / (1 − n’ )µo − ln(R).................(19)
Conclusions similar to those made in the porous medium
case can be drawn, though (R) will always be much larger
than 1. Once again it is recommended to pump at low rate,
and diverter gels will be more efficient in thick fissures where
the shear rate is minimized.
4 OLIVIER LIETARD
Shear rate estimates
Porous medium case. The maximum shear rate experienced
by the fluid is equal to the Newtonian shear rate at the
wellbore (γp) at the beginning of the injection of the gel into
the porous medium all along the open section (l). Because the
total skin of the well increases during the placement of the
diverter, it is likely that the injection rate will have to be
decreased in order to avoid hydraulic fracturing. As a
consequence the shear rate will decrease as well. The initial
pumping rate is:
Q=2π k h ∆P/µo B [ln(4re / l) + (h / l) ln(h/2πrw)].......(20)
Equations (20) and (12) giving (γp) are combined and the
shear rate is estimated based on the following considerations:
i) µo = 1 cp and B = 1; ii) the maximum ∆P corresponds to
about 80% of the difference between fracturing pressure and
pore pressure and is in the range of 2,000 psi at a vertical
depth of 8,000 feet; iii) rocks of permeability from 1 to 3,000
milliDarcy and porosity from 10 to 30% give √(k/φ) from 10-7
to 3×10-6 meter. The range of shear rates is found to be 500 to
50,000 sec-1.
Natural fractures case. The maximum shear rate is found to
be about a hundred times larger than in the porous medium
case, for common natural fractures of width in the 100 to
1,000 microns range.16 These large shear rates are only
experienced at the inlet of the fracture. Because of the deep
invasion and radial flow they rapidly decrease within the
fracture to about ten times the porous medium case values.
Designing an acid treatment with viscous slugs as
diverting agents
The design methodology is composed of the logical
succession of the following steps:
i) Test the well and define (kh) and (Sl) or (Sf). Evaluate (k)
and (φ) in primary porosity rocks, (δ) from mud loss events16
and (w) from Muskat’s permeability equation 15 in naturally
fractured reservoirs. (L) or (N) being known, derive (l) from
(Sl) or (n) from (Sf). Check that (n) is equal to 1; if not, do not
forget to later on divide the surface injection rate by (n).
ii) Evaluate the required pseudoskin for efficient diversion
(Sb) from equation (5).
iii) Select a treatment rate (Q) and calculate (γp) or (γf) from
equations (12) or (18) respectively (admit Cc = √2).
iv) Select a gel as the diverter and derive from its rheological
parameters the coefficients (αp) or (αf) from equations (11) or
(17) respectively. Note that (n’) and (K’) should be valid in
the range of Newtonian shear rates at the wellbore defined
above.
v) Calculate the required (R) from equations (14) or (19).
vi) Determine the fluid bank volume as follows:
Vp= π rw2 φ l (R2 − 1)...................................................(21)
Vf =π rw2 w n (R2 − 1)..................................................(22)
SPE 38201
vii) Design the acid treatment for damage removal along a
section of length (l) of the wellbore, or within (n) natural
fractures. The required volume of acid (Ap) or (Af)
corresponds to one step of the complete treatment.
viii) Pump (L/l -1) or (N/n -1) stages composed of a spearhead
slug of diverter of volume (Vp) or (Vf) and of an acid step (Ap)
or (Af). Note that the acid steps can be squeezed at a larger
rate than (Q) if required.
ix) Evaluate the total duration of the treatment. If too large,
increase the selected pumping rate and go back to iii).
Gel selection guidelines
Three factors affect the selection of the type of gel which will
be used to mix the diverter slugs:
i) Cost, which relates to volume and therefore to the fluid
efficiency at building up pseudoskin.
ii) Potential post-job residual damage for polymer-based gels,
a direct function of the polymer content which also affects the
efficiency of this type of systems. Despite the incorporation of
live breaker (generally ammonium persulfate), the porous
medium can be permanently damaged by polymer residues
(natural fractures are not).
iii) Impairment of the post-job production by unbroken gels: it
is critical to ensure that the diverter slug viscosity returns to a
value low enough for the slug to be back-produced. A residual
pseudoskin is no better than the initial damage skin.
Example: selection of a surfactant-based gel in a
porous medium application
In this example, a micellar system routinely used as a gravel
pack carrier fluid is studied (assuming it is stable in contact
with acid). The gel is a 3-% ammonium chloride solution
containing up to 5% of a surfactant forming rod-shape
micelles above 1%. The larger the amount of surfactant, the
larger the number of micelles and the larger the viscosity. At
100 °F, the rheological parameters of this system are as
follows:
Surfactant % n’ K’ cp @ 170 s-1
1 0.60 0.0024 15
2 0.48 0.0079 26
3 0.40 0.0251 55
4 0.38 0.0472 94
5 0.37 0.0695 131
Selecting the right composition means maximizing the
pseudoskin at an equal cost, i.e. at an equal total amount of
surfactant. In the following tables, we have summarized for
four different shear rates the fluid bank pseudoskins provided
by the five versions of the considered micellar system at equal
dimensionless surfactant volume (VD,s):
VD,s= Vs / π rw2 φ l = (R2 − 1) Cs.................................(23)
SPE 38201 MATRIX TREATMENT IN HORIZONTAL OPENHOLE WELLS: DESIGN OF VISCOUS DIVERTER SLUGS... 5

