You are on page 1of 13

SPE 71692 Successful Hydrajet Acid Squeeze and Multifracture Acid Treatments in Horizontal Open Holes Using Dynamic

Diversion Process and Downhole Mixing

M.J. Rees and A. Khallad, PetroCanada Oil and Gas, A. Cheng, K.A. Rispler, J.B. Surjaatmadja, and B.W. McDaniel, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technology Conference, New Orleans, September 30. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract Effective stimulation of wells with long, openhole horizontal completions is generally considered a difficult task, especially in low-permeability carbonate reservoirs that require deep penetration with live acid. Because the creation of multiple effective fractures, the opening (etching) of existing fractures, or the creation of extensive wormholes is generally desired, this task becomes even more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive if conventional acidizing processes are used. If the live acid is not channeled properly, it will be spent rapidly at unwanted locations, often greatly enlarging the fluid-entry point. Under such circumstances, creating etched fractures or wormholes of any significant lengths can be nearly impossible. A relatively new hydrajet fracturing process can be used to solve this problem. This process can be used in two ways: (1) dynamic fluid energy is used to divert flow into a specific fracture entry point to initiate a fracture at the intended location with live acid directed into this fracture plane, (2) high-pressure downhole mixing is used to create foam for high-intensity acid squeezes. This technique typically uses two independent fluid streams, one in the treating string and another in the annulus. The two fluids (if dissimilar) are mixed downhole at a tremendously high energy to form a homogenous mixture. This paper discusses and compares the results of conventional acid treatments with various styles of hydrajet fractureacidizing treatments performed in several openhole horizontal wells within two different areas of the same formation. The novel use of the downhole mixing feature is also discussed.

Introduction Mineral and organic acids have been used to stimulate oil- and gas-producing formations for more than 100 years. In carbonate formations, which have high acid solubility, using acid fluids at fracturing pressures predates most professionals currently active in stimulation technology. Over the years, several effective acidizing formulations, chemicals, additives, and placement processes have been developed. During many such developments, laboratory and field studies were combined to develop specific treatment fluids and processes for a particular formation or reservoir. In long, openhole completions (primarily horizontal or highly deviated wellbores), large exposed surfaces tend to consume acids or other chemicals prematurely or at only a few locations along the wellbore. Acids are likely spent at locations where they first contact the formation or at more highly reactive areas. In such cases, different delivery techniques must be used to place the acid at the desired destination. Ported subs and coiled tubing (CT) have sometimes been used successfully for such placements, and other more novel approaches have reportedly been used in openhole carbonate completions.1-2 Successful acid treatments in wells with long openhole wellbores depend on the following conditions: Live acid reaches the desired location along the wellbore. Live acid reaches far into the formation for adequate etching or wormholing to achieve sufficient near-wellbore or fracture conductivity. Isolating procedures are used to ensure that the acid is only placed within the target area. The hydrajet stimulation technique can be used to achieve these goals. One variation of this technique, which uses the hydrajet fracturing process,3-6 has been used in more than 400 fractures in over 40 wells (both fracture-acidizing and proppantfracturing applications). This paper describes an expansion of the previous technology7 to use high-pressure jetting energy to perform some or all of the following tasks simultaneously: perforation, fluid delivery, fracture initiation, fracture extension, tortuosity reduction, chemical mixing, and regional isolation.

References at the end of the paper.


SPE 71692

Hydrajet Fracturing Technology Previous publications provide detailed discussions about using hydrajet fracturing to create substantial fractures. The use of elevated annulus pressure to improve fracture extension is an important component of this technology and is also well known.3-5 Even when the annulus pressure is below the fracture-gradient pressure, small hydraulic fractures can be created by the elevated pressures resulting from stagnation pressure within the jetted-out tunnel or notch in the formation rock. Let us consider the jet and wellbore wall shown in Fig. 1. In this figure, high-pressure fluid inside the tool (T) accelerates through the jet (J), as shown in Equation 1:

V2 p + = C..........................................(1) 2
where V = fluid velocity P = pressure = mass density Depending on the fluids viscosity, the velocity of the fluid exiting the jet (at a 5,000-psi pressure differential) can be approximately 430 to 650 ft/sec. When this jet is at a distance of d [or d+Dd, including the notch (Fig. 1)], flaring of the jet and enlargement of the notch reduce the effective stagnation pressure. However, as we reduce the distance to a value near zero, the stagnation pressure will be similar to the original jet pressure (minus some inefficiencies). At any time during jetting, the highest pressures anywhere within the entire openhole section will be inside the notch or cavity that is currently being jetted. High-Energy Downhole Mixing Through the use of the annulus between the coiled tubing and the production tubulars, hydrajet stimulation technology can deliver two independent fluid streams downhole. The composition of the annular fluid can vary depending on the type of stimulation desired. In the case of hydrajet fracture stimulation, the annular fluid is generally used to control annular pressure and aid in the creation of the fracture. In the case of hydrajet squeeze stimulation, the fluid is used to create a high-quality downhole foam that assists in effective mechanical diversion. The fluid used for hydrajet squeeze stimulation is generally a gas, whereas hydrajet fracture stimulation has used a variety of fluids, including clean fracturing fluids, liquids that chemically control clay stability, and plain, low-cost fluids (provided that they do not exhibit excessive fluid loss in the openhole annulus). Regardless of type, all annular fluids are mixed with the fracturing fluid, and part of this mixture is flowed into the fracture. The remainder of the fluid will be lost to the formation. Annular fluids can be engineered to perform various functions, such as modifying pH on location or creating a rapid reaction in the fracturing fluid. As mentioned earlier, one practical application of gaseous annular fluids is the creation of

foams if sufficient mixing energy is available. Generally, foams are generated when one flow stream containing gas is mixed with another flow stream containing liquid. Foaming agents are usually mixed with liquid to promote effective foaming, and foam generators are used to improve the texture quality of the foam (Fig. 2). Foam generators improve foam texture by accelerating one of the fluids to a high velocity and injecting the fluid into a stream of the other fluid. In surface operations, acceleration is most easily accomplished with the gaseous portion. The gas accelerator can be a nozzle(s) or other pressure-reducing device, such as a porous material or channel. For pressure differentials in the range of 200 to 1,000 psi, we can achieve gas velocities of approximately 350 ft/sec, thus creating the high-energy shear necessary for foam development. With hydrajet fracturing, the same situation exists downhole: a high-energy jet enters the jetted cavity (Fig. 1), which contains compressed gas. The jet pressure differential is generally 5,000 psi, creating a jet velocity of approximately 650 ft/sec. The combination of the highvelocity differential and the high energy level causes effective foam development. Stimulation with CO2 and N2 Foams For more than 20 years, foamed fluids have been used during hydraulic fracturing, fracture acidizing, and matrix acidizing treatments for reducing fluid loss, carrying proppants into the formation, and reducing liquid loads on the formation (reducing formation damage). During acidizing, foamed fluids also help retard the reaction rate of the acid with the formation, allowing live acid to penetrate further into the formation matrix or fracture. Generally, slowing the reaction rate may also promote wormholing, a condition that can improve production. Finally, foamed fluids can be useful for cleaning the wellbore after the stimulation treatment. The creation of fractures and the transportation of proppant into the fracture are enhanced by the viscosity of the foamed fluid. Foam viscosity depends on several variables, including foam quality, the viscosity of the external phase, and the texture (or bubble-size distribution) of the foamed fluid. Foams exposed to shear for a sufficient time will equilibrate to a bubble-size distribution that is characteristic of shear rate. The texture of a foamed fluid is also influenced by surfactant volume and type (composition). Surfactant concentrations must be adequate for stabilizing the foam under dynamic conditions. Studies have shown that the texture of a foamed fluid also influences its diversion capabilities. Higher shear rates, specific surfactant concentrations, and high pressures create finer-textured aqueous foams, which provide better diversion. The nature of the liquid phase also influences the texture of foamed fluids. The larger bubble sizes exhibited by hydrocarbon and methanol foams result in greater sensitivity to degradation at high shear rates. 10-11

