Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
DOI 10.1007/s12665-017-6399-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Shale gas fracturing using foam-based fracturing fluid: a review
W. A. M. Wanniarachchi1 P. G. Ranjith1 M. S. A. Perera1,2
Received: 27 May 2015 / Accepted: 3 January 2017 / Published online: 19 January 2017
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Abstract World energy resources are depleting at an
alarming rate, and natural gas has been identified as an
environmentally friendly energy resource, with shale gas
being one option. However, the extremely low permeability
of shale plays has caused them to fail to produce a com-
mercially viable amount of gas. Therefore, appropriate
production enhancement techniques, including hydro-frac-
turing, are required. This paper reviews the research on shale
gas production enhancement using foam-based hydro-frac-
turing and focuses on research on shale deposit distribution
around the world, the importance of shale gas recovery,
major shale gas recovery enhancement techniques, the
effectiveness of foam-based fracturing depending on the
foam type used and the formation properties, advantages and
limitations of foam-based fracturing compared to other flu-
ids, and existing experimental and numerical studies and
field studies. According to the available experimental and
modelling studies on foam fracturing, N2-based foams are
stronger than CO2-based foams. The effective viscosity that
controls the foam rheology decreases with increasing tem-
perature and decreasing pressure and foam quality, and
fracture length reduces and fracture width increases with
increasing foam quality. Although this technique has been
tested in few shale plays worldwide, most studies have been
performed in the USA and Canada. Therefore, the foam
fracturing technique is still comparatively novel for other
countries around the world.
& P. G. Ranjith
ranjith.pg@monash.edu
1 quantities of shale gas in the world, extraction is a chal-
Deep Earth Energy Laboratory, Department of Civil
Engineering, Monash University, Building 60, Melbourne,
VIC 3800, Australia
2
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of
Melbourne, Building 176, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
Keywords Shales  Foam-based fracturing  Shale gas 
Numerical studies  Experimental studies  Field
applications
Introduction
The worlds energy resources are critically depleting day
by day, creating a problematic future for human beings.
This has led scientists and researchers to explore new
energy production methods, and natural gas is an option
that can be used in a variety of ways (EIA 2011). Natural
gas can be subdivided into two main categories: (1) con-
ventional gas, which is trapped in structures in rocks and is
produced through folding and/or faulting of sedimentary
layers, and (2) unconventional gas, which is trapped in
highly impermeable rock deposits. Shale gas, coal gas,
tight gas and methane hydrate are some types of uncon-
ventional gas, and shale gas has been considered here
owing to its comparatively wide availability. According to
the prediction of the EIA, 46% of the USA natural gas
supply will come from shale basins by 2035 (Stevens
2012). Figure 1 shows the worldwide distribution of shale
gas/oil resources (EIA 2013), and Fig. 2 shows the top 10
countries with technically recoverable shale gas. Due to
this wide availability, the development of large-scale shale
gas production is changing the world energy market by
generating expanded interest in the use of natural gas in
sectors such as electricity generation and transportation.
According to the CSIRO (2014), although there are large
lenge. This is because they are trapped in highly imper-
meable rock formations and it is therefore necessary to use
advanced techniques such as fracturing to extract an eco-
nomically viable amount of gas from these formations
123
91 Page 2 of 15 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91

Legend
Assessed basins with resource
esmate
Assessed basins without resource
esmate

Fig. 1 Map of basins with assessed shale oil and shale gas formations, as of May 2013. Source: EIA report 2013technically recoverable shale
oil and shale gas resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the USA

1,200 1,115
Shale Gas (trillion cubic feet)

physical properties such as density, Youngs modulus,

1,000
802
800 707 665
600
573 545
437
400
200
0 and temperatures it has undergone and its buried time. A
Country
Fig. 2 Top 10 countries with technically recoverable shale gas
resources. Source: EIA report 2013technically recoverable shale oil
and shale gas resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41
countries outside the USA
(some countries including USA and Canada were able to
extract significant amount of gas through fracturing)
(Curtis 2002). The effective application of fracturing
requires a compressive knowledge of shales physical
properties. Table 1 shows some major physical properties
of two shale plays (Mortezaei and Vahedifard 2014; Gu
and Mohanty 2014). As the table shows, although they are
commonly less porous and permeable than other reservoir
rocks such as sandstone and siltstone, the physical prop-
erties of shales vary greatly, according to the stresses and
temperatures to which they have been subjected. The
shear modulus and Poissons ratio of any shale play are
also highly dependent on its mineral composition (e.g.
quartz, illite, calcite, feldspars and pyrite). This can even
390 differ at various locations of the same shale play due to the
285 245 highly heterogeneous nature of shale mass formations from
buried organic matter, depending on the degree of stresses
shale mass mainly consists of high amounts of quartz, illite
and calcite and small quantities of feldspars, pyrite, phos-
phate and gypsum. The quartz, clay (primarily illite) and
calcite percentages can vary from 10 to 60%, 10 to 50%
and 0 to 50%, respectively, and the percentages of feld-
spars, pyrite, phosphate and gypsum are around 7, 5, 1 and
1%, respectively (Bruner and Smosna 2011). Depending on
the mineral composition, the physical properties of shale
mass change. For example, shales with high quartz and low
clay contents are brittle in nature (high Youngs modulus
and low Poissons ratio) and, therefore, suitable for some
production enhancement techniques such as hydro-frac-
turing. Therefore, as Sliwinski et al. (2010) state, rock
mineralogy is a critical shale property that governs its
physical properties and, therefore, gas production from it.
Successful enhancement of shale gas production from a
selected shale gas reservoir therefore needs a comprehen-
sive knowledge on various well stimulation techniques in
gas recovery and associated influencing factors, including

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91 Page 3 of 15 91

Table 1 Physical properties of

Parameter Mortezaei and Vahedifard (2014) Gu and Mohanty (2014)
some shale plays
Youngs modulus [E (GPa)] 30
Shear modulus [G (GPa)] 14
Poissons ratio (m) 0.2 0.2
Friction angle [u0 (deg.)]
Density (kg/m3) 2700
Permeability [k (lD)] 0.1 1
Porosity ([) 0.01 0.04

