PAPER 2009-146

Importance of Fracture Geometry and

Conductivity in Improving Efficiency of Acid
Fracturing in Carbonates
M. S. NEWMAN
Chevron Australia Pty. Ltd.

M. PAVLOUDIS
Australian School of Petroleum, The University of Adelaide

M. M. RAHMAN
Australian School of Petroleum, The University of Adelaide

This  paper  is  accepted  for  the  Proceedings  of  the  Canadian  International  Petroleum  Conference  (CIPC)  2009,  Calgary, 
Alberta,  Canada,  16‐18  June  2009.    This  paper  will  be  considered  for  publication  in  Petroleum  Society  journals. 
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction. 

Abstract production over a given period of time. It can also be compared

The success of a stimulation technique is often measured by
its stimulation ratio. This paper, however, presents a novel way
of calculating the value that can be added from acid fracturing.
A methodology predicting the effect of acid fracturing in
carbonate reservoirs has been developed. This accounts for
fracture geometry and for acid fracturing job specifications.
Acid fracturing is typically conducted in carbonate
reservoirs, which make up approximately 70% of the worldwide
hydrocarbon reserves. Acid fracturing is a complex process
depending on multiple factors which are different in nature,
making mathematical models unreliable. Due to the stochastic
process inherent in acid fracturing, modeling has been met with
difficulty, especially in calculating conductivity. The modeling
data analysis includes the sensitivity study with respect to
fracture length and fracture width, as well as the importance of
efficient acid transport.
The post-stimulation production data is used to calculate
the cumulative production parameter which is the cumulative
to the production of an un-stimulated case. The cumulative
production parameter offers a unique way to calculate acid
fracture value. This parameter gives a tangible value which
translates to production over time. More importantly, the
proposed model allows fractures from different reservoirs to be
accurately compared, helping production engineers make better
decisions and estimate the acid treatment efficiency.
Introduction
Acidized fracturing is an stimulation technique for oil and
gas fields with the aim of increasing the production from a well.
An acid is pumped at a pressure above the parting pressure of
the rock such that the formation is hydraulically fractured. The
acid reacts within the fracture to create a differentially etched
surface that will maintain a conductive pathway. Carbonate
reservoirs are good candidates for acid fracturing since strong
acids such as hydrochloric acid react easily with carbonate.

1
 Acid fracturing was first witnessed in 1895[1]. The Standard
Oil Company was using hydrochloric acid to stimulate oil wells
in carbonate formations in Ohio, USA. By comparison, the first
description and observation of hydraulic fracturing was in 1935.
By the 1970s propped fracturing was far more advanced than
acid fracturing. During the 1970s and 1980s advancements were
made in acid fracturing stimulation theory. As a result fracture
acidizing has increased in popularity from the 1980s onwards[2].
Growing energy demand and the need for cost effective
fracturing has lead to the widespread use of various fracture
optimisation techniques. Current practice in most acid
fracturing stimulation jobs is to use Net Present Value (NPV) as
the main optimisation objective[3, 4]. NPV is used by
systematically varying the treatment parameters and observing
the change in NPV and fracture length. Such a procedure is
tedious and does not take into account what treatment
parameters have the most influence on the fracture geometry.
However, a systematic and integrated procedure can assist the
treatment design engineer in performing the design task
efficiently and enforces a favourable hydraulic fracture
geometry that meets various design objectives
In this paper three models have been developed, two being
2-dimensional and one pseudo 3-dimensional. They account for
two different fracture geometries and incorporate acid fluid
type, pumping schedule, fluid rheology, and other down hole
conditions and provide a realistic description of the hydraulic
fracture geometry. These models serve as tools to visualise
hydraulic fracture propagation and help depict the effect each
treatment parameter has on the ultimate success of an acid
fracturing stimulation job.
The success of a acidized fracture depends on its fracture
conductivity. Fracture conductivity is poorly predicted because
of the stochastic processes involved with acid reaction kinetics
with the fracture surface. Commonly fracture conductivity is
predicted from models such as that presented by Nierode and
Kruk[5]. The conductivity of the fracture is then generally found
by some averaging process. It appears that no research has been
published which explores the behavior of these models, such as
the one suggested above, in unison when combined with mass
transport and geometry models.
Typically the value added in acidized fractures is analysed
through the stimulation ratio, which is the ratio of the
productivity in the stimulated case to the un-stimulated case. In
the past this has been predicted using the dimensionless
conductivity. The productivity ratio has commonly been used in
a range of stimulation techniques to quantify the additional
benefit for each job. There are several drawbacks with the
productivity ratio as an indicator. The first drawback is that it
does not provide a tangible understanding of the incremental
recovery that can be expected from that well. The other issue is
that fractures cannot be equally compared by their productivity
ratio from field to field as reservoir properties differ.
Proposed in this paper is a model that calculates fracture
conductivity and predicts production in the future. This model
was developed by combining individual models for fracture
geometry, acid transport, fracture conductivity and future
production, and hence calculates the fracture etched width. The
conductivity is then calculated at regular intervals along the
fracture[5]. The overall fracture conductivity is calculated using
a harmonic averaging technique as suggested by Economides[6].
The forward production model was then found using pressure
transient equations for a stimulated well using both transient
and pseudo steady-state equations.
The final result was a model that calculates fracture
conductivity, estimates the productivity ratio and can calculate
2
the cumulative production for a given point in time in the
future. This study brings together a better understanding of
dimensionless conductivity and its contributing factors. Further
to this, a reliable way to compare fractures from various fields
in a simple and easy to understand way has been developed.
Fracture Propagation Models
Three fracture propagation models have been analysed in
this study. Two of which are two-dimensional models and the
other is pseudo three dimensional. In the two dimensional
models, the height has been constrained and fracture length and
width has have been calculated. The pseudo three dimensional
(P3D) model is also compared to the two dimensional models[7,
8]
. The three fracture models are explained below.
A study into the fracture geometry models can be used to
determine what properties or factors contribute most to fracture
creation in carbonate reservoirs, which are can be poor in
porosity and permeability. By investigating three different
fracture geometries, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding
of the behaviour of each of the models and contrast the results.
The important model equations are presented in Appendix A.
PKN-C Fracture Geometry
The PKN-C model assumes a constant height vertical
fracture is propagated in a well confined pay zone, that is, the
stresses in the layers above and below the pay zone are large
enough to prevent vertical fracture growth. The PKN model is
based on linear elasticity and applies a quasi-plane-strain
assumption with a vertical reference plane normal to the
direction of fracture propagation.
The ‘C’ in the PKN-C model refers to the Carter II solution
which calculates the fracture length from a constrained fracture
height by applying a material balance methodology[9].
KGD-C Fracture Geometry
The KGD model assumes a horizontal plane strain condition,
where an infinite number of “sliding” parallel planes traverse
the height of a fracture. The horizontal plane strain condition of
the KGD geometry would result in a fracture with a rectangular
profile at the well. The fracture height, hf is assumed to be
constant. The shape of the KGD fracture implies equal width
along the well bore. This width profile results in large fracture
volumes[6]. Uncontrolled fracture height or small fracture
treatments could be approximated with the KGD model.
Similar to the PKN-C model the KGD-C incorporates the
Carter II solution to determine fracture length.
P3D-C Fracture Geometry
A pseudo-three-dimensional (P3D) model is proposed to
idealise fracture growth in multi-layered formations. The model
differs from previous 2D models where a constant fracture
height was imposed. It modifies the 2D models via the addition
of fracture height migration into adjacent layers, height
variation along the fracture length and its effect on the fracture
width[10]. This complete determination of the fracture shape
allows prediction of containment on the basis of the fluid
behaviour, the pumping schedule, the fluid-loss to the
formation, the in-situ stress and the variation in mechanical
properties in the boundary layers[11, 12].
Height growth containment is important so that the fracture
will reach farther along the pay zone and so that the chance of
vertical penetration into non-pay zones (e.g. a water-bearing 162 .6 q o B μ ⎛ k ⎞
zone) will be reduced. Although many factors influence height p i − p wf = ⎜ log t + log − 3 .23 + s⎟
kh ⎜ φμ c t rw′ 2 ⎟
growth, the most important factor is the stress contrast between ⎝ ⎠
pay and bounding zones. In this research the PKN geometry Equation 5
was assumed.
The pseudo radius accounts for the incremental increase in
flow rate that is attributed to the fracture. This can be calculated
Fracture Conductivity and Production using Equation 6.
−s f
Model rw′ = rwe Equation 6