SPE 71692


Acid Treatment Tools and Processes Various methods for placing acid in an openhole (horizontal) wellbore are described in the following paragraphs. Pumping through Casing. Pumping acid through the casing is possibly the easiest way to place acid downhole at high injection rates. However, this practice is seldom effective for wells with long openhole sections. In many wells, the acid will generally be spent at the point of entry into the open hole, often close to the heel section, leaving the remainder of the wellbore relatively untreated. This can create a large void that may later cause well collapse, or make it difficult to get tools downhole past this section at a later time. Spot Placement. Spot placement of acid through coiled tubing can sometimes be effective for removing near-wellbore damage. The acid can often be placed almost evenly along the openhole section. Tools are not generally required, but gravity segregation problems and varying acid reactivity of the formation often limit the effectiveness of this technique. Washing. Although acid-washing procedures are similar to spot-placement procedures, acid washing involves using jet nozzles to wash the wellbore surface. This process is usually more effective at removing the damage caused by procedures such as drilling. Figs. 3 and 4 show sample jet-nozzle assemblies; however, jet positions and sizes may differ with the tool chosen for a particular job. When an acid wash is performed, differential pressures across the jets are generally low and do not reach levels high enough to initiate fracturing or effective shear for foam generation. Summers8 and Momber9 have shown that effective wash pressures are primarily affected by the tensile strength of the filter cake or the grain of the cementitious material. Consequently, effective wash pressures are generally less than 2,500 psi. Often, rotating heads running at high speeds are used to more effectively clean the wellbore surface. Squeezing. To achieve a squeeze condition, a method similar to washing is used, but the annular area between the formation and the treating string is pressurized or shut in, forcing some of the acid to penetrate the matrix. The stability of foam generated at surface during these squeezes is questionable at the high temperatures (250F) exhibited by some of the case wells. Consequently, the effectiveness of the diverting properties of the downhole foams is questionable. Hydrajet Squeezing. Similar to conventional squeezing (described in the previous section), hydrajet squeezing employs pressurization of the annulus while the primary treating fluid (acid) is pumped down the CT. However, hydrajet squeezing takes this process one step further; CO2 or a CO2/N2 mixture is pumped down the annulus at a high rate, allowing downhole foam generation. A high-pressure drop (3,000 psi) nozzle is used to create the shear necessary for creating this foam.

In addition to allowing acid to be pumped at extremely high rates, this technique allows operators to easily change the quality of the downhole foam by changing the rates at which the gas and acid are pumped. This technique simplifies the placement of foam plugs in the open hole and allows high volumes of acid to be pumped over short periods. Fracture Acidizing. Fracture acidizing involves creating hydraulically induced fractures for significant penetration into the formation, where acid can react with the fracture face to create an uneven or irregular fracture surface, resulting in a conductive path between the fracture faces (Fig. 5). In higher-temperature reservoirs, additives (including gases) are often used to retard the acids reaction, allowing etching to occur farther from the wellbore. With the hydrajet fracturing approach, a coplanar jetting tool (Fig. 3) is preferred. The tool shown in Fig. 3 was designed for creating fractures perpendicular to the wellbore; however, other angles are possible, including fractures that are parallel to the wellbore axis. The annulus is pressurized to a level close to the fracturing pressure, and the jetting tool is generally pressured at a 4,000- to 5,000-psi differential pressure. These combined pressures allow large hydraulic fractures to develop while the acid etches the fracture surface. A new process, used here for the first time, is a variation of the hydrajet fracturing technique. This process involves squeezing acid using a jetting tool (shown in Fig. 4) or a slowly rotating hydrablast tool (Fig. 6). During this process, the annulus is subjected to a pressure higher than the formation pore pressure (pressure gradient of approximately 0.5 psi/ft) while acid is jetted at a relatively high pressure. Because this annular pressure is well below the fracture gradient, hydraulic fractures may or may not be created unless the distance between the jets and the wellbore wall approaches zero. Treatment Success Successful well treatments depend on identifying the causes of the production deficiency for the specific well to be treated. Descriptions of various production deficiencies and treatment options follow: Debris. If the production problem is caused by debris plugging along the wellbore, the well can be cleaned with an effective hydrablasting and cleaning service. This service addresses the problems associated with cleaning sand and debris from large-diameter, deviated, or horizontal wellbores. Using CT with standard industry practices can yield poor results. This service combines design software, specialized fluid systems, and a wash tool designed for the different mechanics associated with deviated and horizontal wells. Filter Cake and/or Near-Wellbore Damage. If nearwellbore damage is causing the production deficiency, an acid wash might be the best solution.


