Stimulation
Stimulation
Stimulation
December 1999
Stimulation
Field
Guidelines
Part III
Carbonate Stimulation
SIEP 99-5638
December 1999
Stimulation
Field
Guidelines
Part III
Carbonate Stimulation
SEPTAR Stimulation Team
This document is restricted. The copyright of this document is vested in Shell International Exploration and
Production B.V., The Hague, The Netherlands. All rights reserved. Neither the whole nor any part of this document
may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.
These guidelines have been formulated with the use of internal Shell documentation
and publications in the open literature. This document is a confidential document,
for use by Shell personnel only.
Introduction 1
Matrix treatments 17
Introduction 17
Acid wash or soak 17
Matrix acidising 18
Wormholing 19
Increasing wormhole length 22
Applicability of emulsified acid 24
Diversion 25
Treatment fluids 25
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Contents • iii
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
Acid fracturing 27
Introduction 27
Controlling factors 28
Length of etched fracture 28
Fracture conductivity 29
Propped acid fracturing 30
Closed fracture acidising (CFA) 30
WISPER technique 31
AcidFrac software application 32
Diversion techniques 35
Introduction 35
Mechanical techniques 36
Packer and bridge plug arrangements 36
Selective Placement Tool 36
Coiled tubing (CT) 37
Ballsealers 37
Particulate diverting agents 39
Viscosified fluids 41
Emulsified acids 42
Foamed fluids 43
MAPDIR technique 43
Laboratory testing 45
Introduction 45
Rock composition and strength tests 46
Fluid compatibility tests 46
Acid reaction tests 47
Static reaction tests 48
Rotating disk tests 48
Annular flow tests 49
Hollow-core tests 49
Parallel plate tests 50
Acid-etched conductivity tests 51
Special applications 53
Horizontal wells 53
Naturally fractured carbonates 54
Exploration wells 56
High pressure wells 58
High temperature wells 59
Low temperature wells 60
Index 93
Long before acidising of sandstones with mud acid became widely accepted,
acidising of carbonates with hydrochloric acid had been applied in many parts of
the world. The first carbonate well treatment with acid was actually carried out in
1895 with some success, but this did not have direct follow-up because of serious
corrosion problems. Not until the discovery of arsenic inhibitors in 1932, which
were applied in treatments with very good results, stimulation of carbonates with
acid has become a generally accepted practice.
Matrix acidising aims at the removal of impairing material near the wellbore by
injection of acid – at a pressure below fracturing pressure – into the porous matrix
of the reservoir. It can be applied in both sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, but
the methods, objectives and mechanism for each type of rock are completely
different. The objective of conventional sandstone acidising is to restore
permeability of the sandstone to its undamaged condition by removal (dissolution)
of formation fines, clays, etc. from the near-wellbore area. Damage removal is
accomplished by injection of acid, mostly mixtures of HCl and HF, called mud
acid.
In carbonates, matrix acidising not only provides opportunity to remove damage
from the vicinity of the wellbore, but it also tends to increase near-wellbore
permeability by acid dissolution and enlargement of pore throats and the creation
of flow channels (wormholes), which can often result in a negative skin value (i.e.
stimulation). Matrix acidisation in carbonates is usually carried out with HCl only,
and it is a much more straightforward process than acidising in sandstones. This is
because most of the reactant products in carbonates are soluble in the spent acid.
The use of mud acid in carbonates is precluded in view of the precipitation of
calcium fluoride (CaF2) when HF reacts with calcium carbonate.
to rupture the formation. A propping material, transported by the frac fluid, is placed
in the fracture to prevent it from closing completely after the treatment. The
proppant-filled fracture thus creates a (highly) conductive flowpath towards the
wellbore.
Many improvements have been made in carbonate acid stimulation since the first
commercial acid job in 1932. One of the most important advances has been the
recognition that fracturing was actually occurring in a majority of matrix acidising
treatments. Injection rates of most early acidising treatments were high enough to
cause fracturing, but this was called "breaking down" the formation. It was
recognised that a "breakdown" had to occur if the job was going to be a success.
The choice of what acid (type, strength) to use in matrix acidising and what acid
fracturing technique to use, or even the choice of whether to carry out a matrix
treatment or acid fracturing treatment, is not always clear. In this manual,
guidelines will be presented to help deciding on when a carbonate stimulation
treatment is required, and on what will be the most successful type of treatment.
Composition
Carbonate rocks have been created by chemical and biological processes in a water
environment. Dissolved carbonates can reprecipitate when mixed with other
waters. Marine animal life often plays an important role in creating carbonate rocks
(shells, skeletons, etc.). Subsequent reactions can cause recrystallisation. This is
instrumental in the formation of dolomite, for instance. The presence of iron may
then result in the formation of siderite (FeCO3).
Limestones are composed of more than 50% carbonate minerals; of these, 50% or
more consist of calcite and/or aragonite which are both CaCO3. A small admixture
of clay particles or organic matter imparts a gray colour to limestones, which may
be white, gray, yellowish or blue in colour.
Dolomites are rocks which contain more than 50% of the minerals dolomite
[CaMg(CO3)2] and calcite (plus aragonite), with dolomite being more dominant.
Dolomitisation of carbonate rocks, i.e. the replacement of calcite by dolomite,
involves a contraction (an increase in porosity) of about 10-12%, if the reaction
proceeds as follows:
However, subsequent precipitation of carbonates in pores may also destroy (part of)
the porosity formed as a result of dolomitisation. Figure 1 shows a schematic
classification of carbonates as a function of their composition.
Non-carbonates
50% 50%
Carbonate rocks
Porosity/Permeability
Porosity of carbonates is of a different nature than the intergranular porosity of
sandstones. Primary porosity in limestones includes a.o. openings between the
individual constituent particles of detrital carbonate rocks and openings within the
skeletal and protective structures of invertebrates and within the tissue of algae.
Secondary porosity in carbonate rocks includes fractures due to contraction of
sediment during consolidation or because of mineralogic changes, or resulting from
crustal movements, from leaching in general, or intercrystalline pores produced by
dolomitisation.
Apart from the possible formation of ferric hydroxide (due to the pick-up of iron
from the tubing) there are no complicating precipitation reactions, as is the case in
sandstones.
Organic acids, viz. acetic acid (CH3OOH), and formic acid (HCOOH) are weakly
ionised, slow-reacting acids and they are used in acidising carbonates primarily in
wells with high bottom hole temperatures (above 120 ºC), thus causing
significantly lower corrosion rates, or for conditions where prolongued reaction
times are required. For field use acetic acid solutions are normally diluted to 15%
or less. At concentrations greater than 15%, one of the reaction products, calcium
acetate, can precipitate. Similarly, the concentration of formic acid is normally
limited to 15% because of limited solubility of calcium formate.
Hydrochloric acid solutions can be blended with either formic or acetic acid. Such
mixtures are used to obtain more dissolving power per gallon of acid solution.
Formic and acetic acids can also be blended together.
Figure 2 lists values for the dissolving power of different acids and concentrations
for limestone (simple carbonate) and dolomite (mixed carbonate). It is useful when
comparing the maximum dissolution of rock of the different acids and it may be
used to estimate the total amount of acid required. However, in practice, for organic
acids it may take long before the total dissolving power is reached, i.e. their
reaction rate with carbonates may be relatively low. The dissolution of carbonate is
suppressed if CO2 is held in solution due to the pressure downhole. Also the
presence of oil can reduce the reaction rate.
* Data for organic acids have been adjusted for simulated downhole conditions (90 ºC, 140 bar)
The reaction rate is the combined effect of three processes (see Figure 3):
1. The diffusion of acid from the bulk of the solution to the rock surface.
3. The diffusion of reaction products from the rock surface to the bulk of
the solution.
The slowest of these processes determines the actual overall acid spending time.
The diffusion processes involved are to a large extent controlled by the shear rate
of the fluid flowing in the porous medium. At high shear rates (high pump rates)
the reaction is truly chemical reaction rate controlled; at low pump rates the
diffusion process is more important. The actual behaviour of the acid/rock reaction
further depends on pressure, temperature, acid concentration, area/volume ratio of
the rock, and formation composition (chemical and physical). These aspects are
briefly discussed below.
3. Transport of reaction
products to the bulk of
the acid phase
2. Chemical reaction at rock surface
Pressure
The reaction rate between the acid and carbonate rock decreases with increasing
pressure, with the most noticeable effect at the low pressure range (< 28 bar) where
evolution of the CO2 in gaseous form is only partially suppressed. At higher
pressures (over 70 bar) the effect of pressure changes is negligible.
Temperature
Acid reaction rate increases directly with temperature, and a reaction rate at 60 –
70 ºC is effectively double that at 30 – 35 ºC.
Acid concentration
The initial reaction rate of hydrochloric acid with carbonate rock is nearly
proportional to its concentration up to 15-20%. Above 20% however, the increase
is less, reaching a maximum at around 25%, above which the rate actually
decreases.
Area/volume ratio
Area/volume ratio, that is the reactive surface area of rock in contact with a given
volume of acid, is inversely proportional to the pore channel diameter or fracture
width. The importance of this factor is illustrated by the following wide ranges of
ratios that may be encountered:
Ratio (sqft/gal)
With an extremely large surface area of rock matrix having small diameter channels
and narrow-width fractures, the reaction time of acid is very short (matter of
seconds). With wider fractures, or in a wellbore, acid will have an extended reaction
time because of the limited surface area for reaction.
Formation composition
The most important factor that governs the effectiveness of an acidising treatment
is the rock or formation composition. The reaction time and, therefore, the possible
penetration distance of live acid are the key factors in the acidising process.
Pore size distribution and pore shapes contribute to wide differences in acid
responses from one well treatment to the next, often within a given producing
interval. Thus it is this reaction factor (rock composition, texture and structure) that
renders it impractical to make carbonate acidising a pure science in application.
Generally, good candidates for stimulation are wells that will not flow at all due to
near wellbore damage or low permeability. In order to assess the cause and extent
of the problem, as a first step, well and production data should be collected and
analysed for aspects such as:
Note that a negative value of S will result in a pressure drop less than may be
expected on the basis of the reservoir permeability, i.e. this means that the well has
been stimulated, or that natural fractures exist, as is the case in many carbonate
formations.
The skin factor is frequently determined by means of the so-called Horner plot of
the pressure data from a pressure build-up test. It is a dimensionless mathematical
concept, and it represents the combined effect of a number of factors of which
formation damage is only one. For a proper interpretation of the skin (and hence for
the determination of the appropriate remedial action), the contribution of each
factor needs to be analysed. These factors comprise the following:
The real skin due to damage (that portion of the total skin that can be removed by
matrix treatments) can thus be isolated from the total skin, using the following
formula:
For each of these components, formulae have been derived by various authors.
Details may be found e.g. in the Production Handbook. The programme HORVIP
can also be used to roughly estimate Sdam. The skin components between brackets
in the above expression are also called pseudo-skin, and they cannot be removed
by acid.
The history of the well is essential for proper diagnosis of the nature and extent of
formation damage. It should be noted, that when attempting to remove damage in
matrix treatments, acid will only dissolve acid soluble materials. Many other forms
of formation damage, such as emulsion blocks, precipitation of organic material,
scale, etc. will not respond to treatment with acid. In fact, the problems may be
exacerbated. In carbonates such damage can still be bypassed with acid, if this is
not too deep. A large number of different treatments have been proposed to solve
these problems. Unfortunately, this group of damage removal treatments is not
supported by a great deal of science. Successful treatment design in these cases is
usually found by trial and error.
