Design of Acid Fracturing Treatments

B. B. Williams, SPE-AIME,Esso Production ResearchCo.

D. E, Nierode, SPE-AIME,Esso Production ResearchCo.

Introduction
Acid fracturing is a production stimulation technique
that has been widely used by the oil industry. In such
a treatment, acid or a fluid used in a pad ahead of
the acid, is injected down the well casing or tubing
at rates greater than the rate at which the fluid can
flow into the reservoir matrix. This injection produces
a buildup in wellbore pressure sufficient to overcome
compressive earth stresses and the formations tensile
strength. Failure then occurs. forming a crack (frac-
ture). Continued fluid injection increases the frac-
tures length and width. Acid injected into the frac-
ture reacts with the formation to create a flow chan-
nel that remains open when the well is put back on
production.
To achieve reservoir stimulation, an acid fractur-
ing treatment must produce a conductive flow channel
long enough to alter the flow pattern in the reservoir
from a radial pattern to one that approaches linear
flow. McGuire and Sikora conducted an analog simu-
lation of the productivity of a fractured well that
serves as the basis for predicting the stimulation
achievable with vertical fractures. Their study indi-
cated that the variables that determine stimulation
ratio are the ratio of fracture length to drainage
radius, L/r., and the ratio of fracture conductivity
to formation permeability, wkf./k. To design an acid
fracture treatment, therefore, ]t is necessary to pre-
dict the fracture geometry during the treatment, the
conductive fracture length, and the fracture conduc-
tivity created by acid reaction.
A number of authors have studied various aspects
of acid fracturing treatment design. Methods for pre-
dicting fracture geometry were first proposed by
Howard and Fast. Techniques that give improved
results have recently been presented by Kiel,3 and
Geertsma and de Klerk.4 Although these last two cal-
culation procedures differ somewhat in formulation,
the resulting geometry predictions are in agreement.
Either procedure, therefore, can be used to predict
the dynamic fracture geometry in acid fracturing
treatments.
Acid reaction characteristics have been studied in
static reaction tests by several authors5-9 and design
procedures using data from these tests were proposed
by Hendrickson et al. Use of the static test to design
acid fracturing treatments is of marginal value since
the test models only the ratio of fracture area to
acid volume. An improved design procedure was pre-
sented by Barron et al., who studied acid reaction
by flowing acid through a channel between limestone
plates and derived a correlation to relate acid pene-
tration distance along a fracture to treatment vari-
ables. The usefulness of the correlation is limited,
however, since the experiments were run in a smooth-
walled fracture, at room temperature, and with the
fracture oriented in a horizonal plane. Smith et al.
studied acid reacdofi at ldg~l teinperahwes in a re=
action cell where reactive plates of limestone were
rotated through acid and noted the effect of velocity
on acid spending time and acid penetration. This

A model has been developed that accurately predicts acid penetration distance;
it allows the eflects of fracture geometry, acid injection rate, jormation temperature,
..-. L . ..-. .- h- ;--l ,JJ ;VI +ho +vontmonf dosims )?esu[ts predkled
acid concentration, and ruim Lypc LU UG ,rwd4w-4 .1. ,Ibe .,-.,8 . . . . . -v .. .. .

by the model can be used in modijying acid treatments to maximize the stimulation ratio.

