PE-AIME, Esso Production Research Co. SPE-AIME, Esso Production Research Co. Introduction Acid fracturing is a production stimulation technique that has beon widely used by the oil industry, In such a treatiment, 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 int the reservoir matrix. Ths injection produces 4 buildup in wellbore pressure sufficient to overcome { ressve earth stresses and the formation’s tensile strength, Failure then oceurs. forming a crack (frae- ture). Continued fluid injection increases the frac- ture’s length and width. Acid injected into the frac- ture reacts with the formation to ereate 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 paitern in the reservoir from a radial pattern to one that approaches linear flow. McGuite and Sikora® conducted an analog simu- lation of the productivity of a fractured well that Serves as the basis for predicting the stirvation 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/re, and the ratio of fracture conductivity {0 formation permeability, wh;/&. To design an ac fracture treatment, therefore, itis necessary to pre- dict the fracture geometry during the treatment, the conductive fracture length, and the fracture condue- tivity created by acid reaction A number of authors have studied various aspects of acid fracturing treatment design, Methods for pre dieting fracture geometry were first proposed by Howard and Fast* Techniques that give improved results have recently been presented by Kiel,” and Gcertsma and de Klerk.' Although these last to eal- 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 fractucing treatments Acid reaction characteristics have been studied in statie reaction tests by several authors'* and design procedures using data from these tests were proposed by Hendrickson er a Use of the static test to design atid 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 er 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 reaction at high temperatures in a re- action cell where reactive plates of limestone were rotated through acid and noted the effect of velocity oon acid spending time and seid penetration. i A model has been developed that accurately predicts acid penetration distance; ‘Wows the effects of fracture geometry, acid injection rate, formation temperature, | swid concentration, and rock type to be included in the treatment design. Results predicted by the model cam be used in modtilying acid treatments to maximize the simulation ratio. | 9technigue is of limited usefulness since it models only the effects of acid flow without scaling the fracture geometry, More recently it has been shown" that for {ypical field conditions, acid réaction atthe 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 Terrill" 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 carried out experiments to determine the conductivity resulting from acid reaction with different formations and have shown that conductivity isa function of formation type, acid concentration, and contact time between acid and rock. The conductivity that will result from an acid {reatment cannot be predicted with certainty. If for- imation 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 Muid injection (hereafter this distance is called the acid penetration distance). ‘The exact acid penetration distance during an acid fracturing {reatment 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~ culated assuming that fluid loss is controlled by the 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 wormholes leading from the fracture into the formation, which will eliminate fluid loss control by the pad fuid."* Dynamic Fracture Geometry Prediction of the dynamic fracture geometry during fracturing treatments has been discussed by several authors.