Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
=
3
12
1
(1)
where w is the fracture width, h is the thickness of fracture face (1.61 in.), and L is the fracture length across which pressure
drop is measured (5.25 in.). The calculated fracture width before the first and the re-acid injection are shown in Fig. 5. The
fracture width before first acidizing process are very similar for all tests with width of nearly 0.13 in. which is close to the
fixed width of 0.12 in., however the fracture width before the re-acidizing process is much smaller at about 0.015 in. except for
the test with no leak-off which has much higher fracture width of 0.03 in.. The much smaller fracture widths during the re-
acidizing process explain the higher pressure drop across the fracture as compared to the first acidizing. The higher etched
width of no leak-off experiment before the re-acidizing process is consistent with the conductivity measurements after the first
acidizing which shows higher final conductivity for the no leak-off experiment.
Base Case
No Leak-off
2.5 wt% Polymer
3,500 psi Stress
First Acidizing
Re-Acidizing
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
W
i
d
t
h
b
e
f
o
r
e
A
c
i
d
I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
i
n
.
Initial width = 0.12 in.
Fig. 5 Fracture width before acid injection of the first and the re-acid for all experiments.
Etching Pattern. Scanning of etched fracture faces with the profilometer provides 3D profile images of the etching pattern. A
sample of etched profiles obtained from the profilometer are shown for both the first acidizing and the re-acidizing process in
Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. After the first acidizing, the etched profiles show little amount of etching with almost the same
amount of etching across the fracture face (uniform etching). There seems to be more etching on the fracture face A with a
rather deep valley at the inlet of the fracture with also rougher etching compared to face B. However, after the re-acidizing
process, much more etching has occurred with rough etching pattern. The etched profile shows many locations with very deep
etching, representatives of wormholes visible on the fracture face. It is interesting to note that more etching is shown now on
fracture face B which is opposite to the results from the first acidizing. All the experiments indicate the re-acidizing process
results in much more etching with a rougher etched profile and greater wormhole density in the leak-off direction as compared
to the first acidizing.
8 SPE 124874
Depth, in.
Depth, in. Depth, in. Depth, in.
Depth, in.
Depth, in. Depth, in.
Fig. 6 3-D etched profiles after first acidizing process for base case.
Fig. 7 3-D etched profiles after re-acidizing process for base case.
The effect of leak-off and polymer concentration on etching pattern for the first acidizing and the re-acidizing are shown in
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The effect of allowing leak-off was to develop a rougher etched profile with more randomly
distributed deep wormholes in the leak-off direction. The etching profile with no leak-off tended to result in more etching at
the inlet of the fracture face during the first acidizing while a rather very uniform etching with the re-acidizing process.
Etching pattern was not significantly effected with the changing polymer concentration for both the first acidizing and re-
acidizing. The surface etched profiles of different polymer concentrations samples were very similar after both the first and the
second acidizing process.
Fig. 8 3-D etched profiles after first acidizing process for base case, no leak-off, and 2.5 wt% polymer samples, respectively.
Face A Face B
Face A Face B
Base Case No Leak-off 2.5 wt% Polymer
SPE 124874 9
Depth, in. Depth, in. Depth, in.
Fig. 9 3-D etched profiles after re-acidizing process for base case, no leak-off, and 2.5 wt% polymer samples, respectively.
Etched Width. Based on the etching pattern analysis, the etched fracture surface volume was calculated from the difference in
surface volume between the before and after acidizing samples. From the etched surface volume, the etched surface width was
calculated using the cross sectional area of the fracture. While the actual etched surface width values after both the first
acidizing and the re-acidizing process are shown in Fig. 10, Fig. 11 shows the ratio of etched surface widths after the re-
acidizing process to the first acidizing process. Clearly there is much more etched surface width after the re-acidizing as
compared to the first acidizing with ratios ranging from two to seven. This is consistent with the etched profiles shown in Figs.
6 and 7. Also the results are consistent with etched patterns showing more etching for face A after the first acidizing while face
B was etched more during the re-acidizing process, resulting in larger ratios of etched surface width between re-acidized and
first acidized process for face B. The experiment with higher load applied after the first acidizing shows similar extent of
etching between the two faces as the fracture face was completely crushed after the first acidizing and the etching during the
re-acidizing process were very similar on the two faces. Based on initial fracture width of 0.12 in. kept open during the first
acidizing, the average fracture width at the end of first acidizing was around 0.15 in. compared to average fracture width of
around 0.12 in. after the re-acidizing process. The close match between final etched surface widths after both acidizing
processes explains the almost same pressure drops across the fracture at the end of each process as was observed in Fig. 3.