shale reservoir properties. This study has been aimed to
obtain such knowledge on usage of foam-based fluids for
well stimulation process in shale gas recovery. A com-
prehensive review was done on shale gas recovery through
foam-based fracturing including (1) hydraulic fracturing
with different type of fluids, (2) foam-based fluid fractur-
ing, (3) advantages and disadvantages of foam-based fluid
fracturing and (4) up-to-date experimental, numerical and
filed scale works on foam-based fracturing.
Shale gas recovery
Precise understanding of shale gas recovery process should
involve proper knowledge on potential gas storage mech-
anisms in shale gas reservoirs. There are two main gas
storage mechanisms in shales: (1) as an adsorbed gas in
organic matrix pores and (2) as a free gas in pores and
natural fractures, where a significant portion (2085%) of
the gas is stored as an adsorbed phase (Vermylen 2011).
Traditionally, shale gas extraction has been performed
through vertical drilling of gas wells into shale deposits.
However, only a small portion (\20%) of existing shale
gas can be recovered by this method, due to the extremely
low permeability of shale formations. This can be con-
firmed by looking at the values of recoverable shale gas
percentage from the available total gas, in various shale gas
reservoirs (Table 2). Table 2 clearly illustrates that only
20% of the gas can be extracted at present (EIA
2011, 2013). Therefore, new production enhancement
techniques have been tested, including horizontal well
drilling and hydro-fracturing, which have been found to be
profitable for the extraction of natural gas from deep
underground shale rock formations (Pacala and Socolow
2004; Waters et al. 2009).
Among the various shale gas production-accelerating
techniques (such as blasting and hydro-fracturing), hydro-
fracturing has been considered here with its unique effi-
ciencies (Li et al. 2012; Wanniarachchi et al. 2015;
Davletbaev et al. 2015). In hydro-fracturing, a vertical well
is first drilled to the shale layer, as with the conventional
method, and then, horizontal drilling is performed within
the shale layer. Finally, fracturing fluids such as water,
carbon dioxide, nitrogen, foams or energized fluids are
injected into the well under sufficient pressure to create
fractures in the shale deposit. This fracturing process
involves two main stages: (1) a large planar hydraulic
fracture is first created perpendicular to the minimum
horizontal stress direction, and (2) during tensile opening
of this major fracture, significant numbers of micro-earth-
quakes are generated through shear failure in the sur-
rounding intact reservoir rock (Vermylen 2011), resulting
fracture networks in the shale play. Such micro-earth-
quakes cause enhancement of the pore pressure of the
surrounding rocks that consequently cause pre-existing
weak planes to open in them, which negatively affect the
long-term stability of the gas production process (Palisch
et al. 2008). Various types of fractures (tensile, shear and
hybrid) can be generated in the reservoir rock during the
hydraulic fracturing process (Fig. 3), and interconnection
of those fracture may eventually create an effective fracture
network (Tingxue et al. 2011). This fracture network
reduces the tortuosity for shale gas movement and there-
fore increases the reservoirs permeability [refer to Fig. 4

Table 2 Shale formation details with recoverable gas amount

Basin Formation Average Average Estimated gas Recoverable gas % of Recoverable
depth (m) thickness (m) amount (Tcf) amount (Tcf) gas

Appalachian Fold Belt Utica 1500 300 155 31 20

East and West Canada Duvernay 3500 250 483 113 23
Sabinas Eagle ford shale 3500 80 501 100 20
Cooper Nappamerri 3100 30 307 89 29
Canning Goldwyer 4000 400 1227 235 19

123
91 Page 4 of 15
1 fluids are more effective in very low permeability (\1 lD)
(a)
2 fracturing fluids for shale hydro-fracturing, including oil,
3 acid, alcohol, emulsion and foam-based fluids. Table 3
(b)
2
3 (c)
(c)
(b) (a)
1 effective. Furthermore, gases like CO2 and N2 can be used
Fig. 3 Types of fractures during hydraulic fracturing
10
At peak stress
At 60% failure stress
Permeability (D)
1
0.1
Fracture density (#/mm)
Fig. 4 Variation of permeability with fracture density
(Mitchell and Faulkner 2012)], ensuring an economical gas
extraction rate. However, sealing off the generated frac-
tures after releasing the applied pressure due to the high
in situ stresses applied to the shale mass is one of the major
issues in this technique (Vermylen 2011). As a result,
proppants (such as sand, ceramics and resin-coated prop-
pants) are normally injected with the fracturing fluid into
the shale mass to prop open the created fractures after
releasing the applied pressure.
The first reported fracture treatments were performed
using gelled crude as fracturing fluid, and later, gelled
kerosene was used (Montgomery and Smith 2010). At the
end of 1952, refined and crude oils began to be used as
fracturing fluids because of their low cost. Later, in 1953,
surfactant mixed with water began to be used as the frac-
turing fluid to minimize the emulsion (fine droplets of one
liquid in another liquid) with the formation fluid (Mont-
gomery and Smith 2010). Application of water-based
fracturing fluids is currently more common in the shale gas
reservoir fracturing. However, various types of water-based
fracturing fluids have been introduced in the field with the
evolution through few decades, where there are 03 main
water-based fracturing fluids: (1) slickwater (water with
small amounts of added chemicals) fracturing, (2) cross-
linked fluids and (3) viscoelastic surfactant (VES) gel flu-
ids. According to the past studies, water-based fracturing
123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
shale reservoirs. Apart from water-based fluids, investors
Tensile fracture have become interested in the use of non-water-based
Hybrid fracture provides a summary of the different types of fracturing
fluids.
Some gases, such as CO2 and N2, have also been tested
Shear fracture
for use as fracturing fluids (Li et al. 2015), particularly for
shallow formations, and they have been found to be cost-
in water-sensitive formations to avoid water interaction
issues, and N2 is especially useful to avoid and reduce
swelling in shale clay minerals in the presence of water due
to its potential for swelling recoverability (Gandossi 2013).
The use of gases as fracturing fluids has the unique
advantage of eliminating water usage with minimal
chemical application. However, the limited capacity to
transport proppants is a major drawback. In addition, the
potential leakage of gases such as CO2 may cause envi-
ronmental issues. Considering all these issues, it is neces-
sary to have better fracturing fluids with the advantageous
properties of both liquid and gas. Such fluids will incor-
porate the advantages of both phases and avoid the issues
of each, and foam has been found to be such a fracturing
fluid.
Foam-based fluid fracturing
During the foam-based fracturing process, foam is used as
the fracturing fluid, and the foams are generated by com-
bining two phases (e.g. liquid ? gas), mostly at the frac-
turing site. In addition to these two main phases,
surfactants are used to maintain the stability of the foam,
which creates a better bonding between the two phases
(Montgomery 2013a). After the foam preparation, some
amount of proppant is mixed with the foam, and this
mixture is injected into the shale through an injection well
at a pre-determined pressure (Fig. 5). Depending on the
phases selected, foams can be categorized into three main
types (see Table 4).
Of the various types of potential foams for hydro-frac-
turing, water-based foam is the most commonly used due to
its wide availability and lower technology requirement.
However, water-based foams can create significant swel-
ling in the shale matrix, greatly reducing the shale mass
pore space for gas movement (Edrisi and Kam 2012).
Under these highly tortuous, low permeability conditions,
shale gas production is greatly reduced. However, such
risks can be easily pre-identified by knowing the clay
minerals present in the shale rock mass, as they are the
effective agents for the swelling process (Lal 1999). On the
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91 Page 5 of 15 91

Table 3 Comparison of different types of fracturing fluids

Fluid type Properties at Advantages Disadvantages Remarks References
ambient
conditions