*~* In this paper, We shall use techniques described by Kiel? to 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,” indicating that the distance to which reactive acid will move along 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 Use of this equation is complicated since a numerical integra- tion is required to evaluate the eigenvalues A, and eigenfunctions E4(1). car =38(1- Se)" To simplify the use of the theory, the solution to Eq. 1 is presented in graphical form as Fig. 1. This O.712L,5h, 7 figure allows the dimensionless position, i. at which the acid concentration reaches a desired level, C/C,, to be related to the mass transfer Peclet number, w¥/24D,, With the exception of the effec- tive mixing coeflicient, D., the parameters that must bbe known to predict ‘the ‘acid penetration distance are fixed by formation characteristics or by fracture dimensions. Effective Mixing Coefficient. The effective mixing coefficient, D,, is an adjustable parameter that must bbe 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 cocfii- 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 for transition to turbulent flow, mixing occurs as a 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 a." 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 eon- ions, 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 fo simulate reser- voit conditions. Procedures used to obtain mixing 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. 2 (details are in Table 8). The mixing coefficient ‘obtained in these experiments is called D,, since the 1 reaction rate at the fracture wall is essentially nite, 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 wNVx.-, A hinear fit of Fig. 2 ale Tows D, to be predicted using Eqs. 2 and 3. Mixing coefficients predicted using these equations should be valid for the reaction of any acid and rock during. an acid fracturing treatment, so Jong as the acid re- action rate at the rock surface does not restrict the over-all reaction rate. For N nes w < 3,750: De = (0.69 + 0.00293 Nae-W) 10-659 ft/min ee) For Nne-w > 3,750: De =(~ 103 + 0.00587 Ny..¥) 10°? 5q ft/min ) Wall roughness significantly increases the mixing coefficient measured in the acid reaction tests. Data in Fig. 2 show that the apparent mixing rate meas~ tured with a smooth fracture wall is always less than the rate for a rough-walled fracture. This means that design procedures that rely on acid reaction data taken in a smooth-walled fracture will predict acid penetration distances that exceed the real penetration ‘he 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 assuming reaction rate to be infinite will reflect the surface kinetic limit. Mixing 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- ness was inseried by increasing the mixing coefficient by a predetermined factor; that factor was derived from experiments with Indiana limestone in which ‘mixing coefficients for rough and smooth cores were forced to agree. The corrected effective mixing coeff- cient for hydrochloric acid reaction with Kasota dolomite is a function of temperature and can be related to Dy. by Eq. 4. De Lot Po -en[2485 (pas ~ sa)] (4) Thi a rani tetas rte wth Coefficient data, When cores are not available, the JULY, 1972 Tape PECLET NUMBER - ° eb arcted re eeoieitt, BLO) DIMENSIONLESS ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE - 0712 LF hy —T_ Fig. 1Acid penetration distance along a fracture. 25 “AEOUGH WALLE)ER Hel 2) Strate tS: fad ps & 5, 600 123000 16,000 70,000 SCALING GROUP - 2.47 wNgye Fig. 2—Etfective mixing coetficient for reaction ‘of HCl and Indiana limestone. ot TEMPERATURE - °F Fig. 3—Etfective mixing coefficient for reaction ‘OF HCI and Kabota dolomite ast aTABLE 1—FORMATION PROPERTIES FOR EXAMPLE LIMESTONE FORMATION Depth, ft 7,500 Formation thickness, ft : Gross 50 Net 50 Fracture gradient, pitt 07 Permeability, ma 05 Porosity oz Young's modulus, pst 645 x10! Poisson's ratio 028 Reservoir Fluid Properties Viscosity, cp os Density, lb/eu tt 52 Compressibilty, psi* 0.0001 oservolr temperature, °F 200 Reservoir pressure, psi 2,500 data presented for a typical dolomite or a typical limestone can be used. ‘The reaction time for the formation rock in a standard static reaction test® may be used to determine whether the reaction rate be- havior is similar to that observed with Tndiana Time- stone of to that observed with Kasota dolomite, Eqs. 2 through 4. Example Treatment Design ‘The model for acid reaction in a fracture, in conjunc tion with a fracture geometry model, can be used to design acid fracturing treatments. A proposed design procedure is outlined below. 