Dr. A.D. Hill Acid Fracturing

Formation Damage Prevention and
Well Stimulation
Dr. A.D. Hill

Acid Fracturing
Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Acid Fracturing Treatment
 Injection of acid solution at pressures above the fracturing pressure to

create a highly conductive hydraulic fracture
Opening Differential Closing

etching
 Alternative to use of proppants to create fracture conductivity by
differential etching of fracture faces
 Application to carbonate formations only

Typical Acid Fracturing Etching Pattern
Depth(in)

Proppant Fracturing versus Acid Fracturing
Proppant Acid

Acid Fracturing Treatment Design
 Usually inject a viscous pad fluid ahead of acid to initiate

fracture
 Acid injected could be: plain acid, gelled acid, foamed acid,
or emulsified acid
 Primary issues:
– Penetration distance of live acid
– Conductivity created by acid
– Resulting productivity of acid fractured well

Acid Penetration in Fractures
 Distribution of rock dissolution along fracture predicted from

acid concentration profile along the fracture
 Obtain acid concentration profile from acid balance equation

and initial and boundary conditions including fluid leak-off
and acid diffusion to fracture walls

Linear Flow Acid Penetration
For linear flow down fracture:

C  u x C   u y C    C  ux: flux along fracture
    Deff 0
t x y y  y 
uy: transverse flux due to fluid loss
C x , y , t  0   0 Deff: effective diffusion coefficient

C x  0, y, t   Ci t  Ef: reaction rate constant
C
Cu y  C L qL  Deff  E f C n 1    n: order of reaction
y

Acid Penetration Modeling
 Combine acid balance with continuity and transport

equations and fluid loss behavior model to determine acid
penetration
 Complex numerical solutions considering other factors like
temperature distribution, viscous fingering, effect of acid on
leak-off behavior, and fracture geometry are presented by
Ben-Naceur and Economides (1988), Lo and Dean (1989),
Settari (1991), and Mou (2006)

Simplified Acid Penetration Modeling Solution
 Assuming steady-state, laminar flow of Newtonian fluid

between parallel plates with constant fluid loss flux along the
fracture, obtained acid concentration profile (Nierode and
Williams, 1972)
 Use a model of fracture propagation to complete prediction of

acid penetration as distance of acid penetration depends on
fracture length

Acid Concentration Profile
u yw 2 wu y  2 wu x0 
N Pe  N Re  N Re* 
2 Deff  

Effective Acid Diffusion Coefficient
wu x 
N Re 


Acid Penetration Distance

Example 1: Acid Penetration Distance
A fracture acidizing treatment is conducted on a reservoir and based on

hydraulic fracturing modeling, the resulting fracture length is 277 ft with
width of 0.15 inch after 15 minutes of injection.
The acid has an effective diffusion coefficient of 10-4 cm2/sec. Determine

at what distance from the wellbore the acid concentration will be:
Case 1: 50% of injected concentration
Case 2: 10% of injected concentration
Assume: fluid loss rate is equal to injection rate

Example 1: Solution
Fluid loss Peclet number:

0.15 in 1 / 12 ft/in 2.03  103 ft/min 
N  2
Pe

2 6.46  106 ft 2 /min 
uy 
qi


40 bbl/min  5.615 ft 3 /bbl 
 2.03  103 ft/min
4hx f 4  100 ft  277 ft
Deff  10 4 cm 2 /sec  6.46 10 6 ft 2 /min
From figure of acid concentration profile, for NPe of 2, acid penetration at

each acid concentration can be read:
Case 1: (50% of injected Conc.): Dimensionless distance = 0.69,
hence distance from wellbore = 0.69 x 277 = 191 ft
Case 2: (10% of injected Conc.): Dimensionless distance = 0.98,
hence distance from wellbore = 0.98 x 277 = 271 ft
Effect of Acid on Conductivity and Penetration

Acid Fracture Conductivity
 Difficult to predict as depends on inherently stochastic process

