*

SPE 26581

An Overview of Current Acid Fracturing Technology With Recent Soclstyof PetroleumEnglmrere

Implications for Emulsified Acids
Yan Li and FU3. Sullivan, Bass Enterprises Production Co.; Jean de Rozieres, Schlumberger
Dowell; G,L. Gaz, Bass Enterprises Production Co,; and J.J. Hinkel, Schlumbergec 130well
SPE Members

Copyright 1993, Society 01 Petroleum Engineers. Inc

II
Thle paper was prepared for presentation et tne 68th Annual Technlcaf Conference and Exhibition of the Socte!y of Petroleum Engineers held In Houston. Texea, 3-8 October 1993.

This papar weo eelecmd for presentation by an SPE Program CommOta8following review of Informetlon conlamed In en absliacl submitted by the eulhor($). Confenta of the paper.
as presented, have nol be6m revlewad by the Society of Petroleum Enffhieera and are aubjecl 10correcflon by me author(s). The material, aa f)resanted. does not necessarily reflect
any poelllon of the Society of Pelroleum Engineers, Its officers. or membere. Papere presentad at SPE meatlngs ere subject to pubflcallon revlaw by EdNorlalCommittees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permlaaionto CODY is reetrlclad to an abalract of not more than 300 worde. [Iluslra!iona may not tm copied. The abstract should Conteinconspicuous acknowledgment
Of whera and by whom the paper la presented. Wrife Librarian, SPE. P.O. Box S33S33, Richardson, TX 75083.3838, U.S.A. Telex, 103245 SPEUT.

Abstract
The current acid-reaction testing mettmda for determining
mass transfer and kinetics parameters am reviewed. Published
acid fracturing models used in the industry are compared in
terms of the basic quations, boundary conditions, solution
methods and mass transfer eonsiderationa.
A sensitivity study (using a surface concentration model)
shows the mass transfer coefficient to be the most important
parameter which affocta the shape of the concentrationprofile.
The current industry standardcorrelation (Williarns-Nierode)for
determining the mixing coefficient is compared to laboratory
results from history matching to determine the effective mixing
coefficient for both Newtonian and non-Newtonianfluids. The
laboratory results in the domain investigated(Reynoldsnumbers
from 1 to 100) are generally lower than the Williams-Nierode
correlation.
A quality control prosedure for obtaining repeatableremdts
from the rotating disk test is presented. This technique is also
applied to power law fluids.
between the chemieal reaction and difficultyof proper modeSing
of hydraulic fracture growth, very little research (compared to
proppant fracturing) has been performed recently in this field.
Further limitations are encountered by the lack of adequate
kinetics data and mass transport properties at in-situ fracturing
conditions of viscosity (non-Newtonian fluids at Reynolds
numbers of 1 to 100) and temperature, The result was a concept
that acid fracturing was not a predictable (and economically
auecesafil) teehniqu%this led stirmdationresearch to fmcturing
treatments using proppsnt and nonreactive fluids.
The effectivenessof an acid fiaeturing treatmentdependaon
fracture length and cxmductivity. In turn, the conductivity
depends on the fluid 10SSand the amount of reek dissolved as
acid flows through the fracture. Therefore, to predict the
stimulationratio resulting from an acid fracturingtreatment, one
must first estimate the acid-reaction kinetics. These kinetics
depend on the rate of transport of the acid to the surface of the
fracture and the rate of acid reaction at the surface.
Concept of Reaction Kinetiea and Mass Tronafer

An emulsified acid field example is atso presented to show The generalized formula for the HC1-limestonereaction is
the effativenesa of acid fracturing as a viable alternative to
proppant fracturing. CaC03(s)+2H3(Y - Ca2*W’Oz(aq) + 3Ha0 ● “ Q “ (1)
● ●

and for the HCldolomite reaction

Introduction
C@fg(CO~# + 4H$0 - Ca2’ + Mgz+ +
●
. . ...(2)
Using hydrochloric acid (HC1)as a fracturing fluid has long 2COz(aq) + 6HZ0
been considered a theoretically viable technique for stimulating
The reaction rate for the chemical reaction between HCl
limestone and doIomite formations with high embedment
end a carbonate reek is often represented by the general
stresses. However, due to the complex dynamic interaction
expression:
J= = k (CY . ...*.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

References and illustrations at end of paper where J,, = flux or surface reaction rate, mole/(cm2v3)
k = reaction rate parameter, (mole/cm3)0”d (cm./s)

709
 AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACID FRACTURING TECHNOLOGY WITH
2 RECENT IMPLICATIONSFOR EMULSIFIED ACIDS SPE 26581

c, = surface concentration of the hydronium ions, Tbe slowest step controls the global reaction rate.
mohdcm’ Depending on the experimental conditions, the reaction rate can
n = order of the reaction, dimensionless. be limited by the maSS transfer or by the surfkce reaction.
Three different regimes have been used as boundary conditions.
The reaction rate parameter k varies with temperature
following an Amheniua-typedependency: Mass Transfer Lmited: Many studies 14 show that the
reaction between HC!land limestone is “mass transfer limited
k = koexp(-&) ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) at room temperature. l%is means that the acid-reaction rate at
the solid liquid interface is much faster than the mass transfer
where & = frequency factor, (mole/cm3)a””)
(cm/s) rate. In this awe, the acid concentration at the surface of the
E. = activation energy, cal/mole rock can be assumed to be zero:
R = 1.987 csl/mole/K C,=o . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0.. . . . . . . . . ..(0
T = temperature, K.
Reaction Rate Limited: For very unreactive rocks, such
The surface reaction rate is a function of temperature. In as Ohio saudstone, the acid reaction is “rate limited.” This
some cases it is difficult or even impossible to measure the means that the mass transfer is much faster than the acid
surface reaction rate under actual reservoir conditions because reaction. The mass transfer coefficient can be assumed to be
the reaction would be too fast. In these cases, experiments are infinite. Therefore, the surface concentrationis close to the bulk
performed under reasonable laboratory conditions to determine concentration:
the reaction rate order, frequency factor and activation energy.
Assuming that these parameters do not depend on the
q m q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., *.*.. (’n
temperature, Eq. 4 is used to extrapolatethe experimentalreds -GenernI Case: Most rocks, and in particular dolomite
to reservoir conditions. rocks, exhibit much slower reaction than limestone and much
faster reaction than Ohio sandstone. The reaction between acid
Three parameters (n, ~, E~ are used to fit the experimental and rock is controlled by both surface reaction and maw
data. It is ve~ likely that, in the range where the data are transfers
generated, more thau one set of three parameters fits the data
equally well. Out of this range, large differences will exist Kw(Cb-C,)=k C: ● “”=s. .*oo”c *o*.”* (8)
depending on the chosen parameters. The quality of the
extmpolationdepends strongly on the accura~yof the laboratory
Acid-Reaction Testing Methods
measurementsand the validity of the model used to interpret the
data.
Many acid-reactiontesting methodshave been developedto
measure the kinetics parameters (n, ~, IQ and mass transfer
The hydronium concentration shown in Eqs. 1 and 2
coefficient I&. These methods can be classified into three
corresponds to the surface concentration and not the bulk
categories (1) static reaction tests,d(2) dynamic tests,’ and (3)
concentration. Therefore, a transport model is required to
flowing experimenta”i”
calculate the surface concentz:!on from the bulk concentration.
In a static reaction test, a piece of rock is dissolved in acid.
Traditionally, the flux of the acid to the rock surfacecan be
The interpretationof the results is difficult ‘=-was the transport
represented by the following equatioru
of the acid to the surface is controlled by unknown free
Jm=K*(cb -c,) ““””””””””””””””””””(~ convection.:o
flux or mass transfer rate, mole/(cm2s) The rotating disk teat is a dynamic test, where polished
mass transfer coefficient, cmls disks of core are rotated through an acid solution and partially
bulk concentration of the diffusing species, dissolvedby the acid. Such teat#l are easy to perform and use
mole/cm’. small sanl&s. In these experiments,- the- fluid velocity
distribution is well defined and the mass transfer coefficientcan
The acid reaction kinetics of a strong acid reacting with a be calculated. The advantage of this method is that the well-
carbonate involves complex mechanisms including (1) the defined maao transport allows surface reaction kinetics to be
transport of H~O+ions from the bulk to the surface through a accurately measured.
difi%aelayer, (2) the chemical reaction itself, and (3) the
transport of the reaction products from the surface to the bulk.

