SPE 72366

Multi Year Gas Storage Deliverability Results Using a Proppant Surface

Modification Agent
Gregory A. Kozera, Stanley F. Willis, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., J. Stanley Shaw, Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. information can easily get buried in a sea of data. Wells using the
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in once-new product or process are forgotten unless a serious
Canton, Ohio, 17-19 October 2001. problem occurs. The reason the product or process was first used
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of may even be forgotten if it solved the problem.
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to While results may vary from formation to formation, this
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any longer-term look at the results of SMA, injected with the proppant,
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of should help fracture treatment designers convince the skeptics
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is that proppant-flowback control can achieve its immediate objec-
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 tive and match or exceed long-term performance expectations.
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.
Introduction
The gas-storage industry has recognized that storage-well and
Abstract
storage-field performance declines over time. In a 1993 study,
This paper presents post-fracture deliverability results for 56 gas
the Gas Research Institute (GRI) determined that, on average,
-storage wells over a two- to five-year period. Of the wells
the storage industry loses over 5% of its deliverability annually.1
studied, 32 had a surface modification agent (SMA) applied to
Some fields or types of fields may naturally maintain deliverability
the proppant during the hydraulic fracturing treatment. The other
better than others. The operator performs various types of well
24 wells included in this study had no additives applied to the
work in annual programs to combat deliverability losses. The
proppant for sand flowback control.
most effective means of maintaining existing levels of
The deliverability results from actual flow tests are used to
deliverability in many fields is to treat wells with hydraulic
evaluate how absolute open flows (AOF) held up over multiple
fracture treatments (fracture jobs).
injection and withdrawal cycles involving significant pressure
differentials. The results are compared for the large data sets of
Background
wells that did and did not include the SMA in the fracture
The operator owns and operates 42 underground gas-storage
treatment. In general, the data set for wells that did not include
fields. Many of the fields have been continuously operated for 50
an SMA have been through four or five complete pressure
years or more and are regulated by the Federal Energy Regula-
cycles. After some operational problems, the need for proppant
tory Commission (FERC). To expand deliverability, or perform
flowback control became apparent, and later frac treatments
many other types of well, pipe, or compression construction, the
usually included the SMA. The wells that included a SMA have
operator must first obtain approval from the FERC. Addition-
been through two or three complete pressure cycles.
ally, it should maintain existing levels of deliverability because
This study was completed to alleviate the operators con-
all deliverability is under contract to various customers. The
cern about the long-term impact of the SMA on the well
deliverability is aggregated over all 42 fields so that a customer
performance. While the SMA effectively achieved the short-
does not contract deliverability from any specific field.
term goal of proppant-flowback control, the operator was
The results presented in this study are from wells that were
concerned that the fracture might be more prone to a reduction
either part of two expansion projects between 1997 and 1999 or
in conductivity or simple clogging.
annual deliverability maintenance programs. With 42 storage
Typically, a new product or process gets a lot of attention
fields, conducting well work-overs in every field each year
and study. Many times the well results are tracked only for a year
makes little sense. Instead, work is grouped in programs to
or less and the product or process becomes common or dis-
reduce overall cost and environmental impact. A 1996
carded. Longer-term studies on a product or process are less
deliverability maintenance program resulted in subsequent op-
common, perhaps due to time, manpower, cost constraints,
erational complications from produced proppant and led to the
personnel changes, and a variety of other reasons. Over time,

References at the end of the paper.

2 MULTI YEAR GAS STORAGE DELIVERABILITY RESULTS USING A PROPPANT SURFACE MODIFICATION AGENT
decision to begin including a proppant-flowback control agent to
each treatment.
In 1996, hydraulic fracture treatments were pumped in eight
wells in one field that had only 22 active injection/withdrawal
wells, equalling more than one third of the field in a one-year
period. Meanwhile, a pig launcher and pig receiver were added
to the mainline from the field to allow internal inspection of the
pipe and to improve liquid removal from the gas stream. A new
slug catcher was also part of the new liquid-removal equipment.
Pipeline construction caused the field to remain shut-in almost
two months past the start of the traditional withdrawal season.
The field was brought online during the peak of the heating
season, holding near-maximum volumes. The field was flowed
into the field line at relatively high rates to return to its expected
volume position, resulting in some proppant production. Proppant
reached the slug catcher and eroded some fittings in the dump-
flow control equipment.
The new equipment was in service only a few weeks before
the slug catcher dump mechanism failed. The immediate failure of
equipment designed for a long service life persuaded the operator
to develop methods for mitigating erosion from frac sand in field
piping. Proppant problems at the dumps also prompted the moni-
toring of pipe wall thickness on the first ells off each well that
dropped the well line toward the ground.
