Acidizing Flowback Optimization For Tight Sandstone Gas Reservoirs

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 6

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 311e316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Acidizing flowback optimization for tight sandstone gas reservoirs


Jinghong Hu a, Hong Liu b, Dan Wu a, Junjing Zhang c, *
a
Beijing Key Laboratory of Unconventional Natural Gas Geology Evaluation and Development Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China
b
School of Petroleum and Gas Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, China
c
ConocoPhillips Company, Houston, TX, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The physical properties of Sichuan tight sandstone formations include low porosity and low permeability.
Received 9 September 2014 Fortunately, micro-fractures are well developed in this area, and the development of a reservoir is thus
Received in revised form possible. Acidification can repair reservoir damage and improve single-well production; however, gas
21 March 2015
well production can change after acidizing: some wells improve, while others decline. After many
Accepted 23 March 2015
Available online
studies, the flowback system after acidification has been shown to play an important role in determining
the acidizing effect. Therefore, optimizing the flowback system after acidification can significantly in-
fluence the results of acidizing. A series of velocity sensitivity experiments have been performed, and
Keywords:
Experiment
their results show that the velocity sensitivity is high. Based on fluid mechanics principles, an optimi-
Critical velocity zation model of the acid flowback is constructed using experimental results; as a result, the relationship
Acidizing between the pressure drop in the wellhead and the choke size can be calculated, and a reasonable choke
Flowback during the process of acid flowback can be determined using the methods described in this paper. The
Mathematical model results are of great significance in optimizing the flowback system after acidification and also in
enhancing the gas production of single wells.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction velocity sensitivity experiments performed in this study is to


determine the relationship between the fluid velocity and the
When the flow rate of a fluid that is compatible with a reser- change in permeability; to determine the critical velocity; and to
voir's rock is above the critical velocity, the permeability may evaluate the decline in permeability that is caused by the velocity
continue to decrease; this is called the velocity sensitivity effect. sensitivity effect. Experiments are the primary method to study
During the process of production, drilling, stimulation and water the stress-velocity sensitivity. The velocity sensitivity effect will
injection, fluids flowing in the reservoir may cause particle be significantly enhanced as the effective stress increases (Penny
migration, blocked pores and a decline in permeability. In different and Conway, 1993). A series of experimental results show that a
reservoirs, the degree of damage due to particle migration is foamy fluid can reduce the damage caused to a reservoir (Penny
principally determined by the velocity of the fluids. A reasonable and Conway, 1991). In recent years, studies on the sensitivity of
velocity of the fluids is thus a critical parameter to aid the devel- fractures or crack-porosity carbonate reservoirs primarily
opment of reservoirs. The velocity sensitivity is related to the focused on the stress sensitivity and the conventional fluid
characteristics of the reservoir rock and the fluid properties. sensitivity (He et al., 2005; Lorenz, 1999; Qanbari, 2012; Li et al.,
Damage to the reservoir will likely occur due to particle migration. 2007a,b). A group of experiments on stress-velocity sensitivity
The reasons for the velocity sensitivity of reservoirs can be have been performed in the DaQing Oilfield and the ChangQing
explained better by interface mechanics and percolation mechanics Oilfield (Sun et al., 2013). A full diameter core test can describe
(Shi et al., 2003). the real velocity sensitivity more accurately, particularly in res-
Laura K. (1982) showed that the stress and velocity are the ervoirs where the fractures and pores are well developed (Li
primary factors that cause reservoir damage. The purpose of the et al., 2007a,b).
The tight sandstone gas reservoir investigated in this study is
located in the southern Sichuan Basin; the sandstone in this area is
characterized by a low porosity and a low permeability, but micro-
* Corresponding author. fractures do grow well in this area. However, the gas production of
E-mail address: junjing.zhang@conocophillips.com (J. Zhang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.03.042
1875-5100/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
312 J. Hu et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 311e316

Table 1
Evaluation standard of the velocity sensitivity.

Velocity sensitivity index (%) 5 5e30 30e50 50e70 >70

Sensitivity degree None Weak Mid to weak Mid to strong Strong

Table 2
Velocity sensitivity evaluation results of the formation water.

