Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reservoir Stimulation 3 The Dition
Reservoir Stimulation 3 The Dition
Stimulation
Third Edition
Contents
Help
Search
Quit
Michael J. Economides
Kenneth G. Nolte
◆
Reservoir Stimulation
Contents
Reservoir Stimulation v
2-3.3. Spherical flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2-3.4. Dual porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2-3.5. Wellbore storage and pseudosteady state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2-4. Test interpretation methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2-5. Analysis with measurement of layer rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2-6. Layered reservoir testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
2-6.1. Selective inflow performance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
2-6.2. Analysis of multilayer transient test data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2-7. Testing multilateral and multibranch wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2-8. Permeability determination from a fracture injection test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
2-8.1. Pressure decline analysis with the Carter leakoff model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
2-8.2. Filter-cake plus reservoir pressure drop leakoff model
(according to Mayerhofer et al., 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
vi Contents
3-6.3. Fracture calibration techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
3-6.4. Laboratory techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
viii Contents
6-8.3. Perforation friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37
6-8.4. Tortuosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37
6-8.5. Phasing misalignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-38
6-9. Acid fracturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40
6-9.1. Historical acid fracturing models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40
6-9.2. Reaction stoichiometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40
6-9.3. Acid fracture conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-41
6-9.4. Energy balance during acid fracturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42
6-9.5. Reaction kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42
6-9.6. Mass transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42
6-9.7. Acid reaction model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43
6-9.8. Acid fracturing: fracture geometry model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43
6-10. Multilayer fracturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-44
6-11. Pump schedule generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-46
Sidebar 6L. Approximate proppant schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-47
6-12. Pressure history matching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-48
Sidebar 6M. Theory and method of pressure inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-48
Reservoir Stimulation ix
Chapter 8 Performance of Fracturing Materials
Vernon G. Constien, George W. Hawkins, R. K. Prud’homme and Reinaldo Navarrete
8-1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8-2. Fracturing fluid characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8-3. Characterization basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8-4. Translation of field conditions to a laboratory environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8-5. Molecular characterization of gelling agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8-5.1. Correlations of molecular weight and viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8-5.2. Concentration and chain overlap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
8-5.3. Molecular weight distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
8-5.4. Characterization of insoluble components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
8-5.5. Reaction sites and kinetics of crosslinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
8-6. Rheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8-6.1. Basic flow relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
8-6.2. Power law model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
8-6.3. Models that more fully describe fluid behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8
8-6.4. Determination of fracturing fluid rheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10
8-6.5. Rheology of foam and emulsion fluids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
8-6.6. Effect of viscometer geometry on fluid viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15
8-6.7. Characterization of fluid microstructure using dynamic oscillatory measurements . . 8-16
8-6.8. Relaxation time and slip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17
8-6.9. Slurry rheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17
8-7. Proppant effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19
8-7.1. Characterization of proppant transport properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19
8-7.2. Particle migration and concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21
8-8. Fluid loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22
8-8.1. Fluid loss under static conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23
8-8.2. Fluid loss under dynamic conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24
8-8.3. Shear rate in the fracture and its influence on fluid loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25
8-8.4. Influence of permeability and core length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
8-8.5. Differential pressure effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
Chapter 9 Fracture Evaluation Using Pressure Diagnostics
Sunil N. Gulrajani and K. G. Nolte
9-1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9-2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
9-3. Fundamental principles of hydraulic fracturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
9-3.1. Fluid flow in the fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
9-3.2. Material balance or conservation of mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4
9-3.3. Rock elastic deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4
Sidebar 9A. What is closure pressure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6
Sidebar 9B. Pressure response of toughness-dominated fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9
9-4. Pressure during pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10
9-4.1. Time variation for limiting fluid efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12
9-4.2. Inference of fracture geometry from pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12
9-4.3. Diagnosis of periods of controlled fracture height growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14
9-4.4. Examples of injection pressure analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-15
Sidebar 9C. Pressure derivative analysis for diagnosing pumping pressure . . . . . . . . 9-16
9-4.5. Diagnostics for nonideal fracture propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-18
x Contents
Sidebar 9D. Fluid leakoff in natural fissures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-23
9-4.6. Formation pressure capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-24
9-4.7. Pressure response after a screenout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-27
9-4.8. Fracture diagnostics from log-log plot slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-28
9-4.9. Near-wellbore effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-30
Sidebar 9E. Rate step-down test analysis—a diagnostic for fracture entry. . . . . . . . . 9-32
9-5. Analysis during fracture closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-34
9-5.1. Fluid efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-34
9-5.2. Basic pressure decline analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-37
9-5.3. Decline analysis during nonideal conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-38
9-5.4. Generalized pressure decline analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-42
Sidebar 9F. G-function derivative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-43
9-6. Pressure interpretation after fracture closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-45
9-6.1. Why linear and radial flow after fracture closure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-46
9-6.2. Linear, transitional and radial flow pressure responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-48
Sidebar 9G. Impulse testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-49
9-6.3. Mini-falloff test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-50
9-6.4. Integration of after-closure and preclosure analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-50
9-6.5. Physical and mathematical descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-51
9-6.6. Influence of spurt loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-53
9-6.7. Consistent after-closure diagnostic framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-54
9-6.8. Application of after-closure analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-56
9-6.9. Field example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-57
9-7. Numerical simulation of pressure: combined analysis of pumping and closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-59
9-7.1. Pressure matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-60
9-7.2. Nonuniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-60
9-8. Comprehensive calibration test sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-61
Reservoir Stimulation xi
10-3.2. Sources of formation parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-16
Sidebar 10D. In-situ stress correlation with lithology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-16
10-4. Treatment schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-17
Sidebar 10E. Fracturing economics sensitivity to formation permeability and skin effect . . . 10-17
10-4.1. Normal proppant scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-18
10-4.2. Tip screenout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-21
10-5. Multilayer fracturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-24
10-5.1. Limited entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-24
10-5.2. Interval grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-25
10-5.3. Single fracture across multilayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-25
10-5.4. Two fractures in a multilayer reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-26
10-5.5. Field example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-28
Sidebar 10F. Fracture evaluation in multilayer zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-28
10-6. Acid fracturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-30
10-6.1. Acid-etched fracture conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-31
Sidebar 10G. Acid-etched conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-32
10-6.2. Acid fluid loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-33
Sidebar 10H. Fluid-loss control in wormholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-34
10-6.3. Acid reaction rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-35
10-6.4. Acid fracturing models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-36
10-6.5. Parameter sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-36
10-6.6. Formation reactivity properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-41
10-6.7. Propped or acid fracture decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-41
10-7. Deviated wellbore fracturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-42
10-7.1. Reservoir considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-43
10-7.2. Fracture spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-45
10-7.3. Convergent flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-45
10-7.4. Fracturing execution in deviated and horizontal wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-47
10-7.5. Horizontal well example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-49
xii Contents
11-3.7. Well and fracture connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-18
11-4. Surface equipment for fracturing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19
11-4.1. Wellhead isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19
11-4.2. Treating iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19
11-4.3. High-pressure pumps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-22
11-4.4. Blending equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-23
11-4.5. Proppant storage and delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-23
11-4.6. Vital signs from sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-24
11-4.7. Equipment placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-26
11-5. Bottomhole pressure measurement and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-26
11-6. Proppant flowback control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-29
11-6.1. Forced closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-30
11-6.2. Resin flush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-30
11-6.3. Resin-coated proppants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-30
11-6.4. Fiber technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-30
11-7. Flowback strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-30
Sidebar 11F. Fiber technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31
11-8. Quality assurance and quality control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32
11-9. Health, safety and environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32
11-9.1. Safety considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32
11-9.2. Environmental considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-33
Appendix: Understanding perforator penetration and flow performance
Phillip M. Halleck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A11-1
xiv Contents
14-3.6. Emulsions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-9
14-3.7. Induced particle plugging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-9
14-3.8. Wettability alteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-10
14-3.9. Acid reactions and acid reaction by-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-11
14-3.10. Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-11
14-3.11. Water blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-12
14-3.12. Oil-base drilling fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-13
14-4. Origins of formation damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-13
14-4.1. Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-13
14-4.2. Cementing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-21
14-4.3. Perforating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-21
14-4.4. Gravel packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-22
14-4.5. Workovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-22
14-4.6. Stimulation and remedial treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-23
14-4.7. Normal production or injection operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-24
14-5. Laboratory identification and treatment selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-26
14-5.1. Damage identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-26
14-5.2. Treatment selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-28
14-6. Treatment strategies and concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-31
14-6.1. Fines and clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-33
14-6.2. Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-34
14-6.3. Organic deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-35
14-6.4. Mixed deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-35
14-6.5. Emulsions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-36
14-6.6. Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-36
14-6.7. Induced particle plugging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-36
14-6.8. Oil-base drilling fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-37
14-6.9. Water blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-37
14-6.10. Wettability alteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-38
14-6.11. Wellbore damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-38
14-7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-39
Chapter 15 Additives in Acidizing Fluids
Syed A. Ali and Jerald J. Hinkel
15-1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
15-2. Corrosion inhibitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-2
15-2.1. Corrosion of metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-2
15-2.2. Acid corrosion on steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-2
15-2.3. Pitting types of acid corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-3
15-2.4. Hydrogen embrittlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-3
15-2.5. Corrosion by different acid types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-3
15-2.6. Inhibitor types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-4
15-2.7. Compatibility with other additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-4
15-2.8. Laboratory evaluation of inhibitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-5
15-2.9. Suggestions for inhibitor selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-5
15-3. Surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-5
15-3.1. Anionic surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-6
15-3.2. Cationic surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-6
15-3.3. Nonionic surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-6
15-3.4. Amphoteric surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-7
Reservoir Stimulation xv
15-3.5. Fluorocarbon surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-7
15-3.6. Properties affected by surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-7
15-3.7. Applications and types of surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-9
15-4. Clay stabilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-11
15-4.1. Highly charged cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-11
15-4.2. Quaternary surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-12
15-4.3. Polyamines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-12
15-4.4. Polyquaternary amines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-12
15-4.5. Organosilane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-13
15-5. Mutual solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-13
15-5.1. Adsorption of mutual solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-14
15-5.2. Chlorination of mutual solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-14
15-6. Iron control additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-14
15-6.1. Sources of iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-14
15-6.2. Methods of iron control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-15
15-7. Alcohols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-16
15-8. Acetic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-18
15-9. Organic dispersants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-18
15-10. Organic solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-18
15-11. Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-18
15-12. Additive compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-19
15-13. Facility upsets following acid stimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-19
15-13.1. Discharge requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-19
15-13.2. Prevention of facility upsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-20
xvi Contents
Appendix: Advances in understanding and predicting wormhole formation
Christopher N. Fredd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A16-1
xviii Contents
19-3.5. Laboratory characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-6
19-3.6. Modeling diverter effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-7
19-3.7. Field design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-9
19-4. Foam diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-10
19-4.1. Historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-10
19-4.2. Foam mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-10
19-4.3. Foam behavior in porous media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-12
19-4.4. Foam diversion experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-14
19-4.5. Modeling and predicting foam diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-15
19-4.6. Application to field design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-16
19-5. Ball sealers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-18
19-6. Mechanical tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-19
19-7. Horizontal wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20
19-7.1. Optimal treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20
19-7.2. Placement techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-22
19-8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-23
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-24
References
Chapters 1–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1
Chapters 13–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-45
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-1
I was quite pleased when my friend Joseph Ayoub by managing the various chapters from the vast array
at Schlumberger Dowell approached me to write of contributors.
the preface for the third edition of Reservoir A leading contributor, however, to this publica-
Stimulation. It is indeed a pleasure and a compliment tion’s success is Michael Economides, who, over the
to be associated with the distinguished list of indi- last two decades, has contributed substantially to the
viduals contributing to this volume. As an active integration of reservoir performance into well stimu-
member of this close-knit community for the past lation technology and design. He has proficiently
25 years, I have enjoyed working with most of the filled this gap in practice with his thorough work
47 contributing authors. These outstanding scientists related to performance prediction and evaluation.
and engineers have carried the technology of Michael provides the continuous thread that gives
hydraulic fracturing forward to its current high state. the volume its integrated form.
This third edition is an updated classic reference The other leading contributor is Ken Nolte, who
for well stimulation—or in today’s lingo, well per- presents a compelling story that puts forward the
formance enhancement technology—that includes history of hydraulic fracturing technology in the
not only hydraulic fracturing but also an expanded Appendix to Chapter 5. He describes its evolution
treatment of well acidizing and chemical treatment from the late 1940s from his vista, easily scoring a
as well as formation damage migration. Reservoir true bull’s-eye. His towering work since the mid-
Stimulation covers the topics necessary for under- 1970s affords him a unique view of the technological
standing the basis and practical aspects of treatment progress that he helped shape.
design and execution. It addresses the scientific fun- What further insight can I add to the views of
damentals, engineering considerations and opera- these two? I guess you can call it the maverick’s
tional procedures of a job. Pre- and post-treatment view. I will be informal and hope my anecdotal style
analyses, job monitoring and economic elements of will not offend any serious student of the subject.
the various injectivity and productivity enhancement What follows is my view of this fascinating technol-
processes are well presented. ogy, which has renewed itself many times since its
Before I get into a technical discussion of the vol- inception and has contributed substantial financial
ume’s contents, let me share with the reader a bit of benefits to the oil and gas industry.
history and my personal point of view of the future. During the late 1970s, considered the banner years
I am not trying to preempt the excellent contents of fracturing technology advances, there was a say-
compiled by the volume’s editors, Michael Econo- ing often used in jest by most of us working on frac-
mides and Ken Nolte. The two editors have suc- turing:
ceeded in bringing to the reader an integrated
“When everything else fails, frac it.”
account of the objectives, mechanics and implemen-
tation of the well and reservoir aspects of productiv- How true this has been; a lot of “fraccing” was
ity enhancement. Other significant contributions that done for well stimulation in those days and since. We
helped bring Reservoir Stimulation to the reader now speak more appropriately about improved well
came from Joseph Ayoub and Eric Nelson, who pro- performance, downhole flow integrity and enhanced
vided continual technical advice and reviewed the productivity or injectivity. How did we get here?
contents for technical accuracy, and Bob Thrasher, During the late 1940s, fracturing was a timid tech-
who with utter competence and, I must say, sheer nique. In the 1950s, its proliferation took place. In the
patience and persistence pulled this treatise together 1960s, we aimed at understanding what we were
P-2 Preface
technology, from mechanical stimulation (fracturing) the well tubulars, only to become viscous after turning
through chemical treatments (acidizing). the corner of well perforations into the formation.
The reader must view this volume as a confirma- What comes next in this ever-changing world of
tion and accurate account of the larger context of the well stimulation and performance enhancement?
exciting progress that has been made in the field of Current emphasis by the service industry in fluid
hydraulic fracturing and well stimulation. Recent development is on providing cleaner fluids to the user
emphasis has focused on fluid and proppant develop- community. Such fluids maintain the designed frac-
ment, field equipment for mixing and pumping mate- ture conductivity, improve the treatment economics
rials, highly sophisticated (but simple to use) inter- and extend fracturing applications to higher perme-
pretation techniques or monitoring treatment ability reservoirs.
parameters, and computers that monitor, provide Intermediate-density ceramic proppants are stronger
feedback and control the fracture. The available hard- and lighter, so they can be carried farther into the frac-
ware enables real-time redesign during pumping. ture at greater depths. Extensive efforts are directed at
Efforts also have been made, prior to job design obtaining a more thorough understanding of proppant
and execution, to thoroughly characterize reservoir transport mechanisms. Monitoring techniques and
qualities and properties for the optimization of stimu- proppant placement and distribution are conducted
lation treatment design and better economic results. using multiple-isotope radioactive tagging.
Logging tools are used for lithology, permeability, More sophisticated logging tools and interpretation
stress and natural fracture detection. Detection of the algorithms are adding the ability to track the location
created fracture azimuth and length received attention of several pumped stages. This development has
with the development of techniques such as passive improved the understanding of how to design more
borehole seismic methods, crosswell tomography, tilt- effective fracture treatments and has prompted an
meters and hydraulic impedance tests. emphasis on fracture containment.
The myriad techniques available for in-situ stress Pumping and surface handling equipment have
magnitude and azimuth determination include core progressed substantially ahead of the other technolo-
relaxation, differential strain curve analysis, micro- gies, and more advances are under way. The avail-
fracturing and wellbore breakouts. Results of well ability of new-generation blenders, offshore gelling
tests and mini-fracture treatments are used readily and crosslinking of fluids on the fly, and high-pres-
in fracture treatment designs. sure–high-flow-rate pumps and intensifiers provides
The development of accurate downhole pressure the industry with the capacity to execute and control
gauges with digital memory provides a detailed the most complicated fracture. Emphasis must also be
account of fluid pressure at the fracture inlet and directed toward zone isolation techniques and the
assists on-site redesign and post-treatment analysis. hardware to conduct large stimulation jobs in long,
Recent efforts are directed at the development of complex wells.
downhole gauges that transmit pressure, flow rate and As the hardware side of the technology (materials
fluid rheology data in real time. Such gauges are now and equipment) developed at a rapid pace over the
in service in well monitoring and testing applications. last two decades, the software side (modeling, moni-
Simpler techniques, such as using the annulus or a toring and interpretation) also moved forward. The
tubing-based manometer, have been highly success- U.S. government, Gas Research Institute (GRI) and
ful. These applications are limited operationally to academic communities with consulting company sup-
wells with large-diameter casing and tubing and by port are delivering design codes with varying degrees
rig cost. Coiled tubing operations may reduce this of sophistication to the industry. Some of the codes
limitation and expand the application of real-time are field based and used extensively for the optimiza-
downhole pressure monitoring. tion and redesign of fracture treatments. Computer
Fluids now are available with excellent shear sensi- hardware advances and experience-based intelligence
tivity and high-proppant carrying capacities for use at software must provide a window of opportunity for
high temperatures and flow rates. Additives such as broader and more effective use of modeling develop-
borates make it possible to design fluids that have low ments.
frictional or viscosity properties while traveling down
P-4 Preface
Economides present the well testing methodology control materials, crosslinking agents, breakers, sur-
and pressure transient analysis used to characterize factants, clay stabilizers and bactericides, and
formations and describe the status of well damage. describe their appropriate uses.
The well-recognized rock mechanics engineers The performance of fracturing materials, a subject
Mark Thiercelin and Jean-Claude Roegiers (known that has seen tremendous advances in the last 20
as “JC”) authored Chapter 3. They present a well- years, is presented in Chapter 8 by Vern Constien,
thought-out treatment of rock mechanics—the char- George Hawkins, Bob Prud’homme and Reinaldo
acterization of the box containing recoverable Navarrete. The chapter outlines techniques for mea-
hydrocarbons. Their work details the theoretical com- suring and designing the necessary rheology for frac-
ponents describing rock behavior and reactions under turing fluids and treatment chemicals. The authors
the loads and stresses generated by E&P operations. also discuss the important topic of propped fracture
The presentation is thorough and on a high funda- conductivity and proppant flowback and the impact
mental level, while providing insight into the practi- of fluid rheology on both. Damage resulting from
cal application of this specialty in a useful and polymer loading is also covered in this chapter.
tractable fashion. Sunil Gulrajani and Ken Nolte discuss the latter’s
Jean Desroches and Tom Bratton describe in favorite topic of fracture evaluation using pressure
Chapter 4 how to use well logs and other geophysical diagnostics in Chapter 9. These techniques, when first
information to obtain pertinent properties of the rock introduced in 1978, provided quantitative tools for
formation for effective treatment design. In addition assessing the nature, extent and containment of the
to the conventional, routine properties such as poros- hydraulic fracture. They subsequently established the
ity, permeability and saturation, they cover the esti- basis for efforts toward real-time diagnostics and con-
mation of pore pressure, formation tests, skin effect trol of the well treatment progress. The authors exam-
and damage extent, in-situ stress and other mechani- ine the mathematical foundation of the diagnostic
cal properties. An interesting treatment of predicting technique, including an accompanying Appendix,
in-situ rock stress and strength from logs is presented. provide field verification examples and present means
In Chapter 5, Mike Smith (the pipe-smoking half of of integrating this approach with other evaluation
the well-known Nolte-Smith duo) and my dear late tools, well measurements and field observations.
friend Jacob Shlyapobersky collaborated to lay down Jack Elbel and Larry Britt collaborated in Chapter
for the reader the basics of hydraulic fracturing. This 10 to present the art and science of fracture treatment
is a pragmatic chapter that serves well as a primer for design. The inclusion of economic analysis as the first
new engineers searching for a quick appreciation of step in the design optimization process, along with the
the factors with an impact on fracture design. Its value authors’ vast experience with treatment design and
is further enhanced by the historical perspective writ- field implementation, offers a unique glimpse of this
ten as the aforementioned Appendix by Ken Nolte. essential process. Staff from the operating divisions
Mark Mack joins Norm Warpinski of Sandia (or asset teams, in today’s lingo) will find this material
National Laboratories in Chapter 6 to provide a com- readily applicable for both hydraulic fracturing and
prehensive treatment of the mechanics of hydraulic acidizing treatments. The subject matter is well orga-
fracturing and discuss the science behind the technol- nized with simple recommendations that can be fol-
ogy. The chapter reflects their massive contributions lowed without great effort.
to the understanding, through extensive field observa- Ernie Brown, Bob Thrasher and Larry Behrmann
tion efforts, of the phenomena and processes involved use Chapter 11 to introduce the reader to the opera-
in hydraulic fracturing. The theoretical and practical tional procedures and completion considerations nec-
knowledge collected throughout their illustrative essary for successful field execution of well stimula-
careers is well represented. tion treatments. Their discussion includes vertical,
Chapter 7 exposes the reader to the materials deviated and S-shaped wells, in addition to wells
pumped in the well during stimulation treatments. with more complex geometries. Factors that have an
Janet Gulbis and Richard Hodge have written a rigor- impact on quality assurance, technologies for treat-
ous, but easily read, discussion of the chemical and ment monitoring and operational integrity during job
rheological aspects of stimulation fluids and prop- execution are all addressed in detail. Field instrumen-
pants. They cover fluid additives, including fluid-loss tation, real-time analysis and recommended remedi-
P-6 Preface
I had in reading through the vast amount of knowl-
edge imbedded in the 20 chapters more than makes
up for the strange hour at which I am working on
these final thoughts. I hope the reader will find this
volume as stimulating (no pun intended), educational
and useful as I believe it to be and will recognize and
utilize the contributions and know-how of its authors
to achieve his or her goals.
Good reading.
1000
1-1.2. Units
The traditional petroleum engineering oilfield units 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
are not consistent, and thus, most equations that are
Flow rate, q
cast in these units require conversion constants. For
example, 1/(2π) in Eq. 1-3 is appropriate if SI units Figure 1-1. The inflow performance relationship relates
are used, but must be replaced by the familiar value the production rate to the bottomhole flowing pressure.
of 141.2 if q is in STB/D (which must be multiplied
also by the formation volume factor B in RB/STB);
µ is in cp; h, r and rw are in ft; and p and pwf are in 1-2. Inflow performance
psi. Table 1-1 contains unit conversion factors for the
The well production or injection rate is related to the
typical production engineering variables.
bottomhole flowing pressure by the inflow perfor-
For unit conversions there are two possibilities.
mance relationship (IPR). A standard in petroleum
Either all variables are converted and then two ver-
production, IPR is plotted always as shown in Fig. 1-1.
sions of the equation exist (one in oilfield and a sec-
Depending on the boundary effects of the well
ond in SI units), or one equation is provided and the
drainage, IPR values for steady-state, pseudosteady-
result is converted. In this volume the second option
state and transient conditions can be developed read-
is adopted. Generally, the equations are in the tradi-
ily. In the following sections, the relationships for
tional oilfield units predominant in the literature.
the three main flow mechanisms are presented first
for vertical and then for horizontal wells. The
q=
(
kh pe – pwf ) The subscript o is added here to emphasize the
[ ]
. (1-9) point that oil properties are used. The subscript is
141.2 Bµ ln(re / rw ) + s frequently omitted, although it is implied. Although
A plot of pwf versus q forms a straight line, the ver- neither Eq. 1-11 (for gas) nor Eq. 1-14 (for two-
tical intercept is pe, and the flow rate at the horizontal phase flow) provides a straight-line IPR, all steady-
intercept (i.e., at pwf = 0) is known as the absolute state IPRs provide a stationary picture of well deliv-
open-flow potential. The slope is, of course, constant erability. An interesting group of IPR curves for oil
throughout the production history of the well, assum- is derived from a parametric study for different skin
ing single-phase flow, and its value is exactly equal effects, as shown in Fig. 1-2.
to the reciprocal of the productivity index.
For gas, the analogous expression is approximately 6000
q=
(
kh pe2 – pwf2 )
[ ]
, (1-10) 5000
1424µ ZT ln(re / rw ) + s
Bottomhole flowing pressure, pwf
—
where Z is the average gas deviation factor (from 4000
–
ideality), T is the absolute temperature in °R, and µ
is the average viscosity.
3000
Equation 1-10 has a more appropriate form using
the Al-Hussainy and Ramey (1966) real-gas pseudo-
pressure function, which eliminates the need to aver- 2000
age µ and Z:
q=
[ ( )] .
kh m( pe ) – m pwf
1000
s = –5
1424T [ln(r / r ) + s]
(1-11)
e w
0 s = 20 s = 10 s=0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
For two-phase flow, production engineers have
Flow rate, q
used several approximations, one of which is the
Vogel (1968) correlation, which generally can be Figure 1-2. Variation of the steady-state IPR of an oil well
written as for different skin effects.
2
qo p p
= 1 − 0.2 wf − 0.8 wf (1-12)
qo,max p p • Example of steady-state IPR: skin effect variation
Suppose that k = 5 md, h = 75 ft, pe = 5000 psi,
AOFP
qo,max = , (1-13) B = 1.1 RB/STB, µ = 0.7 cp, re = 1500 ft and
1.8 rw = 0.328 ft. Develop a family of IPR curves
where qo is the oil production rate, qo,max is the maxi- for an undersaturated oil reservoir for skin
mum possible oil rate with two-phase flow, and AOFP effects from –5 to 20.
is the absolute open-flow potential of single-phase oil
flow.
q=
(
kh p − pwf ) Figure 1-3. Variation of the pseudosteady-state IPR for
[ ]
,
141.2 Bµ ln(0.472 re rw ) + s (1-15) an oil well for declining reservoir pressure.
appears to have little difference from the expression • Example of pseudosteady-state IPR: effect of
for steady state (Eq. 1-9). However, the difference is average reservoir pressure
significant. Equation 1-15 is given in terms of the This example repeats the preceding “Example
–
average reservoir pressure p, which is not constant of steady-state IPR: skin effect variation” (page
but, instead, integrally connected with reservoir –
1-4) for s = 0 but allows p to vary from 5000 to
depletion. 3000 in increments of 500 psi.
Material-balance calculations such as the ones Solution
introduced by Havlena and Odeh (1963) are required
to relate the average reservoir pressure with time and Using Eq. 1-15 and substituting for the given
the underground withdrawal of fluids. variables (including s = 0):
–
Interestingly, the productivity index for a given q = 0.45( p – pwf).
skin effect is constant although the production rate
–
declines because p declines. To stem the decline, the In the Fig. 1-3 family of IPR curves for differ-
–
production engineer can adjust the pwf, and thus, arti- ent values of p, the curves are parallel, reflecting
the constant productivity index. (This type of
ficial lift becomes an important present and future
construction assumes that oil remains undersatu-
consideration in well management. Successive IPR
rated throughout; i.e., above the bubblepoint
curves for a well producing at pseudosteady state at
pressure.)
different times in the life of the well and the result-
–
ing different values of p are shown in Fig. 1-3.
The analogous pseudosteady-state expressions for
1-2.3. IPR for transient (or infinite-
gas and two-phase production are
acting) flow
q=
[
kh m( p ) − m pwf( )] The convection-diffusion partial differential equa-
[
1424T ln(0.472 re rw ) + s ] (1-16) tion, describing radial flow in a porous medium, is
p p
2
∂ 2 p 1 ∂p φµct ∂p
khp 1 − 0.2 wf − 0.8 wf + = , (1-18)
p p ∂r 2 r ∂r k ∂t
q=
[ ]
.
254.2 Bµ ln(0.472 re rw ) + s
(1-17)
q=
(
kh pi − pwf ) k
−1
q=
[ ( )] log t + log
kh m( pi ) − m pwf
k
− 3.23
−1
2000
1638T φµct rw
2
1000
(1-23)
pi pi
2
khpi 1 − −
0
pwf pwf 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
q= . (1-24) Flow rate, q
k
254.2 Bµ log t + log − 3.23 Figure 1-4. Transient IPR curves for an oil well.
φµct rw2
ani Iani h
141.2 Bµ ln + drainage, was presented by Economides et al.
[ ]
ln
L2 L rw ( Iani + 1) (1996). The basic model in Fig. 1-5 has reservoir
dimensions xe, ye and h, horizontal well length L and
(1-25) an angle ϕ between the well projection on the hori-
zontal plane and xe.
where L is the horizontal well length and kH is the
horizontal permeability. The latter is the same as that
used in all vertical well deliverability relationships.
The subscript distinguishes it from the vertical per- z
meability kV, which is related to the index of the hor- θ
izontal-to-vertical permeability anisotropy Iani: h
L
kH
Iani = . (1-26) ϕ y
kV
x
The large half-axis a of the horizontal drainage xe
ellipse formed around a horizontal well within an ye
equivalent radius reH is
1/ 2
L reH
4 1/ 2
Figure 1-5. Generalized well model for production from an
a = 0.5 + 0.25 + , (1-27) arbitrarily oriented well in an arbitrarily shaped reservoir
2
L 2 (Economides et al., 1996).
where reH is the equivalent radius in a presumed cir-
cular shape of a given drainage area. Equation 1-27 The solution is general. First, the pseudosteady-
transforms it into an elliptical shape. state productivity index J is used:
Equation 1-25 can be used readily to develop a
q kxe
horizontal well IPR and a horizontal well produc- J= = , (1-28)
tivity index. p − pwf xe
887.22 Bµ pD +
A comparison between horizontal (Eq. 1-25) and 2 πL ∑ s
vertical (Eq. 1-9) productivity indexes in the same
formation is an essential step to evaluate the attrac- where the reservoir permeability k is assumed to be
tiveness or lack thereof of a horizontal well of a isotropic throughout (it is adjusted later) and xe is the
given length over a vertical well. Such comparison well drainage dimension. The constant allows the
generally suggests that in thick reservoirs (e.g., h > use of oilfield units; the productivity index is in
100 ft) the index of anisotropy becomes important. STB/D/psi. The summation of the skin effects Σs
The smaller its value (i.e., the larger the vertical per- accounts for all damage and mechanical skin effects.
meability), the more attractive a horizontal well is Finally, the dimensionless pressure is
relative to a vertical well. For thinner formations
(e.g., h < 50 ft), the requirements for good vertical xe CH x
permeability relax. pD = + e sx . (1-29)
4 πh 2 π L
A skin effect can also be added to the horizontal
well deliverability of Eq. 1-25, inside the large
sx
from vertical eccentricity in the case that the well is
not positioned at the vertical middle of the reservoir.
2
The vertical effects skin effect sx is (after Kuchuk
et al., 1988)
1
h h 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
sx = ln – + se , (1-30) h (ft)
2 πrw 6 L
Figure 1-6. Vertical effects skin effect for a horizontal well
where se is the vertical eccentricity skin: (Economides et al., 1996).
h 2 zw 1 2 zw 1 πz
2
se = − − − ln sin w , 1.2
L h 2 h 2 h
1.0 zw /h = 0.1
(1-31) 0.8 h
zw
where zw is the elevation from the bottom of the
0.6
se
50 50
sx = ln − = 3.2 . Figure 1-7. Vertical eccentricity skin effect (Economides
(2)(3.14)(0.328) (6)(2000) et al., 1996).
L /xe CH CH
xe = 4ye 0.25 3.77 xe = ye Ly = 2Lx 1.10
0.5 2.09 Lx /xe = 0.4 Ly = Lx 1.88
0.75 1.00 Ly = 0.5Lx 2.52
1 0.26
xe = ye 0.25 2.77
0.5 1.47
0.75 0.81
1 0.46
xe = ye 0.25 2.66
0.5 1.36
0.75 0.69
1 0.32
xe = ye 0 1.49
L /xe = 0.75 30 1.48
ϕ 45 1.48
75 1.49
90 1.49
erable reduction in the productivity index, as The productivity index of a vertical well in the
shown in the next section. same formation, under pseudosteady-state condi-
Solution tions and assuming that the well is in the center
of the square reservoir, is
From the “Example calculation of sx for two
kh
thicknesses” (page 1-8), sx = 4.6, and from Table JV = .
1-2 for xe = ye and L/xe = 2000/2700 ≈ 0.75, 141.2 Bµ ln(0.472 re / rw )
CH = 1.49.
The drainage area is 2700 × 2700 ft, resulting
Using Eq. 1-29:
in re = 1520 ft. Thus,
(2700)(1.49) (2700)(4.6)
pD = + = 2.59 , (10)(200)
(4)(3.14)(200) (2)(3.14)(2000) JV =
(141.2)(1)(1) ln[(0.472)(1520) / (0.328)]
and using Eq. 1-28: = 1.84 STB / D / psi .
(4.63)(1304)
J= = 4.12 STB / D / psi ,
(887.22)(1)(1)(1.65)
k
ks pe
zw
zw
Figure 1-9. Geometry for partial and off-centered completions and slant skin effects (Cinco-Ley et al., 1975a).
well production (or injection) considerably. where rperf is the perforation radius; and
rw
rwD = . (1-57)
1-3.4. Perforation skin effect l p + rw
Karakas and Tariq (1988) developed a procedure to
The vertical pseudoskin effect is then
calculate the skin effect caused by perforations. This
skin effect is a composite involving the plane-flow sV = 10 a hDb−1rpD
b
, (1-58)
effect sH, vertical converging effect sV and wellbore
effect swb: where a and b are
where lp is the length of the perforation and αθ is a The constants c1 and c2 can be obtained from
phase-dependent variable and can be obtained from Table 1-6.
Table 1-4. As an example, assume rw = 0.406 ft, lp = 0.667 ft,
The vertical pseudoskin factor sV can be calculated h = 0.333 ft (3 shots per foot [spf]), kH/kv = 3, rperf =
after certain dimensionless variables are determined: 0.0208 ft [0.25 in.] and θ = 90°.
From Eq. 1-54 and Table 1-4, rw´(θ) = 0.779 ft,
h kH and thus from Eq. 1-53, sH = –0.65. From Eqs. 1-55,
hD = , (1-55)
lp kV 1-56 and 1-57, the dimensionless variables hD, rpD
and rwD are equal to 0.86, 0.05 and 0.38, respect-
where h is the distance between perforations and is ively. From Eq. 1-59 and Table 1-5, a = 2.58, and
exactly inversely proportional to the shot density; from Eq. 1-60 and Table 1-5, b = 1.73. Then, from
Table 1-4. Dependence of αθ on phasing. Table 1-5. Vertical skin correlation coefficients.
Eq. 1-58, sV = 1.9, and from Eq. 1-61 and Table 1-6,
swb = 0.02. k r
(s ) = − 1 ln s + s p = ( sd )o + s p ,
k
The total perforation skin effect obtained with
ks rw
d p
Eq. 1-52 is equal to 1.3 for this example. ks
′ =
rwD = . (1-67)
xf xf
1-3.5. Hydraulic fracturing in production
engineering Thus, if xf and kf w are known (as shown later in
this volume, this is the essence of hydraulic fractur-
If removal of the skin effect by matrix stimulation ing), then Fig. 1-10 enables calculation of the equiv-
and good completion practices does not lead to an alent skin effect sf that the well will appear to have
economically attractive well, the potential benefit while it flows under pseudoradial conditions. Cinco-
0.1 2.5
0.01 2.0
sf + ln(xf /rw)
0.001 1.5
0.01 0.1 k 1f w 10 100 1000
C fD =
Relative capacity parameter, a
kf x
Figure 1-10. Dimensionless effective wellbore radius of a 1.0
hydraulically fractured well (Prats, 1961).
Separator
pdsc psep
Surface choke Liquid
Stock
∆p5 = ptf – pdsc tank
pdsv
∆p4 = pusv – pdsv
∆p 7 = p wf – ptf pusv ∆p1 = p – pwfs = Loss in porous medium
∆p 2 = pwfs – pwf = Loss across completion
Bottomhole ∆p 3 = pur – pdr = Loss across restriction
restriction
pdr ∆p4 = pusv – pdsv = Loss across safety valve
∆p 5 = ptf – pdsc = Loss across surface choke
∆p3 = pur – pdr ∆p 6 = pdsc – psep = Loss in flowline
∆p 7 = pwf – ptf = Total loss in tubing
∆p 8 = ptf – psep = Total loss in flowline
pur
pwf p wfs p pe
Figure 1-12. Well hydraulic system. pdr = downstream restriction pressure, pdsc = pressure downstream of the surface
choke, pdsv = pressure downstream of the safety valve, psep = separator pressure, ptf = tubing flowing pressure,
pur = upstream restriction pressure, pusv = pressure upstream of the safety valve, pwfs = wellbore sandface pressure.
5000
5000
4000
1000 q
2000
0 IPR
0 200 400 600 800 1000
1000
Producing rate (STB/D)
Figure 1-14. IPR and VLP curves combined for the predic-
NODAL analysis is one of the most powerful tools tion of well deliverability.
in production engineering. It can be used as an aid in
both the design and optimization of well hydraulics
and IPR modification. Figure 1-15 shows one of the 4000
most common uses of NODAL analysis. The well
Bottomhole flowing pressure, pwf
IPR
IPR is plotted with three VLP curves (e.g., each cor- 3000 VLP
d tbg,1
responding to a different wellhead pressure—and
perhaps a different artificial lift mechanism—in the q1 d tbg,2
case of an oil well or a different tubing diameter in 2000
q2 d tbg,3
a gas well). The three different production rates over
time can be balanced against the incremental eco- 1000 q3
3000 3000
VLP VLP
2000 2000
q3
q2 q3
q1 q2
q1
1000 1000
1-5.1. Stimulation economics or the net value (profit) for the operator; rather, it
is a measure of liquidity or how fast the investment
Because the whole purpose of stimulation is to
will be recovered.
increase the value of the producing property through
The indicator can be adjusted to show the time
an accelerated production rate or increased recovery,
value of money (discounted payout), the hurdle rate
economics should be the driver in deciding whether
necessary for the company to invest or both factors.
to conduct the stimulation, what type of stimulation
The hurdle rate is the annualized percentage of
to do and which various aspects of the treatment to
return that must be achieved to make the project as
include.
good an investment as the average company invest-
Several economic indicators can be used to show
ment. The discounted payout is
the value of stimulation. Because of the wide variety
of operating conditions, companies may not have a n
∆$ n
single indicator for the “answer” in all stimulation ∑ (1 + i)
n =1
n − cost = 0 . (1-71)
investments. Although the common ground in eco-
nomics is profit, in many petroleum activities liquid- The interest (hurdle) rate i is the indicator that sug-
ity, risk and corporate goals may make it necessary gests when the investment will be returned without
to choose investments that differ from the ultimate lowering the corporate investment returns and
maximum value of a project. accounting for inflation (time value of money).
The oldest indicator used in oil production is pay- When the full stream of cash flows for the pro-
out time, which is the amount of time necessary to jected relative life of the project is used, an indicator
recoup the money invested. If the actual time is less called net present value (NPV) is defined as
than the required time, the investment is considered n
∆$ n
attractive: NPV = ∑ − cost . (1-72)
n =1 (1 + i)n
n
∑ ∆$
n =1
n − cost = 0 , (1-70) NPV gives a dollar value added to the property at
present time. If it is positive, the investment is attrac-
where ∆$n is the incremental revenue (minus the tive; if it is negative, it means an undesirable invest-
incremental expenses and taxes that are due to opera- ment. NPV is the most widely used indicator show-
tions), n is the time period increments (e.g., years) in ing a dollar amount of net return.
which it is received, and cost consists of the total To get an indicator on relative profitability against
expenses associated with the stimulation. This indi- more global investments such as stocks, bonds and
cator does not provide for the time value of money corporate profits, the rate of return (ROR) is used.
(a) Isolated vertical well (b) Isolated horizontal or hydraulically fractured well
Figure 1-19. Drainage areas for single and multiple vertical and horizontal wells.
Figure 1-20. Drainage areas resulting from (a) longer horizontal wells draining more area per well and (b) hydraulically
fractured wells in a square pattern that is not in line with the direction of maximum stress.
hydraulically fracturing the wells may result in an option in this case because the productivity would
unplanned drainage geometries. be severely penalized by the low vertical permeabil-
ity, and in a thick formation, a horizontal well may
not even produce the entire formation thickness. A
1-6.2. Well drainage volume vertical well—barefoot, perforated and gravel
characterizations and production packed, or gravel packed—can provide excellent
optimization strategies productivity in formations with moderate mobility. A
Figures 1-19 and 1-20 assume that the reservoir is slanted well can produce a marginal increase in pro-
homogeneous and isotropic over vast areas. In reali- ductivity over a vertical well.
ty, typical reservoir geology is much more complex. In very high mobility laminated reservoirs (such as
Formation flow characteristics may favor one well turbidites), a frac and pack may provide sand control
geometry over others. The chart in Fig. 1-21 summa- and the means to bypass near-wellbore damage.
rizes production optimization strategies for a series However, in a low-mobility reservoir, hydraulically
of 10 common well drainage volume characteriza- fracturing the well is preferred over any other option
tions. The chart addresses five potential well paths: because it provides an effective planar sink, greatly
conventional vertical, hydraulically fractured verti- increasing the well productivity. For thin and lami-
cal, slanted, horizontal and hydraulically fractured nated reservoirs, hydraulic fractures in a horizontal
horizontal. For any one of the drainage volume char- well may be the optimal choice because the longer
acterizations, well path options are shown in block well provides greater reach that increases the drain-
diagrams. age volume of the well and the hydraulic fractures
Laminated reservoirs (chart row 4 on Fig. 1-21) enable horizontal flow to the well through the entire
are a good starting point to understanding the infor- formation thickness. Hydraulic fractures in a hori-
mation in the chart. The chart distinguishes layered zontal well can be planned either as longitudinal, by
from laminated by defining a reservoir as layered if drilling the well in the direction of maximum hori-
the recognized sands are thick enough to be targeted zontal stress, or as transverse, by drilling the well in
by a horizontal well. If not, the reservoir is classed the direction of minimum stress.
as laminated. In general, laminated reservoirs have Horizontal wells offer particular advantages in nat-
poor vertical permeability. A horizontal well is not urally fractured reservoirs (chart row 5 on Fig. 1-21)
pws (psi)
4000
from them. These three major developments are the
semilogarithmic straight line (Horner analysis), log-
Apparent line 3
log diagnostic plot and log-based derivative. They 3000
are briefly outlined in the following text. Apparent line 4
2000
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
2-1.1. Horner semilogarithmic analysis (tp + ∆t)/∆t
Using the semilogarithmic approximation of the
Figure 2-1. Analysis of pressure buildup data on a semilog
solution of the partial differential equation (Eq. 1-18) plot. Arrows denote beginning and end of semilog linear
shown in Chapter 1 and employing the superposition trends.
principle, Horner (1951) presented the mainstay for
buildup analysis, which, appropriately, was named
after him. From the extension of the correct straight line to
Presuming infinite-acting radial flow, the expres- t = 1 hr, the value of the pressure p1hr can be extracted,
sion for the shut-in pressure pws in psi is and the Horner analysis suggests that the skin effect
s can be calculated by
162.6qBµ t + ∆t
pws = pi − log p , (2-1) p1hr − pwf ( ∆t =0 ) k
kh ∆t s = 1.151 − log + 3.23 . (2-3)
m φµct rw
2
where pi is the initial reservoir pressure in psi, q is
the rate during the flowing period in STB/D, B is The value of pwf (∆t = 0) is the last value of the bot-
the formation volume factor in RB/STB, µ is the tomhole flowing pressure, m is the slope of the line,
viscosity in cp, k is the permeability in md, h is the φ is the porosity (unitless), ct is the total compress-
reservoir thickness in ft, tp is the producing (flow- ibility in psi–1, rw is the wellbore radius in ft, and the
ing) time in hr, and ∆t is the time since shut-in in hr. constant 3.23 is to account for oilfield units and the
A semilogarithmic plot of log([tp + ∆t]/∆t) versus conversion from ln to log.
pws should form a straight line (Fig. 2-1) with the For a drawdown (flowing) test the analogous
slope equal to semilogarithmic straight-line equation is
162.6qBµ 162.6qBµ k
m=− , (2-2) pwf = pi − logt + log − 3.23 + 0.87s
kh kh φµct rw
2
from which the unknown k, or kh if h is also not
known, can be determined. Although from a visual (2-4)
observation several straight lines through the data are and for skin effect
generally plausible, the question of which of them is p − p1hr k
the correct one is resolved in the next section. s = 1.151 i − log + 3.23 . (2-5)
m φµct rw
2
10 4
10 3
∆p and derivative (psi)
10 2
10 1
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000
Dimensionless time, t D /CD
Figure 2-3. Dimensionless type curves for pressure drawdown and derivative for an infinite-acting reservoir with wellbore
storage and skin effect (see discussion of type-curve use in Bourdet et al., 1983).
sionless wellbore storage by Eq. 2-7, which, when analytical solution. More importantly, the derivative
differentiated and combined with Eq. 2-8, yields is invaluable for definitive diagnosis of the test
response. Although pressure trends can be confusing
dpD d (lnt D ) = t D pD′ = t D CD . (2-9) at “middle” and “late” times, and thus subject to
multiple interpretations, the pressure derivative val-
On log-log paper, this shows a unit straight line ues are much more definitive. (The terms early, mid-
exactly as does the dimensionless pressure. dle and late time are pejorative expressions for early-,
During the radial flow period and when the semi- midway- and late-appearing phenomena. For exam-
logarithmic approximation is in effect (Eq. 1-19), ple, wellbore storage effects are early, fracture
behavior is middle, and infinite-acting radial flow
dpD d (lnt D ) = t D pD′ = 0.5 , (2-10) or boundary effects are late.) Many analysts have
come to rely on the log-log pressure/pressure deriva-
and, thus, the dimensionless derivative curve at late
tive plot for diagnosing what reservoir model is rep-
time approaches a constant value equal to 0.5.
resented in a given pressure transient data set. To
In general, if
apply this method of analysis, the derivative of the
pD ~ t Dm , (2-11) actual pressure data must be calculated. A variety of
algorithms is available. The simplest is to calculate
where m is equal to 1.0 for wellbore storage, 0.5 for the slope for each segment, using at least three time
linear flow and 0.25 for bilinear flow, then intervals. More sophisticated techniques also may be
contemplated.
dpD d (lnt D ) = t D ( dpD dt D ) ~ mt Dm , (2-12) Patterns visible in the log-log and semilog plots
for several common reservoir systems are shown in
which on log-log coordinates implies that the deriva- Fig. 2-4. The simulated curves in Fig. 2-4 were gen-
tive curve is parallel to the pressure curve departed erated from analytical models. In each case, the
vertically by log m. buildup response was computed using superposition.
The derivative is useful in pressure transient The curves on the left represent buildup responses,
analysis, because not only the pressure curve but and the derivatives were computed with respect to
also the pressure derivative curve must match the the Horner time function.
Wellbore storage
B Partial penetration
Infinite-acting
radial flow
Linear flow to an
infinite-conductivity
C vertical fracture
2
kxf From specialized
plot
Bilinear flow to a
finite-conductivity
D vertical fracture
kfw From specialized
plot
Wellbore storage
E Infinite-acting
radial flow
Sealing fault
Wellbore storage
F No-flow boundary
Wellbore storage
Linear channel
G flow
kb2 From specialized
plot
Wellbore storage
H Dual-porosity
matrix to fissure
flow (pseudosteady
state)
Figure 2-4. Log-log and semilog plots for common reservoir systems.
(a) Partial radial flow (b) Complete radial flow (c) Radial flow to horizontal well
(d) Pseudoradial flow to fracture (e) Pseudoradial flow to horizontal well (f) Pseudoradial flow to sealing fault
(a) Linear flow to fracture (b) Linear flow to horizontal well (c) Linear flow in elongated reservoir
Figure 2-7. Bilinear flow to a hydraulic fracture. Figure 2-8. Spherical and hemispherical flow geometries.
tmin = 1 + ω −ω .
1− ω 1− ω
(2-28) qB
2 αt k C= . (2-29)
α c mc
When two of these three times can be identified
in the pressure derivative response, ω and λ can be The duration of wellbore storage can be reduced by
estimated. designing buildup tests with downhole shut-in. Other
factors affecting wellbore storage duration are perme-
103
∆p, d∆p/dlnt (psi)
102
101
10 –3 10 –2 10 –1 100 101 102 103
∆t (hr)
Figure 2-9. Log-log diagnostic plot of post-treatment test after hydraulic fracturing.
104
103
∆p, d∆p/dlnt (psi)
102
101
10 –3 10 –2 10 –1 100 101 102 103
∆t (hr)
103
∆p, d∆p/dlnt (psi)
102
101
10 –3 10 –2 10 –1 100 101 102 103
∆t (hr)
2-5. Analysis with measurement each can be used for model diagnosis in the same
fashion as the pressure change and derivative are
of layer rate used. This data acquisition and processing technique
When downhole shut-in is not an option, a buildup reduces the duration of wellbore storage in a draw-
test with surface shut-in can be dominated for much down test by the same amount as downhole shut-in
of the test duration by wellbore storage. An alterna- does in a buildup test.
tive in Fig. 2-12 to the conventional buildup test is Some wells with commingled flow from several
designed to acquire downhole measurements of both layers are equipped with sliding sleeves. This enables
flow rate and pressure using a production logging
tool. The best data acquired with such tests are dur-
ing drawdown, but additional data processing is
Electric line
required for model diagnosis. In this case an analog
for the pressure change is the rate-normalized pres-
sure (RNP), computed as the ratio of the pressure Flowmeter Pressure gauge
change to the flow rate change for data acquired at
the same instant in time. The pressure change (flow
rate change) is the difference between the bottom-
hole pressure (flow rate) measured at any elapsed
time t since the start of the test transient and the bot-
tomhole pressure (flow rate) measured at the start
of that transient. The analog for the pressure deriva-
tive is the deconvolution derivative, computed as a
derivative of the RNP, or the convolution derivative,
which accounts for superposition effects caused by
each change in the continuously acquired downhole
rate. Both computations account for superposition
resulting from recent changes in the surface rate, and Figure 2-12. Acquisition of transient flow rate and pres-
sure data.
3
2-6. Layered reservoir testing Layer 3
Pressure gauge
2-8.1. Pressure decline analysis with the
Carter leakoff model
A fruitful formalism dating back to Howard and Fast
(1957) is to consider the combined effect of the dif-
ferent fluid-loss mechanisms as a material property.
According to this concept, the leakoff velocity uL is
given by the Carter equation:
CL
uL = , (2-30)
t
Paired flowmeters
above and below branch
where CL is the leakoff coefficient in ft/min1/2 and
Figure 2-17. Transient data acquisition in a multibranch t is the time elapsed since the start of the leakoff
well. process. The integrated form of Eq. 2-30 is
VL
= 2 CL t + S p , (2-31)
AL
2-8. Permeability determination from where VL is the fluid volume that passes through the
a fracture injection test† surface AL during the time period from time zero to
time t. The integration constant Sp is called the spurt-
Fracture injection tests, called also calibration treat-
loss coefficient. It can be considered the width
ments, consist of injecting a known amount of the
(extent) of the fluid flowing through the surface
fracturing fluid into the formation, shutting down the
instantaneously at the beginning of the leakoff
pumps and observing the decline of the pressure in
process. The two coefficients, CL and Sp, can be
the wellbore. It is assumed that up to the end of
determined from laboratory tests.
injection time te, the injection rate i into one wing is
Application of Eqs. 2-30 and 2-31 during fracturing
constant. After injection, the pressure in the wellbore
can be envisioned assuming that the given surface ele-
declines because the fluid is leaking off from the cre-
ment “remembers” when it has been opened to fluid
ated fracture and the fracture faces are approaching
loss and has its own zero time, which may be different
from location to location on a fracture surface.
†
This section by Professor Peter Valkó, Texas A&M University.
2i
qL/2
hp
rp =
hf
hp
A = hfxf
A = hfxf
hf
xf
qL/2
Figure 2-18. Basic notation for PKN and KGD geometries. hp = permeable height, hf = fracture height and qL = rate of fluid
loss.
hp
i
Rf2π
A=
2
Rf
qL/2
4α ∆t D + 2 1 + ∆t D × F , α; 1 + α; 1 + ∆t D ( )
−1
1 where pnet = p – pc and pc is the closure pressure. The
(
g α, ∆t D ) =
2
1 + 2α
. significance of the closure pressure is described in
Chapters 5, 6 and 9. The fracture stiffness sf is a pro-
(2-38) portionality constant for the fracture geometry mea-
The function F[a, b; c; z] is the hypergeometric sured in psi/ft, and it plays a similar role as the con-
function, available in tabular form (Abramowitz and stant in Hooke’s law. Its form depends on the frac-
Stegun, 1989) or computing algorithms. ture geometry, which may be PKN, KGD or radial
The average fracture width at time ∆t after the end (fracture geometries are described in Chapter 6). In
of pumping is petroleum engineering literature, its inverse 1⁄sf is
Table 2-5. Fracture exent from the reservoir is shown with its components. Thus, the
no-spurt-loss assumption. total pressure drop is
2E ′Vi xf =
E ′Vi
Rf = 3
3E ′Vi where ∆pface is the pressure drop across the fracture
xf =
πh (b N − p c )
2
πhf (b N − p c ) 8(b N − p c ) face dominated by the filter cake, ∆ppiz is the pres-
f
(t )
n
∑
1
1/ 2
+ − − t j −1
j −1 j −2 j −1
r j
r f p t j = ne + 3 j j −1
one wing. In petroleum engineering literature, how- 1 µ
1/ 2
ne + 2
q t + ∑ ( q − q )(t − t )
1/ 2
+
1/ 2
.
r
ever, dimensionless pressure is defined using the
k A r πc φ
1/ 2 1 n j j −1 n j −1
j =2
total flow into (from) the formation. r e p t
Substituting Eqs. 2-46 and 2-47 into Eq. 2-45 obtains (2-52)
µr
) [( ) ],
During fracture propagation, the leakoff rates qj
∑ (q
n
∆p(tn ) =
R0 tn
qn + − q j −1 pD tn − t j −1 for j = 1, . . ., ne + 1 are not known exactly (nor are
πkr h f
j D
2 rp An te j =1
any values for tj in this period). Therefore, some kind
(2-48) of assumption is required to proceed.
where the end of pumping is selected as the charac- The key assumption is that for these purposes the
teristic time for the filter-cake resistance. A simple first ne + 1 leakoff rates can be considered equal:
rearrangement yields
q j = qapp (2-53)
µ − q ) p [(t ) ]
n −1
∆p(t )− r
p (t − t ) + ∑ (q −q −t
n −1 Dn − 1 j −1 j −1
πk h
n D Dn j D n D
j =1 for j = 1, . . ., ne + 1.
q = .
r f
n
R 0
t n
+
µ p r D
[(t n
−t n −1
)]
D
In fact, it is more convenient to work not with the
2r A p n
t e
πk h r f
average leakoff rate but with the apparent leakoff
width defined by
(2-49)
x1,n = + ∑
e e
pn −1 − pn
1/ 2
dn te tn dn te tn
R0 t n
p n − pr = j = n +3 e
s f rp ∆t n
1/ 2
2te
p − p
(t − t ) (2-59)
ne +1 ne + 2 1/ 2
ne +1
1 µ t −t
n
1/ 2
n ne +1
1/ 2
+
r
tn +1
k s r πc φ p −p p −p 1 − 1 −
1/ 2
e
(t − t )
n
+ ∑ tn
r f p t 1/ 2
−
j −1 j j −2 j −1
∆t
j −1
∆t =
n
j = ne + 3 j j −1 x 2 ,n . (2-60)
te3/ 2 dn
[q ].
1/ 2
µr
1
( )
1/ 2
+ − q app t n − t n +1
1/ 2
t
1/ 2
kr Ae rp πc φ app n e
[ ]
L r
+
1 / 2 πc φ
∆t . hf
k r t p −p t ( n −1 n) e
3/ 2 1/ 2
t
n
yn = 0 + 1/ 2 c1 x1,n + c2 x2 ,n
rp 4 E ′te kr rp
r p n
(2-56)
1/ 2
πµ r
1/ 2
Introducing the notation w µ
c1 = c2 = L r
p − pj 4( E ′ ) φct
2
h f πφct
d j = j −1
∆t j 2
pn − pr h 4 E ′te
yn = 1/ 2 1/ 2 kr , M = f R0 ,M = rp bM
dn te t n rp mM πh f
4.4 5873.54
4.6 5857.85 6500
4.8 5849.29
6000
5.0 5844.81
5.2 5839.97 5500
5.4 5830.98 0 1 2 3 4 5
5.6 5816.30 ∆t (min)
5.8 5797.01
6.0 5775.67 Figure 2-21. Example of bottomhole pressure versus shut-
in time.
7500 1.0
7000 0.8
p (psi)
0.6
y
6500
0.4
6000
0.2
5500
1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 0
g 0 2 × 10–9 6 × 10–9 1 × 10–8
x
Figure 2-22. Example g-function plot.
Figure 2-23. Example Mayerhofer plot with radial geometry.
Points of fracture
φ
φ 2a
2a
φ
Figure 3A-1. Sandbox experiment showing a normal fault. 0 φ σ
σ3´
σ v́
σ1´
Mohr
envelope
τ
Therefore, this quantity is expressed as a force per τxy
unit area. In geomechanics, by convention, compres-
sion is taken to be positive because the forces prevail-
ing in the earth are usually compressive in nature.
This resultant stress σ can be decomposed into a nor- O τyx A x
mal component σn and a shear component τ. The
shear component tends to “shear” the material in the
plane ∆A. It should be realized that an infinite amount σy
of planes can be drawn through a given point varying,
by the same token, the values of σn and τ. The stress Figure 3-2. Two-dimensional decomposition of normal and
condition, therefore, depends on the inclination. Con- shear stresses.
sequently, a complete description of a stress must
specify not only its magnitude, direction and sense, These expressions are obtained by writing equilib-
but also the direction of the surface upon which it rium equations of the forces along the σn and τ direc-
acts. Quantities described by two directions, such tions, respectively. The moment equilibrium implies
as stresses, are known as second-order tensors. that τxy is equal to τyx. There always exist two perpen-
In a two-dimensional (2D) situation, if σx, σy and dicular orientations of ∆A for which the shear stress
τxy are known (Fig. 3-2), the stress state on any plane components vanish; these are referred to as the princi-
with normal orientation at an angle θ from Ox can be pal planes. The normal stresses associated with these
derived using the following expressions: planes are referred to as the principal stresses. In two
dimensions, expressions for these principal stresses
σ n = σ x cos 2 θ + 2 τ xysinθcosθ + σ ysin 2 θ (3-2)
can be found by setting τ = 0 in Eq. 3-3 or, because
they are the minimum and maximum values of the
τ=
1
( )
σ y − σ x sin2θ + τ xy cos2θ . (3-3) normal stresses, by taking the derivative of Eq. 3-2
2 with respect to the angle θ and setting it equal to zero.
Either case obtains the following expression for the
∆F
value of θ for which the shear stress vanishes:
1 2 τ xy
θ= arctan (3-4)
2 σx − σy
and the two principal stress components σ1 and σ2 are
1/ 2
1
( ) (
σ x + σ y + τ 2xy + σ x − σ y
1
)
2
σ1 = (3-5)
2 4
1/ 2
( ) ( )
P
σ x + σ y − τ 2xy + σ x − σ y .
1 1 2
∆A σ2 = (3-6)
2 4
( )
shear stress. For a three-dimensional state of stress, similar
σ x + σ y + σ z = (σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3 )
1 1
σm = (3-7) circles can be constructed for any two orthogonal directions.
3 3
and the octahedral shear stress τoct:
τ
1
τ oct =
3
[ 2
]
(σ1 − σ 2 ) 2 + (σ1 − σ 3 ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 )
2 1/ 2
(3-8)
3-2.2. Strains τ M
• elongation, defined as
l −l* perpendicular initially. Just as in the case of stresses,
ε = lim (3-9) principal strains can be defined as longitudinal strain
l→0 l
components acting on planes where the shear strains
• shear strain, defined as have vanished. It should be pointed out that the analogy
γ = tan( ψ ) , (3-10) between stress and strain analyses is not completely
valid and that equilibrium equations and compatibility
where ψ is the change of angle between two direc- equations have to be satisfied respectively for the
tions that were perpendicular prior to straining. stresses and for the strains. These relations put some
Consequently, strain (which is either a ratio of restrictions on the local variation of stress and strain in
lengths or a change of angle) is dimensionless. the neighborhood of a point. For example, compatibili-
Because stresses are taken as positive in compression, ty equations ensure that the strained body remains con-
a positive longitudinal strain ε corresponds to a decrease tinuous and that no cracks or material overlaps will
in length, and a positive shear strain γ reflects an occur. For further details on stresses and strains, the
increase in the angle between two directions that were reader is referred to the classic works by Love (1927),
l
Original
π/2
O O P
P∗ Q∗
ψ
l∗ Deformed
O∗ P∗
O∗
Timoshenko and Goodier (1970) and Muskhelishvili ticity is particularly useful for predicting the stress
(1953). concentration around a wellbore or the behavior of
soft materials during reservoir depletion.
E = σx εx (3C-1)
ε y = ε z = − νε x (3C-2)
σ3 is
(
KI = p f − σ3 ) πL , (3-34)
The width w near the tip of a stress-free crack is Using Sneddon’s (1946) solution, the width at the
also a function of the stress intensity factor: wellbore ww is
K Ic 4(1 − ν ) L
2
8(1 − ν 2 ) r ww = . (3-36)
w= KI . (3-31) πL E
E 2π
A propagation criterion based on the stress intensity
In Eq. 3-31, plane strain is assumed. factor is easily implemented in fracture propagation
The stress intensity factor is a function of the load- codes. However, the concept of fracture surface energy
ing parameters and of the geometry of the body. does not imply linear elasticity and can be used for
Hence, length is included in the unit to express KI. fracture propagation in nonlinear materials where the
A fracture propagates when KI reaches a critical value, strain energy release rate is replaced with the J-inte-
known as the critical stress intensity factor KIc or frac- gral (Rice, 1968).
ture toughness. For a perfectly elastic material, KIc is Stress intensity factors are not limited to opening
a material property. It must be evaluated experimen- modes. Other modes exist (Irwin, 1957) to analyze
tally. Experimental results show that for short crack 3D fracture propagation in complex stress fields
lengths, KIc increases with crack length. When this (e.g., propagation from inclined wellbores) where the
scale effect is observed, KIc cannot be considered a fracture changes direction during propagation. Finally,
material property. This behavior is discussed in more fracture mechanics has also been used to explain brit-
detail in Section 3-4.6. tle rock fracture in compression (Germanovich et al.,
The unit for KIc is pressure times the square root of 1994).
length. Fracture toughness is a measure of the resis-
O ε 3-3.5. Failure
A failure criterion is usually a relationship between
Figure 3-7. Stress-strain relationship for an elasto-plastic
material with strain hardening. OA = elastic, AB = plastic.
the principal effective stresses, representing a limit
• Tresca criterion expresses that failure occurs when Figure 3-8. Graphical representation of a state of stress at
the shear stress (σ1 – σ3)/2 reaches the characteristic failure.
cohesion value Co:
σ1 − σ 3 = 2Co . (3-40) π φ
θ= + . (3-45)
4 2
• Mohr-Coulomb criterion expresses that the shear
stress tending to cause failure is restricted by the • Mohr failure envelope is a generalization of the lin-
cohesion of the material and by a constant analo- ear Mohr-Coulomb criterion. An example of a more
gous to the coefficient of friction times the effective general model is the following nonlinear model:
normal stress acting across the failure plane:
σ1 − p = σ c + A(σ 3 − p) ,
n
(3-46)
τ = Co + tan(φ)(σ n − p) , (3-41) where A and n are obtained experimentally. The
where φ is the angle of internal friction and Co is failure envelope can also be constructed graphically
the cohesion. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (see Section 3-4.5).
can be rewritten in terms of the principal stresses to As shown here, the Tresca and Mohr-Coulomb cri-
give σ1 at failure in terms of σ3: teria do not include the influence of the intermediate
σ1 − p = σ c + N ϕ (σ 3 − p) , (3-42) stress σ2. Experimental evidence shows they are, in
many cases, good approximations. However, there are
where the coefficient of passive stress Nϕ is other criteria that include the effect of σ2.
π φ
Nϕ = tan 2 + . (3-43)
4 2
3-4. Rock mechanical property
The uniaxial compressive strength then becomes
measurement
σ c = 2Co Nϕ . (3-44)
3-4.1. Importance of rock properties
In a ((σn – p), τ) plane, this criterion is a straight in stimulation
line of slope tanφ and intercept Co. A rock fails as
soon as the state of stress is such that the criterion Most of the hydraulic fracture propagation models
is met along one plane, which is also the failure assume linear elasticity. The most important rock
plane. Using the Mohr circle graphical representa- parameter for these models is the plane strain modulus
tion described in Sidebar 3B, this means that the E´, which controls the fracture width and the value of
state of stress at failure is represented by a Mohr the net pressure. In multilayered formations, E´ must
circle that touches the failure envelope. The point be determined in each layer, as the variation of elastic
of intersection can be used to determine the angle properties influences the fracture geometry. Elastic
θ between the normal to the failure plane and the and failure parameters are also used in stress models
direction of σ1, as shown in Fig. 3-8. It can be to obtain a stress profile as a function of depth and
shown that rock properties. These profiles are important for esti-
Loading ram
Pore pressure
inlet
Jacketing
material
Sample with
strain gauge
affixed
Pore pressure
outlet
Spherical
seat
Confining
pressure Triaxial cell
system
Stress
Data acquisition
Strain
Pore
pressure
system
σB
Platen
A Environmental Specimen
chamber
Platen
O εa
Receiver transducer
Figure 3-13. Young’s modulus measured using small cycles
(Hilbert et al., 1994). Young’s modulus at σB is the slope of Applied load
line AB.
Figure 3-14. Ultrasonic pulse measurement.
downhole conditions and can be conducted during
triaxial compression tests (Fig. 3-14).
As also discussed in Chapter 4, two types of elas- elastic component of the rock (Hilbert et al., 1994;
tic body waves can be generated: compressional Plona and Cook, 1995). Because of poroelastic
(also called P-waves) and shear (S-waves). Elastic effects and rock heterogeneity, the acoustic velocity
wave theory shows that the velocities of P- and is also a function of wave frequency. But in dry
S-waves (uP and uS, respectively) are related to the rocks, the influence of the frequency appears to
elastic constants through the following relationships be of second order compared with that of the strain
(in dry rocks): amplitude (Winkler and Murphy, 1995). Conse-
quently, when the dynamic and static small-ampli-
1/ 2
1/ 2 K + 4 G tude loading/unloading measurements are compared,
C dyn 3 dyn their values agree quite well (Fig. 3-15; Plona and
uP = dyn =
ρ ρ Cook, 1995).
Correlations can be established between static and
( )
1/ 2
Edyn 1 − ν dyn dynamic moduli (Coon, 1968; van Heerden, 1987;
= (3-47)
ρ 1 (
+ )(
ν dyn 1 − 2 ν dyn ) Jizba and Nur, 1990). Coon demonstrated that the
coefficient of correlation can be improved if consid-
1/ 2
eration of the lithology is included. These correla-
G
1/ 2
Edyn tions allow an estimation of large-amplitude static
uS = dyn = ,
(
(3-48)
ρ 2ρ 1 + ν dyn )
in-situ values from log data where core data are not
available (see Chapter 4). Figure 3-15 suggests
where ρ refers to the mass density of the rock speci- another procedure in which a corrective factor is
men and the relationship between the various elastic found by the ratio of the loading to unloading tan-
moduli is as in Sidebar 3C. The subscript dyn refers gent moduli for low-amplitude static tests.
to dynamic, as the values of the elastic constants • Scale effects in elastic properties
obtained by dynamic techniques are in general higher
The elastic properties of rock are scale dependent,
than those obtained by static methods. This differ-
as are any rock properties. This means that the
ence is now believed to be due mainly to the ampli-
value of an elastic parameter that is determined on
tude of the strain, with the very low amplitude
a laboratory sample may be quite different of that
dynamic measurements representing the actual
of a rock mass, mainly because of the presence of
7
strain modulus E´ (Desroches and Thiercelin, 1993).
6
• Poroelastic properties
5
For isotropic rocks, it is generally recommended to
4
conduct tests that measure the volumetric response
3 of the sample, as poroelastic effects are volumetric
2 ones. Three tests are usually made to measure the
five properties that characterize an isotropic poro-
1
elastic material. All three tests involve hydrostatic
0 loading but differ on the boundary conditions
–2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
applied to the pore fluid. For the drained test, the
Stress (MPa)
fluid in the rock is maintained at constant pressure;
Figure 3-15. Dynamic versus static Young’s modulus mea- for the undrained test, the fluid is prevented from
surements (after Plona and Cook, 1995). escaping the sample; and for the unjacketed test, the
pore pressure is maintained equal to the confining
pressure. The reader is referred to Detournay and
discontinuities in the rock mass. Various approaches Cheng (1993) for further information. Presented
are being developed to take this phenomenon into here is the determination of α, which, with knowl-
consideration (Schatz et al., 1993). An alternative is edge of the drained Poisson’s ratio, allows determi-
to determine the properties downhole, as described nation of the poroelastic stress coefficient η, which
in the next section. However, downhole measure- is probably the most important poroelastic parame-
ments are usually limited to a scale on the order of ter for hydraulic fracturing applications. This mea-
3 ft, whereas a large fracture involves a scale on the surement is conducted using the drained test, in
order of 100 ft. Rock imperfection on this scale can which the volume change of the sample ∆V and the
be mapped by a combination of wellbore seismic volume change of the pore fluid ∆Vf are measured
and sonic measurements. as a function of an incremental increase of the con-
• Elastic properties determined using downhole fining pressure. The value of α is then given by the
measurements following relation:
Downhole measurements are made to estimate the ∆Vf
elastic properties. Dynamic log measurements are α= . (3-49)
∆V
described in detail in Chapter 4. Other techniques
include direct downhole static measurements and As for the elastic properties, the test must be con-
inversion of the pressure response obtained during ducted with a confining pressure close to the down-
a micro-hydraulic fracturing test. A direct downhole hole mean stress. These properties must be tangent
static measurement requires measuring the deforma- properties and, for practical purposes, are a function
tion of a small portion of the wellbore during pres- of the Terzaghi effective stress. Mathematical con-
surization. This can be done by using downhole sideration and experimental results confirm that
extensiometers (Kulhman et al., 1993). Usually this poroelastic properties are controlled by the Terzaghi
technique yields only the shear modulus G. Pressure effective stress (Zimmerman et al., 1986; Boutéca
inversion techniques (Piggott et al., 1992) require et al., 1994).
F
2b A
Fc
2L
B
2L + 2∆L
O δ
Figure 3D-1. Fracture toughness measurement. The shaded area on the left of the plot represents the energy required
to propagate the crack from 2 L to (2 L + 2∆L).
Depth (ft)
toughness testing; i.e., the determined value of frac-
ture toughness increases with sample size. Modeling
of process zone behavior can be conducted using the 7000
information obtained during tensile failure of a speci-
men (see Sidebar 3D). Modeling can also give some
insight on the tip behavior of large-scale hydraulic
fractures (Papanastasiou and Thiercelin, 1993).
7200
σH = σ2 σh = σ3
σv = σ3
σh = σ2
σH = σ1
σv = σ2
σh = σ3
σH = σ1
strength data as a function of the confining pressure If the formation is in extension (i.e., normal fault
obtained during triaxial testing once the sample has regime, Fig. 3-20), the vertical stress is the maximum
failed. Using the residual angle of friction rather than principal stress. The minimum principal stress is in
the angle of internal friction in a failure stress model the horizontal plane and is therefore σh. Equation 3-42
should be more consistent with the assumption that becomes
the minimum stress is controlled by friction along pre-
(σ v − p) ,
1
existing planes. Generally, the residual angle of fric- σh − p ≈ (3-58)
Nϕ
tion is smaller than or equal to the internal angle of
friction.
As an example, consider the case of 3000-psi well- gential stress at the wellbore never becomes tensile. In
bore pressure in equilibrium with the pore pressure of this case, fracture could initiate in shear
the reservoir and values of 3500 psi for σx and 5000 psi (Papanastasiou et al., 1995).
for σy. The equations lead to maximum values for the
effective tangential stress (σθ – p) of 5500 psi in com-
pression (θ = 0°) and 500 psi in tension (θ = 90°). The 3-5.8. Stress change from hydraulic
latter result indicates the possibility for the occurrence fracturing
of tensile failure in a direction perpendicular to the min- Two effects are considered in this section. The first
imum stress, solely as a result of drilling the borehole. one addresses the increase of minimum stress because
A hydraulic fracture is induced by increasing the of the poroelastic effect. During the fracturing pro-
wellbore pressure pw up to the point where the effec- cess, fracturing fluid leaks into the formation. This
tive tangential stress (σθ – p) becomes equal to –To. leakage induces a pore pressure increase around the
If σx = σh, this happens at θ = 90° (where the stress fracture that results in dilation of the formation and,
concentration induced by the far-field state of stress therefore, an increase of the minimum stress in this
is minimum), which means that fracture initiates in region. For a 2D crack in an infinite sheet, the
a direction perpendicular to the minimum horizontal increase of minimum stress as a function of time
stress direction. Fracture initiation at the breakdown is (Detournay and Cheng, 1991)
pressure pif is, therefore, obtained when (Hubbert and
Willis, 1957) ( )
∆σ 3 = η p f − p f ( τ c ) , (3-71)
2tkG(1 − ν)( νu − ν)
These induced stresses diminish rapidly to zero
away from the wellbore. Consequently, they affect the τc = , (3-72)
α 2 µ(1 − 2 ν) (1 − νu ) L2
2
pressure to induce a fracture, but not the propagation
of the fracture away from the wellbore wall. where G is the shear modulus, k is the permeability, t
If the wellbore fluid penetrates the formation, poro- is the time, µ is the viscosity, and L is the fracture
elastic effects must be taken into account to calculate half-length.
the stress concentration around the wellbore. In partic-
200
150
Wilkins
sand 100
712.5 m
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
10
Flow rate
(L/min)
0
Vin = 5.5 L Vin = 10 L Vin = 15 L Vin = 40 L
Vout = 3.7 L Vout = 6.5 L Vout = 5.5 L
test
150
Wilkins 100
shale
724 m 50
0 5 10 15 20 25
10
Flow rate
(L/min)
0
Vin = 4 L Vin = 10 L Vin = 15 L Vin = 25 L
Vout = 2.6 L Vout = 2.8 L Vout = 2.6 L
Figure 3-24. Pressure and injection rate record obtained into a sand and immediately underlying shale (Evans et al., 1989).
(b)
Intersection of tangents
(closure pressure estimate)
Closure stress
es
liti
sibi
s
Po
Time
Pressure rebound
of the fracture remained open during flowback and
Minimum
the initial rebound phase and that the characterizing stress
behavior resulted from pinching of the fracture
width at the wellbore because of the reversed flow.
After shut-in of the reversed flow, reopening of the
pinched fracture permitted pressure equalization
between the wellbore and the fracture (i.e., pressure
rebound). They concluded that even when the Time
flowback phase is continued to below the second
straight dashed line on Fig. 3-26b and is dominated Figure 3-27. Pressure rebound in a low-permeability
by wellbore storage, the rebound pressure can formation.
Bottomhole pressure
Extension pressure
Injection rate
at step end
13
Curves correspond to specific
gauges on cubic sample
11
9
Strain (0.01%)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Pressure (1000 psi)
N
(East)
y
10
(North) 2
x 3
1 45˚ 4
9
0
12 5 W E
8
11
7 6
z
S
Figure 3-31. Gauge pattern and typical results plotted on a polar stereonet for DSCA.
4-1. Introduction tion. Sections 4-4 and 4-5, respectively, discuss the
various means of determining these properties.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe, strictly in All that is then necessary is to transform the data
the context of reservoir stimulation, the use of geo- gathered into a consistent model. The first step for
physical information (commonly referred to as logs) this process is to fill any data gaps by relying on
to obtain a description of the formation affected by geologic information. Each depositional basin has its
a stimulation treatment. The entire process of classic own “style,” characterized by unique properties.
formation evaluation for the determination of hydro- Moreover, the succession of layers is not arbitrary,
carbon reserves is out of the scope of this volume. but obeys worldwide a logic that is captured by the
A fundamental difference between these two pro- notion of sequence (e.g., sand/shale sequence, lime-
cesses is that all properties are required not only for stone/marl sequence) (Wagoner et al., 1930; Fried-
the hydrocarbon-bearing formations (pay zones) but man and Sanders, 1978). Combining information
also for the adjacent formations (bounding layers). characterizing the basin with information from the
The output of the process described in this chapter relevant sequence makes it possible to estimate miss-
is a model of the formation to be stimulated. The ing data or interpolate between data points with an
model consists of a series of planar, parallel layers educated guess or correlation. This process is partic-
or beds, with known properties for each layer. Each ularly crucial for the determination of lithology, pore
property in a layer is either a constant, averaged pressure and stress profiles. The need for a model
property or a linear function of depth (e.g., pore based on a basin and field perspective is emphasized
pressure) (Fig. 4-1). throughout this chapter. This approach also clearly
To construct the model, estimates first must be indicates the need for bringing geological expertise
obtained of the relevant properties in each layer. into the picture.
These properties are in two broad classes: properties Once a complete description versus depth is
relevant to the diffusion of fluid in the formation and achieved, the boundaries of the layers to be consid-
properties relevant to the deformation of the forma- ered are defined (i.e., zoning), which is also guided
by geologic information. Section 4-6 discusses the
Layer 1
zoning process.
Layer 2
An important aspect stressed throughout this chap-
True vertical depth, zTVD
δ
θ
Layer 1
We
ll tr
aje
Layer 2
cto
ry
Layer 3
MD
Original log versus MD TVD TBT Log versus TVD Log versus TBT
Figure 4-2. The effect of wellbore deviation and dipping beds on the presentation of logs.
krw
kro
End-point krw
sive natural fractures or fissures or large horizontal
stress anisotropy, the permeability kH parallel to the
bedding of the formation, which is horizontal in the
model of the earth assumed here, can be considered
isotropic, and the horizontal flow has no preferred
direction. In the presence of natural fractures or large 0
horizontal stress anisotropy, however, permeability 0 Swi 1 – Sor 1
can vary horizontally and the horizontal flow will Water saturation, Sw
have a preferred direction. The permeability perpen-
dicular (i.e., vertical) to the bedding kV is usually at Figure 4-4. Typical variation of relative permeability as
least 1 order of magnitude smaller for sandstone a function of water saturation (Dake, 1982). The curves
simply and practically describe the simultaneous flow of
reservoirs. For laminated sandstone reservoirs, it can oil and water through a porous medium. Sor = residual oil
be more than 2 orders of magnitude smaller. In some saturation.
carbonate reservoirs, however, kV can be equal to or
larger than kH. If no precision is given, the permeabil-
kro =
(1 − S )
w
a
, (4-16)
ity of interest is kH. For specific problems, kH and kV
and even the horizontal components of kH may be
(1 − S )
wi
b
required. For vertical wells, kH is sufficient to where m is typically 3, whereas a and b must be
describe practically all production or injection phe- determined by calibration (e.g., on core data). The
nomena. For horizontal or multibranched wells, any permeabilities to water and to oil are then calculated
contrast in kH will also have an impact on production simply by multiplying the total permeability k by the
or injection. relative permeabilities of the sequence of interest to
When several fluids are present, it is customary to water and oil, respectively.
introduce relative permeabilities. If k is the absolute The irreducible water saturation Swi can be obtained
(or “total”) permeability of the formation for a single for hydrocarbon-bearing formations either from labo-
fluid, the relative permeability to water krw is ratory measurements on cores or NMR measurements
(The Log Analyst, 1996, 1997); it is assigned a value
kw
krw = , (4-13) of 1 in non-hydrocarbon-bearing formations.
k In the context of reservoir stimulation, fluid dis-
where kw is the effective permeability of the forma- placement is usually treated like piston displacement.
tion to water. Similarly, the relative permeability to Therefore, the so-called end-point permeabilities are
oil kro relates the effective permeability to oil ko to the important (i.e., permeability of the formation to oil at
total permeability k by irreducible water saturation and permeability of the
ko formation to water at maximum water saturation).
kro = . (4-14) The end-point permeabilities can be very different.
k
For candidate selection and subsequent treatment
Relative permeabilities typically depend on the water evaluation, the permeability of interest is that of the
saturation of the formation Sw (Fig. 4-4) (Amyx et al., formation to native hydrocarbons. For the design and
1960). For example, the Park-Jones relations yield execution of a stimulation treatment, however, inter-
m est is in the permeability of the formation to water
S − Swi
krw = w (4-15) injection because water-base fluids are usually
1 − Swi injected into the formation.