710
SPE 26581 Y. LI, R. SULLIVAN, J. DE ROZIERES, G, GAZ AND J. HINKEL
Three flow experiments -- parallel plates, hollow core and
~ular flow reactor -- have been developed for acid-reaction
tests (Fig. 1). In an annular flow reactor,7’9acid flows in the
annulusbetweenthe reactive carbonatecore and the inert reactor
body. In a hollow core test! core is drilled through the center.
Acid can flow axially through ths center to meesuro the acid-
reaction rate. The acid can also flow radially through the wall
to measure leakoff. In a parallel plate te@,l-3acid reactivity is
tested as the acid flows through two parallel plates.
Annular flow tests7 can be conducted at temperatures
comparableto the field conditions. They can be used for routine
as well as screening type experiments. As a good approxima-
tion, the annular space cao be considered as a thin slot.
However, leakoff carmot be simulated during the test.
Hollow-core tesd allow examination of the acid reaction
under leakoff cxmditions. They cm be used to measure the acid
reaction of non-Newtonisn fluids. However, the geometry is
incorrect and accurate measurement requires fully developed
velocity profiIe+3.
Parallel plate tests have the correct geometry and allow
examinationof the #Get of leakoff during an acid reaction test.
They can also be used to measure the acid reaction of non-
Newtonian flui&, therefore, the actual acidizjng fluids can be
tested. The amductivity of acid-etched rocb can also be
measured. However, this method does not easily separate the
mass transfer from the surface reaction kinetics. These
experiments me also difficult to repeaton a large number of
samples.
In theory, all of these experimentalmethods can be used to
derive information about the surface-reactionkinetics if the rate
of mass transport from the bulk to the surface was known.
Conversely, the same experiments can also be used to measure
. the rate of mass transport if the surface-reaction kinetics are
known.
Comparing all of these tests, the rotating disk method is
preferred for the study of the surface-reactionkinetics because
the equationsof nmss transpmt are well known. These equations
can also be extended to power law fluids. It is also quite easy
to differentiate the mass-transfer limited regime from the
reaction limited regime.
The parallel plate method is considered one of the best
techniques to measure the cumulative amount of acid reaction.
This technique ia particularly useful to “history match”
laboratory data and determine the effective mixing coefficient
when the kinetics parameters are known.
711
3
Rotatiw Disk Apparatus
The rotating disk method is the most commonly used
experiment to separate mass transfer from surface-reaction
kinetics. Numerous publications have been devoted to this
technique.
Both theoretical and experimental studies on the mass
trsmsfer from a rotating disk to power law liquids have been
reported. An expression for the mass transfer coefficient has
been derived in terms of the system parameters and the power
law constants of the fluid}z
where n’ == power law behavior index, dimensionless
D= diffidon wefficient, cm2/s
k’ = power law consistency index, glcms~
P = density of the fluid, glen?
R= disk radhs, cm
w= angular velocity of the disk, rdh.
Values for the # (n’) have been calculated for a range of n’
and are presented in Table L
In case of a Newtonian fluid, it simplifies into the simple
equation
Km m 0.62 Dmv-lla# ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lo)
where v = kinematic viscosity, cm2/s.
These equations strictly apply to the transport of uncharged
species by &lffu&onto or from a rotating disk. D refers to the
diffusion of a unique molecule in a pure solvent.
In case of ions, the effect of the ionic environment on the
diffusion process should be included and D replaced by an
effective diffution coefficient (D. in crn2/s). Its calculation
would require the compiete description of the cuncentraticm
profiles of all the species in solution.’ The driving force for the
diffiudonis the gradient of the electrochemicalpotential.
b themy, the gradient of the electrical potential across the
diffuse layer should also be considered. Depending on its
intensity, it wiil slow down the diffusion of hydronium ions to
the surf- and accelerate the diffusion of calcium and
magnesiumions toward the bulk.
When steady state is reached, there is no accumulationof
chargea on the surface of the disk the flux of HJO+ions going
to the aurfiweis equal to twice the flux of Ca2+and M# ions
leaving the surfuce. This equality is maintained via an
organization of the diffuse layer and the electrical field at the
 AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACID FRACTURING TECHNOLOGY WITH
4 RECENT IMPLICATIONSFOR EMULSIFIED ACIDS
solid-liquid interface. Under steady-stateconditions, the flux of
hydronium ions going to the surface is also equal to the surface
reaction raw
Jw = J- . . . . . . ...* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therefore, during a rotating disk experiment, the flux, J~,
is obtained from the analysis of calcium and magnesium ions in
the solution. The mass transfer coefficient, & is calculated
using Eq. 9. The tmlk concentrationof acid, ~, is constant and
equal to the i.oitialconcentration. The surface concentration C,
can therefore be calculated using Eq. 5.
Eq, 3 can be rewritten in the following way:
For a given temperature, if one plots J,, vs. C, on
logarithmicpaper, the reaction rate constant, k, is the flux at tb
intercept (C,= 1) and the reaction rate order, n, is the slope of
the line.
The activation energy can be obtained from a set of tests
performed under different temperatures. Eq. 4 can be rewritten
~.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
LQg K= Log&~
RT
If one plots reaction rate constant k vs. l/RT on logarithmic
paper, the activation energy E. is the slope of the line.
Review of Acid-Reaction Modda
Several acid fracturing models have been developed since
1970,3~‘%:s‘I%epurpose of the calculationis to obtain the acid-
etched width, length and conductivity. To calculate the amount
of rock dissolved, an acid-reaction model must be used to
calculate the amount of acid spent.
An mid fracturing model cmsists of tsvo parts - a
fracturing model and an acid-reaction model. The fracture
-Ions and the fluid velocity along the fracture are
cdctdated by the fracturing model (2D or 3D), while the acid-
reaction medel calculates the mssa transfer of acid between the
bulk solution and rock rmrfiwa, the acid reaction rate at the
surfhce, and the acid concentrationprofile in the fracture. The
two models are solved simultaneously.
TIMfluid leidroffis ptilcted using an empiricaIequationor
a thwretical equation inside the fhwturing model. Acid kinetics
psrametem at a reference tempemture are the input parameters
for an acid-reaction model and the reaction rate constants at
SPE 26581
other temperatures are calculated usihg the model. Diffusion
coefficient and mass transfer coefficient can be input into an
acid-reactionmodel based on the laboratory teat, or they can be
calculatedusing an empirical equation or a theoretiwdequation.
(11)
Comparison between Acid-Reaction Models
Four types of acid-reactionmodels have been developedby
the industry, and the differencesbetweenthese modelstiavebeen
compared (Figs. 2 and 3).
Type I Model: Type I model was developedby Williums
and Nierode’s using Terrill’s solution.17 This model is the
simplest acid-reactionmodel. The assumptionsof this model are
(1) flow of acid is steady state, (2) reaction rate is infinite
(C,= O), (3) flow along the fracture is Iaminar and
incompressible, (4) acid viscosity is constant, (S) leakoff rate is
constant, and (6) there are no external forces (such as gravity).
Type I model solves the convedion-diftilon equation
analyticallyin one dimensional apace.
Type II Mode!: Type II model was developedby Roberta
and Guin.s The basic assumptions of this model are the same as
those assumptionsin the Type I model, except that acid rewtion
is assumed to be controlled by both mass transfer and reaction
rate. The model makes it possible to calculate theoretical
penetration distancesfor acid fracturing when reaction is limited
by surface kinetics, as in the case of the HC1dolomite reaction
at low temperatures.
Type III Model: Type III model is a numerical model
developed by Lo and Dem.” The model simultaneouslySOIVS
for fracture geometry, acid transport and diffuAon. However,
the model also assumes an inftite reaction rate (C,= O). An
important aspect of this model is that the twodimensionsl (2D)
convectiondiffusion equation is solved by a onedimensiond
(ID) approximation averaged over the fracture width. The
assumptions of this model are (1) a steady-state concdration
profile forms downstream, (2) mro acid concentrationalong the
fracture boundaries, and (3) constant leakoff velocity.
Type IV Model: Type IV model is a numerical model
developed by Settari.16 The model has the following feature-w
(1) acid spending is controlled both by mass transport and by
resction rate, (2) differentrhealogies includinggel-acidsequence
are counted for multiple fluids, {3) heat transfer and heat of
reaction are coupled b the mo%lj (4) wormlmling effects at
fracture wall are considered, (5) the effect of leakoff velwity on
mass transfer rate is considered, (6) the mixing coefficientin the
y direction, DY,can be directly input or inte@ated from the
Willhms-Nierode correlation, and (7) mass transfer coefficient
712
SP1326581 Y. LJ, R. SULLIVAN, J. DE ROZIERES, G. c3AZAND J, I-UNKEL
can be directly input or calculated using the Nusselt number.
The basic assumptions of this model are (1) 2D unsteady-state
wnvectiondiff@ou equation is used, and the z variation in the
qmtion is negligible, (2) the effect of diffwdon along the
fracturelength is negligible becauseacid transport by convection
is much larger than by diffiion, (3) acid viscosity is not a
fimction of concentration, (4) acid is an incompressible, single
phase fluid, (5) the reaction has no effwt on velocity profiles,
and (6) the effects of the complexities of flow (turbulence,
natural convection, fingering)can be accounted for only through
variation of the trausport properties and apparent reaction rate.
The differencesbetween these models have been compared
in terms of the basic equations, boundary conditions, solution
method and mass transfer consideration.
(1) Mass conservation.
A 2D, unsteady-state equation of acid mass conservation
can be represented by the following equatiorx
-&=C) - ~ (U C) + -$Dy~ = as shown in the following equation:
$’ (14)
— - qwcw
a
where UX = fluid velocity along the fracture, cmh
u, == transverse velocity or leakoff velocity, crnh
= acid concentration, molelcm’
;, = mixing coefficient, cm2/s
~ = injectioo rate, crn3/sec
= injected concentrationof acid, mole/cm3.
From literature review, the Type IV acid-reaction model
uses the unsteady-state equation (Eq. 14) of acid mass
conswation, while other acid-reaction models, including Type
I, Type 11and Type 111models, use a steady-state equation of
acid mass conservation. In the steady-stateequation, the storage
term ilC/dt (Eq. 14) is ignored.
(2) Boundary conditions
(!onaidexingboth reaction and diffhsion kinetics, the acid-
rwction model should have the followingboundaryconditionsat
the wall of the fracttmx
where ~ = Porosity, %.
The above equation states that the mass of acid which
reachea the surface of the rock equals the mass of acid which
reacts. Type II and Type IV models use Eq. 15 as a boundary
condition.
Type I and Type III models assume that acid reactionon the
713
5
wall is much faster than acid transfer from the center of the
fracture to the wall of the fracture. Therefore, mass-transfer
limitedkineticsare used and the boundarycondition is simplified
as the following:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (M)
C,. o
(3) Solution method
A 2D mass consetiation equation can be directly solved
using a numerical method (Type 111),or it cau be simplifiedinto
a lD equation, by introducing the average velocity, average
concentrationand mass transfer coefficient.It can then be solved
using either an analytical method (Type I and Type II models)
or a numerical method (Type III and Type IV models) in one
dimensional space.
(4) Mass transfer coefllcient
Most scid-reaction models (Type 1, 11 and III) do not
consider the effect of the leakoff velocity on the mass transfer
rate. However, the Type IV model suggests that the mass
transfer coefficient may be a linear function of leakoff velocity
KN=KW+V 1 ..................... (17)
where IQ = Effective mass transfer coefficient with
hxdcoff,Cds
u, = Leakoff velocity, crnls
Comparing all acid-reaction models, ths Type IV model
uses the most comprehensiveapproach. This is the model used
in thiS study.
Importnnt Parameters Used in nn Acid-Reaction Model
The followingparameters are the most importantparameters
used in ao acid-reactionmodel:
(1) k and n: The reaction constant, k, and reactionorder,
n, are important for calculating the acid-reaction rate. These
two parameters are obtained from the laboratory, using the
rotating disk apparatus.
(2) Wt, Lr, h~ the fracture width W~,fracture length h,
and fracture height & generated from the fracture geometry
model directly affect the acid-reaction calculation because the
total rock dissolution is proportional to the acid contactingarea.
For a 3D mode!, the fracture width, length and height increase
as fluid is injected; for a 2D model, the fracture height is n
Constsat.
(3) U, and U,: The velocity profile in the x dkction, U,,
and the leakoff velocity in they direction, UY,directly affect the
calculationof the concentrationprofile in an acid-reactionmodel.
These two parameters are calculatedfrom the fracture geometry
 ●

AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACID FIU4CTURINGTECHNOLOGY WITH

6 RECENT IMPLICATIONSFOR EMULSIFIED ACIDS SPE 26581

model. equatiord””o

(4) DY: the mixing coefficient along they direction, DY,

is also an important factor. This coefficient determines the
speed of the acid transfer from the center of a fracture to the where W = fracture width or width between parallel
wall of the fiactum. Since the current laboratory technique plates, cm
Csnnot measure the mixing coefficient accurately, most acid- @ = geometric factor, %
reaction models use the correlation developed by Williams and N* = Sctildt number, dimensionless
Nierode.i3 = length, cm.
L
for HCi on limeston% [iii) Determine the mass transfer coefficientby simulating
D. = (0.69 + 0.00293N”W) x 10-5. . . . . . . . . . . (18) the experiments for acid flow between parallel reactive surfaces
NfiW s3750 and matching the measured acid concentration profile.

Sensitivity Study
L)- = (-1O.3 + 0.00587NJVj)c 10-’ . . . . . . . . . (19)
N&fi 23750 The sensitivity of the acid-reaction model to various
where: N~ = Reynolds number, dimensionless parameters has been studied using the following surface I
w = fracture width, in. concentration model:
D- = maximum mixing coefficient, ft2hnin.
dc,
= A KJC’b -c,J -kc: ● “””””””””’” (23
for HC1on dolomite: -T
Eq. 25 can be solved numericallyby couplingwith an initial
#-=1 -exp[2445 (&-.&)] . . . . . . . (20) condition C, = CMand the mass transfer equation @q. 24).
0
(S) IQ The mSSStransfer coefficient is an important Fig. 4 shows that the wall concentration decreases as the
parameter for calculating the concentration profile. Three mixing coefficientdecreases, and it also indicatesthat the mixing
different methods can be uwxi to obtain the mass transfer coefficient is a very aensitivs parameter in an acid-reaction
coefficient. modeL Fig. S shows that the+larger the reaction rate constant,
the lower the wall concentration. For an inftite reaction rate,
(i) Calculate the mass transfer coefficient using the the wall concentration is equal to zero. This plot indicates that
deftition of the Nuaaelt number,ls if the mixing coefficient is the reactionrate constant is also a very sensitiveparameter in an
knowrx acid-reactionmodel. Fig. 6 shows the sensitivity to the reaction
order. These plots indtcate that the wncentration changes as the
NNBL)y reaction order (n) changes when the reaction rate constant (k) is
Km . —“ ““”””””” ● “”””””” ““”””” (21)
w large, but it does not change as the reaction order (n) changes
where Nu = Nusseh number, dimensionless. when the reaction rate constant (k) is small. Fig. 7 shows that
both the reaction rate constant and reaction order are not
sensitive when reaction flux is fixed. Fig. 8 shows ths
The NusseIt number can be calculated using the following
sensitivityto the injection flowrate. Fig. 9 shows the sensitivity
equationw5
to the fracture width.

N~w= 4.0 + 1.26NP, + 0.02675 N:. The study shows that the mixing coefficient is the most
. . . . . . . .. (22)
NP, <20 importantparameterwhich affects the shape of the concentration
v
profile. The second most sensitiveparameter is the reactionrate
N& . 2NP, . . . . . . . . . . . (23) constant. The reaction order is not a sensitive parameter.
~ NPe220
where Nh == Peclet number UIW/2DY,dimensionless. Determination of the Mixing CoeffhSent

(ii) Calculate the mass transfer coefficient. For a parallel Most acid-reaction models use the W@ms-Nierode
plate reactor, its expression is given by the fo;lowing correlation (Eqs. 18, 19 and 20) to calculate the mixing

