TECHNOLOGY FOCUS

Well Stimulation
Reviewing the numerous papers for this feature showed that the primary theme worldwide, throughout the last approximately 18 months, has been acidizing carbonate formations. Fine tuning this information, it is further seen that the primary interest was zone isolation or diversion. Fracture acidizing seems to be on everyones mind as well. Certainly, acidizing sandstones is an important area, but only approximately 15% of the papers were related to sandstone acidizing; thus, with limited space, the emphasis here is on carbonates. Too often, when multiple zones are to be acidized, mechanical isolation is not feasible and chemicals and/or particulate materials are used for diversion. Posttreatment production logging and results often indicate inadequate stimulation of the target zones. When matrix acidizing carbonates, there are many treatment options from which to choose. Choices relate to amount and type of acid per unit of zone, injection rates, heating the acid (cool dolomites), fluid-loss-control materials, diverting materials, as well as the many other additives including friction reducers, corrosion inhibitors, surfactants, iron control, and on and on. Many of the additives are necessary, but of utmost importance is getting the proper amount of acid into each zone. A primary issue with fracture acidizing is obtaining conductivity and length, with the decision being which is more important, conductivity or length. In most cases, it is not possible to have both (i.e., long conductive length), particularly in hightemperature situations. In a low-permeability situation, length becomes more important than conductivity, and the requirements may be met more easily with an inert fluid and proppant. In a high-permeability situation, conductivity becomes more important than length, more easily met with acid. Production-increase predictions can help sort out the required balance between length and conductivity. The following summaries provide insight into acidizing carbonates.
Well Stimulation additional reading available at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org IPTC 13203 Case Study of Successful Matrix Stimulation of High-Water-Cut Wells in Dubai Offshore Fields by F. Shnaib, SPE, Dubai Petroleum, et al. SPE 128043 Stimulation of Multilayered High-Carbonate-Content Sandstone Formations in West Africa Using Chelant-Based Fluids and Mechanical Diversion by M. Parkinson, SPE, Chevron, et al. SPE 127768 Acid/Scale-Inhibitor Stimulation Treatment for HighTemperature Cased-Hole Frac-Pack Subsea Wells: Fluid Qualification and Formation-Damage Assessment by M. Marquez, Chevron, et al.
JPT

Gerald Coulter, SPE, is a consulting petroleum engineer and president of Coulter Energy International. He is involved in consulting and technology transfer of well-completion, formation-damage, and well-stimulation technology. Coulters industry experience includes work with Sun Oil/Oryx Energy Company, Halliburton, and Conoco. He has chaired and served on numerous SPE committees and currently serves on the JPT Editorial Committee. Coulter holds a BS degree in geology and a BA degree in chemistry from Oklahoma State University and an MS degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Oklahoma.

52

JPT JUNE 2010

WELL STIMULATION

Acid Placement and Diversion

With the increasing need for highly costeffective well production-enhancement applications, acid stimulation is becoming increasingly popular. To be successful, acidizing procedures require distribution of stimulation fluids across and within the desired treatment interval. Historically, this has been approached with mechanical placement or chemical diversion of treatment fluids. The fulllength paper focuses on the important role of acid placement and diversion, and on the types, purposes, benefits, and pitfalls of methods currently in use.

Introduction Determination of the proper fluid placement is perhaps the most crucial factor in acid-treatment design in both carbonates and sandstones. Treatment success can hinge on it. More often than not, some method or combination of placement or diversion methods is required to distribute acid across (and within) the zone(s) of interest, but no one method or combination of methods is going to be effective in all cases. Of increasing importance in acid-treatment design, in both matrix and fracture acidizing, is use of prior experience and analogousfield examples, fluid-entry diagnostics, and modeling wherever possible. The importance of treatment placement was evident and recognized in the earliest acid treatments in the late 19th century. Herman Frasch, chief chemist
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper SPE 124141, The Art and Practice of Acid Placement and Diversion: History, Present State and Future, by L.J. Kalfayan, SPE, Hess Corporation, and A.N. Martin, SPE, BJ Services, originally prepared for the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 47 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed.