Candidate selection
In order to get maximum benefit from the stimulation expenditure, a proper
candidate and treatment selection is of paramount importance. The well and
reservoir requirements for successful stimulation are dictated by economical
constraints, which may be translated into the following rules of thumb:
• The well should produce with a (expected) watercut of 50% or less. If the
interval to be treated is close to the water table, the dissolution of e.g.
calcitic material contained in natural fractures may bring on early water
production, if removed from these fractures.
It is stressed that the above values are not rigid criteria, but merely guidelines for a
first selection of stimulation candidate wells. In general, there should be a clear
indication of substantial production gains, provided the treatment is planned and
executed in an optimum manner.
Selection of treatment
The selection of the stimulation technique is dependent on the type of reservoir, the
production objectives and the economics. Matrix acidising treatments are normally
less expensive than fracturing treatments, and they are applicable also in a
significant percentage of horizontal wells today. In fact, matrix acidising of vertical
and horizontal wells, completed in long sections, with adequate kh, should be
considered the preferred stimulation technique, followed by the more aggressive
acid fracturing technique.
Formation damage in sandstones is usually limited to the first few inches around
the wellbore. In carbonates, the radial distribution of such damage may be
significantly affected by the presence of vugs or fractures. As indicated in the
introduction, matrix stimulation in carbonates hinges on bypassing, rather than
actual removal of the damage by dissolution. The above considerations lead to a
number of different treatment procedures, depending on the extent of the damage
and the type of formation. Figure 4 indicates the preferred type of treatment for
different situations.
This selection chart is valid for both calcite and dolomite. However, if the
treatment temperature in dolomites is less than 60 ºC, typical values for "low
volume" and "high volume" will shift to higher values, or the use of heated acid
could be considered.
Plugged * * No
perforations
Shallow damage,
no vugs or fracs * (*) No
Shallow damage,
vugs or fracs * (*) (Yes)
Deep damage,
no vugs or fracs * Yes
Deep damage,
vugs or fracs * * (*) Yes
Matrix treatments
Matrix acidising is the most commonly used remedial stimulation treatment, also in
carbonates. Matrix stimulation is designed to remove (or in carbonates, also to
bypass) the skin due to damage, and it will not alter other components of the total
skin, such as partial reservoir penetration, collapsed tubulars and other mechanical
problems.
In Figure 5 some guidelines are given with regard to the choice of acid for matrix
acidising, depending on the type of carbonate rock.
Type of acid: Mud Acid 28% HCl 15% HCI Organic acid Retarded
Main (SFMA) HCI
Mineral composition
10 - 50% carbonate - + ++ + -
Impure dolomite - ++ ++ - -
Impure limestone - + ++ + -
Pure dolomite - ++ + - -
Calcareous dolomite - ++ + + -
Dolomitic limestone - + ++ + -
Pure limestone - + ++ + +
• The release of insoluble materials will tend to plug any conductive etch
patterns created by the acid.
14 • Stimulation selection considerations Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation
Acid fracturing is never used in the treatment of sandstones because acid, even
hydrofluoric acid (HF), will not adequately etch sandstone fracture faces. Even if
the sandstone is cemented with a carbonate cement, materials released through the
dissolution of the carbonate cement will plug the fracture.
Propped frac* ++ ++ + -
Acid frac - - ++ +
WISPER - ++ ++ +
CFA - ++ ++ ++
* Including Skinfrac
Treatment design
Having selected the acid stimulation well candidate, and the type of treatment, the
next step is to formulate a design. Stimulation treatment design of carbonate
formations is influenced by many factors, which are different for matrix treatments
and acid fracturing. For both types of treatment, software computer applications
have been developed, which can often also be used on-site to make final
adjustments to the treatment design, based on information obtained on-site (e.g. the
results of a minifrac, while preparing for an acid fracturing treatment). For matrix
treatments the programme STIM2001 is available since July 1999, while for acid
fracturing treatments AcidFrac can be used, which is contained in ShellFrac.
Guidelines for treatment design for both types of stimulation, are discussed/
presented later in this document.
Introduction
Formation damage in sandstones is usually limited to the first few inches around
the wellbore. In carbonates the radial distribution of such damage may be
significantly affected by the presence of vugs or natural fractures. Depending on the
extent of the damage, an acid wash or soak can be carried out, or a matrix
stimulation, which, depending on the results of a careful evaluation of the well’s
history and reservoir parameters, can be a treatment for relatively shallow damage
(2 to 3 ft around the wellbore), or a treatment for deep damage (> 5 ft around the
wellbore).
A treatment for shallow damage typically involves using 0.2 – 0.4 m3/m of 15% w
HCl at a pump rate of 0.004 m3/min/m (possibly somewhat higher in dolomites).
The low pump rate provides a long near-wellbore contact time, and may thus be
particularly suitable for removal of shallow damage in homogeneous carbonates. In
this process, most of the acid is spent near the wellbore, and wormholes will not
penetrate deeply into the formation.
treatment, the rate at which the impairment is removed is very slow. Applying some
pressure can be used to invoke some fluid movement, but a maximum injection rate
of some 0.0002 m3/min/m should not be exceeded, to prevent wormholing. The
following treatment guidelines apply in perforated completions:
3. Acid preferably spotted across the perforated zone using coiled tubing.
Laboratory experiments may help to find optimum fluid composition and soaking
times. The corrosion inhibition schedule should be adapted to these long exposure
times. In some cases it can also be considered to use gelling agents during wellbore
cleanouts, to help transport fines out of the wellbore.
Matrix acidising
Matrix acidising is the most commonly used remedial stimulation treatment, also in
carbonate formations. Matrix acidising should only be considered when the native
permeability of the formation can provide hydrocarbon flow at economical rates
after the damage has been removed. It is not a solution to poor reservoir quality.
Typically, the lower permeability limit for matrix acidising is about 20 mD for an
oil well, and about 1 mD for a gas well, although this may very much depend on
the presence of a natural fracture system, particularly in horizontal wells.
1) compact dissolution, in which most of the acid is spent near the formation
face,
2) the wormholing pattern, in which live acid is transported deeper into the
formation, and long wormholes will be the result,
The pattern created depends on acid flux, with the compact pattern created at
relatively low acid injection rates, the wormhole pattern developing at intermediate
injection rates, and the uniform dissolution pattern at high injection rates. It has also
been shown, that the acidising process is most efficient (defined as the process that
will enhance near-wellbore permeability to the greatest depth, with the smallest
amount of acid), when the wormholing pattern develops.
Both 15% and 28% HCl are frequently used in matrix acidising applications in
carbonates. The higher concentration of acid can dissolve more carbonate, but will
require more corrosion inhibitor, may cause wellbore stability problems, and may
have a greater tendency to create sludges and emulsions. Matrix acidising has been
successfully performed in carbonate wells with reservoir temperatures approaching
205 ºC, using organic acids or blends of formic and acetic acid. Recently the use of
chelating agents, such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) has been found
to provide the properties necessary for a matrix stimulation fluid in carbonate
formations (wormholes formed at low injection rates, of particular interest in
heterogeneous formations with zones of low injectivity), while not requiring
additives to control corrosion or asphaltic sludge precipitation.
Wormholing
Due to the fast reaction of HCl with carbonate rock, when pumping acid into the
formation, branched channels or wormholes are created. A picture of a wormhole
formed by acid reaction in carbonate rock is shown in Figure 7. Unless an acid soak
or wash is required, or a near-wellbore stimulation, wormholing is the preferred
dissolution process in matrix acidising of carbonates.
• surface reaction rate, which determines how fast the acid reacts with the
rock surface,
• acid diffusion rate, which determines the rate at which acid travels from
the bulk of the fluid to the rock surface,
Wormholes will only form if the diffusion rate determines the overall acid spending
rate, which happens when the acid/rock reaction rate is high. In limestones,
wormholing with HCl occurs at temperatures above 0 ºC, as determined in
laboratory testing. Since in dolomite the reaction with HCl is slower, wormholing
will only occur at temperatures above 50 ºC.
The wormhole growth rate depends on acid diffusion and injection rate. If the
diffusion rate is high (when using plain HCl) the acid will spend quickly after
entering the formation. The wormhole growth rate will not be high and relatively
short and wide channels will be the result. This also happens when the acid
injection rate is low. A combination of high diffusion rate and low injection rate can
lead to a situation where wormholes will not form at all, and this can lead to face
dissolution or compact dissolution, which does not result in a reduction of the skin.
1000
Rate of increase in wormhole length
100
1/3 slope
10
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50
Shot density (shots/m)
While the wormholing efficiency decreases at injection rates above the optimum
rate, this is only a marginal effect, since the effective length of the wormholes
decreases only with the third power root of the Peclet number. In order to let live
acid to be transported as deeply as possible into the formation, it is frequently
recommended to pump acid at the highest rate possible, staying below fracturing
conditions, also to promote even distribution of acid over the entire interval to be
treated (in line with Paccaloni’s maximum-rate technique, which will be discussed
later in this document). In practice this means that the injection rate during the
treatment is adjusted (increased) continuously to keep the bottomhole pressure at a
high value, or just below fracturing pressure.
The use of emulsified acids is one of the best ways to retard the acid spending rate,
and their use for matrix treatments has recently received renewed attention in the
literature, with several applications in practice. Emulsified acids are effective
stimulation fluids at low flow rates, and their main advantage is a deep penetration,
particularly in heterogeneous carbonate formations, with zones of low injectivity.
In emulsified acid, with the acid as the internal phase, the retardation is caused by
the relatively low mobility of the acid droplets. As a result emulsified HCl will react
relatively slowly and can penetrate deeper into the formation, even at low injection
rates, before it is spent. Retardation results in deeper wormholes because the length
of the wormholes depends on the concentration of acid that reaches the tip of the
wormhole. The more retarded the acid system, the less acid is spent on the
wormhole surface area as it flows to the tip and the higher the concentration of acid
that reaches the tip. As a result these wormholes are longer, but also much narrower.
This will still result, however, in an increased effective permeability of the
stimulated (damaged) zone in which these wormholes develop around the wellbore,
by at least a factor of 10.
S = ( k / ka – 1 ) ln ( ra / rw )
Emulsions with acid as the outer phase have also been successfully applied in the
Middle East. Such systems also show retarding properties, despite the fact that acid
is in direct contact with the formation. Retardation is caused by the oil droplets
acting as physical barriers that reduce the rate rate of diffusion by increasing the
mean travel path of acid. The degree of retardation of these systems is significantly
less than that of acid-internal emulsions, however.
In summary, emulsified acids are effective stimulation fluids at low flow rates.
Their main advantage is a deep penetration in conditions where plain HCl gives
compact dissolution patterns, i.e. in zones of low injectivity.
Apart from particulate diverters, a number of methods and techniques which are
commonly used for acid diversion in matrix treatments include mechanical tools
(packers, bridge plugs), ball sealers, coiled tubing, gelled acids (also with pH
sensitive crosslinkers), emulsified acids and foams. These placement techniques are
discussed in more detail later in this document.
Treatment fluids
A lot of different acid formulations have emerged, and disappeared again, over the
years. The principal acid has always been (and still is) hydrochloric acid. Most
novel acid formulations were aimed at retardation of the acid spending rate by
viscosifying or emulsifying the acid which slows down the acid diffusion rate. The
retarded nature of these acids, especially emulsified acids, results in deeper
wormholes since more live acid can thus reach the tip of the wormholes.
The acids are usually formulated with a number of additives aimed at combating
various problems. A wide range of additives is commercially available. Although
the usefulness of some of these additives can be questioned, the acid should at least
contain a corrosion inhibitor. Otherwise the strong acid will attack the tubular
goods, wellhead, etc. Furthermore, pure HCl flushes should almost always contain
a sequestering agent. This will prevent precipitation of iron hydroxide (from iron
dissolved from the tubing and certain iron containing minerals) as the acid is
spending inside the pores of the formation rock.
