Well Stimulation

May 2107
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks
o Porosity

 The effective porosity

varies from less than 1 to
over 40
 Porosity decrease with
increasing depth
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks
o Effect or pressure in reservoir rock
The overall compressibility of pore volume is due to the
sum of all its compressible components
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks

oPermeability
Expression of Darcy’s law
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks
Expression for radial flow
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks
Porosity – permeability relationship
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks
Effective and relative permeability

After experimental conditions has stabilized the injection

pressure and outlet pressure are measured and the following
two quantities are calculated
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks
 introduction
characterization of reservoir rocks

Fluid properties
- Specific gravity
- Bubble point pressure
- Oil Viscosity
- Oil formation volume factor
 introduction
formation damage
causes of Formation Damage
1. Pore Obstruction Physical
Reduction in pore/pore throat size.

2. Fluid damage Relative permeability

reduction:- reduction in the
permeability to hydrocarbons in the
presence of other filling fluids.
 introduction
formation damage
1. Physical Reduction in pore/pore throat size.
a. Drilling mud solids invasion into the formation.
b. Drilling mud filtrate invasion into the formation.
c. Cement filtrate invasion
d. Completion/workover solids invasion.
e. Perforation damaged zone
f. Plugging of formation with native clays.
g. Asphaltene or paraffin precipitation in formation
h. Growth or injection of bacteria
 introduction
formation damage
Quantifying Formation Damage

A commonly used measure of well

productivity is the productivity index, J,
in barrels per pounds per square inch

The most commonly used measure of formation damage in a well

is the skin factor, S.
 introduction
formation damage
 re 
ln  
Flow Efficiency   rw 

8
 re  8 S
ln  S
 rw 

The figure of 8 derived from the expression

ln(re/rw), which can only reach a maximum
figure of 7 or 8. For instance, an 8-1/2” hole
with drainage radius of 1000 ft give an
ln(re/rw) of 7.94.
 introduction
formation damage
 Isochronal Test in Gas Wells.

 Pressure-time Analysis methods .

introduction
formation damage
 formation damage
Formation damage related to pressure drop. Since this pressure drop
will vary with the flow rate & viscosity of the fluids, it is useful to
define this in terms of a dimensionless skin.
0.00708k h (P) Where
S
Q B ke = undamaged permeability, mD
kd = damage permeability, mD
ke  kd  rd  rd = damage radius, ft
S x ln  
kd  rw  rw = well radius, ft

Production rate can be estimated from the following formula:

 0.00708kh( Pe  Pw ) 
Qo (bbl / d )   
  ln(re rw )  S  
introduction
formation damage
introduction
formation damage
 introduction
formation damage
2. Relative permeability reduction
Change in the permeability to hydrocarbons in the presence of
other filling fluids.
a. Water coning
b. Condensate banking
c. Wettability change
d. Emulsion formation
e. Fluid saturation change & fluid blocking
 acidizing
Fundamental Acid
Techniques
– Wellbore clean-up (tubing/casing)
– Matrix acidizing (sandstone or carbonates)
– Acid fracturing (carbonates)
 acidizing
Types of Acid
 Mineral
– Hydrochloric - HCl
– Hydrochloric/Hydrofluoric - HCl/HF
 Organic (slower reacting – less corrosive)
– Acetic
– Formic
 Powdered
– Sulfuric
– Chloroacetic
 acidizing

Dissolving Capability
 15% HCL – 1.84 ppg
 28% HCL – 3.68 ppg

 9:1 mix 7.5% HCL : Acetic – 1.64 ppg

 9:1 mix 15% HCL : Acetic – 2.48 ppg

 9:1 mix 28% HCL : Acetic – 3.72 ppg

 10% Acetic – 0.71 ppg

 acidizing
Acid Reaction Rate

Basic Equation
2HCl + CaCO3  H2O + CO2 +CaCl2
  
Water Gas Salt
 acidizing
Controlling Factors
 Pressure
– Less than 500 psi
 Temperature
– Add 20°, double reaction rate
– Subtract 20°, half the reaction rate
 Velocity
– Flow patterns
– radial, linear, cylindrical
 acidizing
Controlling Factors
 Concentration
– Stronger is faster
– Contact area & volume ratio
– Matrix = large surface area (30000:1)
 20% Φ limestone with 10 md

– Natural fracture (3000:1)

 Same limestone with a 0.001” natural fracture

– Fracture = smaller surface area (32:1)

 Same limestone with a 0.1” created fracture
 acidizing
Acid additives
 Corrosion Inhibitors – specify time and
temperature
 Surface Active Agents – anionic, cationic,
nonionic
– Anionic tend to water wet sand, emulsify oil in
water, break water in oil emulsions, disperse clays
– Cationic tend to water wet carbonates, emulsify
water in oil, break oil in water emulsions,
flocculates clay
– Nonionic tends to be the most popular surfactants
 acidizing
Acid Additives (cont)
 Non-emulsifiers (acid and oil)
 Chemical retarders
 Foamers
– 2 gpt < 75° F
– 3 gpt < 130° F
– 5 gpt < 200° F
– 7 gpt < 250° F
– 10 gpt < 300° F
– 13 gpt < 350° F
 acidizing

