..—.

.6ilKi
?4

m
,.

Societv of Petroleum Endneers

SPE 28547

Optimum Injection Rate From Radial Acidizing Experiments

Behdokht Mostofizadeh, Mining U. Leoben, and M,J. Economies, Texas A&M U.

n
SPE Members

Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineere, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE 6Sth Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held In New Orfeans, fA, U.S.A., 25-28 September 1994.

Thie paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained In an abstract submitted by the author(s). Centents of the peper,
aa presented, have not been reviewed by the Scclety of Petroleum Enghreers and are subject to correctlen by the author(s). The material, aa presented, de%snot necessarily reflect
any position of the SCcletyof Petroleum Engineers, Ita offlcera, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings ere subject to publication review by Editorial Cemmitteas off he Society
of Petroleum Engineere. Permissionto copy Is restrictedto an abstract of not merethan 3(Mwords. Illustratfansmay not be copied, The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whcm the paper Is presented. Write Llbrarlan, SPE, P.0, Box 833636, Rlchardaon, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT,

ABSTRACT
The optimum injection rate for the matrix acidizing process. An acid/carbonate rock interaction may
treatments of carbonate reservoirs has been the subject involve three distinct phenomena. 1
of debate and several recent experimental studies.
Because acid attacks the rock in different modes * The rate of acid mass transfer to the formation
depending on the injection rate (i.e., compact because of diffusion and convection. Diffusion
dissolution, dominant wormhole, leakoff-dominated depends on the concentration difference between
wormholing and uniform dissolution), it is essential the live and the spent acid, whereas convection is
to identify the rate at which the transition between related to the injection rate.
dominant wormholes and .leakoff-dominated
wormholing occurs. This is the optimum injection * The surface reaction rate at the moment the live acid
rate at which the greatest penetration is accomplished reaches the rock surface. This reaction depends on
with the least volume of acid injected. Linear or radial the type of acid and formation, the temptxature and
laboratory experiments can be done horn which field the surface area contact.
conditions can be extrapolated through dimensional
analysis. This is the subjeet of this paper. Optimum * The rate of transport of the reaction products away
HC1 injection rates for a low- and a moderate- horn the rock s~ace.
permeability limestone using radial cores have been
determined. The effects of temperature and acid The acid/rock interaction can be distinguished as
concentration have also been studied. Analysis of the surface-reaction limited or mass-transfer limited. For
results shows that the optimum injection rate depends the carbonate/HCl systems the interaction is mass-
greatly on the reek and reservoir conditions and can transfer limited, except perhaps, for very-low-
be determined from experiments. temperatwe dolomites.
INTRODUCTION This paper presents experiments intended to quantify
the acid carbonate rock interaction mechanisms,
To improve the matrix stimulation efficiency of” which depend on the injection rate, acid concentration
carbonate reservoirs it is necessary to understand the and temperature at a given permeability and
different mechanisms controlling the acidizing mineralogy. If all other parameters are constant, the
.—