The model proposed in this paper is an amalgamation of
several correlations. The model was built in a series of steps as
outlined in the flow diagram (Figure 1).
The PKN-C geometry was used so that changes in fracture
job design could be investigated with the aim to increase
efficiency in fracture design. The PKN-C model was used for
this investigation as it was deemed appropriate as many acid
fracture jobs in carbonate reservoirs will have a fracture length
greater than its height.
After a review of mass transport models for acidized
fractures[6, 13-15] correlations were used that were published by
Schechter [16]. Mass Transport models through a fracture
calculate the concentration profile of the acid. Fluid loss, worm
holing, diffusion and reaction processes add to the complexity
of such a model in a fracture. The model by Schechter is based
on the assumption that the reaction is fast, flow is laminar, the
fluid loss flux is a constant and taken as the average over the
area of the fracture during the treatment, and that the fluid is
Newtonian and incompressible. The fast reaction assumption
implies that acid concentration is zero at the fracture face.
Theoretically this is never achieved, as this would assume an
infinite rate of reaction. However the rate of reaction of
carbonates is fast with hydrochloric acid; however in dolomites
the rate of reaction is slower and more sensitive to temperature.
The concentration profile, and hence the fracture width is
dictated by the dimensionless Peclet number, NPe as defined
below.
u y wi
N Pe = Equation 1
2 Deff
Conductivity is calculated using the Nierode and Kruk
correlation at regular increments along the fracture and
harmonically averaged as suggested by Economides [6].
The Nierode and Kruk correlation[5] is shown in Equation 2
as presented by Economides[6] is as follows:
2.47 −C2σ c Equation 2
k f w = 1.47 ×107 wi e
Srock <20000psi
C2 = (13.9 −1.3ln Srock) ×10 −3 Equation 3
and for Srock >20000psi
C2 = (3.8 − 0.28ln Srock) ×10−3 Equation 4
Dimensionless conductivity is calculated, and using semi-log
pressure transient analysis equations the post fracture
production decline is calculated. This model incorporated an
initial transient flow period followed by pseudo steady state
flow.
The equation for transient flow is displayed in Equation 5
Pseudo steady state is governed using Equation 7 in field
units[17] at the end of the transient period, for a constant bottom
hole pressure.
141.2q Bμ ⎡ ⎛ 0.472r ⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎤
(P − P ) = o ⎢ln⎜ e ⎟ + s + ln⎜ x f ⎟⎥
wf
kh ⎢ ⎜ x ⎟ f ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ f ⎠ ⎝ rw ⎠⎦⎥
Equation 7
Alongside the production calculations, material balance
calculations were completed assuming an under saturated
reservoir. Reservoir properties are outlined in Table 2. The base
case job data for the fractures investigated are outlined in Table
3.
The transition from transient to pseudo steady state flow was
assumed to occur at a dimensionless time, tDxf =0.1 as defined
by Equation 8[10, 18-21].
φμct x 2f
t= t Dx f Equation 8
0.0002637 k
Using both the pressure transient analysis equations and
material balance it is possible to predict the post stimulation
production profile.
Application to a Carbonate Reservoir
Carbonate reservoirs make up a significant part of the oil
reserves around the world, many of which are in areas such as
the Middle East. Many carbonate reservoirs have tight flow
conditions where permeability is low. Table 2 and Table 3 show
the base case reservoir and fracture model parameters used in
this study.
In the interests of comparing the three different fracture
propagation models the pumping schedule shown in Table 3
was used for all three cases.[12, 22, 23]
Results
The results are split into three sections. The first section is a
sensitivity analysis on the three different fracture propagation
models PKN-C, KGD-C and the P3D-C. This section focuses
on different factors that affect fracture geometry, including fluid
rheology, injection rates, fluid leak-off and fracture height. The
fracture dimensions displayed are those calculated from fracture
propagation models before acid has entered into the fracture.
This section highlights the difference between the models and
how the different aspects of the fracture job can impact
geometry.
The second section of the results pays special attention to the
PKN-C model and the conductivity created through acidization.
This section looks at the impact of acid contact time, fracture
length, acid concentration and acid injection rate on the overall