1. Select appropriate fluids for a pad to be injected ahead of the acid. These fluids should be viscous at reservoir temperature and should allow fluid losses to the reservoir to be controlled. 2, Using one of the techniques described in the li terature,* predict the dynamic fracture geometry created by injection of the pad fluid. 3. Using the techniques described here, predict the distance that acid can penetrate along the fracture created by the pad fluid. Predictions should be made for different pad volumes and acid injection rates in order to determine the design that will give maximum stimulation at minimum cost. 4. Specify the acid volume. 5. Predict the stimulation ratio for the treatments of interest. 6, Select the treatment that will best satisfy com- pany economic criteria To illustrate, let us design an acid fracturing treat- ment for a well completed in a limestone formation at 1 depth of 7,500 ft. This formation has a conductivity of 25 mad-fi, with a net interval thickness of 50 ft. The well produces an oil that at reservoir temperature (200°F) has a viscosity of 0.5 cp, Other reservoir pro- perties are summarized in Table | 1, Select Appropriate Fluids A treatment will be designed using Fluid A (a fictiti- ‘ous viscous fluid) as a pad fluid. We will assume that this fluid is viscous at reservoir conditions (about 60 LoaTeancentaton, im thie ter, te tal compas na'and 10.4 pereans forthe siomite ‘TABLE 2 TREATMENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE EXAMPLE. LIMESTONE. FORMATION Pad Fluid (Fluid A) ‘Maximum Permissible Injection Rate (set by ‘surface pressure and tubing size), bbi/min 10 ‘Temperature at which fluid enters the fractu ‘Average viscosity during flow along the fracture, ep 60. Fluid loss additive concentration, Ib/1,000 gal 20 Fluid Loss Characteristic Spurt volume, gal/saq tt 0.007 Fluid loss coefficient (Ce), ft/min’ 0.002 Aid Maximum Permissible Injection Rete (set by surface pressure limit and tubing size), bbl/min 20 Average Viscosity for Flow Along the Fracture (275°F, partially reacted acid), cp 15 percent HC! os 28 percent HC! 12 Viscosity of the Reacted Acid (200°F), ep 15 percent HC! os 28 percent HO 17 Acid Density, Ib/eu ft 16 percent HC! oa 28 percent HC! na cp at shear rates for flow along the fracture) and can be pumped through well tubular goods at 10 bbI/min without exceeding the allowable surface pressure of 5,000 psi. To reduce the rate of fluid loss to the for- mation, Fluid A contains 2 fluid loss additive at a concentration of 20 Ib/1,000 gal. Both 15- and 28- percent hydrochloric acid (HCI) will be considered for the treatment, If a friction reducer is added, these acids can be pumped at a maximum rate of 20 bbl/ ‘min, The average viscosity of the acid during flow along the fracture (assuming that the temperature averages 175°F** and that 50 percent of the acid has reacted) is estimated to be 0.8 ep for 15-percent HCL and 1,5 cp for 28-pereent HCI, The viscosity of totally reacted acid as it flows into the formation perpendicular to the fracture (at 200°F) is estimated to be 1.0 cp for 15-percent HCI and 3.0 for 28- percent HCI. Other fluid properties are summarized in Table 2. 2, Predict the Dynamic Fracture Geometry ‘The dynamic fracture geometry created by the pad fluid was predicted using equations disclosed in prior publications.’2® This calculation was made for data given in Tables 1 and 2 for the assumption that the fracture is vertical and has a constant vertical height of 50 fi. Results are summarized in Table 3 for va~ rious times during the injection of the pad fuid. The geometric factors included in the table indicate the expected fracture size and shape after injection of, volumes of pad Suid ranging from 150 to 600 bbl. 3. Predit the Acid Penetration Distance ‘The penetration distance (defined as the point where C/C, = 0.1) is shown in Table 4 for 15 and 28 per- cent HCI injected at 10 and 20 bbl/min, This caleu- lation involves the following steps ‘a. Calculate average fluid loss velocity along the “Pract with techniques described by Sinclar JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY= TABLE 3FRACTURE GEOMETRY CREATED ‘BY THE PAD FLUID (Example Limestone