 Requires non-uniform etching
 Usual approach is empirical:
– Determine amount of rock dissolved along fracture length from acid
distribution
– Use empirical correlation to calculate conductivity based on amount of rock
dissolved
– Use some averaging procedure to obtain average conductivity for entire
fracture length
 Calculated fracture conductivity can be calibrated to field by comparing
to measured effective conductivity obtained from pressure transient
testing
Amount of Rock Dissolved
 Amount of rock dissolved represented by ideal width, wi (assuming all

injected acid dissolves rock on fracture face):
XV X: volumetric dissolving power
wi 
21   h f x f
V: total volume injected
hf: fracture height
xf: fracture half-length
– For NPe > 5: acid concentration is almost injected concentration along most of
fracture length, hence actual ideal width is approximately mean ideal width
– Lower NPe: more acid spends near wellbore so must consider concentration
distribution to calculate ideal width distribution
– One solution of width profile from concentration profile is given by Schechter
(1992)

Ideal Fracture Width Profile (Schechter, 1992)

Empirical Conductivity Correlation
 Empirical correlation developed by Nierode and Kruk (1973)

based on experimental work
 Relate conductivity to ideal width, closure stress and rock
embedment strength
kfw: conductivity (md-ft)
(  C 2 c )
k f w  C1 exp wi: ideal width (in)
σc: closure stress (psi)
Srock: rock embedment strength (psi)
C1  1.47 107 wi2.47
C2 x103  13.9  1.3 lnS rock  for : 0  S rock  20,000 psi
C2 x103  3.8  0.28 ln(S rock ) for : 20,000  S rock  500,000

Experimental Fracture Conductivity Values
Measured experimental values of fracture conductivity

used in development of correlation

Limitations of Empirical Conductivity Correlation
 Laboratory measured conductivities are not representative of

large-scale in-situ behavior due to heterogeneities in rock
and small size of lab samples
 Correlation based on uniform etched width assumption
 Nierode and Kruk (1973) state that their correlation is
conservative and should be calibrated with other tests
 Aud et al. (1992) & Elbel (1993) suggest increasing Nierode
and Kruk correlation by 1 order of magnitude after analyzing
field production data

Overall Fracture Conductivity for Entire Fracture
 If conductivity variation along fracture length is not too great, average

conductivity for entire fracture (Bennett, 1982):
1 xf
kf w 
xf 0 k f w dx
adequate when NPe is greater than 3

 When conductivity varies greatly and is maximum at some distance
from wellbore, best to use harmonic mean (Ben-Naceur and
Economides, 1989):
xf
kf w  xf

0
dx k f w

Example 2: Average Fracture Conductivity
The fracturing treatment in Example 1 is conducted using 15% HCl in a

15% porosity limestone formation. The formation has rock embedment
strength of 60,000 psi, and closure stress is 4,000 psi. Acid is injected for
15 minutes. (NPe = 2 from Example 1 before)
Data from Example 1:
Fracture length = 277 ft
Fracture height = 100 ft
Injection rate = 40 bbl/min
Calculate average fracture conductivity.

(Dissolving power for 15% HCl is 0.082 ft3 carbonate / ft3 15% HCl)
Example 2: Solution
 Average ideal width:

0.082 400 bbl/min  15 min 5.615 ft 3 /bbl 
wi  12 in/ft   0.0704 in
21  0.15100 ft 277 ft 
 Obtain ideal width, wi from Ideal Fracture Width Profile Plot of

Schechter, 1992 for different positions along fracture length
 Calculate conductivity from Nierode & Kruk correlation:
C2  3.8  0.28 ln 60,000103  7.194  104

  
hence, k f w  1.47 107 wi2.47 e  7.19410 4000   8.27  105 wi2.47
4

Example 2: Solution
Fracture conductivity for 10 equal increments along fracture

length are shown:
Simple average = 2300 md-ft

Harmonic average = 95 md-ft
Productivity of Acid-Fractured Well
 Similar prediction procedure as propped fracture