Slickwater q = 1000 kg/m3 Reduced well damage Poor proppant-carrying 99.5% Consists of water, and rest Sun et al.
l = 0.0020 Pa s Cost containment capacity are chemicals (friction (2014a, b)
Large freshwater consumption reducers, pH-adjusting agents) Mohanty et al.
Higher stimulated
reservoir volume Large wastewater generation Cannot be used in water-sensitive (2009)
formations Gandossi
Better fracture Environmental issues
containment (2013)
Cross-linked q = 950 kg/m3 Better proppant-carrying Limited fracture network 99% Consists of water, and rest Gandossi
fluid l = 0.55 Pa s capacity propagation are chemical additives such as (2013)
Reduced well damage Large freshwater consumption cross-linkers (B, Zr, Ti, Al)
Cost containment Large wastewater generation Can be used in high temperature
formations
Higher stimulated Environmental issues
reservoir volume
Better fracture
containment
Viscoelastic q = 600 kg/m3 Higher permeability in Limited fracture network Consists of water, salts and ionic Gupta (2011)
surfactant l = 0.50 Pa s the oil-bearing zone propagation surfactants Gandossi
fluid Better proppant-carrying High costs of the surfactants Can be used in low temperature (2013)
capacity Low tolerance to salts formations Sun et al.
Reduced well damage Unstable against high (2014a, b)
higher viscosifier temperatures Fink (2015)
recovery after fracturing Lu et al. (2015)
Oil-based fluid q = 850 kg/m3 Reduced water usage Unnecessarily induced high Crude oil, kerosene, diesel and Gandossi
l = 0.10 Pa s Reduced logistic works viscosity due to gelling liquid petroleum gas (LPG) are (2013)
Economically not efficient some examples Montgomery
Higher recovery rates
Higher capital cost Suitable for water-sensitive (2013b)
Rapid well clean-up formations
High flammability risk
Acid-based fluid q = 1200 kg/m3 Reduced proppant usage Economically not efficient Hydrochloric, acetic and formic EPA (2004b)
l = 0.002 Pa s Reduced water usage Cannot be used in high acids are some examples Gandossi
carbonate reservoirs Suitable for formations overlaid (2013)
Rapid acid reaction with the by limestone formations
formation
Alcohol-based q = 800 kg/m3 Rapid well clean-up 34 Times expensive than Methyl and isopropyl alcohol are Donaldson
fluid l = 0.0005 Pa s Corrosion or scale water-based fluids some examples et al. (2014)
inhibition Safety issues due to Suitable for low-permeable dry Saba et al.
Friction reduction flammability gas formations and water- (2012)
Poor proppant-carrying sensitive formations Gandossi
capacity (2013)
Higher vapour density
Emulsion-based q = 750 kg/m3 Reduced water usage Economically not efficient Emulsion is a mixture of non- Gandossi
fluid l = 0.75 Pa s Fewer additive Higher logistic requirement mixable liquids (2013)
requirement Suitable for low pressure Jha et al. (2014)
Increased the productivity formations Laurain (2014)
of the well
Foam-based q = 250 kg/m3 Reduced water usage Higher initial cost Foam is a mixture of liquid and Gu and
fluid l = 0.15 Pa s Reduced waste water Higher logistic requirements gas Mohanty
generation Suitable for water-sensitive (2014)
Viscosity reduction in high
Reduced formation temperatures formations Gupta et al.
damage (2004)
Higher proppant-carrying Sun et al.
capacity (2014a, b)
Recyclable and reusable Fink (2013)
Reduced environmental Cawiezel and
damage Niles (1987)