Formation) Fis Average Volume racure —Factue”™” —Fraturet® 19 Injected "Wit tength —Nelume wai) oy) _ ut) 150 ols 134 300 ous 2a 6 a0 oat 348 6 60 023 405 fracture at each time of interest (.e., pad volume) using Eq. 5." Sie aS aye This procedure should be carried out for the fluid loss coefficient for the pad fluid (to attain the maxi- ‘mum possible acid penctration distance) and for the fluid loss coefficient for the acid alone (to estimate the smallest possible penetration distance). For sim plicity in this example, we will consider only. the maximum penetration case ’. Calculate the flow velocity at the inlet to the fracture ft/min ) © ¢. Calculate the scaling group, 2.67 wNne-, used to correlate the mixing coefficient data, o 4. Read the effective mixing coefiient from Fig. 2 orcalculate a value using Eq. 2 ¢. Caleulate the Peclet number for the treatment, using Eq, 8 Nr ®@ UD. £ Read the dimensionless aci tance, Ny, from Fig. 1 g. Calculate the acid penetration distance from the definition for the dimensionless distance, Eq. 9, 1.404 Nai Vhs penetration dis Le 0) Results from the acid penetration calculations are summarized in Table 5. Included in this table is the ‘maximum penetration distance for both 15- and 28- percent HCI injected at 10 or 20 bbl/min and the dynamic fracture length when acid injection was started. Penetration distances are listed for pad vol~ umes of 150, 300, 450, and 600 bbl of Fluid A. Four treatments that appear to have the greatest potential stimulation ratio have been selected for further analy- sis, These treatments are described in Table 6, In actual practice, this technique would be programmed for a computer so that the economic potential of all ceases could be analyzed. ‘The procedure just outlined should now be re- TABLE 4—CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE sfamace, A Fl Vly Un) Sling Group fr Flom log he Fracture Tas Vasey icon parent ol a peco HO (on mi) vat inva TOBwTain 208A 5 ‘coca 82 a0 110 580 1160 20 00057 m4 ais wm ™ ass s coo? zo 0 41300 200 a7 L3 © oo0081 22 584 ries 248 sis 199 xing Coetcint (0° > D., 9 t/min Pelt Number Time 15 percent Hol 26 parcent HOT 15 percent ROT ‘E percant ACT (in) iG/min20wsTTain’ YOR ZOBUTaia «TD Bamin——ZOSDI/min©«T0D/min. 20a ra 16 240 13 198 028 018 035 024 0 191 a 1st im oz ae 028 oe 6 an ast 164 259 aia on 025 016 & 235 ae in an oir 10 oz one __Dimersolss Aid Peston Distance taxi eid Penetration Distance Time “1S pereent HCI 26 percent HO) 26 percont HOT (ain) Damn 20 ism 2008 i6bbi/nin 200 5 030 a8 025, 105 13 133 2 ox 030 aaa ne 1s 1s a 5 oz 026 a6 15 155 155 1a # 019 024 ois 10 16 14 26 TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF CALCULATED RESULTS, EXAMPLE LIMESTONE FORMATION Fracture Lengtiat the Pad Volume He 28 percent HO End afte Pa eo) ‘Teuymin ZOD =©—“TORBITmin” ORBIT fn 150 105 133 133 176 194 300 nia 148 a i” 2a1 450 25 155 155 131 348 600 180 164 164 208 408, JULY, 1972 a way: '‘TABLE 6—MAXIMUM STIMULATION RATIO, EXAMPLE LIMESTONE FORMATION Maximum Acid Treatment Penetration Number Treatment Distance (F) 1 300bI pad at 10 Bbi/min 5,500 gal of 15 percent HC! 3-10 BbI/min 118 2 300bbI pad at 10 bbi/min 8,000 gal of 15 percent HC! at 20 bbi/min 148 3 300:bbI pa at 10 bbI/min 3,600 gal of 28 percent HCI at 10 bbi/min 148 4 480:bbI pad at 10 BbI/min 7,000 gal of 28 percent HCI at 20 Bolin 7 ‘Assumes 40-18 wall epocing,r.—60 wed by Wie ane’ Sikora peated for the assumption that fluid loss from the fracture is controlled by the reacted acid viscosity. To do this, first calculate the fluid loss coefficient, Cys for the spent acid™ and then repeat the calcula- tions to predict the acid penetration distance. The re- sulting acid penetration distances will represent the minimum possible acid penetration distance to be ex- pected from the treatment. Field results will normally be between this minimum and the maximum values. Since the calculation of minimum acid penetration is comparable with that outlined in Table 4, we will not show it here, 4. Seleet the Acid Volume The acid volume required to achieve a desired frac- ture conductivity can be qualitatively predicted us- ing techniques proposed by Broaddus and Knox" if core