3
fracture conductivity. The sensitivity of these job parameters
provides a clear understanding of how acid fracture
conductivity is best obtained in a tight carbonate reservoir.
The final section is a continuation of the previous results.
Using the conductivity values calculated, the post fracture
production is approximated and compared to other fractures
with different fracture lengths and acid contact times. By
predicting the post fracture production it can be used as a new
metric for acid fracture utility.
Comparison of Fracture Propagation Models
Investigating different propagation models, applied to a tight
reservoir scenario, will highlight how fracture propagation
models perform under different operating conditions. In this
case, special focus has been placed on the aspects in relation to
the acid fracture job. Such parameters include those pertaining
to fluid rheology, acid strength, injection rate and fracture
height (for the height constrained models). The results only in
this section are connected to the pump schedule outlined in
Table 4.
The analysis carried out is a basic sensitivity analysis
investigation. The parameters outlined in this section are varied
over a specific range which would be encountered in typical
fracture situations. The impact of these changes is shown in
terms of the final propagated fracture length and average width
for the different fracture propagation models.
Power Law Rheology
Non-Newtonian fluids can be described using the power law
rheology model. The flow behavior index, n’, and the
consistency index, k’, are required under the prevailing
conditions. The flow behavior index is a measure of deviation
away from the behavior of a Newtonian fluid. The consistency
index, on the other hand, is a measure of the average viscosity
for the fluid.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show that as the power-law
rheological properties n’ and k’ are increased, fracture half
length decreases and average fracture width increases.
When the value of the power-law rheological properties is
low the fracture has a higher fracture half length and a lower
average width because the fluid exhibits pseudo-plastic
behaviour. This means that its viscosity decreases as shear rate
increases, and that the large molecules in the fluid align
themselves in the direction of the shear stress, thus producing
less resistance. Therefore, less fluid is lost due to leak off and
the fluid moves faster through the fractures due to the reduced
shear, thus a longer and thinner fracture results for low values
of n’ and k’. For higher power-law rheological property values,
the fluid would act more like a Newtonian fluid, and would
therefore impart the opposite effect on fracture geometry.
Both the PKN-C and KGD-C models follow the same trend
in relation to decreasing fracture half length and increasing
average width with increasing power-law rheological properties.
The PKN-C model has greater fracture half length for a given
value of n’ or k’ whereas the KGD-C model has greater average
width for a given value of n’ or k’. This is expected due to the
geometry of each of the fractures.
The P3D model has a higher fracture half length for the
lowest value of power-law rheological properties but as the
values are increased the fracture half length decreases at a faster
rate than in the PKN-C model. This is due to the P3D model
taking into consideration changes in the fracture height. It can
be seen from Figure 2 and Figure 3 that the two models predict
the same fracture geometry where the lines intersect. In Figure
3, for low end values of the consistency index, the fracture half
4
length and average width is more sensitive at lower power-law
rheological property values. This could be further explored as it
could help in optimizing an acid fracturing job.
Fracture Height
The PKN-C and KGD-C models are 2 dimensional; therefore
they require an estimate of the fracture half height in order to
calculate the other dimensions of a fracture. The estimate
should be derived from either seismic or well logs in order to be
as accurate as possible.
Figure 4 shows that as the fracture height estimate is
increased the fracture half length and average fracture width
decreases. This is expected as greater fracture height increases
the volume of a fracture and therefore, under a constant
injection rate and injection time, the length and width of the
fracture will be less for a taller fracture.
The PKN-C and KGD-C models follow a similar trend when
fracture height estimates are increased. The PKN-C models
fracture half length decreases at a greater rate than the KGD-C
models half length. But the KGD-C models average width
decreases much faster than the PKN-C models average width.
This is expected due to the geometry of the fractures.
It can be seen that the fracture half length and average width
is more sensitive at lower fracture heights. For example the
change in dimensions of the fracture height from 50 ft to 75 ft is
greater than from 175 ft to 200 ft.
It can be seen from Figure 4 that the fracture height estimate
can vary the fracture geometry that is outputted by the 2D
models by a substantial amount. Therefore, it is critical to use
an accurate height estimate when calculating the fracture
dimensions.
Injection Rate
Figure 5 shows that as the injection rate increases the
fracture half length and average fracture width increases. This is
expected since higher injection rates will lead to a greater
pressure build up in the reservoir, and therefore a greater
propagation of the fracture occurs. The average width increases
because more fluid is injected at higher injection rates and so
the fracture expands.
The PKN-C and P3D-C models follow a similar trend when
injection rate is increased. However he PKN-C models fracture
half length increases at a faster rate than the KGD-C models
half length, whilst the KGD-C models average width increases
much faster than the PKN-C models average width. This is due
to the geometry of the fractures.
Leak-off Coefficient
Figure 6 shows that as the leak-off coefficient increases, the
fracture half length and average fracture width decreases. This
is expected as more fluid is lost to the formation, which results
in less pressure build up to propagate the fracture.
The PKN-C and P3D-C models follow a similar trend. The
PKN-C model has greater fracture half length for a given leak-
off coefficient whereas the KGD-C model has greater average
width for a given leak-off coefficient. This is expected due to
the geometry of each of the fractures.
Furthermore, it can be seen that the fracture half length and
average width is more sensitive at lower leak-off coefficient
values. Therefore controlling leak off is very important for
optimal acid fracturing.
Sensitivity Analysis on Dimensionless
Conductivity (PKN-C)
Dimensionless conductivity is the benchmark in the
following analysis. Dimensionless conductivity was used as it is
proportional to the incremental gain in production after having a
fracture in place. The sensitivity analysis aims to highlight
characteristics of the model that is used in this study.
It was of particular interest to look at the effect of fracture
length and acid contact time on acid fracture conductivity. The
results in the following section refer to the fracture scenarios
shown in Table 5. Height has been arbitrarily constrained to 50
feet in these fractures.
Acid Contact Time
Figure 7 demonstrates the effect that contact time and
fracture length have on conductivity.
Conductivity increases with increasing contact time for all
fracture lengths. It is to be expected that a greater etched width
would be created by additional acid. The only possible cause
which could be contrary to this is when the rock becomes
softened. In this case the conductivity is lost when the fracture
closes.
It is also noticed that the fracture conductivity decreases with
fracture length for a constant contact time. This may seem
counter-intuitive at first; however dimensionless fracture
conductivity is inversely proportional to fracture length. What is
surprising is that the trend could suggest that irrelevant of
contact time, having a long fracture does not increase
dimensionless conductivity.
Figure 8 shows for a 556ft fracture (440bbl injected volume,
75% acid) that the fracture tip is the most significant factor for
the decrease in conductivity. In this figure, the fracture was split
into thirds by length and the fracture conductivity was
calculated at the end of each third. The bars in the graph (Figure
8) show the magnitude drop in dimensionless conductivity from
the previous third to the current third. A drop in dimensionless
conductivity is observed with fracture length. In the last third
where the fracture is narrow, the dimensionless conductivity
dropped by 247 times compared to the fracture that was only
two thirds as long. This result is contrary to the belief that better
penetration results in greater stimulation, as previously
expressed in the literature [24].
This phenomenon is inherent when conductivity is calculated
by harmonic averaging. Harmonic averaging is used to counter
near well bore effects which potentially over-estimate
conductivity. At the extremities of the fracture the width may
become so small that the integrity of the fracture may not be
certain. Taking the example displayed in Figure 8, if the last
