SPE 10038
SPE
Principles of Acid Stimulation
by Thomas Wayne Muecke, * Exxon Production Research Co ..
*Member SPEAIME
Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Bejing, China, 1826 March, 1982. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, 75206 USA. Telex 730989
ABSTRACT
If properly designed and implemented, acid
stimulation treatments provide a method for
improving the productivity of oil and gas wells.
The success of these treatments depends to a great
extent upon proper acid selection and good treat-
ment design. This can be accomplished only with a
good understanding of the fundamental principles
of acid stimulation. This paper reviews these
important principles and includes descriptions of
the basic concepts of damage removal, reservoir
stimulation, acid reaction mechanisms, job design
and diversion technology. Example field case
histories are included to illustrate the benefits
that can be deri ved from properly admi ni stered
acid treatments.
INTRODUCTION
Product i vity improvement is the process of
increasing production from oil or gas wells by
removi ng flow restri ct; ons that exi st near the
wellbore and/or by altering the pattern of flow
towards the wellbore. Basically, there are two
causes of impaired productivity which can be
improved by acid treatments. First, near-wel1bore
formation damage can cause a well to produce at a
rate lower than the true reservoir flow capacity.
This type of problem can be remedied by a matrix
acidizing treatment. The second cause of low
productivity ;s poor reservoir permeability.
This Jimitation can be diminished through the use
of a different acid stimulation technique known as
acid fracturing.!
The distinction between matrix acidizing and
acid fracturing is an important one. Matrix
acidizing treatments are performed by injecting
appropriate acids into the near-wellbore region of
the formation at rates low enough to avoi d frac-
turi ng, thus a 11 ow; ng the fl ui ds to permeate the
rock matri x. Such treatments are performed wi th
HF-HCl ac; din sandstone reservoi rs and HCl ac; d
in carbonate reservoirs.
291
Society of Petroleum Engineef"S
Fracturi ng, on the other hand, is the prac-
tice of generating a large crack within the forma-
tion that extends perhaps one hundred meters from
the wellbore. By altering the reservoir flow
pattern toward the well, a fracturi ng treatment
can improve the fl ow rate of an undamaged we 11.
Thus, the principal application of fracturing is
to stimulate low permeability reservoirs, although
additional benefit can be realized by removing
near-wellbore damage that might be present.
The final result from both damage removal and
fracture stimulation treatments depends on the
successful injection of the treating fluids into
the zone(s) where they are needed. Accordingly, a
rev; ew of modern fl ui d di vers i on techni ques has
been included to demonstrate the amount of well
productivity improvement which can be realized
when acid treatments are successfully injected
into all zones. Finally, several field case
histories are included to point out the benefits
that can be derived from properly designed and
implemented treatments.
FORMATION DAMAGE REMOVAL
Description of Formation Damage
Formation damage refers to a region of
reduced permeability that can exist near the
well bore and which usually extends less than one
meter into the reservoir. This damaged region
occurs when formation pore spaces become blocked
by mineral deposits (such as clay particles) or
organic deposits (such as asphalt). In this
paper, discussion will be restricted to mineral
damage which can be removed by a properly designed
acid treatment.
Sandstone formations are composed of a frame-
work of quartz and feldspar grai ns wi th varyi ng
amounts of clay, silica fines and carbonates
1i ni ng the pore spaces. The movement of hydro-
carbons through a produci n9 formation depends on
the continuous interconnection of these pore
2 PRINCIPLES OF ACID STIMULATION
spaces. As illustrated in Fi gure 1, any obstruc-
tion of these pore spaces near the wellbore
creates a damaged region that frequently cannot be
penetrated by modern perforating techni ques. A
well damaged in this manner will exhibit impaired
productivity.
It is generally recognized that most mineral
damage in sandstones is attributable to clay and
silica particles, usually less than 10 ~m in
diameter. Once mobilized, these particles are
capab 1e of bri dgi ng at pore constri ct ions where
they restrict fluid flow. Formation fines can be
mobilized by a variety of mechanisms. These
mechanisms include: exposure to low salinity
brines, contact with chemical dispersing agents,
and natural drag forces exerted by rapidly flowing
fluids. 2 ,3,4 There is also evidence that drilling
mud fines, such as bentonite, can invade the
format i on rock creating a damaged regi on around
the well. s
Finally, scale precipitates such as CaC0 3 are
a 1 so capable of creating severe damage in both
sandstone and carbonate reservo; rs. These preci-
pitates may occur as a result of mixing an incom-
pat i b1e workover fl ui d wi th formation bri ne, or
because of a pressure drop in the near-well bore
region that alters the chemical equilibrium of the
reservoir fluids.
Radi a 1 flow of produced fl ui ds towards the
well dictates that these fluids pass through
progress i ve ly small er areas of formation at cor-
respondingly higher velocities and pressure drops.
Hence, any damage existing in this near-wellbore
region will severely limit the productive capacity
of the we 11. It is of cri t i ca 1 importance that
formation damage be removed from the near-wellbore
region for a well to produce at its maximum
capacity.
As a consequence of these cons i derat ions, a
damage removal treatment is des i gned to restore
the permeability only in the near-wellbore region,
generally within less than one meter of the well
bore. Conversely, it must be appreci ated that a
matrix-type, damage removal treatment is incapable
of significantly improving the productivity of an
undamaged well. Usually, diagnostic techniques
such well tests are recommended prior to treatment
to assure that the candidate well is indeed
damaged.
Sandstone Matrix Acidizing
Sandstone acidizing involves the use of
hydrofluoric acid to dissolve sand, clay and other
siliceous minerals in a sandstone formation. This
matrix acidizing technique increases near-wellbore
permeability by dissolving minerals that are
blocking the pores of the reservoir rock. Produc-
