SPE 82573

Beyond Acidizing and Fracturing

Mauro Tambini, Eni E&P Division

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage
Conference to be held in The Hague, The Netherlands 13-14 May 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The oil industry is still focusing on the optimization of
hydrocarbon production with the minimum cost possible in
complete HSE respect.
Nowadays a continuous flow of innovative ideas generates
worldwide new technological frontiers. As a result, we
witness remarkable applications of new well solutions and
techniques. In this scenario we would like to give an overview
of the possible answers to the technological needs and actions
towards Stimulation Treatments and Formation
Damage Removal.
The main issues to investigate are:
• if the mature and worldwide applied techniques of
Acidizing and Fracturing are still adequate to the new
well geometry scenario
• if the “novel” technologies are well known and
cost effective
• if innovative ideas on formation stimulation and
damage removal are to be better investigated
and implemented.
Introduction
Stimulation1 is a magic word: synonym of hydrocarbon
productivity increase from reservoir formation. After a
stimulation job the dream is an astonish “fold increase” of
productivity index (PI) of the well.
Even though the field results could be less than the
expectations the stimulation is financially unrivaled2 because
it is less expensive than the other well construction activities
like drilling or completions with a very high Return on
Investment (ROI). In the current situation “dominated” by
economists the stimulation is still attractive for the rapid
payout of the investment in the order of days, weeks or
few months.
For this beneficial characteristic of productivity increase the
stimulation techniques were introduced inside the execution of
some remedial jobs that now are more economically attractive.
Frac & Pack technique is the most famous and successful
example: a sand control remedial job that
optimizes productivity.
Another amazing observation is that stimulation consists, from
many decades, in only two major techniques: Matrix
Acidizing3 and Fracturing4 (with acid or proppant).
Matrix Acidizing
In fact, matrix acidizing is to be considered the oldest
stimulation technique still in use to-day . The beginning of the
jobs is updated more the one century ago. Herman Frasch,5
chemistry chief at Solar Refinery, is credited with the first
patent on acidizing; the date was March 17, 1896. This Frasch
patent “Increasing the Flow of Oil Well” is the base line of the
modern matrix stimulation. He suggested many needs to
better perform the acidizing treatments as:
♦ High injectivity: “put the acid under strong pressure …
pressed into the rock and made to act upon the same at a
distance from the original wellbore”
♦ Wormhole: “long channels can be formed”
♦ Overflush: “it is advantageous to displace the acid and
cause it to penetrate further into the rock by forcing a
neutral or cheap liquid, such water ,into the well”
♦ Inhibitor: “to introduce an alkaline liquid to neutralize
any unspent acid returned”
♦ Tubing and Packer: “to force the acid into the formation
to be treated”
Matrix acidizing history6 shows how many systems have
appeared and used to solve the different problems. A unique
and standard job procedure was never accepted because of
some disappointing results always presented in each
technique. The best and more applied treatment methods
have shared the Frasch idea to put the acid under strong
pressure. In fact, the matrix acid injection parameters are
linked based on the Darcy relationship as:
∆P = pwi -pe = 141.2 qi µ [(ln re / rw) + s] / (k h) (1)
All the best and well known acidizing techniques influence on
the parameters of (1) in order to maximize the value of ∆P
(that is below the fracture pressure). The most diffused
techniques, that provide the maximum beneficial effect of the
acid mixture on the treated interval of the formation, are
the following:
2 SPE 82573
♦ Gelled7 or viscosified or viscoelastic8 acid or viscous
foam9 that increase the value of viscosity (µ),
♦ ball sealers10 or the dual inflatable packers that decrease
the interval length (h),
♦ the diverted agents11 increase temporary the skin (s),
♦ MAPDIR12 technique that increases the injection rate (qi)
Fracturing
Fracturing was developed more recently about half century
ago: the first jobs were employed to improve the productivity
of marginal wells in Kansa in 1947.
Until now it is fully applied in United States reaching the 85%
of gas well and the 60% of oil. Unfortunately fracturing is not
intensely used outside the North America due to the traditional
Europe–Russia –Middle East approach that limited, in the
past, the application of fracturing to a very low permeable
formations or desperate no-flowing wells. In the last decade
the successes in North Sea and Russia fields are changing this