Retardation factor = reaction rate of plain 15% HCI / reaction rate of retarded acid
Introduction
Acid fracturing is a well stimulation process in which either acid alone (usually
HCl), or a viscous nonreactive fluid (the pad fluid) consisting of linear or cross-
linked guar based fluid preceding the acid, is injected into a carbonate formation at
a pressure sufficient to fracture the formation. As the acid flows along the fracture,
portions of the fracture face are dissolved. Since flowing acid tends to etch the
fracture walls in a nonuniform manner, conductive channels are created which
usually remain open when the fracture closes. When straight acid is used without a
pad fluid, the fracture will generally be short and narrow, since the rate of fluid loss
for acid is very high, due to its high reactivity with the carbonate rock. If a viscous
pad is used, a relatively long and wide fracture will be formed, which will begin to
close as the acid is injected, thereby etching the fracture walls to create conductive
channels.
The basic principles and objectives of acid fracturing are the same as for propped
fracturing treatments in sandstones. In both cases the goal is to produce a
conductive fracture with sufficient length to allow more effective drainage of the
reservoir. The major difference is how fracture conductivity is achieved. In propped
fracturing treatments, sand or other propping agent is placed in the fracture to
prevent closure when pressure is released. Acid fracturing basically relies on non-
uniform etching of fracture faces to provide the required conductivities. Acid
fracturing can only be applied when the reaction rate between acid and the rock is
fast and complete, i.e. currently only in carbonate reservoirs using HCl, possibly
combined with organic acids. However, occasionally treatments have been
successful in some sandstone formations, containing carbonate-filled natural
fractures.
Acid fracturing is not generally recommended for formations that are less than 80%
soluble in acid, the preferred solubility is greater than 90%. However, if acid
solubilities are between 75 and 85%, and cores are available, special laboratory
tests can be used to determine whether to apply acid fracturing or propped fracture
treatments, by analysing the differential etching patterns and flow capacity values
generated in these tests. Fracture conductivity tests are discussed later in this
document.
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Acid fracturing • 27
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
Controlling factors
The success of an acid fracturing treatment is determined by two characteristics of
the fracture formed by the acid reaction, viz.:
Excessive fluid loss can severely limit fracture growth. Wormholes formed by the
preferential reaction of acid through large pores of the rock are the main
mechanism by which excessive fluid loss occurs. In general acid fluid-loss
additives are not being used extensively because of lack of performance and cost
limitations. Most common techniques for fluid loss control involve the use of a
viscous pad preceding the acid. Often multiple stages of nonreactive viscous pad
are being used, which are designed to enter and seal wormholes created by the acid
stages. The nonacidic pad can be a crosslinked, gelled water, that has some
tolerance to a low-pH environment. By using alternating acid and gel stages, leak
off into wormholes is controlled.
Fine particulate material can also be added to the pad stages in aid of fluid-loss
control. Such material fills/bridges the wormholes and natural fractures. The most
commonly used material is 100-mesh sand, usually added at a concentration of
120-360 kg/m3. Oil soluble resins and rock salt can also be considered for this
purpose.
Acid fluid loss can also be reduced by gelling or emulsifying the acid itself. This
method of control has become widely used since the development of more acid-
stable thickening agents, such as xanthan biopolymers and certain surfactants.
Gelled or emulsified acid systems have viscosities several times higher than
straight acid, thus making it unnecessary to use viscous pads in some cases.
The use of foamed acids can be one of the most effective methods for controlling
acid fluid loss. Fluid-loss control is further enhanced by the use of a viscous pad
preceding the foamed acid. However, foaming the acid does reduce the effective
amount of acid available for etching, since there is less acid present per unit volume
injected. As a result, 28% HCl should be used in preparing the foamed acid to
maximise the amount of acid available for fracture etching.
Various materials and treating techniques have been developed for controlling the
acid spending rate. These are quite similar to those used for fluid-loss control, but
their action is quite different. One of the most common methods involves the
injection of a viscous nonreactive pad preceding the acid. The pad reduces the acid
spending rate by increasing the fracture width and cooling of the fracture surfaces.
Emulsification is also a commonly used means of retarding the acid spending rate,
like in matrix acidising. Oil-outside emulsions are the most common, because the
external oil phase physically separates the acid from the reactive carbonate surface.
Gelled acids can also be used in acid fracturing treatments, and they are usually
considered to be retarded. However, some controversy exists in the literature,
where it is stated that in reality the amount of retardation provided by the increased
acid viscosity is probably small, and gelling the acid may actually accelerate the
acid reaction rate under flowing conditions, thought to be due to improved transport
of reaction products from the carbonate surface by the more viscous acid. On the
other hand, comparable tests performed under conditions simulating leak off into
the fracture face, showed that the acid reaction rate was reduced as a result of the
gelling agent depositing a filter cake on the surface of the fracture.
Fracture conductivity
Acid must react with the walls of the fracture to form a channel that remains open
after acid fracturing treatment. Flow channels can be formed as a result of an
uneven reaction with the rock surface or preferential reaction with minerals
heterogeneously distributed in the formation. The conductivity of the fracture is
determined by the volume of rock dissolved, the roughness of the etched rock
surface, rock strength and closure stress. If the reaction rate is too high, then the
acid will tend to spend excessively at or near the wellbore, resulting in poor
conductivity closer to the tip of the fracture. High reaction rates can also result in
too much rock volume being dissolved, which may not necessarily lead to higher
conductivities once the fracture closes, especially in soft carbonates. On the other
hand, if the reaction rate is too slow, then the amount of rock dissolved may be
insufficient to prevent fracture closure.
a viscous pad ahead of the acid. The presence of this higher viscosity fluid in the
fracture promotes viscous fingering of the thinner acid which follows. This
selective acid flow also increases penetration distance and tends to create deep
channels with good conductivity. Propping agents have also been used in acid
fracturing treatments to obtain higher conductivities. This is discussed in the next
section.
The CFA procedure has been developed as an alternative solution to the problem of
fracture closure which sometimes results from standard acid fracturing. This
procedure consists of the injection of a low viscosity acid at a pressure just below
the fracture closure pressure. Acid flows out into the closed fracture, which still
forms a preferential flow path for the acid, thereby rapidly dissolving much more
of the formation than if it were flowing in an open fracture. This is due to the very
high surface over volume ratio of the closed fracture, as was discussed earlier in
this document. This causes a wormhole type penetration of the acid along the
original fracture plane. Since only a small portion of the overall fracture face will
be dissolved into relatively deep channels or grooves, the remaining unetched
fracture face can hold these channels open under very severe formation closure
conditions, without completely collapsing the etched channels. This is especially
beneficial in chalk formations.
30 • Acid fracturing Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation
The CFA technique is also applicable in previously fractured formations, as re-
treatment, possibly even after several years, and in naturally fractured formations,
in which case wormholes will then be formed along the natural fracture plane.
WISPER technique
For an acid fracturing treatment to be successful, the pattern of flow channels
formed must be irregular: if the acid merely dissolves a thin layer of the entire
surface of the fracture, the fracture surface will close up when the pressure is
removed, and productivity will not be improved.
fracture
cement
casing
low-viscosity prepad
high-viscosity pad
perforations
with each other. Consequently, the etched pattern dissolved in the rock reaches deep
into the reservoir. This method of stimulation has been used with great success in
fields that were otherwise uneconomic to produce in the North Sea and the Middle
East.
The Shell Group of Companies has done extensive laboratory work in order to
optimise the fingering of acid through a viscous pad. This work showed that one of
the controlling parameters is to maintain the viscosity ratio between the pad and
acid to around a value of 300 in order not to have the fingers merge together.
Furthermore, a distinction must be made between linear and radial fingering. The
former is produced by flow in a fracture that is coplanar with the well, and the latter
by flow in a fracture that lies in a plane perpendicular to the well. Since hydraulic
fracturing occurs preferentially perpendicular to the direction of minimum in-situ
stress, the linear case may be assumed to apply to (near) vertical wells, and the
radial case to horizontal or deviated wells. The difference between linear and radial
fingering is illustrated in Figure 12.
Of all the viscous gels investigated as to the development of viscous fingers that do
not merge, but remain distinct, biopolymers have clear advantages over other gels,
such as HPG gel, for WISPER applications. However, their application may be
limited, due to their high cost.
Introduction
In any stimulation treatment, proper placement of the acid is a critical factor to the
success of the treatment. If the acid is not directed to the intended interval, the
treatment objective, production improvement, may be missed altogether. The
problem of proper placement is compounded in horizontal wells, often containing
a potentially producing interval covering several hundred feet. Moreover, diversion
in carbonates is generally more difficult than in sandstones, because of the ability
of the highly reactive HCl to drastically increase permeability in carbonate rock as
it reacts in the pore spaces and flow channels of the matrix.
There are various diversion techniques available for both matrix acidising and acid
fracturing of carbonates, viz.:
• mechanical techniques,
• use of foams.
The latter two are less applicable as diversion techniques in acid fracturing
treatments.
For matrix acidising treatments, in recent years, injection at the highest possible
matrix treating rate, not exceeding fracturing conditions (the MAPDIR technique),
has been promoted as the best means of assuring sufficient acid placement in all zones.
Computer models have been developed for the simulation of various placement
techniques. These are included in STIM2001, a joint Halliburton/Shell computer
programme for the design of matrix treatments, available since July 1999.
The above placement and diversion techniques will be briefly discussed in the
following sections.
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Diversion techniques • 35
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
Mechanical techniques
These techniques use mechanical means to isolate a particular zone for injection, or
selective placement of stimulation fluids. Except for ballsealers (see below),
mechanical diversion methods are usually more reliable than other diversion
techniques. However, they are not effective in wells where zonal isolation has not
been achieved through effective cementation of the production casing.
For horizontal wells, which frequently have been completed as open hole
completions, or with slotted/pre-drilled uncemented liner, this mechanical method
is not suitable. External casing packers (ECPs) may help to improve wellbore fluid
management by compartmentalising the annulus, although the optimum ECP
position for remedial treatments already should be known when the completion is
designed. Whilst in principle many ECPs could be used to deal with the uncertainty
in the optimum position, their number is usually restricted to avoid deployment
problems and to reduce initial well costs.
The current tool has the following limitations that need to be borne in mind.
• The rubbers applied in the tool are sensitive to most solvents, particularly
those with a high aromatic hydrocarbon content.
A number of applications for the SPT have been identified. In the context of this
manual the most relevant applications are:
In most cases of chemical treatment, the SPT is the most economical means of
ensuring 100% selectivity.
The SPT, when run on coiled tubing, can also be used for matrix acidising in cased
horizontal holes for zones to be selectively treated, but this requires a good
casing/formation seal, which is not always available.
The SPT cannot be used in acid fracturing treatments, since the coiled tubing on
which it is run, precludes pressures and flowrates required for fracturing.
Acid can be spotted through the CT, possibly while it is being withdrawn from the
toe towards the heel of the horizontal section. Other CT-based methods in matrix
acidising of horizontal wells, involve either circulating up the CT/tubing annulus,
or bullheading acid or inert fluid along this annulus. Moreover, the use of CT with
a jetting tool, provides an excellent means of establishing direct communication of
the acid with the formation face in long open hole sections (vertical or horizontal).
Ballsealers
Ballsealers are small rubber coated nylon balls. They are available in a density
range of 0.9 – 1.4 g/cm3. They have been often used to divert fluids, both in matrix
acidising treatments and in acid fracturing treatments over long or multiple
intervals. This diversion method has been successfully applied both in vertical and
horizontal perforated wells. The absence of perforations in open hole completions
means that ballsealers cannot be applied in this situation.
The action of ballsealers is based on the idea that the balls are carried along with
the stimulation fluid towards a perforation, which they will subsequently shut off.