tivity improvement that results from sandstone
acidizing is limited to the removal of near-
wellbore damage since the permeability is
increased in a region extending less than one
meter from the wellbore.
The active ingredient in most sandstone
acidizing treatments is a mixture of hydrofluoric
(HF) and hydrochloric (Hel) acids. Other ingre-
dients such as fluoboric acid have been proposed,
292
SPF 10038
but are not widely used. s Sandstone is commonly
composed of minerals from four different categor-
ies: silica, feldspars, clays and carbonates.
Hydrofluoric acid will dissolve all of these
minerals.
Dissolution Reactions Successful application
of sandstone acidizing technology requires an
understanding of the chemical reactions that occur
when hydrofl uori c aci dis i nj ected into a sand-
stone. First, there are the dissolution reactions
whereby HF di sso 1ves rock and increases permeabil
ity.
Silica (quartz) reacts with HF to yield
silicon tetrafluoride (SiF 4 ) as an intermediate
product. In the presence of excess HF, the si 1 i-
con tetrafluoride reacts rapidly to produce fluo-
silicic acid (H 2 SiF s ) as the final reaction
product. This reaction of silica with HF does not
occur at a rapi d rate; hence, quartz grai ns di s-
solve slowly during a sandstone acidizing treat-
ment.
Si0 2 + 4HF + SiF 4 + 2H 2 0
SiF 4 + 2HF + H2SiF s
Feldspars also react with HF to produce
fluosilicic acid as the final product. However,
because feldspars are aluminosilicates, aluminum
fluoride is also a reaction product.
Clays react with HF to yield reaction pro-
ducts similar to those for feldspars, fluosilicic
acid and aluminum fluoride. The reaction of HF
with clay minerals is very rapid. Any clays
blocking a pore space are dissolved almost instan-
taneously upon contact with HF.
Carbonates are dissolved by man~ acidic
substances i ncl udi ng HF and HC1. The H ion is
the active species and fluorine does not take part
in the reaction.
CaC0 3 + 2H + +
Precipitation Reactions Although HF can
dissolve many types of minerals, there are condi-
tions which can cause the dissolved ions to subse-
quent ly precipitate from sol ut i on. Because many
of these precipitates are gelatinous, a net de-
crease in formation permeability can result where
reaction product precipitation is allowed to
occur.7
The sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) salts of
fluosilicic ac~d are +very insoluble. The intro-
duct; on of Na or K ions into a spent hydro-
fluoric acid solution containing fluosilicic acid
will cause immediate precipitation of the salt.
H2SiF s + 2Na+ Na2SiFe(ppt) + 2H+
H2 SiF e + 2K+ + K2 SiF 6 (ppt) + 2H+
There are generally two sources of Na+ and K+
ions in sandstone formations. First, feldspars
SPE 10038
and clay minerals contain Na+ and K+ ions in their
crystal +structures. As these minerals dissolve,
some Na and K ions are put into \olutior,} and
precipitation occurs. Second, both Na and K are
common constituents of formation brine. Mixing of
formation brine and spent HF acid will always
result in precipitation. When designing a sand-
stone acidizing treatment, it is important to
avoid contacting the HF with formation brine.
As the HF is cons umed in the formation, the
HF concentration becomes very small. Under these
conditions, fluosilicic acid can decompose to
yield HF and silicon tetrafluoride. The silicon
tetrafluoride then undergoes hydrolysis to yield
silicic acid. This precipitation reaction is
almost the reverse of silica dissolution, except
that silicic acid is precipitated instead of
quartz. Silicic acid is a hydrated form of silica
and is deposited as a gelatinous precipitate in
the pore space.
H2 SiF s ~ SiF 4 + 2HF
SiF 4 + 4H 2 0 ~ Si(OH)4(ppt) + 4HF
Contacting HF with calcium ions will produce
precipitation of insoluble calcium fluoride.
++ + proper design of field treatments can help over-
2HF + Ca ~ CaF 2 (ppt) + 2H
The main source of calcium ions is from carbonate
minerals (calcite) present in the formation rock.
By initially injecting a volume of plain Hel to
dissolve this calcite prior to the arrival of the
HF, the problem of calcium fluoride precipitation
can be avoi ded.
Limitations Two main limitations exist to
the success of sandstone acidizing treatments.
These are (1) 1imited penetration of reactive HF
and (2) precipitation of dissolved silica. 8
The effects of these limitations can be most
eas i ly seen by exami ni ng resul ts from 1aboratory
acidizing experiments on formation rock. In these
experiments, 76 cm lengths of Berea sandstone were
acidized at a temperature of 66C. Initially the
rock had a uni form permeabi 1i ty of 60 md. After
acidizing, the rock was cut into 5 cm lengths and
the permeabi 1i ty of each 1ength was measured to
determine the permeability profile.
In the first experiment, the core was treated
with plain Hel to remove calcite. This caused the
permeability to increase to 110 md. Next, 14 pore
volumes (PV) of 3% HF - 10% HCl acid mixture was
injected into the core. The permeability profile
plotted in Figure 2 shows that even with this
large acid volume, the HF-HCl mixture increased
the permeabil ity only withi n the fi rst 30 cm from
the injection face. The rapid reaction rate
between HF and the formation rock limits the
distance that reactive HF can travel. Thus,
sandstone acidizing treatments are limited to
removing damage from only a small region near the
we 11 bore.
In another experiment, a Berea core was
initially acidized with HCl and then partially
aci di zed with a mi xture of 3% HF - 10% HC1. A
small acid volume was used so that the HF-HCl acid
T. W. MUECKE 3
front woul d advance only halfway into the core.
Following a 2 hour shut-in period, flow was
reversed and the spent acid flushed out.
The measured permeabil ity profile shown in
Figure 3 has three distinct regions. First,
immediately adjacent to the injection face, the
core shows a SUbstantial gain in permeability from
the removal of both carbonates (by Hel) and cl ay
minerals (by HF). Second, a low permeability
region lies between 5 and 45 cm from the injection
face. This is the region penetrated by the spent
HF-HC1. Precipitation of silica caused by contact
of spent acid with aluminum-bearing minerals
reduced the permeabi 1 i ty to 1ess than the Hel
acidized value. The amount of permeability loss
is indicated by the shaded region. Finally,
between 45 and 76 cm lies a region acidized by HCl
but not reached by HF. A modest gain in perme-
