Introduction

Acid fracturing, like propped fracturing, is based on the concept of inducing a fracture
hydraulically. Unlike propped fracturing, however, it does not involve using proppant to hold
the fracture open. Instead, it uses an acid-based fluid to dissolve portions of the created
fracture face. After consumption and leakoff of the fracturing acid and reaction products, the
fracture faces close. But the etched voids, which are connected to each other, provide an
increased conductivity conduit that is similar in its effect to a propped fracture
( Figure 1,Acid etching of the fracture faces in a soluble formation).

Figure 1

Acid fracturing is conducted in the same manner as a conventional fracturing treatment,

except that a reactive fluid is substituted for the proppant and proppant carrier fluid. The
resulting geometry is determined by the pad fluid and the type and concentration of acid
used.
Hydrochloric acid (15 percent by volume), which accounts for over 90 percent of the acid
used in acid fracturing, reacts with pure limestone to dissolve approximately 1840 lbm of
rock per 1000 gallons used. This is the equivalent of about 10.5 ft3 of zero-porosity
limestone. The same volume of acid would dissolve about 1680 lbm or 9.1 ft3 of dolomite
having a density of 2.87 g/cm3.
Since corrosion of the producing well is of major concern, corrosion inhibitors have to be
added to the acid. This increases treatment costs significantly. Recently, organic acids
(formic and acetic acid) have been used successfully to replace HCl in acid fracturing

treatments. While organic acids are somewhat more expensive, they are much less
corrosive and need less or no corrosion inhibitor agents.
The impact of acid fracturing on a well's productivity is determined by the dimensioned
conductivity and length of the etched fracture. In principle, the dimensioned conductivity of
an acidized fracture is proportional to the cube of the width of the etched fracture. This
relation can be derived by combining Poisson's law for an empty conduit with the definition
of dimensioned conductivity.
The spent acid, however, does not create a real fracture-like continuous flow path (which
would not remain open, anyway). The created structure is more stochastic in geometry and
connectivity. The conductivity of the created "fracture" is much less predictable than for
propped fracturing and depends on the fine details of the etching process, the created
etched pattern, and the mechanical properties of the rock.
Because of this inherent uncertainty acid fracturing has lost significance relative to propped
fracturing, even in carbonate formations which have traditionally been treated only by acids.
The most difficult aspect of acid fracturing is slowing and controlling the reaction to allow it
to take place where the maximum amount of benefit may be realized. Acid spends very
quickly, and special efforts are required in order to achieve deep lateral penetration before
the acid spends.
Acid fracturing involves a large number of physical and chemical phenomena, the actual
interaction of which will determine the overall success of the treatment.
Acid Fluid-Loss Control
Efficient control of acid fluid loss is the most effective method of achieving a deeppenetrating etched fracture. Unfortunately, this control is difficult to attain, because the acid
either reacts with the fluid-loss additive (thereby destroying its effectiveness), or it reacts
with the formation. It is generally more cost-effective to attempt to control the leakoff
before the acid enters the fracture.
The most effective means of controlling acid leakoff is to use a large volume of highefficiency pad fluid. Leakoff control with the pad fluid works equally well in high or low
permeability formations, whereas acid fluid-loss additives are ineffective in higherpermeability formations. This technique requires some caution, however, because the
subsequent acid stages may react with the pad's gelling agent.
A situation that is common in hard, dense, low-permeability limestone and dolomitic
reservoirs is the presence of natural hairline fractures. This type of formation typically
produces much of the reservoir fluid through these fractures rather than through the lowpermeability matrix. A hydraulic fracture may possibly intersect a large number of these
hairline fractures during propagation. Fluid leakoff into these fractures is significant and
extremely difficult to control, even when pumping nonreactive fluids. When acid is pumped,
the corrosive leakoff fluid quickly increases the width of the hairline fractures. Since the
amount of fluid flow through an open fracture is a function of the cube of the width of the
fracture, this increase in fracture width causes even more acid to leak off. The use of

alternating pads of acid and nonreactive pad fluid containing high concentrations of large
silica particles (70/140 mesh) has been found to effectively achieve fracture propagation
beyond natural fractures. Large volumes of this solid material, frequently referred to as 100mesh sand, have also proven effective in reducing the fluid leakoff rate into natural
fractures.
The types of fluid-loss additives most frequently used in acids are silica flour, organic resins,
and organic polymers, which are very slowly soluble in acid. These materials all have some
major limitations, either functional or economic. Several significant research programs
investigating alternative methods to control acid fluid loss are currently underway.
An alternative technique for reducing the leakoff rate of acid includes the use of viscosifiers,
both polyacrylamides and celluloses, and occasionally gum Karaya, which is similar to guar
gum as used in gelling water. All of these materials have a limited life when hydrated with
acid, which particularly limits their applicability in high-temperature treatments. One of the
most effective ways of increasing acid viscosity is the use of surfactants and oil to create
high-viscosity emulsions. Normally, the acid is mixed as the inner phase of the emulsion in
an attempt to further retard the reaction rate and minimize the corrosive nature of the
leakoff fluid.
Acid Reaction Rate
One of the key issues in acid fracturing is controlling the reaction rate. The following is a
brief overview of the significant factors that affect reaction rate.
When acid reacts with rock, the reaction occurs at the rock surface. The amount of surface
area of the rock per unit volume (the area/volume ratio) is therefore an important factor.
The area/volume ratio of a porous formation is much higher than the same ratio of an open
hydraulic fracture.
Along with the area/volume ratio, we have to consider that the fresh acid has to be
transported to the rock surface and the reaction products have to be carried away. These
transport aspects of the overall process indicate that injection rate and fluid viscosity have a
large impact on the results.
The reaction rate between dolomite and acid is slower than that between pure limestone
(calcium carbonate) and acid. Because many carbonate formations are at least partially
dolomitized, the actual in-situ reaction rate is less than for a pure block of limestone. This
generally proves to be advantageous in that the slower reaction rate effectively increases
the penetration of live acid. In addition, a multi-component formation experiences nonuniform etching patterns, reducing the chances of fracture healing.
Temperature directly affects the reaction rate, and therefore the distance that live acid can
move through a fracture before spending. Since the rate of the chemical reaction is sensitive
to even small changes of temperature, this is one possible way to control reaction rate.

