SPE 102590

Acid Fracturing or Proppant Fracturing in Carbonate Formation? A Rock Mechanics

View
H.H. Abass, A.A. Al-Mulhem, M.S. Alqam, and K.R. Mirajuddin, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Acid fracturing is performed to improve well productivity in
acid-soluble formations such as limestone, dolomite, and
chalk. Hydrochloric acid is generally used to create an etched
fracture, which is the main mechanism for maintaining the
fracture open during the life of a well. Proppant fracturing is
an alternative option that has been applied in carbonate
formations. In certain areas, proppant fracturing has been
used as a standard stimulation method for carbonate
formations. There is no quantitative method to provide an
answer of whether acid fracturing or proppant fracturing is an
appropriate stimulation method for a given carbonate
formation.
In proppant fracturing, proppant is used to sustain the effect of
the minimum horizontal stress from closing the fracture. In
acid fracturing the etched, non-smooth, surface with sufficient
roughness should leave open channels upon closing. The
effect of elastic, plastic, and creeping deformations in acid
fracturing and the proppant crushing and embedment in
proppant facturing, on reducing fracture permeability is
investigated. The viscous effect, creeping, is a slow
displacement that incurred over a long period of time. The
creeping effect on fracture closure following an acid fracturing
treatment is demonstrated in this paper.
Laboratory experiments have been performed to simulate acid
and proppant fracturing treatments. The effect of elastic,
plastic and viscoelastic rock behavior on fracture conductivity
was studied for acid and proppant fracturing treatments, using
full core samples. Comparison of acid vs. proppant fracturing
conductivity in carbonate formation is also presented.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing (acid or proppant) is used to create a
conductive fracture in the formation to enhance well
productivity. The induced fracture will tend to close due to the

effect of the minimum horizontal stress. Fracture closure is

controlled by elastic, plastic, and viscous rock properties. In
acid fracturing the etched, non-smooth, fracture surfaces
would leave open pathways upon closing in addition to
wormholes and channels created from the fracture into the
formation. Fracture conductivity is generated by the quantity
of rock removed and the pattern of rock removal. Depending
on the pattern of natural fracture system, acid solubility of the
formation, magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress, and
reservoir temperature, acid fracturing vs. proppant fracturing
should be evaluated to select the most effective stimulation
treatment for a given formation.
Interesting observations relavant to stimulation of
carbonate reservoirs, have been reported in the literature.
Fracture conductivity does not increase with increasing
amounts of dissolved rock1. After successful application of
proppant fracturing in a chalk formation, it was concluded that
proppant fracturing yielded sustained production rate and
became the standard stimulation treatment2. Chalk formations
are usually soft with Brinell hardness less than 10 Kg/mm2
and therefore creeping is pronounced. The effect of increased
effective stress, due to reservoir depletion, on fracture and
matrix permeabilities, was reported3. Proppants importance in
sustaining fracture conductivity in carbonate formation was
demonstrated4.
Although longer contact periods of acid with formation
results in more etched surface and thus higher fracture
conductivity, it lowers compressive strength of the formation5.
It was claimed that in high reservoir temperatures, fast acid
reaction in formations containing high concentrations of
calcite, acid fracture length is a lot shorter than propped
fracture length6. It was suggested that for reservoirs with a
minimum horizontal stresse (fracture closure stress) higher
than 5,000 psi, proppant fracturing is the optimum stimulation
method because etching caused by fracture acidizing can not
support such high stress7. In chalk formations, it was shown
that proppant fracturing yielded better results than acid
fracturing8. Fracture length in acid fracturing and proppant
fracturing will be different due to the dissimilar fracture
mechanics involved in these techniques. In proppant
fracturing, the fracturing gel is not reactive with the formation,
and therefore can penetrate deeper as compared to acid
fracturing for a given fracturing-fluid volume especially at
high reservoir temperature. Therefore it is anticipated to create
longer fractures in proppant fracturing as compared to acid
fractures. This paper presents a rock mechanics view of

