Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Petroleum
journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/petroleum

Optimization of acid fracturing for a tight carbonate reservoir

Aymen Al-Ameri∗, Talal Gamadi
Bob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

H I GH L IG H T S

• Acid loss is a big issue in acid fracturing.

• Slickwater injection before well shut-in to reduce rock-acid contact time.
• Multi-stage acid fracturing for tight carbonate reservoirs with low compressive strength.
• Acid flowback for single stage acid fracturing.
• Post-flush for multi-stage alternate acid slickwater acid fracturing.

A B S T R A C T

In this study, acid fracturing treatments were simulated for a tight limestone reservoir within a shale formation using FRACPRO software. The purpose was to
investigate the optimum acid fracturing design that leads to a higher fracture etched length and width, and higher fracture conductivity. Moreover, the impact of the
rock-acid contact time and whether to consider a post-flush or fluids flowback, on the acid fracturing outcomes were also investigated. A simple geological model was
constructed which consists of different lithological layers.
Different acid fracturing design scenarios were considered starting from a single stage of acid injection to multi-stage treatment. In multi-stage acid treatment,
alternate acid-slickwater injection was considered. Plain HCl acids with different concentrations and other acids that are already included in FRACPRO database were
used.
The results showed that the acid loss during post-flush is among the main problems of the acid fracturing in tight carbonate shale reservoir. For the single stage of
acid injection, it is recommended to flow back the acid after well shut-in instead of considering a post-flush stage. The multi-stage alternate acid slickwater injection
reduces or even eliminated the acid loss. However, it is recommended to inject a slickwater before well shut-in to reduce the rock-acid contact time, thus reducing the
formation damage. The results also showed that the created fracture etched width decreases and the fracture etched length increases as the fracturing stages increase.
In this study, because of the low carbonate layer permeability and compressive strength, a two-stage alternate 28% HCl and slickwater injection with a post-flush
stage is recommended.

1. Introduction
Acid fracturing is among the stimulation techniques that have been
widely used by the oil industry. The process relies on the acid etching of
the fracture face, rather than the placing of proppant to produce con-
ductivity. Acid fracturing consists primarily of four stages: pre-flush,
pad and acid injection, and post-flush. In the pre-flush stage, slickwater,
is injected at pressures sufficient to fracture the formation. The pre-
flushed stage is followed by acid pumping generally as stages. After
injection, the well is shut-in to give time for the fracture to close by the
effect of formation stresses. Post-flush is used to move the acid deeper
into the fracture to improve the acid penetration distance. However, the
fracturing job success depends on the amount of conductivity created
after fracture closure and the length of the etched fracture.
As the acid flows through the fracture, it dissolves portions of the
fracture face. Since the acid erodes the fracture faces non-uniformly, a
conductive fracture would result after fracture closure. The effective
fracture length and width depends on the volume of acid used, its re-
action rate, and the acid fluid loss rate. Moreover, the etching of the
fracture determines whether the fracture will have a high or low con-
ductivity after closure. If the wall of the fracture is etched homo-
genously, then the fracture will close, and the conductivity will be very
low. On the other hand, if the walls of the fractures are etched het-
erogeneously, then the fracture conductivity after closure will be high.
However, achieving effective fracture length is usually much more
difficult than the fracture effective conductivity [30].
Generally, acid fracturing is limited to harder rock formations. The
soft formations will deform into the etched width created by the acid,

