Besides black art, there is only automation and mechanization.

Federico Garcia Lorca, Spanish poet and playwright (18981936)

On this basis, fracture stimulation sits firmly in the realm of mysticism, crystal balls,
and tarot.
The reason for this is that unlike automation (e.g., car manufacturing) we still are
uncertain of what makes fracture stimulation work (i.e., the critical components)
and of how we evaluate and improve performance (i.e., of what constitutes a
vehicle service).
The car industry understands the components that make a car operate because
each is built meticulously and repetitively. The key components that drive fracture
stimulation are more difficult to determine because the process is subject to a high
degree of variability in subsurface conditions. And what adds more smoke and
mirrors to stimulation design is that much of the research that forms our basic
understanding was developed more than 30 years ago on tight gas reservoirs, which
bear no resemblance to the shale, coal, or unconsolidated sands stimulated today. In
other words, while we have paid for a Rolls Royce we unwittingly may be driving
a DeLorean.
The automotive industry assesses the performance of its cars through periodic,
thorough checkups. How often do we conduct a multicomponent service on our
stimulation treatments? Microseismics, continuous reservoir monitoring (by use of
distributed-temperature surveys and permanent downhole gauges), and radioactive-
fluid tracers are some of the technologies used to determine the health of stimula-
tion treatments. Their use, however, remains the exception not the rule. Usually,
expensive stimulation-treatment checkups are avoided; instead, only the oil dipstick
continues to be used (i.e., pressure and rate during injection and production).
Is it not time that you better understood the key components under the hood and
gave a complete service to your fracture-stimulation process? Only through better
understanding will the black art be replaced by science, the performance be mea-
sured, and step changes truly be made.
Hydraulic Fracturing additional reading
available at the SPE eLibrary: www.spe.org
SPE 116124 Case History of Sequential and Simultaneous Fracturing of the
Barnett Shale In Parker County by P.N. Mutalik, Williams Companies, et al.
SPE 118831 Optical-Fiber Distributed Temperature for Fracture-Stimulation
Diagnostics and Well-Performance Evaluation by Paul Huckabee, SPE,
Shell E&P
SPE 119350 Stress Amplification and Arch Dimensions in Proppant Beds
Deposited by Waterfracs by N.R. Warpinski, SPE, Pinnacle
SPE 111431 New Viscoelastic Surfactant Fracturing Fluids Now Compatible
With CO
2
Drastically Improve Gas Production in Rockies by K. Hughes,
Chevron, et al.
Hydraulic Fracturing
TECHNOLOGY FOCUS
50 JPT MARCH 2009
JPT
Simon Chipperfield, SPE, is Team
LeaderCentral Gas Exploitation at
Santos. During the last 14 years, he has
held positions in petroleum engineering
(drilling, completions, and stimulation)
and reservoir engineering. Chipperfield
previously worked for Shell International
E&P. He was awarded the 2007 SPE
Cedric K. Ferguson Medal. Chipperfield
has authored more than 18 technical
publications in the areas of hydraulic
fracturing, reservoir engineering, com-
pletion technology, and sand control. He
holds a petroleum engineering degree
(Honors) from the University of New
South Wales. Chipperfield serves on the
JPT Editorial Committee and has served
as a reviewer for SPEPO.
JPT MARCH 2009
51
Hydraulic fracturing is the most popular
and successful stimulation treatment
in the petroleum industry. Fracturing
technology has opened numerous
unconventional hydrocarbon frontiers
that, were it not for this process, would
be uneconomic to develop. However,
designing the optimal hydraulic frac-
ture is anything but an exact science.
The industry relies on many simplify-
ing assumptions that assist in making
expedient decisions but can prevent
reaching a truly optimized treatment.
The full-length paper outlines the
approach taken by one Canyon sand
operator to apply sound science and
best practices to meet their financial.
Introduction
A field trial comparing the performance
of 20/40 economy-lightweight-ceram-
ic (ELWC) proppant to 20/40 Brady
sand was completed in 2006 and 2007
in the Canyon sand, Sutton County,
Texas. The trial was initiated after
modeling suggested that the current
hydraulic fractures were conductiv-
ity limited. Twenty-one wells in close
proximity to each other were included
in the study. Production analyses were
performed after all wells had at least
1 year of post-fracture production.
Both raw production and production
normalized to reservoir quality were
analyzed, and both indicate that the
wells stimulated with ELWC proppant
significantly outperformed the offset
wells that used Brady sand. Several
economic yardsticks then were evalu-
ated in the full-length paper.
Canyon Sand
The Canyon sandstone is produc-
tive in several fields, including the
Sonora, Sawyers, Shurley, and Aldwell
fields, with first production occur-
ring in 1952. The Canyon-sandstone
trend occurs basinward of the western
margin of the Eastern shelf in west
Texas. The sandstones were deposited
from the Eastern shelf into the Val
Verde basin. The reservoir is oil prone
adjacent to the Midland basin and gas
prone adjacent to the Val Verde basin.
The vast majority of the sandstone
members are fine- to medium-grained
quartz lithic arenites.
Because the field has been on pro-
duction for more than 50 years, and
the operator continues to downspace
(currently drilling on 20- to 40-acre
spacing), the reservoir pressure in the
trend continues to decline. The current
operator has acquired a majority of the
acreage in the Sonora field through
a series of acquisitions since 1993,
and more than 5,000 wells have been
drilled during this time. Daily produc-
tion has increased from 25 MMcf/D to
240 MMcf/D since 1993. This opera-
This article, written by Assistant Tech-
nology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
high lights of paper SPE 117538, Apply-
ing Science and Best Practices To increase
Production and Optimize Economics in a
West Texas Gas FieldA Canyon-Sand
Case Study, by Kelly Blackwood, SPE,
(now with Encana Oil and Gas), and
Kaylene Williamson, SPE, Highmount
Energy; Terry Palisch, SPE, and Mark
Chapman, SPE, Carbo Ceramics; and
Mike Vincent, SPE, Insight Consulting,
originally prepared for the 2008 SPE
Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section
Joint Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
1115 Octo ber. The paper has not been
peer reviewed.
Applying Science and Best Practices To Increase Production
and Optimize Economics in a West Texas Gas Field
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
Fig. 1Average per-well incremental gas production for first 90 days
post-fracture.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ceramic minus SandRate
Ceramic vs. Sand% Increase
Days Since Fracture
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
e
r
-
W
e
l
l

I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

M
c
f
/
D
Incremental Production vs. Time Since Fractured
52 JPT MARCH 2009
tor currently has 13 drilling rigs and
11 completion/workover rigs active in
the field. Approximately 150 hydrau-
lic-fracture treatments (30 wells) are
conducted each month, using total
proppant of approximately 12 million
lbm. This high level of activity has
provided an excellent opportunity for
a field trial in which a large number
of candidates with similar reservoir
quality and pressure were available
for evaluation.