ability over the initial value was obtained from
the removal of carbonate minerals.
Loss of permeability due to precipitation of
silica is caused by allowing the spent HF to
remai n ; n the pore space of the reservo; r rock.
Although silica precipitation can reduce the
effect i veness of sandstone aci di zi ng treatments,
come this limitation.
Treatment Design To design a sandstone
acidizing treatment, three fluids must be speci-
fied: the preflush, the HF-HCl acid and the
afterflush. The volume units specified in this
sect i on are based on cubi c meters of fl ui d per
measured meter of i nterva 1 1ength actually perfo-
rated, not total gross interval.
A prefl ush is injected ahead of the HF-HCl
acidizing mixture to help eliminate some of the
precipitation reactions that can reduce permeabil-
ity during a sandstone acidizing treatment. A
preflush can be used to:
o Prevent contact between HF and formation
brine, so that insoluble fluosilicates are
not precipitated, and
o Remove calcite (CaC0 3 ) from the reservoir
rock, so that calcium fluoride (CaF 2 ) is not
precipitated from the HF.
A solution of 15% (by weight) hydrochloric
ae; d ; s best suited to meeting these prefl ush
requirements. The minimum volume of 15% HCl
recommended is about 0.6 m3 per meter (m 3 /m) of
perforated interval. This volume usually has
suff; ci ent di sso 1vi ng power to remove all of the
calcite from the near-wellbore region. In highly
ca 1careous sandstones, however, it may be neces-
sary to increase the volume to 1.2 m3 /m.
When formulating the HF-HCl acidizing mix-
ture, two important points must be considered:
o The dissolving power of HF is enhanced by the
presence of HC1, and
o Hi gh concentrations of HF are to be avoi ded
because of excessive reaction-product preci-
pitation.
293
4 PRINCIPLES OF ACID STIMULATION
The fluid usually chosen to meet these guide-
lines contains 3% HF and 12% HC1. This HF concen-
tration is something of a compromise. Lower HF
concentrations require that very large volumes of
fluid be injected, while higher HF concentrations
lead to problems with reaction-product precipita-
ti on.
A cons i derab 1e amount of 1aboratory, engi n-
eering and field effort has been expended in
arriving at a useful guideline for choosing the
volume of the HF-HCl mixture. However, no single
volume was found to be best for all situations.
Treatment design guidelines should have the flexi-
bility to use large acid volumes when damage is
extens i ve and small vo 1urnes when damage is
limited. It is recommended that the volume of the
3% HF - 12% HCl mi xture be somewhere between 1. 2
m3 and 2.4 m3 per meter of perforated interval.
The purpose of an afterfl ush in sandstone
acidizing is twofold:
o To displace HF reaction products away from
the wellbore, thereby preventing damage from
silica precipitation, and
o To promote water-wetting of formation rock
and fines.
An aqueous afterflush composed of either
hydroch 1ori c aci d or ammon; urn ch 1ori de bri ne is
very effective in displacing spent acid from the
near-wellbore region. It can also serve to dilute
the spent acid, thereby reducing the precipitation
tendency. In many cases, however, other well
problems prevent the use of an aqueous afterflush
thus necessitating that diesel or nitrogen be
used. These cases occur when low reservoir perme-
ability requires re-establishment of an oil or gas
saturat i on around the well to allow rapi d c 1ean-
up.
To satisfy the requirement that the formation
be water-wet after acidizing, a mutual solvent is
included in the afterflush formulation. A mutual
solvent concentration of 10% (by volume) has been
shown to be effective in the afterflush.9
In summary, the sandstone acidizing treatment
design recommendations are:
Volume
Fluid Composition (m 3 /m )
Preflush 15% HCl 0.6-1.2
HF-HCl 3% HF - 12% HCl 1. 2-2. 4
Afterflush Fluid + 10% mutual solvent 1.2-2.4
Restoring Production To minimize the occur-
rence of damage from reaction products precipita-
ting from the HF-HCl ~cid, the well should be
returned to production or injection immediately
after the acid treatment is completed. Field
experi ence has shown that it is best to beg; n
producing the well within one hour after complet-
ing the acid treatment.
Achieving this goal requires good cooperation
between production and workover personnel;
294
SPE 10038
however, field results demonstrate that it is well
worth the effort,
Carbonate Matrix Acidizing
The objective of carbonate matrix acidizing,
like sandstone acidizing, is to remove or pene-
trate damage adjacent to the well. However,
carbonate rocks are mineralogically very different
from sandstones; therefore, their acidizing chem-
i stry and reaction mechani sm are also very dif-
ferent. As a result of their high reactivity
towards hydrochloric acid (HC1), this acid is used
most often to stimulate carbonate formations.
Acid Reactions Although a wide variety of
carbonate textures and compos it ions may be found
in nature, practically all of their reactions with
HCl acid can be described by relatively simple
chern; ca 1 equations. For instance, the reactions
of the most common carbonates CaC0 3 (calcite),
(Ca,Mg)C0 3 (dolomite) and FeC0 3 (siderite) can be
described by the equations:
CaC0 3 + 2HCl ~ CaC1 2 + CO 2 + H2 0
(Ca,Mg)(C0 3 )2 + 4HCl ~ CaC1 2 + MgC1 2 + 2C0 2 + 2H 2 0
Fee0 3 + 2HCl ~ FeC1 2 + CO 2 + H2 0
Furthermore, there are no complicating precipita-
tion reactions to present the potential for addi-
tional formation damage ..
Another way in which carbonate acidizing is
quite different from sandstone acidizing is that
the hi gh react i vi ty of HCl with carbonate rocks
promotes the formation of small channe 1S, often
called IIwormholesll,10 These conductive channels
can be several mi 11 i meters in di ameter and are
capable of providing a conductive path through the
damage region, The conductive channels, which are
common 1y observed in 1aboratory experi ments, are
believed to radiate from the wellbore in the
fashion shown in Figure 4.
The number and diameter of these channels has
theoretically been shown to depend on acid reacti-
vity. Highly reactive acids (such as Hel) are
predicted to yield a small number of large diame-
ter channels, while weak acids (such as acetic
aci d) shoul d produce a greater number of sma 11
diameter channels. The length of the channels can
vary from several centimeters to almost a meter,
depending on how rapidly the acid leaks off to the