• Indirect measurements
Lambert (1981)
ki
k
[ ]
= exp 45.7 × (φ i − φ) . (4A-3)
The following indirect measurements related to
permeability require calibration, usually on cores, These equations correlate a change in permeability to a
change in porosity in sandstones. For an assumed initial for-
to a water zone. However, they are the best means mation porosity φi of 0.2 and permeability ki of 20 md, if the
for interpolating permeability between direct per- porosity φ after an acid job is 0.28, then the three correla-
tions give values for the new permeability k of 55, 36,000
meability measurements. and 774 md, respectively.
– Correlation to porosity and water saturation Clearly, proper choice and calibration of a permeability-
porosity correlation for the sequence of interest are necessary.
Porosity is an obvious quantity to relate to per-
meability because interconnected porosity is
required to have permeability. Several equations where the constants C and m again depend on
that relate permeability to porosity (e.g., Car- the type of formation. For lower permeability
men, 1983; Wylie and Rose, 1950; Timur, 1968) formations, corrections must be made to obtain
are of the following form: a first-order estimate of permeability. The k-
lambda model in Eq. 4-18, therefore, is best
φx
k=C , (4-17) used for high-permeability formations.
Swiy Λ is a length scale that is difficult to measure.
where C is a constant that is a function of the However, it is inversely proportional to the sur-
rock type and grain size of the granular material. face area of the pores S divided by the volume
The exponents x and y are a function of the of the pores V, which is a ratio measured by
sequence of interest, and porosity estimation NMR tools. This makes k-lambda permeability
is as covered in Section 4-4.1. a good method for estimating permeability from
It must be emphasized that calibration is NMR measurements in high-permeability for-
absolutely necessary and that the calibration is mations (Herron et al., 1998).
specific to both the sequence and the lithology. Also, the values of both S and V, and there-
Once expressions have been calibrated for a par- fore Λ, can be measured for single minerals. If a
ticular sequence, however, they also provide mineralogical analysis of the formation has been
good continuous estimates of permeability made (see “Lithology” in Section 4-4.2), Λ can
within the field. Sidebar 4A is a practical exam- be estimated using a volumetric average of Λ for
ple that illustrates the caution necessary when each constituent mineral. The better the quality
using a permeability-porosity correlation. of the lithology estimate, the better the resulting
permeability estimate. In particular, this
– Permeability from lithology and porosity approach performs best when geochemical log-
Permeability is governed by a length scale Λ ging is used to determine the lithology (Herron
that corresponds to the size of the dynamically et al., 1998).
connected pores (i.e., pores that permit fluid
flow) (Herron et al., 1998). – Permeability from the Stoneley wave
For high-permeability formations (i.e., >100 md), When a pressure pulse is emitted within a well-
a good estimate of permeability is provided by bore, a guided wave called a Stoneley wave is
the k-lambda model: readily propagated along the wellbore. The wave
travels along the wellbore and pushes fluid
k = CΛ2 φ m , (4-18) through the mudcake into the formation. As the
fluid is mobilized in the formation, it alters the
8 ft
6.6 ft
2.3 ft
> 3 ft
Figure 4-5. Probe tools and packer and probe tools. VIT = vertical interference testing.
σ v ( zTVD ) = ∫ ρ dz .
b
(4-30)
0
pm = 0 pm pm σ2
Pad 1 Calipers
Direction 1 and 3
of σh
Breakout
1
Severe
breakout
1
Calipers
2 and 4
Figure 4-12. Interpretation of calipers for breakouts and Figure 4-13. Three-dimensional (3D) computer model of
the stress direction. σθθ = circumferential stress, pm = mud a 2-ft section of an 81⁄2-in. diameter borehole constructed
pressure in the wellbore. from UBI* Ultrasonic Borehole Imager transit-time data.
The ridges on the right and left sides are breakout elong-
ations resulting from stress-induced wellbore failure.
FMI* Fullbore Formation MicroImager. They
are distinguished from natural fractures because
the fracture sets parallel the wellbore, in some Strickland and Ren, 1980). In the case of hard
cases for hundreds of feet. rocks, fast unloading of the core creates a popu-
In a vertical well, drilling-induced subvertical lation of defects (i.e., microcracks) related to the
fractures occur in the direction of the maximum stress field at the time of coring (i.e., the current
horizontal stress. In deviated and horizontal state of stress). Provided that the population of
wells, en echelon fractures are observed. An defects is dominant in the sample, which is usu-
analysis similar to that conducted for breakouts ally the case, the DSA technique will yield infor-
can yield stress ratios and stress directions mation on the current state of stress. This tech-
(Wiprut and Zoback, 1998). nique also provides the order of the principal
A final check consists of verifying that any stresses, making it extremely useful when it is
breakouts occur 90° from drilling-induced suspected that the vertical stress is not a principal
fractures. stress or not the maximum principal stress.
– Tests on cores – Population of natural fractures
The recovery of cores introduces nonlinear This technique does not provide information
effects because of the brutal change of stress about the current state of stress and therefore is
(i.e., unloading) to which the cores were sub- not useful unless the fractures were created by
jected. Anelastic strain recovery (ASR) or differ- the current state of stress. The state of stress
ential strain analysis (DSA) may yield the direc- changes often and significantly at the geologic
tion of the principal stresses (see Section 3-6.4) time scale. The current state of stress, which is
(Voigt, 1968; Siegfried and Simmons, 1978; of interest for hydraulic fracturing, is typically
0.50
0.45
0.35
the stress model that provides a continuous
K factor
2900
2950
3000
3050
3100
nonvertical wells. However, in general, the wellbore open and maintain a conductive flow path for the
breaks—i.e., the rock fractures—owing to the action increased formation flow area during production.
of the hydraulic fluid pressure, and a “hydraulic” The propping agent is generally sand or a high-
fracture is created. Because most wells are vertical strength, granular substitute for sand (see Section 7-7).
and the smallest stress is the minimum horizontal Alternatively, for carbonate rocks, the hydraulic fluid
stress, the initial splitting (or breakdown) results in may consist of acid that dissolves some of the forma-
a vertical, planar parting in the earth. tion, leaving behind acid-etched channels extending
The breakdown and early fracture growth expose into the reservoir.
new formation area to the injected fluid, and thus the After the breakdown, the fracture propagation rate
rate of fluid leaking off into the formation starts to and fluid flow rate inside the fracture become impor-
increase. However, if the pumping rate is maintained tant. They are dominated by fluid-loss behavior. As
at a rate higher than the fluid-loss rate, then the introduced by Carter (1957) and discussed in the fol-
newly created fracture must continue to propagate lowing (and in Chapters 6 and 9), the fluid-loss rate
and grow (Fig. 5-2). This growth continues to open qL from a fracture can be expressed as
more formation area. However, although the
hydraulic fracture tremendously increases the forma- 2 CL A
qL ≈ , (5-1)
tion flow area while pumping, once pumping stops t−τ
and the injected fluids leak off, the fracture will close
and the new formation area will not be available for where CL is the fluid-loss coefficient, A is an element
production. To prevent this, measures must be taken of the fracture area (i.e., increased inflow area), t is
to maintain the conductive channel. This normally time measured from the start of pumping, and τ is
involves adding a propping agent to the hydraulic the time when each small area element of a fracture
fluid to be transported into the fracture. When pump- is created or opened. As a direct consequence of this
ing stops and fluid flows back from the well, the relation, the highest rate of fluid loss is always at the
propping agent remains in place to keep the fracture fracture tip. Newly created fracture area exists at that
;
pant-laden slurry eventually overtakes the fracture tip. At treatment end, the entire fracture is filled with the
Next, because of fluid loss, the proppant-laden slurry design concentration slurry. Design considerations
stages lose fluid (but not proppant) to the formation. for the final concentration are discussed later in this
section and in detail in Section 10-4.
The preceding description might be termed a “nor-
;; ;;
; ;
mal” design, where the entire fracture is filled with a
uniform, preselected, design proppant concentration
just as the treatment ends. If pumping continues past
that point, there would be little additional fracture
extension because the pad is 100% depleted. Con-
tinued pumping forces the fracture to become wider
;;;;;;
(and forces the pressure to increase) because the
increased volume simply acts like blowing up a bal-
loon. In some cases the additional propped width
that results may be desirable, and this procedure is
used purposely. This is termed tip-screenout (TSO)
fracturing.
At the conclusion of the treatment, the final flush
stage is pumped. This segment of a treatment con-
sists of one wellbore volume of fluid only and is
intended to sweep the wellbore clean of proppant
(Fig. 5-4). The well is generally then shut-in for
some period to allow fluid to leak off such that the
fracture closes on and stresses the proppant pack.
Shut-in also allows temperature (and chemical
Figure 5-3. Introducing proppant into the fracture. breakers added to the fluid while pumping) to reduce
;;;
;
• Damage bypass
Near-wellbore damage reduces well productivity.
This damage can occur from several sources,
including drilling-induced damage resulting from
fines invasion into the formation while drilling
;;;
;
and chemical incompatibility between drilling flu-
ids and the formation. The damage can also be
due to natural reservoir processes such as satura-
tion changes resulting from low reservoir pressure
near a well, formation fines movement or scale
deposition. Whatever the cause, the result is unde-
sirable. Matrix treatments (discussed in Chapters
13 through 20) are usually used to remove the
damage chemically, restoring a well to its natural
productivity. In some instances, chemical proce-
dures may not be effective or appropriate, and
hydraulic fracture operations are used to bypass
the damage. This is achieved by producing a high-
conductivity path through the damage region to
Figure 5-4. Flushing the wellbore to leave a propped frac- restore wellbore contact with undamaged rock.
ture. • Improved productivity
the viscosity of the fracturing fluid (see Section 7-6.2). Unlike matrix stimulation procedures, hydraulic
Ideally, this process leaves a proppant-filled fracture fracturing operations can extend a conductive
with a productive fracture length (or half-length xf), channel deep into the reservoir and actually stimu-
propped fracture height and propped fracture width late productivity beyond the natural level.
(which determines the fracture conductivity kfw). All reservoir exploitation practices are subject
Here, xf is the productive fracture half-length, which to Darcy’s law:
may be less than the created half-length L or less kh ∆p A
than the propped length. q≈ , (5-2)
µ ∆x h
;;;
;;
;;
; ;
massive stimulation treatments in tight gas forma-
tions (see Appendix to this chapter). Although out-
wardly a traditional application of fracturing to
poorer quality reservoirs, these treatments repre-
sented the first engineering attempts to alter reser-
;;;
;;
voir flow in the horizontal plane and the methodol-
ogy for well placement (e.g., Smith, 1979).
Fracturing for vertical inflow conformance (i.e.,
reservoir management) was successfully used in
the Gullfaks field (Bale et al., 1994), where selec-
tive perforating and fracturing were used to opti-
mize reserve recovery and control sand production
while maintaining (but not necessarily increasing)
the required production rates. This is illustrated in
Fig. 5-6, where the bottom, low-permeability
Rannoch-1 zone was perforated to create a
propped fracture that extends up and into the
high-permeability (>1000-md) Rannoch-3 zone.
Without fracturing, the entire zone can be perfo-
rated, and a low drawdown allows a significant
production rate on the order of 20,000 STB/D,
Figure 5-5. Increased flow area resulting from a fracture. sand free. However, sand production is triggered
by water breakthrough in the high-permeability
flow shape that is altered, as discussed in detail in zone (from downdip water injection). The result-
Chapter 1.) ing wellbore enlargement caused by sand produc-
tion acts to stimulate production from the high-
This is the classic use of fracturing, to increase permeability zone. To stop sand production, draw-
the producing rate by bypassing near-wellbore
formation damage or by increasing exposure of
the formation area and thus stimulating well per- Stress (psi)
formance beyond that for no damage. For a single 4500 5500
well, treatment design concentrates on creating Rannoch-3
1820
the required formation flow area to yield increased
production at minimal cost. More formally, the Rannoch-3
design should optimize economic return on the
1840
basis of increased productivity and treatment cost. Rannoch-3
• Reservoir management
Along with improving well productivity, fractures Rannoch-2
1860
also provide a powerful tool for altering reservoir
flow. In combination with the other parts of field Rannoch-1
development, the fracture becomes a reservoir
management tool. For example, creating long 1880
fractures in tight rock (k < 0.1 md) enables field
development with fewer wells. However, even 0 20 40 60 80
fewer wells are required if the fracture azimuth TVD Fracture penetration (m)
(m below
is known and the wells are located appropriately sea level)
(e.g., not on a regulatory-required square pattern).
The actual philosophy shift for fracturing, from Figure 5-6. Fracturing for vertical inflow conformance.
This discussion briefly summarizes the design goals of hydraulic fracturing that provide a road map for the major design variables.
Design goals
Design goals result from Darcy’s law (Eq. 5-2), in which the dimensionless term A/(∆xh) is defined by flow conditions and equals
ln(re /rw´ ) for steady-state flow (as discussed in Chapter 1). For steady-state flow, Prats (1961) showed that a fracture affects produc-
tivity through the equivalent wellbore radius rw´ and that rw´ is related to the fracture half-length or penetration xf by the dimension-
less fracture conductivity (CfD = kfw/kxf). Cinco-Ley et al. (1978) extended these concepts for transient flow with the relation among
xf, rw´ and CfD shown in Fig. 5-11 for pseudoradial flow (where the pressure-depletion region >> xf but is not affected by external
boundaries). Thus, the primary design goals are fracture half-length or penetration and the fracture conductivity kfw, with their rela-
tive values defined by CfD.
Design variables
Design variables result from material balance, rock mechanics and fluid mechanics considerations.
The material balance is (Eqs. 5-10 through 5-12)
where CL and Sp are fluid-loss parameters that can be determined by the results of a fluid-loss test (Fig. 5A-1) for which the filtrate
volume divided by the exposed area VL /A = Sp + 2CL√t . Combining the relations in Eq. 5A-1 gives Eq. 5-13:
q it p
L ≈ ,
6CLhL t p + 4hLS p + 2whf
where fracture penetration L is related to pump rate, fluid loss, height, width, etc.
Next is the elasticity equation (Eq. 5-14):
2p net d
w max = ,
E'
where pnet = pf – σc, and width is related to net pressure as a function of modulus and geometry and the pressure required to propa-
gate the fracture (Eq. 5-21):
where d is the characteristic fracture dimension and generally is the smaller dimension between hf and L.
Third is the fluid flow equation (Eqs. 5-15 through 5-19), in which Eq. 5-15 (dpnet /dx = 12µq/hfw3) is combined with the width equation:
1/ 4
E' 3
p net ≈ 4 {κµq i L} + p net
4
tip
, (5A-3)
hf
where the pressure drop down the fracture is related to viscosity, pump rate, fracture length (and thus to fluid loss), etc. The net
pressure distribution gives the fracture width distribution and thus the final propped fracture width (i.e., kfw). Hence the primary
design variables are CL, hL, Sp, hf, E ,́ KIc-apparent, qi , µ and σc .
Optimum design
The optimum design results from maximizing
Volume lost/area, VL /A
2Cw
Sp
σ c ≅ Ko (σ v − pr ) + pr + T ,
• Stress differences between different geologic lay-
(5-4)
ers are the primary control over the important
parameter of height growth (Fig. 5-9). where Ko is a proportionality constant related to the
• Through its magnitude, the stress has a large bear- rock properties of the formations (possibly to both
ing on material requirements, pumping equipment, the elastic properties and the faulting or failure prop-
etc., required for a treatment. Because the bottom- erties), σv is the vertical stress from the weight of
hole pressure must exceed the in-situ stress for the overburden, pr is the reservoir pore pressure, and
fracture propagation, stress controls the required T accounts for any tectonic effects on the stress (for
pumping pressure that well tubulars must with- a relaxed, normal fault geology, T is typically small).
stand and also controls the hydraulic horsepower Ko is typically about 1⁄3. For fracture design, better
(hhp) required for the treatment. After fracturing, values are required than can be provided by such a
high stresses tend to crush the proppant and reduce simple relation, and methods of measuring or infer-
kf ; thus, the stress magnitude dominates the selec- ring the in-situ stress are discussed in Chapters 3 and
tion of proppant type and largely controls postfrac- 4. For preliminary design and evaluation, using
ture conductivity. Eq. 5-4 with Ko = 1⁄3 is usually sufficient.
Therefore, the detailed design of hydraulic fracture
treatments requires detailed information on in-situ 5-3. Reservoir engineering
stresses. An engineer must know the magnitude of
the minimum in-situ stress for the pay zone and As previously mentioned, because the ultimate goal
over- and underlying zones and in some cases must of fracturing is to alter fluid flow in a reservoir,
know the direction for the three principal stresses. reservoir engineering must provide the goals for a
For a simple, relaxed geology with normal pore pres- design. In addition, reservoir variables may impact
the fluid loss.
∆σ
σv
σh
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
pnet/∆σ
Shale 0.5
pnet
hf hfo 0.4
3 4 σH 0.3
2
0.2
0.1
0
1 1 2 3
h f /h fo
Shale
Figure 5-9. Fracture height growth. (a) Idealized fracture profile of the relation of fracture geometry to in-situ stresses.
σh = minimum horizontal stress, σH = maximum horizontal stress. (b) Typical fracture vertical cross section illustrating the
relation of the total fracture height hf to the “original” fracture height hfo. (c) Theoretical relation among hf /hfo, pnet and the
in-situ stress difference ∆σ (Simonson et al., 1978).
;;;
on traffic flow, and the only way to increase traffic flow is to
widen (i.e., increase the conductivity of) the road. This is
obviously analogous to placing a fracture in a higher perme-
. . Flow area = 2πrwh
. .. . .. . .. . . ability formation, with the postfracture production limited by
.. .. .... . . . .. .. . . .. . the fracture width (or, more accurately, limited by kfw).
. .. . ..
. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . If CfD is the ratio of the ability of a highway to carry traffic
. . .. . .. .. .. ... . .. .. . to the ability of the feeder system to supply that traffic to the
. . . . .. . .
highway, clearly a highway should be engineered to approxi-
mately balance these conditions. That is, a CfD value > 50 is
;;;
seldom warranted, because a highway would not be con-
structed to carry 50 times more traffic than the feeder system
Flow area = could supply. In the same way, a value of 0.1 makes little
2πrw´h 2
rw´ = x sense. Why construct a highway that can only carry 10% of
π f
the available traffic? In general, an ideal value for CfD would
be expected to be about 1 to result in a balanced, well-
engineered highway system.
A balance of about 1 is certainly attractive for steady-flow
traffic conditions that may exist through most of the day.
Flow area = 4xfh However, during peak traffic periods the feeder system may
supply more traffic than normal, and if this rush hour or tran-
sient traffic period is a major consideration, then a larger ratio
of CfD may be desirable. Thus, a CfD of 10 may be desirable
for peak flow (transient) periods, as opposed to a CfD value of
approximately 1 for steady-state traffic conditions.
Figure 5-10. Equivalent wellbore radius rw′.
100
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
Time (months)
800
600 5-4.2. Fracture height
400 hf = hL = 200 ft Equation 5-13 demonstrates that fracture height hf
200 and fluid-loss height hL are important parameters for
0 fracture design. Loss height is controlled by in-situ
0 20 40 60 80 100 variations of porosity and permeability. Fracture
Time (min) height is controlled by the in-situ stresses, in particu-
lar by differences in the magnitude or level of stress
(b) between various geologic layers. More formally,
height is controlled by the ratio of net pressure to
1600
hf = hL = 200 ft stress differences ∆σ, as illustrated in Fig. 5-9, where
1400 q i = 30 bbl/min
w = 0.25 in.
∆σ is the difference between stress in the boundary
1200 Sp = 0 shales and stress in the pay zone. Ignoring any pres-
1000 sure drop caused by vertical fluid flow, the relation
CL = 0.0005 among fracture height, initial fracture height, pnet
L (ft)
800
and ∆σ can be calculated as demonstrated by
600
Simonson et al. (1978). This relation is included
400 CL = 0.001 in Fig. 5-9c.
200 For cases when pnet is relatively small compared
0 with the existing stress differences (e.g., less than
0 20 40 60 80 100 50% of ∆σ), there is little vertical fracture growth
Time (min) and the hydraulic fracture is essentially perfectly
confined. This gives a simple fracture geometry
(c)
(Fig. 5-14a) and increasing net pressure (Fig. 5-14b).
For cases when pnet is much larger than the existing
600
hf = hL = 100 ft stress differences, vertical fracture height growth is
qi = 30 bbl/min
500 w = 0.25 in. essentially unrestrained. Again, the geometry is a
Sp = 0
CL = 0.005 fairly simple radial or circular fracture (Fig. 5-14c)
400
and declining net pressure (Fig. 5-14b).
For more complex cases when pnet is about equal
L (ft)
300
1.8:1 to ∆σ, fracture geometry becomes more difficult to
200 predict, and significant increases in height can occur
CL = 0.01 for small changes in net pressure. Also, for this case,
100
the viscous pressure drop from vertical flow retards
0 fracture height growth (see Weng, 1991), and the
0 20 40 60 80 100 equilibrium height calculations in Fig. 5-9 are no
Time (min) longer applicable.
Figure 5-13. Effect of hf and CL on L.
E = 4E+6 psi
µ = 200 cp
200 The major fluid flow parameters are the fluid viscos-
∆σ = 50 psi
100 ity (resistance to flow) µ and injection rate qi. The
50 rate also effects the pump time and hence is impor-
tant to fluid-loss and material-balance considerations,
20
Shut-in as discussed previously. Both parameters are critical
10
1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
for proppant transport, and both parameters also
Pump time (min) affect net pressure and thus affect fracture height
and width.
As an example, consider a Newtonian fluid flowing
(c)
Depth laterally through a narrow, vertical slit (i.e., fracture)
(ft) (Fig. 5-15). For laminar flow (the general case for
4800 flow inside hydraulic fractures), the pressure drop
∆σ = 50 psi
4900 along some length ∆x of the slit is
∆pnet 12µq
5000
= . (5-15)
5100
∆x hf w3
q = qi ⁄ 2
– q
5-4.3. Fracture width w v =
hfw
pnet (psi)
(e.g., formations such as unconsolidated sands 200
with E ≤ 0.5 × 106 psi). For treatments using low-
100
viscosity fluid or pumping at very low rates, the Nolte-Smith plot
50 ∆σ = 1000 psi
viscous term of the net pressure equation becomes
qi = 15 bbl/min
small, and fracture toughness becomes a dominant 20 hf = 25 ft
E = 5 × 106 psi
parameter. Although many cases fall into one of
0
these extremes, neither effect should be over- 0 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500
looked for the prudent application of fracturing. Pump time (min)
The magnitude of net pressure may also be con-
(b)
trolled by in-situ stress differences between the
Depth
pay and the bounding layers. Consider a case (ft)
where barrier zones (e.g., formations with higher
closure stress) surround the pay zone (Fig. 5-9)
and further assume that because of either viscous
4900
or toughness effects, pnet increases to the level of
the stress differences. Massive height growth then Perforated
begins, and only very small increases in the net interval
200 500
µ = 50 cp
pnet (psi)
100 200
∆σ = 1000 psi
50 q = 15 bbl/min 100
i
hf = 50 ft
20 E = 5 × 106 psi 50
∆σ = 1000 psi
0 q = 15 bbl/min
20 hi = 25 ft
0 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100200 500 f
E = 5 × 106 psi
Pump time (min)
0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500
Figure 5-19. Height growth example in a thicker hard-rock Pump time (min)
formation. (b)
Depth
(ft)
height growth occurs. For a more viscous (200-cp)
fluid, net pressure again approaches the stress dif-
ference of 1000 psi, and again extensive height 4900
growth occurs. These examples show that fracture Perforated
interval
height is a function of fracture height. 5000
Finally, consider the original (h = 25 ft) case
again, but assume this is a soft-rock (unconsoli-
dated sand with E < 0.5 × 106 psi) zone. Further 5100
Fill fraction, F
0.6
discussed in Chapter 9, the efficiency for a specific Proppant s.g. = 2.65
(sand)
formation and fluid system can be determined by a 0.4
calibration treatment. Proppant s.g. = 3.2
(intermediate strength)
This discussion of pad volume has so far concen- 0.2
trated on the fluid-loss aspects of the pad volume;
i.e., the pad is pumped first to serve as a sacrificial 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
stage of the treatment to enable the fracture to pene-
Proppant concentration (lbm/gal)
trate into permeable formations. This important effect
of the pad volume may be the critical aspect govern- Figure 5-21. Fill fraction versus proppant concentration.
ing the size of the pad for most applications. How-
ever, hydraulic fracturing is complicated, in that most
things are done for at least two reasons, which where F is the fill fraction (Fig. 5-21), the con-
applies to pad volume specification. The second pur- stant 8.33 converts the units to lbm/gal, γprop is
pose of the pad volume is to create sufficient fracture the specific gravity (s.g.) of the proppant, C is the
width to allow proppant to enter the fracture (see final in-situ proppant concentration at shut-in
Section 5-5.4 on proppant admittance). Even for a expressed as pounds of proppant per fluid gallon
case of very low fluid loss, some minimum pad vol- (ppg), and φ is the porosity of the proppant pack,
ume is required. Both of these aspects of the pad vol- typically about 0.35.
ume must always be considered for treatment design. Increasing the concentration from 8 (F ≈ 0.4)
• Propped width to 16 ppg (F ≈ 0.6) significantly increases the
propped fracture width (50% increase in the fill
A major design goal is fracture conductivity kf w,
fraction). However, this large increase in propped
which consists of proppant pack permeability and
width is accomplished at the expense of additional
propped fracture width. Proppant permeability kf
risk to the job and to the well, because of either
is a function of the proppant selected, in-situ
surface mechanical problems or an unexpected
stress and residual damage from fluid additives
total screenout somewhere in the fracture or in the
(see Chapter 8). Propped width is controlled by
near-wellbore region between the well and the far-
the treatment design.
field fracture (see the discussion of tortuosity in
The effective propped width wp-eff is a function
Section 6-6). In practice, most treatments use a
of the average fracture width wf at shutdown (i.e.,
maximum concentration of about 8 to 14 ppg,
hydraulic width at the end of pumping a treat-
although concentrations of 20 ppg have been
ment), proppant concentration C in the fracture at
pumped.
that time (i.e., giving the ideal propped width wp)
Another manner of increasing propped width is
and the volume of proppant wlost that is lost on the
to increase fracture width. Theoretical and numer-
faces of the fracture to embedment, gel residue,
ical models generally show that the fracture
etc. (usually expressed as lbm/ft2 “lost”). In terms
width, while the fracture is growing, is relatively
of these parameters, the effective propped width
insensitive to the controllable job variables of
can be expressed as
pump rate and fluid viscosity. For a simple frac-
w p−eff = w p − wlost = w f × F − wlost (5-23) ture geometry, width is proportional to rate and
viscosity raised to a small power. For Eq. 5-18
with the exponent 1⁄4, doubling the pump rate
C
F= increases fracture width by only 18%, at the
( )
,
8.33 × γ prop + C × (1 − φ)
(5-24)
expense of significant pipe friction and surface
6
Experimental Correlation
5 Bridge Formation‡ Bridge
100-cp HEC solution
4 0.5 to 2 1.8 1.15 to 2.0
Tap water
3
2 to 5 2.2 2.0 to 3.0
2
5 to 8 2.6 3.0
1 † Sand as proppant
‡ Data from van der Vlis et al. (1975)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sand concentration
(lbm sand/gal fluid)
6 to 8 ppg, the required average fracture width
Figure 5-23. Proppant admittance through perforations increases to 3dprop.
(Gruesbeck and Collins, 1978). This critical width is important to the hydraulic
fracturing process. Should proppant enter a part of the
fracture where sufficient width does not exist, the
(solid volume fraction of about 0.20), the perforation proppant will bridge and no longer flow down the
hole diameter must be 6 times the average particle fracture. Additional slurry flowing in this direction
diameter. will cause proppant to pile up, dehydrate and block
This same trend applies for slurry flow down a nar- that part of the fracture. Should this occur near the
row fracture. An approximate proppant bridging or wellbore, possibly as a result of some form of near-
proppant admittance criteria can be derived by calcu- wellbore width restriction (see tortuosity discussion in
lating an equivalent hydraulic radius for a narrow Section 6-8), a total screenout can result with serious
slot, rhyd = w/2, where w is the average width of the consequences for the success of the fracture treatment.
fracture. For a round perforation hole, the hydraulic
radius is d/4, where d is the perforation hole diameter.
Equating the two hydraulic radius values shows that 5-5.5. Fracture models
2w is equivalent to the diameter of a round hole.
Using this along with two lines fitting the data Clearly, developing a final treatment pump schedule
of Gruesbeck and Collins leads to an approximate must consider many options. The interactive roles of
admittance criteria for a hydraulic fracture: the various major variables (hf, E, CL, KIc-apparent, µ
and qi) must be considered along with the various
• For a proppant solid volume fraction fv less than roles of fluid viscosity for net pressure, width, prop-
0.17, the average width must be greater than pant transport and fluid loss. In addition, the design
(1 + 2fv /0.17) × dprop. must consider the various roles of the pad volume
• For fv greater than 0.17, the average width must be concerning fluid loss and creating fracture width.
greater than 3dprop (i.e., a width greater than three Fracture simulators, or fracture placement models,
proppant grain diameters). provide the means to handle this complexity and to
consider the interaction of the multitude of variables.
This approximate correlation also compares well
For this reason, a final schedule is generally devel-
with other experimental data from proppant-laden
oped using a fracture geometry model. However, as
slurry flowed through a narrow slot (van der Vlis et
discussed in Section 5-5.2, Sidebar 6L and Section
al., 1975), although the correlation may be optimistic
10-4, in many instances an acceptable pump schedule
for low proppant concentrations. As shown in Table
can be developed more simply for a treatment on the
5-1, the behavior for bridging in a fracture is similar
basis of the expected fluid efficiency (as determined
to bridging in perforation holes. At low proppant
from a calibration treatment). The use of a properly
concentrations, the average fracture width must be
calibrated fracture geometry model also enables the
only slightly greater than the average particle diame-
consideration of multiple scenarios for designing the
ter. As the proppant concentration increases toward
x f = x f2
kfw = kfw2 kfw = kfw2
x f = x f1
kfw = kfw1 kfw = kfw1
No fracture
Revenue less cost ($)
kfw = kfw2
Treatment volume
xf
Cost ($)
kfw = kfw2
kfw = kfw1
xf xf
(2×)
tivity
wegian Gullfaks field. The potential is to use TSO
rate k
ls,
onduc
treatments and indirect vertical fracturing for
ria
eq ding 10×)
me ate
age
Treatments
Mode
s(
increased reserves recovery, formation solids control
uip , m
High c
dam
nt
ga
de ight
and water management. However, the unique bene-
ove
an
T
?
rst
fits and favorable economics for this different
Rem
Un
approach to reservoir “plumbing” were slow to
materialize because of the industry’s comfort with
0
1950 1955 1971 1981 deviated drilling and more traditional completions.
Year Another observation from this historical perspec-
tive is the 1985 forecast of a flat drilling level
(b)
(Appendix Fig. 1b). However, activity continued to
4500 decrease rapidly, to less than one-half of the forecast,
Annual average rotary rig count
OPEC overextends
4000 U.S. gas prices regulated Prices fall and subsequently declined by another one-half. Stable
3500 Middle East discoveries
activity levels within the petroleum industry are not
3000 U.S. production peaks
seen in the historical cycles and remain the product
ear
OPEC develops
%/y
of wishful thinking.
15.1
Do
/y
wn
9%
2000
Down 25
6.
Up
9.
1%
Up
/ye
1500 ar
.5%/yea
1000
500 Rotary displaces
The beginning
r
10,000 50
Linear gel Crosslinked gel
8000 Injection 40
Bottomhole pressure, BHP (psi)
Step rate
Linear gel
Injection rate (bbl/min)
6000 30
4000 20
Injection
Step rate Minifracture Propped fracture
2000 10
BHP
Injection rate
0 0
0 0.5 1.0 2.0 13.0 13.5 14.0
Time (hr)
Appendix Figure 3. High-permeability frac and pack treatment (Gulrajani et al., 1997b).
w/wo
0.3 8 16
0.5
ϑ0 = π
Width at
fluid arrival 4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0 0
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Normalized distance from tip, (L – x)/L Normalized distance from well, x/L
1.0 1.0
Test
4
5
0.8 6 0.8
ϑ0 = π
7
9 8
10 ϑ0 = 3π
0.6 8
0.6
p/po
p/po
ϑ0 = π
16
0.4 0.4
ϑ0 = π
4
0.2 0.2
ϑ0 = 3π
16
0 0
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized distance from tip, (L – x)/L Normalized distance from well, x/L
Appendix Figure 4. Comparison of Warpinski (1985) field data (left) and Khristianovich and Zheltov (1955) analysis
(right). wo and po are the wellbore values of width and pressure, respectively; x is the distance from the well.
the reservoir and displacement of the reservoir fluid height and tip-to-tip length. This equation, based on
(see Fig. 5-17 and Chapters 6 and 8). All three fac- the assumption of a spatial and temporal constant
tors are governed by the relation 1/√t (where t is fracture width, provided the first rigorous inclusion
time) for porous flow in one dimension. The coeffi- of fluid loss into the fracturing problem (see Chapter
cient for this relation was termed the fluid-loss coef- 6). Equation 6-18, which is solved by Laplace trans-
ficient CL. The authors also provided the means to formation, is in terms of exponential and comple-
determine the coefficient for all three factors using mentary error functions and is not “engineer friendly.”
analytical expressions for the filtrate and reservoir This difficulty was soon overcome by developing a
contributions and to conduct and analyze the filter- table for the more complicated terms in the equation
cake experiment, which is now an American Petro- using a dimensionless variable (see Eq. 6-19) that is
leum Institute (API) Recommended Practice. proportional to the fluid-loss coefficient (loss vol-
Also of significance was presentation of the Carter ume) divided by the width (stored volume) and
area equation, with area defined as the product of the hence also related directly to the fluid efficiency
12 0.8
0.7
ln 0.472 rw
re
8
0.5 about an order of magnitude lower than the optimum
0.4
case for the long transient period of a very low per-
6 0.3
meability reservoir.
(
4 0.2
Additional lessons are also provided by the appar-
(J/Jo)
0.1
2 entwellbore concept. The first is that a fracture is
0 equivalent to enlarging the wellbore and not increas-
102 103 104 105 106 ing the formation’s global permeability. Incorrectly
kfw 40 considering a fracture to be a permeability increase
Relative conductivity,
k √A can lead to incorrect conclusions concerning reser-
voir recovery and waterflood sweep. Another insight
Appendix Figure 5. McGuire and Sikora (1960) curves for
folds of increase (J/Jo) in a bounded reservoir of area A
is the generally favorable economics for an effec-
(acres). tively designed and executed fracture. A fracture
III-b
[5 MPa] II IV
third generations I
III-a
500
The following paragraphs link several aspects of the 40 60 100 200 400 600 1000
massive and TSO generations by using the informa- Time (min)
tion available from the diagnostic log-log plot for
fracturing in Appendix Fig. 8. Appendix Table 1 lists
Idealized Data
the interpretations for various slopes exhibited in the III-b
log pnet
II
III-a
I
are from two massive treatments in tight gas forma- IV
tions. The top curve is a treatment in the Wattenberg Inefficient extension for
pnet ≥ formation capacity pfc
field, the first microdarcy-permeability field develop-
ment (Fast et al., 1977). The behavior shown by the log time or volume
lower treatment curve, which was designed by this
author, provided insight for developing the TSO Appendix Figure 8. Log-log diagnostic plot for fracturing
(Nolte, 1982).
treatment that enables successfully fracturing darcy-
scale oil formations. The treatment related to the
lower curve was not particularly successful. How- capacity. The capacity (Nolte, 1982) defines the pres-
ever, it was one of the first 2 million lbm treatments sure limit for efficient fracture extension and is anal-
and hence functioned better as a “sand-disposal” ogous to the pressure-capacity rating for a pressure
treatment than a gas-stimulation treatment. The sand vessel. The cited reference has an unsurprising
was disposed of with 900,000 gal of crosslinked fluid theme of the negative effects of excesses of pressure,
containing 90 lbm/1000 gal of polymer, or approxi- polymer and viscosity.
mately 80,000 lbm of polymer. Three mechanisms for a formation can define its
The marginal success of the treatment is readily pressure capacity before “rupture” accelerates fluid
understood by considering Appendix Eq. 3. For the loss from the formation’s pay zone. The subsequent
treatment average of 2.1 ppa, the equation predicts fluid loss also leaves proppant behind to further
1900 lbm/1000 gal crosslinked fluid (in reality, a enhance slurry dehydration and proppant bridging.
solid) remaining in the proppant pack porosity after Each mechanism is defined by the in-situ stress state
the treatment. However, the size and viscosity for and results in a constant injection pressure condition,
this treatment provided an ideal test condition of or zero log-log slope, when the net pressure reaches
how a formation responds to fluid pressure and an the mechanism’s initiation pressure. The mecha-
excellent illustration for the concept of formation nisims are
Appendix Table 1. Slopes of fracturing pressures and their interpretation in Appendix Fig. 8.
I 1
⁄8 to 1⁄4 Restricted height and unrestricted expansion
II 0 Height growth through pinch point, fissure opening
or T-shaped fracture
III-a 1 Restricted tip extension (two active wings)
III-b 2 Restricted extension (one active wing)
IV Negative Unrestricted height growth
unrealistically low viscosity. Thus, under typical where Af is the fracture face area. Carter showed
hydraulic fracturing conditions, the pressure result- that Eq. 6-16 can be rewritten as
ing from fluid flow is far larger than the minimum t
∂A f ∂A
pressure required to extend a stationary fracture. qi = 2 ∫ uL (t − λ ) dλ + w f . (6-17)
This justifies neglecting fracture mechanics effects 0
∂λ ∂t
in this model. Furthermore, they pointed out that
Substituting Eq. 6-14 into Eq. 6-17 and using
the fracture would continue to extend after pump-
Laplace transformations, he showed that this could
ing stopped, until either leakoff limited further
be solved to obtain
extension or the minimum pressure for fracture
propagation was reached. qi w s 2
Af = e erfc( S ) + S − 1 ,
2
2
(6-18)
Several important observations concern this 4 πCL π
solution:
where
– assumption of plane strain behavior in the verti-
cal direction 2CL πt
S= . (6-19)
– demonstration that fracture toughness could be w
neglected, because the energy required to propa-
The fracture wing length L as a function of time
gate the fracture was significantly less than that
is then obtained by dividing the area by twice the
required to allow fluid flow along the fracture
fracture height. Harrington and Hannah (1975)
length
showed (see Sidebar 6A) that Eq. 6-18 could be
– assumption that leakoff and storage or volume simplified with little loss of accuracy to
change in the fracture could be neglected
qi t
– assumption of fixed height Af = , (6-20)
w + 2 CL 2 t
– no direct provision of fracture length as part of which is much easier to work with for simple cal-
the solution. culations.
• Inclusion of leakoff Designs were performed by iterating between the
Although Perkins and Kern (1961) suggested that Carter technique to obtain the fracture length as a
their paper could be used in practical applications, function of time (Eq. 6-19) and the Perkins and
they neglected both leakoff and storage of fluid in Kern model to determine the width (Eq. 6-13) until
the fracture. They assumed that some other method a consistent solution was found, and then Eq. 6-11
would be used to calculate the fracture length, such was used to determine the pressure.
as that proposed by Carter (1957). Nordgren (1972) added leakoff and storage with-
Carter introduced the basic equation for leakoff, in the fracture (resulting from increasing width) to
which is discussed in detail in Section 6-4. The the Perkins and Kern model, deriving what is now
leakoff velocity uL at a point on the fracture wall is known as the PKN model. To add storage and
CL leakoff, the equation of continuity (i.e., conserva-
uL = , (6-14) tion of mass) is added to the set of equations (6-7
t − texp and 6-9) used by Perkins and Kern:
where CL is the leakoff coefficient, t is the current ∂q ∂A
time, and texp is the time at which point uL was + qL + = 0, (6-21)
∂x ∂t
exposed. Carter introduced a simple mass balance:
qi = q L + q f , (6-15)
w w = 2.18 i t 1/ 5 , (6B-2)
method of Perkins and Kern, Eq. 6-21 can be writ- E ′hf
ten as
and the high-leakoff (η → 0) approximation is
E ′ ∂2 w 4 8CL ∂w q i t 1/ 2
= + . (6-23) L(t ) = (6B-3)
128µh f ∂x π t − texp ( x ) ∂t 2πC L hf
2
1/ 4
Nordgren solved this equation numerically in a µq 2 1/ 8
w w = 4 3 i t . (6B-4)
dimensionless form to obtain the width and length π E ′C L hf
as a function of time. The dimensionless time tD Equation 6B-3 could also be obtained from the approxima-
used in the solution is defined by tion in Sidebar 6A, with the fracture width set to zero and
2√2t replaced by π√t, which is more correct. Once the width
2/3
64C 5 E ′h is determined from Eq. 6B-2 or 6B-4, the pressure can be
tD = 3 L 2 f t . (6-24) found from Eq. 6-7.
π µqi
ww = 1.48 i 3 t 1/ 3 . (6-32)
It can be shown that applying Barenblatt’s tip E ′h f
condition (which requires that the fracture tip must
close smoothly, as illustrated in Fig. 6-3) implies The high-leakoff solution for the PKN model
that the stress intensity factor (see Chapter 3) is zero: (Eq. 6B-3) also applies to the KGD model, but
Geertsma and de Klerk did not provide an explicit
width relationship for the KGD model in the case
of high leakoff.
8C πt w w = 2.56 i (6C-1)
S= L . (6-35) E′
πww
and the radial length R is
To include the effects of spurt loss Sp, ww should
( )
q i 4w w + 15S p s 2 2
be replaced by ww + (8/π)Sp, which is equivalent to R=
30π 2C L2 e erfc(S ) + S − 1 , (6C-2)
– + 2S and π
the Carter relation with w replaced by w p
–
w = πw/4.
where
• Assumptions of the PKN and KGD models 15C L πt
S= . (6C-3)
Both the PKN and KGD models contain a number 4w w + 15S p
of assumptions that are revisited in this section.
An explicit relationship for pressure can be derived by con-
They assume that the fracture is planar (i.e., that it sidering the solution for flow from a point source, in which
propagates in a particular direction, perpendicular case the pressure in the fracture is a function of the expres-
sion ln(rw /R), where rw is the radius of the wellbore.
to the minimum stress, as described in Chapter 3). The no-fluid-loss approximations for the radial model are
They also assume that fluid flow is one-dimen- 1/ 9
µ 2 q i3 1/ 9
sional (1D) along the length of the fracture. In w w = 2.17 2
t (6C-4)
E′
the case of the models described, they assume
Newtonian fluids (although Perkins and Kern also 1/ 9
E ′q i3 4 / 9
R = 0.52 t . (6C-5)
provided solutions for power law fluids), and µ
leakoff behavior is governed by a simple expres-
The large-fluid-loss approximation for radial length is
sion derived from filtration theory (Eq. 6-14). The
1/ 4
rock in which the fracture propagates is assumed to 1 q i2t
R= . (6C-6)
be a continuous, homogeneous, isotropic linear π C L2
elastic solid; the fracture is considered to be of
An expression for width in the case of large fluid loss was
fixed height or completely confined in a given not provided but can be found from Eqs. 6C-1 and 6C-6.
layer; and one of two assumptions is made con-
cerning the length to height ratio of the fracture—
i.e., height is large (KGD) or small (PKN) relative
to length. Finally, the KGD model includes the 6-3. Three-dimensional and pseudo-
assumption that tip processes dominate fracture three-dimensional models
propagation, whereas the PKN model neglects
fracture mechanics altogether. The simple models discussed in the previous sections
Since these models were developed, numerous are limited because they require the engineer to spec-
extensions have been made that relax these ify the fracture height or to assume that a radial frac-
assumptions, the most important of which are the ture will develop. This is a significant limitation,
solutions for power law fluids. These two models because it is not always obvious from logs and other
Figure 6D-1. Microseismic traces at the receiver resulting Figure 6D-2. Tiltmeter response to hydraulic fracture
from shear slippage. width.
Assume that a fracture has a fixed height and that it consists (xc,i,yc,i) (xc,k,yc,k)
of a number of elements each of constant width over the height
(i.e., a KGD fracture). Let the grid points be represented by
points xi in the center of the elements with corners (xl,i,yb,i),
(xl,i,yt,i), (xr,i,yt,i) and (xr,i,yb,i), as shown in Fig. 6E-1. Crouch and yb,i = yb,k
Starfield (1983) developed a boundary element solution tech-
nique called the displacement discontinuity method. They
xl,i xr,i xl,k xr,k
showed that the pressure at any point is given by
p (x i ) = ∑A w ,
k
ik k
(6E-1) Figure 6E-1. Geometry for displacement continuity
solution.
where Aik is an influence function of the form
G
Aik = I (x c ,i , y c ,i ; x l ,k ; x r ,k y b ,k y t ,k ) , (6E-2) Equation 6E-1 can then be written as
4 π(1− ν)
where the influence function I is defined as p(xi) = p(wi) + pcorr , (6E-6)
+
[(x c ,i + x l ,k ) 2 + (y c ,i + y b ,k ) 2 ]1/ 2 p corr = ∑ A ∆w ik ki . (6E-8)
(x c ,i + x l ,k )(y c ,i + y b ,k )
−
[(x c ,i − x r ,k ) 2 + (y c ,i + y b ,k ) 2 ]1/ 2
. (6E-3)
Σ
The term w(xi) Aik thus represents the pressure induced
by a fracture of constant width w(xi). For a fracture of infinite
(x c ,i − x r ,k )(y c ,i + y b ,k ) length, this pressure would be exact if calculated using the
plane strain solution. The term p(wi) can therefore be
To accurately solve Eq. 6E-1 requires a large number of obtained as the sum of the plane strain solution and the effect
elements. Also, it is difficult to extend directly to other shapes of two semi-infinite fractures of w – wi attached at the tip of
such as ellipses or for nonconstant heights. To overcome each fracture wing.
these problems, the equation is modified as follows. The From Eq. 6E-2, the influence functions decrease with
width at any point can be written as distance from an element. The advantages of the form of
Eq. 6E-8 are that the corrections are smallest near the ele-
w (x k ) = w (x i ) + ∆w ki , (6E-4) ment where the widths are almost the same and that the
self-correction is exactly zero by definition. The number of
where ∆wki is defined as elements required to obtain an accurate solution is significantly
reduced, and variable heights and other shapes are easily
∆w ki = w (x k ) − w (x i ) . (6E-5) introduced. Lateral coupling is relatively easy to introduce to
the explicit solution method because the pressure correction
is simply added before the fluid velocities are calculated.
turing (see Sidebar 6F). For a particular component, tions, the equations for the stress in a Newtonian fluid
such as the x component, Eq. 6-40 can be written as reduce to
Dux ∂p ∂τ ∂τ ∂τ ∂u
ρ = − − xx + yx + zx + ρgx . (6-41) τ xz = τ zx = −µ x
Dt ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z
A constitutive law relating the stresses τ to the flow ∂u
τ yz = τ zy = −µ y , (6-42)
rate is required to complete the description of fluid ∂z
flow. In the case of steady flow in a narrow channel and Eq. 6-41 can be written as
such as a fracture, the full details of the constitutive
law are not required, because the narrow fracture Dux ∂p ∂2u
ρ = − + µ 2x + ρgx . (6-43)
width results in the complete dominance of some Dt ∂x ∂z
stress terms. The only terms of interest are the shear
For the special case of a narrow channel (Poiseuille
stresses induced by velocity gradients across the frac-
flow), where velocity gradients parallel to the flow are
ture. In addition, use is made of the lubrication
small and there is no flow perpendicular to the chan-
approximation, so flow perpendicular to the fracture
nel, the time-dependent term simplifies to a partial
wall (the z direction) is neglected. With these assump-
Table 6G-1. Summarized expressions for laminar flow of Newtonian and power law fluids.
Power law n +1
n
n +1
n
3n + 1 2r 2n + 1 2y
ur = u 1− ux = u 1−
n +1 D n +1 w
Power law 2 5n + 2 q nK 4n + 2 2q K
n n
See Eq. 6-57
π n D 3 n +1 n hfnw 2n +1
K´ 2n + 1 –
n
3n + 1
n
K p′ = K ′ =K
K pp
4n 3n
x
Open elements within the fracture
4 n −1
∑ (σ i +1 − σ i )
• Solid mechanics solution
+
With the equilibrium-height assumption, the solid πE ′ i = 1
mechanics solution simplifies to the determination y h f − 2 hi hi
of the fracture cross-sectional shape as a function (hi − y)cosh +
–1
y (6-49)
i where ∆σ is the difference in stress between the
central layer (pay zone) and the surrounding layers,
and hpay and σpay are the thickness and stress of the
hi
pay zone, respectively. Figure 6-9 shows fracture
height as a function of net pressure, as calculated
2
by Eq. 6-49.
Layer 1 Although Eq. 6-49 is for a special case, it shows
two interesting practical results. First, penetration
into the barrier layers occurs at a critical net pressure:
2 K Ic2
pnet ,crit = . (6-50)
πh f
Figure 6-7. Definition of variables for the fracture contain-
ment problem. For example, if KIc is 2000 psi/in.1/2 and hf is 20 ft
[240 in.], the critical net pressure for breakthrough
1.5
Symmetric case σ2
hs
σ1 h p
1.0
σ2
hpay hf hs
h
∆σ
0.5
KIc = 0, all σ2 – σ1
q = ∫ w( y)ux ( y)dy .
model). In this model, both vertical flow and the
(6-56)
variation of horizontal velocity as a function of hf
vertical position are neglected. This results in the
inability of typical P3D models to represent several The average velocity is thus determined as
aspects of behavior, namely (Smith and Klein, 1995) 1+ n 1/ n
q ∂p ∂p A
– effect of variations in width in the vertical direc- u = = −sgn Φ 2K ,
A ∂x ∂x hf
tion on fluid velocity
– local dehydration, which is approximated as (6-57)
simultaneous dehydration over the entire height
of the fracture where the channel function Φ is
1+ 2 n
– fluid loss after tip screenouts (TSOs), when fluid h n 1 1+ 2 n
∫ w( y )
n
Φ= f n dy . (6-58)
flow through the proppant pack is ignored A 2 + 4n h f hf
τ xz = K x . (6-53)
∂z
6H. Stretching coordinate system and Substituting Eq. 6H-5 into Eq. 6-59 and applying the chain rule,
stability analysis
∂A D 1+n ∂A
1/ n −1
1+n ∂ 2 A ∂A
2
= A A A + (1+ n )A n , (6H-7)
Stretching coordinate system ∂t n ∂x ∂x 2
∂x
One way to simplify grid point bookkeeping is to use a where absolute values must be assumed for all quantities,
stretching coordinate system. If because an error analysis is being performed, and D is
defined as
x
X = , (6H-1)
L(t ) ΦC p1/ n
D= . (6H-8)
(2Kh )
1/ n
1+ n
then X will always remain bounded between 0 and 1 while x f
varies between 0 and L(t). Placing a grid on X will fully cover The highest order term in Eq. 6H-7 is
the fracture regardless of the growth characteristics. However,
1/ n −1
although the gridding is simplified, the complexity of the differ- D 1+n ∂A 1+n ∂ 2 A
ential equation is increased. The derivatives are found as A A
n ∂x A ∂x 2 . (6H-9)
∂ 1 ∂
= (6H-2) If the derivative is expanded using a central difference
∂x L ∂X
approximation, the term in A i becomes
∂ ∂ X dL ∂ −2D ∂A
1/ n −1
Stability analysis If a time step is taken (discretizing Eq. 6H-7 similar to Eq. 6-59),
then the error ε grows to
A full stability analysis for a nonlinear system is difficult, but
1/ n −1
an approximate time-step limitation can be found as follows. −2D ∂A 1
Assume that the pressure gradient can be written as E = ∆t A 3 +1/ n 1+ 3 + ε . (6H-12)
n ( ∆x ) ∂x n
2
∂p ∂A
= Cp . (6H-5) For this error to reduce in magnitude, it must be smaller than
∂x ∂x Aε, which can occur only if
(∆x )
2
In the case of the PKN model, where the fracture height hf is
fixed, Cp = βh f , where β is defined by ∆t < , (6H-13)
2AC p C v
Cv = −
(3n + 1)v . (6H-14)
∂p 2
n
∂x
and 1983 (Nolte, 1982, 1988a). Consider once For an analytical solution, ∆x would be the entire
again the basic equations of the PKN model with fracture length (Nolte, 1991), and this would be
x = φ at the tip: combined with a tip criterion and a volume-balance
2 pnet h f equation. The numerical solution proceeds simi-
w= (6-63) larly, except that ∆x is chosen sufficiently small to
E′ obtain an accurate solution. Fluid loss is integrated
dp 64 qµ over the time step, which allows obtaining accept-
= . (6-64) able accuracy, even with large time steps. The solu-
dx πh f w 3
tion method at each time step is as follows:
Substituting Eq. 6-64 for p into Eq. 6-63 obtains 1. Estimate a tip velocity.
E ′ dw 64 qµ 2. For each element, working in from the tip to the
= . (6-65) well,
2 h f dx πh f w 3
a. calculate an average fluid velocity based on
Detailed numerical simulations have shown that the velocity at the outer side of the element
the velocity varies much more slowly than the flow and the estimated velocity at the inner side
rate q because the reduction in width toward the tip (At the first iteration, assume the inner fluid
partially compensates for fluid leakoff and storage velocity is equal to the outer fluid velocity.)
in the fracture. Instead of the Perkins and Kern
Pressure (psi)
model, but the iterative process to determine the tip
positions can be time consuming. The nonequilib- 1200
Lateral coupling
rium-height algorithm should therefore be used KGD
PKN
only when necessary because of the apparent rapid 1100
height growth indicated by the equilibrium-height
calculation. 1000
0 5 10 15 20 25
• Lateral coupling Time (min)
In the description of the solid mechanics solution
provided previously, the basic assumption is that Figure 6-11. Pressure record with and without lateral
coupling.
individual cross sections act independently (i.e.,
plane strain in the horizontal direction, or laterally
decoupled). This is implicit in the assumption that
the pressure and width at any point are uniquely 6-3.3. Lumped pseudo-three-
related. In reality, the pressure at any point is depen- dimensional models
dent not only on the local width, but also on the
Lumped models are an alternative to cell-based mod-
width distribution over the entire fracture, as dis-
els and were first introduced by Cleary (1980b).
cussed in Section 6-3.1 on planar 3D models. This
Although more details are presented in subsequent
lateral coupling is generally not important, unless
paragraphs, it is worthwhile at this point to quote two
the fracture wing length is less than the height. Even
sentences from the conclusions of his paper: “the heart
then, the fracture geometry will not be significantly
of the formulae can be extracted very simply by a
different if lateral coupling is neglected, although
nondimensionalization of the governing equations; the
the pressure response may be underestimated. Lat-
remainder just involves a good physico-mathematical
eral coupling can be included in the solutions
choice of the undetermined coefficients” and “results
described previously (see Sidebar 6E).
could be presented in the usual format of design
The effect of lateral coupling during pumping is
charts, based on dimensionless groups extracted, . . .
to increase the pressure at and near the well and to
[a] more appealing procedure may be to program the
decrease it near the tip. Figure 6-11 shows the evo-
solutions for a suitable pocket calculator, with the sep-
lution of pressure during a treatment for a confined
arately determinable γ or Γ coefficients and job para-
fracture simulated using the KGD, PKN and later-
meters as input.” Although numerous papers have
and the leakoff volume at any time is where Ct is the total leakoff coefficient and ∆ptotal is
the difference between the pressure in the fracture and
VL = 2Cv t . (6-89)
the far-field reservoir pressure pr. If the spurt volume
The permeability to the filtrate kfil reflects the rela- and time can be neglected, these equations can be
tive permeability of the formation to flow of the fil- combined (Williams et al., 1979) to yield the total
trate. This effect may be significant when a water leakoff coefficient:
filtrate enters a hydrocarbon zone at nearly irreducible 2Cc Cv Cw
water saturation. Ct = Cwcv =
Cv Cw + Cw Cv + 4Cc2 (Cv2 + Cw2 )
2 2
(6-94)
6-4.3. Reservoir zone
with the coefficients Cw, Cc and Cv calculated using
Although the uninvaded reservoir does not contain
the overall pressure difference.
fracturing fluid, pressure is required to displace the
Equation 6-94 is valid only if the cake permeability
reservoir fluid away from the fracture face. Assuming
is independent of pressure. If the cake is highly com-
• constant pressure drop ∆pc between the pressible and the cake permeability is approximately
filtrate/reservoir interface and the far-field reservoir proportional to 1/∆p, Nolte (1988a) has shown that the
• compressible flow with constant total compres- fluid loss is limited either by the cake or the reservoir.
sibility ct In that case, the fluid-loss rate is the minimum of
Eq. 6-81, with the pressure drop equal to the total
• relatively slow movement of the front of the
pressure drop, or
invading fluid
C
• an infinite reservoir, uL = cv , (6-95)
t
• proppant transport.
(6-105)
( )
prevent convection. Cleary and Fonseca (1992) pre- 1/ n
ρsol − ρ f gdsol
n +1
sented a dimensionless number that reflects the ratio u∞ = . (6-109)
3 18 K ′
n −1
of buoyant and viscous forces. This ratio can be used
to estimate the effect of different conditions on the
severity of convection. Equation 6-108 can still be used to account for hin-
Finally, Clark and Courington’s (1994) and Clark and dered settling. Other correlations have been developed,
Zhu’s (1994) experiments on convection largely verify but a definitive correlation has not appeared in the lit-
the theoretical and numerical results described here. erature. Many fracturing fluids are designed for almost
perfect transport, so the settling rate is usually not
important unless the fracture remains open for a long
6-5.3. Proppant transport time after pumping stops.
Another effect on proppant placement is fluid
Hydraulic fracturing produces a conductive channel migration (Nolte, 1988b) or encapsulation (Cleary
by placing proppant in a crack created in a pay zone. and Fonseca, 1992). Fracturing fluids are generally
Hence, an essential consideration in fracturing fluid viscoelastic. Although it is beyond the scope of this
design is to accomplish proppant transport. The effect section to discuss this phenomenon in detail, one of
of convection on proppant transport was previously its important effects is to drive proppant to the center
discussed. There are two other factors that may impact of the flow channel. This migration could result in a
proppant placement. The first, and most commonly dense sheet near the center of the channel, surrounded
understood, is settling. If a bottle containing a mixture by clear fluid. This has the effect of accelerating parti-
of sand and water is shaken up and then left on a cle settling, especially for low proppant concentrations.
table, the sand will settle out of the water. It can be Unwin and Hammond (1995) presented simulations
shown theoretically that the terminal velocity of a sin- showing the effect of this migration on proppant
gle particle far from any walls in a stagnant Newton- placement.
ian fluid is given by Stokes law:
u∞ =
( )
g ρsol − ρ f dsol
2
, (6-106)
18µ 6-6. Heat transfer models
where ρsol is the solid particle density, ρf is the fluid The properties of many fracturing fluids show some
density, and dsol is the solid particle diameter. dependence on temperature. In addition, the rates
The assumptions of this equation are of limited of the reactions that occur in acid fracturing are
applicability in hydraulic fracturing because the fluids dependent on temperature. In a typical fracturing
are non-Newtonian and the particles are highly con- treatment, the fluid is pumped at a temperature signifi-
cy
50%
ien
The temperature gradient in the direction perpendic-
TD
fic
30%
ef
ular to the fracture wall is significantly larger than 0.4
uid
20%
Fl
those in other directions, so the temperature gradients 0.2
10%
in the other directions can be neglected. In addition,
5%
heat conduction in the fluid can be ignored because 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
it is small relative to both conduction in the rock and
x⁄L
transport of heat with the moving fluid. These assump-
tions reduce the heat transfer problem to a 1D problem Figure 6-12. Temperature profile in a fracture for different
perpendicular to the fracture wall, with conduction fluid efficiencies. TD = dimensionless temperature,
T = absolute temperature, Ti = fluid temperature at the
through the rock to the fracture face and convection fracture mouth, Tr = reservoir temperature.
from the rock face into the fluid.
6-6.1. Historical heat transfer models 6-6.2. Improved heat transfer models
The first significant thermal model for hydraulic frac- Meyer (1987) developed a solution that accounts for
turing was published by Whitsitt and Dysart (1970). a finite-film, or convective, coefficient for heat transfer
To obtain an analytical solution, they assumed a leakoff between the rock and the fluid and also introduced the
rate that varies linearly from zero at the well to a maxi- power law Nusselt number to determine the value of
mum at the fracture tip and accounted for the inhibit- the convective heat transfer coefficient. This showed
ing effect of the leakoff, which occurs in the opposite that the effect of the finite-film coefficient is to reduce
direction to the heat transfer. Unfortunately, the solu- the rate of fluid heat-up.
tion they obtained contains an integral that must be Kamphuis et al. (1993) developed a numerical sim-
evaluated numerically. Two of their more significant ulator that accounted for similar effects. One of the
contributions are demonstration of the effect of tem- advantages of the numerical model is that it allows
perature on acid reaction rates for acid fractures and including more effects, such as variable pump rate
that the temperature in much of the fracture is well during the treatment, and, of more practical impor-
below the reservoir temperature, so that fluids could tance, calculating temperature changes after shut-in.
be designed for lower temperatures than previously This model requires the introduction of a calculation
believed. grid in the rock.
Sinclair (1971) obtained a solution to a similar Another algorithm has been developed to solve the
problem, except that he assumed a uniform leakoff heat transfer problem (see Sidebar 6I). It has many
rate along the fracture. An example of the results is of the advantages of the numerical solution mentioned
shown in Fig. 6-12. The significance of this figure is previously but is extremely computationally efficient.
the relatively small fluid heat-up that occurs when the The equation for the fluid temperature is uncondition-
fluid efficiency is low. For an efficiency of 10%, the ally stable; i.e., there is no upper limit on the time
temperature in the fracture is approximately the inlet step. The results of simulation with this method com-
temperature over about 80% of the fracture length. pare favorably with the full numerical solution of
At higher efficiencies, a more rapid heat-up occurs, Kamphuis et al. (see Sidebar 6J).
so that about 50% or more of the fracture length is
at or close to the reservoir temperature.
6-7. Fracture tip effects
All fracture models include the effects of rock defor-
mation (width), mass transport and fluid loss in similar
ways. However, the failure and opening of the fracture
Mack and Elbel (1994) presented an efficient algorithm for the Equations 6I-3, 6I-6 and 6I-8 can be solved for Tfl n, Fn and
calculation of temperature changes in hydraulic fractures. Tsurfn to yield
Consider a semi-infinite rock mass with constant surface
Tr 0 − E n + C 2Tfln −1
flux F0 starting at time zero. The temperature change of the Tfln = (6I-9)
rock surface ∆Tsurf as a function of time t is (Carslaw and 1+ C 2
Jaeger, 1959)
D 1 (Tfln − Tfln −1 )
Fn = (6I-10)
∆T surf = −C 0F0 t , (6I-1) ∆t n
Fn
where n
T surf = Tfln + (6I-11)
h
2 κ
1/ 2
C0 = ,
( ) ∆Dt
(6I-2)
kh π C 2 = C 0 ∆t n + 1 h 1
. (6I-12)
where kh is the thermal conductivity of a solid and κ is the
n
( )
For a piecewise constant-flux history, Eq. 6I-1 can be gen-
eralized to hD 0 ∆t n (Tr − E n ) + D 1 h ∆t n + D 0 Tfln −1
Tfln =
( )
. (6I-13)
hD 0 ∆t n + D 1 h ∆t n + D 0
= C 0 ∑ (Fi − Fi −1 ) t n − t i −1 ,
n
∆T n
surf
(6I-3)
i =1
It has been shown (Kamphuis et al., 1993) that the effect of
where ti and Fi represent the time and the surface flux, leakoff on the heat flux is equivalent to reducing the conduc-
respectively, at the end of the ith time step. Thus, tivity by the factor
exp( −P 2 )
∆T surf
n
= Tr 0 − E n − C 0Fn ∆t n , (6I-4) , (6I-14)
1+ erf(P )
where Tr0 is the initial reservoir temperature, ∆tn = tn – tn – 1, where P = CL/√kh.
and En represents the effect of all previous time steps, which Meyer (1987) showed that the Nusselt number
can be written as
hw
, (6I-15)
E n = C 0 ∑ (Fi − Fi −1 ) t n − t i −1 − C 0Fn −1 ∆t n .
n −1
(6I-5) k fl
i =1
where kfl is the thermal conductivity of the fluid, for non-
Now consider an element of fluid of height ∂y, length ∂x Newtonian fluids ranges from 6 for n´ = 0 to 4.11 for n´ = 1.
and width w/2 that experiences a change in temperature from A Nusselt number of 4.3 is most representative of typical frac-
Tfl n–1
at the beginning of a time step to Tfl n at the end of the turing fluids.
step. The quantity of heat required to cause this temperature If a fracture treatment is simulated with an explicit finite dif-
change is ρfCpflw∂x∂y (Tfl n – Tfl n – 1)/2. Assuming a constant ference scheme, it is not practical to retain the flux history of
flux over time step ∆tn, this implies that the flux and tempera- each solid grid point because many thousands of time steps
tures over the area ∂x∂y are related by may be required to simulate the entire treatment. It has been
found that using 5 to 10 steps to represent the flux history is
(Tfl
n
– Tfln –1 ) =
Fn
D1
∆t n , (6I-6)
sufficient, provided the time steps are merged in such a way
that the overall heat loss from the formation is conserved.
This results in an accurate representation of the most recent
where temperature changes in the simulation, yet retains computa-
tional and storage efficiency.
ρf C pflw
D1 = . (6I-7)
2
at its tip boundary are addressed in numerous ways. • failure or opening process (normal LEFM)
Nevertheless, certain general principles can be • disturbed zone in the rock ahead of the fracture tip
described that apply to this region, and different imple- (damage not incorporated in the LEFM model)
mentations can be considered as modifications of the
• unwetted zone (fluid lag region)
general principles. If the fracture tip is envisioned as
the zone between the fracturing fluid and the undis- • disturbed zone along the fracture face (e.g., dila-
turbed rock ahead of the fracture, then there are four tancy or compaction).
possible features of this region that must be addressed:
(psi/in.1/2 )
temperatures along the fracture are shown as a function of 700
the leakoff coefficient, with the lowest curve representing the Geometry 600
largest leakoff coefficient. The agreement is good, consider- 600 Divider
Arrester 500
ing the relatively small number of elements (eight) used in 500 Short transverse
this simulation and the relatively coarse nature of the heat Series 400
transfer algorithm compared to Kamphuis et al.’s detailed 400
A
finite-difference calculations. 300 300
B
200 200
1.0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Crack length (in.)
0.8
Figure 6-13. Scale dependence of fracture toughness in
(T – Ti) ⁄ (Tr – Ti)
0.4
• Stresses around a crack tip
0.2 Irwin (1957) identified three different types of sin-
gular stress fields (i.e., stress approaches infinity)
0 around a crack tip and characterized these as
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Mode I (opening), Mode II (in plane sliding) and
Distance ⁄ length Mode III (antiplane sliding). For hydraulic fracture
modeling, Mode I is of primary interest, although
Figure 6J-1. Comparison of temperature calculations
(solid lines) with the results of Kamphuis et al. (1993) the other modes come into play in more compli-
(dashed lines). cated situations such as fracture turning from devi-
ated wells. For a 2D crack opened by a constant
internal pressure, Irwin showed that the stress
These four mechanisms are typically neglected intensity factor KI is simply
or handled in an ad hoc manner because of a lack of
understanding and data, particularly on a field scale, K I = πL pnet , (6-110)
about this complex zone.
where L is the crack length and pnet is the net inter-
nal pressure opening the crack. Similarly, for a
6-7.1. Linear elastic fracture mechanics radial crack
R
Although early studies of fracture in rock used Griffith’s KI = 2 pnet , (6-111)
(1921) crack theory and surface energy (Barenblatt, π
1962; Perkins and Krech, 1968; Friedman et al., 1972), where R is the crack radius (see Sidebar 6K).
most analyses of rock fracture are now formulated in LEFM, as postulated by Irwin, holds that the
terms of LEFM. The advantage of LEFM over earlier crack will advance when the value of KI exceeds
theories is that it incorporates, within a simple frame- some critical value KIc of the material, called the
work, some degree of dissipative energy processes, critical stress intensity factor. More commonly
such as plastic flow and microcracking, when the zone known as fracture toughness, KIc can be related
of dissipation is small compared with the fracture to the surface energy of previous studies through
length (see plateau region for KIc on Fig. 6-13). How-
ever, when this zone is not relatively small, energy- 2 Eγ F
K Ic = , (6-112)
release methods should be used, as discussed in 1 − ν2
Chapter 3.
high net pressures at the crack tip: fluid lag effects Similar equations can be written for radial cracks
(Jeffrey, 1989; Gardner, 1992; Advani et al., 1993), (Jeffrey, 1989).
dilatancy (Cleary et al., 1991) and damage (Yew and Detailed study of the crack tip has led to the dis-
Liu, 1993; Valkó and Economides, 1993a). covery of concepts unique to hydraulic fracturing.
• Fluid lag region Modeling of the crack tip region by the SCR Geo-
As applied to hydraulic fracturing, the unwetted mechanics Group (1993; Lenoach, 1995) shows
zone near the crack tip has pressure less than the that even when effects of fracture toughness KIc
closure pressure and hence acts to clamp the frac- are ignored, the consequences of coupled fluid flow
ture tip closed and reduce the stress intensity in the and leakoff still result in a singularity at the crack
rock. This zone was first introduced by Khristian- tip. For an impermeable rock, the power of the
ovich and Zheltov (1955) and successfully used hydraulic fracture singularity is not 1⁄2 as for the
by Geertsma and de Klerk (1969) in modeling 2D rock behavior in LEFM, but rather n/(2 + n), where
fractures. From their initial formulations, it is clear n is the power law index of the fluid. For perme-
that this unwetted region could have an impact on able rocks, the power of the singularity is 3n/(4 + 4n),
fracture parameters if it were sufficiently large. In which is stronger than the impermeable singularity.
a simple 2D geometry, the application is straight- Thus, an important singularity in stress may exist
forward, but the size of the unwetted zone and the at the tip even under conditions in which the frac-
exact pressure in the zone must be assumed. The ture toughness plays no role. They also made
pressure within the unwetted region is most likely numerical simulations that show that the size of
the reservoir pressure for permeable rocks and the fluid lag region adjusts to meet the fracture
could be as low as the vapor pressure of the fluid propagation criterion.
for impermeable rocks, so limits can be placed on Models that determine the size of the unwetted
its value. The size of the unwetted region is a more region (Jeffrey, 1989; Gardner, 1992; Yew and Liu,
difficult problem and has been the subject of con- 1993; SCR Geomechanics Group, 1993) generally
siderable investigation. produce small unwetted lengths, except at small
Fluid lag can be incorporated into the standard confining stresses. However, only a small region is
KIc form by defining an effective fracture toughness required near the tip to overshadow the effect from
(Jeffrey, 1989): the fracture body. One shallow field experiment
(relatively low confining stress) had sizable fluid
K Iceff = K Ic + K Iclag , (6-113) lag zones (Warpinski, 1985), but no careful field
study of fluid lag distances at higher confining
where
stresses has been made. Fracture models where the
lag distance is calculated generally show only a
(6-140) model
where the Reynold’s and Schmidt numbers are The movement of acid perpendicular to the fracture
defined respectively by wall is considered in this section. The preceding sec-
tions discuss the fluid flow equations typically solved
2 wvρ f in fracture models. Acid movement within the fracture
N Re = (6-141)
µ can be modeled similarly to the movement of prop-
pant. For a fracture simulator to simulate acid fractur-
µ
N Sc = . (6-142) ing treatments accurately, several specific require-
Deff ρ f ments must be met relating to
• fluid tracking in the fracture and reservoir
6-9.7. Acid reaction model • recession of the active fracture length
• effect of etching on the relation between pressure
If reaction occurs, the acid concentration varies across
and width.
the fracture width, and the surface concentration is less
than the bulk acid concentration. The surface concen- Although typical fluid flow calculation schemes use
tration is such that the amount consumed at the surface a coarse grid (about 10 elements), accurate fluid front
is balanced by transport to the surface by diffusion. tracking can be obtained only by following up to 50
The wall concentration for a given bulk concentra- fluid stages. Typical treatments include only about 10
tion is obtained by equating the right-hand sides of different stages, but stages can be subdivided for bet-
Eqs. 6-134 and 6-138 to obtain ter tracking of the large gradients that may occur in
( ) = (K )(
acid concentration within a single stage. Also, a finer
)
m
Kr Cwall − Ceqm g + uL C − Cwall . (6-143) grid is required to track leakoff volumes into the for-
This equation, which is a general model of acid mation and formation exposure to fluid stages for
reaction, can easily be solved if m = 1 but is solved accurate modeling of the extreme differences in leak-
iteratively otherwise. If Kr is very large compared off characteristics and viscosity between acid and
with Kg + uL, then Eq. 6-143 is satisfied when Cwall nonacid stages.
is approximately equal to Ceqm. In this case, Ceqm can Acid fracturing treatments are typically designed
replace Cwall on the right-hand side of Eq. 6-143, and with sudden changes in flow rate because the different
Eq. 6-138 can be written as fluids in the treatment have significantly different fric-
tional properties. These sudden changes, as well as the
∂Macid
r=
∂t
( )(
= − K g + uL C − Ceqm . ) (6-144) high leakoff that may occur during pumping of the
qi
B
σc pref pref
∆pcf,1
A
q1 ∆ph,1
q1
σc,1 ∆pw,1 ∆ppf,1 ∆pcf,2
q2 ∆ph,2
q2
σc,2 ∆pw,2 ∆phw,2
∆pcf,n
qn ∆ph,n
qn
σc,n ∆pw,n ∆phw,n
5100 8
Measured Layer 1
Calculated Layer 2
Layer 3
Injection rate (bbl ⁄ min)
Pressure (psi)
4900 4
4700 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (min) Time (min)
( )
be found from Nolte (1989) as
ηso Vf ( ∆t D ) t p − t so
1− η Sp ηp = ; ∆t D = (6L-7)
ηC = 1− ; κ = 1+ (6L-1) 1+ ∆t D Vfso t so
κ g 0CL t S
g ( ∆t D ) = (1+ ∆t D )sin −1(1+ ∆t D )
−1/ 2
+ ∆t D1/ 2 , (6L-8)
(κ − 1)(1− η) =
fLS = (1− η) − (1− η ) , (6L-2)
where ∆tD is the dimensionless time after screenout, ηso and
κ
C
6M. Theory and method of pressure inversion Two cases can be distinguished: the measured data defined
by
p meas = Fmeas (x )
The first step in the application of pressure history inversion is
(6M-4)
parameterization of the problem. This involves defining which
properties are to be determined as well as setting bounds on
their values and relations between values of different parame- and the simulated data defined by
ters. For example, it may be assumed that the stress in a
layer is between 5000 and 6000 psi and that the stress in a p sim = Fsim (x ) . (6M-5)
neighboring layer is between 500 and 1000 psi higher. If the
—
parameters are represented by the vector x and the pressure
—
record by p : Equations 6M-4 and 6M-5 imply that if a model is used to
calculate the pressure data for a given set of parameters, it
p = F (x ) ,
will generate a pressure record. Similarly, in the field, a pres-
(6M-1)
sure record is generated by the system with a set of parame-
ters. The function F also has subscripts sim and meas to
where F represents the mechanics of fracture development emphasize that the model is not an exact representation of
and relates the observed pressure to the input parameters. reality, so even if the correct x– is found, the calculated and
The pressure vector is the sequence of discrete pressures measured pressures may not agree. For example, if the PKN
—
measured during the treatment. The vector x may be a list model is selected to match the data but if significant height
of selected parameters, such as growth has occurred, the pressure record generated by the
correct x– will not match the measured pressure.
x = [hf ,E ′, σ] , (6M-2) The objective of pressure history inversion is to minimize
the difference between the measured and calculated pressure
records, defined using an error function:
indicating that the parameters to be found are the fracture
(∑W P )
height, Young’s modulus and stress, and it is assumed that all r
1/ r
other parameters are specified. Symbolically, the inversion ε= i sim ,i − Pmeas ,i , (6M-6)
i
process can be written as
where the weighting factors Wi are typically set to 0 for points
x = F −1 ( p ) , (6M-3) to be ignored and to 1 for all other points. The points can also
be weighted according to the range of interest. For example,
if only the decline period is to be matched, Wi is set to 0 for all
which is analogous to inverting a matrix to solve a set of lin-
points during pumping. The minimization of ε can be per-
ear equations with a known right-hand side. In this case, how-
— formed numerically by a routine in a standard numerical
ever, the known vector p is the sequence of pressure read-
library. Essentially, the algorithm consists of selecting a
ings, the relation is highly nonlinear and cannot be solved
sequence of sets of parameter values until a satisfactory
directly, and there are many more pressure readings than
match is obtained, similar to the 1D Newton-Raphson method
there are unknown parameters.
(Press et al., 1986) for solving a single nonlinear equation.
Pressure (psia)
Measured
i.e., two different sets of inputs may provide the same
200
output pressure. Gulrajani et al. (1996) discussed
nonuniqueness in detail. Other limitations of pressure 100
Calculated
Galactose
CH2 OH CH2 OH substituents
O H
HO H
Mannose
H OH H
backbone
OH H OH
O O
H H H H H H H H
n
O O O
HO H H H H H H
O
O
H H H
OH OH OH
H OH H OH H OR
O
Figure 7-5. Repeating-unit structure of hydroxyethylcellu-
CH2 OR CH2 lose, R–CH2CH2OH.
O O
composed of glucose sugar units. Although similar
H
to the mannose backbone of guar, there is a signifi-
O O
cant difference. Guar contains hydroxyl pairs that are
H
OH HO OH RO positioned on the same side of the sugar molecule
(cis orientation). In HEC, the OH groups are on adja-
H H H H cent carbons, but they are on opposite sides of the
ring (trans orientation). Because of their close prox-
imity, the cis arrangement for guar is easily cross-
Figure 7-4. Repeating-unit structure of hydroxypropylguar, linked, whereas the increased separation of the trans
R–CH2–CHOH–CH3.
arrangement makes HEC more difficult to crosslink.
However, HEC can be crosslinked at a pH of 10 to
the HPG more soluble in alcohol. A common quality 12 with Zr(IV) (Underdown et al., 1984) or with lan-
assurance check is to add an equal volume of meth- thanides (Dovan and Hutchins, 1993). To crosslink
anol to the polymer solution. Guar precipitates, while HEC under milder conditions, the carboxymethyl
HPG with the standard level of hydroxypropyl sub- group can be added to make carboxymethylhydroxy-
stitution does not (Ely, 1985). HPG containing less ethylcellulose (CMHEC), which makes crosslinking
hydroxypropyl substitution than the standard gener- with metal ions such as Al(III), Ti(IV) and Zr(IV)
ally fails the test. possible at a pH of approximately 4 to 6.
Another guar derivative used in recent years is Still another type of polymer is xanthan gum (Fig.
carboxymethylhydroxypropylguar (CMHPG). This 7-6). Xanthan is a biopolymer, produced metaboli-
“double-derivatized” guar contains the hydroypropyl cally by the microorganism Xanthomonas campestris
functionality of HPG as well as a carboxylic acid (Lipton and Burnett, 1976). Xanthan solutions
substituent. CMHPG was first used for low-tempera- behave as power law fluids even at low shear rates
ture wells (Almond and Garvin, 1984). For these (Kirkby and Rockefeller, 1985), whereas HPG solu-
applications, it is usually crosslinked with Al(III) tions become Newtonian. Clark et al. (1985) showed
through the carboxy groups. This provides a less that at shear rates less than 10 s–1 the low-shear
expensive fluid than HPG crosslinked with Ti and properties enable xanthan solutions to suspend sand
Zr complexes. More recently, CMHPG has been better than HPG. These properties may increase the
crosslinked with Zr crosslinker to produce fluids future use of xanthan for fracturing, but currently
with higher viscosity at high temperatures than those xanthan is more expensive than guar or cellulose
made with comparable amounts of HPG (Hunter and derivatives, and it is used less frequently. Davies
Walker, 1991). et al. (1991) reported using a different biopolymer,
Cellulose derivatives have occasionally been used scleroglucan, because of its near-perfect proppant
in fracturing fluids (Carico and Bagshaw, 1978). suspension and because it does not require a breaker.
Hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) (Fig. 7-5) or hydroxy- Partially hydrolyzed acrylamide polymers are used
propylcellulose (HPC) is used when a very clean as friction-reducing agents. These polymers can be
fluid is desired. These polymers have a backbone used at low loading (less than 10 lbm/1000 gal) to
H OH H OH n
O
O
=
CH2 OCCH3
O
H H H
– +
HO OH
COO M
O O H
H H
– +
COO M OH H
O CH2
C O
O H OH +
H M = Na, K, 1⁄2Ca
CH3
O OH HO
H H
reduce the horsepower required to pump water at insulated from the aqueous environment. When the
high rates. aqueous environment contains an optimum concen-
Acrylamide copolymers are used to viscosify acid- tration of salts (usually potassium or ammonium
based fracturing fluids. Acrylamide homopolymers chloride [KCl or NH4Cl] solutions), the micelles
hydrolyze in aqueous solution to produce acrylate assume a rodlike shape. If the surfactant is present in
groups, which cause the polymer to precipitate in the a sufficient concentration (usually >1% by volume)
presence of Ca2+ ions. Because high levels of Ca2+ the micelles associate with one another. The result-
are found in spent acid after fracturing a limestone ing hindered movement causes the fluid to become
formation, Ca2+-sensitive acrylamide homopolymer both viscous and elastic. These associations are elec-
should not be used. To improve performance at ele- trostatic in character; therefore, VES fluids are not as
vated temperatures, an acrylamide copolymer is syn- sensitive to shear history as polymer-base fluids. If
thesized using a monomer with functional groups the micelles are disrupted owing to shear, they will
that protect the acrylamide group from hydrolysis. quickly reaggregate and recover when shear ceases.
Polymer-free, water-base fracturing fluids can be Like for polymer-base fluids, the performance of
prepared using viscoelastic surfactants (VES) VES fluids is sensitive to temperature; therefore, the
(Stewart et al., 1995). These surfactants (typically a surfactant concentration (and in some cases, the salt
quaternary ammonium salt of a long-chain fatty acid; concentration) must be adjusted accordingly.
Fig. 7-7) consist of two regions: the head group is The micellar structure of VES fluids is permanent-
the quaternary ammonium portion of the molecule ly disrupted by two mechanisms: contact with hydro-
and the tail group is the long-chain hydrocarbon por- carbons and dilution by aqueous fluids such as for-
tion of the molecule. The head group is hydrophilic, mation water. In both cases, the viscosity of the VES
meaning that it prefers to be in contact with water. fluid falls greatly (Brown et al., 1996; Samuel et al.,
The tail group is hydrophobic, meaning that it pre- 1997). Because one or both scenarios normally occur
fers to be in contact with oil. When the surfactant is during postfracture production, no additional breaker
added to water, the molecules associate into struc- chemicals are required. The principal advantage of
tures called micelles (Fig. 7-8). VES fluids is that, unlike polymer-viscosified fluids,
In a micelle, the hydrophilic head groups are on little residue is left after cleanup. As a result, less
the outside, in direct contact with the water phase. damage to the proppant pack and fracture face is
The hydrophobic tail groups form an inner core, observed. The typical retained permeability of prop-
CH 3 –( C H 2 ) 7 (CH2)11–CH2–N+ –CH3
CH2–CH2–OH
Figure 7-7. Molecular and structural formulas for a viscoelastic surfactant thickener.
H H
O O O O
H H
O O O O
H H
HO OH O O HO OH O O
n n
B B
HO OH O O
(a) (b)
H
OH
O
L Ti
O
O–
A Ti
H+
O
Ti Ti OH
A O
R = Sugar
HOR
Ti R = Ti
L OR
(a) (b) O
Ti
L, A = Complexing agents
Figure 7-13. Hypothetical titanium complex (a) hydrolyzed to a colloidal titanium dioxide particle and (b) providing polymer
crosslinking on the particle surface.
Which type of breaker is the best is currently a topic for much debate. Both of the common types of breakers have strengths and
weaknesses.
Fast break + A fast break to allow quick turnaround of the well is accomplished
much better with oxidizers.
temperatures may be that thermal decomposition is permeability rocks. Fluids containing these polymers
reduced when the polymer is in highly concentrated are called wall-building fluids because of the layer of
form as it is in the closed fracture, or it may be that polymer and particulates that builds up on the rock.
the breaker causes a faster break and enhances early This layer, called a filter cake, is generally much less
production. permeable than the formation. If the fluid contains
The breaker situation for oil-base fluids is some- particulates of the proper size, these particulates tend
what different (McKenzie, 1980). Acids and bases to plug the pore spaces and enhance the formation of
are known to rapidly break the aluminum phosphate filter cake. The fluid volume lost before an effective
ester gel. Usually, a slowly soluble acid or base is cake forms is called spurt loss. Pore-size distribution
added to the gel on the fly. Gels break fairly readily for the rock matrix varies from formation to forma-
at elevated temperatures but can be difficult to break tion. Generally, lower permeability formations have
below 100°F [35°C]. smaller pore openings. A 0.1-mD rock may have an
average pore diameter of less than 1.0 µm whereas a
500-mD rock may have an average pore diameter of
7-6.3. Fluid-loss additives 20 µm. The range of pore size may be quite large,
Good fluid-loss control is essential for an efficient which makes it beneficial for fluid-loss additives to
fracturing treatment. Several types of materials are have a wide range of particle sizes so that all pore
used to provide fluid-loss control, but the effective- spaces can be bridged.
ness of the various types depends on the type of In high-permeability formations, polymer and
fluid-loss problem: loss to low- or high-permeability additives may be able to penetrate most pore throats
matrix or loss to microfractures. and form an internal filter cake. In this case, most of
During leakoff into the rock matrix, fluid enters the resistance to leakoff, and therefore pressure drop,
the pore spaces of the rock. Some polymers, such as occurs inside the rock, leaving only a small fraction
guar and HPG, are filtered out on the surface of low- of the total pressure drop in the external cake
(Navarrete and Mitchell, 1995). This makes any
Permeability (darcy)
pressure and bottomhole producing pressure pro-
vides an estimate of the maximum effective stress
100
(or closure stress) on the proppant. During flowback
and testing operations, the bottomhole producing
pressure is usually held constant and at a low value Resin-coated
sand
to maximize the production rate. The potential for
maximum crushing can occur during flowback and
testing operations, when the flowing pressure at the Sand
Hydraulic fracturing employs special fluids that are Characterization during the development process
intended primarily to create an appropriate fracture for an additive or fluid system is typically used to
geometry while transporting proppants. Key to the determine if a new composition is an improvement
entire exercise is the fluid rheology, which affects the over an existing system or if it can provide similar
fluid viscosity, its proppant-carrying capability and its performance at a lower cost.
propensity for leaking off into the porous medium. Characterization of fluid systems that obtains rep-
This chapter begins with fracturing fluid character- resentative performance data in critical areas such as
ization, followed by the translation of laboratory- rheology, pipe friction pressure, fluid-loss rates, frac-
obtained information to field conditions. There is a ture conductivity and formation damage is conducted
clear link between the chemistry of fracturing fluids, to obtain data that can be used in fracture design and
most of which are polymer solutions with their prop- production simulators.
erties augmented by several additives, and the physi- Characterization of fluid systems at the point of use
cal properties expected from these fluids. Rheology for quality assurance purposes usually involves meth-
and its modeling and control take center stage in the ods that can be applied at less than ideal conditions to
chapter. This includes not only traditional water-base indicate how the systems are performing. Examples
polymer solutions but also complex fluids such as of these tests are provided in Davidson et al. (1994),
foams. Proppant-transporting slurries are also exam- Ely (1985) and Section 7-8 of this volume.
ined in relative detail with regard to both their rheol- The American Petroleum Institute (API) has
ogy and potentially problematic proppant settling. developed recommended practices for several of the
The general discussion of fracturing fluid loss con- laboratory characterization methods described in this
tains some of the classic thinking, especially with chapter. An excellent review of laboratory methods
regard to laboratory-derived data. This discussion is also in the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)
should be read in conjunction with Chapters 9 and Monograph 12, Recent Advances in Hydraulic
2, which address leakoff modeling and the interpre- Fracturing (Gidley et al., 1989).
tation of fracturing pressure behavior, which are inti- This chapter addresses the characterization meth-
mately related phenomena. Finally, damage from ods used for additive and system development and
fracturing fluids to the formation face and the result- for obtaining input data for use in fracture design
ing proppant pack, the first from fracturing fluid simulators. The focus is on the most commonly used
leakoff and the second because of unbroken polymer fluids: water-base systems utilizing guar or deriva-
following the treatment, are outlined. These prob- tized guar as the polymer viscosifier (see Chapter 7).
lems are tackled in detail in Chapter 12. In general, methods used for water-base fluids can be
applied—with appropriate modification—to other
8-2. Fracturing fluid characterization fluids such as gelled oils, emulsions and foams.
Whatever the fluid system, a set of data describing
Fracturing fluid additives and fluid systems are char- the fluid rheology, fluid loss, pipe friction, fracture
acterized for the following purposes: conductivity and possible formation damage should
• additive and system development be determined before the fluid system is used in field
operations.
• obtaining input data for use in fracture design
simulators
where C is the concentration and the viscosity para- Guar 3.8 × 10–4 0.723 Robinson et al. (1982)
meters are defined in Table 8-1. Guar 3.67 × 10–5 0.884 Pope et al. (1994)
+
65°F
80°F
(high molecular weight)
(high molecular weight)
ene, polystyrene), useful data can be obtained if care
1000
+
95°F
110°F
(high molecular weight)
(high molecular weight)
is taken. SEC is a highly effective method for study-
+
125°F
140°F
(high molecular weight)
(high molecular weight)
ing the degradation of water-soluble polymers. Its
100 50°F (low molecular weight) + advantage over simple measurements of intrinsic vis-
+
65°F (low molecular weight)
+
µsp
+ 80°F (low molecular weight) cosity is that it provides information on the molecular
+
95°F (low molecular weight)
10 + weight distribution in the sample and relative differ-
+
+
+
ence between samples for evaluating guar degrada-
1 + tion processes.
+
0
8-5.3. Molecular weight distribution 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6
Molecular weight
Size-exclusion chromatography (Gall and Raible,
1984, 1985; Sattler et al., 1985; Hawkins, 1986) is a Figure 8-2. Molecular weight reduction and broadened
technique for measuring the molecular weight distrib- distribution of HPG with increasing ammonium persulfate
ution of polymers. Although the application of SEC (APS) breaker concentration at 199°F [93°C] for 5 hr.
Table 8-3. Critical overlap concentration C* for several HPG samples (Menjivar, 1984).
60°C
80°C
a concentration of gelling agent as possible. If the 0.6
1 Torsion spring
Transducer
Concentration (M)
0.1
++ ++ To digital display
++ ++
0.01 + + and/or recorder
+
+
0.001
+
+
0.0001 Rotor
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
pH
8-6. Rheology
The most common laboratory evaluations conducted
on fracturing fluids are steady-shear rheological mea- 5
6
surements. The property that is determined is the
apparent viscosity of the fluid as a function of shear 1
3
rate, temperature, fluid composition and time. These 4 7
relations are commonly determined in viscometers,
such as the rotational concentric cylinder (Fig. 8-5),
capillary (Fig. 8-6) and large pipe or slot-flow devices.
The data are usually related to a mathematical 1 Measurement capillary
model for predicting the fluid viscosity in the various 2 Differential pressure ∆p transducer
environments that occur in the fracturing process. 3 Floating piston accumulator containing test fluid
on top of piston and hydraulic fluid below piston
Because of the difficulties in evaluating the rheol- 4 Programmable-temperature oil bath
ogy of fluids containing proppant in small-scale labo- 5 Hydraulic fluid directional control valve
6 Variable rate positive-displacement pump
ratory instruments, most of the slurry rheology data 7 Hydraulic fluid reservoir
in the industry have been derived from large pipe or
slot-flow devices, as discussed in Section 8-6.9. Figure 8-6. Reciprocating capillary viscometer.
+
The usual rate of shear reported in viscometric exper- 125°F
150°F
iments is the value at the wall of the instrument and
Viscosity (Pa·s)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
is referred to as the apparent Newtonian or nominal
+
++
+
10–1
shear rate.
+
+
The shear stress τ is the shearing force per unit Newtonian
+
region
+
area of surface:
+
+
F Power law
τ= . (8-5) region
+
A
+
10–2
10–2 10–1 100 101 102 103 104
In most measurements, the shear stress is determined
by measuring the torque exerted on a measurement Shear rate (s–1)
Figure 8-7. Shear rate depicted as the difference in veloc- µ a = K γ (1−n ) , (8-8)
ity between two plates divided by the distance x between
the plates.
behavior. K pipe = K
4n
2n + 1
n
10 K slot = K
3n
47, 880K
µa =
Shear stress (lbf/ft2)
γ( )
1− n
0.30
0.25
0.20 100
0.15 = Concentric cylinder viscometer
0.10 = Capillary viscometer
0.05
0
0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Viscosity (Pa·s)
Distance across 0.5-in. gap (in.) Temperature = 70°F
10–1
Figure 8-10. Laser doppler velocimetry plot of a 35 lbm
guar/1000 gal fluid at a flow rate of 40 gpm in a slot-flow
geometry (Lear, 1996).
+
model to improve viscosity prediction: +
+
+
+
1.50
+
+
1 1 1
= + , (8-9)
+
+
µ a µ 0 Kγ n−1 1.25
+
Reduced velocity
+
+
0.75
the high-shear viscosity behavior because of the wide
+
Shear
+
range of torque or pressure drop values that an instru- ID (mm) rate (s–1)
+
= 10 13.3
Guillot and Dunand (1985) used LDV to determine = 10 80.6
+
+
= 10 353
+
Static mixer
∆p ∆p ∆p
fracturing
Crosslinker
Water
fluid
Additive
Tubular
Simulation
Oil Fracture
Simulation
High-pressure
syringe pumps
Triplex
fracturing
fracturing
Water
Water
fluid
fluid
pump Triplex Reciprocating
pump capillary
Oil viscometer Oil
Oil Oil
Figure 8-16. Tubing shear history simulator plus rotational or reciprocating capillary viscometers (Constien et al., 1986).
20
1000
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Foam quality (%)
Γ ≤ 0.6 0.07Γ
Γ > 0.6 0.0002e 9Γ
carbon dioxide (CO2) foams was conducted by Water 0.00002 4.0 1.0
Reidenbach et al. (1986). A model for calculating 10 lbm HPG/1000 gal 0.00053 2.6 0.75
rheological properties based on the foam quality Γ, 20 lbm HPG/1000 gal 0.00256 2.2 0.607
yield point τyp, and n and K for the liquid phase was
40 lbm HPG/1000 gal 0.0152 1.0 0.45
proposed. The basic equation is
n
∆pDp 8v geometry-independent approach for the prediction of
= τ yp + K foam , (8-10)
4L Dp foam properties in pipes at different conditions:
where τyp is related to the foam quality and gas com- vˆ ρl
εS = = , (8-12)
position, Dp and L are the pipe diameter and length, vˆl ρ
respectively, and ∆p is the pressure drop. The consis-
tency coefficient Kfoam was found to be dependent on where the specific volume expansion ratio εS is
the liquid-phase consistency coefficient K and quality: defined as the ratio of the specific volume of the
foam v̂ to the specific volume of the base liquid v̂l and
K foam = Ke
( C Γ +0.75 Γ )
1
2
CO2 foams in Tables 8-6 and 8-7, respectively. µ eff = Kε1S−n u n−1 D1−n . (8-13)
One of the difficulties that typically occurs in relat- 8 n
ing laboratory-generated data on foams to field-scale Foams with qualities from 30% to 75% were gen-
tubing is the effect of the pipe diameter on the result- erated in a 40-ppg HPG solution and the pressure was
ing stress, which may result from texture differences measured in a series of pipe diameters. Figure 8-20
near the pipe wall. Winkler et al. (1994) proposed illustrates the shear stress versus volume-equalized
using a volume-equalized power law (VEPL) model shear rate for these foams pumped through four dif-
as a constitutive flow behavior equation to provide a ferent pipe diameters.
200
10
100
0
1 50 100 150 200 250 300
100 1000 10,000 Temperature (°F)
γ/εS (s–1)
Figure 8-21. Curve fit of borate-crosslinked foam with
Figure 8-20. Volume-equalized wall shear stress versus 30 lbm/1000 gal guar.
volume-equalized wall shear rate of 40-ppg HPG foams of
quantities from 30% up to 75% at pipe inlet conditions of
different pipe sections and a temperature of 68°F [20°C]
(Winkler et al., 1994). 800
700
Peak viscosity (cp at 170 s–1)
25% quality
600 50% quality
Measuring the rheology of crosslinked foams
500 75% quality
involves many of the same considerations discussed
in Section 8-6.4 for single-phase crosslinked fluids. 400
rcup 2−2 n′
n′ 160
γv = γb − 1 , (8-15)
rcup 2 rbob
(n′ − 1) − 1
Viscosity (cp at 100 s–1)
rbob
140
where rcup is the cup radius, rbob is the bob radius, 120
and γb is the shear rate at the bob:
100
EX-B2: VASR = 59.3 s–1, rpm = 265
300
EX-B2: VASR = 71.6 s–1, rpm = 323
80 EX-B2: VASR = 85.1 s–1, rpm = 380
EX-B5: VASR = 85.6 s–1, rpm = 118
250 60
0.8
0.4 1
0.2
Base gel (no sand)
0 1.25 lbm/gal 20/40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.7 lbm/gal 20/40
4.82 lbm/gal 20/40
Sand concentration (lbm/gal) 6.11 lbm/gal 20/40
0.1
500 100 1000 10,000
400 Nominal shear rate (s–1)
300
K′ (dynes-sn′/cm2)
10 100
cient defined as
IV V
III
4 gd prop ρ p − ρ f
Cdrag = (8-24)
3 ut2 ρ
1 10
II
and a generalized particle Reynold’s number NRe:
0.1 I 1
d proput ρ f
N Re = , (8-25)
µ
0.1 1 10 100 1000 where µ is equal to K(γ)n – 1 for power law fluids in
Shear rate (s–1) laminar and turbulent flow. Using the definitions for
Cdrag and NRe, a correlation of particle settling veloci-
Figure 8-31. Comparison of experimental data (Table 8-8) ties and fluid properties was made by a generalized
with values predicted from the extended power law
(Eq. 8-9) (Roodhart, 1985b).
plot of √Cdrag
2 – nN 2 versus N . This relation results in
Re Re
a family of curves that are functions of the behavior
index n (Fig. 8-33). The significance of representing
x
data in this fashion is that they can be used to predict
10–1 x Power law (Eq. 8-8)
Extended power law (Eq. 8-9) x xx x particle settling velocities in other fluid systems if the
x
x particle density and size and the fluid properties n and
x x
Measured settling velocity (m/s)
xx
x K are known (Shah, 1986). This method has been
10–2 x x
xx
x reported to predict experimentally determined settling
x x x
x x velocities to within ±20% for a quiescent fluid
x x
x (Meyer, 1986b).
10–3 x
x
x
0.427
On the average, particles migrate away from high-
√ Cdrag
0.47
0.553 concentration zones, where the frequency of the inter-
0.762
100 1.0 actions is higher, to low-concentration zones, where
the frequency of the interactions is lower. This type
2 × 10–2 of particle migration mechanism is referred to as
10–2 10–1 100 101 102 5 × 102
shear-induced self-diffusion, as observed by Gadala-
NRe
Maria and Acrivos (1980) and explained by Leighton
Experimental data and Acrivos (1987).
Newtonian 35 lbm HPC/1000 gal
20 lbm HEC/1000 gal 50 lbm HPG/1000 gal
If there is a concentration gradient in the suspen-
30 lbm HPG/1000 gal 80 lbm HPG/1000 gal sion caused by the migration of particles resulting
Open symbols: static data
Solid symbols: dynamic data from non-Newtonian or inertial effects, a net diffu-
sional flux will oppose the migration. Unwin and
Hammond (1995) used a phenomenological model
Figure 8-33. Relationship of √C2– n 2
dragNRe to n (Shah, 1986).
that considers all these effects simultaneously to
solve for the particle concentration profiles in con-
centric cylinder and slot-flow geometries.
There are different techniques for measuring parti-
cle migration in fracturing fluids of varying rheologi- 8-8. Fluid loss
cal properties under different flows. The effect of rhe-
ological properties of fracturing fluids on proppant Fluid loss to the formation during a fracturing treat-
migration has been studied in large slot-flow models ment is a filtration process that is controlled by a
by videotaping the particle positions in the gap of the number of parameters, including fluid composition,
slot. The slot width was divided into thin slices, and flow rate and pressure, and reservoir properties such
the number of particles traveling in each slice during as permeability, pressure, fluid saturation, pore size
a certain interval of time was counted from individual and the presence of microfractures.
videotape frames. Several controlling mechanisms can be involved
Tehrani (1996) reported particle migration experi- in limiting fluid loss, as discussed in Section 6-4.
ments in pipe flow. The slurry consisted of nearly Filtrate viscosity and relative permeability can control
spherical, transparent acrylic particles with a density fluid loss when their ratio is greater than that for the
of 1.180 g/cm3 dispersed in borate-crosslinked HPG reservoir fluid. The filtrate- (or viscosity-) controlled
fluids. A video camera with a variable shutter speed fluid-loss coefficient in ft/min1⁄ 2 is described by
was used to record images of the flow field in the k fil ∆pT φ
pipe. A vertical sheet of laser light illuminated the Cv = 0.0469 , (8-26)
µ fil
flow field. The rheological properties of the fluids
were measured, including shear viscosity and normal where kfil is the filtrate permeability in millidarcies
stress as functions of the shear rate and G´ and G´´ as into the saturated reservoir, ∆pT is the total differen-
functions of the frequency. Particle migration was tial pressure between the fluid in the fracture and the
found to be controlled by the elastic properties of the initial reservoir pressure in psi, φ is the formation
suspending fluid and the shear rate gradient. porosity (fraction), and µfil is the apparent viscosity
Particle concentration has the effect of increasing in cp of the filtrate flowing into the formation.
the frequency of interparticle interactions. The bulk The filtrate control mechanism is most likely in
viscous stresses that drive particles together are a effect when a gas reservoir is fractured with a non-
strong function of the suspension viscosity, which wall-building, high-viscosity fluid or for a formation
is a function of the particle volume fraction. The at irreducible water saturation. Also for non-wall-
lubrication forces that resist interparticle interactions building polymers, the apparent viscosity of the fil-
60
8-8.2. Fluid loss under dynamic conditions
Filter-cake erosion and fluid degradation under condi- 40
tions of shear and temperature have been the subject
20
of considerable study. Studies through the mid-1980s
include Hall and Dollarhide (1964, 1968), Sinha 0
(1976), McDaniel et al. (1985), Gulbis (1982, 1983), 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Penny et al. (1985) and Roodhart (1985a). The Time (min)
results from these studies show that dynamic filtra-
Figure 8-36. Effect of fluid composition on fluid loss (Gul-
tion tends to increase as the shear rate and tempera- bis, 1983). The borate-crosslinked (B-XL) system is in
ture increase (Fig. 8-35). Penny et al. found that equilibrium. These systems approach the noncrosslinked
dynamic fluid-loss tests conducted at 40 s–l produced (Non-XL) system when subjected to shear. TM-XL = transi-
tion metal crosslinked.
data similar to static test results. Gulbis (1982) found
10
Cell 1 – 1 md 200
8
Cell 2 – 10 md 150
6
450 Shear rate
10% job 4 100
400
350 25% job 2 50
Shear rate (s–1)
50% job
300 0 0
75% job 100% job 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
250
200 Time (min)
150
100 Figure 8-39. Comparison of fluid loss for a 40 lbm/1000 gal
50 borate-crosslinked guar gel under static and dynamic condi-
0 tions (permeability = 0.5 md, pressure drop = 1000 psi,
0 100 200 300 400 500 temperature = 150°F) (Navarrete et al., 1996).
Distance along fracture (ft)
Injection Shut-in
tion and expensive instrumentation currently limit 9000
Fracture Transient reservoir
widespread application. closing pressure near the wellbore
wmax d
σmin wmax
σmin
pf
4520
0.6
4530
interval
4550 Micro-fracture 0.4
test
Depth (ft)
4560
Perforations
4570
0.2
4580
4600 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 3000 3200 3400 3600
Gamma ray (API units) Bottomhole pressure (psi)
Figure 9A-2. Gamma ray log showing the micro- Figure 9A-4. Normalized inclinometer response versus
fracture test location and perforated interval. bottomhole pressure.
the height. Consequently, the 2D model is valid in as is the case for a horizontal fracture in a vertical
cases where the fracture length is either relatively wellbore, or as an intermediate condition between
small or large in comparison with the height. In the two limiting cases of the 2D models.
practice, these models are applicable when the • Correction for fluid pressure gradient
dimensions differ by a factor of about 3 or more.
The fundamental elastic relations (Eqs. 9-10
The radial model is most appropriate when the
through 9-13) assume that the pressure in the frac-
total length 2L (2R in Fig. 9-3) is approximately
ture is constant. The fluid flow relation (Eq. 9-2),
equal to the height. This condition occurs for frac-
however, indicates that a pressure gradient exists
ture propagation from a point source of injection,
p 2n + 2
1 ( 2n + 2 )
K Ic −apparent =
2
260 psi
(38 ft × 12 ft / in.) = 4430 psi / in.1 2.
= ∆p µ + 1
tip
p net , (9B-2) π 2
∆p µ
This estimate for KIc-apparent is higher than the critical stress
where the fracture half-length L > h/2 and ∆pµ is the PKN pres- intensity factor KIc commonly measured with laboratory tests
sure contribution from the tip to the wellbore but without the (see Section 3-4.6). The larger value can be attributed to any
rock resistance to propagation. An analytical relation for ∆pµ of the tip mechanisms described in Section 6-7 and results in
for the PKN fracture model beyond the tip region is derived as a correspondingly higher resistance to fracture propagation.
This discussion applies exclusively to an elongated fracture
1 ( 2n + 2 )
E ′ Kh q i geometry, as approximated by the PKN fracture model. In con-
n
∆p µ ≅ p net ,PKN ≅ 1.5 (L − Lt ) , (9B-3) trast, both ptip and ∆pµ decrease with continued injection for the
h E ′ h radial fracture model. As a result, it is less clear which mecha-
nism dominates the pressure response for radial fractures.
where E ′ is the plane strain modulus, K is the fluid consistency
coefficient, qi is the fluid injection rate, and Lt is the length of
the tip region. Equation 5-19 provides a more specific relation- 1000
ship for pnet with a Newtonian fluid.
The relative contributions of ∆pµ and ptip determine whether Toughness dominated Viscous dominated
the fracture growth is viscosity dominated or tip dominated,
respectively. Usually one phenomena dominates; a nearly
equal contribution from both mechanisms is only rarely
observed. Although ptip generally shows little variation during
pnet
2
After shut-in
Radial,
0.5 β = ∆p f/pnet where L is the fracture half-length.
βp = 1/1.5 = 0.67 (before)
0 βs = 1/1.3 = 0.77 (after) Martins and Harper (1985) derived the compli-
ance for a fracture that grows as a series of con-
focal ellipses. In this case, the fracture width
Flow rate in fracture
1.0
depends on the elliptic integral of the fracture
Injection rate
Before shut-in
After shut-in aspect ratio. This analysis is applicable during
0.5
Decreasing during closure
fracture growth in an unbounded fashion following
0
initiation from a perforated interval that is shorter
Well 1/2 Tip than the fracture height.
Distance into fracture
KGD w ∝ i n (9-27) Equation 9-31 indicates that for typical fracturing flu-
E ′ h f
e
ids (i.e., n ≈ 0.4–1.0), the fracture pressure during
Kqin 2−n e
[R ] .
Radial w ∝ injection is only nominally sensitive to the reduced
E′ time t* or fluid efficiency η. Consequently, the effi-
These fracturing pressure and width relations indicate ciency, or alternatively the fluid-leakoff coefficient,
that their dependence on the fluid rheology parame- cannot be determined by analyzing pressure during
ters K and n, wellbore injection rate qi and plane fluid injection exclusively.
strain modulus E′ is the same for all the models. Equations 9-30 and 9-31 also show that the net
Their dependence on the fracture extension L or R pressure and fracture width for any efficiency η can
and height hf differs. In addition, Eqs. 9-25 and 9-27 be approximated by their values for the case of no
also show that pnet and w, respectively, have a weak fluid loss, if the time is scaled by ηt. This time scal-
dependence on qi and that for increasing penetration ing is illustrated for the PKN fracture model in
L or R, pnet increases for the PKN model but Fig. 9-5, which shows the net pressure corresponding
decreases for the KGD and radial models. to no fluid loss (i.e., η = 1) and to an efficiency η =
The time dependence of the fracture width and 0.2 at a time of 50 min. The latter case corresponds
pressure is developed using the definition of η from to a reduced time of t* = ηt = 50 × 0.2 = 10 min.
Eq. 9-4 at a constant injection rate qi (i.e., Vi = qit): Figure 9-5 illustrates that the net pressure at a time of
50 min for the fluid-loss case is equal to the net pres-
Efficiency, η
400 0.4 are similarly outlined in the Appendix:
pnet (psi)
pnet ∝ t 1/ 4 ( n+1) η→ 0
PKN (9-35)
200 0.2 pnet ∝ t 1 ( 2 n+3) η→1
pnet ∝ t − n /2 ( n+1)
Net pressure
100
Efficiency
0.1
η→ 0
KGD (9-36)
2 5 10 20 50 pnet ∝ t − n ( n+2 ) η→1
Injection time (min)
pnet ∝ t −3n /8( n+1) η→ 0
Figure 9-5. Reduced time illustrated for PKN fracture Radial (9-37)
geometry (Nolte, 1991). pnet ∝ t − n ( n+2 ) η → 1.
Each of these bounding expressions for the net
sure derived for the particular case of no fluid loss at pressure is a power law relation. Consequently, the
a time of 10 min. log-log graph of net pressure versus time should yield
This observation is significant because simple ana- a straight line with a slope equal to the respective
lytical expressions for the three basic models are exponent: positive for PKN behavior and negative for
readily available when η → 1. The various fracture KGD and radial behavior. In particular for PKN
parameters for any generalized value of η can then behavior, the log-log slope for commonly used frac-
be obtained from this limiting conditions merely by turing fluids (i.e., n ≅ 0.5) is typically less than 1⁄4 and
scaling the time by a factor of 1/η. decreases as the efficiency decreases. The log-log
plot of the net pressure versus time during injection,
commonly known as the Nolte-Smith plot, forms the
9-4.1. Time variation for limiting fundamental basis for the interpretation of pressure
fluid efficiencies profiles during fracturing and is analogous to the log-
log diagnostic plot for reservoir flow, as discussed in
Approximations for the time dependency of the frac- Chapter 2.
ture penetration and pressure can be derived from the
equations presented in the previous section for the
two extreme values of the fluid efficiency η. These 9-4.2. Inference of fracture geometry
limiting cases are for very high and low fluid effi- from pressure
ciencies, approaching 1 and 0, respectively. This sim-
plification provides bounding expressions for the The primary reservoir interval is bounded on both
fracture penetration and related pressure. A similar sides by shale formations in the majority of fracturing
approach is used in Section 9-5 to derive relations for applications. Shale zones are generally at higher
analyzing pressure decline during the shut-in period. stress and provide the primary barrier to fracture
Following the mathematical derivations outlined in height growth, particularly during the initial stage
“Mathematical relations for fluid loss” in the Appen- of fracture propagation. The restriction of fracture
dix to this chapter, it can be shown that the fracture height growth is important in low- to moderate-per-
penetration is bounded in the following fashion: meability formations, where relatively long fractures
are required for effective stimulation. Figure 9-6
shows the evolution of the fracture geometry and the
PKN L ∝ t 1/ 2 η→ 0 (9-32)
corresponding wellbore pressure for fracture propaga-
L ∝ t ( 2 n + 2 ) ( 2 n +3 ) η→1 tion under these conditions.
The initial character of fracture propagation, labeled
KGD L ∝ t 1/ 2 η→ 0 (9-33)
as stage 1 on the figure, depends on the length of the
L ∝ t ( n+1) ( n+2 ) η→1 perforation interval providing fluid entry into the frac-
ture relative to the reservoir thickness. Two limiting
+ + + ++ +
Radial
For either the radial or elliptical propagation mode
model KGD model during stage 1, the net pressure decreases with con-
+
3
1
⁄4 and 1⁄8, once again depending on n and η (Eq. 9-35).
2
Confined fracture height with its characteristic
1
positive log-log slope can be expected until the frac-
turing net pressure approaches a value that is approxi-
log (time) mately one-half of the stress difference ∆σ to which-
ever stress barrier bounding the fracture has the lower
Figure 9-6. Evolution of fracture geometry and pressure stress value. At this magnitude of the net pressure,
during pumping.
the fracture begins to penetrate in a restricted, or con-
trolled, fashion into the adjacent barrier layer with the
cases are described: a limited fluid entry interval and lower stress value. The fracturing pressure continues
one where fluid entry occurs over the complete reser- to increase with penetration, although at a rate that is
voir thickness. Short fluid entry intervals (i.e., limited progressively less than for the PKN model. This con-
perforation intervals) may be desired in vertical well- dition of fracture propagation is indicated as stage 3
bores to mitigate the occurrence of near-wellbore in Fig. 9-6.
problems (see Section 11-3.2). They also occur in hor- If one of the formation barriers is absent (i.e., ∆σ
izontally oriented fractures, during the placement of = 0), height growth into the higher stress barrier is
transverse hydraulic fractures in a horizontal well or arrested. The fracture height, however, continues to
in wellbores that are inclined with respect to the plane grow essentially in a radial-like fashion along the
of σmin. The limited fluid entry into the fracture is direction where the barrier is absent and exhibits a
approximated by a point source. As shown in Fig. 9-6, continuously decreasing pressure (stage 1). This frac-
the fracture area increases in a circular shape for a ture height growth pattern could also occur when
point-source fluid entry and hence is best described fractures are deliberately initiated from zones at
by the radial geometry model. Fluid entry over the higher stress and propagated into bounding layers
complete reservoir thickness is approximated by a line at lower stress, as during an indirect vertical fracture
completion (IVFC; see Section 5-1.2).
9400 20
9-4.4. Examples of injection 9200
Calibration test 18 Step rate
Bottomhole pressure (psi)
pressure analysis 16
Injection rate (bbl/min)
Tip screenout
dp w
t = Abt b . (9C-3) Begin proppant
dt
1000
pnet
Defining the left side of Eq. 9C-3 as the pressure deriva-
tive, it follows that
• Pressure derivative versus time exhibits the same log-log 500
slope as the net pressure.
• Net pressure and pressure derivative are separated by a
factor of 1/b on a log-log plot.
The pressure derivative is independent of the particular 200
choice of closure pressure and is thus unaffected by errors Pressure derivative
in its determination. For typical PKN, KGD and radial fracture
behavior, the closure pressure can thus be inferred from the
injection pressure by selecting a value that makes the net 100
pressure response parallel to the pressure derivative on a log- 5 10 20 50 100
log plot (Fig. 9C-1). This feature of pressure derivative analy- Injection time (min)
sis was applied to the calibration test in Fig. 9-8 to confirm the
closure pressure magnitude (Fig. 9-9).
The pressure derivative magnifies fracturing events Figure 9C-2. Pressure derivative analysis for a TSO
because of its enhanced sensitivity. This characteristic of the response (Nolte, 1991).
pressure derivative is used to quantify fracture height growth
into higher stress bounding zones, as for the examples in
Section 9-4.4. The occurrence of a tip screenout (TSO) is also
magnified and can be detected earlier in time. This is noted on
Height
Radial PKN growth
pnet or pressure derivative (psi)
100
10
pnet
1 Pressure derivative
0 1 10
Time (min)
1 d ( pnet ) 2500 0
≈ 0.1
∆σ dt
t (9-38) 25 75 125 175
Time (min)
b
log pnet
a c
Net pressure, pnet (psi)
log t
pnet
100
0 1 10
Time (min) hi a b c a b c
1 hf/hi
Figure 9-11. Log-log net pressure analysis for the calibra-
tion treatment in Fig. 9-10.
20
30
10
3500 20
10
2500 0
50 100 150
Treatment time (min)
(b)
5400
5600
Depth (ft)
5800
6000
3500 5000 –0.6 0.6 0 500 1000 1500
Stress (psi) Width (ft) Fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 9-13. Pressure response for accelerated height growth. (a) Bottomhole pressure match plot. Calculated pressure is
from surface pressure. (b) Fracture profile at the end of injection.
trolled vertical growth beyond a pinch point, as in al., 1988). The horizontal fracture component
Fig. 9-12. Although uncontrolled vertical growth increases the area available for fluid loss and
commences at a pressure less than that of the stress decreases the treatment efficiency. In addition, the
barrier, T-shaped fracture growth occurs at a pres- horizontal component readily accepts fluid but pre-
sure slightly larger than the vertical stress. vents proppant from entering because of its limited
The width of the horizontal fracture component width. Both effects can excessively dehydrate the
is narrow and has twin pinch points at the juncture slurry in the vertical component, which could lead
with the vertical component because of the elastic to premature screenout.
interaction of the two components (Vandamme et
b c pw ≈ overburden
100
a
10 100
Time (min)
log t
Figure 9-15. Calibration treatment pressure response for a
Overburden T-shaped fracture.
100
Injection
Permeabiltiy (normalized)
CL,fissure/CL
well is drawn down to extract stimulation fluids and the natural
fissure permeability decreases. Thus, stimulation fluids are 1.5
injected under wide-open fissure conditions but produced
under clamped fissure conditions, making it difficult to clean √∆p
up the reservoir. 1.0
The Walsh and other models can be incorporated into a
fluid-loss equation to represent changing leakoff conditions
0.5
(Warpinski, 1991). Figure 9D-3 shows the calculated pres-
sure-sensitive leakoff of a Mesaverde fissure system com-
pared with the normal pressure sensitivity of a conventional 0
pore space (recall that the filtrate leakoff coefficient is propor- 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
tional to the square root of the fracturing pressure minus the
Net treatment pressure (psi)
reservoir pressure). Generally, the pressure sensitivity of con-
ventional reservoirs is ignored because the changes are
small; in this case, it varied from 1.0 to 1.4. However, the Figure 9D-3. Pressure-sensitive leakoff of a Mesa-
pressure sensitivity of the fissures greatly exceeded this
change, and the leakoff of the fissures reached about 3 times
verde fissure system.
the conventional leakoff. Even at low fracturing pressures, the
leakoff of the fissures was greater than conventional leakoff
decreasing slope with decreasing pressure. Fissure-sensitive
because the fracturing pressure was large relative to the
fluid loss can be recognized in the injection pressure behav-
reservoir pressure and the fissure pores had much less stress
ior, but it is difficult to identify because it looks much like
closing them. This example is based on a tight Mesaverde
height growth during the injection (i.e., a nearly constant pres-
coastal zone reservoir with a base leakoff coefficient CL of
sure derivative). Fissure dilation is usually followed by flatten-
0.0004–0.0006 ft/min1⁄2 (measured during pressure declines)
ing of the fracturing pressure, and screenout most likely
and a fracture-calibrated leakoff coefficient CL,fissure of
occurs relatively fast, depending on the injected proppant
0.0015–0.0019 ft/min1⁄2 during injections.
concentration (Fig. 9-16).
Pressure-sensitive fissure behavior is best recognized in
the pressure decline where the G-plot shows a continuously
600
the magnitude triggering complex fracture growth.
400
5 10 20 50 100 200
2.0
pumping, as discussed in Section 9-5. The only dif- ∆tso
∆tDso = =2
tso
ference, however, is that although no additional fluid 1.5
volume is introduced during the decline, slurry injec-
tion continues after the onset of the screenout and
1.0
should be included in the fundamental relations pre- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
sented in Section 9-3. Efficiency at screenout, ηso
Applying these modifications to the material-bal-
ance relations, it can be shown (see Appendix Eq. 51) Figure 9-21. Log-log slope after a TSO for ∆tDso = 2.
for the commonly used polymer fracturing fluids that
the log-log slope of the net pressure plot after a screen-
out and in the absence of spurt as β approaches 1 is
9-4.8. Fracture diagnostics from log-log
π
− sin −1 (1 + ∆t Dso )
−1/ 2
plot slopes
2
π
t dpnet 2 − sin (1 + ∆t Dso ) − ∆t Dso (1 + ∆t Dso )
−1 −1/ 2 The previous sections provide conceptual analyses
= of the different types of log-log slopes of net pressure
pnet dt ηso → 0 versus time. The slopes are characteristic of various
1.0 ηso → 1 , types of fracture geometries and modes of propaga-
tion. Therefore, the log-log plot, its associated slopes
(9-41)
1
⁄4 for high efficiency.
As the fracture pressure increases, it can reach the
1
pressure capacity of the formation. This leads to a
1 regulator effect, resulting in nearly constant pressure
because of accelerated fluid loss primarily near the
wellbore (see Section 9-4.5). A nearly constant pres-
100
sure measurement that is equal to the overburden
1 10 100 stress indicates a T-shaped fracture. Controlled frac-
Time (min) ture height growth into a barrier is characterized by
a gradually decreasing log-log net pressure slope and
(b) a constant pressure derivative. Net pressures steadily
Field Data
1000 decrease if uncontrolled fracture height growth
beyond a pinch point occurs. Fissure-dominated
fluid-loss behavior regulates the pressure to a con-
Net pressure, pnet (psi)
4100
End of injection
Fluid injection 4000 Proppant
at perforations
Casing 3800
3700
3600
Proppant injection
3500
3400
3300
0 50 100 150 200
Treatment time (min)
4100
4000
End of injection
Bottomhole pressure (psi)
3900
15° reorientation
Fracture 3800
Wellbore plane
at infinity 3700
3600 5° reorientation
3500
Fracture
reorientation 3400 Aligned fracture
3300
0 10 20 30 40 50
Treatment time (min)
Restriction area
Wellbore
Fracture Fracture
Channel to
fracture wings
Perforation
A dual-curve-fit algorithm can be used to determine the best- result, several proppant slugs were planned for as early
fit values of kpf and knear wellbore, thus defining the respective as possible during the pad period of the propped treatment.
values of ∆ppf and ∆pnear wellbore for any given rate (Fig. 9E-2). Before the slugs reached the perforations, the tortuosity
continued to increase, which limited the injection rate so
Limitations using surface pressure measurements that the surface pressure could be maintained below the
Rate step-down analysis using the surface treating pressure acceptable value of 6000 psi. However, when the proppant
can be difficult if the tubular friction is large compared with slugs arrived at the perforations, the tortuosity was signifi-
∆pentry because the wellbore friction can vary unpredictably cantly reduced, which enabled increasing the injection rate.
from published or expected values. The friction of water can The propped fracture treatment was successfully placed
be significantly reduced by small amounts of gel contamination with 6-ppg maximum proppant loading.
in the wellbore fluids or from a gel hydration unit. Fluid friction • Poor perforation effectiveness and excessive pad volume
with crosslinked gel may vary with small variations in the fluid
composition. Foam friction behavior is extremely unpredictable The rate step-down test in Fig. 9E-4 was performed after
and variable, and the analysis is further complicated by the first KCl injection. The test clearly shows the dominance
changes in hydrostatic pressure. With turbulent flow (i.e., of ∆ppf (i.e., near-wellbore pressure losses that relate to the
essentially all water injections), the friction is functionally closer injection rate to the 1.94 exponent). The estimated value of
to ∆ppf; with laminar flow (i.e., low injection rates with viscosi- ∆ppf was about 4500 psi at 18 bbl/min, the equivalent of
fied fluids), the friction is functionally closer to ∆pnear wellbore. only 4 of 60 holes open. This condition would not allow fluid
injection at the planned rate of 30 bbl/min. The near-well-
Field example
bore fracture tortuosity was low, at about 50 psi at 18 bbl/min.
The following example illustrates the usefulness of rate step- Additional KCl breakdown injections and surging did not
down test analysis resulting from the ability to understand and improve the low injectivity.
apply the information contained in fracture pressure behavior. The well was reperforated with larger holes, which
reduced ∆ppf to 1500 psi at 18 bbl/min. Following a
• Severe near-wellbore fracture tortuosity crosslinked gel calibration treatment (including a 20-bbl,
The rate step-down test following a second injection of 4-ppg proppant slug), the equivalent of 20 holes was open,
potassium chloride (KCl) water showed that the near-well- which provided an acceptable value of ∆ppf of 500 psi at
bore fracture tortuosity in a naturally fractured dolomite for- 30 bbl/min. The value of ∆pnear wellbore remained at less than
mation was extremely high, at 1900 psi (Fig. 9E-3). As a 50 psi, with C equal to approximately 0.6 for fluid injection.
∆p1
∆p1 Total entry friction
Fracture entry friction
∆p2
∆p2
∆p3 ∆p3
∆pnear wellbore ≅ qi1⁄2
∆qi1
∆qi2 ∆p4
ISIP ∆p4
∆qi3
∆qi4 ∆ppf ≅ qi2
∆p1
Fracture entry friction
∆p2
∆p2
∆qi1 ∆p3
∆qi2 ∆p3 ∆ppf ≅ qi2
∆p4
∆qi3 ISIP
∆p4
∆qi4 ∆pnear wellbore ≅ qi1⁄2
Figure 9E-2. The step-down test is conducted to measure ∆ppf and ∆pnear wellbore. ISIP = instantaneous shut-in pressure.
Conclusions
Rate step-down tests are simple to implement and can provide
key insights into the nature of the near-wellbore connection
between the wellbore and the far-field hydraulic fracture.
Although rate step-down tests have limitations, they can pro-
vide the rare combination of critical information at minimal
additional cost.
6000 20
1300-psi reduction Surface pressure limitation = 6000 psi
(first slug)
Injection rate (bbl/min)
3600 12
Step-down 2: Zero tortuosity at
300-psi tortuosity end of pumping
2400 8
Increased maximum
proppant loading
from 4 to 6 ppg
1200 4
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (min)
Figure 9E-3. Propped treatment example with severe near-wellbore friction (i.e., fracture tortuosity) that was mitigated
by pumping two proppant slugs.
9-5. Analysis during fracture closure ties as those observed with the interpretation of con-
ventional well test data.
Fracture behavior during shut-in and prior to closure Basic decline analysis, outlined initially in this sec-
is governed by the fluid-loss characteristics and the tion, follows derivations presented by Nolte (1979,
material-balance relation (Fig. 9-2). A mathematical 1986b). A generalization of the technique using ana-
description of the pressure during the fracture closing lytical extensions to address nonideal conditions
period can be developed by also incorporating the (Nolte et al., 1993) is also presented.
fracture compliance relation (Eq. 9-21). These two
relations and that describing fluid loss are combined
to develop the specialized G-plot, which describes the 9-5.1. Fluid efficiency
pressure response during shut-in. Application of the
“Mathematical relations for fluid loss” in the
G-plot is analogous to the Horner analysis used for
Appendix to this chapter derives the fundamental
conventional well tests. The selection of an applica-
relations for fluid loss at the end of pumping VLp
ble slope for the G-plot also has the same uncertain-
(Appendix Eq. 23) and during the subsequent shut-in
(a)
12,000 50 6000 600
Injection rate (bbl/min) Perforation friction (psi)
2000 0 0 0
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (min) Pumping rate (bbl/min)
(b)
50 10,000 100
Surface pressure limitation = 10,000 psi
Step-downs 1 and 2 show severe Proppant loading (ppg)
perforation friction (only 4 out of 60 Surface pressure (psi)
perforations open) and low tortuosity Slurry rate (bbl/min)
40 8000 80
Step-downs 3 and 4 show
lower perforation friction and
small tortuosity; No reaction
Proppant loading (ppg)
on proppant slug
20 4000 40
Cut pad percentage
from 50% to 25%
Reperforate
10 2000 20
0 0 0
0 60 120 180 240 300
Time (min)
Figure 9E-4. The step-down test (a) diagnosed high ∆ppf that was remedied by reperforating (b).
period VLs (Appendix Eq. 27). These equations are are not routinely used during field practice. Simple
in terms of the dimensionless volume-loss function analytical approximations, however, can be derived
g(∆tD) and its value at shut-in g0. In this context, ∆tD for certain values of α. These values of α are valid for
is referred to as the dimensionless time and is defined the commonly used crosslinked fluids that develop
in Appendix Eq. 15 as the ratio of the shut-in time ∆t a polymer filter cake along the fracture walls. These
to the injection (or pumping) time tp. fluids are the focus of the remainder of this section.
The general expressions for g(∆tD) and g0 in Corresponding relations for the non-wall-building
Appendix Eqs. 17 and 20, respectively, are based on fluids, such as linear gels or viscoelastic surfactant–
the assumption of a monotonically increasing fracture based fluids, are also discussed in “Mathematical rela-
area that is defined by a power law expression with tions for fluid loss” in the Appendix to this chapter.
an exponent α (Appendix Eq. 2). The generalized The value of the area exponent α can be explicitly
expressions are relatively complicated and therefore determined for two limiting cases of fracture growth.
g(∆tD)
and in this case the area increases approximately lin- 3
early with time. (1 + ∆tD)sin (1 + ∆tD)–1/2 + ∆tD1/2
–1
α = α 0 + η(α1 − α 0 ) = + η α1 − ,
1 1 Substituting Appendix Eqs. 22 and 26 into Eq. 9-46
(9-44)
2 2 produces the following expression for the efficiency:
where α1 is from Appendix Eq. 40. For typical effi- g( ∆tcD ) − g0
ciency values of 0.3 < η < 0.6, α is equal to approxi- η= , (9-47)
mately 0.6. g( ∆tcD ) + (κ − 1)g0
A much simplified expression for the fluid-loss where the spurt factor κ is defined in Appendix Eq. 24.
volume function g(∆tD) and its initial value g0 can κ denotes the ratio of fluid loss for a case with spurt
then be developed by using the bounding values of to that without spurt. For the propagation period, κ =
α (Eq. 9-43). These are given by Appendix Eqs. 29 1 for no spurt; more generally,
and 30, respectively, and graphically presented in
κ −1 spurt volume loss
Fig. 9-27. Throughout this development, the differ- = . (9-48)
ence between the upper and lower bounds of g(∆tD) is κ total leakoff volume loss
nominal, as illustrated on the figure. This observation
Fluid efficiency, η
are independent of the geometry model and enable 0.6
defining the efficiency for proppant scheduling (see
Sidebar 6L). 0.4
The fracture penetration is determined using the
following equation, which is obtained by combining 0.2
Eq. 9-6 and Appendix Eq. 22:
Af =
(1 − η)Vi , (9-49)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0
2 rp κCL t p g0 Dimensionless closure time, ∆tcD
where the fracture surface area Af for the three basic Figure 9-28. Relationship between efficiency and closure
models is from Eq. 9-29, rp is the ratio of permeable time (Nolte, 1986a).
(or fluid-loss) area to fracture area, and CL is the
fluid-loss coefficient. The average fracture width
is then obtained by using Eqs. 9-4 and 9-49: 9-5.2. Basic pressure decline analysis
2 ηrp κCL t p g0 The previous section presents relations for the fracture
V
w = fp = . (9-50) geometry parameters from simple considerations of
Af 1− η material balance and the assumption of power-law-
Finally, the maximum fracture width immediately based fracture area growth. The basic decline analysis
after shut-in for the three basic models is obtained as assumes that the end of injection marks the termina-
tion of additional fracture extension and that the
4 ( πβ s ) PKN change in the fracture volume during shut-in is attrib-
wmax,si = w 4 π KGD (9-51) uted entirely to the change in the average fracture
3 2 Radial, width during this period. The latter assumption also
implies that the fracture area is invariant throughout
where 〈w– 〉 is from Eq. 9-50 and β is from Eq. 9-20.
s the shut-in period. The fracture geometry models
The maximum width at the end of pumping is relate the fracture width to the net pressure through
obtained similarly: their compliance. Consequently, the combination of
the compliance and fracture geometry equations
β s β p PKN
enables determination of the fluid-leakoff coefficient
wmax,p = wmax,si ≈ 1 KGD (9-52) on the basis of the rate of pressure decline during
≈ 1
Radial. shut-in.
Using the material-balance relation during shut-in
The values for the PKN fracture geometry model from Eq. 9-7, it follows for a constant area that
are from Nolte (1979), whereas those for the KGD
and radial models assume an elliptical width profile dVf ( ∆t ) d w
− = − Af = qL . (9-53)
(Eqs. 9-11 and 9-13, respectively) and no change in d∆t d∆t
the fracture volume immediately before and after For an assumed constant fracture compliance that
shut-in. The value of wmax,p for the radial model from is ensured by a constant area, differentiation of
Eq. 9-52 is valid only for a line-source fluid entry Eq. 9-21 and substitution in Eq. 9-53, with the
condition (Fig. 9-6). The high entry velocity and expression for the fluid leakoff rate qL from Appendix
pressure gradient during pumping for the point- Eq. 11, results in
source case produce a nonelliptical width profile
dpnet 2 rp CL A f
(Geertsma and de Klerk, 1969). − Af c f = f ( ∆t D ) , (9-54)
d∆t tp
Slope, p*
• Fracturing fluid is incompressible.
pnet,si
• Formation closure pressure is constant.
pc All these assumptions are seldom met in routine
G(∆tcD) field practice. A departure from any of them produces
a G-plot with a continuous curve (i.e., not a straight
G(∆tD) line with a constant slope). In such cases, the applica-
tion of basic pressure decline analysis generally pre-
Figure 9-29. G-plot of the G-function response approxi- dicts optimistic estimates of the fluid-leakoff coeffi-
mating idealized fracture propagation conditions. cient and treatment efficiency. However, a rigorous
Length extension
Length recession
pnet
pnet
pnet,si pnet,si
Height recession
Length recession
pnet ≈ 3/4pnet,si
pnet ≈ 0.4∆σ
G(∆tD) G(∆tD)
Figure 9-31. Conceptual G-plot response for nonideal fracture behavior during shut-in for (a) fracture extension and (b)
height growth.
Complete height recession from the bounding Height growth into a higher stress barrier
zones occurs when the wellbore net pressure requires a previously increasing net pressure
equals about 0.4 times the stress difference ∆σ. response. It therefore is not consistent with the
Also from Fig. 9-7, the net pressure at shut-in is basic requirements of the radial and KGD mod-
about 0.8∆σ when significant height growth els, both of which exhibit decreasing net pres-
occurs. Therefore, complete height recession sures. Height growth should be anticipated only
from the bounding zones occurs when the well- for PKN-type behavior, with an increasing and
bore net pressure reduces to a value that is relatively large net pressure during injection. As
approximately one-half of that at shut-in. a result, for the PKN model with significant
Following fracture withdrawal into the primary height growth, the correction mGc is required to
reservoir zone, the pressure subsequently the slope of the G-plot following the termination
declines faster than the initially reduced rate and of height recession and prior to fracture closure.
as for a fracture geometry where no height The corrected slope mG′ that accounts for length
growth occurs. Thus, fracture height growth into recession during this latter phase can be inferred
the bounding zones changes the otherwise from numerical simulations and the material-
straight-line G-plot into a convex-upward curve balance relation during shut-in (Nolte, 1991):
(Fig. 9-31b).
(1 + ∆t ) f (∆t ) ,
1
From this discussion, it is clear that when mG′ ≈ mGc (9-62)
βs
cD D cD
height growth occurs, the fracture is still reced-
ing from its bounding zones when without where fD(∆tD) is the dimensionless fluid-loss rate
height recession the fracture area is momentarily function and is given in Appendix Eq. 28. The
stationary (i.e., pnet/pnet,si = 3⁄4). Therefore, the correction in Eq. 9-62 for fracture height reces-
fluid-leakoff coefficient is underestimated by sion complements Eq. 9-61 for length change to
using the slope at the 3⁄4 point in Eq. 9-58. The account for PKN-type behavior during the shut-
equation also assumes constant compliance and in process.
hence is valid only after complete height reces-
sion into the primary reservoir zone. Conse- • Variable fluid-loss coefficient
quently, the decline analysis requires that the Basic pressure decline analysis assumes that the
G-function slope be evaluated after the period fluid-loss volume is defined by a constant leakoff
of height recession. coefficient. This assumption has been shown to
Cc correction factor, Kc
0.9
cient Cv) or reservoir properties (i.e., compressibil- η = 0.2
η = 0.3
– Reservoir-controlled leakoff
0.7
Reservoir-controlled leakoff commonly occurs η = 0.4
when reservoirs with highly viscous oil are frac- mǴ = γ Kcm3/4
0.6
tured. It can also occur in low-permeability
η = 0.6
reservoirs that exhibit a high water saturation.
In the case of reservoir-controlled leakoff, the 0.5
slope of the G-plot at the 3⁄4 point can be modi- 0 1 2 3
Dimensionless fluid-loss pressure, pDLs
fied to include the pressure dependency on fluid
leakoff (Nolte et al., 1993):
Figure 9-32. G-plot slope correction factor Kc for reservoir-
mG′ = γKc m3/ 4 , (9-63) controlled leakoff (Nolte et al., 1993).
Pressure (psi)
Fracture height recession Gdp/dG 6000
Pressure
1200
Height recession during shut-in from high-stress bounding lay- 5500
ers results in changes in the fracture compliance and total Fracture
800 closure
fracture surface area relative to the leakoff (i.e., permeable) 5000
area (Figs. 9-7 and 9-36). This behavior causes several obvi-
ous signatures on the pressure and derivative plots (Fig. 9F-1). 400 dp/dG 4500
The pressure versus G-function curve shows a distinct down- Fissure closure
ward bend as height recession progresses, as discussed in 0 4000
Section 9-5.3. This behavior results in an increasing magni- 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
tude of the dp/dG curve and the superposition Gdp/dG curve. G-function
Figure 9F-1 elaborates this diagnostic using shut-in pres-
sure measurements acquired during a water injection test in
a carbonate formation. Injection was confined to a relatively Figure 9F-2. Pressure derivative analysis for fissure-
small perforated interval surrounded by several hundred feet dominated leakoff.
of similar lithology. The continuously increasing values of
dp/dG and Gdp/dG indicate continuous height recession dur-
ing closure. The figure also suggests that complete fracture Pressure-dependent leakoff
closure has not occurred by the end of the shut-in period.
As discussed in Section 9-5.3, the value of dp/dG can contin-
uously decrease during the preclosure shut-in period. This
behavior results because of change in the fracture penetration
500 1500
during shut-in, and it may occur in spite of a constant value of
Bottomhole pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
( pISI − pc ) = pc + pnet ,si
3 3
1200 9700 p3/ 4 = pc +
Pressure
4 4
9300 3
= 8910 + (9012 − 8910) = 8987 psi. (9-74)
800 Gdp/dG
400
dp/dG
8900
4
8500
The G-function slope m3⁄4 at this 3⁄4 point is esti-
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 mated to be 136 psi in Fig. 9-33. For the PKN
G-function fracture geometry model, the slope prior to closure
mGc is inferred to be 123 psi. This slope is cor-
Figure 9F-3. Pressure derivative analysis for filtrate- or rected for the length recession following the termi-
reservoir-controlled leakoff.
nation of height growth using Eq. 9-62:
dependent leakoff. One ambiguity exists, however. The same 1
pattern can be generated by extension of a preexisting nat- mG′ = 123 1 + 0.58 × 0.93 = 194 .
ural fissure set oriented nearly parallel to the hydraulic frac- 0.74
ture or leakoff into a swarm of parallel fractures created by
the fracturing process.
9040
Physical length, L
Apparent length, xfa
Figure 9-35. Fluid-loss volume and rate distribution (a) in the absence of spurt and (b) for a spurt-dominated treatment.
after-closure response can then be characterized in 9-6.1. Why linear and radial flow
terms of an equivalent and spatially uniform fluid-loss after fracture closure?
flux over an apparent half-length xfa that is generally
less than L, the physical half-length of a propagating A reservoir is disturbed by fluid-loss invasion during
fracture. Consequently, the value of dimensionless fracture propagation and closing. The fluid-loss rate
time T that is expressed in terms of L for after-closure changes with time as well as over the fracture length
analysis can be different from that of tD, the standard (i.e., has temporal and spatial components). This con-
dimensionless time (see Chapter 12) based on the cept is further explained on Fig. 9-36, which illus-
apparent stationary fracture half-length xfa inferred trates the change in fracture length during a calibra-
from the reservoir response. This distinction between tion test. At a time t = 0, the fracture length is zero.
T and tD is consistent with the notation for the fracture The fracture length increases over the injection time
lengths L and xf employed in this volume. tp, and it finally reaches a maximum value shortly
The after-closure period provides information that after the end of injection. Fluid leakoff at a hypotheti-
is traditionally determined by a standard well test cal location in the reservoir (labeled point a) is initi-
(i.e., transmissibility and reservoir pressure). It com- ated at the time ta when the fracture arrives at this
pletes a chain of fracture pressure analysis that pro-
vides a continuum of increasing data for developing
a unique characterization of the fracturing process.
At optimum conditions, it objectively determines L
parameters that either cannot be otherwise obtained
(e.g., spurt) or exhibit considerable uncertainty when
estimated with conventional pressure decline analyses
Distance
(a) (b)
Fracture Fracture
1 0.5re re 1 0.5re re
0 0
0.5re 0.5re
re re
Figure 9-37. Pressure distribution in the reservoir shortly after closure for (a) small and (b) large values of dimensionless
time. re = reservoir radius.
difference
response:
and pressure derivative
• Fluid injection tests characterized by a low effi- T = 0.005 T = 0.05 T = 0.5 T = 5.0
0.7
ciency can be devoid of linear flow in spite of the Linear Extended
creation of a fracture. 0.6
linear
As shown on Fig. 9-38b, linear flow appears ini- also emphasizes the “knee” formed by the intersec-
tially and lasts until T exceeds 0.005 and exhibits the tion of the slopes for the linear and radial flow peri-
anticipated half-slope for the pressure difference and ods. This intersection defines a unique dimensionless
derivative. Reservoir radial flow, characterized by a time that can be used to infer the fracture length
unit log-log slope, is the terminal flow regime that achieved during propagation, as subsequently dis-
occurs only for T > 5. The intermediate transitional cussed in Section 9-6.7.
period lasts over a time period spanning a factor of Figure 9-38 also illustrates a significant shortcom-
approximately 1000 times beyond the end of linear ing for extracting the reservoir transmissibility from
flow. The plot of the pressure difference in Fig. 9-38a the after-closure response in low-permeability reser-
Knee time
equal to approximately 3tc.
Normalized pressure
0.1
fied from the diagnostic log-log plot (Fig. 9-41)
2×
for estimating either the closure time or spurt.
1 Obtaining representative values of these param-
2
eters generally requires a good prior estimate of
0.01 the initial, undisturbed reservoir pressure.
In the absence of spurt, the closure time can
be estimated as the smallest value of tc that, when
used with the independently derived reservoir
1
1
pressure estimate, provides the linear flow diag-
0.001
1 10 100 nostic discussed in the preceding “Flow regime
1/ {FL(t/tc)}2
identification” step. If spurt is expected, the value
of tc should be independently determined using the
Figure 9-41. Identification of linear and radial flow using procedures outlined in “Estimating closure pres-
the diagnostic log-log plot. sure” in the Appendix to this chapter. The after-
closure linear flow analysis can then be used to
estimate the spurt, with the linear flow period ini-
factor of 2 and each has a half-slope. Radial flow
tially identified from the diagnostic log-log plot.
is characterized by a log-log slope that approaches
If linear flow is identified, a Cartesian plot of the
unity as well as an approximate overlying of both
pressure versus FL(t/tc) is constructed to determine
the pressure difference and pressure derivative
the slope mlf. Equation 9-94 is used to obtain the
curves.
spurt factor κ. The reservoir mobility k/µ required
• Reservoir parameters determination by this equation is derived from transitional or
The testing sequence should preferentially include radial flow analysis and CL from the decline analy-
a mini-falloff test to characterize the reservoir sis. The spurt coefficient Sp can then be obtained
parameters. Shut-in pressures monitored during the from Appendix Eq. 24.
mini-falloff test should initially be investigated for • Crossvalidation
radial flow using the log-log diagnostic described
Equation 9-101 is applied to compare the fracture
in the preceding step. If radial flow can be identi-
length predicted by the reservoir response to that
fied, a Cartesian plot of the pressure response dur-
derived from decline analysis (see Section 9-5) for
ing radial flow versus {FL(t/tc)}2 is constructed.
the calibration test. The radial flow slope mrf is
The slope of the straight-line portion on this graph,
anticipated from Eq. 9-93, with the reservoir trans-
or mrf, can be used with Eq. 9-93 to estimate the
missibility as previously determined from the
reservoir transmissibility. The pressure intercept of
mini-falloff test and Vi and tc defined as the vol-
the straight-line portion is an estimate of the initial
ume injected and closure time for the calibration
reservoir pressure. This procedure is analogous to
test, respectively. Agreement between the two
the conventional Horner analysis used for well
independently inferred fracture lengths indicates
testing.
correct evaluation of the calibration treatment.
In the absence of radial flow, the transitional
flow-based analysis described in “Comparison
of fixed-length and propagating fractures” in the 9-6.9. Field example
Appendix to this chapter should be applied to the
mini-falloff test. This type-curve matching proce- Application of the after-closure analysis methodology
dure estimates the initial reservoir pressure and its is illustrated by analyzing the pressure monitored
transmissibility based on the transitional flow during the field calibration tests in Fig. 9-10. Analysis
period. of the injection pressure for the calibration test
π2 1.02
faL = = 0.86.
100
2×
(1 − 0.16) π 2 × (1.02 − 1) + 2 5.6 4.6
1
Pressure/injection rate
Step rate/
treatment that exhibits PKN behavior, before penetra- Mini-falloff flowback/rebound Calibration
tion of the bounding layers occurs. Alternatively, the
value of E could conform to core tests or sonic logs
of the reservoir (see Chapter 4), and the primary zone
thickness could be calibrated with the pressure match
and verified against well logs. Similarly, variation in
the zone stresses must be based on their trends as pre-
dicted by stress logs. In the absence of stress logs, Time
lithology logs can be used to develop an approxima-
tion for particular geologic environments (Smith et
Figure 9-45. Formation calibration testing sequence.
al., 1989). Furthermore, the simulated fracture
dimensions could be compared against independent
measurements, such as radioactive tracers or micro- process based on these tests.
seismic measurements, to validate the outcome of the 1. Review existing information pertinent to fracturing
pressure-matching exercise (Gulrajani et al., 1998). A properly calibrated sonic log (see Chapter 4)
The inversion solution is confirmed by applying the provides an excellent basis for assessing the for-
numerical simulator based on these calibrated fracture mation stress profile. It can also be used to identify
parameters to predict the fracture behavior during the lithologic aggregates for developing an under-
propped treatment or for offset wells. An objective standing of the zone layers. In its absence, a stan-
pressure evaluation is indicated by agreement between dard gamma ray or spontaneous potential log
the simulated pressure response and actual field mea- should be applied to define the depth and thickness
surements. Conformity also establishes the ability of of the layers. The permeable zone thickness (i.e.,
the calibrated numerical simulator to develop the thickness over which fluid loss occurs) can be
improved designs for future fracture treatments. identified using specialized magnetic resonance
logs that directly measure permeability. This infor-
mation can also be obtained from the separation
9-8. Comprehensive calibration of various resistivity measurements, which indi-
test sequence cates drilling fluid invasion and therefore a finite
permeability.
An optimized hydraulic fracturing program integrates
An estimate of the formation stresses can be
the analyses and diagnostic methods discussed in this
derived by history matching prior fracture treat-
chapter with the proper design process (see Chapters
ments in offset wells. This information can be used
5 and 10) and execution aspects (see Chapter 11) of
to characterize the fluid leakoff behavior as well
the stimulation procedure. These considerations
as calibrate either sonic or gamma ray logs (Smith
include identifying candidate wells that will benefit
et al., 1989) to obtain the stress variation over the
from the stimulation treatment, determining the
depth of interest. Where available, laboratory core
appropriate injection rate and proppant addition
tests should be used to obtain related information
sequence as well as assessing the risks involved with
(e.g., mechanical properties, existence of natural
treatment execution. The techniques described in the
fissures, fluid-loss behavior).
previous sections provide a basis for estimating the
fracture and reservoir parameters required during the 2. Determine reservoir production parameters
optimization process. To ensure completeness and The reservoir pressure and permeability are best
consistency in the evaluation process, fracturing pres- determined from a well test. In its absence, the
sure data should be obtained through a planned information can be obtained using the mini-falloff
sequence of calibration tests, as shown in Fig. 9-45. test. The mini-falloff test attempts to propagate a
The following steps describe the fracture evaluation short, inefficient fracture to attain the required
(a) (b)
Bottomhole pressure
Injection rate
at step end
pc
Extension
pressure
Pump-in
Bottomhole pressure
Bottomhole pressure
Flowback
a pc
pc
b
Possibilities
c
Appendix Figure 1. Tests to determine closure pressure (after Nolte, 1982): (a) step rate test, (b) bottomhole pressure plot-
ted versus injection rate to infer the values of pc and the fracture extension pressure, (c) combined step rate and flowback
tests (a = rate too low, b = correct rate for pc at curvature reversal and c = rate too high) and (d) shut-in decline test dis-
played on a square-root plot (∆t = shut-in time and tp = injection time into the fracture).
4700
200 psi greater than pc, as shown on the pressure
versus rate plot in Appendix Fig. 2 for the step rate 4600
test in Fig. 9-8b. This larger value represents effects
from fluid friction pressure within the fracture and 4500
resistance to fracture extension (i.e., toughness).
Laboratory tests (Rutqvist and Stephansson, 1996) 4400
pc = 4375 psi
also indicate that the y-axis intercept of the shallower
4300
sloped line that represents fracture extension on the 0 5 10 15 20 25
crossplot provides a first-order approximation for pc, Injection rate (bbl/min)
even when the steeper line that represents matrix
injection is absent. This interpretation, however, Appendix Figure 3. Pressure versus rate analysis for the
step rate test in Fig. 9-10.
A9-2 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
Shut-in decline test ful fraction of the in-situ leakoff rate). With the
assumption that a fracture has been created, the pres-
The shut-in decline test can be used with either a step sure response during flowback has two distinctly dif-
rate or calibration test. The decline data are displayed ferent profiles while the fracture is closing and after
on a square-root plot (Appendix Fig. 1d) or a G-plot the fracture closes. Comprehensive simulations (Plahn
(Fig. 9-29) that assumes square-root exposure time et al., 1997) indicate that the fracture pc is identified
for the fluid-loss behavior. The closure pressure is by the intersection of the two straight lines that define
inferred where the slope changes on either plot. The these two periods. The increasing rate of pressure
derivative should be used to magnify the change of decline for the postclosure period results from fluid
slope and enhance its identification. flow through the pinched fracture width (i.e., induced
Either of the specialized plots, however, may be fluid choking) in the near-wellbore region induced by
completely devoid of a significant slope change or fluid flowback. The characteristic “lazy-S” signature
may exhibit multiple slope changes. In general, up exhibited by the pressure during the flowback period
to six events could be associated with a slope change: is in contrast to the multiple inflections commonly
• height recession from the bounding layers observed with the shut-in decline test. Therefore, the
• transition between fracture extension and recession flowback test provides a more objective indication of
closure relative to the decline test.
• fracture closure
Maintaining a constant flowback rate as the pres-
• postclosure consolidation of the polymer filter cake sure decreases is critical for a flowback test. This
and fracture face irregularities objective requires a field-rugged, debris-resistant flow
• reservoir linear flow regulator that both measures and controls the flow-
• reservoir radial flow. back rate. The flow regulator should be preset for the
desired rate at the pressure expected following the
Consequently, the shut-in test commonly fails to end of injection, and it should be isolated by a closed
provide an objective indication of pc and should not valve during pumping. Presetting the flow regulator is
be used as the primary procedure for determining it. best achieved by opening it during the last period of
Experience indicates that the square-root plot may the step rate test to establish the desired flowback rate
provide a better indication of closure for fluids that prior to the actual test. The effect of the additional
do not have effective fluid-loss control from wall- fluid loss can be compensated for by increasing the
building behavior, whereas the G-plot may provide a injection rate. Fluid injection is terminated once the
better indication for fluids with wall-building behav- desired constant flowback rate has been attained, and
ior. The analysis of decline data typically uses both this rate is then maintained throughout the flowback
plots to determine the value of pc. period.
Other specialized plots have been used, although Experience shows that an adjustable choke often
less frequently, to identify pc. These include the log- plugs because of pipe dope and other debris loosened
log shut-in plot (Elbel et al., 1984) and multidimen- into the wellbore during the injection period. A gate
sional derivative analysis. In contrast to the square- valve is preferable for controlling the flowback rate.
root and G-function plots, the interpretation In addition, a pressure sensor and fixed choke at the
philosophy of these plots is based on identifying end of the flowback line can be substituted for a flow
reservoir flow regime changes to obtain bounding meter to reliably measure the flow rate, particularly
values of pc. when the rate is low (i.e., 3 bbl/min or less). Tabu-
lated values for the pressure drop versus the flow rate
through standard choke sizes are used to select the
Flowback test choke size that will provide the pressure change nec-
The preferred method for determining pc is a combi- essary for a reliable pressure measurement at the
nation of the step rate test (with an extended last step) anticipated flowback rate.
and flowback test (Appendix Fig. 1c). The essential The flowback test is frequently repeated for verifi-
element of the flowback test involves a flowback cation and selection of a more optimum flowback
period at a constant rate that is between 1⁄6 and 1⁄4 of rate. The first flowback period should be of sufficient
the last injection rate (i.e., at a rate that is a meaning- duration to ensure that fracture closure in the primary
A9-4 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
minimize wellbore expansion effects during pres- • It is unlikely that both linear and radial flow will
sure falloff. For gas reservoirs, this can be achieved occur during a decline period (see Section 9-6.2).
by conducting the injection test before a production The testing sequence illustrated in Fig. 9-45 is sug-
period. Alternatively, the gas should be circulated gested to increase the likelihood of obtaining infor-
from the wellbore or bullheaded into the formation. mation pertinent to both the linear and radial flow
An extended shut-in period can be required after periods. The mini-falloff test should be applied to
bullheading to allow the pressure transient to dissi- determine the radial flow parameters. The subse-
pate before liquid injection resumes. A relatively quent calibration test is more likely to attain linear
small volume of gas injection ahead of the fluid is flow. The radial flow response for the calibration
acceptable—e.g., gas is circulated from the inter- test can be anticipated from the reservoir informa-
mediate casing but remains in the shorter liner. tion derived from the mini-falloff test (see “Frac-
• Circulating or bullheading (potentially with a long ture length” in Section 9-6.7).
shut-in period) may be similarly required to spot • To attain radial flow within a reasonable time
the fracturing fluid at the perforations for the frac- frame, the mini-falloff test should adhere to the fol-
ture calibration test. The residual reservoir response lowing injection rate criterion, presented in con-
from injection of a significant volume of low- ventional oilfield units:
efficiency wellbore fluid causes the linear flow
qi ( bbl / min ) k ( md ) CL
analysis to indicate an unrealistically high spurt
h f (ft )
≤ 4 × 10 −6
µ(cp) CR
( pc − pi (psi)).
loss (Talley et al., 1999).
• Like preclosure analysis, after-closure analysis is (1)
an inverse problem that is inherently nonunique
If the fluid loss is controlled by the reservoir, as
(see Section 9-7.2). The objectivity of after-closure
desired for the test, the ratio of the fluid-loss coeffi-
analysis can be improved by obtaining an a priori
cients CL and CR becomes unity and a higher injec-
estimate of the reservoir pressure, particularly if
tion rate is possible. The equation provides an
the after-closure period is abbreviated (e.g., before
equality for a dimensionless time of 1.0 (i.e., the
wellbore vacuum) and either the closure time
beginning of radial flow during the injection period
(Nolte et al., 1997) or spurt loss is inferred. The
on Fig. 9-38). The guideline requires using esti-
reservoir pressure estimate can be obtained
mates of the reservoir parameters and fluid-loss
– as the stabilized bottomhole pressure measured characteristics to design the mini-falloff test. In
prior to fluid injection into the reservoir general, Appendix Eq. 1 provides an operationally
– as the stabilized surface pressure measured prior reasonable rate for radial flow with a short moni-
to fluid injection into an overpressured reservoir toring period in a reservoir with a mobility greater
– from the surface pressure and hydrostatic col- than about 5 md/cp. For reservoirs with lower val-
umn estimated through an accurate measurement ues of mobility, transitional flow resulting from
of the fluid injected to completely fill the well- injection rates greater than guideline can be used
bore for an underpressured reservoir to determine the reservoir parameters with a type-
curve-based analysis.
– from an accurate reservoir pressure gradient
established for the field. • Volume has a minimal effect on dimensionless time
and hence the time for development of radial flow
• In deep or hot reservoirs, bottomhole gauges are
because of the quasistationary value of dimension-
necessary because wellbore fluid expansion from
less time for a constant injection rate. However, a
the decreasing pressure and increasing temperature
minimum volume must be pumped to ensure an
during shut-in decrease the hydrostatic pressure.
accurate measure of the volume injected through
Excessive expansion of the fluid may eventually
the perforations because the transmissibility is pro-
violate the no-flow condition to the degree that the
portional to the injected volume (Eq. 9-93).
longer term data are corrupted, particularly for
residual gas in the wellbore. Mitigation of these • If polymer fluids are used (see Section 9-6.3) the
effects, like for a wellbore vacuum, requires a pressure data obtained after fracture closure can be
downhole shut-in device. corrupted by continued consolidation (i.e., squeez-
(t − τ(a)) .
2 CL
vL = ∫ uL dt =
θ
The evolution of the fracture area is assumed to (6)
follow a power law relation with time in which the 0
θ
area monotonically increases with time. The proper- Parlar et al. (1995) showed that θ is related to the
ties of the injected fluid and the pump rate are power law exponent nf of the filtrate that invades the
assumed to be relatively constant. The power law reservoir during the leakoff process:
expression relates any intermediate fracture area a
created at a time τ to the total fracture area A at the nf
θ= . (7)
current time t: 1 + nf
α
a τ As discussed in Chapter 8, a filter cake is deposited
= (2)
A t by a wall-building fluid along the fracture in low-per-
meability reservoirs and within the formation in high-
1/ α
τ a permeability reservoirs. A Newtonian filtrate (i.e.,
= , (3)
t A water) is created during the process. Under these con-
ditions, nf = 1 and Appendix Eq. 5 reduces to Eq. 5-1,
where α is referred to as the area exponent. The which is Carter’s square root of exposure time rela-
exponent α is also the log-log slope of A versus t, as tion for the fluid-loss rate (i.e., θ = 1⁄2). Non-wall-
shown by differentiating Appendix Eq. 3 with respect building fracturing fluids invade high-permeability
to time: reservoirs. The resulting filtrate fluid is typically non-
t dA Newtonian, with nf < 1 and θ < 1⁄2. In addition, the
α= . (4) extensional viscosity behavior of viscoelastic filtrates
A dt
above a threshold filtration rate can exhibit relatively
The value of α depends on the fluid efficiency. large values of nf (Chauveteau et al., 1986). The
Bounding values for α corresponding to low and high value of θ in this case is greater than 1⁄2 and can
A9-6 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
approach unity. A value of θ that is different from ∆tD, which is defined as the ratio of the shut-in time
1
⁄2 has also been proposed to model the effect of ∆t to the pumping time tp:
natural fissures (Soliman et al., 1990).
t − t p ∆t
∆t D = = = tαD − 1. (15)
tp tp
Fluid-loss volume with the Carter-based
leakoff model The time functions f(tαD,α,θ) and g(tαD,α,θ) can be
expressed in terms of ∆tD:
The rate of fluid loss associated with Carter-based
dξ
1
f ( ∆t D , α, θ) = ∫
leakoff behavior (i.e., the contribution of CL over an
∆t D ≥ 0 (16)
(1 + ∆t − ξ1/ α )
1−θ
elemental leakoff area da) can be obtained by substi- 0 D
tuting Appendix Eq. 3 into Appendix Eq. 5:
1
g( ∆t D , α, θ) =
1
(1 + ∆t D − ξ1/ α ) dξ ∆t D ≥ 0 . (17)
θ
∫
2r C da
q L ( da, t ) = 1p−θ L 1−θ , (8)
t p (tαD − ξ1/ α ) θ0
where rp is the ratio of the fracture surface area avail- Valkó and Economides (1993b) showed that the
able for fluid loss to the gross fracture area and tp is functions f(tαD,α,θ) and g(tαD,α,θ) are part of the
the injection or pumping time. The dimensionless hypergeometric family of functions or their subset
parameters tαD and ξ are defined as of incomplete beta functions (Meyer and Hagel,
1989). Either of these function families is relatively
t complicated, but simple analytical expressions can
tαD = (9)
tp be obtained for a limited set of values, as discussed
subsequently.
a
ξ= , (10)
Af
where Af is the fracture surface area at the end of
Cumulative fluid-loss volume
pumping. The total fluid-loss volume at the end of pumping
The total rate of fluid loss is obtained by the inte- VLp comprises the cumulative contributions of its
gration of Appendix Eq. 8 over the fracture area: CL fluid-loss component VLp,C and spurt VL,S:
VLp = VLp,C + VL ,S .
