WELL STIMULATION

By Emile SOB N, Petroleum Engineer

What problems can you see in this picture?

What is a problem well?

What is formation damage?

What are the causes of formation damage?

What are the possible causes of reduced productivity?

What are the consequences of wax deposits in the casings?

What is fracturing?

What is acidizing?
WHAT IS A PROBLEM WELL?
A problem well can be identified by the following indicators:
 Low oil and gas production
 High Gas-Oil-Ratio(GOR)
 High water-cut
 Low reservoir permeability
 Limited production rate
 Low reservoir pressure
 Sand production
 High Viscosity oil
 Mechanical problems
 Etc…
LIMITED PRODUCING RATE
Limited producing rate may be the result of:
1. Low reservoir permeability
2. Low reservoir pressure for depth
3. Formation Damage
4. Wellbore or tubing plugging
5. High viscosity oil
6. Excessive back pressure on formation
LOW RESERVOIR PERMEABILITY
Low reservoir permeability may be an overall reservoir characteristic, or it
may be limited to a specific area.
If low permeability has been proved as a cause of limited production, the
problem should be considered along with other possible causes of low
production.
Characteristically, in a low permeability reservoir, well productivity
declines rapidly as fluids near the wellbore are produced.
When available geologic and reservoir data do not readily prove low
reservoir permeability, production tests and buildup tests may aid in
differentiating between low permeability and formation damage.
For a pressure buildup and drawdown test to be valid as a diagnostic
tool, it is usually nessecary to determine whether all layered, porous zones
selected for production are actually in communication with this wellbore.
FORMATION DAMAGE
Formation damage can be defined as
any impairement of well productivity or
injectivity due to plugging within the
wellbore, or in fractures communicating
with the wellbore.
Formation damage is caused by the
invasion of foreign fluids and/or solids into
the exposed section adjacent to the
wellbore. Generally the drilling mud is the
main source of such contaminants. Fluids
used in stimulation treatment (acidizing,
hydraulic fracturing, etc…)may also have
some undesirable effects.
One of the fonctions of the drilling mud is
to control subsurface formation pressure,
to achieve that function, the mud column
in the well must exert a pressure greater
than the formation pressure which will
force mud filtrate to enter the surrounding
formation.
FORMATION DAMAGE
The consequence of liquid invasion can
include:
- Clay swelling
- Permeability impairement,
- Emulsification with formation fluids,
resulting in highly viscous mixtures,
cappilary blocking,
- Pecipitation with solids,
- Reduction of the relative
permeability to gas due to the
presence of a third immiscible fluid
- Reduction of relative permeability to
oil due to an increased irreducible
water saturation
FORMATION DAMAGE
Solid invasion can also be a source of
formation damage with the following
consequences:
- Plugging of internal pores by solid
particles
- Reduction of effective pore radius
with consequent increase in
intersticial water content and
reduction in effective permeability
to oil or gas,
FORMATION DAMAGE
Formation damage can be defined as any impairement of well productivity
or injectivity due to plugging within the wellbore, or in fractures
communicating with the wellbore.

All wells are damaged

The problem is to determine the degree of well damage, probable causes of
well damage and approaches to alleviate any serious damage.
Formation damage may be indicated by:
- Production tests
- Pressure buildup and drawdown tests
- Comparison with offset wells
- Analysis of production history
FORMATION DAMAGE
Wellbore damage is a descriptive term applied when permeability is
reduced near a wellbore. This permeability reduction usually occurs during
drilling or completion operations.
Causes include plugging of pores with fine materials in the drilling fluid
and reaction of the formation with filtrate from the drilling fluid(swelling of
clays in the formation resulting from low-salinity filtrate). Completions fluids
can cause similar permeability reduction as they enter the formation.
Stimulation usually results from deliberate attempts to improve a well’s
productivity. Common techniques include acidization and hydraulic
fracturing.
One of the means of estimating the extent of the damage is the skin factor s.
FORMATION DAMAGE – SKIN FACTOR
The skin factor s can be calculated from the following equation.

