Advanced Fluids

Review
• Review Fluids knowledge
– Viscosity
– Shear rates
– Fluids types/applications

• Fracturing Fluid selection guide 3250267

• FFSA Reference page 3875729
 Fluid Selection Guide
Frac Fluid Characteristic
1. Condesate Well
Situations Grade of Importance
3
2. Heavy Oil Well 4
3. Oil in Winter 5
Frac Fluid Emulsion Tendency * Gas Reservoirs are not applicable

1. Tight Gas Reservoir 4

Gas Formation - Relative Permeability/Capillary Pres. Effect 2. High permeability gas reservoir 1

1. High Content of Swelling Clays (High K) 3

2. High Content of Swelling Clays (Low K) 1
Clay Sensitivity 3. Low Content of Swelling Clays (Smectite) 1

pH Formation Compatibility 1. Client requests neutral or low pH 5

1. High Permeability (frac fluid internal filter cake) 4

Frac Fluid Yield Stress Effect 2. Medium to High K (wall Building) 1

1. High K 5
2. Low K 4
3. High Res. Pressure Gradient (>0.35) 4
Proppant Pack Cleanup - Not low Res. Pres. 4. Medium Res. Pressure Gradient (0.25-0.35) 4--5
Proppant Pack Cleanup - Low Res. Pres. 5. Low Res. Pressure Gradient (<0.25) 5

1. Low Res. Permeability (< 0.1 md) 1

2. Medium-Low Res. Permeability (0.1-5 md) 2
3. Medium-High Res. Permeability (5-200 md) 3
4. High Res. Permeability (>200 md) 5
Frac Fluid Leakoff 5. Natural Fracture/Fissured Res. 5

1. Small Fracture (< 100 ft) 2

2. Medium size Fracture (100-300 ft) 3
3. Long Fracture (>300 ft) 4
Proppant Transport 4. High Proppant Density 4

NWB or Early Viscosity 1. Tortuosity 5

2. High Young Modulus (>6 E6 psi) 4
3. Low Young Modulus-Soft Rock (<1 E6 psi) 1
High Viscosity 4. Low Frac Height/High Stress Contrast 4

1. Job through tubing and at high rate 3

Shear sensitivty 2. Job through casing or annulus 1

1. Shallow Well (<4000 ft) 2

2. Medium depth Well (4000-10000 ft) 3
3. Deep Well (>10000 ft) 4
4. Small Tubing Size Available for Frac Job 4
Frac Fluid Friction 5. Large Tubing Size Available for Frac Job 2

1. Offshore 4
Enviromentally friendly 2. Onland: Check client guidelines

Fluid cost less than 15 % of total Frac Cost 3

Fluid cost between 15 to 30 % of total Frac Cost 4
Frac Fluid Cost Fluid cost greater than 30 % of total Frac Cost 5
Grade 1: Characteristic not important for the fluid selection
Grade 5: Charateristic is very important for the fluid selection
 Fluid Selection Guide

GD
ic

8W)
00L

)
905
rist

YF1

(J50
acte

(XE
HT)
HTD

AC
TD/

Q
wQ

AC
AC
har

LT;

Q
Q

igh

C
T

T
G

T
eFR
00 H

O IV
00.1

rFR
rFR
00H

00H

00E

00S
OV

High
00 (
id C

00L

2 Lo
Low
100
200

2H
00
00

00
00

Prim

HEC
YFG
YFG

Clea
Clea
YF1
YF1

YF5
YF1
YF2

YF1

YF4

YF8

YF1

YF1
YF3

YF6
Flu

WF
WF

CO
CO
N2
N2
Frac Fluid Emulsion Tendency 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 2/3* 2/3*

Gas Formation - Relative Perm./ Cap. Pres. Effect 4 4/5** 3 3/4** 3 3 3 3 3/4** 3 3/4** 3/4** 3/4** 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3
Clay Sensitivity 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5B B 4 4 2 4 3 3 2
pH Formation Compatibility 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4B B 4 4 3 4 3 4 3
Frac Fluid Yield Stress 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4

Proppant Pack Cleanup - Not Low Res. Pres. 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 5

Proppant Pack Cleanup - Low Res. Pres. 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 2 4 2 2 2

Frac Fluid Leakoff 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 1/5*** 1/5***

Proppant Transport 1 1 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 1 4 5 5

NWB or Early Viscosity 1 1 5 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 1 5 2 3

High Viscosity 2 2 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 1 5 3 4

Shear Sensitivity 4 4 5 5 3 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5

Frac Fluid Friction 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3/4 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 5 5

Enviromentally Frienly 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 3

Frac Fluid Cost 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2

100-125 F
126-150 F
Temperature Range

151-175 F
176-200 F
201-225 F
226-250 F
251-275 F
276-300 F
300-325 F
above 326 F
Rank 5 : The best fluid for that situation
Rank 1 : The least convenient fluid for that situation
* ClearFRAC may require a preflush in heavy oils to avoid emulsion problems
** Use of Methanol will reduce water block problems
*** ClearFRAC has very good leakoff control in low K but not very good leakoff control above 5 md.
B = Depends on the base fluid
 Industry Polymer Chemistry
Small chains, Low MW
GUAR (Halco – MicroPolymer)

No derivatives
(all YF100’s, YF300LpH,
YF500HT)

Carboxymethyl BJ – Spectrafrac G Propylene

Group Oxide HPG
CMG
Hydroxypropyl Guar
Carboxymethyl Guar
Single Derivatized Process
Single Derivatized Process
(YF200, YF400LpH, YF600)
BJ – Vistar TM
Carboxymethyl group
TerraFrac
(no SLB systems) CMHPG
Carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar
Double Derivatized Process
YF800LpH/HT (now w/FAT)