SPE 71692

Deep Damage Close to the Wellbore. If deep damage close to the wellbore is decreasing production, an operator can place several small fractures to bypass the damage. This option may also be applicable for near-wellbore damage because small fractures increase the effective wellbore diameter. Wellbore Location. If the wellbore is located in a poorly producing zone in the reservoir some distance from a better interval in the reservoir, or if a vertical permeability barrier exists, the operator may need to create larger fractures that can communicate the wellbore with more productive zones. Low Formation Permeability. If the average permeability of the formation is too low to produce at commercial levels, placing numerous hydraulic fractures (proppant fractures or fracture acidized) is the only viable method for effective production stimulation.

After the wash was performed in Well A, the operator decided that a squeeze was not necessary. However, Well A may have achieved a significantly higher production rate if it had been subjected to a hydrajet squeeze stimulation. Table 1 presents a summary of the case histories. This table shows the treatments and general stimulation results. Overview of Well Treatments. Conventional acid washes were performed in the first and second wells (Wells A and B), but the second well (Well B) was also squeezed with acid. Well C was hydrajet fracture-acidized through coiled tubing in an attempt to place several small fractures along the open hole. The fourth well was also hydrajet fracture-acidized through CT, but downhole mixing procedures used during this treatment provided in-situ generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) foam. Fewer yet larger fractures were placed in this well. A slowly rotating jetting tool was used to treat the fifth well, while a simple, high-pressure drop nozzle was used to simultaneously mix acid with CO2 and N2 downhole in the sixth and seventh. Achieving sufficient bottomhole and tubing pressures may have allowed the creation of many small, near-wellbore fractures in these wells. (Detailed job information for each of these seven wells is provided later in this section). Well A. Well A, an openhole horizontal well, is the best potential producer well within the case-study group. It is approximately 12,500 ft deep and includes a horizontal openhole section extending approximately 2,200 ft. Production from Well A before the stimulation treatment was 10.6 Mmscfd at a pressure of 2,175 psi. The reservoir pressure is approximately 4,500 psig, and porosity is approximately 5%. Before the hydrajet stimulation technique was invented, operators performed simple acid washes to improve production. The treatment consisted of 13,000 gal of 15% HCl. After three such treatment passes, production increased to 25 Mmcfd at a pressure of 2,500 psi (Fig. 7). This increase, when normalized with Fetkovichs backpressure correction equation12 equates to an increase of 253%. Well B. Well B is also a horizontal well with a depth similar to that of Well A and a horizontal openhole section extending approximately 2,200 ft. Initial production from this well was 2.5 Mmscfd at a pressure of 360 psi with a reservoir pressure of approximately 4,650 psi and a porosity of 5%. The operator performed a conventional acid wash/squeeze with two passes of an acid wash consisting of 8,300 gal of 15% HCl. Production increased to 3.3 Mmscfd (a 32% increase). A second treatment was performed with an additional 13,500 gal of 15% HCl foamed with nitrogen and squeezed into the matrix in two passes. This treatment increased production an additional 156% to 8.47 Mmscfd. However, over a 30-day period, the production decreased to 3.7 Mmscfd, indicating that the treatments did not reach the natural fracture network and that larger fractures might be necessary.

Of course, successful treatments must improve production at the lowest possible cost. Therefore, engineers must consider economics (cost/benefit ratio) when choosing a productionenhancement solution. Case Histories Formation Properties. The formation properties of the wells stimulated in these case histories differ. The area of the formation containing Wells C and D has higher porosity and less fracturing than the rest of the wells. In these wells, fracturing exists in a number of selectable areas of the wellbore, and, consequently, the hydrajet fracturing technique was used to concentrate on these specific areas. Wells A, B, E, F, and G are located in an area of the formation that has lower porosity, lower effective permeability, and fracturing throughout the wellbore. This necessitated a stimulation procedure that would not concentrate on specific areas of the wellbore but would still use the effective downhole mixing and high-pressure jetting associated with the hydrajet stimulation system. General Procedures. The general procedure for stimulating newly completed wells in this area involves using N2, which lightens the hydrostatic column, to unload the drilling fluids from the wellbore. The well is then allowed to flow until it achieves a semi-stabilized, prestimulation rate and pressure. Next, several acid washes are performed with the hydrajet tool while the well is flowing to flare. This process removes excess filter cake or superficial drilling damage in the wellbore. The well is flowed again, allowing operators to determine the effectiveness of the wash. Finally, a hydrajet squeeze stimulation is performed over the entire openhole section. Acid containing inhibitors and foaming agents is pumped though the CT at high rates, and CO2 is pumped down the annulus. The well is then unloaded and allowed to flow until cleanup and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the stimulation treatment are completed.