SPE 102590

fracture closure of propped and acid etched fracture as

follows:
1) In acid fracturing, fracture closure is due to asperities
embedment, asperities crushing, and viscous flow
(creeping).
2) In proppant fracturing, fracture closure is due to
proppant embedment, proppant crushing, and proppant
flowback.
Fracture Closure in Acid Fracturing
Production increase due to an acid fracturing treatment is
generated from two factors; fracture length and fracture
conductivity. Fracture length is controlled by acid convection
(injection rate), acid-reaction rate, and acid-loss rate. Fracture
width is a result of the differential etching occurring as the
acid reacts with the walls of the created fracture. This will
create an uneven fracture surface that will determine the
fracture width upon fracture closure. Therefore, fracture
conductivity is determined by the amount of rock dissolved,
fracture-surface roughness, closure stress, and the stress-strain
characteristics of rock formation. If reservoir temperature is
too high, optimization of the injection rate becomes very
critical to create a long conductive fracture. If the reaction rate
is low, uniform etching may be resulted leading to insufficient
fracture conductivity. The industry has focused on reducing
fluid loss and acid reaction by increasing acid viscosity such
as using emulsified and gelled acid systems.

The creep function, ( t ) characterizes the rheological

properties of the rock formation. This function is best
described experimentally for a given range of stress,
temperature, and lithology. Creeping models include the
elastic response described by Hookes law for Hookean
substances (spring model) and the viscous response for
Newtonian substances as described by a dashpot model. The
elastic strain, e , is defined in terms of Youngs modulus, E,
and effective stress following Hookes law:

e =

. (2)

While the viscous effect as represented by a dashpot model

is described by:

= 

.. (3)

Both of these effects are acting when the reservoir

pressure decreases; the elastic displacement (spring effect) in
response to the increase in effective closure stress, and a time
dependant displacement function (dashpot effect). All
viscoelastic models include both effects to simulate a creeping
phenomenon. Figure 1 shows a typical creeping behavior of
certain rocks that flows under given conditions of stress and
temperature9.

Strain

Upon completion of an acid fracturing treatment, three

factors will contribute to a reduction in fracture conductivity:
1) Elastic response.
2) Compressive failure of contact points (asperities).
3) Creeping effect.
The elastic closure response occurs when the net
effective minimum horizontal stress increases as a result of
reservoir depletion. The elastic response to close the fracture
follows Hookes law of elasticity and it is controlled by
Youngs modulus of the formation. The elastic response will
decrease the aperture of the fracture which reduces fracture
conductivity. If we assume 50 ft of the rock perpendicular to
the fracture will contribute to fracture closure, then for a
Youngs modulus of 3 x 106 psi, the decrease in fracture width
corresponding to a decrease in reservoir pressure from 7,000
to 4,000 psi will be 0.05 inches. The fracture will not close by
0.05 inches rather the contact points will carry the applied
stress to prevent fracture closure if they are strong enough to
withstand the stress. The compressive strength of the asperities
will determine the severity of their failure on fracture
permeability. The reduction in conductivity is due to a
combined effect of elastic response and compressive failure of
the asperities. Compressive failure also generates rock
particles and fines that will further reduce fracture
conductivity.
The creeping (viscous) effect is a slow time dependant
displacement. The total displacement obtained from applying
a constant stress is the sum of two components:
t = e + (t ) ......... (1)

Transient

Steady

Tertiary

Time
Figure 1: A creeping behavior of a rock that flows under given
conditions of stress and temperature (Jeager & Cook, 1979).

Three regions are usually observed in some rocks that creep to

failure:
1) Primary creep: It is also called a transient creep, which
represents an increase in the observed strain but in a
decreasing rate with time (slope is decreasing).
2) Secondary creep: It is also called a steady-state creep that
exhibits constant strain rate (constant slope).
3) Tertiary creep: It is also called accelerating creep in
which some rocks and under certain combination of stress and
temperature, exhibit accelerated strain rate (increasing slope)
approaching viscous deformation, leading to structural
collapse of the rock frame.
Experimental Design and Simulation
An experimental procedure was designed to simulate acid and
proppant fracturing processes using the rock mechanics
loading frame. Two types of geometries were used that

SPE 102590

simulate radial and linear flow regimes. Whole core samples

were selected with dimensions of 4-in. diameter and
approximately 4-in. long. A -in. diameter hole is drilled in
the center to allow for a radial flow that can be established
through the rock matrix or through an induced fracture (Figure
2).