Peer review under responsibility of Southwest Petroleum University.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aymen.al-ameri@ttu.edu (A. Al-Ameri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2019.01.003
Received 15 November 2018; Received in revised form 21 January 2019; Accepted 22 January 2019
2405-6561/ Copyright © 2019 Southwest Petroleum University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B. V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Aymen Al-Ameri and Talal Gamadi, Petroleum, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2019.01.003
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi
thus reducing and sometimes eliminating the effects of the treatment. In
addition, acid fracture conductivity tends to be significantly less than
that which can be generated by proppant fracturing. These two facts
mean that fracture acidizing is generally performed on lower-perme-
ability, tight carbonate formations, rather than soft and more perme-
able rocks [14]. Guo et al. [17] tested the permeability of acid-etched
fracture in shale to explore the influence of carbonate mineral content,
acid fluid types and concentration, fracture plane roughness, proppant,
and confining pressure on the acid-etched effects in shale. The test
showed that the roughness of the fracture increases as the carbonate
minerals content increases. Moreover, if the shale has a high carbonate
mineral content (> 30%), the effect of acid-etching is not easily con-
trolled, so the technique of acid fracturing should be carried out cau-
tiously. The application of the acid fracturing is more efficient in low-
temperature carbonate reservoirs [8] to reduce the acid-rock reaction
rate which allows the acid to penetrate deeper into the formation.
Moreover, the acid fracturing was suggested for reservoirs with a
minimum horizontal stress (fracture closure stress) less than 5000 psi
because the fracture face etching caused by the acid cannot support
such high pressure [28]. However, the abundance of natural fractures
makes acid fracturing a better candidate because no single fracture can
gain enough width to accept a large concentration of proppants.
The design of an acid fracturing treatment is accomplished by es-
timating the optimum conductivity and acid penetration distance that
results in maximum benefit of the treatment. The design parameters
include selecting the fluid types, number of stages, pumping rate, and
injection time. Changing these parameters results in different fracture
geometry, etching patterns, and acid-penetration distance. Simulators
are usually used to estimate how these design parameters affect the
stimulation job. However, several analytical solutions were also used
and implemented for designing of an acid fracturing job. Williams and
Nierode [31] developed a model that accurately predicts acid pene-
tration distance; it allows the effects of fracture geometry, acid injection
rate, formation temperature, acid concentration, and rock type to be
included in the treatment design. Ben-Naceur and Economides [9]
presented a design model that allows the simulation of both multi-stage
alternating stages of pad and acid, and gelled acid treatments.
Schechter [23] provided a theoretical approach to design an acid-
fracturing job. Nowadays, the designing an acid-fracturing job is per-
formed by using simulators. Al Jawad [7] used a simulator to model the
acid fracturing to determine the optimum condition that results in a
petroleum production rate increase. He concluded that the reservoir
permeability is the determining factor when choosing between a high-
conductivity value and a long penetration distance. Using a numerical
simulation for optimizing the parameters of the acid fracturing, Song
et al. [27] recommended acid fracturing for the horizontal wells in
Yubei region that has fractured reservoir's characteristics. Their results
recommended an alternative injection of crosslinked acid and ordinary
gelled acid.
The acid-rock contact time could be an important aspect in opti-
mization of fracturing acid especially for high carbonate content shale
formations. However, the well shut-in during acid fracturing increases
the rock-acid reaction time. During well shut-in stage, the fluid (acid) is
imbibed from the fracture into the tight sand or shale matrix [3–5].
Moreover, Al-Ameri et al. [6] showed that dilute HCl acid enhance the
permeability of the near fracture face matrix. However, the HCl acid
treatment is affected by the iron precipitates produced from shale- HCl
acid reaction. The near fracture face damage caused by the iron pre-
cipitates should be considered when using HCl acid in the fracturing
treatment of shale formations. The pyrite contains the iron in a ferrous
state (Fe2+). As the acid spends specifically during shut-in stage of the
acid fracturing, the pH increases causing the ferrous irons to oxidize
and precipitate as ferric irons (Fe3+). The ferrous irons remain in so-
lution at pH levels below 7.5 while the ferric iron (Fe3+) precipitates
when the pH level exceeds 2. The pH of spent acid usually ranges from
about 4 to 5.4, thus only ferric iron is likely to precipitate in the
2
Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
formation [18]. The carbonate content is the primary controlling factor
on the pH of the shale-acid system over time. The more Carbonate
content in the shales, the higher pH buffering capacity [1]. In shales
with abundant of carbonates, the released Fe2+ is quickly oxidized to
Fe3+ and remains in proximity to the point source which is mainly
pyrite. The sizeable Fe3+ precipitates could readily occlude Nano and
micropores, thus affecting the permeability and inhibiting the hydro-
carbon flow from the rock to the fracture.
Al-Ameri et al. [6] showed also that when a slickwater is used in the
pad stage, the efficiency of stimulating near fracture face matrix with
dilute HCl acid would be affected by the both of the polymer and iron
precipitates. The effect of the HCl acid on the shale mechanical prop-
erties has to be also considered for the acid treatment. The mechanical
properties of shale formations vary as a function of mineralogy, with
shales rich in brittle minerals such as quartz and carbonates having
higher Young's modulus numbers [19]. However, the more clay and
organic Carbone contents, the less Young's modulus numbers. However,
the dissolution of brittle minerals reduces a formation's Young's mod-
ulus and may affect shale rock stability.
This study anticipated FRACPRO software for optimizing acid
fracturing design for a tight carbonate reservoir to investigate the im-
pact of acid injection stages and acid fluids types on the fracture etched
length, etched width, and also on the fracture conductivity. To reduce
the near fracture face matrix damage caused by the rock-acid reaction
precipitates, the study investigated the fracturing acid outcomes for the
case of less rock-acid contact time by injecting slickwater before well
shut-in. Moreover, the study examined the results of the acid fracturing
if the spent acid is flowed back to the surface after well shut-in rather
than injecting it through the etched fracture and then deeper into the
formation during the post-flush stage.
2. Effective acid etched fracture length
The effective length of the acid-etched fracture depends on the
distance the acid can move along the fracture and adequately etch the
fracture faces before becoming spent. In acid fracturing, the etched
length is considered the effective fracture length. The success of the
acid fracturing is controlled by the effective length of the fracture and
not by the induced fracture length [20]. However, there are two main
problems associated with obtaining effective etched fracture length are
[30].
(1) In low-to-moderate temperatures, fluid loss during acid fracturing is
the cause of poor stimulation. Acid fluid loss produces short,
etched-fracture length.
(2) At high bottomhole temperatures, the etched fracture length is
limited because of the high reaction rate. However, there are sev-
eral additives and acid systems available in the industry to obtain
retardation of the reaction rate of the acid, such as surfactant re-