JULY, 1972 -P ~ 849

technique is of limited usefulness since it models only
the effects of acid flow without scaling the fracture
geomet~. More recently it has been shown that for
typical field conditions, acid reaction at the rock sur-
face will be fast relative to the rate of acid transfer
to the surface. It was further shown that a model
developed by Tern112 can be used to describe acid
reaction when kinetics is limited by mass transfer.
To use this model, itis necessary to have data on the
rate of acid transfer to the fracture wall during flow
along the rough-walled fracture.
Broaddus and Knox have earned out experiments
to determine the conductivity resulting from acid
reaction with different formations and have shown
that conductivity is a function of formation type, acid
concentration, and contact time between acid and
---- . The ~~fidu~ti~jty ~hai w-~[~5ufi f~rn an acid
~uu~.
treatment cannot be predicted with certainty. If for-
mation core samples are available, however, qualita-
tive measurements can be made with procedures
developed by Broaddus and Knox.
Model for the Acid Fracturing Treatment
The stimulation ratio resulting from an acid fractur-
ing treatment will depend in large part on the distance
from the wellbore that reactive acid contacts the walls
of the fracture created by fluid injection (hereafter
this distance is called the acid penetration distance).
The exact acid penetration distance during an acid
fracturing treatment cannot be accurately predicted.
When a pad of fluid is used ahead of the acid to
achieve a long, wide fracture, the maximum possible
penetration distance will be calculated assuming that
acid reacts in the fracture geometry existing at the
end of the pad; the minimum possible acid penetra-
tion distance will be the dynamic fracture length cal-
/...1-+-/4
bu, a,Gu
.-. . ...-...,.
caxiullllu~
L..+
UICLL
a.. :A
lluIu
1-..
lUSS
:
13
. . . . ..*.. -1A-A u..
VU1l LIU1lCXL
viscosity of reacted acid. These two conditions, which
define the limits of acid penetration distance, are
designated as the reaction rate limit and the fluid loss
limit, respectively. The actual penetration distance
probably varies between the maximum and the mini-
mum distance during a treatment since acid reaction
produces worrnholes leading from the fracture into
the formation, which will eliminate fluid loss control
by the pad fluid.
Dynamic Fracture Geometry
Prediction of the dynamic fracture geometry during
fracturing treatments has been discussed by several
authors. z-4 In this paper, we shall use techniques
described by Kie13to predict fracture geometry. Fluid
loss during injection of the fluid pad is described
using equations and data presented previously.
Acid Reaction During Acid Fracturing Treatments
Mathematical Model. It has been shown that the re-
action of hydrochloric acid at the fracture wall is
extremely rapid,13 indicating that the distance to
which reactive acid will move alorig a fracture is
governed primarily by the rate of acid transport to the
fracture wall and not by reaction rate at the surface.
For the assumption that reaction rate is infinitely fast,
the mathematical model for acid reaction in acid
850
fracturing treatments results in Eq. 1.21Use of this
equation is complicated since a numerical integra-
tion is required to evaluate the eigenvalues & and
eigenfunctions E.(q).
To simplify the use of the theory, the solution to
Eq. 1 is presented in graphical form as Fig. 1. This
0.712Lai%.
figure allows the dimensionless position,
i
at which the acid concentration reaches a desired
level, C/CO, to be related to the mass transfer Peclet
number, w~/24D,. With the exception of the effec-
t;t,a Ay:m- *WW.IJW,W,A.,
.1. w ..lla..l~
-_ffiP;.m+ u~n , th.=
..Je
m.vmmr.+a..
p.ua..w
th. t WI,l C+
.W cl .1, -. ..1=.7.
be known to predict the acid penetration distance
are fixed by formation characteristics or by fracture
dimensions.
Effective Mtimg Coefficient. The effective mixing
coefficient, D,, is an adjustable parameter that must
be chosen to allow the mathematical model for acid
reaction rate to agree with laboratory experiments
designed to accurately simulate acid reaction rate in
the field. If acid flow were laminar and acid transfer
were by ion diffusion alone, the effective mixing co-
efficient would be equal to the ionic diffusion coeffi-
cient for the acid of interest. The mixing coefficient
will normally be larger than the ionic diffusion co-
efficient since it will include acid transfer due to
secondary flow. Secondary flow can be caused by
changes in acid density with reaction, wall roughness,
turbulence, or a combination of these effects. When
acid velocity is below the critical Reynolds number
Uy
L.,.
L1lG
for tra~~i$icn +fi
t,.wh,llant
.1 -l.
finw
. 11 ...
mivhto
11.u....~
nm-.iirc
--.0
ac a
..0 .
result of secondary flow induced by density differ-
ences imposed by acid reaction. Flow near the wall is
vertically downward since acid in the boundary layer
contains high concentrations of calcium chloride. In
the center of the fracture, flow is vertically upward
since the fresh acid is less dense than the acid near
the wall. This circulation causes more reaction near
the top of the fracture and leads to the uneven reac-
tion reported by Smith et al.*2 If acid flow is turbulent,
the rate of acid transfer to the fracture wall is :en-
hanced by eddies and the effective mixing coefficient
increases as flow velocity increases.
To obtain accurate values for the effective mixing
coefficient it is necessary to measure acid reaction
rates under conditions that closely simulate field con-
ditions. In the experiments, therefore, it must be pos-
sible to measure the acid reaction rate of the fluid as
it flows between parallel rough walls of reactive rock,
with the fluid loss into the walls representing the fluid
loss from the fracture. The model must be oriented
to represent flow along a vertical fracture to allow
gravity forces to properly influence acid mixing.
Furthermore, the temperature and pressure at which
reaction occurs must be controlled to simulate reser-
voir conditions. Procedures used to obtain mixiig
coefficient data are presented in the Appendix.
Effective mixing coefficient data for the reaction of
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
hydrochloric acid and limestone are presented in Fig.
9 \Ub
4.
irlat-:1.
LbI1l~
m.a
Ulb
in ~~~!~ ~). ~~~ ~.~~q ~Q~ffi.&~~ / / r
obtained in these experiments is called D= since the
acid reaction rate at the fracture wall is essentially
infinite, These data, which include variations in tem-
perature, acid concentration, rate of fluid loss, flow
velocity, and fracture width, correlate well with the
scaling factor 2.67 WNR.*. A linear fit of Fig. 2 al-
lows D= to be predicted using Eqs. 2 and 3. Mixing %
coefficients predicted using these equations should be 2
II
valid for the reaction of any acid and rock during
an acid fracturing treatment, so long as the acid re-
action rate at the rock surface does not restrict the
over-all reaction rate.
For N .,. w <3,750:
D~ = (0.69 + 0.00293 NRe* w)

X 10-5 sqft/min . . . . . (2)

For N,., w >3,750:
D= = ( 10.3 + 0.00587 N.(,w)
.4 -
X 10- sqft/min . . . . . (3)
Wall roughness siemificantly increases the mixing
coefficient measured in the acid reaction tests. Data
in Fig. 2 show that the apparent mixing rate meas- 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.
ured with a smooth fracture wall is always less than DIMENSIONLESS ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE -
the rate for a rough-walled fracture. This means that 0.712 LaV hn
design procedures that rely on acid reaction data i
taken in a smooth-walled fracture will predict acid Fig. lAcid penetration distance along a fracture.
penetration distances that exceed the real penetration
distance.
The reaction rate of hydrochloric acid at the frac-
ture wall will not necessarily be infinite if the forma-
tion to be treated is not a limestone. When surface
kinetics is not infinite, the coefficient required to fit
experimental data with the theory that was derived -:15

:!p::~20~
assuming reaction rate to be infinite will reflect the
SUrfaCekineIic !irni!. Mixinc
-..-...= coefficient
------------ data for the
reaction of hydrochloric acid and Kasota dolomite
(Fig. 3) illustrate the adjustment that is necessary
when the surface reaction rate affects reaction ki-
netics. For convenience, smooth-walled cores were
used in these experiments and the effect of wall rough- o 4000 8000 , 16,000 ,
ness was inserted by increasing the mixing coefficient SCALING GROUP -2.67 WNR*O
by a predetermined factor; that factor was derived Fig. 2Effective mixing coefficient for reaction
from experiments with Indiana limestone in which of HCI and Indiana limestone.
mixing coefficients for rough and smooth cores were
forced to agree. The corrected effective mixing coeffi-
cient for hydrochloric acid reaction with Kasota
dolomite is a function of temperature and can be 0.8
related to D~ by Eq. 4.
I
D,
=
D%
1 exp
[(
2,445 ~ +1460
508
1
)1 o. 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
The mixing coefficients required to model the re-
action of acid with other types of formations should 0.2
follow the general behavior illustrated above. To
determine the reaction characteristics of acid with t
1

other formations, it would be necessary to run dy- 0 100 200

TEMPERATURE-0 F
namic reaction rate tests to obtain effective mixing Fig. 3-Effective mixing coefficient for reaction
CQeffi.Cien~
data. When COrSSare ----nnt -available.
.--. --- , the
---- -f
w,
LIP I and
, ,. s.
K..-+.
,. -.
rlnlarnita
. ,.!..-.