( )
2 rp CL A f (18)
qL Af , t = f (tαD , α, θ), (11)
t 1p−θ
An expression for VLp,C can be obtained by substi-
where the function f(tD,α,θ) is defined as tuting ∆tD = 0 into Appendix Eq. 13:
1
dξ VLp,C = VL ,C ( ∆t D = 0) = 2 rp CL t pθ A f g0 (α, θ), (19)
f (tαD , α, θ) = ∫ tαD ≥ 1. (12)
0 (t αD −ξ )
1/ α 1−θ
where the function g0(α,θ) represents the value of the
g-function in Appendix Eq. 17 when ∆tD = 0:
An expression for the CL component of the fluid-
1
(1 − ξ1/ α ) dξ .
loss volume VL,C is similarly obtained by substituting
g0 (α, θ) = g( ∆t D = 0, α, θ) =
1 θ
2
The rate of increase in the fracture area decreases (28)
significantly at the end of pumping. Spurt-dependent
1 + ∆t sin −1 1 + ∆t −1/ 2 + ∆t 1/ 2
( D) ( D)
1
fluid loss therefore also reduces relatively quickly fol- α=
g( ∆t D ) θ= 1
D
lowing the cessation of fluid injection and is assumed = 4 2
to terminate at the time t = tp. The total fluid-loss vol-
ume during a shut-in period is represented entirely by
2
3
(
(1 + ∆t D ) − ∆t D3/ 2
3/ 2
) α =1
(
VLs ( ∆t ) = 2 rp CL t θ A f g( ∆t D , α, θ) − g0 (α, θ)) θ ≠ .
1 that exhibit a power-law-based rheology and do not
2 develop an effective filter cake. In this case, nf ≠ 1
and if the filtrate controls fluid loss, θ deviates from
(27)
its commonly assumed value of 1⁄2. These conditions
limit the general analytical expressions to g0 only.
Explicit integration of Appendix Eq. 20 gives
Newtonian filtrate control
Fracturing fluids produce a Newtonian filtrate follow- Γ (1 + θ)Γ (1 + α )
g0 (α, θ) = , (31)
ing the deposition of a filter cake. For this case, nf = 1, θΓ (1 + α + θ)
and Appendix Eq. 7 indicates that θ = 1⁄2. Analytical
expressions for fluid loss can be derived for bounding where Γ(x) is the gamma function.
values of α. The lower bound value corresponds to Analytical expressions for the fluid-loss rate and
negligible efficiency and is obtained by substituting volume functions (i.e., Appendix Eqs. 16 and 17,
A9-8 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
respectively) can be obtained for only select values The evolution of the fracture area for high fluid
of their arguments that are applicable to specific field efficiencies is obtained from this expression as
applications. The upper bound of α = 1 applies also qi t
for θ ≠ 1⁄2, and the corresponding functions are Af = η → 1, (39)
w
f ( ∆t D , α = 1, θ) =
1
θ
[
(1 + ∆t D )θ − ∆t Dθ ] (32) where 〈w〉 is the fracture width averaged over the
—
1 dpnet ( ∆tso )
where the subscript so identifies the corresponding
1 d ∆w
parameter value at screenout. Similarly, an expression =
for the fracture volume at screenout Vfso can be wso dt pnet ,so dt
written as
=
1 f ( ∆t Dso )
Vfso = ηsoViso , (43) tso ηso 1 − [1 − ηso ] , (49)
κ so g0
where ηso is the fluid efficiency at screenout and Viso
is the volume injected prior to the screenout. where pnet,so is the net pressure at the screenout and β
For an assumed constant injection rate Viso = qitso, is assumed to be unity (Fig. 9-20). From the defini-
Eq. 9-6 and Appendix Eq. 43 can be combined: tion of efficiency, it can be readily shown that
A9-10 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
The bounding values of the log-log slope are for describing the pressure in the reservoir are the
obtained by substituting the appropriate values for η pressure drop caused by the near-face leakoff effects
and the corresponding relations for f(∆tDso), g(∆tDso) (i.e., filter cake and filtrate) ∆pnf and the pressure dif-
and g0 that can be obtained from Appendix Eqs. 28, ference in the reservoir ∆pR:
29 and 30, respectively.
∆pT = p f − pi = ∆pnf + ∆pR t < tc (52)
A9-12 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
In contrast to this after-closure comparison, the where reservoir linear flow is assumed (Howard and
uniform-pressure fracture provides essentially the Fast, 1957) and the definition is in terms of the total
same flux distribution in radial flow as that for the pressure difference between the fracture and the ini-
fluid loss from an inefficient propagating fracture. tial reservoir pressure. A definition in Eq. 6-91 is in
This comparison is shown on Appendix Fig. 4. The terms of the pressure difference ∆pRC between the fil-
fixed-length distribution from Gringarten et al. (1974) trate/reservoir interface and the initial reservoir pres-
was described as the stabilized flux distribution. The sure. This pressure difference is defined in Appendix
spatial variation of the fluid loss during propagation Eq. 54 and denoted as ∆pc in Eq. 6-91. Combining
was obtained by combining the fracture growth Appendix Eq. 56 and Eq. 6-92 gives the following
power law relation (Appendix Eq. 2) for vanishing ratio between the pressure differences and fluid-loss
efficiency (i.e., area exponent α = 1⁄2) and the square coefficients:
root of time leakoff behavior (Appendix Eq. 8). ∆pRC CL
= . (57)
∆pT Cc
Uniform-pressure fixed-length
fracture (Gringarten et al., 1974) When the near-face effects and spurt are negligible,
10
Inefficient, propagating fracture the two pressure differences are equal (i.e., Appendix
8 Eq. 54) and Appendix Eq. 57 then indicates the
Normalized flux
( )
assumed for the derivation of Appendix Eq. 61. The
Linear flow pD,up Tp = πTp Tp < 0.01 expanded range results from numerical simulations
Radial flow pD,up (T )
p
1
2
[
= ln Tp + 2.2 ] Tp > 3. (Abousleiman et al., 1994; Nolte, 1998) that indicate
that Appendix Eq. 64 approximates (i.e., within a 5%
(62) error) the reservoir coefficient for transitional flow.
More generally, the simulations indicate that
They also provided a general relation for pD,up(Tp)
Appendix Eq. 64 is approximately valid (i.e., within
in terms of special functions. This relation can be
a 10% error) for moderate values of efficiency
approximated with an error of less than 2% by
(η < 0.5) and with any reservoir flow regime.
πTp − 0.58Tp Tp < 0.16 Therefore, CR, as defined by Appendix Eq. 61,
( )
pD,up Tp ≅ 1 represents the “general reservoir” leakoff coefficient
( [
2 ln Tp + 0.22 + 2.2 ] ) Tp > 0.16. within the accuracy required for fracture design and
evaluation purposes.
(63)
Appendix Eq. 63 can be used to show that during
Comparison of Appendix Eqs. 62 and 63 shows transitional and radial flow, pD,up(Tp) ≤ √πTp.
that the approximations provided by the latter equa- Appendix Eq. 64 therefore implies that the general
tion are defined by adding a term to each of the limit- coefficient CR is larger than the linear flow coefficient
ing cases. The second approximation in Appendix Cc for fracture propagation under these flow condi-
Eq. 63 can be obtained by applying the apparent time tions. This result has been reported by Hagoort
multiplier (1 + 0.22/Tp) to the dimensionless time. Its (1980) and Valkó and Economides (1997). For exam-
inclusion extends the applicability of the logarithmic- ple, for a dimensionless time Tp = 1, the dimension-
based radial flow relation to a dimensionless time that less pressure pD,up = 1.21 and √πTp = 1.78. For these
is about 1⁄20 of the value normally required for radial values, Appendix Eq. 64 indicates that the general
flow (i.e., Tp = 0.16 in Appendix Eq. 63 versus Tp = coefficient CR is about 1.5 times larger than Cc under
3 in Appendix Eq. 62). The apparent time multiplier these late transitional flow conditions. For a larger
for application with Appendix Eq. 63 has the same dimensionless time Tp = 10, CR becomes larger by
form as that for a similar development introduced in a factor of 2.5.
Eq. 9-83 for the after-closure behavior of a propa- This observation of a larger leakoff coefficient gen-
gating fracture. These two relations are seemingly erally applies to the mini-falloff test because the test
different because the relation for a propagating frac- design should be based on Tp > 1 and the achieve-
ture contains a different constant (i.e., 0.14 instead ment of reservoir-controlled fluid-loss conditions
of 0.22). However, this difference occurs because the (Appendix Eq. 1). Larger values of the reservoir coef-
dimensionless times corresponding to the two cases ficient do not affect the fluid loss for most proppant
differ by the square of the apparent length fraction treatments where near-face effects are designed into
faL from Eq. 9-79. For the assumed conditions of van- the fluid system to control the fluid-loss behavior.
ishing efficiency and spurt, Eq. 9-80 indicates that Combining Appendix Eqs. 58 and 61 provides the
faL = π/4. Applying this value to the dimensionless general relation for the CL component of the pressure
time for the fixed-length case indicates that the con- difference ∆pRC for all flow regimes and in terms of
stants for the two apparent time relations are actually the total pressure difference and combined fluid-loss
equivalent. coefficient.
For reservoir linear flow, Appendix Eq. 62 shows
that pD,up(Tp) ≈ √πTp. It follows from Appendix
Eq. 61 that Type-curve-based analysis
Cc Linear flow The dimensionless pressure pD,up can also be used to
develop type-curve analyses for general after-closure
CR = πTp conditions. The normalized pressure difference and
( )
C Transitionaland radial flow.
pD,up Tp c
pressure derivative variables and the log-log slope in
(64) Fig. 9-38 illustrate several characteristics of the after-
A9-14 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
closure pressure response that motivate its analysis lished by the matching procedure, the dimensionless
within a type-curve framework. For example, the pressure pD,up(Tp) can be obtained using Appendix
character, or shape, of the curves depends on the Eq. 63.
dimensionless time Tp. Also, a suitable match pres- This type-curve analysis has the following relation
sure for the analysis can be defined as the ratio of the between the after-closure pressure and the pressure-
dimensional pressure variables and the normalized difference curve Rp:
[ ]
pressure variables shown on the figure.
The development of type curves applicable to ∆pR (t ) = p(t ) − pi = m p Rp Tp , (t − tc ) tc , η, κ . (69)
generalized fluid-loss conditions requires a relation
For fracture propagation in flow regimes other than
among the average value of the fluid-loss rate q—L, CL
well-established linear and radial flow, Rp must be
component of the fluid-loss rate qL,C, injection rate qi,
defined by numerical simulation.
fluid efficiency η and spurt factor κ. This relation can
The matching procedure uses a pair of type curves:
be obtained by combining the rate versions of Eq. 9-6
one for the pressure difference and one for the pres-
and Appendix Eq. 22:
sure derivative. Each quantity can be defined using an
q L = κ q L ,C = (1 − η) qi . (65) appropriate time function. The square of the linear
flow time function FL(t/tc) given by Eq. 9-88 is pre-
For general values of efficiency and spurt, the ferred because it provides a consistent representation
reservoir pressure difference at the end of pumping of the after-closure period for the reservoir response
∆pR(tp) provides a convenient quantity to use as the in any flow regime, as discussed in Section 9-6.7.
match pressure (i.e., the multiplying factor for the Furthermore, the pressure difference and the pressure
type curves). The relation between ∆pR(tp) and ∆pRC derivative are presented in terms of the inverse of FL2
at the end of injection can be obtained from Eqs. 9-76 because this presentation provides the conventional
and 9-84 and Appendix Eq. 58: representation of increasing time from left to right
along the x-axis. Appendix Fig. 5 illustrates these
κ + 1 κ + 1 CL
( )
∆pR t p = ∆p t = ( )
2 RC p 2 CR T p
∆p t . ( ) curves for the case of vanishing efficiency and spurt
(e.g., applicable to a mini-falloff test).
(66) The type-curve analysis begins by matching the
Rearranging Appendix Eqs. 65 and 66 and substi- character (i.e., shape) of the pressure derivative for
tuting them into Appendix Eq. 59 provides a more the data to the character of one of a collection of type
general form of the dimensionless pressure: curves based on different values of Tp. This character
matching defines Tp. The selected curve for Tp is then
2κ 2 π kh
( ) ( )
vertically translated to match the pressure derivative
pD,up Tp = mp ∆pR t p → m p ,
(1 − η)(1 + κ ) µqi
of the data, and the resulting form of the pressure
derivative defines the match pressure mp:
(67)
where the fluid-loss height hL = h and the role of 1.0
∆pR(tp) is introduced as the match pressure mp. The Pressure difference
Pressure derivative
transmissibility can be determined from this dimen- η→0 κ→0
sionless relation:
kh (1 − η)(1 + κ ) qi pD,up Tp ( )
Rp(t)
=
µ 2 πm . (68) Tp = 0.001
2κ p
A9-16 Chapter 9 Appendix: Background for Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Analysis Techniques
◆
Fracture Treatment Design
If it is assumed that the fracturing fluid and injection rate have been selected, the other major design considerations are the treatment
size, type of proppant and proppant scheduling. The size of the treatment should ideally be based on the optimum fracture penetration
determined by economic considerations (see Section 10-1.1) and made after ideal model assumptions are considered (see Section
10-3.1). However, it is not uncommon for a fixed expenditure to be used in determining the size of a treatment. There may be other
constraints, such as proppant mass and fluid volume, resulting from the availability of materials or logistics, which may also limit the
size of a treatment. Even then, the treatment design providing the best NPV or other economic criteria within these constraints can be
made by conducting a number of economic evaluations with different proppants and various maximum concentrations.
NPVs for various treatment volumes and proppant concentrations for a range of fixed costs are shown in Fig. 10A-1. In Fig. 10A-1a
the NPV after 1 year is plotted versus cost of treatment with sand and a higher cost, higher strength, premium intermediate-strength
proppant (ISP). The final proppant concentrations in the simulations are 10, 14 and 16 ppg. If the treatment cost is limited to $200,000,
the maximum NPV after 1 year is $2,080,000 using sand at a final concentration of 16 ppg. This NPV is $200,000 higher than that for
a treatment at the same cost with a premium proppant at 10-ppg final concentration and $310,000 greater than premium proppant at
16 ppg. If the treatment cost is increased to $300,000, the maximum NPV is increased only $20,000 and can also be achieved with
premium proppant at 16- and 14-ppg final concentrations.
A maximum NPV can also be determined for cases where the proppant volume or mass is limited because of availability, location,
size or an arbitrary decision. For this criterion, the curves in Fig. 10A-1b show that the premium proppant is always optimal. The plots
also show that for less than 130,000-lbm proppant, 10-ppg maximum concentration is optimal. For more than 130,000 lbm, a greater
economic benefit is obtained at a concentration of 14 ppg, increasing to 16 ppg with additional increases in proppant mass or treat-
ment cost that achieve more fracture length and benefit from increased concentration for improved conductivity.
1,900,000
One-year NPV ($)
1,700,000
1,500,000
Sand 14 ppg
ISP 14 ppg
Sand 10 ppg
1,300,000
ISP 10 ppg
Sand 16 ppg
ISP 16 ppg
1,100,000
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Treatment cost ($)
(b)
2,300,000
2,100,000
1,900,000
One-year NPV ($)
1,700,000
1,500,000
Sand 10 ppg
ISP 10 ppg
Sand 16 ppg
ISP 16 ppg
1,100,000
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
Proppant mass (lbm)
300,000
3. Determine the maximum allowable pump rate on the
200,000
basis of the pressure limitations of the wellhead and
tubulars. The optimum injection rate is a balance of
100,000 Maximum proppant
decreased fluid loss and increased horsepower as the
concentration 10.0 ppg rate is increased. Shear degradation, for some frac-
6.0 ppg 14.0 ppg
0 turing fluid systems, should also be considered (see
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Chapters 7 and 8).
Productive fracture half-length (ft)
4. Select an appropriate fracture propagation model
Figure 10-1. Net present value versus productive fracture (e.g., pseudo-3D, or P3D) for the formation char-
half-length for a 0.01-md formation. acteristics and pressure behavior on the basis of
in-situ stress and laboratory tests, calibration treat-
Partial
Full
monolayer Multilayer
105
103
0.1
0.01 0.10 1.0
Propped fracture width (in.)
remain open to flow (Strickland, 1985; Smith et al., 10-2.4. Dimensionless fracture conductivity
1987; Martins et al., 1992c).
Comparison of the effect of fracture conductivity on
Figure 10-3 is a graph of proppant concentration
production can be made easily if conductivity is cast
in the fracture versus propped fracture width for
in dimensionless terms and plotted against dimension-
20/40-mesh sand. The graph illustrates that once
less time and rate, as shown by the constant-pressure,
multilayer packing is achieved, the fracture width
finite-conductivity type curves in Fig. 10-4. These
increases proportionally to the increase in proppant
type curves give the wellbore production response
concentration. In Figs. 10-2 and 10-3, 2 lbm/ft2
as the reciprocal dimensionless rate 1/qD for a range
corresponds to about 0.25-in. propped width and
of dimensionless fracture conductivity CfD.
has about 10 layers for 20/40-mesh proppant. The
In Fig. 10-4, a design with a calculated CfD of 1.0
significance of more than five layers is discussed
and a selected dimensionless time tD of 0.01 is plotted
concerning proppant flowback in Section 11-6.
as point A. This corresponds to production repre-
Proppant packs with more than five layers of prop-
sented by 1/qD equal to 0.8. Doubling the fracture
pant were found to become unstable and produce
length with the same conductivity reduces CfD by
proppant when subjected to the forces from fluid
50% and decreases tD by 25% (point B). The value
flow (Asgian et al., 1995). Thus, proppant consoli-
of 1/qD for point B has essentially not changed, indi-
dation techniques are indicated.
cating that the production at this time is not different
Other factors influencing the final conductivity,
from that at point A. However, if the penetration is
particularly the gel residue in the fracture, are dis-
doubled and the proppant volume is increased by a
cussed in Chapter 8. Influences that are more diffi-
factor of 4 over that of the design for point A, the con-
cult to define are the creation of formation fines
ductivity doubles but CfD remains equal to 1. This is
because of stress cycling (Morita et al., 1988;
shown as point C, with a corresponding 1/qD of 0.55,
Ramakrishnan et al., 1991), movement of forma-
which indicates a 45% increase in the production rate.
tion fines into the fracture, long-term proppant
However, a more significant increase in production
degradation from dissolution and stress corrosion,
over that for the point A design can be achieved by
and permeability loss from precipitate buildup.
1 CfD
B
A
0.1
C D
0.5
A'
1
10–1 5
B'
kh∆p
10 1/qD =
141.2qBµ
25
tD = 0.0063kt (days)
50 φµctxf2
100 kfw
CfD =
kxf
500
10–2
10–5 10–4 10–3 10–2 10–1 1
Dimensionless time (tD)
Figure 10-4. Finite-conductivity type curve comparisons of production for various fracture designs located as points.
increasing the proppant volume or conductivity by a • Constant proppant volume, optimum CfD
factor of 4 for the same length, as shown by point D. Prats (1961) showed that for a given fracture vol-
Increasing the conductivity for the point A design ume (proppant volume) there is a fracture width to
by a factor of 50 results in a CfD of 50, as shown as fracture length relation for achieving maximum
point A′. This design corresponds to a 1/qD of 0.25. productivity. This relation can be expressed as
Doubling the length with the same conductivity now CfD equal to 1.26, and it is valid when the well is
results in a 1/qD of approximately 0.15, or a 66% at pseudosteady state for the majority of its produc-
increase in production rate at that particular time tive life. However, Morse and Von Gonten (1972)
(point B′). A design with twice the length, but with showed that because of transient production in low-
the same proppant volume as point A′, yields a CfD permeability formations, the higher rates obtained
of 12.5, and it still results in a higher production rate prior to reaching pseudosteady-state conditions can
than that of point A′. This requires the same proppant significantly affect the economics of hydraulic frac-
volume as doubling the length and maintaining the turing treatments. A study by Elbel (1988) using
same CfD. a reservoir simulator showed that for constant prop-
Exercises such as this show the insight gained by pant volume in formations with permeabilities
using type curves in fracture design, and they have led greater than l md, a CfD of 1.26 is optimum. For
to guidelines regarding the use of CfD for design eval- maximum production in formations with less than
uation. Designs with CfD equal to 3 or less cannot be 0.1-md permeability, a CfD of 3 is optimum. How-
improved significantly by increasing the fracture ever, these evaluations, for proppant alone, ignore
length with the same conductivity. A redesign for sig- the cost of fluids and other associated treatment
nificantly more production requires an increase in CfD. costs required to place a fracture.
If CfD is 30 or greater, increasing the length is more
• Constant length, optimum CfD
beneficial than increasing conductivity. The optimum
conductivity should be defined by an economic analy- For a constant fracture length, a CfD between
sis; however, insight into the role of conductivity is 10 and 30 has generally been accepted as an opti-
provided by considering the special cases addressed mum range (Holditch, 1979a). Because a CfD of
in the following. 30 for a given fracture length requires 3 times the
( )
an additional pressure drop that is proportional to the
product of a turbulence factor and the velocity squared. Vrp = ρ p 1 − φ p k f , (10-1)
They showed that the pressure drop for this component
where ρp is the proppant density in lbm/ft3, φp is the
can exceed that of Darcy flow with high-velocity pro-
porosity of the propped fracture, and kf is the fracture
duction. Problems in design optimization of proppant
permeability (i.e., the permeability of the proppant in
conductivity are that the velocity varies down the frac-
the fracture). As stress increases, the relative proppant
ture and the turbulence factors vary with the proppant
volume (RPV) increases but more significantly for
type as well as the proppant’s change in permeability
Sand 14 ppg
ISP 14 ppg
Sand 16 ppg
2,100,000
ISP 16 ppg
1,900,000
One-year NVP ($ )
1,700,000
1,500,000
1,300,000
1,100,000
100 300 500 700 900
Proppant penetration (ft)
Figure 10-7. Net present value versus penetration for various proppant concentrations and types.
siderations are controlled to various degrees by addi- improved by using additives such as solids, surfac-
tives, as discussed in Chapter 7. Experience in an area tants, liquid hydrocarbons and gases (see Chapter 8).
also influences the selection of a fluid. Experience can The time for a fracture to close after a large fractur-
be either positive from “fluid proof testing” or negative, ing treatment can be hours. During this time, a signifi-
impeding the consideration of potentially more effec- cant amount of the proppant can migrate to the bottom
tive fluid systems. Figure 10-8 provides a general of the fracture without connecting to the perforated
guideline for fluid selection with a distinction between interval (Cleary and Fonseca, 1992). Closure times
oil and gas wells. Experience has shown that both increase in cases with fracture height growth, particu-
water- and oil-base fluids have been used successfully larly into nonleakoff barriers and when low proppant
in oil and gas wells. The greatest concern is the use concentrations are used. Schlottman et al. (1981)
of oil-base fluids in dry gas wells; however, they have attributed poor apparent fracture conductivity in the
been used in gas condensate wells. early stages of the development of fracturing the
After the fluid considerations have been balanced for Cotton Valley formation in East Texas to a treatment
the important properties of fluid loss and viscosity, the proppant concentration of only 4 lbm/gal. At this con-
related additive concentrations remain for consideration. centration, only 25% of the fracture height was filled
if the proppant settled completely before closure.
Furthermore, during closure, the fill fraction increases
10-2.8. Fluid loss because of fluid loss (see Fig. 5-21). Increasing the
Fluid loss affects penetration and closure time. The proppant concentration in the fluid improved results
mechanisms that control fluid loss are discussed in on subsequent treatments. For this case, at least 50%
Chapters 6 and 8. There is some degree of depen- of the fracture was filled if the proppant concentration
dence on formation permeability, but the fluid-loss in the fluid was 10 lbm/gal.
control for almost any fracturing fluid system can be Fluid-loss control is also desired to minimize the
extent of damage to the matrix. The damage may be
Foamed
Less 150°F More fluids Less 300°F More Less 250°F More See Gelled oil Gelled oil + N2
70%–75% gas well
quality guide
Surface-delayed or low pH
crosslinked Low pH Titanate or
borate crosslinked zirconate No Low pressure Yes
crosslinked + +
25% CO2 crosslinked
guar or 25% CO2 +
HPG Super foam 25% N2
borate + N2 Less 200°F More Less 200°F More
Delayed borate,
titanate or Oil: polymer Foamed Less 250°F More
zirconate Zirconate
crosslinked emulsion fluids
crosslinked
guar HPG 70%–75%
Low pH Titanate or
quality
crosslinked zirconate
No kfw > 1000 md-ft + xf > 300 ft Yes + crosslinked
25% CO2 +
25% N2
Linear fluids
Figure 10-8. General guideline for fracturing fluid selection in oil and gas wells.
Polymer concentration can be excessive because of conservative laboratory test procedures. The tests are usually run at the bottom-
hole temperature for a time equal to the job time, but in fact the maximum exposure of any increment of fluid at the bottomhole tem-
perature will be less. The selected polymer concentration will maintain a greater viscosity than that required for the actual exposure
conditions. A fracture design model should determine the exposure times of designated fluid stages that can be matched to laboratory
data for determining more realistic conditions, thereby preventing the use of excessive polymer. A preferred case is for the laboratory
data to reflect the actual heat-up condition experienced by the fluid.
Figure 10B-1 shows the maximum time in the fracture for different increments of fluid before shut-in and exposure time in the frac-
ture before reaching various temperatures. The time that an increment of fluid is in the fracture can be approximated by a triangle with
the base (x-axis) scaled to the pumping time or treatment volume (pumping time × constant injection rate). The y-axis is the time in the
fracture. Although the total pumping time in this example is 280 min, the maximum time that any increment of fluid is in the fracture is
120 min before it is either depleted early because of fluid loss or pumped later during the treatment. On the figure this condition occurs
at the apex of the triangle.
For continuous polymer mixing, relatively small increments of various polymer concentrations can be considered. For batch mixing in
tanks, the tank size is the obvious increment. For example, fluid from tank 1 is in the fracture for a maximum of about 37 min. The incre-
ment of fluid corresponding to the apex of the triangle (tanks 7 and 8) has the maximum time in the fracture. This corresponds to the
last of the pad fluid required to get the proppant to the tip of the fracture. The fluid reaches the maximum temperature of 360°F [180°C]
about 60 min after its injection, and tanks 7 and 8 span an exposure time of about another 60 min at that temperature. The additives for
tanks 7 and 8 should be based on this time of exposure and the laboratory test selected and performed accordingly. Fluid pumped prior
to this time is lost into the formation before the end of pumping (pad depletion), and fluid injected later has some portion of it left in the
fracture for a time equal to the job time minus the time of injection. For these fluids, the test data should also be selected and performed
accordingly. The closure time, which depends on the local proppant slurry concentration, can be added to the test time for the later flu-
ids to reduce proppant fall during closing. An exception to reducing the duration requirement for the pad fluids would be cases where
fluid leakoff into the matrix is viscosity controlled.
If the proppant slurry should not be exposed to temperatures higher than 360°F during injection, proppant addition should be delayed
until tank 9 for this 12-tank treatment. With this planned delay, proppant will not reach the hydraulic tip of the fracture because of the
excessive pad, referred to as the cool-
120
down pad. Higher proppant concentra-
Total job time 280 min Time in fracture
tions should be considered to account
for the redistribution of proppant during
closure and to reduce the time for clo-
Time in fracture or to reach temperature (min)
100
sure on the proppant.
From this example, and by consid-
ering the other temperatures plotted on
80 the figure, an effective strategy can be
developed for adding fluid breaker con-
360°F centrations and potentially different
60 types that are more effective for various
temperature ranges
40
250°F
20
200°F
Adding proppant
0 Tank 1 Tank 7 Tank 8 Tank 12 Figure 10B-1. Time and tempera-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ture exposure in a fracture per tank
Tank sequence number of treating fluid.
Proppant (lbm/gal)
temperature
90 before 6
the viscosity and injection rate in some cases. Table
depleted 10-1 shows results of P3D simulations at rates of 10,
x50s
Design
schedule
20 and 40 bbl/min. The fracture height growth is con-
60 4
tained by a barrier below and is restricted by an upper
barrier with stress 500 psi greater than that of the
x40
30 2
100-ft pay zone. The upper barrier has no leakoff.
The fluid volumes required to obtain 600-ft penetra-
x30
Pad
0 0 tion decrease with higher rates. However, these sav-
0 80,000 160,000 240,000
ings are offset by the increased horsepower, and the
Fluid (gal)
proppant volume increases with increasing rate
Figure 10-9. Fluid selection for exposure time and prop- because of more width and height growth. The associ-
pant and fluid scheduling (Nolte, 1982). An s with the poly- ated cost of the three variables is shown in the last
mer loading value indicates that it is stabilized.
column. For an upper barrier stress differential of
2000 psi with the height well contained, the compar-
isons are similar. These relationships are generally
applicable for growth into an impermeable stress bar-
10-2.10. Injection rate
rier only, whereas growth through a barrier and into
Selection of the fracture treatment injection rate a lower stress zone can be extremely detrimental
depends on a number of factors. Generally, high injec- (Nolte, 1982, 1988c). Nolte also showed that viscosity
tion rates should be considered because of increased reduction is about twice as effective for height mitiga-
treatment efficiency resulting from decreased fluid- tion as rate reduction, on a comparable percentage
loss time and increased fracture width. Higher rates reduction.
also directly improve proppant transport capabilities Britt et al. (1994) reported a 40% savings in treat-
because of an increase in slurry velocity relative to ment costs by reducing the polymer concentration and
proppant fall rates and a reduced pumping period, injection rate to limit the height growth and improve
leading to less time for proppant fall and less viscosity production. These examples demonstrate the result of
degradation. The size of the treating tubulars and the good engineering practices for specific applications.
Schematics for fracture width are shown in Fig. 10C-1 for the 2D PKN, P3D and multilayer fracture (MLF) models in a multilayer setting.
• For the 2D PKN model, the fracture height estimated by the engineer remains constant for the simulation. The fracture length
grows from a line source of perforations, and all layers have the same penetration. The simulation can be approximated by the
average modulus of all the layers, with the reduced width from a higher stress layer between the sands accounted for by a multi-
plying correction (e.g., about 2; Nolte, 1982).
• For the P3D model, the fracture initiates in the zone with the lower in-situ stress. The height growth is determined by the bounding
layers’ stress and other mechanical properties. Growth into the other sand layer depends on the stress and thickness of the
interbedded shale layer and the distance between the two; it is independent of the wellbore and perforations in the layer. With a
relatively low stress contrast, the two fractures join rapidly and behave as a single fracture. The height growth beyond the three
layers depends on the stress and modulus profile of the adjoining layers. The simulated penetration is generally greater in the
lower stress zone. The P3D model is a common geometry model for fracture design.
;; ;;
; ;;
; ;;
;
This discussion is for the discrete cell implementation (see Section 6-3). Depending on the implementation, the lumped P3D
model may not provide a variable width profile or differentiate the lengths for two zones.
• The MLF model allows simulating simultaneous fractures. The fractures (PKN) in the layers are initiated when the wellbore pres-
sure is above the layer’s stress. This model is the most applicable when separate fractures initiate and they do not coalesce,
which is the expected case. After the MLF model is used to define the relative injection rates for the zones, the P3D model can be
employed for a more detailed consideration of each zone (see Section 10-5.4). The fractures can have different lengths, and each
fracture’s geometry depends on its height, net pressure, modulus and efficiency. This model can also address the application of
;; ;;
; ;;
; ;;
;
limited entry and determination of the stages required for adequate stimulation of a number of layers.
;;;;
;;;;;;;
Perforations
Shale Sand
D
30 B C
Usually, log data must be averaged over intervals A
within the bounds of layers of higher contrasts. The 20
height of the layers averaged should be consistent
10
with lithology changes (Holditch and Rahim, 1994).
Default values are commonly used for the lithology 0
0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10
and porosity. If possible, data should not be accepted Stress gradient (psi ⁄ ft)
on a stand-alone basis but checked for consistency
with other values either measured or implied. There Figure 10D-1. Poisson’s ratio versus stress gradient
for three reservoir pore pressures (modified from
is usually correlation among lithology, porosity and Holditch and Rahim, 1994).
Young’s modulus (Morales and Marcinew, 1993);
e.g., a porous section of an otherwise dense limestone Figure 10D-1 is a modification of a Holditch and Rahim
(1994) figure of the linear relation of stress versus pore pres-
should have a lower modulus. There is also a correla- sure. The effect of tectonic stress (i.e., the ratio of maximum
tion among reservoir pressure, Poisson’s ratio and to minimum horizontal stress σH,max /σh,min) was not taken
into account when inverting for ν from stress tests, as it is
minimum stress as introduced by Rosepiler (1979); embedded in the Poisson’s ratio correlation. The stress
therefore, pressure depletion should increase the stress ratio can increase the minimum stress. The effect that a
σH,max /σh,min of 1.3 has on the correlations is shown in Fig.
contrasts between the reservoir and nonpermeable 10D-1 by the dashed curves. If the ratio is known (from the
barriers. In general, log-inferred stress profiles require differential strain curve, breakdown pressure or wellbore
calibration from stress tests (Nolte, 1982, 1988c) or breakout analyses) and accounted for, the inverted value of
ν will be lower. For example, for a stress gradient of 1.0 psi/ft
directly from injection pressure data (Nolte and Smith, in a formation with a pore pressure gradient of 0.7, the
1981; Gulrajani et al., 1997a). Sidebar 10D provides a inverted ν is 0.43 without tectonic effect and only 0.30 for
a stress ratio of 1.30.
discussion of in-situ stress correlation with lithology. As the pore pressure gradient increases, the effect of ν
becomes less. It can also be seen that decreases in stress
resulting from pore pressure depletion are greater in cleaner
sands. Consequently, depletion can increase the stress con-
trasts among sandstones, siltstones and shales. The pore
pressure in impermeable shales does not decrease because
of production, which further increases stress contrasts with
the pay zone. The magnitude of the stresses obviously
To illustrate some economic aspects of fracturing, consider the optimization of fracture treatments in formations with 50 ft of net pay
and permeabilities ranging from 0.001 to 10 md. For this example, all the reservoir and formation properties are the same except for
the permeability and wellbore skin effect s.
Three-year NPVs are used to determine
the optimum penetration of the fracturing Table 10E-1. Optimum penetration for different permeabilities
treatments for the different values of per- based on three-year net present value.
meability and skin effect. Table 10E-1 lists
the optimum penetration values, which for Formation permeability (md)
this example do not change with the skin
effect. 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
The production revenues and NPVs are
shown in Fig. 10E-1. The total production xf (ft) 400 1100 1300 1300 700
revenue is the greatest for the 10-md for- CfD 0.5 2.1 19 189.2 3000
mation and decreases, as expected, with
each decrease in permeability. However, Fluid (gal) 60,000 423,000 588,000 588,000 174,000
the net (postfracture minus prefracture) Proppant (lbm) 37,000 136,000 170,000 170,000 76,000
revenue is low for the 10-md case
Cost ($) 47,000 205,000 275,000 275,000 120,000
because of the high prefracturing produc-
tion. Net revenue increases for the 1.0- Note: 12-ppg maximum concentration
and 0.1-md cases and decreases for the
0.01- and 0.001-md cases. The NPVs
follow the net revenue pattern.
The results of repeating the optimization with s = 20 and 100 are also plotted on Fig. 10E-1. A positive skin effect has the effect
of decreasing the prefracture revenues; the postfracture revenues remain the same. For s = 100, the net revenue and NPV for the
10-md case increase considerably; however, the 1-md case now has the highest net revenue and NPV. Success in fracturing high-
permeability formations is attributed to overcoming the
14
large wellbore skin effect usually associated with these
Total revenue (all)
formations.
12 Net revenue with s = 0
Increasing the tubing size and utilizing tip screenouts
NPV with s = 0 for high-permeability cases and optimizing proppant
10 and proppant concentration and increasing penetration
Revenue (million $)
4 s = 20
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Figure 10E-1. Economic sensitivity to formation
Formation permeability (md) permeability and wellbore skin effect.
5
0.7
4
3 2 ppg in 20,000 gal 0.6
Concentration (lbm/ft2)
2
Concentration (ppg)
0.3
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 10-10. Proppant concentration profiles for slurries injected at 1 and 2 ppg.
Efficiency 10
0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 9
0.6 0.4 0.2
1
8
Slurry concentration (ppg)
0.9
7
Fraction of final concentration
0.8
6
0.7
0.6 5
0.5 4
0.4 3
0.3
2
0.2
1
0.1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Fraction of job time Job time (min)
Figure 10-11. Proppant addition schedules for different Figure 10-12. An optimally designed proppant addition
treatment efficiencies. schedule, both ramped and stairstepped.
20
End of pumping concentration (lbm/ft2 of fracture area)
Concentration (lbm/ft2)
Concentration (ppg)
15
Redistribution during 56-min closure (lbm/ft2)
1
10
End of pumping (ppg)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 10-13. Change in fracture proppant concentrations from the end of pumping to closure. EOJ = end of job,
ACL = after closure.
12 2
10
Concentration (lbm/ft2)
8
Concentration (ppg)
Optimum pad
2× optimum pad
6 1
2
Proppant added (EOJ)
Total proppant (ACL)
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Fracture half-length (ft)
volume is limited to about 10% because of slurry to decrease CfD. Fractures with an equal or less than
dehydration near the tip. optimum CfD (i.e., conductivity limited) have no addi-
Excessive extension after shut-in can cause the final tional benefit from the increased length and may have
concentration of the proppant in lbm/ft2 of fracture lower production (see Section 10-2.2).
area to decrease as the width of the fracture decreases, Insufficient pad results in less fracture penetration
creating a longer fracture with less conductivity. Both and possibly premature termination of the treatment.
increased length and decreased conductivity work This is the case particularly with stiffer fractures that
2.4
0.4
2.2
0.3
2.0
Injection time/time to screenout
0.2
1.8
0.15
1.6
0.1
1.4
0.05
1.2
1.0 0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Screenout width ratio, w/wso
Figure 10-15. Width ratio increases after screenout as a function of fluid efficiency and injection time.
tion stage, which still reaches the tip and bridges at final 10-ppg stage continues for the additional time.
the same penetration, and designing a new schedule Another TSO schedule extrapolating the slurry
based on the end of job (EOJ) efficiency and a ramping to a higher concentration of 14 ppg for the
longer job time. The new schedule starting regular additional time is shown by curve C. These tech-
proppant addition at a later time is initially a more niques are prone to creating intermediate dehydra-
aggressive schedule because of the higher efficiency tion locations and rapid pressure rises. Nolte’s
after screenout. The following discussion of Figs. method (see Sidebar 6L) of modifying the ramping
10-16 and 10-17 provides insight to these various schedule on the basis of the estimated EOJ effi-
scheduling assumptions. The figures show a normal ciency and using the efficiency at screenout for the
schedule and four different TSO design assumptions. pad staring time is shown as curve E. For these
A normal treatment design with 0.5 efficiency latter two methods, the lower initial concentrations
and final proppant concentration of 10 ppg is minimize intermediate screenouts or backward
labeled A in Fig. 10-16. The average propped frac- packing. Martins et al.’s method is shown as curves
ture width for this schedule is 1.2 lbm/ft2. From D and D – i. The main ramping curve D is based
Fig. 10-15, increasing the hydraulic width by a fac- on the EOJ efficiency, but proppant must be initiated
tor of 2.5 with a TSO requires about 2.15 times earlier for the screenout, which is shown as curve
more slurry (35,000 to 75,000 gal). Curve B shows D – i. For this example, with a long fracture and
the same schedule up to the TSO, after which the high efficiency, the lower concentrations in early
B
8
A E
4
D
2
D–i
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (min)
100 5
E. Nolte method
(395,000-lbm
proppant) 4
Concentration (lbm/ft2)
(420,000-lbm proppant)
Concentration (ppg)
50
B. TSO with low-concentration stage
C. TSO with 10-ppg final stage (375,000-lbm proppant) 2
(400,000-lbm proppant)
1
A. Normal treatment to 10 ppg
(150,000-lbm proppant)
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 10-17. Proppant concentration profile comparisons for the schedules in Fig. 10-16.
ramping in curves D and D – i allow about 10% they incorporate three basic methods to control
greater penetration. The corresponding proppant sand production in the operations.
concentration profiles for the normal and four TSO The first method is a four-step operation. The
schedules are in Fig. 10-17. TSO is performed, the wellbore is cleaned up, the
• TSO with sand control application screen assembly is run, and the gravel-pack opera-
tion is performed (Monus et al., 1992).
A large number of TSO treatments are in marginally
The second method is a one-step operation that
consolidated or unconsolidated formations, and
overcomes possible damage created by the cleanup
= h E ′ η , formation.
qiB p f − σ h,minB fB A A If the layers penetrated by a single fracture have
different permeabilities or porosities, the initial pro-
(10-2)
duction response during transient time will be less
where qi is the injection rate in bbl/min, pf is the frac- than predicted using the average permeability over
ture pressure in psi, σh,min is the minimum stress in psi, the fractured interval. This behavior has been shown
hf is the fracture height in ft, E′ is the plane strain by Bennett et al. (1986), who introduced the dimen-
modulus in psi, and η is the efficiency (ratio of the sionless reservoir conductivity term CRD (see Section
fracture volume to the injected volume). 12-3.5 and Eq. 12-44) and showed that the Agarwal
The equation shows that the injection rate partition- et al. (1979) type curves can be used to evaluate the
ing between the two zones A and B is governed by transient response in a layered reservoir if the tD term
four zone parameter ratios of the gross height, net is replaced by tD/CRD2. Without this substitution, the
pressure, modulus and efficiency. The difference in effective fracture length is in error by a factor equal
the injection rates occurs primarily because of differ- to CRD, and the value of CRD is always less than 1 for
ent fracture widths caused by a height- and modulus- a layered reservoir. As a consequence, the response
dependent stiffness effect. The net pressure and from the fracture treatment, based on the physical
efficiency are also dependent on the height and modu- fracture length and average reservoir properties, will
lus; therefore, calculating the actual ratio for design be less than predicted. Economic optimizations for
requires an iterative procedure. It is evident that a fracture length should take this layer effect into
zone with a small height should generally not be account; e.g., if CRD is 0.5, the optimization should be
grouped with a much larger height zone. An exception based on production during transient flow for a frac-
would be where the formation is sufficiently charac- ture penetration one-half of that predicted by the
terized to ensure the existence of the unlikely condi- geometry simulation.
tion that the thicker zone has a correspondingly higher
9600 9600
Well depth (ft)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Treatment time (min) Fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 10-19. P3D simulations for individual zones with 2D partitioned rates.
Table 10-2. Ten-year production forecasts for a single fracture (A) and multifracture cases (B–D).
A 560 120 0.03 11,975 22.4 22,134 54.1 –10,159 41,485 31,326
B 660 80 0.03 8,596 24.1 14,819 58.0 –6,223 27,072 20,849
330 40 0.03 3,118 17.5 7,440 41.9 –4,322 14,720 10,398
Commingled 11,713 21.9 22,259 52.6 –10,546 41,795 31,249
C 660 80 0.01 4,273 12.0 8,239 51.9 –3,966 31,395 27,429
330 40 0.07 5,531 31.0 9,980 55.4 –4,449 12,311 7,862
Commingled 9,804 18.3 18,219 53.8 –8,415 43,770 35,355
D 660 80 0.04 10,409 29.2 16,718 62.3 –6,309 25,238 18,929
330 40 0.01 1,411 7.9 4,132 34.1 –2,721 16,450 13,729
Commingled 11,820 22.1 20,850 56.7 –9,030 41,664 32,634
Note: All cases have a constant wellhead pressure of 300 psi and a combined kh of 3.6 md-ft.
Bennett et al.’s (1986) work concerning the transient behavior of a fracture in a layered reservoir introduced the dimensionless reser-
voir conductivity term CRD (see Eq. 12-44) to enable modeling the correct multilayer transient response with an equivalent single-
layer model. Camacho-V. et al. (1987) expanded this work to include layers with unequal fracture lengths and conductivities. They
showed that the equivalent single-layer fracture penetration Lapp is the sum of the products of each layer’s CRD times the layer’s frac-
ture penetration L:
n
Lapp = ∑C
j =1
RD , j Lj . (10F-1)
An example for this relation was provided by Elbel and Ayoub (1992) for transient well tests in a well with two zones. The zones
were treated separately and designed to achieve 400- and 689-ft penetrations in zones 1 and 2, respectively. After the treatment
cleanup period, a well test was performed and considered by a single-zone type curve. The analysis indicated an average perme-
ability of 0.76 md and a fracture penetration of 230 ft, considerably less than those of the design lengths.
Cores from these zones in other wells in the area have a thin high-permeability layer in most zones and a wide range of very low
permeability. The interpretation was therefore modified by characterizing the two zones as having three layers with different heights,
permeabilities and porosities based on the logs and cores. The zones and layer groupings are shown in Table 10F-1. The CRD value
for each layer was calculated using Eq. 12-44. Using the designed fracture penetrations of 400 ft in zone 1 and 689 ft in zone 2 in
Eq. 10F-1 showed that the transient behavior would be similar to an apparent single-layer fracture penetration of 223 ft in a forma-
tion with an average permeability of 0.76 md. That the single-layer transient analysis gave a result of 230 ft indicates a probability
that the designs were achieved, although the apparent value is considerably less than the penetration in either zone.
This example makes several important points:
• The postfracturing reservoir
response is inherently Table 10F-1. Effect of different fracture penetrations in
nonunique in the absence of a two multilayer zones (Elbel and Ayoub, 1992).
comprehensive reservoir char-
acterization. Zone 1 Zone 2 Average
• Validating fracture placement
designs from well test or pro- Height (ft) 49.2 8.9 1.0 39.3 38.4 1.0
duction data is difficult. Permeability (md) 0.01 0.20 80.00 0.02 0.10 20.00 0.76
• The reservoir inference of frac-
ture length xf and the physical Porosity 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.06
fracture length L should be iden- CRD 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.06
tified by different notations, as
used in this volume. xf (ft) 400 400 400 689 689 689
Derivative
0.3
6000 erties; for the zones with dominating fractures, layer 1
Derivative 0.2 gave up fluid to layer 3 until layer 3 closed at its higher
5500
0.1
stress.
The high net pressure of 1300 psi in the injection
5000 0 matched the multilayer model, whereas simulation
0 5 10
of a single fracture over the entire interval estimated
Closure time (min)
a net pressure of only 200 psi. The high net pressure
Figure 10-20. Treatment pressure decline and derivative could be matched by increasing either the modulus
showing the simulated pressure decline match (Morales of the fracture by sixfold, which is an unusually large
et al., 1995).
value, or the toughness by an even larger factor.
(Toughness in calibration treatments is discussed in
For this field example, the logs in Fig. 10-21a show Chapter 5.) The properties used in the simulation are
three distinct gas-bearing zones (layers 1, 2 and 3 are listed in Table 10-3.
10, 6 and 14 ft thick, respectively) separated by 22 and The multilayer simulation of the rate distribution for
20 ft of shale. Simulations of the calibration treatment the actual fracture treatment is shown in Fig. 10-23.
using the multilayer model provide the layer rate distri- For these rate distributions, the fracture lengths and
butions shown in Fig. 10-22. The pressure and closure heights obtained using a P3D simulator are shown in
time matches were made with fluid-loss coefficients Fig. 10-21b. The barriers were assumed to have 0.1-
of 0.015 ft/min1/2 for layer 3 and 0.0006 ft/min1/2 for psi/ft greater gradients than the pay zones. Because of
layers 1 and 2. Very little fluid entered the 6-ft thick height growth, the fracture lengths are less than those
layer 2 because of the relatively higher stiffness of the predicted by the multilayer model.
(a) (b)
7600 7600
1
Depth (ft)
7650 7650 2
7700 7700
–45 30 0.1 1 10 0 50 100 150 200
SP (mV) Focused resistivity xf (ft)
(ohm-m)
Figure 10-21. Logs of 10-, 6- and 14-ft gas zones and P3D simulation of the fractures (Morales et al., 1995).
Rate (bbl/min)
2 6
5
1 3 4
1
0
2
2
0 2
–5
1
–2
–10 –4
0 5 10 15 0 10 20 30
Time (min) Time (min)
Figure 10-22. Multilayer fracture (MLF) PKN simulation Figure 10-23. Simulated rate distribution and layer screen-
showing the layer rate distributions during calibration injec- out for the actual fracture treatment (Morales et al., 1995).
tion (Morales et al., 1995).
Measurements of acid-etched conductivity in the laboratory are usually not reproducible or representative of large-scale in-situ
behavior because of heterogeneities in the rock and the small size of laboratory samples. This makes it difficult to calculate and vali-
date acid-etched fracture conductivity; however, Nierode and Kruk (1973) developed an empirical equation based on closure stress
and the reservoir’s embedment strength from laboratory tests on formation cores (see Section 6-9.3). The amount of formation dis-
solved is used to calculate a uniform (ideal) etched width. The ideal conductivity for a uniform open fracture with a width of 0.1 in. is
about 4.5E+6 md-ft. The empirical correlation for zero closure stress reduces this by almost 3 orders of magnitude to about 6.5E+3
md-ft. Further reductions are made as closure stress and embedment strength effects are considered. This correlation is a conserva-
tive (i.e., lower bound) estimate, and calibration with other tests was recommended by Nierode and Kruk.
Figure 10G-1a is a plot of Nierode and Kruk’s conductivity calculations for average etched widths of 0.1 and 0.025 in. The undam-
aged conductivities of 20/40-mesh ISP and sand proppants at a concentration of 1.5 lbm/ft2 are shown for comparison. These com-
parisons have supported the preference of propped fracturing over acid fracturing in some areas.
The difficulty in accurately modeling acid fracture conductivity is apparent. Calculated etched conductivity has been calibrated with
well test data after treatments for use in subsequent treatment simulations. After analyzing field production data, Aud et al. (1992)
and Elbel (1993) suggested increasing the Nierode and Kruk correlation by 1 order of magnitude. Figure 10G-1b shows conductivi-
ties using this correction and a comparison with the conductivity of proppant corrected for 50% polymer damage (see Chapter 8).
The comparison indicates that the correct choice between acid and propped fracturing should not be based on the assumption of low
and etched conductivity; in fact, acid fracturing of competent carbonate formations should always be considered as the most
prospective treatment (see Section 10-6.7).
(a) Nierode and Kruk's correlation (b) 10× Nierode and Kruk's correlation
and undamaged proppant pack and 50% retained propped permeability
10,000,000
100,000
Conductivity (md-ft)
10,000
1000
1
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 8000 10,000 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 8000 10,000
Effective stress (psi) Effective stress (psi)
Figure 10G-1. Comparison of etched acid and propped fracture conductivity (Nierode and Kruk, 1973).
10-6.3. Acid reaction rate Differences in mineralogy can affect the reaction
Acid reaction rates are defined by laboratory tests and properties of HCl for different formations. Also, dif-
are usually performed on pure limestone or dolomite. ferent acid systems, such as gelled and emulsified sys-
The effect of temperature in accelerating the reaction tems, may produce different effects even on the same
rate affects the depth of live acid penetration. The con- formation. These effects further emphasize the role of
centration has a similar affect. Figure 10-26 shows that representative and formation-specific laboratory tests.
15% and 28% HCl at 100°F [40°C] produce more than • Effect of acid emulsion systems on reaction rate
twice the penetration in a dolomite than in a limestone.
Oil-external-phase emulsions are the most common
Increasing the temperature to 220°F [105°C] reduces
because the external oil phase physically separates
the penetration distance in a limestone about 10% but
the acid from the reactive carbonate surface. The
reduces penetration 50% in dolomite. This is because
acid reaction rate can be further slowed by surfac-
the acid reaction rate on limestone is mass-transfer lim-
tant retarders that cause carbonate surfaces to
ited whereas the acid reaction rate on dolomite is lim-
become oil-wet. The combination of emulsification
ited by reaction kinetics that approaches the rate on
and surfactant-induced oil-wetting reduces the acid
limestone only at high temperatures. These compar-
reaction rate to an extremely low level. These
isons clearly indicate the need for representative labora-
emulsion systems produce good retardation under
tory tests and model capabilities to effectively design
static and flowing conditions (de Rozières, 1994).
acid treatments.
The effective diffusion rate of the acid spending at
Retarded acids should always be evaluated under
150°F [65°C] is 1.3E–5 ft2/min for HCl and only
pressure, temperature and flow conditions simulating
3E–9 ft2/min for emulsified acid.
those existing in the formation and including the effect
of fluid loss to remove by-products and transfer unre- • Effect of gelled acid systems on reaction rate
acted acid to the surface. Static reaction rates measured Gelled acids are used in acid fracturing treatments
under atmospheric pressure are practically meaningless. and are usually considered to be retarded because
100,000
Diffusion (cm2/s) Cumulative oil production (10 yr)
Neat acid 2.13E–5 76,672 STB
Gelled acid 7.92E–6 83,951 STB
Emulsified acid 4.29E–8 91,953 STB
Conductivity (md-ft)
10,000
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Length (ft)
Figure 10-27. Effect of retardation on the etched conductivity and penetration of neat, gelled and emulsified acids
(de Rozières, 1994).
Zone height 50 ft Figure 10-28. Etched conductivity profiles for various vol-
umes of 15% and 28% HCl.
Embedment strength 60,000 psi
Note: Other unit costs: Sand $0.07/lbm, premium proppants $0.51/lbm–$0.89/lbm, hydraulic horsepower $7.40/hhp
20,000-gal volumes of 28% HCl injected at a rate effects of cooling and the pad filter cake, if there
of 10 bbl/min have CfD values from 32 to 347 and is no cake erosion, can be modeled. The results of
can benefit from increases in penetration at the simulations with a pad volume of 10,000 gal prior
expense of conductivity. Conductivity profiles from to injecting 20,000 gal of acid show an additional
simulations with the rate increased to 20 bbl/min 20% to 25% penetration (Fig. 10-30). Acid chan-
for 10,000 and 20,000 gal of 15% and 28% HCl neling was not considered in these simulations.
are shown in Fig. 10-29. The penetrations are Large pad volumes can cause more height
increased by about 60%. growth, resulting in decreased etched penetration.
• Pad volume sensitivity Simulations of this effect must be made with a P3D
acid geometry simulator, for which a stress profile
The use of a pad stage ahead of the acid stage was
is required. Maximum net pressure is usually
first performed in the 1960s. Its purposes were to
achieved in the pad stage; the acid stage causes the
cool the formation to slow the reaction rate and to
pressure to decrease because of its lower viscosity
deposit a filter cake to reduce the rate of acid fluid
and increased fluid-loss rate as well as some
loss, both of which should increase the penetration.
increase in width resulting from etching.
The technique’s results have made it almost a uni-
The optimum pad size for a given volume of
versal practice in acid fracturing, although the
acid achieves the maximum ROI, and, depending
effect of the pad filter cake on the acid fluid loss
on other parameters, acid volume may be economi-
and magnitude of the cooling have been disputed.
cally traded for pad fluid. The effect of the pad vis-
Some of the benefit may result from thinner acid
cosity depends on the combination of the other
channeling through the more viscous pad fluid.
parameters. Higher viscosity pads promote acid
The simulation of acid fracturing with multiple
channeling, which can greatly alter penetration
fluids such as pads and acids has only recently been
and etch patterns.
accomplished and is discussed in Section 6-9. The
10,000
10,000-gal 15% HCl, 10 bbl/min
20,000-gal 28% HCl, 20 bbl/min
Conductivity, kfw (md-ft)
100
0
0 100 200 300 400
Etched fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 10-29. Conductivity profiles from simulations at a 20-bbl/min rate for 10,000 and 20,000 gal of 15% and 28% HCl.
100,000
20,000-gal 28% HCl
20,000-gal 15% HCl
10,000
20,000-gal 15% HCl Pad + 20,000-gal 28% HCl
1000
100
10 bbl/min
10 bbl/min
10 bbl/min
10 bbl/min
20 bbl/min
0
0 100 200 300 400
Etched fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 10-30. Effects of a 10,000-gal pad prior to injecting 20,000 gal of acid.
100,000
20,000-gal 28% HCl with and without 10,000-gal pad
20 bbl/min, 60-ft height, 3000-psi oil bubblepoint
fluid loss for 2500- and 5000-psi reservoir pressure
1000
Effect
of pad Effect of pad
Below Above
bubble- bubblepoint
point
0
0 200 400 600 800
Fracture half-length (ft)
Figure 10-31. Simulation of 20,000-gal 28% HCl with and without a 10,000-gal pad and with leakoff above and below
bubblepoint pressure.
Above bubblepoint
500 Strassfurt
10,000
400 Arun Tor
Pad stage fronts 1000 Arab
Ekofish
300 Nierode Sakasar
Default
Austin
data chalk
Below bubblepoint
200 100 Smackover
San Andres
100
0
0 0 100 200 300 400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Fracture half-length (ft)
Treatment time (min)
Figure 10-34. Simulation of conductivity profiles with the
Figure 10-32. Simulated stage fronts of the pad and acid same treatment in 11 formations with different reaction
stages above and below bubblepoint pressure. properties.
10,000
200°F pad
No pad
1000 10-6.7. Propped or acid fracture decision
150°F pad
No pad For stimulating a carbonate or dolomite formation,
100
etched and propped fractures have both advantages
and limitations in comparison to each other; however,
10 acid fracturing should be the primary consideration.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
In general, acid-etched fractures are limited in pene-
Fracture half-length (ft)
tration but can result in high conductivity whereas
propped fractures usually have a deeper penetration
Figure 10-33. Conductivity profiles at 200° and 150°F with
and without pad. but may be conductivity limited. The technology to
overcome the limitations of both techniques continues
to evolve.
The advantages of acid fracturing are
10-6.6. Formation reactivity properties • lower net pressure, minimizing fracture height
Proper simulation requires specific reaction rate para- growth
meters for the formation (see Chapter 6). Simulations • can achieve high conductivity
of conductivity profiles with the same treatment • no risk of screenout
schedule in various formations with different reaction
properties are compared in Fig. 10-34. • no proppant-flowback problems.
The formation with the greatest penetration has the The disadvantages of acid fracturing are
least conductivity. Improving its performance may • etched penetration potentially limited by higher
require more conductivity and a different strategy than fluid loss
for the formations with less penetration and higher • etched penetration potentially limited by the effect
conductivity. The reaction parameters are required for of temperature on the reaction rate
generating proper predictions. Even with the same
• potential emulsion and sludge problems in oil wells
percentage of minerals in two formations, it is possi-
ble that their reaction rates may not be the same • etched conductivity difficult to predict
because of different grain-surface mineralogies. • environmental considerations.
Propped height
Acid height
2000
Costs (1997) for treating fluid systems with additives
The CfD for the propped fractures is 1.8 for both for-
Propped fracture net pressure
mations. The acid-etched fracture in formation A has 1000
10,000
a CfD of 2.4. Doubling the acid volume increases the Acid fracture net pressure
CfD from 2.4 to 11.2. This approach should be consid-
10,200 0
0 50 100 150
100,000 Treatment time (min)
Conductivity, kfw (md-ft)
Formation B
10,000
Acid etched Figure 10-36. Wellbore height history and net pressure
Formation A
plots for propped and acid treatments in Fig. 10-35.
1000
Propped
100
10
10-7. Deviated wellbore fracturing
0 200 400 600 800 Horizontal wells are often viewed as a replacement
Fracture half-length (ft)
for or an alternative to hydraulically fracturing vertical
wells. This view is common because in the idealized
Figure 10-35. Conductivity profiles for propped and acid situation of a homogeneous isotropic reservoir, hori-
treatments. Propped treatment: 12 bbl/min, 33,000-gal
25-lbm crosslinked pad, 29,000-gal 25-lbm crosslinked zontal well performance and vertically fractured well
fluid and 29,000-lbm 20/40-mesh ISP. Acid treatment: performance are similar. Unfortunately, reservoirs are
12 bbl/min, 33,000-gal 25-lbm gel pad and 29,000-gal neither homogeneous nor isotropic, and as a result, the
28% HCl.
90,000
L = 1000 ft
xf = 500 ft, CfD = 1
80,000
xf = 500 ft, CfD = 5
xf = 500 ft, CfD = 10
70,000
Cumulative recovery (MMcf)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 2.0E+3 4.0E+3 6.0E+3 8.0E+3 1.0E+4 1.2E+4 1.4E+4 1.6E+4
Production time (days)
Figure 10-37. Comparison of vertically fractured wells with different fracture conductivity values and 500-ft penetration
(1000 ft tip-to-tip) with a 1000-ft horizontal well.
6E+4
5E+4
4E+4
3E+4
2E+4
1E+4
0
0 2.0E+3 4.0E+3 6.0E+03 8.0E+3 1.0E+4 1.2E+4 1.4E+4 1.6E+4
Production time (days)
Figure 10-38. Production comparison of vertical and horizontal wells with vertical to horizontal permeability ratios of
1, 0.5 and 0.1.
wells and fractured vertical wells with fracture con- 1000 kV/kH = 1.33
ductivities of 200 and 2000 md-ft in a 100-ft thick, kfw 1.0
160-acre reservoir with 1-md horizontal permeability. 2000 0.5
500
For a typical anisotropy of kV/kH = 0.33, the vertically 200
fractured well outperforms the horizontal well. How- 0.33
ever, for kV/kH = 1.33, the horizontal well provides
0
better performance for lengths greater than 400 ft. 0 1000 2000
This result links the successful use of horizontal wells Borehole length, 2xf (ft)
to naturally fractured formations. For this application,
large values of kV/kH are common. For the constant- Figure 10-39. Anisotropy effect on the performance of a
conductivity kf w of 2000 md-ft, CfD is 10 for a tip-to- horizontal oil well and comparison with a hydraulically frac-
tip length of 400 ft and decreases to 2 at a 2000-ft tured vertical well in a thick, low-permeability formation.
length. The relative performance of the vertically frac-
tured well is greater for lower horizontal permeability
and larger formation thickness. An advantage of a The coupling of horizontal wells and hydraulic frac-
horizontal well is that the desired azimuth of the turing technology in reservoirs with a large pay thick-
lateral extension can be achieved, whereas the azimuth ness, low values of kV/kH or both should result in
of a vertical fracture cannot be controlled. This control increased well performance. Drilling a long lateral and
can be important in complex geological settings (e.g., fracture stimulating with one or more orthogonal frac-
optimum alignment with natural fractures). tures provide the benefits of both technologies and
35,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
Lateral extension
5000 4000 ft
3000 ft
2000 ft
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of fractures
Figure 10-41. Cumulative gas recovery versus the number of fractures for a transverse fractured horizontal well with
2000-, 3000- and 4000-ft lateral extensions.
10–1
1 2 3 4 5
n = 5, CfD,j = 10
D/xf = 10
10–2
10–4 10–2 1 10 2
Dimensionless time, tD
Figure 10-42. Normalized rate of five fractures with the same length and conductivity properties (Raghavan et al., 1994).
ity must be overdesigned. The effects of various para- drop because of Darcy flow, and the second term rep-
meters on the total pressure drop ∆pct(ro – ri) in the frac- resents the additional pressure drop because of non-
ture for a constant production rate q (Norris et al., Darcy flow. The fracture design parameters of the
1996) are fracture permeability kf and propped width w are in
the denominator of first term and the width squared
µq r βρq 2 1 1 in the denominator of the second term. Because the
∆pct = ⋅ ln o + 2 ⋅ − , (10-3)
2 πk f w ri (2 πw ) ri ro greatest part of the pressure drop is near the wellbore,
a tail-in with a higher concentration could be benefi-
where µ is the viscosity, β is the non-Darcy coefficient cial to increasing the propped width. For the tail-in,
measured in the laboratory, ρ is the density, ri is the Eq. 10-3 is used in series, and ri could also be consid-
inner radius, and ro is the outer radius, equivalent to ered a tail-in radius if it has sufficient conductivity
one-half of the fracture height. The first term on the to be infinite acting (i.e., causing negligible pressure
right-hand side of the equation represents the pressure drop).
100
Width
10 Total flow
Relative pressure drop factor
Non-Darcy flow
Darcy flow
Proppant permeability
Total flow
Non-Darcy flow
1
Darcy flow
0.1
0.1 1 10
Propped width or proppant permeability factor
Figure 10-43. Effect of proppant permeability and width on the convergent pressure drop in the fracture.
6000 500
5800 400
5600 300
5400 200
5200 100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
G-function of time since shut-in
Figure 10-45. G-function versus time of post-mini-fracture treatment pressure decline data.
remainder of the treatment. The TSO occurred and total pressure drop of 1800 psi. The assumption of
stopped propagation at approximately 20 min; at this equivalent proppant embedment into the formation of
time the net pressure rose from 200 to more than 2 lbm/ft2 reduced the simulated width to 8 lbm/ft2 and
1000 psi during the next 70 min. The screenout and corresponds to a width of about 1 in. For this reservoir
pressure were matched with a geometry simulation. and fracture treatment, the 1-in. propped width gives a
The geometry simulation predicted an average nearly infinite-acting conductivity fracture. If the treat-
propped fracture concentration of 10 lbm/ft2. ment had been designed for only 4 lbm/ft2, the effec-
Production analysis showed a total drawdown from tive width would have been 2 lbm/ft2 and the pressure
the reservoir to the wellbore of about 1800 psi. The drop in the fracture 10 times greater (1000 versus 100
convergent flow pressure drop in the fracture was cal- psi) at the same production rate. The PI would have
culated to be about 100 psi from Eq. 10-3, of which been correspondingly reduced by more than 50%,
60 psi was due to non-Darcy effects. This pressure with 10% of the reduction resulting from the Darcy
drop is considered insignificant compared with the and 40% from non-Darcy convergent flows.
Ettringite-based expansive
Cement permeability cement system (14.8 lbm/gal)
0.15
Portland cement is used in nearly all well cementing opera-
tions. It is composed mainly of anhydrous calcium silicate and
calcium aluminate compounds that, when brought in contact 0.10
with water, react to form hydrated compounds. The principal
reaction products are calcium hydroxide and a quasi-amor- 0.05 Neat Portland
phous calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H gel). C-S-H gel is
cement (15.8 lbm/gal)
responsible for the development and maintenance of com-
pressive strength. The normal density of Portland cement 0
slurries used in primary cementing operations is about 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
16 lbm/gal. This corresponds to a water content of about 40% Time (days)
by weight of cement (that is, 40-lbm water added to 100-lbm
cement). Within 7 days the compressive strength is expected
to reach about 4000 psi and the permeability to water will be Figure 11A-1. Comparison of expansion between neat
less than 0.001 md. Depending on the wellbore environment, Portland cement and a typical expansive cement.
the optimum cement density may vary from 9 to 22 lbm/gal.
Annular fluid migration Several physical and chemical techniques have been devel-
oped that can prevent or reduce the severity of annular fluid
During a cement job and for a short period afterward, the
migration. Foremost are the good cementing practices
slurry is liquid and capable of transmitting sufficient hydrostatic
described here. Packers have been applied to seal the annular
pressure to prevent the invasion of formation fluids into the
space above and below a producing zone. However, the most
annulus. Before the cement slurry develops structural integrity,
common methods involve the addition of chemicals to modify
it undergoes a transition period. During the transition period,
the behavior of the cement slurry during the transition period.
absolute volume reduction and gelation result in lowering of
Such systems include slurries with very low fluid loss, com-
the hydrostatic pressure exerted on the formation (Fig. 11A-2).
pressible cements (e.g., foams or slurries containing gas-
If the hydrostatic pressure falls below the formation pressure,
generating agents), expanding cements, thixotropic cements,
annular fluid migration may occur. This can severely compro-
right-angle-set cements (the duration of the transition period
mise zonal isolation (Parcevaux et al., 1990), particularly for
is minimized) and “impermeable” cements (containing latices,
gas zones.
polymers and surfactants).
10
Fresh water
20
8.3
4-lb
m/g
Depth (ft)
al w
ate
r
150°F bath 30
.. p1
. .
.. . .
16
..
.4
.
-lb
. . . Pressure
m
. 40
/g
Tubing
. ..
al
. transducers and
ce
m
. .. .. thermocouples
en
t
. . .
. ..
. p2
0 hr
4.0 hr
3.0 hr
2.5 hr
2.0 hr
1.5 hr
1.0 hr
0.5 hr
0.2 hr
Porous plate 50
Reg.
Meter
Nitrogen
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Pressure (psi)
Figure 11A-2. Hydrostatic pressure transmission of a cement slurry versus slurry consistency
(Levine et al., 1979).
can be avoided, containment of the fracturing treat- Consequently, the resulting condition of the cement
ment should be possible. sheath following hydraulic fracturing is difficult to
The effects of fracturing pressures on the adhe- predict. Sonic logs run after fracturing treatments
sion tension between the cement and casing or the typically indicate that the cement bond (hydraulic
cement and formation are not clearly understood. seal) across the fractured interval is destroyed, but
10,000
Pay zone 1
Delayed
Rate (bbl/min)
low-guar
borate
1000
Pay zone 2
VES
Pay zone 3
100
1 10 100
Friction pressure (psi/1000 ft)
Figure 11B-1. Coiled tubing fracturing procedure.
Figure 11B-2. Friction pressure of viscoelastic surfac-
tant and delayed low-guar fracturing fluids.
[h (E ′ η )],
J. L. Elbel, Schlumberger Dowell
q i ∝ ( pf − σ min )
( 2 n ′+ 3 ) / ( n ′+1) 1/ ( n +1)
f
3 2
(11C-2)
Wells completed in low-permeability formations typically have
a number of layers scattered over a few hundred feet open to where n´ is the power law exponent and η is the efficiency.
the wellbore. This completion is necessary to make the wells Assuming that injection into each layer begins at the same
economical where no individual layer has sufficient production time, the ratio of qiA /qiB at any time can be expressed as
to warrant individual completion. These wells usually require
fracturing, and obtaining the desired stimulation for each layer ( 2 n ′+ 3 ) / ( n ′+1) 3 2 1/ ( n ′+1)
q iA p f − σ minA hfA E B′ ηB
is difficult. The best way to ensure adequate stimulation of each = h E′ η . (11C-3)
layer is to isolate and treat each layer individually; however, this q iB p f − σ minB fB A A
technique may be uneconomical considering the production
potential of the individual layers. A proper economic analysis is The efficiency η can be determined by
impossible unless the injection rate and proppant penetration of
each layer can be determined (see Section 10-5). Fb ( pf − σ min )hf2 / E ′
η= , (11C-4)
A common means of stimulating a number of layers is the Fb ( pf − σ min )hf2 / E ′ + h (1.9CLt 1/ 2 + 0.0017VS )
limited-entry technique of perforating (Lagrone and Rasmussen,
1963). This method relies on high perforation friction, because which is of particular significance because it can be determined
of the limited number of perforations, to ensure that the well- independently of the injection rate. Equation 11C-4 requires the
bore pressure during injection is greater than the highest clo- properties used in Eq. 11C-3 plus the parameters of the ratio of
sure stress for all the layers. The number of perforations the average to maximum width Fb, fluid-loss height h, fluid-
assigned to each layer is prorated in an attempt to distribute leakoff coefficient CL and spurt loss VS.
the injection into each layer at some desired rate. If the stress Equation 11C-3 shows the relative importance of the various
contrasts are low, it is usually assumed that the rate into each parameter ratios; the gross height ratio is the most significant.
zone is governed by the number of perforations allocated to The desired injection rates for zones are commonly normalized
that zone. This assumption is false because other formation by the zone height. For the same qi /hf, the relation becomes
parameters also affect the injection rate into each zone. These
parameters are the fracture height, formation modulus and cur-
rent efficiency, which depends on the height, modulus, fracture (q i / hf ) A p − σ minA
= f
( 2 n ′+ 3 ) / ( n ′+1) 2
hfA E B′ ηB
2 1/ ( n ′+1)
(11C-5)
h E′ η ,
fluid-loss rate and fluid-leakoff height. They affect the net pres- (q i / hf )B p f − σ minB fB A A
sure, which in turn must be added to the layer’s closure stress
when the desired perforation pressure drop is calculated. Even and for this condition, the net pressure ratio becomes more sig-
if one zone initially accepts all the fluid, a second zone may nificant than hf . The net pressure ratio can be controlled to
begin to accept a portion of the treatment later in the proce- some extent by changing the perforation pressure drop with the
dure. As net pressure in the fracture increases, so does the limited-entry technique. Increasing the perforation friction in one
pressure in the wellbore. At some point the net pressure layer will increase the net pressure in the other layer.
becomes sufficiently high to allow a second fracture system to For more than two layers, the ratio of the injection rate of an
accept fluid. If this scenario happens during a pad stage, prop- individual layer qii to the total rate qij for N layers is
[h (E ′ η )] ,
pant placement may be unsuccessful because of insufficient
pad. If a second zone opens during the proppant stages, the q ii (p f − σ min )i (
2 n ′+ 3 ) / ( n ′+1)
f
3 2 1/ ( n +1)
∑ (p − σ min ) j ( 2n ′+ 3 ) / (n ′+1)
screened-out second zone may not occur, even when a new q ij 3 2 1/ ( n +1)
f f
pad fluid is started after the diverter stage. j =1
j
ture into the PFP) at an achievable fracture initiation a significant distance for a vertical well. When the
pressure. The following sections provide recommen- PFP is not vertical, as can occur near a significant
dations on how best to achieve this ideal perforation. fault, the PFP deviates from the axis of a vertical
In the following sections, a vertical well is one with a well. For this case, “Open microannulus, deviated
deviation less than 30°. and horizontal wellbores/vertical fractures” subse-
quently in this section should be consulted.
Dry gas wells, wells swabbed of liquid prior to
11-3.2. Perforation phasing for hard-rock perforating, wells shot with small hollow carrier
hydraulic fracturing guns and wells shot with low-shot-density (1 or
• No microannulus, vertical wellbore 2 shots per foot [spf]) hollow carrier guns are
potential candidates for maintaining good cement/
For the following discussion, the PFP is assumed to
sandface bonds. With a perfect cement bond, frac-
be vertical and therefore can connect directly over
tures are forced to initiate from the perforations,
180°, 1 spf 3 1 3 1
60°, 3 spf 1 3 1 3
Note: 1 = best, 3 = worst
acceptable injection pressure drop (see Section of the perforations, unless the perforations are
11-3.3). Because injection rates are generally within about 10° of the PFP (Behrmann and Elbel,
greater than production rates and proppant enlarges 1992). Fractures can also be initiated from perfora-
the perforations and erodes near-wellbore restric- tions that are within about 30° of the PFP. Multiple
tions, the production area open to flow should gen- fractures are encouraged from perforations between
erally be adequate. 10° and 30° from the PFP if sufficient fluid is
The literature indicates that other perforating allowed to move in the microannulus; however,
strategies can be applied. For example, Stadulis maintaining significant flow, and hence width, in
(1995) discussed the use of 0° phased guns at 1 spf more than one fracture is inherently unstable
with proppant slugs to prevent the initiation and because of the increased pressure requirement. The
propagation of competing multiple fractures and pressure drop across the multiple fractures
near-wellbore screenouts. (It is not clear if the increases by the square root of the number of frac-
observed success was from the use of low shot tures (Nolte, 1987).
density, closed microannulus or proppant slugs.) When the fracture does not originate from the
It is not known if a dominant single- or bi-wing perforations, the flow path connects through the
fracture propagates with 0° phased guns. A bi-wing microannulus. The original microannulus separates
fracture must initiate, but the wing opposite the further from the sandface to allow displacement
perforations can have a limited flow rate and may continuity with the fracture width; however, geo-
screen out as a result of the restricted flow around metric effects result in pinch points at the fracture
the microannulus. The asymmetry for a dominant entrance that can cause large pressure drops for
single-wing fracture offsets the drainage pattern fluid flow and near-wellbore proppant bridging.
from the well location. To minimize multiple frac- These points are subject to enhanced erosion, with
tures when using 0° phasing, the lower shot density their endurance depending on the rock hardness.
helps maintain the cement/sandface integrity; Fracture tortuosity should not exist for a vertical
whereas the use of a 60° phased gun at 6 spf (pro- wellbore in a normally stressed environment.
viding the same 1-ft spacing between perforations Table 11-3 lists the fracture trade-offs for differ-
along any azimuthal plane) is more detrimental to ent gun phasings for a normally stressed vertical
cement debonding and increases the potential for well (deviation less than 30°). The shot densities
the initiation of multiple fractures. in Table 11-3 are relative only. Determination of the
Because deviated (deviation greater than 30°) required shot density is provided in Section 11-3.3.
and horizontal wells typically have an open For equal weighting, either 120° or 60° phased
microannulus because of gravity (i.e., independent guns should be used. If pinch points are a greater
of the perforator), the perforating requirements for concern than multiple fractures, a 60° phased gun
these wells are discussed in the following section. should be used; however, the 60° phased gun may
• Open microannulus, vertical wellbore/vertical potentially create more multiple fractures and
fractures requires twice the shot density of a 120° phased
gun because only one of three perforations will
The presence of a microannulus (see Sidebar 11D)
connect to the fracture.
promotes fractures from the sandface, independent
Gun Fracture Initiation Pressure Microannulus Pinch Points Multiple Fracture Initiation
0°, 1 spf 3 4 1
180°, 1 spf 3 3 2
90°, 2 spf 2 3 3
60°, 3 spf 1 1 4
Note: 1 = best, 4 = worst
Other strategies are reported in the literature. 10-ft perforated intervals would be reasonable to
For example, modifications of the pad with a high minimize the initiation of nonlinking multiple frac-
pump rate, use of high-viscosity fluid and use of tures. When the PFP approaches a 90° intersection
proppant slugs (Aud, 1994; Cleary et al., 1993; with the wellbore for a wellbore deviation greater
Stadulis, 1995) have been used to theoretically con- than about 75° (horizontal well), perforations
trol near-wellbore screenouts by restricting fluid should be clustered in a short length of less than
communication around the microannulus to reduce 3 ft with maximum shot density and multiple phase
pinch points, tortuosity and multiple fractures. angles to maximize perforation communication
• Open microannulus, deviated and horizontal with the fracture (Abass et al., 1992, 1994). This
wellbores/vertical fractures extremely limited interval, with sufficient zonal
isolation from the cement, enhances the propagation
The desired fracture geometry for an arbitrarily ori-
of only one dominant fracture. Staged multiple
ented deviated well is to initiate a single bi-wing
fractures have been successful in horizontal wells
fracture along the perforated length of the wellbore
drilled perpendicular to the PFP (Baumgartner et
that then gradually turns into the PFP. If the well-
al., 1993; Chambers et al., 1995; Abou-Sayed et
bore is in the PFP, then the fracture will initiate
al., 1995).
from the perforations at the top and/or bottom of
the casing, and thus 180° phased guns oriented up
and/or down, respectively, are recommended. The 11-3.3. Other perforating considerations
use of oriented 180° phased guns has successfully for fracturing
been used on deviations up to 65° (Pearson et al.,
1992; Pospisil and Pearson, 1995; Vincent and • Penetration depth
Pearson, 1995). The guns were aligned in the plane Perforation penetration beyond 4 to 6 in. into the
of minimum tangential compressive stress (Yew formation is not required for fracturing because
and Li, 1988; Yew et al., 1989, 1993). Recent labo- fracture initiation from a perforation generally
ratory experiments by van de Ketterij (1996) con- begins near the sandface and propagates toward the
firm these field observations. If the stress direction preferred fracture plane (Behrmann and Elbel, 1992).
is not known, then a vertical, up/down, orientation Gun performance for penetration should be com-
is suggested. See Section 11-3.3 to ensure that the promised in favor of casing hole size. Size require-
casing hole diameter on top meets the required size. ments have been adopted from gravel packing
Wellbore rotation azimuthally around the PFP (Gruesbeck and Collins, 1982) and are discussed
causes the length between the PFP and the wellbore in Chapter 5. The general requirement is that the
to decrease, with a minimum occurring at a 90° minimum casing hole diameter exceeds 6 times the
rotation (i.e., the PFP and the plane through the proppant diameter. A ratio of 8 to 10 times larger
top–bottom of the wellbore are at 90°). The perfo- than the average proppant diameter should be gen-
rated interval should be continually decreased as erally used because of variance between the nomi-
the combination of well deviation and azimuth nal and actual hole diameters, gun positioning and
becomes less favorable and decreases the length variation in proppant size. Manufactured proppant
of this intersection. For the most extreme case, is highly biased toward larger diameters (lower
Liquid transport
trailer
Transfer
pump Proppant feeders
Job
mo
n
uni itorin Proppant Proppant conveyer
t g blender
Hopper
er Pu
mp
mp er
Pu
Manifold trailer
Preferred Pu
wind er mp
mp er
direction Pu
Pu
er mp
mp er
Pu
Pu
rt
mp
po
er er
mp
rt
ns
po
Pu
ort
tra
n s
nsp
2 tra
2
CO
2 tra
CO
CO
N2 pumper
N2 pumper Flowmeter
CO2 pumper
Densitometer
350 20,000
pw ∆ head where T is the wire tension in lbf/ft, Ts is the
Head change from 75°F to static gradient (psi)
18,000
300 Time wire strength in lbf/ft (for a free-end case that
16,000 allows rotation and wire twist), and Td is the
14,000
dead weight in lbf. Prior to pumping, Dp is the
250
inner diameter of the pipe in in., Dw is the wire
12,000 diameter in in., and ppipe friction is the estimated
200 pipe friction in psi (total pressure drop) for the
10,000
fracturing fluid at the indicated pumping rate.
