Notes 3

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme/Drilling Technology Formation Damage & Stimulation
Formation Damage & Stimulation
Review
This topic begins by introducing the sources and causes of, and
mechanisms involved in formation damage. This is followed by a discussion
of the influence of formation damage on production, the use of the skin
factor to account for near-wellbore damage effects and methods of
formation damage prevention and control. The next section covers well
stimulation methods: the impact of well fracturing on performance, fracture
geomechanics, fracture propagation modelling, proppant properties and the
practical implications of acid stimulation in sandstone and carbonate
reservoirs. Acid fracturing and propped fracturing are compared and factors
affecting the effectiveness of acid fracturing treatment are examined. Also
covered are acid fracture design and the selection of the type of well
stimulation used.
Content
Introduction to Formation Damage
Formation damage can be defined as a measure of the reduction in the production

capacity or injectivity of a given reservoir formation. This can be due to the combined
effect of:
• Reduction in the formation absolute permeability;
• Alteration in the relative permeability of the formation to a specific fluid;
• Alteration in the viscosity of the mobile fluid.
It is mainly a consequence of a number of operations conducted in a well from the initial

drilling, through the production and workover phases to final abandonment.
Figure 1. Sources of Formation Damage.
Drilling Perforating
Workovers Completion
Formation Damage
Injection Production
Sand Control Acidising

Fracturing
© The Robert Gordon University 2001 1

From the radial flow theory, the flow through a composite reservoir with damage can be
viewed as a combined flow through two reservoir sections in series. Thus, the total
pressure drop in the reservoir can be defined as:
Equation 1 ∆PTOTAL = ∆PSKIN + ∆PCLEAN RESERVOIR
Causes of Formation Damage
Formation damage can be considered to be caused by a physical or chemical

interaction between the following:
• Invading fluid liquid phase and the reservoir fluids;
• Invading liquid phase and the reservoir rock constituents;
• The solid constituents of the invading fluid and the reservoir rock.
The damage mechanisms do vary but these can be listed as:

1. Formation damage resulting in reduction of absolute permeability due to:
• Particle plugging due to solids in drilling and completion fluids invading the
reservoir rock pore spaces;
• Clay problems: Insitu clays are found in majority of reservoir rocks especially
sandstone. Majority are very sensitive to fluids invasion and may swell thus
blocking the pores;
• Fines migration: A typical sand stone reservoir rock consists of insitu quartzitic or
siliceous fines generally held within the insitu connate film surrounding the
sandstone grains. These fines can become mobilised either due to high
production rate or due to increase in wetting phase saturation. Once mobilised,
fines are transported and can result in particle plugging.
2. Inorganic scale deposit resulting from reaction of incompatible invading and reservoir
fluids. Changes in pressure and temperature also contribute to the precipitation of
solids forming scales;
3. Plugging by organic deposits such as wax and asphaltenes;
4. Damage resulting from reduction in relative permeability - Invasion by wellbore fluids
cause hydrocarbon saturation to decrease around the wellbore. This lowers the
relative permeability to oil and, especially during early stages of production, a
significant pressure drop is created around the wellbore;
5. Damage due to emulsion blocking - Result of formation of emulsion between oil and
water;
6. Gas Breakthrough and Water Coning- Increase in gas and water saturation reduces
the relative permeability to oil;
7. Stress-induced permeability change - Changes in stress distribution will result in
changes in compaction status and thus pore pressure change. This will affect the net
permeability of the reservoir;
8. Sand production from unconsolidated reservoir rocks. These are known to be
production rate sensitive. Thus high production rate and water encroachment among
other factors can lead to the migration of insitu sand grains and massive sand
intrusion.

Figure 2. Formation Damage Mechanisms.
Formation Damage
Wettability Clay Swelling Particulate Fines

Plugging Migration
Water Blocking Emulsions Scale / Inorganic

Precipitates
Figure 3. Examples of Formation Damage and Pore Blocking Mechanisms.

IPR and Skin
In order to better understand what formation damage is, and its impact on production o0f
oil and gas wells, it is first necessary to consider the flow equations used to determine
the expected productivity of a well and its inflow performance relationship (IPR).
The most common method of deriving this is to utilise Darcy’s equation, modified for
radial flow. For a radial reservoir with a central drainage point, Darcy’s law is expressed
in oilfield units as:
0.00708 ⋅ k ⋅ h ⋅ (Pr − Pw )
Equation 2 Q=
 
B ⋅ µ ⋅  log e  + S 
r
  rw  
Where:
Q Flowrate (bbls/day)
k Permeability (mD)
h Formation Height (feet)
Pr Reservoir Pressure (psi)
Pw Wellbore Flowing Pressure (psi)
B Formation Volume Factor
µ Fluid Viscosity (cP)
re Reservoir Radius (feet)
rw Well Radius (feet)
The S term relates to the ‘skin’ factor. The skin is a dimensionless variable, which
relates to the extent of the formation damage. Although usually negative (indicating
increasing formation damage), the skin factor may also be positive. As the extent of the
damage increases, so will the equivalent skin factor. These concepts are outlined in
Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Formation Damage Zone.