surroundi ng rock. A hi gh permeabi 1i ty formation
will allow only short channels to grow, whereas a
low permeability reservoir will promote longer
channels.
Treatment Design A complete design for a
matrix carbonate acidizing treatment will include
specification of the acid type, concentration,
volume and maximum surface injection pressure.
The acid most commonly used with carbonate forma-
tions is hydrochloric acid, typically in a concen-
trat i on between 15% and 28% (by wei ght). Hydro-
chloric acid is widely available and will react to
completion with carbonate rock.
SPE 10038
Occasionally, wellbore conditions mandate the
use of a weaker, less corrosive acid instead of
HC1. Such need may arise in deep, hot wells where
effective corrosion inhibition may not be pos-
sible, or in wells containing downhole equipment
components made of aluminum or chromium. In these
cases, formi c or acet; c ac; ds can be substituted
for HC1. However, because these are weaker acids
and do not react to comp 1et; on under reservo; r
conditions, their lower dissolving power must be
offset by increased volume or concentration.
Treatment volume ideally should be based on
an estimate of the damage zone depth. Unfortu-
nately, this estimate is often difficult to
obtain, even from well test data. In these cases,
approximate guidelines can be followed initially,
after which field experience becomes a valuable
guide. Recommeded HCl volumes usually range from
0.3 m3 to 2.0 m per meter of perforated interval,
with 1.5 m3 /m being typical. After initial exper-
i ence with 1. 5 m3 /m, the formation response may
warrant a lower volume. Volumes greater than 2.0
m3 /m shoul d be avoi ded in matri x treatments, as
this may lead to communication with adjacent
zones.
At the completion of acid injection, a tubing
volume of either diesel or brine is required to
displace the acid from the tubulars. A large
afterfl ush is not necessary in carbonate aci di z-
i ng.
Injection Pressure and Rate
When removing formation damage with either a
carbonate matri x aci di zing or a sandstone matri x
acidizing treatment, the injection pressure must
be 1i mi ted to a value that wi 11 not cause the
formation to fracture. Treatment fluids must flow
through the porous rock matri x if they are to
remove the damage around the wellbore. Calculat-
ing the maximum permissible surface pressure is
readil y accomp 1; shed from the fracture gradi ent
and the fluid gradient.
The maximum permissible surface injection
pressure (P ) to avoid fracturing is:
max
p (Fracture _ Fluid ) Vertical
max Gradient Gradient x Depth
This pressure calculation ignores tubular friction
losses and therefore tends to be slightly conser-
vative.
Injection rate during matrix acidizing is
typically controlled by the maximum surface pres-
sure and the extent to which the well ;s damaged.
That is to say, the injection rate is adjusted so
that the surface pressure does not exceed P .
Using this criterion, one can reasonably expec~ato
inject fluids slowly at first and then to increase
the rate as the aci d removes damage from around
the well.
T. W. MUECKE 5
RESERVOIR STIMULATION
The object of reservoir stimulation is to
increase well productivity by creating a large,
planar fracture within the reservoir. In effect,
the fracture increases the surface area available
for fl ow into the well. Such fractures must be
rendered conductive by either injecting solid
proppants or by etchi ng the fracture wall s wi th
acid to prevent their closure when the well is
produced. Sandstone reservoirs are not suffi-
ciently acid soluble to provide the required
fracture conductivity by etching; therefore prop-
pants must be used. Only carbonate formations are
sufficiently acid soluble to lend themselves to
acid fracturing. The following discussion of
reservoir stimulation will primarily address acid
fracturing of carbonate formations.
Fracturing Fundamentals
In a low permeability reservoir, a converging
radial flow pattern can place a severe limitation
on well productivity. Creating a large conductive
fracture in the reservoir changes the flow pattern
from radial flow to approximately linear flow, as
shown in Figure 5. Production into a large planar
fracture that is in communi cat i on wi th the we 11-
bore can substantially increase the production
rate over that attainable with converging radial
flow. Occasionally, acid fracturing can provide
the addit i ona 1 benefi t of damage removal when a
highly conductive fracture penetrates a damaged
zone surround\ng the well.
The geometry and growth of hydrau1 i c frac-
tures is i nfl uenced by many factors, i ncl udi ng
tectonic stresses, rock properties and fluid
properties. In general, post-fracturing measure-
ments indicate that fractures created by acid are
20 to 50 meters hi gh at the well bore and extend
100 to 150 meters 1atera lly into the formation.
During ac'id injection, a fracture may attain a
width of several millimeters.
The reservoir stimulation benefits realizable
from acid fracturing can be estimated from design
curves whi ch compare the important reservoi rand
fracture parameters. The major parameters include
fracture conductivity, fracture length, formation
permeability and zone thickness. l l It is common
to achieve a 2 to 6 fold increase in well produc-
tivity when a low permeability carbonate formation
is fractured. A greater increase is possible if
wellbore damage is also overcome by the fracturing
operation.
Acid Fracturing
Important parameters. The two major parame-
ters governing the geometry and conductivity of an
acidized fracture are fluid loss and acid reaction
rate. Whether fluid loss or reaction rate limits
the overall geometry of the acidized fracture will
depend strongly on the type of fluid employed and
the permeability of the formation.
In a highly permeable formation, fluid loss
1imits the length to which a fractUre can be
etched. The concept of fl ui d loss is i 11 ustrated
in Figure 6. When fluid loss is limiting, the
295
6 PRINCIPLES OF A
resulting fracture is highly conductive, but
usually short in length (oftentimes only 10 to 20
meters into the reservoir). This type of fracture
is usually chosen to provide stimulation in a high
permeability reservoir or in a deep reservoir
where the closure stress is large.
On the other hand, when fl u; d loss can be
controlled, the reaction rate between the acid and
the fracture wall limits the overall acidized
fracture length. 10 12 Under these conditions, the