Canyon-Sand Completions
A typical well in this study is drilled
vertically to approximately 6,500 ft
true vertical depth (TVD). Fracture
stimulations are performed rigless by
means of 4.5-in. casing, and flow-
through fracture valves/baffles are used
to isolate between stages. All wells are
stimulated at approximately 40 bbl/
min with a low-pH crosslinked-fluid
(25 to 35 lbm/1,000 gal) system and
40-quality CO
2
. An old rule of thumb
used in the field is to pump 20/40
Brady sand when treating pay that
is shallower than 7,000 ft and 20/40
Ottawa (White) sand when deeper
than 7,000 ft. A typical well receives
a total of 400,000 lbm of proppant
in 4 to 6 stages at maximum slurry
concentrations of 5 to 6 lbm of prop-
pant added to 1 gal of fluid. Individual
fractures are designed for 500 to 600
ft of half-length and 0.4 lbm/ft
2
prop-
pant concentration.
Rationale for Field Trial
Although hydraulic fracturing is critical
to the development of most unconven-
tional reservoirs, many shortcuts and
assumptions commonly made during
the design of the stimulation treatment
limit the productivity and profitability of
the field. For example, it is not uncom-
mon to use photocopy engineering
simply copying a treatment schedule
used on a previous well or from another
reservoir. In addition, many simplifying
assumptions continue to be used that,
while expediting the design phase, can
prevent an engineer from achieving a
truly optimal treatment.
One of these assumptions is often
stated: Conductivity is not important
in tight gas/low-rate formations or
Premium proppants are not need-
ed in shallow or low-pressure, low-
rate wells. However, the belief that
conductivity is unimportant in tight
gas/low-rate/low-stress applications
ignores basic physics. Many authors
have shown that conductivity is
extremely important, even in applica-
tions that previously were assumed to
exhibit infinite conductivity.
Non-Darcy- and Multiphase-
Flow Effects. The standard labora-
tory conductivity test [International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
test] is performed using 2% potas-
sium chloride at rates equivalent to
teaspoon per minute. Unfortunately,
these conditions ignore the effects of
non-Darcy and multiphase flow. Most
fracture engineers consider adjust-
ments for these effects to be necessary
in high-rate wells at normal depths,
temperatures, and pressures. However,
engineers also must recognize that
although these Canyon-sand wells are
low rate (100 to 400 Mcf/D), the low
reservoir pressure (1,200 to 1,500 psi)
and low temperature (165F) create
very high fluid velocities within the
fractures as a result of gas expansion.
In fact, 400 Mcf/D when evaluated at
the expected bottomhole conditions
would yield the same volumetric flow
rate as a more prolific well producing
1.2 MMcf/D from a 4,500-psi, 200F
reservoir. In addition, because these
Canyon-sand wells typically produce
1 to 2 B/D of condensate and 20 to
50 BWPD, multiphase-flow effects are
significant. Laboratory measurements
and modeling suggest that the effect of
non-Darcy and multiphase flow in the
proppant pack would reduce the effec-
tive conductivity of the proppant pack
for the typical Canyon-sand comple-
tion by more than approximately 75%,
with further reductions after consider-
ing gel damage, stress cycling, and
other realistic conditions.
Reduced Proppant Concentration.
The standard ISO test is performed
using a proppant concentration of
2 lbm/ft
2
. However, fracture model-
ing suggests that the actual prop-
pant concentration achieved in these
Canyon-sand fractures is closer to
approximately 0.4 lbm/ft
2
. This lower
proppant concentration presents sev-
eral conductivity challenges. First, it
reduces the fracture width and lami-
nar conductivity of the proppant pack
by 80% (from 2 lbm/ft
2
to 0.4 lbm/
ft
2
). However, this five-fold reduction
in width also requires a 500% increase
in fluid velocity. Because non-Darcy
effects are related to the square of
velocity, a 500% increase in velocity
will increase the non-Darcy pressure
losses by 2,500%. Narrow fractures
also are more significantly damaged by
proppant embedment, stress cycling,
and filter-cake damage. Therefore,
these narrow fractures provide only
a small fraction of the conductivity
advertised by suppliers.
Gel Damage/Cleanup. Generally, it
is accepted that when gel is pumped
in the pad and/or slurry stages of a
fracture treatment, some degree of gel
damage is unavoidable. However, stud-
ies have shown that the type and size of
the proppant will affect the magnitude
of the gel damage. This damage can be
caused by the residual gel in the center
of the pack or by filter cake deposited
on the fracture faces and then extruded
into the proppant pack at closure. It
has been shown that smaller proppants
and more-angular proppants will not
clean up as thoroughly as larger, more
spherical, uniformly sized proppants.
Typical 20/40 Brady sand has a mean
particle diameter (MPD) of 600 m
and is relatively angular. 20/40 White
sand, while similar in MPD, is more
rounded than Brady. Premium resin-
coated sands typically are more spheri-
cal than their uncoated counterparts,
with slightly larger MPDs. A 20/40
ELWC proppant typically has an MPD
of 650 m and is very spherical and
more uniform in size.
Also adding to the concern of gel
cleanup in the Canyon sand is the low
reservoir pressure. Fracturing gels gen-
erally are non-Newtonian and exhibit
a yield point, or threshold pressure to
initiate flow. With a limited supply
of energy in these Canyon sands,
the authors were concerned that por-
tions of the fracture farther away from
the wellbore may not clean up under
normal conditions with low-conduc-
tivity fractures.
Model Results. While there are sev-
eral approaches to increase the con-
ductivity of a hydraulic fracture, often
the simplest method to evaluate in the
field is upgrading the proppant. Other
approaches (e.g., changing fluid sys-
tems, using gel breakers, or increasing
proppant concentration) may simulta-
neously affect the fracture geometry,
making it difficult to determine if
the resulting gas production should
JPT MARCH 2009
be attributed to fracture conductivity or to other changes.
Modeling was performed to predict the benefit of upgrad-
ing from Brady sand to several different proppants20/40
White sand, 20/40 premium resin-coated sand, and 20/40
ELWC proppant.
While all proppants were considered, and each upgrade
was expected to increase production, upgrading to 20/40
ELWC proppant provided the largest effect, an increase
in gas production greater than 25% anticipated during the
first year alone.
Field-Trial Results
Raw-Data Analysis. During the first 90 days of production,
it was evident that the ELWC-proppant wells produced, on
average, significantly more gas than the Brady-sand wells.
In fact, the average production (per well) for the ELWC-
proppant wells during the first month was 60 to 80 Mcf/D
higher than that of Brady-sand wells (Fig. 1), which equates
to a 20 to 30% increase in production rate. This benefit sta-
bilizes at approximately 10% incremental production after
90 days. After 1 year, the ELWC-proppant wells exceed
Brady-sand wells by an average of more than 6 MMcf of
incremental cumulative gas per well, or a 12% increase.