The skin factor was originally developed to account for the effects of fluid mobility
changes in the near wellbore reservoir due to formation damage. The concept was
originally formulated to account for a change in one or more of the following due to the
invasion of the reservoir by wellbore fluids during drilling, completion, workover
operations etc.:
• Absolute permeability;
• Relative permeability;
• Fluid viscosity.
Figure 5. The Invaded Zone.
Fluid invasion
Drill bit
Bottomhole fluid
pressure
Invaded zone radius - rd
This reduction in mobility in the invaded zone, as shown in Figure 5, results in increased
hydraulic resistance and hence reduced well deliverability. The difference between the
ideal Pw, based upon ideal/no damage conditions and the actual PW as shown in Figure
6 is defined as follows:
Qs × µ × B
Equation 3 Pw IDEAL − Pw ACTUAL = ∆PSKIN = 141.2 × × ST
K×h
Where ST = total skin factor.
Rearranging:
Qs × µ × B   re  
Equation 4 Pe − Pw act = 141.2 × × ln  + S
K×h   rw  

Figure 6. Impact of Damage Near Wellbore Profile.
Non-damaged
pressure gradient
Pw ideal
Pressure gradient
through damage zone
Pw actual
rw rd Radius re
In some cases, for example due to near wellbore fractures or matrix dissolution, the
reservoir would deliver fluid at a higher than expected deliverability and bottomhole
pressure. As a result, for a constant flowrate in such cases, we can get a pressure
profile as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Impact of Increased Conductivity.
PAV
Non-damaged
pressure gradient
Pw actual
Pw ideal
Radius of higher
conductivity
rw rd Radius re

By combining Equation 3 with the equation for steady state flow the following equation
can be derived, for pseudo steady state flow:
Qs × µ × B   re  3 
Equation 5 PAV − Pw = 141.2 × × ln  − + S
K×h 4
  rw  
The impact of the skin factor on the IPR is shown in Figure 8. The original concept of
skin was to correct the simple inflow equations for the effects on near wellbore damage.
In general, however, skin can account for both types of non ideal flow, namely:
• Damage ie, reduced mobility of hydrocarbons;
• Variations in well completion geometry.
Figure 8. Effect of skin on the IPR and PI.
Pe or PAV
Pw
psi
s = -ve
s = +ve
s=0
Qs (stb/d)
Figure 9. Impact of Skin on Production.
SKIN RATE (BPD)
-6 80,000 increasing stimulation

-3 32,000
-1 22,857
0 20,000 '(ideal)' no damage

+2 16,000
+4 13,333
+8 10,000 increasing damage
+24 5,000
+100 1,481

Prevention and Control Measures
Prevention
The best control technique is prevention. Preventive measures for formation damage
are limited to the ways of ameliorating the three potential causes. In all cases, the
following is required:
• An appreciation of the causes of formation damage and factors governing the
severity and location;
• An analysis of well operation to assess the potential risk for damage;
• The modification of operation to avoid or minimise damage;
• The evaluation and implementation of techniques to remove or bypass the effects
of damage.
The potential preventive measures are as follows:

Interaction of invading fluid liquid phase and reservoir fluid:
Combating reaction between the fluids that can lead to precipitation, emulsion or water
blockage, etc, requires the selection of appropriate drilling and completion fluids that are
compatible with the reservoir fluids at the downhole temperature and pressure. Likewise,
the reduction of fluid loss through the use of appropriate control agents is essential.
Total prevention of lost circulation is also very important.
Interaction of Invading fluid liquid phase and the formation:

This problem leads mainly to potential clay swelling, wettability change and potential
water blocking. To minimise the problem, use of appropriate clay inhibitor/stabiliser
completion fluids would be desirable to prevent clay swelling.
Most formations are usually water-wet but this may change due to completion
operations. For such cases, the use of appropriate surfactant to alter wettability will be
desirable. For example, for improved oil relative permeability, the formation needs to be
water wet. Thus the water wettability of the formation can be restored through
appropriate surfactant treatment.
Interaction of invading fluid solids and formation:

This generally leads to particle plugging or result of fines migration. Prevention
generally involves effective solids control for drilling fluids and the use of solids free
brines as completion fluids. Effective well preparation before completion operation is
carried out is very essential. Thus, the drilling fluid can be displaced by solids free
completion fluids.
Specific cases of Preventive measures during well completion operations are discussed
below.
Control
Sand Control:
Completion of such reservoirs has involved the use of pack sands (Gravelpacks) and
other screen systems in the attempt to:
• Maximise productivity;
• Minimise impairment through the prevention of plugging;
• Control the migration/production of solids, which may erode downhole and
surface facilities such as valves, pumps, tubing and flow line components.

Methods of Well Stimulation
Methods for improving well stimulation can be broken down into four distinct categories:
• Well fracturing;
• Acid stimulation;
• Acid fracturing;
• Perforation.
This unit will discuss each of these in turn, defining the operational issues and
methodologies and the expected impact on production. The final topic in this unit will
then define a selection methodology for the stimulation options.
Reservoir stimulation deals with well productivity, and as a result a successful
stimulation requires identification of the parameters controlling well productivity and the
determination of whether or not a stimulation job will improve well productivity.
Darcy’s law, in its simples form is adequate for studying this issue, and the expression
for steady state redial flow is:
k ⋅ h ⋅ ( p e − p wf )
Equation 6 q=
B ⋅ µ ⋅ (ln⋅ re rw + S)
Where:
q flowrate
k permeability
h formation height
pe reservoir pressure
pwf well flowing pressure
B formation volume factor
re reservoir radius
rw well radius
S skin factor
Each of the variables on the right hand side of Equation 6 affects well productivity, and
variations in the parameters may favourable change these effects. From the point of
view of stimulation, of particular interest are the permeability and the skin effect.
From the equation, a low value of permeability or a high value of skin will result in a
reduced production rate. Although there is little that can be practically done to the
permeability of the formation, operations can be carried out which will reduce the near
wellbore skin effect. All stimulation practices try to lower the skin, which is a multi-
component variable for which stimulation will not affect all of the components. Skin
components include:
• Partial penetration and well deviation skins;
• Damage skin;
• Perforation skin;
• Pseudo skins.
It is important, therefore to have a full understanding of the skin values and causes for
any particular well for which a stimulation operation is planned.