samples are available. In many cases, cores are not available and an approximate procedure must be used to seleet 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 15epercent HCI is used, the acid volume should be about three times the fracture volume. If, for example, the average fracture width was 0.24 in. the height was 100 ft, and the acid penetration distance was 150 ft, the fracture volume in the region to be etched would be 4,500 gal (7.48 gal/ou ft % 2 wings 150 f/wing % 0.24 in./12 /Mt x 100 fi). At least 6,780 gal of 28-percent HCI would be used inthis treatment (4,500 gal > 1.5 = 6,750 gal). Acid volumes specified for the treat- ments considered in Table 6 were calculated using this procedure S. 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 ctch a conductive flow channel throughout the area contacted, Stimulation ratios are given for a ratio of fracture conductivity to formation permeability of 10%, 10%, and 10° md-in./md to cover the range of postible etched fracture conductivities. ‘A shortcoming of this or any other design proce sé otras Mena s)) Length jr i To oss 20 37 4a oa 20 39 46 022 20 39 46 027 20 43 50 dure for acid treatments is our inability to predict ac- curately the fracture conductivity to be created by acid etching, When cores are available, tests can be run to evaluate conductivity qualitatively."* Untor tunately, these tests are often questionable. Field re~ sults are therefore the only realistic test for the effec- tiveness of a given design. 6. Select the Most Economie Treatment Treatment 4 appears to be the best of the four treat- ‘ments considered in Table 6 since it will offer the maximum potential for stimulation, An economic analysis of this or other treatments should follow ‘general practices for evaluating workover or stimula- tion candidates. Techniques for economic analysis will not be discussed here. 60 w = O1 INCH bp=he 500) ¥ = 0.0005 FT/MIN 12 200° F cr soo] eT ONE HEY ge Do 300} 20 100} ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE - FT 0 02 04 06 O08 10 INJECTION - i/hg (BPM/FT) Fig, 4—Eftect of injection cate on {acid penetratian distance. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYEffect of Treatment Variables On Acid Penetration ‘To illustrate how changes in treatment design could ‘ify 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 fluid, 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. ‘Acid flow rate, i/h, can be increased by injecting at a higher rate or by designing the treatment so that acid contacts only a fraction of the total fracture height. As proposed by Graham e¢ 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 0.1 min/ft (based on total fracture height), penetra- 350 8 8 g 8 » 8 s = 10 BPM hq = 50 FT 0.0005 FT/MIN T= 200° F C/o = 01 (28% HCI) ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE - FT L L L L 0 O01 02 03 04 FRACTURE WIDTH - IN 05 Fig. 5—Etfect of fracture width on Acie penetration distance, JULY, 1972 tion can be increased from 110 to 265 ft in a dolo- mite or from 75 to 180 ft ina limestone. The effect of fracture width on acid penetration distance js illustrated in Fig. 5. In this example, an increase in width from 0.1 to 0.2 in, inereases 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 will 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 Fig. 6, an increase in temperature from 100° to 220°F could decrease the penetration for 15-percent HCI from 120 to 82 ft ina 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- of 1S-percent HCI and 2.0 times the viscosity of 28-percent HCI In calculating acid penetration distance for field treatments, it is important to prediet 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 would reduce reaction tempers ture from 220° to 150°F would increase the pene- 350, towrm hy = 50 FT (2.0005 F/min 8 250) 200; ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE - FT oo 120 140 160 180 200 220 TEMPERATURE - °F Fig. 6—tffect of temperature and acid concentration ‘on acid penetration distance, ass[ACIO PENETRATION DISTANCE - FT 8 ° oz 03 0a INSECTION RATE - BPM/FT Fig. 7—Comparison of acid penetration distance predicted by the proposed model and by a static reaction