123
91 Page 6 of 15
Fig. 5 Foam-based fluid
fracturing technique
Table 4 Types of foams with constituents and uses (EPA 2004a)
Type of foam Main constituents
Water-based foams Water ? foaming surfactant ? N2(gas) or CO2(gas)
Acid-based foams Acid ? foaming surfactant ? N2(gas)
Alcohol-based foams Methanol ? foaming surfactant ? N2(gas)
basis of all these facts, it is clear that a comprehensive
knowledge of the foam type used and the formation is
necessary to achieve an effective fracturing process.
Foam production
The initial step of the foam-based fracturing should be
onsite production of foam with the required foam quality
(percentage of gas in the foam by volume) for an effective
hydro-fracturing process. In the foam production process,
internal and external phases (i.e. gas phase and liquid
phase) and a suitable foaming surfactant are mixed toge-
ther. First, the surfactant is carefully mixed with the
external phase (Gajbhiye and Kam 2011), and then, the
prepared external phase (with added surfactant) and an
internal phase are simultaneously injected into a pipe
connected to the wellbore. The foam can be injected at a
required foam quality, which is dependent on the per-
centage of the internal phase (gas) in the foam and can be
quantified using Eq. 1 (Gajbhiye and Kam 2011), assuming
only liquid and gas phases exist in the foam. According to
123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
Used for
Low pressure formations
Low pressure water-sensitive formations
Low pressure formations with water-blocking problems
up-to-date laboratory research work (Sun et al. 2014a, b;
Eren 2004), foam generators (a device with series of inline
screens) with an appropriate surfactant can be used for an
effective foam production process. The appropriateness of
the foaming surfactant is dependent on its ionic properties
(the behaviour of the surfactant in ionic state), and this is
further discussed in the next sections.
Vf  Vl
Q  100 1
Vf
where Q is the foam quality, Vf is the total volume of foam,
and Vl is the volume of liquid in the foam in the limit of
Vl \ Vf.
When using foam generators, liquid and gas are co-injected
into the foam generator. The only difference in this method
compared to the former one is the use of a foam generator to
create artificial turbulence within the pipeline to more effi-
ciently create a homogeneous foam. This foam is then mixed
with some proppants and injected into the wellbore. Proppants
are mixed with the foam just before injection into a deep well
to avoid clogging inside the foam generator and pipelines.
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
Another important foam parameter is its texture, the
degree of internal phase dispersion within the external
phase (Reidenbach et al. 1986). At the stage of fixed foam
quality, foams are commonly divided into two main cate-
gories as fine and coarse texture foams. Among them, a
high level of dispersion is normally occurred in fine texture
foam through existing many small bubbles in a small area
(has high specific surface area) and a low level of disper-
sion is occurred in coarse texture foam through existing
few large bubbles in a broad area (has low specific surface
area) (Reidenbach et al. 1986).
Role of surfactants
The stability of the generated foam significantly depends
on the used surfactant, and therefore, many types of
foaming surfactants with different characteristics have
been tested in the industry. Those surfactants can mainly be
categorized into three groups: (1) anionic surfactants that
separate into an amphiphilic (with both hydrophilic (water-
loving) and lipophilic (oil-loving) properties) anion and a
cation in water, (2) non-ionic surfactants that do not ionize
in aqueous solution and (3) cationic surfactants that sepa-
rate into an amphiphilic cation and an anion dissociated in
water (Salager 2002). Each type has different foaming
power and advantages. For example, tertiary alkyl amine
ethoxylate (Fig. 6) can change the foaming ability to a non-
foaming agent (break down the generated foams) by low-
ering the pH value (to less than about 8) of the media
(Smith and Terracina 2006). The use of such surfactants is
important for the reuse of the fracturing fluid by extracting
the used hydro-fracturing fluid from one wellbore and re-
injecting it into another well. However, full extraction of
the disposed fluid (the fracturing fluid after the fracturing
process) is not practically possible for many reasons,
including the capillary pressure effect that occurs due to the
pressure differential between the gas and liquid phases
occupying the same pore space caused by interfacial ten-
sion between the two phases that must be overcome to
initiate flow. Therefore, the surfactants in the hydro-frac-
turing process create many environmental issues, which
Fig. 6 pH-sensitive tertiary alkyl amine ethoxylate
Page 7 of 15 91
can be minimized by using highly degradable surfactants,
such as sophorolipids, surfactin, sodium dodecyl sulphate
and polyoxyethylene lauryl ether (Hirata et al. 2009).
Advantages and disadvantages of foam fracturing
process
Advantages
One of the major drawbacks of the commonly used water-
based hydro-fracturing process is that it involves the usage
of millions of gallons of freshwater to generate hydro-
fractures, resulting in large volumes of wastewater for
disposal (Gu and Mohanty 2014; Gupta et al. 2004; Edrisi
and Kam 2012). This is because, after injecting freshwater
deep into the earth, the water has a high likelihood of being
contaminated with heavy metals such as lead (Pb), arsenic
(As), chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)
(Olsson et al. 2013). There is also the possibility of the
mixing of highly saline water deep underground (Olsson
et al. 2013). Further, there is a high possibility of adding
this contaminated water to freshwater aquifers underground
and reaching the groundwater table, creating a series of
issues for drinking water and water for agricultural usage
(Osborn et al. 2011). Such environmental influences cre-
ated by water-based fracturing fluid have led to public
opposition to water-based hydro-fracturing and, therefore,
created a demand for other fracturing fluids. The foam-
based hydraulic fracturing process needs only small
amounts of water (530% of water compared to water-
based fracturing) and therefore generates minor amounts of
waste water, thereby minimizing the harmful impacts cre-
ated by water-based fracturing on aquatic life and humans.
The reusability of foam is also a significant advantage of
foam-based fracturing in terms of the lower waste water
production and cost (Fink 2013). This is because, after the
fracturing process, the used foam can be easily recovered
through a well due to the compressed nature of the foam at
high pressure underground. The release of pressure after
the fracturing process causes the compressed small foam
bubbles in fractures to become large and eventually release
through the wellbore (Cawiezel and Niles 1987).
In addition to the reduced environmental damage, good
proppant-carrying capacity (around 85% greater than
water-based fluids), which offers better transportation
ability for proppants in fluid to more efficiently spread
throughout the fracture network, is also a critical advantage
of foam-based fracturing fluids. The settling velocity of
proppants in foams is about 10.01 mm/s, which is about
85% lower than in water (about 6 mm/s) (Wang et al.
2012). Water has less viscosity (about 2 mPa/s), and
therefore, proppants tend to settle in water by gravity
123
91 Page 8 of 15
Proppants Proppants
Fractures Fractures
(a) Water (b) Foams
Fig. 7 Hydraulic fracturing propping in water and foams
during the water-based fracturing process, resulting in poor
propping of the generated fractures and reduced gas pro-
duction through the fracture network (Gu and Mohanty
2014; Gupta et al. 2004; Sun et al. 2014a, b). Figure 7
illustrates the difference between the distribution of prop-
pants in fractures when the water and foam are used as
fracturing fluids. According to the figure, only the bottom
part of the fracture is concentrated with proppants when
water is used and proppants distribute throughout the
fracture when foam is used.
Apart from these advantages, low fluid loss, low
hydrostatic head due to low density of foam and accom-
panying ability of it to use natural confinement to assist
back flow, low pressure drops due to friction and corre-
sponding low injection pressures and pumping energy
requirement, low formation damage and non-reduction of
fracture conductivity through fluid ingredients, reduced
pore blockage in gas production and associated greater gas
extraction ability, and reduced flow-back times created by
the energy of the compressed gas bubbles within the foams
are the other advantages of foam-based fracturing fluids
(Cawiezel and Niles 1987; Blauer and Durborow 1976).
Disadvantages
One of the main limitations is related to the selection of the
surfactant. Polymer additives should not be used, as tiny
polymer additives can easily penetrate into the nanopores
in shales and eventually block these pores, resulting in
reduced gas production (Gu and Mohanty 2014). Further-
more, the selection of fully degradable foaming and sta-
bilizing surfactants is required, in terms of environmental
safety aspects, because non- or partially degradable sur-
factants may affect the aquatic life cycle and create many
123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
environmental issues, such as groundwater contamination,
health hazards and reduced productivity of agricultural
land (Gupta et al. 2004). This indicates the need for better
understanding of the use of phases and surfactants for foam
fracturing.
Foams can be used for comparatively high-permeable
(10 lD) shales. Otherwise, the leak-off effect, which
increases the efficiency of foam fracturing, is relatively
small and water is more effective (Gu and Mohanty 2014).
Another important issue relevant to the foam fracturing
process is the large cost associated with the process,
because foam fracturing requires special equipment and
high levels of technical and logistical facilities (Liu et al.
2010; Gupta 2003).
Although there are some limitations to the foam frac-
turing process, the greater proppant-carrying capacity
([85%), lower water consumption (about 70%) and the
minimal environmental damage associated with foam-
based hydro-fracturing process are appealing facts. This
foam-based fracturing process is highly applicable for
water-sensitive shale formations with comparatively high
permeability (10 lD). Therefore, this process has been
widely researched and applied in shale gas recovery.
Experimental predictions on foam fracturing fluids
The use of foam-based fluid in hydro-fracturing in shale is
a comparatively novel technique. However, to date many
related experimental studies have been conducted, mainly
on the properties (Aarra et al. 2014) and rheology of foam
fracturing fluids (Sun et al. 2014a, b; Reidenbach et al.
1986; Gajbhiye and Kam 2011, 2012; Brannon et al. 2009),
foams behaviour in porous media (Farajzadeh et al. 2009)
and its stability (Simjoo et al. 2013; Saxena et al. 2014).
Since foam is made by combining a gas phase with a
liquid phase, the foam properties (see Table 5) are
dependent on the properties of both of these phases. Aarra
et al. (2014) conducted some core flooding experiments
with 3 and 2.8 MPa injection pressure (12 MPa was also
used for CO2), to study the variation of foam properties
with gas phase (N2 and CO2), temperature and pressure.
The researchers made 80% quality foams by injecting N2/
CO2 into water at 50 C and using alpha olefin sulphonate
Table 5 Properties of foams
Foam property Value
Viscosity 0.151.00 Pa s
Density 5400 kg/m3
Mobility reduction factor 60150
Foam texture 60120 lm
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
(AOS) as the surfactant. This surfactant is commonly used
in the soap industry due to its high biodegradability prop-
erties (0.5% concentration by weight). They characterized
the prepared foam based on different parameters, such as
pressure build-up, water-blocking capacity and visual
observations (appearance and the texture of the foam).
According to their results, N2-based foams are stronger
than CO2-based foams and have good water-blocking
capacity under any pressure conditions. Moreover,
increasing the pressure leads to the reduction of CO2-based
foam strength, and changing of phase condition of CO2
from sub-to super-critical leads to a greater reduction in
CO2-based foam strength and the potential to divert water.
These findings show the better performance of N2-based
foams compared to CO2-based foams, the pressure-de-
pendent behaviour of foam as a fracturing fluid and the
appropriate use of foam to reduce water inflow.
Foam rheology is important to identify the foam flow
pattern through the pipes, wellbore and the shale mass.
This has therefore been widely researched, particularly
the influences of various parameters on it (Sun et al.
2014a, b; Reidenbach et al. 1986; Gajbhiye and Kam
2011, 2012; Brannon et al. 2009). Gajbhiye and Kam
(2011) studied the foam rheology characteristics of N2-
based foam into two different pipe materials (stainless
steel and nylon) by measuring the foam rheology char-
acteristics based on pressure measurements along the
pipe and visual analysis of foam bubble size. According
to Gajbhiye and Kam (2011), two distinct foam flow
regimes can be characterized: (a) a high-quality regime,
in which an unstable slug flow (liquid slugs are sepa-
rated by larger bubbles, which are similar in dimension
to the tube diameter) exists, and (b) a low-quality
regime, in which a fine-textured plug flow pattern (liquid
plugs are separated by elongated gas bubbles) exists.
Visual observation of foams confirmed these flow pat-
terns (Fig. 8), the foam flow in the high-quality regime
Slug Flow Paern
High Quality
Gas ow rate (Qg)[ml/min]
Regime
Low Quality
Regime
Plug Flow Paern
Liquid ow rate (Qw)[ml/min]
Fig. 8 Analysis of foam flow patterns (Gajbhiye and Kam 2011)
Page 9 of 15 91
being both gas- and liquid-velocity-dependent and the
foam flow in the low-quality regime being primarily gas-
velocity-dependent. Gajbhiye and Kam (2012) conducted
a similar study to identify the effect of the pipes
inclination angle on foam rheology using N2-based foam
and found a negligible influence of the pipe inclination
on foam flow rheology. This is because foam has vis-
cosity-dominant flow characteristics (foam is a highly
viscous medium) with slug/plug flow patterns, which are
negligibly affected by the inclination angle of the pipe-
like gravity-dominant flows. Reidenbach et al. (1986)
also found that both N2 and CO2-based foams have
similar laminar flow rheology when they have 0.5% of
anionic surfactant and 00.48% hydroxypropyl guar
(HPG) gelling agent (a fluid viscosity improving agent)
in the water. The rheological properties of CO2-based
foam fracturing fluids at high pressure have been tested
by Sun et al. (2014a, b). According to these researchers,
the effective viscosity of foams decreases with increas-
ing shear rate and temperature and decreasing pressure
and foam quality, and the influences of temperature and
foam quality on CO2-based foams rheological parame-
ters are more significant (Sun et al. 2014a, b).
Moreover, according to Tang et al. (2014), foam sta-
bility increases with increasing foaming agent (surfactant)
concentration and foam quality and decreases with
increasing temperature (Fig. 9). Similar relations among
foam stability and these parameters (foaming agent con-
centration, foam quality and temperature) have been
observed by Martins et al. (2000). The effect of surfactant
properties on foam stability has been studied by Tang et al.
(2014). These researchers used two sulphonate anionic
surfactants: alcohol ether sulphate (AES) and alpha olefin
sulphonate (AOS), and six zwitterionic surfactants (which
have cationic and anionic centres attached to the same
molecule and highly biodegradable and relatively expen-
sive compared to the anionic surfactants) to generate
foams. The researchers found that the generated foam
height increases with increasing pH (Fig. 10), regardless of
the surfactant type used (Tang et al. 2014), and the foam
height may vary with the surfactant concentration. For
example, they found that the height of the foam generated
using AOS foaming surfactant increases up to about
280 mm with increasing surfactant concentration up to
around 0.5% and then becomes stable. This 0.5% is
therefore the optimum AOS surfactant concentration to
achieve maximum foam height. This has also been con-
firmed by Aarra et al. (2014) for foam generated using
AOS foaming surfactant. However, the stability of foam
remains an unsolved problem in the petroleum industry,
and research studies are ongoing to discover new foam
stabilizers to increase the stability of foams during their
application (Sun et al. 2015).
123
91 Page 10 of 15 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91