150 – Monitor the actual fluid friction, relative to the
estimated value, to ensure a reasonable prediction.
100 – Protect the wire at the fluid-entry location by
either mechanical isolation or equal opposing
50 fluid streams.
225 250 275 300 325 350
The several limitations to Eq. 11-5 include the
Bottomhole static temperature (°F)
following assumptions:
Figure 11-8. Hydrostatic head changes caused by temper-
– turbulent flow of a non-friction-reducing fluid
ature. pw = wellbore pressure. (e.g., water)
10.0 2.5
Proppant production (g) per 3 cycles
9.9
Proppant pack width (mm)
9.8 2.0
9.7
9.6 1.5
9.5 Proppant pack width
9.4 1.0
9.3
Proppant production
9.2 0.5
9.1
9.0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of stress cycles
Figure 11F-1. Proppant production and proppant pack Figure 11F-2. Proppant placement following a fracturing
width as a function of closure stress cycling (Howard et treatment determined by radioactive tracers. Approx-
al., 1999). Each closure stress cycle was 4000-1000- imately 15 ft of the 50-ft perforated interval has proppant
4000 psi over 1 hr, with flow to 85 psi/ft every third cycle. from the early stages close to the wellbore. If only the
After initial cleanup, the proppant pack remained stable last stage had been treated with proppant flowback con-
throughout the test. trol material, proppant production might have occurred.
Porosity
0.20
caused by the pressure vessel.
Appendix Fig. 3 shows porosity results for a Berea
sandstone core perforated at 1500-psi underbalance 0.10
and 3000-psi effective stress with a 3.2-g charge.
Although the porosity varies considerably, there is no
evidence of a well-defined compacted zone near the 0
tunnel wall. Appendix Fig. 4 shows a porosity profile 0 20 40
at a point near the tip of the perforation. There is no Slice 3 radius (mm)
open tunnel, and parts of the metal jet remain sur-
rounded by shock-damaged rock. The radial extent of Appendix Figure 4. Porosity profile near the tip of a perfo-
ration containing charge and rock debris.
this damaged rock is consistent with the radius of the
tunnel at shallower depths, and it is probable that suf-
compressibility of the pore fluid in this case allows the
ficient underbalance would have loosened and
porosity near the perforation to be largely destroyed.
removed this material to form an open tunnel. The
X-ray CT analysis has also demonstrated that per-
porosity profile shows that the material is compacted,
meability damage is not distributed uniformly along
with porosity reduced from 0.18 to about 0.12. Rock
the length of the perforation. Halleck et al. (1992)
beyond this is at the original porosity.
reported results of flow experiments performed in an
The extent of porosity reduction is a function of the
X-ray-transparent vessel (Appendix Fig. 5). A 6.5-g
pore fluid present at shot time. The vast majority of
charge was used to perforate a Berea sandstone core
perforation flow tests have been performed in liquid-
at 1500-psi effective stress and 500-psi underbalance.
saturated rocks. As noted previously, compaction is
After flushing the perforation with 20 L of odorless
limited to the volume of rock and charge debris that
mineral spirits (OMS) at 20 cm3/s, a di-iododecane
would be swept out if sufficient surge flow occurred.
tracer was substituted for the OMS. The entire sample
However, experiments by Bird and Dunmore (1995)
was scanned at 0.25-in. intervals after 100 cm3 of
in gas-saturated rock samples indicate that the high
tracer and after an additional 50 cm3 of tracer. The
first 100 cm3 of tracer saturated the porous packing
0.40 around the core and started to flow into the sample.
Weighted porosity (CT) = 0.150
Undamaged porosity (lab) = 0.171 The permeability of the porous packing (20/40-mesh
bauxite proppant) is on the order of 100 darcies at
0.30 these confining stresses. At this low flow rate the pres-
sure drop through the porous packing is negligible,
and the fluid pressure applied to the exterior of the
Porosity
0.20
core is assumed to be uniform along its length.
Appendix Fig. 6 illustrates the profile of the radial
advance of the flow found along the length of the
0.10
core. The profile was obtained by measuring the radial
advance of the flow front that took place during the
0
second (50-cm3) tracer injection. The data have been
0 20 40 corrected for decreasing circumference as the front
Slice 2 radius (mm) moves inward to obtain an average local flow rate.
Very little advance is seen near the entrance hole. The
Appendix Figure 3. Porosity profile adjacent to an open majority of flow takes place along the center of the
perforation tunnel was obtained from X-ray CT data.
Sample
Simulated wellbore
Cement and casing
0.25 15
Distance from perforation center
r = 1.5 cm
0.20
r = 2 cm
Fraction of total flow
r = 3 cm
Brinell hardness (kg/mm)
0.15 r = 4 cm
10
Perforation
0.10
0.05
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from entrance hole (cm) Perforation depth
0
0 5 10 15 20
Appendix Figure 6. Profile of flow rates along the length of
a perforation was obtained by X-ray CT observations. Distance from entrance hole end (cm)
0.5 102
1.0
100
k/k c and vm /vc
0.5
t = 1E–6 s 10–1
100 1000 10,000
Total underbalance (psi)
0
0 0.1
0.5
There are a number of additional difficulties with
t = 5E–5 s
this simple model. First and foremost is whether
Reynold’s number should be used to establish critical
0 flow velocity. To begin with, the definition of Rey-
0 0.1
nold’s number is controversial. The most commonly
accepted method is to use the ratio β/α to describe
1.0 the length dimension:
k/k c and vm /vc
β ρv
N Re = , (1)
α µ
0.5
Steady state
where α and β are the coefficients in the Forscheimer
equation, ρ is the density, v is the flow velocity, and µ
0 is the viscosity. Using this equation requires knowl-
0 0.1
edge of both k(1/α) and β for a given rock. Because
Radial position (m) these data are seldom available, empirical correlations
between β and k are used. Such correlations are gener-
Appendix Figure 9. Cleanup of the reduced-permeability ally of the form β proportional to k–m. The value of
zone around a perforation by high-velocity transient flow. m varies considerably in the literature. Tariq (1990)
used a value of 1.65, but a more widely accepted
account the effects of rock remaining in the tunnel value of 1.2 results in a much steeper curve in
as well as its removal. Additional model runs have Appendix Fig. 10, which fails to reproduce the field
been made in which pressure in the tunnel is lowered data. In addition, these correlations are based on intact
during a 1-ms period (Appendix Fig. 11). Although rock and may not apply to the damaged rock around
there is some effect on cleanup, the basic results are the perforation. Finally, the use of Reynold’s number
unaffected. implies that minimum underbalance should also
0.5
Synergy of models and experiments
t = 5E–4 s
One implication from modeling is that if cleanup is to
0 occur, it must be during the short duration of high-rate
0 0.1 transient flow. Evidence comes from the data of
Bartusiak et al. (1997), who used a modified RP 43
1.0 test procedure to include simulation of the fluid capac-
ity and the impedance of the reservoir itself. In con-
k/k c and vm /vc
9200
temperature profile
5000
Postfracture
Gas flow
Postfracture
Depth (ft)
gamma ray
9400 Base
gamma
Post- ray
treatment
gamma
ray Fracture
5100 zone
9500
Pre-
treatment Density Perforations
gamma
ray
Temperature
9600
5200
Pressure (psia)
pressure
4000
Closure pressure
30
Seismic 3000 Stress (psi)
source 3000 5000 20
2000 Rate
Fracture 30 ft B sand 10
S 1000
P
0 0
0 30 60 90
Time (min)
Section
Figure 12-6. Treatment data and stress configuration for
microseismic experiment (Warpinski et al., 1996).
Source
S
4300
P Monitor well
ne First time period MWX-2
e pla 4400
MWX-3 (five level)
tur
ac
Fr
Plan 4500
B sand
Figure 12-5. Section and plan views of borehole seis- 4600
mometer monitoring events in a fractured well (Dobecki,
1983). 4700
–500 –400–300–200–100 0 100 200 300 400 500
4300
Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy Second time period MWX-2 Monitor well
MWX-3 (five level)
(Peterson et al., 1996). Multilevel triaxial receiver 4400
Depth (ft)
5
Tilt (µrad)
Level 5 Level 4
Level 6
0
Level 2
Level 1 Level 6
–5
0 50 100
Time (min) 5
Tiltmeters
4
Shale 3
Sandstone 2
Hydraulic Shale 1
fracture
4450
4550
4650
–8 –4 0 4 8 12
Tilt (µrad)
not entirely match the character of the measured tions to the body of knowledge concerning the
data because of the effects of layering. In this behavior of fractured wells include investigations by
example, the 60-ft fracture matches the tail-off, van Poollen et al. (1958) and Prats (1961). Steady-
whereas the 90-ft fracture matches the peak state conditions are also assumed in the van Poollen
amplitude. Both models, however, are offset from et al. and Prats models, which consider the response
the measured data, most likely because of vertical of both finite- and infinite-conductivity fractures.
asymmetric width effects. Finite-element analyses Prats introduced the concepts of dimensionless frac-
give a much better match of the character, as they ture conductivity and effective wellbore radius for
can include layering effects (as well as they are vertically fractured wells, in which the effective
known), but they are much more difficult to pro- wellbore radius is demonstrated to be a function of
duce. Nevertheless, the modeled height of the the fracture length and dimensionless fracture con-
fracture (67 ft) closely matches the microseismic ductivity. For infinite-conductivity fractures, the
image of the fracture and yields a width in good effective wellbore radius is demonstrated to be equal
agreement with the elastic deformation commonly to one-half of the fracture half-length in a fully
used in geometry models. developed flow pattern (Fig. 12-11).
1
12-1.2. Pressure transient analysis 0.5
Flow efficiency, J F /J
post-treatment performance of vertically fractured 8
McGuire and Sikora (1960)
wells. The stabilized productivity index ratio
increase from the fracture stimulation of a well 6
is presented in Fig. 12-12. Prats (1961)
The earliest work reported in the literature that
4 Tinsley et al. (1969)
considers unsteady-state flow conditions on the tran-
sient behavior of vertically fractured wells is by
Dyes et al. (1958). Prats et al. (1962) and Russell 2
and Truitt (1964) also investigated the transient 103 104 105
Relative conductivity, k f w/k (ft)
behavior of vertically fractured wells under transient
flow conditions. Russell and Truitt used an explicit
Figure 12-13. Flow efficiency ratios from various studies.
finite-difference simulator to investigate the transient
behavior of an infinite-conductivity vertical fracture
and found that the classic semilog analysis tech- The investigations reported by Clark (1968) and
niques developed for unfractured wells could be Milheim and Cichowicz (1968) apply linear flow
applied for the evaluation of transient behavior of concepts to analysis of the pressure transient behav-
vertically fractured wells during the pseudoradial ior of infinite-conductivity vertically fractured wells
flow regime. Figure 12-13 compares the results of and demonstrate that a Cartesian graph of bottom-
various early studies estimating the stabilized flow hole pressure versus the square root of time results in
efficiency improvement resulting from fracturing a a linear transient behavior, thus providing an analysis
well. The discrepancies observed between the results procedure for the early transient formation linear
of the various studies are due primarily to the vari- flow regime.
ous assumptions associated with the development of Gringarten and Ramey (1973, 1974) first introduced
the models used. Of the correlations presented in application of the instantaneous Green’s function and
Fig. 12-13, McGuire and Sikora’s (1960) results Newman’s product method for the development of
have been found to generally represent the postfrac- solutions to a wide variety of problems of fluid flow
ture pseudosteady-state production increase better in porous media. Among the solutions developed by
than the other correlations. those authors are analytic solutions for the pressure
transient behavior of uniform flux and infinite-conduc-
tivity vertical fractures and a uniform flux horizontal
14
L/re = 1
0.9
fracture. The instantaneous Green’s function and
)
12 0.8
0.7
Newman’s product approach introduced by Gringarten
ln 0.472 rw
re
0.5
8 quently been used extensively to develop solutions
0.4
6 to investigate the transient behavior of a wide variety
0.3
(
0.2
of well types and reservoir configurations. An addi-
4
(J/Jo)
q
1
∆p
of the fracture. Another diagnostic provided by this
graphic is the nonzero ∆p intercept: a positive value mbf
indicates near-well conductivity damage (e.g., a
choked fracture from overdisplaced proppant or kill 1
Log 4
Log ∆p, log t
fD fD
(12-11)
Slope = 1⁄4
Although the correlations given by Eq. 12-11 were
originally developed for h fD = 1, they have also been
found adequate for values of h fD ≤ 2.
• Example calculation for the end of bilinear flow Log t
regime
Figure 12-18. Pressure and derivative response of bilinear
Assume that CfD = 12.5, h = 50 ft, h f = 80 ft, flow regime in log-log coordinates.
k = 1 md, φ = 0.15, µ = 1 cp, ct = 10–5 psi–1 and
xf = 500 ft. Calculate the time at which the bilin-
ear flow regime will end. What is this time if and from the definition of dimensionless time
CfD = 1.25? (Eq. 12-1) and rearrangement:
Solution
From Eq. 12-5, h fD = h f /h = 1.6. Then, the product
t=
(2.5 × 10 )(0.15)(1)(10 )(500 ) = 0.36 hr.
−4 −5 2
Figure 12-19. Formation linear flow to the plane of a finite-conductivity vertical fracture.
∆p = c1 + c2 t telf
d∆p
dt
Log 2
Log ∆p, log t
1⁄2
∆p or ∆m(p)
1
mlf ∝ 1 2
kxf
tblf
Log t
xf
blf ∝
Figure 12-20. Pressure and derivative response of the for- kf w
mation linear flow regime in log-log coordinates.
2π
Linear
flow
The dimensionless time at which the formation lin-
pwD (CfD)
10 2
ear flow would start is determined with Eq. 12-13: 1⁄ 2
Pseudo-
radial
flow
100 10 0
t Dblf = 2 = 2.8 × 10 .
−3 1⁄ 4
[ ]
1 the end of bilinear flow regime” (page 12-12) and
pwD = ln t Dr ′ + 0.8091 . (12-15) CfD = 1, calculate the folds of increase of a frac-
2 w
10 –2
Guppy et al. (1982a)
Cinco-Ley et al. (1978)
10 –1
k fD b fD = 5
pD
π
qDND = 15 k fD b fD =
5
4
10 0 0
k fD b fD = 100π
10 –1
10 –2 10 –1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3
tDx
f
Figure 12-25. Effect of non-Darcy flow on the pressure transient response of finite-conductivity vertical fractures.
16
12
q DND
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
(k fD b fD )app
Figure 12-26. Apparent fracture conductivity reduction resulting from non-Darcy fracture flow.
and the dimensionless non-Darcy flow rate qDND for where γg is the gas specific gravity (relative to air)
oil and gas, respectively, is and the constant is the molecular weight of air.
The non-Darcy flow coefficient β in Eq. 12-21
1.03 × 10 −15 k f ρoβqo is in ft–1. A simple expression for estimating the non-
q DND = (12-21)
whµ o Darcy flow coefficient was specifically developed for
4.64 × 10 −16 k f βMWqg fracture flow by Cooke (1973):
q DND = .
whµ gi 30.88 × 10 6 b ′
β= . (12-23)
k fa′
The ranges of applicability for the Eq. 12-20
correlation are The coefficient b´ and exponent a´ in Eq. 12-23 are
specific to the type and mesh size of the fracture prop-
• all values of qDND that yield CfDapp > 2, for CfDtrue < 10 pant and are determined experimentally. Table 12-2
• for 1 ≤ qDND ≤ 20 and 10 ≤ CfDtrue ≤ 100 lists examples of coefficients and exponents for
• for qDND ≤ 10 and 100 ≤ CfDtrue ≤ 500. Hickory sand (Cooke, 1973) for which the fracture
permeability kf in Eq. 12-23 is in md.
The fracture permeability kf in Eq. 12-21 is in md,
fracture width w is in ft, reservoir net pay thickness
h and average fracture height hf are in ft, fluid den- Table 12-2. Non-Darcy coefficients for fracture flow.
sity ρo is in lbm/ft3, fluid viscosities µo and µgi are Mesh a′ b′
in cp, oil flow rate qo is in STB/D, gas flow rate qg
8/12 1.24 17,424
is in Mscf/D, and the gas molecular weight MW is
in lbm/lbm-mol. The molecular weight of natural 10/20 1.34 27,539
gas can be computed with 20/40 1.54 110,470
40/60 1.60 69,405
MW = 28.96 γ g , (12-22)
N Re =
(7.00 × 10 )(85, 000)(0.6)(87, 421)(10, 000) = 7.49 .
−15 voir fluid properties with respect to time, is com-
(0.25 / 12)(100)(0.02) monly referred to as pseudotime:
pwD =
(
λ t h pi − pwf ). (12-35)
productivity than would be obtained if flow impair-
ments were not present.
141.2 q RT Fluid-loss damage in the reservoir adjacent to the
fracture is illustrated in Fig. 12-27. A choked frac-
For wells that produce significant amounts of oil,
ture with a significant fracture conductivity reduction
gas and water simultaneously, a multiphase flow
kf w
xf
k
Damaged zone
in the vicinity of the wellbore is shown in Fig. 12-28. The fracture damage skin effect sfs from Eq. 12-36
As noted in Section 12-2.3, the bilinear flow graph is not readily equated to a radial flow steady-state
of ∆p versus the fourth root of time provides a diag- skin effect s because these two quantities are refer-
nostic of a choked fracture and the ∆p intercept enced to different system characteristic lengths and
quantifies the choke’s pressure loss. The effect on the different flow patterns in the reservoir are de-
the transient behavior of finite-conductivity fractures scribed by the two steady-state skin effects. Typical
resulting from fracture damage skin effects is illus- values of fracture face skin effect damage from
trated in Fig. 12-29. The effects on the effective clean-breaking fracturing fluids are generally low,
wellbore radius of choked and damaged infinite- on the order of 0.05 or less.
conductivity fractures in the pseudoradial regime Holditch (1979b) also studied the effect of fluid-
are compared in Fig. 12-30. loss-induced impairment in low-permeability reser-
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego-V. (1977, 1981a) intro- voirs. A finite-difference reservoir simulation model
duced a relationship for quantifying fracture damage was used to investigate water blockage and post-
skin effects in terms of the fracture half-length xf, treatment fracture fluid cleanup of vertical fractures,
extent of the damaged region into the reservoir nor- including the effects of relative permeability and
mal to the fracture plane bs and undamaged-to-dam- capillary pressure changes in the vicinity of the frac-
aged permeability ratio k/ks: ture. The study found water blockage (i.e., relative
permeability effects) in low-permeability gas reser-
πbs k voirs could result in significant production impair-
s fs = − 1 . (12-36)
xf ks ment of a fractured well.
Well
w kf k fs
xs xf
Figure 12-28. Choked-fracture flow impairment. kfs = fracture permeability in the near-well skin effect zone, xs = half-length
of the skin effect zone.
10 0 s fs = 1
Beginning of
semilog
straight line
pwD
s fs = 0.2
s fs = 0.1
10 –1
0.02
s fs =
= 0.01
s fs
= 0
s fs
10 –2
10 –4 10 –3 10 –2 10 –1 10 –0 10 1
t Dx f
Figure 12-29. Damaged fracture pressure response (Cinco-Ley and Samaniego-V., 1981a).
10 0 10 3
F4 (s fs)
104
10 2
0
10 1
F1 (pwD)
Fluid-loss damage
10 –1
r´w
xf
10 0
Choked fracture
10 –1
10 –2
10 –2
10 –1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 –2 10 –1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6
F2 (tDxf)
sfs–1 or sfs–1 choked
Figure 12-30. Effect of damaged fractures on effective Figure 12-31. Pressure response of fluid-loss-damaged
wellbore radius. fractures (Wong et al., 1984).
Composite damage
1
skin effect, sd
b2/xf = 0.02
would be exhibited in the pressure transient analy-
sis as a result of fracture fluid leakoff is deter- 0.1
mined with Eq. 12-36:
0.01
π(0.13) 5
s fs = = − 1 = 0.014 .
200 0.625 0.001
0.01 0.1 1
From Eq. 12-30, sfs–1 = 1/0.014 = 70. This Fracture face permeability impairment ratio, k 2 /k r
amount of fluid-loss impairment would have a
negligible effect on the effective wellbore radius. Figure 12-32. Variation of composite damage skin effect
with the fracture face permeability impairment ratio (Mathur
et al., 1995).
sd =
π
b2 kr
+
(b1 − b2 )kr − b1 , control (fluid penetration).
( ) ( )
2 b1k3 + x f − b1 k2 b1k1 + x f − b1 kr x f
4
(12-42) C fD = 1 b2/xf = 0.20 k1 = kr, k2 = k3
3 x f = 25 ft k3 = k1 = 1 md
k r = 10 md
Total skin effect, st
Figure 12-32 is a graph of the composite skin effect –3 Total ideal skin effect
0.01 0.1 1
as a function of the fracture face permeability impair- Fracture face permeability impairment ratio, k 2 /k r
ment k2/kr, ratio of the extent of the fracture face dam-
age to the fracture length b2/xf and radial skin effect.
Figure 12-33. Variation of total skin effect with the fracture
It is apparent that radial damage is largely insignifi- face permeability impairment ratio (Mathur et al., 1995).
cant, even in very high permeability reservoirs, except
∑h k j (φct ) j ,
ered with finite-difference or finite-element simulation 1
CRD = j (12-44)
models. However, using analytic solutions to evaluate h k φct j =1
the transient behavior of vertically fractured wells, or
their long-term production behavior, may require nor- where CRD is always less than or equal to unity for
malization procedures to properly account for spatial a multilayer system. For post-treatment analysis of
variation in the reservoir properties. Geostatistical fractured well transient behavior, the dimensionless
techniques have been used to normalize spatial varia- time scale is tD/CRD2, which shifts the fracture half-
tion in reservoir properties and to correlate transient length scale by a factor of CRD. Ignoring the layered
analysis and reservoir simulation results. reservoir nature may result in shorter than actual
Reservoir permeability anisotropy is another com- apparent fracture lengths from the analysis.
mon factor that complicates analysis of the transient Camacho-V. et al. (1987) later extended the work
behavior of finite-conductivity fractures. Directional by Bennett et al. on the concept of dimensionless
permeability anisotropic effects on the transient reservoir conductivity CRD to include the effects of
behavior of finite-conductivity fractures were studied differing fracture half-lengths in multilayer reservoir
—
by Ben Naceur and Economides (1988). That study systems. The total system net pay thickness h is
found that the anisotropy case believed most com- n
mon practice to define an average effective horizon- The individual layer and composite system average
tal permeability for the system that is the geometric hydraulic diffusivities are, respectively,
mean of the directional permeabilities kx and ky:
kj
ηj = (12-48)
k = kx ky . (12-43) φ j ctj µ
For kx = 10ky, the radial response from a prefracture k
well test yields k = 3.1kx, whereas the fracture η= . (12-49)
φct µ
responds approximately as if k were only 1.8kx.
—
Another reservoir heterogeneity that must be con- An equivalent system average fracture half-length x f
sidered in analysis of the transient behavior of verti- is, therefore,
cally fractured wells and their future production per-
η n
k j h j x fj
formance is the effect of multiple reservoir layers, xf =
kh
∑
j =1 ηj
. (12-50)
which may have significantly different formation
properties, pore pressure levels, fracture half-lengths An average fracture conductivity k f w is
——
Table 12-3. Pressure buildup data for high-conductivity fracture (Well A).
sure derivative behavior versus the equivalent shut-in transient was conducted long enough to observe some
time (Fig. 12-34). By observation of the character and pseudoradial flow behavior.
shape of pressure and derivative behavior, it is readily Selecting the best-fit half-slope linear derivative
determined that the well is intersected by a high-con- behavior of the data results in a computed estimate
ductivity fracture because a significant portion of the of the formation permeability and fracture half-
data exhibits linear flow (half-slope behavior) and the length squared kxf2 by rearrangement of Eq. 12-68.
1000
++++++++++++++
+++++++
+
++
++++
+++
∆p, derivative (psia)
++
+ ++
+ + ++
100 ++
+ ++
++
++
+ ++
++ + +
+ ++
10 + + ++
+
0
1E–3 1E–2 1E–1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3
Equivalent time (hr)
h 2 ∆t φct +
δ∆t
+
+
+
+
(4.1292)(100)2 (5)(1.0588)2 (1.14) 500 +
+
= = 7607 md - ft 2 . +
(100)2 (107.527)2 (0.1)(3 × 10 −6 )
+
+
++
++++
(12-76) ++
+++++
+++++
0
The verification graph of the selected linear flow 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
rise versus the square root of the shut-in time (Fig. Figure 12-35. Formation linear flow verification graph.
12-35). The equation of the straight line is
4.06qo Bo µ o ∆t
∆p = The next step in the analysis of the transient be-
h kx 2
φct
f
havior of Well A is to perform the log-log type-curve
(4.06)(100)(1.0588) 5 match of the pressure buildup behavior using a finite-
= ∆t = 201.2 ∆t .
(100) 7607 (0.1)(3 × 10 −6 ) conductivity type curve (such as Cinco-Ley et al.,
1978) or a well test analysis computer model that can
(12-77)
generate the corresponding type-curve dimensionless
Because the same shut-in time range of the data solutions (Fig. 12-36). The matching parameters of
that lies on the best-fit derivative linear flow agrees this analysis indicate an effective k = 0.442 md,
with the data following the linear flow behavior on xf = 130 ft and 10,000-md-ft fracture conductivity.
the verification graph, the linear flow regime of the A quick check of the agreement between the results of
diagnostic graph has been properly selected and kxf2 type-curve matching and the diagnostic graph analysis
is approximately 7600 md-ft2.
++
++
++
1.0
+++
++
++
+++
++
++
++++++++++++
++
+++++
++
++
++
+
++++
++
+++
pD, tD • pD´
++
++
+++
++
0.1 +++
++
+
++
++
++
++
++
+
++
++
++
++
++
++ +++
++
+
+
++++
++
0.01
+
++
++
+
+ ++
+
0.001
1E–6 1E–5 1E–4 1E–3 1E–2 1E–1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2
tD
+
+
+
+
3500 +
+
+
+
+
+
3000 +
+
+
++
++
++
2500 ++
+++
++++++
+ + + + + + + + ++
+ + +
2000
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6
Horner time ratio
+
++
++
++
++
++
+++
++
++
++
++
1000 +++++++++++++
++
+++++
++
++++
+
+
+
+
++
+++
+
+
+++
+
+
+
+
+++
∆p, derivative (psia)
+
+
++
+
++
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
100
+
+
++
++
+
+
+
+
+ ++
+
+
+
+
++
+
++ + +
++
+ + ++ +
+
10
0
1E–3 1E–2 1E–1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3
Equivalent time (hr)
3500
+
+ +
3000
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2500 +
+
+
+
+
+
2000 +
+
+
∆p (psia)
+
+
+
+
1500 +
+
+
+
+
+
1000 +
+
+
+
+
+
+
500
+++
++
++++++
+
+++++
0 +++++++++++
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
∆t1/2 (hr1/2)
0.000264(0.409)
The same pressure buildup data points that lie on the
diagnostic plot quarter-slope linear behavior corre- = 0.0181 hr .
spond to the data points that are on the verification
graph line, indicating that the proper bilinear flow This result agrees with selection of the bilinear
regime data were selected on the diagnostic graph. flow regime range on the diagnostic graph because
The type-curve matching procedure is identical to the chosen data on the graph are prior to this time.
that discussed for Well A, with the resulting type Another qualitative validity check that can be made
curve match for Well B shown in Fig. 12-40. The to ensure the internal consistency of the interpreta-
determined values are ko = 0.409 md and xf = 124 ft; tion results is to compare the type-curve match esti-
the fracture conductivity is 1746 md-ft. The match mate of the permeability and fracture conductivity
results in CfD = 34.4. By referring to the expressions squared k(kf w)2 with the result of the diagnostic
for obtaining estimates for the end of the bilinear analysis:
( )
flow regime (Eq. 12-11), a check of the validity of
k k f w = (0.409)(1746) = 1.5 × 10 6 md 3- ft 2.
2 2
the range of data selected for the bilinear flow
regime on the diagnostic plot can also be obtained:
10
++
++
++
1.0
+++
++
+++
+++
++
++
++ +++
++
+++++
++
++++
++
+
+
pD tD • pD´ (psia)
+
++
++++
++
+++
++
+++
++
0.1 +++
++
++
++
+
++
+
++
++
++
+
++
++
++
++
++
+
++
+
+
+
++
+
++++
0.01 ++
+ ++ +
+ +
0.001
1E–6 1E–5 1E–4 1E–3 1E–2 1E–1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2
tDxf
5500
5000
4500
4000
p ws (psia)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6
Horner time ratio
2xf
the fracture coincides with the thickness of the hydro- is irrelevant (i.e., the fracture behaves nearly as an
carbon-bearing stratum. The performance of the frac- infinite-conductivity fracture), at lower CfD values
ture depends on both the dimensionless fracture con- the production increase is significant. At a given CfD
ductivity and the ratio of the height to the half-length, the increase is more pronounced at lower hD values,
called the dimensionless height hD and providing the which provide increased vertical dimensionless
dimensionless conductivity for vertical flow. conductivity (Fig. 12-44). On both Figs. 12-43 and
The results show that CfD = 1 is no longer neces- 12-44 the highest production increase is already near
sary if the fracture is intersected by a horizontal well the theoretical maximum production increase,
instead of a vertical well and the dimensionless assuming an idealized infinite-conductivity fracture.
height is small or moderate. Figure 12-43 shows the The reason for this effect is that the horizontal
folds of increase in production from the same frac- well acts as a high-conductivity streak in an other-
ture intersected by a horizontal well instead of a wise limited-conductivity flow conduit. The lower
vertical well with a small dimensionless height. the dimensionless height and fracture conductivity,
Although at large CfD values the location of the well the more pronounced the effect of the high-conduc-
6 6
hD = 0.25 CfD = 0.1
5 5 hD
CfD
0.25
0.1 0.5
4 1 4 1
NDH / NDV
NDH / NDV
10 2
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
10 –1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 –1 10 0 10 1 10 2
tD tD
Figure 12-43. Ratio of dimensionless cumulative produc- Figure 12-44. Ratio of dimensionless cumulative produc-
tion (longitudinally fractured horizontal well to a fractured tion (longitudinally fractured horizontal well to a fractured
vertical well) for dimensionless height hD = 0.25 (Valkó vertical well) for dimensionless fracture conductivity
and Economides, 1996a). CfD = 0.1 (Valkó and Economides, 1996a).
This chapter is dedicated to Alfred R. (Al) mination, treatment design, job execution and treat-
Hendrickson, the father of modern-day acidizing. ment evaluation. Although many matrix stimulation
Al made numerous unique discoveries during his treatments are performed in an unsystematic manner,
career and is best known for his work in sandstone the success of matrix stimulation can be enhanced
acidizing. The knowledge he offered the industry is when each of these activities is performed properly.
the cornerstone of acidizing technology today. His Proper performance of these steps requires the inter-
energetic personality and technical contributions will action of numerous individuals with expertise in geo-
forever be appreciated. science, engineering and operations. The remaining
chapters in this volume provide detailed discussions
of the state of the art in matrix stimulation. The pur-
13-1. Introduction pose of this chapter is to provide an integrated
overview of the process of engineering successful
Matrix stimulation is a technique that has been used matrix stimulation treatments.
extensively since the 1930s to improve production Engineering a matrix treatment includes many
from oil and gas wells and to improve injection into tasks and a methodology that are accomplished on
injection wells. Sidebar 13A discusses the history of the basis of the best available data and knowledge
matrix stimulation. Matrix stimulation is accom- at hand, which is usually incomplete. This does not
plished by injecting a fluid (e.g., acid or solvent) to mean a treatment will be unsuccessful. The process is
dissolve and/or disperse materials that impair well a continuous cycle, starting with the diagnostic phase
production in sandstones or to create new, unimpaired of the design process and progressing through the
flow channels between the wellbore and a carbonate execution and evaluation phases to develop improve-
formation. In matrix stimulation, fluids are injected ments. In addition, computer systems with “advisors”
below the fracturing pressure of the formation are available to assist the process. Advisors are expert
(McLeod, 1984). At the time of this writing, it is esti- systems with a knowledge base derived from current
mated that matrix treatments constitute 75% to 80% technology.
of all stimulation treatments (matrix and fracturing)
worldwide, but the total expenditure for matrix treat-
ments is only 20% to 25% of the total for all stimula- 13-1.1. Candidate selection
tion treatments. However, because the payout time
for matrix treatments is normally days rather than Candidate selection for matrix stimulation is based on
months as it is for conventional fracturing treatments, finding wells with impaired productivity and diagnos-
engineers should master this technique. Many opera- ing the cause of the impairment. Failure of a well to
tors around the world have indicated that an average obtain economic objectives alone is not evidence of
of 40% to 50% of their wells have significant dam- impaired productivity. Failure to achieve economic
age, but routinely only 1% to 2% of their wells are objectives may be the result of limitations of the
treated every year. reservoir (e.g., pressure, permeability) or wellbore
Substantial production improvements can be (e.g., artificial lift, inadequate tubing size). Matrix
achieved with matrix stimulation if treatments are stimulation cannot solve these problems.
engineered properly. A success rate greater than 90% Candidate selection requires an accurate assess-
is reasonable. The systematic approach to stimulation ment of what a well can produce without impairment
treatments consists of candidate selection, formation and the current productivity of the well. Techniques
damage characterization, stimulation technique deter- for making these assessments rely heavily on knowl-
edge of the formation geology and reservoir proper- voirs and well performance analysis have been pub-
ties. Methods for assessment of production system lished (Earlougher, 1977). These methods enable the
performance have been developed and are in wide engineer to quantify the extent of formation damage
use. Methods for pressure transient testing of reser- and the potential for productivity improvement.
PTA
Start available Rule of thumb: evaluate
if q actual < 75% q theoretical
Evaluate
Yes stimulation
No
Sandstone Carbonate
Lithology Yes
End
Proceed
No No Yes Mechanical No to formation
Skin > 0 Skin > –4 (problems exist) damage
advisor
Consider
Yes evaluating Yes
fracture potential
Additional
diagnosis
necessary
kH kV r rs =
0.25 rs =
s= − 1 ln s , (13-5) 10 rs =
2
kHs kVs rw 5
rs =
where kH is the horizontal permeability, kV is the verti-
cal permeability, kHs is the horizontal damaged perme- 1
ability, and kVs is the vertical damaged permeability, 1 10 100 1000
Percent of original natural permeability
with all the permeabilities in md. (ks/k × 100)
Hawkin’s equation can be used to determine the
skin effect when assumptions are made for the dam- Figure 13-2. Matrix productivity improvement.
age radius and permeability. These variables cannot
be absolutely quantified, but in combination with well
analysis data and/or bottomhole treating pressure
response they may indicate trends and define limits. 13-2.3. Preliminary economic evaluation
Combining Eqs. 13-2 and 13-4 yields
Having established the production potential of the
ks r
log e well as a function of the skin effect and what it is
PIs k rw
= . (13-6) actually producing, the engineer can evaluate the eco-
PI log rs + ks + log re nomic value of improved production and the required
rw k rs investment in well work. Economic evaluation
requires a good production forecast for the current
Table 13D-1. Skin effect per layer based on production per layer and completion.
13-4. Stimulation technique effect. The impact of skin effect on the economic limit
and reserve recovery must also be considered.
determination Figure 13-3 is a decision tree to help the process
At this point, the well has been identified as an under- of candidate selection and stimulation technique. This
performer. The monetary value of improving well type of flowchart can be incorporated into computer
productivity and the possible cause or causes of for- software. As shown in the figure, the productivity tar-
mation damage have been determined. Next, the engi- get dictates the stimulation technique.
neer must determine the remedial action. If the productivity target can be reached with a skin
The entire production system must be considered effect of 10% of the original damage skin effect in
in making this decision. If the problem is in the well sandstones and –2 to –3 in carbonates, matrix stimula-
design or operation (e.g., tubing size or artificial lift), tion will be adequate and probably cost effective. In
then stimulation is not indicated and the equipment sandstone reservoirs the only stimulation alternative
should be upgraded or repaired. The target well per- is hydraulic fracturing. In carbonate reservoirs (lime-
formance must be balanced; i.e., there is no need to stones or dolomites) acid fracturing can be a cost-
produce more than the tubing or lift will transport or effective way to increase productivity. In both cases,
than the facilities will process. This may affect the a hydraulic fracture is induced in the reservoir. In con-
economics of incremental improvements in skin ventional fracturing, the conductivity of the fracture is
Sandstone: Carbonate:
Sandstone: Carbonate:
propped matrix treatment
treatment to remove treatment to bypass
fracture propped fracture
damage damage
acid fracture
Mechanical Mechanical
limitations limitations Mechanical
limitations
Disqualified:
evaluate Matrix Propped Acid
matrix treatment treatment fracture fracture
Minimum
permeability test No
Start gas wells k > 1 md Consider fracture
oil wells k > 10 md or other treatment
Carbonate Sandstone
Lithology Calcite
≥ 20% HCI preflush: see Table 18-6
HCI/HF: see Table 18-7
Yes HCI postflush: same as preflush
NH4Cl overflush
Perforated Perforated
interval interval
No Chlorite > 0
Glauconite > 0
Small problem: Severe problem:
Add clay control agent Use fluoboric acid,
Bottomhole in preflush and preflush and
temperature Yes
overflush fluids overflush
300°F < T
≤ 300°F ≤ 400°F > 400°F Bottomhole
temperature
15% HCI or 15% HCI or 10% HCI or
Minimum permeability test
28% HCI HCI-acetic HCI-acetic
≤ 200°F > 200°F
All volume recommendations
10% HCI 10% acetic
3-in. collar
80
6-in. collar
12-in. collar
itation at temperatures less than 125°F [50°C];
chelating or complexing agents bond to the iron
60 rc – rx = collar thickness
rc
and suppress other reactions and are used to pre-
Damage
40 collar rx vent precipitation and sludging (Crowe, 1985);
and reducing agents prevent oxidation of the iron
20
rw from ferrous to ferric (Crowe, 1985). Ferrous
0 Wellbore iron is less likely to precipitate and form sludges.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Inner radius of damage (ft)
– Surfactants—Surfactants are used to reduce
oil/water surface tension, ensure water wetness,
Figure 13-5. The effect of shifting an 80% damage collar. prevent sludge and stabilize foams. They are
3000
1 2 3 1 4 Treatment fluids
1. 3% NH4CI brine
2. 7.5% HCl
2500
3. 12% HCI–3% HF
mud acid
4. Fluoboric acid
2000
Damage skin effect
1500
Layer 4
1000
Layer 1 Layer 3
500
Layer 2
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-6. Acid placement: skin effect versus volume by layer (advisor design).
100
Total skin
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-7. Acid placement: skin effect versus volume (advisor design).
change in available HF. The fluoboric acid gener- design engineer to fine tune or optimize the sched-
ates 2.2% HF whereas the mud acid contains 3% ule to obtain the desired results in the most cost-
free HF (Thomas and Crowe, 1981). effective manner. The simulator should be
– Empirical/kinetic-based design validated using field data to remove uncertainties
in the design parameters (Bartko et al., 1996;
An empirical/kinetic-based design is produced
Thomas et al., 1998).
using a numerical simulator. At a minimum, the
Before using an empirical/kinetic-based simu-
simulator should be a two-dimensional (2D), two-
lator, a preliminary pumping schedule should be
phase, finite-difference simulator that allows a
generated with a numerical simulator for matrix
multilayer configuration for computing pressure
sandstone and carbonate acidizing. This advisor
and skin effect evolution during the matrix acidiz-
recommends treatment volumes based on the
ing of sandstones and carbonates. Mineral dissolu-
damage penetration. The flowchart in Fig. 13-8
tion should be simulated using the most common
is incorporated in the expert system to assist
minerals and acids along with the appropriate
diversion selection. The pumping schedule
reaction kinetics (reaction rate limited in sand-
includes the treating fluid and diverter sequence
stones and mass-transfer limited in carbonates
and injection rate of each stage. It is generated
with wormholing). This type of simulator corre-
using empirical rules based on previous field
lates the local porosity change during acidizing to
experience or computers. The schedule can be
a local permeability modification and finally to an
optimized with a single-phase reservoir model
overall damage skin effect evolution per layer.
to meet specific objectives for each fluid type
Currently, precipitation is not considered in the
(Perthuis et al., 1989).
empirical/kinetic-based simulator; however, if the
Sandstone field case history—The pumping
acids are formulated properly this should not
schedule shown in Table 13-2 was generated
affect treatment results.
using the numerical simulator described in this
The empirical/kinetic-based simulator can
section. The objective input to the model was
model damage removal and evaluate skin effect
a target damage skin effect per layer of approxi-
evolution, flow profile and wellhead or bottom-
mately 10% of the original for the mud acid sys-
hole pressure versus injection rate for the pro-
tem. This design is approximately twice the
posed pumping schedule. This step allows the
volume of the preceding advisor design.
Yes
2000
Skin effect
1500
1000
Layer 3
500
Layer 1 Layer 2
0
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-9. Acid placement: skin effect versus volume (empirical/kinetic-based design).
7200 1.6
1 2 3 1 4
Fracture pressure
1.5
Total rate
6800
1.4
Bottomhole pressure (psi)
Total
1.3 Rate (bbl/min)
bottomhole
pressure
6400
1.2
1.1
6000
Treatment fluids
1. 3% NH4CI brine 1.0
2. 7.5% HCl
3. 12% HCI–3% HF mud acid
4. Fluoboric acid
5600 0.9
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-10. Bottomhole pressure and pumping rate versus volume (empirical/kinetic-based design).
1 2 3 1 4 Treatment fluids
1. 3% NH4CI brine
2. 7.5% HCl
3. 12% HCI–3% HF
200 mud acid
4. Fluoboric acid
Skin effect
100
Total skin effect
Final predicted
skin effect = 14.2
+ actual skin effect = 11.4
0
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
2000
Skin effect
1500
Layer 4
1000
Layer 1 Layer 2
500
Layer 3
0
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-12. Skin effect evolution per layer for the actual treatment.
0.6
1 2 3 1 4 Treatment fluids
1. 3% NH4CI brine
2. 7.5% HCl
0.5 3. 12% HCI–3% HF
mud acid
4. Fluoboric acid
Layer 1
0.4
Rate (bbl/min)
0.3
Layer 2
0.2
Layer 3
0.1
Layer 4
0
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-13. Flow rate into each layer versus volume injected.
1000
Layer 3 Layer 2
Layer 1
–1000
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-14. Damage skin effect per layer versus volume for a treatment incorporating the actual treatment volume with-
out a diverter.
1 2 3 1 4 Treatment fluids
1. 3% NH4CI brine
2. 7.5% HCl
3. 12% HCI–3% HF
200 mud acid
4. Fluoboric acid
Total damage skin effect
100
Final predicted
skin effect = 20
0
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
10
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Zone 3
8
Treatment fluids Zone 2
1. 15% HCl
6 2. Salt, benzoic
Thief at heel
Skin effect
20 bbl/min bullhead
4 with diverter
Zone 1
0
–2
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-16. Skin effect evolution in a horizontal well treated using the bullhead technique.
8
Treatment fluids
1. Temporarily
crosslinked acid
6 2. 15% HCl
Skin effect
Thief at heel
4 Coiled tubing
Zone 2 with diverter
2
Zone 1 Zone 3
–2
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Volume (gal)
Figure 13-17. Skin effect evolution in a horizontal well treated using a coiled tubing placement technique with a tempor-
arily crosslinked gelled acid diverter.
flow into the damaged oil zones (Zerhboub et al., zone followed by running the coiled tubing to total
1991). Similarly, the use of solids for diversion in depth. Acid is then pumped as the coiled tubing is
carbonates has decreased in favor of foam and tem- withdrawn, and a diverter slug is injected every
porarily crosslinked polymer (Saxon et al., 1997). 100–200 ft as required. The result is uniform pene-
This approach eliminates the slow cleanup experi- tration over the damaged sections with a small
enced following conventional treatments and results amount of acid injection into the thief zone located
in good zone coverage in vertical and horizontal at the heel. Figure 13-17 shows the results of a
wells. numerical simulation, indicating diversion from the
Modeling of matrix acidizing of a horizontal well heel (i.e., the thief zone) is accomplished using
with the 2D simulator previously discussed (Thomas coiled tubing and a diverter. Improved diversion is
and Milne, 1995; Jones and Davies, 1996) indicates achieved when annular flow is optimized during the
that bullhead matrix treatments in high-permeability coiled tubing treatment. Figure 13-18 shows a poor
or highly fractured limestones may be inefficient. distribution of acid per zone when the bullheading
Bullheading acid with a diverter normally results in technique is used, whereas the treatment goal is
poor coverage beyond 200 to 300 ft. Apparently the achieved when coiled tubing placement is used (i.e.,
acid rapidly creates a thief zone at the entrance to the proper stimulation of damaged zones 2 and 3). The
zone, and conventional chemical diversion tech- case histories reported in Sidebar 13E support the
niques are ineffective (Fig. 13-16). If coiled tubing results of the simulations.
is used, a diverter can be placed across a known thief
45 Zone 1 (heel)
Zone 2 (middle)
40 Zone 3 (toe)
30
25
20
15
10
0
Bullhead with Bullhead with Coiled tubing Coiled tubing
no diversion, diversion, with diverter, with diverter,
20 bbl/min 20 bbl/min 2 bbl/min 2 bbl/min
down tubing down tubing
and annulus
Figure 13-18. Simulation of acidizing a horizontal well with a thief zone at the heel.
was then injected at 2.5 bbl/min while the coiled tubing was withdrawn to yield the appropriate gallons per foot. A pressure of 1200
psi was maintained on the coiled tubing annulus to minimize acid flow up the backside. After it was pulled 50 ft, the coiled tubing was
stopped and 65% quality foam was injected as a diverter. This sequence was repeated 15 times. Subsequently, the barrier section
was loaded with 65% quality foam.
Once the coiled tubing was in the upper section of the Arab D limestone, it was acidized in 30 stages using the same process of
alternating stages of acid and foam. Following the last acid stage, the coiled tubing was run to total depth and the horizontal section was
displaced with diesel.
Prior to acidizing the well would not flow, yet post-treatment production was 2484 BOPD at 1318-psi flowing tubing pressure.
Post-treatment production from the well is more than that from similar horizontal wells treated with up to 4 times more acid (100 gal
of 15% HCl per foot of the horizontal section). The key to successful horizontal well acidizing was apparently not the volume of acid
but the placement and diversion techniques.
Horizontal oil Well 3: coiled tubing with temporarily crosslinked acid diversion
Well 3 was completed openhole in the Arab D limestone with 1000 ft of horizontal hole. Upon initial completion a bullhead acid treat-
ment was performed to remove drilling mud and cuttings damage. However, the results were unsatisfactory. The goal of the treatment
was to provide uniform injection along the entire wellbore. Subsequently, the well was acidized using coiled tubing placement to inject
10 gal/ft of 15% HCl with silt dispersants and 4 gal/ft of temporarily crosslinked HCl (Saxon et al., 1997). The treatment was performed
by running coiled tubing in the hole to total depth and then injecting 6.3 gal/ft of HCl while withdrawing the coiled tubing from 10,553 to
10,353 ft. This process was repeated while running to total depth (10,553 ft). Next a temporarily crosslinked HCl diverter was injected
while pulling out of the hole to 10,353 ft, which was then repeated 3 times to obtain good coverage. Once the coiled tubing reached
9753 ft, it was withdrawn while injecting HCl.
The post-treatment production log in Fig. 13E-2 shows an 800-ft section from the heel with significant flow near the toe of the
well. (The production logging tool could not go beyond 800 ft.) This favorable flow profile is completely opposite that of Fig. 13E-1,
showing a majority of the flow coming from near the heel of the well. Coiled tubing placement complemented by a temporarily
crosslinked acid diverter apparently yielded improved coverage.
Figure 13E-2.
100 Post-treatment
production log
Percent of total oil rate
80 of a horizontal
well acidized
60 using coiled
tubing and
40
temporarily
crosslinked
HCl diversion.
20
0
9500 9650 9750 9850 9950 10,050 10,150 10,250 10,350
Measured depth (ft)
Horizontal oil Wells 4, 5 and 6: coiled tubing with temporarily crosslinked acid diversion
Wells 4, 5 and 6 were treated similarly to Well 3 with coiled tubing and a temporarily crosslinked HCl diverter. Eight to 15 gal of HCl with
mud dispersants per foot of the horizontal zone was used in combination with 4 to 5 gal/ft of temporarily crosslinked HCl diverter.
The treatment was performed by running coiled tubing in the hole to total depth and subsequently reciprocating across a 100- to
500-ft section while pumping HCl. Next the coiled tubing was withdrawn while the diverter was injected. This process was repeated
as required to obtain coverage over the entire horizontal section. The horizontal length, permeability and production results for the
wells are summarized in Table 13E-1. In all cases, production increased significantly, with treatment payout in less than a month.
The average increase in production was 1630 BOPD.
Table 13E-1. Production in horizontal oil Wells 4, 5 and 6 increased 440, 1750 and 2700 BOPD, respectively,
following HCl treatment placed with coiled tubing and diverted with temporarily crosslinked HCl.
Pretreatment Post-Treatment
As indicated in Table 13E-2, the injectivity index increased although injection into the lower permeability zones in the six studied
wells was not achieved. The average post-treatment injectivity index was 61 BWPD/psi.
Table 13E-2. Pre- and post-treatment injectivity index of vertical wells acidized
using the bullhead technique.
Table 13E-3. Pre- and post-treatment injectivity index of vertical wells acidized
using the foam diversion technique.
Average injectivity index = 120 BWPD/psi, a 97% increase over the results obtained with the bullhead technique
Summary
These case histories illustrate that the key to successful matrix acidizing in carbonate reservoirs is not the amount of acid injected
but how it is injected. This is also true for sandstone reservoirs. Coiled tubing placement in combination with foam diversion in sand-
stones or carbonates appears to be an improved technique. Chapter 17 discusses the self-diverting acid system, which has been
used successfully in long carbonate sections, including horizontal wells. This system is advantageous over foam diversion because
it does not require nitrogen.
Figure 13-20. Economic indicators for the empirical/kinetic-based design sandstone case history. Skin effect decreased
from 206 to 16.6.
1 2 4 3 2
2
Skin effect
–1
3% NH4Cl HCl Mud acid 3% NH4Cl
Figure 13-23. Real-time skin effect evolution in the injection well analyzed in the step rate test.
;;
Donald G. Hill, Olivier M. Liétard and Bernard M. Piot, Schlumberger Dowell
George E. King, BP Amoco
; ;
14-1. Introduction
Formation damage reduces the well production
;;
or injection capacity, and the removal of damage is
one of the major goals of petroleum engineers. This
chapter identifies and quantifies formation damage
and includes ideas on treatment strategy. It is impor-
tant to note that not all types of formation damage
require a removal treatment. Some types of damage Tubing Gravel pack Perforations Formation
Scales
will clean up during production, and others can be
Organic deposits
removed by changes in operating practices. In addi-
Silicates,
tion, some producible impairment is misconceived aluminosilicates
as “damage,” when it is actually poor well design Emulsions
that can be remedied with operational changes. Water blocks
Classifying damage correctly requires more than Wettability changes
experience in the chemistry or physics of damage.
A thorough knowledge of field operating conditions Figure 14-1. Location of various types of damage.
is essential, and correct identification is critical to
successful removal.
The terms formation damage and skin effect dam- many publications have appeared on the subject
age have been applied to describe many well pro- (Allen, 1973; Hurst, 1973; Leon, 1973; Sands,
ductivity impairments (Krueger, 1986; Porter, 1973; Christian and Ayres, 1974; Bruist, 1974;
1989). Damage can be anything that obstructs the Shaw and Rugg, 1974; Black and Rike, 1976; Maly,
normal flow of fluids to the surface; it may be in the 1976; Sparlin and Hagen, 1983; Krueger, 1988;
formation, perforations, lift system, tubulars or Amaefule et al., 1998; Adair and Smith, 1994;
restrictions along the flow path. Formation damage Beadie, 1995; Reid, 1996).
specifically refers to obstructions occurring in the The goal of this chapter is to give a broad view
near-wellbore region of the rock matrix. Other types of formation damage. Damage characterization is the
of damage can be identified by location. Figure 14-1 key to proper design of removal treatments. A general
shows some common types of damage; these pro- description of the various damage types and mecha-
duction impairments can occur anywhere in the pro- nisms is presented, followed by a discussion of the
duction system, from the wellbore to perforations origins of damage resulting from natural causes and
and into the formation. Such a distinction is not usu- well operations. The testing required to determine the
ally made because seldom are most of the plugging presence of formation damage and its characteriza-
phenomena located in only one part of the flow sys- tions are also discussed. Treatment strategies for
tem. The importance of determining the causes of removing formation damage are presented.
the observed damage cannot be understated. Only
by knowing the damage mechanism, its location and
how it is affecting flow can an effective treatment
strategy be developed. There have been significant
14-2. Damage characterization
improvements over the past few years in recogniz- Damage characterization is the “history” in damage
ing and describing the various types of damage, and removal. The search for the identity of the damage
Separator
pdsc psep
Surface choke Liquid
Stock
∆p5 = ptf – pdsc tank
pdsv
∆p4 = pusv – pdsv
∆p 7 = p wf – ptf pusv ∆p1 = p – pwfs = Loss in porous medium
∆p 2 = pwfs – pwf = Loss across completion
Bottomhole ∆p 3 = pur – pdr = Loss across restriction
restriction
pdr ∆p4 = pusv – pdsv = Loss across safety valve
∆p 5 = ptf – pdsc = Loss across surface choke
∆p3 = pur – pdr ∆p 6 = pdsc – psep = Loss in flowline
∆p 7 = pwf – ptf = Total loss in tubing
∆p 8 = ptf – psep = Total loss in flowline
pur
pwf p wfs p pe
Figure 14-2. Pressure losses in the producing system of a flowing well. pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure, p – = average
pressure, pe = reservoir pressure, pdr = downstream restriction pressure, pdsc = pressure downstream of the surface
choke, pdsv = pressure downstream of the safety valve, psep = separator pressure, ptf = tubing flowing pressure,
pur = upstream restriction pressure, pusv = pressure upstream of the safety valve, pwfs = wellbore sandface pressure.
Perforation ratio
0.6
• low perforation density, short perforations or
incorrect phasing (Hong, 1975; Locke, 1981;
McLeod, 1983) 0.5 k c/k = 0.1
chemical formula. These structural differences deter- holding the matrix grains together. As a binder or
mine the surface area exposed to the reservoir fluids cement, clay may react with fluids such as acid and
for each clay. Clay reactivity is a function of this sur- water to disaggregate the formation. If the clay
face area. The location of the clay is also critical to cement is shielded by a quartz overgrowth, as is
its reactivity. Authigenic clay is in a pore throat as common in many sandstones, the clay will not be
fill or as a lining (i.e., grown in the pore from miner- reactive.
als in the connate water) (Wilson and Pittman, Only authigenic clays, unprotected clay cements
1977). Authigenic clays have a large amount of sur- and the few detrital clays on the pore boundary are
face area exposed in the pore and can be reactive. worth consideration as potential damage mecha-
Detrital clay is part of the building material in the nisms. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is gen-
original matrix. Detrital clays are usually less reac- erally used to determine clay type; however, recogni-
tive than authigenic clays because they have less sur- tion of the type of clay should not be staked entirely
face area in contact with the fluids in the pore. The on an SEM analysis. Focused dispersive X-ray
vast majority of detrital clays usually cannot be con- analysis is much more accurate. Even after identifi-
tacted by sufficient volumes of reactive fluids to cation of the clay, laboratory core flow tests are typi-
cause problems. Clay may also act as a cement, cally required to determine if the clays within the
Irreducible Residual
water oil
Iron-oxidizing bacteria are aerobic and convert 0.6
iron from the ferrous (Fe2+) to the ferric (Fe3+) state. kro =
ko
0.5 k
They produce gelatinous ferric hydroxide, which is
highly insoluble and precipitates out of water. The 0.4
bacteria metabolize dissolved iron in the water.
0.3
Ferrous iron is soluble only at low pH values (i.e.,
when the water is acidic). Therefore, FeOH3 is typi- 0.2 krw =
kw
k
cally considered an acid-reaction product. The iron-
0.1
oxidizing bacteria produce some corrosion, but they
usually cover sulfate-reducing bacteria colonies and 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
protect them from attack.
Water saturation (% pore space)
Slime-forming bacteria are facultative and produce
mats of high-density slime that cover surfaces. Their
primary detrimental effects are the protection of col- Figure 14-6. Water blocks: increasing the water saturation
from 20% to 35% decreases the relative oil permeability
onies of sulfate-reducing bacteria and pore plugging. from 90% to 30%, respectively (Keelan and Koepf, 1977).
ko = oil effective permeability, kro = oil relative permeability,
kw = water effective permeability, krw = water relative per-
meability.
Unstable formation May occur in any formation that is poorly Gravel packing, fracture packing, plastic
consolidated or that will fail under pressure consolidation or production rate limits
Oil-base mud emulsion damage Common in wells drilled with OBM Wash with aromatic solvent followed by
mutual solvent and acid
If treated with acid or brine before the
sulfonate emulsifiers are washed off the May require several treatments
cuttings by production or solvent treatments,
an emulsion can lock up the well. Cuttings removal is important.
Fracture plugging from mud Large whole-mud losses in naturally fractured Acid useful if damage is shallow
formations
Fracture if damage is deep
Intermittent production at low and moderate
rates Prevent by improving solids recovery
Infrequent recovery of whole mud and mud In severe cases, a sidetrack drill of the
fines pay may be necessary.
Particle damage from drilling Skin effect on buildup test HCl or HCl-HF in matrix acid job and
and completions solvent wash followed with acid in wells
Injection difficult with OBM
May show emulsions in oil wells Foam or jetting cleanups can be useful.
Cement in natural fractures Poor well response following completion when Small fracture treatment or sidetrack drill
possible perforation problems have been
eliminated
Migrating fines Kaolinite or fibrous illite clay or some Clay control for prevention
feldspars (nonclays)
Retarded acid for removal
Brine changes may trigger fines movement.
May require limiting rate in extreme case
Sporadic reductions in flow rate or fracture treatment to spread out
draindown
Variable production rate tests
Particle damage after stimulation May also occur following acid or fracture Filter treatment fluids
stimulations or workover fluids where dirty
water was used or the water was hauled Use clean tanks
or stored in a dirty tank
Wettability problems Commonly occurs after an acid job where the Treat with mutual solvent wash over the
corrosion inhibitor was not mixed in the acid pay, displace and soak
just before injection
Relative permeability problems May occur when oil is injected into a gas zone Treat with a high-API-gravity solvent such
or gas is injected into an oil zone that is above as condensate or xylene (low flash point)
the bubblepoint
Squeeze and produce back
Poor load-fluid recovery Usually formation dependent Avoid or minimize water contact and
lower the surface tension of the water
May decrease production rate in severe cases to prevent
or cause a long cleanup time
Removal with alcohols and some
Most common in formations with small pores surfactants
and in microporous clays
Water blocks Usually in gas wells with small pore throats, Matrix treat with alcohol or surface-
untreated water and low-pressure formation tension-lowering surfactant
If low pressure (less than about 0.2 psi/ft), the Inject gas in gas reservoir to a distance
pore throat size has no effect of 10 ft
Swelling clay Smectite clay, some illite and smectite Acidize with HCl-HF if damage is shallow
interbedded clay
Fracture if damage is deeper than 12 in.
Permeability is sensitive to change in water
salinity or brine type.
Retrograde condensate This special case of the relative permeability Control drawdowns and repressure
effect is a condensate (liquid phase) that forms reservoir
from a rich gas.
Redesign tubing if forming in tubulars
If the condensate forms in the tubing or casing,
heading may occur.
Paraffins in tubulars Pressure restriction in tubulars Scraping and cutting for mechanical
removal
Soft to hard mass found at pressure drops
Hot oil useful if the deposit is less than
Reddish brown to black in color, with white or 100 ft from surface
gray also possible
Solvent soaks on deeper deposits
Also commonly occurs in tubing near the surface
as oil cools and the cloud point is reached Inhibitors available for pipelines and
some problem wells
May increase as a problem as a field ages
Some wells require continuous downhole
Most paraffin deposits melt at less than treatment through “macaroni string.”
150°F [65°C].
Special bacteria are useful.
Paraffins in flowlines Soft to hard deposits (not a scale) in surface Mechanical or solvent removal or pigging
flowlines and equipment
Inhibitors can be used
Paraffin melts when exposed to sufficient heat .
(usually about 150°F).
Paraffins after stimulation Injection of a cool stimulation fluid may precip- Allow the well to clean up on its own
itate paraffin in the reservoir on contact.
Where this problem is known to occur,
The well may be cleaned up slowly (1 to 4 prevent by using xylene preflush ahead
weeks) after stimulation, although load fluid of acid
is recovered faster.
Asphaltenes Black, soft to hard mass that may occur as Treatment with aromatic (cyclic ring)
flakes, sludge, marble-size balls and a sticky solvents such as xylene or toluene
buildup that occurs with paraffins
Some surfactants are also useful for
Precipitation is triggered by destabilization of dispersion of the asphaltic mass.
maltene resins caused by acid contact, outgas-
sing, shear in pumps, electrically charged metal Use antisludge additive or xylene with
surfaces, temperature reduction and CO2. acid in reservoirs with more than 0.5%
asphalt to prevent sludges
Asphaltenes soften with increasing temperature
(>150°F) but do not melt.
Silt-stabilized emulsion Stable emulsion with partially wetted fines Treat with mutual solvent and acid
at interface
Remove downhole source of solids if
Common after drilling mud dispersal or possible
cleanup of mud or cement fines by acid
Sludge (iron/asphaltic) Sludge is an emulsion that is nearly solid. Prevention is the best cure.
May be triggered by acid, OBM, asphaltenes or Use nonsludging acid systems, and test
iron compounds at the iron content expected in the well
Bacterial infestation This difficult problem to predict is more common Treat with sodium hypochlorite followed
in injection wells where surface or produced by HCl (do not allow contact of sodium
water is injected. hypochlorite and HCl)
If the colony is established in the water handling More than one treatment may be
system, it can occur with the injection of necessary.
any waters.
Alternative treatments are chlorine dioxide
Brown to black slimy masses or an H2S odor and bactericide slugs.
when tubing is pulled
Calcium carbonate scale May form at any pressure drop, either in the HCl to remove and inhibitor to prevent
formation or tubulars
Calcium carbonate scale May form quickly and can sharply limit pro- Inhibitor may be squeezed into the
(continued) duction, especially at gravel-pack interfaces or formation for longer lived protection.
near perforations in wells with high drawdown
across the perforations Some HCl jobs may trigger calcium
carbonate scale in rare cases; inhibit acid
May be more common in earlier stages in some or treat with EDTA if this is a problem.
fields when the pressure drop is more severe
Usually has no crystal pattern
Calcium sulfate scale Usually forms at pressure drop induced by Chemical converter or dissolver
turbulence followed by acid (do not contact converter
or dissolver with acid)
More common where high-sulfate waters
contact high-calcium waters and in CO2 floods Acid is not useful alone.
Barium sulfate scale Nonreactive scale that forms at pressure draw- Scraping, water blasting or other
downs or where outgassing occurs mechanical removal
Iron carbonate scale Carbonate scale tendencies with large iron HCl for thin deposits or mechanical
content removal where possible
Iron sulfide scale Hard scale, dense and heavy Mechanical removal with mills or cutters
Many forms are not acid soluble. Water jets may not work.
Salt Precipitates as a white mass in the tubulars Freshwater or weak brine wash
or in the formation
Hydrates (ice) in gas wells Gas well with intermittent flow to nearly total Glycol or alcohol injection below the
shutoff, followed by return to flow in a few hydrate formation point
minutes
Insulated risers or tubing
Produces a small amount of water
Hydrates (ice) in oil wells In oil wells, usually forms only near the Insulated risers
mudline in Arctic regions
Waterflood breakthrough Examine produced water analysis and compare High-permeability zones should be
through high-permeability zone with flood water for identification plugged deep (depth greater than 100 ft)
from producer and injector when oil
Watch for scale recovery from the zone is complete.
Commingled water production Initial production of water with oil in primary, Temporary or no treatment
with breakthrough in flood
Collapsed pipe May show up as reduced rate or destruction If caused by earth-shift forces, use
of lift equipment heavier pipe or multiple strings
Check with a gauge ring on wireline or tubing Liners, cement and patches are used for
repair.
Most common causes are earth-shift loads
caused by subsidence of producing formations
with fluid and sand withdrawals, active faults
and formation movement near salt zones.
100
and subsequent intermixing of sand and gravel in
the case of pressure surges (Stadalman et al.,
1985; Jones et al., 1991a; Chuah et al., 1994)
50
• damage by unbroken gels or formation particles
during placement as a result of incomplete perfo-
Bay water filtered through
ration cleaning (Sparlin, 1974) 436 ppm 2-µm cotton filter
• invasion by loss-control materials (LCM) Bay water filtered through
5-µm cotton filter
(Blanton, 1992; McLeod and Minarovic, 1994; Produced water, untreated
Hodge et al., 1995) Bay water, untreated
• thread dope, paint, rust and polymer residues 0
forced between formation sand and the gravel 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
pack during placement Volume injected (gal/perf)
• inadequate gravel size, leading to gravel-pack Figure 14-7. Apparent permeability reduction in Cypress
invasion by formation fines during production sandstone cores with the injection of various filtered and
(Gulati and Maly, 1975) unfiltered waters (Tuttle and Barkman, 1974).
80 8000
% of original permeability
1980 psig
50)
40)
60 7000
(∆p/L = 2 5 10 20
(∆p/L = 2 5 10 20
Low drawdown
Low drawdown
0 psig
High drawdown
6000
(∆p/L = 40)
40
High drawdown
(∆p/L = 50)
CaSO4 (mg/L)
5000
20
4000
0
Berea sandstone Oil well cores
(Miocene, Pliocene) 3000
Feldspar
Microcline KAlSi3O8 None Moderate
Orthoclase KAlSi3O8 None Moderate
Albite NaAlSi3O8 Very low Moderate
Plagioclase (Na,Ca)Al(Si,Al)Si2O8 Very low Moderate
Mica
Biotite K(Mg,Fe2+)3(Al,Fe3+)Si3O10(OH)2 Low Moderate
Muscovite KAl2(AlSi3)O10(OH)2 Low Moderate
Clay
Kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 Low High
Illite (H3O,K) y (Al4 · Fe4 · Mg4 · Mg6)(Si8 – y · Aly)O20(OH)4 Low High
Chlorite (Mg,Fe2+,Fe3+)AlSi3O10(OH)8 Moderate High
Smectite (Ca0.5Na)0.7(Al,Mg,Fe)4(Si,Al)8O20(OH)4 · nH2O Low High
Mixed layers Kaolinite, illite or chlorite layered with smectite
Carbonate
Calcite CaCO3 High High †
Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 High High †
Ankerite Ca(Fe,Mg,Mn)(CO3)2 High High †
Sulfate
Gypsum CaSO4 · 2H2O Moderate High
Anhydrite CaSO4 Moderate High
Other
Halite NaCl High High
Iron oxide Hematite (Fe2O3), goethite (α-FeO(OH)), High High
magnetite (Fe3O4), siderite (FeCO3)
†
Precipitation of CaF2
2. The solubility of the formation material in 5. Other minerals that are soluble in the acid
mud acid is used to determine the silt and should also be determined and confirmed
clay content (total fines) and the carbonate by XRD.
content.
– Scales
3. The difference between the solubilities in
mud acid and HCl is considered the approxi- The solubility of scale deposits depends on the
mate content of clay and fines. mineralogy of the rock. Tests similar to the tests
4. The total reactive silt content is calculated as performed to determine formation solubility can
the difference between the silt and clay con- be performed to determine the best solvent for
tent determined by solubility and the total scale removal. Identification of the deposit by
clay content determined by XRD. XRD prior to the solubility evaluation is recom-
mended to aid selecting the most active solvent.
V7 V8
N2 pressure
V10
G2
Cell
V9
mode
V1 selector Backpressure
V6 V4
Fluid
G3 G4
selector Confinement
V16
Flow pressure V3 pressure
Separator
Pulsation dampener
V11
G1
Separator
V15 Rupture
V2 disk
Volumetric Back-
pump V14 pressure
regulator V12
Rupture
disk V13
V5
Filter Gas Temperature
flowmeter regulator
2000
ARC test Sample: Test conditions Fluids used during the test
Field: Temperature (˚C): 65 • 3% NH4Cl
Well: Backpressure (b): 20 • Mud acid
Location: Formation: Calcareous sandstone
1600 Date: Depth:
3% NH4Cl
Permeability (md)
1200
800
Mud acid
400
3% NH4Cl
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Volume (mL)
Types of damage
Emulsions Wettability change Water block Scales Organic deposits Mixed organic/ Silts and clays
Mutual solvent ± Mutual solvent ± Aromatic solvents inorganic deposits Depend on
de-emulsifier water-wetting Carbonates Solvent in acid mineralogy
surfactant CaCO3 dispersion
High temperature (>250°F): Aqueous acetic acid
Low temperature (<250°F): HCl
FeCO3 – HCl + reducing/sequestering agents
Fe scales
Low to medium temperature (≤250°F) High temperature (>250°F) FeS – HCl + reducing + sequestering
Acid + solvent Nonaqueous acetic acid Fe2O3 – HCl + EDTA
Acid + surfactant FeCO3 – HCl + reducing/sequestering
Chloride
NaCl – H2O, 1%–3% HCl
Hydroxide
Mg(OH)2 – HCl
Ca(OH)2 – HCl
15-1. Introduction and their interactions with fluids. Clay minerals are
important because of their large surface area and
Proper fluid selection is critical to the success of because the surface carries an electrical charge.
a matrix treatment. Figure 15-1 shows the types of Although relatively minor, some surface charge
damage that may occur and what types of treatment results from ionic substitution and structural imper-
would be required. The treatment may be a failure if fections. For instance, the substitution of Al3+ for
the proper additives are not used. The treating fluid Si4+ in tetrahedral sheets or Mg2+ or Fe2+ for Al3+ in
is designed to effectively remove or bypass the dam- octahedral sheets is the origin of negative charges in
age, whereas additives are used to prevent excessive the lattice of smectites. These are unaltered by
corrosion, prevent sludging and emulsions, prevent changes in the solutions that contact them.
iron precipitation, improve cleanup, improve cover- Silicon and aluminum oxides, the principle ingre-
age of the zone and prevent precipitation of reaction dients of sandstone and clays, exhibit amphoteric
products. Additives are also used in preflushes and behavior. Therefore, the surface charges of these
overflushes to stabilize clays and disperse paraffins minerals depend on the pH of the solutions in con-
and asphaltenes. The functions of some of the addi- tact with them. The surface charge changes from
tives are discussed briefly in this chapter. positive to negative as the pH increases. The point
Throughout this chapter references are made at which the surface charge is neutral is known as
to the interactions of additives with the formation. the point of zero charge (pzc). Table 15-1 provides
Schechter (1992) provided an excellent discussion the approximate values of the pzc for several com-
of the chemical properties of formation materials mon minerals.
Types of damage
Emulsions Wettability change Water block Scales Organic deposits Mixed organic/ Silts and clays
Mutual solvent ± Mutual solvent ± Aromatic solvents inorganic deposits Depend on
de-emulsifier water-wetting Carbonates Solvent in acid mineralogy
surfactant CaCO3 dispersion
High temperature (>250°F): Aqueous acetic acid
Low temperature (<250°F): HCl
FeCO3 – HCl + reducing/sequestering agents
Fe scales
Low to medium temperature (≤250°F) High temperature (>250°F) FeS – HCl + reducing + sequestering
Acid + solvent Nonaqueous acetic acid Fe2O3 – HCl + EDTA
Acid + surfactant FeCO3 – HCl + reducing/sequestering
Chloride
NaCl – H2O, 1%–3% HCl
Hydroxide
Mg(OH)2 – HCl
Ca(OH)2 – HCl
Thus, the way in which additives interact with the on the metal surfaces, along with the reduction of
reservoir actually depends on the pH. Under the con- hydrogen ions and formation of hydrogen at the
ditions normally associated with the matrix acidiza- cathodic sites.
tion of sandstones, the pH of the acid is less than the The equations for an anodic reaction (oxidation):
pzc of the reservoir constituents, which causes the
formation materials to behave as positively charged. Fe → Fe2+ + 2e–
It is important to keep this concept in mind. metallic iron ionic iron electrons
and a cathodic reaction (reduction):
– react with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) through the Organic 0.6 200 24
iron sulfide that may be present to form an insol- 1.0 250 10
uble precipitate such as arsenic sulfide 2.0 300 2
– poison refinery catalysts (such as platinum) Inorganic 0.4 200 24
– may liberate toxic arsine gas as a corrosion by- 1.2 250 24
product 2.0 300 12
– are difficult to mix and unsafe to handle. † Time required for 15% HCl to remove 0.05 lbm/ft2 of exposed metal area
• Organic corrosion inhibitors
Organic corrosion inhibitors are composed of polar
organic compounds capable of adsorbing onto the 15-2.7. Compatibility with other additives
metal surface, thereby establishing a protective film
that acts as a barrier between the metal and the acid Any additive that alters the tendency of the corrosion
solution. They usually serve as a cathodic polarizer inhibitor to adsorb will also change its effectiveness.
by limiting hydrogen ion mobility at cathodic sites. For example, surfactants added to acid for various
Organic inhibitors are composed of rather complex purposes may form micelles that solubilize the
compounds, with one or more polar groups made inhibitor, thereby decreasing the tendency for the
of sulfur, oxygen or nitrogen. inhibitor to adsorb on the metal surface. Inorganic
Some advantages of organic inhibitors are that salts and mutual solvents can also interfere with
they inhibitor adsorption. If possible, additives that reduce
• pressure
• presence of other additives such as surfactants.
Nonionic surfactants obtain their water solubility • Surface and interfacial tensions
by attaching the long hydrocarbon chain to a highly Rosen (1989) presented a good discussion of how
soluble molecule such as polyhydric alcohol or by surface and interfacial tensions are reduced by sur-
reacting it with ethylene oxide. Most of the com- factants. Figure 15-6 is a simplified diagram of the
pounds in this classification are esters, ethers and interface between two condensed phases. A mole-
ether-esters. The lipophilic group may be derived cule in the bulk of a liquid is surrounded by mole-
from natural oils and fats, petroleum oils or synthe- cules like itself and the forces are balanced. At the
sized hydrocarbons. The hydrophilic group is usually interface, however, the forces acting on the mole-
a polyhydric alcohol or an alkyd oxide polymer. cules in the two liquids are different from the
These surfactants are used as nonemulsifiers and forces acting on the molecules in the bulk liquids.
foaming agents. The terms Aaa and Abb in Fig. 15-6 represent the
interaction energy between molecules at the inter-
face and similar molecules in the bulk of the liquid
15-3.4. Amphoteric surfactants whereas Aab represents the interaction energy
Amphoteric surfactants have a hydrophilic group between dissimilar molecules at the interface.
that changes from cationic to nonionic to anionic The increase in potential energy of the mole-
with increasing pH. In other words, if the solution is cules at the interface compared with that of the
acidic, the amphoteric surfactant acts like a cationic molecules in the bulk liquid is simply Aaa – Aab
surfactant; if the solution is neutral, it acts like a and Abb – Aab. Therefore, the total increase in
nonionic surfactant; and if the solution is basic, it
acts like an anionic surfactant. These properties are Aaa Aab
derived from the two groups of opposite charge on
the surfactant head. The amphoterics are usually
either amine sulfonates or amine phosphates. The Liquid a
general formulas are as follows:
Amine sulfonates RNH—(CH2)xSO3H
Amine phosphates RNH—(CH2)yOPO3H Liquid b
Silicate particle
Water
Oil-wet Water-wet
Lamellar micelle
• Micelle formation
15-3.7. Applications and types of surfactants
Surfactants can form micelles in liquids when pre- In recent years, the uses of surfactants have grown
sent above a specific concentration for each mole- quickly. This unique class of chemicals has found
cule, solvent and temperature. This concentration application in almost all phases of acidizing. A com-
is referred to as the critical micelle concentration prehensive review is beyond the scope of this chap-
(CMC). Below the CMC, many properties of the ter. However, a brief review follows.
system are concentration dependent. Some of these • De-emulsifiers
properties are surface tension, interfacial tension,
A de-emulsifier is used to break oil-water emul-
foam stability and emulsion tendencies. Figure
sions, which occur commonly. The action of a de-
15-9 shows examples of surfactant micelles.
emulsifier depends on how quickly it can concen-
• Dispersibility trate at the oil/water interface. The faster the con-
To separate a highly associated structure (e.g., centration at the interface, the more rapid will be
a sludge) into its particulate elements usually the rate of emulsion breaking. These surfactants
requires energy. If the dispersed phase is not in are usually oil-soluble chemicals that are blended
intimate contact with the continuous liquid phase, with other de-emulsifying surfactants to achieve a
then the energy transfer will not be very efficient. synergistic response.
A wetting surfactant that wets the dispersed phase • Nonemulsifiers
with the liquid phase greatly improves the dis-
These surfactants are added to well treating or
persibility. This is one aspect of aiding dispersion.
workover fluids to prevent emulsions. Chemical
OR
15-5. Mutual solvents
RO—Si—OR
Mutual solvents, as the name implies, are chemicals
R´NH2 that are mutually soluble in both hydrocarbons and
water. The most efficient mutual solvents are glycol
where R and R´ are hydrolyzable organic groups. ethers, a reaction product of alcohols and ethylene
As an additive to acid, organosilane hydrolyzes oxide. These chemicals are relatively safe and easy to
to form silanols, which have the following structure: use in the field. The preferred glycol ethers contain at
OH least a butyl or higher molecular weight group.
The use of mutual solvents in the acid stimulation
HO—Si—OH of a sandstone reservoir is a common practice.
Mutual solvents are used in acid solutions and over-
R´NH2 flushes to
The silanols react with each other and with silanol • aid in reducing water saturation around the well-
(Si–OH) sites present on siliceous mineral surfaces to bore by lowering the surface tension of the water
form covalent siloxane (Si–O–Si) bonds by a conden- to prevent water blocks
sation/polymerization reaction mechanism. The reac- • solubilize a portion of the water into a hydrocar-
tion of the silanols with one another and with the bon phase to reduce the water saturation
silanol sites on siliceous mineral surfaces forms a non- • aid in providing a water-wet formation to maintain
oil-wetting polysiloxane coating on siliceous mineral the best relative permeability to oil
surfaces. The length of the polysiloxane chain formed
by the hydrolysis of the organosilane, and the subse- • help to prevent insoluble fines from becoming oil-
quent condensation/polymerization of silanols, is not wet and stabilizing emulsions
known but is believed to be short. Acid, which cat- • help to maintain the required concentration of sur-
alyzes the initial hydrolysis of the organosilane, also factants and inhibitors in solution by reducing
retards the growth of polymer chains. adsorption of these materials
The mechanism by which the polysiloxane coating • help to dissolve both the adsorbed inhibitor and
stabilizes fines is different from the ion-exchange acid-insoluble residue (certain acid corrosion
mechanism by which other clay stabilizers work. inhibitors contain acid-insoluble residues that can
However, it is similar to the coating process pro- cause formation plugging and inhibitor adsorption
posed for fluoboric acid (Boyer and Wu, 1983). The on formation minerals and change the wettability)
polysiloxane coating binds clay and other siliceous • dissolve any oil on the formation pore surface
fines in place through covalent siloxane bonds. The
Citric acid–acetic acid Very effective at lower temperatures Even for the indicated amount, calcium Citric: 50
mixture citrate precipitates unless at least 2000-ppm Acetic: 87
Fe3+ is present in spent acid.
Lactic acid Little chance of calcium lactate Not very effective at temperatures above 190
precipitation if excessive quantities 100°F [40°C] (at 75°F [25°C])
are used
Acetic acid No problem from possible precipitation Effective only at temperatures at about 150°F 435
as calcium acetate
Gluconic acid Little chance of calcium gluconate Effective only at temperatures up to 150°F 350
precipitation
Expensive on a cost-performance basis
Tetrasodium salt Large quantities may be used without More expensive to use than many other agents 296
of EDTA precipitation of calcium salt.
The major disadvantages of using alcohol in acid- However, in an alcoholic solution of HCl, a
izing fluids are as follows: reaction takes place that results in the formation
of the following organic chlorides:
• Effective concentration
CH3OH + HCl → CH3Cl + H2O
It takes a large amount of alcohol, 20% or more, to
methanol hydro- methyl
provide beneficial effects.
chloric acid chloride
• Cost
CH3CHOHCH3 + HCl → CH3CHClCH3 + H2O
Replacing water with alcohol in the acidizing solu- isopropanol hydro- isopropyl
tion makes the treatment more expensive. chloric chloride
acid
X (%)
Formation Acid β100 5 10 15 30
Notes: β = mass of rock dissolved/mass of acid reacted, X = volume of rock dissolved/volume of acid reacted
The volume of acid required for a matrix acidizing treatment can be estimated using the concept of dissolving power. Because the vol-
umetric dissolving power X is the volume of a particular mineral that is dissolved by a given volume of a particular acid solution, the
minimum acid requirement to remove that mineral can be calculated with little information other than the dissolving power. Consider
the following problem:
A sandstone formation with a porosity of 0.2 contains 5-vol% albite (sodium feldspar). What is the minimum volume of 3% HF solu-
tion required to dissolve all the albite a distance of 6 in. beyond a 6-in. diameter wellbore?
Solution
The minimum acid volume is the amount VHF required to dissolve all the feldspar plus the amount Vp required to fill the pore space in
the region of feldspar dissolution. These volumes are
Vfeldspar = π(rHF2 − rw2 )(1− φ)x feldspar = π(0.75 2 − 0.25 2 )(1− 0.2)(0.05)
ft 3 (16A-1)
= 0.063 feldspar
ft
Vfeldspar 0.063 ft 3 HF
VHF = = = 5.7 . (16A-2)
X3 0.011 ft
In these equations, rHF is the radial penetration distance of HF, rw is the wellbore radius, φ is the porosity, and xfeldspar is the volume frac-
tion of the sandstone that is feldspar. The volume of pore space within 6 in. of the wellbore after removal of the feldspar is
( ) (
Vp = π(rHF2 − rw2 ) φ + x feldspar (1− φ) = π(0.75 2 − 0.25 2 ) 0.2 + 0.05(1− 0.2) )
ft 3 (16A-3)
= 0.38 ,
ft
so the total volume of HF required is
Thus, the minimum volume of 3% HF solution required to remove all feldspar in a radial region extending 6 in. beyond the wellbore
is 46 gal/ft of reservoir thickness. In an actual acidizing treatment, the injected acid does not react with feldspar only, and as shown by
examining models of the acidizing process, the acid is not spent uniformly, as tacitly assumed in this calculation. Nevertheless, this
simple calculation provides a ballpark figure for acid requirements and is a handy check of more complex models of the process.
of a reaction is a description of the rate at which the eral RB, which is related to the acid consumption rate
chemical reaction takes place, once the reacting through the stoichiometry of the reaction
species have been brought into contact. ν
A reaction rate is generally defined as the rate of RA = A RB , (16-6)
νB
appearance in the solution of the species of interest in
units of moles per second (mol/s). A surface reaction where νA and νB are the stoichiometric coefficients for
rate depends on the amount of surface exposed to acid A and mineral B.
reaction, so these reactions are expressed per unit of The reaction rate rA generally depends on the con-
surface area. In general, the surface reaction rate of an centrations of the reacting species. However, in the
aqueous species of acid A reacting with mineral B is reaction between an aqueous species and a solid, the
concentration of the solid can be ignored, because it
RA = rA SB , (16-5) remains essentially constant. For example, a grain of
quartz has a fixed number of moles of quartz per unit
where RA is the rate of appearance of acid A in mol/s,
volume of quartz, irrespective of reactions that may
rA is the surface area-specific reaction rate of A in
be occurring on the surface of the grain. Incorporating
mol/s-m2, and SB is the surface area of mineral B.
concentration dependence into the rate expression
When A is being consumed, the reaction rates rA and
yields
RA are negative. Acid-mineral reaction rates are typi-
cally expressed as the rate of dissolution of the min- − RA = E f CAα SB , (16-7)
∆E
Mineral α Ef o (K)
R
kg - mol HCl
α
2 kg - mol HCl
m -s 3
m acid solution
[ ]
an important issue.
− rmineral = E f 1 + K (CHCl ) CHF
β α
, (16-11) Comparison of the reaction rates of various min-
erals requires placing the rates on the basis of a unit
for which the parameters α, β, Ef and the empirical of reactive area. On this basis, montmorillonites
kinetic constant K are listed in Table 16-5. and kaolinites react about 2 orders of magnitude
These expressions show that the dependence on slower than feldspars, and illites react at least 1
HF concentration is approximately first order (α = order of magnitude slower than kaolinite. Viewing
1). For feldspar reactions, the reaction rate increases thin sections of rocks following acid treatment with
with increasing HCl concentration, although HCl is HCl-HF mixtures shows that the feldspars are usu-
not consumed in the reaction. Thus, HCl catalyzes ally removed because of their high specific reaction
HF-feldspar reactions. Kline and Fogler (1981a) rates. Authogenic clays also appear to react rapidly
showed that the reactive area depends on the crystal- because of their intimate exposure to the acidic
line structure of the clay reacting with an HCl-HF solution. On the other hand, clastic clays are com-
mixture and is generally only a small fraction of monly found in thin sections following acid treat-
the total surface area of clays as determined by ment (Hill et al., 1977). Thus, it is not only the
traditional methods of measurement. Thus, the specific reaction rate but also the area in contact
surface area of montmorillonite as determined by with the acid that determines the rate of removal of
nitrogen (N2) adsorption may be as high as 5 × 105 a specific mineral. An example calculation of rela-
m2/kg, whereas the reactive surface area is approxi- tive reaction rates of sandstone minerals is in
mately 104 m2/kg. The surface areas in Eq. 16-8 Sidebar 16B.
must be the reactive areas that are actually in con-
Mineral Ef K β α
kg-mol minera l
kg-mol HF −β
α
2 kg-mol HF
m - s m3
m3
Potassium feldspar†
(orthoclase) 0.127 exp − 4680 5.66 × 10–2 exp 956 0.4 1.2
T T
Sodium feldspar†
(albite) 9.50 × 10–3 exp − 3930 6.24 × 10–2 exp 554 1.0 1.0
T T
†
Fogler et al. (1973)
‡
Adapted from Hill et al. (1977)
§
Adapted from Kline and Fogler (1981)
A matrix acidizing treatment is aimed at overcoming the effects of near-wellbore formation damage. Ideally, the injected acid attacks
only the material causing the damage, which in most instances is clay particles or other fines. How efficiently the acid is being used
can be determined by calculating the reaction rates of all major mineral species present with the injected acid.
Consider a sandstone formation that has been damaged by the invasion of bentonite (montmorillonite) particles from drilling mud.
After the carbonate minerals have been removed by an HCl preflush, this clean sandstone contains 90% quartz, 5% albite (sodium
feldspar) and 5% montmorillonite by weight. The reactive surface areas of the minerals are 10 m2/kg for the quartz and albite and
8000 m2/kg for the montmorillonite. (A cube of quartz with a side of 1 mm has a surface area of 2.2 m2/kg; if it is 0.1 mm on a side, its
surface area is 22 m2/kg. Clays have a much larger surface area than detrital grains of quartz or feldspar.) Assume stoichiometric
ratios of 6 moles HF/mole quartz, 20 moles HF/mole feldspar and 40 moles HF/mole montmorillonite.
If this rock is contacted with a 12% HCl–3% HF solution at 125°F [50°C], what proportion of the HF will initially be consumed by
each of the three minerals? What are the mineral proportions of the rock dissolved?
Solution
Per unit mass of rock, the surface area of each mineral is its reactive surface area times the mass fraction of the mineral present in
the sandstone. For example, the reactive surface area of quartz per mass of sandstone Sq is (10 m2/kg)(0.9) = 9 m2/kg rock. Similarly,
the surface areas of feldspar and montmorillonite are 0.5 and 400 m2/kg rock, respectively. The acid concentrations in Eq. 16-11 are in
units of kg-mol/m3 solution (equivalent to gmol/L); the concentrations given as mass fractions are converted to these units by multiply-
ing by the solution density and the acid molecular weight, yielding 1.61 kg-mol HF/m3 solution and 3.53 kg-mol HCl/m3 solution. Quartz
is used to illustrate the calculation sequence to determine the reaction rates for each mineral.
First, the rate constant is calculated with the data from Table 16-5:
kg-mol quartz
−rq = 6.59 × 10 −10 (1.61) = 1.06 × 10 −9 . (16B-2)
m 2-s
The overall reaction rate for quartz is the specific reaction rate multiplied by the reactive surface area:
kg-mol quartz
−R q = 1.06 × 10 −9 (9) = 9.54 × 10 −9 , (16B-3)
kg rock-s
kg quartz
−R q = 9.54 × 10 −9 (60.1) = 5.73 × 10 −7 . (16B-4)
kg rock-s
Finally, the rate of consumption of HF by the quartz reaction is obtained with Eq. 16-9, assuming 6 moles of HF are consumed for
each mole of quartz dissolved:
kg-mol HF
−R HF ,q = 9.54 × 10 −9 (6) = 3.44 × 10 −7 . (16B-5)
kg rock-s
The results of these calculations for all three minerals are summarized in Table 16B-1.
The fraction of HF expended in a particular reaction is the overall reaction rate for the mineral divided by the sum of the reaction
rates, which shows that 1.1% of the HF is reacting with quartz, 5.7% is reacting with feldspar and 93.2% is reacting with montmoril-
lonite. On the basis of the mass of mineral being dissolved, 95.1% of the rock dissolved is clay, 4.3% is feldspar, and less than 0.6% is
quartz. This is because of the high surface area of the authogenic clays (including, however, clay particles from drilling muds) and the
low reactivity of the quartz. Because clay and feldspar have relatively high reaction rates and generally form a small portion of the total
rock mass, they are dissolved first in sandstone acidizing. The quartz reaction becomes important in regions where most of the clay,
except clastic clays, and feldspar have already been removed.
1150
E f = 1.39 × 10 −7 exp − = 3.95 × 10
−9
273 + 50
kg-mol quartz
−rq = E f C HF = 6.36 × 10 −9
m 2-s
kg rock-s kg rock-s
3930
E f = 9.5 × 10 −3 exp − = 4.938 × 10
−8
323
kg albite
R A = 8.84 × 10 −8 (262) = 2.32 × 10 −5
kg rock-s
5200
E f = 1.1× 10 −2 exp − = 1.12 × 10
−9
323
m2 0.05 kg montmorillonite m2
surface area = 8000 = 400
kg montmorillonite kg rock kg rock
kg-mol montorillonite
R montmorillonite = 7.22 × 10 −7
kg rock-s
kg montorillonite
R montmorillonite = 5.20 × 10 −4
kg rock-s
kg montorillonite
R montmorillonite = 7.22 × 10 −7 (40) = 2.89 × 10 −5
kg rock-s
I
II
5
2.4
2.2
0.8 Productivity
1.4
III
2.6
2.6
Kaolinite improvement
and factor contours
calcite
HF concentration (%)
4
Fractional distance
1.8
0.6
Si(OH)4
AIF3 3
IV
Optimum
0.4 Si(OH)4
2
2.6
V 1.6
0.2
1.
1 2.2
2.
Dissolved zone
4
1.4
2.0
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20 25
Pore volumes injected HCl concentration (%)
Figure 16-2. Time-distance diagram showing regions of Figure 16-3. Productivity improvement plot (Faber et al.,
possible precipitation (Schechter, 1992). 1994).
Recently, Sevougian et al. (1992) and Quinn (1994) damage than a local equilibrium model because the
presented a geochemical model that includes kinetics finite rate of the reactions allows displacing the pre-
for both dissolution and precipitation reactions (see cipitate farther from the wellbore.
Sidebar 16C). This model predicts less permeability
An example presented by Quinn (1994) illustrates how acid formulation can be evaluated with a comprehensive geochemical model.
A high-quartz-content sandstone will be acidized with 100 gal/ft of 12% HCl–3% HF solution (commonly referred to as full-strength mud
acid). The mineralogy is illustrated in Fig. 16C-1. The region to be studied includes a damaged zone extending 6 in. beyond the wellbore.
Figure 16C-1.
High quartz (>80 vol%) Low clay (<5 vol%), low feldspar (<10 vol%) A representative
sandstone used in
acidizing simulation.
Microcline 6%
Quartz 85%
Albite 3%
Calcite 2%
Kaolinite 4%
The geochemical model predicts the distribution of acid and minerals after injection of the acid, as shown in Fig. 16C-2. All the HF
is consumed near the wellbore; some precipitation occurs, but the amorphous silica precipitation occurs beyond the damage zone,
where its effect is small. From these results, the porosity distribution around the wellbore is determined. Then, a model of the perme-
ability response generates a prediction of the productivity improvement expected for this treatment.
0.9
0.8 tion with 100 gal/ft of 12% HCl–3% HF
0.7 injected at 0.1 bbl/min/ft at 125°F [50°C].
0.6 Kaolinite
0.5 Kaolinite (D)
Sodium feldspar
0.4
Potassium feldspar
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25
3.0
Precipitates
Concentration (g-mol/L bulk volume)
2.5
2.0
Colloidal silica
1.5 AIF3 (s)
Na2SiF6
1.0 K2SiF6
0.5
0
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25
4.5
Acid concentration
Concentration (g-mol/L bulk volume)
4.0
3.5
H+
3.0 HF
2.5
2.0
1.5 Original
damaged
1.0 zone
0.5
0
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25
Radial distance (ft)
1.8
1.5
HF concentration (%)
VF 1.0
ΛF = (16-19) Ψ
VFo 0.9
(F)
ΛF
Da = 15
0.8 Da(S) = 0.43
V θ = 100
Λ S = So (16-20) 0.7 A c(F) = 0.006
VS A c(S) = 0
0.6
Ψ or ΛF
ut 0.3
θ= , (16-22)
φo L 0.2
0.1
where ψ is the dimensionless HF concentration, 0
Λ is the dimensionless mineral composition, ε is 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
dimensionless distance, θ is dimensionless time ε
(pore volumes), and φ is the porosity. The super- Figure 16-4. Acid and fast-reacting mineral concentration
script o denotes initial values prior to acid treat- profiles (da Motta et al., 1992a).
ment. For a coreflood, L is the core length. In
Eqs. 16-15 through 16-17, two dimensionless Equations 16-15 through 16-17 can be solved only
groups appear for each mineral: the Damköhler numerically in their general form. Numerical models
number Da and the acid capacity number Ac. These providing solutions to these equations, such as that
two groups describe the kinetics and the stoichio- presented by Taha et al. (1989), are frequently used
metry of the HF-mineral reactions. The Damköhler for acidizing design. However, analytical solutions
number is the ratio of the rate of acid consumption are possible for certain simplified situations.
to the rate of acid convection, which for the fast- Schechter (1992) presented an approximate solution
reacting mineral is that is valid for relatively a high Da (Da (F) > 10).
Da (F)
=
(1 − φ )V
o F
.
o
E (f F ) SF* L
(16-23)
This solution approximates the HF/fast-reacting-
mineral front as a sharp front, behind which all the
u
fast-reacting minerals have been removed. Conversely,
The acid capacity number is the ratio of the ahead of the front, no dissolution has occurred. The
amount of mineral dissolved by the acid occupying reaction between slow-reacting minerals and HF
θ=
(
exp Da ε f − 1(S)
) +εf, (16-25)
6 Reaction
(F) (S) front
A Dac 5
Fast-reacting minerals removed
x (cm)
which relates dimensionless time (or equivalently 4
A particularly convenient feature of this approxi- Figure 16-5. Ellipsoidal flow around a perforation
mation is that it is applicable to linear, radial and (Schechter, 1992).
ellipsoidal flow fields with the appropriate definition
of dimensionless variables and groups. Radial flow
These two positions should be sufficient for design
represents the flow of acid from an openhole, gravel-
purposes; the reader is referred to Schechter (1992)
pack or slotted liner completion and may also be a
for methods to calculate the complete acid penetra-
reasonable approximation of the flow from a perfo-
tion profile in this geometry (see Sidebar 16D).
rated well with sufficient perforation density. The
The characteristic lengths referred to in Table 16-6
ellipsoidal flow geometry approximates the flow
are the length of a core L, wellbore radius rw and
around a perforation (Fig. 16-5). The proper dimen-
length of the perforation lp. Different measures of
sionless variables and groups for these three flow
acid flow are used in which u is the linear flux in a
fields are given in Table 16-6. For the perforation
core, qi /h is the volumetric rate of acid injection per
geometry, the position of the front ε f depends on
foot into an openhole, and qperf is the volume of acid
position along the perforation. In Table 16-6, expres-
per time entering a perforation. The definition of Da
sions are given for the front position of the acid
must correspond to the geometry considered, but Ψ,
extending directly from the tip of the perforation
ΛF and Ac(F) as defined by Eqs. 16-18, 16-19 and
and for acid penetration along the wellbore wall.
16-24, respectively, apply to all geometries.
Flow geometry ε θ Da (S )
Linear x ut (1− φ )V
o S
o
E f(S )SS* L
L φoL u
Radial r2
−1
q it (1− φ )V
o S
o
E f(S )SS* πrw2h
rw2 πrw2hφo qi
Ellipsoidal
Penetration from the tip of the perforation
1 3 2 z q perf t 2π(1− φo )l p3SS*VSoE f(S )
z −z + ; z =
3 3 lp 2πl φo
3
p
q perf
Solution 4
Equation 16-25 can be used with the appropriate definitions
of the dimensionless variables and groups for the two geome-
3
tries from Table 16-6. The acid capacity number Ac is the
Perforation
same for either geometry; the ratio of the Damköhler numbers
Skin effect
is 2
3
(2) 12
6
4
Da perf 213perf (SPF ) 1
= = = 93, (16D-1)
(0.328)
2 2 Radial
Darad rw
0
where SPF is the perforation density in spf. Da for the slow-
mineral reaction is calculated as 0.12 for perforation flow. Ac
for the fast-mineral reaction is 0.021. (The values of Da and –1
Ac used in this example were obtained from laboratory core- 0 100 200 300 400 500
flood tests as described by Economides et al., 1994).
Using these values in Eq. 16-25 for acid penetration rang- Acid volume (gal/ft)
ing from 0 to 6 in. obtains the results shown in Figs. 16D-1
and 16D-2. For acid penetrations beyond 2 in., more acid is Figure 16D-2. Reduction in skin effect value for radial
required for the perforation geometry than for radial flow. The and perforation flow.
skin effect evolution reflects the larger volumes of acid
required to penetrate through the damaged region for the
perforation geometry compared with the radial geometry.
It is interesting to note that the slow-reacting min- is assumed, implying that Da(F) is infinite. This solu-
eral Da and the fast-reacting mineral Ac are the only tion can be used to estimate the volume of acid
dimensionless groups that appear in this solution. required to remove the fast-reacting minerals from
Da(S) regulates how much live HF reaches the front; a given region around a wellbore or perforation.
if the slow mineral reacts fast relative to the convec- The dimensionless groups Da(S) and Ac(F) can be
tion rate, little acid is available to propagate the fast- calculated with Eqs. 16-23 and 16-24, respectively,
mineral front. Ac for the slow-reacting mineral is not and Table 16-6 on the basis of the rock mineralogy
important because the supply of slow-reacting min- or can be obtained from experiments.
eral is almost constant behind the front. Ac(F) directly
• Two-acid, three-mineral model
affects the frontal propagation rate—the more fast-
reacting mineral present, the slower the front will Recently, Bryant (1991) and da Motta et al. (1992b)
move. Da(F) does not appear because a sharp front presented evidence that the sandstone acidizing
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
C/Co
C/Co
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0 Mineral 1
Mineral 1 Mineral 2
–0.2 Mineral 2 –0.2 Mineral 3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (in.) Distance (in.)
1.2 Injection volume = 100 gal/ft 1.2 Injection volume = 100 gal/ft
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
C/Co
C/Co
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0 Mineral 1
Mineral 1 Mineral 2
–0.2 Mineral 2 –0.2 Mineral 3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (in.) Distance (in.)
1.2 Injection volume = 225 gal/ft 1.2 Injection volume = 225 gal/ft
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
C/Co
C/Co
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0 Mineral 1
Mineral 1 Mineral 2
–0.2 Mineral 2 –0.2 Mineral 3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (in.) Distance (in.)
Permeability (md)
Permeability (md)
600
600
400
400
200
200
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance (in.) Injection volume (gal/ft)
6
Two-acid, three-mineral model Model 1
Model 2
1000 5
25 gal/ft
100 gal/ft
800 225 gal/ft 4
Skin effect
Permeability (md)
3
600
2
400
1
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
Injection volume (gal/ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (in.)
Figure 16-8. Top: Average permeability versus injection
Figure 16-7. Permeability at various injection volumes. volume obtained from running the simulator with models 1
(one-acid, two-mineral model) and 2 (two-acid, three-mineral
model). Bottom: Skin effect calculated using models 1 and 2
as a function of injection volume (time).
16-4.2. Wormholes
It is not known who first described the acid-etched Daccord and Lenormand (1987) considered the
pathway as a “wormhole,” but this appellation is com- characterization of a wormhole in terms of its fractal
monly accepted by those familiar with the complex dimension. A fractal is a self-similar geometric pattern.
etch pattern produced by acidizing carbonate cores in This implies that under increasing magnification the
the laboratory. Perhaps it was A. R. Hendrickson of same pattern will continue to reappear. Thus, accord-
Dowell. Figure 16-9 shows that the terminology is apt. ing to this notion the structure of a large wormhole is
This is a photograph of a metal casting of a wormhole repeated with branches from the main trunk that are
created by forcing molten metal into a wormhole, smaller replicas of the larger one. This replication is
allowing the metal to solidify and then dissolving the repeated as the magnification is increased until the
remaining rock with HCl. The casting illustrates the pores of the native rock come into view. These do not
complex morphology of the etch pattern. This is typi- resemble acid etch patterns because they were created
cal of many castings, which have been produced under by different processes. The discovery by Daccord and
a variety of experimental conditions. The chaotic Lenormand that wormholes are fractals is a significant
nature of the pattern seemingly discourages any contribution.
attempt to characterize its structure. However, it has One manifestation of the repeating, or self-similar,
been suggested that there is an underlying regularity character is that the perimeter or the length of a worm-
that may be useful for modeling. hole increases as the degree of magnification used in
Wormhole
Fluid loss, qL
Injection rate at core face, qc
Length to tip, Le
†
Given a permeability in md, multiply by 9.869 × 10–12 to obtain
the dimensions in cm2.
Figure 16-11. Metal casts of wormholes that developed in calcite cores at various rates of injection are arrayed from left to
right to correspond to increasing flow rate (Hoefner and Fogler, 1988).
= 2.97 × 10 −3 m/s. (16E-2) stantial decrease in the reaction rate, there must be
4.4 an associated decrease in the acid injection rate to
In an appropriate set of units, k = (5 md)9.869 × 10–12 remain at optimum. Figure 16-14 shows the acid
cm2/md = 4.9345 × 10–11 cm2. Therefore, the optimum flux pore volumes to breakthrough as a function of the
from Eq. 16-39 is u = 2.38 × 10–3 m/s = 0.0078 ft/s. This
corresponds to an initial acid injection rate of 3.9 bbl/min injection rate for dolomite cores. The optimum rate
(0.13 bbl/min/ft). If this injection rate exceeds the formation at room temperature is not readily discernible, but
parting pressure, injection would be at the highest possible
matrix rate during the entire treatment. it is evident that slow rates are preferred to higher
The optimum rate decreases with formation temperature. ones. Hoefner and Fogler (1988) also studied the
Consider the same treatment when the temperature is 85°F
[30°C] rather than 125°F. Then, Ef = 1.1 × 10–3. This leads
acidization of dolomite cores and found results simi-
to an optimum flux u = 5.09 × 10–4 m/s corresponding to an lar to those shown by Fig. 16-14. The results for
injection rate of 0.8 bbl/min. This rate is usually sustainable dolomite represent a striking confirmation of predic-
without fracturing the matrix.
Thus, most calcite formations are treated using rates near tions based on Eq. 16-39.
the maximum that the matrix will accept, except perhaps in The field implication is that acidizing in shallow
cool, shallow formations. Once the treatment has been initi-
ated, it may be beneficial to increase the rate to propagate dolomite formations should be conducted at low
the wormholes created by the initial acid contact. rates. High rates result in a multiple wormhole pat-
tern that does not penetrate far into the formation and
appears as uniform acid invasion dissolving the face
• Formation composition of the wellbore, which is inefficient for removal of
The reaction rate of HCl with dolomite is much skin effect damage compared with producing a few
slower than that with calcite (see Table 16-4). This dominant wormholes that penetrate into the forma-
being the case, Eq. 16-39 indicates that unless the tion. In deeper dolomite formations, the rate may be
acid flux is greatly reduced, many of the native pores increased to some extent because the reaction tem-
are likely to exceed AT in size and be candidates for perature increases with depth. The increased opti-
wormhole initiation. Thus, closely spaced multiple mum rate with increasing temperature shown in
wormholes are likely to form, producing a highly Fig. 16-14 confirms predictions based on Eq. 16-39.
Dolomite
1-in. diameter × 5-in. long at the same time reduce the acid flux reaching the tip,
60 3.4% HCl (1N) thereby decreasing the rate of propagation. Taking into
account both fluid loss and diffusion, Hung (1987)
50
found that for a constant injection rate, the rate of
extension of a wormhole begins to decrease as the
40 wormhole length increases. The length appears to ulti-
mately reach a plateau, as shown by Fig. 16-15 (Hung,
30 1987) but never actually ceases to grow. Hung attrib-
uted the diminishing growth rate entirely to fluid loss.
20 Thus, it is anticipated that wormhole penetration will
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
essentially cease after a certain length has been
Injection rate (mL/hr)
attained as long as the injection rate is fixed. In long-
Figure 16-14. Effect of temperature on the variation of vol- core experiments, an ultimate length was observed by
umes to breakthrough with the injection rate for dolomite. Bazin et al. (1995).
Hung calculated that the wormhole evolves in shape
depending on the local rate of acid reaction and fluid
loss and the rate of fluid injection. Once the wormhole
16-4.5. Propagation of wormholes length stabilizes, the acid that is injected serves primar-
Once wormholes are initiated in the rock surrounding ily to increase the diameter. Because Hung’s model
the face of the wellbore or perforation, it is desirable to does not account for the meandering nature of worm-
extend them into the formation as far as possible with holes caused by small-scale heterogeneities in the rock
a given volume of acid. The skin effect should be or the creation of side branches, it tends to overpredict
reduced within the regions penetrated by wormholes. wormhole length.
To promote understanding of the factors governing the Daccord et al. (1989) recognized the importance of
rate of extension of a wormhole, Hung et al. (1989) propagating the wormhole to the fullest extent possible
modeled wormhole growth by considering it to be a and proposed a model based on laboratory experiments
cylinder with fluid loss as depicted by Fig. 16-10.
Hung et al. took into account a number of factors,
including the contributions of both acid diffusion and 125
Injection rate
convection resulting from fluid loss to the walls of the 0.005 cc/s
0.003 cc/s
wormhole where the acid reacts. These are important 0.001 cc/s
100
factors because the acid reactions in a wormhole are,
in general, limited by mass transfer as contrasted to
those in natural pores, which are controlled by the 75
Length (cm)
reaction rate.
The rate of wormhole extension is determined by
50
the amount of the acid arriving at the tip:
dL uCβ uC
= e e 100 = e e Ac , (16-40)
dt (1 − φ)ρrock φC0
25
De Dpe kr Keq
(cm2/s) (cm2/s) ∆E [kcal/mol])
(∆
0.25M CDTA (pH = 4.4) 4.5 × 10–6† 3 × 10–6‡ 2.3 × 10–4§ 1 × 1010††
0.25M DTPA (pH = 3.3) 4 × 10–6† 3 × 10–6‡ 7.8 × 10–5§ 1 × 1010††
0.25M DTPA (pH = 4.3) 4 × 10–6† 3 × 10–6‡ 4.8 × 10–5§ 1 × 1010††
0.25M DTPA (pH = 12.5) 4 × 10–6† 3 × 10–6‡ 2.6 × 10–5§ 1 × 1010††
0.25M EDTA (pH = 4) 6 × 10 –6‡‡
4 × 10 –6§§
1.4 × 10 –4§
1 × 1010††
(12)§
0.25M EDTA (pH = 8 to 13) 6 × 10–6§ 4 × 10–6§§ 5.3 × 10–5§ 1 × 1010††
0.5M acetic acid (pH = 2.5) 1.1 × 10–5††† 8 × 10–6‡‡‡ 5 × 10–3§§§ 1.6 × 10–1§§§
0.5M acetic acid (pH = 4.6) 1.1 × 10 –5†††
8 × 10 –6‡‡‡
2.1 × 10 –4§§§
2.7 × 10–1§§§
0.5M HCl 3.6 × 10–5†††† 2 × 10–5‡‡‡ 2 × 10–1†††† 1 × 1010††
(15)††††
Note: De = effective diffusion coefficient, Dpe = effective diffusion coefficient for reaction products, kr = effective surface reaction rate constant,
∆E = activation energy, Keq = effective equilibrium constant
†
Estimated from the Stokes-Einstein equation
‡
Assumed on the basis of De and value for Ca-EDTA
§
Fredd and Fogler (1998c)
††
Assumed on the basis of the irreversibility of surface reactions
‡‡
Assumed equal to the diffusion coefficient of EDTA at pH = 13
§§
Assumed on the basis of the value for Ru-EDTA (Jiang and Anson, 1992)
†††
Vitagliano and Lyons (1956)
‡‡‡
Estimated from ionic diffusion coefficients (Cussler, 1984)
§§§
Fredd and Fogler (1998d)
††††
Lund et al. (1975)
involved in the dissolution. The method of approxi- the rate of transport of reactants to the surface and
mating the surface reaction rate reported by the kinetics of the surface reactions at ambient tem-
Schechter (1992) (see Eq. 16-10) provides an perature (Fredd and Fogler, 1998c). Although the
order-of-magnitude estimate of the reaction rate reactions are essentially irreversible because of the
constant but does not account for the significant formation of a stable calcium complex, the reac-
contribution of the reverse reaction. tions are influenced by the transport of products
The rate of dolomite dissolution by weak acids is away from the surface. This influence is due to the
currently not available in the literature. Because the blocking of surface sites involved in the dissolu-
dissolution occurs through hydrogen ion attack, the tion. The dissolution mechanism is different from
rate of the surface reaction can be estimated from conventional acids in that hydrogen ions are not
Appendix Eq. 2 by scaling the surface reaction rate required. However, the rate of dissolution is
constant by the ratio of the surface reaction rate enhanced at low pH as a result of the combined
constants of dolomite to calcite for HCl. This scal- influence of hydrogen ion attack and chelation.
ing should provide a reasonable order-of-magnitude The rate of calcite dissolution varies consider-
estimate from which the relative influences of ably with pH and the type of chelating agent
transport and reaction can be determined. because of changes in the ionic form of the chelat-
ing agent and the influence of hydrogen ion attack.
• Chelating agents
In general, the rate of calcite dissolution increases
In the presence of calcium chelating agents such as as the number of hydrogen ions associated with the
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), the rate of chelating agent increases. As the pH is increased
calcite dissolution is influenced predominantly by from about 4.5 to 8.5 to 13, EDTA successively
Appendix Figure 2. Neutron radiographs of dissolution structures formed during the dissolution of limestone by 0.5M HCl at
72°F (Fredd and Fogler, 1998a). PVinj = number of pore volumes injected, PVBT = number of pore volumes to breakthrough.
+
+
ious dissolution structures is observed for the same 10–3 10–2 10–1 100 101 102
depth of penetration (C. N. Fredd, unpubl. data, 1998), Injection rate (cm3/min)
the injection rate at which the volume of fluid is mini-
mized represents the most effective condition for Appendix Figure 3. Optimum injection rates for the dissolu-
tion of limestone by various stimulation fluids at 72°F (Fredd
matrix stimulation. and Fogler, 1998b).
Damt = aD l q ,
2/3
(6) = , (8)
e Co 1 + νKeq
where De is the effective diffusion coefficient, q is the
flow rate, l is the pore length, and a is a constant that where Da is defined as
depends on the carbonate core. On the other hand, πdlκ
when the net rate of dissolution is reaction rate limited, Da = , (9)
q
Darxn = akr dl q , (7)
where d and l are the diameter and length of the capil-
lary tube, respectively. Because of the dependence on
+
basis of the final wormhole dimensions. The diameter 0.25M EDTA, pH = 13 0.5M acetic acid
Water-plaster (Daccord et al., 1989) 0.5M HCl
was measured from neutron radiographs. Typical 0.25M EDTA, pH = 4
diameters were of the order of 0.02 in. The length was
assigned a representative length of the wormhole
100
(one-half the core length). The effective surface reac-
Pore volumes to breakthrough
Da has been shown to describe the phenomenon of Appendix Figure 4. The optimum Da for the dissolution
wormhole formation for a wide range of fluid-mineral of limestone by various stimulation fluids (Fredd and Fogler,
systems (Fredd and Fogler, 1998b). A common depen- 1998b).
+
As Da is decreased, the dissolution structures change 0.25M EDTA, pH = 4, 80°C + 0.25M DTPA, pH = 3.3
from conical-shaped channels to dominant wormholes 0.25M EDTA, pH = 8.8 + 0.25M DTPA, pH = 4.3
0.25M EDTA, pH = 13 0.25M DTPA, pH = 12.5
to highly ramified wormholes. These similarities
demonstrate that Da dictates the structure of the disso-
lution channels formed by systems with a wide range 100
Pore volumes to breakthrough
+
++
++
++
+
+
1 +
+
Skin effect
competition, the rate of fluid loss is consistent with 4
Ramified wormholes
50
Typical fluid loss Fogler, 1998a; Takulpakdee, 1998).
40 Appendix Fig. 11 reveals an alternative injection
strategy, as indicated by the dashed arrow. This strat-
30 egy involves maintaining a constant injection rate and
gradually changing the reactant type (thereby chang-
Low fluid loss
20 ing the overall rate of dissolution). For example, a
more effective stimulation could be achieved by
10 injecting an HCl–acetic acid blend that is gradually
changed from HCl to acetic acid as the depth of pene-
0 tration increases.
Depth of penetration The optimum injection rate is a strong function of
temperature, as shown in Appendix Fig. 12. To obtain
Appendix Figure 10. Effect of fluid loss on optimum injec- a particular depth of penetration, the optimum injection
tion strategies for effective wormhole formation with HCl at
200°F. rate must be increased as the temperature increases.
6
wormhole branching. Therefore, effective wormhole
formation provides the combined benefits of reducing
Acetic acid
fluid loss from the dominant channels and reducing
4 the volume of fluid required to achieve a given depth
of penetration. Thus, maintaining the optimum Da can
Emulsified HCl
result in significant improvements in the effectiveness
2
of matrix stimulation treatments.
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 Conclusions
Temperature (°F)
Wormhole formation in carbonate porous media
Appendix Figure 12. Effect of temperature on the optimum involves complex interplay between a variety of trans-
injection rate required to achieve a given depth of penetra- port and reaction processes. Stimulation fluids, such as
tion with various acid systems. The shaded area represents strong acids, weak acids and chelating agents, are influ-
typical injection rates used in matrix acidizing treatments.
enced by the effects of convection, reactants transport,
reversible surface reactions and products transport.
Thus, to adequately describe the dissolution phenome-
This trend is consistent with experimental results with non, a generalized description of carbonate dissolution
HCl where increasing the temperature resulted in an is required. When the combined effects of transport and
increase in the optimum injection rate (Wang et al., reaction are accounted for, a common dependence on
1993; Fredd, 1998). A much more significant depen- Da for flow and reaction is observed. The value of Da
dence of the optimum injection rate on temperature dictates the type of wormhole structures that is formed
was predicted by Huang et al. (1997) because of the by systems with various degrees of transport and reac-
emphasis they placed on the kinetics of the surface tion limitations. In addition, there exists an optimum
reaction. Appendix Fig. 12 demonstrates that optimal Da at which dominant wormhole channels are formed
stimulation with HCl is limited to low temperatures if and the number of pore volumes to breakthrough is
excessive injection rates and, consequently, fracturing minimized. This optimum Da occurs at approximately
the formation are to be avoided. The figure also reveals 0.29 for a wide range of fluid-mineral systems. The
that weak acids and emulsified HCl are more effective existence of an optimum Da was substantiated by net-
than aqueous HCl for stimulating high-temperature work model simulations.
limestone formations. The use of laboratory data to predict the optimum
This section has provided a means of predicting injection conditions in the field, such as fluid type and
optimum injection strategies based on laboratory data. injection strategy, is complicated by the effects of fluid
With the effective strategies demonstrated, it must be loss and wormhole competition. From estimates of the
emphasized that the effectiveness of a matrix stimula- effects of these processes on wormhole formation, the
tion treatment depends significantly on the depth of theory for the optimum Da has been extended to pre-
penetration, as shown in Appendix Fig. 8. The depth dict optimum field conditions. Direct extension of the
of penetration is typically limited by fluid loss from optimum Da to the field is valid for three cases: low
the wormholes (Nierode and Williams, 1971; Hung fluid-loss velocity, reaction-rate-limited dissolution and
et al., 1989). Therefore, limiting fluid loss is critical to mass-transfer-limited dissolution. Because these condi-
obtaining effective penetration depths, whereas main- tions often exist in the field, injection strategies required
taining an optimum Da is critical to maintaining effec- to maintain the optimum Da can be used to determined
tive wormhole growth. (Fluid loss from wormholes is optimum injection conditions in the field. Results pre-
inhibited when foamed acids are used for matrix dict that to maintain efficient wormhole formation,
acidization; Bernadiner et al., 1992.) These influences either the injection rate should be increased or the over-
are not independent because fluid loss from the main all dissolution rate decreased (by changing the fluid
Limestone cores acidized with acetic acid exhib- tivity of systems such as EDTA and acetic acid
it wormholes with more branching than acidizing allows fresh acid to penetrate into more pores and
with HCl at the same injection rate, and lower live causes the more homogeneous dissolution pattern.
acid penetration is obtained (Hendrickson, 1972; It also lowers the transition rate between compact
Fredd and Fogler, 1996). Rotating disk measure- dissolution and the wormholing regime (Fredd and
ments indicate that the dissolution of limestone by Fogler, 1996).
acetic acid is mass-transport limited (G. Daccord,
• Radial geometry
pers. comm., 1988; Fredd et al., 1997), and the
effective diffusivity of acetic acid is lower than Very few results have been published for acidizing
that of HCl (Table 17-3). The lower overall reac- tests using radial geometries. Daccord et al. (1989)
Table 17-3. Effective diffusivity coefficients (m2/s) for 0.5N acetic acid at different temperatures.
1.14 × 10–9† 2.7 × 10–9‡ 4.0 × 10–9 Dunn and Stokes (1965)
0.21 × 10–9 0.51 × 10–9 0.74 × 10–9 Nierode and Williams (1970)§
0.08 × 10–9 0.40 × 10–9 0.57 × 10–9 G. Daccord (pers. comm., 1988)
Note: For comparison, the diffusivity for 0.5N HCl at 73°F is 2.4 × 10–9 m2/s.
† Value at 75°F [25°C]
Cumulatve productivity
where the purpose of the treatment is to clean up 25
index (STB/D/psi)
Before
fissures, applying high rates increases the live acid 20 After
penetration. 15
10
• Acid volumes 5
The results listed in Table 17-2 indicate that at 0
optimum conditions (i.e., the near-critical rate), 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
breakthrough is obtained when less than 1% of the Depth (ft)
Table 17-4. Critical flow rates (bbl/min/10 ft) for transport-limited regimes.
Notes: Diffusivities were computed at 150°F [65°C]. For the perforated case, a density of 4 shots per foot (spf) was assumed, with
an 8-in. perforation length and 0.4-in. perforation diameter. Porosity = 15%. These are the critical rates at the wellbore. Higher rates
are required to sustain wormhole growth in the matrix.
Skin Effect Stimulation Radius (ft) The dissociation constant kd depends on the type
–1 1.1
of acid and varies with temperature. At 75°F, acetic
acid has a dissociation constant of 1.76 × 10–5 mol/L
–2 3
and formic acid has a dissociation constant of 1.77 ×
–3 8
10–4 mol/L. The value of kd increases slightly with
Note: Calculated using Eq. 17-6 for a 0.4-ft wellbore radius temperature up to 175°F [80°C] and then decreases
as the temperature increases further. This implies
that at usual reservoir conditions, organic acids are
pletion or well deviation must be added to the less reactive than at surface conditions.
stimulation skin effect to obtain the total formation Acetic and formic acids react with CaCO3 to form
skin effect. calcium acetate and formate, respectively:
Using a simulator provides a more accurate cal-
culation of skin effect evolution than Eq. 17-6 CaCO3 + 2CH3COOH
because factors such as the decrease of velocity Ca2+ + 2CH3COO– + H2O + CO2
as the acid front progresses into the formation and CaCO3 + 2HCOOH
heterogeneities in the reservoir can be taken into Ca2+ + 2HCOO– + H2O + CO2
account.
Calcium acetate is highly soluble in spent acid
(374 g/L at 75°F). High concentrations of acid, up to
20% to 25%, can be used without any precipitation
17-4. Other formulations problem, although concentrations above 10% are
generally not used (Table 17-7). Calcium formate
17-4.1. Organic acids and magnesium formate are much less soluble (162
Organic acids are used instead of HCl when high and 140 g/L at 75°F, respectively). Formic acid
bottomhole temperatures prevent efficient protection strength should be limited to 9% to 10% to avoid
against corrosion (above 400°F). The two main types calcium formate reprecipitation.
of organic acids used are acetic acid and formic acid.
Acetic acid is easier to inhibit than formic acid and Table 17-7. Quantities of calcite and dolomite
dissolved per volume of acid,
is used more often. Table 17-6 lists examples of cor- assuming complete spending.
rosion inhibition with organic acid and HCl.
Organic acids are weak acids, which do not totally Acid Calcite Dolomite
dissociate in water. The equilibrium reaction is writ- 10% formic 1000 gal 920 lbm [5.4 ft3] 854 lbm [4.8 ft3]
ten as 10% acetic 1000 gal 720 lbm [4.3 ft3] 663 lbm [3.7 ft3]
40
used to remove paraffin and mixed deposits. It is also
recommended for removing scale and treating wells 30
being converted from producers to injectors.
HCl can also be used in combination with a sur- 20
factant and a chelating agent to remove mud damage
in carbonate formations. The combined action of the 10
additives has been found to successfully disperse and
remove clays and mud damage. In formations pre- 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
senting a risk of deconsolidation, HCl can be Time (min)
replaced by a brine or calcium chelant solution such
as EDTA. This type of formulation is recommended Figure 17-4. Effect of self-diverting acid (SDA) on fluid
placement.
Three similar injector wells were treated with different placement techniques. The average reservoir permeability varied from 4 to
10 md. The formation comprised two zones of different injectivities. Treatment for the first well consisted of pumping 15% HCl through
coiled tubing. The second well was acidized with gelled acid pumped through tubing. For the third well, three stages of a blend of HCl
and suspending agents
were pumped through
coiled tubing. Two stages Zone B
of self-diverting acid were Well 3 — 15% HCl
used to separate the main Zone A Coiled tubing placement with SDA
stages. After
Figure 17D-1 compares Before
the injectivities of the three Zone B
Well 2 — Gelled 15% HCl
wells before and after Bullhead
Zone A
acidizing. Zone A was
treated successfully only
in the third well with the Well 1 — 15% HCl
use of self-diverting acid. Zone B Coiled tubing placement
Zone A
Figure 17D-1. Comparison
of acidizing results of three 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
placement techniques. (BWPD)
100 AIF3
AIF2
AIF displaced from the wellbore (Walsh et al., 1982).
Should precipitation occur, most of the calcium and
50 sodium complexes that precipitate in the field can be
redissolved by using boric acid. This is not true, how-
ever, for potassium and some of the magnesium com-
plexes. The very low solubility of potassium complexes
10–4 10–3 10–2 has been shown both in the laboratory and in the field.
Fluoride ion concentration (g ion ⁄ L) Colloidal silica precipitation cannot be avoided, as
it results partly from the greater affinity of fluorine for
Figure 18-1. Domains of existence of aluminum-fluorine
complexes (Labrid, 1971).
Table 18-3. Solubility in water at room temperature
of HF reaction by-products.
The dissolution reaction of all aluminosilicate
Secondary Product Solubility (g/100 cm3)
minerals in sandstones follows the previous equa-
tions for the basic lattice atoms (Si, Al) concerned. Orthosilicic acid (H4SiO4) 0.015
Other metallic ions, such as Na, K, Mg, Ca and Fe, Calcium fluoride (CaF2) 0.0016
which are in the minerals constituting the rock as Sodium fluosilicate (Na2SiF6) 0.65
substitution cations in the lattice or as exchangeable Sodium fluoaluminate (Na3AlF6) Slightly soluble
(adsorbed) cations, come into solution as free ions Potassium fluosilicate (K2SiF6) 0.12
during the reaction. In the case of iron, fluorinated
Ammonium fluosilicate ((NH4)2SiF6) 18.6
complexes (FeFz(3 – z )+, where 1 < z < 3) also are
Calcium fluosilicate (CaSiF6) Slightly soluble
formed through reactions similar to those for alu-
minum. Thus, different global reactions can be Aluminum fluoride (AlF3) 0.559
written as a function of the considered mineral: Aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3) Insoluble
Ferrous sulfide (FeS) 0.00062
18-4.2. Hydrochloric acid concentration where Kads is the equilibrium constant of the exother-
mic adsorption of HF molecules at surface-reactive
Dissolution reaction rates generally increase in a more sites. This adsorption constant is independent of the
acidic medium because the leaching of constitutive total acidity, whereas K increases with proton concen-
surface cations involves their replacement by protons, tration (acid catalysis). Kads is especially high for a
but the dependence on HCl concentration is not mineral with a high cation exchange capacity (CEC),
straightforward (Gdanski and Peavy, 1986). The prin- such as sodium montmorillonite. For most other clay
cipal role of HCl is to prevent secondary precipitation minerals, the value of this adsorption constant is
by maintaining a low pH value. The other main effect small. Therefore, when 1 >> Kads[HF] the expression
of HCl is to catalyze the attack of sandstone minerals can be simplified to the experimentally determined
by HF. The mechanism and degree of catalysis depend first-order kinetics law. An elemental mechanism dif-
on the type of mineral, as shown in the following. ferent from that mentioned for feldspars can be pro-
For example, the reaction rate measured at 95°F posed to explain the kinetics and to take into account
[35°C] for pure quartz has the following expression solely the HF adsorption:
(Fogler et al., 1976):
( )
rquartz = 9.2 × 10 −9 1 + 0.8[H + ] [HF ] (18-1)
in mol quartz/cm2/s.
6
because protons coming from either HCl or HF can pro-
5°
F
5 17 voke the dissolution.
0°F
4 15
°F
125
3 18-4.5. Pressure
2 An increase in pressure speeds up the overall dissolution
1
Reaction time, 60 min reaction slightly, because dissolved silicon tetrafluoride
can be transformed partially into an acidic species
0 (H2SiF6) and can quickly initiate further reactions. For
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
quartz, a 24% rise in the reaction rate was noticed
HF (%)
between the two extreme conditions (Smith et al., 1965).
Figure 18-2. Reaction rate of HCl-HF on silicate glass In a radial injection situation, the mineral pore-
(Smith and Hendrickson, 1965). space texture that determines flow partition around the
wellbore (most live acid flows through the large
pores) is also a relevant parameter; clay clasts can
be bypassed by the acid flow (Williams, 1975).
18-4.4. Mineralogical composition and
accessible surface area
18-5. Hydrofluoric acid reaction
The relatively high total specific surface area of sand-
stone rocks is the primary parameter determining mud modeling
acid spending because of the heterogeneous nature of The parameters that affect the reaction rate of HF on
the dissolution reaction. However, if the contribution sandstone minerals are incorporated in a model that
• This process supposes the initial adsorption of the This procedure is tantamount to adding dissolution
hydronium (H3O+) ions on the clay surface, fol- reaction products to the mixture before the reactions
lowed by their exchange with NH4+, to generate HF occur (i.e., the injection of spent acid). In theory this
in situ. Exchange and replacement of H3O+ by NH4+ should slow the rates. However, the retardation of clay
depends on many parameters and cannot be ascer- dissolution has not been proved experimentally because
tained. Therefore, even the generation of HF is of the prime importance of the high surface area on
dubious. clay reactivity, which is much more important than a
slight depletion of acid at high temperatures. The risk
of early precipitation of damaging products, such as
18-6.3. Alcoholic mud acid AlF3 or fluoaluminates, is probably increased by the use
of an acid that already contains aluminum ions before
Alcoholic mud acid formulations are a mixture of reaction. Flow tests have shown a smaller effective live
mud acid and isopropanol or methanol (up to 50%). acid penetration than in the case of mud acid. In addi-
The main application is in low-permeability dry gas tion, field experience has shown that the addition of
zones. Dilution with alcohol lowers the acid-mineral aluminum to the system increases the precipitation of
reaction rate and provides a retarding effect. amorphous aluminosilicate scale. This white material
Cleanup is facilitated; acid surface tension is plugs near-wellbore perforations and gravel packs.
decreased by the alcohols while the vapor pressure
of the mixture is increased, which improves gas perme-
ability by reducing water saturation. 18-6.5. Organic mud acid
Because total acidity speeds mineral dissolution with
18-6.4. Mud acid plus aluminum chloride mud acid, organic mud acid involves replacement of
for retardation the 12% HCl component with organic acids (9%
formic acid, a weak acid that only partially dissoci-
An acidizing system to retard HF-mineral reactions has ates), mixed with 3% HF, to retard HF spending. This
been proposed in which aluminum chloride (AlCl3) is system is particularly suited for high-temperature
added to mud acid formulations to complex some of wells (200° to 300°F [90° to 150°C]), for which pipe
the fluoride ions in the injected mixture, according to corrosion rates are diminished accordingly. This sys-
the reactions (Gdanski, 1985) tem also reduces the tendency to form sludge.
AlCl3 + 4HF + H2O AlF4– + 3HCl + H3O+
AlF4– + 3H3O+ AlF2+ + 3HF + 3H2O
‡
Preflush with 15% HCl enters the formation. If the ferric chloride combines
Preflush with 10% HCl
§
Preflush with 10% acetic acid with iron leached out of iron-rich chlorite clay or
Mineralogy Permeability
>100 md 20 to 100 md <20 md
<10% silt and <10% clay 15% HCl 10% HCl 7.5% HCl
>10% silt and >10% clay 10% HCl 7.5% HCl 5% HCl
>10% silt and <10% clay 10% HCl 7.5% HCl 5% HCl
<10% silt and >10% clay 10% HCl 7.5% HCl 5% HCl
Mineralogy Permeability
>100 md 20 to 100 md <20 md
14
Maximum weight % of HF 12
in acid formulation Ideal case
10
3% calcite
8
0% calcite
6
4
6% calcite
2
0
0 10 20 30 40
Weight % of HCI in acid formulation
Figure 18-5. HCl-HF treatment fluid selection based on AlF3 or CaF2 precipitation (Walsh et al., 1982).
18-9.5. Main fluid stage lapse. Table 18-7 is derived from this guideline on the
basis of further laboratory testing and extensive field
The HCl-HF mixture used in each treatment should experience.
conform to the guidelines in Table 18-7. Work by
Walsh et al. (1982) demonstrates that low HF concen-
trations should be used to avoid the precipitation of 18-9.6. Overflush stage
AlF3 or CaF2 if the remaining calcite cannot be quanti-
fied. Their work also suggests that 12% HCl–3% HF The purpose of the overflush is twofold. First, it should
can be used even in low-calcite environments without displace the main fluid stage more than 3 to 4 ft away
a precipitation problem. Some significant problems from the wellbore, which is the critical matrix area for
that may occur in high-clay-content formations radial flow. Second, the portion of the main stage that
include compromised formation integrity and exces- is not displaced should be diluted. Both of these factors
sive fines generation. These conditions can be the help to eliminate damage in the near-wellbore area
result of too high HF concentrations. The volumes caused by the precipitation potential of the spent main
should be determined using a field-validated simulator fluid stage. Overflush fluids must be chosen carefully to
to sensitize the severity of the damage. Gidley (1985) avoid creating damage during the treatment flowback.
reported that the percentage of acidizing successes Overflush systems should meet the following crite-
increases as the volume of mud acid increases for gas ria. The portion of the overflush immediately follow-
wells, whereas a maximum of 100 to 125 gal/ft of per- ing the main fluid stage should be aqueous based,
forations is required to maximize success for oil wells. have a low pH value and have dilution potential for
This study did not take into account the preflush used the spent mud acid. Smith et al. (1965) recommended
or the quantity of overflush. If diversion is maximized an HCl overflush to maintain a low-pH environment
and the damage is known or perceived to be shallow, and match the fluid density of the previous stages. The
then smaller quantities per foot can be used. The acid remainder of the overflush should be miscible and
strength is important, because precipitation potential compatible with the previous stages. The total mini-
and formation matrix collapse are problems that can mum overflush volume must completely displace the
be irreversible. Table 18-5 provides the original guide- main fluid stage at least 4 ft away from the wellbore.
lines for HCl-HF mixtures to obtain the appropriate Any anisotropy of the formation permeability can
HCl:HF ratio to avoid precipitation and formation col- warrant doubling or tripling the overflush volume
1. Preflush Brine
Hydrocarbons
HCl
5. Repeat stages 1–4 as necessary with 1–3 as the last fluid sequence
2 Formation water To prevent scale HCO3 and SO4 Ammonium chloride To achieve 3-ft radial
displacement deposition contents from (NH4Cl) at 3%–8% displacement
formation water depending on the
analysis salinity of the for-
mation water
3 Acetic acid Iron compounds in X-ray-diffraction 3%–10% acetic acid CaCO3 (%) Volume (gal/ft)
formation (pyrite, siderite, (XRD) analysis 0–5 25
hematite), chlorite, clay, 5–10 50
zeolites 10–15 75
15–20 100
4 Hydrochloric acid CaCO3 or other HCl- HCl solubility According to core Calculated on the basis of
soluble minerals test and/or XRD mineralogy: 3%–15% HCl solubility and porosity
analysis HCl (see Table 18-5) or this
schedule:
HCl Solubility Stage
of HF (%) Volume
(gal/ft)
<5 50
5–10 100
10–20 200
5 Hydrofluoric acid To remove clay, other XRD analysis, According to formation 75–100 gal/ft
(not used for carbon- formation fines and SEM analysis, mineralogy:
ates and sandstones mud damage HCl:HF 3%–13.5% HCl
where HCl solubility solubilities with 0.5%–3% HF
> 20%)
6 Overflush To spend acid and flush Always used 3%–8% NH4Cl or One to two volumes of
spent acid away from 3%–5% HCl in all the HCl:HF volume or to
the near-wellbore area wells followed by achieve 5-ft radial
nitrogen (gas wells), displacement
kerosene (oil wells)
or 5% HCl (water
injection wells)
[( )
4.917 × 10 −6 kh g f × H − ∆psafe − p ] , (18-5) [
Vp = 7.48 φ(rs2 − rw2 )π , ] (18-7)
qi,max =
r where Vp is the pore volume for the distance s in
µB ln e + s
rw gal/ft, φ is the fractional porosity, and rs is the dis-
tance it is necessary to penetrate the damaged or
where qi,max is the injection rate in bbl/min, k is the displaced section in ft.
effective permeability of the undamaged formation Mud acid treatments do not dissolve much of the
in md, h is the net thickness in ft, gf is the fracture formation minerals but rather dissolve the materials
gradient in psi/ft, H is the depth in ft, ∆psafe is the clogging the pore throats. This means that significant
safety margin for the pressure in psi (usually 200 changes in the flow distribution of the injected fluids
to 500 psi), p is the reservoir pressure in psi, µ is the occur during the treatment as the pore-plugging
viscosity of the injected fluid in cp, re is the drainage materials are dissolved (see Chapter 19 on diver-
Mechanical Liquid
No Acidizing Yes samples
problems
required
Yes Laboratory
analysis
Design process
Fluid design using
expert system or How do the fluids
simulators affect cleanup?
Is the
chemistry No Equipment
good? constraints:
Treatment requirements
Yes 1. Fluid 1. Stage Location requirements Calculate
2. Fluid 2. Stage Fluid system cleanup
flow rate
3. Fluid 3. Stage
Prepare
equipment and
Pump
materials and
the
instruct personnel
Record job
Monitor the
job
Yes Finish
Cleanup
Treatment job
process
parameters execution
Alter job
execution No
Pressure, p
A
pw
19-3.6. Modeling diverter effects Figure 19-2. Radial pressure profile in the reservoir with
and without a diverter cake.
Presented in this section is a methodology using cake
resistance data obtained in the laboratory to predict
the efficiency of the treatment in terms of flow distri- 6
With diverting agent
bution between the different layers. The concept of Without diverting agent
diverter cake pseudoskin effect is introduced.
The injection and reservoir pressures are identical in Figure 19-3. Hydrofluoric acid concentration CHF contours
both cases, but the injection rates are different. The around a perforation (Lea et al., 1993).
cake acts as a temporary skin effect. Consequently,
a pseudoskin effect factor can be defined by the stan- drilling mud damage (4 in. depth). The figure shows
dard (van Everdingen and Hurst, 1949) with an that the diverting agents do not significantly modify
injection rate qi: the flow patterns around the perforation, and therefore
they have little impact on the rate of skin effect reduc-
2πkh
scake = ∆p , (19-7) tion for a single perforation (Fig. 19-4). These results
µqi indicate that particulate diverters do not provide diver-
where k is the permeability and h is the thickness. sion within the perforations. They provide diversion
Use of particulate diverters in a perforated comple- from one perforated zone to another. The model pre-
tion requires special attention because they can mod- sented in this section is thus applicable also to a perfo-
ify the flow pattern in the perforation tunnel itself. Lea rated completion.
et al. (1993) showed that a diverting agent tends to Using the definition of cake resistance (Eq. 19-1)
equalize the flux entering the formation at the perfora- and expressing the fluid superficial velocity u through
tion walls. However, the flow profile in the formation the cake as qi /A in Eq. 19-7, then
is determined mostly by the damage distribution, as 2πkh
acid tends to migrate toward the higher permeability scake = Rcake , (19-8)
A
zone. Figure 19-3 shows the acid concentration con-
tours obtained by numerical simulation of a perfora- where A is the sandface area exposed to flow and
tion affected by both a crushed zone and shallow available for cake deposition.
10
Depth
5 Permeability
(md)
5000
scake,1
0
q1 k1, s1 h1
–5 5050
0 2 4 6 8 10 q2 scake,2 k2, s2 h2
Injection volume (gal)
q3 k3, s3 h3
scake,3
Figure 19-4. Skin effect evolution for different injection 5100
rates and diverting agents (Lea et al., 1993).
dρa Cdiv
′ qi 2πk j h j ∆p
= , (19-9) qj = , (19-10)
dt A r
µ ln e + s j + scake, j
where t is the time and Cdiv′ is the net diverter con- rw
centration in kg/m3 after dissolution effects are con- where s is the skin effect from damage and ∆p is the
sidered. In Eq. 19-9, it is assumed that the injected pressure differential of the wellbore pressure pw,j
fluid is evenly distributed on the sandface. If this minus the outer reservoir pressure pe. The skin effect
were not the case, as along a perforation tunnel, a scake,j is time dependent because of cake buildup, and
finer modeling involving infinitesimal elements of sj varies with time if the effect of damage removal by
the surface dA would be required. acid is considered.
To calculate the evolution of flow and pressure dur- Equations 19-8, 19-9 and 19-10 are coupled
ing diverter injection requires expressing the inflow because the cake resistance and pseudoskin effect
performance relationship (IPR) for a multilayered depend on ρa , which is itself dependent on the injec-
reservoir and linking the diverter pseudoskin effect to tion rate. Eliminating qj between Eqs. 19-9 and 19-10
the flow rate entering each layer. Figure 19-5 depicts and using Eq. 19-8 to replace scake,j , an equation gov-
a cylindrical reservoir made of n horizontal layers, at erning the rate of growth of the cake in layer j is
the center of which is a vertical well. In the following obtained:
(19-11)
50
where ρa,j is the mass of diverter per unit area in
front of layer j. Equation 19-11 is readily solved for
two cases:
qtot = ∑ q j . (19-12)
j
10
The term ∆p derived from Eqs. 19-10 and 19-12 is 0 4 8 12 16
substituted into Eq. 19-11, which is then solved for Time (min)
each layer. A numerical method is required in this
case (Doerler and Prouvost, 1987). Hill and Rossen Figure 19-6. Flow redistribution caused by a diverter slug.
(1994) presented a simplified numerical method that
applies in some cases.
Once Eq. 19-11 is solved for ρa,j (t), the other para- Table 19-2. Reservoir data for
meters of interest, such as q j (t) or ∆p(t) can be the example in Fig. 19-6.
derived. The solution shows that the system tends
toward equalization of the layer injectivities. Figure Wellbore radius 0.35 ft
19-6 illustrates the evolution of the fractional flow rate Reservoir radius 2000 ft
under diverter injection in a three-layer case. At the Carrying fluid viscosity 1 cp
end of the diverter stage, the rate per layer is roughly Diverter concentration 150 lbm/1000 gal
proportional to the layer thickness. Table 19-2 details Temperature 150°F [65°C]
the reservoir geometry corresponding to this case.
Cake resistance function at 150°F Rcake = 5 × 1012 ρa
For a more accurate calculation of the diverter effect,
Total injection rate 2 bbl/min
this model can be included in a finite-difference matrix
acidizing simulator. This enables due accounting of Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
other factors such as the effect of damage removal on Layer permeability 50 md 100 md 500 md
injectivity and transient effects and the use of more Layer thickness 15 m 3m 12 m
realistic and complicated relations for the cake resis-
Initial skin effect 10 5 10
tance versus deposited diverter mass.
800 800
Pressure gradient (psi/ft)
Pressure gradient (psi/ft)
200 200
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Time (min) Time (min)
Figure 19-9. Comparison of simulation (right) with laboratory coreflood (actual data, left) (Robert and Mack, 1995).
Acid Foam Acid Foam Acid Acid Foam Acid Foam Acid
3.5 3.5
Layer 1 = 300 md Layer 1 = 300 md
3.0 3.0
Rate per layer (bbl/min)
Figure 19-10. Effect of acid injection rate on diversion efficiency (Robert and Mack, 1995). Left: high injection rate (no
diversion). Right: low injection rate (diversion).
Flow
Oil
Casing
Tubing
Electrical cable
Openhole
10 Layer 1
Layer 2
Time Oil
Frac baffle
.....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
.....
Figure 19-15. Frac baffle diverting technique (Harrison, ..
.. .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... ..
..
1972). .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
.....
.. .....
.. ..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... ..
..
.....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
.....
..
.. .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... ..
..
.....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
.....
are cumbersome and generally require a rig on site. ..
.. .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... ..
..
They are also expensive and time consuming. .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
.....
New techniques have been developed to convey
packers with coiled tubing. Inflatable straddle pack-
ers can provide zonal isolation during matrix treat-
ment. Before packer setting, the treating fluid can be
circulated down the coiled tubing above the packers.
Setting is obtained by picking up on the coiled tub-
ing and applying pump pressure to inflate the packer
elements. Treating fluid can then be directed to the
interval between the packers by slacking off weight
on the tool string (Fig. 19-16). Picking up over the
string weight and then slacking off closes the injec-
tion port and reopens the circulating port above the Figure 19-16. Treating between the packers (Milne, 1991).
packers. Finally, sustained overpull allows the packer
elements to deflate, and the packer can be moved to
another zone (Milne, 1991).
fluid over the entire open interval is more difficult to
achieve. Furthermore, the limits of corrosion-inhibitor
efficiency, as well as other practical considerations,
19-7. Horizontal wells restrict the treatment duration and therefore require
pumping smaller volumes per length of open interval,
19-7.1. Optimal treatment which makes the issue of placement control even
Producing sections in horizontal wells are typically more critical. Better results are generally reported
between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude longer than in when a diversion technique is used than when acid is
vertical wells. Therefore, even distribution of treating simply bullheaded via the production tubing. In sever-
rs
Vertical section
dV
dx
asV, max asV, min
x
asH, min
asH, max
Figure 19-17. Cone-shaped damage (Frick and Economides, 1991). rs = radius of the damaged section, L = length, as =
axis of the damaged ellipse with the subscripts V and H denoting vertical and horizontal dimensions and min and max
denoting minimum and maximum values, respectively.
0.9
3.0
0.8
2.5
0.7
2
Figure 19-18. Normalized productivity index for different bb
l/m
1.0 in
fractions of the treated interval (da Motta et al., 1994).
1.5
bb
l/m
in
1b
0.5 bl/m
in
with the treating fluid. A diverter stage in the form of 100 gal/ft
2.4
foam or particulate agents is usually pumped at regular
intervals to avoid the formation of thief zones.
1.2
Figure 19-20 shows the rate of skin effect reduction Without coiled tubing
with and without the use of coiled tubing as determined With coiled tubing
0
by simulation, assuming a 2000-ft horizontal section 0 12 24 36 48 60
with an initial skin effect of 6, damage penetration of Injection time (hr)
1.5 ft and damage consisting solely of clays. Clay dis-
solution with 12% HCl–3% HF was simulated, and the Figure 19-20. Skin effect evolution versus time with and
without coiled tubing (Economides et al., 1991).
evolution of skin effect with time calculated from the
permeability profile around the wellbore. The injection
rate was equal to 1.5 bbl/min, corresponding to a total Economides et al. (1991) recommended pumping
volume of 100 gal/ft over 52 hr. Without coiled tubing, a nonreactive fluid through the annulus between the
it was found that only the first half of the interval could production tubing and coiled tubing to provide back-
be stimulated, whereas coiled tubing provided good pressure and force the treating fluid to enter the res-
coverage accompanied with better skin effect reduction. ervoir next to or below the coiled tubing end. For a
DR = 10.0
3.3
4500
5.0
ring
fractu
avoid
=
DR =
ssure to
DR
ad pre
4000 m wellhe
Maximu
Wellhead injection pressure, pit (psia)
3500
rs
ed
3000
mete
predict
.5
=2
.0
7
.
4
para
1.
2500 =1
=2
=
DR
DR 25 b
Initial
l jo
DR
DR
1.
ping
= sfu
es
2000 DR .1 cc
pum
=1 su
ully
DR af
.0 or
1500 =1 sf
ter es
DR e loss
ram ion
pa Frict
1000 ping
m
pu
al
Fin
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Injection rate, qi (bbl ⁄min)
–989
Fluid level (ft)
Figure 20-1. Job control chart with the damage ratio DR plotted as a parameter. The measured injection rates and injection
pressures are recorded on the chart (Paccaloni, 1979b).
Table 20-1. Well and fluid data used for Fig. 20-1 1625
(Paccaloni, 1979a).
Depth, H 13,540 ft
Density, ρ 8.9 lbm/gal [66.6 lbm/ft3]
1500
Viscosity, µ 0.7 cp
Bottomhole pressure (psia)
Figure 20-2 is a graph comparing bottomhole Figure 20-2. Comparison of calculated steady-state and
pressure evolution using steady-state and transient transient bottomhole pressure responses.
models. The simulations were generated for qi =
0.5 bbl/min, kh = 1000 md-ft, φ = 0.2, ct = 1.5 × 10–5 was used. It is obvious that the bottomhole transient
psi–1 and rw = 0.35 ft. The initial skin effect is equal pressure evolution could lead to errors. The pressure
to 10. For the Paccaloni (1979b) method, rb = 3 ft departure between the two curves in Fig. 20-2 could
qN
j −1
( )
log t − t j −1 + b ′, (20-7)
A technique that extends the Prouvost and Economides
(1987, 1989) approach was provided by Behenna (1994). where pi is the initial reservoir pressure, pwf is the bot-
He accounted for the effects of diverting agents by sub- tomhole flowing pressure, and
tracting the pressure drop created by the diverting agent 162.6 Bµ
from the bottomhole pressure used in the skin effect cal- m′ = (20-8)
kh
culation. The pseudoskin effect caused by the placement
of diverting agent slugs corrects the observed pressure k
response by an amount equal to the pressure increase b ′ = m ′ log 2
− 3.23 + 0.87s . (20-9)
φµct rw
caused by the diverter placement. Figure 20-3 from
Behenna’s paper shows an example application. An From Eq. 20-7, a plot is made of inverse injectivity
assumption made with this technique is that all subse- versus the superposition time function ∆tsup, which is
quent response is due to removal of damage and not defined as
inadvertent removal of diverter.
(q − q j −1 )log t − t .
( )
N
∆tsup = ∑
j
A second extension that the Behenna method offers (20-10)
j −1
is use of the derivative of the skin effect with time as j =1 qN
a diagnostic aid. The derivative plot accentuates peri- With all parameters remaining constant, a straight line
with a slope m′ and intercept b′ can be produced. To
Pseudoskin effect utilize the technique, a series of straight lines with dif-
Skin effect (minus diverter effect)
1 2
ferent skin effects at varying rates and times is pro-
Increasing skin effect
Fluid at perforation
1. 15% HCI 20-7. Limitations of matrix treat-
2. 7.5% HCl–1.5% HF
3. 15% HCI + OSR diverting agent ment evaluation techniques
Elapsed time Coupling the calculated bottomhole pressure (based
on measured variables) and the anticipated reservoir
Figure 20-3. Skin effect evolution with diverters (Behenna,
1994). OSR = oil-soluble resin. response leads to calculation of the reservoir response.
2000
1600 20
Surface injection rate (B/D)
1200
Skin effect
Paccaloni
10
800
0
400 Prouvost and Economides
0 –10
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Figure 20A-1. Example injection rate profile. Figure 20A-3. Example skin effect evolution calculation.
An example of the Hill and Zhu (1994) method is shown in Fig. 20B-1 from the data in Tables 20B-1 and 20B-2 (Prouvost and
Economides, 1989). As the skin effect changes during an acid treatment, ∆p/qi shifts from one line to another. The changing skin
effect is monitored by comparing ∆p/qi versus the ∆tsup response. As with the Paccaloni (1979a, 1979b) technique, this job control
graph is used in the field to monitor job performance. The advantage of this technique in comparison with the Paccaloni technique
is that it includes transient effects caused by injection rate changes.
900
800
700
600
s = 40
Inverse injectivity
500
s = 30
400
s = 20
300
200 s = 10
s=5
100 s=0
0
–1.50 –0.10 –0.50 0 0.50 1.00
tsup
Figure 20B-1. Inverse injectivity plot using the Hill and Zhu (1994) technique and data from Tables 20B-1 and 20B-2.
Table 20B-1. Well parameters used in example Table 20B-2. Injection data for example
application of the Hill and Zhu (1994) method application of the Hill and Zhu (1994) method
(Prouvost and Economides, 1989). (Prouvost and Economides, 1989).
Yes
Perfom
matrix
stimulation
treatment
Determine Is Stage to
apparent skin effect No
next fluid
skin effect decreasing? or stop job
in real time
Yes
Yes
Does skin
effect response No Continue
level off? stage
Yes
Yes
No
Stop No
job
For this example, the well is in a two-phase reservoir with k = 50 md, h = 70 ft, B = 1.1 RB/STB, µ = 0.8 cp, rw = 0.328 ft and
—
p = 4700 psi. The drainage radius re is unknown but presumed to be at least 750 ft. A well test 6 months ago suggested zero skin
effect. The original inflow performance relationship (IPR) curve (using Eq. 1-17) and the vertical lift performance (VLP) curve are
drawn with solid lines on Fig. 20C-1. The original production rate was more than 6600 STB/D, but 6 months later dropped to less
than 5150 STB/D. The question is whether this well is a stimulation candidate.
5000
4500
4000
3500
IPR (p = 4700 psi, s = 0)
3000
pwf (psia)
2500
VLP
2000
1500
IPR (p = 4700 psi, s = 2.4)
1000
IPR (p = 4100 psi, s = 0)
500
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000
q (STB ⁄ D)
Solution
From the VLP curve, the flowing bottomhole pressure should be about 2550 psi (for q = 5150 STB/D). Assuming that the average
reservoir pressure remains approximately equal to 4700 psi, then from Eq. 1-17 a skin effect equal to 2.4, represented by one of the
dashed IPR curves on Fig. 20C-1, would result in this production performance. However, the same performance can be observed
with zero skin effect but with the reservoir pressure declining to about 4100 psi. This is shown by the second dashed IPR curve in
Fig. 20C-1. Clearly, this example shows the necessity of well management and testing for the appropriate production engineering
decision (i.e., deciding whether the well is damaged and requires stimulation or whether the well drainage area is limited).
70
50
NH4CI on formation
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Time (min)
Figure 20-5. Example matrix acid treatment response curve (Montgomery et al., 1995).
the use of a diverter is warranted. In addition, the that can be extracted from this type of analysis. The
use of hydrofluoric acid (HF) in this well only table shows the concentration of aluminum and silicon
increases the cost of the treatment, without any contained in the returned fluids from two wells in the
measurable stimulation benefit. same formation. Comparison of the actual Si and Al
concentrations with the theoretical Si and Al concentra-
tions expected from the volume percent of HF indicates
20-9. Post-treatment evaluation that severe secondary clay reaction precipitation
occurred. Much less Si and Al were observed in the
Several other techniques are available to evaluate the return samples than expected from the mass-balance
effectiveness of matrix stimulation treatments. In addi- equations. On the basis of the tertiary reaction kinetic
tion to the techniques described in this section, pre- work of Gdanski (1996) as described in Chapter 15,
and postbuildup tests and production logging tech- future jobs should be conducted with higher HCl to HF
niques as described in Chapters 1 and 2 can be used to ratios than the 6.5–0.5 used for these treatments to min-
evaluate acid treatments. It should always be remem- imize secondary precipitation problems.
bered that the primary criterion for a treatment is the
economic rather than the technical success.
20-9.2. Tracer surveys
20-9.1. Return fluid analysis The use of various radioactive tracers placed strategi-
cally in the fluid or with the diverter can provide insight
Almond et al. (1990) showed that monitoring the ionic on the effectiveness of matrix treatments. Figure 20-6
content of returned fluids following acidizing treat- shows a log for two treatments placed in the same well.
ments can provide insight into the actual chemical acid- The treatments were into a limestone formation perfo-
spending processes downhole. The mass balance of the rated at 4 shots per foot (spf) at a depth of 6902 to
injected and returned fluids and the relative percent of 6982 ft. The first treatment was a 6000-gal, three-stage
silicate reprecipitation allow the determination of rela- treatment (2000 gal/stage) diverted with rock salt and
tive spending levels of various acids on the formation pumped at a rate of 7 bbl/min. The acid was traced with
and well scale. Table 20-2 is an example of the results liquid 46scandium. The first 1000-lbm rock salt diverter
Flowback Theoretical
Concentration (mg/L) Concentration (mg/L)
20-10. Conclusions
Methods to assess the effectiveness of matrix stimula-
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 tion treatments have been sought over the years. The
low overall cost and “low technology” of these treat-
Figure 20-6. Tracer scan comparison of two matrix acid
treatments on the same well treatment (courtesy of
ments usually preclude the justification of comprehen-
ProTechnic International, Inc.). sive pretreatment and post-treatment well tests.
500
Producing rate
400
300
200
100
0
Nov-95 Dec-95 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96
Monthly production
Figure 20-7. Results of the second treatment based on use of tracers to evaluate the effectiveness of the primary acid treat-
ment (courtesy of ProTechnic International, Inc.).
Several real-time skin effect evolution techniques Several techniques for evaluating the effectiveness
are presented in this chapter. The recent ones enable of matrix stimulation treatments are also presented.
definitive calculation of the initial value of the skin These include the use of pre- and postbuildup tests,
effect and its evolution during injection, taking into production logging, tracer scans, fluid flowback analy-
account pressure transients and appropriate reservoir sis and comparison of inflow performance relationship
models. The efficiency of the stimulation treatment (IPR) curves.
may then be assessed in real time. Changes in the
design and optimum termination of the injection are
therefore possible.
R-2 References
Asgian, M.I., Cundall, P.A. and Brady, B.H.: “Mech- Baker, H.R., Bolster, R.N., Leach, P.B. and Little,
anical Stability of Propped Hydraulic Fractures: A R.C.: “Association Colloids in Nonaqueous Fluids,”
Numerical Study,” paper SPE 28510, Journal of Ind. Eng. Chem., Prod. Res. Develop. (1970) 9, No.
Petroleum Technology (March 1995) 47, No. 3, 4, 541–547.
203–208.
Bale, A., Owren, K. and Smith, M.B.: “Propped
Atkinson, B.K. (ed.): Fracture Mechanics of Rock, Fracturing as a Tool for Sand Control and Reservoir
London, UK, Academic Press (1987). Management,” paper SPE 24992, presented at the
SPE European Petroleum Conference, Cannes,
Atkinson, B.K. and Meredith, P.G.: “Experimental
France (November 16–18, 1992); also in SPE
Fracture Mechanics Data for Rocks and Minerals,”
Production & Facilities (February 1994a) 9, No.
B.K. Atkinson (ed.): Fracture Mechanics of Rock,
1, 19–28.
London, UK, Academic Press (1987), 477–525.
Bale, A., Smith, M.B. and Settari, A.: “Post-Frac
Aud, W.W., Sullivan, R.B., Coalson, E.B., Poulson,
Productivity Calculation for Complex Reservoir/
T.D. and Warembourg, P.A.: “Acid Refracturing Pro-
Fracture Geometry,” paper SPE 28919, presented at
gram Increases Reserves, Cottonwood Creek Unit,
the European Petroleum Conference, London, UK
Washakie County, Wyoming,” paper SPE 21821,
(October 24-27, 1994b).
Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1992),
11; also presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Baranet, S.E. and Ainley, B.R.: “Delayed Crosslinking
Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Improves Performance of Fracturing Fluids in Deep
Denver, Colorado, USA (April 15–17, 1992). Formations,” paper CIM 85-36-39, presented at the
36th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Aud, W.W., Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C.L., Harkrider,
Society of CIM, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (June
J.D. and Hansen, J.T.: “The Effect of Viscosity on
2–5, 1985).
Near-Wellbore Tortuosity and Premature Screenouts,”
paper SPE 28492, presented at the SPE Annual Barenblatt, G.I.: “Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Cracks,” Advances in Applied Mech. (1962) 7, 56–
Louisiana, USA (September 25–28, 1994). 131.
Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D.P. and Chauvel, Y.L.: Barree, R.D.: “A Practical Numerical Simulator for
“Impulse Testing,” paper SPE 15911, SPE Formation Three-Dimensional Fracture Propagation in Hetero-
Evaluation (September 1988), 534. geneous Media,” paper SPE 12273, presented at the
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco,
Ayoub, J.A., Brown, J.E., Barree, R.D. and Elphick,
California, USA (November 15–18, 1983).
J.J.: “Diagnosis and Evaluation of Fracturing Treat-
ments,” SPE Production Engineering (February Barree, R.D.: “A New Look at Fracture-Tip Screen-
1992a), 39. out Behavior,” paper SPE 18955, Journal of Petro-
leum Technology (February 1991) 43, No. 2, 138–
Ayoub, J.A., Kirksey, J.M., Malone, B.P. and
143.