I 714
SPE26581 Y. LI, R. SULLIVAN, J. DE ROZIERES, G. C3AZAND J. I-IINKEL
coefficient. Three sets of experiments were performed, which
included (1) emulsified acid reacting with Phosphoric doIomite,
(2) emulsified acid and gelled acid reacting with Edwarda
limestone,end (3) HC1and emulsified acid reactingwith Hunton
dolomite. It was found that the correlation had a deftite
limitation because the laboratory experiments could not be
matched by the simulation when this correlation was applied to
calculate the mixing coefficient. Fig. 10 shows that the total
acid reaction calculatedby the simulation was four to five times
higher than that measured in the laboratory for 10% emulsified
acid. This indicates that the mixing coefficient calculated from
the Williams-Nierodecorrelation is not correct for the domain
investigated. The limitation of this correlation maybe due to the
following reasons: (1) the correlation deveIoped from the
experimentaldata is based on 15!%HC1(single-phasefluid) and
(2) the correlation is developed using the analytical sclution in
which the wall concentration is assumed to be zero (C, = 0),
The correlation was not developed with data generated at a
Reynolds number less then 100.
In this study, the mixing coefficient was determirwd by
matching the amount of the acid spending measured in the
laboratory, using a Type IV simulation modeL The acid-
reaction data were obtained using a parallel plate appatitus.
Table 2 shows the preparation of each fluid and Table 3 shows
the testing conditions of ewh run. The acid-reaction tests were
conducted in a parallel plate acid reactor, where two cores 3/8-
in. thick with a surface area of 10 inz were placed inside the
reactor, with one core on either side of the O.155-in. fracture.
The top core was a relatively inert Ohio sandstone core and the
bottom core was the core of interest for the specific test. The
firstinch of both ends was specificallytapered and epoxy coated
to reduce entrance effects. The acid was pumped at 100
crn’hnin for ths first 10 minutes of the test and then at 200
crn3hnin for the next 10 minutes. The acid-reaction rate was
determined by measuring ion or COZ evolution. For ion
analysis, samples were taken at one-minute intervals during the
test for analysis of magnesiumand calcium. For C02 analysis,
COZwas continuously measured with a spectrophotometer.
Baaedon Eq. 2, the reaction flux (J) can be calculatedfrom
the laboratory measurements using the following equation:
~ . 2[COJ - 2Q(C*+Q . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
A A
where Q = flowrate, cm21s
cm = Ca content, mole
c MS = Mg content, mole
A= area of the core, cma
[CO~= Coz flow rate, 2nole/s.
Total acid spending can be calculated by
715
7
Cum J=~JAAt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (27)
191
Two mixing coefficients, one given at the injection rate of
100 cm3/min and another at 200 cm3hnin, were input into the
Type IV acid-reaction model and adjusted to match the
laboratory data. (!lood agreement was found between the
laboratory results and the simulation and the results are shown
in Figs. 5 to 13.
To verify these simulation rxd.s, a theoretical equation
was used to calculate the mixing coefficient for each
experimental run. Combining Eqs. 5 and 24, the mixing
coefficientcan be calculatedas
J2W 1
DY “ (q
-
—4-;[N&N,c~
C) 1.614
%i~)-~ (28)
Eq, 28 has been used to calculate the mixing coefficientfor
all laboratory runs. Table 5 summarizes the mixing coefficients
calculated from both the simulation model and the theoretical
equation, Fig. 14 shows that the mixing coefficientscalculated
from the simulation model correspond to those calculated from
the theoretical equation. This indicates that the results from
history matching are correct.
It was found that the mixing coefficientsobtained from the
laboratory tests were, in general, lower than those calculatedby
the Williams-Nierode correlation for the domain investigated.
Fig. 15 shows that the mixing coefficient from the Williams-
Nierode correlation is a constant when the Reynolds number is
less than 100, but the laboratory data show that the mixing
coefficient is a function of the testing condition. For the
emulsifiedacid which has a high viscosity, the Reynoldsnumber
is about 1.0 during a laboratory test and 50 during an actual
fracturingtreatment, therefore, the Williams-Nierodecoefficient
cannot be simply applied to those cases and this correlation
needs to be modified.
Fig. 16 shows that the mixing coefficient is a nonlinear
function of the acid concentration. The mixing coefficient
increases as the concentration increases when the concentration
is 1sssthan 16%, but it decreases as the concentrationincreases
when the concentration is larger than 16%, so that the 16%
concentration of the HC1 exhibita the maximum acid reaction.
This indicatw that the mixing coefficient is a function of the
~ctivity of an acid. Since the reaction constant k and reaction
order n are independent of the acid concentration, the mixing
coefficientis considered to be dependent on the concentrationor
the component activity. Fig. 16 aIso shows that the mixing
coefficient increases as the temperature inweasea. A new
correlation can be developed with sufficient data. The general
form of this new correlation should be
 AN CWERVIEWOF CURRENT ACID FRA~mNG TECHNOLOGY WITH
8 RECENT IMPLICATIONSFOR EMULSIFIED ACIDS
Dy=f(cv,l?c) ““”””””””””””””””””* (Z9)
Determination of the Surface Reaction Kinetics
The rotating disk has been used to study the surface
reaction kinetics of HCI on a sample of dolomite and a sample
of limestonecoming directly from the fornwtions currently being
acid fractured. These are the Phosphoric formation in Washskie
County, WY, and the Edwards in Lavaea County, TX. The
diameter of the rotating disk is equal to 1.5 in. The rotational
speedean be controlled accurately from 60 to 1800RPM and the
test ean be run at auY temperature ranging
-. between 18”F and
160”F.
The following operating procedure is recommended:
e Choose the acid concentration (low concentrations are
recommertded),temperature and rotational speed.
● Determine the acid density and viscosity. For gelled acid,
k’ ad n’ should be determined.
● Calculate the mass transfer coefficient using Eq. 9.
● Run the test and sample at different times (240s, 300s and
360s were used).
● Measure the calcium and magnesiumconcentrationsin each
Sample.
● The flux J= ean be readily calculated from the calcium and
magnesium concentrations, disk surface area and time of
sampling.
● The knowledge of the acid bulk concentration, mass
transfer coefficient and flux allows calculation of the acid
aurfaee concentration through Eq. 5.
● Perform a critical analysis to eliminate data for which the
flux was not found to be stable.
● Uso the experimental points (J,,, C,, T) to determine the
aurfheereaction parameters (n, &, E@.
The best conditions, to determine a surface reaction rate,
are the experimental conditions under which the reaction rate is
Wtited by the aurfaee reaction, If the reaction is completely
limited by mass transfer, the surface concentration should be
small compared to the bulk concentration (C,/~ < c 1). In
this domain, increasing the rotational speed of the disk decreases
the sim of the hydrodynamic boundary layer. This, in turn,
increases the mass transfer coefficient (Eq. 10 for Newtonian
fluids) and increases the reaction rate. If the reaction is
completely limited by the surface reaction, the surface
euncentration and bulk concentration should be almost equal
(C,/~ = 1) and the reaction rate should not vary with the
rotational speed. A plot J= I ~ versus the square root of the
rotational speed helps to identify the different domains.
716
SIW 26S81
Fig. 17 presents data obtainedon dolomiteat 80”F together
with data on limestone at 28°F. It is apparent that the reaetion