acid is entirely spent by the time it reaches the
tip of the propagating fracture, as shown in
Figure 6. When the reaction rate governs the
aei di zed fracture geometry, the fracture is
usually of lower conductivity but of greater
1ength (up to 150 meters into the reservo; r). In
order to promote a greater acidized fracture
length, the acid reaction rate must be reduced.
This is accomplished by slowing the mass transfer
of acid to the rock wall, oftentimes by
emulsifying the acid with oil. Acid external
emulsions have found widespread application in
fracturi ng reservoi rs of moderate depth and
relatively low permeability.
The fi rst dec; s i on whi ch must be made in
treatment design involves deciding whether a
short, conductive fracture is needed or whether a
relatively longer, lower conductivity fracture
will provide the maximum increase in producti-
vity.13,14 These decisions are based on reservoir
and fracture parameters using the predictive tools
previously referenced. The selection of plain HCl
or an emulsified acidizing system can then be
made. Occasionally both are used, with the plain
HCl injected into the fracture follow; ng the aei d
external emulsion to ensure that the near-wellbore
region is thoroughly etched and highly conductive.
In usual practice, acid fracturing design is
performed with the aid of a computer program.
This enables more rapid calculation of the approx-
imate fracture size, conductivity, stimulation
rat i 0 and fri ct i on pressure. Many di fferent jobs
can be designed in a short time to obtain an
optimum treatment.
A typical acid fracturing treatment consists
of 40 to 50 m3 of inert pad fluid followed by 40
m3 of acid, pumped at rates of 1.5 to 3.0 m3 /min.
After all of the acid has been pumped, a brine or
diesel overflush should be injected to displace
the live acid into the formation where it can
spend to completion. The fracture resulting from
such a treatment might be 30 meters high and
100 meters long.
As a precautionary note, it is cons i dered
good operating practice to always establish injec-
tivity at the beginning of the treatment with the
injection of an inert fluid ahead of the acid. In
the event that injection into the formation is not
possible, this procedure guards against the possi-
bility of having the tubing partially full of live
aei d.
296
10038
DIVERSION TO TREAT LONG INTERVALS
In the completion of a well, it is frequently
necessary to stimulate production from several
intervals. Multiple-zone stimulation is accom-
plished by temporarily blocking certain intervals
thus forc; ng subsequently ; njected aci d into the
remaining intervals. This process of temporary
blocking is called diversion. 15
Experience has shown that the major portion
of any acidizing treatment will be injected ini-
tially into the zone with the greatest permeabil
ity as illustrated in Figure 7 (before diversion).
However, by employing a diversion technique to
temporarily block the perforations in the hi gh
permeability zone, the treating fluid can be
injected into the low permeability zone as shown
in Figure 7 (after diversion).
Generally speaking, diversion should be
considered under any of the following conditions:
o Matrix acidizing when interval lengths are
greater than 5 meters, or
o Matrix acidizing of individual sands
separated by more than 20 meters, or
o Fracturing zones separated by shales thicker
than 10 meters, or
o Fracturi ng wlien the overall i nterva 1 is
greater than 30 meters.
Ba 11 sealers are small spheres intended for
use in cased-hole completions to temporarily block
perforations which are accepting disproportionate
quantities of the treating fluid. When a ball
arrives at a perforation, it is seated (held in
place) by the pressure differential developed
across the ball and perforation. Once seated, the
ball effectively diverts treating fluids to the
other perforations or i nterva 1s requ; ri ng treat-
ment. When the treatment is finished, the balls
are designed to unseat from the perforations.
Conventional Ball Sealers Conventional ball
sealers are defined as ball sealers that are of
greater density than the treating fluid (i.e.,
they are nonbuoyant). Since their introduction in
the mid-1950 ' s, conventional ball sealers have
been used throughout the industry with varying
of success to divert stimulation fluids
during fracturing treatments.
One method for descri bi ng the effectiveness
of ball sealer di vers ion techni ques is seating
efficiency. The seating efficiency is that frac-
tion of ball sealers (expressed as a percentage)
which actually block the entrance of fluid into
the perforations. Flow rate through the perfora-
tions has been identified as extremely important
in determining conventional ball sealer effective-
ness. In , increased fl ow rate through the
perforation enhances ball-seating efficiency.
Flow requirements of 0 04 to 0.16 m3 /min per
perforation are commonly reported in the industry
for conventional (nonbuoyant) ball sealers.
SPE 10038
However, even at these high flow rates, both
laboratory and field results demonstrate that the
seating efficiency is often much lower than 100%.
The field implication of this observation is
that convent i ona 1 ball sealers frequently do not
provide reliable diversion, even at relatively
high injection rates. Furthermore, they are
totally ineffective in matrix acidizing treatments
conducted at low flow rates.
Buoyant Ball Sealers Reducing the density of
the ball sealers until they are less dense than
the treating fluid (buoyant) has a dramatic influ-
ence on seating efficiency. Buoyant ball sealers
have 100% seating efficiency even at very low flow
rates. 16
A buoyant ball sealer can attain this 100%
efficiency because the ball cannot sink beneath
the perforations. As shown by the solid trajec-
tory in Fi gure 8, a buoyant ball that is trans-
ported to the perforations wi 11 ei ther seat upon
an upper perforation or be carri ed to the lowest
one accepting fluid, where it must seat. Because
of buoyancy, the ba 11 can never remain in the
quiescent fluid beneath the perforations. Even in
the rare case that a ball overshoots the lowest
perforation because of inertia, the buoyant forces
exerted on the ball will cause it to promptly rise
out of the static fluid region. Once out, the
ball is again entrained by the moving fluid. It
is transported toward the lowest perforation
accepting fluid and seats. The result is a 100%
efficient process.
By contrast, the heavier conventional-density