JULY, 1972 851

 TABLE 1FORMATION PROPERTIES FOR EXAMPLE TABLE 2TREATMENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE
LIMESTONE FORMATION EXAMPLE LIMESTONE FORMATION

Depth, ft 7,500 pad Fluid (Fluid A)

Formation thickness, ft Maximum Permissible Injection Rate (set by
Gross 50 sutiace pressure and tubing size), bbl/min 10
Net 50 Temperature at which fluid enters the fracture, F 150
Fracture gradient, psi/ft 07 cn
Average viscosity during fiaw a!crlg the free%iie, Cp w
Permeability, md 0.5 Fluid loss additiva concentration, lb/1,000 gal 20
Porosity 0.12 Fluid Loss Characteristics
Youngs modulus, psi 6.45 X 10 Spurt volume, gal/sq ft 0.007
Poissons ratio 0.25 Fluid loss coefficient (C~), ft/min% 0.002
Resarvoir Fluid Propetiles
Acid
Viscosity, cp 0.5
Density, lb/cu ft 52 ~mum Permissible Injetilon Rate (set by surface
Compressibility, psi- 0.0001 prassure limit and tubing size), bbl/min 20
Reservoir temperature, F 200 Average Viscosity for Flow Along the Fracture
Resewoir pressure, psi 2,500 (175F, patially raacted acid), cp
15 percent HCI 0.8
28 percent HCI 1.2
data presented for a typical dolomite or a typical Viscosity of the Reacted Acid (200 F)r cp
limestone can be used. The reaction time for the 15 parcant HCI 0.8
formation rock in a standard static reaction test* may 28 percent HCI 1.7
be used to determine whether the reaction rate be- Acid Density, lb/cu ft
havior is similar to that observed with Indiana lime- 15 percent HCI 66.8
stone or to that observed with Kasota dolomite, Eqs. 28 parcent HCI 71.1
2 through 4.
Example Treatment Design cp at shear rates for flow along the fracture) and can
be pumped through well tubular goods at 10 bbl/min
The model for acid reaction in a fracture, in conjunc- without exceeding the allowable surface pressure of
tion with a fracture geometry model, can be used to 5,000 psi. To reduce the rate of fluid loss to the for-
design acid fracturing treatments. A proposed design mation, Fluid A contains a fluid loss additive at a
procedure is outlined below. concentration of 20 lb/1,000 gal. Both 15- and 28-
1. Select appropriate fluids for a pad to be injected
percent hydrochloric acid (HCl) will be considered
ahead of the acid. These fluids should be viscous at for the treatment. If a friction reducer is added, these
reservoir temperature and should allow fluid losses acids can be pumped at a maximum rate of 20 bbl/
to the reservoir to be controlled. min. The average viscosity of the acid during flow
2. Using one of the techniques described in the li- along the fracture (assuming that the temperature
terature,- predict the dynamic fracture geometry averages 175F* * and that 50 percent of the acid has
created by injection of the pad fluid. reacted) is estimated to be 0.8 cp for 15-percent HC1
~. ~l~ing the techniques described here, predict
and 1.5 Cp fix 28-pcerlt He:. The viscosity of
the distance that acid can penetrate along the fracture totally reacted acid as it flows into the formation
created by the pad fluid. Predictions should be made perpendicular to the fracture (at 200F) is estimated
for different pad volumes and acid injection rates in to be 1.0 cp for 15-percent HC1 and 3.0 for 28-
order to determine the design that will give maximum percent HCL Other fluid properties are summarizal in
stimulation at minimum cost. Table 2.
4. Specify the acid volume.
5. Predict the stimulation ratio for the treatments 2. Predict the Dynamic Fracture Geometry
of interest. The dynamic fracture geometry created by the pad
6. Select the treatment that will best satisfy com-
fluid was predicted using equations disclosed in prior
pany economic criteria.
publications. g This calculation was made for data
To illustrate, let us design an acid fracturing treat-
given in Tables 1 and 2 for the assumption that the
ment for a well completed in a limestone formation at
fracture is vertical and has a constant vertical height
a depth of 7,500 ft. This formation has a conductivity
of 50 ft. Results are summarized in Table 3 for va-
of 25 md-ft. with a net interval thickness of 50 ft. The
rious times during the injection of the pad fluid. The
well produces an oil that at reservoir temperature
/~nnoE\ h.. . .,; ea. it., fif (l < t-m f)thtar rt=ct-rvnir nro- geometric factors included in the table indicate the
(Luu 1) ,Ias a v&u...J u. v.a WY. v...-. . . . . . . . . . r.-
expected fracture size and shape after injection of
perties are summarized in Table 1.
volumes of pad fluid ranging from 150 to 600 bbl.
1. Select AppropriateFluids 3. Predict the Acid Penetration Distance
A treatment will be designed using Pluid A (a fictiti-
The penetration distance (defined as the point where
ous viscous fluid) as a pad fluid. We will assume that
C/Co n O.1) is shown in Table 4 for 15 and 28 per-
this fluid is viscous at reservoir conditions (about 60
cent HC1 injected at 10 and 20 bbl/min. This calcu-
Standard teat: auapend a l-cm cube of rock in a 25-cc gmduate lation involves the following steps:
and add 10 cc of 15 percent HCL Allow the reaction to procaed for
5 minutes.at room temperature and atmospheric preaaum. Maaa. a. Calculate average fluid loss velocity along the
ure the final acid concentration. In this teat, the final mmposltion
...-.
-a
= s - ---+
4.- per..-!!.
.
!!
. h-
. ..-
l;-m.+ap -m-l 10 A nnment
. . . . .. . ..- .- ---- --- . ~-------
f~r fhe dolomite. preditiedwithtechniques described by slrlchir. is