= , ( − + , ) ---- eq 1
∅ ²

Where = , ---- eq 2
Where p1hr is the value of pws at shut in time ∆t of 1 hour on the middle time line of
its extrapolation.
The interpretation of a given numerical value of the skin factor can be
summarized as follows:
- A positive skin factor indicates a flow restriction; the larger the skin factor, the
more severe the restriction.
- A negative skin factor indicates stimulation; the larger the absolute value the
skin factor, the more effective the skin factor.
EXERCICE 1– SKIN FACTOR
An oil well was tested during a 96hr drawdown, given the data below calculate
the permeability and skin effect. What can you conclude?
qo = 33 STB/d, = , , Bo = 1,05 res bbl/STB, h = 62 ft, rw = 6 in, ct = 6x10-5 psi-1,
Ø = 0,31, pi = 1255 psi, p1hr = 1151 psi, slope of the correct straight line = 10
psi/cycle

Applying equation 2, we calculate the permability Ans 9,5 md

Applying equation 1, we calculate the skin factor Ans +8

What interpretation do you give to this value of skin?

Note: the skin is a dimensionless value.

ILLUSTRATION OF FORMATION DAMAGE ON A BUILDUP TEST

Semilog graph of buildup test data

4500

4400

Wellbore storage and

4300
formation damage
4200

pws in psi
4100

4000

3900

3800

3700

3600
100 000 10 000 1 000 100

(tp + ∆t)/∆t
PLUGGING OF TUBING, WELLBORE AND PERFORATIONS
Tubing plugging may be caused by:
- gravel pack,
- fines,
- mud,
- paraffin,
- asphalt scale,
- gun debris,
- or other junks and
- collapsed tubing or casing
HIGH VISCOSITY OIL
High viscosity oil may be normal for a particular reservoir. If the reservoir is
being produced by disolved gas drive, oil viscosity will increase somewhat as
gas is released from the oil.
If well producing problems are due to high viscosity water-in-oil
emulsions in or near the wellbore, it may be economical to either break or
invert the emulsion with surfactants to lower viscosity of produced fluid.
EXERCICE 2– RESERVOIR DRAWDOWN TEST
T(hr) Pwf(psi)
0,5 1245
A reservoir was tested during a 96 hr drawdown
0,75 1240
test. Measured bottomhole pressures are listed
in the table to the right and relevant reservoir 1 1235,5
and well data are given below. 1,5 1228
2 1221
3 1207
qo = 33 STB/d, = , , Bo = 1,05 res bbl/STB, h
= 62 ft, rw = 6 in, ct = 6x10-5 psi-1, Ø = 0,31, pi = 4 1197,5
1255 psi 5 1169
7 1173
10 1159
12 1153
18 1145
24 1142
36 1136
48 1135
72 1133
96 1132
EXERCICE 2 CTND – RESERVOIR DRAWDOWN TEST
EXERCICE 2 CTND – RESERVOIR DRAWDOWN TEST
Instructions
1. Plot on a semilog paper the Bottom Hole Flowing Presssure(pwf) against
time in hours.
2. Indentify the straight line portion of the graph
3. Determine the slope of the correct straight line portion of the graph in
psi/cycle
4. Calculate the permeability of the reservoir in md using equation 1 defined
earlier
5. Extrapolate the straight line portion of the graph and determine pwf at 1hr
6. Calculate the skin factor using equation 2
7. Is there damage or enhancement?
HOMEWORK #2 – FORMATION DAMAGE
List 8 pactical preventive measures which can be taken to prevent formation
damage
EXERCICE 2 – AVERAGE PERMEABILITY
Using this equation, =

Compute the average or equivalent permeability which will govern the

productivity of the following well.
Drainage raduis re = 700 ft., Wellbore raduis rw = 4in., radius of the altered
zone = 2 ft., permeabilty of the damaged area ka = 5 md, permeability of the
unaltered zone ke = 500 md
SOLUTION – AVERAGE PERMEABILITY
The permeability of the altered and unaltered zone can be computed as,
,
= = 0,021 darcy = 21 md
, , ,
STIMULATION METHODS
As mentioned before, the purpose of stimulation is to increase well
productivity. The three major stimulation methods are:

1. Nitro-shooting
2. Acidizing
3. Hydraulic Fracturing
These methods are also known as large area penetrators because their
effects extends an appreciable distance from the well.
EXERCICE
Given the data below, predict production rates at steady states for theses
ranges of permeabilities(0,01; 0,1; 1; 10) and for skin effects equal to 0 and 10.
Comment on whether the well for these cases is a candidate for fracturing or
acidizing.
= , , B = 1,1 res bbl/STB, h = 50 ft, rw = 0,328 ft,, pe = 3000 psi, k= 10md,
pwf = 1000 psi, re = 745 ft
Let’s ease our analysis by putting our results into a table

The relevant steady state equation is q = ℎ( − )/(141,2 (ln + ))

K(md) s =10 q in STB/D =? s =0 q in STB/D =?