ball exhibits strictly statistical seating effi-
ciency. As shown by the dashed trajectory in
Figure 8, the heavy ball has two options upon
arri vi ng at the perforated i nterva 1 -- either to
seat upon a perforation or to pass all of the
perforations without seating. Because the conven-
tiona l-dens i ty ball passes the perforations only
once, its seating effectiveness is strongly depen-
dent upon perforation flow rate and its pos it ion
within the wellbore as it passes the perforations.
In most instances, buoyant ball sealers will
assure that maximum diversion is achieved due to
their high reliability in seating on perforations.
Buoyant ba 11 seal ers can be used throughout the
ent ire range of ac; di zi ng treatments from matri x
acidizing to acid fracturing.
Particulate Diverting Agents
Part i cul ate di vert i ng agents are small so 1i d
particles that are dispersed in the acidizing
fluid. As the acid enters the formation rock
these sol id particles are carried with it. The
solids are designed to plug the pore spaces,
perforations and fractures, thereby diverting the
treating fluid to a new zone. After the treatment
is finished, the particulate diverting agents
should dissolve in the produced (or injected) well
fluids. Hence, their plugging behavior is only
temporary.
The use of particulate diverting agents has a
long history in stimulation treatments. The lit-
erature reveals that a wide variety of materials
T. W. MUECKE
have been used wi th varyi ng degrees of success.
What has succeeded in one area has not always done
so ; n another; hence, there are a number of
uncertainties regarding the use of these
materials.
In sandstone matrix acidizing, the finely-
ground oil-soluble resin diverting agents have
been moderately successful. Ouri ng carbonate
matrix acidizing, the channeling effect of the
acid makes diversion with particulate materials
extreme ly diff; cult. For aci d fracturi ng treat-
ments, the combi nat i on of rock salt and para for-
maldehyde flakes has been effective in water
injection wells. For producing wells, large-size
oil-soluble resin particles are often used.
In general, particulate materials can be
beneficial, but their use should be carefully
adjusted to local field conditions. Where appl;-
cab 1e, buoyant ball sealers provi de a much more
reliable diversion technique for acidizing treat-
ments.
EXAMPLE FIELD TREATMENTS
Sandstone Acidizing
As illustrated in Figure 9, a matrix-rate
sandstone acidizing treatment was required to
treat three commi ngl ed sandstone i nverva 1sin a
bri ne di sposa 1 well. Each i nterva 1 was roughly 6
meters in length and separated by about 5 meters.
The perforation dens i ty was six perforat; ons per
meter. A pretreatment inject i vity test, coup 1ed
with a temperature survey, showed that most of the
fluid was entering only the uppermost interval.
A sandstone acidizing treatment employing
buoyant ball sealers for diversion was designed
for this well.
o 15% Hel Prefl ush
o 3%HF-12%HC1Acid
o 15% HCl Afterflush
o 94 Buoyant Ball Sealers
The treatment was pumped in three stages at pres-
sures below the fracturing pressure. Injection
rate was approximately 0.5 m3 /min.
The bottomhole treating pressure, shown in
Fi gure 9, i ndi cates that the Hel prefl ush had
1 itt 1e effect on the formation damage. However,
when the HF arrived at the perforations, the sharp
pressure decrease i ndi cated that the damage was
being dissolved. Subsequent pressure increases
that occurred at 14 m3 and 33 m3 were attri buted
to diversion by the ball sealers.
Following the treatment, injectivity
increased from 350 m3 /d to 1000 m3 /d. Additional-
ly, a follow-up temperature survey showed signifi-
cant temperature anoma 1 i es in each of the three
intervals and indicated that the acid had been
successfully diverted.
297
8 PRINCIPLES OF ACID STIMULATION
Acid Fracturing 2.
The second example well, completed in a
carbonate formation, is shown schematically in
Figure 10. It contained two 10 meter productive
zones separated by 30 meters. A total of 296
perforations had been shot. 3.
A previous acid fracturing treatment using
staging techniques and conventional-density ball
sealers had been unsuccessful in opening both 4.
zones completely. The radi oact i ve tracer survey
which followed this earlier treatment (Figure 10)
indicated that more than 30% of the upper interval
and at least 70% of the lower zone had not 5.
received treatment. Furthermore, production
response was disappointingly low at 270 m3 /d.
To increase the productivity of this well, an 6.
acid fracturing treatment was conducted with plain
HCl pumped at 1.6 m3 /min. This time buoyant ball
sealers were used in an attempt to improve diver-
sion. The HCl was tagged with radioactive sand to
aid in treatment evaluation.
7.
The radi oact i ve tracer survey that was run
after this second acid fracturing treatment (shown
in Figure 10) exhibited well-developed radioactive
anomalies in each of the two zones, indicating 8.
that the buoyant ba 11 s had enhanced di vers i on of
acid over the majority of the producing interval.
From a productivity standpoi nt, the results were
also very good. The production rate increased
from 270 m3 /d to 600 m3 /d. 9.
Carbonate Matrix Acidizing
SPE 10038
Gray, D. H., and Rex, R. W.: "Formation
Damage in Sandstone Caused by Clay Dispersion
and Mi grat ion,.' Proc. 14th Conf. on Cl ays and
Cl ay Mi neral s, Pergamon Press, London (1966)
32, 355-366.
Mungan, N.: II Permeabi 1ity Reduction Through
Changes in pH and Sa1inity," J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec. 1965) 1449-1453. - -- --
Muecke, T. W.: JlFormation Fines and Factors
Controlling Their Movement in Porous Media,"
~ Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1979) 144-150.
Abrams, A.: "Mud Design to Minimize Rock
Impairment Due to Particle Invasion," J. Pet.
Tech. (May 1977) 586-592. - --
Kunze, K. R., and Shaughnessy, C. M.: "Acid-
izing Sandstone Formations with Fluobor;c
Aci d,lI paper SPE 9387 presented at SPE 55th
Annual Fall Technical Conference, Dallas,
September 21-24, 1980.
Labri d, L. : IIThermodynami c and Ki net i c
Aspects of Argillaceous Sandstone Acidizing,"
Soc. Pet. ~ ~ (April 1975) 117-128.
Shaughnessy, C. M., and Kunze. K. R. :
"Understanding Sandstone Acidizing Leads to
Improved Field Practices," J. Pet. Tech.
(July 1981) 1196-1202. - -- --
Gidley, J. L.: IIStimulation of Sandstone
Formations with the Acid-Mutual Solvent
Method, ~ Pet. Tech. (May 1971) 551-558.
II