SPE 71692


Well C. Well C is a horizontal open hole that is approximately 11,069 ft deep. The 6.25-in. open hole extends approximately 2,560 ft to a measured depth (MD) of 14,468 ft. The reservoir pressure is approximately 3,045 psi. Initial production from Well C was approximately 1.5 Mmscfd. During early discussions, engineers determined that the well had near-wellbore damage and that no major fractures were necessary. A hydrajet fracturing process was performed through 1.75-in. CT. The tip of the CT was fitted with a 2-in. OD jetting tool with three 0.142-in. jets (Fig. 3). The treatment fluid consisted of 28% gelled HCl containing corrosion inhibitors, iron-control chemicals, and chemicals for controlling sulfide cracking. Water containing surfactants and friction reducers was used for the annular fluid. The treatment was designed to place 35 fractures at an average spacing of 15 ft in a concentrated area at a depth of 13,910 to 14,468 ft. The total volume of acid used was 49,000 gal. Fig. 8 shows a partial treatment chart. After this treatment, the well responded positively, producing approximately 9 Mmscfd. However, soon afterwards, production declined rapidly until reaching the wells original flow rate. Eventually, the well was shut down. This response indicates that the damage bypass was successful but that the treatment procedure was not selected correctly. Larger fractures may have been necessary for reaching farther into the formation. Well D. Well D, also an openhole horizontal well, was treated with the hydrajet fracturing process. The well is 10,850 to 13,350 ft deep, and 3.5-in. production casing is installed to this depth. A 6.25-in. open hole extends approximately 4,600 ft to measured depth of 15,450 ft. The reservoir pressure is approximately 3,335 psi. Initial production from Well D was approximately 0.83 Mmscfd. Engineers determined that a natural fracture network located far away from the wellbore need to be reached, necessitating major fractures. Hydrajet fracturing was performed through 1.75-in. CT fitted with a 2-in. OD jetting tool with three 0.142in. jets (Fig. 3). As with the previous job, the tubing fluid consisted of gelled 28% HCl acid with corrosion inhibitors, iron-control chemicals, and chemicals for controlling sulfide cracking. Surfactants and friction reducers were also added. Unlike the previous hydrajet process treatments, the mixing capability of the hydrajet fracturing process was used to generate CO2 foam. Downhole foam generation enhanced diversion and limited fluid loss, allowing larger fractures to be generated. Only three fractures were placed (at depths of 12,598, 12,112, and 11,719 ft). Approximately 15,300 gal of acid was used during this treatment: 5,400 gal were spent at the initial fracture, 6,869 gal were spent at the second fracture, and 3,038 gal were spent at the third fracture. The treatment chart is shown in Fig. 9.

As shown in Fig. 9, the behaviors of the annular pressure and the tubing pressure were almost opposite. In each treatment stage, the tubing pressure decreased almost every time the annulus pressure increased, indicating active fracture extension. The tubing pressure increased rapidly as the annulus pressure decreased. Fig. 9 demonstrates that the hydrajet fracturing technique can be used effectively to force a tip screenout from the surface (annulus pressure). Fig. 10 is a dramatization of this unusual phenomenon. In this figure, the effects of parameters, such as fluid friction, pump fluctuation, and density fluctuation, have been ignored. When the annulus pressure is increased but the tubing flow rate remains constant, the tubing pressure increases accordingly. Immediately after the fracture initiates, the downhole annulus pressure drops, and increases in the annulus pressure (which are typically low) only combat friction losses. When this action is reversed, annular pressure (flow) is reversed, the fracture stops growing, and tubing pressure increases. Increasing annular flow will restart fracture extension. Eberhard et al. also describes an example of this phenomenon during a job in which forced closure was used.4 After this treatment, production increased to 5.9 Mmscfd, which is a 610% net improvement. The well eventually exhibited a slow decline, indicating that the far-field natural fracture network was reached and that the CO2 foam achieved good diversion and wormholing. A cumulative production chart for this well also demonstrates the effectiveness of this treatment (Fig. 11). Well E. Well E is a horizontal well that is 12,470 ft deep with a 3,084-ft horizontal open hole. The reservoir pressure is approximately 4,900 psi, and the reservoir temperature is between 250 and 266F. The hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content of the reservoir is approximately 1.8%. Production from Well E before stimulation was 10.9 Mmscfd at 1,740 psi. Engineers decided that an acid treatment would help improve production. Initially, a high-pressure acid wash was performed with conventional hydrablast techniques. The treatment consisted of 6,600 gal of 20% HCl, 10% formic acid, and inhibitors. Posttreatment production was 14.8 Mmscfd at 1,725 psi. Late in 1999, the slowly rotating hydroblast tool was introduced to the oil industry (Fig. 6) This tool rotates 10 to 14 rev/ min, depending on flow rate. The operator used this tool to improve production from Well E by squeezing acid deeply into the formation. A jetting sub similar to the one shown in Fig. 4 was used for the job. This sub used 19 jets, 18 of which were phased 120 apart. Each jet had a 0.042-in. ID. The acidizing fluid, which was identical to the fluid used for the acid-wash treatment, was pumped at a rate of 0.9 to 1.5 bbl/min. The total acid volume used for this treatment was approximately 16,000 gal. Three passes were performed with the hydroblast tool. The annulus was pressurized with liquid CO2, achieving a bottomhole pressure of 6,000 psi. This pressure allowed the fluid to be squeezed into the formation. In addition, the tool was pressurized, achieving a jet


