A Comprehensive Model of High-Rate Matrix-Acid Stimulation for Long Horizontal Wells in Carbonate Reservoirs: Part I—Scaling Up Core-Level Acid Wormholing to Field Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Matrix-acidizing models have traditionally underpredicted acid-stimulation benefits because of underprediction of wormhole penetration and the corresponding magnitude of completion-skin factors in vertical wells. For long horizontal wells drilled in carbonate reservoirs, productivity enhancement is a function of acid placement and effective wormhole penetration. However, prediction of wormhole penetration requires more effective analysis than that provided by current industry models. This paper presents results of matrix-acid modeling work for horizontal wells and describes a practical engineering tool for analyzing the progress of matrix-acid stimulation in carbonate reservoirs. The wormhole-growth model is based on the Buijse and Glasbergen empirical correlation. Combining with the mechanistic model of the wormhole propagation based on acid transport and fluid loss from a single wormhole, a modified Buijse-Glasbergen wormhole-growth model is developed that relates the wormhole growth rate to the in-situ injection velocity at the tip of the dominant wormhole. The wormhole constitutive model developed in this study also accounts for core-size dependencies seen in laboratory acid-flood experiments. A semianalytical flow correlation is derived for estimating interstitial velocities at the tip of the dominant wormholes based on a number of 3D FEM simulation analyses, accounting for more realistic flow regimes (radial and spherical flow) typically observed in field application. The scaleup procedure developed in this study extends the wormhole geometry and penetration from laboratory flow tests on small cores to field-sized treatments. The scaleup procedure developed in this work can be applied to cemented and uncemented horizontal wells, including barefoot and perforation-cluster completions typically employed in carbonate reservoirs. Application of this modeling shows that acid wormholing through carbonate formations can provide significant stimulation, resulting in post-stimulation skins as low as–3.5 to–4.0 vs. previously predicted values in the –1.0 to–2.0 range.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".