third of the fracture really did not exist the dimensionless
conductivity would be 2.4 instead of 0.0096. Therefore
understanding if the true effective fracture length is less than
that provided could be a significant factor when calculating
dimensionless conductivity. This result also confirms that
creating an injection fluid which can uniformly etch the fracture
surface would be most advantageous.
Acid Concentration
Figure 9 demonstrates the effect of acid concentration on
fracture geometry when acid contact time is held constant.
Dimensionless conductivity increases with acid concentration
due to the increased etched width on the fracture face. The non-
linear monotonic relationship between acid concentration and
dimensionless conductivity is due to the Nierode and Kruk
relationship (Equation 2) which is exponential in width.
Average etched width is linearly dependant on volumetric
5
dissolving power, X (Equation 23). Volumetric dissolving
power is also linearly dependent with acid concentration.
Dimensionless conductivity and dimensional conductivity
tend to be significantly greater in a shorter fracture with greater
acid contact time than in a larger fracture with comparable acid
contact time. The difference in dimensionless conductivity
becomes more significant at higher concentrations. It is worth
noting that the concentration profile, a measure of acid transport
along the fracture, is not dependent on acid concentration. The
performance of the shorter fracture is due to a higher etched
width. Etched width increases with higher concentration acid
and is inversely dependent on fracture length.
Acid Injection Rate
Dimensionless conductivity increases with injection rate at
constant acid contact time. At greater injection rates, more acid
is injected in a given period of time, increasing the etched
width. Higher injection rate also enables better transport of acid
along the entire length of fracture. However, with increasing
fracture length at a constant injection rate, the conductivity
decreases. This can be explained in terms of the acid system and
the fracture geometry. When injection rate is held constant, a
greater fracture length will result in smaller transverse velocity
across the fracture (Equation 1); this in turn reduces the ability
for effective acid transport along the entire fracture length. The
overall effect is a smaller etched width with increasing fracture
length.
Figure 11 demonstrates the effect of injection rate on the
efficiency as the acid moves through the fracture. In this
example a fracture is created with an injected volume of 440bbl
of fluid. The acid component was 75% in both fractures, but at
different acid injection rates. The concentration profile is
completely different between the two scenarios. In the case of a
higher injection rate, acid concentration is better maintained
along the whole fracture. However, at the lower injection rate,
most of the acid appears to be spent in the near well bore
vicinity and, in this case, the propagated fracture length is
shorter at 424 ft, compared to 562 ft achieved by the higher
injection rate.
Acid Fracture Production Model (PKN-C)
The model successfully predicts a production rate for the
transient period and pseudo-steady state flow. Transient flow is
observed for a significantly shorter time than pseudo-steady
state flow as the duration of transient flow is capped at 0.1
dimensionless time units. Since reservoir properties remain
unchanged for all the scenarios considered in this study, the
duration of this flow period is governed by the fracture half
length as, t ∝ x 2f (Equation 8). Therefore, if the fracture length
is halved, the transient flow period reduces by a quarter. In
cases where the fracture length is only several hundred feet, the
transient period is small and the effect that this period of higher
flow rate has on cumulative oil production is almost negligible.
The final flow rate from the transient period does not match
the initial flow rate in pseudo-steady flow. In general, a
discontinuity between the two flow periods is evidence that
there is a transition period. The dimensionless time was altered
in order to reduce, or eliminate the flow rate discontinuity.
However, altering the dimensionless time by a magnitude did
not systematically improve the result. Any times that did show a
good match were considered unique to the model.
The production model created presents a new metric on
fracture utility. In this instance the cumulative production for 10
years post-stimulation has been calculated for each of the nine
scenarios described in Table 5. An almost linear trend is
observed between productivity ratio and cumulative production P Average Reservoir Pressure
after 10 years as shown in Figure 12. Well Flowing Pressure
Pwf
The idea was to calculate how a fracture could incrementally
add value to a well in a tangible way. The advantage with pi Initial Reservoir Pressure
calculating cumulative production is when selecting wells for qo Oil Flow Rate
acid fracturing from a variety of different fields. Different fields
will have different drainage radiuses and flow properties. The sf Skin Factor
productivity ratio can show incremental productivity gains Well Radius
rw
through acid fracture, however it cannot rationalize the
performance difference from a fracture in one field to another. X Volumetric Dissolving Power
For example, a fracture in two different fields could have the V Volume of Acid
same productivity ratio, but the cumulative production after 10 E’ Elastic Shear Modulus
years could be different. The equations for the production take CL Leak-off Coefficient
into account oil viscosity, reservoir porosity and permeability Sp Spurt Loss
(Equation 5 and Equation 7). ti Injection Time
The results in Figure 12 confirm that the cumulative t Time t after stimulation
production is a reliable metric for fracture value. The slight Bo Formation Volume Factor
deviation from a straight line is most likely due to the new KIcb Stress Intensity Factor – Bottom
model incorporating transient flow. A secondary cause could be KIct Stress Intensity Factor – Top
small errors in the model due to averaging. σ Rock Formation Stress
NPe Peclet Number
rw′ Effective well radius
Conclusions
pw Fracture Treatment pressure at the well bore
• The use of fracture propagation models can provide a NPV Net Present Value
clearer understanding of the effects different parameters
have on the fracture geometry and what the impact on
fracture geometry is when selecting different propagation CONVERSION FACTORS
models.
• The relationship between acid fracture and conductivity is bbl × 0.15899 E + 00 = m3
largely affected not only by the acid fracture size, but also cP × 1 E + 00 = mPa.s
other properties such as injection rate, acid concentration ft × 3.048 E + 00 = m
and acid contact time. This study also shows that shorter but mD × 9.869 E - 09 = m2
more conductive fractures can outperform longer fractures psi × 6.895 E + 00 = kPa
with low conductivity. The analysis provides a basis for an
economic case in achieving more conductive shorter
fractures. REFERENCES
• A comparison of fracture productivity ratio to its cumulative 1. FRASCH, H. Increasing the Flow of Oil Wells, US
production showed that both methods do give the same Patent 556669, 1896.
qualitative result. This result confirmed the validity of both 2. KALFAYAN, J., Fracture Acidizing: History, Present
models to realise fracture value. State and Future, SPE 106371 presented at the SPE
• The cumulative production model presented offers a unique Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 29-31
and novel way of calculating fracture value. Unlike the January 2007, College Station, Texas USA, 2007
traditional method of calculating productivity ratio, this 3. AGOUR, T. M. & ECONOMIDES, M. J.,
method gives a tangible value which translates to Optimization of the Performance of High
incremental production over time. More importantly, this Permeability Fractured Wells, SPE 39474 presented
method allows fractures from different reservoirs to be at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
accurately compared. Two fractures from different Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 1998
reservoirs with the same productivity ratio may have very 4. RIETMAN, N. D., An Integrated Method for
different potential to increase production in the long term. Optimizing Hydraulic Fracture Design for Tight Gas
This technique has the ability to inform production Wells, SPE 39930 presented at the SPE Rocky
engineers and create better economic evaluation of Mountain Regional/ Low Permeability Reservoir
stimulation options. Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA,
1998
5. NIERODE, E. & KRUK, F., An Evaluation of Acid
Acknowledgements Fluid Loss Additives, Retarded Acids, and Acid
Authors acknowledge the grant from the faculty of Fracture Conductivity, SPE 4549 presented at the
Engineering Computing and Mathematical Sciences, The Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
University of Adelaide, to complete this study. AIME, 30 September-3 October, Las Vegas, Nevada,
1973
6. ECONOMIDES, M. J. Petroleum Production
NOMENCLATURE Systems, Prentice Hall, 1994.
7. PERKINS, T. K. & KERN, L. R. Widths of Hydraulic
Table 1: Additional Nomenclature Fractures. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 13,
Symbol Definition No. 9, 1961.