Acid Additives (cont)

 Alcohol
– Methanol < 200° F
– Ethanol < 300° F
 Anti-sludge agents (asphaltic crudes
5-20 gpt)
 Clay stabilizers
 acidizing
Acid Additives (cont)
 Iron sequestering agents
– Iron in tubulars, scale and fomation
minerals
– Control severe iron concerns
60° to 120° - 1% acetic + 50 ppt citric
120° to 180° - 2% acetic + 100 ppt citric or
50-65 ppt sodium erythorbate
180° plus – 50-65 ppt sodium erythorbate
 acidizing
Acid Additives (cont)
 Friction reducers
 Gelling agents
 Fluid loss additives
 Diverting material
– Rock salt
– Wax beads
– Oil soluble resins
– Benzoic acid flakes
 Matrix Acidizing
 Belowfracture gradient
 Wormholes
– Size?
– Length?
– Number?
acidizing
 acidizing
Gravimetric dissolving power

Example
Calculate the gravimetrical
dissolving power of Dolomite
using a 30 wt% solution of HCl

1 184.3 30

4  36.47100
 0.379 mass of Dolomite mass of acid
 acidizing
Volumetric dissolving power
The volumetric dissolving power X is defined as the volume
of rock dissolved per volume of acid reacted
 acid
X 
 rock
Dissolving power of various acids
X
Formation Acid β100
5% 10% 15% 30%
Limestone Hydrochloric (HCl) 1.37 0.026 0.053 0.082 0.175
CaCO3 Formic (HCOOH) 1.09 0.02 0.041 0.062 0.129
ρ = 2.71 g/cm3 Acetic (CH3COOH) 0.83 0.018 0.031 0.047 0.098

Dolomite Hydrochloric 1.27 0,023 0.046 0.071 0.152

CaMg(CO3)2 Formic 1.03 0,018 0.036 0.054 0.112
ρ = 2.87 g/cm3 Acetic 0.77 0,014 0.027 0.041 0.83
 acidizing
Example
Calculate the volume of 10 wt% formic acid required to
increase the permeability of a limestone formation 10
m thick (with porosity 0.1) by a factor of 10 in a zone
1.5 m radius around the wellbore , the wellbore radius
is 0.2 m and the permeability
k
0 response in limestone is
given by
 
10
k 

 

k0  0 

k 0 0 are the original permeability and porosity

 acidizing
10
     
10
k
 10  
 
    10   0.126
k0  0   0.1 

The volume of rock to be dissolved is

V   rs 2  rw 
2
   0 
k
k0
V    1.5 
 0.2  0.126  0.110
2 2

V  1.80m3
 Application
Calculate the volume of 15 wt% of hydrochloric acid required to
increase permeability of dolomite formation 18 m thick with initial
porosity 0.15 by factor of 15 in a zone 1.25 m around wellbore . The
wellbore radius is 0.1778 m and the permeability response in
dolomite is given as following:
  
12
k

 

k0 
 0 
V  r
s 2
 rw 
2
   0 
k
k0
Dissolving power of various acids
X
Formation Acid β100
5% 10% 15% 30%
Limestone Hydrochloric (HCl) 1.37 0.026 0.053 0.082 0.175
CaCO3 Formic (HCOOH) 1.09 0.02 0.041 0.062 0.129
ρ = 2.71 g/cm3 Acetic (CH3COOH) 0.83 0.018 0.031 0.047 0.098

Dolomite Hydrochloric 1.27 0,023 0.046 0.071 0.152

CaMg(CO3)2 Formic 1.03 0,018 0.036 0.054 0.112
ρ = 2.87 g/cm3 Acetic 0.77 0,014 0.027 0.041 0.83
 Sandstone Acidizing
 HCl for mud damage removal
–Carbonate
–Dehydrate bentonite clay
 HCl/HF for stimulation (sandstone
only!)
–Always at matrix rate
–Permeability
–Shallow stimulation
 acidizing
Acid Fracturing (Carbonates)
 Factors affecting penetration
– Fluid loss
– Injection rate
– Fracture width
 Factors affecting conductivity
– Heterogeneity
– Closure pressure
– Rock strength
 Fracturing
 Fracturing is a process to increase the
permeability of reservoir rocks (eg
sandstone) by pumping a special blended
fluid down the well and into the formation
under great pressure.
 Pumping continues until the downhole
pressure exceeding fracture pressure of
the rocks, formation literally cracks open
(with opening between 0.25 – 0.5 inch).
 Meanwhile, sand or aluminum pellets are
mixed into the fracturing fluid. These
materials are called proppants.
 Fracturing
 The proppant enters the
fractures in the formation, and,
when pumping is stopped and the
pressure decreased, the proppant
remains in the fractures.
 Since the fractures try to close
back together after the pressure
on the well is released, the
proppant is needed to hold
fractures open.