In order for the balls to seat, the fluid velocity needs to be sufficiently high. As a
guideline, the following values have been used: 3 bpm in a 4.5" casing, 4 bpm in
5.5" casing, and 7 bpm in 7" casing. The perforations should be of a consistent size,
round and free from burrs. Ballsealers require a pressure differential of 100 – 200
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Diversion techniques • 37
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
psi to seat efficiently. This should be kept in mind when planning the number of
perforations to be balled, and the treament pump rate. In order to compensate for
non-seating balls, the number of balls that is being used is usually 10-20% higher
than the number of perforations believed to be taking the fluid.
Buoyant balls have a higher seating efficiency than non-buoyant balls. However,
buoyant balls have the disadvantage that they will be produced back to surface. As
a compromise, the density of the balls can be chosen such that they will be buoyant
in the treatment fluid, but have a density that is greater than the produced fluids.
The balls will then sink to the sump, and can be left at the bottom of the well.
However, during a workover they can still pose problems. In deviated or horizontal
wells, buoyant ballsealers tend to travel along the topside of the wellbore, thus
reducing the chance of seating on perforations with other orientations than wellbore
topside. Buoyant ballsealers may therefore be less applicable in deviated or
horizontal wells, particularly with zero degree phased perforations.
Recently water soluble balls, constructed from collagen, have been developed.
This eliminates a range of potential difficulties, such as the possibility that the
balls will remain downhole where they can make drilling out bridge plugs
difficult, failure to unplug during flow back in low pressure reservoirs. Balls,
which are belatedly produced at surface, can block chokes. The collagen balls vary
more in diameter and show more imperfections on their surface than do balls made
from rubber. The balls are stable in hydrocarbons and have a specific gravity of
1.2 g/cm3. The solubility rate increases with increasing temperature and
decreasing pH. Tests show that the balls can hold a pressure differential of 19.2
MPa at 50 ºC for 2 hours before failure. They have been used up to 120 ºC, for a
short duration (20 minutes). This limits their use to relatively short stimulation
jobs, and so their usefulness in treating long wells with multiple zones will be
limited.
The buildup of a diverter cake in perforations can be simulated with the computer
programme PLACE, which is part of STIM2001.
1. Those forming a thin, but very low-permeability film on the formation face.
They can effectively plug off a high injectivity or thief zone. However, there
is the risk of almost total injectivity loss if too much diverter is used.
Examples are fine grained oil soluble resins (particle size < 10 micron) and
"liquid diverters", e.g. Halliburton’s Matriseal O or J363 of DS.
Neither types of chemical diverters require zonal isolation to work. However, the
main disadvantage is that, if they are not removed by the produced fluids, they can
cause impairment too. In most cases clean-up is rather slow. Many cases of slow
clean-up after diverted acid stimulation treatments may be attributed to the diverter
not (completely) dissolving in the back-produced fluids.
600
Av. particle size (µm)
500
No cake build up
400
300
200
Stable diverter cake
100
0
2 4 6 8 10 12
Concentration (kg/m3)
In the use of viscosified fluids, viscous pills (e.g. polymer solution) are injected in
between acid flushes. In order to work, a number of prerequisites should be
fulfilled:
• The polymer must not cause impairment, and must be easily removed by
the produced fluids.
In practice, these requirements, especially the latter, are difficult to meet. Currently
available products, (Temblok systems (Halliburton), Protectozone (D/S), Clean
plug (BJ)), have been used with limited success.
A better alternative is to gel the acid itself, to be injected. The requirements for
successful application of gelled acids are:
• The acid gel should have sufficiently high viscosity at the treatment
temperature for a sufficient length of time.
• The acid gel should lose its viscosity after treatment to promote rapid
clean-up.
With viscosified acid, the mechanism of diversion is viscous diversion, through the
increase in flow resistance in higher-permeability regions, which have been taking
the treatment fluid first. Since gelled acid is a shear-thinning (non-Newtonian)
fluid, its viscosity also increases further away from the wellbore, thereby blocking
the following acid, and diverting it to other, less permeable zones. In such a way
the gelled acid acts as a self-diverting system. Biopolymer acid gels satisfy both the
above criteria and act as self-diverting acid systems. Moreover, such shear-thinning
behaviour also has the advantage of enabling the operator to pump the viscous acid
at relatively high rates.
For Shellflo-S (a biopolymer in use in the late eighties), the transition temperature at
which the gel loses its viscosity, is 65 ºC, but this can be adjusted over a fairly wide
range of temperature with various chemicals, including some acids. For instance,
addition of 5% formic acid increases the transition temperature to around 74 ºC.
Gelation of acid with Shellflo-S is sensitive to iron (III) ions. Therefore a reducing
agent (e.g. erythorbic acid or vitamin C) has to be added. N.B. an ordinary
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Diversion techniques • 41
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
sequestering agent, such as citric acid, is not effective here. Contrary to the non-
acid Shellflo-S gels, the acid gel loses its viscosity permanently, due to rapid
chemical degradation of the polymer, which takes place above the transition
temperature. These properties make a system with such biopolymers particularly
useful for the removal of shallow damage, e.g. caused by mud remnants. Shellflo-S
is no longer available as a commercial product, but other similar products are
available from several oil-field manufacturers (e.g. Servo, Kelco).
The following procedure when using gelled acids, has been applied successfully:
2. Inject the required volume of gelled acid by pumping through both the
coiled tubing and the coiled tubing/tubing annulus, maintaining the same
rate through both conduits.
4. Close the well in for 12-24 hours to allow for sufficient reaction time
(depending on the type of acid and damage) and proper breakdown of the
viscosity.
Other systems that have been proposed and used for viscous acid diversion consist
of acid mixed with a gelling agent and a pH sensitive crosslinker. Initial spending of
the acid during leakoff and wormholing will produce a rise in pH to a value of 2-3,
which initiates a significant increase in viscosity due to crosslinking. The cross-
linked gel will effectively stop any further fluid invasion, and divert subsequent
neat acid stages to different parts of the zone. The crosslink will break upon further
spending, and at a pH value of above 4, the viscosity of the fluid will return to its
original value. Such a pH sensitive crosslinked gel is ideally suited for acid
diversion in long intervals, and a number of treatments have been successfully
performed in long horizontal open hole completions in the North Sea and the
Middle East. Utilisation of coiled tubing enhances fluid placement in treatment of
such long intervals.
Emulsified acids
With emulsified acid, whereby the acid is present as the internal phase, the fluid
system, which is a non-Newtonian fluid (shear-thinning behaviour), has a
significantly higher viscosity than the reservoir fluid. This will result in improved
wellbore coverage, diverting more fluid to the low permeability and/or damaged
zones. The fluid velocity may still be low in these zones, but the retarded nature of
the emulsified system still provides efficient wormholing, even at low rates.
The diversion of foam is based on the phenomenon that the liquid films that separate
the bubbles in a foam, enormously reduce gas mobility in the formation; the low-
mobility gas in turn drives down liquid saturation and thereby reduces liquid relative
permeability. As a result, the foam as a whole has low mobility in rock, and like
viscosified fluids, foam increases the resistance to flow into a given interval.
Foamed acids are operationally and logistically more complex to use than polymer-
viscosified acids. They require extra equipment and a liquid nitrogen supply. With
tubing head limitations, it is not always possible to use foam due to high friction in
the wellbore, combined with low hydrostatic head. Furthermore, they have less
dissolving power (per unit volume of acid). The high gas content of foam, whilst
improving clean-up, also in the presence of fines, makes its application more
difficult to control. Since foam is compressible, pressure variations alter the foam
properties that govern the flow division across the interval. Hence, variations in the
surface pressure do not directly reflect downhole performance; there is presently no
experimentally validated engineering model of foam flow in porous media that can
be used for design or control purposes.
Finally, a problem with the use of foams in horizontal wells is posed by the
horizontal nature of the flow: foam, being a two-phase system, may tend to
seggregate while flowing along the (long) horizontal section. This can lead to
diverter hold-up at the heel of the well, or to preferential treatment of the lower or
upper part of the wellbore.
MAPDIR technique
The MAPDIR (MAximised Pressure Differential and Injection Rates) diversion
technique, developed by Paccaloni, has been promoted as the best means of
assuring sufficient acid placement in all zones during matrix stimulation
treatments. MAPDIR applies wherever Darcy’s law holds. In practice, the method
consists of injecting acid at the highest possible matrix treating rate, at a constant
bottom hole pressure, slightly below the fracturing pressure. This requires continual
increases in the injection rate as the acid removes damage and thereby increases the
well injectivity. A high success rate has been reported with this technique, with
success quantified as a large reduction in skin factor.
In terms of its effect on acid coverage, the MAPDIR technique is not a diversion
method in the same sense as the other methods discussed in this chapter; it does not
reduce relative flow to high-injectivity intervals, nor increase relative flow to low-
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Diversion techniques • 43
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
injectivity intervals. However, the MAPDIR technique does clearly result in the
highest possible injection rate into low-injectivity intervals, while any of the other
diversion techniques may reduce injectivity into low-injectivity intervals. So, in
this sense, MAPDIR achieves the goal of any diversion method – to ensure
complete acid coverage of all zones.
A number of methods to monitor the decrease in skin factor during this matrix
stimulation treatment from recorded wellhead pressure (or derived bottomhole
pressure) and injection rate, are available. The one presented by Paccaloni uses
instantaneous pressure and rates, from which the skin factor is derived during the
treatment. For this purpose the concept of damage ratio (DR) was introduced,
which simply represents the ratio of productivity index with real skin (S ≠ 0) and
with zero skin. An example of the measured wellhead pressure superimposed
(dashed line) on a graph of wellhead pressure versus injection rate, shows the
progress of matrix treatment, i.e. decreasing DR, in Figure 14.
A drawback of the method is that it results in more acid than is necessary being
injected into high-injectivity intervals. In addition, the benefits of this method are
being reduced when the attainable bottom hole pressure is less than the desired
value, because of limitations in surface pressure or pumping capacity.
Wellhead Pressure, Pti (psi)
Introduction
Various laboratory test procedures are available to support the design of carbonate
acidising treatments. They range from simple beaker tests (for instance to check the
compatibility of different fluids) to complicated core flow tests. In general, laboratory
tests are aimed at:
• Checking the necessity for, and the effectiveness of additives for fluid
optimisation.
The following laboratory testing methods can be carried out when designing a
stimulation treatment in carbonate formations, although they are not always
required:
2) Acid solubility – if the core has a low solubility, the acid insoluble
materials should be analysed.
• Mud filtrate
• Cement filtrate
• Completion brines
Fluids 1-3 should only be tested for newly completed or worked over wells. They
can be made up according to information from drilling reports, etc., or from
samples of actually used fluids. Reservoir fluids can also influence the selection of
46 • Laboratory testing Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation
acid to be used. Generally, most problems may arise with heavy crudes, or crudes
having emulsification properties. Moreover, strong acids (20 to 28% HCl) may
cause more problems than weaker acids, and limiting the HCl concentration to 20%
or less is effective in many cases. Alternatively, the use of organic acids or an
appropriate additive package may be required to prevent acid sludge or
emulsification. Reservoir fluids to be used in testing should preferably be actual
samples from the field, although formation water may also be reconstituted.
In case a (black) precipitate is observed when mixing crude oil and acid, an
additional test to verify the occurrence of sludge should be carried out. In this test
acid and crude oil are thoroughly mixed (e.g. using a high speed mixer) and
subsequently aged for 24 hours. Then the mixture is poured out through a 100 mesh
stainless steel wire screen. If no solids remain on the screen, no sludge was formed.
If there are solids, these may either be stiff emulsions, paraffins or sludge. To
separate out sludge, the screen should be washed alternately with warm water and
a suitable solvent (e.g. Shellsol T). This will remove the emulsions and paraffins,
but not the sludge. If sludge is observed, the test may be repeated with acids
containing anti-sludge agents.
Laboratory tests for determination of acid reaction rates and for etched fracture
conductivity are the following:
• Rotating-disk tests
• Hollow-core tests
Acid reservoir
Automatic sampler
Reaction
vessel Fraction collector
Chalk disk
The system is pressurised with nitrogen to about 200 bar to ensure that carbon
dioxide produced in the acid/carbonate reaction, remains in solution. Maximum
operating temperature is 200 ºF (93 ºC). During an experiment, small liquid
samples (1-2 ml) are withdrawn from the reactor at regular intervals by an
automatic sampling device. The calcium and magnesium concentration in the
samples is then determined by automatic titration or by an atomic absorption
spectrometer, and the acid concentration in the samples is calculated. The reaction
rate can be derived by plotting the acid concentration as a function of time.
The overall rate of the heterogeneous reaction of the acid with the carbonate rock,
(as indicated before, a combined mass transfer and surface reaction process) is a
function of the acid concentration, the shear rate (i.e. average fluid velocity in the
fracture) and temperature. Concentration dependence is normally determined by
measuring reaction rates at various acid concentrations.
Gelled and emulsified acids cannot be run on the system, because they will not be
completely stirred by the rotation of the core.
Hollow-core tests
The hollow-core test method was developed to evaluate the acid reactivity both
with and without fluid leakoff. It can be used to measure the acid reaction of non-
Newtonian fluid, i.e. gelled acids, under dynamic conditions. Figure 16 shows the
setup of a hollow-core test cell.
In a hollow-core test, a hole is drilled through the center of the core. Acid can flow
axially through the center, to measure the acid reaction rate. The acid can also flow
radially through the wall, to measure leakoff. Hollow-core equipment can be
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Laboratory testing • 49
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
operated at a system pressure of 1000 psi (7 MPa), with radial pressure drops across
the core ranging up to 30 psi, to achieve radial fluid leakoff. However, as mentioned
in literature, the geometry is incorrect and accurate measurement requires fully
developed velocity profiles.
O-Rings
Epoxied Ends
Sealing
Spacer Outlet Viton Gasket O-ring
Acid flows upward through the center of the test sample and radially across the
simulated fracture face, at 1000 psi (6.89 MPa) backpressure, and at test
temperature. After the etching time has elapsed (usually 15 minutes), closure stress
may be applied, and the etched fracture conductivity can be measured. The
etching/conductivity measurement sequence can be repeated several times.
Etching equipment construction allows all strengths of acid to be tested. Acids may
be non-viscous, gelled, foamed, emulsified or chemically retarded. The samples are
mounted in lead, that tends to lose form around 8000 psi (55.1 MPa) closure stress.
Testing may be conducted at temperatures up to 375 ºF (190 ºC).
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Laboratory testing • 51
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
Hastelloy plate
Closure stress
Core
Lead mold
Hastelloy base
The acid etching test is of particular importance when optimising treatment designs
for low temperature formations (cold dolomites), chalk formations (closed fracture
acidising) and low-solubility carbonates.
Horizontal wells
Formation damage removal, or bypassing, in horizontal wells in carbonate
formations is not principally different from that of vertical wells as far as selection
of candidates and treatment fluids is concerned. Apart from the (usually) larger
fluid volumes involved, the design procedures follow the guidelines given in the
relevant sections of this manual. The major difference, however, lies in the
placement of the treatment.
As far as acid fracturing treatments in horizontal holes are concerned, since the
geometry of the fractures will be determined by the in-situ stresses, the well
trajectory could be planned (if possible) to ensure that either a longitudinal or a
transversal fracture is created during fracturing. Unlike vertical wells, horizontal
well fractures do not always initiate perpendicular to the minimum in-situ stress.
This occurs because a shear failure mechanism, which is not present during
fracturing of vertical wells, also operates during the initiation of a fracture from a
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Special applications • 53
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
horizontal well. Fractures in open hole, regardless of the azimuth of the well, will
generally initiate along the wellbore and later realign to be perpendicular to the
minimum stress. This will increase near-wellbore tortuosity and can increase the
treatment pressure.
Fewer techniques are available for diversion during acid fracturing of uncased
horizontal wells, and far fewer reports are contained in the literature. The
simplest method to isolate one fracture from the next is to pump blocking
material such as rock salt, benzoic acid or moth balls between stages of a
continuous large acid fracturing treatment. Unfortunately this method does not
provide much control over the spacing of the fracture initiation points along the
wellbore. In summary it can be stated, that more study is required for reliable
methods for controlling and placing acidised fractures in open hole or slotted
liner completed horizontal wells.
• Removal of the damage induced by the high fluid losses and the measures
taken to cure those losses, and
2) Get a clear description of the type of fractures and their possible contents.
This involves core studies (mineralogy) and geological advice.
3) Apply the selection chart given in Figure 19, to determine the most
appropriate type of acid.
4) If core samples are available, perform core flushing tests to confirm the
applicability of acids selected on the basis of Figure 19.
Formation Fractures
Calcite HCI (10 - 15%) HCI (10 - 15%) + HCI (10 - 15%)
silt suspending agent silt suspending
agent, small volume
Also with regard to injection rates, treatments of fractured carbonate rocks involves
a compromise between two options. Removal of a mudcake from inside the
fractures near the wellbore, is enhanced by a low pump rate (longer contact time,
no by-passing). On the other hand, effective removal of fracture filling
materials/minerals as deeply as possible, is promoted by pumping fast, possibly
even exceeding the fracturing limit. It depends very much on the local situation,
whether to use a low or high pump rate, or possibly a combination of both, i.e.
initially pumping at a low rate to effectively dissolve a mud cake, followed by
continued injection at a high rate.
Other examples from the literature, referring to the removal of deep damage due to
significant mud losses, mention the application of a large overpressure into the well
in order to move the mud bank and make it accessible by the treating fluids. The
operation then becomes an acid fracturing type treatment, with the following
objectives:
state (if necessary), therefore allowing the acid to react with, and its
suspending agent to adsorb onto the minerals surfaces,
- disperse, suspend and produce back all non-dissolved damaging particles,
- etch the natural fractures for better conductivity near the wellbore.
The damage removal fluid package usually consists of three successive fluids.
A titanate-crosslinked, low pH, high viscosity gel compatible with acid is pumped
first to open and widen the natural fractures. The mud cake is dislodged and the
mud filtrate is displaced (with a favourable mobility ratio) into the pattern of
fissures. A mud dilution effect is obtained with the reservoir oil through a
considerable increase in the investigation radius.
A "Mud and Silt Remover" acid system based on 28% hydrochloric acid is pumped
after the crosslinked gel. It incorporates the usual corrosion inhibition schedule, an
iron control agent and a friction reducer. A water wetting surfactant, a silt suspending
agent and an emulsion/sludge preventer are usually added. Their concentrations are
designed from the results of compatibility studies between the drilling mud, the
reservoir oil and the acid. The acid system must be as fluid as possible in order to
promote turbulence in the fissures and complete the mud removal at the fracture wall.
A linear gel displaces the acid, and is followed by a short diverter stage of
crosslinked gel, carrying ballsealers. For this purpose the well must be completed
accordingly, i.e. with a cemented liner across the payzone. Wellhead and tubulars
must be selected in advance to withstand fracturing pressures, downhole as well as
at surface. Pre and post job well performances demonstrate huge increases in
productivity index, due to the clean-up of the natural fissures around the wellbore
as a result of above treatments.
Exploration wells
Often production technologists or stimulation engineers are asked whether
stimulation of a particular exploration well is useful.
The main objective for a stimulation treatment in an exploration well is, from a
petroleum engineering point of view, to establish that producible hydrocarbons are
present and, if possible, produce at a rate sufficient to obtain a good well test. It is
not the intention to optimise the treatment, so as to maximise the productivity.
With this in mind, the following guidelines have been compiled in discussions with
engineers from various operating companies:
2) If information from other sources, e.g. other wells in the area indicates
that fracturing might be required, perform microfrac to obtain important
data for possible fracture treatment.
5) Run logs over target interval and determine reservoir quality, hydrocarbon
saturation, etc.
6) Take side-wall samples, if step 3 was omitted, and determine some basic
properties, such as formation composition, porosity, strength, etc.
7) Run casing and perforate a limited interval over the first zone of interest.
9) Decide on the basis of the log interpretation and initial production test
results, whether or not stimulation is feasible (apply above guideline No. 2).
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Special applications • 57
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
12) In case of low productivity, run AcidFrac, using data from e.g. microfrac
tests, to assess the prospects for acid fracturing.
Following a plan like the above, ensures that every possible and necessary step is
taken to prove the existence of producible hydrocarbons or otherwise.
Practical circumstances may demand the omission of several of the above steps,
however.
High pressure wells require a surface treating pressure of, say, a thousand bar or
more. Usually this is not a problem because the tubulars, etc., are designed for high
pressure service. However, occasionally the injection pressure during acid
stimulation may considerably exceed the static wellhead pressure. From an
operational point of view, this presents the following potential problems:
1) The wellhead may not be rated up to such high pressures. This problem
may be overcome by the use of a wellhead isolation tool. These tools are
offered by all major stimulation contractors. They have the added
advantage that high quality steel components of the Christmas tree are
protected from contact with corrosive acids.
2) The tubing string may not be suitable for such high pressures. This can be
overcome (to some extent) by pressurising the tubing/casing annulus.
The current way to combat this higher corrosion is to add high (excessive?)
concentrations of corrosion inhibitors and intensifiers. Also here cool-down flushes
will help to reduce the corrosion problems. However, it should be borne in mind
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Special applications • 59
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
that return acid, although spent, is hot and still very corrosive, and it should
therefore contain sufficient corrosion inhibitor. Unfortunately, corrosion inhibitors
tend to stay behind in the formation. Therefore, an overdose might be required to
compensate for loss of inhibitor through adsorption in the formation.
Overdisplacement of the acid (in case of a matrix treatment) will alleviate the
problems. In any case, it is strongly recommended to include corrosion tests with
(simulated) spent acid in the corrosion testing program.
The use of organic acids can also be considered to minimise corrosion problems in
high-temperature applications. The blends can be designed so that the dissolving
power is equivalent to HCl, with significantly reduced corrosion rates. Although the
base acid cost for a formic/acetic acid is normally about twice that of HCl,
inhibition costs are generally less.
Two techniques were developed years ago to enhance the reactivity of HCl and are
still in use today in limited applications. The first technique involves adding a very
low concentration of HF (about 0.25% by weight). This low concentration
enhances the reactivity of the mixture and ensures that minimum damage from HF
reaction products are introduced. However, this technique is not recommended
Shell practice. The second process involves adding several gallons of ammonium
hydroxide to HCl just prior to pumping. Temperatures as high as 60 ºC can be
obtained using this method and it has proven beneficial for treating shallow, low
temperature dolomites. Also a mechanical means (hot oiler or steamer) can be used
to heat up the acid.
To obtain maximum acid penetration in acid fracturing treatments, the first step in
the treatment design is to select fluids that have the lowest leakoff coefficient.
Increasing the conductivity of an acid-etched fracture is simply a matter of
pumping more acid, since the more acid pumped, the wider the etched width of a
fracture. In low temperature acid fracture treaments also a low injection rate
(though above fracturing rate) should be used. Finally, depending on the particular
conditions and requirements, the choice exists to apply a propped fracturing
treatment.