test. os a6 109, INJECTION RATE - BPM/FT 2 75°F 0005 FT/miN Oh i Te0o ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE - FT Fig. 8—Comparison of acid penetration distance predicted by the proposed model and by ‘the model Of Barron ef a.” 200 POSED MODEL 16 a & 3s 8 ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE - FT 502, A ‘ACID EFFECTIVENESS NUMBER Fig. 9—comparagn of el penetration tance edited by the proposed madel 2 Pree puodel OF Rntsie etal 856 681 0k 4 8 tration distance of 28-percent HCI from 177 to only 222 ft. ‘An increase in acid concentration from 15- to 28- percent HCI will increase acid penetration distance since the more concentrated acid is more viscous and will have a lower value for the effective mixing co- efficient, Fig. 6 shows that acid penetration distance in a 200°F dolomite formation can be increased from 127 to 178 ft by using 28-percent HCI instead of 15- percent HCl. Penetration distance could be increased further by adding materials that would increase the acid viscosity and thereby reduce the effective mixing coefficient. The value of additives that increase acid viscosity can be estimated through the use of Eqs. 2 through 4 and Fig. 1 Comparison of Techniques for Predicting Acid Reaction in Fracturing Operations “The design procedure proposed in this paper differs from previous ones in that it attempts to include all the variables that can affect acid penetration distance. The following discussion illustrates how this model differs from procedures based on the static reaction rate fest, 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 time determined from a static reaction test to esti- mate penetration distance, In such a test, a sample 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 the area-to-volume ratio expected in the fracturing treatment, The time required for acid to react to 20 percent of the initial value is normally reported as the Feaction time for the acid-rock system. Penetration distance is computed by determining the average acid flow velocity along the fracture in the treatment ‘and then computing the distance acid can travel dur- ing the spending time. “Typical reaction time data are given in Table 7.* In Fig. 7, acid penetration distance predicted using these data is contrasted with the penetration distance predicted by the proposed theory." Predictions based (on the static reaction test are normally more optimis- tic than predictions from the proposed model since the static test cannot reflect the effects of acid flow. channel roughness, or fluid loss on acid penetration distance. A design based only on static reaction rate data can therefore be misleading. Design Based on Flow Tests Barron et al." have presented acid design curves based on scaled flow experiments. In their studies, @ flow model scaled to represent a fracture was used to ‘measure acid reaction. Experiments were run over a wide range of fracture widths and acid flow rates, Predictions based on these experiments are presented Spake Lig tony te ice is oe be the oid wees JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYin Fig. 8, where the acid penetration distance is re- lated to injection rate and fracture width. Comparison with our proposed technique shows that the penctra- distance predicted by Barron ef al. is larger. At = injection rate of 0.1 bbl/min/ft and a 0.05-in. fracture width, Barron's design curves predict an acid penetration distance of 140 ft, as compared with 42 ft predicted with the proposed model The difference between models for acid penetra tion can be related to the experiment chosen to repre- sent the acid fracturing process. Barron measured acid reaction rate in @ horizontal fracture model with Smooth limestone walls. As shown in Fig. 2, the ef- fective mixing coefficient in the smooth-walled frac- ture will be smaller than in the more realistic rough fracture used in our study. The horizontal fracture crientation will further reduce the effective mixing coefficient by minimizing gravity effects, Design Based on a Combination of Theory and Scaled Experiments Whitsitt eral. have reported a study of acid reaction in fracturing operations in which they obtained re- action rate data for reaction in flow between parallel walls of limestone and other rocks. Experiments were run in the temperature range of 70 to 150°F ata pres- sure of 1,000 psi and for 0.05- and 0.1-in, fracture widths, A’ mathematical model that incorporates data TABLE 7—REACTION TIME FOR is PERCENT HCI" Pseudo Frocture ‘wath ang O1 024. for acid reaction was then derived. This work has not been published in a form that makes the data acces- sible; however, typical results have been published.