10 454 1041
1 45 104
0,1 4,54 10,41
0,01 0,45 1,04
EXERCICE CONTD
If the permeability were 10md, then elimination of the skin effect(if it were
possible) from 10 to 0 would result in production rate increase from 454 STB/d
to 1041 STB/d, which is a substantial benefit. It can be noted that matrix
stimulation would be indicated because it would increase existing void
spaces in the rock.
If the permeabilty were 0,01 md, then elimination of the skin effect from 10 to
0 would result in an increase in the production rate from 0,45 STB/d to = 1,04
STB/d , an unattractive prospect.
In general, reservoirs with permeabilities of 1md or less are usually
candidates for hydraulic fracturing, while those with permeabilities of 10 md
and above are candidates for matrix stimulation.
Finally it can be noted that reservoirs with permeabilities between 1 and 10
md require intensive study and sound design practice for the appropriate
choice of stimulation treatments.
K(md) s =10 q in STB/D =? s =0 q in STB/D =?

10 454 1041

1 45 104

0,1 4,54 10,41

0,01 0,45 1,04

NITRO-SHOOTING
The process involves placing and detonating an explosive adjacent to the
producing strata.
The explosion shatters and fractures the rock, which enlarges the
borehole and increases permeability, thereby increasing productive
capacity. After the detonation, the well must be cleaned of debris prior to
being put on production.
ACIDIZING
Acidizing involves the injection of acid into an acid soluble pay zone where
its disolving action enlarges existing voids and thereby increasing the
permeability of the zone.
Acidizing is particularly applicable to those oil wells producing from
carbonate formations(dolomites and limestones) in which the cementing
material is composed of carbonates.
When forced out into the flow channels of the formations through natural or
induced fractures, acid disolves a portion of the channel. Thus increasing its
cross-sectionnal area, and hence the permeability and porosity of the
reservoir rock in the vicinity of the wellbore. Of course, the increase in
permeability increases the rate of fluid flow into the well
ACID TYPES
An acid is a chemical compound containing hydrogen which is capable of
being replaced by positive elements or radicals to form salts. Acids used in
acid stimulation of oil wells fall into two major categories: Organic and
inorganic acids.
- Organic acids are derivatives of hydrocarbons containing one or more
carboxyl groups(-COOH), they are known to have lower acid strength.
Examples of organic acids used in oilwell stimulation include formic acid,
acetic acid, oxalic and citric acid.
- Inorganic acids are derived from mineral sources and have greater acid
strength. Inorganic acids commonly used in treating oil wells include
hydrochloric, sulfuric, nitric, phosphoric and sulfamic(HSO3NH2) acids
- Powdered acids(sulfamic and chloroacetic) whose main advantage is
their portability are also used, however their used is very limited in oilwell
stimulation.

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

ACID SELECTION
Each acid has its own peculiar chemical and physical properties.
Acid selection for a particular stimulation job depends upon:
- The rock-disolving capacity of the acid
- The spending time of the acid
- The solubility of reaction products
- The amount and pattern of metal corrosion
- The compatibility of the acid with reservoir fluids
- The density and viscosity of spent fluids
- The etching pattern after acidizing.

Etching: chemical disolution of the formation rock by the action of the acid

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

ACID SELECTION
Rock-disolving capacity refers to the volume of rock that can be disolved by
the acid. The increase in fluid conductivity of a flow channel is dependent on
the quantity of rock disolved. Equation 3 defines the relationship between the
conductivity of a fracture and the fracture width as:
Ct = 4,5 x 106 w3
Where Ct is the fracture conductivity in darcy-ft and w the fracture width in
inches.
Example: a fracture having a width 0,002 in. Has a conductivity of 0,036
darcy-ft whereas a a fracture having a width of 0,2 in. Has a conductivity of
36 000 darcy-ft.
Spending time refers to the time required for an acid to expend 85-90% of its
initial strength, after that, the acid reaction is very slow due to acid dilution. It
is desirable to have a spending time high enough so that the acid can be
pushed as far away as possible from the wellbore into the formation before it
is spent.

