Sei sulla pagina 1di 55

Acidizing

The Fundamentals
Damage Assessment
Workover & Completion
Commonalities
 Fluid
is put into the wellbore and/or
formation

 Tubulars of some sort are run into


the well
Fundamental Acid Techniques
 Wellbore clean-up (tubing/casing)
 Matrix acidizing (sandstone or
carbonates)
 Acid fracturing (carbonates)
Types of Acid
 Mineral
– Hydrochloric - HCl
– Hydrochloric/Hydrofluoric - HCl/HF
 Organic (slower reacting – less corrosive)
– Acetic
– Formic
 Powdered (acid sticks)
– Sulfamic
– Chloroacetic
Dissolving Capability
 15% HCL – 1.84 ppg
 28% HCL – 3.68 ppg

 9:1 mix 7.5% HCL : Acetic – 1.64 ppg

 9:1 mix 15% HCL : Acetic – 2.48 ppg

 9:1 mix 28% HCL : Acetic – 3.72 ppg

 10% Acetic – 0.71 ppg


Acid Reaction Rate
Basic Equation

2HCl + CaCO3  H2O + CO2 +CaCl2


  
Water  Salt
Gas
1000 1843 1040 6620 2050
Gals lbs gals ft3 lbs
Controlling Factors
 Pressure
– Less than 500 psi
 Temperature
– Add 20°, double reaction rate
– Subtract 20°, half the reaction rate
 Velocity
– Accelerate the mass transfer
– Flow patterns – radial, linear, cylindrical
Controlling Factors
 Concentration
– Stronger is faster (to a point)
 Contact area & volume ratio
– Matrix = large surface area (30000:1)
 20% Φ limestone with 10 md

– Natural fracture (3000:1)


 Same limestone with a 0.001” natural fracture

– Fracture = smaller surface area (32:1)


 Same limestone with a 0.1” created fracture
Controlling Factors
 Formation composition
 Surface wetting

 Viscosity
Retarded Acids
 Gelled acid
 Mineral/organic mix

 Common ion
Basic Equation

2HCl + CaCO3  H2O + CO2 +CaCl2


Retarded Acids
 Gelled acid
 Mineral/organic mix

 Common ion

 Oil-wet barriers

 Emulsions

 High concentrations
Acid additives
 Corrosion Inhibitors – specify time and
temperature
 Surface Active Agents – anionic, cationic,
nonionic, amphoteric
– Anionic tend to water wet sand, emulsify oil in
water, break water in oil emulsions, disperse clays
– Cationic tend to water wet carbonates, emulsify
water in oil, break oil in water emulsions,
flocculates clay
– Anionic and cationic surfactants mix like matter
and anti-matter
– Nonionic tends to be the most popular surfactants
Acid Additives (cont)
 Non-emulsifiers (acid and oil)
 Chemical retarders (carbonates only)
 Foamers
– 2 gpt < 75° F
– 3 gpt < 130° F
– 5 gpt < 200° F
– 7 gpt < 250° F
– 10 gpt < 300° F
– 13 gpt < 350° F
Acid Additives (cont)
 Alcohol (dry gas wells)
– Methanol < 200° F
– Ethanol < 300° F
 Mutual solvents (need?)
 Anti-sludge agents (asphaltic crudes
5-20 gpt)
 Clay stabilizers
Acid Additives (cont)
 Iron sequestering agents
– Iron in tubulars, scale and fomation
minerals
– Most treatments minimum control of
1000 mpl requires 10-15 ppt sodium
erythorbate
– Control severe iron concerns 5000 mpl
 60°to 120° - 1% acetic + 50 ppt citric
 120° to 180° - 2% acetic + 100 ppt citric or
50-65 ppt sodium erythorbate
 180° plus – 50-65 ppt sodium erythorbate
Acid Additives (cont)
 Friction reducers
 Gelling agents
 Fluid loss additives
 Diverting material
– Rock salt
– Wax beads
– Oil soluble resins
– Benzoic acid flakes (story time)
Wellbore Clean-up
 Clean-up
– Mill scale
– Corrosion scale
– Pipe dope
 Pickled tubing
The Pickle Job
 Minimum volume
of aromatic solvent
– 250 gallons
 Scale basis 0.1
lb/ft in 5 ½” 20#
casing (or 0.003”
of 5.0 sg
magnetite mill
scale)
– 400 gal/1000’ 5 ½”
– 100 gal/1000’ 2
7/8”
The Pickle Job
 15% HCl
 Minimum CI

 Aromatic solvent
pre-flush
 No iron control

 Catch return
samples
Matrix Acidizing
 Belowfracture gradient
 Wormholes
– Size?
– Length?
– Number?
Wormholes
 Fluid loss rate determines length,
inches to feet long
 Fluid loss additives

 Viscosity

 Not a function of reaction rate!