Operators use a variety of benchmarks to compare well
results. One simple comparison is to calculate the average
IP30 for each set of wells, where IP30 represents the aver-
age rate of the first 30 days of nonzero production. Using
this measure, the average IP30 of the ELWC-proppant wells
was approximately 320 Mcf/D, which is 25% more than the
IP30 of approximately 250 Mcf/D for the Brady-sand wells.
When comparing the IP30 for all 21 trial wells, it is clear
that the ELWC-proppant wells outperform the Brady-sand
wells by a significant margin, despite lower-quality pay and
less thickness.
Another measure of well performance that often is used
is estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). Typically, the EUR
of a gas well is determined by use of decline-curve analysis
of actual production data. For these Canyon-sand wells, the
average production for each set of trial wells was matched
to a hyperbolic decline curve. Interestingly, the decline rate
of the two production curves essentially is identical. That
the initial production rate is higher for the ELWC-proppant
wells, with both groups having the same decline rate, sug-
gests that the incremental production is not the result
solely of rate acceleration but rather may be indicative of
increased drainage volume. In fact, if the decline curves
are projected 30 years, the ELWC-proppant wells would
produce an incremental 30 MMcf (8%) per well, despite the
lower reservoir quality. If the decline curves are projected to
an economic limit of 10 Mcf/D, then the ELWC-proppant
wells would produce an incremental 125 MMcf (16%) per
well, although it takes more than 100 years for this value to
be reached. JPT
54 JPT MARCH 2009
Slickwater fracturing has increased
over the past decade, with the advent
of shale gas plays. Horizontal wells
are now the standard, with as much
as 1 million gal of water in as many as
six to nine fracture stages per well. The
objective is to create as much contact
with the reservoir as possible. Additive
packages have been minimized to
reduce costs. Because of environmen-
tal concerns and freshwater availabil-
ity, the flowback and produced water
are collected and used for subsequent
fracture treatments. The full-length
paper examines water-treatment tech-
niques and evaluates the performance
of additives that are used in slickwater
fractures of shale reservoirs.
Introduction
The number of slickwater fractures
has increased because of higher nat-
ural-gas prices and more experience
in fracturing with lower-cost fluids.
Slickwater fractures have been used in
low-permeability and large net pays,
and they require large amounts of
water to obtain adequate fracture half-
lengths. Before the Barnett shale in
north Texas was fractured in 1997,
many fractures were carried out with
a crosslinked fluid and large amounts
of proppants. The difficulty in clean-
ing up the wells and the low return
made many wells uneconomical.
Some wells were treated with slickwa-
ter and no proppant. Initial produc-
tion was higher but declined rapidly.
Eventually, the state of the art evolved
to high-rate slickwater fractures with
various additives. The question to be
addressed is how the various additives
perform in shale and how to deter-
mine which additives are necessary,
particularly in light of the fact that
most fractures are now conducted
with produced and/or flowback water
from previous fractures.
Water Reuse
Water can be reused and makes up
the majority of volume in a slickwa-
ter fracture. There have been and are
problems in obtaining sufficient water
from municipalities or disposing of
produced water. If there is a way to
reuse the water or fluid, this will save
money and solve environmental issues
with disposal. Disposal costs can run
as high as USD11/bbl. With the advent
of horizontal wells with multiple
staged fractures, there is a process
requirement as great as 10,000 B/D
with the entire job requiring as much
as 100,000 bbl of water. Surface waters
alone can contain clays, sand/silt, iron,
sulfates, and bacteria. Produced water
and reused fracture waters can have
various contaminants.
The presence of the many possible
contaminants can affect the perfor-
mance of the fracturing-fluid addi-
tives. For example, surfactants and
clay stabilizers can be adsorbed onto
the colloidal solids. The presence of
solids, residual gel, and bacteria also
can impair formation permeability.
Shale waters typically have exces-
sive barium and strontium that should
not be precipitated because of natural-
ly occurring radioactive material and
solids creation. Water can be reused,
especially if there are standards put
in place that allow the water quality
to be analyzed before it is reused. Salt
becomes an issue when the content
becomes too high. In this case, the salt
water is diluted with clean water, as
needed, to the desired specification.
Recently, governmental bodies in the
states of New York and Pennsylvania
have begun enacting enforcement
measures to regulate the waters used
in fracturing. These controls will
establish limits for various materi-
This article, written by Assistant Tech-
nology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
high lights of paper SPE 119900,
Crit ical Evaluations of Additives
Used in Shale Slickwater Fracs, by
P. Kaufman, SPE, and G.S. Penny,
SPE, CESI Chemical, and J. Paktinat,
SPE, Universal Well Services, originally
prepared for the 2008 SPE Shale Gas
Production Conference, Fort Worth,
Texas, 1618 November. The paper
has not been peer reviewed.
Critical Evaluation of Additives Used
in Shale Slickwater Fractures
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
Fig. 1Comparison of commercially available friction reducers 60 sec-
onds after injection into the flow loop.
56 JPT MARCH 2009
als contained in additives and waters
pumped into shale reservoirs.
Additives
Friction Reducers. With the success
of slickwater fractures, especially in the
Barnett shale, friction reducers have
grown in popularity. Friction reduc-
ers are used to decrease the frictional
pressure losses, allowing higher pres-
sure from the same number of pump
trucks. Common friction reducers are
polyacrylamide based and have a usual
loading range from 0.25 gal of friction
reducer per 1,000 gal (gpt) of water to
1 gpt of water. There are three types
of polyacrylamide friction reducers:
anionic, cationic, and nonionic. They
have thermal stability up to approxi-
mately 400F and readily decompose
above 550F. Chemical and thermal
degradation of the polymer reduces
its effectiveness.
Friction reducers can cause forma-
tion damage and may require a break-
er. Some breakers are delayed to allow
the friction to be reduced in the tubing
where it is most effective. Even low
concentrations of 0.25 gpt of water
results in 250 gal of potential polymer
damage. Once past the perforations,
the breaker will break the polymer to
reduce damage and encourage poly-
mer flowback. In a study of oxidative
breakers on a freshwater- and brine-
based polyacrylamide friction reducer
used in slickwater fracture treatments,
all breakers tested worked at 180F to
some extent. The results were generat-
ed using a technique called molecular-
weight cutoff and show that the per-
sulfate breakers worked best at 180F,
and they were effective at 100F at
concentration of 5 and 10 lbm per
1,000 gal of water. Flow loop data
showed no degradation of polymer at
a persulfate concentration of 1 gal per
1,000 gal of water up to 105F, nor did
the breaker have detrimental effects
on hydration of the polymer.