idea. On the other hand there is no any other petroleum
technology with so significant incremental asset than
fracturing. M. Economides et all13 suppose a considerable
worldwide production increase only by fracturing the oil wells
as in U.S. with a “negative” final skin factor. A simple
approach to show the fracturing potential may be to consider
the Prats14 relation that for a infinite conductivity kfw fracture
gives a equivalent well with a effective radius rw’
as following:
rw’ = 0.5 xf (2)
There is again a psicological barrier that obstacles the
fracturing applications . If to suppose that a perforation charge
should reach the distance of in the range of 20-30 m typical
of a small fracturing treatment then oil industry would
extensively use this technique because it is considered low
risk operation.
On the other hand fracturing was successfully developed and
there are industrial different methods to be applied for every
reservoir situations as follows:
♦ Acid Fracturing15 for carbonate formation
♦ Closed Fracture Acidinzing16 -CFA- for carbonate
formation with high closure pressure.
♦ Massive Hydraulic Fracturing17 – MHF – for
permeability < 0.1md
♦ High Permeability Fracturing18 for permeability > 10md
♦ Tip Screen Out19 – TSO – to create very high
conductivity fracture
♦ Frac & Pack20 for unconsolidated formation
♦ Coiled Tubing Fracturing21 – CTF – for multi
layer fracturing
Real time analysis
The acidizing and fracturing techniques reached the mature
stage (Fig 1) in design and execution only when pressure
diagnostic tools were developed to work in real time.
On-site field analysis for predicting skin factor evolution22
during acidizing and fracture dimensions23 during fracturing
now are available. This approach increased the number of
stimulation successes decresing uncertainties of input data due
a pre–treatment calibration tests: as minifrac or injection test
or pretreatments24 to control excessive pressures.
Emerging Stimulation Techniques
The acidizing and fracturing are so mature that they have
generally the possibility and the opportunity to be adapted to
the different new well geometries and completions with
acceptable results. An example is the successful stimulation of
the horizontal wells using the matrix high rate treatments25
and traverse multi fracturing technique26 .
On the other hand the perception is that both the technologies
will soon be in the decline part of the technical-economical
life cycle (Fig 1). For this reason the oil industry is looking
for some new ideas or a completely different approachs in
order to optimize the productivity of the wells. The main
characteristic of the new techniques should be that they would
be more closed to the new concepts of well geometry (e.g.
multi lateral branches) and completions (e.g. smart wells or
expandable tubular). The following emerging technologies are
to be underlined:
o Explosive stimulation - Propellant
o Acoustic stimulation –Vibrowaves and ultrasonic
o Electric stimulation
All this techniques could be used for managing the
conductivity properties of the rock generally near the wellbore
region. Different experiences were accumoleted as Enhanced
Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques especially in Russia27 and
U.S. and now all these “novel” technologies are completely
revisited and improved with new ideas.
Propellant
This type of stimulation creates break-down of the formation
(1-2 m depth) and improves the clean up of perforations. It is
possible to use the propellant or simultaneously with the
perforation guns operations or alone in already producing
wells. Vaporized propellant creats in milliseconds a high
pressure gas wave in the wellbore surrounds: named as the
deflagration. The gas breaks through the perforation tunnel
and crushes the formation damage creating small fractures
near the perforation tunnel. When pressure dissipates, the gas
surges back carrying fine particles into the wellbore from
the formation.
The application of the “propellant assisted perforating
system”28 in the well is useful and of low risk. Moreover it is
possible to perform propellant in conjunction with traditional
stimulation treatments.
Before carbonate matrix stimulation the less permeable or the
naturally unfractured zones could be perforated with the help
of propellant in order to have a more uniform treatment of the
acid mixture in the entire expose interval.
In hydraulic fracturing propellant pre-fractures the formation
and reduces the maximum necessary pumping pressure.
The propellant stimulation gives also the benefit to be applied
selectively: it works only in the interval where the tool is run.
The expectation29 is to minimize the skin around zero (without
reaching the benefit of large negative values typical of
fracturing stimulation). Only an intensive use in the field
could give the true efficiency of the propellant technique.
SPE 82573 3