for the Standard Oil Solar Refinery in Lima, Ohio, at the time, is credited with the invention of the acidizing technique. Frasch was issued the first patent on acidizing on 17 March 1896. The absence of proper acid placement is probably still the biggest reason that acid jobs fail (that is, besides failure to correctly diagnose production or injection impairment correctly). A well-conceived, properly designed treatment in all other respects (e.g., formation-damage assessment and selection of acid types, concentrations, volumes, and additives) can go for naught if the treatment is not placed properly. The zone of interest must be contacted sufficiently by stimulation fluids. Outside of short, homogeneous formation intervals (which are rare), perfect coverage of the treatment zone often is not possible, unless diversion techniques are used. Acid Placement Matrix acid treatments, whether for sandstones or for carbonates, require similar methods to ensure optimum placement. Unless steps are taken to promote efficient acid placement, the stimulation fluids will tend to follow the path of least resistance, meaning the acid preferentially will pass into the interval with the highest conductivity. Often, this section of the well requires the least stimulation. An acid stimulation that is placed solely into this already-productive interval (or already swept interval, for an injection well) will have less effect than if the acid were placed into a less-conductive formation (assuming, of course, that this second interval has potential for improvement). Mechanical Isolation Methods Without doubt, mechanical methods are the surest way to place fluid in areas where they would not travel naturally. If the fluid is mechanically blocked from the path of least resistance, then it will

have no alternative but to follow the only path presented to it. Various options exist such as bridge plugs, packers, and a combination of packer and bridge plug. Ball Sealers. The first recorded use of ball sealers was in 1956. In essence, their use has changed little since. Ball sealers are just what the name impliessmall balls that are pumped into the well with the stimulation fluidsintended to seat on perforations to create a temporary seal. The first ball sealers were solid nitrile rubber. After that, other embodiments were introduced, which included solid nylon balls, aluminum and rubbercovered aluminum balls, rubber-covered phenolic balls, and plastic-consolidated walnut shells. Modern ball sealers are again rubber (typically rubber-coated neoprene) or biopolymer. Coiled Tubing (CT) CT is a very useful tool for improving acid placement. CT strings now exist in many sizes (from 1 to 31/2 in. in diameter) and maximum-allowable-depth ratings. The most common CT strings used in acidizing and wellbore cleanouts are 11/4 to 2 in. in diameter. Major advantages of CT in acidizing include: 1. Ease with which an acid injection can be terminated if it appears that continuing injection is not doing any further good. The total volume in the CT string is small and can be displaced quickly. 2. Ease with which treatment displacement with nitrogen can be achieved, quickly pushing reactive fluids away from the wellbore and thereby energizing the near-wellbore fluid zone and enhancing flowback. 3. Ability to attach injection nozzles for full-interval treatment or for selective (hydrocarbon-producing) zone treatment, such as in wells with high water cut.

For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
JPT JUNE 2010 53

Protected Interval

Stimulated Interval

Stimulated Interval

Protected Interval

Acid

Inert Fluid

Fig. 1Examples of protective injection in an openhole horizontal well.

Disadvantages include: 1. Pump-rate limitations. Smaller diameters cause higher frictional pressure losses, which may limit treatment injection rates to lower-than-desirable levels. Acidizing through production tubing or drillpipe, for example, will allow higher rates. 2. Solids (e.g., particulate diverters or ball sealers) are very difficult to place using CT. 3. Acid mixtures must be mixed very thoroughly and must remain that way before and during injection. Corrosion in a CT string is especially disastrous. Small pinholes or pits within the string can lead quickly to tubing failure and a major fishing workover, not to mention the safety aspects of such a failure. Chemical Diversion The first attempts at acid-treatment placement used chemical diverting additives. In 1936, a soap solution that reacted with calcium chloride (CaCl2) to form water-insoluble, oil-soluble calcium soap was used in a hydrochloric acid treatment. This diversion idea led to the development, or discovery, of seemingly more-sophisticated chemical-diversion methods. These included CaCl2 solution (heavier than acid) to divert away from water and sulfuric acid to react with limestone or dolomite formation to form calcium sulfate in the formation to block and divert subsequent acid injection. Not surprisingly, the sulfuric acid method was not widely accepted. Locust-bean gum then was introduced to gel CaCl2 or sodium chloride solutions. Eventually, cellophane flakes in aqueous solution and oil-external emulsions (also gelled with locust-bean gum) were introduced