This final example is included to illustrate 10. Nierode, D. E., and Williams, B. B.: "Cha-
the benefits which may be achieved by matrix racteristics of Acid Reaction in Limestone
acidizing a carbonate formation upon or;g;n~l Formati ons," Soc. Pet. ~ ~ (Dec. 1971)
completion. Due to formation damage, high poten- 406-418; Trans. , AIME, 251.
tial wells in this geographical area do not pro-
duce at the desired capacity after the initial 11. McGuire, W. J. and Sikora, V. J.: liThe
completion. Acid treatments are usually necessary Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Produc-
and must be diverted effectively or else only a tivity," Trans . AIME (1960) 219,401-403.
small fraction of the interval will be productive.
12. Roberts, L. D. and Gui n, J. A.: liThe Effect
As shown in Figure 11, the well contained two of Surface Kinetics in Fracture Acidiz;ng,JI
perforated intervals. It was matrix acidized Pet. ~ (Aug. 1974) 385-395;
using 15% hydrochloric acid and was diverted using AIME, 257.
buoyant ball sealers to help ensure complete
coverage of the productive zones. Fo 11 owi ng the 13. Williams, B. B. and Nierode, D. E.: "Design
treatment, a spi nner survey (Fi gure 11) cl early of Acid Fracturing Treatments," J. Pet. Tech.
showed that both zones had been entirely opened. (July 1972) 849-859; Trans. ,AIME-;-253. - -
Furthermore, the survey indicated that production
contributions were roughly proportionate to the 14. Novotny, E. J.: "Prediction of Stimulation
permeability and thickness of each zone. The well from Acid Fracturing Treatments using Finite
productivity increased from 475 m3 /d before treat- Fracture Conductivity II Pet. Tech.
ment to 1000 m3 /d after acidizing. (Sept. 1977) 1186-1194; AIME, 262-.-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 15. Harrison, N. W.: IID;verting Agents -- Their
History and Application," J. Pet. Tech. (May
The author very much appreciates the valuable 1972) 593-598. - - --
contributions of C. M. Shaughnessy, K. R. Kunze,
S. R. Erbstoesser and G. A. Gabriel during the 16. Erbstoesser, S. R.: II Improved Ba 11 Sealer
preparation of this paper. Diversion," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1980)
1903-1910.
REFERENCES
1. Williams, B. B., Gidley, J. L., and
Schechter, R. S.: Acidizing Fundamentals,
Soc. Pet. Eng. of AIME, Dallas (1979).