Core NO Depth (m) Kmax (103mm2) Kmin (103mm2) DK Sensitivity degree Remark

#1 3679.06 19.897175 10.780940 45.8 Mid to weak Formation water


#2 3358.37 2.103619 1.696637 19.3 Weak Formation water
#3 3342.38 33.936314 3.541181 89.5 Strong Formation water
#4 3350.23 4.958226 3.796585 23.4 Weak Formation water
#5 3467.28 42.040754 30.773832 26.8 Weak Formation water
#6 3467.65 29.564354 9.447996 68.0 Mid to strong Formation water
#7 3428.73 8.787063 2.968038 66.2 Mid to strong Formation water
#8 3540.78 108.456064 87.863140 18.9 Weak Formation water
#9 3340.70 2.383921 0.913012 61.7 Mid to strong Formation water
#10 3540.69 1.120748 0.571362 49.0 Mid to weak Formation water

wells after acidizing has been known to change; the effect of the 3) Slowly adjust the confining pressure to 2 MPa while maintaining
acidizing flowback is the key factor to determine the final quality of the confining pressure above the core upstream pressure; the
the acidizing process. To optimize the acidizing flowback in this value must be controlled to 1.5e2 MPa. Then, open the valve on
area, experiments and theories are both considered in this paper. the import side and in the displacement pump; the pump speed
First, the range of the critical velocity is obtained by velocity should not exceed 1 mL/min. At this time, gas will be displaced
sensitivity experiments under experimental conditions. Second, to the upstream pipeline of the core and is then discharged from
based on the theory of the similarity principle, a critical velocity the exhaust valve. When the gas is removed upwards, the
model of the acidizing flowback is built, and the critical velocity is pipeline is full of fluids, and the fluids begin to flow from the
calculated. Lastly, a model of the relationship between the pressure exhaust valve. The displacement pump or gas source should
drop in the wellhead and the choke size is built based on the then be closed.
principles of fluid mechanics. Considering the effect of the invasion 4) Open the outlet valve of the gripper, and then close the exhaust
radius of the acidizing construction, a reasonable choke during the vent;
process of the acid flowback can be calculated. 5) Measure the permeability of the formation water (KW);
6) During the experiments, set different flow rates (e.g., 0.50, 0.75,
1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 mL/min), and measure the formation
2. Velocity sensitivity experiments with formation water
permeability (Kf) under different flow rates;
7) (Ki1Ki)  100%/Ki1 is used to determine whether the damage
2.1. Evaluation program with formation water
to the reservoir due to the velocity sensitivity would occur.
When this value is more than 5%, damage will likely occur; this
1) Select the cores to use for testing, and then test the cores
flow velocity can thus be defined as the critical velocity:
permeability in air;
2) Each core was saturated with formation water for 48 h in a
vacuum;

Fig. 1. Curves of the velocity sensitivity experiments 1e5. Fig. 2. Curves of the velocity sensitivity experiments 6e10.
J. Hu et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 311e316 313

Table 3
Calculation of the invasion radius.

Well NO Transform methods Effective Porosity/% Total injected Invasion


thickness/m fluid/m3 radius/m

No.1 well Composite acid acidizing 111 2% 120.52 4.16


No.2 well Composite acid acidizing 177 7% 166.94 2.07
No.3 well Composite acid acidizing 335.4 3.5% 196.3 2.31
No.4 well Composite acid acidizing 14 3.5% 79.71 7.20
No.5 well Composite acid acidizing 34 4% 119.88 5.30
No.6 well Composite acid acidizing 56 3.5% 159.77 5.10
No.7 well Composite acid acidizing 55 4% 59.96 2.95
No.8 well Composite acid acidizing 311 5.2% 343.11 2.60
No.9 well Composite acid acidizing 20 5.8% 81.88 4.74
No.10 well Composite acid acidizing 30.5 9.55% 101.7 3.33
No.11 well Composite acid acidizing 52 6.1% 201.01 4.49
No.12 well Composite acid acidizing 24 4% 89.2 5.44
No.13 well Reducing resistance acid þ Composite acid acidizing 61.5 8.5% 139.54 2.92
No.14 well Composite acid acidizing 74 6% 170.9 3.50
No.15 well Composite acid acidizing 67 2.55% 172.7 5.67
No.16 well Composite acid acidizing 80 3.25% 303.28 6.09
No.17 well Composite acid acidizing 52 3% 160.11 5.72
No.18 well Reducing resistance acid þ Composite acid acidizing 88 5.5% 206.5 3.69
No.19 well Composite acid acidizing 65 5.5% 163.7 3.82
No.20 well Composite acid acidizing 59 3.7% 180.4 5.13
No.21 well Composite acid acidizing 48 3.35% 200.5 6.30
No.22 well Composite acid acidizing 50.2 2.9% 189.85 6.44
No.23 well Composite acid acidizing 41 2.2% 169.47 7.74
No.24 well Composite acid acidizing 61 5.55% 266.03 5.00
No.25 well Composite acid acidizing 83 2.75% 309.75 6.57
No.26 well Reducing resistance acid acidizing 22 0.80% 78.98 11.95
No.27 well Composite acid acidizing 232.49 3.5% 103.4 2.01
No.28 well Composite acid acidizing 136 7.50% 278.4 2.95
No.29 well Composite acid acidizing 29.5 5.80% 80.1 3.86
No.30 well Composite acid acidizing 235.5 7.50% 122.88 1.49
No.31 well Composite acid acidizing 69 7.50% 121.89 2.74
No.32 well Composite acid acidizing 216 2.75% 181.14 3.12
No.33 well Retarded hydrochloric acid þ Regeneration mud acid 115 3% 104.37 3.10
þ Retarded acid þ Antiswelling liquid acidizing
No.34 well Composite acid acidizing 61.2 8.51% 60.79 1.93
No.35 well Composite acid acidizing 105 7.60% 90.97 1.91