commercially as diverting agents. The more commonly used chemical diverters today include the following. Salt granules Benzoic acid Waxes Oil-soluble resins Gilsonite Fibers Foam Viscous pills The major benefit of foams and gels relative to particulates is their reversibility. Diversion with particulates is not necessarily easily reversible. This was often a problem with the earlier techniques. Although chemical diversion has in essence not changed greatly since its inception in the 1930s, application of the right options usually will enable effective diversion. It is up to the engineer to select the correct system for the application and to ensure that there is a fail-safe mechanism for removing the particulates. Otherwise, the mostproductive intervals will be damaged in a manner not easy to rectify. Protective Injection Protective injection involves the injection of an inert fluid into the mostconductive interval, while at the same time injecting the acid system into a less-conductive zone. This is illustrated in Fig. 1. In the upper part of Fig. 1, the interval to be treated with acid is located toward the heel end of an openhole horizontal wellbore, with the most-conductive interval located further toward the toe of the well. The protective fluid is injected down the tubing and into the wellbore, flowing into the formation and into the most-conductive inter-

val, at a rate determined to produce no significant injection into the upper interval. Acid then is pumped down the tubing/casing annulus. The protective injection forces the acid into the lessconductive upper interval. The tubing is positioned to be just below the zone requiring the acid. If the zone requiring stimulation is toward the bottom of the well, then the fluid flow is reversed, with the protective fluid coming down the annulus and the acid being placed through the tubing (as illustrated in the lower part of Fig. 1). Sometimes, a large-diameter nipple profile is included on the outside of the tubing, positioned at the desired boundary between the two fluids, to further promote isolation of the two wellbore areas. A more sophisticated version of this technique uses foam as the protective fluid. Not only does this method provide benefits because of the protective-injection process, but also the foam acts as a diverting agent as a result of multiphaseflow effects as it enters the formation. Acid-Fracturing Treatments Many of the techniques described in the preceding sections also can be applied to acid-fracturing operations. Mechanical isolation methods work particularly well, although this often involves extra expense, such as for a workover (or workovers, when multiple intervals are involved) or for specialized completions. However, what is really required for acid fracturing is a process or processes that can be applied without any interruption to the acid-fracturing treatment. This often is accomplished with the use of diversion stages programmed into the treatment schedule, effectively breaking up a large treatment into several smaller ones. Diverters such as ball sealers and particulates lend themselves readily to this technique and have been documented extensively. These diverters are particularly effective because of the often high viscosity of the fracturing fluid (which helps to carry the diversion system) and the high rates experienced when fracturing (which enables the diversion technique to block perforation tunnels or plate off openhole sections more easily). Indeed, these techniques can be applied much more readily to acid fracturing than to proppant fracturing because of the requirement of the latter for precise JPT control of fluid placement.

54

JPT JUNE 2010

WELL STIMULATION

Effective Stimulation of Very-Thick Layered Carbonate Reservoirs Without Use of Mechanical Isolation
Effective matrix acid stimulation is one of the keys to maximizing and maintaining long-term North Field well productivity. The operators jointly developed an integrated methodology to optimize matrix stimulation for layered Khuff reservoirs, specifically for K1 through K3 and K4 completions. The integrated methodology is a continuous process to help overcome the well and reservoir challenges.

Completion Strategy
Reservoir Objectives Geological Description Processed Log Data Well Groupings Perforation Selection

Stimulation Design
Acid/Rock Interactions Improved Diversion / Mechanical Isolation Modeling Learnings From Previous Treatments

Carbonate MatrixMatrix Stimulation Methodology

Evaluation
Well Testing and Analysis Production Logging Reservoir and Production Modeling

Introduction Completions are the critical component of a well that connect the wellbore to the reservoir. Despite the prolific nature of the North Field reservoir, optimized completions are necessary to ensure long-term well deliverability. As in many developments, reservoir quality (i.e., permeability thickness and connectivity) and completion efficiency have the greatest effect on well productivity. Effective completions/stimulations
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper IPTC 13621, Effective Stimulation of Very Thick, Layered Carbonate Reservoirs Without the Use of Mechanical Isolation, by C.E. Shuchart, SPE, S.K. Jackson, SPE, J. MendezSantiago, N.H. Choi, SPE, J.K. Montgomery, SPE, and A.S.D. Khemakhem, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, and C.J. Sieben, B.M. Clancey, SPE, R. Chintaluri, SPE, A. Farah, SPE, and Z. Wang, SPE, RasGas Company, originally prepared for the 2009 International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 79 December. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Copyright 2009 International Petroleum Technology Conference. Reproduced by permission.

