Pe

tro
le
um
Ex
te
ns
io
n-
Th
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
of
Te
xa
s
at
Au
st
in
 PETEX® WELL SERVICING AND WORKOVER PUBLICATIONS

in
st
A Primer of Oilwell Service, Workover, and Completion

Au
Well Servicing and Workover Series
Lesson 1: Introduction to Oilwell Service and Workover, 2nd ed.

at
Lesson 2: Petroleum Geology and Reservoirs, 2nd ed.

s
Lesson 3: Well Logging Methods, 2nd ed.

xa
Lesson 4: Well Completion Methods

Te
Lesson 5: Artificial Lift Methods
Lesson 6: Production Rig Equipment

of
Lesson 7: Well Servicing and Repair

ity
Lesson 8: Well Cleanout and Repair Methods
Lesson 9: Control of Formation Pressure
Lesson 10: Fishing Tools and Techniques rs
ve
Lesson 11: Well Stimulation Treatments, 2nd ed.
ni

Lesson 12: Well Service and Workover Profitability, 2nd ed.

U
e
Th
n-
io
ns
te
Ex
um
le
ro
t
Pe
 Figures v
Contents

in
Foreword vii

st
Preface ix ▼

Au
Acknowledgments xi ▼
▼
About the Author xiii

at
Units of Measurement xiv

s
Well Stimulation Overview 1

xa
Summary 6

Te
Hydraulic Fracturing 7
History of Hydraulic Fracturing 7

of
Cost, Risks, and Rewards 10
Fracturing Theory 12

ity
Fracturing Materials and Equipment 14
Fracturing Fluids 14
Proppants 19
rs
ve
Chemicals and Additives 24
Horsepower and Other Equipment 29
ni

Fracturing Candidates 31
U

Frac Job Planning, Design, and Execution 32

e

Summary 34
Th

Acidizing 35
History of Acidizing 35
n-

Types of Acid Treatments 36

io

Acid Additives and Retarders 38

ns

Matrix Acidizing Design 40

Acid Fracturing Design 44
te

Acidizing Economics 47
Ex

Summary 47
Frac Packs 49
um

Fluids Used 50
Proppants Used 51
le

Frac Pack Design 51

ro

Summary 52
t
Pe

Other Well Stimulation Techniques 53

Horizontal versus Vertically Drilled Wells 53
Explosive Fracturing 54

iii
 WELL STIMULATION TREATMENTS

Steam Injection 55

in
Summary 56

st
In Review 57

Au
Appendices 59
A. References 59
B. Calculations 61

at
Equations for Well Stimulation Treatments 61

s
C. Checklists to Optimize Well Stimulation Treatments 63

xa
D. Figure Credits 67

Te
Glossary 71
Review Questions 83

of
Index 87
91

ity
Answer Key

rs
ve
ni
U
e
Th
n-
io
ns
te
Ex
um
le
ro
t
Pe

iv
 About the

in
st
Author

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
A. Richard Sinclair, an Okla-
homa native, has over 30 years

of
of experience in well stimulation.
An engineering graduate and

ity
postgraduate of the University of Oklahoma, Sinclair has authored
numerous technical papers and reports focused on well stimulation

rs
and other oilfield solutions and obtained approximately 30 patents.
ve
Sinclair began his career with Exxon Research in production en-
gineering, well stimulation, and research. He later worked for Maurer
ni

Engineering as a Petroleum Engineering Consultant where he started

U

and ran several different companies. In 1976, Sinclair helped start

Santrol Proppants and became President until the company was sold
e

in 1990 and again in 1992. He then became a consultant for Santrol,

Th

during which time he started Well Stimulation, Inc., and served as

President. For years, Sinclair has provided petroleum engineering
n-

instruction for oil and gas companies and for Halliburton’s Energy
io

Institute, specializing in areas of well stimulation and production

engineering.
ns

Today, Sinclair’s Santrol startup has evolved into one of the larg-
te

est oilfield supply companies, providing proppants, such as Ottawa

sands, resin-coated sands and ceramics, and other oilfield products.
Ex
um
le
ro
t
Pe

xiii
 WELL STIMULATION TREATMENTS

in
st
Units of Measurement

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
T hroughout the world, two systems of measurement dominate:
the English system and the metric system. Today, the United

of
States is one of only a few countries that employ the English system.
The English system uses the pound as the unit of weight, the

ity
foot as the unit of length, and the gallon as the unit of capacity. In the
English system, for example, 1 foot equals 12 inches, 1 yard equals 36

rs
inches, and 1 mile equals 5,280 feet or 1,760 yards.
ve
The metric system uses the gram as the unit of weight, the metre
as the unit of length, and the litre as the unit of capacity. In the metric
ni

system, 1 metre equals 10 decimetres, 100 centimetres, or 1,000 mil-

U

limetres. A kilometre equals 1,000 metres. The metric system, unlike

the English system, uses a base of 10; thus, it is easy to convert from
e

one unit to another. To convert from one unit to another in the English
Th

system, you must memorize or look up the values.

In the late 1970s, the Eleventh General Conference on Weights
n-

and Measures described and adopted the Systeme International (SI)

io

d’Unites. Conference participants based the SI system on the metric

system and designed it as an international standard of measurement.
ns

The Rotary Drilling Series gives both English and SI units.

te

And because the SI system employs the British spelling of many of

the terms, the book follows those spelling rules as well. The unit of
Ex

length, for example, is metre, not meter. (Note, however, that the unit
of weight is gram, not gramme.)
um

To aid U.S. readers in making and understanding the conversion

system, we include the table on the next page.
le
ro
t
Pe

xiv
 English-Units-to-SI-Units Conversion Factors
Quantity Multiply To Obtain
or Property English Units English Units By These SI Units
Length, inches (in.) 25.4 millimetres (mm)

in
depth, 2.54 centimetres (cm)
or height feet (ft) 0.3048 metres (m)

st
yards (yd) 0.9144 metres (m)
miles (mi) 1609.344 metres (m)

Au
1.61 kilometres (km)
Hole and pipe di­ame­ters, bit size inches (in.) 25.4 millimetres (mm)
Drilling rate feet per hour (ft/h) 0.3048 metres per hour (m/h)

at
Weight on bit pounds (lb) 0.445 decanewtons (dN)
Nozzle size 32nds of an inch 0.8 millimetres (mm)

s
xa
barrels (bbl) 0.159 cubic metres (m3)
159 litres (L)
gallons per stroke (gal/stroke) 0.00379 cubic metres per stroke (m3/stroke)

Te
ounces (oz) 29.57 millilitres (mL)
Volume cubic inches (in.3) 16.387 cubic centimetres (cm3)
cubic feet (ft3) 28.3169 litres (L)
0.0283 cubic metres (m3)

of
quarts (qt) 0.9464 litres (L)
gallons (gal) 3.7854 litres (L)

ity
gallons (gal) 0.00379 cubic metres (m3)
pounds per barrel (lb/bbl) 2.895 kilograms per cubic metre (kg/m3)
barrels per ton (bbl/tn) 0.175 cubic metres per tonne (m3/t)
gallons per minute (gpm)
rs 0.00379 cubic metres per minute (m3/min)
ve
Pump output gallons per hour (gph) 0.00379 cubic metres per hour (m3/h)
and flow rate barrels per stroke (bbl/stroke) 0.159 cubic metres per stroke (m3/stroke)
barrels per minute (bbl/min) 0.159 cubic metres per minute (m3/min)
ni

Pressure pounds per square inch (psi) 6.895 kilopascals (kPa)

U

0.006895 megapascals (MPa)

°F - 32
e

Temperature degrees Fahrenheit (°F) degrees Celsius (°C)

1.8
Th

Mass (weight) ounces (oz) 28.35 grams (g)

pounds (lb) 453.59 grams (g)
0.4536 kilograms (kg)
n-

tons (tn) 0.9072 tonnes (t)

pounds per foot (lb/ft) 1.488 kilograms per metre (kg/m)
io

Mud weight pounds per gallon (ppg) 119.82 kilograms per cubic me­tre (kg/m3)
ns

pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 16.0 kilograms per cubic me­tre (kg/m3)
Pressure gradient pounds per square inch
te

per foot (psi/ft) 22.621 kilopascals per metre (kPa/m)

Funnel viscosity seconds per quart (s/qt) 1.057 seconds per litre (s/L)
Ex

Yield point pounds per 100 square feet (lb/100 ft2) 0.48 pascals (Pa)
Gel strength pounds per 100 square feet (lb/100 ft ) 0.48
2 pascals (Pa)
um

Filter cake thickness 32nds of an inch 0.8 millimetres (mm)

Power horsepower (hp) 0.75 kilowatts (kW)
le

square inches (in.2) 6.45 square centimetres (cm2)

square feet (ft2) 0.0929 square metres (m2)
ro

Area square yards (yd2) 0.8361 square metres (m2)

square miles (mi2) 2.59 square kilometres (km2)
acre (ac) 0.40 hectare (ha)
t
Pe

Drilling line wear ton-miles (tn•mi) 14.317 megajoules (MJ)

1.459 tonne-kilometres (t•km)
Torque foot-pounds (ft•lb) 1.3558 newton metres (N•m)

xv
 Pe
tro
le

xvi
um

A large frac job

Ex
te
ns
io
WELL STIMULATION TREATMENTS

n-
Th
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
of
Te
xa
s
at
Courtesy of Baker Hughes Incorporated
Au
st
in
 Well Stimulation Overview

Well Stimulation

in
st
Overview

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
of
In this chapter:
• Why well stimulation is necessary

ity
• Stimulation techniques used today
• Shale play fracturing
rs
ve
• New developments underway
ni
U

T oday, well stimulation is required for most newly drilled oil and gas
e

wells and many older wells where production has been blocked
Th

or is diminished. It is also needed in injection wells, coalbed methane

wells, heavy oil wells, and geothermal wells.
n-

Well stimulation has been described as the best way to achieve

io

optimum production from oil and gas formations (fig. 1). From an
economic standpoint, most wells require some type of well stimula-
ns

HORIZONTAL
tion to maximize the economic return. Payout on most wells is rapid, WELL
te

but the exact payout time depends on the well’s production capacity.
Other techniques have been unable to extend the life of the well and
Ex

improve its economic health.

Well stimulation techniques include several different types that
um

are used effectively according to the type of well: HYDROFRAC ZONE

• Hydraulic fracturing
le

• Acidizing
Figure 1. Basic view of
ro

• Frac packs
fracturing
• Explosive fracturing
t
Pe

• Steam treatments

1
 Hydraulic Fracturing

in
st
Hydraulic Fracturing

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
In this chapter:

of
• Development of hydraulic fracturing

ity
• Cost considerations

rs
• Hydraulic fracturing design
ve
• Materials and equipment
• Job planning and execution
ni
U
e

H ydraulic fracturing started in 1947 in the Hugoton gas field in History of Hydraulic
Th

Grant County, Kansas. The Klepper Well No.1 was a limestone

Fracturing
formation that fractured using napalm-thickened gasoline as the
n-

fracturing fluid. The first commercial fracturing of wells was carried

io

out by Halliburton in 1949. Two wells were fractured simultane-

ously—one in Archer County, Texas, and one in Stephens County,
ns

Oklahoma. Prior to these wells, AMOCO or Stanolind Oil and

te

Gas had been studying hydraulic fracturing for several years in the
laboratory and field. They found that oil or water could be used as
Ex

frac fluids and that sand proppants were needed to keep the fractured
formation propped open.
um

Over the following 10 years, fracturing, or fracking, became an

accepted stimulation treatment in the oilfield. It is calculated that over
le

1.2 billion pounds of sand were used during this time. The treatment
was found to be the most economic way to stimulate the oil and gas
ro

formation. According to the following method, this process showed that

t

hydraulic pressure overcomes the stresses in the formation and causes

Pe

it to fracture. Fluid is pumped into the formation to open the fracture

wider and longer. Proppants or particles are added to keep the fracture

7
 Acidizing

in
st
Acidizing

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
In this chapter:

of
• Types of acid treatments

ity
• Additives and retarders

rs
• Matrix acidizing treatments
ve
• Acid fracturing design
• Treatment costs and considerations
ni
U

T
e

he first patents on acidizing were published by Herman Frasch History of Acidizing

Th

in 1896. They revealed that hydrochloric acid (HCL) would

react with limestone to produce soluble products like carbon dioxide
n-

and calcium chloride. The first test recorded was in Lima, Ohio—the
center of oilfields at that time. Acidizing obtained much better results
io

than explosives in the wells. However, after only a few years of use,
ns

acidizing treatments fell out of favor.

About 30 years later, the use of hydrochloric acid was revived and
te

used as a scale removal treatment for Gulf Oil Company in Oklahoma.

Ex

The modern era of acidizing began in 1932 when Pure Oil and the
Dow Chemical Company teamed up to look at the possibility of us-
um

ing HCL along with an inhibitor to protect pipe from corrosion and
for stimulation. A dead well responded with 16 barrels per day (bpd)
after the acid treatment. Other wells began to be acidized after that,
le

and some responded better than the first one did. In 1932, Dowell,
ro

Inc., was formed by Dow Chemicals to use this acidizing process

t

and perform other well services. By 1935, the Williams Brothers and
Pe

Halliburton began acidizing oilwells commercially.

35
 Frac Packs

in
st
Frac Packs

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
In this chapter:

of
• Impact of frac packs

ity
• Use of water-based fluids and proppants

rs
• Frac pack design
ve
ni

F rac packs were invented during the 1990s to increase production

U

from offshore wells when the results from gravel packs were disap-
e

pointing. Gravel packs are used in soft or unconsolidated sands to form

Th

a filter that allow fine particles to pass through but block most of the
medium and larger particles that might plug the formation. Although
n-

gravel packs work and are still used, skin factor(s) calculations (see
Appendix B) show that there is still damage around the near-wellbore
io

area. Frac packs increase the length of the fracture and provide a wide
ns

propped fracture in soft sands. This brings the skin factor down to a
negative value and is considered a stimulation treatment.
te

The width of hydraulic fractures in hard sandstone formations

Ex

averages about 0.2 inches, while a frac pack width can average about
0.5 inches. This can be measured by the calculation of Young’s Modulus
(E). This measurement of elasticity in the formation determines the
um

width of the fracture. The E values on soft or unconsolidated forma-

tions range from near zero to 2,000,000 psi (3,579,098 kg/metres).
le

Regular sandstone values average an E of 5,000,000 psi (8,947,785

ro

kg/metres). Limestone and dolomite formation can have much larger

E values and narrower fractures.
t
Pe

49
 Other Well Stimulation Techniques

Other Well Stimulation

in
st
Techniques

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
In this chapter:

of
• Types of wells

ity
• Fracturing techniques

rs
• Highly viscous oils
ve
ni

W ith today’s wide variety and types of formations, drilling has Horizontal versus
U

gone from all vertically drilled wells to a mix of vertical and Vertically Drilled
horizontal wells. Past drilling was conducted into sandstone and
e

Wells
Th

limestone formations with low to moderate permeability. Adequate

production could be gained naturally or with hydraulic fracturing.
n-

In the past 20 years, many offshore wells required horizontal drilling

to reach the formations in all directions from the offshore platform.
io

While fracturing is still used, production from a prolific well is such

ns

that fracturing is not always needed. When hydraulic fracturing is

used, many fractures can be required for each horizontal well. The
te

created fractures are usually vertical fractures and are spaced widely
Ex

to cover most of the producing sections of each well drilled.

In the last several years, many shale plays (for example, Barnett,
Woodford, and Haynesville) have started to be drilled and fractured.
um

Shale is found in many areas of the United States. Most of these shales
contain natural gas and oil but have very low permeability. Natural
le

fractures occur in many of the shales, but newer hydraulic fracturing

ro

practices have been used to increase production. Sometimes, two

horizontal wells are drilled almost parallel to one another and frac-
t
Pe

tured at the same time (fig. 31). This opens more natural fractures
and exposes more area, creating higher production rates.

53
 in
st
Au
In Review

at
▼

s
▼

xa
▼

Te
W ell stimulation is performed when production of a well has
been blocked or diminished. The goal is to restore optimum

of
production of the oil and gas formation.
There are four known systems of well stimulation including

ity
hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, frac packs, and explosive fracturing.

rs
The type of treatment selected is determined according to the type
of well. Although new stimulation treatments are invented and tested
ve
each year, economic and practical issues often inhibit further use. For
ni

a hydraulic treatment to succeed, the job size must correlate with frac-
ture length and cost. A typical hydraulic fracturing job balances the
U

cost of proppants, frac fluids, horsepower, and manpower. The costs

e

are estimated prior to the job and are subject to change throughout.
Th

When a well is selected for treatment, a service company is hired

to schedule, plan, design, and implement the treatment. Hydraulic
n-

fracturing and frac packs are the method most commonly used, though
matrix acidizing and acid washing provide an alternate treatment. Hy-
io

draulic fracturing factors rock fracture mechanics with fluid flow and
ns

leak off, assuming the rock is elastic. There are over twenty variables
to consider before designing and implementing the treatment. Two
te

and three-dimensional models provide structured measurement of

Ex

these variables and aid in the selection and design of the treatment.
Advancements in technology have evolved the effectiveness of
um

fracturing fluids; the first fluids being gelled gasoline, whereas modern
frac fluids use systems that combine only water and proppants. Deeper
wells require stronger proppants and pressure to drive fluid through
le

the system. The amount of horsepower needed for a job depends on

ro

the flow rate and pressure that can be applied to a formation. Flow
t

rate must exceed the leak-off rate to lengthen the fracture, and the
Pe

maximum flow rate is determined by the diameter of the pipe itself.

57
 in
st
Appendix A

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
1. Crawford, H.R.: “Proppant Scheduling and Calculation of Fluid
Loss During Fracturing” SPE paper 12064, 1983 SPE Annual
References

of
Technical Meeting, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
2. Daneshy, A.A.: “On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures”

ity
Journal of Petroleum Technology (Jan. 1973) 83-93.
3. Economides, M.J. et al.: Reservoir Stimulation, Schlumberger
Education Services, Houston (1987).
rs
ve
4. Gidley, J.L.: “Stimulation of Sandstone Formations with the
Acid-Mutual Solvent Method” Journal of Petroleum Technology
ni

(May 1971) 551-558.

U

5. Harrington, L.J. and Hannah, R.R.: “Fracturing Design Using

e

Perfect Support Fluids” SPE paper 5642, 1975 SPE Annual

Th

Technical Conference, Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 1.

6. Holditch, S.A. et al.: “The Optimization of Well Spacing and
n-

Fracture Length in Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs” SPE

Paper 7496, 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference, Houston,
io

Oct. 1-4.
ns

7. McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: “The Effect of Vertical Fractures

te

on Well Productivity” Transactions, AIME (1960) 219, 401-03.

8. McLeod, H.O. Jr.: “A Simplified Approach to Design of Fractur-
Ex

ing Treatments using High Viscosity Fluids” SPE paper 11614,

1983 SPE/DOE Low-Permeability Gas Reservoir Symposium,
um

Denver, March 13-16.

9. Novotny, E.J.: “Proppant Transport” SPE paper 1977 SPE An-
le

nual Technical Conference, Denver, Oct. 9-12.

ro

10. Sinclair, A.R. et al.: “Improved Well Stimulation with Resin

Coated Proppants” SPE paper 11579, 1983 SPE Production
t
Pe

Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, Feb. 27-March 1.

11. Smith, M.B.: “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise Hydraulic
Fractures” SPE Journal (June 1985) 371-79.

59
 in
st
Appendix B

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
S ome of the equations and calculations used in the text were men-
tioned but not shown. The equations can be complex, but the end
Calculations
Equations for

of
result knows how the equation is used and if it will show how the well
is performing after the hydraulic or acid fracturing jobs. Well Stimulation

ity
The skin factor(s) is the first calculation that shows if a near- Treatments
wellbore area is damaged or stimulated. A positive number from zero

rs
to infinity shows a damaged area, while the negative number shows
ve
the stimulation achieved by well stimulation.
The equation is shown below:
ni

s = 1.151[( p1hr – pws / m ) log ( k/ϕμctrw2) + 3.23] Eq. 1

U

where
e

s = skin factor
Th

p1hr = pressure at 1 hour, psi

pws = pressure at shut-in bottomhole, psi
n-

m = 162.6 QBμ/kh the slope of the Horner plot

io

k = permeability, md
ϕ = porosity
ns

μ = viscosity, cp
te

ct = total compressibility, 1/psi

rw = wellbore radius, ft
Ex

Q = cumulative production, STB

um
le
ro
t
Pe

61
 in
st
Appendix C

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
Te
G ood communication between the service company and the op-
erator is a necessity. To help in this matter, use of checklists are
Checklists to
Optimize Well

of
suggested so the best job can be completed without difficulty. Any well
stimulation treatment is complex and there are many considerations
Stimulation

ity
and decisions to be made or approved. Whether a service company
or operator, checklists help get the most out of each treatment. Treatments
rs
ve
Planning checklist:
1. Abide by rules set forth by the operator.
ni

2. Read service company recommendations.

U

3. Check number and location of perforations and zone to be treated.

4. Number of frac tanks for the job and layout for all equipment.
e
Th

5. Strap tanks for volumes.

6. Obtain copy of service company reference tables.
n-

7. Have sample containers and bags for treatment.

8. Safety equipment required: hard hats and steel-toed boots.
io

9. Fluid van or equipment for measuring frac fluids.

ns

10. Water test equipment to determine water quality.

te

11. Number of workers and guests to have onsite.

Ex

Job planning:
1. Ascertain the total water volume needed in the frac tanks.
um

2. Were frac tanks cleaned before the job?

3. Is the correct amount of potassium chloride and other chemicals
on hand?
le

4. Check for leaks out of frac tanks.

ro

5. Pre-gel fluid quality control is approved.

t

6. Check proppant tanks for volume and normal appearance.

Pe

7. Check proppant for fines or dust: use sieves.

8. Ascertain that the proppant is the correct mesh size and type.

63
 in
st
Appendix D

Au
at
▼
▼

s
▼

xa
A

Te
ll images are copyrighted and may not be reprinted, reproduced,
or used in any way without the express written permission of the owner.
Figure Credits

of
ity
Figure Owner Web site

rs
Cover Copyright © Santrol www.santrolproppants.com
Proppants. All rights
ve
reserved.
ni
Inside A large frac job Copyright © Baker Hughes www.bakerhughes.com
Incorporated. All rights
U

reserved.
1 Basic view of fracturing The University of Texas at www.utexas.edu/ce/petex
e

Austin, PETEX
Th

2 Several powerful truck- Photo by Bret Boteler. www.enermaxinc.com

mounted pumps are Copyright © EnerMax, Inc.
n-

arranged at the well site All rights reserved.

io

to perform fracturing.
ns

3 Sand is one proppant used Copyright © Santrol www.santrolproppants.com

to hold fractures open Proppants. All rights
(magnified view). reserved.
te

4 Reservoir fluids flow into The University of Texas www.utexas.edu/ce/petex

Ex

the fracture of the well. at Austin, PETEX

5 Acid enlarges existing The University of Texas www.utexas.edu/ce/petex
um

channels or makes new ones. at Austin, PETEX

6 Hydraulic fracturing of The University of Texas www.utexas.edu/ce/petex
le

shale formations. at Austin, PETEX

7 Current active shale plays Public Domain. Source: www.eia.gov
ro

in the United States U. S. Energy Information

t

Administration (EIA)
Pe

8 Oil and gas flow more The University of Texas www.utexas.edu/ce/petex

easily through fractured at Austin, PETEX
formations.

67
 Glossary

in
st
Au
▼
▼

at
▼
acid n: 1. any chemical compound, one element of which is hydrogen, that dis- A

s
sociates in solution to produce free hydrogen ions. For example, hydrochloric

xa
acid, HCl, dissociates in water to produce hydrogen ions, H+, and chloride ions,
Cl–. This reaction is expressed chemically as HCl + H+ + Cl–. 2. a liquid solution

Te
having a pH of less than 7; a liquid acid solution turns blue litmus paper red.
acidizing n: the use of low pH fluids to dissolve limestone and dolomite formations.

of
acid fracture v: to part or open fractures in productive hard limestone formations
by using a combination of oil and acid or water and acid under high pressure.

ity
See formation fracturing.
acid fracturing n: see acid fracture.

rs
acid treatments n pl: matrix acidizing cleans up near wellbore damage and
ve
acid fracturing opens and etches the formation to improve production. Usually
hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, acetic or formic acid is used.
ni

acid washing n: an acidizing treatment using low or no pressure to remove scale

inside the tubing or casing.
U

additives n pl: chemicals and/or minerals used to enhance the frac or acid fluids.
e

alkali n: a substance having marked basic (alkaline) properties, such as a hydroxide

Th

of an alkali metal.
annulus n: spacing between the tubing and the casing.
n-

API abbr: American Petroleum Institute.

io

API gravity n: the measure of the density or gravity of liquid petroleum products
on the North American continent, derived from relative density in accordance
ns

with the following equation:

API gravity at 60°F = 141.5/specific density – 131.5
te

API gravity is expressed in degrees, a specific gravity of 1.0 being equivalent to

Ex

10° API.
API units n pl: degrees. See API gravity.
um

aquifer n: a body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater

and to yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs.
le

arsenic (As) n: a chemical element that occurs as a brittle, steel-gray hexagonal

mineral and that is added as an impurity to semiconductors to give them a nega-
ro

tive charge.
t

arsenic inhibitor n: a chemical formerly used to coat tubing and prevent tubing
Pe

erosion during acid treatments. Arsenic inhibitors have been replaced by other
organic inhibitors.
As abbr: arsenic.

71
 Review Questions

in
WELL SERVICING AND WORKOVER

st
Lesson 11: Well Stimulation Treatments

Au
Multiple Choice

at
Pick the best answer from the choices and place the letter of that answer in the blank provided.

s
����� 1. Which of the following materials are required for frac treatments?

xa
A. Frac fluids
B. Proppants

Te
C. Horsepower
D. Manpower and equipment

of
E. All of the above

ity
����� 2. Why are large-horsepower pump trucks needed for the treatments?
A. To prevent plugging in the perforations
B.
rs
To allow the treatment schedule to be completed
ve
C. To maximize the costs of the job
ni

D. To keep the temperature down

U

����� 3. Why are computers used to design the hydraulic frac treatment?
A. So the engineer can observe the treatment in progress
e

B. So the alarm system will be automatic

Th

C. So the twenty variables of the formation and stimulation treatment can be

n-

processed
D. So the engineer has a printout when the job is completed
io

����� 4. Which are used to stimulate limestone formations?

ns

A. Steam and hot water

te

B. Inorganic and organic acids

Ex

C. Mud chemicals and high pH

D. Oil-based surfactants
um

Fill in the Blanks

le

5. Name the most practical stimulation technique used in the oil and gas industry today.
ro

­________________________________________________________________________
t
Pe

6. Name the types of costs involved in carrying out a hydraulic frac treatment.

_____________________________________________________________________

83
 INDEX
Index

Index

in
st
▼

Au
▼
▼

at
acid fracturing, 2, 37 ceramics, 23
chicksan joints, 30

s
acidizing

xa
acid additives and retarders, 38–40 clay
acid fracturing design, 44–45 in proppants, 23

Te
economics of, 46 swelling clay (Montmorillonite), 14
history of, 35–36 clay stabilizers, 28

of
matrix acidizing design, 40–43 coalbed methane wells, 1
corrosion inhibitors, 38

ity
in well stimulation, 2
summary, 47 cross-linked gels, 10, 16
Acidizing Fundamentals (Society of Petroleum
rs
ve
Engineers), 43 data van, 9
acid-resistant polymers, 38 dendritic cracks, 42
ni

acids, 27 diverting agents, 40

U

acid washing, 36–37 Dow Chemical Company, 35

e

additives Dowell, Inc., 35–36

Th

acid additives and retarders, 38–40

and chemicals, 24 ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 40
n-

fluid-loss additives, 24, 27, 39 explosive fracturing, 4, 56

io

pH additives, 24, 27 Exxon, 20–21

ns

water fracs, 16
alkalis, 27 ferric state, 40
te

Amoco, 7, 55 ferrous state, 40

Ex

API units, 55 flowback, 51

arsenic inhibitors, 38 flowmeters, 9

um

flow rates, 29
bauxite, 21 fluid-loss additives, 24, 27, 39
le

biocides, 27 fluid pad, 14, 39

formation fines, 3, 51
ro

blenders, 9, 29
broad-spectrum biocides, 27 formation types, 42
t
Pe

frac (fracturing) fluids

centipoises, 55 development of, 7
ceramic proppants, 21 evolution of, 14–15

87
 To obtain additional training materials, contact:

in
PETEX
The University of Texas at Austin

st
Petroleum Extension Service

Au
10100 Burnet Road, Bldg. 2
Austin, TX 78758
Telephone: 512-471-5940

at
or 800-687-4132
FAX: 512-471-9410

s
or 800-687-7839

xa
E-mail: [email protected]
or visit our Web site: www.utexas.edu/ce/petex

Te
of
To obtain information about training courses, contact:

ity
PETEX
Learning and assessment center
The University of Texas
rs
ve
4702 N. Sam Houston Parkway West, Suite 800
Houston, TX 77086
ni

Telephone: 281-397-2440
U

or 800-687-7052
FAX: 281-397-2441
e

E-mail: [email protected]
Th

or visit our Web site: www.utexas.edu/ce/petex

n-
io
ns
te
Ex
um
le
ro
t
Pe
Pe
tro
le
um
Ex
te
ns
io
n-
Th
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
of
Te
xa
s
at
Au
st
in