While no erosion problems in the primary gas-stream
piping were observed, the dump mechanisms continued to be
problematic. Among other components, 1-in. valves and tees
on drip dump lines and the larger slug catcher 2-in. dump lines
were cut. The lines were manned during use and were obvious
safety concerns. Proppant also cut the lines in water tanks and
accumulated in the pig receiver, and several thousand pounds
of proppant accumulated in several tanks. Erosion occurred
only on dump lines because those were the only places where
the proppant reached a high velocity. Hardened dump valves
and seats and dump line reconfigurations improved the erosion
situations. However, because most of the piping was designed
for a solid-free gas stream, reducing/eliminating the proppant
production seemed to be a better solution.
Options to clean up the wells and eliminate further proppant
production after fracturing were evaluated and found to be
limited. A primary limitation involved environmental concerns.
The operator flows wells to a tank after fracturing to eliminate
the release of liquids. Flowback tanks are equipped with baffles
to remove liquids from the flow stream before venting the gas. In
many cases, this policy did not allow the wells to be flowed hard
enough because the rate was limited by a ¾-in. choke. Even
though flow rates were often in the range of 15,000 to 20,000
Mcf/D, subsequent higher rates into the pipeline occurred from
several wells, especially in the storage field where some of the
aforementioned problems occurred.
In addition to the initial flowback procedure, the wells
described above underwent a procedure that included washing
the wellbores clean with coiled tubing to remove any sand. Even
SPE 72366
with the expensive additional procedures, problems were still
encountered with sand production in the field. The sand was
most likely carried by water as the wells continued to clean up
through the first withdrawal season.
The actual amount of proppant produced by the wells was
small, a fraction of the amount of proppant included in the
fracturing treatment. In fact, testing on a large group of wells
drilled and fractured in the late 1970’s showed that most wells
were still in nearly the same stimulated condition that treatments
were targeting twenty years later (for example, skin factors in the
range of –3.5 to –4.5). The long-term effectiveness of twenty-
year-old treatments means that most of the frac sand is staying in
place over the long term. The correlation of proppant production
with a number of factors, such as the impact of permeability and
cased-hole vs. openhole completions, was also scrutinized. While
some situations were obviously worse than others, the need for
sand control was widespread across the study wells.
Characteristics of SMA
As reported by P.D. Nguyen et al.,2 SMA was developed as a
new way to increase proppant surface friction by coating the
proppant particles, enabling higher flowback rates without
producing proppant. Laboratory testing has shown that SMA-
treated proppant can resist movement by up to four times the
fluid velocity when compared to untreated proppant. This
resistance permits aggressive flowback rates without the
problems of proppant returns (Fig. 1).
Testing has shown that adding SMA to the proppant at low
closure stresses increases conductivity by up to 20% (Fig. 2). The
mechanism that prevents flowback of the proppant also reduces
the settling rate. This rate increase creates large openings in the
proppant pack, which provide excellent channels for fluid and gas
flow at closure pressures up to 4,000 psi (Figs. 3 and 4).
Subject Storage Fields
The 56 wells in this study are located in several similar storage
fields in Kanawha, Jackson, Wood, and Wirt Counties, West
Virginia, in the vicinity of the 1 Tcf Elk-Poca (Sissonville)3 Field.
The storage zone in each of the fields/wells is the Devonian-age
Oriskany sandstone. The storage zone is bounded by up-dip
permeability barriers, down-dip saltwater, and Carbonate units
above and below. The Oriskany is a fine- to medium-grained
calcareous sandstone cemented by quartz. Calcite is a minor
cement that reduces formation quality in some layers. Porosity is
about 10% in the better wells. While some natural fracturing is
observed, possibly contributing to the performance of the best
wells, matrix permeability is dominant throughout the fields.
Discovery pressures in these fields were approximately
1,900 psig. Average total depth (TD) for the wells is about 5,200
ft. The average bottomhole temperature is 115°F. Maximum
storage pressures on the fields range from 1,675 to 1,800 psig
measured at the surface. AOF of over 100 MMcf/D have been
achieved following stimulation treatments on the best wells.
SPE 72366 G.A. KOZERA, S.F. WILLIS, J. S. SHAW
Typical AOF’s are in the 30 to 60 MMcf/D range, and the
average AOF of the 56 study wells is just over 45,000 Mcf/D.
Flow rates at some wells, during peak conditions, may reach 50%
of AOF rates.
Solution
The operator was initially reluctant to include additives in the
fracture treatments to improve sand control at the wellbore.