Implementation
Equipment Requirements and Capabilities Fluid QA/QC Cleanout Procedures

Fig. 1Carbonate matrix-stimulation methodology.

have a positive effect on long-term deliverability by minimizing completion pressure drop throughout project life. By wormholes, acid stimulation also can help mitigate future productivity-impairment mechanisms, such as condensate dropout, non-Darcy flow, and scale/solids plugging. ExxonMobil developed an integrated methodology to achieve optimum matrix stimulation of large, complex carbonate reservoirs. The integrated methodology for the stimulation of thick carbonate reservoirs is a continuous process that consists of five main elements: reservoir objectives, completion strategy, stimulation design, implementation, and evaluation (Fig. 1). Building upon this foundation, ExxonMobil and RasGas jointly developed an integrated methodology to optimize matrix stimulation for separate sections of the Khuff reservoir (K1 through K3 and K4).

In addition to the many wells, the K1-through-K4 development wells required longer completions through all four Khuff reservoirs, with completion lengths as great as 2,500 ft. Success of K1-through-K3 completions and individual K4 completions led to high expectations for commingled K1-through-K4 completions. However, the longer K1-through-K4 producing interval substantially increased the stimulation challenges. Additionally, differential pressures between reservoirs had developed during production in various parts of the field. This further challenged acid placement and created potential for crossflow once the well was stimulated. Existing stimulation tools and methods were no longer sufficient to achieve the aggressive stimulation targets required to meet completion objectives. Development of alternative K1-through-K4 completion/ stimulation strategies was required.

For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
56 JPT JUNE 2010

Completion Challenges Placement of stimulation fluids is governed by the permeability and skin of each reservoir layer and the pressure drop between the wellbore and reservoir at that position in the wellbore. In many reservoirs, the pressure drop driving fluids into the reservoir is assumed to be uniform from top to bottom of the completion interval, and the permeability distribution controls the acid placement. However, in thick gas reservoirs, the pressure drop between the wellbore and reservoir during acid injection can vary greatly along the completion interval. In most cases, the hydrostatic-pressure gradient in the wellbore as a result of the stimulation fluids exceeds the hydrostatic-pressure gradient in the reservoir resulting from the formation fluids. In the North Field, where a stimulation treatment typically consists of 28% hydrochloric acid (HCl) and an in-situ-crosslinked diverter, the difference in net differential pressure from top to bottom in a completion can be 500 psi or higher. The net differential pressure is the driving force for acid injection into the formation. Consequently, the lowermost intervals will tend to receive more acid than expected on the basis of permeability and skin distribution alone. Another feature of thick, layered reservoirs is that they can deplete in a nonuniform manner. In the North Field, individual-reservoir completions preceded completion of all reservoirs in K1-throug- K4 wells. As a result, differential reservoir pressures have developed. In some cases, the differential reservoir pressures may offset the hydrostatic-pressure difference, while in other cases differential pressures may further complicate the placement of stimulation fluids. For example, pressure measurements in Well 1 showed that differential depletion has occurred, partially balancing the differential in hydrostatic pressure observed during an acidizing treatment. As a result, the injection driving force for each reservoir is closer in value. For Well 2, the differential reservoir pressures further add to the hydrostaticpressure differences. The uppermost, higher-pressure layer shows a negative differential pressure between the static wellbore pressure and formation pressure. Consequently, no acid would be injected into this layer under static