There are significant effects of leak-off and polymer concentration on etched surface widths as shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
There is significantly greater enhancement in etched surface width during the re-acidizing process with leak-off allowed as the
leak-off enables more acid to be transported to the fracture face and dissolve fracture face. There was less improvement in
etched surface width during re-acidizing process with increasing polymer concentration as the higher polymer concentration
reduces acid transport to fracture face and reduces etching. The effect of higher closure stress applied after the first acidizing
was to reduce the amount of etching during the re-acidizing process as the fracture was almost completely closed and there
were insufficient fracture flow areas open for acid dissolution. There was no significant change in etched width during the first
acidizing with changing leak-off condition or polymer concentration.
Base Case
No leak-off
2.5 wt%
Polymer
3,500 psi
Stress
First Acidizing
Re-Acidizing 0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
E
t
c
h
e
d
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
W
i
d
t
h
,
i
n
.
Fig. 10 Etched fracture width from surface profile after the first acidizing and re-acidizing process for all experiments.
Base Case No Leak-off 2.5 wt% Polymer
10 SPE 124874
Base Case
No leak-off
2.5 wt%
Polymer
3,500 psi
Stress
Face A
Face B 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
R
e
-
A
c
i
d
i
z
e
d
E
t
c
h
e
d
W
i
d
t
h
t
o
F
i
r
s
t
A
c
i
d
i
z
e
d
E
t
c
h
e
d
W
i
d
t
h
Fig. 11 Ratio of etched fracture widths after the re-acidizing process to the first acidizing process for all experiments.
Acid Viscosity. Viscosity measurements were conducted on prepared acid solutions in addition to acid concentration and
density measurement. Acid concentration and density for most of the experiments for the first acidizing and re-acidizing
process are shown in Table 2 while viscosity of gelled acid with 1.5 wt% and 2.5 wt% polymer are shown in Fig. 12. All
measured properties of live gelled acid are similar to each other among different experiments which indicate that the gelled
acid was prepared consistently. All gelled acids behaved as non-Newtonian shear-thinning fluids over the range of shear rates
tested. The apparent viscosity can be described using the power-law model, and the constants n and K are given for the two
different polymer concentrations in Table 3.
TABLE 2PROPERTIES OF INJECTED ACIDS.
Base Case No Leak-off 2.5 wt% Polymer
First Acid Re-Acid First Acid Re-Acid First Acid Re-Acid
Density,
a
g/cm
3
1.066 1.069 1.065 1.067 1.069 1.068
HCl Concentration, wt% 14.6 14.5 14.4 14.7 14.8 14.4
a. measured at 25C.
y = 361.19x
-0.4063
R
2
= 0.9976
y = 101.17x
-0.3433
R
2
= 0.9739
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000
Shear Rate, s
-1
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
,
m
P
a
.
s
1.5 wt% Polymer
2.5 wt% Polymer
Fig. 12 Viscosity of original acids with 1.5 and 2.5 wt% polymer concentrations.
SPE 124874 11
TABLE 3POWER-LAW CONSTANTS AS A FUNCTION OF POLYMER CONCENTRATION.
Polymer Concentration, wt% n K, g/(cm s
2-n
)
1.5 0.66 101.2
2.5 0.59 361.2
Effluent Analysis. The calcium concentration after the first acidizing and the re-acidizing process for one experiment is
shown for the both the fracture flow and leak-off direction in Fig. 13 while HCl concentration in both directions is shown in
Fig. 14. Majority of experiments showed similar trends of concentration change. Both fracture and leak-off effluent
concentrations of calcium and HCl indicated more etching during the re-acid etching as the calcium concentration was higher
while HCl concentration was lower during re-acidizing. However the concentrations in the fracture flow direction of first acid
and the re-acid were much more similar than concentrations in the leak-off directions. The similarity of concentrations in the
fracture flow direction suggests that most of the increased etching during the re-acidizing process is due to the leak-off
process. The increased dissolution of calcium and spending of HCl acid is as a result of smaller fracture width during the re-
acidizing process which allows higher acid diffusion rate to the fracture face.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, min
C
a
l
c
i
u
m
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
m
g
/
l
.
First Acidizing - Fracture Flow
First Acidizing - Leak-off Flow
Re-Acidizing - Fracture Flow
Re-Acidizing - Leak-off Flow
Fig. 13 Calcium concentration in the fracture and leak-off flow during the first and re-acidizing process for one experiment.
12 SPE 124874
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, min
H
C
l
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
t
%
.
.