Cool-down effect can be reached relatively easily by the pumping of a large volume of lowefficiency prepad fluid.
Acid viscosity affects the overall reaction rate by the transport processes. Increasing the
acid viscosity reduces the acid reaction rate by suppressing turbulence, and thus minimizing
the amount of forced convection. This holds true under both quiescent conditions and during
the movement of the acid through an open fracture. The acid reaction product (calcium
chloride brine) has a higher viscosity than does the original acid, thereby hindering its
replacement with live acid and serving to reduce the reaction rate.
Emulsified acid systems have a retarding effect, due to the combined effects of high
viscosity and the presence of a separate, inert fluid phase. These mechanisms effectively
slow the forced convection. The presence of the separate fluid phase, which in effect
interferes with the transfer of live acid to the acid/ rock interface, apparently is not affected
by the external phase of the emulsion.
Another technique frequently employed to retard the reaction rate of acid is the inclusion of
an oil-wetting surfactant in the acid system to oil-wet the formation. This oil film physically
shields the rock, delaying acid contact.
The Changing Role of Acid Fracturing
As is true for propped fracturing, the success of an acid fracturing treatment depends on the
created fractures effectiveness at maintaining a high dimensioned conductivity. In acid
fracturing, the dependence of the final dimensioned fracture conductivity on the materials
used is less evident than it is for propped fracturing. The treatment response depends more
on the formation properties. Soft formations that undergo a high degree of etching and have
a limited surface area of support ridges may deform under the high closure stress. Once the
connectivity of the acid induced fracture deteriorates, the effective dimensioned conductivity
may be very low. This has been noted in the acid fracturing of the soft chalk formation in
the North Sea and in similar formations.
A specialized fracture acidizing technique using alternating stages of extremely viscous pad
fluid and low-viscosity acid has proven to be a viable treatment for some types of soft
formations. The low-viscosity acid "fingers" through the viscous pad, etching a series of flow
channels on the fracture face. The mostly undisturbed fracture face then "heals" and cancels
the induced stresses of fracturing, thereby allowing the etched flow channels to remain open
and provide high conductivity.
Another technique, closed fracture acidizing, targets already existing fractures in the
formation. The fractures can be natural, previously created fractures, or fractures
hydraulically induced just prior to the closed fracture acidizing treatment. The closed
fracture acidizing treatment involves pumping acid at low rates, improving the fracture face
etches.

The most damaging reaction by-products in fracture acidizing are emulsions and scales, with
emulsions causing the most concern. Most emulsion problems can be easily prevented by
pre-testing the acid system with the formation fluids it will contact. Special scale inhibitors
may be needed to prevent the precipitation of calcium sulfate scale during the acidizing of
formations containing anhydrite or highly sulfonated connate water. Similarly, special
inhibitors are available to prevent carbonate scales from developing.
An additional consideration in acid fracturing is potential for corrosion of the wellhead and
wellbore equipment. This is of primary concern during fluid recovery operations if the acid is
not completely spent. Inhibitors are generally strongly cationic and have a tendency to plate
out on the formation. Using an adequate inhibitor concentration and allowing sufficient shutin time to completely spend the acid usually eliminates this problem. If inhibitor costs
become high, it might be necessary to consider less corrosive acid systems (e.g., organic
acids).
In deciding between an acid fracturing treatment and a propped fracture treatment, we
must first consider the relative formation solubility in acid. The most appropriate candidates
for acid fracturing are wells having fair permeability or deep and extensive wellbore damage
(i.e., those not requiring deep fracture penetration, but instead requiring short, highconductivity fractures). As a general rule, a propped fracture is less expensive than an acid
frac that achieves the same lateral fracture penetration, so the next step is to determine if
we can realistically achieve the required conductivity by using high proppant concentrations
to give exceptional propped fracture width. We should examine well records to determine if
there is a significant or historical problem (e.g., lack of long-term response, many
screenouts) resulting from the use of conventional propped fracture treatments. We must
address such logistical concerns as location accessibility and the availability of sufficient
fracturing equipment. Then, we should perform comparative studies to predict the
theoretical results from several different treatments.
Because of the difficulties in predicting well response to acid fracturing, propped fracturing
has continuously gained as the technique of choice, even in formations characterized by
excellent acid solubility. Propped fracturing is the logical "next step" in carbonate
formations, where the response to acid fracturing treatments is not satisfactory by any
reason.