Care must be taken when selecting
a friction reducer. Fig.1 illustrates the
variations in commercially available
friction reducers. Six friction reduc-
ers were supplied by a major operat-
ing company for independent evalu-
ation. Flow was 5 gal/min through
a 50-ft-long 0.5-in.-outside-diameter,
0.402-inside-diameter tubing. Total
volume, including tank, was 5 gal.
Pressure ports were 10 ft apart, and
the concentration of friction reducer
was 0.25 gal/1,000 gal of fresh water
with 2 wt% potassium chloride (KCl).
Polymers hydrate at different rates.
At 20 seconds, the friction reduction
between the lowest and highest values
is roughly 50%. At 20 seconds the
polymer has made two complete pass-
es through the loop. At 10 minutes
(Fig. 2) (600 seconds), or 60 passes
through a progressing cavity pump,
the difference between the lowest and
highest values is roughly 20%.
Biocides. Biocides are used in slick-
water applications to prevent bacteria
growth and may alter the physical
characteristics of fluids, such as vis-
cosity, by degrading the polymer. The
degradation of the polymer can be
caused by free radicals, usually from
oxygen. Therefore, potentially, there is
a compatibility issue between oxygen
scavenger or biocide. Compatibility of
biocide with other chemicals such as
corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors,
polymers, and other well-treatment
fluids is critical. Some attributes nec-
essary for a biocide are safety, cost
effectiveness, compatibility with fluids
or other additives, and ease of han-
dling. In the well, bacteria can cause
other problems. These include, but are
not limited to, producing acid [acid-
producing bacteria (APB)], sulfate-
reducing bacteria (SRB), and produc-
tion of carbon dioxide and oxygen.
Common biocides are quaternary
amines, glutaraldehyde, and tetra-kis-
hydroxylmethylphosphonium sulfate.
A relative newcomer to oilfield appli-
cations is tetrahydro 3,5-dimethyl-
1,3,5-thiadiazinane-2-thione; this bio-
cide has been shown not to interfere
with friction reducer, is extremely
effective in killing APB, and is a broad-
spectrum biocide. It also is a longer-
term-kill biocide that is compatible
with oxygen scavengers.
Even if a biocide is effective in
killing, testing should be conducted
to determine compatibility of biocide
with the friction reducer. The reuse
of fracture water is of special concern
because of the potential amount of
bacteria in the produced water. Again,
these bacteria can attack the polymer
and reduce its effectiveness, and a reg-
istered biocide is recommended in the
fracture tank.
Scale Inhibitors. Calcium sulfate
and carbonate and barium sulfate can
cause scale problems if the concentra-
tion is sufficiently high, the pressure
differential is sufficiently high, and
the temperature is sufficiently low.
As the well is fractured, water dis-
solves minerals in the shale, and if
conditions are right, scale can form. If
produced water is used, then the prob-
lem of scale formation is exacerbated.
The dissolved salts potentially can
cause scale deposition. Many times
the flowback fluid is diluted with fresh
water to achieve the desired level of
salts such as those containing barium
and strontium.
Most available scale inhibitors are
phosponates and organophospho-
nates, which are anionic. This can cre-
ate incompatibilities with some addi-
tives such as friction reducers and clay
stabilizers. Some novel solutions to
this problem have been tried in recent
history. The organophosponates can
be reacted with calcium chloride to
Fig. 2Comparison of commercially available friction reducers 10 min-
utes after injection into the flow loop.
(Contd. on page 91)
JPT MARCH 2009 91
The inauguration of the SPE Surat Section took place on 17 November 2008. Pictured from left are: Manoj
Pandey, SPE Surat Section Secretary; Lal Chand Ram, General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation
(ONGC); Amar Jha, SPE Surat Section Program Chairperson; N.K. Mitra, SPE India Council Chairperson and
Director ONGC; Anil K. Johari, SPE Surat Section Chairperson; V.K. Yadav, General Manager, ONGC; and Amit
Dave, SPE Surat Section Treasurer.
render them insoluble, to pump from
the surface to the formation success-
fully. The insoluble material can be
made into the proppant matrix.
Proppants. The amount of proppants
used in slickwater fractures is relatively
small when compared to conventional
fractures. Selection of proppants is criti-
cal in a slickwater design. With the use
of extremely large volumes of water
(more than 5 million gal), proppant
placement can be an issue. In a study of
the placement of proppants in slickwa-
ter applications, findings showed that a
20/40-mesh lightweight proppant with
a specific gravity (SG) of 1.25 in viscosi-
fied 9.4 lbm/gal brine had virtually no
proppant settling. For proppant place-
ment, there are several factors to con-
sider when designing a fracture job: SG
of the fluid and proppant, slurry-flow
rate, and fluid viscosity.
Sand proppants with an SG of
approximately 2.6 should be rather
small to work in slickwater fractures.
The smaller the size of proppant, the
greater the transport, assuming all
other parameters are the same. The
higher the SG, the shorter the trans-
port, assuming the same size.
It must be considered that there is a
tradeoff between strength and SG of the
proppant. Sand typically has an SG of
approximately 2.6 and ceramics have
approximately 2.7. Recently, ultralight-
weight proppants have come onto the
market; they are a chemically modified
walnut shell with resin coating with a
measured 1.25 SG. There are limitations
to this material, however; it is usable to
5,000-psi closure stress and a tempera-
ture of 200F. A new generation of prop-
pant has an SG of 1.05, which is nearly
buoyant in slickwater, thus allowing
farther penetration into the fracture,
and it is being used in the Barnett shale.
Again, there are limitations to the use of
the product: 7,000-psi maximum clo-
sure stress and maximum temperature
of 225F. It is used in a partial-monolay-
er application.
Another recent advance in proppants
is lightweight 40/80-mesh ceramic that
has an SG and mesh designed specifi-
cally for slickwater applications. It has a
crush strength of 2% fines at 7,500 psi,
a 2.55 SG, and a roundness and sphe-
ricity of approximately 0.8. This prop-
pant exhibits a conductivity twice that
of resin-coated and white sand.
Clay Stabilizers. There is always a
question of whether or not a clay sta-
bilizer is required in the water pumped
into shales. An analysis of the shales in
the northeast US found that clay was
abundant, with the most abundant
being illite; the majority of the other
designation is quartz. The common
method of stabilizing clays has been to
add KCl, commonly 2 wt% KCl. Many
flow tests and capillary-suction-time
evaluations show that 2 wt% KCl has
a marginal effect on swelling clays.
To get the greatest benefit, tests show
4 wt% KCl often is better, but cost
then becomes the issue.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (Contd. from page 56)
JPT
58 JPT MARCH 2009
The full-length paper compares the
strengths, weaknesses, and limitations
of fracture modeling, production-data
analysis (PDA), pressure-transient
analysis (PTA), and numerical reservoir
modeling in estimating effective frac-
ture length and conductivity. The paper
also evaluates how the complexities (in
the hydraulic fracture) associated with
non-Darcy flow, multiphase flow, and
complex fracture geometries affect the
results from the various techniques.