327

2 OPTIMUM INJECTION RATE FROM RADIAL ACIDIZING EXPERIMENTS
injection rate has been shown to have a great effect on
matrix acidizing.2
THE OPTIMUM INJECTION RATE
Depending on the injection rate, the interaction of HCI
with carbonate rocks may result in several different
types of reaction patterns including compact
dissolution, dominant womnholes (diffusion-limited),
wormholes with fluid loss (fluid-loss limited)
characterized by highly ramified patterns an~ finally,
uniform dissolution. 1-6
Figure 1 shows clearly the succession of reaction
patterns dependent on the injection rate, obtained with
our radical cores. These results are generally
consistent with those obtained by Wang et al.7 using
linear cores.
At low injection rate, compact dissolution is evident
(Fig. Ia,b). As the injection rate increase a dominant
wormhole evolves (Fig. lc) which yields to
progressively more ramified patterns (Fig. ld,e,f)
leading to the fluid-loss-limited mode. This
phenomenon has a detrimental effect on matrix
stimulation efficiency especially at the rate where
branches develop secondarj braiiches as shown in
Fig. lg,h and i.
Since the bypassing of the damaged zone and the
penetration of the formation with high-permeability
conduits is the purpose of the stimulation treatment,
the efficiency of the operation requires the maximum
radial penetration at the lowest acid volume. The
optimum injection rate is-the one coirespontig to this
lowest volume.
The breakthrough with one dominant wormhole
irrespective of whether the geometry is linear or radial
would still mark the desired event of the stimulation
process.
For well production, the extremely high-permeability
wormhole would function in a similar fashion as a-
hydraulic fracture that bypasses the damage zone.
Contribution to flow through the darnaged zone of a
carbonate reservoir well is generally either negligible
or plays a minor role. Of course, the higher this
reservoir permeability the higher the contribution is.
However, both stochastic modelingg and our
experiments have shown that while dominant
wormholes develop (as in the Wang et al. T linear-
328
r h
SPE 28547
core experiments), the patterns are far more
complicated and multi-faceted in radial geometries.
Thus, we believe that extrapolation of optimum
injection rates from the laboratory to the field require
radial rather than linear core experiments.
Daccord et al.4Y5and Hoeffner et al.6 have presented
considerable analyses of the phenomena involved and
constructed models to replicate the observed field mid
experimental behavior.
As ‘the injection rate increase it will traverse the
transition point of diffusion limited to fluid or loss
limited.z~T This is the purpose of our experimental
work to fmd the optimum injection rate which will
create a dominant wormhole with the minimum acid
volume for breakthrough using radial cores.
In several publications the injection rate in matrix
acidizing treatments has been the subject of scrutiny.
Paccaloni et al.9Y10have suggested that the optimum
acid injection rate is the highest value that would not
fracture the reservoir rock. Basically, their work
considers largely acid convection, which is not
always ‘the deciding factor for successful matrix
acidizing.
The optimum acid injection rate depends on the
mineralogy and morphology of the reservoir and on
the transition point (from diffusion-limited to fluid-
loss-limited modes) which is also related to the acid
concentration andtemperaturel 1. Therefore, the acid
injection must be optimized for each reservoir.
Wang et al.v studied the optimum injection rate in
linear carbonate cores relative to reservoir
composition, temperature and pore structure.
Their results suggested that Paccaloni’s maximum
pressure/maximum injection rate was likely to be
more desirable in the rocks under study. While Wang
et al.T proposed an optimum injection rate they
concluded that it is better to err towards higher rather
than lower injection rates.
However, contrary to Paccaloni, Daccord et al.lz
have shown that the optimum injection rate is lower
than those applied to common matrix acidizing jobs.
In our last paperl 1 we also reported, that the field
injection rate must be lower than common practice.
We believe that this is still correct for the low-
permeability rocks that we have studied. This is not
 .
4
SPE 28547 MOSTOFIZADEHAND ECONOMIES
true for all rocks and we will expound on this issue in
this paper.
- prominent of which are the reaction products,
The experimental procedure and apparatus used in our
work were described in detail in Ref. 11.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Iniectl“onRate and Core Permeability
1 interpreting experimental results and extrapolating
We have reported in Ref. 11, using low permeability
cores (0.2 to 0.4 red), that the optimum injection rate
(scaled to field conditions) should be lower than
current field practices. However, we have shown
data, where increasing permeability would require
higher optimum injection rate (see Fig. 8 in Ref. 11--
Nom an inadvertent typing error on page 9 of Ref. 11
should read “increas es” instead of “decrease s with
increasing permeability”, as shown clearly on Fig. 8).
We have performed new experiments with higher
permeability cores (0.7 to 1 md) and the optimum
injection rate is considerably higher (15 ml/min
compared to 2.6 rnlhnin for the lower-permeability
cores).
These results tend to support Paccaloni and
Tambini’s10 qualitative, field-supported, suggestion
of maximum rate/maximum pressure injection and the
larger rates indicated from the Wang et al.v
experiments (k=10 m.d for limestone, 1 md for
dolomite). They are in contradiction to the Daccord et
al.4,5 use of the Peclet Number as the interpreter of
acidhock interaction:
ifi
Np== (1)
2nrWL@D
Equation 1 would suggest that for a constant Peclet
Number an increase in permeability would imply a
decrease in the injection rate. This is not borne from
our results.
We believe that we have an interpretation of the
phenomena that bridges the gap between the two
apparently contradictory contentions.
The Peclet Num@r_piesumes infiite surface-reaction
rate between the acid and the rock and, thus the
interaction would hinge on the balance between
convection and diffusion only. This idea is likely to
be correct in lower-permeability formations but in
higher-permeability formations (and, thus, larger pore
329
3
sizes) @e live acid is self-retarded by both the distance
to the rock surface and the presence of other fluids,
especially COZ. Therefore, in higher permeability
rocks the reaction rate is not in.fiiite and the exclusive
use of the Peclet Number cannot be successfid. ,
We believe that in the face of these complications a
more appropriate and practical approach to
them to field conditions is the following:
1. Use experiments on native cores to detect the
optimum injection, reflecting dominant
Wormholing.
2, Obtain the dimensionless quantity q, reflecting
the volumetric acid demfid for the optimum
injection ratez. The smaller the q the more
optimum the operation is.
NA=V
=
11-- (2)
\—J
7@h(r’A - ?-Wz)
3. The field injection rate, iw can be scaled readily
horn
,.r
rW“w
iw =ic — (3)
rcLc
where ic is the optimum core injection rate.
E Permeability and Acid Concentration
The previous contention of self-retardation of the
reaction rate is demonstrated also with Fig. 3 where
the bulk volume to breakthrough is plotted against the
core permeability fa different acid concentrations.
To understand the relationship between permeability
and acid concentration, we carried out radial
experiments at the same injection rate (the optimum
injection rate for a low permeability core, ‘2.6
ml/min).
At low permeability (0.2-0.4 red), the infinite reaction
rate between the rock and acid, does not allow any
differentiation in the required bulk volume to
breakthrough. However, as the permeability
increases, the area-to-volume ratio increases and the
highly unstable nature of the acid attack on the rock is
enhanced. Importantly, the fluid loss also increases.