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

ACID SELECTION
How are the metalic parts of the well protected from the corrosive power of
the acid? By the addition of corrosion inhibitors.

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

EXERCICE – CALCULATION OF ACID DISOLVING POWER
Estimate the acid disolving power in gallons of rock per gallons of acid for a
limestone. Use the density of limestone as 2,7g/cm3. The acid is 28% by
weight.

The schoichiometric relationship of the reaction between HCL and limestone

CaCO3 is

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

73 100 111 18 44
This implies that 73g of HCl will disolve 100g of CaCO3. Since 1 gallon equals
3,785 l, we can say that 1 gal of 28% HCl has a volume of 3785 cm3 and will
therefore contain 1060g of HCl, which can disolve 1060*100/73 i.e. 1452 g of
CaCO3.
Given that the density of limestone is 2,7g/cm3, the volume of limestone that
can be disolved is 538 cm3 or 0,142 gal.
Thus the disolving power of the acid is 0,142 gallons of rock per gallons of
acid
ACIDIZING TREATMENT
The two main benefits of acidizing are:
- Dissolution of foreign or formation materials in the wellbore that may be
plugging or partially blocking the flow channels throught which the
formation fluids are flowing.
- Enlargement of the formation flow channels
The increase in well fluid productivity after treatment is the measure of
success for an acid job.
There are four broad categories of acid treatment for oil wellbores
- Acid soak or acid washing
- Matrix acidizing
- Acidizing through pre-existing fractures
- High-pressure acidizing(acid-fracturing)

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

ACID SOAK – ACID WASHING
Acid washing is the process of removing scales from the oil well i.e. opening
up the perforations.
The acid can be placed (spotted) into the wellbore at a desired position
and allowed to react with the formation.
The purpose of this type of treatment is to clean the surfaces of the
wellbore and equipment by acid reaction without penetrating into the
formation near the wellbore.

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

MATRIX ACIDIZING
Matrix acidizing is the process of injecting into the flow channels of the
formation at a pressure below that which could cause fracturing. This
technique is designed to radially penetrate the formation near the wellbore,
enlarging the flow channels and disolving the particles that may be plugging
the pore spaces.
This technique is useful where formation damage due to clay swelling of
particles in pore channels with consequent plugging has occured.
This method is also used where high pressure injection could create
fractures that would break natural flow barriers such as shale, that must be
maintained to prevent water or gas production.
The following conditions are necessary to obtain successful matrix
acidizing results:
- Adequate natural permeability must have existed prior to damage of the
reservoir
- Some degree of formation damage must be present
- Sufficient reservoir pressure must be present to force these hydrocarbons to
the wellbore
- Hydrocarbons must exist in sufficient quantity to offset acidizing costs.

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

MATRIX ACIDIZING DESIGN
A typical design for a stimulation job should involve the following major steps:
- Ensure the well is a candidate for matrix stimulation. i.e. clearly establish
that the well is damaged.
- Establish the cause of the damage, it severity and location.
- Select proper formulation of treating fluids, including additives that will
remove the damage without damaging the rock through formation of
secondary precipitates, sludge, etc… Of course this may require
laboratory tests.
- Determine the pressure and/or rate for injection without fracturing the
formation.
- Determine the volume of treating fluid to be injected per foot of perforrated
interval.
- If the reservoir is multilayered or if the pay zone is very thick, determine a
placement technique to ensure each foot of the reservoir receives the
proper amount of fluid.
- Determine possible shut in times
- Acces the profitability of treatment by estimating increase in productivity
vs the cost of treatment itself
MATRIX ACIDIZING - EXERCICE
What treatment would you recommend for the following types of damages?
1 – Water block(Permeability reduction due to water invading an oil bearing
zone) in an oil well with a temperature equal to 300° F
2 – CaSO4 scale
3 – FeS scale
4 – Organic deposits
HIGH PRESSURE ACIDIZING
In high pressure acidizing with fracturing, acid is injected into the formation at
a pressure high enough to fracture the formation or open existing fractures.
Stimulation is significant only if the newly-formed, highly conductive
fractures remain open after the treatment.
The main purpose of this technique is to create flow paths into the
undamaged portions of the reservoir and thus increase the drainage surface
area into the wellbore. It is the most widely used acidizing technique for
stimulating carbonate reservoirs(limestones and dolomites).