Fig. 9 Temperature effect on 25 C 150 C 25 C 150 C

foam stability (Tang et al. 2014) 235 350
230 300
225

Half-life Period (min)

Foam Height (mm)
250
220
215 200
210 150
205
100
200
195 50

190 0
AOS-COAO Trans-Foam AOS-COAO Trans-Foam
Surfactant Type Surfactant Type

Fig. 10 pH effect on foam 250 AOS-cocoamineoxide

stability. AOS alpha olefin
sulphonate, AES alcohol ether
sulphate 200 AES-cocoamineoxide
Foam Height (mm)

AES-lauryl amine oxide

150

AOS-dodecyl carboxyl
100 betaine
AOS-cocoamidopropyl
50 betaine
AOS-lauryl amine oxide
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 N-coco--aminopropionatc
pH

Apart from the above-mentioned experimental studies,
some other experiments have been reported related to the
usage of different types of foams as fracturing fluids.
Among them, Harris (1985) studied about N2 foams using
HPG solutions and observed a greater liquid portion in the
foam after passing through the tested rock compared to the
injected foam, where the liquid composition was propor-
tional to the viscosity of the used liquid. Burke et al. (2011)
also studied the N2 and CO2 foams using slickwater and
CO2 foam without gelling agent and found a 1.12.2 times
higher gas production through using foam-based fracturing
fluid compared to non-foam-based fracturing fluid.
Modelling of foam fracturing
Investigation of foam properties and foam-based fracturing
in extreme conditions such as high pressures and temper-
atures can be efficiently and economically achieved using
numerical and analytical models. Although numerous
modelling studies exist related to foam properties including
viscosity and foam quality (Reidenbach et al. 1986; Gu and
Mohanty 2014; Edrisi and Kam 2012), only studies related
to the use of foam as fracturing fluid are considered here.
Edrisi and Kam (2012) developed a comprehensive
foam model that can accommodate recent foam rheology
findings for both high-quality and low-quality regimes.
According to these researchers, gas (Ug) and liquid (Uw)
velocities are the two main parameters influencing foam
rheology and can be expressed as follows (Eqs. 2 and 3)
(Edrisi and Kam 2012):
Qg
Ug 2
A
Qw
Uw 3
A
where Uggas velocity, Uwliquid velocity, Qggas
flow rate, Qwliquid flow rate and Ainternal cross-
sectional area of the pipe.
However, it is important to note that Eqs. 2 and 3 can
only be used for a unidirectional laminar flow and is one of
the major assumptions used in this model. Moreover, when
the foams form a plug/flow pattern, the slip effect at the
wall becomes important and that is one of the limiting

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
factors in Eqs. 2 and 3. Based on the partial velocities of
gas and liquid, the total velocity Ut can be expressed as
Eq. 4:
Qg Qw
Ut Ug Uw 4 d
A A
where Uttotal velocity.
However, assuming the total flow rate includes only gas
flow and liquid flow, the addition of gas and liquid flow
rates can be denoted as total flow rate (Qt) and it can be
expressed as follows (Eq. 5):
Qt Qg Qw 5 taken as 0.8, 1.6 and 1.8, respectively, and for non-New-
By combining Eq. 4 and Eq. 5:
Qt
Ut 6
A and validated for 1000 psi pressure-driven turbulent flow
According to Edrisi and Kam (2012), the wall shear
stress (sw) in this model can be calculated as follows:
s w s y lp c w 7
where swwall shear stress, syyield point stress, lp
plastic viscosity and cwwall shear rate.
This model has been experimentally verified using the
data of Gajbhiye and Kam (2011) and is capable of pre-
dicting foam rheological behaviour under a wide range of
gas and liquid velocities and slug/plug flow patterns.
However, this model has been tested only for slug and
plug flow patterns and has not been tested for other pos-
sible foam flow patterns during the actual hydraulic
fracturing process. However, during foam rheology, it is
important to study all the possible flow types, and there-
fore, considering only slug/plug flow patterns is not suf-
ficient. Reidenbach et al. (1986) proposed empirical
models based on experimental data to calculate the rhe-
ological properties of laminar and turbulent flows in both
N2 and CO2-based foam fracturing fluids, and the model
developed for laminar flow conduction was found to be
very realistic, due to the parameters incorporated (see
Eq. 8):
   