Active Cavitation & Ultrasonic mechanims of interaction electrical current of with rock and
The properties of the acoustic treatment30 are different from choose the right methodology “to pump” the electricity into
conventional stimulation: due to several mechanisms (as the reservoir.
energy dissipation due to “thermal slide” or “flowless” In some wells, the oil flow increase was accompagnied with
moviment of fluid in the channel) of the interaction between simultaneous water cut decrease. The perspective of the use
the acoustic field and the saturated porous rock it is possible to the above mentioned technologies in the rejuvenate of mature
cause changes in permeability or to remove the damage fields creates exciting expectations and R&D investigations.
plugging materials. Everyday life the use of a simple
ultrasonic wave source proves itself in the scale removal Conclusions
cleaning of potable water filters or dentist apparatus.
The most used ultrasonic frequency is 20-40 kHz that in the The stimulation is considered as the most effective
wellbore gives an effective treatment radius of maximum production optimization technique: is less expensive than
value of 2 rw. other well construction activities and provides a very
The tools of this techinque use an active cavitation jetting31 high Return of Investment (ROI).
(4-6 kHz) or a fluidic oscillator effect32 . They are very simply
and applicable with coiled tubing. The expectation, as shown During many decades, stimulation was consistsed of only
by the first applications and yard tests, is the removal ofg two major techniques: matrix acidizing and fracturing.
organic or inorganic deposits or drilling solids during a slowly They are so mature are so mature that they give the
motion of the tool in the treatment zone. The efficiency of the possibility and the opportunity to be adapted to the
tools should be better evaluated using an active fluid like different new well geometries and
solvent or acid mixture. In combination with hydrochloric acid innovative completions
the tools should be very powerful in boosting the productivity
of long intervals in carbonate reservoirs. The following emerging technologies are to
be underlined:
Electric stimulation o Explosive stimulation - Propellant
The stimulation effects ofthe electric current in the formation, o Acoustic stimulation –Vibrowaves & Ultrasonic
are electrothermal and electrodynamic type. The o Electric stimulation
electrothermal effect33 is evident in the near wellbore zone All this technologies could be used for managing the
during heating with infrared or high frequency or microwaves. conductivity properties of the rock generally near the
The electrodynamic34 effects create a cleaning of the bottom wellbore. On the other hand more investigations must be
whole formation zone from clay particles restoring or carried out to understand the impact the “novel”
improving the permeability. technologies on the reservoir.
At the moment the applications are limited on viscous oils for
the electrothermal or in some field of Former Soviet Union for Acknowledgement
the electrodynic. The improvement of this new technology is
correlated with better understanding of the interaction of the The author is grateful to Eni E&P Division for granting
electric current with the rock in order to use the optimal permission to publish this article. Thanks are due to colleagues
treatment parameters for every well and formation scenario. Gilberto Toffolo and Vladimir Reutov for useful discussions
and their positive motivation to investigate the
Interwell Stimulation emerging technologies.
The above new technologies vibrowave, electric and explosive
treatments could have the possibility to extend their effects far Nomenclature
from the wellbore.
The first case studies on the influence of vibration on the oil Pw i = bottom hole injection pressure, psi
field production were carried out after natural earthquakes. pe = constant outer reservoir pressure, psi
The most evident significant change in oil production was qi = injection rate, bbl/d
noted in different fields in Daghestan and Caucasus after the µ = treated fluid viscosity, cp
1972 earthquake of 6.5 magnitudes. k = rock permeability , md
The critical point35 of this interwell stimulation is the ability to kf = fracture permeability , md
generate deeply in the formation an “active”effect36. h = reservoir thickness, ft
For the elastic waves the theoretic calculations (Fig.2) show re = reservoir radius, ft
that the penetration depth of the treatment increases with the rw = wellbore radius, ft
low frequency waves (>20 – 40 Hz). For a deep hydrodynamic rw’ = effective wellbore radius, ft
treatment it is recommended to use a generator with infrasonic s = total skin factor, dimensionless
frequencies (0.5 –5 Hz). Different types of vibration tools at w = fracture width, inch
surface or hydraulic hammers down hole are developed 32 to xf = fracture half length, ft
obtain maximum acoustic coupling with the reservoir.
For the electric treatment the wide range of the amplitude,
shape and frequencies of the waves sent into the formations
impose deeper studies and field tests to understand the
4 SPE 82573