The paper documents the significant
differences in effective fracture length
that, in many cases, can result from
each technique.
Introduction
Reliable estimates of fracture length
(i.e., created, propped, and producing
or effective) are necessary to consider
design changes in subsequent frac-
ture treatments to optimize the perfor-
mance of hydraulically fractured wells,
particularly in low-permeability reser-
voirs. The created fracture length is the
fracture length propagated during the
fracture treatment, while the propped
fracture length is the length supported
by proppant after the fracture closes.
The effective, or producing, length is
the length that is open or contribut-
ing to hydrocarbon production after
a fracture treatment. Increasing the
effective fracture length usually means
increased production.
Incorrect estimates of the effective
fracture length can lead to less-than-
optimal gas recovery and often contrib-
ute to modifications of fracturing designs
that may not result in improved well
productivity. It has been known that the
fracture lengths determined from frac-
ture modeling, PDA, PTA, and numeri-
cal reservoir modeling are not in agree-
ment with the created fracture lengths
obtained from fracture mapping.
Techniques for Determining
Fracture Properties
Fracture Modeling. Fracture mod-
eling (i.e., net-pressure analysis) can
provide information about fracture
length, height, width, and conductivity.
Fracture dimensions and conductivity
can be estimated from fracture model-
ing by matching the observed fractur-
ing net pressures (fracturing pressure
minus minimum rock stress, or clo-
sure pressure). The limitations of this
technique are that it typically provides
nonunique solutions, can be unreliable
if not calibrated, and requires baseline
rock and stress data.
Net-pressure history matching can
be implemented by adding new phys-
ics to fracture models. With the right
assumptions and physics, inferred
fracture geometry can be more reli-
able; however, inferred geometry
from net-pressure matching does
not always agree with directly mea-
sured geometry.
This article, written by Assistant Tech-
nology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
highlights of paper IPTC 12147,
Re solving Created, Propped, and
Effective Hydraulic-Fracture Length, by
C.L. Cipolla, SPE, E.P. Lolon, SPE,
and M.J. Mayerhofer, SPE, Pinnacle
Technologies, originally prepared
for the 2008 International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
35 December. The paper has not been
peer reviewed.
Copyright 2008 International Petroleum
Technology Conference. Reproduced by
permission.
Resolving Created, Propped, and Effective
Hydraulic-Fracture Length
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
Fig. 1Net-pressure history match.
Uncalibrated-Model
Net-Pressure Match
Time, minutes
Observed Net (psi)
Proppant Conc, Surf
Net Pressure (psi)
Slurry Rate
80.0 96.0 112.0 128.0 144.0 160.0
0
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
50.00
0
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
100.0
40.00 80.0
30.00 60.0
20.00 40.0
10.00 20.0
0.00 0.0
JPT MARCH 2009 59
PDA. PDA can be used to determine
reservoir characteristics, completion
effectiveness, and hydrocarbons in
place. Conventional decline-type-curve
analysis of production data is a viable
alternative for evaluating well perfor-
mance without shutting in the well.
Unlike pressure-transient-test analysis,
decline type curves do not rely upon
identification of characteristic flow
regimes for the analysis. As a result,
unique estimates of fracture half-length
cannot always be obtained, especially
when using poor-quality production
data. Other production analysis tech-
niques consider the production data
to be an extended drawdown test.
Accordingly, these techniques use
variable-rate pressure-transient-test-
ing theory and superposition plotting
functions to analyze the production
data. Unlike conventional decline-type-
curve-analysis techniques, these meth-
ods allow identification of specific flow
regimes. However, fracture properties
still cannot be quantified without an
estimate of reservoir permeability.
A critical element in the successful
application of the decline-type-curve
method is related directly to the fre-
quency and quality of the well produc-
tion data. Some advantages of this tech-
nique are that no shut-ins are required,
production data are readily available,
and analysis can be performed quickly.
PTA. Pressure-transient testing is an
effective technique for evaluating the
stimulation effectiveness of hydraulical-
ly fractured wells. However, knowledge
of reservoir permeability, either from a
prefracture well test or from an indepen-
dent source, usually is required to com-
pute fracture properties, especially in
low-permeability reservoirs. If a well is
shut in for a sufficient time to reach the
pseudoradial-flow period, then reservoir
permeability can be determined from a
post-fracture pressure buildup (PBU).
Unfortunately, wells completed in tight
gas sands usually require very long shut-
in times to reach pseudoradial flow. The
data required to characterize a hydrauli-
cally fractured well can require very
long buildup duration, and the buildup
response can be distorted in early time
by wellbore storage and in late time by
superposition. If there is an estimate of
reservoir permeability from an indepen-
dent source or from a prefracture PBU,
then shorter-duration PBU tests in tight
gas sands become practical.
PBU analysis is usually the most
reliable method for determining the
effective length of hydraulic fractures.
Unfortunately, discrepancies in the
results also are noted when using dif-
ferent analysis models (i.e., bilinear, lin-
ear, or pseudoradial). The application of
well-test data to evaluate fracture perfor-
mance can provide an independent esti-
mate of fracture length and conductivity.
Relative, or dimensionless, fracture con-
ductivity (the ratio of fracture conduc-
tivity to reservoir permeability) is easily
measured using a post-fracture PBU.
Numerical Reservoir Modeling.
Reservoir-simulation history matching
has proved to be useful for determining
effective fracture length. Uniqueness
problems common to simulator history
matching are minimized when trying
to match all test data obtained on the
well and the long-term production his-
tory of the well. Numerical reservoir
modeling is an excellent technique for
handling simultaneous effects of frac-
ture conductivity, reservoir boundaries,
multiphase and non-Darcy-flow effects,
and complex reservoir systems.
Case Histories
Taylor Cotton Valley. The fracturing
program in this field included different
types of water fracture and linear-gel
hybrid fracture treatments in the Taylor
Cotton Valley at depths of approximate-
ly 11,500 ft. Detailed production analy-
sis was performed to evaluate well per-
formance in conjunction with fracture-
geometry measurements provided by
microseismic fracture-mapping results,
calibrated fracture modeling, and direct
production-interference data, which
provided interesting insights into effec-
tive fracture lengths.
Microseismic fracture mapping indi-
cated that created fractures are very
long. There is compelling evidence
that effective hydraulic-fracture lengths
also are very long because immediate
well interference can be detected in
wells that are located along the fracture
orientation with very large interwell
distances. This means that there is a
conductive hydraulic-fracture path in
place over large distances, with frac-
tures overlapping and linking wells.
Production modeling indicates that the
permeability feeding the long hydraulic
fractures (perpendicular to fracture) is,
Fig. 2Fracture profile.
60 JPT MARCH 2009
on average, very low. The low perme-
ability and long fractures will create
elliptical drainage areas that should
be taken into consideration for well-
placement and -spacing strategies.
