Questions on HW 1

Use the steady-state flow equations, to simulate an 80-acre drainage area with 1) a vertical oil well in the center of a circular area, and 2) a 800 ft horizontal well in the
center of same circular area, and 3) a producing side of square drainage area equivalent to 80 acres. The producing-face area is the length of a square side times
formation thickness.
a) For q=200 STB/day, plot Pwf (Y-axis) vs. S (X-axis) for the 3 cases. Discuss the resulting graphs.
b) For Pwf =1000 psi, plot q (Y-axis) vs. S (x-axis) for the 3 cases. Discuss the resulting graphs.
c) For S=0, plot q as a function of Pwf = 5000, 4000, 3000, 2000, 1000, 0, for the 3 cases. Discuss the resulting graphs.

Given, Kv = 1 md; Kh = 5 md, µ = 0.25 cp; h = 50 ft; B = 1.12 bbl/stb; Pe = 6000 psi; rw = 0.25 ft; S = -0.5, 0, 2, 5, 10, 15, 30

Radial Flow:
0.00708𝑘ℎ 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝑞=
𝑟
𝜇𝐵 ln 𝑒 + 𝑆
𝑟𝑤
Linear Flow:

0.001127𝑘𝐴 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝑞=
𝜇𝐵𝐿
Horizontal Well:

𝐾𝐻 ℎ 𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝑞=
𝑎 + 𝑎2 − 𝐿/2 2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
141.2𝜇𝐵 ln + ln +𝑠
𝐿/2 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1

𝐾𝐻
𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 =
𝐾𝑉

4 0.5
𝐿 𝑟𝑒
𝑎= 0.5 + 0.25 +
2 𝐿/2
1
Skin: Mathematical Modeling

◼ Skin can be calculated from well testing

◼ Skin used in flow equations is total skin (𝑆𝑡 ):

𝑆𝑡 = 𝑆𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 + 𝑆𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓. + 𝑆𝜃+𝑝𝑝 + ෍ 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑠

2
Damage Characterization
◼ Pressure drawdown due to damage ( ΔPs )

◼ Value of the Skin factor ( S )

◼ Radius of a skin damage area ( rs )

◼ Permeability within the damaged area ( Ks ). Is it constant?

◼ Apparent (effective) wellbore radius ( 𝑟𝑤′ )

◼ Well flow efficiency including damage ( FE )

◼ Productivity index ( J )

3
 0.007082 k o h (Pe − Pwf )
qo =
Hawkins’ model 
 o Bo  ln
re 
+ S 
 rw 

141.2 qB
◼ This pressure drop is referred as ∆𝑃𝑆 Ps = S
Kh

∆𝑃 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑘𝑖𝑛 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒 ∆𝑃 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑘𝑖𝑛 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒

∆𝑃𝑆 = −
𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑘𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑘

◼ This pressure drop is in addition to pressure drop caused by flow in the

reservoir

4
 5
Example

What is the skin factor for a damaged well with 𝑟𝑤 = 0.328 if the
damaged area extended 3ft around the well and 𝑘/𝑘𝑆 is (a) 5 and
(b)10? (c) what is the skin radius for same skin factor as in (b) and
𝑘
= 5?
𝑘𝑆
𝑘 𝑟𝑠
𝑆= − 1 ln
𝑘𝑠 𝑟𝑤
3.328
(a) 𝑆 = 5 − 1 ln 0.328 = 9.27
3.328
(b) 𝑆 = 10 − 1 ln 0.328 = 20.85
𝑟
(c)
𝑆
5 − 1 ln 0.328 = 20.85 → 𝑟𝑠 = 0.328 𝑒 5.214 = 60.3𝑓𝑡

If K/Ks = 0.1 then S ≈ -2 compare with result from B

How this helps in a stimulation design
 𝑘 𝑟𝑠 6
Hawkins’ model 𝑆=
𝑘𝑠
− 1 ln
𝑟𝑤

141.2 qB
Ps = S
Kh

141.2qB K   rs 
Ps =  − 1 ln 
Kh  Ks   rw 

rs = rw e S k s / ( K − K s )
K
Ks =
S
1+
ln (rs / rw )

What is the limitation of S in damage vs stimulation?

If skin factor is determined from well testing and damage depth is

estimated, the permeability of the damaged zone is determined.
Explain?
Effective (apparent) wellbore radius, rw’
141.2 qB  re  141.2 qB
Pe − Pwf =  ln + S  Ps = S
Kh  rw  Kh
Pe

141.2 qB  re 
Pe − Pwf =  ln −s
 rs
Kh  rw e  re
rw
Pe

141.2 qB  r e  Ks
Pe − Pwf =  ln ' 
Kh  rw 
K

−s
r = rw e
'
w

7
Example
Calculate the effective wellbore radius for a well of rw = 0.328 ft and
Skin factor of (a) 10, (b) 5, and (c) -5

−s
r = rw e
'
w
a) 𝑟′𝑤 = 𝑟𝑤 𝑒 −𝑆 = 0.328 𝑒 −10 = 1.49 x 10 −5 ft
b) 𝑟′𝑤 = 𝑟𝑤 𝑒 −𝑆 = 2.2 x 10 −3 ft
c) 𝑟′𝑤 = 𝑟𝑤 𝑒 −𝑆 = 48.6 ft

A positive skin factor causes effective wellbore radius to be smaller

than actual.

A negative skin factor causes effective wellbore radius to be larger

than actual.

8
Effective rw of a fractured well
rw'
S = − ln
rw
Effective (apparent) wellbore radius in a fractured well is:

Xf Xf rw' Xf
rw' = and
e−S = ➔
S = − ln = − ln
2 2rw rw 2rw

𝑥𝑓 = 2𝑟𝑤 𝑒 −𝑆
 Example
A PBU test has given you the following information:
q = 120 STBOPD rw = 0.265 ft B = 1.12 RB/STB
μ = 3.15 cp Pe-Pwf = 265 psi k = 105 md
h = 20 ft S = 3.2
Find pressure drop from skin:

141.2qB
Ps = S
kh
141.2 *120 *1.12 * 3.15
Ps = * 3.2
105 * 20
Ps = 91.1 psi

J actual 265 psi − 91.1 psi

FE = = = 0.66
J ideal 265 psi
1
Damage ratio = = 1.52
0.66

Damage factor = 1 – 0.66 = 0.34

Well is producing only 66% of what it would without damage.
 11
Skin for different completions

S t = S d + S p + S gp + S + S pp + S F +  S psuedo
 12
Total skin
S t = S d + S p + S gp + S + S pp + S F +  S psuedo

◼ Skin components should be quantified to design a stimulation treatment

◼ Slanted skin may overshadow Sd. The slant contributes a negative skin.

◼ You may get positive skin after stimulation

◼ Partial penetration may be needed to prevent water coning or gas

coning

◼ Pseudo skin are phase dependent or rate defendant

◼ Discuss different types and how they affect fracturing design

Stimulation
There are two engineering methods aim at manipulating pressure
drawdown to improve well productivity:

1. Well Stimulation

2. Artificial lifting

The objective of well stimulation is to achieve one or more of the

following:

◼ Removing damage (skin)

◼ Bypassing near wellbore damage

◼ Manipulating flow pattern to reduce near wellbore pressure drop.

◼ Increasing in-situ permeability of a given drainage area feeding a well.

◼ Increasing the drainage area (reservoir volume) feeding a given well

 14
Example
Given the following data for a well in 640 acres (re=2980) with
Pi = 5651, Pwf =4500 psi. and µ=1.7 cp, K=8.2, B=1.1, rw=0.328
a) calculate the Steady State Q for Pwf=4500 psi with skin=10.
b) describe two mechanisms to increase flow rate by 50%.
 15

b)
16
Stimulation: Upstream and Downstream

Before we discuss the upstream (reservoir) stimulation, let’s review

the downstream stimulation:

a) Optimum Pwf and Q (tubing size)

b) Liquid loading
c) Mechanical completion; restriction
d) Organic and inorganic deposition within wellbore
e) Artificial lifting

17
Stimulation Methods

There are 3 major types of well stimulation:

▪ Mechanical
a) Hydraulic fracturing:
Proppant fracturing, FracPacking, Slickwater fracturing
b) Other types of fracturing:
Propellant fracturing, gas fracturing, plasma fracturing, acoustic
stimulation, acid fracturing (Mechanical)
c) Re-fracturing
d) Re-perforation
e) Jetting

18
▪ Chemical
a) Acid fracturing (carbonate), closed acidizing,
sandstone acidizing
b) Acid stimulation; matrix acidizing, acid washing
c) Microbial stimulation
d) In-situ gas generation

▪ Thermal
a) Steam injection
b) Electrical heating
c) Exothermic reaction
d) Endothermic fracturing (FreezFrac, Cryogenic)

19
 20
Acid Stimulation
➢ Acidizing has been used by our industry for about 120 years. The
use of acidizing was limited because of not having an effective acid
corrosion inhibitors.

➢ Acidizing Treatment Types

o Acid Washing → Tubular and wellbore cleaning
o Matrix Acidizing → Acid injection below the formation fracture pressure
o Fracture Acidizing → Acid injection above formation fracture pressure

➢ Matrix acidizing treatment

o Stimulation technique to improve well inflow performance
o Removing skin (S=0) and even increasing near wellbore permeability (S=
-)
o In sandstone, the focus is for acid to flow through porous media and
dissolves solids in pore throats and dissolving formation matrix.
o In carbonate, the focus is for acid to create conductive channels called
wormholes
 21
Stimulation methods

Acid wash
1. Removing damaging materials in wellbore
2. Removing damaging materials in completion hardware
3. Removing damaging materials in perforations

Matrix Stimulation
1. Matrix Acidizing in carbonate, sandstone, and shale
2. Non-Acid Stimulation

Hydraulic Fracturing
1. Acid fracturing
2. Proppant fracturing
 22
Acid Wash

◼ To remove scale, corrosion (rust), mud debris, cementing materials, and any other
deposits from wellbore completion and perforation. Do not use acid for paraffin,
sludges, and tars.

◼ Only circulation that does not include injection into the reservoir thus no diversion.

◼ Volume is determined from the wellbore volume

◼ Contact time (soaking) is based on lab testing to determine effect of contact time.

◼ Follow-up displacement with agitation to remove spent acid.

◼ Acid wash may be used to remove wellbore and perforation damaging materials in
preparation for matrix acidizing or fracturing.

◼ Circulation across perforation and throughout wellbore may be achieved through

coiled tubing; spotting, surging and swabbing.

◼ Mainly HCl but weak acid such as acetic and formic acids are used.
 23
Acid Wash

➢ Identify the damage and location

wellbore, completion, perforation
➢ Select an acid or solvent to remove
damage
➢ Engineer your treatment
➢ Make sure you get spent acid and other
fluids out of your well
 24
Matrix acidizing
q Kh q Kh
J= = J= =
Pe − Pwf  r 3  P − Pwf2
2
 r 3 
141.2 B  ln e − + S  141.2 ZT  ln e − + S 
 rw 4   rw 4 

◼ Focus on the damaged zone to restore or improve well’s productivity

by dissolving materials restricting flow, or to dissolve formation
rock itself to enhance existing, or to create new flow paths.

◼ Designing the right recipe is key based on formation constituents,

formation solubility, and permeability. Additives such as surfactants,
scale inhibitors, and iron control agents are carefully selected to
avoid emulsion, precipitates, and sludges.

◼ Acid is injected below formation fracturing pressure (Pf or Pbd). You

need to stay below the injection rate that causes fracturing.
Matrix acidizing or fracturing?
Removing or bypassing damage?

K = 10 md rw = 0.328 ft B = 1.1 RB/STB

μ = 0.8 cp Pe = 3000 psi Pwf = 1000 psi
h = 50 ft S = 3.2 re = 745 ft

Estimate production rate at steady state for K= 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01 md for
S=0 and 10

K, md Q, STB (S=10) Q, STB (S=0)

10 519 1190
1 52 119
0.1 5 12
0.01 0.5 1.2

25
 26
Maximum injection rate
kh (Pr − Pwf )
qo = 0.007082
 re 3 
 B  ln − + S 
 rw 4 

kh (( FG  H ) − Psafe − Pr ) kh (Pf − Psafety − Pr )

qi max = 4.917 *10 −6 = 4.917 *10 −6
 re 3   0.47 re 
  ln − + S    ln + S 
 rw 4   rw 

Notice B has been eliminated as it is 1 for acid injection.

Notice adding the factor ¾ when Pe is replaced with 𝑃ഥ𝑟

Pf : fracturing pressure = FG * H
H: Vertical depth, ft
FG: Fracture gradient, psi/ft
Δpsafety: 200-300 psi
μ: Acid viscosity, cp
𝑃ഥ𝑟 : Average reservoir pressure

The conversion factor 4.917*10-6 is to get q in bbls/min instead of bbls/day = 0.007082/24/60

 27
Example
K=100 md, ΔPsafe=200 psi, h=50 ft, 𝑃ഥ𝑟 =5000 psi, FG = 0.7 psi/ft, μ=1.1 cp,
H=10,000 ft, re=1053 ft (80 acres), S=20, rw =0.328 ft

Calculate the maximum injection rate? What is the maximum injection rate if
K=0.1 md

−6
k h (Pf − Psafe − Pr )
qi max = 4.917 *10
 0.47 re 
  ln + S 
 rw 
 28
Acid injection pressure
◼ Acid Injection Pressure
◼ Proper design and pump selection requires prediction of surface tubing
pressure to handle calculated injection rate.
◼ Surface tubing pressure is monitored in most acidizing treatment.

𝑃𝑠𝑖 = 𝑃𝑤𝑖 − ∆𝑃ℎ + ∆𝑃𝑓

Where
𝑃𝑠𝑖 → Surface injection pressure, psi
𝑃𝑤𝑖 → Bottom hole injection pressure, psi
∆𝑃ℎ → Hydrostatic pressure, psi
∆𝑃𝑓 → Friction pressure, psi

518𝜌0.79 𝑞1.79 𝜇0.207

∆𝑃𝑓 = 𝐿 for Newtonian fluids with injection rate less
1000𝐷4.79
than 9 bpm. ΔP (psi), q (bbl/min), ρ (gm/cc), μ (cp),
D (in), L(ft). L is length of tubing.
 29
Lab testing: carbonate

IPTC 17603
 30
Lab testing

IPTC 17603
 31

SPE 82268

Wormholes casting with wood’s metal with same injection rate at 250 F
 32

IPTC 17285
Radius (depth) of wormholes

Large scale experiments (14 ft3 samples), McDuff et al, 2010

 34
Acidizing skin
The reaction rate is high and the key is dissolving damaging materials
(in sandstone) and generating wormholes (in carbonates). The
dissolution is very non-uniform and applying the energy concept
where large pores grow faster until the concept of mass transfer limits
the reaction.

If dissolving damaging materials only and restoring K, then:

𝐾 𝑟𝑠
𝑠= − 1 𝑙𝑛 = 0 …………… Ks=K
𝐾𝑠 𝑟𝑤

What is S if highly conductive wormholes were created in the

damaged zone:
Effect of acid contact time

SPEPF Nov 1998 P. 267

 36
Acid Additives

• Corrosion Inhibitors
• Surfactants
• Iron Controllers
• Clay Stabilizers
• Anti-Sludge/Emulsion Agents
• Friction Reducers
• Retarders/Gelling Agents
• Diverting/fluid loss additives
• Scale Removal and Control
• Mutual Solvents
Example: oil well acid treatment

SPE.org/dl (Malcolm Knopp)

 38
Treatment operation: Carbonate

• Wellbore clean-up

• Preflush

• Acid + Additives

• Postflush (Overflush) (Flush)

• Shut-in

• Flow back
Post Treatment Evaluation 39

1. was damage removed?

Increase in production – PTA results for S – Decrease in pressure
during treatment
2. Which stage appeared to remove most damage? Did any stage appear
to cause damage?
3. Did diversion appear to work?
4. Recovered fluids provide any indications?
5. Any emulsions observed?

New PE Graduates
Hydraulic fracturing methods

• Proppant fracturing
• Acid fracturing
• FracPacking
• Unconventional fracturing
Proppant Fracturing http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/PIC/pic32.html

Acid Fracturing
◼ First job was in 1947 in the
Hugoton field, Kansas using
gasoline gel

◼ Many applications

◼ Water-based fracturing http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/PIC/pic32.html

◼ Oil-based fracturing

◼ Energized fracturing

◼ Waterless fracturing
Fracturing applications

Reducing the near wellbore drawdown:

• Increase hydrocarbon production: tight reservoirs, shale plays,
coalbed methane, hydrate formation
• Enhanced geothermal energy: geothermal reservoirs
• CO2 sequestration

• Sand control: poorly consolidated reservoirs➔ FracPac

• Asphaltene control: medium and heavy oil reservoirs
• Water control; reservoirs with active water aquifers
• Waste disposal: depleted reservoirs
• Other applications: water wells, rock busting, block cave mining,
tunnel and dam construction
Vertical Well

Well Productivity
(bbl/day
104

103

Qo

102

101
0 10 20 30
years
Fractured vertical
well

Well Productivity
(bopd)
104

Fractured
103

Hydraulic Fracture Qo

102

101
0 10 20 30
years
Hydraulic Fracturing

X
f

SPE 128612
Fracture Geometries: from conventional to
unconventional

Height, Hf
Fracture Tip

• Single planar
• Tortuosity
Fracture Wings

• Multiple fractures
• SRV in Shale

Shawn Maxwell, 2012

Fracturing Pressure

SPE-37363

SPE 24823