Figure 3: Fracture surface before acidizing (above) and after

acidizing (below) showing the etching effect and generated
asperities.

Figure 2: Radial flow experimental model.

A given sample was then cut horizontally into two pieces to
simulate a fracture. The surfaces simulating a fracture were
surface grounded and exposed statically to 15 percent acid
from both sides either by dipping the sample in acid or placing
acid on the surface until no more chemical reaction is
observed. The fracture surface before and after acidizing is
shown in Figure 3.
Special care was exercised around the center hole and the
sample external boundary to prevent losing sample contact
due to excessive etching at these boundaries. The sample was
bounded together again with the same alignment before
acidizing by matching two marked lines drawn on the sample
before cutting.

A screen with two screw clamps was mounted on the sample

to allow the confining fluid to flow radially through the
simulated etched fracture to the wellbore. The final geometry
of the simulated experiment was a vertical wellbore with a
horizontal fracture. In case of a propped fracture, the same
design was applied; however, a proppant layer was placed on
one surface. The sample was then positioned inside the rock
mechanics loading frame that provides the following
measurements:
1) Vertical stress applied perpendicular to the fracture that
simulated the minimum horizontal stress.
2) Vertical strain was determined from two LVDTs that
measure the axial strain vs. time for a given stress.
3) External pressure using the confining fluid which
simulated the reservoir pressure because the sample was
not jacketed.
4) Wellbore pressure which was basically when it was put
on production.
5) Reservoir temperature which was set within the loading
frame.
6) Production rate was measured by timing a produced
volume of oil.

The other sample geometry was created by applying a

Brazilian tensile failure to split a 4 whole core in two halves.
Then the confining pressure was applied around the fractured
sample and a linear flow was established to determine fracture
conductivity of an etched or propped fracture (Figure 4).

SPE 102590

The primary and secondary creeping yielded a strain of

0.00008027 in/in during this period. The stress was then
increased to 8,000 psi; where the cumulative strain increased
to 0.00126152 in/in. This meant that the elastic strain
generated from the additional 2,000 psi was 0.00017924. The
stress was then kept constant at 8,000 psi for about 118 hours
to have a total testing time of 230 hours. The total strain at this
time is 0.00138577 in/in. The primary and secondary creeping
yielded a strain of 0.00012425 in/in.

0.0014

8,000 PSI
0.0012

6,000 PSI

Strain, in/in

0.001

0.0008

4,000 PSI
0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

Figure 4: Linear flow experimental model.

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Time, Hours

Creeping Test of Acid-Fracture Samples

A creeping test was designed to study rock deformation under
constant stress as a function of time. This test simulates the insitu reservoir conditions where a fracture is exposed to the
effective minimum horizontal stress. A typical test involves
loading the sample to three progressive stresses; 4,000, 6,000,
and 8,000 psi. At each stress level, the elastic and viscous
displacements are measured until an explanatory trend is
obtained. If we consider the results of a typical sample as
shown in Figure 5, the elastic strain for loading the sample to
4,000 psi, the strain was 0.00064 in/in. The stress was then
maintained constant at 4,000 psi for 71 hours to obtain the
creeping characteristics for the sample at this stress level. The
creeping profile suggests that the sample exhibits the primary
and secondary creeping phases but has not shown any sign of
tertiary creeping. This is expected for such a high Youngs
modulus sample. The elastic, primary, and secondary creeping
responses can be observed in Figure 6 in a stress-time
representation. The accumulated strain at the end of 71 hours
was 0.00082278 in/in. The stress was then increased to 6,000
psi; where the cumulative strain increased to 0.00100201 in/in.
This means that the elastic strain generated from the additional
2,000 psi is 0.0001793 in/in. The stress was then kept constant
at 6,000 psi for about 41 hours to have a total testing time of
112 hours. The total strain at this time was 0.00108228 in/in.