The evaluation of hydraulic-fracture
treatments must always be performed
in conjunction with a reservoir/produc-
tion evaluation. The integration of all
results from different techniques (in
this case, fracture mapping, fracture
modeling, and production analysis) is
crucial for hydraulic-fracture optimiza-
tion and for field-development strate-
gies and well placement. Production
modeling alone can be nonunique
when reservoir permeability is not well
defined. The reason for this nonunique
behavior is that early-time flow data
are partly influenced by cleanup of
hydraulic-fracturing fluid and the fact
that fracture length, fracture conduc-
tivity, and permeability all affect the
early-time flow behavior in a similar
manner and, given real field data, can-
not be distinguished clearly with com-
monly available daily flow rates and
flowing tubing pressures (FTPs). Using
the calibrated-fracture-model fracture
length of approximately 1,500 ft, pro-
duction data were matched with a
very-low permeability of 0.0005 md in
the well. To match the continued steep
decline in late-time production data,
a drainage area of only 11 acres was
used. It should be noted that this drain-
age area is not represented by physical
geological no-flow boundaries but may
just be apparent constant pressure
boundaries as a result of the extremely
low permeability. The approach of lim-
ited no-flow boundaries in the single-
well modeling does not reflect this
scenario fully, but it can describe the
fast rate declines effectively. Additional
reservoir modeling work illustrated the
issue of nonuniqueness if effective frac-
ture length were not known.
In many cases, the actual created
hydraulic-fracture length is not mea-
sured and fracture-model net-pressure
matching is the primary method to esti-
mate fracture length, both propped and
created. However, net-pressure matching
can be nonunique and will depend on
the assumptions used in the analysis.
The fracture-modeling results
emphasize that in many cases, signifi-
cant differences in fracture geometry
can result when the physics of frac-
ture propagation is uncertain. In this
example, a fracture length of 525 ft was
estimated assuming complex fracture
growth, compared to the actual length
of approximately 1,500 ft. If fracture
geometry can be determined from an
independent measurement such as
microseismic mapping, then the frac-
ture model can be calibrated by use
of appropriate approximations for the
physics that governs fracture growth in
a given geologic environment.
The effective fracture length and con-
ductivity can be estimated using pro-
duction analysis; however, production
analysis also suffers from nonunique
solutions when sufficient data are not
available. This analysis results in a very
good match of the production data using
a reservoir permeability of 0.001 md,
fracture half-length of 1,230 ft, and
a fracture conductivity of 100 md-ft.
However, a good match to the produc-
tion data also can be achieved using
a reservoir permeability of 0.004 md,
a fracture half-length of 535 ft, and
a fracture conductivity of 100 md-ft.
The production analysis illustrates the
uncertainty that can result when reser-
voir permeability is unknown, which is
common in many tight gas reservoirs.
Canyon Formation. The Canyon sand
in the Ozona field in west Texas is a
deepwater turbidite deposit character-
ized by numerous gas-productive mem-
bers with permeabilities from less than
0.001 md to more than 0.1 md. Typical
completions require fracture treatments
using water-based fluids containing
50,000 to 250,000 lbm of 20/40 sand to
achieve economic production rates.
Well OC-1 is a Canyon well perfo-
rated from 6,240 to 6,275 ft. The well
was drilled on 80-acre spacing, and a
prefracture well test was performed to
measure initial reservoir pressure and
permeability. The well was swabbed
dry and flowed for 7 days at 100 Mscf/D
and 15-psi FTP. Quartz pressure gaug-
es were placed in the well, and a bot-
tomhole plug was set in the tubing to
minimize wellbore storage. The log-
log diagnostic plot of the 7-day PBU
showed a permeability of 0.055 md
(43 ft of pay) and reservoir pressure of
2,550 psi (virgin reservoir pressure).
The well was fracture stimulated
down 4
1
/2-in.casing with crosslinked
gel with 30% carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and
20/40-mesh Ottawa sand. Diagnostic
tests were performed using 2% potas-
sium chloride water before the propped
treatment and indicated a closure stress
of 0.67 psi/ft. Net pressures in excess
of 650 psi were recorded during these
initial injections, even though only a
small volume of a low-viscosity fluid
was injected. The high net pressure was
an indication of complex fracturing.
The net-pressure data were history
matched to estimate fracture geometry,
and Fig. 1 shows the results. The figure
shows that the measured net pressure
ranged from 1,200 to 1,800 psi. The
high level of net pressure was matched
by assuming that multiple fractures were
being propagated, to simulate com-
plex fracturing. The predicted fracture
geometry is shown in Fig. 2, indicating
a propped fracture length of 210 ft with
an average proppant concentration of
1 lbm/ft
2
. It should be emphasized that
the high level of net pressure could
result from any number of phenomena,
and the assumption of multiple fractures
is not a unique solution. Therefore, it is
important to verify fracture geometry
independently to ensure that the frac-
ture model is reliable.
Well OC-1 was produced for 60 days
and then shut in at the surface for a
14-day PBU. The average rate before the
PBU was 450 Mscf/D at 550-psi FTP.
The calculated fracture length is 180 ft,
but the fracture conductivity (F
cD
=1.8)
is very low. The low fracture conductiv-
ity was not expected, on the basis of
fracture-modeling results that indicated
good placement of more than 1 lbm/ft
2

of proppant. The measured F
cD
implies
approximately 98% damage to the prop-
pant pack, or only 2% retained conduc-
tivity. Therefore, fracture-fluid damage
is excessive, cleanup is slower than
expected, or proppant placement must
be poorer than predicted by the fracture
model. The CO
2
-energized fluid was
expected to improve cleanup. Finding
the cause of the poor fracture conduc-
tivity was essential to improve future
fracture treatments.
A second post-fracture PBU was per-
formed after 3 years of production.
Production rate had declined from 500
to 100 Mscf/D in the 3-year period. The
analysis indicates a fracture half-length
of 220 ft (similar to the first test) but
now shows good fracture conductivity.
The results of the second post-frac-
ture PBU now support the fracture-
modeling estimates of both fracture
length and conductivity. Therefore,
fracture cleanup must be slower than
expected, with no proppant-placement
problems evident. JPT
JPT MARCH 2009
61
There has been an increase in the
number of wells drilled to depths
greater than 20,000 ft in the Gulf of
Mexico (GOM). Because of the high
fracture gradient and friction in the
wellbore tubulars, a conventional 1.0-
to 1.04-specific-gravity (SG) fracturing
fluid would require surface treating
pressures greater than 15,000 psi,
which exceeds the limit of the flexible
treatment line. To solve this problem,
a borate-crosslinked high-density frac-
turing (HDF) fluid with SG of up to 1.38
was developed to reduce the amount
of surface treating pressure required to
achieve adequate bottomhole fractur-
ing pressure.