6
8. NORDGREN, R. P. Propagation of a Vertical Mountain Regional Meeting, 19-21 May, Billings,
Fracture. SPE Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1972. Montana, 1986
9. HOWARD, G. C. & FAST, C. R. Optimum Fluid 25. RICE, J. R. Mathematical Analysis in the Mechanics
Characteristic for Fracture Extension,Drilling and of Fracture, Academic Press, New York, 1968.
Production Practices, API (Appendix by E.D. Carter: 26. WARPINSKI, N. R. & SMITH, M. B. Rock
derivation of the general equation for estimating the Mechanics and Fracture Geometry. In: Gidley et al.
extent of the fractured area), pp. 261-270, 1957. ed. Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE
10. RAHMAN, M. M. Constrained Hydraulic Fracture Monograph 12, Richardson, Texas, pp. 57-80, 1989.
Optimization Improves Recovery from Low 27. RAHMAN, M. M., RAHMAN, M. K., et al.
Permeable Oil Reservoirs. Energy Sources, Vol. 30, Multicriteria Hydraulic Fracturing Optimization for
No., pp. 536-551, 2008. Reservoir Stimulation. Petroleum Science and
11. THIERCELIN, M. J., BEN-NACEUR, K., et al., Technology, Vol. 21, No. 11, 2003.
Simulation of Three-Dimensional Propagation of a 28. ROBERTS, L. D. & GUIN, J. A. The Effect of
Vertical Hydraulic Fracture, SPE 13861 presented at Surface Kinetics in Fracture Acidizing. SPE Journal,
the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 385-396, 1974.
Symposium, 19-22 March 1985, Denver, Colorado, 29. AHMED, T. & MCKINNEY, P. Advanced Reservoir
1985 Engineering, Elsevier, 2005.
12. ECONOMIDES, M. J., OLIGNES, R., et al. Unified
Fracture Design, Orsa Press, 2003.
13. ROBERTS, L. D. & GUIN, J. A. A New Method for Appendix A
Predicting Acid Penetration Distance. SPE Journal,
Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 277-286, 1975. PKN-C Geometry Calculations
14. BEN-NACEUR & ECONOMIDES, M. J., The
Effectiveness of Acid Fractures and their Production For non-Newtonian fluid, the PKN-C (Carter model
Behavior, SPE 18536 presented at the SPE Eastern incorporated in to the PKN model) maximum width equation is
Regional Meeting, 1-4 November, Charleston, West as follows:
1
Virginia, 1988 1 n'
n'
1 ⎛ q n ' h1f− n ' x f ⎞ 2 n ' +2
15. SETTARI, A. Modeling of Acid Fracture Treatments. ⎡1 + 2.14n' ⎤ 2 n '+2 2 n '+2 ⎜ i ⎟
wmax = 9.15 2 n '+2 × 3.98 2 n '+2 ⎢ ⎥ k'
SPE Production and Facilities, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 30- ⎣ n' ⎦ ⎜ 2 E' ⎟
⎝ ⎠
38, 1993.
16. SCHECHTER, R. S. Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice Equation 9
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992. E’ is the elastic shear modulus and is related to Young’s
17. VALKO, P., OLIGNEY, R. E., et al., High modulus, E, by
permeability fracturing of gas wells, presented at the E
E' = Equation 10
Gas TIPS, 1997 2(1 + ν )
18. GRINGARTEN, A. C., From Straight Lines to where wmax is in metres. The quantities n’ and k’ are the power-
Deconvolution: The Evolution of the State of the Art law rheological properties of the fracturing fluid. qi is the
in Well Test Analysis, SPE 102079 presented at the injection rate, hf is the fracture height, xf is the fracture half
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, length and v is the Poisson ratio. The average width can then be
24-27 September, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2006 calculated by multiplying the maximum width by a constant
19. CINCO & SAMANIEGO Transient Pressure shape factor.
Analysis for Fractured Wells. Journal of Petroleum π
Technology, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 1749-1766, 1981. w = wmax Equation 11
5
20. GRINGARTEN, A. C., RAMEY, H. J., et al. Applied Using the Carter II solution, which considers a hypothetical
Pressure Transient for Fractured Wells. Journal of case in which the fracture width remains constant at its final
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 887-892, value in the first instant of pumping. Then for a constant
1975. injection rate and considering fluid leak-off and spurt loss, the
21. BRITT, L. K. & BENNETT, C. O., Determination of following relationship between fracture geometry and fluid
Fracture Conductivity in Moderate-Permeability injection is derived for the fracture half length[9].
Reservoirs Using Bilinear Flow Concepts, SPE 14165
( w + 2 S p ) qi ⎡ 2β ⎤
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference xf = ⎢exp( β )erfc( β ) +
2
− 1⎥
and Exhibition, 22-26 September, Las Vegas, Nevada, 4C Lπh f 2 ⎣
2
π ⎦
1985
22. NASR-EL-DIN, H. A., AL-DRIWEESH, S., et al., Equation 12
Acid Fracturing HT/HP Gas Wells Using a Novel where
Surfactant Based Fluid System, SPE 84516 presented 2C L πti
at the SPE ATCE, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2003 β= Equation 13
23. NASR-EL-DIN, H. A., AL-DRIWEESH, S., et al., w + 2S p
Acid Fracturing of Deep Gas Wells Using a Using these equations length or time can be determined
Surfactant Based Acid: Long Term Effects on Gas using a numerical iteration method.
Production Rate, SPE 102469 presented at the SPE
ATCE, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2006 KGD-C Geometry Calculations
24. OLSEN, T. N. & KARR, G. K., Treatment
Optimization of Acid Fracturing in Carbonate For non-Newtonian fluid, the KGD maximum width
Formations, SPE 15165 presented at the SPE Rocky equation is as follows:

7
 π n'
1
w= wmax Equation 15 1 n' 1
⎛ q n ' x 2f ⎞ ( 2 n '+2)
4 ( 2 n ' +2 ) ( 2 n ' +2 ) ⎡ 1 + 2 n ' ⎤ ( 2 n ' +2 ) ( 2 n ' +2 ) ⎜ i ⎟
wmax = 11.1 × 3.24 ⎢ n' ⎥ k'
where wmax is in metres. The quantities n’ and k’ are the power- ⎣ ⎦ ⎜ 2 h n' E ' ⎟
⎝ f ⎠
law rheological properties of the fracturing fluid, qi is the
injection rate, hf is the fracture height, xf is the fracture half Equation 14
length and E’ is the elastic shear modulus. The average width
can then be calculated by multiplying the maximum width by a
constant shape factor. Equation 12 is used to calculate fracture Appendix B
length.
Fracture Conductivity Calculations
P3D-C Geometry Calculations XV
For the geometry shown in wi = Equation 23
2(1 − φ )h f x f
Figure 13, the stress intensity factor at the top of the fracture
(KItop) can be expressed as[25]: The above equation is a mass balance between the rock
a surface and the acid strength. X is the volumetric dissolving
1 a+ y power which relates the volume of acid required per unit
K Itop =
πa ∫ p( y )
−a
a− y
dy Equation 16 volume of rock. The V is the total volume of acid injected. The
volumetric flow rate is the same for the viscous pad. The
Here a is the facture half-height, y is the dimensionless average transverse velocity, uy can be calculated as follows.
vertical coordinate and p(y) is the net fracture pressure qi
distribution opening the fracture. The net fracture pressure uy = Equation 24
distribution is given by: 4 hx f
p( y ) = pw − σ 3 for –a ≤ y ≤ b3 Equation 17 The dimensionless Peclet number NPe was defined and
calculated as follows[16]:
p( y ) = pw − σ 1 for –b3 ≤ y ≤ b2 Equation 18
u y wi
and N Pe = Equation 25
p ( y ) = pw − σ 2 for b2 ≤ y ≤ a 2 Deff
Equation 19
with additional geometry constraint of The diffusion efficiency coefficient, Deff, can be found either
b3 = h – b2 Equation 20 through laboratory experiments or approximated the chart
The integration of Eq. 16 and a similar equation for the provided by Roberts and Guin [28]. The Peclet number enables
bottom layer yield two equations, which can be solved for the the etched fracture width along the whole fracture to be
fracture height. After the two equations are added and determined[16].
subtracted the final forms are given as follows[26]: The fracture overall average conductivity can be calculated
two ways[6]. When the Peclet number is greater than three the
π ⎛b ⎞ concentration of the acid is assumed stable along the majority of
( K Icb + K Ict ) = (σ 2 − σ 1 ) sin −1 ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ +
2 a ⎝ a ⎠ the fracture, therefore the arithmetic mean provides a good
⎛b ⎞ representation of the overall conductivity as follows:
(σ 3 − σ 1 ) sin −1 ⎜⎜ 3 ⎟⎟ − xf
⎝ a ⎠ ______ 1