852 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 3-~ACIURE GEOMETRY
-. .. . . . CREATED
BY THE PAD FLUID
(Example Limestone Formation)
Fluid Average d. Read the effective mixing coefficient from Fig.
Volume Fracture Fracture Fracture; 2 or calculate a value using Eq. 2.
Tima Injected Width Length Volume
e. Caicuiate the Peciet number for the treatment,
(rein)
(bbl) _ (in.) _ (ft) (w ft)
]~ ~~~ &:4 ~.~ ~~~ using Eq. 8.
30 300 0.18 281 416
45 450 0.21 348 600 Npe = v (8)
60 600 0.23 405 780 m
Length of one wing of a rectangular-vertical fracture.
*Volume of both wings of the fraCt We. f. Read the dimensionless acid penetration dis-
tance, N.A,from Fig. 1.
g. Calculate the acid penetration distance from
fracture at each time of interest (i.e., pad volume) the definition for the dimensionless distance, Eq. 9.
using Eq. 5.14 AA m, -
1 .+U4 lv~l
7C,G La = (9)
;.- ,ft/min . . . . . (5) ;hn
2\/t
This procedure should be carried out for the fluid Results from the acid penetration calculations are
1-CO&-uG1ll&lG1l
1u33
..--ffi,.:a..+L IU1
<-. +1.-
UK
. . .
~CIU
fl..:.-l
llUIU
/+,.
{W
-++-:.. L- -..-:
lllclA1-
~LLcllll

UIC
summarized in Table 5. Included in this table is the
mum possible acid penetration distance) and for the maximum penetration distance for both 15- and 28-
fluid loss coefficient for the acid alone (to estimate percent HCI injected at 10 or 20 bbl/min and the
the smallest possible penetration distance). For sim- dynamic fracture length when acid injection was
plicity in this example, we will consider only the started. Penetration distances are listed for pad vol-
maximum penetration case. umes of 150, 300, 450, and 600 bbl of Fluid A. Four
b. Calculate the flow velocity at the inlet to the treatments that appear to have the greatest potential
fracture using Eq. 6. stimulation ratio have been selected for further analy-
sis. These treatments are described in Table 6. In
* = 33.68 i actual practice, this technique would be programmed
0 , ft/min . . . . . (6)
hgw for a computer so that the economic potential of all
c. Calculate the scaling group, 2.67 wNR,., used cases could be analyzed.
to correlate the mixing coefficient data. The procedure just outlined should now be re-

TABLE 4-CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ACID PENHRATION DISTANCE

Average Add FlowVelocity(ft/min)

FluidLOSS 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min Scaling Groupfor Flow Along the Fracture
Time Velocity Injection Injection 15 percent HCI 28 percent HCI
(~~n) !$+l... \..\ ;a;e ia~e ,m Il., #:_ mmL., ,:- .m L., ,: a,-, . . . ,,
(,,1*,,,111 LU uul[mtn LU Dmlmln LU Dm{man zu mfmm

15 0.0008 48.2 96.4 870 1,740 580 1,160

30 0.00057 37.4 74.8 1,116 2,232 744 1,488
45 0.00047 32.0 64.0 1,300 2,600 867 1,733
60 0.00041 29.2 58.4 1,424 2,848 949 1,899
Mixing Coefficient(105 x Dm, sq ft/min) Peclet Number
Time 15 parcentHCI 28 percentHCI 15 percentHCI 28 percentHCI
(rein) 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min lin 20 bbl/min
15 1.64 2.60 1.33 1.96 0.28 0.18 0.35 0.24
30 1.91 3.14 1.51 2.32 0.22 0.14 0.28 0.18
45 2.12 3.54 1.64 2.59 0.19 0.12 0.25 0.16
60 2.25 3.82 1.73 2.77 0.17 0.10 0.23 0.14
Dimensionless Acid PenetrationDistance MaximumAcidPenetrationDistance(ft)
Time 15 percentHCI 28 percentHCI 15 percentHCI 28 percentHCI
(rein) 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min
15 0.30 0.19 0.38 0.25 105 133 133 176
30 0.24 0.15 0.30 0.18 118 148 148 177
45 0.21 0.13 0.26 0.16 125 155 155 191
60 0.19 0.12 0.24 0.15 130 164 164 205

TABLE 5-SUMMARY OF CALCULATED RESULTS, EXAMPLE LIMESTONE FORMATION

Maximum Acid Penetration f)istance (ft)

Fracture
Length at the
Pad Volume 15 percent HCI 28 percent HCI End of the Pad
(bbl) 10 bbl/min 20 bbl/min )0 bbl/min 20 hhl/min (ft)
150 105 133 133 176 194
300 118 148 148 177 281
450 125 155 155 191 348
600 130 164 164 205 405

JULY, 1972 853

 TABLE 6-MAXIMUM STIMULATION RATIO, EXAMPLE LIMESTONE FORMATION

Maximum Acid Dimensionless Maximum Stimulation

Treatment Penetration Fracture* Ratio,** J/J
Number Treatment Distance (ft) Length L./r. ~. ~, ~.
1 300bbl pad at 10 bbl/min
5,500 gal of is percent i-iCi
at 10 bbl/min 118 0.18 2.0 3.7 4.1
2 300-bbl pad at 10 bbl/min
8,000 gal of 15 percent HCI
at 20 bbl/min 148 0.22 2.0 3.9 4.6
7
.
Ztnn,

hhl n t-i a+
, ~a -.
lfl
-
hhl/min
-. , . . ... .
3,500 gal of 28 percent HCI
~~ ~~ ~~!,/m~R ~q 0.22 2.0 3.9 4.6
4 450-bbl pad at 10 bbl/min
7,000galof 28 pemiit i-m
at 20 bbl/min 177 0.27 2.0 4.3 5.0
*Assumes 40-acre well sDacinfz, r, = 66o ft.
** FrcIm curves published by M;Guire and Sikora.l