conditions regardless of the layers permeability. Conversely, the lower-most, lower-pressure layer shows a large differential pressure preferentially driving acid into this layer. Because the reservoir pressure variation can affect acid placement significantly, each well must be studied individually. Mechanical Isolation The initial approach was to develop and qualify retrievable mechanical isolation plugs for use during well stimulation. The stimulation challenges are greatly reduced by breaking the completion interval into two easierto-stimulate sections (approximately 300 to 1,000 ft thick) and using proven methods for K4 completions and K1 through K3 completions. Benefits of mechanical isolation during stimulation include less pressure differential between reservoirs, shorter intervals, higher injection pressures for diversion, ability to test individual reservoir intervals, and higher production drawdown during cleanup. Despite the increased cost and operational risk, the use of retrievable plugs was deemed acceptable given the importance of effective stimulation throughout the completed interval. However, the initial operational performance with retrievable bridge plugs was poor. Wireline operations resulted in several fishing jobs, and problems were experienced with pressure-control equipment, winch units, counter heads, and plug-setting and -retrieving tools. Joint efforts between the operators and service providers were initiated to improve the reliability and safety of the retrievable-bridgeplug solution. Enhanced Stimulation Methodology Despite the successful development of the two plug redesigns, it was recognized that risks inherent with highpressure, sour-service wireline operations and full-bore plugs remained high. After the failures of the first mechanical plugs, considerable resources were allocated to develop stimulation technology for the multizone completions not requiring mechanical isolation. Field trials were conducted for selected technologies, and additional data were collected. Ultimately, an enhanced stimulation methodology was developed joint-

ly to enable the completion of the K1-through-K4 producing interval in most wells without the use of mechanical isolation (i.e., plugless completions see Fig. 5 in the full-length paper) Key enhancements include the following. Enhanced perforation/stimulation strategy. High-rate stimulation capability. Linking stimulation to long-term reservoir performance. Advanced post-stimulation evaluation. Enhanced Perforation/ Stimulation Strategy In the original carbonate matrixstimulation methodology, selective perforating and multiple stimulations were key enablers to stimulate heterogeneous carbonate formations effectively. In its simplest form, lowpermeability intervals were first perforated and stimulated, being careful to maintain sufficient standoff from high-permeability features. In a second stimulation stage, higher-permeability intervals were added and the entire completion stimulated. With proper stimulation designs, newly perforated, high-permeability intervals can compete successfully for acid with the already-stimulated, lower-permeability intervals. However, this strategy alone was insufficient for K1-through-K4 completions because of the longer completion intervals and differential reservoir pressures. The selection of intervals for each stimulation treatment in a given well could no longer be made solely on the basis of layer permeability. The wellbore hydrostatic and reservoir pressures play an increasingly important role in acid placement. In some wells, low-permeability layers at the bottom of the well were predicted to be stimulated at the same time as substantially higher-permeability layers at the top of the well. However, there were concerns regarding the ability to adequately clean up low-permeability (but high-porosity) intervals in high-permeability-thickness (kh) wells. Previous experience showed that inadequate cleanup of zones, especially at the bottom of the well, inhibited their stimulation. If a zone is lower pressure, its cleanup is even more difficult. Rapid stimulation modeling and evaluation of predicted results became

58

JPT JUNE 2010

critical to investigate the large number of options possible for K1-through-K4 stimulation without plugs. It quickly became evident that stimulation of the K4 reservoir followed by stimulation of the upper K1-through-K3 reservoirs was not feasible in most wells using existing capabilities. However, low permeability intervals within K4 needed to be stimulated early to ensure adequate cleanup. Modeling suggested that up to four stimulation treatments would be required to stimulate the entire K1-through-K4 completion effectively. In many wells, it was predicted that effective stimulation of all layers could only be achieved by using higher injection rates (more than 60 bbl/min) to offset hydrostaticpressure differences. While the development of higherrate pumping and alternative stimulation technologies was progressing, upcoming well stimulations were evaluated, categorized, and ranked by complexity. The sequencing of the treatments for a given well depended upon permeability prediction and its

uncertainty, kh distribution, reservoirpressure variation, and location of the target layers. The batch-drilling and -completion program was optimized to allow effective scheduling of stimulation treatments to focus on the lesscomplex wells first, delaying completion and stimulation of more complex wells until new technologies could be developed and validated. The strategy and number of stimulation stages for each individual well were determined by extensive evaluation of available, stimulation modeling, and well-performance analyses. Once a stimulation strategy had been agreed upon, final treatment designs were optimized on the basis of a range of reservoir and operational parameters. It was clear through this process that methods to quantify the benefit of these alternative stimulation strategies and designs were needed, along with higher-rate pumping capability. High-Rate Stimulation Capability Stimulation designs were customized to accommodate the operational issues

associated with high-rate treatments. Specifically, stage volumes were increased to lengthen the duration of each fluid stage, and a minimum target rate was defined for each treatment. Defining a minimum injection rate for each design allowed operations to make quick decisions regarding the treatment if either vessel had problems delivering the desired rates. To simplify operations, minor adjustments to the pump schedule were made before the treatment to avoid switching fluids at surface during required rate changes. High-rate stimulation, in combination with selective perforating and multiple stimulations, has enabled effective stimulation of K1-through-K4 completions without the use of plugs. Recently, the stimulation service provider has worked to improve the operational capability such that 100-bbl/min, largevolume treatments can be achieved from a single vessel. Use of a single vessel reduces the cost, complexity, and risk associated with performing the JPT high-rate treatments.