on dolomite at 80°F is limited by the surface reaction for valuea
of the rotational speed above 550 RPM. At 28°F, with
limestone, the surface reaction is still so fast that it controls the
global rote. Even at 18°F, it appears that the surface-reaetion
limited domain has not been reached. Data from ths litemture
suggest that this domain is reached at a temperatureof the order
of O°F.d
These data indicate that it should be fairly simple to
detemdne the surface reaction parameters for the dolomite
(reservoir temperature around 120°F) and more difficult for the
limestone (reservoir temperature around 330”F).
Under steady-stateconditions of transport and reaction, the
flux should not depend on the time of sampling. Therefore, it
is important to sample at different times during the experiment
and Wmpare the vaIues of the flux. An alternativeis to consider
the evolution of the ratio C,/~. Under the correet experimental
conditions, this ratio should be close to unity and should not
vary with time.
Data on dolomite (Table 2) show that at 80”F, C,/~ is
close to unity and is fairly stable during the experiment (Part I,
11and 111). At 155°F (Table 2, Part V), mass transfer is ckwirly
a limiting factor. The flux is not constant during the course of
the experiment. These data should not be used to determine the
reaction rote,
At 1000 RPM, turbulent flow at the disk peripi&y begins
to affect the results. The best conditions to determine the
surface raction kinetics are around 550 RPM and below 116°F.
To determine the surface reaction parameters, a large
degree of confidencehas been given to the points at 80°F and a
fairly low degree of confidenceto the points at 155°F. For this
reason, a value is proposed for the reaction rate order of
n = 0.55 (Fig. 18). The values proposed for the activation
energy and the frequencyfactor are reapeetivelyE, = 7.80 E +
03 cal/mole and ~ = 30.9 (mole/cm3)l”n (cm/s)(Fig. 19). In this
particular case, the exact determination of the activation energy
and the frequencyfactor does not have much importancebecause
the reservoir temperatureis very close to the experimentalrange
where the data have been generated.
Recent Implications for Emulsified Acids
Mixing coefficientsderived from parallel plate experiments
are systematically smaller than with stmight acid, An attempt
was made to interpret these differencesin terms of mass transfer
and surface reaction.
SP1326s$1 Y. LI, R. SULLIVAN, J. DE ROZIERES, G. GAZ AND J. HINKEL
One rotating disk test was run under reservoir conditions
using the same 70/30 ratio of an acid-in-oil emulsion as was
used in the treatment (Table 4, Part VI). A flux was mcasurtx!
which was 10 times smaller than with straight acid at the same
temperature (part IV),
Using the same diffusion coefficient as for the other tests
(D = 606513-05cm2/s) and the power law parameters of the
fluids, one cmdd calculate s mass transfer coefficient for the
gelled acid as well as for the emulsion @q. 9). Results are
presented in Table 4. Knowing the flux and the mass transfer
coefficient, it was also possible to calculate the surface
concentrationof acid.
The very high ratio C,/~ would indicate that the reaction
is now mmpletely limited by the surface reaction which is
unlikely to be the case. Emulsion or gelled wid cannot increase
the mass transfer compared to straight acid. The most logical
explanation is that the diffiwioncoefficientused in Eq. 9 should
be much smaller due to the presence of the oil phase or the gel.
A Iower value for this diffbsion coefficient cad be estimated
assuming now that the surface concentrationis equal to zero. It
is possible to back calculatethe mass transfer coefficientvia I?q.
5 and D via Eq. 9. A new value for the diffusion coefficient
was found to be around 1.65E-07 cm2/s. The diffusion value is
Iower than the mixing coefficient values obtained from history
matching emulsified acid reacting between parallel plates. This
is due to the differencebetweenmoleculardiffusionand dynamic
mixing. It is therefore extremely important to have an
independent measurement of the diffusion coefficient.
Acid Fracturing Example
T& example illustrates the effectiveness and the
predictability of future recovery resulting from acid fracturing.
To simulate previous production from the well, a multilayer
reservoir model is umstructed and interfaced with a Type IV
acid fracturing model. Layering of the grid is based on well
logs (Fig. 20). For this specific case, the well was initially
stimulated with alternating stages of 40-lb. crosslinked geI and
28% gelled HC1 (Fig. 22).
The permeability of the low porosity layers is fixed at 0.2
md (based on previous sensitivity studies). An arbitrary value
of permeability is selected for the high-porosity layers (usually
between 1 to 10 red). The acid fracturing model is then run
with the original stimulation technique to yield a fracture length
and conductivity. These values (fracture length, fracture
conductivity, layered permeabilities) are interfaced with the
reservoir simulator to compare actual and simulatedproduction.
This process is repeated changing the permeability of the high-
porosity layem until a history match is obtained.
717
9
Once this has been achieved, a fracturing treatment is
designed using the Type IV model, and fiture recovery is
predicted using the layered reservoir model and new ficture
pmu.meters. The refracturing design for this example is shown
in Fig. 22.
Fig. 20 shows the final rexwrvoirmodel for this example.
Fig. 21 shows the conductivityprofile obtained using a Type IV
model for the initial and the external oil emulsion refracturing
treatment. Fig. 22 shows the actual and simulated production
for the original fracturing treatmentand the external oil emulsion
refracturing treatment. This example clearly illustrates the
results which can be obtained from acid fracturing when
properly implemented.
Ccmclusions
1. The design of an acid fracturing treatment requires an
adequate acid-reactionmodel. Four types of acid-reaction
models used in the industry have been compared in terms
of the basic equation, boundary conditions and solution
method. The important parameters in an acid-reaction
model have been ident~fiedthrough a sensitivity study.
2. Sensitivity studies show that the mixing coefficientsare the
most important parameters which affwt the shape of the
concentrationprofile. The second most sensitiveparameter
is the reaction rate constant. The reaction order is not a
sensitive parameter.
3. The parallel plate method is preferred for the’- -urement
of the mixing coefficients. The mixing ‘coefficients
obtained from the parallel plate tests were low. 4 those
calculated by the Wiiliams-Nierode correlation for the
domain investigated.
4. The rotating disk is considered as the best method to deter-
mine the surface reaction kinetics for both Newtonian and
power law fluids because the equation of mass transport is
well known. A quality control procedure for obtaining
repeatable results has been presented. A good estimate of
the reaction rate of HC1on dolomite has been measuredat
reservoir temperature. For the reaction of EIC1on limes-
tone a raction rate limited regime could not be reached
even at temperatures as low as 18°F.
5. The rate of reaction of emulsifiedacid is lower than there-
action of straight acid. This has been attributed to a reduc-
tion in the value of the diffusion coefficient. Independent
measurementsof diffusioncoefficientsof ions in emulsified
acid should be conducted to improve the understanding of
the benefit of using emulsions for acid fracturing.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of Ih?sa
Enterprises Production Company and Dowell for permission to
 AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACID FRACTURING TECHNOLOGY WITH
10 RECENT IMPLICATIONS FOR EMULSIFIED ACIDS SPE 26581