Introduction
The Tahiti field is in the GOM in the
Green Canyon area where water depths
range from 4,000 to 4,300 ft. The dis-
covery well was drilled in 2002. Total
depth was more than 28,000 ft. Initial
evaluation indicated approximately
400 ft of net pay in the high-quality
reservoir sand that was encountered.
Subsequent appraisal drilling over the
next 2 years resulted in confirmation
of the size of the Tahiti field and its
status as one of the most significant
net-pay accumulations ever discov-
ered in the GOM. The discovery well
was re-entered in 2004, and a well test
was performed to verify deliverabil-
ity, dynamic well data, and reservoir
properties. A stacked frac pack in the
Miocene M21A and M21B sands was
planned for the well test. The Tahiti
M21A sand averages 60 to 80 ft thick,
and the M21B sand averages 120 to
150 ft thick. Permeability ranges from
600 to 800 md. The decision was
made to complete both intervals with
a single, high-rate frac pack. At the
time, at a depth in excess of 25,800 ft,
it was the deepest successful well test
and frac-pack completion ever carried
out in the GOM. The HDF fluid was
a key component of the successful
Tahiti well test. The well-test results
led to the development of the Tahiti
field, which began in February 2006.
While planning the Tahiti well test,
several factors influenced the deci-
sion to develop a suitable HDF fluid
that would minimize surface treating
pressures and allow the fracture job
to be pumped at pressures below the
14,000-psi limit. Uncertainty regard-
ing Miocene-pay-sand fracture gra-
dients, and required treating rates,
coupled with high friction losses in
the treating string led to the desire to
find an HDF fluid that would allow
the fractures to be pumped at 40 to 45
bbl/min while staying within surface-
treating-pressure limitations.
The initial Miocene-pay-sand frac-
ture-gradient estimates ranged from
0.78 to 0.85 psi/ft. At 26,000 ft true
vertical depth (TVD), the fracture-gra-
dient estimate resulted in a 1,800 psi
swing in treating pressure. Because
the Tahiti Miocene sand had never
been frac packed before, fracture-flu-
id efficiency was an unknown, as
was required treating rate to com-
pletely fracture the M21A and M21B
sands. The estimated net-pressure gain
ranged from 600 to 1,500 psi. If all
the variables tended to the high side,
then the Miocene sand could not be
fractured with a conventional 8.7-
lbm/gal fracture fluid and stay within
This article, written by Assistant Tech-
nology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
highlights of paper SPE 116007,
Development and Use of High-Density
Fracturing Fluid in Deep Water Gulf
of Mexico Frac and Packs, by L.
Rivas, SPE, G. Navaira, SPE, and
B. Bourgeois, SPE, Chevron, and B.
Waltman, SPE, P. Lord, SPE, and
T. Goosen, SPE, Halliburton, origi-
nally prepared for the 2008 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, 2124 December. The paper
has not been peer reviewed.
Development and Use of High-Density Fracturing
Fluid for Deepwater Frac Packs
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
Fig. 1Regained-permeability-test results.
62 JPT MARCH 2009
the 14,000-psi surface-treating-pres-
sure limit.
Fluid Development
Shear-History Testing. The first series
of tests evaluated fluid sensitivity to
the tubing shear experienced during
the pumping operation. These tests
simulated the tubing shear history
that an element of fluid would experi-
ence if it were pumped at 35 bbl/min
from the surface to the perforations
(510 sec
1
for 14.7 minutes). Spotting
the fluid to the crossover tool at 8 bbl/
min was simulated with a shear rate of
127 sec
1
for 52 minutes. Shifting the
tool was simulated by shutting down
for 5 minutes before adjusting the
shear rate to 510 sec
1
. Fig. 1 illus-
trates the shear history and tempera-
ture profile simulated with the Fann
Model 50 viscometer testing. Fig. 1
shows that the fluid recovered from
the shear, which is not always the case
with borate fluids subjected to a shear
history this long.
Regained-Permeability Testing. The
HDF fluid tested was prepared using
11.5-lbm/gal sodium bromides as the
base fluid. The formation core plugs
were maintained at the test tem-
perature throughout the test by use
of a heating jacket. Once the core
plugs were heated to temperature,
synthetic formation brine was passed
through the plugs in the production
direction at a rate of 5 mL/min. Brine
flow was continued until the pres-
sure drop (DP) across the plugs re-
mained constant.
An overburden pressure of 1,300 psi
was maintained on the Hassler sleeve
throughout the test. A backpressure
regulator set at 200 psi was placed on
the discharge side of the core plugs. A
second backpressure regulator set at
1,100 psi was placed on the intake side
of the core plug. This maintained a
maximum differential pressure across
the core plug of 900 psi. Once the
differential pressure across the core
plug reached 900 psi, fluid not passing
through the core plug was discharged
from the flow apparatus through the
backpressure regulator on the intake
side of the plug.
Three Tahiti core plugs approxi-
mately 1.5 in. in diameter were used
for the test. Two plugs were mounted
in a stacked sequence in the Hassler
sleeve to ensure linear flow through
the plugs. Synthetic brine was pumped
through the plugs in the production
direction, and the permeability was
calculated. The third plug then was
mounted in the stacked sequence to
ensure linear flow through the plugs.
A spacer was placed at the wellbore
end of the third plug, with the void
space provided by the spacer giving
the treating fluid the capacity to form
a dynamic filter cake. Synthetic brine
was pumped through the plugs in the
production direction, and the perme-
ability was calculated.
The crosslinked HDF fluid with
breaker was flowed through the appa-
ratus in the treatment direction at
a rate of 5 mL/min for a period of 1
hour at 90-psi pressure differential.
The fluid formed an effective seal
against the face of the core plug
very rapidly, preventing fluid flow
through the plug. The excess fluid
flowing over the wellbore face of the
core plug was discharged from the
apparatus through the backpressure
regulator on the intake side of the
core plug. The plugs then were shut
in, and the temperature was increased
slowly to 180F. After 12 hours, the
temperature was increased to 208F.
After 48 hours, the synthetic forma-
tion brine was flowed in the produc-
tion direction at a rate of 5 mL/min.
Flow was continued until the pressure
differential across the plugs remained
constant. A final permeability then
was established and a regained perme-
ability calculated.
To further evaluate the regained
permeability of core away from the
formation face, the first core in the
injection sequence, where the frac-
ture-fluid filter cake was deposited,
was removed from the Hassler sleeve.
The synthetic formation brine then
was flowed through the remaining
two cores in the production direction
at a rate of 5 mL/min. Flow was con-
tinued until the pressure differential
across the formation plugs remained
constant. A final permeability then
was established and a regained perme-
ability calculated.
The regained permeability for the
stack of three core plugs was 52%.