4 OPTIMUMINJECTIONRATE FROM RADIAL ACIDIZING EXPERIMENTS
This means that the acid will be spent before it attains
significant penetration.
To accomplish the desired penetration either a much
larger volume of 4% acid solution or a smaller volume
of larger concentration (eg. 15%) must be injected
(Fig. 3).
For kirger concentrations (above 25%) the reactiori
rate decreases because of the reduced acid activity
caused by the retarding effects of dissolved reaction
products. This phenomenon was reported by Coulter
et al. 13and is shown clearly on Fig. 3 where the 30%
HC1 solution is less effective than the 15% solution.
.,
To demonstrate the effects of acid concentration on
low permeability cores (0.2 to 0.4 red), experiments
were contacted with two acid concentrations (4 and
30% HC1). The results are shown in Fig. 4 where the
optimum injection rates are identical for both series of
experiments,, supporting our previous contention of
infinite reaction rate for these systems.
Posttreatment Permeability and the Acidizimz Process
The optimum injection rate has been defined as that
rate at which the minimum acid volume is consumed
for breakthrough2~7,11.The idea is that this minimum
injection volume coincides with the transition fi-om a
dominant wormholes to fluid-loss-limited kinetics.
This is very likely the case in linear cores but is it also
correct in radial cores? Does the minimum volume of
acid, required for breakthrough, also imply maximum
post treatment permeability?
..
Hendrickson et al.1~ haverepo&xl that the efficiency
of different acid concentrations is essentially the
same. Lower concentrations have greater equivalent
volumes but their penetration in the reservoir is
considerably less than higher-concentration solution.
In Fig. 4 at low injection rates roughly the same
volumes of the two concentrations (4% and 30%)
penetrate the same distance. However, they will
diss@& different amounts of rock. As the injection
rate increases, the volume consumption of the 4%
solution increase more rapidly than that for the 30%
solution.
In the fluid-loss-limited regime the increase contact
area of the wormholes requires more of the 4% than
the 30% concentration.
330
< —
*
SPE 28547
The posttreatment permeability is affected
considerably by this phenomenon. Figure 5
demonstrates the point. While the posttreatment
permeability from the 4’ZO concentration remains
largely flat, in the case of the 30% concentration the
permeability increases substantially.
There are at least two reasons for this observed
behavioc a) the higher-acid concentration widens the
dominant wormholes and, b) more than one
wormhole or secondary branches may reach
breakthrough. This is especially true in radial cores.
Figure 6 shows the experimentally derived factor, q
for the higher-permeability (0.7 to 1 md) cores.
These results in conjunction with Eq. 2 can lead to the
calculation of the required acid volumetric coverage
for a given wormhole penetration.
The experiments were contacted in a core of porosity,
@= 0.02,using a 4wt% HC1 solution (p=63.4
lbrn/fts). The rock density was equal to 169
lbm/ft3.
The acid capacity Number, NACis defined as 2:
N&= fv%iclPHcl (4)
(1– @)Pm,
where ~ is the dissolving power of the HC1/limestope
system (~=1.37 lbm CaCO#lbm HC1) and”Qcl is
the solution concentration.
Thus, fkom Eq. 4, for this case
(0.02)(1.37)(0.04)(63.4)
Nh =
(0.98)(1.69) (5)
=4.2x 10+
The factor q at the optimum injection rate (see Fig. 6)
is approximately equal to 0.015.
..
Then from Eq. 2 and assuming rW = 0.328 and a
wormhole penetration of 5 ft. (rWh = 5.328ft) the
volumetric coverage should lxx
V (3.8X 10-3)(z)(0.02) (5.3282 - 0.3282)(7.48)
—=
h 4.2 X 10+ 4.2 X 10+
< .