First Acidizing - Fracture Flow
First Acidizing - Leak-off Flow
Re-Acidizing - Fracture Flow
Re-Acidizing - Leak-off Flow
Fig. 14 HCl concentration in the fracture and leak-off flow during the first and re-acidizing process for one experiment.
Rock Strength. The measured rock embedment strengths before and after each acidizing process are shown in Fig. 15. All the
rock strengths after the first acidizing process except for face B of no leak-off experiment, are much lower that the initial rock
strengths with an average decline of about 25% in rock strength. The reduction in rock strength following the first acidizing
process are consistent with results from other studies on acid fracturing (Nasr-El-Din et al. 2008; Abass et al. 2006). However,
the majority of experiments indicate stronger fracture faces after the re-acidizing process with an average increase in rock
embedment strength of also 25% compared to the first acidizing values. Face B of the no leak-off experiment and the
experiment with higher load show an opposite trend with decreasing rock embedment strength following the re-acidizing
process. In general, rock strength measurements show that while the first acidizing weakens the fracture face, the following the
closure stress applied on the fracture face after the first acidizing, the weaker sections of fracture face are crushed, leaving the
stronger points, which are less weakened during the re-acidizing process, resulting in a stronger fracture face after the re-
acidizing process as compared to the first acidizing. While the re-acidizing process might have reduced the rock strength to the
same extent or even greater than the first acidizing, however due to presence of stronger areas of fracture face for acid attack,
rock strength measurements do not indicate weakening as compared to the fracture face strength measurements after the first
acidizing before any closure stress application. The rock strength variations between faces A and B are consistent with the
extent of etching. In general, fracture face A shows a greater degree of rock weakening after the first acidizing process as
fracture face A was more etched as was shown in etched width values. However, fracture face B in general shows greater
degree of change in rock embedment strength during the re-acidizing process as face B was etched more than face A in the re-
acidizing process.
The effect of leak-off on rock strength was to increase the weakening of fracture face after the first acidizing process,
however rock strengths are similar after the re-acidizing process for both cases of leak-off and no leak-off. Increase in polymer
concentration clearly reduced the amount of rock weakening and resulted in stronger fracture face after both the first and re-
acidizing process. The effect of applying greater closure stress after the first acidizing was to crush the fracture face more,
resulting in much weaker fracture face after the re-acidizing process. As a result, the only experiment with a decrease in rock
strength following the re-acidizing process was the experiment with higher closure stress applied following the first acidizing.
The higher closure stress crushed even the stronger fracture face asperities, resulting in a very weak fracture face remaining
during the re-acidizing process.
SPE 124874 13
Face
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
R
o
c
k
E
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,
S
R
E
(
p
s
i
)
Base Case
A
Base Case
B
No leak-off
A
No leak-off
B
2.5 Polymer
A
2.5 Polymer
B
3500 Stress
A
3500 Stress
B
Initial
First Acidizing
Re-Acidizing
Fig. 15 Rock embedment strength measurement before, after first acidizing, and after re-acidizing process.
Fracture Conductivity. Conductivity measurements after the first acidizing and the re-acidizing process are shown in Fig. 16.
Fracture conductivity under all different closure stresses was increased by about one order of magnitude after the re-acidizing
compared to the first acidizing for all the experiments. The increase in conductivity with the re-acidizing process is consistent
with increased etched fracture width and rougher etching pattern as was shown in Fig. 10 and Fig, 7, respectively. While there
was a clear trend of increasing conductivity with re-acidizing, conductivity decline with closure stress did not show any
general pattern. The base case experiment shows lower rate of conductivity decline after the re-acidizing process while the
experiment with no leak-off shows an opposite trend with an increased conductivity decline rate, and almost no difference in
the conductivity pattern with closure stress following the re-acidizing process for the test with higher polymer concentration.
In general, values of conductivity after each acidizing process are similar regardless of experimental condition of leak-off or
polymer concentration.