After the regained permeability for
the stack of three core plugs was
determined, the first core plug (i.e.,
the core with the fracturing-fluid filter
cake) was removed and the regained
permeability for the stack of remain-
S P E S E R V I C E D I R E C T O R Y
SPE Online www.spe.org
Awards Program
Contact: Tom Whipple
Phone: 1.972.952.9452 Email: twhipple@spe.org
Regional/Sectional Awards Program
Contact: Brian Wiggins
Phone: 1.972.952.9451 Email: bwiggins@spe.org
Books, Papers, Software Sales
Phone: 1.800.456.6863 or 1.972.952.9393
Email: books@spe.org
Conference Programs
Contact: Wayne Spence
Phone: 1.972.952.9449 Email: wspence@spe.org
Continuing Education/Short Courses
Contact: Chiwila Mumba-Black
Phone: 1.972.952.1114 Email: cmumba@spe.org
Distinguished Lecturer Program
Contact: Donna Neukum
Phone: 1.972.952.9454 Email: dneukum@spe.org
Dues, Membership Information, Address Changes,
and Copyright Permission
Phone: 1.800.456.6863 or 1.972.952.9393
Email: service@spe.org
Exhibit Space Sales
Contact: Joan Payne
Phone: 1.972.952.9356 Email: jpayne@spe.org
Contact: Jim Klingele
Phone: 1.713.779.9595, ext. 612 Email: jklingele@spe.org
Contact: Kirk Colligan
Phone: 1.972.952.9516 Email: kcolligan@spe.org
Insurance, Credit Card Programs
Contact: Alyssa Moreno
Phone: 1.972.952.9439 Email: amoreno@spe.org
JPT Employment/Professional Services
Contact: Mary Jane Touchstone
Phone: 1.972.952.9351 Email: mtouchstone@spe.org
JPT/JPT Online Advertising Sales
Contact: Jim Klingele
Phone: 1.713.779.9595, ext. 612 Email: jklingele@spe.org
Journal of Petroleum Technology
Contact: John Donnelly
Phone: 1.713.779.9595, ext. 616 Email: jdonnelly@spe.org
Meeting Registration
Phone: 1.800.456.6863 or 1.972.952.9393
Email: registration@spe.org
Peer Review
Contact: Stacie Hughes
Phone: 1.972.952.9343 Email: shughes@spe.org
Periodicals, Book Publication
Contact: Glenda Smith
Phone: 1.972.952.9470 Email: gsmith@spe.org
Professional Development Services
Contact: Tom Whipple
Phone: 1.972.952.9452
Email: twhipple@spe.org
Section Service
Contact: Brian Wiggins
Phone: 1.972.952.9451 Email: sections@spe.org
SPE Website
Contact: Doug Lauver
Phone: 1.972.952.9519 Email: dlauver@spe.org
Subscriptions
Phone: 1.800.456.6863 or 1.972.952.9393
Email: service@spe.org
Technical Interest Groups
Contact: Shasta Stephenson
Phone: 1.972.952.9514 Email: sstephenson@spe.org
Young Member Programs
Contact: Melissa Schultea
Phone: +44.207.299.3300
Email: mschultea@spe.org
JPT MARCH 2009
ing two core plugs was determined.
This regained permeability was
approximately 84%, indicating that
most of the damage was confined to
the first core plug. These regained-
permeability values are in agreement
with values reported in the literature
for nonweighted, borate-crosslinked
frac-packing fluids.
Compatability Testing. Samples were
combined at room temperature at a
50:50 ratio and stirred for 1 minute.
Test samples were observed for 15
minutes and checked 1 and 2 hours
later. No precipitates were observed
when zinc bromide completion fluid
was mixed with a broken HDF fluid,
a crosslinked HDF fluid, or a linear
HDF fluid.
Treatment Results
As of July 2008, 17 jobs have been
pumped with the HDF fluid. Of these
jobs, 12 treatments were performed in
the GOM. The development and first
use of the HDF fluid was for the Tahiti
well-test completion in 2004. The
second use was in 2006. Subsequent
treatments were performed on the
Tahiti development-project comple-
tions. Water depths ranged from 4,000
to 6,900 ft. The measured depth of the
perforated interval ranged from 25,000
to 28,000 ft, and TVD ranged from
23,000 to 28,000 ft. Bottomhole pres-
sure ranged from 19,000 to 19,800 psi,
and bottomhole temperature ranged
from 229 to 235F. Treatments ranged
from 15 to 45 bbl/min, with 50,000
to 490,000 lbm of total proppant
pumped per treatment.
There were many positive results
seen with the use of the HDF fluid.
The largest and most obvious benefit
is lower surface treating pressures.
The HDF fluid substantially reduced
surface treating pressures. Surface
pressures were reduced by 22 to 39%.
Actual surface pressures ranged from
5,700 to 10,800 psi. The surface treat-
ing pressures were predicted with 83
to 99% accuracy. Friction for the HDF
fluid was similar to that of 8.7-lbm/gal
fracturing fluids. Without the reduc-
tion in surface treating pressures,
these treatments could not have been
pumped because of pressure limita-
tions on the current surface equip-
ment and tubulars.
The HDF fluid also maintained
physical properties under storage
conditions for 3 months at 80F with-
out compromise or degradation. The
operator realized significant savings
by storing the fluid leftover after a
job and using it for the next job. The
performance of the stored fluid also
was similar to that of 8.7-lbm/gal
fracturing fluids, showing no adverse
effects during the minifracture, step-
rate test, or main fracture. Typical
redesign parameters were obtained,
fracture models were calibrated, and
job redesign was executed. The HDF
fluid also allowed for better sus-
pension of higher-strength, higher-
SG proppants.
Well Performance
Flowbacks to the rig were conducted
after the first four development wells
were completed. Three of the four
wells had at least 3 months time
between running the completions and
opening the well to production. The
fourth well was opened immediately
after the completion activities.
On the basis of flowing data and
pressure-transient analysis performed
on the buildup at the end of the
flowbacks, there were no adverse
effects evident as a result of the
HDF fluid being injected into this
high-permeability sand. Also, by
comparing the skins of the wells that
were allowed to sit before flowback
to that of the well that was flowed
back immediately after completion,
there appears to be no additional
damage to the formation by allowing
the HDF fluid to remain in the
formation for an extended period
of time.
The well that was flowed back
immediately after completion exhib-
ited a normal rate of cleanup (reduc-
tion in water cut) as compared to
other GOM well cleanups with simi-
lar permeability. An examination of
the oil flowback did not indicate any
abnormal emulsions because of the
HDF fluid. Overall, the performance
was very good for these wells. The
skin ranges seen after the flowbacks
were in line with precompletion esti-
mates and with the range of skin
achieved on other GOM frac-packed
completions. The cleanup of the wells
was in line with the trends observed
in other GOM frac-packed comple-
tions. No abnormal emulsions were
observed in the oil flowed back to the
rig from these completions. JPT