Norman, W.D.: “Hydraulic Fracturing of Soft
Formations in the Gulf Coast,” paper SPE 23805, Barree, R.D. and Conway, M.W.: “Experimental and
presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Numerical Modeling of Convective Proppant
Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February Transport,” paper SPE 28564, presented at the SPE
26–27, 1992b). Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 25–28, 1994);
Babcock, R.E., Prokop, C.L. and Kehle, R.O.:
also in Journal of Petroleum Technology (March
“Distribution of Propping Agents in Vertical Frac-
1995) 47, No. 3, 216–222.
tures,” Production Monthly (November 1967), 11.
Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: “Determination of
Badon Ghyben, W.: “Nota in Verband Met de Voor-
Pressure Dependent Leakoff and Its Effect on Fracture
genomen Putboring Nabij Amsterdam,” Tijdschr.
Geometry,” paper SPE 36424, presented at the SPE
Kon. Inst. Ing. (1888–1889), 1988, 8–22.
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, USA (October 6–9, 1996).
R-4 References
SPE Formation Evaluation (December 1989) 4, No. Biot, M.A.: “Theory of Propagation of Elastic Waves
4, 550–558. in a Fluid-Saturated Porous Solid. II. High Frequency,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (1956c) 28, 179–191.
Ben Naceur, K. and Roegiers, J.-C.: “Design of
Fracturing Treatments in Multilayered Formations,” Bird, K. and Dunmore, S.: “Optimising Perforation
paper SPE 17712, presented at the SPE Gas Tech- Performance for the Armada Gas Condensate
nology Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA (June 13–15, Development,” paper SPE 30083, presented at the
1988); also in SPE Production Engineering (February 1995 European Formation Damage Conference, The
1990) 5, No. 1, 21–26. Hague, Netherlands (May 15–16, 1995).
Bennett, C.O., Reynolds, A.C. and Raghavan, R.: Boone, T.J., Kry, P.R., Bharatha, S. and Gronseth,
“Analysis of Finite-Conductivity Fractures Intercepting J.M.: “Poroelastic Effects Related to Stress
Multilayer Commingled Reservoirs,” paper SPE Determination by Micro-Frac Tests in Permeable
11030, SPE Formation Evaluation (June 1986) 1, Rock,” Proc., 32nd U.S. Symposium on Rock
259–274. Mechanics, Norman, Oklahoma, USA (1991), 25–34.
Bennett, C.O., Rodolpho, C.-V., Reynolds, A.C. and Boone, T.J., Wawryznek, P.A. and Ingraffea, A.R.:
Raghavan, R.: “Approximate Solutions for Fractured “Simulation of the Fracture Process in Rock with
Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs,” paper SPE Application to Hydrofracturing,” International
11599, SPE Journal (October 1985) 25, 729–742. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
& Geomechanics Abstracts (June 1986) 23, No. 3,
Bennett, C.O., Rosato, N.D., Reynolds, A.C. and
255–265.
Raghavan, R.: “Influence of Fracture Heterogeneity
and Wing Length on the Response of Vertically Bourdet, D.: “Pressure Behavior of Layered
Fractured Wells,” paper SPE 9886, SPE Journal Reservoirs with Crossflow,” paper SPE 13628, pre-
(April 1983) 23, 219–230. sented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, California, USA (March 27–29, 1985).
Besson, J.: “Performance of Slanted and Horizontal
Wells on an Anisotropic Medium,” paper SPE 20965, Bourdet, D., Alagoa, A., Ayoub, J.A. and Pirard,
presented at Europec 90, The Hague, Netherlands Y.M.: “New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured
(October 22–24, 1990). Zone Well Tests,” World Oil (April 1984) 198, No.
5, 111–124.
Bhalla, K. and Brady, B.H.: “Formation and Fracture
Characterization by Inversion of Fracture Treatment Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A. and Pirard, Y.M.: “Use
Records,” paper SPE 26526, presented at the SPE of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test-Interpretation,”
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, paper SPE 12777, SPE Facilities & Engineering
Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6, 1993). (June 1989), 293–302; also in Trans., AIME 287.
Bilhartz, H.L. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: “The Combined Bourdet, D., Whittle, T.M., Douglas, A.A. and Pirard,
Effects of Storage, Skin, and Partial Penetration on Y.M.: “A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well
Well Test Analysis,” paper SPE 6753, presented at Test Analysis,” World Oil (May 1983) 196, No. 6,
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi- 95–106.
bition, Denver, Colorado, USA (October 9–12, 1977).
Boutéca, M.J., Bary, D., Piau, J.M., Kessler, N.,
Biot, M.A.: “General Theory of Three-Dimensional Boisson, M. and Fourmaintraux, D.: “Contribution
Consolidation,” Journal of Applied Physics (February of Poroelasticity to Reservoir Engineering: Lab
1941) 12, 155–164. Experiments, Application to Core Decompression
and Implication in HP-HT Reservoirs Depletion,”
Biot, M.A.: “General Solutions of the Equations of
Proc., Eurock ’94 Symposium, Delft, Netherlands
Elasticity and Consolidation for a Porous Material,”
(1994), 525–533.
Journal of Applied Mechanics (March 1956a) 23, No.
1, 91–96. Bradley, W.B.: “Failure of Inclined Boreholes,”
Journal of Energy Research Technology (December
Biot, M.A.: “Theory of Propagation of Elastic Waves
1979) 101, 232–239.
in a Fluid-Saturated Porous Solid. I. Low Frequency
Range,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (1956b) 28, 168–178.
R-6 References
Cameron, J.R.: “Rheological Modeling and Scale-Up Carter, R.D.: “Derivation of the General Equation
of a Delayed-Crosslinked Gel in Nonhomogeneous for Estimating the Extent of the Fractured Area,”
Flow,” paper SPE 21858, presented at the SPE Rocky Appendix I of “Optimum Fluid Characteristics for
Mountain Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Fracture Extension,” Drilling and Production
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA Practice, G.C. Howard and C.R. Fast, New York,
(April 15–17, 1991); also in SPE Production & New York, USA, American Petroleum Institute
Facilities (February 1993), 23. (1957), 261–269.
Cameron, J.R., Joha, R.J. and Veatch, R.W. Jr.: “The Castillo, J.L.: “Modified Fracture Pressure Decline
Nonhomogeneous Flow Character of a Delayed Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff,”
Crosslinked Gel,” paper SPE 20638, presented at the paper SPE 16417, presented at the SPE/DOE Low
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 23–26, Colorado, USA (May 18–19, 1987).
1990).
Cawiezel, K.E. and Elbel, J.L.: “A New System for
Cameron, J.R. and Prud’homme, R.K.: “Fracturing- Controlling the Crosslinking Rate of Borate Frac-
Fluid Flow Behavior,” Recent Advances in Hydraulic turing Fluids,” paper SPE 20077, presented at the
Fracturing, J.L. Gidley, S.A. Holditch, D.E. Nierode SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, Cali-
and R.W. Veatch Jr. (eds.), Monograph Series, fornia, USA (April 4–6, 1990).
Richardson, Texas, USA, Society of Petroleum
Cawiezel, K.E. and Niles, T.D.: “Rheological Prop-
Engineers (1989), 177–209.
erties of Foam Fracturing Fluids Under Downhole
Cantu, L.A. and Boyd, P.A.: “Laboratory and Field Conditions,” paper SPE 16191, presented at the SPE
Evaluation of a Combined Fluid-Loss Control Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium,
Additive and Gel Breaker for Fracturing Fluids,” Dallas, Texas, USA (March 2–3, 1987).
paper SPE 18211, presented at the SPE Annual
Cesaro, M., Cheung, P., Etchecopar, A. and Gonfalini,
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
M.: “Shaping Up to Stress in the Appenines,” Italy
Texas, USA (October 2–5, 1988).
2000: Value Added Reservoir Characterization (Well
Card, R.J., Howard, P.R. and Féraud, J.-P.: “Control Evaluation Conference, Italy), Schlumberger (1997).
of Particulate Flowback in Subterranean Wells,” U.S.
Chambers, M.R., Mueller, M.M. and Grossmann, A.:
Patent No. 5,330,005 (July 19, 1994).
“Well Completion Design and Operations for a Deep
Card, R.J., Howard, P.R. and Féraud, J.-P.: “A Novel Horizontal Well with Multiple Fractures,” paper SPE
Technology to Control Proppant Back Production,” 30417, presented at the Offshore Europe Conference,
paper SPE 31007, SPE Production & Facilities Aberdeen, Scotland (September 5–8, 1995).
(November 1995), 271.
Chaveteau, G.: “Fundamental Criteria in Polymer
Carico, R.D. and Bagshaw, F.R.: “Description and Flow Through Porous Media and Their Relative
Use of Polymers Used in Drilling, Workovers, and Importance in the Performance Differences of
Completions,” paper SPE 7747, presented at the SPE Mobility Control Buffers,” Water Soluble Polymers,
Production Technology Symposium, Hobbs, New J.E. Glass (ed.), Advances in Chemistry Series
Mexico, USA (October 30–31, 1978). (1986), 213.
Carmen, P.C.: “Fundamental Principles of Industrial Cheatham, J.B. Jr. and McEver, J.W.: “Behavior of
Filtration,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. (1938) 16, Casing Subjected to Salt Loading,” paper SPE 828,
168–188. Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1964)
16, 1069–1075.
Carnahan, B., Luther, H.A. and Wilkes, J.O.: Applied
Numerical Methods, New York, New York, USA, Chen, W.F. and Han, D.J.: Plasticity for Structural
John Wiley (1969). Engineers, New York, New York, USA, Springer-
Verlag (1988).
Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in
Solids, second edition, Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press Chen, Z. and Economides, M.J.: “The Effect of Near-
(1959). Wellbore Fracture Geometry on Fracture Execution
R-8 References
Clark, P.E., Harkin, M.W., Wahl, H.A. and Sievert, Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
J.A.: “Design of a Large Vertical Prop Transport USA (September 25–28, 1994).
Model,” paper SPE 6814, presented at the SPE
Cleary, M.P. and Fonseca, A.: “Proppant Convection
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
and Encapsulation in Hydraulic Fracturing: Practical
Denver, Colorado, USA (October 9–12, 1977).
Implications of Computer Laboratory Simulations,”
Clark, P.E., Manning, F.S., Quadir, J.A. and Guler, paper SPE 24825, presented at the SPE Annual
N.: “Prop Transport in Vertical Fractures,” paper SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
10261, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con- D.C., USA (October 4–7, 1992).
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Cleary, M.P., Keck, R.G. and Mear, M.E.: “Micro-
(October 5–7, 1981).
computer Models for the Design of Hydraulic
Clark, P.E. and Zhu, Q.: “Flow Visualization of Flow Fractures,” paper SPE 11628, presented at the SPE/
Into 8 Point-Source Fractures II: The Effect of DOE Symposium on Low Permeability, Denver,
Fracture Non-Uniformity and Fluid Crosslinking,” Colorado, USA (March 14–16, 1983).
paper SPE 29503, presented at the SPE Production
Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A. and Wright, T.B.:
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
“Experimental and Modeling Evidence for Major
(April 2–4, 1995a).
Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field
Clark, P.E. and Zhu, Q.: “Fluid Flow in Vertical Procedures,” paper SPE 21494, Proc., SPE Gas
Fractures from a Point Source,” paper SPE 28509, Technology Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference (1991), 131–146.
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Clifton, R.J. and Abou-Sayed, A.S.: “On the Com-
(September 25–28, 1994); also in Journal of
putation of the Three-Dimensional Geometry of
Petroleum Technology (March 1995b) 47, No.
Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 7943, presented
3, 209–215.
at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs
Cleary, M., Johnson, D., Kogsboll, H., Owens, K., Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (May 20–22,
Perry, K., de Pater, C., Stachel, A., Schmidt, H. and 1979).
Tambini, M.: “Field Implementation of Proppant
Clifton, R.J. and Abou-Sayed, A.S.: “A Variational
Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic
Approach to the Prediction of the Three-Dimensional
Fractures with Adequate Proppant Concentration,”
Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 9879,
paper SPE 25892, presented at the SPE Rocky
presented at the SPE Low Permeability Symposium,
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Denver, Colorado, USA (May 27–29, 1981).
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 12–14,
1993). Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J-J.: “Multiple Fluids,
Proppant Transport, and Thermal Effects in Three-
Cleary, M.P.: “Analysis of Mechanisms and Proced-
Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,”
ures for Producing Favourable Shapes of Hydraulic
paper SPE 18198, presented at the SPE Annual
Fractures,” paper SPE 9260, presented at the SPE
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, USA (October 2–5, 1988).
Texas, USA (September 21–24, 1980a).
Colle, E.A., Halleck, P.M., Saucier, R.J. and Wesson,
Cleary, M.P.: “Comprehensive Design Formulae for
D.S.: “Discussion of Simple Method Predicts
Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 9259, presented
Downhole Shaped-Charge Gun Performance,” SPE
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
Production & Facilities (November 1994) 9, No. 4,
bition, Dallas, Texas, USA (September 21–24, 1980b).
292–293.
Cleary, M.P., Doyle, R.S., Teng, E.Y., Cipolla, C.L.,
Collins, R.E.: Flow of Fluids Through Porous
Meehan, D.N., Massaras, L.V. and Wright, T.B.:
Materials, New York, New York, USA, Van Nostrand
“Major New Developments in Hydraulic Fracturing,
Reinhold (1961).
with Documented Reductions in Job Costs and
Increases in Normalized Production,” paper SPE Constien, V.G., Brannon, H.D. and Bannister, C.E.:
28565, presented at the SPE Annual Technical “Continuous Mix Technology Adds New Flexibility
R-10 References
Daccord, G., Lamanczyk, R. and Vercaemer, C.: Sand Control,” paper SPE 26545, presented at the
“Method for Obtaining Gelled Hydrocarbon Compo- SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
sitions According to Said Method and Their Appli- Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6, 1993).
cation the Hydraulic Fracturing of Underground
de Kruijf, A., Roodhart, L.P. and Davies, D.R.: “The
Formations,” U.S. Patent No. 4,507,213 (March 26,
Relation Between Chemistry and Flow Mechanics of
1985).
Borate Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids,” paper SPE
Dake, L.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, 25206, presented at the SPE International Sympo-
Developments in Petroleum Science, Amsterdam, sium on Oilfield Chemistry in New Orleans,
Netherlands, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company Louisiana, USA (March 2–5, 1993); also in SPE
(1982) 8. Production & Facilities (August 1993), 165.
Daneshy, A.A.: “Experimental Investigation of de Pater, C.J., Desroches, J., Gronenbroom, J. and
Hydraulic Fracturing Through Perforations,” paper Weijers, L.: “Physical and Numerical Modelling of
SPE 4333, Journal of Petroleum Technology Hydraulic Fracture Closure,” paper SPE 28561,
(October 1973) 25, No. 10, 1201–1206. presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Darcy, H.: Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville
(September 25–28, 1994); also in SPE Production
de Dijon, Paris, France, Victor Dalmont (1856).
& Facilities (May 1996), 122.
Davidson, B.M., Saunders, B.F. and Holditch, S.A.:
de Pater, C.J., Weijers, L., Savic, M., Wolf, K.H.A.A.,
“Field Measurement of Hydraulic Fracture Fluids:
van den Hoek, P.J. and Barr, D.T.: “Experimental
Case Study,” paper SPE 27694, presented at the SPE
Study of Nonlinear Effects in Hydraulic Fracture
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Propagation,” paper SPE 25893, presented at the
Midland, Texas, USA (March 16–18, 1994).
SPE Joint Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low
Davies, D.R., Bosma, M.G.R. and de Vries, W.: Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
“Development of Field Design Rules for Viscous Colorado, USA (April 12–14, 1993); also in SPE
Fingering in Acid Fracturing Treatments: A Large- Production Engineering (November 1994) 9, No.
Scale Model Study,” paper SPE 15772, presented at 4, 239–246.
the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain
Deo, M., Tariq, S.M. and Halleck, P.M.: “Linear and
(March 7–10, 1987).
Radial Flow Targets for Characterizing Downhole
Davies, D.R., Lau, H.C., Kamphuis, H. and Rood- Flow in Perforations,” paper SPE 16896, SPE Pro-
hart, L.P.: “Development and Field Testing of a duction Engineering (August 1989) 4, No. 3, 295–
Novel Fracturing Fluid,” paper SPE 23109, presented 300.
at the SPE Offshore Petroleum Conference, Aber-
de Rozières, J.: “Measuring Diffusion Coefficients
deen, Scotland (September 3–6, 1991).
in Acid Fracturing Fluids and Their Application to
Davis, P.M.: “Surface Deformation Associated with Gelled and Emulsified Acids,” paper SPE 28552, pre-
Dipping Hydrofracture,” Journal of Geophysical sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Research (July 10, 1983) 88, No. B7, 5826–5834. Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (Sep-
Dawson, J.: “Method and Composition for Delaying tember 25–28, 1994).
the Gellation of Borated Galactomannons,” U.S. Desbrandes, R. and Gualdron, J.: “In Situ Rock
Patent No. 5,082,579 (1992). Wettability Determination with Wireline Formation
Dawson, J.C.: “A Thermodynamic Study of Borate Tester Data,” The Log Analyst (July–August 1988)
Complexation with Guar and Guar Derivatives,” 29, No. 4, 244–252.
paper SPE 22837, presented at the SPE Annual Desroches, J. and Kurkjian, A: “Applications of
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, Wireline Stress Measurements,” paper SPE 58086,
USA (October 6–9, 1991). SPE Reservoir Evaluation (October 1999).
Dees, J.M. and Handren, P.J.: “A New Method of Desroches, J., Lenoach, B., Papanastasiou, P. and
Overbalance Perforating and Surging of Resin for Thiercelin, M.: “On the Modelling of Near Tip
R-12 References
Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, Elbel, J.L. and Ayoub, J.A.: “Evaluation of Apparent
C.A.: Petroleum Production Systems, Englewood Fracture Lens Tip Indicated from Transient Tests,”
Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall (1994). paper 91-44, presented at the CIM-AOSTRA Tech-
nical Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada (April
Economides, M.J., McLennan, J.D., Brown, E. and
21–24, 1991); also in Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Roegiers, J.-C.: “Performance and Stimulation of
Technology (December 1992) 31, No. 10, 41–46.
Horizontal Wells,” World Oil (June–July 1989) 208,
No. 6, 41–45, and 209, No. 1, 69–72 and 76–77. Elbel, J.L., Howard, R.L., Talley, G.R. and
McLaughlin, B.H.: “Stimulation Study of Cottage
Edimann, K., Somerville, J.M., Smart, B.G.D.,
Grove Formation,” paper SPE 11564, Journal of
Hamilton, S.A. and Crawford, B.R.: “Predicting Rock
Petroleum Technology (July 1984), 1199–1205.
Mechanical Properties from Wireline Porosities,”
paper SPE 47344, presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock Elbel, J.L., Piggott, A.R. and Mack, M.G.:
‘98, Trondheim, Norway (July 8–10, 1998). “Numerical Modeling of Multilayer Fracture
Treatments,” paper SPE 23982, presented at the SPE
Ehlig-Economides, C.A.: “Implications of the Test
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Area of Investigation in Nonradial Geometries,” SPE
Midland, Texas, USA (March 18–20, 1992).
Memorial Series, Richardson, Texas, USA, Society of
Petroleum Engineers (1995) 1, 103–112. Elbel, J.L. and Sookprasong, P.A.: “Use of
Cumulative-Production Type Curves in Fracture
Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Chan, K.S. and Spath, J.B.:
Design,” SPE Production Engineering (August 1987)
“Production Enhancement Strategies for Strong
2, No. 3, 191–198.
Bottomwater Drive Reservoirs,” paper SPE 36613,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference El Rabaa, W.: “Experimental Study of Hydraulic
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA (October Fracture Geometry Initiated from Horizontal Wells,”
6–9, 1996). paper SPE 19720, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Economides, M.J.:
Texas, USA (October 8–11, 1989).
“Pressure Transient Analysis in an Elongated Linear
Flow System,” SPE Journal (December 1985) 25, Ely, J.W.: Stimulation Treatment Handbook, Tulsa,
No. 6, 347–360. Oklahoma, USA, PennWell Publishing Co. (1985).
Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Joseph, J., Erba, M. and Ely, J.W.: “GRI’s Fracture Fluid Rheology Unit—
Vik, S.A.: “Evaluation of Single-Layer Transients in Portable Equipment for Measuring Fluid Behavior
a Multilayered System,” paper SPE 15860, presented Under Simulated Downhole Conditions,” In Focus—
at the European Petroleum Conference, London, UK Tight Gas Sands, Gas Research Institute (September
(October 20–22, 1986). 1987) 4, No. 2.
Elbel, J.L.: “Designing Hydraulic Fractures for Endo, T., Brie, A. and Badri, M.: “Fracture Evaluation
Efficient Reserve Recovery,” paper SPE 15231, pre- from Dipole Shear Anisotropy and Borehole Stoneley
sented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Waves,” Transactions of the SPWLA 2nd Annual
Symposium, Louisville, Kentucky, USA (May 18–21, Logging Symposium of Japan (1996), paper U.
1986).
Engelder, T.: Stress Regimes in the Lithosphere,
Elbel, J.L.: “Considerations for Optimum Fracture Princeton, New Jersey, USA, Princeton University
Geometry Design,” SPE Production Engineering Press (1993).
(August 1988) 3, No. 3, 323–327.
Enzendorfer, C., Harris, R.A., Valkó, P., Economides,
Elbel, J.L.: “A Method To Estimate Multizone M.J., Fokker, P.A. and Davies, D.D.: “Pipe Vis-
Injection Profiles During Hydraulic Fracturing,” cometry of Foams,” J. Rheol. (March–April 1995)
paper SPE 21869, presented at the Rocky Mountain 39, No. 2, 345–358.
Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs
Esmersoy, C., Koster, K., Williams, M., Boyd, A. and
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 15–17,
Kane, M.: “Dipole Shear Anisotropy Logging,”
1993).
R-14 References
Gadala-Maria, F. and Acrivos, A.: “Shear-Induced Fractures,” paper SPE 2458, Journal of Petroleum
Structure in a Concentrated Suspension of Solid Technology (December 1969) 21, 1571–1581.
Spheres,” J. Rheol. (1980) 24, No. 6, 799–814.
Geertsma, J. and Haafkens, R.: “A Comparison of the
Gall, B.L. and Raible, C.J.: “A Method to Study Theories to Predict Width and Extent of Vertical,
Fracturing Fluid Polymer Degradation Using Size Hydraulically Induced Fractures,” Trans., AIME
Exclusion Chromatography,” DOE/BETC/RI-83/10 (March 1979) 101, 8.
(1984).
Geilikman, M.B, Dusseault, M.B. and Dullien, F.A.:
Gall, B.L. and Raible, C.J.: “Molecular Size Studies “Sand Production as a Viscoplastic Granular Flow,”
of Degraded Fracturing Fluid Polymers,” paper SPE paper SPE 27343, Proc., SPE International Sympo-
13566, presented at the SPE Oilfield and Geothermal sium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Chemistry Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona, USA Louisiana, USA (1994), 41–50.
(April 9–11, 1985).
Germanovich, L.N., Salganik, R.L., Dyskin, A.V. and
Gardner, D.C.: “High Fracturing Pressures for Shales Lee, K.K.: “Mechanisms of Brittle Fracture of Rock
and Which Tip Effects May Be Responsible,” paper with Pre-Existing Cracks in Compression,” Pure and
SPE 24852, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Applied Geophysics (1994) 143, Nos. 1–3, 117–149.
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., USA
Gidley, J.L.: “A Method for Correcting Dimensionless
(October 4–7, 1992).
Fracture Conductivity for Non-Darcy Flow Effects,”
Gardner, D.C. and Eikerts, J.V.: “The Effects of Shear paper SPE 20710, presented at the SPE Annual
and Proppant on the Viscosity of Cross-Linked Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Fracturing Fluids,” paper SPE 11066, presented at the Louisiana, USA (September 23–26, 1990); also in
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE Production Engineering (November 1991) 6,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 26–29, No. 4, 391–394.
1982).
Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E. and
Gatens, J.M., Lee, W.J., Hopkins, C.W. and Lan- Veatch, R.W. Jr.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic
caster, D.E.: “The Effect of Permeability Anisotropy Fracturing, Monograph Series, Richardson, Texas,
on the Evaluation and Design of Hydraulic Fracture USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers (1989).
Treatments and Well Performance,” paper SPE
Gnirk, P.F.: “The Mechanical Behavior of Uncased
21501, presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Wellbores Situated in Elastic/Plastic Media Under
Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA (January 23–25,
Hydrostatic Stress,” paper SPE 3224, SPE Journal
1991).
(February 1972) 12, No. 1, 49–59.
Gauthier, F., Goldsmith, H.L. and Mason, S.G.:
Godbey, J.K. and Hodges, H.D.: “Pressure
“Particle Motions in Non-Newtonian Media,” Rheol.
Measurements During Formation Fracturing
Acta (September 1971) 10, No. 3, 344–364.
Operations,” Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 65–69.
Gdanski, R.D. and Norman, L.R.: “Using the
Goel, N., Willingham, J.D., Shah, S.N. and Lord,
Hollow-Core Test to Determine Acid Reaction
D.L.: “A Comparative Study of Borate-Crosslinked
Rates,” paper SPE 12151, SPE Production
Gel Rheology Using Laboratory and Field Scale
Engineering (March 1986), 111.
Fracturing Simulations,” paper SPE 38618, presented
Geertsma, J.: “Estimating the Coefficient of Inertial at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
Resistance in Fluid Flow Through Porous Media,” bition, San Antonio, Texas, USA (October 5–8,
SPE Journal (October 1974) 14, No. 5, 445–450. 1997).
Geertsma, J.: “Some Rock-Mechanical Aspects of Oil Goode, P.A., Pop, J.J. and Murphy, W.F. III:
and Gas Well Completions,” paper SPE 8073, SPE “Multiple-Probe Formation Testing and Vertical
Journal (December 1985) 25, No. 6, 848–856. Reservoir Continuity,” paper SPE 22738, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: “A Rapid Method of
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 6–9, 1991).
Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulic Induced
R-16 References
38192, presented at the SPE European Formation Fracturing Breakdown Pressure,” Proc., 32nd U.S.
Damage Symposium, The Hague, Netherlands (June Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Norman, Okla-
2–3, 1997b). homa, USA (1991), 191–199.
Guo, F., Morgenstern, N.R. and Scott, J.D.: Hainey, B.W., Weng, X. and Stoisits, R.F.: “Mit-
“Interpretation of Hydraulic Fracturing Breakdown igation of Multiple Fractures from Deviated Well-
Pressure,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics bores,” paper SPE 30482, presented at the SPE
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
(1993) 30, No. 6, 617–626. Texas, USA (October 22–25, 1995).
Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley, H. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Hall, B.E. and Houk, S.G.: “Fluid-Loss Control in the
“Pressure Buildup Analysis of Fractured Wells Naturally Fractured Buda Formation,” paper SPE
Producing at High Flow Rates,” paper SPE 10178, 12152, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
Journal of Petroleum Technology (November 1982a) ference and Exhibition, San Francisco, California,
34, 2656–2666. USA (October 5–8, 1983).
Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Hall, C.D. Jr. and Dollarhide, F.E.: “Effects of
Samaniego-V., F.: “Non-Darcy Flow in Wells with Fracturing Fluid Velocity on Fluid Loss Agent Per-
Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures,” paper SPE formance,” paper SPE 736, Journal of Petroleum
8281, SPE Journal (October 1982b) 22, No. 5, Technology (May 1964), 555–560; also in Trans.,
681–698. AIME (1964) 231.
Gupta, D.V.S. and Cooney, A.P.: “Encapsulations for Hall, C.D. Jr. and Dollarhide, F.E.: “Performance
Treating Subterranean Formations and Methods for of Fracturing Fluid Loss Agents Under Dynamic
the Use Thereof,” U.S. Patent No. 5,164,099 Conditions,” paper SPE 1904, Journal of Petroleum
(November 17, 1992). Technology (July 1968), 763–769.
Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: “Experimental Halleck, P.M.: “The Effects of Stress and Pore
Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During Pressure on Penetration of Jet Perforators in Berea
Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Sandstone,” final report, API Project 86-36, Amer-
Vertical Conduits,” paper SPE 940, Journal of ican Petroleum Institute (1987).
Petroleum Technology (April 1965) 17, 475–484.
Halleck, P.M.: “Further Effects of Stress on Pene-
Hagoort, J.: “Waterflood Induced Hydraulic Frac- tration Flow Performance of Jet Perforations,” final
turing,” PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, report, API Project 87-36, American Petroleum
Delft, Netherlands (1980). Institute (1988).
Haimson, B. and Fairhurst, C.: “Hydraulic Fracturing Halleck, P.M.: “Minimum Size and Stress Require-
in Porous-Permeable Materials,” paper SPE 2354, ments for a Possible API Standard Test Target for
Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1969) 21, Performance Evaluation of Shaped Charge Oil Well
811–817. Perforators in Stressed Rock,” final report, API
Project 88-36, American Petroleum Institute (1989).
Haimson, B.C.: “The Hydraulic Fracturing Method
of Stress Measurement: Theory and Practice,” Halleck, P.M.: “The Application of Prototype
Comprehensive Rock Engineering, J. Hudson (ed.), Penetration and Flow Tests in Stressed Targets to
Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press (1993), 3, 297–328. Several Perforator Charges and Rocks,” final report,
API Project 89-36, American Petroleum Institute
Haimson, B.C. and Huang, X.: “Hydraulic Fracturing
(1990).
Breakdown Pressure and In-Situ Stress at Great
Depth,” Rock at Great Depth, V. Fourmaintraux and Halleck, P.M.: “Minimizing Skin in Fractured
D. Maury (eds.), Rotterdam, Netherlands, Balkema Reservoirs,” final report GRI-95/0472, Contract
(1989), 939–946. 5094-210-2901, Gas Research Institute (March
1996a).
Haimson, B.C. and Zhongliang, Z.: “Effect of
Borehole Size and Pressurization Rate on Hydraulic
R-18 References
Short Course, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Journal of Petroleum Technology (August 1963) 15,
Texas, USA (April 1973). 896–900.
Harris, L.E., Holtmyer, M.D. and Pauls, R.W.: Hawkins, G.W.: “Molecular Weight Reduction and
“Method for Fracturing Subterranean Formations,” Physical Consequences of Chemical Degradation of
U.S. Patent No. 4,622,155 (November 11, 1986). Hydroxypropylguar in Aqueous Brine Solutions,”
Proc., ACS Division of Polymeric Materials: Science
Harris, M.H.: “The Effect of Perforating on Well
and Engineering (1986) 55.
Productivity,” paper SPE 1236, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (April 1966) 18, 518–528. Hawkins, G.W.: “Laboratory Study of Proppant-Pack
Permeability Reduction Caused by Fracturing Fluids
Harris, P.C.: “Dynamic Fluid-Loss Characteristics
Concentrated During Closure,” paper SPE 18261,
of Nitrogen Foam Fracturing Fluids,” Journal of
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
Petroleum Technology (October 1985) 18, No. 10,
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 2–5,
1847–1852.
1988).
Harris, P.C.: “Chemistry and Rheology of Borate
Hawkins, M.F.: “A Note on the Skin Effect,” Journal
Crosslinked Fluids at Temperatures Up to 300°F,”
of Petroleum Technology (December 1956) 8, 356–
paper SPE 24339, presented at the SPE Rocky
357.
Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, USA
(May 18–21, 1993). Hejjo, H., Fagan, J.E. and Shah, S.N.: “Flow Visual-
ization Technique for Investigation of Hydraulic
Harris, P.C. and Heath, S.J.: “Rheology of Cross-
Fracturing,” paper SPE 38579, presented at the SPE
linked Foams,” paper SPE 28512-P, SPE Production
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
& Facilities (May 1996) 11, No. 2, 113–116.
Antonio, Texas, USA (October 5–8, 1997).
Harris, P.C. and Heath, S.J.: “Rheological Properties
Herron, M.M., Johnson, D.L. and Schwartz, L.M.: “A
of Low-Gel-Loading Borate Fracture Gels,” paper
Robust Permeability Estimator for Siliclastics,” pre-
SPE 52399, SPE Production & Facilities (1998).
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Harrison, E., Kieschnick, W.F. Jr. and McGuire, W.J.: Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (Sep-
“The Mechanics of Fracture Induction and Exten- tember 27–30, 1998).
sion,” Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 252–263.
Herzberg, A.: “Die Wasserversorgung einiger
Hart, C.M., Engi, D., Fleming, R.P. and Morris, H.E.: Nordseebaden,” Z. Gasbeleucht. Wasserverzorg.
“Fracture Diagnostics Results for the Multiwell (1901) 44, 815–819, 824–844.
Experiment’s Paludal Zone Stimulation,” paper SPE
Hilbert, L.B., Hwong, T.K., Cook, N.G.W., Nihei,
12852, presented at the SPE/DOW/GRI Uncon-
K.T. and Myer, L.R.: “Effects of Strain Amplitude
ventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh,
on the Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Deformation
Pennsylvania, USA (May 13–15, 1984).
of Berea Sandstone,” Proc., 1st North American
Hashem, M.N., Thomas, E.C., McNeil, R.I. and Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Austin, Texas, USA
Mullins, O.C.: “Determination of Producible (1994), 497–504.
Hydrocarbon Type and Oil Quality in Wells Drilled
Hill, R.: The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity,
with Synthetic Oil-Based Muds,” paper SPE 39093,
Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press (1951).
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA (October Himes, R.E. and Vinson, E.F.: “Environmentally Safe
5–8, 1997). Salt Replacement for Fracturing Fluids,” paper SPE
23438, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional
Haskin, C.A.: “A Review of Hydroxy Aluminum
Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, USA (October 2–5,
Treatments,” paper SPE 5692, presented at the SPE
1991).
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston,
Texas, USA (January 29–30, 1976). Hinkel, J.J.: “Breaker System for High Viscosity
Fluids,” U.S. Patent No. 4,250,044 (February 10,
Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: “The Material Balance
1981).
as an Equation of a Straight Line,” paper SPE 559,
R-20 References
Hsia, T.-Y. and Behrmann, L.A.: “Perforating Skins James, S.G., Samuelson, M.L., Reed, G.W. and
as a Function of Rock Permeability and Under- Sullivan, S.C.: “Proppant Flowback Control in High
balance,” paper SPE 22810, presented at the SPE Temperature Wells,” paper SPE 39960, presented at
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Texas, USA (October 6–9, 1991). Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, USA (April 5–8, 1998).
Hubbert, M.K. and Willis, D.G.: “Mechanics of
Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper 686-G, presented at the Jasinski, R., Redwine, D. and Rose, G.: “Boron
SPE Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, USA Equilibria with High Molecular Weight Guar: An
(October 14–17, 1956); also in Journal of Petroleum NMR Study,” J. Polymer Science: Part B: Polymer
Technology (September 1957) 9, No. 6, 153–168 and Physics (1996) 34, 1477–1488.
Trans., AIME (1957) 210.
Jeffrey, R.G.: “The Combined Effect of Fluid Lag
Huddleston, D.A.: “Liquid Aluminum Phosphate Salt and Fracture Toughness on Hydraulic Fracture
Gelling Agent,” U.S. Patent No. 5,110,485 (May 5, Propagation,” paper SPE 18957, presented at the SPE
1992). Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA
Hunt, J.L.: “Production Systems Analysis for Frac-
(March 6–8, 1989).
tured Wells,” paper SPE 15931, presented at the SPE
Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, USA Jennings, A.R.: “Fracturing Fluids—Then and Now,”
(November 12–14, 1986). paper SPE 36166-P, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(July 1996) 48, No. 7, 604–611.
Hunter, J. and Walker, R.N. Jr.: “Clean Frac Fluids
Improve Load Recovery, Tight-Gas Production,” Jizba, D. and Nur, A.: “Static and Dynamic Moduli
World Oil (October 1991) 212, No. 10, 76–78. of Tight Gas Sandstones and Their Relation to
Formation Properties,” Transactions of the SPWLA
International Society for Rock Mechanics Commission
31st Annual Logging Symposium, Lafayette,
on Testing Methods: Suggested Methods for Deter-
Louisiana, USA (June 24–27, 1990), paper BB.
mining the Fracture Toughness of Rocks, Lisbon,
Portugal, ISRM (1988). Johnson, D.E., Wright, T.B., Tambini, M., Moroli,
R. and Cleary, M.P.: “Real-Data On-Site Analysis of
Irwin, G.R.: “Analysis of Stresses and Strains Near
Hydraulic Fracturing Generates Optimum Procedures
the End of a Crack Traversing a Plate,” Journal of
for Job Design and Execution,” paper SPE 25920,
Applied Mechanics (September 1957) 24, 361–364.
presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
Ispas, I.N., Britt, L.K., Tiab, D., Valkó, P. and Meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 12–14,
Economides, M.J.: “Methodology of Fluid Leakoff 1993).
Analysis in High Permeability Fracturing,” paper
Johnson, E. and Cleary, M.P.: “Implications of Recent
SPE 39476, presented at the SPE Formation Damage
Laboratory Experimental Results for Hydraulic
Conference, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February
Fractures,” paper SPE 21846, Proc., Rocky Mountain
18–19, 1998).
Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
ISRM Commission on Testing Methods: “Suggested Denver, Colorado, USA (1991), 413–428.
Methods for Determining Mode I Fracture Toughness
Jones, J. and Soler, D.: “Fracture Stimulation of
Using Cracked Chevron Notched Brazilian Disc
Shallow, Unconsolidated Kern River Sands,” paper
(CCNBD) Specimens,” International Journal of Rock
SPE 54102 (in press).
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts (1995) 32, No. 1, 59–64. Jones, L.G., Tibbles, R.J., Myers, L., Bryant, D.,
Hardin, J. and Hurst, G.: “Gravel Packing Horizontal
Ito, T. and Hayashi, K.: “Physical Background to the
Wellbores with Leak-Off Using Shunts,” paper SPE
Breakdown Pressure in Hydraulic Fracturing Tectonic
38640, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Stress Measurements,” International Journal of Rock
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
USA (October 5–8, 1997).
Abstracts (1991) 28, No. 4, 285–293.
R-22 References
Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Lee, M.H. and Roberts, L.D.: “Effect of Heat of
Colorado, USA (1993), 625–634. Reaction on Temperature Distribution in a Fracture,”
paper SPE 7893, SPE Journal (December 1980) 20,
Labrid, J.C.: “Thermodynamic and Kinetic Aspects
No. 12, 501–507.
of Argillaceous Sandstone Acidizing,” paper SPE
5165, SPE Journal (April 1975), 117–128. Lee, M.Y. and Haimson, B.C.: “Statistical Evaluation
of Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurement
Labuz, J.F., Shah, S.P. and Dowding, C.H.:
Parameters,” International Journal of Rock
“Experimental Analysis of Crack Propagation in
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Granite,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
Abstracts (December 1989) 26, No. 6, 447–456.
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
(April 1985) 22, No. 2, 85–98. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: “Application of
Pseudotime to Buildup Test Analysis of Low-
Lagrone, K.W. and Rasmussen, J.W.: “A New
Permeability Gas Wells with Long-Duration Wellbore
Development in Completion Methods—The Limited
Storage Distortion,” paper SPE 9888, Journal of
Entry Technique,” paper SPE 530, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (December 1982) 34, No.
Petroleum Technology (July 1963) 15, 695–702.
12, 2877–2887.
Lamb, H.: Hydrodynamics, sixth edition, New York,
Leighton, D. and Acrivos, A.: “The Shear-Induced
New York, USA, Dover Publications (1932),
Migration of Particles in Concentrated Suspensions,”
581–587.
J. Fluid Mech. (1987) 181, 415–439.
Lambert, M.E.: “A Statistical Study of Reservoir
Lenoach, B.: “Hydraulic Fracture Model Based on
Heterogeneity,” MS thesis, The University of Texas
Analytical Near-Tip Solutions,” Computer Methods
at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA (1981).
and Advances in Geomechanics (1994), 1597–1602.
Lane, H.S.: “Numerical Simulation of Mud Filtrate
Lenoach, B.: “The Crack Tip Solution for Hydraulic
Invasion and Dissipation,” Transactions of the
Fracturing in a Permeable Solid,” J. Mech. Phys.
SPWLA 34th Annual Logging Symposium (June
Solids (1995) 43, No. 7, 1025.
13–16, 1993), paper D.
Levine, D.C., Thomas, E.W., Bezner, H.P. and Talle,
Larsen, L. and Hegre, T.M.: “Pressure-Transient
G.C.: “Annular Gas Flow After Cementing: A Look
Behavior of Horizontal Wells with Finite-
at Practical Solutions,” paper SPE 8255, presented at
Conductivity Vertical Fractures,” paper SPE 22076,
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
presented at the International Arctic Technology
bition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (September 23–
Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, USA (May 29–31,
26, 1979).
1991).
Li, Y., Sullivan, R.B., de Rozières, J., Gaz, G.L. and
Last, N., Plumb, R., Harkness, R., Charlez, P., Alsen,
Hinkel, J.J.: “An Overview of Current Acid Frac-
J. and McLean, M.: “An Integrated Approach to
turing Technology with Recent Implications for
Evaluating and Managing Wellbore Instability in the
Emulsified Acids,” paper SPE 26581, presented at the
Cusiana Field, Colombia, South America,” paper
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
SPE 30464, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6, 1993).
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA
(October 22–25, 1995). Lipton, D. and Burnett, D.B.: “Comparisons of
Polymers Used in Workover and Completion Fluids,”
Lea, F.M.: The Chemistry of Cement and Concrete,
paper SPE 5872, presented at the Improved Oil
third edition, New York, New York, USA, Chemical
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Publishing Co. (1971).
(March 22–24, 1976).
Lear, T.A.: “Near-Wall Velocity Measurements Using
Locke, S.: “An Advanced Method for Predicting the
Laser Doppler Velocimetry in the FFCF Simulator,”
Productivity Ratio of a Perforated Well,” paper SPE
MS thesis, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, USA
8804, Journal of Petroleum Technology (December
(1996).
1981) 33, 2481–2488.
R-24 References
Mathur, A.K., Ning, X., Marcinew, R.B., Ehlig- McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.T.: “The Effect of Ver-
Economides, C.A. and Economides, M.J.: “Hydraulic tical Fractures on Well Productivity,” paper SPE
Fracture Stimulation of Highly Permeable Forma- 1618-G, Journal of Petroleum Technology (October
tions: The Effect of Critical Fracture Parameters on 1960) 12, 72–74; also in Trans., AIME (1960) 219,
Oilwell Production and Pressure,” paper SPE 30652, 401–403.
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
McKenzie, L.F. and Hughes, B.J.: “Hydrocarbon
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 22–
Gels of Alumino Alkyl Acid Orthophosphates,”
25, 1995).
paper SPE 9007, presented at the 5th International
Maury, V.: “Rock Failure Mechanisms Identification: Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry,
A Key for Wellbore Stability and Reservoir Behav- Stanford, California, USA (May 28–30, 1980).
iour Problems,” Proc., Eurock ’94, Rock Mechanics
Meehan, D.N., Horne, R.N. and Aziz, K.: “Effects
in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, Netherlands (1994),
of Reservoir Heterogeneity and Fracture Azimuth on
175–182.
Optimization of Fracture Length and Well Spacing,”
Maury, V., Etchecopar, A. and Pezard, P.A.: “New paper SPE 17606, presented at the SPE International
Borehole Imagery Techniques: An Aid for Failure Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China
Modes and In Situ Stress Analysis and for Mini- (November 1–4, 1988).
mizing Drilling Incidents,” Transactions of the
Meese, C.A., Mullen, M.E. and Barree, R.D.: “Off-
SPWLA 40th Annual Logging Symposium, Olso,
shore Hydraulic Fracturing Technique,” paper SPE
Norway (June 8–10, 1999).
28159, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March
Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M.J. and Ehlig- 1994) 46, No. 3, 226–229.
Economides, C.A.: “Pressure Transient Analysis of
Meng, H.Z. and Brown, K.E.: “Coupling of Pro-
Fracture Calibration Tests,” paper SPE 26527, pre-
duction Forecasting, Fracture Geometry Require-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Meeting and
ments and Treatment Scheduling in the Optimum
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–
Hydraulic Fracture Design,” paper SPE 16435, pre-
6, 1993).
sented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs
Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.: Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (May 18–
“An Experimental and Fundamental Interpretation of 19, 1987).
Fracturing Filter-Cake Fluid Loss,” paper SPE 22873,
Meng, H.Z., Proano, E.A., Buhidma, I.M. and Mach,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
J.M.: “Production Systems Analysis of Vertically
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 6–
Fractured Wells,” paper SPE/DOE 10842, presented
9, 1991).
at the SPE/DOE Unconventional Gas Recovery
McCabe, M.A., Terracina, J.M. and Kunzl, R.A.: Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (May
“Continuously Gelled Diesel Systems for Fracturing 16–18, 1982).
Applications,” paper CIM/SPE 90-93, presented at
Menjivar, J.: “On the Use of Gelation Theory to
the Petroleum Society of CIM/SPE International
Characterize Metal Crosslinked Polymer Gels,”
Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (June
Proc., ACS Division of Polymer Materials: Science
10–13, 1990).
and Engineering, Washington, D.C., USA, American
McClain, C.: Fluid Flow in Pipes, New York, New Chemical Society (1984), 88–95.
York, USA, The Industrial Press (1963), 117–128.
Meyer, B.R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D
McConnell, B.: “Fracturing Fluid High-Temperature Vertical Hydraulic Fractures: Model Comparison and
Breaker for Improving Well Performance,” paper Parametric Studies,” paper SPE 15240, presented at
SPE 28219, Journal of Petroleum Technology (May the SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Sympo-
1994) 46, No. 5, 382. sium, Louisville, Kentucky, USA (May 18–21, 1986a).
McDaniel, R.R., Deysarkar, A.K., Callanan, M.J. and Meyer, B.R.: “Generalized Drag Coefficient Appli-
Kohlhaas, C.A.: “An Improved Method for Mea- cable for All Flow Regimes,” Oil & Gas Journal
suring Fluid Loss at Simulated Fracture Conditions,” (May 1986b), 71–77.
paper SPE 10259, SPE Journal (August 1985), 482.
R-26 References
Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Fedde, O.P. and Levik, also paper SPE 28529-P, SPE Production & Facilities
T.H.: “Parametric Study of Sand Production Pre- (August 1996), 138.
diction: Analytical Approach,” paper SPE 16990,
Navarrete, R.C. and Mitchell, J.P.: “Fluid-Loss
SPE Production Engineering (February 1989) 4, No.
Control for High-Permeability Rocks in Hydraulic
1, 25–33.
Fracturing Under Realistic Shear Conditions,” paper
Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L. and Wahl, H.A.: “Stress- SPE 29504, presented at the SPE Production Oper-
Intensity Factor and Fracture Cross-Sectional Shape ations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Predictions from a Three-Dimensional Model for (April 2–4, 1995).
Hydraulically Induced Fractures,” paper SPE 14262,
Nelson, E.B.: “Introduction,” Well Cementing, E.B.
Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1988) 40,
Nelson (ed.), Houston, Texas, USA, Schlumberger
No. 10, 1329–1342.
(1990), I-1–I-3.
Morris, C.W. and Sinclair, A.R.: “Evaluation of
Nelson, E.B., Baret, J.-F. and Michaux, M.: “Cement
Bottomhole Treatment Pressure for Geothermal Well
Additives and Mechanisms of Action,” Well
Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation,” paper SPE 11157,
Cementing, E.B. Nelson (ed.), Houston, Texas, USA,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (May 1984), 829.
Schlumberger (1990), 3-1–3-37.
Morse, R.A. and Von Gonten, W.D.: “Productivity of
Nelson, E.B., Constien, V.G. and Cawiezel, K.E.:
Vertically Fractured Wells Prior to Stabilized Flow,”
“Delayed Borate Crosslinked Fracturing Fluid
paper SPE 3631, Journal of Petroleum Technology
Having Increased Temperature Range,” U.S. Patent
(July 1972) 24, 807–812.
No. 5,658,861 (1997).
Mukherjee, H., Paoli, B.F., McDonald, T., Cartaya,
Nester, J.H., Jenkins, D.R. and Simon, R.: “Resis-
H. and Anderson, J.A.: “Successful Control of Frac-
tances to Failure of Oil-Well Casing Subjected to
ture Height Growth by Placement of Artificial Bar-
Non-Uniform Transverse Loading,” Drilling and
rier,” paper SPE 25917, presented at the SPE Rocky
Production Practice, New York, New York, USA,
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
American Petroleum Institute (1956), 374–378.
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 12–14,
1994); also in SPE Production & Facilities (May Nguyen, H.X. and Larson, D.B.: “Fracture Height
1995), 89. Containment by Creating an Artificial Barrier with
a New Additive,” paper SPE 12061, presented at the
Mullen, M.E., Norman, W.D. and Granger, J.C.:
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
“Productivity Comparison of Sand Control Tech-
San Francisco, California, USA (October 5–8, 1983).
niques Used for Completions in the Vermilion 331
Field,” paper SPE 27361, presented at the SPE Inter- Nierode, D.E. and Kruk, K.F.: “An Evaluation of
national Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Acid Fluid Loss Additives, Retarded Acids, and
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 7–10, 1994). Acidized Fracture Conductivity,” paper SPE 4549,
presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,
Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids
Nevada, USA (September 30–October 3, 1973).
Through Porous Media, New York, New York, USA,
McGraw-Hill Book Co. (1937). Nikolaevskiy, V.N. and Economides, M.J.: “The
Near-Well State of Stress and Induced Rock Dam-
Muskhelishvili, N.I.: Some Basic Problems of the
age,” paper SPE 58716, presented at the SPE Inter-
Theory of Elasticity, fourth edition, J.R. Radok (trans.),
national Symposium on Formation Damage, Lafay-
Groningen, Netherlands, P. Noordhoff (1953).
ette, Louisiana, USA (February 23–24, 2000).
Navarrete, R.C., Cawiezel, K.E. and Constien, V.G.:
Nimerick, K.H., McConnell, S.B. and Samuelson,
“Dynamic Fluid Loss in Hydraulic Fracturing Under
M.L.: “Compatibility of Resin-Coated Proppants with
Realistic Shear Conditions in High-Permeability
Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids,” paper SPE 20639,
Rocks,” paper SPE 28529, presented at the SPE
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 25–28, 1994);
(September 23–26, 1990); also in SPE Production
Engineering (February 1992), 29.
R-28 References
Norman, R.O.C.: Principles of Organic Synthesis, Palmer, I.D.: “Induced Stresses due to Propped
London, UK, Methuen & Co., Ltd. (1968). Hydraulic Fracture in Coalbed Methane Wells,” paper
SPE 25861, Proc., Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Norris, M.R., Berntsen, B.A., Myhre, P. and Winters,
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
W.J.: “Multiple Proppant Fracturing of a Horizontal
Colorado, USA (1993), 221–232.
Wellbore: An Integration of Two Technologies,”
paper SPE 36899, presented at the SPE European Palmer, I.D. and Veatch, R.W. Jr.: “Abnormally High
Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy (October 22– Fracturing Pressures in Step-Rate Tests,” paper SPE
24, 1996). 16902, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA
Novotny, E.J.: “Proppant Transport,” paper SPE
(September 27–30, 1987).
6813, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA Papamichos, E., Vardoulakis, I. and Ouadfel, H.:
(October 9–12, 1977). “Permeability Reduction due to Grain Crushing
Around a Perforation,” International Journal of Rock
Olejniczak, S.J., Swaren, J.A., Gulrajani, S.N. and
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Olmstead, C.C.: “Fracturing Bypassed Pay in Tubing-
Abstracts (December 1993), 30, No. 7, 1223–1229.
less Completions,” paper SPE 56467, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi- Papanastasiou, P.: “A Coupled Elasto-Plastic
bition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6, 1999). Hydraulic Fracturing Model,” International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geome-
Ong, S.H. and Roegiers, J.-C.: “Influence of Aniso-
chanics Abstracts (1997) 34, 240.
tropies in Borehole Stability,” International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geome- Papanastasiou, P. and Thiercelin, M.: “Influence of
chanics Abstracts (June 1993) 30, No. 7, 1069–1075. Inelastic Rock Behavior in Hydraulic Fracturing,”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Ott, R.E., Bell, W.T., Golian, T.G. and Harrigan, J.W.
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts (June 1993) 30,
Jr.: “Simple Method Predicts Downhole Shaped
No. 7, 1241–1247.
Charge Gun Performance,” paper SPE 27424, SPE
Production & Facilities (August 1994a) 9, No. 3, Papanastasiou, P., Thiercelin, M., Cook, J. and
171–178. Durban, D.: “The Influence of Plastic Yielding on
Breakdown Pressure in Hydraulic Fracturing,” Proc.,
Ott, R.E., Bell, W.T., Golian, T.G. and Harrigan, J.W.
35th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Reno,
Jr.: “Authors’ Reply to Discussion of Simple Method
Nevada, USA (1995), 281–286.
Predicts Downhole Shaped Charge Gun Perfor-
mance,” paper SPE 30069, SPE Production & Papinczak, A. and Miller, W.K. II: “Fracture Treat-
Facilities (November 1994b) 9, No. 4, 294–295. ment Design to Overcome Severe Near-Wellbore
Damage in a Moderate Permeability Reservoir,
Ouchterlony, F.: “Review of Fracture Toughness in
Mereenie Field, Australia,” paper SPE 25379, pre-
Rock,” Solid Mechanics Archives (1982) 7, No. 2,
sented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
131–211.
and Exhibition, Singapore (February 8–10, 1993).
Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R.: “New Solutions for
Parcevaux, P., Rae, P. and Drecq, P.: “Prevention
Well Test Analysis Problems: Part I—Analytical
of Annular Gas Migration,” Well Cementing, E.B.
Considerations,” paper SPE 18615, SPE Formation
Nelson (ed.), Houston, Texas, USA, Schlumberger
Evaluation (September 1991) 6, No. 3, 359–368.
(1990), 8-1–8-22.
Pacelli Zitha: “Effects of Bridging-Adsorption of
Parlar, M., Nelson, E.B., Walton, I.C., Park, E. and
Macromolecules on the Flow of Linear Flexible
Debonis, V.: “An Experimental Study on Fluid-Loss
Polymer Solutions in Porous Media,” C.R. Acad. Sci.
Behavior of Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
Paris, Serie IIb (1995), 320, 447–453.
in High-Permeability Porous Media,” paper SPE
Paillet, F.L. and Chang, C.H.: Acoustic Waves in 30458, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
Boreholes: CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, ference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October
USA (1991). 22–25, 1995).
R-30 References
Piggott, A.R., Brady, B.H. and Gu, H.: “Reservoir Poe, B.D. Jr., Shah, P.C. and Elbel, J.L.: “Pressure
Formation Characterization from Hydraulic Frac- Transient Behavior of a Finite-Conductivity Fractured
turing Records,” Proc., Eurock ’92 Symposium, Well with Spatially Varying Fracture Properties,”
London, UK (1992), 360–365. paper SPE 24707, presented at the SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C.,
Plahn, S.V., Nolte, K.G., Thompson, L.G. and Miska,
USA (October 4–7, 1992).
S.: “A Quantitative Investigation of the Fracture
Pump-In/Flowback Test,” paper SPE 30504, pre- Pop, J.J., Badry, R.A., Morris, C.W., Wilkinson, D.J.,
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Tottrup, P. and Jonas, J.K.: “Vertical Interference
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 22–25, Testing with a Wireline-Conveyed Straddle-Packer
1995); also in SPE Production & Facilities (February Tool,” paper SPE 26481, presented at the SPE
1997) 12, No. 1, 20–27. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6, 1993).
Plona, T.J. and Cook, J.M.: “Effects of Stress Cycles
on Static and Dynamic Young’s Moduli in Castlegate Pope, D., Britt, L., Constien, V., Anderson, A. and
Sandstones,” Proc., 35th U.S. Symposium on Rock Leung, L.: “Field Study of Guar Removal from
Mechanics, Reno, Nevada, USA (1995), 155–160. Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 31094, presented
at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
Plumb, R.A.: “Influence of Composition and Texture
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
on the Failure Properties of Clastic Rocks,” paper
(February 14–15, 1996).
SPE 28022, presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mec-
hanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference, Delft, Pope, D.S., Leung, L.K.-W., Gulbis, J. and Constien,
Netherlands (August 29–31, 1994a). V.G.: “Effects of Viscous Fingering on Fracture Con-
ductivity,” paper SPE 28511, presented at the SPE
Plumb, R.A.: “Variations of the Least Horizontal
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Stress Magnitude in Sedimentary Rocks,” Proc., 1st
Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 25–28, 1994).
North American Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Austin, Texas, USA (1994b), 71–78. Pospisil, G., Carpenter, C.C. and Pearson, C.M.:
“Impacts of Oriented Perforating on Fracture Stim-
Plumb, R.A. and Cox, J.W.: “Stress Directions in
ulation Treatments: Kuparuk River Field, Alaska,”
Eastern North American Determined to 4.5 Km from
paper SPE 29645, presented at the SPE Western
Borehole Elongation Measurements,” Journal of
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA
Geophysical Research (1987) 92, No. B6, 4805–
(March 8–10, 1995).
4816.
Poupon, A., Clavier, C., Dumanoir, J., Gaynard,
Plumb, R.A., Evans, K.F. and Engelder, T.: “Geo-
R. and Misk, A.: “Log Analysis of Sand-Shale
physical Log Responses and Their Correlation with
Sequences: A Systematic Approach,” Journal
Bed-to-Bed Stress Contrasts in Paleozoic Rocks,
of Petroleum Technology (July 1970), 867–881.
Appalachian Plateau, New York,” Journal of Geo-
physical Research (August 1991) 96, No. B9, Power, D.J., Paterson, L. and Boger, D.V.: “The
14509–14528. Influence of Fluid Properties on the Success of
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations,” paper SPE 28804,
Plumb, R.A. and Hickman, S.H.: “Stress Induced
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Con-
Borehole Elongation: A Comparison Between Four-
ference, Melbourne, Australia (November 7–10,
Arm Dipmeter and the Borehole Televiewer in the
1994).
Auburn Geothermal Well,” Journal of Geophysical
Research (1985), 90, No. B7, 5513–5521. Prats, M.: “Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir
Behavior—Incompressible Fluid Case,” paper SPE
Poe, B.D. Jr., Elbel, J.L., Spath, J.B. and Wiggins,
1575-G, SPE Journal (June 1961) 1, No. 1, 105–118;
M.L.: “Prediction of Future Well Performance,
also in Trans., AIME (1961) 222.
Including Reservoir Depletion Effects,” paper SPE
29465, presented at the SPE Operations Symposium, Prats, M.: “Effect of Burial History on the Subsurface
Denver, Colorado, USA (April 2–4, 1995). Horizontal Stresses of Formations Having Different
R-32 References
Wells in a Friable Sandstone Formation, North Sea,” Roberts, B.E., van Engen, H. and van Kruysdijk,
Proc., Eurock ’94, Rock Mechanics in Petroleum C.P.J.W.: “Productivity of Multiply Fractured Hori-
Engineering, Delft, Netherlands (1994), 309–315 zontal Wells in Tight Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE
23113, presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Con-
Raymond, L.R. and Binder, G.G.: “Productivity of
ference, Aberdeen, Scotland (September 3–6, 1991).
Wells in Vertically Fractured, Damaged Formations,”
paper SPE 1454, Journal of Petroleum Technology Roberts, C.N.: “Fracture Optimization in a Tight Gas
(January 1967) 19, 120–130. Play: Muddy-J Formation, Wattenberg Field, Colo-
rado,” paper SPE 9851, presented at the SPE Low
Recommended Practice for Standard Procedures for
Permeability Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA
Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids (RP 39),
(May 27–29, 1981).
second edition, Dallas, Texas, USA, American
Petroleum Institute (1983). Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A. and Peterson, R.E.:
“The Gas Research Institute’s Second Staged Field
Recommended Practices for Evaluation of Well
Experiment: A Study of Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper
Perforators (RP 43), fourth edition, New York, New
SPE 21495, presented at the SPE Gas Technology
York, USA, American Petroleum Institute (August
Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA (January 23–25,
1985).
1991).
Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in
Robinson, G., Ross-Murphy, S.B. and Morris, E.R.:
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations (RP 56), first edi-
“Viscosity-Molecular Weight Relationships, Intrinsic
tion, Dallas, Texas, USA, American Petroleum
Chain Flexibility, and Dynamic Solution Properties
Institute (1983).
of Guar Galactomannan,” Carbohydrate Research
Regalbuto, J.A. and Riggs, R.S.: “Underbalanced (1982) 107, 17–32.
Perforation Characteristics as Affected by Differential
Rochon, J., Creusot, M.R., Feugas, D., Thibeau, S.
Pressure,” paper SPE 15816, SPE Production Engi-
and Bergerot, J-L.: “Viscous Fluids Characterize the
neering (February 1988) 3, No. 1, 83–88.
Crushed Zone,” paper SPE 27383, SPE Drilling and
Reidenbach, V.G., Harris, P.C., Lee, Y.N. and Lord, Completion (September 1995) 10, No. 3, 198–203.
D.L.: “Rheological Study of Foam Fracturing Fluids
Rodriguez, F., Horne, R.N. and Cinco-Ley, H.: “Par-
Using Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide,” paper SPE
tially Penetrating Vertical Fractures: Pressure Trans-
12026, SPE Production Engineering (January 1986)
ient Behavior of a Finite-Conductivity Fracure,”
1, No. 1, 31–41.
paper SPE 13057, presented at the SPE Annual Tech-
Reimers, D.R. and Clausen, R.A.: “High-Permeability nical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
Fracturing at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,” paper SPE USA (September 16–19, 1984).
22835, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
Romero, J. and Féraud, J.P.: “Stability of Proppant
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October
Packs Reinforced with Fiber for Proppant Flowback
22–25, 1991).
Control,” paper SPE 31093, presented at the SPE
Rice, J.R.: “Mathematical Analysis in the Mechanics International Symposium on Formation Damage
of Fracture,” Fracture, An Advanced Treatise, New Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 14–15,
York, New York, USA, Academic Press (1968), 2. 1996).
Rice, J.R.: “Pore Pressure Effects in Inelastic Con- Romero, J., Mack, M.G. and Elbel, J.L.: “Theoretical
stitutive Formulations for Fissured Rock Masses,” Model and Numerical Investigation of Near-Wellbore
Advances in Civil Engineering Through Engineering Effects in Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 30506,
Mechanics, New York, New York, USA, American presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
Society of Civil Engineers (1977), 295–297. and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 22–
Risnes, R., Bratli, R.K. and Horsrud, P.: “Sand 25, 1995).
Stresses Around a Wellbore,” paper SPE 9650, SPE Roodhart, L.P.: “Fracturing Fluids: Fluid-Loss Mea-
Journal (December 1982) 22, No. 6, 893–898. surements Under Dynamic Conditions,” paper SPE
11900, SPE Journal (October 1985a), 629–636.
R-34 References
Valleys,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics 4834, presented at the SPE European Spring Meeting,
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts Amsterdam, Netherlands (May 29–30, 1974).
(October 1985) 22, No. 5, 291–302.
Schriefer, F.E. and Shaw, M.S.: “Use of Fine Salt as
Savins, J.G.: “Generalized Newtonian (Pseudoplastic) a Fluid Loss Material in Acid Fracturing Stimulation
Flow and Stationary Pipes and Annuli,” Trans., Treatments,” paper SPE 7570, presented at the SPE
AIME (1958) 213, 325. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, USA (October 1–3, 1978).
Schatz, J.F., Olszewski, A.J. and Schraufnagel, R.A.:
“Scale Dependence of Mechanical Properties: SCR Geomechanics Group: “On the Modelling of
Application to the Oil and Gas Industry,” paper SPE Near Tip Processes in Hydraulic Fractures,” Inter-
25904, Proc., Rocky Mountain Regional/Low national Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts (1993) 30, No.
Denver, Colorado, USA (1993), 615–624. 7, 1127–1134.
Schechter, R.S. and Gidley, J.L.: “The Change in “Section 2,” Recommended Practices for Evaluation
Pore Size Distribution from Surface Reactions in of Well Perforators (RP 43), fifth edition, Dallas,
Porous Media,” AIChE J. (May 1969) 15, 339–350. Texas, USA, American Petroleum Institute (January
1991).
Scherubel, G.A. and Crowe, C.W.: “Foamed Acid:
A New Concept in Fracture Acidizing,” paper SPE “Section 4,” Recommended Practices for Evaluation
7568, presented at the SPE Annual Technical of Well Perforators (RP 43), fifth edition, Dallas,
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA Texas, USA, American Petroleum Institute (January
(October 1–3, 1978). 1991).
Schiuma, M., Claverie, M. and Brie, A.: “Hydro- Senseny, T.W. and Pfiefle, T.W.: “Fracture Toughness
carbon Identification from Shear Sonic Logs in the of Sandstones and Shales,” Proc., 25th U.S. Sym-
Newquen Basin, Argentina,” Transactions of the posium on Rock Mechanics (1984), 390–397.
SPWLA 38th Annual Logging Symposium (1997),
Serra, O. and Andreani, M.: Thin Beds, Schlumberger
paper EEE.
(1991).
Schlottman, B.W., Miller, W.K. II and Lueders, R.K.:
Settari, A.: “A New General Model of Fluid Loss
“Massive Hydraulic Fracture Design for the East
in Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE 11625, SPE
Texas Cotton Valley Sands,” paper SPE 10133, pre-
Journal (August 1985) 25, No. 4, 491–501.
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA (October 5– Settari, A.: “Modeling of Acid-Fracturing Treat-
7, 1981). ments,” paper SPE 21870, presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Res-
Schmidt, R.A.: “Fracture Toughness Testing of Lime-
ervoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April
stone,” Exp. Mech. (May 1976) 16, No. 5, 161–167.
15–17, 1991); also in SPE Production & Facilities
Schmidt, R.A. and Huddle, C.W.: “Effect of Con- (February 1993) 8, No. 1, 30–38.
fining Pressure on Fracture Toughness of Indiana
Settari, A. and Cleary, M.P.: “Three-Dimensional
Limestone,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,” paper SPE
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
10504, presented at the SPE Symposium on Reser-
(November 1977) 14, Nos. 5–6, 289–293.
voir Simulation, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Schmidt, R.A. and Lutz, T.J.: “Klc and Jlc of Westerly (January 31–February 3, 1982); also in Journal
Granite—Effects of Thickness and In-Plane Dimen- of Petroleum Technology (July 1984) 36, No. 7,
sions,” Fracture Mechanics Applied to Brittle 1177–1190.
Materials, S.W. Freidman (ed.), Philadelphia,
Shah, S.N.: “Proppant-Settling Correlations for Non-
Pennsylvania, USA, ASTM STP (1979), 166–182.
Newtonian Fluids,” paper SPE 13835, SPE Pro-
Schols, R.S. and Visser, W.: “Proppant Bank Buildup duction Engineering (November 1986), 446.
in a Vertical Fracture Without Fluid Loss,” paper SPE
R-36 References
Sizer, J.P., Moullem, A.S. and Abou-Sayed, I.S.: Technology Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA (June
“Evaluation of Closed Fracture Acidizing Performed 7–9, 1989).
in a Tight Limestone Formation,” paper SPE 21440,
Smith, M.B., Rosenberg, R.J. and Bowen, J.F.:
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain
“Fracture Width: Design vs. Measurement,” paper
(November 16–19, 1991).
SPE 10965, presented at the SPE Technical Confer-
Skempton, A.W.: “Effective Stress in Soils, Concrete ence and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
and Rocks,” Proc., Pore Pressure and Suction in (September 26–29, 1982).
Soils, London, UK, Butterworth (1960), 4–16.
Smith, R.C.: “Successful Primary Cementing Can Be
Slattery, J.C. and Bird, R.B.: “Non-Newtonian Flow a Reality,” paper SPE 13498, Journal of Petroleum
Past a Sphere,” Chem. Eng. Sci. (1961) 16, 231–241. Technology (November 1984) 36, No. 11, 1851–
1858.
Smith, M.B.: “Effect of Fracture Azimuth on
Production with Application to the Wattenberg Gas Smith, V.T., Colt, J.R., Johnson, R.L. II and Sinclair,
Field,” paper SPE 8298, presented at the SPE Annual A.R.: “Proppant Effects on Zirconium Crosslinked
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Frac Fluids,” paper SPE 27720, presented at the SPE
Nevada, USA (September 23–26, 1979). Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Midland, Texas, USA (March 16–18, 1994).
Smith, M.B.: “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise
Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 10313, SPE Journal Smits, R.M.M., de Waal, J.A. and van Kooten, J.F.C.:
(June 1985), 371. “Prediction of Abrupt Reservoir Compaction and
Subsurface Subsidence Caused by Pore Collapse
Smith, M.B., Bale, A., Britt, L.K., Hainey, B.E. and
in Carbonates,” paper SPE 15642, SPE Formation
Klein, H.K.: “Enhanced 2D Proppant Transport
Evaluation (June 1988) 3, No. 2, 340–346.
Simulation: The Key to Understanding Proppant
Flowback and Post-Frac Productivity,” paper SPE Sneddon, I.N.: “The Distribution of Stress in the
38610, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con- Neighbourhood of a Crack in an Elastic Solid,” Proc.,
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA Royal Soc. London (1946) 187, Ser. A., 229–260.
(October 5–8, 1997).
Sneddon, I.N. and Elliot, A.A.: “The Opening of a
Smith, M.B. and Hannah, R.R.: “High Permeability Griffith Crack Under Internal Pressure,” Quarterly
Fracturing: The Evolution of a Technology,” paper of Appl. Math. (1946) 4, 262–267.
SPE 27984-P, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July
Snider, P.M., Hall, F.R. and Whisonant, R.J.: “Exper-
1996), 628.
iences with High Energy Stimulations for Enhancing
Smith, M.B. and Klein, H.H.: “Practical Applications Near-Wellbore Conductivity,” paper SPE 35321,
of Coupling Fully Numerical 2-D Transport Calcu- presented at the SPE International Petroleum Con-
lation with a PC-Based Fracture Geometry Simu- ference and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico
lator,” paper SPE 30505, presented at the SPE (March 5–7, 1996).
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Soliman, M.Y.: “Design and Analysis of a Fracture
Texas, USA (October 22–25, 1995).
with Changing Conductivity,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K. and Haga, J.: “Tip Screen- (September–October 1986a) 25, No. 5, 62–67.
Out Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable
Soliman, M.Y.: “Fracture Conductivity Distribution
Formations,” paper SPE 13273, presented at the
Studied,” Oil & Gas Journal (February 10, 1986b)
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
84, No. 6, 89–93.
Houston, Texas, USA (September 16–19, 1984); also
in SPE Production Engineering (May 1987) 2, No. Soliman, M.Y.: “Technique for Considering Fluid
2, 95–103. Compressibility and Temperature Changes in Mini-
Frac Analysis,” paper SPE 15370, presented at the
Smith, M.B., Reeves, T.L. and Miller, W.K. II:
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
“Multiple Fracture Height Measurements: A Case
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (October 5–8, 1986c).
History,” paper SPE 19092, presented at the SPE Gas
R-38 References
Terzaghi, K. van: “Die Berechnung der Durchlassig- Colorado, USA (April 15–17, 1991); also in SPE
keitsziffer des Tones aus dem Verlauf der Hydro- Formation Evaluation (December 1994) 4, No. 4,
dynamischen Spannungserscheinungen,” Sitzungsber. 251–258.
Akad. Wiss., Wien Math. Naturwiss. Kl. (1923) 132,
Thiercelin, M., Plumb, R.A., Desroches, J.,
105–124.
Bixenman, B., Jonas, J.K. and Davie, W.: “A New
Teufel, L.W.: “Determination of the In-Situ Stress Wireline Tool for In-Situ Stress Measurements,”
from Anelastic Strain Recovery Measurements of paper SPE 25906, Proc., Rocky Mountain Regional/
Oriented Cores,” paper SPE 11649, Proc., SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhi-
Symposium on Low-Permeability Reservoirs, Denver, bition, Denver, Colorado, USA (1993), 635–646.
Colorado, USA (1983), 421–427.
Thiercelin, M. and Roegiers, J.-C.: “Toughness
Teufel, L.W. and Farrell, H.E.: “In-Situ Stress and Determination with the Modified Ring Test,” Proc.,
Natural Fracture Distribution in the Ekofisk Field, 27th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tusca-
North Sea,” presented at the 3rd North Sea Chalk loosa, Alabama, USA (1986), 615–622.
Symposium, Copenhagen, Denmark (June 11–12,
Thomas, R.L., Crowe, C.W. and Simpson, B.E.:
1990).
“Effect of Chemical Treatment upon Formation Clays
Teufel, L.W. and Rhett, D.W.: “Geomechanical Evi- Is Revealed by Improved SEM Technique,” paper
dence for Shear Failure of Chalk During Production SPE 6007, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
of the Ekofisk Field,” paper SPE 22755, presented Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi- USA (October 3–6, 1976).
bition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 6–9, 1991).
Thomas, R.L. and Elbel, J.L.: “The Use of Viscosity
The Log Analyst, Special Issue on NMR Logging Stabilizers in High-Temperature Fracturing,” paper
(November–December 1996) 37, No. 6. SPE 8344, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
The Log Analyst, Special Issue on NMR Logging
(September 23–26, 1979).
(March–April 1997) 38, No. 2.
Thompson, G.D.: Effects of Formation Compressive
Thiercelin, M.: “Fracture Toughness Under Confining
Strength on Perforator Performance,” Drilling and
Pressure Using the Modified Ring Test,” Proc., 20th
Production Practice, 1962, New York, New York,
U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson,
USA, American Petroleum Institute (1963) 191–197.
Arizona, USA (June 29–July 1, 1987), 149–156.
Thompson, M. and Willis, J.R.: “A Reformulation
Thiercelin, M.: “Fracture Toughness and Hydraulic
of the Equations of Anisotropic Poro-Elasticity,”
Fracturing,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
Journal of Applied Mechanics (September 1991) 58,
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
No. 3, 612–616.
(July 1989) 26, Nos. 3–4, 177–183.
Thorne, B.J. and Morris, H.E.: “Advances in Bore-
Thiercelin, M., Desroches, J. and Kurkjian, A.: “Open
hole Seismic Fracture Diagnostics,” paper SPE/DOE
Hole Stress Test in Shales,” Proc., Eurock ’94 Sym-
16405, presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability
posium, Delft, Netherlands (1994), 921–928.
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA
Thiercelin, M., Jeffrey, R.G. and Ben Naceur, K.: (May 18–19, 1987).
“Influence of Fracture Toughness on the Geometry
Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.: “Application of the pD´
of Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 16431, SPE
Function of Interference Analysis,” paper SPE 6053,
Production Engineering (November 1989) 4, No.
Journal of Petroleum Technology (August 1980) 32,
4, 435–442.
1465–1470.
Thiercelin, M. and Plumb, R.A.: “A Core-Based
Tiab, D. and Puthigai, S.K.: “Pressure-Derivative
Prediction of Lithologic Stress Contrasts in East
Type Curves for Vertically Fractured Wells,” paper
Texas Formations,” paper SPE 21847, presented at
SPE 11028, SPE Formation Evaluation (March
the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low
1988) 3, No. 1, 156–158.
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
R-40 References
van de Ketterij, R.G.: “Raw Data of Hydraulic Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
Fracturing Model Tests—Series 5,” test report, Delft USA (October 5–8, 1986).
University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands (April
Veatch, R.W. Jr. and Crowell, R.F.: “Joint Research
1996).
Operations Programs Accelerate Massive Hydraulic
van der Vlis, A.C., Haafkens, R., Schipper, B.A. and Fracturing Technology,” paper SPE 9337, Journal
Visser, W.: “Criteria for Proppant Placement and of Petroleum Technology (December 1982) 34, No.
Fracture Conductivity,” paper SPE 5637, presented 2, 2763–2775.
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
Veeken, C.A.M., Davies, D.R., Kenter, C.J. and
bition, Dallas, Texas, USA (September 28–October
Kooijman, A.P.: “Sand Production Prediction
1, 1975).
Review: Developing an Integrated Approach,” paper
Van Domelen, M.S.: “Optimizing Fracture Acidizing SPE 22792, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Treatment Design by Integrating Core Testing, Field Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA
Testing, and Computer Simulation,” paper SPE (October 6–9, 1991).
22393, presented at the SPE International Meeting
Veley, C.D.: “How Hydrolyzable Metal Ions React
on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China (March
with Clays to Control Formation Water Sensitivity,”
24–27, 1992).
paper SPE 2188, Journal of Petroleum Technology
Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: “The Application (September 1969) 21, No. 9, 1111–1118.
of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in
Venghiattis, A.A.: “Prediction of the Efficiency of
Reservoirs,” Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305–324.
a Perforator Down-Hole Based on Acoustic Logging
van Heerden, W.L.: “General Relations Between Information,” paper SPE 422, Journal of Petroleum
Static and Dynamic Moduli of Rocks,” International Technology (July 1963) 15, No. 6, 761–768.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
Vincent, M.C. and Pearson, C.M.: “The Relationship
& Geomechanics Abstracts (1987) 24, No. 6, 381–
Between Fractured Well Performance and Hole
385.
Deviation,” paper SPE 29569, presented at the SPE
van Kruysdijk, C.P.J.W.: “Semianalytical Modeling Rocky Mountain Regional Low-Permeability Res-
of Pressure Transients in Fractured Reservoirs,” paper ervoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (March
SPE 18169, presented at the SPE Annual Technical 20–22, 1995).
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA
Vinegar, H.J., Wills, P.B., DeMartini, D.C., Shlya-
(October 2–5, 1988).
pobersky, J., Deeg, W.F.J., Adair, R.G., Woerpel, J.C.,
van Kruysdijk, C.P.J.W. and Dullaert, G.M.: “A Fix, J.E. and Sorrells, G.G.: “Active and Passive
Boundary Element Solution to the Transient Pressure Seismic Imaging of a Hydraulic Fracture in Diato-
Response of Multiple Fractured Horizontal Wells,” mite,” paper SPE 22756, Journal of Petroleum
presented at the 2nd European Conference on the Technology (January 1992) 44, 28–34, 88–90.
Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Cambridge, UK (July
Vinod, P.L., Flindt, M.L., Card, R.J. and Mitchell,
25–27, 1989).
J.P.: “Dynamic Fluid-Loss Studies in Low-
van Poollen, H.K., Tinsley, J.M. and Saunders, C.D.: Permeability Formations with Natural Fractures,”
“Hydraulic Fracturing: Fracture Flow Capacity vs. paper SPE 37486, presented at the SPE Production
Well Productivity,” Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 91–95. Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
USA (March 9–11, 1997).
Veatch, R.W. Jr.: “Overview of Current Hydraulic
Fracturing Design and Treatment Technology—Part Vliet, M.R.A. v.: “Size Effect of Concrete and Rock
1,” paper SPE 10039, Journal of Petroleum Tech- Under Uniaxial Tension,” Delft University of Tech-
nology (April 1983) 35, No. 4, 677–687. ology, Delft, Netherlands (1999).
Veatch, R.W. Jr.: “Economics of Fracturing: Some Vogel, J.V.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for
Methods, Examples, and Case Studies,” paper SPE Solution-Gas Drive Wells,” paper SPE 1476, Journal
15509, presented at the SPE Annual Technical of Petroleum Technology (January 1968) 20, 83–92.
R-42 References
ect,” paper SPE 36450, presented at the SPE Annual Field,” paper SPE 16403, presented at the SPE/DOE
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colo- Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
rado, USA (October 6–9, 1996). Colorado, USA (May 18–19, 1987).
Watkins, E.K., Wendorff, C.L. and Ainley, B.R.: “A Whitsitt, N.F. and Dysart, G.R.: “The Effect of Tem-
New Crosslinked Foamed Fracturing Fluid,” paper perature on Stimulation Design,” paper SPE 2497,
SPE 12027, presented at the SPE Annual Technical presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Denver,
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Cali- Colorado, USA (September 28–October 1, 1969);
fornia, USA (October 5–8, 1983). also in Journal of Petroleum Technology (April
1970), 493–502; also in Trans., AIME (1970) 249.
Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: “Gas Well
Testing with Turbulence, Damage, and Wellbore Wilkinson, D.J. and Hammond, P.A.: “A Pertubation
Storage,” paper SPE 1835, Journal of Petroleum Theorem for Mixed Boundary Value Problems in
Technology (August 1968) 20, No. 8, 877–887; also Pressure Transient Testing,” Transport in Porous
in Trans., AIME (1968) 243. Media (1992) 5, 609–636.
Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: “Well Test Willberg, D.M., Steinsberger, N., Hoover, R., Card
Interpretation in Vertically Fractured Gas Wells,” R.J. and Queen, J.: “Optimization of Fracture Clean-
paper SPE 2155, Journal of Petroleum Technology up Using Flowback Analysis,” paper SPE 39920,
(May 1969) 21, No. 5, 625–632; also in Trans., presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
AIME (1969) 246. Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA (April 5–8, 1998).