The effect of leak-off on fracture conductivity indicates different trend following the first acidizing and the re-acidizing
process. While conductivity is higher for the sample with no leak-off following the first acidizing especially at higher closure
stresses, both tests with and without leak-off have similar conductivity values after the re-acidizing process. The experiment
with no leak-off had higher conductivity after the first acidizing as more fracture face was etched (Fig. 10) while fracture face
rock strength was maintained at a higher level than the test with leak-off (Fig. 15). However, after the re-acidizing process, the
leak-off experiment had much higher etched fracture width compared to the test with no leak-off (Fig. 10), while it had similar
fracture face strength (Fig. 15), which resulted in similar conductivities between the two experiments after the re-acidizing
process. There was a lesser degree of fracture conductivity change with polymer concentration. Fracture conductivity were
very similar between the two experiments with different polymer concentration, however the decline of conductivity with
closure stress were different. While the higher polymer concentration had lower conductivity decline rate after the first
acidizing, it actually had a higher reduction in conductivity with closure stress following the re-acidizing process. As a result,
conductivity values are very similar at lower closure stresses and then the differences in conductivity increase with closure
stress. Conductivity pattern is consistent with etching as there were similar etching patterns and etched fracture widths for
different polymer concentrations (Figs. 8-10). There is no clear correlation between conductivity decline with closure stress
and rock strength measurements as the sample acidized with higher polymer concentration shows stronger fracture strength
following both the first and the re-acidizing process (Fig. 15). Conductivities after the first acid are very similar between the
experiment at higher load and the one at lower load as there was no difference in the two experiments up to these first
conductivity measurements. The consistency between the two experiments shows the validity of results. There was a large
crack on the fracture face of the higher load experiment after the re-acidizing process which resulted in the very high
conductivity that could not be measured due to the pressure transducer limitation. The value of conductivity was over 100,000
md-ft and continued to be above 100,000 md-ft up to 2,000 psi of load.
14 SPE 124874
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Closure Stress, psi
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
m
d
-
f
t
Base Case First Acid
Base Case Re-Acid
No Leak-off First Acid
No Leak-off Re-Acid
2.5 wt% Polymer First Acid
2.5 wt% Polymer Re-Acid
3,500 psi Stress First Acid
Re-Acid
First Acid
Fig. 16 Fracture conductivity after the first acidizing and the re-acidizing process for all the experiments.
Conclusions
The effects of polymer concentration, leak-off flux, and closure stress on acid fracture conductivity were studied through
examination of etching pattern, etched width, rock strength, and most importantly final fracture conductivity. Based on the
results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Acid re-fracturing resulted in much larger created etched fracture width with rougher etching pattern regardless of leak-off
flux, polymer concentration, or closure stress. However, there was greater enhancement in etching with the acid re-
fracturing for acids with lower polymer concentration of 1.5 wt% and also when leak-off was allowed.
2. Acid re-fracturing process also generated larger and denser concentration of wormholes in the leak-off direction, resulting in
more enhanced permeability around the fracture face. However, the acid with polymer concentration of 2.5 wt% did not
show increased leak-off etching due to polymer entrapment in the pore space following the first acid fracturing with small
pore space for acid flow.
3. While the fracture faces showed weaker rock embedment strength following the first acid fracturing, the acid re-fracturing
process did not result in further weakening of the fracture face. The reason might be due to crushing of the weaker
sections of fracture face during the first acid fracturing conductivity measurement, leaving the stronger points, which are
less weakened during the re-acidizing process.
4. Most importantly, all the acid re-fracturing experiments had an average of one order of magnitude larger created fracture
conductivities at all the different closure stresses tested up to 2,500 psi. While there were not significant differences in
conductivities among the experiments, lower polymer concentration and allowing leak-off tended to generate more
enhancements in fracture conductivity during the acid re-fracturing.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ahmed M. Gomaa for performing the acid viscosity measurements. We would also like to
thank Dr. A.D. Hill for lending fracture conductivity setup that was used in this study. M. Mahmoud acknowledges a
scholarship from the Egyptian government. Dr. M. Pournik also acknowledges partial funding from Saudi Aramco.
SPE 124874 15
Nomenclature
h = Fracture height, L, m
K = Power-law constant, m/Lt
2-n
, g/cm s
2-n
k
f
w = Fracture conductivity, L
3
, m
3
[md ft]
L = Fracture length over which pressure is measured, L, m
n = Power-law exponent, dimensionless
p = Pressure, m/Lt
2
, Pa
q = Flow rate, L
3
/t, m
3
/s
S
RE
= Rock embedment strength, m/Lt
2
, Pa [psi]
w = Fracture width, L, m
= Viscosity, m/Lt, Pa s
References
Abass, H.H., Al-Mulhem, A.A., Alqam, M.S., and Mirajuddin, K.R. 2006. Acid Fracturing or Proppant Fracturing in Carbonate Formation?
A Rock Mechanics View, paper SPE 102590 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 24-27
September.
Anderson, M.S., and Fredrickson, S.E. 1989. Dynamic Etching Tests Aid Fracture-Acidizing Treatment Design, SPE Production
Engineering 4 (4): 443-449.
Aud, W.W., Sullivan, R.B., Coalson, E.B., Poulson, T.D., and Warembourg, P.A. 1992. Acid Re-fracturing Program Increases Reserves,
Cottonwood Creek Unit, Washakie County, Wyoming, JPT 44 (1): 91-97
Bagzis, J.M. 1989. Re-fracturing Pays Off in Rangely Field, World Oil 209 (5): 39-44.