3. Critical velocity under the condition of acidizing flowback


Q
yE ¼ (1)
A4 Damage due to the velocity sensitivity tends to occur when the
flow velocity of the fluid exceeds that available to flow through the
where yE is the critical velocity that is experimentally determined clay minerals' microstructure, leading to the shedding of clay
in m/s, Q is the flow rate in m3/s, A is the cross sectional area of the minerals and other particles from the pore surface inside the for-
core in m2, and F is the porosity of core. mation. The particles tend to migrate with the fluid and are
deposited in the narrow pores, eventually causing a decline in
8) Close the displacement pump or gas source to end the experi- permeability.
ment. The evaluation standard is shown in Table 1. The formation water is used as the experimental fluid in this
experiment, but the fluid of the acidizing flowback is the acid
present in the oil field. The properties of these two fluids, such as
their viscosities and densities, are quite different. Converting the
2.2. Velocity sensitivity results of the formation water experimental critical velocity and flow rate into the real values of
the acidizing flowback based on the similarity principle, the real
The results of the experiments are shown in Table 2 and Figs. 1 critical velocity can be calculated.
and 2. The relationship between the flow rate and the perme- Models of the velocity and the mechanical stability under
ability rate is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The velocity sensitivity different flow patterns are established as follows. The drag force
evaluation results using the formation water are shown in Table 2. (Tong, 1982) can be described by:
The velocity sensitivity indices of cores NO1e9 are between 18%
and 90%; the velocity sensitivity degree of the cores tend to be
weakly moderate to strong; and the critical velocity of the for-
mation water ranges from 0.75 to 5 mL/min. The velocity sensi- .
tivity index of core NO10 is 61.7e62.26%; the velocity sensitivity F ¼ CA1 ry2 2 (2)
degree tends to be moderate to strong; and the critical velocity of
the formation water ranges from 0.75 to 1 mL/min. Therefore, the Where A1 is the cross sectional area of a particle in m2, C is the drag
critical velocity should be considered during the acidizing flow- coefficient, y is the fluid velocity in m/s, r is the fluid density in kg/
back; if velocity is too large, the velocity sensitivity effect may m3, and F is the flow drag force in N.
occur. The drag coefficient (Tong, 1982) can be approximated as:
314 J. Hu et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 311e316

Fig. 3. Relationship between the wellhead pressure and the critical choke size of the
flowback.
Fig. 5. Relationship between the reservoir porosity and the invasion radius.

C ¼ kk=ðryd=mÞt (3)
FE ¼ FA (5)
where kk and t are constant coefficients, d is the particle diameter
in m2, and m is the fluid viscosity in Pa.s. kk=ðrE yE d=mE Þt A1 rE y2E
The Reynolds number (NRe) can be calculated as: FE ¼ (6)
2