Overview of Methods
The sections below provide a quick overview of the different stimulation techniques that
will be discussed in greater detail in the following topics.
Well Fracturing
The process of hydraulic well fracturing pressurising the well until a fracture propagates
through the reservoir rock. Hydraulic fracturing can greatly improve well productivity by
creating a large contact surface between the well and the reservoir.
Acid Stimulation
Matrix acidising is a stimulation treatment used to remove damage near the wellbore. It
involves the injection of a reactive fluid (acid) into the reservoir rock at a pressure below
the fracturing pressure. The fluid will then dissolve some of the porous media, resulting
in a localised increase in the permeability.
Acid Fracturing
Acid fracturing is commonly used in carbonate formations, whereby acid is injected into
the formation at a sufficiently high pressure so as to create fractures or widen existing
natural fractures.
Perforation
Finally, perforation (or re-perforation) can be used in areas where perforation collapse,
water or gas breakthrough has occurred.
Well Fracturing
Fracturing is a well stimulation method in which large conductive fractures are created in
the formation around the wellbore, reaching far into the formation. Exerting pressure in
the wellbore that exceeds the fracture initiation pressure of the formation creates the
fractures. Fractures are initiated, propagated and held open as long as the injection
proceeds. When injection ceases, the fracture tends to close again. Two methods are
used to keep the fracture open after injection stops:
• Propping the fracture using materials that are transported with the injected fluids;
• Acid etching along the fracture wall – acid fracturing, which will not be discussed
in this topic.
It is generally understood that fracturing results in a single fracture orientated in the

plane of the wellbore. In shallow formations a horizontal fracture may occur.
Impact on Performance
When a well is fractured, the effect on well performance is equivalent to an enlargement

of the wellbore radius. For a constant pressure model, the rate behaviour that the
stimulation yields is an immediate increase in rate (as much as 10 or 100 times)
followed by a rapid rate decline. The early increase is often referred to as ‘flush
production’. Although this implies a short-lived production, the behaviour may last
several years in low permeability wells.

From a mathematical point of view, the impact of performance from hydraulics fractures
can be classified according to one of three models:
• Infinite conductivity model – assuming no pressure loss in the fracture;
• Uniform flux model – assumes a slight pressure gradient in the fracture;
• Finite conductivity model – assumes constant and limited permeability in the
fracture from proppant crushing or poor proppant distribution.
Mathematical studies have shown, that an apparent wellbore radius can be used for the
infinite conductivity and uniform flux models, and in conjunction with the radial flow
model, these can adequately describe the production behaviour. The equations 7 and 8
below give the apparent wellbore radius for the infinite conductivity model and uniform
flux model respectively:
xf
Equation 7 rwa =
2
xf
Equation 8 rwa =
e
Where:
rwa apparent well radius
xf fracture width
e 2.718 (ie, ln(10))
For the finite conductivity model, the behaviour of the fracture is quantified by a
dimensionless fracture conductivity:
k f ⋅W
Equation 9 FcD =
k ⋅ xf
Where:
FcD dimensionless fracture conductivity
kf fracture permeability
W fracture width (assume 0.01 ft average)
k formation permeability
xf vertical fracture half length
Layers of commercially available proppant materials can exhibit permeabilities from 120
to 2000 Darcies, and yet the fracture conductivity can be low and fracture length
calculated from test data using the infinite conductivity assumption is optimistic. Limited
fracture conductivity may result from:
• Incomplete proppant placement
• Improper proppant size distribution
• Improper proppant concentration in the fracture
• Large closure stress resulting in proppant crushing
• Fracture plugging by formation and fracturing fluid materials
To help with a qualitative understanding of fracture conductivity, Table 1 below gives

characteristic values of the parameter detailed in Equation 9.

Table 1. Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity Parameters.

Quantity Value Characteristic
10 D Poor
kf 100 D Good
1000 D Excellent
100 md-ft Poor
kf.W 1000 md-ft Good
10000 md-ft Excellent
<10 Poor
FcD 10-50 Good
>50 Excellent
Often the result of fracture treatment is poorer than that expected from the design. Test
data from the well will reveal this, but not the reasons for the poor result. As an example,
consider a fracture, which extends vertically across a sandstone formation and into
shale layers above and below. As a result of gravity, the proppant tends to settle at the
bottom of the fracture. When injection stops, the un-propped area begins to close as a
result of the horizontal stress due to the overburden. The result is an ineffective fracture
with limited extension, reduced area to flow and limited conductivity.
To study the effect of fracture conductivity and fracturing height on well performance, it
is possible to use results presented by McGuire and Skiora (1960) and Tinsley et al
(1969). Figure 10 shows the results of Tinsley’s study. The figure plots steady state flow
efficiency versus a fracture characterisation parameter for several ratios of fracture half-
length to drainage radius.
Figure 10 Results from Tinsley et al (1969).
8
Flow Efficiency Ratio
6
ln(re/rw)/ln(re/rwa)
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
X = 0.593 (hf/h)(xf/re)ln(re/rw)FcD
An important observation in Figure 10 is related to the relative importance of fracture

length and fracture conductivity. For a large X value (typical for low permeability
reservoirs) fracture length dominates the productivity gain and the fracture exhibits
infinite conductivity behaviour even if the conductivity has a finite value. At low values of
X, fracture conductivity (as well as fracture length) governs productivity gain.
The importance of this observation stems from the ability of the designer to trade-off
fracture conductivity for fracture length in designing and executing certain frac jobs.

In conclusion, any stimulated condition obtained by fracturing can be interpreted as a

radial well with an apparent wellbore radius. The results of a stimulation treatment can
be quantified as a skin factor:
r 
Equation 10 S = − ln wa 
 rw 
This however should be used cautiously – a post stimulation negative skin does not
imply that the stimulation will yield a prolonged increase in production rate. In fact, the
better the stimulation, the more rapidly the rate will decline with time. It is wrong then to
express the success of a stimulation in terms of a single constant flow efficiency
calculated from the initial post-stimulation production rate.
Geomechanics of Fracturing
A fluid injected into a formation modifies the pressure and stress distribution within the
formation, creating conditions that are favourable for the propagation of a fracture. In
addition, the injected fluid exchanges heat with the formation and also fluid will leak off
into the un-fractured reservoir. The injected fluid, because it contains proppant, is a
multiphase flow. The diagram in Figure 11 shows the interaction between these different
components.
Figure 11. Interaction of Hydraulics Fracture Modelling Components.
Fracture Mechanics
Fluid Mechanics Fluid Loss
Proppant Transport Heat Transfer
In this section consideration will be given to fracture propagation models and fluid flow
modelling.
Fracture Propagation Modelling
There are a number of fracture propagation modules including:

• Two dimensional models;
• Perkins-Kern-Nordgren model;
• Radial models;
• Pseudo three dimensional model;
• Three-dimensional models.
The first model to simulate the propagation of fractures was developed by Khristianovic
and Zheltov in 1955. This two dimensional formulation is based on the assumption of
plane strains and two classes can be distinguished:
• Plane strain condition in horizontal planes
• Plane strain condition in vertical planes

By way of example, consider an infinite elastic medium and that each horizontal section
deforms independently from the others with no vertical strain. In this case, the horizontal
plane strain condition is in effect. All the z-components of the strain tensor, ε vanish.
Thus for the horizontal plane strain geometry, the fracture should deform independently
of the upper and lower layers. This would occur for free slippage in these layers, or
approximately represent a fracture with a horizontal penetration much smaller than the
vertical one. Such geometry is shown in Figure 12 – it has a constant and uniform height
and a rectangular cross section.
Figure 12. Plane Strain Fracture Model.
A second simulation exists when there is a large confinement, hence the fracture is
limited to a given zone. Perkins and Kern (1961) and Nordgren (1972 considered the
plane strain assumption in vertical planes, so each vertical cross section deforms
independently of the others (PKN model). However the fracture width in vertical planes
are coupled through the fluid flow and continuity equations. Since there is no vertical
extension, the pressure is uniform and hence the shape of the fracture is elliptical. This
case approximates a fracture with a horizontal penetration much greater than the
vertical penetration.
Historically, the first type of hydraulic fracturing models considered a plane strain
solution in a horizontal plane relating to the fracture width and shape to the lateral
pressure distribution. Barenblatt (1962) described the notion of an equilibrium crack –
the fracture tip tends to zero at the crack tip. The width profiles associated with a given
pressure distribution are then given by the integral relation derived by England and
Green (1963)
Geertsma and de Klerk developed a tractable version of the model, considering the
size of the unpressurised zone near the crack tip. If σ3 is the minimum horizontal stress
(the fracture will propagate in the direction perpendicular to it) and the excess pressure
is ∆p, distribution along the fracture is related to the fluid flow rate.
To solve the coupled problems of elasticity and fracture fluid flow, an iterative process
is required:
• assuming a pressure distribution in the fracture, determine the fracture width;
• given the fracture width distribution, compute the pressure from the fluid flow
equations;
• compare the assumed and computed pressures and if they differ, iterate.

To help simplify the fist step of the process, a step variation in the pressures along the
fracture can be assumed, thus:
Equation 11 p( x ) = p wi for 0 ≤ x≤ xf (1-εL)
Equation 12 p(x ) = 0 for xf (1-εL) ≤ x

Where:
xf vertical fracture half length
εL relative size of the zone not penetrated by the fluid
π σ3 
Equation 13 ε L = sin⋅  ⋅ 
 2 p wi 
Where:
Pwi wellbore injection pressure
σ3 minimum principal stress
These analytical relationships include a large number of assumptions:

• Constant injection rate;
• Constant fluid properties;
• No leak off.
To simulate the treatment conditions for which all these parameters may vary with time,
complex numerical solutions have been developed. The simulators are based on
different types of techniques including:
• Finite differences.
• Finite elements.
• Boundary integrals.
The selection of a particular method depends on different criteria including the

robustness and accuracy, ie, whether the technique will give correct results in most of
the simulations with a minimum number of external numerical controls.
PKN Model
The second type of model used to simulate the propagation of vertical hydraulic
fractures was presented by Perkins and Kern (1961 and later improved upon by
Nordgren (1972) who allowed for variations in the flow rate along the fracture. The
primary assumption of this model is that the fracture length is greater than the height.
Assuming that there is no flow in the vertical direction, the pressure in a vertical cross
section is constant, and the fracture has an elliptical shape.
The model proposed by Perkins and Kern gave a relationship between the width and
the excess pressure in a given cross section:
2 ⋅ ∆Pwi (x, t )
Equation 14 w(x, t ) = ⋅h
E'
Where:
E’ plane strain modulus

Radial Models
The two previous models considered the propagation of a vertical fracture with a given
height. In some cases the vertical stress is lower that the horizontal stress causing the
fracture to propagate in a horizontal or inclined direction. By coupling the continuity,
elasticity and fluid flow equations, using an integral expression, the fracture width is
calculated from:
1
 µ  4
Equation 15 w = 2.19 ⋅  ⋅ qi ⋅ R 
 2 ⋅ E' 
Where:
R fracture radius
and the fracture volume is given by:
8 ⋅π
Equation 16 V = ⋅ w ⋅ R2
15
Pseudo Three Dimensional Models
To simulate vertical and lateral propagation of a vertical fracture, the assumption of a

constant and uniform height has to be removed. Therefore the problem needs to be
solved in three-dimensional space. This requires extensive computational times and
hence limits the practicality of the general use of such models for fracturing treatment
designs.
The basic concept of a pseudo three-dimensional model is the same as the PKN
model – that is, vertical planes deform independently. However, the height of the
fracture depends on the position along the fracture and the time. A vertical fracture will
grow in a layered medium as a function of the layer properties as well as the
characteristics of the injected fluid. The following factors affect growth:
• apart from linear variation in stress with depth due to the gradients, in-situ
stresses depend also on the lithology of the formation, tectonic components, and
pore pressure. The stress variations are generally the major factor for fracture
containment;
• Elastic moduli – contrasts in Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio generally
impede the height growth but usually cannot stop a fracture;
• When the fracture height grows into a layer with a relatively high fluid loss, the
high rate loss will retard additional propagation through the zone.
Fracturing Fluids
The fracturing fluid is a critical component of the hydraulic fracture treatment. Its main
functions are to open the fracture and to transport the propping agent along the length of
the fracture. Consequently, the viscous properties of the fluid are often considered the
most important. However, successful hydraulic fracturing treatments require that the
fluids have some other special properties.
The first fracturing fluids were oil based and in the late 1950’s, water based fluids that
were thickened with Guar became popular. Concerns about damage to the formation led
to the utilisation of hydroxypropylguar based aqueous fluids in the 1970’s. Because of
their low cost, high performance and ease of handling, water-based fluids are the most
widely used fracturing fluids. Potential problems with water based fluids are:
• Formation damage of water sensitive zones;
• Pack damage caused by unbroken polymer and additives.