 28% HCl
Sandstone Matrix Acidizing
 HCl for mud damage removal
– Carbonate FLA
– Dehydrate bentonite clay
 HCl/HF for stimulation (sandstone
only!)
– Always at matrix rate
– Permeability dominates
– Shallow stimulation
HCl/HF Acidizing
 Always need HCl pre-flush
 HF reacts more quickly with clays
than silica
 Don’t use sodium, potassium or
calcium salt waters for flush
 Feldspar means use half strength
(13.5%:1.5%)
 Flush with ammonium chloride or HCl
spacer
Acid Fracturing (Carbonates)
 Factors affecting penetration
– Fluid loss
– Injection rate
– Fracture width
 Factors affecting conductivity
– Heterogeneity
– Closure pressure
– Rock strength
Acid Fracturing Methods
 Density controlled
 Viscous fingering

 Foamed acid

 Overbalanced surge
Density Control
Density Control
Viscous Fingering Acid
Overbalanced Surging
 Placement of
unconventionally
small volumes of
acid in a fracture k = 100 md
mode is not
possible in a
conventional mode. k = 10 md

k = 15 md
Overbalanced Surging
 Placement of acid
is possible with
overbalanced
surging even with k = 100 md
large variances in
permeability
k = 10 md

k = 15 md
Carbonate Acidizing
Reasons for Carbonate
Acidizing

 Damaged permeability
 Low permeability

 Low perforation efficiency


Matrix Treatment Design
1. Determine fracture gradient
2. Calculate maximum BHTP
3. Calculate maximum allowable STP
4. Estimate injection rate - Darcy
radial
5. Determine acid volume – 50-200
gal/ft
6. Specify acid type, volume, rate and
max pressure
Fracture Acidizing
 Majority of carbonate reservoir
treatments are acid fracs
 Good conductivity is the key to
successful stimulation
 Productivity increases of 2.5-13 fold
Factors Affecting Fracture
Geometry
 Injection rate  Rock properties

 Fluid viscosity  Formation fluids

 Fluid volume  Formation stresses


injected
 Reaction rates
 Fluid loss
Rule of Thumb for Acid Volume

Fill the fracture with an acid


volume of regular 15% HCl
that is three times (3X)
the fracture volume to be
etched.
Treatment Design
 Optimize the treatment
 Fracturing calculations

 Rock composition

 Closed fracture acidizing (10-20%)

 Treatment review
General volumes
 Acid wash/soak – 10-25 gals/ft
 Matrix acid – 100-200 gals/ft

 Acid Fracture – 400-600 gals/ft


Questions???
Pat H. Sanderson 1-13
#1
Stimulation Evaluation
A Look Back and Forward
by
Pat Handren
Prior Stimulation Model
 Original  Problems
perforations – No cooldown
– 16,760 – 16,830’ – Reaction time ~2
– 85/15 split min.
dolomite/limestone – Small radius of
 10,000 gals 15% penetration (50-
100’)
HCl
 BHT - 277°F
 Positives
– Reservoir has
potential!
Pat H. Sanderson 1-13 #1
Condensate History Match
Relative Reaction Rates

80/20
Dolomite/ 15% HCL 20% HCL
Limestone

BHT - 277°F 1 min 2 min

BHT - 177 °F 32 min 40 min


Keys to Successful Acidizing
 Cool down the reservoir
 Increase the fracture width

 Rate dependent on pressure

 Maximize penetration distance

 Closed fracture acidizing

 Overflush
Two Staged Acid Proposal
 First stage  Divert with 500
– 20,000 gals 30# bioballs
gel  Second stage
– 5,000 gals 30# – 15,000 gals 30#
borate x-linked gel
– 20,000 gals 20% – 5,000 gals 30#
HCL borate x-linked
 Pump at 8-10 BPM, – 15,000 gals 20%
but use pressure to HCL
dictate maximum  Reduce rate & over
rate flush
Fracture Proposal
 Remove tubing from well.
 Fracture stimulate down casing @ 30
BPM using a 35# borate x-linked
system and 224,000# 20/40 bauxite
in 2-5ppg stages.
 Lubricate packer.

 Rerun tubing.
Stimulation Comparison
 Acidizing.  Fracturing
– No mechanical – Requires prep work
changes required. – Potential for early
– No potential for job termination
pressure related (25%)
failures. – Potential for
– Conductivity is not pressure related
predictable. failure (<5%?)
– Lower cost. – Conductivity is
predictable
– High cost/
scheduling
Cost Estimates
 Acidizing
– Book Price - $90,000
– Discounted @ 40% - $54,000

 Fracturing
– Book Price - $375,000
– Discounted @ 40% - $225,000 (4:1 cost
ratio)
Production Results
Pat Sanderson 1-13 #1
History Match on Condensate
100000

50-60' acid frac


Production Data
418' acid frac
469' prop frac
Results
210' acid
80' acid
BOPM

10000

1000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Year
Summary of Job Results
 Initial acid treatment created 50-60’ of half-
length
 Second treatment created 200-220’ of half-length
(~200 short of design length) and produced close
to prediction for about 1.5 years.
 Over time the half-length has decreased due to
closure or recalcification to a length of 50-60’ and
is back on trend with production prior to second
acid job.
 Conclusions:
– Second acid job was a huge success!
– Well could benefit from a third acid
job!!