NRe ¼ rdy=m (4) kk=ðrA yA d=mA Þt A1 rA y2A


FA ¼ (7)
2
Substituting formula (6) and (7) into formula (5) yields:
When NRe  2: kk ¼ 24, t ¼ 1
When 2 < NRe  500: kk ¼ 18.5, t ¼ 0.6 mtE r1t
E yE
2t
¼ mtA r1t
A yA
2t
(8)
When NRe  500: kk ¼ 0.44, t ¼ 0
Based on the flow pattern of the acidizing flowback considered
in this study: kk ¼ 18.5, t ¼ 0.6
If the reservoir particles can be carried, the drag force must
The critical velocity of acidizing flowback is thus:
reach a constant value. Based on the principle of similarity, the drag
force should be equal when the experimental conditions and the !5
acidizing construction are considered. Combining formulae (2) and r0:4 1:4 0:6
E yE mE
7

yA ¼ (9)
(3), a mechanical balance formula is built as follows: m0:6
A
r0:4
A

Fig. 4. Relationship between the acid viscosity and the critical choke size of the
flowback. Fig. 6. Relationship between the reservoir effective thickness and the invasion radius.
J. Hu et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 311e316 315

where FE is the flow drag force that is determined experimentally in


N, FA is the flow drag force of the acidizing process in N, rE is the R
rz ¼ !!1 (14)
density of the flowback fluid that is determined experimentally in 4
1 2g ppo
kg/m3, rA is the density of the flowback fluid of the acidizing pro- 1þx y21 g þ1
cess in kg/m3, yA is the critical velocity of the acidizing process in m/
s, mE is the fluid viscosity that is determined experimentally in Pa.s,
where rz is the critical choke size of the flowback in m; R is the
and mA is the fluid viscosity of the acidizing process in Pa.s.
inner diameter of the wellbore in m; x is the local resistance coef-
The core diameter is 2.5 cm; the critical velocities that were
ficient (dimensionless), which is considered to be 0.5 here; p is the
determined experimentally for the formation water on cores
wellhead pressure in Pa; po is the standard atmospheric pressure in
NO1e9 range from 2.54  105 to 1.69  104 m/s; and the critical
Pa; y2 is the fluid velocity in the wellhead in m/s; y1 is the fluid
velocities that were determined experimentally for the formation
velocity in the wellbore in m/s; ymax is the maximum flow rate into
water on core NO10 range from 2.54  105 to 3.39  105 m/s.
the wellbore in formation in m/s; and g is the acceleration due to
The density of the formation water in the laboratory was
gravity in m/s2.
1.0  103 kg/m3; the viscosity was 1.0 mPa s; the density of acid was
1.15  103 kg/m3; the viscosity of acid was 20 mPa s; and the inside
diameter of drainpipe was 0.062 m. 5. Applications
Based on formula (9), the acid critical velocity of cores NO1e9
range from 5.5  105 to 3.78  104 m/s; the viscosity of the Based on the volume balance principle, the extruded acid is
flowback acid can influence the critical flow; and the acid critical moved into the reservoir to repair the damage to the reservoir that
velocities of core NO10 range from 5.5  105 to 7.6  104 m/s. The near the wellbore; the acid invasion radii have been calculated to be
viscosity of the acid thus influences the critical flow rate. between 1.91 m and 11.95 m, as shown in Table 3, across the 35
wells in the study area. These results can contribute to the calcu-
lation of the flowback critical velocity and the displacement rate of
reservoir.
Fig. 3 shows that the critical velocity of the acid flowback in-
creases with decreasing wellhead pressure: the more acid that
4. System optimization of acidizing flowback and blowout
enters the reservoir, the larger the critical choke size of the blowout
control
control flowback is required to be. The reason for this is that the
critical velocity is a constant value, and a larger choke can be
For the process of acidizing flowback, acid primarily flows
adopted with increasing acid volume.
through the perforations, back to the wellbore, and then to the
Fig. 3 could be used by field engineers as follows. First, the
ground. The perforation diameter and the number of perforations
volume of the acidizing operation should be known. Second, the
are likely to directly affect the flowback flow rate. The maximum
volume balance principle is used to calculate the invasion radius.
flow rate to the wellbore can be calculated as:
Lastly, the choke size can be chosen based on the wellhead
pressure.
qmax ¼ hAp yA ¼ hAp ymax ¼ 2prhymax (10) Fig. 4 shows how different acid viscosities influence the critical
choke size of the flowback. The choke size may decrease with
where qmax is the maximum critical flow rate of flowback in m3/s, h
increasing acid viscosity because a higher viscosity requires more
is the reservoir thickness in m, Ap is the flow area of the flowback
energy to transport micro-particles during the flowback process. To
acid in m2, ymax is the critical velocity of the acid flowback in m/s,
prevent the velocity sensitivity effect and subsequent reservoir
and r is the invasion radius of the acid liquid moving into the
damage, a smaller choke must be selected. Therefore, the acid
reservoir in m.
viscosity is also important under the same wellhead pressure. A
When the critical flow rate of the acid that flows back into the
lower acid viscosity allows a larger bigger choke size to be used and
wellbore is determined, the choke size can be calculated depending
can improve the effect of acidizing flowback.
on the instantaneous pressure in the acid flowback process. For the
The relationships between the reservoir parameters (i.e.,
wellhead and blowout choke, Bernoulli's equation applies:
porosity, effective thickness) and the invasion radius are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6; the invasion radius may decrease with increasing
p y2 po y22 y2 porosity and effective thickness. The reason for this is that the
þ 1 ¼ þ þx 2 (11)
rg 2g rg 2g 2g reservoir porosity and effective thickness are two key parameters to
evaluate the reservoir, and a poor reservoir requires a larger acid-
where: izing operation, which can increase the invasion radius.

