Nowadays, it is commonplace to say that acid fracture conductivity depends on the fracture face asperities. Does it really depend on it? Almost thirty years ago, someone wrote, "We believe the conductivity measured in these tests is mainly due to the smoothing of peaks and valleys on the rough fracture faces, and is independent of rock heterogeneities due to the small sample size." Moreover, almost one year ago, one wrote, "More asperities touch and deform as the closure stress increases. The channels become even shorter and fewer openings are left." Between these two extremes, the asperities came to be pointed out as an essential factor to generate acid conductivity. Many published results from small, wet sawed and leveled carbonate rock samples support such claim. We did the same. Our experimental investigation on small scale carbonate samples with sawn faces, both from outcrops and well cores, reconfirm the existence of three main acid patterns namely uniform, channels and roughness. The design of experimental apparatus prevented that those etching patterns were artifact patterns. The acid etching patterns determine different conductivity behavior under confining stress. However, hydraulic fractures are tensile fractures and they are naturally rough. In nature, there is no such thing as a leveled fracture face. Tensile fracture faces could be rougher than fracture face after acid reaction. In fact, the first experimental results show that after acid reaction, linear roughness of tensile fractures can be larger, equal or less than linear roughness before acid reaction. This paper presents experimental results and discusses the asperities paradigm.

You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.