 However, conductivity depends on closure stress
– Closure stress increases with decreasing bottomhole flowing
pressure (pwf) as fluid is produced
– pwf at a given flow rate depends on conductivity
– Hence, iterative procedure required to determine productivity
 Ben-Naceur and Economides (1989) presented performance
type curves for acid-fractured wells with constant pwf of 500
psi
– Best for NPe > 5 as assumed uniform conductivity along fracture

Productivity Prediction (Ben-Naceur & Economides,
1989)
30,000 psi SRock & wi of 0.12 in 100,000 psi SRock & wi of 0.12 in
σc σc

1989)
60,000 psi SRock & wi of 0.12 in 60,000 psi SRock & 7,000 psi σc
wi
σc

1989)
Dimensionless cumulative production and dimensionless time

defined as:
3.73 10 2 N P Bo
QD  for oil
hct x 2f  pi  pwf 
NP: cumulative oil production (STB)
0.376GP ZT
QD  for gas
 
GP: cumulative gas production (MSCF)
hct x 2f pi2  pwf2

0.000264kt
t Dxf 
ct x 2f

Acid Fracture Versus Propped Fracture Decision
 Selection of treatment option between these 2 based on:

– Expected posttreatment performance
– Costs of treatments
– NPVs of optimal treatments
 Acid fracture: short & finite conductivity – hence favored in higher-
permeability formations
 Propped fracture: can be much longer – hence favored in low-
permeability formations
 Propped fracture may be impossible in naturally fractured rocks due to
screenout
 Optimal fracture length exists for both treatments
Comparison of Acid-Fracture and Propped-Fracture

New Studies of Acid Fracture Conductivity
 Laboratory tests at realistic field conditions (rate,

temperature, and fluids)
 Acid transport and dissolution in heterogeneous
media
 Conductivity of small channels in fractures

Workflow
Rock Rock
Embedment Etching Embedment Fracture
Strength (RES) Acid Etching Pattern Strength (RES) Conductivity
Test Analysis Test Measurement
(Before Acid) (After Acid)
1 2 3 4 5

Modified API Conductivity Cell
Flow insert
Access ports Access ports to

to allow leak off fluid Direction of the flow measure
Pressure drop along
the fracture
Access port to
measure pressure in
the middle of fracture
Flow insert

Core Samples
3.00”
7.11”
Fracture Face 1.61”

Acid Fracturing Apparatus
API Back Pressure

Conductivity Cell Regulators
Side Side
A B
Heater
Brine Acid Leak- Spent

off Acid
Flow meter Acid
High pressure Data

pump Acquisition

Summary of Experiments
Set Contact Time
Rock Type Acid Type Temp. (oF) Count
No. (min)
Viscoelastic, Emulsified A,
1 Indiana Limestone 15, 30, 60 200 & 275 17
Gelled A SPE 102167
SPE 106272
2 Silurian Dolomite Viscoelastic 10, 20, 30 200 3
3 Bryozoan Limestone 15% HCl 2.5, 5, 7.5 100 3

15% HCl ,
4 Bryozoan Limestone 10 & 15 175 3 SPE 107772
15% HCl/1% HF, Gelled A
5 Indiana Limestone 15% HCl 5, 10, 15 175 6
6 Indiana Limestone Gelled A 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 175 8
7 San Andres Dolomite Gelled A 10, 20, 30 175 5 SPE 107772
8 Texas Cream Chalk Gelled A 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 175 7
9 Indiana Limestone 15% HCl 20 175 3 3 flow rates

Viscoelastic, Emulsified B,
10 Macae Limestone 20, 30 185 10 3 core types
Gelled B, 15% HCl

65 experiments
Etching with Contact Time (Set 1)
15 min
30 min
60 min

Etching with Contact Time (Set 1)
Right Left Depth ( in)
15 min
1.02 in3
30 min
1.95 in3
60 min
3.75 in3
Effect of Contact Time
SDVA for for

SDVA Indiana Limestone
Indiana Limestone
Expectations:
100,000
1,000 psi
3,000 psi
longer contact time = more etching