PrimeFRAC
Thermagel, Medallionfrac
Halco - Sirocco
 Polymers in Solution
(Better design/choice of fluids for given condition)

• Topics/References:
– Dilute polymer in solution
– Intrinsic viscosity vs. apparent viscosity
• RS3 ch.8. p. 8-2, 8-3
– Intrinsic viscosity and C* ()
• RS3 ch.8, p. 8-4 - guar comparison with Dextran
– Combined with solution, temperature effects
• SPE 28511 – Fig. 9, methanol effects
 Industry Polymer Chemistry
Small chains, Low MW
GUAR (Halco – MicroPolymer)

No derivatives
(all YF100’s, YF300LpH,
YF500HT)

Carboxymethyl BJ – Spectrafrac G Propylene

Group Halco - DeltaFrac Oxide HPG
CMG
Hydroxypropyl Guar
Carboxymethyl Guar
Single Derivatized Process
Single Derivatized Process
(YF200, YF400LpH, YF600)
BJ – VistarTM Carboxymethyl group TerraFrac
(no SLB system)
CMHPG
Carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar
Double Derivatized Process
YF800LpH/HT (also w/FAT)
PrimeFRAC
Thermagel, Medallionfrac, ScirrocoTM
 Borate Fluids
• Understanding borate equilibrium vs. temperature,
pH
– Comparison of various borate fluids, buffers,
crosslinkers, delay agents
– Polymer concentration versus crosslinking –
viscosity and shear sensitivity issues
– Ref. RS3 Figs. 8-3, 8-4
 Effect of pH on
Borate Crosslinker Equilibrium
100
90
176F LGD,
80
140F 100.1,
70
104F HTD fluids
% B(OH)4-

60
68F
50 ST fluids
40
30 LG fluids
20
10
D fluids
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
pH
Borate Crosslinking vs. pH

ST fluids
LG fluids
D fluids
LGD,
100.1,
HTD fluids
 Industry Polymers
• Competitive system comparison
– BJ Vistar (based on C* concept) – 3311340,
Patent No. 6017855
– Halco Micropolymer system – 3276438, SPE
71662
• Versus VES/ClearFRAC – ionic crosslinking vs.
electrostatic attraction –> elasticity effects
ClearFRAC* Fluids - Simple Chemistry

+ salt (M117,
J285)

Viscoelastic Worm-like Micelle

Surfactant
(MW = 450)

Polymers have
MW ~ 1-3,000,000
 Rheology

• Steady State Measurements

– Viscosity
• Dynamic Measurements
– Viscous Modulus
– Elastic Modulus
 Rheology Measurement Techniques
Steady-Shear Rheology: Apply a steady shear-rate g or a shear-stress
and measure the viscosity h (g) or h (s)

Dynamic Rheology: Apply a sinusoidal strain (of amplitude g0

and frequency w): g = g0 sin wt
Measure the resulting sinusoidal stress:
s = G'(w) g0 sin wt + G"(w) g0 cos wt

Elastic Viscous
(Storage) (Loss)
Modulus Modulus
 Dynamic Rheology
Elastic (G'), Viscous (G") moduli (Pa) tR = 1/c G' = Gp
101

100 G" ~ 

G' ~ 2

Low Freq. High Freq.

Liquid-like Solid-like
10-1
(viscous) (elastic)

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Frequency, (rad/s)
 Elastic Modulus
G' as a Function of Frequency for 2% J 508W and 40 lbm/Mgal Crosslinked
Guar
10

1
G' (Pa)

0.1 YF140 at 55 C
2% J 508W at 55 C

0.01
0.1 1 10
Freq (1/s)
 Viscous Modulus
G" as a Function of Frequency for 2% J 508W and 40 lbm/Mgal
Crosslinked Guar Fluid
10

YF140 at 55 C
G" (Viscous Modulus) Pa

2% J 508W at 55 C

0.1
0.1 1 10
Freq (1/s)
 Ratio: Elastic to Viscous
(G'/G") for 2% J 508W and 40 lbm/Mgal Crosslinked Guar Fluid

8
7
6
5 YF140 at 55 C
Ratio (G'/G")

4 2% J508W at 55 C

3
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Freq (1/s)
 Fluid Damage Analysis
• Based on polymer sol’n principles – i, MW,
sp,PCF
– SPE 28511 procedure
• Comparison of MW reduction, PCF
• Showing effect of breakers, polymer concentration
• Led to development of CleanFLOW additive
• Post-frac analysis
– Fluid sampling, polymer analysis
– Comparison – design vs. results – another DEE step
– Feedback to geomarket, R&D
 Polymer Recovery
45
% Polymer recovered

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Time (h)
 Advance Fluid Characterization
• Viscosity
– Power Law fluids –  dependent viscosity
– Ensure Fann data is consistent – rotor/bob used
• Conductivity – general procedure 3269553
– long-term testing 3255730
– Non-darcy, multiphase flow – JPT, Carbo CD
– Proppant conc. vs. width, conductivity – partial mono-
layers
Fann Measurement Variation

Ti-XL HPG at 200oF

 Importance of Pack Cleanup
“LOW” Damage
1

Low Damage

Fracture Retained Permeability

0.8

0.6

0.4
“HIGH” Damage
0.2
High Damage
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fractional Reduction in Porosity
 Proppant Pack Conductivity
• Conductivity is directly related to width
which in turn is related to proppant
concentration down to full proppant mono-
layer widths
• Below full mono-layer width, conductivity
rises and falls with increased/decreased
void space/perm
 Partial Mono-layer Effect on
Conductivity

Full monolayer Partial monolayer Partial monolayer

Acrobat Document