De De
sw sy f ; C Kf ; C cn 8 (2200 ft) with slickwater and a lower fracture length
Db Db
where swwall shear stress, sypyield point stress, De
foam element characteristic dimension, Dbbubble char-
acteristic dimension, Ufoam quality, Kliquid consis-
tency index, cshear rate, and nflow behaviour index.
Even though the Reidenbach model for laminar flow is
purely empirical, Reidenbach et al. (1986) were able to
validate this model up to 1000 psi pressure-driven laminar
flow in 7.75-mm-internal-diameter tubing. However, this
empirical model has not been validated for higher pressures
Page 11 of 15 91
([1000 psi) and large diameter pipes ([7.75 mm). The
model developed for turbulent foam flow is as follows:
 m
0 x e 8v
sw A q d 9
where swwall shear stress, A0 modified turbulent flow
scale-up parameter, qdensity, xdensity exponent,
modified turbulent scale-up, dinner pipe diameter, e
diameter exponent, turbulent flow scale-up, mturbulent
flow slope, turbulent flow scale-up and vbulk velocity.
For Newtonian fluids, the exponents x, e and m can be
tonian fluids, these values are consistently lower than those
for Newtonian fluids (Reidenbach et al. 1986). Reidenbach
et al.s model for turbulent flow was derived empirically
up to 35-mm-internal-diameter pipes. However, similar to
the laminar flow model, this model has not been validated
for higher pressures and larger diameter pipes.
Gu and Mohanty (2014) developed a 2-D numerical
model to simulate fracture propagation during foam frac-
turing by checking the effect of foam quality on the gas
productivity, proppant transport and foam rheology in
shales considering different foam qualities (5585%),
proppant sizes (20 or 40 mesh) and sand concentrations
(0.01 or 0.1 volume fraction). They observed the narrowest
and longest fracture for slickwater fracturing due to its low
viscosity (Fig. 11), and increasing the foam quality (and
the corresponding viscosity enhancement) increased the
fracture. However, these researchers found that, although
slickwater creates the longest fractures in low-permeable
shale formations (\0.1 lD), foam creates the longest
fractures in high-permeable shale formations ([10 lD),
due to the significant leakage of water. This study did not
consider the effects of foaming surfactants and
temperature.
A similar study has been carried out by McAndrew et al.
(2014), who simulated the fracture conductivity of the
Utica shale formation located in north-eastern USA and
adjacent parts of Canada and found a higher fracture length
(1000 ft) with 75% quality CO2 and 75% quality N2 foams.
However, related to the average fracture height, CO2 and
N2-based foams have higher fracture heights of about
450 f. and slickwater-based fracturing can generate only
about 65 ft fractures. McAndrew et al. (2014) and Gu and
Mohanty (2014) found a similar relationship of variation in
fracture length with fracturing fluids (i.e. slickwater and
foams). However, McAndrew et al. (2014) only discuss
75% quality foams and the variation of fracture length with
foam quality is not considered.
123
91 Page 12 of 15 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91

wells for water and foam to discover the performance of

Fig. 11 Effect of foam quality on fracture width and length;
a slickwater, b 55% quality, c 65% quality, d 75% quality, e 85%
quality foams (Gu and Mohanty 2014)
Field applications
To date, foam-based fracturing has been tested in few shale
plays worldwide. The first reported foam-based fluid frac-
turing application was conducted in 1975 in Devonian
shale in Youngstown, Ohio, USA, using two fracturing
nitrogen/water foam fracturing compared with conven-
tional water-based hydraulic fracturing (Frohne 1976).
During short-term gas production, 68,500 gallons of foam
were mixed with 52,500 lb of sand proppants and injected
into the shale through the foam fracturing well at around
1700 psi pressure, and 58,000 gallons of water mixed with
50,000 lb of sand proppants was injected into the shale
through the water fracturing well at around 3050 psi
pressure. According to this study, foam fracturing is more
effective than water-based fluid fracturing, around 25%
cheaper than water fracturing, and has a much quicker
clean-up time (gas production could be initiated within
2 days after the fracturing process in foam fracturing and
within 2.5 days after the fracturing process in water-based
fracturing) (Frohne 1976). Table 6 provides a detailed
comparison of material consumption, cost and flow-back
start time for foam and water fracturing techniques repor-
ted by Frohne (1976).
The large-scale shale gas production project at the
Lower Huron shale fairway in eastern Kentucky and
western West Virginia, USA, in 2008 used ultra-high-
quality foams (9399% foam quality) to fracture the shale
(Brannon et al. 2009). In all, 29 wells were used for the
study, of which 11 wells were fractured using conventional
foams (foam quality around 75%), 12 wells were fractured
using nitrogen gas, and 6 wells were fractured using ultra-
high-quality foams. The conventional foam fracturing used
232,200 m3 of nitrogen and 350 m3 of water, and ultra-
high-quality foam fracturing used 271,840 m3 of nitrogen
and 50 m3 of water. Therefore, the ultra-high-quality foam
fracturing used much less water compared to conventional
foam fracturing and also significantly less proppants (90%
less than conventional foam fracturing), both of which
result in reduced costs associated with ultra-high-quality
foam fracturing. This study also confirmed the better per-
formance of foam-based fluid fracturing, and the effec-
tiveness can be significantly enhanced by using ultra-high-
quality foam fracturing.
Other than in the USA, foam-based fracturing has been
used in the Cenomanian formations that provide the
majority of gas needs for Western Siberia. The gas pro-
duction through this formation significantly depleted after

Table 6 Comparison of foam-

Parameter Foam-fractured well Water-fractured well
and water-fractured well
parameters (Frohne 1976) Consumed fluid volume (gallons) 68,500 58,000
Sand proppants (pounds) 52,500 50,000
Injecting pressure (psi) 1700 3050
Time to start flow-back (hours) 1.5 1
Flow-back liquid (gallons) 5000 33,000
Cost (US $) 12,600 16,475

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
commissioning for more than 20 years and was success-
fully re-stimulated using foam-based fracturing (Oussolt-
sev et al. 2008). The Cenomanian formation is located
2500 m below the ground surface with 200 bar reservoir
pressure and 47 mD permeability and was stimulated by
creating hydro-fracturing through the injection of 60%
quality foams consisting of nitrogen and water (with the
presence of 6% viscoelastic surfactant) at 3.2 m3/min rate
into the reservoir. Well clean-up (fluid flow-back) was
completed within 3 days, and thereafter, gas production
occurred at a rate of 30 tons/day, which is much higher
than that for the previously used cross-linked water-based
fracturing (5.5 tons/day) and conventional water fracturing
(3 tons/day) (Oussoltsev et al. 2008) approaches.
To date, most foam fracturing projects have been per-
formed in the USA and Canada and only minor consider-
ation has been given to this aspect in other countries due to
the lack of knowledge and technology. Some countries in
the world, such as Australia, have abundant shale deposits,
and therefore, research into advanced, less environmentally
damaging and more cost-effective fracturing techniques
will assist in greatly increasing the energy future in those
countries.
Conclusions
The extraction of unconventional shale gas is challenging
due to the extremely low permeability shale plays. There-
fore, there is a need for advanced production enhancement
techniques, and hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling
are currently widely used effective enhancement tech-
niques. This paper has reviewed the research on shale gas
production enhancement using foam-based hydro-fractur-
ing. Based on the review, a number of conclusions can be
drawn.
Water-based fluid is most commonly used, due to the
simple technology required and the low cost. Slickwater
fracturing-created micro-fractures produce considerable
shale gas production enhancement due to their higher
surface areas. However, slickwater fracturing fluids have
poor proppant-carrying capacity and water-based fracturing
fluid is not compatible with water-sensitive shale forma-
tions (shales with high clay content) due to the formation
damage caused (e.g. swelling) and is associated with many
other issues, including huge waste water generation and
extensive flow-back times. Non-water-based fracturing
fluids also have both advantages and disadvantages. For
example, oil-based fracturing creates gelling problems due
to the fluids unnecessarily high viscosity, the effectiveness
of acid-based fracturing is uncertain because the acid forms
discontinuous channels, and alcoholic and emulsion-based
fracturing involve handling issues and high capital costs.
Page 13 of 15 91
Foam-based fracturing fluids are injected at the required
foam quality and rate, and the foam quality quantifies the
percentage of internal phase (gas) in the foam. This method
also involves some disadvantages, including higher capital
costs due to the equipment and technology required, greater
logistic requirements and the existing lack of knowledge in
the field. However, it is more effective than most fracturing
fluids, including water-based fracturing fluids. Foam-based
fracturing involves less freshwater consumption, higher
proppant-carrying capacity, reduced flow-back time, minor
formation damage and minimum environmental issues due
to the low chemical usage.
To date, few experimental studies have been reported on
foam-based fluid fracturing in shale. However, according to
the existing research, the use of N2 for the gas phase creates
stronger foams with greater water-blocking capability
compared to CO2, the pipe inclination angle has a negli-
gible influence on foam rheology, the effective viscosity of
foams decreases with increasing shear rate and tempera-
ture, and decreasing pressure, foam quality and stability are
dependent on the surfactant used and increase with
increasing foaming agent concentration and foam quality
and decrease with increasing temperature. Few theoretical
and analytical studies have been conducted to simulate the
foam fracturing process, and a reduction of fracture length
and an increase of fracture width with increasing foam
quality are major findings of model studies. Furthermore,
according to the models, although water-based fluid frac-
turing produces higher fracture lengths compared to foam
fracturing, its effectiveness is less, due to the creation of
smaller fracture widths.
Foam-based fracturing has been tested in some shale
plays, including Devonian shale in Youngstown, USA,
Jackson County, USA, Lower Huron shale fairway, USA,
and the Cenomanian formations in Western Siberia.
However, to date most foam fracturing projects have been
conducted in the USA and Canada and only minor con-
sideration has been given to this technique in other coun-
tries due to the lack of knowledge and technology.
Therefore, foam-based fracturing remains a comparatively
novel technique.
References
Aarra MG, Skauge A, Solbakken J, Ormehaug PA (2014) Properties
of N2- and CO2-foams as a function of pressure. J Petrol Sci Eng
116:7280
Blauer RE, Durborow CJ (1976) U.S. Patent no. 3,937,283. U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC
Brannon H, Kendrick D, Luckey E, Stipetich A (2009) Multi-stage
fracturing of horizontal wells using ninety-five quality foam
provides improved shale gas production. Paper presented at the
SPE Eastern regional meeting proceedings. Paper (vol 124767)
123
91 Page 14 of 15
Bruner KR, Smosna R (2011) A comparative study of the Mississip-
pian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus
Shale. Appalachian Basin: technical report DOE/NETL-2011/
1478, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) for The
United States Department of Energy
Burke LH, Nevison GW, Peters WE (2011) Improved unconventional
gas recovery with energized fracturing fluids: montney example.
In: SPE Eastern regional meeting. Society of petroleum
engineers
Cawiezel KE, Niles TD (1987) Rheological properties of foam
fracturing fluids under downhole conditions. Society of Petro-
leum Engineers
CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organi-
sation) (2014) Unconventional gas fast facts. CSIRO, Australia
Curtis JB (2002) Fractured shale-gas systems. AAPG Bull
86(11):19211938
Davletbaev AY, Kovaleva LA, Nasyrov NM, Babadagli T (2015)
Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing and radio-frequency electro-
magnetic radiation for heavy-oil production. J Unconv Oil Gas
Resour 12:1522
Donaldson EC, Alam W, Begum N (2014) Hydraulic fracturing
explained: evaluation, implementation, and challenges: Elsevier.
Houston, Texas
Edrisi AR, Kam SI (2012) A new foam rheology model for shale-gas
foam fracturing applications. In: Paper presented at the SPE
Canadian unconventional resources conference 2012, CURC
2012, October 30, 2012November 1, 2012, Calgary, AB,
Canada
EIA (2011) Review of emerging resources: US shale gas and shale oil
plays. US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC
EIA (2013) Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources:
an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the
United States. US Department of Energy/EIA, Washington, DC
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2004a) Appendix
A-Department of energy-hydraulic fracturing white paper.
Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of drinking water
by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs study.
Publication No. EPA 816-R-04-003
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2004b) Hydraulic fractur-
ing fluids, chap 4. Evaluation of impacts to underground sources
of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane
reservoirs study. Publication No. EPA 816-R-04-003
Eren T (2004) Foam characterization: bubble size and texture effects.
Middle East Technical University
Farajzadeh R, Andrianov A, Bruining H, Zitha PL (2009) Compar-
ative study of CO2 and N2 foams in porous media at low and
high pressure temperatures. Ind Eng Chem Res 48(9):45424552
Fink JK (2013) Chapter 12 - Foaming Agents. In: Fink JK (ed)
Hydraulic fracturing chemicals and fluids technology. Gulf
Professional Publishing, Houston, pp 147150
Fink JK (2015) Chapter IIIfracturing fluids. In: Fink JK (ed) Water-
based chemicals and technology for drilling, completion, and
workover fluids. Gulf Professional Publishing, Boston,
pp 115178