peated for the assumption that fluid loss from the dure for acid treatments is our inability to predict ac-
fracture is controlled by the reacted acid viscosity. curately the fracture conductivity to be created by
To do this. first caicuiate the fluid kiss ~dfkiefit, acid etching. wh~m ~nr~~ ~r~
., .Jwl.---- --- available.
--------- , tests
-- can be
C,,., fQr the spent acid and then repeat the calcula- run to evaluate conductivity qualitatively. Unfor-
tions to predict the acid penetration distance. The re- tunately, these tests are often questionable. Fieid re-
sulting acid penetration distances will represent the sults are therefore the only realistic test for the effec-
minimum possible acid penetration distance to be ex- tiveness of a given design.
pected from the treatment. Field results will normally
~. .,.WW.
%lant ~bm
. .- Mnd
...-. lhmn~~
----.- Treatment
be between this minimum and the maximum vaiues.
Since the calculation of minimum acid penetration is Treatment 4 appears to be the best of the four treat-
comparable with that outlined in Table 4, we will not ments considered in Table 6 since it will offer the
show it here. maximum potential for stimulation. An economic
analysis of this or other treatments should follow
4. Select the Acid Volume general practices for evaluating workover or stimula-
The acid volume required to achieve a desired frac- tion candidates. Technictues for economic analysis
ture conductivity can be qualitatively predicted us- will not be discussed her:.
ing techniques proposed by Broaddus and Knoxs if
core samples are available. In many cases, cores are
not available and an approximate procedure must be
used to select the acid volume. We propose that if 28-
percent HCI is used the acid volume should be at
least 1.5 times the volume contained within the frac-
ture between the wellbore and the maximum acid
penetration distance. If 15-percent HCI is used, the
acid volume should be about three times the fracture Iw = 0.1 INCH

volume. If, for example, the average fracture width hn

was 0.24 in., the height was 100 ft, and the acid 500 :: 0.0005 FT/MIN
penetration distance was 150 ft, the fracture volume t T = 200 F
in the region to be etched would be 4,500 gal (7.48
gal/cu ft X 2 wings X 150 ft/wing X 0.24 in./ 12
in./ft X 100 ft). At least 6,750 gal of 28-percent
HCI would be used in this treatment (4,500 gal X 1.5
= 6,750 gal). Acid volumes specified for the treat-
ments considered in Table 6 were calculated using
this procedure.
5. Predict the Stimulation Ratio
The maximum stimulation ratio for the four treat-
ments of interest is given in Table 6. These data were
predicted for a 40-acre well spacing using published
correlations, for the assumption that the acid will
etch a conductive flow channel throughout the area
~~n~a~ted. .Ctimlllatirnn
...... .. ... .. .ratio~ ~iven
are =..
. ... . --- --- for a ratio of
fracture conductivity to formation permeability of o
10, 10, and 10 md-in./md to cover the range of INJECTION - i/hg (BPM/FT)
possible etched fracture conductivities. Fig. 4-Effect of injection rate on
A shortcoming of this or any other design proce- acid penetration distance.

854 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


Effect of Treatment Variables
On Acid Penetration
To illustrate how changes in treatment design could
modify the acid penetration distance, the effect of
several important variables will be considered for
the example well just discussed. These variables in-
clude the acid injection rate, the fracture width
created by the pad fiuid, the temperature, and the
acid concentration. The effect of these variables is
illustrated in figures in which all other parameters
are held constant.
Increasing injection rate will increase acid pene-
tration, as shown in Fig. 4. At injection rates exceed-
ing about 1.0 bbl/min/ft, the penetration distance
will approach a maximum of 300 ft for reaction with
limestone and about 450 ft if the formation is a dolo-
mite. This maximum occurs at small Peclet numbers
and high Reynolds numbers where the dimensionless
acid penetration distance is linearly proportional to
the Peclet number and the effective mixing coefficient
is linearly proportional to injection rate.
.Aoirl
m-.., flnw
1, ,, rat,= i/h ,.,
.-. W, ., man
. . . . he
w in~n=aced
1.. -...-..
tion can be increased from 110 to 265 ft in a dolo-
mite or from 75 to 180 ft in a limestone.
The effect of fracture width on acid penetration
distance is illustrated in Fig, 5. In this example, an
increase in width from 0.1 to 0.2 in. increases acid
penetration distance from 120 to 177 ft in a limestone
and from 177 to 255 ft in a dolomite. The importance
of preceding acid injection with a viscous fluid pad is
evident since the fracture width w~l increase in pro-
portion to the fluid viscosity raised to the 0.25 power.
The temperature at which acid reaction occurs
will affect the depth of acid penetration. As shown in
F]g. 6, an increase in temperature from 100 to
220F could decrease the penetration for 15-percent
HCI from 120 to 82 ft in a limestone and from 285 to
120 ft in a dolomite. The reduction in penetration
distance occurs because of the decrease in acid vis-
cosity with temperature and the associated increase
in the effective mixing coefficient. To account for the
effect of reaction products (CO, and calcium chloride)
on the acid viscosity, it was assumed that the average
acid viscosity in the fracture was 1.25 times the vis-
hv
j iniPI-tino
l.., ww.l..~ rncitv
w .J nf
. .1 J
<-m=rm.nt
y-. -w.. . .UCI
. . . and
. . .. 7 0
-. tim~c
. . . ..V th,-
-... vicrncitv
, .=.,..J

at a higher rate or by designing the treatment so that of 28-percent HC1.

acid contacts only a fraction of the total fracture
height. As proposed by Graham et al., the area con-
tacted by acid can be restricted by using a viscous
pad fluid so that acid channels through the fluid rath-
er than uniformly displacing it. In treating the exam-
ple well, restricting the acid flow to one-fourth the
total fracture height (Fig. 5) could significantly in-
crease acid penetration. if the injection rate is 0. i
bbl/min/ft (based on total fracture height), penetra-
In calculating acid penetration distance for field
treatments, it is important to predict the tempera-
ture of the acid as it enters the fracture and its aver-
age temperature in the fracture. The stimulation ratio
achieved by a treatment can sometimes be improved
by the use of a pad to reduce acid temperature in the
fracture. In the treatment of a dolomite (Fig. 6),
however, a pad that wouid reduce reaction tempera-
ture from 220 to 150F would increase the pene-

1
300 h i = 10 BPM

% =hn=50Fl
- = 0.0005 FT/MIN
w = 0.1 IN
250

200 -

u
150 -

= 10 BPM
I

hg=hn=50FT
n
G -v = 0.0005 FT/MIN
a 50 T = 200 F
100-

C/C. = 0.1 (28% HCI)

I
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
FRACTURE WIDTH - IN TEMPERATURE - F

Fig. 5-Effect of fracture width on Fig. 6-Effect of temperature and acid concentration
acid penetration distance. on acid penetration distance.

