WIERTNICTWO NAFTA GAZ • TOM 25 • ZESZYT 2 • 2008

Zoran Krilov*, Boris Kavedžija**, Tomislav Bukovac***

ADVANCED WELL STIMULATION METHOD

1. INTRODUCTION

The usage of explosives in petroleum engineering starts almost along with the first oil
production. In the USA, in 1859 – just a year after Captain Drake has drilled in Tituswille
(Pennsylvania) the first rotary oil well, H.H. Dennis performed the first well stimulation –
applying the explosive [1]. The black powder had been used initially, not a long time after
that (1866), the liquid explosive – nitroglycerine (NG) has been employed. Unfortunately,
such high explosives detonate and create a shockwave and high pressures that last only
a few microseconds resulting in a zone of residual compressive stress which actually can
cause a reduction in permeability in near wellbore region. This led to many fails in usage of
high explosives to improve well productivity.
The usage of explosive as alternative method of well stimulation was revitalized again
in 1970’ s during the world’s oil supply shortage. In this period the intensive research of
application of explosives as complementary alternative well stimulation methods, originally
based on findings in military and space technology, was considered. The propellants do not
detonate supersonically, they deflagrate at subsonic velocities. Deflagration burning pro-
cess takes place without an outside source of oxygen. Propellants have energy densities
approximating those of high explosives, and are thus more compact than any other prime
energy source other than nuclear. The propellants typically produce a high pressure event
lasting on the order of a few milliseconds to perhaps a few hundred milliseconds for high
explosive shots. This longer event time is the furtive to producing multiple fractures around
the wellbore due to propellant stimulation.
Even if the alternative method of multidirectional fracturing using propellants has been
successfully applied in USA [2–8], ex USSR states [9] and P.R. China [10–12], this pro-

* INA Oil Co., University of Zagreb, Croatia

405
cedure is not well known in Europe [13]. In this paper according to literature data the appli-
cation of propellants for mechanical multidirectional fracturing of reservoir rocks in the
means of high energy gas propulsion along with initial petrophysical laboratory investiga-
tion and results of well stimulation jobs on two wells is shown.

2. FORMATION DAMAGE
VS. CONVENTIONAL STIMULATION METHODS

There are a lot of sources of formation damage: during well drilling (drilling mud and
mud filtrate invasion), well cementing (cement slurry filtrate invasion), well completion
(incompatible completion fluid rock/formation fluid interactions), pay zone perforating
(ea. compaction in perforating tunnels) production process (water cut, emulsions, asphalt-
enes, scale deposition etc.) well stimulation (incompatibility of stimulation fluids and prod-
ucts of chemical reactions with formation and formation fluids).
As the answer to this challenge two categories of conventional well stimulation me-
thods, in order to overcome or remove formation damage and establish original formation
permeability are recognized: chemical treatment (using acids or other chemicals – solvents)
and mechanical methods (mostly hydraulic fracturing). In case of chemical methods in
some cases the chemical interaction could result with insoluble precipitants which could
secondarily plug the rock pore space, on the other hand, hydraulic fracturing (Fig. 1),
in principle producing a single fracture with two vertical wings from wellbore indirection
perpendicular to minimal principal rock stress (Figs 2 and 3). The operations are very ex-
pensive.

Fig. 1. Hydraulic fracturing operation setup

406
 Vt

Ff
Fw

F' t

F'' f

Fig. 2. Propped hydraulic fracture, fluid flow capacity much higher than original rock

δV = δHmax > δHmin

δHmin

δHmax

Fig. 3. Two wings of hydraulic fracture, direction perpendicular to minimal stress (σmin)

3. PROPELLANTS – PROPERTIES AND USAGE

Propellants are solid or liquid explosive materials which in very short time (t < 1 μs)
deploy the high quantity of gaseous products with high energy potential, to be converted
into mechanical impact. Burning velocity is about 1000 times less than in case of strong
explosives. The exothermal decomposition process is more controllable, effecting if de-
ployed in near wellbore zone with maximal pressure 10 to 100 MPa and temperature 2000
to 5000 K. The propellants could be classified in three groups: mono component, two com-
ponent and multi component. The basic constituent of majority of propellants is nitrocellu-
lose [14].