References Fracture with Adequate Proppant Concentration” paper

SPE 25892 (1993)
1. Economides, M. and Nolte, K.: "Reservoir Stimulation”, 25. Tambini, M.: “An Effective Matrix Stimulation
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (2000). Technique for Horizontal Wells” paper SPE 24993 (1992)
2. Danashy, A: "Economics of Damage Removal and 26. Raghavan, R. et al.: “An Analysis of Horizontal Wells
Production Enhancement”, paper SPE 30234 (1995). Intercepted by Multiple Fractures” paper SPE 27652
3. Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L. and Schechter, R.S.: (1994)
”Acidizing Fundamentals”, SPE monograph 27. Nikolaevskiy, V.N.: “Geomechanics and Fluid dynamics”
series (1979). Kluwer Academic Publishers (1996)
4. Gidley, J.I., Holditch, S.A., Nierode,D.E. and Veatch, 28. Cuthill, D.A.: “Propellant Asssisted Perforating – An
R.W.Jr: “Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing” SPE Effective Method for Reducing Formation Damage when
monograph series (1989) Perforating” paper SPE 68920 (2001)
5. Frasch, H: “Increasing the Flow of Oil Well”, U.S. Patent 29. Gilliat, J.et al.: “ A Review of Field Performance of New
No.556,669 (1896). Propellant – Perforating Technologies” paper SPE 56469
6. Kalfayan, L: “Production Enhancement with Acid (1999)
Stimulation” PennWell Corporation, OK (2000) 30. Robert, P.M.: “Ultrasonic Removal of Organic Deposit
7. Menzies, N.A. et al. : “Modeling of Gel Diverter and Polimer – Induced Formation Damage” paper SPE
Placement in horizontal Wells” paper SPE 56742 (1999) 62045 (2000)
8. Alleman, D. et al.: “The Development and Successful 31. Bakker, T.W. and Ivannikov, V.I.: “Cavitator for
Field Use of Viscoelastic Surfactant based Diverting Effective Well Cleaning” paper SPE 75352 (2002)
Agents for Acid Stimulation” paper SPE 80222 (2003) 32. Jackson, S. et al.: “Advances in Seismic Stimulation
9. Thompson, K. and Gdansky, R.D.: “Laboratory Study Tecnologies” PTTC Volume7,2nd Q (2001)
Provides Guidelines for Diverting Acid with Foam” SPE 33. Sierra, R. et al,: “Promising Progress in Field Application
Production & Facilities (Nov.1993) of Reservoir Eletrical Heating Methods “ paper SPE
10. Gabiel, G.A. and Erbstoesser S.R,,”the Design of Buoyant 68709 (2001)
Ball Sealer Treatment” paper SPE 13085 (1984) 34. Selyakov, V.I. et al.: “Application of technology of
11. Harrison, N.W.: “Diverting Agents – History and electroinfluence for intensification of an oil recovery in
Application” JPT (May 1972) 593-98 Russia and abroad” Russia, Oil Industry (November
12. Paccaloni, G. and Tambini, M. “Advance in matrix 2002) 92
Stimulation Technology”, JPT (March 1993) 256 35. WestermarK, R.V. et al.: “Enhanced Oil Recovery with
13. Economides, M. et al. : “Unified Fracture Design” Orsa Downhole Vibration Stimulation” paper SPE
Press, TX (2002) 67303 (2001)
14. Prats, M.: “Effect of vertical Fractures on Reservoir 36. Beresnev,I.A. et al.: “Elastic Wave Stimulation of Oil
Behavior – Incompressible Fluid Case” JPT (Sept.1961) Production: A Review of Methods and Results”
15. Olsen, T.N. and Karr, G.K.: “Treatment Optimization of Geophysics (June 1994)
Acid Fracturing in Carbonate Formations” paper SPE
15165 (1986)
16. Fredrickson, S.E.: “Stimulation Carbonate Formation
Using a Closure Fracture Acidizing Technique” paper
SPE 14654 (1986)
17. Agawam, R.G. et al.: “Evaluation and performance
Prediction of Low Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing” JPT (March 1979) 362
18. Hunt, J.L. et al.: “Performance of Hydraulic Fractures in
High Permeability Formations” paper SPE 28530 (1994)
19. Martin, J.P. et al.: “Tip Screen out Fracturing Applied to
Revenspurn South Gas Field Development” paper SPE
19766 (1989)
20. Ayoub, J. A. et al.: “Evaluation of Frac & Pack
Completion and Future Outlook” paper SPE 65063
(2000)
21. Zemlak, W. Et al.: “Selective Hydraulic Fracturing of
Multiple Perforated Interval with a Coiled Tubing
Conduit” paper SPE/ICOTA 54474 (!999)
22. Paccaloni, G,: “new Method Proves Value of Stimulation
Planning” Oil Gas Journal (Nov. 19,1979)
23. Nolte, K. G, and Smith, M. B.: “ Interpretation of
Fracturing Pressure” JPT (Sept.1981) 1767
24. Cleary, M. et al,: “Field Implementation of Proppant
Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen out of Hydraulic
SPE 82573 5

VA
V
V AL
A LU
LUUE
E
E

R&D EMERGING GROWTH MATURITY DECLINE

1 ACID & FRAC

2 EXPLOSIVE
2 ACUSTIC
ELECTRIC

BULLISH RISING STAR CASH COW HARVEST T

TIIIM
T ME
M E
E

Fig . 1 – Technical Economic Life Cycle of Stimulation

Frequency (s-1)

100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
0,1
0,01
0,001
0,0001
0.01 m 0.1 m
1m
10 m
100 m
1000 m
Distance from the wellbore (m)

Fig. 2 – Vibrowave Active Penetration in-side Sandstone