JULY, 1972 855

 ~ tration distance of 28-percent HC1 from 177 to only
222 ft.
An increase in acid concentration from 15- to 28-
percent HC! wi!! increaw acid penetration di~$afi~e
since the more concentrated acid is more viscous and
will have a lower value for the effective mixing co-
-Fig. ~ ~how~ .,,kn*
e.ffi.~ie~-~. -P~~ -e-e+--+
-. au,u ;-- di~~a~~e
pen L1clL1ull
in a 200F dolomite formation can be increased from
127 to 178 ft by using 28-percent HC1 instead of 15-
~ 100- percent HCI. Penetration distance could be increased
0 further by adding materials that would increase the
G
u acid viscosity and thereby reduce the effective mixing
o 0.1 0.5 0.6 coefficient. The value of additives that increase acid
lN!E2aON :A3E - BP&l viscosity can be estimated through the use of Eqs. 2
Fig. 7<omparison of acid penetration distance through 4 and Fig. 1.
predicted by the proposed model and
by a static reaction test.
Comparison of Techniques for Predicting
1.00 : r [ II 1! [ ! i Acid Reaction in Fracturing Operations
11,
,;
/
/
II ,
I
The design procedure proposed in this paper d~ers
-

,,
/ II from previous ones in that it attempts to include all
/ 11 :
the variables that can affect acid penetration distance.
~
/ //- Y The following discussion illustrates how this model
\ ---
~-r ----i+
ii )--------74
#E/c_&~
/1 differs from procedures based on the static reaction
rate test, on flow experiments, and on combinations
of theory and flow experiments.
Design Based on Static Reaction Rate Test
The first procedure proposed for the design of acid
fracturing treatments was to use the acid spending

..01=2
tim.a A.af,arm;nmA f.fi- . .+..: - --. -.:-- ---- .- -..:
..I.. w UG.GII...LIGU !IUIII a sLa L1& lCm,LIU1l LCS1 LU CSLl-

mate penetration distance. In such a test, a sample

ACID PENEIRATION
Fig. %Comparison of acid penetration distance
predicted by the proposed model and by
the model of Barron et al.
of formation rock is contacted by acid and acid con-
centration is measured as a function of time. Rock
surface area and acid volume are scaled to represent
1000 the area-to-volume ratio expected in the fracturing
DISTANCE - FT treatment. The time required for acid to react to 20
percent of the initial value is normally reported as the
reaction time for the acid-rock system. Penetration
distance is computed by determining the average
acid flow ~ela.-it.~
,uw,ty a,,,~
nlnn- ,,,L f---+,
*L.= , clb Lu1-=b 111
:.. +k-
L1l G +----
11 Gall+---+
llC1ll

and then computing the distance acid can travel dur-

+ ing the spending time.
Typical reaction time data are given in Table 7.
: 175 w= .05 IN
*
i = 25 BPM
In Fig. 7, acid penetration distance predicted using
e
I I these data is contrasted with the penetration distance
z Cvc = .007 FT/~N
CONC. = 20% :
predicted by the proposed theory. * Predictions based
$ 150 ~ r
on the static reaction test are normally more optimis-
G tic than predictions from the proposed model since
I
z the static test cannot reflect the effects of acid flow,
O 125 ~ channel roughness, or fluid loss on acid penetration
G ,
~ distance. A design based only on static reaction rate
~10,000 GAL --- I data can therefore be misleading.
+ --b
tim 1
g 100 \ I Design Based on Flow Tests
E .-. ... \
Barron Pt al. have presented acid design curves
Q !
based on scaled flow experiments. In their studies, a
v 75 ; flow model scaled to represent a fracture was used to
a I
measure acid reaction. Experiments were run over
~ a wide range of fracture widths and acid flow rates.
50.2 Predictions based on these experiments are presented
.4 .6 .8 1 248
AC!D EFFECTIVENESS !WMBE!?
Penetration distance f mm static test is calculated assuming
Fig. 9-Comparison of acid penetration distance that either L.= v,,,., t. or L. = v,,,.. t./2. In these equations, the maxi-
P~e~~~ted ~i the Pi@e~ed ~l~~~i ~fid b!! mum flow velocity along the fracture is taken to be the acid velocity
the model of Whitsitt et al. entering the fracture.