(σ 2 + σ 3 − 2 p w )
π
kfw =
xf ∫k
0
f w dx Equation 26
2 However, there are certain cases where conductivity can be
Equation 21 created in disproportionate amounts. This can be because acid
and has been spent in the near wellbore region due to leak off or
π diffusion dominated acid transport. This phenomenon is
( K Icb − K Ict ) = (σ 2 − σ 1 ) a 2 − b22 − especially noticed when the Peclet number is less than three.
2
Also conductivity can be relatively higher away from the well
(σ 3 − σ 1 ) a 2 − b32 bore due to increased reaction rates as the acid warms up. In
Equation 22 these cases the harmonic mean is more appropriate and can be
Here, KIcb and KIct are critical stress intensity factors calculated using the equation below.
(fracture toughness) at the bottom and top layers, respectively.
______ xf
kf w = x
σ1, σ2, σ3 are stresses of the layers as show in f
1 Equation 27
Figure 13 and pw represent the treatment pressure at the
wellbore. A simultaneous solution of the above equations, ∫
kf w
0
dx

which will make the estimated pw equal to the actual treatment
pressure, will give height growth of the fracture in the
multilayered formation. An iterative algorithm (described by
Rahman, et al.[27]) is required to estimate the fracture height and
other parameters. The PKN maximum width equation (Equation
9) and Carter II equation (Equation 12) are incorporated to
calculate the fracture width and injection time iteratively[27].
Dimensionless conductivity, FCD, is a parameter that relates
the conductivity of the fracture compared to the conductivity
outside the fracture.
______
kf w
FCD = Equation 28
kx f
The effect of stimulation on the reservoir is represented by
the skin factor, sf. While a positive skin represents well bore
damage (for example from drilling mud) a negative skin
represents stimulation in the well. Cinco and Samaniego[19]
presented a model relating the skin and to the dimensionless

8
conductivity. The equation shown below was fitted to the plot TABLES
they presented in their research[17].
u = ln FCD Table 2: Reservoir Parameters
2 Parameter Value
1.65 − 0.328u + 0.116u Permeability, k 1 mD
F=
1 + 0.18u + 0.064u 2 + 0.005u 3 Porosity, φ 0.20
⎛ xf ⎞ Viscosity, μ 1.7 cP
s f = F − ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Equation 29 Total Compressibility, ct 1.29×10-5 psi-1
⎝ rw ⎠ Formation Compressibility, cf 2.8×10-6 psi-1
Water Compressibility, cw 3×10-6 psi-1
Oil Compressibility, co 1.4×10-5 psi-1
Cumulative Production Calculations Acre Spacing 120 acre
Drainage Radius, re 1290 ft
The transient flow period was estimated to end at a
Well bore radius, rw 0.29 ft
dimensionless time of approximately 0.1. This can be calculated
Bubble Point Pressure 1300 psi
by Equation 8. For a given duration of transient flow the oil
Well Head Pressure 1300 psi
flow rate can be calculated using Equation 5[6]. In the proposed
model the flow rate was calculated for fifty equal time
increments. The pseudo radius (Equation 6) accounts for the
Table 3: Fracture Model Parameters
incremental increase in flow rate that is attributed to the
fracture. Although the average reservoir pressure is not required Parameter Value
to calculate the transient flow rate, it required in pseudo steady Poissons Ratio, ν 0.25
state flow. Material balance is used for an under-saturated Rock Embedment Strength, Srock 6.0×104 psi
reservoir, iterating of the formation volume factor[29]. Closure Stress, σc 4000 psi
Initially the cumulative production was calculated using a Elastic Shear Modulus, G 1.6×106 psi
flow rate averaging method as follows Fracture Height, hf 100 ft
q i + q i −1 Diffusion Coefficient, Deff 6.46×10-6 ft2/min
N ip = N ip−1 + Acid Concentration 20%
(
2 t i − t i −1 ) Equation 30
Pad Fracturing Fluid (Non Newtonian)
The pressure drop can be calculated using: Flow Behaviour index, n’ 0.56
⎡ cw S w + c f ⎤ Consistency Index, k’ 8×10-3 ft/min0.5
E if , w = B oi ⎢ ⎥ Δp Equation 31
⎢⎣ 1 − S wi ⎥⎦
where Ef,w represents the expansion of the initial water and the Table 4: Pumping Schedule
reduction in pore volume calculated by:
Pump
Fi Pump
N = Equation 32 Stage Rate Per Volume HCl
B oi − B oi + E if , w
Rate
Wing
The total underground withdrawal, F (bbls), was then bbl/min bbl/min gal (%)
calculated using an initial guess for the formation volume factor Pre-pad 40 20 2000
and assuming that at the first time step Bo is equal to Bo,I, Pad-1 40 20 10000
F i = Boi N ip Equation 33 Acid-1 40 20 20000 28
Pad-2 45 22.5 8000
where N is the initial oil in place and Δp = pi − p . Acid-2 45 22.5 18000 28
Once the reservoir pressure was found the new value for Bo Pad-3 50 25 8000
was calculated based on the assumption that the formation Acid-3 50 25 16000 28
volume factor drops by 0.00003 per psi greater than the bubble Pad-4 55 27.5 8000
point. This calculation was an iterative procedure until the
Acid-4 55 27.5 16000 28
difference between the guess and the calculated value became
significantly small.
Pseudo-steady state is governed using Equation 7 for one
thousand pressure increments between the reservoir pressure at Table 5: Acid Fracture Scenarios Investigated
the end of the transient time and bottomhole pressure. Similarly Total Acid % Acid Fracture FCD
the material balance equations were used as presented in the Injected Volume Volume Length
previous step. In this case they are used to solve for the Volume
cumulative production in order to calculate time. bbl bbl ft
440 220 50% 556.2 0.0035
440 330 75% 556.2 0.0096
440 440 100% 556.2 0.0196
580 290 50% 649.1 0.0025
580 435 75% 649.1 0.0067
580 580 100% 649.1 0.0136
720 360 50% 732.0 0.0019
720 540 75% 732.0 0.0051
720 720 100% 732.0 0.0104