JPT JUNE 2010

59

WELL STIMULATION

Field Development and Productivity Improvement Offshore Mexico

The marine light-crude project offshore Mexico is a group of 12 oil fields 75 km off the coast of southern Mexico. The fields have been under development since 2003, are high-temperature carbonate formations producing gas and condensate with permeability that ranges from 1 to 6 md, and are naturally fractured. These fields were experiencing considerable drawdown, which slowed down the return on investment and, in one case, could have led potentially to well abandonment. Established practice dictates that carbonate formations in Mexico are treated best by matrix stimulation rather than fracture-stimulation techniques. The full-length paper demonstrates the effective implementation of a production-optimization design and execution methodology that has translated into productivity increase.

lated by fracture acidizing, and the use of fracture acidizing to enhance the production of carbonate formations continues to be an effective process. To achieve a successful fracture-acidizing treatment, three fundamental issues must be addressed: (1) reactivity control, (2) fluid-loss control, and (3) conductivity generation. Stimulation Challenges Most of the wells in Field A are producing in low-permeability formations ranging from 1 to 50 md. Bottomhole static temperatures (BHSTs) in these wells are often above 300F. This high temperature enhances acid reactivity and limits penetration into the formation. Established practice dictates that carbonate formations in offshore Mexico are best treated by matrix stimulation rather than fracture-stimulation techniques. This has been established and practiced during the last 20 years of development of fields offshore Mexico on the basis of previous formations being high-permeability carbonates ranging from 100 to 5,000 md. Traditional acid-stimulation jobs in this area were mixtures of solvents/hydrochloric acid (HCl)/organic blends, designed to overcome sludge precipitation and high BHST as a way to distribute acid along the producing intervals. Often, viscosified acids are used as diverter systems with some regular success; however, high reservoir pressure in these fields limit the pumping rates most of the time. Recently, an acidfracturing campaign started in these fields reported outstanding results and is described in the full-length paper. The first step performed was selecting the right candidates to fracture acidize from those that needed only matrix treatments. The well production or injection rate is related to the bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP) by the

inflow-performance relationship (IPR). It was observed from the data gathered from a drillstem test performed on one of the exploratory wells drilled in this area, after a re-evaluation of the buildup test and a production analysis of the IPR curve, that even when a skin factor of 0.1 was present on the formation, a large drop in pressure remained on the formation face. This value was almost 5,000 psi for a choke size of 1/4 in., and it became even greater as the choke size was increased. An evident signal of the low permeability of the formation was indicated in the buildup test of 1.1 md. By simulating an IPR under fracturing conditions, the benefit of acid fracturing was evident; oil production was forecast to almost double, and the pressure drop reduced by almost half of the original value. Production Analysis The previous analysis led to review and establishment of which formations and wells could be fractured, and which wells needed only to be matrix stimulated. By using data available from a buildup test again, then calibrating synthetic logs where a permeability-thickness-product calculation was added, and, finally, using the IPR analysis again, it was established that those wells with permeabilities from 1 to 20 md were candidates for fracture treatments and those with permeabilities greater than 20 md were candidates for matrix treatments. This can be understood better by viewing the family of IPR curves on the left side of Fig. 1. The separation of the IPR under matrix conditions (black IPR curve) and fracturing conditions (green IPR curve) is evident. This means more production and less pressure drop. On the right side of Fig. 1, it can be seen that both matrix-stimulation and fracturing scenarios forecast quite similarly (blue IPR for matrix and green IPR for fracturing).

Introduction The use of various fracturing methods for stimulation of wells has become a common procedure in the oil and gas industry. Fracture treatments are performed on wells with varying potential to help increase production and reduce the pressure drop on the formation face. Many hydrocarbon-bearing carbonate formations are routinely stimuThis article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper SPE 121928, Field Development and Productivity Improvement in Offshore Mexico: An Engineering and Laboratory Synergistic Approach to Carbonate Fracture Acidizing, by Antonio Inda and Octavio Steffani, Pemex, and Eduardo Soriano and Fernando Robles, Halliburton, originally prepared for the 2009 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 2729 May. The paper has not been peer reviewed.