Bartko, K.M., Conway, M.W., Krawietz, T.E., Marquez, R.B., and Oba, R.G.M. 1992. Field and Laboratory Experience in Closed Fracture
Acidizing the Lisburne Field, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, paper SPE 24855 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, D.C., 4-7 October.
Branch, G.A, and Drennan, K.M. 1991. Refracture Stimulations in the Norge Marchand Unit: A Case Study, paper SPE 21642 presented at
the Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 7-9 April.
Conway, M.W., McMechan, D.E., McGowen, J.M., Brown, D., Chisholm, P.T., and Venditto, J.J. 1985. Expanding Recoverable Reserves
Through Re-fracturing, paper SPE 14376 presented at the SPE 60
th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, 22-
25 September.
Elbet, J.L., and Mack, M.G. 1993. Re-fracturing: Observations and Theories, paper SPE 25464 presented at the Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 21-23 March.
Fleming, M.E. 1992. Successful Re-fracturing in the North Westbrook Unit, paper SPE 24011 presented at the Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, 18-20 March.
Fredrickson, S.E. 1986. Stimulating Carbonate Formations Using a Closed Fracture Acidizing Technique, paper SPE 14654 presented at the
SPE East Texas Regional Meeting, Tyler, Texas, 21-22 April.
Griffith, P.J., and Madison, J.S. 1988. Optimization of Fracture Stimulation Within the North Ward Estes Field, paper SPE 17281 presented
at the Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, 10-11 March.
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R. 1970. Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monograph Vol. 2. New York and Dallas: SPE of AIME.
Hunter, J.C. 1986. A Case History of Refracs in the Oak Hill (Cotton Valley) Field, paper SPE 14655 presented at the East Texas Regional
Meeting, Tyler, TX, 21-22 April.
Kalfayan, L. 2000. Production Enhancement with Acid Stimulation, first edition. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Corporation, page 169-179.
Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Driweesh, S.M., Metcalf, A.S., and Chesson, J.B. 2008. Fracture Acidizing: What Role Does Formation Softening
Play in Production Response?, SPE Production & Operations 23 (2): 184-191.
Olson, K.E. 1991. A Case Study of Hydraulically Refractured Wells in the Devonian Formation, Crane County, Texas, paper SPE 22834
presented at the SPE 66
th
Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, TX, 6-9 October.
Parrot, D.I., and Long, M.G. 1979. A Case History of Massive Hydraulic Re-fracturing in the Tight Muddy J Formation, paper SPE 7936
presented at the Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, CO, 20-22 May.
16 SPE 124874
Pearson, C.M., Bond, A.M., Eck, M.E., and Lynch, K.W. 1990. Optimal Fracture Stimulation of a Moderate Permeability Reservoir,
Kuparuk River Unit, paper SPE 20707 presented at the SPE 65
th
Annual Technical Conference, 23-26 September.
Pournik, M., Zou, C., Malagon, C., Melendez, M.G., Zhu, D., and Hill, A.D. 2007. Small-Scale Fracture Conductivity Created by Modern
Acid Fracture Fluids, paper SPE 106272 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, TX, 29-
31 January.
Pursell, D.A., Holditch, S.A., and Blakeley, D. 1988. Laboratory Investigation of Inertial Flow in High-Strength Fracture Proppants. Paper
SPE 18319 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 2-5 October.
Reese, J.L., Britt, L.K., and Jones, J.R. 1994. Selecting Economic Re-fracturing Candidates, paper SPE 28490 presented at the SPE 69
th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 25-28 September.
Sizer, J.P., Moullem, A.S., and Abou-Sayed, I.S. 1991. Evaluation of Closed Fracture Acidizing Performed in a Tight Limestone Formation,
paper SPE 21440 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 18-19 November.
Soliman, M.Y., Hunt, J.L., and Daneshi, T. 1990. Well-Test Analysis Following a Closed-Fracture Acidizing Treatment, SPE Formation
Evaluation 5 (4): 369-374.
Taylor, K.C., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., and Mehta, S. 2006. Anomalous Acid Reaction Rates in Carbonate Reservoir Rocks, SPEJ 11 (4): 488-496.
Tinker, S.J. 1991. Equilibrium Acid Fracturing: A New Fracture Acidizing Technique for Carbonate Formations, SPE Production
Engineering 6 (1): 25-32.
Venditto, J.J., Chisolm, P., Wiggins, M., and Conway, M. 1986. Re-fracturing Completed Wells can be Cost Effective, Petroleum Engineer
International: 26-34.