tarders and emulsified acids.
3. Acid fracture conductivity
The acid fracture conductivity can be determined using empirical
correlations even these correlations are not accurate but measuring the
effective conductivity in the fields will help in calibrating these corre-
lations [20]. After extensive laboratory measurements of acid fracture
conductivity, Nierode and Kruk correlated conductivity with the ideal
width, closure stress, and rock embedment strength.
w kf = C1 e−C2 Pc (1)
C1 = 1.47 ∗ 107 wi 2.47 (2)
C2 = (13.9 − 1.3 ln Srock ) × 10−3 For Srock < 20,000 psi (3)
C2 = (3.8 − 0.28 ln Srock ) × 10−3 For Srock > 20,000 psi (4)
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi
where w and kf are the fracture width and permeability respectively,
w.kf is the fracture conductivity, wi is the dissolved rock equivalent
width, Pc is the fracture closure pressure, and Srock rock embedment
strength.
The amount of rock dissolved in an acid fracture (wi) is defined as
the fracture width created by acid dissolution before fracture closure. If
all the acid injected into a fracture dissolves rock on the fracture face
(i.e., no live acid penetrates into the matrix or forms wormholes in the
fracture walls), the average ideal width is simply the total volume of
rock dissolved divided by the fracture area:
X V
wi =
2(1 − ∅) hf x f (5)
Where X is the volumetric dissolving power of the acid, V is the total
volume of the injected acid, ϕ is the formation porosity, hf and xf are the
fracture height and half-length respectively.
The rock embedment strength is the force requires to push a metal
sphere a certain distance into the surface of a rock sample.
Since 1973, several correlations were developed based on theore-
tical or empirical background [15,16,29]; [25].
Even though the Nierode and Kruk correlation is the standard in the
oil industry [7], it fails to capture the significant impact of formation
heterogeneity on fracture conductivity. Deng et al. (2012) attempted to
include the effect of formation heterogeneity in their theoretical cor-
relation. They stated that permeability and mineralogy distribution are
the reasons for differential etching in carbonate rocks [2]. developed a
robust intelligent model based on genetic algorithm to precisely predict
the fracture conductivity by incorporating experimental data from
various formations, whereby resulted in a good match between the
model predictions and the experimental data. The results showed that
the rock strength plays a significant role when anticipating fracture
conductivity, as various formations have behaved differently under
different closure stresses. Motamedi et al. [21], used Genetic Algorithm
to develop a robust intelligent model to estimate the fracture con-
ductivity by considering experimental data of different formations.
They concluded that the formation lithology plays a considerable role
in fracture conductivity prediction.
In this study, Nierode and Kruk [20] correlation to calculate the
fracture conductivity was considered for the following reasons.
(1) It is the standard correlation in the oil industry [7].
(2) The impact of the permeability and mineralogy distribution was not
considered.
(3) It is included in PRACPRO software.
4. Acid loss
The acid loss has been a known problem in acid fracturing for many
years. The acid fluid loss is a result of several issues inherent to hy-
draulic fracturing with reactive fluids. Carbonates are usually more
naturally fissured than sandstones, and the presence of these fissures
commonly cause fluid loss problems during fracturing, with or without
a reactive fluid. Loss of reactive fluid causes natural fractures to en-
large. Mou et al. [22] developed a new model to simulate acid leakoff
into a naturally fractured carbonate oil reservoir during acid fracturing.
Their model incorporates the acid-rock reaction, fracture width varia-
tion due to rock dissolution on the fractured surfaces, and fluid flow in
naturally fractured carbonate oil reservoirs. They showed that widened
natural fractures by acid-rock reaction act as high-conductivity con-
duits allowing leakoff acid to penetrate deeper into the formation, re-
sulting in serious leakoff. Moreover, the wide natural fractures have a
dominant effect on acid leakoff compared to micro-fractures and ma-
trix.
Another reason for the acid fluid loss is the creation of wormholes.
Wormholes significantly reduce the efficiency of the acid fracturing.
The creation of wormholes increases the area from which leakoff occurs
3
Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
[11]. As wormholing and excessive leakoff take place, the leakoff rate
will exceed the pump rate, and the net fracturing pressure cannot be
maintained. At this point in treatment, the fracture extension slows or
stops; and any additional acid pumped is relatively ineffective in pro-
viding reservoir.
Controlling acid fluid loss is extremely difficult and is considered to
be the major factor limiting the effectiveness of acid fracturing treat-
ments. However, there are some conventional methods have been used
to control acid fluid loss.
4.1. Acid loss additives
One of the earliest acid fluid loss additives was karaya gum [11].
However, the effectiveness of karaya gum is limited at temperatures
above 125°F.
The fluid-loss additives that are stable in hot acid are generally very
difficult to dissolve or to degrade after the treatment. One solution to
this problem is the use of an oil-soluble acid fluid-loss additive. Nierode
and Kruk [20] evaluated the performance of various acid fluid-loss
additives against long limestone cores and found an oil-soluble resin
mixture is the only product capable of controlling acid fluid loss at
differential pressures. However, the high additive costs have limited the
commercial application of this product.
Acid fluid-loss additives generally are not often used because of
performance and cost limitations [11]. Moreover, the fluid loss solids
reduce the fracture conductivity [32] and also cause an inevitable
formation damage [24].
4.2. Injection of pad fluid preceding acid
Alternative methods include injection of a viscous, nonreactive pad
preceding the acid [13]. In this technique, a water-based fracturing
fluid is used to cool the fracture and to form an impermeable filter cake
on the fracture face. The pad fluid could also reduce the acid reaction
rate and increases the live-acid penetration.
However, laboratory tests have shown that the filter cake is quickly
penetrated by wormholes resulting from even small amounts of acid
leakoff. Once this occurs, the acid fluid loss is identical to that observed
if no pad were used [13] [32]. found that powder, granular, and fibrous
materials made of polyglycolic acid (PGA) or polyactic acid (PLA) are
very suitable for fluid loss agents and they dissolve as liquid acids after
application.
4.3. Multiple stages acid fracturing
In this technique, a nonreactive pad fluid is used for fracture in-
itiation and then alternating injection of acid and additional pad [10].
These additional pad stages were designed to enter and seal wormholes
created by the preceding acid. Using this method, the treatment effi-
ciency was improved, and effective fracture lengths were obtained, but
large volumes of fluids are required.
Moreover, the viscosity differences between the injected fluids
causes viscous fingering that forms heterogeneous acid-etched patterns
in cracks surface, which increases the fracture conductivity [24].
However, Injecting acid system with different viscosity can also achieve
better non-uniform etching.
Fine particulate material is often added to the pad stages to aid in
fluid-loss control [10]. Various particulate materials are used for this
purpose, the most common of which is l00-mesh sand. Oil soluble resins
and salt of similar particle size are also sometimes used [26].
4.4. Gelled and foamed acids
Acid fluid loss can also be reduced by gelling the acid. This method
of fluid-loss-control has become widely used since the development of
more acid-stable thickening agents [12]. Thickeners most commonly
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