Introduction
The high degree of reservoir uncertainty, caused by the heterogeneous nature of
carbonate formations, sometimes makes candidate selection for matrix treatments
difficult. The goal of the candidate selection process is to select wells with
relatively low risk and high reward potential. High-skin wells are obvious choices
for matrix stimulation. It should be noted, as was said earlier, that matrix
stimulation is designed to remove the skin due to damage, and it will not alter other
components of the total skin, termed "pseudoskin". Pseudoskin can be caused by
partial reservoir penetration, poor perforations, collapsed tubulars, and other
mechanical problems.
Once a well has been recognised as a candidate for matrix stimulation, a typical
design should address the following aspects, and involve the following steps:
• Formation characteristics.
• Selection of additives.
• Placement strategy.
For the above steps in treatment design, computer models have been developed.
STIM2001, which recently (July 1999) has become available as a joint Shell/
Halliburton project, is a software application for the comprehensive design,
execution, and evaluation methodology of matrix stimulation treatments of
sandstones and carbonates, and which brings a structured engineering approach to
the problem of well stimulation. Another computer programme available is
StimCADE of Schlumberger.
Last, but not least, as in any stimulation design, the experiences with earlier
stimulation treatments in wells in the same field or formation, or in comparable,
neighbouring fields, should be fully taken into account in the design.
Damage characterisation
The type and location of the damage should be determined in order to select the
proper treating fluids. To properly characterise the formation damage, a complete
history of the well is necessary. Every phase from drilling to production/injection
must be evaluated. Sources of damage may include drilling, cementing, completion
and workover, production, stimulation and injection operations. The damage itself
can be due to emulsions, wettability changes, water blocks, scale, organic deposits
(paraffin/asphaltenes), mix deposits (a mixture of scale and organics), silt and clay,
and bacterial deposits. Although the type(s) of damage may not always be precisely
identified, quite often the most probable type can be determined. Thus, most matrix
treatments incorporate treating fluids that can remove more than one type of
damage. This is particularly the case in sandstone acidising, and less in carbonates,
where the damage can very efficiently be bypassed with long wormholes.
Drilling damage in horizontal wells can be very high due to the long exposure time
during drilling (mud damage and the mechanical action of the drill pipe on the
formation face).
Formation characteristics
The mineralogical composition of the carbonate formation, i.e. the percentage of
calcite, dolomite, clays etc., is an important parameter for treatment design. So is
the average HCl solubility of each interval to be treated, and the minerals that could
cause problems, i.e. the insoluble minerals such as clays and fines, which upon
dissolution of the rock matrix, will result in the release of insoluble material, which
could cause plugging of the created flow paths. An adjusted treatment design, e.g.
the use of foamed acid, with its higher fines carrying capacity, would have to be
considered in such cases.
The type and distribution of porosity in carbonates can have a strong influence on
the extent of the damage and on the acid penetration. Reservoirs with a high matrix
permeability, or with an extensive fracture system, can be severely (deeply)
damaged by invasion of solid particles. If high permeability is due to large,
62 • Matrix treatment design guidelines Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation
interconnected pores, short and very wide wormholes may form. These properties
can vary dramatically within the same reservoir. A carbonate with basically the
same constitution, may have a very different porosity and permeability and, as said
earlier, a reasonable relationship between porosity and permeability does often not
exist in carbonate formations. On the other hand, there are massive carbonate
formations, which, due to their very compact and hard nature have usually very low
matrix porosity and permeability.
However, such formations are usually fractured and most of the reservoir porosity
is formed by these fissures. This will then also significantly impact the treatment
design.
Selection of a base acid is usually done by process of elimination. One of the first
parameters to be considered is the bottomhole temperature (BHT), in relation to
corrosion concerns and reactivity of the formation. If the BHT is very high, i.e.
between 150 and 200 ºC, corrosion concerns are the primary design parameters,
and due to the inability to provide long-term corrosion protection, a 15% HCl or
9% formic acid is recommended. If the BHT is extremely high, i.e. > 200 ºC, HCl
acid is precluded, and organic (acetic) acids are to be preferred. Even in cases
where HCl can adequately be inhibited, the high cost of inhibitors may lead to the
selection of a weaker acid blend. Moreover, high corrosion inhibitor loadings can
actually be damaging to the formation. Below 150 ºC, 15 to 28% HCl can be used.
If the formation has very low reactivity, as in the case of cold dolomites, the more
aggressive 28% HCl is to be preferred, provided corrosion of tubulars is not a
problem.
Compatibility testing of the acid system with the reservoir fluids is very important.
Generally, the concern is highest in heavier crudes or any crude that displays
sludging or severe emulsification problems. Generally, strong acids cause more
problems than weaker ones. Limiting the HCl concentration to 20% is effective in
many cases. Other times, the use of organic acids, an appropriate additive package,
or a solvent preflush may be required to prevent acid sludge or emulsification.
Compatibility with the formation rock addresses the acid reaction rate and rock
dissolution. If too much rock is dissolved, e.g. in high-porosity soft chalks, which
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Matrix treatment design guidelines • 63
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
could cause rock failure, a weaker acid solution (10 – 15% HCl) is preferred. Hard,
dense, low-porosity dolomites would require a stronger acid solution (20 – 28%
HCl). In fissured reservoirs, damaged by silt and clay, a silt/mud remover
treatment, consisting of a blend of 7.5 to 15% inhibited HCl and special clay
dispersing, suspending and chelating agents, is recommended.
Acid systems
Apart from small treatments to remove near-wellbore damage, whereby neat HCl
acid (with necessary additives) can be used, in most matrix treatments the acid is
(lightly) gelled or emulsified. This is done to improve zonal coverage of the acid,
to retard the acid reaction rate, or to improve its fines-suspending properties. A
summary of commercially available acid systems is given in Appendix I. Some
relevant aspects of these are discussed below.
Lightly gelled acid, - various strengths of HCl acid with low concentrations of
gellant (e.g. DSGA at 4 l/m3) for friction reduction. Gelling provides a viscosity of
1 – 3 cp at ambient temperatures. These systems are applicable for high rate matrix
treatments, for near-wellbore damage, so viscosity is not meant to provide
enhanced zonal coverage.
Gelled acid systems – various strengths of HCl acid with higher concentrations of
acid gelling agents (e.g. DSGA at 20 l/m3 to 30 l/m3) to provide higher viscosities.
Viscosities might range from 30 to 40 cp at ambient temperature, and the viscosity
provides a higher pressure drop in near-wellbore damage, matrix treatments. This
results in an enhanced zonal coverage and minimises fluid loss.
Viscosity building systems – systems that contain HCl, a gelling agent and a
crosslinker.The system crosslinks when the acid spends in the formation, and the
pH increases to a value of about 2. The crosslinked gel builds viscosity in the range
of 100 to 200 cp, and it effectively stops any further invasion and diverts a
subsequent acid stage to the next zone to be treated. The crosslinked gel will break
upon further spending at a pH value of about 3 to 4, and the viscosity of the fluid
will return to its original value. The systems can be built to work in HCl acid at
strengths from 5 – 28% acid. The self-gelling acid system is particularly suited for
diversion of matrix treatments in horizontal wells, by pumping alternatively stages
of crosslinked gelled acid and of neat acid.
Emulsified acid systems – oil outside phase acid systems have been successfully
used in situations where a retarded reaction rate is useful to create long wormholes
that deeply penetrate into the formation, thus bypassing the damage. Because of
their retarded nature, they can be pumped at low rates, which is beneficial in
heterogeneous formations. Also their high viscosities result in a better zonal
coverage. In some cases it may be necessary to pump neat acid in front of the
emulsified acid to create flow paths into the formation.
Selection of additives
Although proper fluid selection is critical to the success of a matrix treatment, the
treatment may be a failure if the proper additives are not used. The major treating
fluid is designed to effectively remove or bypass the damage. Additives are used to
prevent excessive corrosion, sludging and/or emulsions, provide a uniform fluid
distribution, improve cleanup and prevent precipitation of reaction products.
Additive selection is primarily dependent on the treating fluid, the type of well,
bottomhole conditions, the type of tubulars and the placement technique.
Since there is a large number of additives available, which may be different for
various contractors, the choice of additives to use can be rather difficult. However,
as stated before, two additives should be included in carbonate stimulation, viz. a
corrosion inhibitor (always), and (almost always) a sequestering agent, for
prevention of iron hydroxide precipitation.The use of a sequestering agent should
be justified on the basis of tests or calculations.
There are many sources of iron, which can cause problems during an acid
treatment. Iron can be dissolved in acid from surface tanks, pumping equipment,
tubings, casings and minerals in the formation. However, the most contributing
source of iron has been identified to be from tubular goods. Iron scales, mill scales
and rust are present in many new and old wells. In this connection it is
recommended to always carry out an acid pickling job of tubings/casings prior to
carrying out the acid stimulation job. This can be done by simply spotting 20 bbls.
of 15 – 20% HCl down the (coiled) tubing and up the annulus.
The different service companies offer a large suite of acid additives. If the decision
to use additives is left to them, one might end up with an expensive mix of,
sometimes superfluous, chemicals and in the worst case, incompatible materials.
Often the mutual compatibility of the various additives is overlooked. So, although
the know-how on the chemicals is very much the domain of the stimulation
contractors, their recommendations should always be checked critically. Apart from
the inclusion of a corrosion inhibitor and (possibly) a sequestering agent, all other
additives are optional and should only be used if specific well conditions require
their use and only after thorough testing for compatibility.
One of the most common mishaps in acidising is additive overdose. Figure 20 lists
some of the problems that can occur in the well and surface equipment during and
after an acid job.
If the need for a particular additive cannot be clearly demonstrated, its use is not
justified. Also, if the stimulation contractor or manufacturer of an additive does not
wish to disclose basic information about its chemical nature, it should not be used.
• Solvent treatments
• Dispersant treatments
• Scale removal
66 • Matrix treatment design guidelines Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation
• Enzyme treatments
• Hypochlorite treatments
The maximum allowable injection rate into a vertical well that does not fracture the
formation, is derived from Darcy’s radial flow equation. This equation (Equation I)
is given in Appendix II. It is a simplified inflow performance relationship, which
does not account for transient effects, multiphase flow or reservoir heterogeneities.
Moreover, the value of maximum injection rate obtained with the initial skin value,
can only be used as a guideline for determining the initial rate.
The maximum injection rate into a horizontal well under matrix conditions, is given
in Equation III of Appendix II. The equation indicates that qi,max is directly
proportional to the length of the horizontal reach of the well, for a given set of
conditions. Normally, therefore, qi,max is significantly higher in a horizontal well
than in a vertical well, completed in the same formation.
P s = P fg x d – P h + P f
where
coiled tubing in most treatments in horizontal wells. For example, qi,max is normally
1 1
less than 1.5 BPM and 2.5 BPM down 1 / inch and 1 / inch coiled tubing
4 2
Volume requirements
As to the volume requirements of treatment fluids in matrix acidising, the following
guidelines are given:
• for intervals of between 100 and 150 m net formation : 0.9 m3/m
The above numbers should be used as indicative only, and depending on the type
and depth of the damage to be treated, significant deviations from these numbers
may be required, also taking local experience from earlier treatments into account.
In horizontal wells, with sometimes very long openhole sections, the above
numbers may lead to excessive amounts of treatment fluids. In for instance, North
Sea operations, much lower volumes of 0.5 m3/m have been used with success. This
can be achieved by using coiled tubing jetting technology, such as the Rotojet (BJ),
which is the best means of establishing direct communication to the near wellbore
area. Moreover, with this technique also an efficient placement over the interval to
be treated, is achieved. Coiled tubing jetting technology has also been applied
successfully in horizontal wells completed with predrilled or slotted liner.
Placement strategy
The placement strategy is an important step in the design of a matrix treatment.