SPE 71692

pressure of approximately 4,000 psig, which translates to 10,000psi pressure energy. Since the fracturing pressure of the formation was estimated at 9,300 psi, very small fractures may have occurred in front of the jets, thus improving the squeeze as the effective surface increased. As discussed earlier, the presence of CO2 also causes foam to form because of the high-energy jets contacting the CO2. Fig. 12 is a treatment chart for Well E. Posttreatment production was 33.2 Mmscfd, at a pressure of 2,150 psi, a normalized12 240% improvement over the prestimulation production rate. Although production from Well E is slowly declining, good production levels have been maintained for a long time (unlike Well B, which lost its production rapidly after the squeeze treatment). The highly effective wash and extensive CO2 squeeze likely increased the overall productivity of Well E through extended-reach and wormholing effects. Well F. Well F is a horizontal well that is 12,463 ft deep with a 2,520-ft horizontal open hole extending to a depth of 15,183 ft. The reservoir pressure is approximately 3,219 psi, and the temperature is 250F. The reservoir has a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content of approximately 1.6%. The well was producing for 4 years before the stimulation treatment. Production rates averaged 1.59 Mmscfd at a pressure of 650 psi for the 2-month period prior to the stimulation treatment. The well was treated with the same process used in Well E, but no acid-wash stage was planned since the well was already producing before the treatment. The operator suspected the presence of residual oil-based drilling fluids in the wellbore and consequently used a dispersant wash and squeeze before the hydrajet stimulation. The stimulation treatment consisted of 26,600 gal of 20% HCl, 10% formic acid, and inhibitors. Some equipment problems occurred during the job, but the treatment was completed successfully. Two treatment passes were performed with the hydrajet tool. As with Well E, the annulus was pressurized with liquid CO2. Fig. 13 is a job treatment chart for Well F. Posttreatment production was 2.65 Mscfd at 650 psi, which is a 66% improvement. Well G. Well G is a 12,736-ft deep horizontal well with a 1,679ft horizontal open hole extending to a depth of 14,484 ft. The reservoir has a pressure of approximately 4,350 psi, a temperature of approximately 250F, and an H2S content of 1.8%. Production from this well before stimulation was 7 Mmscfd at a pressure of 600 psi. The treatment process used in Well G was similar to the process used in Well E, but a binary foam was used during the jetting stage. This process involved pumping a mixture of CO2 and N2 down the annulus between the CT and the production tubulars. The wash stage, which was performed in two passes, consisted of 6,600 gal of 20% HCl, 10% formic acid, and inhibitors. After the wash, production increased to 7.4 Mmscfd at 1,560 psi. Consequently, a hydrajet squeeze treatment similar to the second treatment performed in Well E was performed in