856 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

in Fig. 8, where the acid penetration distance is re- TABLE 7+EACTION TIME FOR
15 PERCENT HCIG
lated to injection rate and fracture width. Comparison
with our proposed technique shows that the penetra- Pseudo Fracture
W!dth Reaction Time (minutes)
tion distance predicted by 13arron et a!. is !arger. ,+%
(in.) 80 F 150 F 200CF
an injection rate of 0.1 bbl/min/ft and a 0.05-in.
0.1 14 7 3
fracture width, Barrons design curves predict an acid
0.24 29 29 12
penetration distance of 140 ft, as compared with 42
ft predicted with the proposed model.
The difference between models for acid penetra- for acid reaction was then derived, This work has not
tion can be related to the experiment chosen to repre- been published in a form that makes the data acces-
sent the acid fracturing process. Barron measured sible; however, typica! resu!ts have been pub!ishe&1
acid reaction rate in a h&~zontal fracture model with Fig. 9 compares the mathematical model proposed
sirmoih limestone waiis. & shown in Fig. 2, the ef- by W;hitsitt er al. with the model described in this
fective mixing coefficient in the smooth-walled frac- paper, and relates the acid spending distance to the
ture will be smaller than in the more realistic rough acid effectiveness number (a term defined by Whit-
fracture used in our study. The horizontal fracture sitt as 0.92/Peclet number) for a given set of well
orientation will further reduce the effective mixing conditions. The agreement between these calculations
coefficient by minimizing gravity effects. is good, indicating that the mathematical models are
conlparable.
Design Based on a Combination of Acid penetration distances predicted by Whitsitt
Theory and Scaled Experiments et al. do not agree with predictions made using data
Whitsitt ef al.; have reported a studv of acid reaction presented in Fig. 2. Since the mathematical models
iii fiWtitiihg . . . . . .:.
Uperttuoiis h which they obtained re- are comparable, the mixing coefficient data used by
action rate data for reaction in flow between parallel Whitsitt er al. must be different from those presented
walk of limestone and other rocks. Experiments were here. In Fig. 10 (Fig. 1 in Ref. 16), an acid penetra-
run in the temperature range of 70 to 150CF at a pres- tion distance of 150 ft is predicted under conditions
sure of 1,000 psi and for 0.05- and O.l-in. fracture for which our proposed model predicts 35 ft. The ef-
widths. A mathematical model that incorporates data fective mixing coefficient would have to be 3 X 10-

TABLE -EFFECTIVE MIXING COEFFICIENT DATA

Acid
i*/tt T Temperature Width Concentration D, X 10
(bbl/min/ft) (ft/min) (F) Rock Type (in.) (percent) Nr/e* N., (sq ft/min)

0.05 0.004 70 RL 0.375 15 290 0.30 1.03

0.06 0 70 RL 0.375 15 348 0 0.53
0.06 0.002 70 RL 0.375 15 362 0.15 0.93
0.O6 0.003 70 RL 0.375 15 406 0.23 0.88
0.08 0.004 70 RL 0.375 15 507 0.30 0.70
0.35 0 70 RL 0.375 15 2,268 0 4.46
0.67 0 70 RL 0.375 15 4,237 0 4.94
0.80 0 70 RL 0.375 15 5,228 0 9.38
0.07 0 180 RL 0.375 15 906 0 1.35
0.37 0 180 RL 0.375 15 5,204 0 6.59
..-. ----
U.51 U.ul1 180 RL 0.375 15 7,080 1.72 7.56
0.74 0 180 RL 0.375 15 10,240 0 12.10
0.88 0.011 180 RL 0.375 15 12,288 1.88 15.99
088 (-j~~y . -- ~.375
1au iii 15 12,288 2.73 13.17
1.02 0.012 180 RL 0.375 15 14,208 2.00 21.71
1.37 0 183 RL 0.375 15 19,048 0 32.84
0.68 0.006 184 RL 0.375 15 9,472 0.94 10.08
0.62 0 70 RL 0.375 28 2,970 0 4.40
0.51 0 167 RL 0.375 28 4,566 0 6.00
0.68 0 70 RL 0.250 15 4,300 0 4.73
0.52 0 145 RL 0.152 15 5,824 0 3.09
0.60 0 70 RL 0.152 15 3,795 0 1.49
0.48 0 192 RL 0.231 15 7,829 0 5.89
0.06 0.014 70 SL 0.320 15 411 0.26 0.27
0.52 0 140 SL 0.350 15 5,621 0 4.17
0.60 0 187 SL 0.375 15 8,544 0 6.30
0.23 0 70 SD 0.375 15 1,360 0 0.20
0.55 0 70 SD 0.375 15 3,248 0 0.41
0.66 0 70 SD 0.375 15 3,900 0 0.50
---
CL29 G 1 7(J SD 0.375 15 3,652 0 2.01
0.52 o 222 SD 0.375 15 Q.6M
-, --- Q G nA
*.-r

RL rough fracture walls, limestone.

SL smooth fracture walls, Iimeatona.
SD smooth fracture walls, dolomita.