Frohne K (1976) Comparison of conventional hydraulic and water/
nitrogen foam fracturing in two Ohio devonian shale gas wells.
Energy Research and Development Administration, Morgan-
town, WV (USA). Morgantown Energy Research Center
Gajbhiye R, Kam S (2011) Characterization of foam flow in
horizontal pipes by using two-flow-regime concept. Chem Eng
Sci 66(8):15361549
Gajbhiye R, Kam S (2012) The effect of inclination angles on foam
rheology in pipes. J Petrol Sci Eng 86:246256
Gandossi L (2013) An overview of hydraulic fracturing and other
formation stimulation technologies for shale gas production.
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
Gu M, Mohanty K (2014) Effect of foam quality on effectiveness of
hydraulic fracturing in shales. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
70:273285
Gupta D (2003) Field application of unconventional foam technology:
extension of liquid CO2 technology. In: Paper presented at the
SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. SPE, Denver,
Colorado
Gupta DS (2011) Unconventional fracturing fluids. In: Proceedings of
the technical workshops for the hydraulic fracturing study:
chemical & analytical methods, Arlington, Virginia. Publication
no. EPA 600-R-11-066
Gupta DS, Pierce RG, Elsbernd CLS (2004) Foamed nitrogen in
liquid CO2 for fracturing: Google Patents
Harris PC (1985) Dynamic fluid loss characteristics of foam
fracturing fluids. J Petrol Technol 37(10):1847
Hirata Y, Ryu M, Oda Y, Igarashi K, Nagatsuka A, Furuta T, Sugiura
M (2009) Novel characteristics of sophorolipids, yeast glycolipid
biosurfactants, as biodegradable low-foaming surfactants.
J Biosci Bioeng 108(2):142146
Jha PK, Mahto V, Saxena V (2014) Emulsion based drilling fluids: an
overview. Int J ChemTech Res 6(4):23062315
Lal M (1999) Shale stability: drilling fluid interaction and shale
strength. Soc Petrol Eng. doi:10.2118/54356-MS
Laurain A (2014) Analysis of fracturing fluid system, effect of rock
mechanical properties on fluid selection. AGH Drill Oil Gas
31(1):167178
Li QH, Chen M, Jin Y, Wang MY, Jiang HL (2012) Application of
new fracturing technologies in shale gas development. Tezhong
Youqicang-Spec Oil Gas Reserv 19(6):17
Li X, Feng Z, Han G, Elsworth D, Saffer CMD (2015) Hydraulic
fracturing in shale with H2O, CO2 and N2. In: Presented at the
49th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in
San Francisco, CA, USA, 28 June-1 July 2015
Liu D, Fan M, Yao L, Zhao X, Wang Y (2010) A new fracturing fluid
with combination of single phase microemulsion and gelable
polymer system. J Petrol Sci Eng 73(3):267271
Lu Y, Yang F, Ge Z, Wang S, Wang Q (2015) The influence of
viscoelastic surfactant fracturing fluids on gas desorption in soft
seams. J Nat Gas Sci Eng. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2015.10.031
Martins AL, Lourenco AMF, De Sa CHM (2000) Foam properties
requirements for proper hole cleaning while drilling horizontal
wells in underbalanced conditions. In: SPE Asia Pacific oil
and gas conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers
McAndrew J, Fan R, Barba R (2014) Energized and foam fracturing
fluids for liquids-rich organic shale reservoirs. Search and
discovery article #80388
Mitchell TM, Faulkner DR (2012) Towards quantifying the matrix
permeability of fault damage zones in low porosity rocks. Earth
Planet Sci Lett 339:2431
Mohanty KK, Gaurav A, Gu M (2009) Improvement of fracturing for
gas shales: department of petroleum & geosystems engineering.
University of Texas at Austin
Montgomery CT (2013a) Fracturing fluid components. Effective and
sustainable hydraulic fracturing. Jeffrey R (ed). ISBN: 978-953-
51-1137-5. InTech
Montgomery CT (2013b) Fracturing fluids. Effective and sustainable
hydraulic fracturing. Jeffrey R (ed). ISBN: 978-953-51-1137-5.
InTech
Montgomery CT, Smith MB (2010) Hydraulic fracturinghistory of
an enduring technology special sectionhydraulic fracturing:
the past, present, since stanolind oil introduced hydraulic
fracturing in 1949, close to 2.5 million fracture treatments have
been performed worldwide. J Petrol Technol 62(12):26
Mortezaei K, Vahedifard F (2014) Numerical simulation of induced
seismicity due to hydraulic fracturing of shale gas reservoirs. In:
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:91
Paper presented at the shale energy engineering 2014 at technical
challenges, environmental issues, and public policy
Olsson O, Weichgrebe D, Rosenwinkel KH (2013) Hydraulic
fracturing waste water in Germany: composition, treatment,
concerns. Environ Earth Sci 70(8):38953906
Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB (2011) Methane
contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well
drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci
108(20):81728176
Oussoltsev D, Fomin I, Butula KK, Mullen K, Gaifullin A, Ivshin A,
Senchenko D, Faizullin I (2008) Foam fracturing: new stimu-
lation edge in Western Siberia (in Russian). In: SPE Russian oil
and gas technical conference and exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers
Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate
problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science
305(5686):968972
Palisch TT, Vincent MC, Handren PJ (2008) Slickwater fracturing:
food for thought: SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition
Reidenbach V, Harris P, Lee Y, Lord D (1986) Rheological study of
foam fracturing fluids using nitrogen and carbon dioxide. SPE
Prod Eng 1(1):3141
Saba T, Mohsen F, Murphy B, Garry M, Hilbert B (2012) White
papermethanol use in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Document
no. 1103844.000 0101 0711 TS26. Exponent, Maynard, MA
Salager JL (2002) Surfactants types and uses. Fire p booket-E300-
attaching aid in surfactant science and engineering, Merida,
Venezuela
Saxena A, Pathak AK, Ojha K (2014) Synergistic effects of ionic
characteristics of surfactants on aqueous foam stability, gel
strength, and rheology in the presence of neutral polymer. Ind
Eng Chem Res 53(49):1918419191
Simjoo M, Rezaei T, Andrianov A, Zitha PLJ (2013) Foam stability in
the presence of oil: effect of surfactant concentration and oil
type. Colloids Surf A 438:148158
Sliwinski J, Power M, Hughes P, Harrington J (2010) Integrated shale
gas evaluation: a study of QEMSCAN, SEM and optical
petrography, XRD and geochemistry of selected potential and
producing North American Gas Shales
Page 15 of 15 91
Smith M, Terracina J (2006) Forming a foamed fracturing fluid
comprising: water; surfactant comprising a tertiary alkyl amine
ethoxylate; gelling agent; gas; introducing the foamed fracturing
fluid into a subterranean formation at a pressure sufficient to
create a fracture in the subterranean formation; introducing acid:
Google Patents
Stevens P (2012) The shale gas revolution: developments and
changes. Chatham house briefing paper, 4. Accessed on 18 Nov
2014. http://kms2.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ESDP/152859/
ipublicationdocument_singledocument/5a2f29de-7bb0-4dfe-
bfd1-380c7e64a7de/en/bp0812_stevens.pdf
Sun X, Liang X, Wang S, Lu Y (2014a) Experimental study on the
rheology of CO2 viscoelastic surfactant foam fracturing fluid.
J Petrol Sci Eng 119:104111
Sun Y, Wu Q, Wei M, Bai B, Ma Y (2014b) Experimental study of
friction reducer flows in microfracture. Fuel 131:2835
Sun Q, Li Z, Wang J, Li S, Li B, Jiang L, Wang H, Lu Q, Zhang C,
Liu W (2015) Aqueous foam stabilized by partially hydrophobic
nanoparticles in the presence of surfactant. Colloids Surf A
471:5464
Tang M, He S, Xiong J, Zheng F (2014) A research into recyclable
foam fluid for petroleum exploration and development. J Nat Gas
Sci Eng 21:241247
Tingxue J, Changgui J, Haitao W, Haicheng S (2011) Study on
network fracturing design method in shale gas. Pet Drill Tech
39(3):3640
Vermylen JP (2011) Geomechanical studies of the Barnett shale.
Stanford University, Texas
Wang ZG, Wang SZ, Sun X (2012) The influence of surfactant
concentration on rheology and proppant-carrying capacity of
VES fluids. Adv Mater Res 361:574578
Wanniarachchi WAM, Ranjith PG, Perera MSA, Lashin A, Al Arifi
N, Li JC (2015) Current opinions on foam-based hydro-
fracturing in deep geological reservoirs. Geomech Geophys
Geo Energy Geo Resour 1(3):121134
Waters GA, Dean BK, Downie RC, Kerrihard KJ, Austbo L,
McPherson B (2009) Simultaneous hydraulic fracturing of
adjacent horizontal wells in the Woodford Shale. In: SPE
hydraulic fracturing technology conference. Society of Petro-
leum Engineers
123