used include xanthan biopolymers, various acrylamide copolymers, and Table 1

certain surfactants that thicken acid by micellar association. The ef- Reservoir lithological parameters.
fectiveness of gelling agents for controlling acid fluid loss varies greatly, Layer Top of zone Top of zone Lithology Fracture Toughness
depending on the gelling agent used and well conditions encountered. TVD (ft) MD (ft) (psi·in½)
Li et al. (2015) showed that the acid loss control by thickened liquid
1 0.0 0.0 Shale 2000
and solid particles causes an inevitable formation damage. However,
2 9628 11267.7 Upper 500
they recommended a foamed acid with specific properties of high Limestone
viscosity, low fluid loss, small friction resistance, good retarding 3 9731 11468.7 Lower 500
property, strong fracture making ability, easy flowback and low da- Limestone
mage, which is an ideal acid system for low pressure and low perme- 4 9758 11521.4 Tight Zone 500
5 9774 11552.6 Limestone 500
ability carbonate reservoirs.
6 9861 11840.8 Shale 2000

5. Fluid systems in FRACPRO

Table 2
For the purpose of acid fracturing design, fluid systems embedded in Reservoir mechanical parameters.
FRACPRO database were used in this study.
Layer Stress (psi) Stress Young's Poisson's ratio Leakoff Perm.

• SPEC_HT_4000_7
Gradient modulus Coefficient (mD)
(psi/ft) (MM psi) (ft/min½)

A fluid system made up of 40#/1000 W/7.5 GPT BF-7L and 4.5 GPT 1 7702 0.8 6 0.25 0 0
2 6872 0.71 3.4 0.17 0.001 0.02
XLW-56. The BF-7L is a buffer made up of Potassium Carbonate, 3 6919 0.71 3.4 0.17 0.001 0.02
Potassium Hydroxide and water and XLW-56 is a crosslinker made up of 4 7813 0.8 8.1 0.16 0.00015 0.001
D-Gluticol, Glyoxal and Sodium Hydroxide. 5 6970 0.71 1.8 0.18 0.003 0.02
6 8020 0.8 6 0.25 0.00056 0.02

• Slickwater
Table 3
20#/1000 gallons of gel in water.
Additional reservoir parameters.

• EAS Layer Pore

Pressure
Avg. Frac
Pressure
Compres.
10−5 psi
Fluid
Viscosity
Porosity % Water
Saturation
psi psi cp %
An acid system made up of 15% HCl. It is slightly retarded and
becomes viscosified on spending. It has an apparent viscosity of 12.8 cp. 1 6338 7500 2.3 0.25 10 45
2 6338 7800 2.3 0.25 23 45

• XLA III 3
4
6338
6338
7800
7800
2.3
2.3
0.25
0.25
23
10
45
45
5 6338 7800 2.3 0.25 25 45
An acid system made up of 15% HCl, 15 GPT AG-57L and friction 6 6338 7500 2.3 0.25 10 45
based. The AG-57L is an acrylamidomethylpropane sulfonic and acry-
lamide copolymer. This acts as a gelling agent. The apparent viscosity
of XLA III is 210.3 cp. is 40000 psi. The compressive strengths of the layers do not exceed
3000 psi.
• Formic Acid
7. Acid fracturing design scenarios and results
An organic acid, with an apparent viscosity of 0.3 cp.
In this study, different scenarios for the acid fracturing design were
• Pad Acid considered starting from a single stage of plain acids injection to a
multi-stage acid injection. The multi-stage acid treatment also included
An acid system made up of 15% HCl and xylene, which has an ap- two stage alternate injection of acid and slickwater A non-reactive pad
parent viscosity of 0.5 cp. fluid (SPEC_HT_4000_7) was considered to precede the main acid
treatment for fracture initiation. The multi-stage scenario serves three
• Plain HCl Acid purposes. It helps to create longer fracture etched length, cooling the
fracture, and increasing the acid depth of penetration. Fluid loss ad-
Pure HCl in various concentrations (10%, 15%, 20%, 28%) and ditive (100 mesh sand) was used in the multi-stage acid treatments.
viscosities.
It is worth noting that FRACPRO can handle the effect of the type, 7.1. Scenario-1: single stage acid injection
concentration, and viscosity of the acids on rocks with different litho-
logical and mechanical properties. In this scenario, different plain HCl acids were used including 10%,
HCl, 15% HCl, 20% HCl, and 28% HCl. The impact of considering a
6. Reservoir model description post-flush stage or flow back the spent acid on the stimulation results
was also investigated. Table 4 shows the acid fracturing stages when
A reservoir model was constructed using FRACPRO. The model considering a post-flush stage.
consisted of different lithological layers (shale, upper and lower lime- Table 5 presents the results of this scenario.
stone, tight zone, limestone, and shale). The perforation is in the Again, FRACPRO can handle the effect of the type, concentration,
limestone interval and the main hydrocarbon for the limestone intervals and viscosity of the acids on rocks with different lithological and me-
is oil. Some of the lithological and mechanical properties parameters for chanical properties. Therefore, the results of the acid fracturing would
the reservoir layers are shown in Table 1 through 3. be different when using different kinds of acids.
The reference temperature is 260 °F and the rock embedment stress Fig. 1 shows the etched fracture width and fracture conductivity as a