this well. The high-pressure-drop jetting tool was used to place 14,500 gal of an acid formulation. A mixture of CO2 and N2 was placed in the annulus to form a binary foam downhole. Two passes were performed. The treatment is shown in Fig. 14. Posttreatment production was 22.77 MMscfd at a pressure of 1,870 psi, a normalized 426% improvement. Conclusions Several acid-treatment options are available for openhole laterals in acid-soluble formations. This paper focused on conventional acid washing, conventional acid washing with a squeeze, hydrajet fracturing with numerous small fractures, hydrajet fracture acidizing with large fractures, and hydrajet stimulations with squeezing. Experience has shown that each of these processes can succeed when used for the appropriate well situation. A careful study of production problems to determine the best and most economical solution for a particular well should guide the choice of treatment method. A wash alone, which is the simplest solution to apply, produced positive results in Well A, possibly because of the high quality of the reservoir in which this well is located. Generally, a horizontal well in this formation requires more than a simple wash to increase and sustain production. This is shown with the improvements exhibited by Well B. The formation fracturing in Wells C and D allowed successful use of the hydrajet fracturing technique. The hydrajet squeeze technique used in Wells E, F, and G effectively increased the production rates to unexpectedly high levels. Overall, the hydrajet stimulation technique has worked effectively when applied to appropriate candidate wells. References 1. Ellis, PD., Kniffin, G.M., and Harkrider, J.D.: Application of Hydraulic Fractures in Openhole Horizontal Wells, paper SPE/CIM 65464 presented at the 2000 SPE/PS-CIM International Conference On Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 6-8. McDaniel, B.W., Willett, R.M., and Underwood, P.J.: Limited-Entry Frac Application on Long Intervals of Highly Deviated or Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 56780 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in Houston, TX, October 3-6. Surjaatmadja, J.B., Grundmann, S.R., McDaniel, B.W., Deeg, W.F.J., Brumley, J.L., and Swor, L.C.: Hydrajet Fracturing: An Effective Method for Placing Many Fractures in Openhole Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 48856 presented at the 1998 SPE International Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, November 2-6. Love, T.G., McCarty, R.A., Surjaatmadja, J.B., Chambers, R.W., and Grundmann, S.R.: Selectively Placing Many Fractures in Openhole Horizontal Wells Improves Production, paper SPE 50422 presented at the 1998 SPE/CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 1-4.




SPE 71692


Eberhard, M.J., Surjaatmadja, J.B., Peterson, E.M., Lockman, R.R., and Grundmann, S.R.: Precise Fracture Initiation Using Dynamic Fluid Movement Allows Effective Fracture Development in Deviated Wellbores, paper SPE 62889 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1-4. 6. U.S. Patent 5765642: Subterranean Formation Fracturing Methods, June 1, 1998. 7. Patent Pending, Process for generating Fracturing foam downhole using the SurgiFrac and Other Jetting Processes. 8. Summers, D.A.: Water Jet Cutting Related to Jet and Rock Properties, Proc. 14th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Pennsylvania State University, AIME, 1987, 569-588. 9. Momber, A.W., and R. Kovacevic: A Fracture Model for Hydrodemolition, Proc. 8th American Water Jet Conference, August 26-29, 1995, Vol. I, 61-77. 10. Harris, P.C.: Application of Foam Fluids to Minimize Damage During Fracturing, paper SPE 22394 presented at the 1992 SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 24-27. 11. Harris, P.C.: Effects of Texture on Rheology of Foam Fracturing Fluids, SPE Production Engineering (August 1989) 249-257.


12. Fetkovich, M.J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves, SPE 4629 presented at the 1973 Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 30-October 3. Acknowledgments The authors thank the management of PetroCanada Oil and Gas and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. for allowing them to present this paper. SI Metric Conversion Factors ft X 3.048 006 E-01 = m in. X 2.540 005 E+01 = mm gal X 3.785 412 E-03 = m3 lbm X 4.535 924 E-01 = kg psi X 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa bbl/min X 9.539 238 E+00 = m3/s MMscfd X 2.863 640 E+01 = Mscmd

Table 1Production Results Well Formation/ Formation Fracturing Treatment Coil Fluid Area Quality A X/1 Excellent High Conventional acid wash, 15% HCl potential three passes B C D X/1 X/2 X/2 Good potential Depleted High Moderate Conventional acid wash, two 15% HCl passes + squeeze Hydrajet fracture acidizing, small fractures HydraJet fracture acidizing,large fractures, CO2 in annulus, hydrajet wash + hydrajet squeeze stimulation with rotary tool Hydrajet wash + hydrajet squeeze stimulation with rotary tool 28% HCl 28% HCl

Annular Initial Production Fluid Improvement None 153% None Water CO2 260%, sharp decline 500% for short time 610%

Moderately Moderate depleted


High potential


20% HCl + 10% Formic acid




Moderately High depleted Good potential High

High-pressure hydrajet acid 20% HCl + squeeze with HP jet nozzle 10% Formic acid 20% HCl + Hydrajet wash + hydrajet squeeze stimulation with HP 10% Formic jet nozzle acid






See Figure 7 for all production data.