Figure 5: Strain behavior for three cycles of loading showing

elastic behavior and time dependent creeping.
Linear fitting of the secondary creeping portion for three stress
levels is described by the following equations:

= 4.78 x107 t + 7.871x104

= 7.41x107 t + 9.99 x104

at 4,000 psi

at 6,000 psi

= 3.5338 x107 t + 1.306 x103

at 8,000 psi

To predict the creeping strain as a function of time, a plot

was made to determine the function between the creeping
strain and log (time). A straight line was resulted and
interpolation became possible to determine cumulative strain
at any time (Figure 6).
Creeping Prediction at 4000 psi and 228 F

Strain, in/in

A creeping test was designed by applying in-situ

conditions of temperature and stress for a given sample.
Progressive loads simulating a stress path exposed on a
fracture during production, was applied and maintained
constant as the resulting deformation was measured. Fracture
conductivity was calculated for the applied progressive
stresses to determine its variation due to the elastic, plastic,
and viscous effects.

0.00096
0.00091
0.00086
0.00081
0.00076
1

10

100

Time, hrs
Figure 6: Creeping extrapolation for any given time.

1000

SPE 102590

Creep Modeling
To model the complete creeping response (primary and
secondary), Burgers model was used to describe the axial
strain as a function of time for a sample subjected to constant
axial stress10:

(t ) =

(G1t / 1 )
+
+

e
+
t .. (4)
9 K 3G2 3G1 3G1
32

This model includes the instantaneous strain, transient

creep, and steady state creep. The experimental creep data for
4,000 psi axial stress was matched by Burgers model using the
following parameters.

= 4000 psi
= 3.75 x 106 psi
= 16 x 106 psi
= 2.9 x 106 psi
= 2.2 x 109 psi.hr
= 40 x 106 psi.hr
= time, hrs

K
G1
G2
2
1
t

Figure 7 shows the experimental and model prediction for the

4,000 psi creeping test. The model clearly illustrates the nonlinear time-dependant behavior. The model parameters reflect
intrinsic properties of a given rock formation.

0.00082

Axial strain

Y=5 E-7 X + 0.0008

0.00074

Experimental data
Burgers model
0.0007
20

30

40

50

(5)

Where A is the area for a fracture and m is a numerical

geometry factor ranging from 0.71 to 0.95 depending on a
given fracture length. If this equation is compared to simple
plain strain equation, the effect of a pressurized fracture in
developing fracture width through rock displacement is
determined by the factor A . If we assume a square fracture,
the distance through the rock mass perpendicular to the
fracture that contributes to fracture displacement is equivalent
to fracture height or length. This suggests that the applied
stress is transferred into the formation and its depth is
proportional to the loaded area. This means that there is a
critical distance perpendicular to the fracture within which a
rock mass is deforming and beyond this region the rock
formation does not experience the applied stress. Therefore,
the formation beyond the critical distance does not exert any
elastic rebound deformation toward the fracture upon
removing the pressure in the fracture.
This very distance can be assumed to contribute to the
fracture closure upon removal of the applied fracturing
pressure. The strain function presented in Fig. 7 determines
the strain at a given time which is basically defined by:

w
. (6)
L

Where w is the rock displacement that causes fracturewidth development or closure, and L is the critical distance
that will be contributing to fracture closure. The critical
distance can also be the rock mass contributing to the timedependant closure including the primary and secondary
creeping phases.

0.00078

10

m P 1 2
Wav =
E

Strain =

4000 psi Axial Stress

The average width of an induced fracture subjected to an

applied net pressure, P, is given by10:

60

Time, hrs
Figure 7: Modeling experimental creeping data using Burgers
model.

Fracture Width
Fracture width varies significantly between acid fracturing and
proppant fracturing. Fracture width in acid fracturing is
created from the etching mechanism and upon closing;
channels will be left open because of the non-smooth surfaces
of the created fracture. In proppant fracturing, a fracture closes
on a proppant bed leaving a continuous highly permeable
fracture (not channel) connecting the reservoir to a wellbore.

The displacement due to creeping compared to elastic

response becomes significant with time. This displacement
will not close the fracture directly, but it is manifested into
stress applied on the contact points (asperities) in acid
fracturing or on the proppant grains of the proppant pack in
proppant fracturing. The conductivity of a propped fracture
will be compared to the acid fracture as follows:
1) The elastic and creeping forces will be applied on the
proppant grains or asperities. In general a single grain of a
propped fracture will experience less stress than an
asperity of an acid fracture.
2) The strength of a spherical proppant grain should be
compared to an irregular asperity in an acid fracture.
On the other hand direct displacement that closes the fracture
due to creeping happens within a rock space between two
consecutive contact points.