* Fig, 9 compares the mathematical model proposed by Whitsitt er al. with the model described in this Paper, and relates the acid spending distance to the acid effectiveness number (a term defined by Whit- sitt as 0.92/Peclet number) for a given set of well conditions, The agreement between these calculations is good, indicating that the mathematical models are comparable. ‘Acid penetration distances predicted by Whitsitt er al, do not agree with predictions made using data presented in Fig, 2, Since the mathematical models are comparable, the mixing coefficient data used by Whitsitt et al, must be different from those presented. here. In Fig. 10 (Fig. 1 in Ref. 16), an acid penetra- tion distance of 150 ft is predicted under conditions for which our proposed model predicts 35 ft. The ef- fective mixing coefficient would have to be 3 10 TABLE 8—EFFECTIVE MIXING COEFFICIENT DATA eid yn Temperature Width Concentration Dex 10 copirmingtty — crstminy "CAD Rock types in) “(percent)” Nees Nee (sa ft/min) 0.05 0.004 70 RL 0375 15 290° «= 030 1.03 0.06 ° 70 RL 0375 5 308 oss 0.06 0.002 70 RL 0.375 15 362008 093 0.06 0.003 70 RL 0375 18 4050.28, 0.08 0.004 70 RL 0375 15 507 (0.30 035 ° 70 RL 0375 15 2268 0 067 0 70 RL 0.375 15 42370 80 o 70 RL 0375 18 5228 0 oor ° 120 RL 0375 15 ‘06 oo 037 ° 180 RL 0375 18 5204 0 ost oo 180 RL 0.375 15 7080 1.72 ora ° 180 RL 0375 13 102400 ozs oo 180 RL o375 1812288 1.88 oss 0017 180 RL 0375 15 12288273 1.02 012 180 RL 0.375, 18 14208 2.00 137 o 183 RL 0375 13 190% 0 os ‘0.006 laa RL o375 15 sa72 098 o62 o 70 RL 0375 28 2970 0 ost ° 167 RL 075 28 456600 0.68 ° 70 RL 0.250 15 4300 0 052 ° 145 RL 0.52 15 5824 0 0.60 ° 70 RL 0.152 15 37950 0.48, 0 192 RL 0.231 15 73230 0.05 oa 70 st 0.320 15 40.26 os2 ° 140 st 0.350 15 56210 0.60 ° 187 st 0375 15 3544 0 0.23 ° 70 80 0375 8 13600 055 0 70 so 0375 15 32480 066 ° 70 sD 0.375 16 390 0 0.29 ° 170 80 0375 15 36520 os2 ° 222 8D 0375, 8 9664 0 St — smaotn tactare wal, mast 85 Smoot facture walls olor JULY, 1972 887 9 = =sq ft/min to obtain the larger penetration distance, or about one-sixth the value measured in our study. Mixing coefficients as small as 3.x 10° sq ft/min would have to be obtained at very low injection rates, with the fracture model oriented so that acid flow is either up or down a vertical fracture. Mixing data obtained under such conditions would not represent those in the fracture, and using them could lead to in- correct evaluation of acid treatment designs. Nomenclature acid concentration initial acid concentration fluid loss coeficient when fluid losses are controlled by viscous resistances or fluid compression, ft/ Vi Cw = fluid loss coefficient when id losses are controlled by fuid loss additives, f¢/ Yimin De, D = effective mass transfer rate for acid, sq ft/min Dz = effective mass transfer rate for acid when surface kinetics are infinitely fast, sq ft/min total fracture height, ft eight of fracture that accepts uid, ft = injection rate into the fracture, bbl/min total injection rate per foot of formation eight, bb1/min/ft i* = injection rate during laboratory experi- ‘ments, o¢/sec k, = formation permeability, md 300 15% ACI | 8 ACID PENETRATION DISTANCE - FT 100 90 80 70 i 60 ae =I 50 an “ FLUID Volume Fam PUMPED = | fo aea00 eat 39 2030 40 50 INJECTION RATE - BPM spear ele owen ese als eta a2” 858 = length of one wing of the fracture at time # (measured from wellbore), ft acid penetration distance along one wing of the fracture (measured from the wellbore), ft dimensionless acid penetration distance, 0.713 Latha/i Peclet number for mass transfer, wi/2D. Reynolds number, for uid loss, 27p/ Reynolds number for flow slong. the fracture, 2WUs 9/1 Schmidt number for mass transfer, »/Dp time, minutes temperature, °F flow velocity at the inlet to the fracture, ft/s average flow velocity along the fracture, ft/min velocity component normal to the cen terline of the fracture at some time, t, ft/min = average fluid loss velocity at some time, 1, ft/min fracture width, in, 1 = viscosity of fracturing fuid, ep = fluid density, Ib, /eu ft References 1. McGuire, W. J. and Sikora, V. J. fal, Fractures” on Well Produciivicy”"| Trans, (1900) 219, 401-403. Howard, G. C. and Fast, C. Rs “Optimum Fluid Char Actertice for Fracture Extension,” Drill and Prod. Prac. APL (1957). 