Fracturing Fluid Additives
A fracturing fluid is more often than not simply a liquid and viscosifying material such as
water and HPG polymer. Various additives are used to adjust pH, control bacteria,
improve high temperature stability, and break the fluid once the job is completed. Fluid
additives include:
• Buffers;
• Bactericides;
• Stabilisers;
• Breakers;
• Surfactants;
• Fluid loss additives.
Buffers are pH adjusting chemicals, which are added to aqueous fracturing fluids to
maintain a desired pH. The buffers, weak acids or bases or both are used in sufficient
quantities to maintain pH at a desired level even if an extraneous acid or base is
introduced through contaminated water or proppant.
Buffers are used to help with the hydration of polymers. For example, guar and HPG
are usually are usually treated to be dispersible and non-hydrating at high pH
The use of bactericides reduces the loss of viscosity due to bacterial degradation of
the polymer. Bacteria will not only ruin the gel by reducing the molecular weight of the
polymer, but also the can create sour wells. Once introduced into the well, some
bacteria can survive and reduce sulphate ions to H2S
Stabilisers are used to prevent degradation of polysaccharide gels at temperatures
above two hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The most common stabilisers are methanol and
sodium thiosulphate. There are certain health and safety issues when using Methanol
that must be considered. It usually makes up between five to ten percent of the fluid
volume. Sodium Thiosulphate is more effective, and makes up ten to twenty percent of
the volume, however the mechanism of the action of these stabilisers is not fully
understood.
Thermal breaking of the polymer gel usually occurs in wells above 225 degrees
Fahrenheit. When treating lower temperature wells, a breaker should be added to the
fracturing fluid. Ideally, a gel breaker should be added to the fracturing fluid on surface
and should have no affect until pumping stops and the fracture starts to close.
A surface-active agent (or surfactant) is a material that at low concentrations adsorbs
at the interface between two immiscible substances, such as oil and water. Surfactants
are necessary to promote the stable formation of bubbles in foams and are used in poly-
emulsion fluids to stabilise the oil-in-water emulsion. Some bactericides and clay control
agents are also surfactants.
Good fluid loss control is essential for an efficient fracturing treatment. Several types
of materials are used to provide fluid loss control, but the effectiveness of the various
types depends on the type of fluid loss problem that is present:
• Loss to the matrix;
• Loss to microfractures;
• Loss to macrofractures.
Fracture Proppant
Sand was the first material used as a proppant and since the late 1940’s several
materials have been used some of the unsuccessful efforts included aluminium pellets,
metal shot, glass beads, plastic beads and walnut shells. Some of the successful and
more commonly used propping agents today include sand, resin coated sand, ceramics

and high strength proppants (eg, sintered bauxite). Because of the large quantities and
wide variety of proppants, the American petroleum institute has established test
procedures for several proppant properties to distinguish the quality and usefulness of
each proppant (API RP56, 1983).
Sand
Premium sands come from Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin. These sands greatly
exceed API standards. They are commonly known as:
• Northern sand;
• White sand;
• Ottawa sand;
• Jordan sand;
• St. Peters sand;
• Wonewoc sand.
The specific gravity of sand is approximately 2.65.
Resin Coated Sand
Resin coatings may be applied to improve proppant strength. The resin coating on the
proppant is usually cured during the manufacturing process to form a non melting, inert
film. When the grains crush the resin coating helps encapsulate the crushed portions of
the grains and prevents them from migrating and plugging the flow channel. Resin
coated sands usually have a specific gravity of about 2.55.
Intermediate Strength Proppants
Intermediate strength proppants (ISP) are fused ceramic proppants that have a specific
gravity between 2.7 and 3.3. ISP’s are mainly used for closure stress ranges between
5,000 PSI and 10,000 psi.
Intermediate Strength Proppants
Sintered bauxite and zirconium oxide are high strength propping agents with a specific
gravity of about 3.4 or higher. Because of their greater cost, they are generally limited to
wells with very high closure stresses.
Properties of Proppants
The physical properties of propping agents that have an impact on fracture conductivity
include the following:
• Proppant strength;
• Grain size;
• Grain size distribution;
• Quality (amount of fines and impurities);
• Roundness and sphericity;
• Proppant density.

Proppant Strength
It is common practice to use the difference between the initial fracture gradient
(minimum insitu stress) and bottom hole flowing pressure to calculate the maximum
effective stress on the proppant. The potential for maximum crushing can occur initially
in the production of a well because the fracture gradient is the maximum and decreases
with the reservoir pressure depletion. Usually the bottom hole flowing pressure is held
constant and at a low value in order to maximise the production rate.
Sand should be used for fracturing formations with closure stresses less than 6,000
psi. In the range of 5,000 to 10,000 psi ISP should be used. For closure stresses above
10,000 psi a high strength proppant is required.
Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution
Dirty formations, or those subject to significant fines migration are poor candidates for
large proppants the finds tend to invade the proppant pack, causing partial plugging and
a rapid reduction in permeability. In these cases, smaller proppants, which resist the
invasions of fines, are more suitable.
Quality
Grain size distribution and proppant quality are closely related. A high percentage of
smaller grains or impurities can have the same effect on the proppant pack permeability
as invading fines.
Roundness and Sphericity
Proppant grain roundness is a measure of the relative sharpness of grain corners, or of