SPE 102590

Time Dependant Effect at 5000 psi and 228 0F

Proppant Concentration 0.365 Ib/ft2
200
180
160
140
Rate cc/min

Conductivity of acid & proppant fracture (Rock A)

To evaluate the effect of elastic and creeping displacements on
fracture conductivity, flow testing was conducted using a type
of mineral oil. The production rate decreased from 180 cc/min
to about 20 cc/min. The stress was then maintained at 4,000
psi to evaluate the creeping effect as depicted in Figure 8. The
production rate declined from 20 cc/min to about 5 cc/min
after 100 hours.

120
100

Production Rate, cc/min

40

160

20
0

120

80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Time, hrs

Reservoir
d l ti

Figure 9. The effect of creeping on production rate of a propped

fracture at 5,000 psi axial stress.

Creepin

40
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Stress, psi
Creeping effect on rate, 4000 psi at Room Temp.

A normalized fracture conductivity represented as a

percentage of the initial conductivity is presented in Figure 10
for the acid and proppant fractures. The figure indicate that for
this formation a proppant fracture, if can be performed, will
sustain well productivity while acid fracturing will suffer
production decline with time.

25

1.0

20
15
10
5
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time, hrs

Figure 8. Time dependent creeping effect on production rate

at 4000 psi.
The effect of creeping can be less dramatic if the fracture can
transfer the creeping force through contact points without
failure. As closure stress increases some contact points fail
and a continuous production rate decline is anticipated. In a
propped fracture, the creeping force is transferred if the
proppant grain strength is sufficient, otherwise proppant
crushing occurs. The effect of constant closure stress of 5000
psi left for 67 hours, on flow rate through a propped fracture is
shown in Figure 9. The effect of creeping on proppantfracture conductivity was not significant. This test should be
performed for the given formation and the proppant to be used
under in-situ conditions.

Normalized Frac Conductivity

R a te, cc/m in

80
60

200

0.8
acid
0.6

prop

0.4

0.2

0.0
0

2,000
4,000
6,000
Closure Stress, psi

8,000

Figure 10. Comparison of acid and proppant (1-layer 12/20 ISP, 0.365
2
Ib.ft ).

Conductivity of acid & proppant fracture (Rock B)

In this case the sample is from a different formation and only
flow testing at room temperature was performed. The effect of
stress on permeability was evaluated for the matrix, tensile
fracture, 100 mesh layer of 0.12, one layer of 30 mesh RCP,
and acid fracture (Figure 11).

SPE 102590

Matrix
Tensile f racture
acid

mesh100 (0.12)
30mesh RCP

Total Permeability, md

1000

10

0.1

0.001

0.00001
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Effective Confining Pressure, psi

Figure 11. Stress dependant permeability of matrix, tensile

fracture, 100mesh sand (.12), 30 mesh RCP (one layer).
The permeability of a one layer 30 mesh RCP decreased
drastically and a lot of fines was generated at an effective
closure of 4,000 psi. This is an important criterion to consider
when deciding on the type of proppant to be used in the
proppant fracturing treatment.
In this formation, the acid fracture exhibited mild decrease in
permeability as a function of increasing stress as shown in
Figure 12.

mesh100 (0.12)

30mesh RCP (1 layer)

acid

Normalized permeability

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Effective Confining Pressure, psi

Figure12: Normalized permeability for 100 mesh sand (0.12),

30 mesh RCP (one layer), and acid fracture.