4
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 4
Acid fracturing treatment design of Scenario-1.
Stage Type Flow Rate bpm Volume gal Duration min Fluid Type
Circulation 6.12 2312 9 SPEC_HT_4000_7
Pad 39.21 23056 14 SPEC_HT_4000_7
Main frac. 40.95 32681 19 Acid
Shut-in 0 0 60 Shut-in
Post-Flush 1.02 2132 50 Slickwater
function of dimensionless fracture etched length.
The results showed that moving the acid during the post-flush stage
causes acid loss at a certain fracture length as shown in the sudden
increase of the fracture etched width and fracture conductivity in the
figures above. The created fracture in the pad stage was closed from the
point of the acid loss to the fracture tip. However, when the etched
fracture length to the created fracture length is insignificant, the frac-
ture length would be equal to (0) as in the case of using 10% HCl, 20%
HCl, and 28% in this scenario. However, the 15% HCl did not cause an
acid loss during the treatment, but it led to a low fracture etched width.
Therefore, the acid loss leads to an entire acid treatment failure.
Table 6 presents the results of scenario-1 when the post-flush stage
is not considered (acid flowback after well shut-in).
Fig. 2 shows the results when the post-flush stage was not con-
sidered in the treatment design.
The results showed that the problem of the acid loss does not exist if
no post-flush stage is considered and the spent acid is flowed back to
the surface after well shut-in. This scenario led to successful acid
fracturing treatments with effective fracture lengths. However, the
fracture etched width and fracture conductivity were significantly
lower in comparison with the case of post-flush consideration since the
acid has flowed back to the surface. Moreover, the results showed that
the fracture etched width and conductivity increases as the plain HCl
acid concentration increases. However, the 28% HCl with no post-flush
and 15% HCl with post-flush led to the best acid fracturing outcomes
regarding the fracture etched width and fracture conductivity.
Therefore, for single stage plane HCl acid injection, the 28% HCl
with no post-flush was recommended for acid fracturing design.
7.2. Scenario-2: single stage- alternate acid slickwater injection
This scenario comprises one stage of plain HCl acid injection fol-
lowed by one stage of slickwater injection before well shut-in. Not only
the slickwater could reduce the problem of the acid loss during post-
flush but also reduces the rock-acid contact time. Thus, reducing the
wellbore and formation damages caused by the acid during well shut-
in. Moreover, the impact of the acid in reducing the compressive
strength of the near fracture face matrix would be less.
In this scenario, different concentrations of the plain HCl acids were
considered (10%, 15%, 20%, and 28%). Table 7 summarizes the frac-
turing design stages when considering a post-flush stage.
Table 8 shows the results.
Fig. 3 show the etched fracture width and fracture conductivity as a
function of dimensionless fracture etched length.
Similar to the scenario of single stage acid injection, the problem of
the acid loss was still existed (sudden increase in the fracture etched
width and conductivity) except for the 15% HCl. Again, when the
etched fracture length to the created fracture length is insignificant, the
fracture length would be equal to (0) as in the case of using 10% HCl,
20% HCl, and 28% in this scenario. However, the slickwater led to less
fracture etched width and fracture conductivity. Therefore, considering
a slickwater injection after a single stage of acid injection would not
enhance the stimulation results if a post-flush stage is considered.
The results of scenario-2 when the post-flush stage was not con-
sidered are presented in Table 9.
Fig. 4 shows the results of when ignoring the post-flush stage.
Again, if the post-flush was not considered, the problem of the acid
loss vanishes, and the acid fracturing treatment is successful. The 28%
HCl had a more significant effect on increasing the fracture etched
width and fracture conductivity. Therefore, it is recommended to flow
back the plain HCl acid after well shut-in rather than moving it along
the fracture and then into the formation. As a result of this scenario, the
28% HCl without post-flush seems to be the best option regarding the
highest fracture conductivity and fracture etched length and width.
7.3. Scenario-3: multi-stage acid and slickwater injection
In this scenario, multi-stage acid and slickwater injection were
considered (acid-slickwater-acid). In addition to the plain HCl acids,
other acid fluids were considered. 100-mesh proppant was added to the
slickwater to reduce the acid fluid loss during the following acid in-
jection stage. Table 10 shows the treatment design stages with a post-
flush stage.
Table 11 shows the stimulation results.
Fig. 5 shows the fracture etched width and fracture conductivity as a
function of the dimensionless fracture etched length.
The effect of the acid loss existed only for the high concentration of
the plain HCl acid (more than 15%) which represented by the curves
that jumped dramatically out of the scale in the above figures. The
fracture length is equal to (0) for those HCl concentrations because the
etched fracture length to the created fracture length is insignificant. The
pad acid led to the best acid stimulation outcomes in comparison to the
other considered acid fluids.
However, when the acid is the last stage before well shut-in, it is
recommended to flow back the spent plain HCl acids instead of flushing
them into the formation. However, when the injection cycles increase,
the occurrence of the acid loss during post-flush would be decreased.
7.4. Scenario-4: two stage alternate acid- slickwater injection
This scenario consisted of two alternate acid-slickwater injection
and a slickwater post-flush stage. However, the well is shut-in after a
slickwater injection stage. In addition to the plain HCl acids, other acid
fluids were considered in this scenario. Moreover, 100-mesh proppant
was added to the slickwater stages to reduce the acid fluid loss in the
following injection step. Table 12 shows the treatment design steps.
Table 13 show the stimulation results for the different acid fluids.
Fig. 6 shows the fracture etched width and fracture conductivity as a
function of dimensionless fracture etched length.
This scenario eliminated the problem of the HCl plain acid loss.
Moreover, the fracture etched width and conductivity had not reduced
significantly in comparison with the case when the acid injection is the

Table 5
Acid fracturing results of Scenario-1with post-flush.
Fluid Type Frac. Length ft Etched Length ft Frac. Width inch Etched Width inch Frac. Height ft Frac. Cond. md.ft Dim. Cond. App. Visc. cp

10% HCl 0 79 0 0.25 0 972 61.51 0.4

15% HCl 180.7 106 0.27 0.086 237.1 1039 49.01 1
20% HCl 0 69 0 0.179 0 2062 149.4 0.6
28% HCl 0 69 0 0.247 0 4008 290.4 0.9

5
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Acid fracturing results of Scenario-1 with post-flush.