298
 Fig. 1 - Formation damage impairs productivity.

600

500
REACTIVE HF
=c PENETRATION
. 400
>-
to-
=:::;
iii 300
<
L&.I
:IE RESPONSE TO HCI
cc 200
L&.I
0...
J
100
- - - -- INITIAL PERMEABILITY - - - -- -- - - - - --
o~--~--~--~~--~--~--~----~~
o w ~ ~ ~ 00 ro
DISTANCE FROM INJECTION FACE (em)

Fig. 2 - Limited HF penetration in a sandstone core.

299
 160 INITIAL PERMEABILITY: 60 md
2 HR SHUT-IN

=is' 140
g
SILICA RESPONSE TO HCI
~ PRECIPITATION
:::::; 120
CD
C(
u.I
::E
a::
~ 100

80
~--~10~--~20----'3~0----4~0--~50----~60----7~0~

DISTANCE FROM INJECTION FACE (em)

Fig. 3 Silica precipitation in an acidized sandstone core.

Fig. 4 - Penetration of a damaged region by conductive channels.

300
RADIAL FLOW FRACTURE FLOW

.
Fig. 5 - Reservoir stlmula t"Ion by acid fracturing.

FLUID
LOSS

. .
Fig. 6 - Factors limiting aCI'd fracture growth.

301
 BEFORE AFTER
DIVERSION DIVERSION

Fig, 7 - Multiple zone acidization with diversion.

.... .
"

.... .,.
'

'I,:,
-.",..

BUOYANT
BALL

CONVENTIONAL
BALL

Fig. 8 ~ Comparison of buoyant and conventional ball sealers.

302
 18 HCI AT PERFORATIONS

...
CI..
...- HF REMOVES DAMAGE

NUMBER !ii16
OF 1.1.1
PERFORATIONS cc
::::;)
GIl
GIl
1.1.1
48 cc
Cl..14
1.1.1
....J
c::::I
:E:
::IE
34 c::::I

1= 12 t
c::::I
a:I BALLS PROVIDE DIVERSION
30
112 10 20 30 40 50 60
TREATMENT VOLUME (m3)

Fig. 9 - Sandstone matrix acidizing treatment.

RADIOACTIVITY RADIOACTIVITY

NUMBER
OF
PERFORATIONS

104

192

296

TREATMENT 1 TREATMENT 2
CONVENTIONAL BALLS BUOYANT BALLS
270 m3/d OIL 600 m3/d OIL

Fig. 10 - Buoyant ball sealers improve acid fracturing.

DOWNHOLE FLOWRATE

NUMBER
OF
PERFORATIONS

69

65

134 1000 m3/d OIL

Fig. 11 - Carbonate matrix acidizing treatment.

303