publish this paper, The authors would also like to thank Cross 13. Williams, B.B. and Nierode, D.E.: “Design of Acid
Timbers Oil Company for permission to publish their data on the Fracturing Treatment,” JPT (July 1972) 849-859.
Hun&n dolomite, Finally, wc would like to thank W. L. 14. LQ, K.K. ad Dean, R.H.: “Modeling of Acid
Herndon for his efforts in generating the rotating disk data. Fracturing,” SPEPE (May 1989) 194-200.
15. Gdanski, R.D. and Lee, W.S.: “On the Design of Fracture
References .. Acidizing Treatments,” paper SPE 18885 presented at the
1989 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma
L Barren, A.N., Hendrickson, A.R., and Wlelvd, D.R.: City, OK, March 13-14.
“The Effect of Flow on Acid Re@ivity in a Urbonate 16. Settari, T.A.: “Modellingof Acid Fracturing Treatment,”
Fracture,” JPT (April 1962) 409-415, paper SPE 28\1870 presented at the 1991 SPE Rocky
2. Nierode, D. E. and Williams, B. B.: “Characteristics of MountaitI Regiomd Meeting and Low-Permeability
Acid Reaction in Limestone Formations,” SPZiY (Dec. Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, April 15-17.
1971)406418). 17. Terrill, R.M.: “Heat Transfer in Lmninar Flow Between
3. Roberts, L.D. and Guin, J. A.: “The Effect of Surface Parallel Porous Plates,” ht. J. He# & Mass Tran#er
Kinetics ia Fracture Acidizing,” SPIH (Aug. 1974) 385- (1965) 8, 1491-1497.
395. 18. Tonini, R.D., Remorino, M.R., and Brea, F.M.:
4. Lund, K., Fogler, H.S., McCune, C.C., and AuIt, J.W.: “Determinationof Diffksion Coefficients with a Pipe Wall
“Acidi@ion-11.The Dissolution of Calcite in Hydrochloric E1eetrode,” Elecrrochim. Acts. (1978) 23,699-704.
Acid,a Chem. Engr. Set. (1975) 30, 825-835. 19. Ross, T.K. and Wragg, A. A.: “ElectrochemierdMass
5. Roberts, L.I). and Chin, J.A.: “A New Method for T~fer Studiesin A&$i,” Elecrrochim. Acts. (196S) 10,
Predicting Acid Penetration Distance,” SPEJ (Aug. 197S) 1093-1106.
277-286.
6. Hendrickson, A.R., Rosene, R.B., and Wieland, D.R.”
“Acid Reaetion Parameters and Reservoir Characteristics
Used in the Design of Acid Treatments,” paper presented
at the 1960 ACS Meeting, Cleveland, OH, April 5-14.
9. Mwnsllah, N.A.: “Factors Influencing the Reaetion Rate
of Hydroehlonc Acid and Carbonate Rock,” paper
SPE 21036 presented at the 1991 SPE International
Symposiumon Oilfield Chemistry, Anaheim, CA, Feb. 20-
22, 1991.
8. Gdanski, R.D. and Norman, L,R.: “Using the Hollow-
Core Test to Deterrrdne Acid Reaction Rates,” SPEPE
(March 1986) 111-116.
9. Crowe, C.W., McGowan, G.R., and Baranet, S.E.:
“Investigation of Retarded Acids Provides Better
Understanding of Their Effectiveness and Potential
Benefits,” paper SPE 18222 presented at the 1988 SPE
Am@ Technical Conferenceand Exhibition, Houston, TX
Oct. 2-5.
10. Williams, B.B., Gidley, J. L., Guin, J. A., and Schechter,
R.S.: “Characterization ,of Liquid-Solid Reactiow
HydrochloricAcid-CalciumCarbonateReaction,” hut. Eng.
Chem. Fundarm (1970)9,4.
11. Anderson, M. S.: “Reactivity of Stm Andrea Dolomite,”
paper SPE 20115 presented at the 1990 SPE Permian Basin
Oil and Gas Recove~ Conference,Midland, TX, March 8-
9.
12. Hansford, G.S. and Litt, M.: “Msss Transport from a
Rotating Disk into Power Law Liquids,” Chern. Eng. SCL
(1968) 23, 849-864.