Table 6
Acid fracturing results of Scenario-1, No post-flush.
Fluid Type Frac. Length ft Etched Length ft Frac. Width inch Etched Width inch Frac. Height ft Frac. Cond. md.ft Dim. Cond. App. Visc. cp

10% HCl 158.1 68 0.055 0.028 256.9 100 7.4 0.4

15% HCl 179 91 0.277 0.046 296 249.7 13.7 1
20% HCl 159 106 0.055 0.059 256.8 435 20.5 0.6
28% HCl 158.9 119 0.055 0.084 256.7 921.5 38.7 0.9

Fig. 2. Acid fracturing results of Scenario-1, No post-flush.

Table 7 created fracture widths for the plain HCl and pad acids. The 28% HCl
Acid fracturing treatment design of Scenario-2. resulted in the longest fracture etched length and width, and the highest
Stage Type Flow Rate bpm Volume gal Duration min Fluid Type
fracture conductivity. The pad acid also gave good stimulation out-
comes. However, the acid fracturing performance had increased as the
Circulation 6.12 2312 9 SPEC_HT_4000_7 plain HCl acid concentration was increased from 10% to 28%. The plain
Pad 39.21 23056 14 SPEC_HT_4000_7 HCl acids led to wide fracture etched widths near the wellbore.
Main frac 40.95 32681 19 Acid
However, the etched width decreased significantly at the fracture tip.
Main frac. 41.56 20945 12 Slickwater
Shut-in 0 0 60 Shut-in However, the other acid fluids led to less fracture etched widths at the
Post-Flush 1.49 3119 50 Slickwater fracture entry and less etched width reduction along the fracture length.
Using different kinds of retarded acid fluids would keep the fracture
width more significant at the fracture tip. However, the used EAS is a
last stage before well shut-in. Therefore, it is recommended to inject slightly retarded fluid. Therefore, its impact on enhancing the etched
slickwater before well shut-in when considering a multi-stage injection fracture width at the fracture tip was not significant.
of acid and water. The fracture etched widths were higher than the Fig. 7 shows the treatment results and fracture profile when using

Table 8
Acid fracturing results of Scenario-2, with post-flush.
Fluid Type Frac. Length ft Etched Length ft Frac. Width inch Etched Width inch Frac. Height ft Frac. Cond. md.ft Dim. Cond. App. Visc. cp

10% HCl 0 98 0 0.076 0 349.7 17.84 0.4

15% HCl 540.1 129 0.072 0.022 240 133.4 5.17 1
20% HCl 0 70 0 0.161 0 1406 100.40 0.6
28% HCl 0 0 0 24.42 0 286262 0 0.9

6
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Acid fracturing results of Scenario-2, with post-flush.

Table 9
Acid fracturing results of Scenario-2, No post-flush.
Fluid Type Frac. Length ft Etched Length ft Frac. Width inch Etched Width inch Frac. Height ft Frac. Cond. md.ft Dim. Cond. App. Visc. cp

10% HCl 182 96 0.067 0.04 280.2 186 9.694 0.4

15% HCl 224.7 122 0.262 0.056 321.1 382 15.65 1
20% HCl 182.3 129 0.066 0.085 281.2 734.6 28.47 0.6
28% HCl 183.4 142 0.064 0.121 281.9 1472 51.84 0.9

Fig. 4. Acid fracturing results of Scenario-2, No post-flush.

Table 10 The 28% HCl is the best acid fluid to be used.

Acid fracturing treatment design of Scenario-3. For the conventional reservoirs with high permeability, it is re-
Stage Type Flow Rate bpm Volume gal Duration min Fluid Type
commended to reduce the fracturing stages for a wider fracture width
which is the controlling factor of the fracturing treatment design in high
Circulation 2.67 4012 35.7 SPEC_HT_4000_7 permeability formation. However, the acid loss is expected to less in
Pad 34.17 19661 13.7 SPEC_HT_4000_7 conventional reservoirs because of their high compressive strength.
Main frac 20.97 8321 9.5 Acid
Main frac 50.94 41145 19.2 Acid
Main frac 51.07 2062 1 Slickwater 8. Conclusions
Main frac 50.98 2059 1 Acid
Shut-in 0 0 71.6 Shut-in A study of optimizing acid fracturing design for a carbonate shale
Post-Flush 1.7 2950 9.1 Slickwater
reservoir was conducted using FRACPRO software. Different scenarios
were considered for the treatment design starting from a single stage of
acid injection to multi-stage treatment. In multi-stage acid treatment,
28% HCl.
alternate acid-slickwater stages were considered. The impact of con-
It is worth noting that the fracture etched width decreases and the
sidering a post-flush stage or fluids flowback on the acid fracturing
fracture etched length increases as the fracturing stages increase.
outcomes was also investigated. The results showed the following.
However, in tight formations, it is crucial to creating a long fracture
into the formation. Therefore, the multi-stage alternate acid slickwater
(1) Scenario-1 which represented the injection of plain HCL acid as a
injection is the recommended scenario for this study. Moreover, in-
single stage showed that the acid loss during post-flush stage is the
jecting of slickwater before well shut-in is important to reduce the rock-
main problem of the acid fracturing treatment. Therefore, it is re-
acid contact time, thereby decreasing the wellbore damage and near
commended to flow back the acid after well shut-in stage. The acid
fracture face matrix damage because of the iron and polymer pre-
has a significant effect in reducing the compressive strength of the
cipitations.
rock. However, the rock-acid contact time is long for this scenario.