For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
60 JPT JUNE 2010

The IPR analysis is one of the most powerful tools in production engineering. It can be used as an aid in both the design and the optimization of well hydraulics and IPR modification by analyzing the sensitivity of different variables. Once the candidates for fracturing were identified, a sensitivity scenario was analyzed by reviewing which fracture length was needed. In most cases, by increasing length, the production expected also was increased. In a few cases, short fractures proved to be the optimum target because no substantial production increase was noticed with greater length and the pressure drop eliminated was almost the same with each different length that was run. Laboratory Core Testing A method was presented in 1986 to measure the etched conductivity resulting from acid reaction with formation cores. These tests use circular core wafers cut so that the surface
24 20,000 32 49

exposed to acid is in the same plane as a vertical fracture. The wafers are mounted in lead, and the face of the sample is turned flat with a lathe. Acid is injected through a hole in the center of the core and is allowed to flow radially between the core and a steel plate. After a specified time interval, the acid is displaced, closure stress is applied to the core face, and the etched conductivity is measured using kerosene as the flowing fluid. It is possible to correlate laboratorymeasured, etched conductivities to the weight loss per unit area predicted by a fracture-acidizing simulator. In this procedure, the weight loss per unit area predicted for the proposed treatment is correlated back through the laboratory measurements to predict conductivity. The procedure assumes that the conductivity is a strong function of weight loss and only a weak function of changing acid strength and reactivity. Implementation of this procedure
60 64 60 24

15,000

BHFP, psig

10,000

5,000

10

20

30

40

Flow Rate, MMscf/d

10 7,000 64 48 2 56

6,000

5,000

BHFP, psig

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Flow Rate, B/D

Fig. 1IPR analysis to select candidates.

JPT JUNE 2010

SPE Bookstore
www.spe.org/store

FEATURED TITLE

Drilling and Production Operations in HP/HT Wells

SPE Reprint Series No. 65 Edited by Otto L. Alcntara Santos
High-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) wells present unique challenges in well planning and operations that require special attentionnarrow drilling windows, a large volume of produced kicks at surface conditions, the use of unconventional equipment, and corrosive environments.
This CD of reprinted papers covers the following topics:

Drilling and Completion-Fluid Requirements for Application in )1)5
8FMMT
t
0QFSBUJPOBM
4BGFUZ
*TTVFT
JO
)1)5
"SFBT
t
%FTJHOJOH
and Executing Drilling Operations JO
)1)5
8FMMT
t
&RVJQNFOU
Requirements When Operating in )1)5
"SFBT
t%FTJHOJOH
)1)5
Completions, Interventions, and 8FMM
5FTUT
t
1SFTTVSF
&TUJNBUJPO
When Drilling HP/HT Wells

depends on the ability of the fractureacidizing simulator to predict the spending of acid in the laboratory etching test as well as in the actual fracture. Several formation cores from the field under study were submitted for analysis, with the results to be used to optimize the acid treatment. X-ray-diffraction analysis indicated that some cores were primarily calcite, and a minor percentage were dolomite with traces of quartz, anhydrite, and pyrite. Some traces also detected illite and mixed-layer clay. The HCl solubilities ranged from 97.6 to 98.4%. Scanning-electron microscope examinations revealed a framework of interlocking and intergrown, fine crystalline structure. Porosity appeared to be good, with an abundance of large open pores throughout the sample. Acid-etched fracture-flow-capacity tests were conducted comparing HCl/ acetic acid blend and HCl/acetic acid gelled with 1% synthetic polymer. In each test, the acid-etched fracture conductivities were measured under a series of increasing closure stresses. The first readings were taken at zero closure stress. These values, along with the amount of rock crushed and removed, can be used to compare the amount of rock removed during a specified etching period. All of the zero-closure-stress conductivities are high, indicating adequate reaction and that the gelled acid removed less rock than the plain acid. These results are indicative of the retardation achieved with the gelled-acid system. As closure stress is increased, the pattern of rock removal, rather than just the absolute volume of rock removed, becomes important. The hardness of the sample also will be important because the resistance to crushing is dependent on the rock hardness. The relative difference between the zero-closure-stress reading and the conductivities under closure gives a quantitative indication of the degree of differential etching. On the basis of the data, good differential etching was achieved. The results of the etching tests illustrate the potential benefit of a closed-fracture acidizing treatment. In all the etching tests, flowing acid while closure stress was applied to the core resulted in significant increases in conductivity. Extremely high conductivities were maintained, even at 5,500-psi closure stress. After all the previous analysis and study were generated and the candidates for acid fracturing were selected, the