Mechanical Strength of Fracture Surface

Long Acid-contact time may not be beneficial to obtain
fracture conductivity as it can weaken the fracture surface and
may make it more vulnerable for creeping and compressive
failure of the contact points. It was shown that the
conductivity created by 20 minutes of acid contact time was
higher than that created by 40 minutes for both dolomite and
limestone samples1. The acid exposure weakened the rock
structure along the fracture surface resulting in greater
sensitivity to closure stress. The fracture surface becomes
more plastic and the contact points will fail at higher closure
stress. Additionally these contact points need not to be sharp
and long as their failure becomes more apparent. This effect is
more pronounced near the wellbore as the acid contact time is
the maximum. Beg et al.11, therefore recommended overdisplacing the acid into the fracture to prevent high dissolution
near the wellbore.
The Brinell Hardness Number (BHN) was used to decide on
whether acid or proppant is used in stimulating chalk
formation; proppant fracturing is considered when BHN is less
than 10 Kg/mm2 (Cook, 2004). The acid may reduce the BHN
as much as 50%. This decrease in hardness weakens the
contact points and causes them to fail under the effect of
closure stress. Additionally it creates a more ductile fracture
surface that becomes more vulnerable to creeping effect.
Proppant flowback
Proppant flowback is one of the drawbacks of proppant
fracturing. A very small amount of proppant production can
cause a major loss of communicating a created fracture to the
wellbore. Therefore several techniques have been used in the
industry to prevent proppant flowback. These techniques are
Forced Fracture Closure, Curable Resin Coated Proppant
(CRCP), on-the-fly RCP, and supporting materials. Among
these methods the CRCP and on-the-fly RCP are the optimum
choice if tested and designed for correctly. CRCP is partially
cured during manufacturing, and when injected in the
reservoir, the curing is completed under the effect of
temperature and stress.
Upon curing a grain-to-grain
cementation is created and the cured proppant develops a
compressive strength that prevents proppant flowback during
production. A new testing method has been designed in which
a continuous acoustic velocity through a CRCP sample is
measured under constant confining pressure and timedependant temperature function. Figure 13 shows the arrival
time for both P & S waves as a function of temperature. The
p-wave is indicated by the right axis while the S-Waves are
plotted against the left axis. The P-wave travels faster
compared to the S-waves. The travel time of both waves
decreases as temperature increases. The travel time decreases
rapidly, reaching 22.0 -sec and 35.7 -sec for P and S waves
respectively, for the temperature of 250 oF at which this
specific CRCP cured as shown in Figure 13. It is crucial to
determine the time it takes to reach this temperature in the
field, following the cooling effect in a given fracturing
treatment.

SPE 102590

Strength Development as a Function of Arrival Time

25

42
S1 travel time

24.5
S2 travel time
24

P travel time
40

23.5
23

39

22.5
38

22
21.5

37

21

P-W ave Travel Time, micro-sec

S-W aves Travel Tim e, m icro-sec

41

36
20.5
35
70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

20
230

Temperature, 0 F

Figure 13: Laboratory data showing

development as a function of temperature.

CRCP

strength

Figure 14 shows field data for the cooling and temperature

recovery related to a fracturing treatment. It is recommended
to establish this temperature behavior in the field. The bottomhole-temperature profile determined in the field should reflect
the whole injection phases such that it provides the
temperature base before the treatment, the cooling effect, and
temperature recovery until bottom hole temperature returns
back to the original reservoir temperature. This vital data
should be performed in each reservoir corresponding to a
given injection process (acid fracturing, proppant fracturing,
water injection, etc.) to determine the thermal environment pre
and post treatment in a given formation. In this specific field
case, it took about 21 hours after the cooling period to reach
the required curing temperature of 250 oF. This is translated to
designed closure time when CRCP is used for proppant
flowback control. It is important to realize that the testing
procedure should reflect not only the increasing temperature
but also the temperature function determined in the field. The
test must simulate the exact temperature recovery effect due to
injecting a typical volume of fracturing fluid in a given
reservoir.