9
FIGURES 1400

1200
PKN-C 60 bpm P-3D 60 bpm

Fracture half length (ft)

1000

KGD-C 60 bpm
800

600

Figure 1: Integrated model for acid fracturing 400

P-3D 10 bpm
200
1400 PKN-C 10 bpm KGD-C 10 bpm

P-3D 0.2 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1200 Average fracture width (in)
Fracture half length (ft)

PKN-C KGD-C P-3D

PKN-C 0.2
1000
KGD-C 0.2 Figure 5: Injection Rate and Fracture Geometry

PKN-C 0.9 2500

800
P-3D 0.9
P3D 0.001 ft/min1/2
KGD-C 0.9 2000
PKN-C 0.001 ft/min1/2
Fracture half length (ft)
600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1500
KGD-C 0.001 ft/min1/2
Average fracture width (in)
PKN-C KGD-C P-3D
1000

Figure 2: Flow Behavior Index, n', and Fracture Geometry

PKN-C 0.009 ft/min1/2
500
P3D 0.009 ft/min1/2
KGD-C 0.009 ft/min1/2
1400 P-3D 0.001 lbf-
secn/ft2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
1200
Average fracture w idth (in)
Fracture half length (ft)

PKN-C 0.001 lbf-

secn/ft2 KGD-C 0.001 lbf-
secn/ft2 PKN-C KGD-C P-3D
1000

Figure 6: Leak off Coefficient and Fracture Geometry

800 PKN-C 0.2 lbf-
secn/ft2
0.025
P-3D 0.2 lbf-secn/ft2
600
KGD-C 0.2 lbf-
secn/ft2 0.020
Dimensionless Conductivity

400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.015
Average fracture width (in)

PKN-C KGD-C P-3D

0.010

Figure 3: Consistency Index, k', and Fracture Geometry

2500 0.005

PKN-C 50 ft 0.000
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fracture half length (ft)

KGD-C 50 ft Acid Contact Time (mins)

1500
440bbl Injected Volume, 556ft Fracture 580bbl Injected Volume, 649ft Fracture
720bbl Injected Volume, 732ft Fracture

1000
Figure 7: Acid Fracture Contact Time vs. Dimensionless
Conductivity
500
PKN-C 200 ft KGD-C 200 ft

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Average fracture width (in)
PKN-C KGD-C

Figure 4: Fracture Height and Fracture Model

10
Figure 8: Etched width Profile and Conductivity
Calculation along a Acidized Fracture Figure 11: Concentration Profile of 440bbl pumped volume
with 50% Acid volume injected at 10 bpm and 40 bpm

500,000.00
0.070

0.060
Dimensionless Conductivity

400,000.00

Cumulative Production (bbls)
0.050 14.7
24.0 19.3
11.0
18.0 14.5
0.040 7.3
12.0 9.7
300,000.00
0.030
Unstimulated

0.020
200,000.00
0.010

0.000
10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 100,000.00
1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60
Acid Concentration %
Productivity Ratio, Js/Jo
440bbl Injected Volume, 50% is Acid 580bbl Injected Volume, 50% is Acid
720bbl Injected Volume, 50% is Acid Acid Contact Time:
7.3 11.0 14.7 9.7 14.5 19.3 12.0 18.0 24.0 Unstimulated
Figure 9: Acid Concentration and Dimensionless
Conductivity Figure 12: Cumulative Production vs. Productivity Ratio

0.025

KIct σ
0.020
2
Dimensionless Conductivity

a
0.015

b2 hf Center of crack
0.010
σ h
1
b3 a
0.005

0.000
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

Injection Rate (bpm) σ xf

KIcb 3
440bbl Injected Volume, 50% is Acid 580bbl Injected Volume, 50% is Acid
720bbl Injected Volume, 50% is Acid

Figure 10: Acid injection Rate and Dimensionless

Conductivity Figure 13: The P-3D fracture model: fracture in a layered
stress medium[25,26,27]

11