10,000 5,000 psi
conductivity (md-ft)
1,000Matrix
psi
higher conductivity
Flow
1,000 Matrix Flow
100
10
0 15 30 45 60 75
contact time (min)
At low closure stress: conductivity increases with contact time

At higher closure stresses: conductivity decreases with contact time
Effect of Acid Type
 At 30 minutes: Gelled or SDVA

15 min 30 min
Conductivity (md-ft)
systems give highest conductivity
 SDVA creates the highest conductivity

depending on closure stress
 Emulsified acid results in lowest
 At 60 minutes: Gelled acid results in
conductivity
highest conductivity
 Emulsified acid creates lowest
conductivity for all times of study
Closure Stress (psi) Closure Stress (psi)
Acid System
60 min
SDVA
Gelled acid
Emulsified acid
Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved Closure Stress (psi)

Single grid in
fracture model
10’s of ft in
scale

Intermediate
Acid fracture domain -
scale model
100’s to 1000’s of ft in
scale
Experimental
core sample
inches in scale

Simulation: k Distribution
Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved Homogeneous mineralogy

Simulation: Surface Etching Profile
10 ft * 10 ft
30 min K_avg=10 md, D=8E-9 m^2/s

New Studies of Acid Fracture Conductivity
 Simulations show that small channels are created in

fractures with heterogeneous walls
 What conductivity is created by such channels?

Effect of Fracture Size on Fracture Closure
H=0.1ft
σCL
H=100ft σCL
• With large scale, fracture is likely closed after injection

under closure stress
• If the channels are of smaller scale, they may not close
after injection
46
3-Dimensional Conductivity
in. in.
in. in.
Conductivity: 16740 md-ft Conductivity: 2319 md-ft

47
What if this is your
reservoir?


Dr. A.D. Hill Acid Fracturing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Dr. A.D. Hill Acid Fracturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation Damage Prevention and

Dr. A.D. Hill

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Injection of acid solution at pressures above the fracturing pressure to

Opening Differential Closing

 Application to carbonate formations only

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Usually inject a viscous pad fluid ahead of acid to initiate

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Distribution of rock dissolution along fracture predicted from

 Obtain acid concentration profile from acid balance equation

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

For linear flow down fracture:

C x , y , t  0   0 Deff: effective diffusion coefficient

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Combine acid balance with continuity and transport

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Assuming steady-state, laminar flow of Newtonian fluid

 Use a model of fracture propagation to complete prediction of

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

A fracture acidizing treatment is conducted on a reservoir and based on

The acid has an effective diffusion coefficient of 10-4 cm2/sec. Determine

Assume: fluid loss rate is equal to injection rate

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Fluid loss Peclet number:

Deff  10 4 cm 2 /sec  6.46 10 6 ft 2 /min

From figure of acid concentration profile, for NPe of 2, acid penetration at

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Difficult to predict as depends on inherently stochastic process

 Amount of rock dissolved represented by ideal width, wi (assuming all

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Empirical correlation developed by Nierode and Kruk (1973)

C2 x103  13.9  1.3 lnS rock  for : 0  S rock  20,000 psi

C2 x103  3.8  0.28 ln(S rock ) for : 20,000  S rock  500,000

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Measured experimental values of fracture conductivity

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Laboratory measured conductivities are not representative of

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 If conductivity variation along fracture length is not too great, average

adequate when NPe is greater than 3

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

The fracturing treatment in Example 1 is conducted using 15% HCl in a

Calculate average fracture conductivity.

 Average ideal width:

 Obtain ideal width, wi from Ideal Fracture Width Profile Plot of

C2  3.8  0.28 ln 60,000103  7.194  104

Fracture conductivity for 10 equal increments along fracture

Simple average = 2300 md-ft

 Similar prediction procedure as propped fracture

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

Dimensionless cumulative production and dimensionless time

hct x 2f pi2  pwf2

Copyright 2006, NExT, All rights reserved

 Selection of treatment option between these 2 based on: