Acidizing

The Fundamentals

Damage Assessment

Workover & Completion Commonalities
 Fluid

is put into the wellbore and/or formation of some sort are run into

 Tubulars

the well

Fundamental Acid Techniques
 Wellbore

clean-up (tubing/casing)  Matrix acidizing (sandstone or carbonates)  Acid fracturing (carbonates)

Types of Acid

Mineral
– Hydrochloric - HCl – Hydrochloric/Hydrofluoric - HCl/HF

Organic (slower reacting – less corrosive)
– Acetic – Formic

Powdered (acid sticks)
– Sulfamic – Chloroacetic

Dissolving Capability 15% HCL – 1.84 ppg  28% HCL – 3.68 ppg  9:1 mix 7.48 ppg  9:1 mix 28% HCL : Acetic – 3.64 ppg  9:1 mix 15% HCL : Acetic – 2.71 ppg  .5% HCL : Acetic – 1.72 ppg  10% Acetic – 0.

Acid Reaction Rate .

Basic Equation 2HCl + CaCO3  H2O + CO2 +CaCl2    Water  Salt Gas 1000 1843 1040 6620 2050 Gals lbs gals ft3 lbs .

Controlling Factors  Pressure – Less than 500 psi  Temperature – Add 20°. half the reaction rate  Velocity – Accelerate the mass transfer – Flow patterns – radial. linear. cylindrical . double reaction rate – Subtract 20°.

001” natural fracture Same limestone with a 0.Controlling Factors  Concentration – Stronger is faster (to a point)  Contact  area & volume ratio – Matrix = large surface area (30000:1) 20% Φ limestone with 10 md Same limestone with a 0.1” created fracture – Natural fracture (3000:1)  – Fracture = smaller surface area (32:1)  .

Controlling Factors  Formation composition  Surface wetting  Viscosity .

Retarded Acids  Gelled acid  Mineral/organic mix  Common ion .

Basic Equation 2HCl + CaCO3  H2O + CO2 +CaCl2 .

Retarded Acids  Gelled acid  Mineral/organic mix  Common ion  Oil-wet barriers  Emulsions  High concentrations .

emulsify water in oil. emulsify oil in water.Acid additives Corrosion Inhibitors – specify time and temperature  Surface Active Agents – anionic. break oil in water emulsions. amphoteric  – Anionic tend to water wet sand. break water in oil emulsions. flocculates clay – Anionic and cationic surfactants mix like matter and anti-matter – Nonionic tends to be the most popular surfactants . disperse clays – Cationic tend to water wet carbonates. nonionic. cationic.

Acid Additives (cont) Non-emulsifiers (acid and oil)  Chemical retarders (carbonates only)  Foamers  – – – – – – 2 gpt < 75° F 3 gpt < 130° F 5 gpt < 200° F 7 gpt < 250° F 10 gpt < 300° F 13 gpt < 350° F .

Acid Additives (cont)  Alcohol (dry gas wells) – Methanol < 200° F – Ethanol < 300° F  Mutual solvents (need?)  Anti-sludge agents (asphaltic crudes 5-20 gpt)  Clay stabilizers .

scale and fomation minerals – Most treatments minimum control of 1000 mpl requires 10-15 ppt sodium erythorbate – Control severe iron concerns 5000 mpl  60° to 120° .2% acetic + 100 ppt citric or 50-65 ppt sodium erythorbate  180° plus – 50-65 ppt sodium erythorbate .1% acetic + 50 ppt citric  120° to 180° .Acid Additives (cont)  Iron sequestering agents – Iron in tubulars.

Acid Additives (cont)  Friction reducers  Gelling agents  Fluid loss additives  Diverting material – Rock salt – Wax beads – Oil soluble resins – Benzoic acid flakes (story time) .

Wellbore Clean-up  Clean-up – Mill scale – Corrosion scale – Pipe dope  Pickled tubing .

003” of 5.The Pickle Job Minimum volume of aromatic solvent – 250 gallons  Scale basis 0.1 lb/ft in 5 ½” 20# casing (or 0.0 sg magnetite mill scale)  – 400 gal/1000’ 5 ½” – 100 gal/1000’ 2 7/8” .

The Pickle Job 15% HCl  Minimum CI  Aromatic solvent pre-flush  No iron control   Catch return samples .

Matrix Acidizing  Below fracture gradient  Wormholes – Size? – Length? – Number? .

Wormholes  Fluid loss rate determines length. inches to feet long  Fluid loss additives  Viscosity  Not a function of reaction rate!  28% HCl .

.

.

Sandstone Matrix Acidizing  HCl for mud damage removal – Carbonate FLA – Dehydrate bentonite clay  HCl/HF only!) for stimulation (sandstone – Always at matrix rate – Permeability dominates – Shallow stimulation .