grain curvature. Particle sphericity is a measure of how close the proppant particle or
grain approaches the shape of a sphere. Stresses on the proppant grains are more
evenly distributed when the grains are round and about the same size, resulting in
higher loads before grain failure occurs.
Proppant Density
Proppant density has an influence on proppant transport and placement. High density
proppants are more difficult to suspend in the fracturing fluid and to transport in the
fracture.
Acid Stimulation
Matrix acidising is a stimulation treatment that is particularly effective in removing near

wellbore damage. A reactive fluid (normally acid) is injected in to the matrix at a
pressure below the fracturing pressure. The reactive fluid results in the dissolution of
some of the matrix resulting in an increase in permeability. The acid enters the rock, and
flows through the natural pores and flow channels, reacting with the walls of the pores
and enlarging them. It will also react with the clay particles attached to the walls of the
pores and with invading fines and clay particles in the pore throats. The reaction
between the acid and the rock slows down as the acid is spent until finally the reaction is
completed, and additional radial penetration of the spent acid produces no additional
reaction.
The design of an acidising stimulation treatment requires and understanding of:

• Chemical reactions between the fluid and the solids that make up the formation
matrix;

• The flow of liquid through porous media;

• Possible instabilities such as viscous fingering and wormholing.
Solid Liquid Reactions
A chemical reaction between two molecules takes place when they come into contact
with one another, and they have enough energy to overcome the activation barrier. It is
possible to identify two extreme cases. In the first the activation barrier is very low and
every molecular collision results in a reaction, and the global rate of the reaction is
therefore limited only by the number of contacts. The other case exists where there is a
very high activation energy so only a small number of molecules in contact will react.
The kinetics of the reaction is therefore limited by the energy barrier. The first case
outlined above is referred to as diffusion or mass limited, whereas the second is said to
be reaction limited. Reactions between a solid and a liquid do not display any particular
differences except that only one of the two reacting molecules can move. Therefore,
since the reaction can only take place at the interface between the solid and the liquid,
the reaction is often referred to as surface reaction limited.
Kinetics of Reaction
The rate of reaction, which is expressed as the number of moles of reacting molecules
per unit time, ie, moles per second. The rate can be determined from Equation 17 below
for surface reaction limited scenarios:
Equation 17 qs = k j ⋅ A ⋅ C m
Where:
qs reaction rate (mole/sec)
kj reaction rate constant (mole-m litm cm-2 sec-1)
A area of the solid (cm2)
C concentration of the reactant (mole/litre)
m order of the reaction (dimensionless)
The simplest reactions have m equal to 1, ie, the rate is simply proportional to the
concentration. For mass transfer limited reactions, the number of moles reacting per unit
time is described by Nernst (1904):
D ⋅ A⋅C
Equation 18 qd = ⋅ 10 −3
δ
Where:
qd reaction rate (mole/sec)
D diffusion constant (cm2 sec-1)
A area of the solid (cm2)
C concentration of the reactant (mole/litre)
δ characteristic length constant (cm)
Nernst’s law assumes implicitly that the concentration at the interface is zero. The
characteristic length constant represents the thickness of the zone surrounding the solid
where the concentration varies from C (in the bulk of the reactant) to zero (at the
interface). In a more general case, the concentration is not uniform, nor does it go down
to zero at the solid liquid interface, and as a result both molecular diffusion and surface
kinetics must be considered.

The dimensionless kinetic parameter P can therefore be defined as:

qd D
Equation 19 P= = ⋅ 10 −3
q s k j ⋅ δ ⋅ C m−1
Reactions with Rocks
Actual rocks display a large number of reactivities with acids. Thus P will vary depending
on kj. Table 2 below summarises common P values for various rock acid combinations.
Table 2. Values of Dimensionless Reaction Parameter P.
System m kj P
-6
Limestone / HCl 0.2 7 x 10 0.07
-7
Dolomite / HCl 0.44 1.25 x 10 4
-9
Feldspar / HF 1 1.5 x 10 300
-10
Quartz / HF 1 1.5 x 10 3000
-6
Vitreous Silica / HF 1 3.7 x 10 0.13
From the table above, it can be deduced that:

• Reaction with limestone is limited by mass transfer (P<1);
• Reaction with Dolomite is surface reaction limited;
• Clays and quartz are surface reaction limited.
Stoichiometry
Stoichiometry describes the number of molecules required for the dissolution of a given
amount of solid. These effects can be obtained when the solid and liquid are well
defined, as in the reaction between limestone and hydrochloric acid:
Equation 20 CaCO3 + 2 HCl → CaCl 2 + CO2 + H 2 O
Knowing that the molecular weights of CaCO3 and HCl are 100 and 36.5 respectively, it
can be calculated that one litre of 15% hydrochloric acid can dissolve 220 grams of pure
limestone.
Practical Implications
The design of a sandstone acidising treatment is comprised of two parts:

• The selection of the appropriate fluid;
• Prediction of the fluids efficiency.
Acidising in Sandstone Reservoirs
In sandstone reservoirs, treatment is usually performed with a mixture of hydrofluoric

(HF) and Hydrochloric (HCl) acids – typically 4% HF and 12% HCl. The acid reacts with
quartz, silicates and the carbonates that may be found as cementicious materials. The
acid reacts predominantly with plugging materials rather than with the rock matrix, and
an injection of fifty to two hundred and fifty gallons per foot will remove the near wellbore
damage.
Certain sandstone acid reactions may produce insoluble salts that tend to precipitate
and plug flow channels. To minimise the damage of precipitating salts, sandstone
acidising is commonly performed in three stages:

• An HCl pre-flush to displace formation brines and remove carbonate materials;

• An HF-HCl treatment to react with the rock matrix and plugging materials;
• A post flush with either HCl or mutual solvent that displaces the reaction product
away from the wellbore.
In certain cases where damage in the sandstone reservoir is due to particles, the acid
may need to penetrate deep into the reservoir. In these cases chemicals are used to
retard the HF reaction.
Matrix acidising is defined as the injection of fluids at pressures below the fracture
pressure. The injected fluid flows either through the existing porous medium or through
new passageways created by the fluid itself. The maximum possible injection rate that
does not fracture the formation can be derived from Darcy’s radial flow equation:
q max =
[
4.917 ⋅ 10 −6 ⋅ k ⋅ h ⋅ (g f ⋅ H ) − ∆p safe − p ]
Equation 21
µ ⋅ B ⋅  ln re r + s 
 w 
Where:
qmax maximum injection rate
k permeability
h formation height
gf fracture gradient
H depth
∆psafe safety pressure margin (200 to 500 psi)
p reservoir pressure
µ viscosity
B formation volume factor
re drainage radius
rw wellbore radius
s skin factor
However, it is important to note that this equation does not account for transient effects,
multiphase flow or reservoir heterogeneities. The injected fluid is assumed to be
incompressible. As such the value obtained from the equation can only be used to
provide a guideline for determining the initial rate.
Depending on the carbonate and clay content of the formation and its permeability, 5%
to 15% HCl is used for preflush. The volume required to displace formation fluids to a
radial distance, rs, can be estimated from the following equation:
Equation 22 [ ( ) ]
V p = 7.48 ⋅ φ ⋅ rs2 − rw2 ⋅ π
Where
Vp pore volume
φ porosity
rs depth of the damage
rw well bore radius

However, the volume required to dissolve all acid soluble material to a radial distance rs
is given for HCl by:
π ⋅ (1 − φ ) ⋅ X HCl ⋅ (rs2 − rw2 )
Equation 23 VHCl = 7.48 ⋅
β
Where
VHCl HCl volume required
XHCl is the weight fraction of formation material soluble in HCl
β dissolving power of the acid
Acidising in Carbonate Reservoirs
In carbonate reservoirs (limestones and dolomites) HCl is used alone and in this case
the rock itself dissolves, rather than the plugging materials, which cause the formation
damage. The dissolved carbonate rock disperses plugging particles and enlarges the
flow passages. Normally a 15% HCl acid is used and 50 to 250 gallons per foot will
remove 3 to 5 feet from the wellbore radius.
The penetration of acid in carbonate rock is typically non-uniform, since the pore
structure is formed by vugs and microfissures. The resulting channels created by the
acid are known as wormholes.
Predicting Acidising Results
Various methods have been suggested to predict acidising results. They are all based
on essentially the same procedure: Simulate the acid reaction and calculate the
resultant permeability increase. The prediction models use highly idealised assumptions
and thus lack the practical value for effective treatment selection.
The degree of treatment success may be established only by a post-acidising well test
or close monitoring of production history. The standard transient test for treatment
evaluation is a pressure build up, performed shortly after the acid job is completed. Test
data are used to calculate post acid skin, which can be compared with the design skin.
Acid Fracturing
Acid Fracturing is a stimulation process in which acid, usually HCL, is injected into the
formation at a pressure above the fracture formation pressure. As the acid flows along
the fracture, portions of the fracture face are dissolved. Since flowing acid tends to etch
in a non-uniform manner, conductive channels are created which usually remain when
the fracture closes. The effective length of the fracture is determined by the volume of
the acid used, its reaction rate and the acid fluid loss from the fracture into the formation.
The effectiveness of the acid fracturing treatment is largely determined by the length of
the etched fracture.
Acid Fracturing v. Propped Fracturing
The basic principles and objectives of acid fracturing are the same as for propped
fracturing treatments. In both cases the goal is to produce a conductive fracture with
sufficient length to allow more effective drainage of the reservoir. The major difference is
in how the conductivity is achieved.
In propped fracture treatments, sand or another propping agent is placed in the
fracture to prevent closure when injection ceases and pressure is released. Acid
fracturing does not normally employ a propping agent, but relies on the acid etching of
the fracture walls to provide the required conductivity. As a result, acid fracturing is
normally limited to limestone or dolomite formations, and is rarely used in sandstones
because the acid is ineffective in etching these formations.

Operationally, acid fracturing is less complicated because no proppant agent is

required, however acid is more expensive than most non-reactive treatment fluids.
However the major barrier to effective fracture penetration by acid is the excessive fluid
loss.
Factors Affecting Acid Fracture Treatment Effectiveness
The two major factors affecting the effectiveness of an acid fracture treatment are:
• Resulting fracture length;
• Conductivity.
The effective fracture length is controlled by the acid fluid loss characteristics, the acid
reaction rate and the acid flow rate in the fracture. Conductivity is affected by reaction of
the acid with the fracture faces and dissolution of the formation minerals.
Acid Fluid Loss
Control of fluid loss during acid fracturing of carbonate formations presents problems
unique to reactive fluids. Acids usually require special acid stable additives. To further
complicate things, acids tend to selectively enlarge certain large pores and hairline
fractures, resulting in wormholes and channels perpendicular to the fracture, and it is
this phenomenon is believed to contribute to the high fluid loss during acid fracturing
operations.
Acid Spending
Another major factor that limits the penetration of live acid along the fractures is
spending of the acid. During its travel down the fracture, the acid reacts constantly with
the fracture surfaces and decreases in strength. Once acid drops below approximately
10% of its original concentration it is considered to be no longer capable of providing
sufficient etching.
Temperature
Because temperature accelerates the reaction of acid on carbonate, it significantly

affects the depth of penetration. An increase from 100 to 200 degrees Fahrenheit
decreases the penetration of 15% HCl in Limestone from 120 ft to 82 ft (about 30%). In
dolomite formations the effects of temperature are even more pronounced, with a 60%
reduction in penetration for the same acid concentration over the same temperature
differential. This is because the acid reaction in limestone is mass-transfer limited,
whereas in dolomite the reaction rate is affected by reaction kinetics.
Acid Fracture Design
When designing an acid fracture treatment, all factors affecting the success of the
treatment must be considered. In low to moderate temperature wells, acid fluid loss
control may be the most important consideration. For high temperature wells, retarded
acids should be considered to ensure adequate penetration.
Acid Fluid Loss Control
Various additives have been developed to control acid fluid loss and include:
• Karaya gum;
• Silica flour;