VD,s 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 100,000 reciprocal seconds. Since a dimensionless surfactant

volume equal to one corresponds to about 60 gallons of this
0.005 4.0 4.3 6.7 8.8 10.0 material across 100 feet of a 8 ½ inch diameter hole into a
0.010 7.1 8.1 12.8 17.0 19.5 20% porosity rock, limiting the pumping rate must remain
0.015 9.6 11.4 18.4 24.6 28.4 number one priority.
0.020 11.7 14.4 23.5 31.8 36.8
0.025 13.6 17.1 28.3 38.6 44.9 Conclusions
0.030 15.3 19.6 32.8 45.0 52.6 A quantitative methodology is provided to estimate the
volume of a viscous slug for diversion out of the clean section
Micellar system, porous medium, 100 sec-1 of a horizontal openhole. This methodology is arbitrarily
extended to later diverter stages of the treatment, assuming
VD,s 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% that the slugs treat equal lengths of the hole. A good
knowledge of the gel rheology at the effective (downhole)
0.03 5.7 5.6 8.0 10.6 12.1 shear rate is required.
0.06 8.5 9.1 13.5 18.4 21.5
0.09 10.5 11.7 17.9 24.7 29.2 Nomenclature
0.12 12.0 13.8 21.6 30.1 35.9 Af = acid step volume, natural fissures case, m3
0.15 13.3 15.7 24.8 34.8 41.8 Ap = acid step volume, porous medium case, m3
0.18 14.5 17.3 27.6 39.0 47.1 b = bank thickness, m
B = formation volume factor, rm3/stm3
Micellar system, porous medium, 1000 sec-1 Cc = shear rate conversion constant, dimensionless
Cs = surfactant concentration, dimensionless
VD,s 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% D = pipe diameter, m
h = reservoir thickness, m
0.3 6.1 5.8 8.3 11.9 14.4 k = reservoir permeability, m2
0.6 8.0 8.1 12.0 17.3 21.3 K’ = consistency index, Pa.sn’
0.9 9.3 9.7 14.6 21.3 26.3 l = open section length, m
1.2 10.3 10.9 16.7 24.4 30.3 L = wellbore length, m
1.5 11.2 12.0 18.4 27.1 33.7 n = number of open fractures, dimensionless
1.8 11.9 12.9 20.0 29.4 36.7 n’ = Power-law index, dimensionless
N = number of intercepted fractures, dimensionless
Micellar system, porous medium, 10,000 sec-1 pD = dimensionless pressure
Q = surface injection rate, m3/s
VD,s 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% r = bank radius, m
re = reservoir radius, m
10 5.9 5.2 7.8 12.2 15.7 rw = wellbore radius, m
20 7.5 6.9 10.5 16.2 20.9 R = dimensionless bank radius
30 8.5 8.0 12.3 19.1 24.5 Sb = fluid bank pseudoskin, dimensionless
40 9.3 8.9 13.8 21.3 27.4 Sb, f = bank pseudoskin, natural fissures, dimensionless
50 9.9 9.7 15.1 23.2 29.9 Sb, p = bank pseudoskin, porous medium, dimensionless
60 10.5 10.4 16.2 24.9 32.0 Sf = well skin, natural fissures case, dimensionless
Sl = well skin, porous medium case, dimensionless
Micellar system, porous medium, 100,000 sec-1 u = fluid velocity in pipe or slot, m/s
U = macroscopic (Darcy) velocity, m/s
These tables confirm that it is possible to obtain the values of VD, s = dimensionless surfactant volume
pseudoskin required for optimum diversion, i.e. up to 40 as Vf = bank volume, natural fissures case, m3
previously shown. With the particular micellar system of the Vp = bank volume, porous medium case, m3
present study, the advantage of using the largest Vs = surfactant volume, m3
concentration of surfactant (5%) is also evident, with w = natural fissure width, m
pseudoskins always about three times the ones achieved with αf = apparent wellbore viscosity, natural fissures, Pa.s
1% of surfactant. As a last conclusion, high shear rates are αp = apparent wellbore viscosity, porous medium, Pa.s
particularly detrimental to the efficiency of the gel: for δ = natural fissures spacing, m
instance, forty times more surfactant is required to achieve a ∆P = injection overpressure, Pa
skin of 30 when the shear rate increases from 10,000 to ∆Pb = fluid bank pressure drop, Pa
6 OLIVIER LIETARD SPE 38201