718
 .
SPE26581
Tab!e3 - Comparison
keen mixingcoeflidmtsfromsimuladon
m#tchirq($ aodmasstraosfm’fKIu8tiOU (E).
Table 1: Fkom Hansford and Litt/2 r Tcol Sta’ryla TW b dlm Lb ai?lm mb
I@ CCa211i.a q-m* M-
~-fw-
(s) ofxxns2 (alm
n’ A?Lw- 1 ~
u9kmll* 10I”F
10% Iirb4 Add 0.LKMN9
Omxw @ O.wom (El-b
2 ~ [6S &d kid o.0W03S6 (s) O.omw% (s) kd9
0.2 0.695 mkudl, 11O*F o.0nM2 (E) 0.0W371 WI bbb
3 ~ 22s &ml&id O.wwla (s) 0.@10276 (s) M’J
0.4 0.662 Lk4ccdw lto”F o.o@xno (E) o.a9a13 (73 A=Wl
4 $kUEbxb Zs%lbldhsn o.wwla2 (s) O.anwm (s) Id@
0.5 0.655 Lh&dm 75*P o.Cc4Dn (E) 0.000wl m m~
~ ~ 2ss EaAAAs 0.WM03 (s) O.cowm (m w
DOIWliO 110’F o.aWn (1?) o.aKoo2 m -b
0.6 0.647 6 Sbdda 2S%13MIIA.CM oaxW72 (s) 0.CUX210S (s) kab
Lk+&k
0.8 0.633 II-1-”-”!
7 l&hmrdI
175”$
16S @Ow2Ad
2S0’$
0.0KFW3
iO.0WfS6
O.WQCW
(&)~o.000m3
(S)IO.WCW1
(E) 0.CO0112
(WIMM
(s)1 W
(m m~
1.0 0.690 8 ma 16!S&ml A&i O.oww (S) o#cCOM (s) 3c&
2SO”F o.lWo9 (E) o@xW7 (E) -b

1.1 0.618 9 Hla4m

DdEdm
4% Hc21s&ll
MO*F
0.03X07S (s) 0MKM42 (s) I&
ALUl)lb
10 Hu&n 10% HCVSP4 0.0KW7S (s) O.canl (3I kb
1.3 0.604 Ihludm MO*F hndytb
11 m- M% HCLIS@ o.omo72 (s) o&mlo@ ($ q km~
MO*F
12 H- z% HCws@ o.m52 (s) o.owoo3 (s) ah AUt@
IhlUrdm MO*F
1!3 skim 2s% Hcvs@14 oO)oma (s) o.oaw2s (s) CQ -b
Lkkdm W)*F
14 H@aI MS HCIISFUI O.ml (s) 0.CWWR3 (3) CG A=W
Dda91b MO*F
1s Sstial msEaaAAcn O.o.mwd (SJ a Atulnb

11- I
MO*F
lsllihlb I I I
.

lkble2- Summaryofthe add formulation.

FM Taiw FM Fwduka
Tyw (“$)
lklbubd 7s
Table4. Rotatkm disk - Emwknmtal data oa dolomite.
m B’=d COIIe@d ~~
Aa 110 (2)MLsfdhk e#iuvm
i75 (,) 3 #1/lCKtl S91Iabibiw
(b)2#lflm 3#la&Iddbila
(c) s plmw @l Ibutbf 79 3.026 2’s2 1.102-02 0.9s 0.9s o.% 1.632=06
c3)Plq--w9@dbsdms M 3.026 Sso I SE-02 0.93 0.93 O.m L01E06
I ~
&K4Wia UxlY3%dkl 7a 3.026 1022 2.112-+72 0.97 O.* 0.93 I.awm
la (l) BU~widamaudaI 30 3.026 lWI 2.S41W2 O.* O.m 0.9s 1.S4EJJ6
(2) M-la f- @IIW
so 3.031 C41 S.lmal 0.93 0.94 0.9s lME.W
(*) 2.s plllom @ bbn41a
w 3.031 m t .W&a2 0.95 0.94 0.94
(b) 10pulwl pl Ihufkf n m 3.031 02 Ls9FMt2 0.% o.% 0.96 k=
(3) PIqww85Mui a41bsb’Jm%ti w 3.031 two 2JIW2 o.% o.% o.% 2.24Wm
acuw!ulalnds%did
m 1$4)6 1020 2.WU2 O.* 0.43 0s4 1.26E4M
250 o) was Wfwa d ~ m 1.9W U)@ z12&02 0.46 0.94 0.94 L63EJJ4
(2) Mhbshfc41Aw I&SMva 4.040 ICV3 2. IOIW2
m U! 0$7 O.w 0.97 Z6?A3W
(c) 7.s $Wm @ Idiwkx I al I S.062I Iau [ 21OE42 I 0.97 I 0.971 o.% I 3.14EW
(b) a #low @l Ibblfkf
(3) PtepAmetlWbbOOa=*ffm% bkkd 116 lax Sso 3.ax?4u
bddwllxkalmlm%dbul 116 1.993 3s0 5,22EW
Iv , 116 2.9s9 Sso I 7.21W
2s4 (1) Bbu2 ~ Al ~ti
(2) Mixku h W=X tithw i 1ss i Loodi Sso I 1.74E4n 0.1!) 0.22 ‘0.33 1.4413.W
(1) 10 y “Ian Sd lrlhibkf I 13s I 1.9661 3s0 I 1.1nea 0.29 0.2s 0.ss 2.39WS
*)2$@lwosll GdlklgA@ v I 1ss I 2.9S2 I SM I 1.axW.2 0.44 0.s0 0.ss Z7!WW
(s) 10 wlim @ Fe 2W40W VI 1
116 8.S10 [ SO S.97E43 0.99 I.al lm 4.%2-ol
(d)2saVK03@SabbtJb@ 116 I 240S i Sso I.ollia I 0,991 0.99 [ Loo[ 2.7sEa7
I
(e) 1.s #lore @l Swfkl#a
(f) 2s #lore #l t4mCUUmfkr
~ WJ (l)ti@sddwude wiOJMSCAd CaCLBW4ti6X 116 2.WS Sso 9.WG03 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.91E07
akilm&9saqnl?9i. CC411au wmCqddloomIe’xpK%d 117 4.011 Sso 8,FlE4)3 O.w 0.99 0.99 3.93E.07
fem qmdins 2S% HCIIQ&I bd. 117. X4m m 8.SW303 0CW3 0,99 0.9 S.S3E07
 SPE26581 “
...............................
. ...............................