Successful matrix treatments depend on the uniform distribution of the treating
fluid over the entire vertical or horizontal interval, or into each natural fracture
system encountered in the well. If complete zonal coverage is not achieved,
production will remain impaired. Its importance is magnified in a horizontal well
due to the long interval.
Introduction
When designing an acid fracturing treatment, all factors affecting the success of the
treatment must be considered. In low-to moderate temperature wells, acid fluid loss
control may be the most important consideration. In high temperature wells,
effective acid penetration distance often is limited by rapid spending, and retarded
acids should be considered. In some soft formations the treatment should be
designed specifically to maximise fracture conductivity.
Once a candidate well for an acid fracturing treatment has been identified, an acid
fracturing design will be formulated, normally using a computer simulator such as
FracCADE (Schlumberger), ADP (Halliburton), or Fracpro and MFrac 2.0 (BJ).
Shell has developed the AcidFrac programme, contained in ShellFrac, used to
determine the etched fracture dimensions created by a certain pad/acid volume.
Before designing an acid fracturing procedure, a number of steps have to be taken
by the designer, which in summary, are the following:
10. Calculate a detailed fracture treatment design using ShellFrac and AcidFrac.
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Acid fracturing design guidelines • 71
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
Further steps will include planning for the treatment, the execution of the treatment
and the post-job reporting and evaluation, whereby the results of earlier fracjobs in
the same formation or in neighbouring fields, should be fully taken into account.
The quality of the cement bond is another important factor, as a poor cement bond
may complicate the execution of a fracturing treatment.
As to the well parameters, the following data are required as input to ShellFrac and
AcidFrac:
Apart from the above data required for input into the fracture simulator,
mineralogical evaluations of formation material are also of importance in the
design of an acid fracturing treatment. Mineralogy can be determined by X-ray
72 • Acid fracturing design guidelines Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation
diffraction analysis and SEM examinations. While for this purpose cuttings can be
used as a sample, the use of whole cores is preferred, which are also required for
determination of the acid reaction rate parameters (see later).
- drainage radius,
- formation height,
- porosity,
- permeability,
- reservoir temperature,
- reservoir pressure,
- pressure drawdown / overbalance.
- specific gravity,
- gas-oil ratio (only for oil), (default = 90 m3/m3 = 500 scf/bbl)
- average water saturation, (default = 0.5)
- reservoir fluid viscosity, (default = calculated by ShellFrac)
- reservoir fluid compressibility, (default = calculated by ShellFrac).
Not all of the above data are essential to arrive at a properly calculated design, and
in case of lacking data, default values are used in the calculations.
Treatment type
There are various treatment types from which the designer can choose the one most
applicable to the existing conditions.
fingering can occur. Since the acid is less viscous and goes forward through a
narrow channel created inside the viscous preflush region, it moves forward much
faster than the viscous preflush. Once the channels overtake the viscous preflush,
they are assumed to widen to cover the complete gross height.
The WISPER process has been developed for homogeneous carbonates, whereby
the viscous fingers are created through widely spaced groups of perforations, and
with a viscosity difference between the pad and the acid of around 300, to avoid
merging of the fingers. The acid will contact only a fraction of the total fracture
surface, resulting in a limited relative etched height. In AcidFrac the default value
for relative etched height is 0.4.
In the alternating stages type treatment, the fracture is created by a gelled water
pad, after which alternating stages of acid and additional pad are pumped. The
additional pad stages are designed to enter and seal wormholes created by the
preceding stage of acid. Acid leakoff into wormholes is thus slowed down, and
treatment efficiency is improved.
A fine particulate solid is often added to the pad stages to aid in fluid-loss control.
Examples are 100 mesh sand, oil-soluble resins, and fine salt. These particulates
help bridge wormholes and natural fractures.
Acid leakoff can also be reduced by gelling the acid. This method of control has
become widely used with the development of more acid-stable thickening agents.
Some viscous acid systems make use of an in-situ crosslinker (Zonal Coverage
Acid, ZCA, of Halliburton and Leakoff Control Acids, LCA, of Schlumberger,
Enhanced Acid System, EAS, of BJ Services). As the acid leaks off through
wormholes, the fluid crosslinks to plug the wormhole, stopping fluid loss. By
maintaining more live acid in the fracture, a longer fracture of higher conductivity
is achieved. As the reaction continues, the crosslink breaks, allowing easy cleanup.
There are also truly crosslinked acid systems, like XL Acid III of BJ, which have a
viscosity in excess of 500 cp, and thus provide excellent fracture propagation and
leakoff control characteristics. However, the very high viscosity may limit their
application, depending on the wellbore configuration.
The most common acid used has always been (and still is) hydrochloric acid. As the
objective of most acid fracturing treatments will be to maximise the acid
penetration, acid leakoff control will be the most important aspect to consider. As
discussed above, this can be achieved by using acid fluid-loss additives, or by
gelling the acid system, or a combination thereof. However, in particular oil-soluble
resins have as a limitation for their use, the high concentration of additive required
for fluid-loss control, of some 200 lbm resin mixture/1000 gal acid.
The use of foamed acids can be considered when the reservoir has a low
bottomhole pressure, and load water recovery would require extensive swabbing
time. Moreover foamed acids have good fines recovery capabilities. Deep
penetration of live acid is not as likely because of rapid spending, and the wellhead
pressure will be higher because of increased friction pressure and lower hydrostatic
pressure.
Soft chalk
Temperature < 50 ºC + - *
Temperature 50 - 100 ºC - * *
Temperature > 100 ºC * * *
Calcite
Temperature < 50 ºC + + -
Temperature 50 - 100 ºC - - *
Temperature > 100 ºC - * *
Dolomite
Temperature < 50 ºC + + +
Temperature 50 - 100 ºC + + -
Temperature > 100 ºC + - *
Oil
Soft chalk
Temperature < 50 ºC + + -
Temperature 50 - 100 ºC + - *
Temperature > 100 ºC - * *
Calcite
Temperature < 50 ºC + + +
Temperature 50 - 100 ºC + - -
Temperature > 100 ºC - - *
Dolomite
Temperature < 50 ºC + + +
Temperature 50 - 100 ºC + + -
Temperature > 100 ºC + + -
From acid solubility tests it can be decided, whether to use acid fracturing or a
proppant fracture treatment. Moreover, these tests indicate the amount of fines that
may be released. Because of the potential amount of fines produced from a low-
solubility formation, treatment designers must determine a minimum acid solubility
at which the acid fracturing treatment should be performed.
Acid reaction rates, are an essential input parameter for AcidFrac. The designer has
three different options to specify the reaction rate:
1) If the reaction rate constant and the order of the reaction are known, they
can be directly input.
3) If the reaction rate is not known, and (results from) a rotating disk is not
available, the reaction rate can also be determined from hollow core
experiments. Again, the parameters of two experiments have to be
specified. For further details, reference is made to the ShellFrac Users
Manual (SIEP 98-5225).
In Appendix III a brief summary is given on acid reation rates of carbonate rock,
and on relationships for the reaction of limestones and dolomites with hydrochloric
acid.
Acid etching tests are performed to measure the conductivity of the created and
acid-etched fracture, as a function of acid strength, gelling agents and closure
stress. One of the results may be that although good rock dissolution can be
achieved, the fracture faces are etched uniformly, such that poor differential etching
was achieved. This would therefore indicate the need for a fingering-type
treatment.
Many methods of thickening the acid exist. Filter cake-building polymers have
been widely used, but tests have indicated that the filter cake is quickly eroded and
penetrated by the acid. Once this occurs, acid fluid loss is identical to that observed
if no gelled pad were used. The use of viscosity building systems, which rely on the
acid generating viscosity over a narrow pH window, as the acid spends, has been
discussed in the literature as being excellent acid fracturing fluids.
A fine particulate solid is often added to the pad stages to aid in fluid-loss control.
For this purpose, the solid particles should be relatively large, since they need to
block the relatively large wormholes when they develop when acid leaks away
through the pore throats. Research has indicated, that the use of 100-mesh sand is
particularly suited for this purpose. It should be used at a starting concentration of
0.25 lb/gal and possibly reaching a concentration of 1 lb/gal.
When using alternating stages, the gelled pad stages are designed to enter and seal
wormholes created by the preceding acid stages. Acid leakoff into wormholes is
slowed, and the acid remains in the fracture longer and increases the amount of
rock removal along the induced fracture face, thus creating fracture-face
conductivity.
Ballsealers can be a very effective diversion means in acid fracturing of cased and
perforated completions, and they have also been successfully used in horizontal
wells. As said earlier, perforation orientation in deviated and horizontal wells is
critical for the efficient seating of the balls and the sealing off of perforations. In a
treatment pumped in stages, the balls should be added to the viscous carrying fluid
following the overflush sub-stages.
Particulate diversion can be used in acid fracturing treatments, when ball sealers
cannot be used for effective diversion. As the treating fluid is pumped into the first
initiated fracture, the particles can bridge on the perforations (or the wellbore in an
openhole completion). When sufficient particles accumulate, they cause a fracture to
be initiated in other sections of the formation. Granular diversion in horizontal wells
may not be a feasible option, because so many diverter stages would be required, that
the treatment would become prohibitively expensive. Diversion in horizontal open
holes may be achievable by placing large plugs of proppant, which has been used
succesfully in Shell hydraulic fracturing operations in sandstone formations.
An important design criterion of acid fracturing treatments is the pump rate, which
determines the created fracture dimensions and treating pressures. In most acid
fracturing treatments the fluids will be pumped at the highest achievable pump rate,
to achieve deeper penetration of the acid into the hydraulic fracture. The maximum
achievable pump rate depends on the horse power of the available equipment and
the maximum allowable bottom hole pressure, tubing friction and wellhead/
completion limitations.
P w = σ min + P e – P h + P f
where
P h = hydrostatic pressure
The fracture net pressure in acid fracturing is never larger than 250 psi. The
maximum injection rate can be calculated for any acidising fluid. Acid emulsions,
ungelled acids and foamed ungelled acids exhibit high friction pressure in the
tubulars, which may limit the maximum injection rate, thereby limiting acid
penetration into the fracture. Foams have another limiting factor, low hydrostatic
pressure, which can also limit injection rates.
In practice, however, this method may be too expensive, and therefore logs are
being used to obtain a complete stress profile. Obtaining and processing sonic data
is the basis for logging systems that provide stress information. Basically, two
waveforms are analysed to provide the data. These waveforms are the P waves
(compressional) and the S waves (shear). Computer analysis processes the data and
produces the log presentation. The major logging companies offer special acoustic
logging services, such as the dipole shear sonic imaging, and the long-spaced sonic
and sonic digital tools (Schlumberger), for estimating the in-situ stress profile and
the mechanical properties of the formation. It must be emphasised, that these logs
need to be calibrated against actual in-situ stress measurements, and therefore at
least one microfrac measurement may still need to be carried out. Also, (extended)
casing leak-off tests may provide information on in-situ stress levels.
To fully benefit from in-situ stress measurements, appropriate fracture models have
to be applied, with the assistence of SEPTAR. However, also without these
simulators a reasonable estimate of the extent of the fracture can be made, using
simpler models incorporated in ShellFrac.
For planning purposes with the contractor, the most likely pumping schedule, based
on, for instance, information from other wells, should be selected. Alternatively,
compare designs provided by the stimulation contractor, with designs obtained
through AcidFrac. Screen the treatment with the service company – acid fracturing
is a complex operation, that requires good coordination of all parties involved.
Carry out a minifrac (just) prior to the main acid fracturing treatment, to confirm:
• fracture overpressure.
Carbonate Completion Acid 10 to 28% HCl This totally soluble acid blend is
+ FDP-S562A inhibitor universally applicable to most well
+ FDP-S562B anti-sludge conditions. Designed to minimise
Optional: emulsion and sludge problems even
FDP-S562C H2S scavenger in sour wells.