SPE 28547 MOSTOFIZADEH AND ECONOMIES 5

=120 gavft. (6) University of Texas for valuable suggestions and
The well optimum injection rate (using Eq.3 and the
results shown on Fig.2) assuming h=100 ft should be
(with appropriate unit conversions such as 6.298X10-
6 bb~ml):
(0.328)(100)(30.48)2
iw = 15(6.289X 10+)
(0.4)(5)
(7)
,-,
=1.43
min
CONCLUSIONS
Radial injection experiments involving limestone
cores and HC1 solutions have confirmed the existence
of an optimum injection rate, corresponding to the
creation of dominant wormholes.
Scaling up of laboratory results to field conditions
allows the calculation of the optimum field injection
rate.
Permeability has been found to play a role in the value
of the optimum injection rate, with higher
permeabilities indicating higher optimum injection
rates.
NOMENCLATURE
C = Acid Concentration, weight fkaction
D = Diameter, f~ m.
h = Reservoir thickness, ft, m.
i = injection rate, barrels/mh, m3/s
k = Permeability, md, m2
L = Length, ft, m.
N&= Acid Capacity Number, dimensiodess
Npe = Peclet Number, dimensionless
rW= Well radius, ft, m.
rW~= Wormhole penetration, ft, m.
V= Volume, gal, ms
The authors wish to thank Professor A.D. Hill of the
discussions and Dr. M. Prohaska of the Mining
University Leoben for his help with the experimental
work.
REFERENCES
1. Williams, B. B., Gidley, J.L. and Schechter,
R.S.: Acidizing Fundamentals Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1979).
2. Economies, M. J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-
Economides, C.A.: Petroleum Production
Systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
(1994)
3. Mumellah, N.A.: “Factors Influencing the
Reaction Rate of Hydrochloric Acid in
Carbonate Rock”, paper SPE 21036 (1991).
4. Daccord, G., Lenormand, R. and Touboul, E.:
“Carbonate Acidizing Toward a Quantitative
Study of the Wormholing Phenomenon”,
SPEPE (Feb. 1989) 63-68.
5. Daccord, G. Touboul, E. and Lenormand, R.:
“Chemical Dissolution of a Porour Medium:
Limits of the Fractal Behavior”, Geoderma
(1989) 44, 159-165.
6. Hoefner, M.L. and Fogler, H. S.: “Pore
Evolution and Channel Formation During Flow
andReaction in porous Media”, AIChE J. (Jan.
1988) 34/1, 45-54.
7. Wang, Y., Hill, A.D. and Schechter, R. S.:
“The Optimum Injection Rate for Matrix
Acidizing of Carbonate Formations”, paper SPE
26578 (1993).
8. Thum, M: “Simulation of Posttreatment skin
Effects in Carbonate Acidizing,” Dipl. Ing.
Thesis, Mining University Leoben, 1993.

