4.0 Article

Evaluation of ceramsite loss control agent in acid fracturing of naturally fractured carbonate reservoir

期刊

NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY B
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 302-308

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ngib.2021.04.007

关键词

Acid leak off; Loss control agent; Ceramsite; Core-flooding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ceramsite is an effective agent for reducing acid leak off in acid fracturing, with smaller size ceramsite showing better filtration effect. Higher injection rates can increase acid carrying capacity, facilitating control agent entry into fractures and acid-etched grooves. Optimal ceramsite dosage under laboratory conditions is found to be 4 grams. This study enhances understanding of acid leak off in carbonate reservoirs and provides valuable information for field acid fracturing design.
In the acid fracturing of naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs, excessive acid leak off is the main factor limiting fracture propagation and live acid penetration distance. To reduce acid leakage and enhance the stimulation effect, ceramsite loss control agents have been widely applied in acid fracturing. However, the leak off reduction behavior of ceramsite has not yet been systematically investigated. Therefore, a conventional core-flooding acidizing system with a hollowed-out Hastelloy cylinder was used to perform a series of acid leak off experiments. Experimental results show that 1. the smaller the size of the ceramsite, the better the filtration reduction effect; 2. the higher the injection rate, the greater the acid carrying capacity, which is conducive to the loss of the control agent entering the fracture and acid-etched grooves; and 3. under laboratory conditions, the optimal ceramsite dosage is 4 g. This study deepens the understanding of acid leak off in carbonate reservoirs and provides fundamental information for field acid fracturing design. (C) 2021 Sichuan Petroleum Administration. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communication Co. Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据