• Oil soluble resins.
However, most of these additives, although effective are limited in high temperature
wells and are often economically unviable. As a result, the most common solution is to
use a viscous pad preceding the acid. The pad is used to initiate the fracture and
deposit a filter cake, which will act as a barrier to acid leakoff. It also helps to cool the
acid, thereby reducing the acid reaction rate, and increasing penetration.
Efficiency, using viscous pads has also been improved by pumping alternating pad
and acid treatments, and this process is now widely used in acid fracturing treatments.
Acid Reaction Rate Control
The need to reduce the reaction rate of acid to achieve increased fracture penetration
often is considered an important problem, particularly in high temperature wells. One of
the most common methods of extending live acid penetration is by injecting a viscous
pad prior to the acid treatment as has already been discussed. Other means include the
addition of retarders such as alkyl amine, which reduce the reaction rate by forming
hydrophobic film on the carbonate surfaces. These retarders act in much the same way
as acid corrosion inhibitors protect steel surfaces. Another means of reducing the
reaction rate is to prepare an emulsion using kerosene or diesel as the oil phase, and
hydrochloric acid as the aqueous phase.
Improving Fracture Conductivity
For an acid fracturing treatment to be effective, the walls of the fracture must be etched
sufficiently that conductive channels remain after the treatment. If the fracture faces are
etched uniformly, the conductivity after fracture closure will be very low. At high flow
rates, the rate of acid reaction is greatly affected by the acid flow velocity – the reaction
is faster and more material is removed. This phenomenon results in the erosion of the
fracture faces in areas of more rapid acid flow and creates erosion patterns. This not
only promotes fracture conductivity, but also increases live acid penetration, by reducing
the amount of reactive surface to which the acid is exposed. Acid etching typically
occurs on only about 40% of the fracture surface.
Well Stimulation Selection
The selection of a correct method of well stimulation is dependant on a variety of factors:

• Cause of production decline;
• Formation type;
• Reservoir fluid type;
• Equipment availability;
• Materials availability;
• Economical restraints;
• Local regulations.
The selection of methods based on the formation will be limited to those suitable for
sand stones and carbonates – hydraulic fracturing in sandstones and acidising or acid
fracturing in carbonates. The formation lithology and formation fluid make up will also
impact on the methods selection, based on the chemical requirements for each method
and the considerations which will have to be taken into account for additives to
overcome any problems that may be expected.
Of all the factors affecting the selection of the well stimulation treatment, the
economical restraints usually have the greatest impact. The most commonly used
measure of economic effectiveness is the net present value (NPV). The NPV is the

difference between the present value of all receipts and costs (both current and future)
generated as a result of the stimulation treatment. Future receipts and costs are
converted into present value using a discount rate and taking into account the year in
which they will appear. Another measure of the effectiveness is the payout period. That
is the time it takes for the cumulative present value of the net well revenue to equal the
treatment costs. The NPV is sensitive to the discount rate, and the predicted future
hydrocarbon prices.
As with almost any engineering activities, costs increase almost linearly with the size
of the stimulation treatment, but the revenues increase only marginally (or may even
decrease). As a result, there is an optimum size of treatment that will maximise the NPV.
When using this general sizing technique, it is understood that for any given treatment
size, we find the technically optimal way to create the fracture or inject the acid for the
job.

Notes 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme/Drilling Technology Formation Damage & Stimulation

Formation Damage & Stimulation

Formation damage can be defined as a measure of the reduction in the production

It is mainly a consequence of a number of operations conducted in a well from the initial

Sand Control Acidising

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 1

Causes of Formation Damage

Formation damage can be considered to be caused by a physical or chemical

The damage mechanisms do vary but these can be listed as:

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 2

Figure 2. Formation Damage Mechanisms.

Wettability Clay Swelling Particulate Fines

Water Blocking Emulsions Scale / Inorganic

Figure 3. Examples of Formation Damage and Pore Blocking Mechanisms.

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 3

IPR and Skin

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 4

Figure 5. The Invaded Zone.

Invaded zone radius - rd

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 5

Figure 6. Impact of Damage Near Wellbore Profile.

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 6

Figure 8. Effect of skin on the IPR and PI.

Figure 9. Impact of Skin on Production.

SKIN RATE (BPD)

-6 80,000 increasing stimulation

0 20,000 '(ideal)' no damage

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 7

Prevention and Control Measures

The potential preventive measures are as follows:

Interaction of Invading fluid liquid phase and the formation:

Interaction of invading fluid solids and formation:

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 8

Methods of Well Stimulation

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 9

It is generally understood that fracturing results in a single fracture orientated in the

When a well is fractured, the effect on well performance is equivalent to an enlargement

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 10

To help with a qualitative understanding of fracture conductivity, Table 1 below gives

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 11

Table 1. Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity Parameters.

An important observation in Figure 10 is related to the relative importance of fracture

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 12

In conclusion, any stimulated condition obtained by fracturing can be interpreted as a

Fluid Mechanics Fluid Loss

Proppant Transport Heat Transfer

Fracture Propagation Modelling

There are a number of fracture propagation modules including:

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 13

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 14

Equation 12 p(x ) = 0 for xf (1-εL) ≤ x

These analytical relationships include a large number of assumptions:

The selection of a particular method depends on different criteria including the

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 15

Pseudo Three Dimensional Models

To simulate vertical and lateral propagation of a vertical fracture, the assumption of a

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 16

Fracturing Fluid Additives

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 17

The specific gravity of sand is approximately 2.65.

Resin Coated Sand

Intermediate Strength Proppants

Intermediate Strength Proppants

© The Robert Gordon University 2001 18