~ = Volumetric +ssolving power, ratio 9. Paccaloni, G.: “A New, Effective Matrix

q = Fraction of rock dissolved by acid Stimulation Diversion Technique”, paper SPE
24781 (1992)
p = Densi~, lbrn/ft3, kg/ins I
@= Porosity, fraction. 10. Paccaloni, G. and Tambini, M.: “Advances in
Matrix Stimulation Technology”, JPT (March
1993), 256-263.
Acknowledgments

331

I
6 OPTIMUM INJECTION RATE FROM RADIAL ACIDIZING EXPERIMENTS
11. Frick, T.P., Mostofizadeh, B. and Economies,
M.J.: “Analysis of Radial Core Experiments for
Hydrochloric Acid Interaction with Limestone”,
SPE 27402 (1994).
SPE-28547
13. Coulter, A.W., Crowe, C.W., Barrett, N.D.
and Miller, B.D.: “Alternate Stages of Pad Fluid
and Acid Provide Improved Leakoff Control for
Fracture Acidizing,” Paper SPE 6124, (1976).

12. Daccord, G. Lenormand, R. and Liet~d, O.: 14. Hendrickson, A. R., Thomas, R. L.,
“Chemical Dissolution of a Porous Medium by a Economies, M.J.: Stimulation of Carbonate
Reactive Fluid -I- Model of the Wormholing Reservoirs, Chapter 13 In Carbonate Rocks,
Phenomenon”, Chern. Eng. Scz’(1992). Elsevier, (1992) 612-613.

(a) (b) (c)

, . .... Compact dissolution Dominant wormhole

b;rw .-.’;,, ., ..,.
----- .,. = Increasing’ .— Injection Rate

(d) (e) (f)

,, .== ~.. ..

. . .
.s
:reasing Injection R ate
progressively more ramified

(g) (h)

Secondary additional branching emanating from branch shown in photograph (f)

Fig. 1: A Collage of Thin Section Microscopy of Radial Core Acidizing Patterns

332
‘ &%h8547 MOSTOFIZADEH AND ECONOMIES 7

70 500
60
400

300

200
20
100

0
0.-.. ,li. !.!i, t!.
O 5 10 15 2(I 25 30 35 O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Injection Rate (mVmin)
Injection Rete (ml/mIn)

Fig.5 Theinjection rate versus the

Fig. 2 Injected acid volume to breakthrough posttreatment permeability for
for radial limestone cores. different acid concentrations.

30 0.014
l’”””’’’’’”+
””’’”’’’’’’’”+””’]
25 -.. ”._ _ _ or___ . . ..-- . . .
*
0.012 .“.....—+...—.
i _;..__J.___j.”.__i
I
8
:
___________
, ,
*
c ! i
. 0.01 .+...+_. __..,i._..,:.__ ..—_.:—__
i
/
+_._y._
$ ;~
20 u 0.008 ~_].._]—--.___~–..-.-/.__- ;
E
a ,
5 j
> 0.006
v-f—”*-<–~-f----”-+–””””””
x
-5
m
15 3
~ 0.004 ;._.-__.~–w_..-+.~_
/ ...j.._._.j..__
!
- {
& ~
! : * I
10 . . . . . . . . . . -..+..--..._ .. ..-_.Y.. .. . . ............... ... o 0.002 ---—-.; ..-’ !--.-.--.f-...—-:—_-_.; ______
ii!:
0 1.! ..1..,.-.

5r’ I I I I -t O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Injeotion Rate (mUm in)
Permeability (red)

Fig.3 Effects of concentration with Fig. 6 Rock fraction that is dissolved for breakthrough
increasing permeability at
constant injection rate (2.6 ml/min).

50

............ .... ...... . .

O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Injection Rate (mlrmln)

Fig. 4 Effect of acid concentration on optimum injection rate.

333