fracturing campaign began. The wells treated were drilled and perforated at depths of approximately 18,000 ft and 19,700 ft. They were completed with 5and 51/2-in. liners and 31/2- or 41/2-in. production tubing and with bottomhole temperatures oscillating around 320F and reservoir pressure of 12,000 psi. The acid system was selected on the basis of the results of the reactivity and etching tests, a preflush of solvent always was used, and the fracturing gel was prepared with seawater. The common treatment schedule was as follows. 13,000 gal of solvent 21,000 to 26,000 gal of fracturing gel 53,000 to 65,000 gal of acid Seawater for displacement, according to the well volume Fracturing rates were determined on the basis of a step-rate test because this area was unknown from the formationbreakdown standpoint and uncertainty remained regarding whether the surface and pumping equipment available was capable of performing these. Because this is an offshore area, all the operations were carried out by means of a stimulation boat. The fracture-extension rate was 6 to10 bbl/min, and the final rate used in the treatments was in the range of 18 to 20 bbl/min, allowing the fracture to extend into the formation. Conclusions The effective implementation of a production-optimization design and execution methodology has translated into a productivity increase. The reactivity values used as input for a fracture-acidizing simulator will have a significant effect on the acid spending, estimated etched width, and conductivity profiles. Reactivity data generated with cores from the formation of interest is required to simulate the acid-spending process accurately and allow a more accurate estimate of the resultant fracture parameters. Etching tests with formation cores are key factors in achieving the best selection of acid blend for the particular formation. This case study featured the results of core testing, well logs, and pressurebuildup data. Using data from various sources allowed increased confidence in the optimization process. Fracture acidizing in Mexicos offshore fields is a completely viable alternative for production improvement. JPT

Visit our online bookstore at

www.spe.org/store

JPT JUNE 2010

FRAC TECH SERVICES shows its true colors; environment benetting from the Power of Green
It starts with a long-range corporate vision of both responsibility and opportunity: a desire to become a leader in helping to solve todays domestic energy challenges with solutions designed for a better tomorrow. The vision becomes a reality with the development of a comprehensive Environmental Management System (EMS) that will be compliant with ISO 14001 standards: the blueprint for Frac Techs corporate green initiative. Implemented policies include: Adherence to applicable federal, state and local environmental laws, statutes, and regulations. An emphasis on planning to help prevent spills and pollution as well as to minimize the environmental impact of operations. EMS education and participation by all employees and advanced training for HSE and key staff members to OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards.
Frac Tech now offers a family of mineral-oil-based friction reducers and green surfactants.

Frac Tech continues to implement policies and practices that help preserve the environment for future generations.

An emergency spill response plan that requires documenting and reporting of spills and sets procedures for mobilizing emergency respondents. The phased development and implementation of new technologies and green chemical solutions. Frac Tech now offers a family of mineral-oil-based friction reducers and green surfactants. In addition, Frac Tech is currently evaluating a number of environmentally friendly friction reducers, guar slurries, and biocides.

Frac Techs EMS includes education and participation by all employees, and advanced training for HSE and key staff members to OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards.

Harnessing the Power of Green takes resources, the coordinated efforts of hundreds of individuals, and the commitment to pioneer new and better standards for the industry. Despite the challenges, our efforts continually reap rewards for both Frac Tech and our customers, enabling us to move forward. Moving forward has been at the core of Frac Tech from the very beginning. It can be seen in the dedication of our people, the durability of our equipment, and our commitment to implementing policies and practices that promote safety and help preserve the environment for future generations.
Frac Tech Services, LLC Corporate Headquarters 16858 IH20, Cisco, TX 76437 817.850.1008 Toll Free: 866.877.1008

www.fractech.net
Stage After Stage