3.Kiel, 0. Mi "A New Hydraulic Fracturing Process 1. Pet, Pech. (Jat, 1970) 89-86, 4.Geertema, J, and de, Klerk, Fz “A Rapid Method of Predicting, Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures" J. Pet, Tech, (Det, 1969) 1571-1881, Hendrickson, A. R., Rosene, R. B. and Wieland, D. Rs “Acid: Reaction Parameters and Reservoie Characteristic Used in the Design of Acid Treatment.” pper presented 4 the 137th ACS mesting, Cleveland, Ohio, April 5-14, 6.Knox, J, Aw Pollock, R. W. and Beecroft, W. HL: “The Chemical “Retardation of Acid and Flow It Can Be Utiieed," J. Cae. Pet. Tech. UaneMarch, 1965) Dill, W. Ri: “Reaction Times of Hydrochloric-Acetic ‘Acid Solution on Limestone,” paper presented at 16th Southwest Regional ACS. Meeting, Oklaboma City, Dec. 153 1960. van Poollen, H. K. and Jargon. J. R.: “How Conditions ‘Meet Reaction Rate of Well-Treatiag Acids" OW and Gar F, (Oct 21, 1968) 8491. 9. van Poollen, H. K.: “How Acids Behave in Solution, OU and Gar J. (Sept. 28, 1967) 100-102, 10, Hendrickson, A. R., Hurst, R, E. and Wieland, D. R “Engineered” Guide for Planing, Acilizing Tretments Based on, Specific Reservoir Characteristics.” Trans. AIME (1960) 219, 1625 11. Rarron, A. N. Hendrickson, A. R. and Wieland, D. R.: "The Effect of Flow on Acid Reactivty in a Carbonate Fracture, J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1962) 408-41. 12. Smith, C, Fe Crowe, C. W. and Wieland, D. Re; “Frac ture Acidiping in Tigh Temperature Limestone,” paper SPE 3008 presented at SPE Sih Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Ott, 47, 1970, 15, Nierode, D. E._and Williams, B. B.: *Characerstes of ‘Acid Reaction in Limestone Formations,” Soe. Pet. En. Tee. 1971) 406-418, JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY “The Effect of Verti- AINE14, Wiliams, B. Be, “Flot Loss from Hydaulically.In- Guced Fractures: J. Pet Tech. Gly, 1970) 882-988 1s Broo G, ad Hn J. tae, of A ‘Type and Quantity im Limestone Etching” paper Pre nied at Mid-Continent Mesting, API, Wit, Kans, sare 31-Apet 3, 1968 16, Whitsit, N.'F., Harrington, L, 1. and Hannah, R. R. "A' New Appraach to Deep Weil Act Stimulation De sitne'"The Western Co. Une 10,1970). 1. Haris, 0. E. Hendrickson, A, Rand Coulter, W. Hiitak’ Conceaurauon, Hyorochiowic Acid Aide Stim: tion’ Rests im. Carborate Formation,” J. Pet. Tech (Gee, 1968) 1391-1296 18, Willms, BB, Gidley, JL Guin, JA. and Schechter RS "“Charastersation of Lqui’Salid Reactions, Hy: rocilone Acid Caiginm Carbonate Reaction Ind. and Eng: Chem: Fund. (Now, 1970) 9,389. 19,Sincai. ALR. "The Effects of Heat Transfer. in Deep Weil Fracturing” J.'Pet Teck: (Dee, 1971) 1484-1292 20. Graham. 1. W. Kerver, J. K. and Morgan FA Method of Acigizng amd Introducing a Corrosion Ti, hibition int. &.-Hydrassrhon Producing. Formation” Ur. Paten 3.167.133 an 26, 1968) 21, Terri, RUM: "Heat Tranglor in Laminar Flow, Be tycen Parallel Porous Plates" Un J. of Hear and Mess Transfer (1988) & 1991-1997 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-walled cores @ 3-in-diameter Original manuscrot of paper SPE 3720 received in Socloty of slow Erainees cific Get. 8 1971, Rav * 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 formed a fracture with very rough parallel walls. Smooth-walled cores were cut from a block of rock and machined to fit into the test equipment. To insure ‘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 10 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 Tow, 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 fiuid loss can be evaluated using Eg. A-1 46 wit (1 LT Cie x10 AD oPT i if i JOLY, 1 859 ' ik