A pad of fluid is injected into the formation at a rate higher than that
which the formation matrix will accept. When the pressure exceeds the
compressive earth stress and the rock’s tensile strength, the rock fails by
fracturing. The fracture length and width increase with continued fluid
injection. In order for the treatment to be successful, the widened fracture
must remain open after the pressure is reduced and the well is placed back
on production.

2HCl + CaCO3 CaCl2 + H2O + CO2

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

In hydraulic fracturing, fluid is injected until the fluid pressure overcomes

the stresses inherent in the rock or is greater than the forces holding the rock
together.
This causes the rock to split apart (rupture), forming a fracture. Fracturing
fluid must be pumped into the fracture rapidly enough to hold the fracture
open and allow the propping agent (e.g., sand) carried by the fluid to enter
the fracture and hold it open.
In some cases, a propping material is not used. If there is no propping agent
present to hold the walls of the fracture apart, the fracture walls can close or
“heal”.
Fracturing creates new and larger flow channels through the damaged
zones, around the wellbore. Fractures then extend out into the undamaged
portions of the reservoir and may also connect the preexisting natural
fractures and microfractures to the wellbore.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING - EXERCICE
Calculate the fracture initiation pressure for a formation with Minimum
Horizontal effective stress σHmin = 5000 psi, Maximum horizontal effective
stress σHmax = 6500 psi, formation pore pressure p = 3700 psi and the tensile
stress T = 500 psi.

The fracture initiation pressure can be represented by two values, a lower

and an upper limit.

The upper limit can be calculated from

= 3σ − σ − + with σy ≥ σx

Yielding a Pbreakdown = 5300 psi

And the lower limit calculated from

= where = Biot’s constant α = 0,7 and

poisson’s ratio ν = 0,25

Yielding a Pbreakdown = 4743 psi

FLUID VOLUME REQUIREMENTS- EXERCICE
Using the equation below, calculate the fluid volume requirements for the
acidizing of a sandstone assuming that kaolinite clay is to be removed with
mud acid. The weight fraction of the Kaolinite is 5%. The disolving power of
acid is 0,05 gal of rock/gal of acid. The porosity is 0,25, and the well radius is
0,328 ft. This should be done for depths of damage from 1 to 5 ft.
FLUID VOLUME REQUIREMENTS- EXERCICE
Inputting the data given into
the equation, it becomes

Vacid =17,6(rs² -0,328²)

Plotting a graph of Vacid Vs

Damage radius rs yields this
graph.
What can you conclude?
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Internal Pressure breaking a

vertical wellbore
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Cross-sectional view of a
propagating fracture
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Introducing the propant into

the fracture
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Flushing the wellbore to

leave a propped fracture
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Increased flow area

resulting from a fracture
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING – CRITERIA FOR WELL SELECTION
Not all formations, however, respond similarly (increase in production) as a
result of fracturing. In general, formations that have been classified as
medium to hard appear to give better results. This may be due to “healing”
and/or proppant embedment in the case of softer formations.

Limestones, dolomites, well-cemented sandstones, and conglomerates

are potential candidates for fracture treatment. In general, softer formations
such as unconsolidated sandstones are poor candidates.

Prior to selecting a well for a hydraulic fracturing treatment, the petroleum

engineer must establish that the reservoir contains sufficient fluids along
with the pressure to produce at rates high enough to cover the cost of
the treatment.

Comparison of gross and net fluid production rates should be

compared whenever possible with those of nearby wells. Potential
candidates are those wells which show a significantly lower production.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING – CRITERIA FOR WELL SELECTION

Initially, the reasons for the low productivity of a well must be

established. Some wells may only require a well wash or chemical
stimulation treatment instead of the more costly fracturing treatment.

The following methods are used in examining the formation and

determining the ability of a well to produce fluids:
- Comparison of its production to those of other wells in the area,
- Evaluation of formation pressure buildup data. The extent of
wellbore damage can be determined by examining the pressure
vs [(tp + ∆t)/∆t] curve.
- The casing and associated well equipment must be in good
condition and have sufficient pressure rating to handle the fracture
treatment
- It’s also important to ensure that the generated fracture system is
not extended into the water or gas bearing bearing zones.

High production decline rate can indicate wellbore damage and,

consequently, a good candidate for fracturing treatment.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING – CRITERIA FOR WELL SELECTION
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PROCESS VARIABLES

Past hydraulic fracture treatments indicates the following

reasons for failure of stimulation treatments :

1. The generated fractures were not confined to the targeted

interval of treatment,

2. Communication of fracture fluid at the wellbore produced

stimulation of the non-targeted interval,

3. Premature termination of the stimulation treatment,

4. An incorrect selection of proppant,
5. Insufficient volume of proppant,

6. The fracture fluid was incompatible with the formation fluids,

7. incomplete returns of treating fluids.

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PROCESS VARIABLES

In the case of successful treatments, the following

common procedures were noted:

1. Use of water as a fracturing fluid,

2. Use of spacers to help reduce proppant concentration and,

thus, reduce the possibility of a screenout,

3. Reduced pumping rates near the end of the treatment tends to

enhance proppant packing and conductivity,

4. Use of a surfactant for lowering the surface and interfacial tension

has helped to reduce fracturing fluid recovery from the
formation.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS

The requirements for the selection of a fracturing fluid are

listed below:
1. Low fluid loss to achieve designed penetration with minimum
fluid volumes,

2. Sufficient effective viscosity to create the necessary fracture

width and to transport and distribute the proppant in the fracture
as required,

3. Good temperature stability at reservoir temperatures,

4. Good fluid shear stability,
5. Minimal damaging effects to the formation matrix permeability,
6. Minimal plugging effects on fracture conductivity,
7. Low friction loss in the pipe,
8. Good post-treatment breaking characteristics,
9. Good post-treatment cleanup and flowback behavior,
10. Low cost.
PROPPING AGENTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

The fracturing fluid cracks or fractures the formation and then holds it
open until the pressure is reduced. The two walls or faces of the
fracture will close or “heal” as the pressure is reduced unless the
fracture contains some particulate matter such as
rocks, sand, or other type of proppant.
PROPPING AGENTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Proppants are selected upon evaluation of the following attributes:

1. Strength,
2. High permeability retention of the proppant pack under
loading,
3. Cohesiveness,
4. Low cost, and
5. Chemical stability over a long period of time.

The major problem with sand, which has been the most popular
type of proppant in fracturing treatments, is that it is brittle and
tends to crush under high loads. Fines broken off the sand can plug
the newly-created fractures and damage surface equipment as the
fluids are produced back.

Some proppants tend to deform over time when a load is

placed upon them, which can result in a decreased permeability
for the new fracture channel over time.
PROPPING AGENTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

The ideal proppant is one which will:

1. Fully support the closure stress or earth overburden that is

imposed upon it,

2. Remain permeable during the life of the production operations,

3. Be chemically inert and non-reactive to the fluids produced

through it,

4. Have a unit cost low enough to make the treatment economic.

Dirty formations or those subject to significant fines migration are poor candidates for
large-size sand proppant packs. The fines from the formation, over time, tend to
invade the sand proppant pack causing partial plugging and rapid reduction in fluid
permeability. In these cases, a smaller-sized sand proppant pack which can resist
the invasion of
PROPPING AGENTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Dirty formations or those subject to significant fines migration are poor
candidates for large-size sand proppant packs. The fines from the formation, over
time, tend to invade the sand proppant pack causing partial plugging and rapid
reduction in fluid permeability. In these cases, a smaller-sized sand proppant pack
which can resist the invasion of fines from the formation would be a better
choice.
PROPPING AGENTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Factors that affect the proppant transport are:
1. Fluid velocity,
2. Fluid viscosity,
3. Fluid specific weight ,
4. Proppant size,
5. Proppant specific gravity.

To place a proppant, a fracture fluid must:

1. Create a fracture of sufficient width for particle-size placement,

2. Maintain sufficient fluid velocity within the fracture to carry the proppant to the
desired distance away from the wellbore,
3. Maintain sufficient fluid viscosity to carry the proppant for displacement to the
point desired.

Heavy proppants are more difficult to suspend and transport in the fracture.
Although high-density and viscous fluids may transport the proppant in the
wellbore, they may have difficulty in moving the proppant through the fractures
where fluid movement is slow.
The selection of proppant will thus govern the type of fracturing fluid (and its
additives) that can be used to carry the proppant.
NUCLEAR FRACTURING

Considerable research has focused on the potential application

of nuclear energy for fracturing tight reservoirs.

From the technical standpoint, the major difference between

hydraulic and nuclear fracturing lies in the fact that whereas a
hydraulic fracturing treatment normally creates a simple fracture,
nuclear fracturing forms a cavity of several hundred feet in diameter.

In areas where the effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing has been well

established, nuclear fracturing cannot compete because of its high
cost.

What other reason could make nuclear fracturing unattractive?

EXERCICE 3 – MAXIMUM INJECTION RATE
, [ ∗ ∆ ]
Using the following equation, qimax =
( )

Calculate the maximum injection rate for matrix stimulation(to avoid

fracturing) for the well described in the table below.
Effective permeability of the undamaged formation k = 100md
Safety pressure margin ∆Psafe = 200 psi
Net thickness of the formation h = 50 ft
Reservoir Pressure p = 5 000 psi
Fracture gradient gf = 0,7 psi/ft
Viscosity μ= 0,7 cp
Formation depth H = 10 000 ft
Formation Volume factor B = 1 res bbl/STB
Reservoir drainage area re = 1053 ft (80-acre)
Skin factor s = 20
Well radius rw = 0,328 ft
Ans: qimax = 2,25 BPM
EXERCICE 4 – INCREASE OF INJECTION RATE DURING TREATMENT

As acid reacts with the damage, the skin effect is reduced. Using the
data of exercice 4 , show the allowable increase in injection rate as
the skin effect is reduced from 20 to 15 to 10 to 5 to 0.

Ans: qimax(s = 20) = ? BPM

qimax(s =15) = ? BPM
qimax(s = 10) = ? BPM
qimax(s = 5) = ? BPM
qimax(s = 0) = ? BPM

What can you conclude?

 REFERENCES
- Applied Drilling Engineering by Jr Adam T Bourgoyne, Keith K. Millheim, Martin
- Reservoir Stimulation, 3rd Edition by Michael . Economides, Kenneth G. Nolte
- Petroleum Engineering Handbook by Robert F Mitchell, Larry W. Lake
- Reservoir Engineering Handbook by Tarek Amed
- Advanced Reservoir Engineering, 3rd Edition by Tarek Amed
- Production Operations I, Well Completion, Workover and Stimulation by
Thomas O. Allen & Alan P. Roberts
- Petroleum Engineering – Drilling and Well Completion by Carl Gatlin
- Oil Well testing Handbook by Amanat Chaudhry
- Well Test design and Analysis by George Stewart, 2011
- Well testing Interpretation Methods by Giles Boudarot
 REFERENCES

- Applied Drilling
Engineering by Jr Adam T
Bourgoyne, Keith K.
Millheim, Martin
 REFERENCES

- Reservoir Stimuation, 3rd

Edition by Michael .
Economides, Kenneth G.
Nolte
 REFERENCES

- Petroleum Engineering Handbook by Robert F Mitchell, Larry W. Lake

 REFERENCES

- Reservoir Engineering
Handbook by Tarek
Amed
 REFERENCES

- Advanced Reservoir
Engineering, by Tarek
Amed
 REFERENCES

- Production Operations I,
Well Completion,
Workover and Stimulation
by Thomas O. Allen &
Alan P. Roberts
 REFERENCES

- Petroleum Engineering –
Drilling and Well
Completion by Carl
Gatlin
 REFERENCES

- Oil Well testing Handbook

by Amanat Chaudhry
 REFERENCES

- Well Test design and

Analysis by George
Stewart, 2011
 REFERENCES

- Well testing Interpretation

Methods by Giles
Bourdarot
THANK YOU