407
 The fundamental research results directing the investigations to practical usage of pro-
pellants in well stimulation are published in U.S. patent of H.H. Mohaupt (1965) [2]. Theo-
retical explanations for application of propellants in mechanical well stimulations by high
energy fracturing could be found in publications of Yang [10, 15], Miniszewski et al. [16]
and Schmidt et al. [17]. The typical pressure diagram downhole, during high energy gas
fracturing by means of propellants is shown in Figure 4.

Fig. 4. Typical time-pressure diagram of propellant fracturing process

The most important parameter by which the process of fracturing of reservoir rocks,
using propellants, could be period of pressure increase, tm (from the moment of propellant
deflagration start till the moment of fracture initiation). This could be expressed by the rela-
tion [10, 18] which defines the creation of multiple, multilateral fractures in reservoir rock:

π DW 8 π DW
〈 tm 〈
2 VR VR
where:
tm – time of pressure increase (s),
VR – critical velocity of impact gas wave expansion (m/s),
Dw – wellbore diameter (m).
The result of propellant deflagration in wellbore is the impact of propulsion to the
formation, causing the dynamic pulsation of gas in natural microfractures. Due to it the rock
has been fractured and the cracks, 0.5 to 1.5 mm wide and 2 to 6 m long are formed around
the wellbore (in moderate compacted sandstone formations). In the most cases [10, 20] 3 to
10 such fractures are being generated in such manner (Fig. 5). The fracture length is quite
enough to break trough damaged zone, overcoming a skin effect. The comparison of typical
fracturing data [18] for hydraulic fracturing, fracturing using explosive and fracturing em-
ploying propellants are shown in Table 1.

408
Fig. 5. Multiple (four) fractures generated around wellbore
as a result of propellant deflagration

Table 1
Fracturing data comparison

409
4. LABORATORY TESTING

In order to investigate the effects of propellant deflagration [19] to the reservoir rocks
from Pannonian basin (Croatia), the sandstone core material from the gas well (payzone
depth 2850 m) was used. Tests were carried on three laboratory plugs 101.6 mm dia. and
200 mm long. The initial permeability to air was determined (Tab. 2), then inside each core
plug the concentric hole 25 mm dia. and 120 mm deep was drilled (Fig. 6).

Table 2
Rock-core laboratory core permeability data
before and after propellant treatment

Fig. 6. Laboratory core plug with contrentic hole drilled. After deflagration of 1 g PCF propellant,
no visual destruction observed

The holes were filled with various quantities of PCF propellant. At a field polygon from
distance of 30 m the propellant was electrically activated (Fig. 7). In case of using 3 g of PCF
propellant cores were fragmented (Fig. 8) and four fractures were generated – just as theore-
tically predicted [10, 15, 18], but in case of 1 g PCF deflagrated the core plug remained
compact (Fig. 6).

410
 The measurement of permeability on remained rock material after exposure to propul-
sion destruction (Tab. 2) shows decrease in case of 3 g propellant used but permeability
increase when less quantity of PCF was employed. The decrease in permeability can be
explained by impact of very strong propulsion wave which caused the compaction of rock
structure (similar to the detrimental effects on the walls of perforation tunnels during con-
ventional jet perforating [19]). On the other hand, the permeability increase, from initial
24.69 to 29.69 ×10–3 μm2 (sample bb, Tab. 2) when limited amount of 1 g of propellant has
been used, the expanded gaseous products of deflagration enlarged the dimensions of natu-
ral microfractures inside integral specimen (Fig. 6). Consequently, the described experi-
ments showed the way to conclusion of importance of proper dosage of propellant accord-
ing to particular reservoir rock properties to avoid secondary formation damage in case of
high energy wave stimulation.

Fig. 7. Laboratory core plug No 6966 photographed at polygon ready to be blasted by electrically
activated a 3 g PCF propellant charge, positioned inside concentric hole

Fig. 8. Laboratory core plug No 6966 (Fig. 7) photographed after destruction with a 3 g PCF
propellant charge. Bottom part, broken by deflagration is shown at the left side.
At right positioned fragment four fractures could be clearly noticed

411
5. FIELD OPERATIONS EXPERIENCE

The described method was employed recently at two oil wells in later phase of produc-
tion, located at Pannonian sedimentary basin, Croatia. Well data are shown in Table 3. “Gas
Gun” tool [20, 21] was used in both stimulation operations (Fig. 9).

Table 3
“Gas Gun” propellant stimulated wells data

Well L Well S
Total depth (m) 1708.0 993.5
Production csg. O.D. (in.) 5.5 5.5
Bridge plug depth (m) 1579.0 918.0
1561.0 – 1559.0
873.0 – 869.0
Payzone – perforated intervals (m) 1557.0 – 1555.5
853.0 – 843.0
1539.0 – 1536.0
Type of formation sandstone sandstone
3
Oil production before stimulation (m /d) 0.8 1.6
Oil production immediately
3.5 8.0
after stimulation job (m3/d)
Oil production six months after propellant
2.6 5.0
stimulation job (m3/d)

Fig. 9. “Gas Gun” propellant stimulation tool ready to be run into Well L (Tab. 3)

Job procedure included the preliminary operations: well production test, well killing
(using degassed crude oil), scrapping the production casing string walls, bridge plug setting
below production intervals and well logging (CBL, caliper, temperature). After carrying out

412
propellant stimulation (deflagrating the charges throughout the intervals) the Cement Bond
Logging (CBL) was run again (to investigate if any destruction of cement sheet has been
caused by gas “Gas Gun”). Production tests (pressure build up) were performed after the
putting the well into production.

6. WELL PRODUCTION ENHANCE RESULTS

Production history for the both wells treated (Tab. 3) is shown in Figures 10 and 11,
indicates the significant increase in oil production rate after the well propellant stimulation.
Well L before this stimulation job has produced only 0.8 m3 oil per day from three perforated
intervals (Tab. 3). Immediately after “Gas Gun” stimulation the daily rate has been 3.5 m3,
afterward stabilized at 2.6 m3/day (Fig. 10), which means 3.25 fold production increase.

Fig. 10. Production history, Well L. Daily oil rate before and after “Gas Gun” propellant stimulation

Fig. 11. Production history, Well S. Daily oil rate before and after “Gas Gun” propellant stimulation

413
 In case of well S (Tab. 3), the production prior to stimulation from two opened payzone
intervals was 1.6 m3 oil per day. Immediately after “Gas Gun” propellant stimulation the
daily rate has been 8.0 m3, then, after 13 days was stabilized at 5.0 m3/day (Fig. 11), resul-
ting with 3.125 fold production enhancement.
Comparing above successful results with the published figures of production increase
after propellant stimulation achieved at other similar oil fields worldwide (Appalachian Ba-
sin, USA: 280% average production increase [1, 19], or in P.R. China: 100% average en-
hancement in case of 1200 wells stimulated by propellants [12, 18, 19]) it confirms the same
range of positive effect accessible using the considered method in real life.
Due to analyze of CBL logs carried out after “Gas Gun” stimulation [21] any changes
in cement bond quality was not indicated, which means that propellant deflagration did not
adversely impact the wellbore integrity. Also, the results of skin damage evaluation [20]
provided at well L indicated the reduction of skin from S=7.8 (before propellant stimula-
tion) to S = 2.7 after “Gas Gun” job was completed (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. Pressure build up analysis, Well L. Reduction of skin damage from S = 7.8
before “Gas Gun” stimulation to S = 2.7 after propellant treatment

7. CONCLUSIONS

1) The propellant stimulation technique is an effective method well stimulation, confir-

414
REFERENCES

[1] Watson S.C., Benson G.R., Fillo G.J.: Liquid Propellant Stimulation: Case Studies
in Shallow Appalachian Basin Wells. SPE Production Engineering, May 1986, 203–
212
[2] Mohaupt H.H.: Method of Stimulating Well Production by Explosive-Induced Hy-
draulic Fracturing of Productive Formation. U.S. Patent No. 3,174,545, March 23,
1965
[3] Schmidt R.A., Boade R.R., Bass R.C.: A New Perspective on Well Shooting – Beha-
vior of Deeply Buried Explosions and Deflagrations. JPT, July 1981, 1305–1311
[4] Schatz J.F., Zeigler B.J., Hanson J.M., Christianson M.C., Bellman Jr. R.A.: Labora-
tory, Computer Modeling and Field Studies of the Pulse Fracturing Process. Paper
SPE 18866 presented at SPE Production Operations Symp., Oklahoma City, March
13–14, 1989
[5] Loman G., Phillips D.T., Cicon H.N.: Stimulation of Horizontal Wells Using Dyna-
mic Pulse Gas Loading Technique. Paper SPE 37097 presented at Internat. Conf. on
Horizontal Technology, Calgary, Canada, November 18–19, 1989
[6] Gilliat J., Snider P.M., Haney R.: A Review of Field Performance of New Propellant/
Perforating Technologies. Paper SPE 56469 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 3–6, 1999
[7] Folse K.C., Dupont R.L., Coats C.G.: Field Performance of Propellant/Perforating
Technologies to Enhance Placement of Proppant on High Risk Sand-Control Com-
pletions. Paper SPE 71639 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. and Exhi-
bition, New Orleans, La., Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001
[8] Ramirez J., Barrera J., Romero R., Figueroa F., Almanza E., Folse K.: Propellant
Assisted Perforating in High - Pressure and Temperature Wells at Campo Bosque in
Northern Monagas State. Paper SPE 71644 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Tech.
Conf. and Exhibition, New Orleans, La., Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001
[9] Vovk A.A., Mihaljuk A.V.: Physical and Technical Problems of Application Mining
Methods to Stimulate Flow to Deep Wells. Mining Journal, Vol. X, No. 2, 1978 (3–11)
[10] Yang D.W.: Propellant Gas Fracturing, Principle, Control and Application. PhD
dissertation, Stavanger University, Norway, 2000
[11] Wenkui L., Zhongtian X.: A Review of Gas Fracturing Technology. Paper SPE
58980 presented at SPE Intern. Petr. Conf. and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico,
February 1–3, 2000
[12] Zhang T., Zhang X., Li N.: High-Energy Perforation and Fracturing (HEPF) – Gre-
at Revolution of Perforation for 21st Century. Paper SPE 64760, SPE, Richardson,
Tx., 2000
[13] Božiæ B., Gospodariæ J.: Application of Explosives for Perforating, Blasting (Torpe-
ding) and Fracturing in the Petroleum Industry. Nafta 50 (11), 1999, 357–366
[14] Persson P.A., Holmberg R., Lee J.: Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Fl., USA, 1994
[15] Yang D.W., Risnes R.: Numerical Modelling and Parametric Analysis for Designig
Propellant Gas Fracturing. Paper SPE 71641 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual
Tech. Conf. and Exhibition, New Orleans, La., Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001

415
[16] Miniszewski K.R., Westcott P.A.: The Characterization of High-Energy Chemical
Sources for Fracturing Devonian Shale. Paper SPE 15254 presented at Unconven-
tional Gas Technology Symposium, Luisville, KY, May 18–21, 1986
[17] Schmidt R.A., Boade R.R., Bass R.C.: A New Perspective on Well Shooting Behavior
of Deeply Buried Explosions and Deflagrations. Paper SPE 8346 presented at the
1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, La. Sept. 23–
36, 1979
[18] Bukovac T.: Technical Capabilities of Explosive Materials for Mechanical Stimula-
tion of Hydrocarbon Bearing Formations. Diploma thesis, University of Zagreb,
Croatia, 2003
[19] Krilov Z., Tomiæ M., Viteziæ M.: Global Trends in Alternative HC Production En-
hancing Methods – Well Stimulation Implementing HE Propellant Gas Propulsion.
Naftaplin HUNIG Journal, book 5, 2004
[20] Schmidt R.A., Brkiæ V., Omrèen B., Nižetiæ T.: Economical Stimulation of Marginal,
Low Productive Wells by Means of Propellant Tools. Naftaplin HUNIG Journal,
book 5, 2004
[21] Varunek Z., Biliæ-Subašiæ V., Živkoviæ M., Lujiæ D., Rubes P., Mohr K., Vidakoviæ
D., Krilov Z.: Application of Gas Gun Well Stimulation in Naftaplin. e-Proceedings
of Petroleum Engineering Summer School, IUC Dubrovnik, Workshop 19: “The Big
Picture of Petroleum Engineering”, Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 5–9, 2006

416