Webster K.R., Goins, W.C. and Berry S.C. “A Con-
tinuous Multistage Fracturing Technique,” paper SPE Williams, B.B.: “Fluid Loss from Hydraulically
977, Journal of Petroleum Technology (June 1965) Induced Fractures,” paper SPE 2769, Journal of
17, No. 6, 619–625. Petroleum Technology (July 1970) 22, No. 6, 882–
888.
Weijers, L.: The Near-Wellbore Geometry of Hydrau-
lic Fractures Initiated from Horizontal and Deviated Williams, B.B., Gidley J.L. and Schechter, R.S.:
Wells, Delft, Netherlands, Delft University Press Acidizing Fundamentals, Richardson, Texas, USA,
(1995). Society of Petroleum Engineers (1979).
Wendorff, C.L. and Ainley, B.R.: “Massive Hydraulic Williamson, C.D. and Allenson, S.J: “A New Non-
Fracturing of High-Temperature Wells with Stable damaging Particulate Fluid-Loss Additive,” paper
Frac Foams,” paper SPE 10257, presented at the SPE SPE 18474, presented at the SPE International Sym-
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San posium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA
Antonio, Texas, USA (October 5–7, 1981). (February 8–10, 1989).
Weng, X.: “Incorporation of 2D Fluid Flow into a Willson, S.M.: “Maximizing Completions Efficiency
Pseudo-3D Hydraulic Fracturing Simulator,” paper Through High Overbalanced Perforating,” TerraTek
SPE 21849, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain (February 1995) CEA 61 Phase I.
Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs
Winkler, K.W. and Murphy, W.F. III: “Acoustic
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 15–17,
Velocity and Attenuation in Porous Rocks,” Rock
1991).
Physics and Phase Relations. A Handbook of Phys-
Whistler, R.L. (ed.): Industrial Gums, New York, ical Constants, AGU Reference Shelf, Washington,
New York, USA, Academic Press (1959). D.C., USA, American Geophysical Union (1995) 3,
20–34.
White, J.L. and Daniel, E.F.: “Key Factors in MHF
Design,” paper SPE 9065, Journal of Petroleum Winkler, W., Valkó, P. and Economides, M.J:
Technology (August 1981) 33, No. 8, 1501–1512. “Laminar and Drag-Reduced Polymeric Foam Flow,”
J. Rheol. (January–February 1994) 38, No. 1, 111–
Whitehead, W.S., Hunt, E.R. and Holditch, S.A.:
127.
“The Effects of Lithology and Reservoir Pressure on
the In-Situ Stresses in the Waskom (Travis Peak)
R-44 References
Unique Process, Economic Impact and Related Adair, P. and Smith, P.S.: “The Miller Field:
Production Improvements,” paper SPE 54474, pre- Appraisal and Development Formation Damage
sented at the SPE/ICOTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Experiences,” paper SPE 27406, presented at the
Houston, Texas, USA (May 25–26, 1999). SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 7–10,
Zhao, X.L., Roegiers, J.-C. and Guo, M.: “The
1994).
Determination of Fracture Toughness of Rocks by
Chevron-Notched Brazilian Disk Specimens,” 4th Addison, G.E.: “Identification and Treating of
Annual SCA Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas, Downhole Organic Deposits,” paper SPE 18894,
USA (August 15–16, 1990), paper 9014. presented at the SPE Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Zhao, Z.-Y., Cui, M., Conway, M.W. and Chang, F.F.:
(March 13–14, 1989).
“The Rheology of Chinese XD and ZW Borate
Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids and Their Proppant Ali, S.A., Durham, D.K. and Elphingstone, E.A.:
Transport Capability,” paper SPE 29991, presented “Testing Identifies Acidizing Fluid/Crude
at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engi- Compatibility Problems,” Oil & Gas Journal
neering, Beijing, People’s Republic of China (No- (March 1994), 47–51.
vember 14–17, 1995).
Ali, S.A., Hill, D.G., McConnell, S.B. and Johnson,
Zimmerman, R.W., Somerton, W.H. and King, M.S.: M.R.: “Process, Optimized Acidizing Reduce
“Compressibility of Porous Rock,” Journal of Geo- Production Facility Upsets,” Oil & Gas Journal
physical Research (November 1986) 91, No. B12, (February 1997), 44–48.
12765–12777.
Allen, T.O.: “Creative Task Force Attack on Profit
Zimmerman, T., MacInnis, J., Hoppe, J., Pop, J. and Loss Due to Formation Damage,” paper SPE 4658,
Long, T.: “Application of Emerging Wireline For- presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,
mation Testing Technologies,” paper OSEA 90105, Nevada, USA (September 30–October 3, 1973).
presented at the Offshore South East Asia Confer-
Almond, S.W., Brady, J.L. and Underdown, D.R.:
ence, Singapore (December 4–7, 1990).
“Prudhoe Bay Field Study—Return Fluid Analysis,”
Zoback, M.D., Moos, D. and Mastin, L.: “Well Bore paper SPE 18223, Journal of Petroleum Technology
Breakouts and In Situ Stress,” Journal of Geophysical (April 1990) 42, No. 4, 466.
Research (1985) 90, No. B7, 5523–5530.
Amaefule, J.O., et al.: “Advances in Formation
Damage Assessment and Control Strategies,” paper
CIM 88-39-65 (1988).
Chapters 13–20 Amaefule, J.O., Padilla, P.C., McCaffery, F.G. and
Abdel-Mota’al, A.A.: “Detection and Remedy Teal, S.L.: “Steam Condensate: Formation Damage
of Behind-Casing Communication During Well and Chemical Treatments for Injectivity Improve-
Completion,” paper SPE 11498, presented at the ment,” paper SPE 12499, presented at the SPE
SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield,
Manama, Bahrain (March 14–17, 1983). California, USA (February 13–14, 1984).
Abrams, A.: “Mud Design to Minimize Rock Antheunis, D., Luque, F.R., van der Vlis, A.C. and
Impairment Due to Particle Invasion,” paper SPE Vriezen, P.B.: “The Onset of Sand Influx from Gas-
5713, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March Producing Friable Sandstone Formations—Labor-
1977), 586–592. atory Investigations,” paper SPE 8031 (1979).
Abrams, A., Scheuerman, R.F., Templeton, C.C. and Antheunis, D., Vriezen, P.B., Schipper, B.A. and
Richardson, E.A.: “Higher-pH Acid Stimulation van der Vlis, A.C.: “Perforation Collapse: Failure
Systems,” paper SPE 7892, Journal of Petroleum of Perforated Friable Sandstones,” paper SPE 5750,
Technology (December 1983), 2175–2184. presented at the SPE European Spring Meeting,
Amsterdam, Netherlands (April 8–9, 1976).
R-46 References
on Permeability of Porous Media to Water,” SPE Boyer, R.C. and Wu, C.-H.: “The Role of Reservoir
Journal (December 1965), 295. Lithology in Design of an Acidization Program:
Kuparuk River Formation, North Slope, Alaska,”
Bertaux, J.: “Treatment Fluid Selection for Sand-
paper SPE 11722, presented at the SPE California
stone Acidizing: Permeability Impairment in
Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, USA (March
Potassic Mineral Sandstones,” paper SPE 15884,
23–25, 1983).
SPE Production Engineering (February 1989), 41.
Brannon, D.H., Netters, C.K. and Grimmer, P.J.:
Bikerman, J.J.: “Foams and Emulsions—Formation
“Matrix Acidizing Design and Quality-Control
Properties and Breakdowns,” presented at the
Techniques Prove Successful in Main Pass Area
Chemistry and Physics of Interfaces—Symposium
Sandstone,” paper SPE 14827, Journal of Petroleum
on Interfaces (June 15–16, 1964).
Technology (August 1987), 931–942.
Bird, K. and Dunmore, S.: “Optimising Perforation
Brannon, H.D. and Pulsinelli, R.J.: “Evaluation of
Performance for the Armada Gas Condensate
the Breaker Concentrations Required to Improve the
Development,” paper SPE 30083, presented at the
Permeability of Proppant Packs Damaged by
SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids,” paper SPE 19402,
Hague, Netherlands (May 15–16, 1995).
presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control
Black, A.D., Dearing, H.L. and DiBona, B.G.: Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February
“Effects of Pore Pressure and Mud Filtration on 22–23, 1990).
Drilling Rates in a Permeable Sandstone,” paper SPE
Brown, R.W., Neill, G.H. and Loper, R.G.: “Factors
12117, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September
Influencing Optimum Ball Sealer Performance,”
1985), 1671.
Journal of Petroleum Technology (April 1963),
Black, S.J. and Rike, J.L.: “The Role of the Consult- 450–454.
ant in Meeting the Formation Damage Challenge,”
Browne, S.V., Ryan, D.F., Chambers, B.D., Oilchrist,
paper SPE 5700, presented at the SPE Symposium
J.M. and Bamforth, S.A: “Simple Approach to the
on Formation Damage Control, Houston, Texas,
Clean-Up of Horizontal Wells with Pre-Packed
USA (January 29–30, 1976).
Screen Completions,” paper SPE 30116, presented
Blacker, L.K.: “An Analysis of Rate-Sensitive Skin at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference,
in Oil Wells,” paper SPE 11187, presented at the The Hague, Netherlands (May 15–16, 1995).
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Brownson, G.W., Peyden, J.M. and Heriot-Watt, U.:
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (September 26–29,
“A Systematic Approach to Assessing Permeability
1982).
Impairment Due to Drilling Fluids,” paper SPE 9727
Blann, J.R. and Williams J.D.: “Determining the (November 18, 1980).
Most Profitable Gas Injection Pressure for a Gas Lift
Bruist, E.H.: “Better Performance of Gulf Coast
Installation,” paper SPE 12202, Journal of Petro-
Wells,” paper SPE 4777, presented at the SPE
leum Technology (August 1994), 1305.
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New
Blanton, R.J.: “Formation Damage Control During Orleans, Louisiana, USA (February 7–8, 1974).
Underreaming and Gravel Packing in an Over-
Bryant, S.L.: “An Improved Model of Mud Acid/
pressured Reservoir,” paper SPE 23804, presented
Sandstone Chemistry,” paper SPE 22855, presented
at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 6–9, 1991).
(February 26–27, 1992).
Bryant, S.L. and Buller, D.C.: “Formation Damage
Blanton, T.L. III: “Deformation of Chalk Under
from Acid Treatments,” paper SPE 17597, SPE
Confining Pressure and Pore Pressure,” paper SPE
Production Engineering (November 1990), 455.
8076, presented at the SPE European Offshore
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, London, Bryant, S.L., Mellor, D.W. and Cade, C.A.: “Physi-
UK (October 24–27, 1978). cally Representative Network Models of Transport
R-48 References
Coppel, C.P.: “Factors Causing Emulsion Upsets Cunningham, W.C. and Smith, D.K.: “Effect of Salt
in Surface Facilities Following Acid Stimulation,” Cement Filtrate on Subsurface Formations,” paper
paper SPE 5154, Journal of Petroleum Technology SPE 1920, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March
(September 1975), 1060–1066. 1968), 259–264.
Cowen, J.C. and Weintritt, D.J.: Water Formed Scale Cussler, E.L.: Diffusion: Mass Transfer in Fluid
Deposits, Houston, Texas, USA, Gulf Publishing Co. Systems, New York, New York, USA, Cambridge
(1976). University Press (1984).
Crowe, C.W.: “Evaluation of Oil Soluble Resin Daccord, G.: “Acidizing Physics,” Reservoir
Mixtures as Diverting Agents for Matrix Acidizing,” Stimulation, M.J. Economides and K.G. Nolte (eds.),
paper SPE 3505, presented at the SPE Annual second edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA,
Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (October Prentice Hall (1989), 13-1–13-13.
3–6, 1971).
Daccord, G. and Lenormand, R.: “Fractal Patterns
Crowe, C.W.: “Evaluation of Agents for Preventing from Chemical Dissolution,” Nature (1987) 325,
Precipitation of Ferric Hydroxide from Spent 41–43.
Treating Acid,” paper SPE 12497, Journal of
Daccord, G., Lenormand, R. and Liétard, O.:
Petroleum Technology (April 1985), 691–695.
“Chemical Dissolution of a Porous Medium by
Crowe, C.W.: “Precipitation of Hydrated Silica from a Reactive Fluid,” Chemical Engineering Science
Spent Hydrofluoric Acid—How Much of a Problem (1993) 48, No. 1, 169–186.
Is It?,” paper SPE 13083, Journal of Petroleum
Daccord, G., Touboul, E. and Lenormand, R.:
Technology (1986), 1234.
“Carbonate Acidizing: Toward a Quantitative Model
Crowe, C.W. and Cryar, H.B. Jr.: “Development of of the Wormholing Phenomenon,” paper SPE 16887,
Oil Soluble Resin Mixture for Control of Fluid Loss SPE Production Engineering (February 1989),
in Water Base Workover and Completion Fluids,” 63–68.
paper SPE 5662, presented at the SPE Annual
Dahlgaard, C.C.: “Compressed Air and Foam,
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
Cleanout Technique for Old Open Hole
USA (September 28–October 1, 1975).
Completions,” paper SPE 11854, presented at the
Crowe, C.W., Martin, R.C. and Michaelis, A.M.: SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Salt Lake
“Evaluation of Acid Gelling Agents for Use in Well City, Utah, USA (May 23–25, 1983).
Stimulation,” paper SPE 9384, SPE Journal (August
da Motta, E.P., Hill, A.D. and Sepehrnoori, K.:
1981), 415.
“Selective Matrix Acidizing of Horizontal Wells,”
Crowe, C.W., McGowan, G.R. and Baranet, S.E.: paper SPE 27399, presented at the SPE International
“Investigation of Retarded Acids Provides Better Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafay-
Understanding of Their Effectiveness and Potential ette, Louisiana, USA (February 7–10, 1994).
Benefits,” paper SPE 18222, SPE Production
da Motta, E.P., Plavnik, B. and Schechter, R.S.:
Engineering (May 1990), 166.
“Optimizing Sandstone Acidization,” SPE Reservoir
Crowe, C.W. and Minor, S.S.: “Acid Corrosion Engineering (February 1992a), 149–153.
Inhibitor Adsorption and Its Effect on Matrix Stim-
da Motta, E.P., Plavnik, B., Schechter, R.S. and Hill,
ulation Results,” paper SPE 10650, presented at the
A.D.: “The Relationship Between Reservoir Min-
SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
eralogy and Optimum Sandstone Acid Treatment,”
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (March 24–25, 1982).
paper SPE 23802, presented at the SPE International
Crowe, C.W. and Minor, S.S.: “Effect of Acid Cor- Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafay-
rosion Inhibitors on Matrix Stimulation Results,” ette, Louisiana, USA (February 26–27, 1992b).
paper SPE 11119, Journal of Petroleum Technology
Danesh, A., et al.: “Asphaltene Deposition in
(1985), 1853.
Miscible Gas Flooding of Oil Reservoirs,” Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. (July 1988) 66, 339–344.
R-50 References
Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, Hydrofluoric Acid,” paper SPE 2621, Journal of
C.: Petroleum Production Systems, Englewood Petroleum Technology (April 1970), 433–440.
Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall (1994).
Fetkovitch, M.J. and Vienot, M.E.: “Shape Factor,
Efthim, F.P., Garner, J.J., Bilden, D.M., Kovacevich, CA, Expressed as Skin, sCA,” paper SPE 13304,
S.T. and Pence, T.C.: “Evaluation and Treatment of Journal of Petroleum Technology (February 1985),
Organic and Inorganic Damage in an Unconsolidated 321.
Asphaltic Crude Reservoir,” paper SPE 19412,
Fischer, P.W., Gallus, J.P., Krueger, R.F., Pye, D.S.,
presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control
Simmons, F.J. and Talley, B.E.: “An Organic ‘Clay
Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February
Substitute’ for Nondamaging Water Base Drilling
22–23, 1990).
and Completion Fluids,” paper SPE 4651, presented
Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Joseph, J.A.: “A New at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada,
Test for Determination of Individual Layer USA (September 30–October 3, 1973).
Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir,” paper SPE
Fisher, A.W., Foulser, R.W.S. and Goodyear, S.G.:
14167, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
“Mathematical Modeling of Foam Flooding,” paper
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,
SPE 20195, presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium
USA (September 22–25, 1985).
on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Elbel, J.L., Navarrete, R.C. and Poe, B.D. Jr.: (April 22–25, 1990).
“Production Effects of Fluid Loss in Fracturing
Flanigan, M.J.: “Smaller Gravel and Coated Screens
High-Permeability Formations,” paper SPE 30098,
Enhance 50-Year-Old Field,” paper SPE 7973,
presented at the SPE European Formation Damage
Journal of Petroleum Technology (May 1980),
Conference, The Hague, Netherlands (May 15–16,
757–763.
1995).
Fletcher, P.A., Montgomery, C.T. and Ramos, G.G.:
Erbstoesser, S.R.: “Improved Ball Sealer Diversion,”
“Optimizing Hydraulic Fracture Length to Prevent
paper SPE 8401, Journal of Petroleum Technology
Formation Failure in Oil and Gas Reservoirs,” Proc.,
(November 1980), 1903.
35th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Reno,
Ettinger, R.A. and Radke, C.J.: “Influence of Texture Nevada, USA (June 1995), 293–298.
on Steady Foam Flow in Berea Sandstone,” paper
Fogler, H.S. and Crain, E.R.: “Stimulation of Gas
SPE 19688, SPE Reservoir Engineering (February
Storage Fields to Restore Deliverability,” paper SPE
1992), 83.
8731, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September
Ezeukwu, T., Thomas, R.L. and Gunneroed, T.: 1980), 1612–1620.
“Fines Migration Control in High-Water-Cut
Fogler, H.S., Lund, K. and McCune, C.C.: “Acid-
Nigerian Oil Wells: Problems and Solutions,” paper
ization. Part 3. The Kinetics of the Dissolution of
SPE 39482, presented at the SPE International
Sodium and Potassium Feldspar in HF/HCl Acid
Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Mixtures,” Chem. Eng. Sci. (1975) 30, No. 11,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 18–19, 1998).
1325–1332.
Faber, M.J., Davies, D.R., Nitters, G. and Ruessink,
Fogler, H.S., Lund, K. and McCune, C.C.:
B.H.: “A Novel Procedure to Increase Well
“Predicting the Flow and Reaction of HCl/HF
Response to Matrix Acidising Treatments,” paper
Mixtures in Porous Sandstone Cores,” paper SPE
SPE 23621, SPE Advanced Technology Series (1994)
5646, SPE Journal (October 1976), 248–260.
2, No. 1, 5–14.
Fogler, H.S., Lund, K., McCune, C.C. and Ault,
Falls, A.H., Musters, I.J. and Ratulowski, J.: “The
J.W.: “Dissolution of Selected Minerals in Mud
Apparent Viscosity of Foams in Homogeneous Bead
Acid,” paper 52C, presented at the American
Packs,” paper SPE 16048, SPE Reservoir Engi-
Institute of Chemical Engineers 74th National
neering (May 1989), 1263.
Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (March
Farley, J.T., Miller, B.M. and Schoettle, V.: “Design 1973).
Criteria for Matrix Stimulation with Hydrochloric-
R-52 References
Gdanski, R.D. and Peavy, M.A.: “Well Return Gougler, P.D. Jr., Hendrick, J.E. and Coulter, A.W.:
Analysis Causes Re-Evaluation of HCl Theories,” “Field Investigation Identifies Source and Magnitude
paper SPE 14825, presented at the SPE Symposium of Iron Problems,” paper SPE 13812, presented at
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Okla-
USA (February 26–27, 1986). homa City, Oklahoma, USA (March 10–12, 1985).
Gidley, J.L.: “Stimulation of Sandstone Formations Gudmundson, J.S. and Ortiz-R., J.: “Two-Phase
with the Acid-Mutual Solvent Method,” paper SPE Flow and Calcite Deposition,” paper SPE 12741,
3007, Journal of Petroleum Technology (May 1971), presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
551–558. Long Beach, California, USA (April 11–13, 1984).
Gidley, J.L.: “Acidizing Sandstone Formations: A Guidry, G.S., Ruiz, G.A. and Saxon, A.: “SXE/N2
Detailed Examination of Recent Experience,” paper Matrix Acidizing,” paper SPE 17951, presented at
SPE 14164, presented at the SPE Annual Technical the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference and
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain (March 11–14, 1989).
USA (September 22–25, 1985).
Guin, J.A. and Schechter, R.S.: “Matrix Acidization
Gidley, J.L., Brezovec, E.J. and King, G.E.: “An with Highly Reactive Acids,” SPE Journal
Improved Method for Acidizing Oil Wells in Sand- (December 1971), 390–398.
stone Formations,” paper SPE 26580, SPE
Guin, J.A., Schechter, R.S. and Silberberg, I.H.:
Production & Facilities (February 1996).
“Chemically Induced Changes in Porous Media,”
Gidley, J.L. and Hanson, H.R.: “Prevention of Ind. & Eng. Chem. Fund. (February 1971) 10, No.
Central Terminal Upsets Related to Stimulation and 1, 50–54.
Consolidation Treatments,” paper SPE 4551, pre-
Gulati, M.S. and Maly, G.P.: “Thin-Section and
sented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,
Permeability Studies Call for Smaller Gravels in
Nevada, USA (September 30–October 3, 1973).
Gravel Packing,” paper SPE 4773, Journal of
Gidley, J.L., Penny, G.S. and McDaniel, R.R.: Petroleum Technology (January 1975), 107–112.
“Effect of Proppant Failure and Fines Migration
Gunter, W.D., Zhou, Z. and Perkins, E.H.:
on Conductivity of Propped Fractures,” paper SPE
“Modeling Formation Damage Caused by Kaolinite
24008, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and
from 25 to 300 Degrees Centigrade in the Oil Sand
Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, USA
Reservoirs of Alberta,” paper SPE 23786, presented
(March 18–20, 1992); also in SPE Production &
at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
Facilities (February 1995), 20.
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
Ginest, N.H., Phillips, J.E., Al-Gamber, A.W.A. and (February 26–27, 1992).
Wright, D.W.: “Field Evaluation of Acid Stimulation
Hall, B.E.: “The Effect of Mutual Solvents on
Diverter Materials and Placement Methods in Arab-
Adsorption in Sandstone Acidizing,” Journal of
D Injection Wells with Openhole Completions,”
Petroleum Technology (December 1975), 1439.
paper SPE 25412, presented at the SPE Middle East
Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain Hall, B.E.: “Workover Fluids: Parts 1–5,” World Oil
(April 3–6, 1993). (May–July, October and December 1986), 111–114,
64–67, 65–68, 61–63 and 49–50.
Givens, J.C.: “Old Idea (with New Application)
Increases Oil and Gas Production,” paper SPE 6499 Hall, B.E. and Dill, W.R.: “Iron Control Additives
(November 1976). for Limestone and Sandstone Acidizing of Sweet
and Sour Wells,” paper SPE 17159, presented at the
Goode, D.L, Berry, S.D. and Stacy, A.L.: “Aqueous-
SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Based Remedial Treatments for Reservoirs Damaged
Bakersfield, California, USA (February 8–9, 1988).
by Oil-Phase Drilling Muds,” paper SPE 12501, pre-
sented at presented at the SPE Formation Damage Hall, B.E., Tinnemeyer, A.C. and Underwood, P.J.:
Control Symposium, Bakersfield, California, USA “Stimulation of the North Coles Levee Field with a
(February 13–14, 1984). Retarded HF-Acid,” paper SPE 9934, presented at
R-54 References
presented at the SPE Oklahoma City Regional Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Meeting, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA (March Texas, USA (October 6–9, 1991).
24–25, 1975).
Huang, T., Hill, A.D. and Schechter, R.S.: “Reaction
Holub, R.W., Maly, G.P., Noel, R.P. and Weinbrandt, Rate and Fluid Loss: The Keys to Wormhole Initia-
R.M.: “Scanning Electron Microscope Pictures of tion and Propagation in Carbonate Acidizing,” paper
Reservoir Rocks Reveal Ways to Increase Oil SPE 37312, presented at the SPE International
Production,” paper SPE 4787, presented at the SPE Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas,
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New USA (February 18–21, 1997).
Orleans, Louisiana, USA (February 7–8, 1974).
Huh, D.G. and Handy, L.L: “Comparison of Steady-
Hong, K.C: “Productivity of Perforated Completions and Unsteady-State Flow of Gas and Foaming
in Formations With or Without Damage,” paper SPE Solution in Porous Media,” paper SPE 15078, SPE
4653, Journal of Petroleum Technology (August Reservoir Engineering (February 1989), 77–84.
1975), 1027–1038.
Hung, K.M.: “Modeling of Wormhole Behavior in
Hoover, J.E. (ed.): Remington’s Pharmaceutical Carbonate Acidizing,” PhD dissertation, The Uni-
Sciences, 14th edition, Easton, Pennsylvania, USA, versity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
Mack Publishing Co. (1970). (1987).
Horton, H.L., Hendrickson, A.R. and Crowe, C.W.: Hung, K.M., Hill, A.D. and Sepehrnoori, K.:
“Matrix Acidizing of Limestone Reservoirs,” paper “A Mechanistic Model of Wormhole Growth in
API N906-10-F, presented at the Spring Meeting of Carbonate Matrix Acidizing and Acid Fracturing,”
the Southwestern District, Dallas, Texas, USA paper SPE 16886, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(March 10–12, 1965). (January 1989) 41, No. 1, 59–66.
Houchin, L.R., Dunlap, D.D., Arnold, B.D. and Hurst, R.E.: “Our Petroleum Reservoirs Deserve
Domke, K.M.: “The Occurrence and Control of Better Care,” paper SPE 4659, presented at the SPE
Acid-Induced Asphaltene Sludge,” paper SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
19410, presented at the SPE Formation Damage (September 30–October 3, 1973).
Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
Iler, R.K.: The Chemistry of Silica: Solubility, Poly-
(February 22–23, 1990).
merization, Colloid and Surface Properties, and
Houchin, L.R., Dunlap, D.D., Hudson, L.M. and Biochemistry, New York, New York, USA, J. Wiley
Begnaud, P.C.: “Evaluation of Oil-Soluble Resin as and Sons, Inc. (1979).
an Acid-Diverting Agent,” paper SPE 15574, pre-
Jacobs, I.C. and Thorne, M.A.: “Asphaltene Precip-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
itation During Acid Stimulation Treatments,” paper
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (October
SPE 14823, presented at the SPE Symposium on
5–8, 1986).
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
Houchin, L.R. and Hudson, L.M.: “The Prediction, USA (February 26–27, 1986).
Evaluation and Treatment of Formation Damage
Jensen, J.A. and Friedmann, F.: “Physical and
Caused by Organic Deposition,” paper SPE 14818,
Chemical Effects of an Oil Phase on the Propagation
presented at the SPE Symposium on Formation
of Foam in Porous Media,” paper SPE 16375, pre-
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
sented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
(February 26–27, 1986).
Ventura, California, USA (April 8–10, 1987).
Hower, W.F.: “Influence of Clays on the Production
Jiang, R. and Anson, F.C.: “Association of Electro-
of Hydrocarbons,” paper SPE 4785, presented at the
active Counterions with Polyelectrolytes. 4.
SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Coordinative Binding of Ru (EDTA) to Poly (4-
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (February 7–8, 1974).
Vinylpyridine),” J. Phys. Chem. (1992) 96, 452.
Hsia, T-Y. and Behrmann, L.A.: “Perforating Skins
Jiao, D. and Sharma, M.M.: “Formation Damage
as a Function of Rock Permeability and Under-
Due to Static and Dynamic Filtration of Water-Based
balance,” paper SPE 22810, presented at the SPE
Muds,” paper SPE 23823, presented at the SPE
R-56 References
teristics Using a Dynamic Laboratory Model—High Krueger, R.F.: “An Overview of Formation Damage
Permeability Case,” paper SPE 8400, presented at and Well Productivity in Oilfield Operations: An
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi- Update,” paper SPE 17459, presented at the SPE
bition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (September 23–26, California Regional Meeting, Long Beach,
1979). California, USA (March 23–25, 1988).
King, G.E. and Lee, R.M.: “Adsorption and Chlor- Krueger, R.G., Vogel, L.C. and Fischer, P.W.: “Effect
ination of Mutual Solvents Used in Acidizing,” of Pressure Drawdown on Clean-Up of Clay- or Silt-
paper SPE 14432, SPE Production Engineering Blocked Sandstone,” paper SPE 1605, Journal of
(May 1988), 205–209. Petroleum Technology (March 1967), 397–403.
Kline, W.E.: “The Catalyzed Dissolution of Silicate Kular, G.S., Lowe, K. and Coombe, D.: “Foam
Materials by Hydrofluoric Acid,” PhD dissertation, Application in an Oil Sands Steamflood Process,”
University of Michigan, Michigan, USA (1980). paper SPE 19690, presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
Kline, W.E. and Fogler, H.S.: “Dissolution Kinetics:
USA (October 8–11, 1989).
The Nature of the Particle Attack of Layered Sili-
cates in HF,” Chem. Eng. Sci. (1981a) 36, 871–884. Kunze, K.R. and Shaughnessy, C.M.: “Acidizing
Sandstone Formations with Fluoboric Acid,” paper
Kline, W.E. and Fogler, H.S.: “Dissolution of Sili-
SPE 9387, SPE Journal (February 1983), 65–72.
cate Minerals by Hydrofluoric Acid,” Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fundam. (1981b) 20, 155–161. Kuo, C.H.: “On the Production of Hydrogen Sulfide-
Sulfur Mixtures from Deep Formations,” Journal of
Klotz, J.A., Krueger, R.F. and Pye, D.S.: “Maximum
Petroleum Technology (September 1972),
Well Productivity in Damaged Formations Requires
1142–1146.
Deep, Clean Perforations,” paper SPE 4792, present-
ed at the SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Kutasov, I.M. and Bizanti, M.S.: “Fluid Losses
Control, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (February While Drilling,” paper SPE 13963 (1985).
7–8, 1974).
Labrid, J.C.: “Stimulation Chimique: Etude Theor-
Knobloch, T.S., Farouq Ali, S.M. and Diaz, M.J.T.: ique et Experimentale des Equilibres Chimiques
“The Role of Acid-Additive Mixtures on Asphaltene Decrivant l’Attaque Fluorhydrique d’un Gres
Precipitation,” paper SPE 7627, presented at the SPE Argileux,” Revue d’Institut Français du Pétrole
Eastern Regional Meeting, Washington, D.C., USA (October 1971) 26, No. 10, 855–876.
(November 1–3, 1978).
Labrid, J.C.: “Thermodynamic and Kinetic Aspects
Kovscek, A.R. and Radke, C.J.: “Fundamentals of of Argillaceous Sandstone Acidizing,” paper SPE
Foam Transport in Porous Media,” Foams: Funda- 5165, SPE Journal (April 1975), 117–128.
mentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry,
Lambert, M.E.: “A Statistical Study of Reservoir
L.L. Schramm (ed.), ACS Advances in Chemistry
Heterogeneity,” MS thesis, The University of Texas
Series, American Chemical Society, Washington,
at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA (1981).
D.C., USA (1994) 3.
Lauritzen, S.E., Odling, N. and Petersen, J.: “Model-
Krause, D.C.: “Solids-Free Brines: Efficient Dis-
ling the Evolution of Channel Networks in Carbon-
placement Techniques Can Save You Money,” paper
ate Rocks,” presented at the Eurock Conference
SPE 14830, presented at the SPE Symposium on
(September 1992).
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA (February 26–27, 1986). Lea, C.-M., Hill, A.D. and Sepehrnoori, K.: “Effect
of Fluid Diversion on the Acid Stimulation of a
Krueger, R.F.: “An Overview of Formation Damage
Perforation,” paper SPE 22853, SPE Production
and Well Productivity in Oil Field Operations,”
& Facilities (May 1993), 131.
paper SPE 10029, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(February 1986), 131–152. Lee, H.O., Heller, J.P. and Hoofer, A.M.W.: “Change
in Apparent Viscosity of CO2 Foam with Rock
R-58 References
Mahajan, N.C. and Barron, B.M.: “Bridging Particle sented at the SPE Formation Damage Control
Size Distribution: A Key Factor in the Designing of Symposium, Bakersfield, California, USA (February
Non-Damaging Completion Fluids,” paper SPE 8–9, 1988).
8792, presented at the SPE Symposium on
McLeod, H.O. Jr.: “The Effect of Perforating
Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California,
Conditions on Well Performance,” paper SPE 10649,
USA (January 28–29, 1980).
Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1983), 21.
Maly, G.P.: “Close Attention to the Smallest Job
McLeod, H.O. Jr.: “Matrix Acidizing,” paper SPE
Details Vital for Minimizing Formation Damage,”
13752, Journal of Petroleum Technology (December
paper SPE 5702, presented at the SPE Symposium
1984) 36, 2055–2069.
on Formation Damage Control, Houston, Texas,
USA (January 29–30, 1976). McLeod, H.O. and Coulter, A.W.: “The Use of
Alcohol in Gas Well Stimulation,” paper SPE 1663,
Manlowe, D.J. and Radke, C.J.: “A Pore-Level
presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Investigation of Foam/Oil Interactions in Porous
Columbus, Ohio, USA (November 10–11, 1966).
Media,” paper SPE 18069, SPE Reservoir
Engineering (November 1990), 495. McLeod, H.O. Jr. and Coulter, A.W. Jr.: “The
Stimulation Treatment Pressure Record—An
Maya, L.: “Fluoroboric Acid and Its Hydroxy Deriv-
Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool,” paper SPE
atives—Solubility and Spectroscopy,” J. Inorg. Nucl.
2287, Journal of Petroleum Technology (August
Chem. (1977) 39, 225–231.
1969) 71, No. 8, 951–960.
McClaflin, G.G. and Whitfill, D.L.: “Control of
McLeod, H.O. Jr., Ledlow, L.B. and Till, M.V.: “The
Paraffin Deposition in Production Operations,” paper
Planning, Execution and Evaluation of Acid Treat-
SPE 12204, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
ments in Sandstone Formations,” paper SPE 11931,
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Cali-
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
fornia, USA (October 5–8, 1983).
and Exhibition, San Francisco, California, USA
McCorriston, L.L., Demby, R.A. and Pease, E.C.: (October 5–8, 1983).
“Study of Reservoir Damage Produced in Heavy Oil
McLeod, H.O. Jr. and Minarovic, M.J.: “Monitoring
Formations Due to Steam Injection,” paper SPE
and Analysis of Gravel-Packing Procedures to
10077, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
Explain Well Performance,” paper SPE 27356, pre-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA
sented at the SPE International Symposium on
(October 5–7, 1981).
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
McCune, C.C., Fogler, H.S., Lund, K., Cunningham, USA (February 9–10, 1994); also in Journal of
J.R. and Ault, J.W: “A New Model of the Physical Petroleum Technology (October 1994), 878–883.
and Chemical Changes in Sandstone During
Meehan, D.N. and Schell, E.J.: “An Analysis of
Acidizing,” paper SPE 5157, SPE Journal (October
Rate-Sensitive Skin in Gas Wells,” paper SPE
1975), 361–370.
12176, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
McDougall, L.A.: “Corrosion Inhibitors for High Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco,
Temperature Applications,” Mater. Protection California, USA (October 5–8, 1983).
(August 1969), 31–32.
Methven, N.E. and Kemick, J.G.: “Drilling and
McElhiney, J.E., Schalge, A.L., McKnight, R.S. and Gravel Packing with an Oil Base Fluid System,”
Robinson, J.R. 1978: “Coreflood Acidization: Journal of Petroleum Technology (June 1969),
Model, Measurement, and Methodology,” paper SPE 671–679.
7891, presented at the SPE International Symposium
Millhone, R.S.: “Completion Fluids for Maximizing
on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Houston,
Productivity—State of the Art,” paper SPE 10030,
Texas, USA (January 22–24, 1979).
Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1983), 47.
McKinney, L.K. and Azar, J.J.: “Formation Damage
Milne, A.: “Horizontal Well Completion &
Due to Synthetic Oil Mud Filtrates at Elevated
Stimulation Technology,” Schlumberger Dowell
Temperatures and Pressures,” paper SPE 17162, pre-
(1991).
R-60 References
Houston, Texas, USA (October 4–7, 1970); also in Paccaloni, G. and Tambini, M.: “Advances in Matrix
SPE Journal (December 1971), 406–418. Stimulation Technology,” paper SPE 20623, pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
Nitters, G. and Hagelaars, A.M.P.: “Careful Planning
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
and Sophisticated Support: The Key to Improved
(September 23–26, 1990).
Acidisation Results,” paper SPE 20967, presented
at Europec 90, The Hague, Netherlands (October Paccaloni, G., Tambini, M. and Galoppini, M.: “Key
22–24, 1990). Factors for Enhanced Results of Matrix Stimulation
Treatments,” paper SPE 17154, presented at the SPE
Nougaro, J. and Labbé, C.: “Etude des Lois de
Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield,
L’Acidification dans le Cas d’un Calcaire Vacu-
California, USA (February 8–9, 1988).
olaire,” Rev. Fran. Pet. (1955) 10, No. 5, 354.
Paktinat, J.: “Reduced Adsorption and Emulsion
Oddo, J.E., Smith, J.P. and Tomson, M.B.: “Analysis
Tendencies in Sandstone Formation Through the Use
of and Solutions to the CaCO3 and CaSO4 Scaling
of Ethoxylates,” paper SPE 21011, presented at the
Problems Encountered in Wells Offshore Indonesia,”
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
paper SPE 22782, presented at the SPE Annual
Anaheim, California, USA (February 20–22, 1991).
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
USA (October 6–9, 1991). Parlar, M., Nelson, E.B., Walton, I.C., Park, E. and
DeBonis, V.: “An Experimental Study on Fluid-Loss
Odeh, A.S.: “Steady-State Flow Capacity of Wells
Behavior of Fracturing Fluids and Formation Dam-
with Limited Entry to Flow,” paper SPE 1797, SPE
age in High-Permeability Porous Media,” paper
Journal (March 1968), 43–51.
SPE 30458, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Ogino, K. and Onishi, M.: “Interfacial Action of Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA
Natural Surfactants in Oil/Water Systems,” J. (October 22–25, 1995).
Colloid and Interface Science (September 1981) 83,
Parlar, M., Parris, M.D., Jasinski, R.J. and Robert,
No. 1, 18–25.
J.A.: “An Experimental Study of Foam Flow
Oudeman, P., ter Avest, D., Grodal, E.O., Asheim, Through Berea Sandstone with Applications to Foam
H.A. and Meissner, R.J.H.: “Bull Heading to Kill Diversion in Matrix Acidizing,” paper SPE 29678,
Live Gas Wells,” paper SPE 28896, presented at the presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting,
SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, UK Bakersfield, California, USA (March 8–10, 1995).
(October 25–27, 1994).
Patton, J.T. and Phelan, P.F.: “Well Damage Hazards
Oyenenin, M.B., Peden, J.M, Hosseini, A. and Ren, Associated with Conventional Completion Fluids,”
G.: “Factors to Consider in the Effective Manage- paper SPE 13800, presented at the SPE Production
ment and Control of Fines Migration in High Perme- Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
ability Sands,” paper SPE 30112, presented at the USA (March 10–12, 1985).
SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Paul, J.R. and Plonka, J.H.: “Solids Free Completion
Hague, Netherlands (May 15–16, 1995).
Fluids Maintain Formation Permeability,” paper SPE
Paccaloni, G.: “Field History Verifies Control, Eval- 4655, presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las
uation,” Oil & Gas Journal (November 26, 1979a) Vegas, Nevada, USA (September 30–October 3,
77, No. 46, 61–65. 1973).
Paccaloni, G.: “New Method Proves Value of Stim- Persoff, P., Pruess, K., Benson, S.M., Wu, Y.S.,
ulation Planning,” Oil & Gas Journal (November Radke, C.J. and Witherspoon, P.A.: “Aqueous Foams
19, 1979b) 77, No. 45, 155–160. for Control of Gas Migration and Water Coning in
Paccaloni, G.: “A New, Effective Matrix Stimulation Aquifer Gas Storage,” Energy Sources (1990) 12,
Diversion Technique,” paper SPE 24781, presented 479–497.
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Persoff, P., Radke, C.J., Pruess, K., Benson, S.M.
Exhibition, Washington, D.C., USA (October 4–7, and Witherspoon, P.A.: “A Laboratory Investigation
1992); also in SPE Production & Facilities (August of Foam Flow in Sandstone at Elevated Pressure,”
1995), 151–156. SPE Reservoir Engineering (August 1991), 365–372.
R-62 References
paper SPE 7010, presented at the SPE Symposium III. Asymmetric Lamella Shapes,” J. Colloid and
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, Interface Sci. (1990) 136, 1, 17, 38 and (1990) 139.
USA (February 15–16, 1978).
Rossen, W.R.: “Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery,”
Reed, M.G.: “Gravel Pack and Formation Sandstone Foams: Theory, Measurements and Applications,
Dissolution During Steam Injection,” Journal of R.K. Prud’homme and S. Khan (eds.), New York,
Petroleum Technology (June 1980), 941–949. New York, USA, Marcel Dekker (in press).
Reid, P.: “Formation Damage,” Drilling Fluids, Rossen, W.R. and Zhou, Z.H.: “Modeling Foam
E. Potts (ed.), Elsevier (1996). Mobility at the Limiting Capillary Pressure,” SPE
Ridwan, A. and Cannan, W.: “Well Stimulation Advanced Technology Series (1995) 3, 146.
Review for the Arun Limestone Reservoir,” paper Rowan, G.: “Theory of Acid Treatment of Limestone
OSEA-90140 (1990). Formations,” J. Inst. Pet. (November 1959) 45, No.
Rike, J.L.: “The Relationship Between Clean Fluids 431, 321.
and Effective Completions,” paper SPE 9426, pre- Ryan, D.F., Browne, S.V. and Burnham, M.P.: “Mud
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Clean-Up in Horizontal Wells: A Major Joint Indus-
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (September 21–24, try Study,” paper SPE 30528, presented at the SPE
1980). Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Rike, J.L. and Pledger, T.M.: “Clean Fluids Improve Texas, USA (October 22–25, 1995).
Completion Results,” paper SPE 9752, presented at Saidikowski, R.M.: “Numerical Simulations of the
the SPE Production Operation Symposium, Okla- Combined Effects of Wellbore Damage and Partial
homa City, Oklahoma, USA (March 1–3, 1981). Penetration,” paper SPE 8204, presented at the SPE
Robert, J.A. and Mack, M.G.: “Foam Diversion Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Modeling and Simulation,” paper SPE 29676, pre- Vegas, Nevada, USA (September 23–26, 1979).
sented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Samuelson, M.L.: “Alternatives to Aromatics for
Bakersfield, California, USA (March 8–10, 1995). Solvency of Organic Deposits,” paper SPE 23816,
Roberts, L.D. and Guin, J.A.: “The Effect of Surface presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Kinetics in Fracture Acidizing,” paper SPE 4349, Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
SPE Journal (August 1974), 385–396; also in Trans., USA (February 26–27, 1992).
AIME 257. Sands, E.E. Jr.: “Good Communications, a Tool for
Rogers, B.A., Burk, M.K. and Stonecipher, S.A.: the Prevention of Formation Damage,” paper SPE
“Designing of Remedial Acid Treatment for Gulf 4657, presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las
of Mexico Deepwater Turbidite Sands Containing Vegas, Nevada, USA (September 30–October 3,
Zeolite Cement,” paper SPE 39595, presented at the 1973).
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Sanner, D.O. and Azar, J.J.: “Alteration of Reservoir
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February Rock Wettability and Its Flow Properties Caused by
18–19, 1998). Oil-Based and Water-Based Drilling Muds,” paper
Rogers, E.B. Jr.: “Successful Well Stimulation SPE 27354, presented at the SPE International
Program Has Revitalized a California Oil Field,” Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (December 1976), Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 7–10, 1994).
1420–1426. Saucier, R.J. and Lands, J.F.: “A Laboratory Study
Rosen, M.J.: Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, of Perforations in Stressed Formations,” paper SPE
second edition, John Wiley and Sons (1989), 207. 6758, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September
1978) 30, 1447–1353.
Rossen, W.R.: “Theory of Minimum Pressure
Gradient of Flowing Foams in Porous Media. I. Saxon, A., Chariag, B. and Rahman, M.R.A.: “An
Incompressible Foam, II. Effect of Compressibility, Effective Matrix Diversion Technique for Carbonate
R-64 References
Shuchart, C.E. and Gdanski, R.D.: “Improved Smith, C.F., Dollarhide, F.E. and Byth, N.J.: “Acid
Success in Acid Stimulations with a New Organic- Corrosion Inhibitors—Are We Getting What We
HF System,” paper SPE 36907, presented at the SPE Need?,” paper SPE 5644, Journal of Petroleum
European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy Technology (May 1978), 737–747.
(October 22–24, 1996).
Smith, C.F. and Hendrickson, A.R.: “Hydrofluoric
Shuler, P.J., Baudoin, D.A. and Weintritt, D.J.: Acid Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs,” paper
“Diagnosis and Prevention of NORM at Eugene SPE 980, Journal of Petroleum Technology
Island 341-A,” paper SPE 29711, presented at the (February 1965), 215–222.
SPE/EPA Exploration & Production Environmental
Smith, C.F., Ross, W.M. and Hendrickson, A.R.:
Conference, Houston, Texas, USA (March 27–29,
“Hydrofluoric Acid Stimulation—Developments for
1995).
Field Application,” paper SPE 1284, presented at the
Simon, D.E., Kaul, F.W. and Culbertson, J.N.: SPE Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA
“Anadarko Basin Morrow-Springer Sandstone (October 3–6, 1965).
Stimulation Study,” paper SPE 6757, Journal
Smith, C.L., Anderson, J.L. and Roberts, P.G.: “New
of Petroleum Technology (June 1979), 683.
Diverting Techniques for Acidizing and Fracturing,”
Simpson, J.P.: “Drilling Fluid Filtration Under paper SPE 2751, presented at the SPE Annual
Simulated Downhole Conditions,” paper SPE 4779, California Regional Meeting, San Francisco,
presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control California, USA (November 6–7, 1969).
Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Sparlin, D.D.: “Sand and Gravel: A Study of Their
(February 7–8, 1974).
Permeabilities,” paper SPE 4772, presented at the
Simpson, J.P.: “Author's Reply to Discussion of The SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Drilling Mud Dilemma—Recent Examples,” paper New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (February 7–8, 1974).
SPE 14527, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July
Sparlin, D.D. and Hagen, R.W.: “SPE Short Course
1985a), 1230.
on Formation Damage Prevention,” International
Simpson, J.P.: “The Drilling Mud Dilemma—Recent Completion Consultants, Inc. (1983).
Examples,” paper SPE 13927, Journal of Petroleum
Stadalman, J.R., Novotny, R.J. and Houchin, L.R.:
Technology (February 1985b), 201–206.
“Understanding Changing Wellbore Pressures
Singhal, H.K., Sahai, G.C., Pundeer, G.S. and Improves Sand Control Longevity,” paper SPE
Chandra, K.: “Designing and Selecting Wax Crystal 14160, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Modifier for Optimum Field Performance Based on Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,
Crude Oil Composition,” paper SPE 22784, present- USA (September 22–25, 1985).
ed at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Stein, N. and Hilchie, D.W.: “Estimating the
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 6–9, 1991).
Maximum Production Rate Possible from Friable
Sjöberg, E.L. and Rickard, D.T.: “Calcite Dissolution Sandstones Without Using Sand Control,” paper SPE
Kinetics: Surface Speciation and the Origin of the 3499, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September
Variable pH Dependence,” Chem. Geol. (1984) 42, 1972), 1157–1160.
119.
Stein, N., Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: “Estimating
Sloan, J.P., Brooks, J.P. and Dear, S.F. III: “A New, Maximum Sand-Free Production Rates from Friable
Nondamaging, Acid-Soluble Weighting Material,” Sands for Different Well Completion Geometries,”
paper SPE 4782, Journal of Petroleum Technology paper SPE 4534, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(January 1975), 15–20. (October 1974), 1156–1158.
Smith, C.F., Crowe, C.W. and Nolan, T.J. III: Stewart, B.R., Mullen, M.E., Howard, W.J. and
“Secondary Deposition of Iron Compounds Norman, W.D.: “Use of Solid-Free Viscous Carrying
Following Acidizing Treatments,” paper SPE 2358, Fluid in Fracturing Applications: An Economic and
Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1969), Productivity Comparison in Shallow Completions,”
1121–1129. paper SPE 30114, presented at the SPE European
R-66 References
Tippie, D.B. and Kohlhaas, C.A.: “Variation of Skin Vetter, O.J.G. and Phillips, R.C.: “Prediction of
Damage with Flow Rate Associated with Sand Flow Deposition of Calcium Sulfate Scale Under Down-
or Stability in Unconsolidated-Sand Reservoirs,” Hole Conditions,” Journal of Petroleum Technology
paper SPE 4886, presented at the SPE Annual (October 1970), 1299–1308.
California Regional Meeting, San Francisco,
Vitagliano, V. and Lyons, P.A.: “Diffusion in Aque-
California, USA (April 4–5, 1974).
ous Acetic Acid Solutions,” J. Am. Chem. Soc.
Tuttle, R.N.: “High-Pour-Point and Asphaltic Crude (1956) 78, 4538.
Oils and Condensates,” paper SPE 10004, Journal of
Walsh, M.P., Lake, L.W. and Schechter, R.S.: “A
Petroleum Technology (June 1983), 1192–1196.
Description of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms
Tuttle, R.N. and Barkman, J.H.: “New Nondamaging and Their Role in Formation Damage During
and Acid-Degradable Drilling and Completion Stimulation by Hydrofluoric Acid,” paper SPE
Fluids,” paper SPE 4791, Journal of Petroleum 10625, presented at the SPE Symposium on
Technology (November 1974), 1221–1226. Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA (March 24–25, 1982); also in Journal of
Tyler, T.N., Metzger, R.R. and Twyford, L.R.:
Petroleum Technology (September 1982),
“Analysis and Treatment of Formation Damage at
2097–2112.
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,” paper SPE 12471, Journal
of Petroleum Technology (June 1985), 1010–1018. Wamser, C.A.: “Hydrolysis of Fluoboric Acid
in Aqueous Solution,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. (March
Vaidya, R.N. and Fogler, H.S.: “Fines Migration
1948), 1209–1215.
and Formation Damage: Influence of pH and Ion
Exchange,” paper SPE 19413, presented at the SPE Wang, Y.: “Existence of an Optimum Rate in
Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Carbonate Acidizing and the Effect of Rock
Louisiana, USA (February 22–23, 1990); also in Heterogeneity on Wormholes Patterns,” PhD disser-
SPE Production Engineering (November 1992), 325. tation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
Texas, USA (1993).
Van Ditzhuijzen, P.J.D. and de Waal, J.A.: “Reservoir
Compaction and Surface Subsidence in the Central Wang, Y., Hill, A.D. and Schechter, R.S.: “The
Luconia Gas Bearing Carbonates, Offshore Sarawak, Optimum Injection Rate for Matrix Acidizing of
East Malaysia,” paper SPE 12400, presented at the Carbonate Formations,” paper SPE 26578, presented
Offshore South East Asia Conference, Singapore at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
(February 21–24, 1984). Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 3–6,
1993).
Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: “The Appli-
cation of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Wat, R.M.S., Sorbie, K.S., Todd, A.C., Ping, C.,
Problems in Reservoirs,” Trans., AIME (1949) 186, Ping, J. and Heriot-Watt, U.: “Kinetics of BaSO4
305–324. Crystal Growth and Effect in Formation Damage,”
paper SPE 23814, presented at the SPE International
Ventresca, M.L., Betancourt, J., Castillo, J., Ciguela,
Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
S. and Azuaje, C.: “Chemical System for Treating
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 26–27, 1992).
Formation Damage Induced by Inverted Oil Muds,”
paper SPE 30125, presented at the SPE European Weeks, S.G.: “Formation Damage or Limited
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Perforating Penetration? Test-Well Shooting May
Netherlands (May 15–16, 1995). Give a Clue,” Journal of Petroleum Technology
(September 1974), 979–984.
Vetter, O.J. and Kandarpa, V.: “Prediction of CaCO3
Scale Under Downhole Conditions,” paper SPE Weingarten, J.S. and Perkins, T.K.: “Prediction of
8991, presented at the SPE International Symposium Sand Production in Gas Wells: Methods and Gulf of
on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Stanford, Mexico Case Studies,” paper SPE 24797, presented
California, USA (May 28–30, 1980). at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington, D.C., USA (October 4–7,
R-68 References
◆
Preface: Hydraulic Fracturing,
A Technology For All Time
Ahmed S. Abou-Sayed, ADVANTEK International
I was quite pleased when my friend Joseph Ayoub by managing the various chapters from the vast array
at Schlumberger Dowell approached me to write of contributors.
the preface for the third edition of Reservoir A leading contributor, however, to this publica-
Stimulation. It is indeed a pleasure and a compliment tion’s success is Michael Economides, who, over the
to be associated with the distinguished list of indi- last two decades, has contributed substantially to the
viduals contributing to this volume. As an active integration of reservoir performance into well stimu-
member of this close-knit community for the past lation technology and design. He has proficiently
25 years, I have enjoyed working with most of the filled this gap in practice with his thorough work
47 contributing authors. These outstanding scientists related to performance prediction and evaluation.
and engineers have carried the technology of Michael provides the continuous thread that gives
hydraulic fracturing forward to its current high state. the volume its integrated form.
This third edition is an updated classic reference The other leading contributor is Ken Nolte, who
for well stimulation—or in today’s lingo, well per- presents a compelling story that puts forward the
formance enhancement technology—that includes history of hydraulic fracturing technology in the
not only hydraulic fracturing but also an expanded Appendix to Chapter 5. He describes its evolution
treatment of well acidizing and chemical treatment from the late 1940s from his vista, easily scoring a
as well as formation damage migration. Reservoir true bull’s-eye. His towering work since the mid-
Stimulation covers the topics necessary for under- 1970s affords him a unique view of the technological
standing the basis and practical aspects of treatment progress that he helped shape.
design and execution. It addresses the scientific fun- What further insight can I add to the views of
damentals, engineering considerations and opera- these two? I guess you can call it the maverick’s
tional procedures of a job. Pre- and post-treatment view. I will be informal and hope my anecdotal style
analyses, job monitoring and economic elements of will not offend any serious student of the subject.
the various injectivity and productivity enhancement What follows is my view of this fascinating technol-
processes are well presented. ogy, which has renewed itself many times since its
Before I get into a technical discussion of the vol- inception and has contributed substantial financial
ume’s contents, let me share with the reader a bit of benefits to the oil and gas industry.
history and my personal point of view of the future. During the late 1970s, considered the banner years
I am not trying to preempt the excellent contents of fracturing technology advances, there was a say-
compiled by the volume’s editors, Michael Econo- ing often used in jest by most of us working on frac-
mides and Ken Nolte. The two editors have suc- turing:
ceeded in bringing to the reader an integrated
“When everything else fails, frac it.”
account of the objectives, mechanics and implemen-
tation of the well and reservoir aspects of productiv- How true this has been; a lot of “fraccing” was
ity enhancement. Other significant contributions that done for well stimulation in those days and since. We
helped bring Reservoir Stimulation to the reader now speak more appropriately about improved well
came from Joseph Ayoub and Eric Nelson, who pro- performance, downhole flow integrity and enhanced
vided continual technical advice and reviewed the productivity or injectivity. How did we get here?
contents for technical accuracy, and Bob Thrasher, During the late 1940s, fracturing was a timid tech-
who with utter competence and, I must say, sheer nique. In the 1950s, its proliferation took place. In the
patience and persistence pulled this treatise together 1960s, we aimed at understanding what we were
P-2 Preface
technology, from mechanical stimulation (fracturing) the well tubulars, only to become viscous after turning
through chemical treatments (acidizing). the corner of well perforations into the formation.
The reader must view this volume as a confirma- What comes next in this ever-changing world of
tion and accurate account of the larger context of the well stimulation and performance enhancement?
exciting progress that has been made in the field of Current emphasis by the service industry in fluid
hydraulic fracturing and well stimulation. Recent development is on providing cleaner fluids to the user
emphasis has focused on fluid and proppant develop- community. Such fluids maintain the designed frac-
ment, field equipment for mixing and pumping mate- ture conductivity, improve the treatment economics
rials, highly sophisticated (but simple to use) inter- and extend fracturing applications to higher perme-
pretation techniques or monitoring treatment ability reservoirs.
parameters, and computers that monitor, provide Intermediate-density ceramic proppants are stronger
feedback and control the fracture. The available hard- and lighter, so they can be carried farther into the frac-
ware enables real-time redesign during pumping. ture at greater depths. Extensive efforts are directed at
Efforts also have been made, prior to job design obtaining a more thorough understanding of proppant
and execution, to thoroughly characterize reservoir transport mechanisms. Monitoring techniques and
qualities and properties for the optimization of stimu- proppant placement and distribution are conducted
lation treatment design and better economic results. using multiple-isotope radioactive tagging.
Logging tools are used for lithology, permeability, More sophisticated logging tools and interpretation
stress and natural fracture detection. Detection of the algorithms are adding the ability to track the location
created fracture azimuth and length received attention of several pumped stages. This development has
with the development of techniques such as passive improved the understanding of how to design more
borehole seismic methods, crosswell tomography, tilt- effective fracture treatments and has prompted an
meters and hydraulic impedance tests. emphasis on fracture containment.
The myriad techniques available for in-situ stress Pumping and surface handling equipment have
magnitude and azimuth determination include core progressed substantially ahead of the other technolo-
relaxation, differential strain curve analysis, micro- gies, and more advances are under way. The avail-
fracturing and wellbore breakouts. Results of well ability of new-generation blenders, offshore gelling
tests and mini-fracture treatments are used readily and crosslinking of fluids on the fly, and high-pres-
in fracture treatment designs. sure–high-flow-rate pumps and intensifiers provides
The development of accurate downhole pressure the industry with the capacity to execute and control
gauges with digital memory provides a detailed the most complicated fracture. Emphasis must also be
account of fluid pressure at the fracture inlet and directed toward zone isolation techniques and the
assists on-site redesign and post-treatment analysis. hardware to conduct large stimulation jobs in long,
Recent efforts are directed at the development of complex wells.
downhole gauges that transmit pressure, flow rate and As the hardware side of the technology (materials
fluid rheology data in real time. Such gauges are now and equipment) developed at a rapid pace over the
in service in well monitoring and testing applications. last two decades, the software side (modeling, moni-
Simpler techniques, such as using the annulus or a toring and interpretation) also moved forward. The
tubing-based manometer, have been highly success- U.S. government, Gas Research Institute (GRI) and
ful. These applications are limited operationally to academic communities with consulting company sup-
wells with large-diameter casing and tubing and by port are delivering design codes with varying degrees
rig cost. Coiled tubing operations may reduce this of sophistication to the industry. Some of the codes
limitation and expand the application of real-time are field based and used extensively for the optimiza-
downhole pressure monitoring. tion and redesign of fracture treatments. Computer
Fluids now are available with excellent shear sensi- hardware advances and experience-based intelligence
tivity and high-proppant carrying capacities for use at software must provide a window of opportunity for
high temperatures and flow rates. Additives such as broader and more effective use of modeling develop-
borates make it possible to design fluids that have low ments.
frictional or viscosity properties while traveling down
P-4 Preface
Economides present the well testing methodology control materials, crosslinking agents, breakers, sur-
and pressure transient analysis used to characterize factants, clay stabilizers and bactericides, and
formations and describe the status of well damage. describe their appropriate uses.
The well-recognized rock mechanics engineers The performance of fracturing materials, a subject
Mark Thiercelin and Jean-Claude Roegiers (known that has seen tremendous advances in the last 20
as “JC”) authored Chapter 3. They present a well- years, is presented in Chapter 8 by Vern Constien,
thought-out treatment of rock mechanics—the char- George Hawkins, Bob Prud’homme and Reinaldo
acterization of the box containing recoverable Navarrete. The chapter outlines techniques for mea-
hydrocarbons. Their work details the theoretical com- suring and designing the necessary rheology for frac-
ponents describing rock behavior and reactions under turing fluids and treatment chemicals. The authors
the loads and stresses generated by E&P operations. also discuss the important topic of propped fracture
The presentation is thorough and on a high funda- conductivity and proppant flowback and the impact
mental level, while providing insight into the practi- of fluid rheology on both. Damage resulting from
cal application of this specialty in a useful and polymer loading is also covered in this chapter.
tractable fashion. Sunil Gulrajani and Ken Nolte discuss the latter’s
Jean Desroches and Tom Bratton describe in favorite topic of fracture evaluation using pressure
Chapter 4 how to use well logs and other geophysical diagnostics in Chapter 9. These techniques, when first
information to obtain pertinent properties of the rock introduced in 1978, provided quantitative tools for
formation for effective treatment design. In addition assessing the nature, extent and containment of the
to the conventional, routine properties such as poros- hydraulic fracture. They subsequently established the
ity, permeability and saturation, they cover the esti- basis for efforts toward real-time diagnostics and con-
mation of pore pressure, formation tests, skin effect trol of the well treatment progress. The authors exam-
and damage extent, in-situ stress and other mechani- ine the mathematical foundation of the diagnostic
cal properties. An interesting treatment of predicting technique, including an accompanying Appendix,
in-situ rock stress and strength from logs is presented. provide field verification examples and present means
In Chapter 5, Mike Smith (the pipe-smoking half of of integrating this approach with other evaluation
the well-known Nolte-Smith duo) and my dear late tools, well measurements and field observations.
friend Jacob Shlyapobersky collaborated to lay down Jack Elbel and Larry Britt collaborated in Chapter
for the reader the basics of hydraulic fracturing. This 10 to present the art and science of fracture treatment
is a pragmatic chapter that serves well as a primer for design. The inclusion of economic analysis as the first
new engineers searching for a quick appreciation of step in the design optimization process, along with the
the factors with an impact on fracture design. Its value authors’ vast experience with treatment design and
is further enhanced by the historical perspective writ- field implementation, offers a unique glimpse of this
ten as the aforementioned Appendix by Ken Nolte. essential process. Staff from the operating divisions
Mark Mack joins Norm Warpinski of Sandia (or asset teams, in today’s lingo) will find this material
National Laboratories in Chapter 6 to provide a com- readily applicable for both hydraulic fracturing and
prehensive treatment of the mechanics of hydraulic acidizing treatments. The subject matter is well orga-
fracturing and discuss the science behind the technol- nized with simple recommendations that can be fol-
ogy. The chapter reflects their massive contributions lowed without great effort.
to the understanding, through extensive field observa- Ernie Brown, Bob Thrasher and Larry Behrmann
tion efforts, of the phenomena and processes involved use Chapter 11 to introduce the reader to the opera-
in hydraulic fracturing. The theoretical and practical tional procedures and completion considerations nec-
knowledge collected throughout their illustrative essary for successful field execution of well stimula-
careers is well represented. tion treatments. Their discussion includes vertical,
Chapter 7 exposes the reader to the materials deviated and S-shaped wells, in addition to wells
pumped in the well during stimulation treatments. with more complex geometries. Factors that have an
Janet Gulbis and Richard Hodge have written a rigor- impact on quality assurance, technologies for treat-
ous, but easily read, discussion of the chemical and ment monitoring and operational integrity during job
rheological aspects of stimulation fluids and prop- execution are all addressed in detail. Field instrumen-
pants. They cover fluid additives, including fluid-loss tation, real-time analysis and recommended remedi-
P-6 Preface
I had in reading through the vast amount of knowl-
edge imbedded in the 20 chapters more than makes
up for the strange hour at which I am working on
these final thoughts. I hope the reader will find this
volume as stimulating (no pun intended), educational
and useful as I believe it to be and will recognize and
utilize the contributions and know-how of its authors
to achieve his or her goals.
Good reading.
N-2 Nomenclature
Dw wire diameter, in., m FL linear flow function
Da Damköhler number Fmeas fracture development function for measured
data
Damt mass-transfer-limited Damköhler number
Fsim fracture development function for simulated
Darxn reaction-rate-limited Damköhler number
data
De Deborah number
F0 surface flux at time zero
DR damage ratio
g acceleration of gravity, ft/s2, m/s2
E Young’s modulus, psi, bar, Pa
g(∆tD) dimensionless fluid-loss volume function
E´ plane strain modulus, psi, bar, Pa
gf fracture gradient, psi/ft, Pa/m
Eav average Young’s modulus, psi, bar, Pa
g0 fluid-loss volume function
Edyn dynamic Young’s modulus, psi, bar, Pa
G shear modulus, psi, bar, Pa
Ef reaction rate constant
G(∆tD) dimensionless fluid-loss time function
En effect of all previous time steps
G* corrected value of G-function at closure
Es secant Young’s modulus, psi, bar, Pa
G´ elastic storage modulus, psi, bar, Pa
Et tangent Young’s modulus, psi, bar, Pa
G´´ viscous loss modulus, psi, bar, Pa
Et Young’s modulus of a plastic material, psi, bar,
Gc fluid-loss time function G(∆tD) at fracture
Pa
closure
f friction factor
Gdyn dynamic shear modulus, psi, bar, Pa
f elastic influence function
Ge strain energy release rate
faL apparent length fraction
GRAPI gamma ray value
fd drag coefficient
h height, ft, m
ffL ratio of fracture to loss volume during injection
h formation or reservoir thickness, ft, m
fLS volume fraction lost to spurt
h hardening parameter
fp pad volume fraction
h heat transfer coefficient
fpad pad volume fraction
hcp height at the center of perforations, ft, m
fs slurry volume fraction
hD dimensionless height
fv volume fraction
hf fracture height, ft, m
fw water fractional flow
hfD ratio of the leakoff area to the characteristic
fκ spurt fraction length
F fill fraction hfo initial fracture height, ft, m
F formation factor hL permeable or fluid-loss height, ft, m
F force, lbf, N hpay height of the pay zone, ft, m
F fracture development function hs penetration into bounding layer, ft, m
Fb ratio of wellbore width or net pressure hwD dimensionless completion thickness
Fc critical load H depth, ft, m
Fi surface flux at the ith time step i injection rate
N-4 Nomenclature
Kc G-plot slope correction factor for pressure- L horizontal well length, ft, m
dependent leakoff
Lapp apparent of equivalent fracture penetration, ft,
Kd dissociation constant m
Kdyn dynamic bulk modulus Le length to tip, ft, m
Keq effective equilibrium constant Lp productive length, ft, m
Kfoam consistency coefficient for the foam phase Lt length of the fracture tip region, ft, m
Kg mass-transfer coefficient Lv length of filtrate-invaded zone, ft, m
KI stress intensity factor, psi/in.1/2, bar/m1/2 m slope on semilogarithmic straight line,
psi/cycle (oil), psi2/cycle or psi2/cp/cycle (gas)
KIc critical stress intensity factor, psi/in.1/2,
bar/m1/2 m Archie constant
KIceff effective fracture toughness, psi/in.1/2, m linear regression constant
bar/m1/2
m reaction rate order
KIclag critical stress intensity factor in the fluid
m power law turbulence factor
lag region, psi/in.1/2, bar/m1/2
mbf bilinear flow slope, psi/hr1/4, bar/hr1/4
KIc-apparent apparent fracture toughness, psi/in.1/2,
bar/m1/2 mc early-time slope used to compute the wellbore
storage coefficient C
KIl stress intensity factor at bottom fracture
tip, psi/in.1/2, bar/m1/2 mcf linear flow slope in an elongated reservoir
KIu stress intensity factor at top fracture tip, mepr early pseudoradial flow slope
psi/in.1/2, bar/m1/2 mG slope of the G-plot, psi, bar, Pa
Ko coefficient of earth pressure at rest, dimen- mGc slope of the G-plot at fracture closure, psi, bar,
sionless Pa
Kpipe consistency index for pipe flow, lbf-sn/ft2 mhl linear flow slope of a horizontal well
Kr reaction rate mlf linear flow slope, psi/hr1/2, bar/hr1/2
Kr temperature-dependent reaction rate con- mM Mayerhofer et al. (1993) method slope
stant
mn straight-line slope
Ks bulk modulus of the solid constituents, psi,
bar, Pa mN Nolte method slope
Ks solubility constant mp match pressure, psi, bar, Pa
Kslot consistency index for slot flow, lbf-sn/ft2 mpp spherical flow slope
Kv consistency index for a concentric cylinder mrf radial flow slope, psi, bar, Pa
viscometer, lbf-sn/ft2 m3/4 slope of the G-plot at the 3⁄4 point, psi, bar, Pa
l length, ft, in., m Macid moles of acid per unit rock face area
l diverter cake thickness, ft, m Mgel specific density of gel mass in the fluid
ld length of damaged zone, ft, m Mv viscosity average molecular weight, g/mol
lp perforation channel length, ft, m MW molecular weight, g/mol
L length, ft, m n number or order
L fracture half-length, ft, m n index of time step
N-6 Nomenclature
ps pressure at the outer bound of the damaged qD dimensionless flow rate
zone, psi, bar, Pa
qDND dimensionless non-Darcy flow rate
psc standard condition pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qe flow at tip
psep separator pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qf volume rate of storage in a fracture
psim simulated pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qg gas production rate, Mscf/D, m3/d
psurf surface pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qi injection rate, B/D, bbl/min, m3/d, m3/s
ptf tubing flowing pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qi,max maximum injection rate, B/D, bbl/min, m3/d,
ptip net pressure at fracture tip for extension, psi, m3/s
bar, Pa
qL rate of fluid loss, B/D, bbl/min, m3/d, m3/s
pur upstream restriction pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qlast last flow rate, B/D, bbl/min, m3/d, m3/s
pusv pressure upstream of the safety valve, psi,
qL,C rate of fluid loss for reservoir-controlled
bar, Pa
leakoff, B/D, bbl/min, m3/d, m3/s
pvapor fluid vapor pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qn leakoff rate from one wing through two faces,
pw wellbore pressure, psi, bar, Pa B/D, m3/s
pwD dimensionless wellbore pressure qo initial flow rate, B/D, m3/s
pwf bottomhole flowing pressure, psi, bar, Pa qo oil production rate, B/D, m3/s
pwf,ideal ideal bottomhole flowing pressure, psi, bar, Pa qo,max maximum oil production rate at two-phase
flow, B/D, m3/s
pwf,real real bottomhole flowing pressure, psi, bar, Pa
qperf flow entering a perforation
pwfs wellbore sandface flowing pressure, psi, bar,
Pa qRT total reservoir production rate, B/D, m3/d
pwh wellhead flowing pressure, psi, bar, Pa qs damaged flow rate
pws bottomhole shut-in pressure, psi, bar, Pa qT total injection rate
p1 hr pressure on extension of semilogarithmic qtot constant total injection rate
straight line at t = 1 hr, psi, bar, Pa
qw water production rate, B/D, m3/d
p3/4 3
pressure at the G-plot ⁄4 point, psi, bar, Pa
Qp cumulative production, B/D, m3/d
Pe Peclet number
r radial distance, ft, m
PI productivity index, B/D/psi (oil), Mscf/D/psi
r reaction rate
(gas), m3/d/bar
rA rate of reactant consumption, mol/cm2/s
PIs damaged productivity index, B/D/psi (oil),
Mscf/D/psi (gas), m3/d/bar rac stimulation radius, ft, m
PVBT number of pore volumes to breakthrough rb acid bank radius, ft, m
PVinj number of pore volumes injected rbob bob radius
q flow rate, B/D (oil), Mscf/D (gas), m3/d rcup cup radius
qapp apparent flow rate, B/D, bbl/min, m3/d, m3/s rD rate of surface reaction, mol/cm2/s
qave average flow rate, B/D, bbl/min, m3/d, m3/s re reservoir radius, ft, m
qc flow rate in capillary pores reH radius of horizontal drainage ellipse formed
around a horizontal well, ft, m
qc injection rate into core face
RAt rate of reactant consumption at the tip sfs fracture face damage skin effect, dimensionless
Rmf resistivity of the mud filtrate, ohm-m sV vertical skin effect, dimensionless
N-8 Nomenclature
S surface area tDrw′ dimensionless time referenced to the effective
wellbore radius rw′
SF surface area per unit volume of solids for fast-
reacting minerals tDxf dimensionless fracture time
Sg gas-phase fluid saturation, fraction te time at end of pumping or injection, min, s
Si reactive surface area of mineral i tend time of the end of dual-porosity behavior
So oil-phase fluid saturation, fraction texp time of fracture opening and initial fluid
exposure
Soi initial oil saturation, fraction
ti injection time
Sor residual oil saturation, fraction
ti time at the end of the ith step
Sp spurt-loss coefficient, gal/ft2, m3/m2
tknee knee time for the crossing of pressure derivatives
SRE rock embedment strength
tmin minimum time
SS surface area per unit volume of solids for
slow-reacting minerals tn time at the end of step n, s
Sw water saturation, fraction ton time of onset of dual-porosity behavior
Swc connate water saturation, fraction tp producing time, hr
Swi irreducible water saturation, fraction tp pumping or injection time, hr
t time, day, hr, min, s tP compressional wave arrival time
t* reduced time tpss time to pseudosteady state, hr
ta pseudotime tr time at reference point r
taD dimensionless pseudotime tS time of tip screenout or injection without
screenout
tBT time of water breakthrough, hr
tS shear wave arrival time
tc closure time, min
tso time at screenout
tcD dimensionless closure time
tsp spurt time
tD dimensionless time
t0 reference time
tDA dimensionless time referenced to reservoir
drainage area tαD dimensionless ratio of time to pumping time
tDblf dimensionless time at start of formation linear T temperature, °F, °C, K
flow regime
T absolute temperature, °R, K
tDebf dimensionless time at end of bilinear flow
T dimensionless time for after-closure analysis
regime
T constant for tectonic effects on stress
tDefl dimensionless time at which fracture linear
flow behavior ends T wire tension, lbf/ft
tDelf dimensionless time at which formation linear Td dead weight, lbf
flow behavior ends TD dimensionless temperature
tdep time of departure from flow regime trend Tf flowing temperature, °F, °C
tD,knee dimensionless knee time for the pressure Tfl fluid temperature, °F, °C
derivatives
Ti fluid temperature at the fracture mouth, °F, °C
ut terminal settling velocity, ft/s, m/s VL,S fluid-loss component due to spurt, bbl, gal, m3
utip fracture tip velocity, ft/s, cm/s VLs,C volume of fluid lost due to filtration during
shut-in, bbl, gal, m3
uw volumetric flux of water
VM molar volume
u∞ terminal proppant settling velocity, ft/s, m/s
Vmineral volumetric fraction of a mineral
v flow velocity, ft/s, cm/s
Vp pore volume, ft3, m3
v^ specific volume of foam
Vprop bulk proppant volume injected
vA,x Fick’s law for the velocity of species A
Vrp relative proppant volume, lbm/md-ft3
vc damaged zone velocity, ft/s, cm/s
VS volume of slow-reacting minerals
vfall settling rate, ft/s, cm/s
VS volume of fluid lost to spurt, gal/100 ft2
v^ l specific volume of the base liquid
Vwall volume of fluid leaked off at the fracture wall
vL fluid-loss velocity, ft/min
w width, ft, m
vL specific fluid-loss volume
w fracture width, ft, in., m
vm matrix velocity, ft/s, cm/s
we average fracture width at end of pumping, ft,
vx average fluid velocity along the fracture length, m
ft/s, cm/s
N-10 Nomenclature
wetch acid-etched width, ft, m zw standoff from oil-water contact, ft, m
wf fracture width, ft, m zw elevation of midpoint of perforations from the
bottom of the reservoir, ft, m
wL leakoff width, ft, m
zwD dimensionless completion elevation
wlost proppant volume lost to the fracture width
Z gas deviation factor, dimensionless
wmax maximum width, ft, m
wmax,p maximum fracture width at the end of
pumping, ft, m
Symbols
wmax,si maximum fracture width immediately after
shut-in, ft, m α Forscheimer equation coefficient
wp-eff effective propped width, ft, m α exponent of fracture area growth, dimensionless
Ws energy dissipated during propagation of αhl linear flow to a horizontal well constant
a crack αlf linear flow constant
x linear distance, ft, m αp dimensionless pressure constant
xe well drainage dimension, ft, m αpp partial penetration constant
xe,opt optimal well spacing, ft, m αt dimensionless time constant
xf productive fracture half-length, ft, m αT linear thermal expansion coefficient
xfa apparent fracture half-length, ft, m α0 lower bound of area exponent, dimensionless
xfeldspar feldspar volume fraction of a sandstone α1 upper bound of area exponent, dimensionless
xs half-length of the skin effect zone, ft, m αθ perforation-phase-dependent variable
X volumetric dissolving power β dissolving power coefficient related to acid
XC dissolving power of acid strength
zw elevation from reservoir bottom, ft, m βp net pressure or width ratio during injection
Γ(d) Euler gamma function ∆pRC pressure increase in the reservoir beyond
the filtrate region due to Carter-based
Γ(x) gamma function leakoff, psi, bar, Pa
δ dip of the formation (angle with the hori- ∆pRS pressure increase in the reservoir beyond
zontal), degree the filtrate region due to spurt, psi, bar,
∆ rate of deformation tensor Pa
N-12 Nomenclature
∆t shut-in time, hr, min, s η efficiency
∆tae effective pseudotime η diffusivity constant
∆tc closure time ηC efficiency including spurt loss
∆tC compressional wave traveltime ηf fracture hydraulic diffusivity
∆tcD dimensionless closure time ηfD dimensionless fracture hydraulic diffusivity
∆tD dimensionless time difference ηp efficiency at end of pumping
∆tD dimensionless shut-in time ηso efficiency at screenout
∆tDso dimensionless time after a screenout θ angle, degree
∆te effective time θ fluid-loss exponent
∆tma sonic transit time in the rock matrix θ dimensionless time
∆tS shear wave traveltime κ opening-time distribution factor
∆tso time following screenout κ ratio of fracture-opening stress to minimum
stress
∆tsup superposition time function
κ spurt effect factor
∆Tsurf temperature change at the surface, °F, °C
κ thermal diffusivity
∆TBT change in true bed thickness, ft, m
κ overall dissolution rate constant, cm/s
∆TVD change in true vertical depth, ft, m
κso spurt correction at screenout
∆V change in volume
λ interporosity constant
∆ρ density difference, lbm/ft3, g/cm3
λ experimental coefficient for the tortuosity reori-
∆φmax difference in maximum porosity
entation of a fracture path
∆σ stress difference, psi, bar, Pa
λ apparent time multiplier
∆$n incremental revenue
λ characteristic relaxation time
ε introduced error
λrt total mobility
ε ratio of closure time to the time interval
λt multiphase mobility
ε longitudinal strain
Λ length scale corresponding to pore size
εa axial strain
µ viscosity, cp
εe elastic strain
µa apparent viscosity, cp
εf acid front position divided by the linear flow
µbase viscosity of base fracturing fluid, cp
core length
µeff effective viscosity, cp
εh minimum tectonic strain
µfil viscosity of fracturing fluid filtrate, cp
εH maximum tectonic strain
µfluid fluid viscosity, cp
εp plastic strain
µg gas viscosity, cp
εr radial strain
µgi gas viscosity at initial reservoir pressure and
εS specific volume expansion ratio
temperature, cp
εV volumetric strain
µi intrinsic viscosity, cp
η poroelastic stress coefficient
N-14 Nomenclature
σ2 intermediate principal stress, psi, bar, Pa φcake diverter cake porosity, fraction
σ2′ intermediate principal effective stress, psi, bar, φD porosity from density, fraction
Pa
φeff effective porosity, fraction
σ3 minimum principal stress, psi, bar, Pa
φf fracture porosity, fraction
σ3′ minimum principal effective stress, psi, bar, Pa
φi initial porosity, fraction
σθ tangential stress, psi, bar, Pa
φN porosity from neutron, fraction
σθθ circumferential stress, psi, bar, Pa
φp proppant pack porosity, fraction
τ shear stress, psi, bar, Pa
φS porosity from sonic, fraction
τ time of fracture opening
φtotal total porosity, fraction
τ dimensionless slurry time
ϕ angle, degree
τc characteristic time for fracture propagation,
Φ channel flow function
dimensionless
ψ change of angle, degree
τo foam yield stress, lbf/ft2, bar, Pa
Ψ dimensionless hydrofluoric acid concentration
τoct octahedral shear stress, psi, bar, Pa
Ψ dimensionless rock dissolution rate
τw wall shear stress, lbf/ft2, bar, Pa
ω angular velocity, rad/s, rpm
τyp yield point, lbf/ft2, bar, Pa
ω storativity ratio
φ porosity, fraction
Ω stoichiometric coefficient
φ angle of internal friction, degree