JULY, 1972 857

sq ft/min to obtain the larger penetration distance, L = length of one wing of the fracture at
or about one-sixth the value measured in our study. time ? (measured from wellbore), ft
Mixing coefficients as small as 3 X 10-6 sq ft/min La = acid penetration distance along one wing
would have to be obtained at very low injection rates, of the fracture (measured from the
with the fracture model oriented so that acid flow is wellbore), ft
either up or down a vertical fracture. Mixing data Nh = dimensionless acid penetration distance,
obtained under such conditions would not represent 0.713 LaFhJi
those in the fracture, and using them could lead to in- IVP, = Peclet number for mass transfer, w;/2D,
correct evaluation of acid treatment designs. N=, = Reynolds number, for fluid loss, 2w;p/,u
N ~,. = Reynolds number for flow along the
Nomenclature fracture, 2WU0p/IL
acid concentration N., = Schmidt number for mass transfer, p/DP
c: : initial acid concentration t = time, minutes
Cc = fluid loss coefficient when fluid losses are T = temperature, F
controlled by viscous resistances or UO= flow velocity at the inlet to the fracture,
fluid compression, ft/~~ ft/min
Cw = fluid loss coefficient when fluid losses are Z= average flow velocity along the fracture,
controlled by fluid loss additives, ft/ ft/min
~m v = velocity component normal to the cen-
De, D = effective mass transfer rate for acid, sq terline of the fracture at some time, t,
ft/min ft/min
Dw = effective mass transfer rate for acid when ~ = average fluid loss velocity at some time,
siirface kinetics are iniiniteiy fast, sq t,ft/min
ft/min w = fracture width, in.
kg = total fracture height, ft ~= viscosity of fracturing fluid, cp
h. = height of fracture that accepts fluid, ft P= fluid density, lb,n/cu ft
i= injection rate into the fracture, bbl/min
i/H = References
total injection rate per foot of formation
height, bbl/min/ft 1. McGuire,W. J. and Sikora, V. J.: The Effect of Verti-
i* = cal Fractures on Well Productivity, Tram., AIME
injection rate during laboratory experi- ( 1960) 219, 401-403.
ments, cc/see 2. Howard, G. C. and Fast, C. R.: OptimumFluid Char-
kf = formation permeability, md acteristicsfor Fracture Extension,Dri/1. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1957).
3. Kiel, O. M.: A New Hydraulic Fracturing Process:
J. Pet. Tech. (Jan., 1970) 89-96.
4. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: A Rapid Method of
15% HCI Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced
Fractures, J. Pef. Tech. (Dec., 1969) 1571-1581.
hn = 100 FT
5. Hendrickson, A. R., Rosene, R. B. and Wieland, D. R.:
w = .05 IN Acid ReactIon Parameters and Reservoir Characteristics
Cc = .007 FT/ ~N Used in the Design of Acid Treatment, paper presented
~;;$ 137th ACS meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, April 5-14,
T=75 F
6, Knox, J. A., Pollock, R. W. and Beecroft, W. H.: The
Chemical Retardation of Acid and How It Can Be
Utilized, J. Cdrr. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March, 1965).
7. Dill, W. R.: Reaction Times of Hydrochloric-Acetic
Acid Solution on Limestone; paper presented at 16th
~~;t~~;;t Regional ACS Meeting, Oklahoma City, Dec.
,.
8, van Poollen, H. K. and Jargon, J. R.: How Conditions
Affect Reaction Rate of Well-Treating Acids, Oil and
Gas J. (Oct. 21, 1968) 84-91.
9. van Poollen, H. K.: How Acids Behave in Solution,
Oi/ and Gas J. (Sept. 25, 1967) 100-102.
10. Hendrickson, A. R., Hurst, R. E. and Wleland, D. R.:
Engineered Guide for Planning Acidizing Treatments
Based on Specific Reservoir Characteristics; Trans.,
AIME (1960) 219, 16-23.
11. Barron, A. N., Hendrickson? A. R. and Wieland, D. R.:
FLUID V OLUME PUMPED = The Effect of Flow on Acid Reactivity in a Carbonate
Fracture, J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1962) 409-415.
40,000 GAL.
12. Smith, C. F., Crowe, C. W. and Wieland, D. R.: Frac-
ture Acidizing in High Temperature Limestone, paper
) 20 30 40 50 SPE 3008 presented at SPE 45th Annual Fall Meeting,
INJECTION RATE - BPM Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970.
Fig.10-Comparison of acid penetration distance 13, Nierode, D. E. and Williams, B. B.: Characteristics of
predicted by the proposed model and by Acid Reaction in Limestone Formations; SOC. Pet. J3rg.
the model of Whitsitt et al. J. (Dec., 1971) 406-418.

858 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 14. Williams, B. B.: Fluid Loss from Hydraulically In-
duced Fractures; J. Pet. Tech. OUIY, 1970) 882-888.
15. Broaddus, G. C. and Knox, J. A.: Intluence of Acid
Type and Quantity in Limestone Etching, paper pre-
sented at Mid-Continent Meeting, API, Wichita, Kans.,
March 3 I-April 2, 1965.
16. Whitsitt, N. F., Barrington, L. J. and Hantsah, R. R.:
A New Approach to Deep Well Acid Stimulation De-
sign, The Western Co. (June 10, 1970).
17. Harris, O. E., Hendrickson, A. R. and Coulter, A. W.:
High Concentration Hydrochloric Acid Aids Stimula-
tion Results in Carbonate Formation, 3, Pet. Tech.
(Oct., 1966) 1291-1296.
18. WMiams, B. B., Gldley, J. L., Guin, J. A. and Schechter,
R. S.: Characterization of Liquid-Solid Reactions, Hy-
drochloric Acid-Calcium Carbonate Reaction, Ind. and
Eng. Chem. Fund. (Nov., 1970) 9, 589.
19. Sinclair, A. R.: The Effects of Heat Transfer in Deep
Well Fracturing, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec., 1971) 1484-1492.
20. Graham, J. W., Kerver, J. K. and Morgan, F. A.:
Method of Acidizing and Introducing a Corrosion In-
hibition into a Hydrocarbon Producing Formation.
U. S. Patent 3,167,123 (Jan. 26, 1965).
21. Terrill, R. M.: Heat Transfer in Laminar Flow Be-
tween Parallel Porous Plates, Infl. 1. oj Hear and Ma.m
Transfer ( 1965) 8, 1491-1497.
APPENDIX
Experimental Procedures
Experiments to determine values for the effective mix-
ing coefficient for hydrochloric acid reaction were
conducted using the following procedure:
1. Cores were prepared to fit into the equipment
described in Ref. 13.
To prepare rough-waiied cores a 3-in.-diameter
original manuscript of paper SPE 3720 received in Society
Petroleum Engineers office Oct. 8, 1971, Revised manuscript
ceived March ~~, IaZZ. c COPYFirtht 1972 American Institute
Mining, Metallurgical. and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 253, which
covar 1972.
mm%-, i972
core was fractured in tension by applying a force to
opposite sides of the core. The core halves were then
fastened together and machined to fit into the equip-
ment. To insure that the core could be sealed into the
equipment, the outside edge of the core was coated
with epoxy before the final machining. When the
cores were mounted in the equipment, the core sec-
tions fortned a fracture with very rough parallel walls.
Smooth-walled cores were cut from a block of reek
and machined to fit into the test equipment. To insure
a seal, outer core surfaces were coated with epoxy
before the final machining step.
2. Cores were mounted in the test equipment with
the channel between cores oriented to represent a
vertical fracture.
3. Flow velocity along the fracture and fluid loss
velocity were set, using water, and. an experiment was
begun by switching from water to acid.
4. Samples of acid effluent from the fracture were
collected and the extent of reaction was determined
by a standard EDTA titration. To achieve a measur-
able change in concentration when reaction rate was
low, the acid was cycled through the fracture several
times.
5. The effective mixing coefficients that would be
required to allow the mathematical model to fit ex-
perimental data were then calculated. Data were ana-
lyzed using a numerical solution of Eq. 1. Mixing
coefficients for experiments without fluid loss can be
evaluated using Eq. A-1.
of
re.
of
will
J-PI