∆Pl = initial damage pressure drop, Pa 9. Ali, S.A., Bui, H.N., and Edwards, M.B.: “Acid Diversion
ε = Cannella’s pore geometry ratio, dimensionless is Critical in Horizontal Gas Well Treatments,” Petroleum
φ = porosity, dimensionless Engineer International, April 1996, pp. 32-34.
γf = Newtonian wellbore shear rate, natural fissures, s-1 10. Saxon, A., Chariag, B, and Reda Abdel Rahman, M.: “An
γp = Newtonian wellbore shear rate, porous medium, s-1 Effective Matrix Diversion Technique for Carbonate Forma-
λ = Cannella’s pore rheology ratio, dimensionless tions,” paper SPE 37734 presented at the 1997 SPE Middle
µ = apparent viscosity in pipe or slot, Pa.s East Oil Show, Bahrain, March 15-18.
µ(R) = apparent bank viscosity at distance (R), Pa.s 11. Craft, B.C., and Hawkins, M.F., Jr.: “Applied Petroleum
µo = reservoir fluid viscosity, Pa.s Reservoir Engineering,” Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewoods
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1959.
12. Renard, G., and Dupuy, J.G.: “Influence of
Acknowledgments Formation Damage on the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal
The author thanks the management of Schlumberger Dowell Wells,” paper SPE 19414 presented at the 1990 Formation
for permission to publish. The author’s gratitude goes to John Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb. 22-
Sudderth and Peter Montague of Dowell in Aberdeen for their 23.
support at the early times of the present study.
13. Lietard, O., Ayoub, J., and Pearson, A.: “Hydraulic
Fractu-ring of Horizontal Wells: An Update of Design and
References
Execution Guidelines,” paper SPE 37122 presented at the
1. Rappuhn, T., Munch, E., and Schuhbauer, W.: “Formation
1996 Hori-zontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary,
Damage Prevention - Completion of the Most Productive
Alberta, Nov. 18-20.
Hori-zontal Well in Germany in the Mittelplate Offshore Oil
14. Brons, F., and Marting, V.E.: “The Effect of
Field,” paper SPE 31138 presented at the 1996 SPE
Restricted Fluid Entry on Well Productivity,” Journal of
Formation Dama-ge Control Symposium, Lafayette,
Petroleum Technology, February 1961, pp. 172-174.
Louisiana, Feb. 14-15.
15. Muskat, M. : “Physical Principles of Oil Production,”
2. Goode, P.A., and Wilkinson, D.J.: “Inflow Performance of
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, 1949, page 246.
Partially Open Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 19341 presented
16. Lietard, O., Unwin, T., Guillot, D., and Hodder, M.:
at the 1989 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown,
“Fracture Width LWD and Drilling Mud / LCM Selection
West Virginia, Oct. 24-27.
Guidelines in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” paper SPE
3. Sognesand, S., Skotner, P., and Hauge, J.: “Use of Partial
36832 presented at the 1996 SPE EUROPEC, Milan, Italy,
Perforations in Oseberg Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 28569
Oct. 22-24.
presented at the 1994 SPE EUROPEC, London, England,
17. Boger, D.V., Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid
Oct. 25-27.
Mechanics, volume 3, pp. 87-91 (1977).
4. Gilchrist, J.M., Stephen, A.D., and Lietard, O.: “Use of
18. Cross, M.M., Journal of Colloid Science, volume 20,
High-Angle, Acid-Fractured Wells on the Machar Field
pp. 417-437 (1965).
Development,” paper SPE 28917 presented at the 1994 SPE
19. Carreau, P.J., Transactions of the Society of
EUROPEC, London, England, Oct. 25-27.
Rheology, volume 26, pp. 99-127 (1972).
5. Lietard, O., Bellarby, J., and Holcomb, D.: “Design, Exe-
20. Guillot, D.: “Digest of Rheological Equations,” Appendix
cution and Evaluation of Acid Treatments of Naturally
1 of “Well Cementing,” Nelson E.B. editor, Schlumberger
Fractured Carbonate, Oil Reservoirs of the North Sea,” paper
Educational Services, SMP-7031 (1990).
SPE 30411 presented at the Offshore Europe 1995, Aberdeen,
21. Greenkorn, R.A.: “Flow Phenomena in Porous Media,”
Scotland, Sept. 5-8.
M. Dekker Inc., 1983, pp. 53-55.
6. Tambini, M.: “An Effective Matrix Stimulation Technique
22. Cannella, W.C., Huh, C., and Seright, R.S.: “Prediction
for Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 24993 presented at the
of Xanthan Rheology in Porous Media,” paper SPE 18089
1992 SPE EUROPEC, Cannes, France, Nov. 16-18.
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
7. Economides, M.J., Ben-Naceur, K., and Klem, R.:
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 2-5.
“Matrix Stimulation Method for Horizontal Wells,” paper
23. Teeuw, D., and Hesselink, F.: “Power-Law Flow and
SPE 19719 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Hydrodynamic Behavior of Polymer Solutions in Porous
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 8-11.
Media,” paper SPE 8982 presented at the 1980 Annual
8. Simpson, J.G., Edmunds, A.C., Bittner, T., and Muir,
International Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal
L.: “Performance Optimization of Horizontal Wells: A
Chemistry, Stanford, California, May 28-30.
Compa-ny’s Experience With Horizontal Well Acid
24. Wreath, D., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.:
Stimulations,” paper SPE 37120 presented at the 1996
“Dependen-ce of Polymer Apparent Viscosity on the
Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Permeable Media and Flow Conditions,” In Situ (1990),
Nov. 18-20.
volume 14(3), pp. 263-284.
SPE 38201 MATRIX TREATMENT IN HORIZONTAL OPENHOLE WELLS: DESIGN OF VISCOUS DIVERTER SLUGS... 7

25. Carlson, E.S., Venkataraman, M., Clark, P.E.,

Sifferman, T.R., Coffey, M.D., and Seheult, J.M.: “Predicting
the Fluid Loss of Drilling, Workover, and Fracturing Fluids
into a Formation with and without Filter Cake,” paper SPE
35227 presented at the 1996 Permian Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference, Midland, Texas, March 27-29.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl × 1.589 8 E −01 = m3

bpm × 2.649 667 E −03 = m3.s-1
cp × 1.0* E −03 = Pa.s
ft× 3.048* E −01 = m
gal × 3.785 2 E −03 = m3
inch × 2.54* E −02 = m
lb/100ft2 × 0.478 803 E 00 = Pa
md × 9.869 233 E −16 = m2
micron × 1.0* E −06 = m2
psi× 6.894 757 E +03 = Pa

* Conversion factor is exact.