qmax 6. Conclusions
y1 ¼
pR2
The continuity equation is: (1) Through experimental studies of the velocity sensitivity and
similarity principles, it is shown that if the diameter of the
choke cannot be suitably chosen, the flowback velocity of the
y1 pR2 ¼ y2 prz2 (12)
acid fluid may increase, and the velocity sensitivity phe-
In a simple operation, the following formula applies: nomenon may occur in this gas field. Thus, a reasonable
velocity and choke size should be studied during the process
y1 r2 of acidizing flowback.
¼ z (13) (2) A critical choke model of the flowback process is constructed
y2 R 2
using the material balance and fluid mechanics principles.
Combining formulae (11) and (13), the critical choke size is The critical choke sizes that correspond to different wellhead
obtained: pressures can be calculated by combining the critical
316 J. Hu et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 311e316

velocities of the flowback experiments; this can provide the References


theoretical and technical information for field engineers to
optimize flowback operations. He, J., Kang, Y.L., Liu, D.W., 2005. The stress sensitivity research on porous fractured
porous carbonate reservoir. Drill. Prod. Technol. 28 (2), 84e87.
(3) A poor reservoir typically requires a larger acidizing opera- Li, D.W., Kang, Y.L., He, J., 2007a. Laboratory investigation of water sensitivity of
tion, which can increase the invasion radius of the acid fluid carbonate reservoirs and discussion of its mechanism. Nat. Gas. Ind. 27 (2),
in the oil field. The flowback process should thus be 32e34.
Li, J., Peng, C.Z., Sun, L., 2007b. Velocity sensitivity effect under the test of full
controlled rigorously to prevent secondary pollution in the diameter core. Drill. Prod. Technol. 30 (1), 118e119.
reservoir. Lorenz, J.C., 1999. Stress-sensitive reservoirs. J. Pet. Technol. 51 (1), 61e63.
(4) A set of optimized system methods after acidizing have been Laura K, Blacker, 1982. An Analysis of Rate-sensitive Skin in Oil Wells, pp. 1e13. SPE-
11187-MS.
established based on the experiments and mathematical Penny, G.S., Conway, M.W., 1991. Coordinated Laboratory Studies in Support of
models. Different blowout control choke sizes can be chosen Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Bed Methane, pp. 231e246. SPE-22911-MS.
based on the wellhead pressure, and engineers can change Penny, G.S., Conway, M.W., 1993. The Evaluation of Proppant Transport and Clean up
of Foamed Fluids Used in Hydraulic Fracturing of Shallow, Water-sensitive
the choke size with different wellhead pressures to improve
Reservoirs, pp. 331e344. SPE-26923-MS.
the effects of acidizing. Qanbari, F., 2012. Rate Transient Analysis of Stress-sensitive Formations During
Transient Linear Flow Period, pp. 1e13. SPE- 162741-MS.
Acknowledgments Shi, J.P., Gong, W.C., Chao, W.Z., 2003. A research into the damage mechanism of
velocity-sensitivity in a sandstone reservoir. J. Cheng Du Univ. Technol.: Sci.
Technol. Ed. 30 (5), 501e504.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided Sun, J.C., Yang, Z.M., Teng, Q., 2013. Comparative study on stress-dependent
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51304174) permeability of ultra-low permeability sandstone rock using different types
of fluid media. Int. Pet. Technol. Conf. 1e8. SPE-16653-MS.
and the PLN1301 of the State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Tong, Q.L., 1982. Basic of Solid-liquid Two-phase Flow Theory. Metallurgical In-
Reservoir Geology and Exploitation (Southwest Petroleum Uni- dustry Press, Beijing, pp. 170e175.
versity) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities.

You might also like