FDP-S562D iron reducer
FDP-S562E dispersant
Fines Recovery Acid 70 v/o nitrogen The system of choice for low-
30 v/o 20% HCl solubility formations. Gelling agent
(2.5% SGA-1 in the HCl) also functions as a foaming agent
and fines suspender. Foam enhances
fines carrying capacity and aids in
fluid recovery.
Carbonate Emulsion Acid 70 v/o 22% HCl Ultra-retarded acid system enhances
30 v/o diesel zonal coverage and efficiently
(2.5% AF-61 in the diesel) generates wormholes under nearly
all conditions.
Zonal Coverage Acid 15% HCl + 2% SGA-II The ultimate in-situ diversion for
+ 4.5% gal/Mgal XL-1 matrix acidising and fluid-loss
+ 2 gal/Mgal BF-1 control in fracture acidising.
+ 4 lb/Mgal Ferchek
Hot Rock Acid 9% Formic – 13% Acetic The system of choice when
+ 0.5% MSA-II corrosion concerns or formation
+ 0.5% LoSurf-259 compatibility problems preclude the
+ 1.5% SGA-HT use of HCl.
Note: Corrosion inhibitor packages will vary based on BHT, required contact time and tubular metallurgy. Job designers should always
conduct emulsion tests with a representative crude sample to ensure that the appropriate surfactant loadings are used.
Dowell X Production restricted due to Matrix Acidising and Acid Economical and versatile
Inhibited HCl 5 to 15% damage or low formation Fracturing; Carbonate and
permeability (27 to 204 °C) Iron Scale Solvent
Super X Production restricted due Matrix Acidising or Acid Greater dissolving power
Inhibited concentrated to damage or low Fracturing; removal of than equal volume of
HCl formation permeability (27 formation damage or scale Dowell X
20 to 28% to 177 °C) deposits
XX Intensified Acid Low or damaged Matrix Acidising or Acid Accelerated reaction rate
Inhibited HCl with HF permeability in dolomite Fracturing with dolomite and
intensifier or siliceous limestone siliceous limestone
reservoirs (27 to 204 °C)
MSR 100, MSR 150 Drilling muds lost to the Matrix Acidising; Acid Brings back large amounts
Blend of 7.5 to 15% formation; or reservoir has Fracturing; Formation of muds and clays;
inhibited HCl and special a high percentage of silts Cleaning; Wellbore minimises reprecipitation
clay dispersing, suspen- and clays (27 to 121 °C) Cleanup and Gravel-Pack of dissolved iron
ding and chelating agents Cleanup Fluid
SDA (Self Diverting Acid) Carbonate reservoirs less Formation Stimulation, Self diversion mechanism,
HCl thickened up to a than 149 °C Cleaning of Fissured deep acid penetration
maximum of 28% Reservoirs
Gelled Acid 100, Gelled Acid 200, Gelled Weak Acid Enhanced zonal coverage, fines suspending and
Various strengths of HCl with various concentrations of reaction rate retardation
gellant
In-situ crosslinked acid, (Enhanced Acid System) Effective diversion for treatment of long intervals,
Various strengths of HCl, 5 to 28% horizontal wells
XL Acid III (various strengths of crosslinked HCl acid) Suitable for high viscosity diversion stages in matrix
acid treatments
Emulsified acid systems (oil outside phase) Improved zonal coverage, deeper acid penetration, long
wormholes
Foamed acid Improved diversion, leak off control and fines recovery
Specialty acid systems, e.g. One Shot Acid "Plus" Treatment of asphaltenes and sludges.
Blend of aromatic solvents and acid
If the fracture gradient, P fg , is not known, it can be estimated by adding 0.25 psi/ft
to the bottomhole static pressure gradient (a good estimate for areas not tectonically
active).
The fracture gradient can also be estimated from the following relationship:
ν
P fg = ( σ V – p) + p ( II)
(1-ν)
The maximum injection rate into a horizontal well under matrix conditions, is
calculated by using equation III:
4.92 x 10 – 6 L √ k H k V
q i max = ( P fg x d - ∆ps - p_ r ) ( III ) , where
µBF
8 hB π LW ( h – LW )
F = 1/2 ln { ___________ cot [ _____ ] } + 1/2 { S - ________ β} ( IV )
π rw( 1 + β ) 2h L
Equation III indicates that the maximum injection rate is directly proportional to the
length of the horizontal reach of the well, and normally the maximum injection rate
in a horizontal well is significantly higher than in a vertical well, completed in the
same formation.
Nomenclature
B = formation volume factor (res bbl/stb)
P fg = fracture gradient ( psi/ft)
h = net height of the formation (ft)
d = true vertical depth (ft)
k = undamaged permeability (mD)
kH = horizontal permeability (mD)
kV = vertical permeability (mD)
∆
_ ps = safety margin, 200 to 500 psi
pr = average reservoir pressure (psi)
qi = injection rate, bpm
rs = drainage radius (ft)
rw = wellbore radius (ft)
S = skin factor, dimensionless
β = √ kH kV
L = length of horizontal reach of well (ft)
LW = distance from reservoir bottom to horizontal well (ft)
µ = viscosity of injection fluid (cp)
ν = Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless)
σv = overburden pressure (psi)
p = pore pressure (psi)
R = k Con (I)
where
R = reaction rate, (kg m -2 s -1)
k = reaction rate constant, (kg 1 – n m 3n – 2 s -1)
Co = original acid concentration, (kg m -3)
n = order of reaction
The term "reaction rate constant", (k), is actually a misnomer, since k will vary
with temperature. For dolomites, where the reaction of HCl with the rock is almost
entirely controlled by the reaction at the surface, the temperature dependency of
the reaction rate constant can be described by the following Arrhenius Law
expression:
k = A o exp ( – E a / RT ) (II)
where
E a = activation energy, (kJ/mol)
R = gas constant, (8.3143 J/mol K)
T = temperature, (K)
A o = pre-exponential factor, (kg 1– n m 3n – 2 s -1)
For calcites, where the surface reaction rate can be considered to be almost
instantaneous (compared with the diffusion process, see also Fig. 3), the effect of
the temperature on the reaction rate constant is determined almost completely by
that of the temperature on the effective diffusion coefficient of the mass-transfer
process, which is a function of the temperature itself and the temperature dependent
viscosity.
Acid reaction rates are preferably measured in rotating disk equipment, but they
can also be determined from hollow-core experiments, and less often from parallel
plate tests. These latter tests are mostly used for studying acid-etched
conductivities. If carefully conducted, reactivity data from these various tests will
be consistent with each other.
Acid reaction tests in rotating disk equipment are commonly performed at standard
conditions, which at SEPTAR (Shell Exploration and Production Technology
Applications and Research) are 65 ºC and 100 rpm (318 s – 1). These reaction rate
parameters are then used as input for the AcidFrac programme, which will make the
necessary corrections, through experimental correlation functions, for temperature
and shear rate effects, expected to exist during the acid fracturing treatment.
In Table I a summary is given of some reactivity data for various carbonates, with
HCl at 65 ºC, at 100 rpm.
Limestones
Dolomites
For the dissolution of dolomites with HCl, the reaction rate has been determined as
follows:
The relationship for dolomites was validated with rotating disk measurements for
temperatures ranging between 25 ºC and 95 ºC. The activation energy was
determined to be 33 ± 2 kJ/mol.
95 ºC 65 ºC 25 ºC
Acid 15% 28% 15% 28% 15% 28%
Type
A
Inhomogeneous, 19, 23
Acetic acid, 5, 63 Naturally fractured, 54
AcidFrac, 16, 32 Soft, 30
Acid fracturing, 2, 14, 27, 71 Chalk formation, 30
Acid placement, 35 Chelating agents, 19
Acid reaction rate, 6, 77, 89 Chemical diversion, 39
Acid reaction test, 47 Closed fracture acidising, 30, 74
Acid solubility, 27, 46 Coiled tubing, 37
Acid spending, 6, 29 Compact dissolution, 19, 20
Acid systems, 64, 83 Corrosion
Acid wash/soak, 17 Inhibition, 26, 59, 65
Additives, 65, 66 Laboratory testing, 60
Alternating stages, 28, 64, 74, 78 Crosslinked acid, 42, 64, 74
Anhydrite, 62
D
B
Damage classification, 11, 62
BALLSEAL, 38 Damage ratio, 44
Ballsealers, 37 Deep damage, 17, 55
Benzoic acid, 39 Differential etching, 27
BHN, 46, 72 Dissolving power, 5
Biopolymer, 41 Diversion, 25, 35
Bottomhole temperature, 63 Dolomites, 3
Bridge plugs, 36 Dolomitisation, 3
C E
Calcite, 3 EDTA, 19
Candidate selection, 11 Emulsified acid, 23, 24, 42, 64
Carbonates Environmental considerations, 24
Composition, 3, 46 Exploration wells, 56
Homogeneous, 31 External casing packer, 36
Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation Index • 93
RESTRICTED SIEP 99-5638
F L
Fines, 18, 43, 77 Limestones, 3
Fluid compatibility, 46, 63 Low permeability reservoirs,15
Fluid loss control, 28 Low temperature wells, 60
Foamed acid, 28, 43, 65, 75
Formic acid, 5
Frac fluid, 75 M
Fracture conductivity, 29
Fracture etching, 29 MAPDIR technique, 43
Fracture gradient, 87 Matrix treatment, 13, 17, 61
Fracture width, 29 Maximum allowable rate, 67, 87
Fracturing pressure, 79 Mechanical diversion, 36
FraPS, 81 Microemulsions, 23
Mud and silt remover, 56, 64
Mud losses, 54, 55
G
Gelled acid, 23, 29, 41, 64 N
Gypsum, 62
Natural fractures, 54
Non-acid matrix treatments, 66
H Non-Newtonian fluids, 41
Heterogeneous carbonates, 23
High pressure wells, 58 O
High temperature wells, 59
Hollow-core test. 49 Oil soluble resins, 28, 39
Homogeneous carbonates, 31 Optimum pump rate, 21
Horizontal wells, 53 Organic acid, 5
Hydroxy Propyl Guar (HPG), 32
P
I
Paccaloni, 43
Impairment Packers, 36
Drilling, completion, 11 Parallel plate test, 50
Injected fluids, 11 Particulate diversion agents, 39
Produced fluids, 11 Peclet number, 20, 21
Inhomogeneous carbonates, 23, 27 Petrographic analysis, 46
In-situ stress, 80 Pickling, 65
Insoluble minerals, 62 PLACE, 39
Placement strategy, 68
Poisson’s ratio, 46, 72
J Porosity
Primary, 4
Jetting-tool, 37, 68, 69 Secondary, 4
94 • Index Stimulation Field Guidelines - Carbonate Stimulation
Propped acid fracturing, 30 V
Pseudoskin, 10, 61
Viscosified acid, 41
Viscous diversion, 41
R Viscous fingering, 31, 73
Viscous pad, 30
Radial fingering, 32
Reaction rate, 6, 89
Reducing agent, 41 W
Retardation, 23, 25
Retardation factor, 26, 91 Wellbore geometry, 69
Retarded acid, 23, 25, 26, 59, 91 WISPER technique, 31, 74
Rock strength, 46 Wormholes, 1, 19, 20
Rotating disk test, 48
S
Selective placement tool, 36
Self diversion, 24, 41
Sequestering agent, 26, 65
Shallow damage, 17
Shear-thinning fluid, 41
ShellFlo-S, 41
ShellFrac, 16, 33
Sludge, 47
Skin factor, 9
Soft carbonates, 30
Static reaction test, 48
STIM2001, 16, 35
Stress profile, 80
T
Thick walled cylinder testing, 46
Treatment design, 16
U
Uniform dissolution, 19