a
Rotating Dlak
‘/
\ //

\-
n - ROTATIONALSPEEO

;
:“:”:

..
..
,..
..
&..

I...............................
Annular Flow
tl

t2
L2

Uy
Ls +?
. . . . . ...?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 t3 a \4 +
..:::. ..
. ...?.....
...4.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ., . ...*..!. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.,. .
. .

. . . . nukl
. ..

. .,. ,. .,....: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..!.. . . . . . .

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

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

Hollow Cot. Paralla)i Plate

Fig.1 -Alternative setup kwacid-reactlontest. Fig.2- Mathematical model of acid fracture.

I
I TJWlaVE$ll Mo#a I

I km@JmKTi
I 1

r
I 1

1
i 1

&GikizEl
lm4midc4Mw911

Fig, 3- Summary of acid reaction models.

720
✎
●
SPE26581
‘-
☛

lx .!.0s3 Cdheo 1

lc====l

J9 J o!
o toaoowwanla Dotreltel*lmt*offo
Wmw+owamm @owamwowo140mlm
WI- (WC’)
Tinn (WC)
Fig. 5 %ndtivityto K (Kr=0,00105,D,= 0.0001,q=lOO mL/mln). F!u. 8. Son81tlvltyto tbw rato (K= O.0105,n= 1.O,D,-O.00001).

0.9

!3
.9

L——___l
o iona*soamm

Thw (??0)
awonommswo weta

mm (WC)
Fig. 6- Sm8itivny to n @r= O.OOO1,WOO m~~n).
Fig, 9- ShAthity to fracture width (K=0,0105,n=l,0,Dr=0.00001).

721
 SPE26581 I .
0.08
. m ~ti. Chlpim MCI *9M

O.om-{m nluu!on. P,,.o.oiwxm, 9&o.oalm

‘~ +* Cr#gmmR, q.m% Ha *M1
-SirEuwm Oy ●MII Wdmms and Hmmd, CQlnb$orl - m EklMmal, 9,,.o#LwoDn, q,-o.mwla
0.00
‘“m x ‘“ ~-, Cmj.zz% Ha -

0.007
-[@
=m*-,
#m@am, q,-ommou,
mu-m HOOF-II
D&o.owofA
x
i% E -(~ —. Lk#aocma,~.wJoLwM

1 0.04
“0-
if’0.0-
x,* bQ~.
-,,* —,
*I-16* Ha
Q,.mcml,qeo.wofm

3 3
.g.oM
$
O.ovo
0.02
.=
.0 O.ow

.“
0.00s

o
0s4 aaY01n14 -is to SW a 4 * ● to se t4 to se w
o
Tlrm (mIn) m-m (tin)
Fig, 10- Acid raaction vs. time (Cinj= 10% Emul acid,T=J110”F). Fig. 13- Acid reaction vs. time (Hunbn dolomite, T=160”F).

I “ m KIp-ha.cbwo%CM* *M I

12

?h’ns (mh)

Fig. 11- Ackt reaotion vs. timo (Phosphcria dolomite, T=l 10T). Fig. 14- Mixing coeffklerrts (simulation methed and calculation).

f
o. s

0.0$

0.00s
x
%
z O.amf

O.owLll

1.CmE.cm
I * 90 Km *,am foam tm.oal 1,OcO.ux
nnn (Inh)
Fig. 12- Acid r~action vs. time (Edward Iimestono, T=’l&YF). Fig. 15 - Effeothre diffusioncoeftlolonts.
722
 in
m.
o
II
c

?.
(u
.-6

\
+.

.
*!3/9hdr Ki’~

723
Phosphoric: 10,250-10,350
Ioo,ooo
Perforatlons:l 0,250-10,350

Io,wo
Four-Layer Model

~1
Pr: 1600psi

10,250

10,275 ----------
u:8°%, kO.2md
10,2Q5 - ;: ~%–k~ ~;d– – - –
10,305 -–. – ~, -”------- + InilhlFree+ Emukf
iid kid Reh

10,315 - =~%’~”:2~d– – – –
0 11%, k 7.0 md
10,325 ----------
Length (ft)
Fig. 21- Fieldexamplefractwe conductivity,

10,350

A
Fig. 20- Field example well schematic

200 —.——
h
REFF{ACTURE TRATMENT @/6/90)

L
- Actual FLUID VOL(bbl) tiTk(baljmir
1so 251b Linear Ge! 952 20.00
- Simulation
Emulsified Acid 458 20.00
160 251b Linear Gel 613 20.00
Emulsified Acid 709 20.00
2511aLinear Gel 597 25,00
140 INITIAL TREATMENT (1 1/16/85) Emulsified Acid 731 20.00
FLUID VOL(gal) RATE(bal/min) 25ib Linear Gel 631 25.00
120 401b XLink Gel 8870 20.00
28% Gelled HCI 10000 20.00
0
401bXLink Gel 9000 20.00
‘loo
g
— i 28% GeWd HCI 1000S) 20.00

80
4 401b Linear Gel 2000 20.00

1
NOTE: All fluids contain 25% C@ by
60 volume, The rates and volumes shown
have been adjusted for C% vcdume,

I
0 , I i I I I I I I # , I
o 300 600 300 1,200 1,600 1,800 2,100 2,400 2,700 3.000

Days

Fig. 22- Field example production rate.

724