Conclusions
1) Creeping test is introduced to provide additional criterion
to make a decision on selecting a proppant or acid fracturing
treatment for a given formation and in-situ conditions. Primary
and secondary creeping, but no tertiary behavior was observed
in the tested carbonate rock at in-situ conditions.
2) Productivity decline in an acid-fractured well is an
integrated response of the elastic, plastic, and creeping
responses to the applied stress. About 30-40% of production
rate decline occurs during a short time as a result of primary
creeping of the acid-softened carbonate formation. Proppant
fracturing sustains production rate because there are more
supporting points to distribute the increasing closure stress.
3) The effect of lumped factors affecting acid and proppant
conductivity, as related to elastic, plastic, and viscous failure
mechanisms, is best evaluated in the lab using formation
samples and same materials planned for a fracturing treatment.
The in-situ conditions of stress, stress path, temperature, and
temperature history should be carefully simulated.
4) A testing methodology and calculated shut-in time is
presented to achieve maximum compressive strength of RCP.
The grain-to-grain contact of the RCP is a very critical
parameter for strength development and the shut-in time must
allow for this mechanism to take place without any
disturbance.
Nomenclature
A
: Fracture area
E
: Youngs modulus
G1
: A rock property that controls the amount of delayed
elasticity, psi
G2
: Elastic shear modulus, psi
K
: Bulk modulus
L
: Distance perpendivular to fracture that contribute to
fracture closure, ft
m
: Numerical geometry factor
Pe
: External pressure, psi
Pw
: Wellbore pressure, psi
P
: Pressure drawdown (Pe-Pw), psi
re
: External radius, inch
rw
: Wellbore radius, inch
t
: time, hr
Wav
: Average fracture width
w
: Fracture displacement during width development

: Biots constant

: Effective grain-to-grain stress acting to close

fracture.

h
(t)

Figure 14: Field data showing the cooling effect of fracturing fluid and
temperature recovery following the treatment.

: Total minimum horizontal stress

t
e

: The creep function

: Total displacement due to creeping
: Displacement due to elastic response
: Shear stress

: Shear strain rate

SPE 102590

: Dynamic viscosity

: Poissons ratio
: Axial stress, psi
: A parameter that determines the rate of delayed
elasticity, psi.hr
: The rate of viscous flow, psi.hr

1
2

References
1.

Navarre, R.C., Miller, M.J., and Gordon, J.E.: Laboratory and

Theoretical Studies for Acid Fracture Stimulation
Optimization, SPE 39776 presented at the Permian Basin Oil &
Gas Recovery, Midland, TX. 23-26, 1998.

2.

Cook, C.C., and Brekke, K.: Productivity Preservation via

Hydraulic Propped Fractures in the Eldfisk North Sea Chalk
Field, SPE paper 73725 presented SPE Symposium on
Formation Damage, Lafayette, Louisiana, 20-21 Feb. 2002.

3.

Lorenz, J.C.: Stress-Sensitive Reservoirs, JPT, Jan. 1999.

4.

Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England, K.W.:

Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture Conductivity
Demonstrates the Benefits of Using Proppants, Paper SPE
60326 presented at the 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
Conference, Denver, Colorado, 12-15 March 2000.

5.

Gong, M., Lacote, S., and Hill, A.D.: A New Model of Acid
Fracture Conductivity Based on Deformation of Surface
Asperities, paper SPE 39431 presented at the 1998 SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in
Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb 18-19, 1998.

6.

Ben-Naceur K. and Economidies, M.J.: The Effectivness of

Acid Fractures and Their Production Behavior, paper SPE
18536 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, WV, 1-4 Nov. 1988.

7.

Valko, P., Norman, L., and Daneshy, A.: Petroleum Well

Construction, Chapter 17, Well Stimulation, Wiley, 1998. p.
506.

8.

Cook, C.C. and Brake, K.: Productivity Preservation through

Hydraulic Propped Fractures in the Elfish North Sea Chalk
Field, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, April 2004.

9.

Jeager, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W.: Fundamentals of Rock

Mechanics, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1979, pp. 309325.

10. Goodman, R.E.: Introduction to Rock Mechanics, Jones Wiley

& Sons, New York, 1980, p.199.
11. Beg, M.S., Kunak, A.O., Gong, M., Zhu, D., Hill, A.D.: A
Systematic Experimental Study of Acid Fracture Conductivity,
SPE Production & Facilities, Nov. 1998, pp. 267-271.
12. Olson, K.E., Olsen, E., Haidar, S., Boulatsel, A., and Brekke,
K.: Valhall Field: Horizontal Well Stimulations Acid vs.
Peoppant and Best Practices for Fracture Optimization, SPE
84392 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference in
Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October, 2003.