HCl/HF Acidizing  Always need HCl pre-flush  HF reacts more quickly with clays than silica  Don’t use sodium.5%:1. potassium or calcium salt waters for flush  Feldspar means use half strength (13.5%)  Flush with ammonium chloride or HCl spacer .

Acid Fracturing (Carbonates)  Factors affecting penetration – Fluid loss – Injection rate – Fracture width  Factors affecting conductivity – Heterogeneity – Closure pressure – Rock strength .

Acid Fracturing Methods  Density controlled  Viscous fingering  Foamed acid  Overbalanced surge .

Density Control .

Density Control .

Viscous Fingering Acid .

k = 100 md k = 10 md k = 15 md .Overbalanced Surging  Placement of unconventionally small volumes of acid in a fracture mode is not possible in a conventional mode.

Overbalanced Surging  Placement of acid is possible with overbalanced surging even with large variances in permeability k = 100 md k = 10 md k = 15 md .

Carbonate Acidizing .

Reasons for Carbonate Acidizing  Damaged permeability  Low permeability  Low perforation efficiency .

rate and max pressure . 5. 3. 2. 4. volume. 6. Determine fracture gradient Calculate maximum BHTP Calculate maximum allowable STP Estimate injection rate .Matrix Treatment Design 1.Darcy radial Determine acid volume – 50-200 gal/ft Specify acid type.

5-13 fold .Fracture Acidizing  Majority of carbonate reservoir treatments are acid fracs  Good conductivity is the key to successful stimulation  Productivity increases of 2.

Factors Affecting Fracture Geometry  Injection rate Fluid viscosity Fluid volume injected Fluid loss  Rock properties Formation fluids Formation stresses Reaction rates       .

Rule of Thumb for Acid Volume Fill the fracture with an acid volume of regular 15% HCl that is three times (3X) the fracture volume to be etched. .

Treatment Design  Optimize the treatment  Fracturing calculations  Rock composition  Closed fracture acidizing (10-20%)  Treatment review .

General volumes  Acid wash/soak – 10-25 gals/ft  Matrix acid – 100-200 gals/ft  Acid Fracture – 400-600 gals/ft .

Questions??? .

Pat H. Sanderson 1-13 #1 Stimulation Evaluation A Look Back and Forward by Pat Handren .

Prior Stimulation Model  Original perforations – 16.000 gals 15% HCl  BHT .277°F   Positives – Reservoir has potential! . – Small radius of penetration (50100’) 10.760 – 16.830’ – 85/15 split dolomite/limestone  Problems – No cooldown – Reaction time ~2 min.

Pat H. Sanderson 1-13 #1 Condensate History Match .

277°F 15% HCL 20% HCL 1 min 2 min BHT .Relative Reaction Rates 80/20 Dolomite/ Limestone BHT .177 °F 32 min 40 min .

Keys to Successful Acidizing  Cool down the reservoir  Increase the fracture width  Rate dependent on pressure  Maximize penetration distance  Closed fracture acidizing  Overflush .

but use pressure to dictate maximum rate – 15.000 gals 20% HCL  Reduce rate & over flush .000 gals 30# gel – 5.000 gals 30# gel – 5.000 gals 20% HCL Divert with 500 bioballs  Second stage   Pump at 8-10 BPM.000 gals 30# borate x-linked – 15.Two Staged Acid Proposal  First stage – 20.000 gals 30# borate x-linked – 20.

000# 20/40 bauxite in 2-5ppg stages.  Rerun tubing. .  Fracture stimulate down casing @ 30 BPM using a 35# borate x-linked system and 224.  Lubricate packer.Fracture Proposal  Remove tubing from well.

– No mechanical changes required.  Fracturing – Requires prep work – Potential for early job termination (25%) – Potential for pressure related failure (<5%?) – Conductivity is predictable – High cost/ scheduling . – Conductivity is not predictable.Stimulation Comparison  Acidizing. – Lower cost. – No potential for pressure related failures.

$225.$375.Cost Estimates  Acidizing – Book Price .000  Fracturing – Book Price .000 (4:1 cost ratio) .$90.$54.000 – Discounted @ 40% .000 – Discounted @ 40% .

5 3 3.Production Results Pat Sanderson 1-13 #1 History Match on Condensate 100000 50-60' acid frac Production Data 418' acid frac 469' prop frac Results 210' acid 80' acid BOPM 10000 1000 0 0.5 1 1.5 Year 2 2.5 .

Over time the half-length has decreased due to closure or recalcification to a length of 50-60’ and is back on trend with production prior to second acid job.5 years. Conclusions: – Second acid job was a huge success! – Well could benefit from a third acid job!! .Summary of Job Results     Initial acid treatment created 50-60’ of halflength Second treatment created 200-220’ of half-length (~200 short of design length) and produced close to prediction for about 1.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful