Acidizing Concepts-
Matrix vs. Fracture Acidizing
George E. King, SPE, Amoco Production Co.
Summary. Acidizing involves a wide range of stimulation treatments that can yield impressive production
increases in many wells if properly applied. Acidizing treatments are divided into two categories: matrix
acidizing and fracture acidizing. To use either treatment properly, an understanding is required of what the
treatments do and what is necessary to stimulate the well.
Matrix Acidizing
In matrix acidizing, the intent is to improve or to restore
the permeability of the region very near the wellbore (a
radius of 8 to 24 in. [20.3 to 61 cm]) without fracturing
the producing formation. The increase in permeability will
decrease the pressure drop associated with the produc-
tion or the injection of fluids by enlargement of the pore
throats or by removal of formation permeability damage
created by drilling or completion fluids. The amount of
production increase that is created by a matrix acid job
will depend on the reservoir pressure and whether the for-
mation permeability next to the wellbore is damaged. In
an undamaged formation, the production increase from
a matrix acidizing job is very low. However, if the for-
mation permeability near the wellbore is reduced as a re-
sult of damage from natural causes or completion fluids,
the production can be increased considerably (i.e., 10 to
100 times) by removing the damage. In a producing well,
a zone of damaged permeability near the wellbore chokes
the converging radial flow and can decrease production
severely.
To determine the extent of permeability damage (skin
damage), a pressure-buildup test must be run. Not all
causes of permeability damage are acid-soluble. For ex-
ample, sulfate scales, paraffin, tar, water blocks, and most
emulsions are largely unaffected by mineral or organic
acids. These problems require special treatment in addi-
tion to (or instead ot) acid treatments. Also, not all damage
shown by a buildup test is true formation permeability
damage. Results of inadequate or too few perforations will
appear in the total formation damage that is calculated
from the test. If there is doubt about the quality of perfo-
rations, it is often more economical to reperforate than
to acidize.
Matrix acid treatments use from 15 to 200 gal [0.19
to 2.5 m 3] of acid per foot [meter] of producing forma-
tion. The acid is injected at pressures less than the pres-
sure that will cause the formation to fracture.
Hydrochloric acid (HCl) in strengths from 5 to 15 % is
commonly used to remove carbonate and iron scales and
as a preflush for HC1/hydrofluoric (HF) acid. To treat
clay damage and to remove drilling mud, HF at a strength
of 1.5 to 3 % is used with the HCl.
Copyright 1986 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1986
Fracture Acidizing
Fracture acidizing is a hydraulic fracturing treatment for
carbonate formations in which acid-etched channels serve
as very-high-conductivity flow paths along the face of the
fracture. HCI of 15 to 28 % strength is used in acid frac-
turing at volumes of 100 to 500 gal [1.24 to 6.2 m 3 ] of
acid per foot [meter] of producing formation. Hydraulic
fracturing actually breaks the formation with pump- and
hydrostatically produced pressures. The pressure parts the
formation and produces a crack along which the acid
flows. The acid reacts with the carbonate, removes part
of this reactive rock, and leaves channels along the face
of the crack. For the channels to form, the formation must
be limestone, dolomite, or chalk with a total carbonate
content of at least 60 %.
Productivity increases that are available from acid frac-
turing depend on many of the same conditions as water
and proppant fracturing. These conditions are permeabil-
ity, pressure, viscosity of produced fluid, and length and
conductivity of the fracture. In undamaged, low-
permeability formations with equal reservoir pressures,
fracturing will increase production far more than matrix
acidizing.
Higher-viscosity fluids (such as oil) can flow much more
easily down the high-conductivity acidizing fracture than
through a high-permeability matrix. The length of an acid-
ized fracture is limited, however, by the rate at which acid
is spent on the carbonate and by the increasing fluid
leakoff. The acid-etched fracture will extend only as far
as unspent acid has penetrated. The acid reactivity is a
function of several variables, the most important of which
are temperature and the area/volume ratio (i.e., the ratio
of the area of reactive formation in the matrix or fracture
to the volume of acid in contact with that area). The higher
this ratio (more surface area), the faster the acid will be
spent (penetration of live acid is reduced). In the forma-
tion matrix of a low-permeability carbonate, the
area/volume ratio can be over 30,000: 1. In a hydrauli-
cally created fracture, the value will be about 100: 1. This
ratio is a description of the formation or fracture condi-
tions, and very little can be done to alter it.
Fluid lost from the acid in the fracture also decreases
the possible fracture length because less fluid is left to
extend the fracture. Leakoff from the acid volume in the
main fracture is increased by the reaction of the acid,
which increases the permeability of the leakoff zones.
Leakoff is so severe a problem in most acid fracturing
507
treatments that it is considered to be the main fracture-
length-limiting condition. To extend fracture length, fluid-
loss additives are used to slow the fluid leakoff into natural
fractures or thief zones. Calculations from dozens of
buildup tests show that typical acid fracture lengths range
from 30 to 200 ft [9.1 to 61 m]. The longer fractures are
usually in cooler, lower-permeability formations.
Conclusions
The decision whether to use a particular acid stimulation
treatment should be based on more information than can
508
be expressed in a short paper. To obtain a successful
stimulation, (1) obtain the best information possible about
the well, (2) carefully design ajob to remove damage or
stimulate the well, and (3) exercise sufficient quality con-
trol to ensure that the job goes as planned.
JPT
This paper is SPE 15279. Technology Today Series articles provide useful summary
information on both classic and emerging concepts in petroleum engineering. Pur-
pose: To provide the general reader with a basic understanding of a significant con-
cept, technique, or development within a specific area of technology.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1986