 These propped-open fractures is permeable enough to provide

passages for oil or gas to flow into the well.
 Fracturing theory

Early treatments consisted of pumping 1,000 to

3.000 gal of fracturing fluid, containing about I Ibm
of 20/40-mesh sand/gal. at rates of I to 2 bbl/min.
Today. a single treatment can require several hundred
thousand gallons of fluid and more than a million
pounds of propping agent. Materials, equipment, and
techniques have become highly sophisticated., and
treatment planning and design.
 Fracturing theory

Fracturing has been used successfully in all

formations except those that are very soft.
Fracturing has proved successful in sand,
limestone, dolomitic limestone, dolomite.
conglomerates, granite washes, hard or brittle
shale, anhydrite, chert, and various silicates. The
plastic nature of soft shales and clays makes them
difficult to fracture,
 Fracturing fluids

- Compatible with formation materials

- Compatible with formation fluids
- Suspending proppants
- Have low fluid loss
- Easy to remove from the formation
- Have low friction loss
- Simple and easy to be prepared
- To be stable in well conditions
Base fluid Fluid type Main composition
Water based Slickwater Water + sand (+ chemical additives)
(WBF) Linear fluids Gelled water, GUAR<HPG, HEC, CMHPG
Cross-linked fluid Crosslinker + GUAR, HPG, CMHPG, CMHEC

Viscoelastic surfactant gel fluids Electrolite+surfactant

Foam based Water based foam Water and Foamer + N2 or CO2
(FBF) Acid based foam Acid and Foamer + N2
Alcohol based foam Methanol and foamer +N2
Oil based Linear fluids Oil, Gelled Oil
(OBF) Cross-linked fluid Phosphate Ester Gels
Water Emulsion Water + Oil + Emulsifiers
Acid based Linear -
(ABF) Cross-linked -
Oil emulsion -
Emulsion based Water-oil Water + Oil
(EBF) emulsions

CO2-methanol CO2 + water + methanol

Others -
Other fluids, for Liquid CO2 CO2
future
development and Liquid nitrogen N2
uses. Liquid helium He
Liquid natural gas LPG (butane and/or propane)
 Fracturing fluids
Water-based fracturing fluids
Water based fluids used in a majority of hydraulic fracturing
Oil-based fracturing fluids

 In the past. refined oils, crude oils and soap-type gels of

crude, kerosene. or diesel oil
 Because of safety considerations, lack of temperature
stability, and cost of tailoring these materials to be
efficient fluids, they are seldom used today.
 A new thickened and cross-linked hydrocarbon gel.
made from either light refined oils or crude oil. is used
extensively in hydraulic fracturing of oil- and gas-
condensate wells.
 Proppants
Some of successful and common used
o Sand
o Resin-coated sand
o Intermediate-strength proppant
o High-strength proppant
 fracture permeability

Final fracture permeability is a function of

diameter of proppant
 Factors Affecting Fracture Geometry

o Injection rate o Rock properties

o Fluid viscosity o Formation fluids

o Fluid volume injected o Formation stresses

o Fluid loss o Reaction rates

 Fracture Planes
the bottom-hole pressures (BHP) recorded during the
injection of fracturing materials range from 0.40 to I .80
psi/ft. Only in a few treatments have fracturing pressure
gradients been outside of this range.. The fracture
gradient is calculated from treatment data by :
 Fracture Area

the mathematical equation to determine surface

area of a newly opened fracture based on:
- the quantity of fracturing materials.
- rate of injection into the formation
- physical characteristics of the fracturing fluids
- the specific reservoir conditions.
Ar = total area of one face of the fracture at any time during injection. sq ft,
i = constant injection rate during fracture extension, cu ft/min
t = total pumping time, minutes,
b = fracture width (breadth), ft
K = fluid coefficient, a constant that is a measure of the flow resistance of
the fluid leaking off into the formation during fracture operations
erfc(x) = complementary error function of x.
 Fracture Models

Perkins-Kern-Nordgren Model (PKN)

Without Leakoff
The following assumptions simplify the complex problem:
•The fracture height,hf, is fixed and independent of fracture
length.
•The fracture fluid pressure is constant in the vertical cross
sections perpendicular to the direction of propagation.
•Reservoir rock stiffness, its resistance todeformation prevails
in the vertical plane; i.e, 2D plane-strain deformation in the
vertical plane
•Each plane obtains an elliptic shape with maximum width in
the center
Geertsma-De Klerk (GDK) Model
without Leakoff:
Assumptions:

•Fixed fracture height, hf.

•Rock stiffness is taken into account in the horizontal plane only.2D
plane strain deformation in the horizontal plane.
•Thus fracture width does not depend on fracture height and is
constant in the vertical direction.
•The fluid pressure gradient is with respect to a narrow, rectangular
slit of variable width.