SPE 71692

D d


Ambient pressure equals hydrostatic or frac extension pressure

Fig. 1Hydrajet fracturing process.


Stagnation pressure causes fracture.


Gas Gas accelerator

Fig. 2Foaming process in a foam generator.


SPE 71692


Fig. 3Jet-nozzle assembly with three or four jets.

Fig. 4 Jet-nozzle assembly (several small nozzles).




Fig. 5Uneven etching of rock surfaces.


Gear reducer


Jet head

Fig. 6Slowly rotating hydrablast tool.



SPE 71692

35 30
Gas Production (Mmscfd)

Well E

25 20 15 10 Well D 5 Well C 0 0 50 100 Well F 150 Well B Well G Well A


250 Days






Fig. 7Posttreatment gas production.

10,000 Tubing pressure 9,000 8,000 7,000 Annulus pressure

10 9 8
Flow (bbl/2,000 min)

7 6
Tubing flow rate

Pressure (psi)

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Annular flow rate

5 4 3 2 1

Fig. 8Hydrajet fracturing treatment chart, Well C.

11:14:26 11:18:02 11:21:38 11:25:14 11:28:50 11:32:26 11:36:02 11:39:38 11:43:14 11:46:50 11:50:26 11:54:02 11:57:38 12:01:14 12:04:50 12:08:26 12:12:02 12:15:38 12:19:14 12:22:50 12:26:26 12:30:02 12:33:38 12:37:14 12:40:50 12:44:26 12:48:02
Time of Day

SPE 71692



12,000 Tubing pressure (psi) 10,000

Gas pressure (psi) Bottomhole tubing pressure (psi)

Actual CO2 rate (bbl/1,000 min)



6,000 Slurry rate (bbl/1,000 min) 4,000


0 16:48:00

0 18:00:00 19:12:00 Time 20:24:00 21:36:00

Fig. 9Hydrajet fracturing treatment chart, Well D.

3,500 3,300 3,100

Pressure (psi)

Tubing pressure (psi)

2,900 2,700 2,500 2,300 2,100 1,900 0 5 10 15 Time 20 25 30 35

Annulus pressure (psi)

Fig. 10Forcing tip screenout from the surface (annular pressure) using hydrajet fracturing.

Flow (bbl/1,000 min)


Pressure (psi)



SPE 71692

1,400 1,200
Production (1,000m3)

1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Mar-97 Hydrajet fracturing treatment




May-99 Dec-99 Month/Year




Fig. 11Cumulative production chart, Well D.

8,000 7,000 6,000 Calculated BHP(psi) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 8:09:36 Actual CO2 rate (bbl/2,000 min)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Slurry rate (bbl/2,000 min) CT pressure(psi) CT annulus pressure(psi)



11:45:36 12:57:36 Time of Day




Fig. 12Hydrajet squeeze treatment chart, Well E.

Flow(bbl/2,000 min)


SPE 71692



8,000 Tubing Pressure (psi) 7,000 6,000 Annulus Pressure (psi)

8 7 6 5 4 Actual CO2 rate (bbl/1,000 min) 3 2 1 0 12:43:12 13:55:12 Time of Day 15:07:12 16:19:12

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 11:31:12

Slurry rate (bbl/1,000 min)

Fig. 13Hydrajet squeeze treatment chart, Well F.

7,000 CT pressure (psi) 6,000 CT annulus pressure (psi) Acid rate (bbl/1,000 min) 4,000 Standard N2 rate (scfm)

7 6

Pressure (psi)

5 CO2 rate (bbl/1,000 min) 4




1 0 7:12:00

0 0:00:00



3:36:00 Time



Fig. 14Hydrajet squeeze treatment chart, Well G.

Flow (bpm/1000), N2 (scfm)

Flow (bbl/1,000 min)

Pressure (psi)