7
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 11
Acid fracturing results of Scenario-3.
Fluid Type Frac. Length ft Etched Length ft Frac. Width inch Etched Width inch Frac. Height ft Frac. Cond. md.ft Dim. Cond. App. Visc. cp

10% HCl 94.58 107.0 0.087 0.187 118.0 2825 132.0 0.4
15% HCl 553.5 286 0.072 0.068 240.9 1257 21.98 1.0
20% HCl 0.0 0.0 27.23 0.0 0.0 507352 0.0 0.6
28% HCl 0.0 0.0 36.65 0.0 0.0 806621 0.0 0.9
Foamic acid 134.1 109.0 0.107 0.163 114.6 2537 116.4 0.3
Pad acid 145.9 155.0 0.0076 0.238 151.2 4567 147.3 0.5
EAS 344.6 166.0 0.095 0.061 241.4 647.8 19.51 12.8
XLSIII 205.6 145.0 0.344 0.105 245.4 974.9 33.62 210.3

Fig. 5. Acid fracturing results of Scenario-3.

Table 12 the no post-flush option led to the best stimulation results. The
Acid fracturing treatment design of Scenario-4. different concentrations of HCl acid resulted in different stimulation
Stage Type Flow Rate bpm Volume gal Duration min Fluid Type outcomes. However, the 28% HCl with flowing back the fluids
seems to be the best option for this scenario.
Circulation 1 1502 35.8 SPEC_HT_4000_7 (3) Scenario-3 was a multi-stage acid fracturing treatment (acid,
Pad 49 28195 13.7 SPEC_HT_4000_7
slickwater, acid) with considering a post flush stage. This scenario
Main frac 10 3969 9.5 Acid
Main frac 52 41811 19.2 Acid
showed that the pad acid leads to the best stimulation results.
Main frac 52 2100 1 Slickwater However, the 20% HCl and 28% HCl resulted in a significant fluid
Main frac 52 2100 1 Acid loss; thus, no fracture etched length and width were obtained.
Main frac 50 10002 4.8 Slickwater Therefore, when using plain acids, it is recommended not to inject
Shut-in 0 0 71.6 Shut-in
acid before well shut-in. Moreover, it is recommended to flow back
Post-Flush 5 8659 41.2 Slickwater
the fluids rather than considering a post-flush stage.
(4) Scenario-4 was a two-stage alternate acid slickwater injection.
It is worth noting that the shale formations have much less com- However, the slickwater injection was the last stage before well
pressive strength in comparison to the tight sand formations. This shut-in. This scenario eliminated the problem of the fluid loss
scenario showed also that the 28% HCl results in a highest fracture during post-flush stage. Therefore, a post-flush is recommended
etched length, etched width, and fracture conductivity. when considering this scenario. Moreover, injecting of slickwater
(2) Scenario-2 represented a single stage plain HCl acid with a slick- before well shut-in is important to reduce the rock-acid contact
water injection before well shut-in stage. Therefore, the rock-acid time, thereby decreasing the wellbore damage and near fracture
contact time was reduced in this scenario, thus reducing the near face matrix damage because of the iron and polymer precipitations.
fracture face damage caused by the iron and polymer precipitates. The 28% HCl resulted in the longest fracture etched length and
This scenario had not solved the problem of the acid loss. Moreover, width as well as the highest fracture conductivity. The pad acid also

Table 13
Acid fracturing results of Scenario-4.
Fluid Type Frac. Length ft Etched Length ft Frac. Width inch Etched Width inch Frac. Height ft Frac. Cond. md.ft Dim. Cond. App. Visc. cp

10% HCl 314.5 122 0.018 0.078 108.5 830.6 34.04 0.4
15% HCl 593 135 0.082 0.037 240.8 489 18.10 1.0
20% HCl 283.3 149.0 0.027 0.133 160.8 2685 90.11 0.6
28% HCl 251.5 160.0 0.026 0.180 160.8 4880 152.5 0.9
pad acid 311.0 137.0 0.024 0.113 108.4 1614 58.90 0.5
EAS 350.5 151.0 0.095 0.051 239.0 398.0 13.18 12.8
XLSIII 217.9 153.0 0.346 0.106 247.9 845.0 27.61 210.3
15% HCl + XLS 216.0 146.0 0.347 0.108 248.7 1019 34.90
15% HCl + EAS 361.5 141.0 0.096 0.051 240.6 471.8 16.73
Formic acid 371.0 117.0 0.026 0.073 103.2 693.6 29.64 0.3

8
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Acid fracturing results of Scenario-4.

Fig. 7. Fracture profile, Scenario-4, 28% HCl.

gave good stimulation results. Pc fracture closure stress, psi

(5) When the fracturing stages increase, the created fracture etched wi dissolved rock equivalent width, inch
width decreases and the fracture etched length increases. Srock rock embedment strength, psi
(6) Because of the carbonate layer low permeability and low com- X volumetric dissolving power of the acid
pressive strength, a multi-stage alternate acid slickwater injection V total volume of the injected acid
with a post-flush stage is the recommended scenario for the acid hf fracture height
fracturing design. Moreover, the 28% HCl is the recommended acid xf fracture half length
fluid.
(7) For conventional carbonate reservoirs with high permeability and References
high compressive strength, it is recommended to reduce the frac-
turing stages for a wider fracture etched width. Moreover, a post [1] D.J. Adam, K.D. Megan, L.H. Anna, M.J. Claresta, L.T. Dana, M. Katharine,
flush stage could be considered. However, the occurrence of the E.B. Gordon, R.B. John, Impact of organics and carbonates on the oxidation and
precipitation of iron during hydraulic fracturing of shale, Energy Fuels 31 (4)
acid loss is expected to be less likely to exist during post-flush stage (2017) 3643–3658.
because of the rock high compressive strength. [2] M. Akbari, M.J. Ameri, S. Kharazmi, Y. Motamedi, M. Pournick, New correlations to
predict fracture conductivity based on the rock strength, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 152
(2017) 416–426.
Nomenclature [3] A. Al-Ameri, T. Gamadi, M. Watson, The impact of the fracturing fluid spontaneous
imbibition on the petrophysical properties of low permeability reservoirs, Presented
w kf fracture conductivity, inch.md at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,

