Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The Fundamentals
Damage Assessment
Workover & Completion
Commonalities
Fluid
is put into the wellbore and/or
formation
Viscosity
Retarded Acids
Gelled acid
Mineral/organic mix
Common ion
Basic Equation
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
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
Rock composition
Treatment review
General volumes
Acid wash/soak – 10-25 gals/ft
Matrix acid – 100-200 gals/ft
80/20
Dolomite/ 15% HCL 20% HCL
Limestone
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
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!!