9
A. Al-Ameri and T. Gamadi
Lafayette, Louisiana, 7-9 February, SPE 189570-MS, 2018.
[4] A. Al-Ameri, T. Gamadi, I. Ispas, Evaluation of the near fracture face formation
damage caused by the spontaneously imbibed fracturing fluid in unconventional
gas reservoirs, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2018) 23–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.
2018.07.021 July, 171C.
[5] A. Al-Ameri, T. Gamadi, I. Ispas, M. Watson, A workflow to investigate the impact of
the spontaneous imbibition of a slickwater fracturing fluid on the near fracture face
shale matrix, Presented at the Eastern Regional Meeting Held in Pittsburgh, 7-11
October, SPE-191830-18ERM-MS, 2018.
[6] A. Al-Ameri, T. Gamadi, L. Heinze, I. Ispas, S. Gorell, The impact of the fracturing
additives on the near fracture face matrix permeability for shale and low perme-
ability sand formations, Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology
Conference Held in Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25 July 2018, URTeC 2850669, 2018.
[7] M.S. Al Jawad, Modeling of Acid Fracturing in Carbonate Reservoirs, Thesis, Texas
A&M University, USA, 2014 84 pp.
[8] K. Ben- Naceur, M.J. Economidies, The effectiveness of acid fractures and their
production behavior, Paper Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, WV, 1- 4 November, SPE 18536, 1988.
[9] K. Ben-Naceur, M.J. Economides, Design and evaluation of acid fracturing treat-
ments, Paper Presented at the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
Colorado, 6-8 March, SPE 18978-MS, 1989.
[10] A.W. Coulter, et al., Alternating stages of pad fluid and acid provide improved
leakoff control for fracture acidizing, Paper Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 3-6 October, SPE 6124, 1976.
[11] C.W. Crowe, B.H. Hutchinson, B.L. Trittipo, Fluid-loss control: the key to successful
acid fracturing, SPE Prod. Eng. 4 (2) (1989) 215–220.
[12] C.W. Crowe, R.C. Martin, A.M. Michaelis, Evaluation of acid-gelling agents for use
in well stimulation, SPE J. 21 (4) (1981) SPE 9384-PA.
[13] J.J. Davis, G. Mancillas, J.D. Melnyk, Improved acid treatments by use of the
spearhead film technique, Paper Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting, Billings, MT, 10-11 June, SPE 1164, 1965.
[14] M. Economides, Modern Fracturing: Enhancing Natural Gas Production, ET
Publishing, Houston, TX, 2007.
[15] A.F. Gangi, Variation of whole and fractured porous rock permeability with con-
fining pressure, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15 (5) (1978)
249–257.
[16] M. Gong, S. Lacote, A.D. Hill, New model of acid-fracture conductivity based on
deformation of surface asperities, SPE J. 4 (3) (1999) 206–214 SPE-57017-PA.
[17] T. Guo, Y. Li, Y. Ding, Z. Ou, N. Gai, Z. Rui, Evaluation of acid fracturing treatments
10
Petroleum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
in shale formation, Energy Fuels 31 (10) (2017) 10479–10489.
[18] L. Kalfayan, Production Enhancement with Acid Stimulation, second ed., PennWell,
Tulsa, Okla, 2008.
[19] V. Kumar, C.H. Sondergeld, C.S. Rai, Nano to macro mechanical characterization of
shale, Paper Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October, SPE- 159804-MS, 2012.
[20] D.E. Nierode, K.F. Kruk, An evaluation of acid fluid loss additives, retarded acids,
and acidized fracture conductivity, Paper Presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting,
Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 September – 3 October, SPE 4549, 1973.
[21] Y. Motamedi, M.J. Ameri, M. Akbari, M. Pournick, New correlations to predict
fracture conductivity based on the formation lithology, Energy Sources, Part A
Recovery, Util. Environ. Eff. 40 (13) (2017).
[22] J. Mou, S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Acid leakoff mechanism in acid fracturing of naturally
fractured carbonate oil reservoirs, Transport Porous Media 91 (2) (2012) 573–584.
[23] Robert S. Schechter, Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1992.
[24] N. Li, J. Dai, P. Liu, Z. Luo, L. Zhao, Experimental study on influencing factors of
acid-fracturing effect for carbonate reservoirs, Petroleum 1 (2) (2015) 146–153.
[25] M. Pournik, Laboratory-scale Fracture Conductivity Created by Acid Etching, PhD
dissertation Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 2008 December 2008.
[26] F.E. Schriefer, M.S. Shaw, Use of fine salt as a fluid-loss material in acid fracturing
stimulation treatments, Paper Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, 1-3 October, SPE 7570, 1978.
[27] L. Song, X. He, J. Zhang, Optimization of acid fracturing design in Yubei fractured
reservoir, Appl. Mech. Mater. 580–583 (2014) 2495–2501.
[28] P. Valko, L. Norman, A. Daneshy, Petroleum Well Construction, Chapter 17, Well
Stimulation, Wiley, 1998, p. 506 1998.
[29] J.B. Walsh, Effect of pore pressure and confining pressure on fracture permeability,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 18 (5) (1981) 429–435.
[30] D. White, B. Holms, R. Hoover, Using a unique acid-fracturing fluid to control fluid
loss improves stimulation results in carbonate formations, Permian Basin Oil and
Gas Recovery Conference, SPE 24009, 1992.
[31] B.B. Williams, D.E. Nierode, Design of acid fracturing treatments, JPT (J. Pharm.
Technol.) 24 (7) (1972) 849–859.
[32] K. Yoshimura, H. Matsui, N. Morita, Development of polyglycolic- and polylactic-
acid fluid- loss- control materials for fracturing fluids, Paper Presented at the SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, 26-28 February, SPE 168179, 2014.