The designed flow rates from the wells were high, so reduced
fracture conductivity, hence reduced deliverability, was unac-
ceptable. As the operator was seeking an optimal sand-control
solution, a new product (SMA) was offered that promised
proppant flowback control and yet increased fracture conduc-
tivity.2 The SMA was applied to the proppant and a reduction
in proppant flowback during initial well cleanup procedures
was immediately noticed. The reduction in proppant flowback
during the withdrawal seasons was noted as well. The long-
term impact of SMA to well performance was a concern to the
operator and an unknown factor when the first treatments were
pumped. The flow test results presented in a later section show
that the long-term impact is favorable.
A method for controlling proppant was necessary to reduce
or eliminate damage to surface equipment from proppant in
recently stimulated storage wells. Several options were consid-
ered. Both curable and precured resin-coated sand would work,
but could restrict deliverability. Thermoplastic ribbons/flake
fibers were also considered, but again deliverability could be
restricted. To be successful, the proppant flowback control
method needed to be cost-effective, allow immediate flowback,
work in varying well conditions, and not restrict deliverability.
A major challenge with gas-storage wells is designing a
proppant-flowback control method or material that can with-
stand peak reservoir pressure differential drawdown multiple
times over several years. The proppant had to remain in place and
deliverability could not be lost. This need is what makes gas-
storage operations unique and more challenging compared to
normal E&P operations. In normal E&P operations, the proppant
flowback-control material would have to withstand the greatest
pressure differential and the highest flowrates after fracturing
and during the first year of operation. After this time, reservoir
pressure is reduced and never returns to its initial pressure. In
gas-storage operations, the storage field is refilled and returns to
maximum reservoir pressure every year. High drawdown pres-
sure differentials occur at least once per year.
In 1997, SMA was developed and introduced to the industry
for controlling proppant flowback in low-temperature wells. The
material is applied as a liquid additive to water-based fluids on-
the-fly during hydraulic fracturing stimulation treatments. This
agent instantly covers the proppant with a thin, tacky coating that
dramatically increases intergrain friction and the fluid velocity
required to cause fluidization and mobility of the proppant pack.
This tackiness also significantly reduces the proppant settling
rate and ultimately the density of the settled pack, resulting in a
3
better vertical distribution of proppant within a fracture. SMA
allows for more aggressive well-cleanup procedures after frac-
turing stimulation and does not require any shut-in time for
activation and curing.
SMA met the following required criteria for the operator’s
storage field:
• It allowed for immediate flowback after treatment.
• It was easy to clean out of a wellbore in the event of a
screenout.
• Based on laboratory results, it appeared to enhance fracture
flow capacity and deliverability.
• It was cost effective.
The only uncertainty was whether it would control proppant
flowback under the pressure differentials in the operator’s storage
fields. To answer this question, we ran the material on some
fracturing jobs.
Job Design
Gas-storage wells typically contain high-permeability forma-
tions. Maximum deliverability requires a short, wide fracture,
which can be obtained with the tip-screenout method (TSO). The
SMA additive further enhances proppant-pack conductivity.
Data from past fracturing treatments provided the input for
a fracturing design simulator. From the simulator, a model was
created for each storage field. Each fracture design had the pad
volume tailored to the formation leak-off characteristics. The
pad volume should be depleted as the last sand stage enters the
formation, resulting in a TSO. Table 1 lists a typical job design.
A low-gel, borate-crosslinked fluid was used as the fractur-
ing fluid. It provided an instant crosslink and good sand transport
at a much lower Guar loading than conventional borate-
crosslinked fluids.4 An enzyme breaker was used at a concentra-
tion that provided a break within two hours, enabling quick fluid
turnaround. A foaming agent/surfactant helped recover fluid,
while a fluid-loss control agent controlled fluid leak-off in the
pad. A bactericide was used to prevent contamination of the
formation. SMA was added to the proppant at 0.18 gal/sk.
Finally, nitrogen was used at 15 to 20% as a flowback aid and for
reducing the amount of fluid entering the formation. In early
storage season treatments, a higher percentage of nitrogen is
used during the flush to prevent killing the well.
Well Performance After Multiple Seasons
A storage season at these fields is described as the traditional
“inject-gas-in-the-summer” and “withdraw-gas-in-the-winter”
model, although minor reversals in the greater trend do occur.
Pressures at the wellbore may fluctuate by as much as 1,500 psig
from the season highs to lows.
Well-performance results in this study are based on com-
parisons of AOF vs. time. Other terms commonly used for AOF
may include open flow capacity or potential. The AOF is
obtained by extrapolating tests performed at several moderate
4 MULTI YEAR GAS STORAGE DELIVERABILITY RESULTS USING A PROPPANT SURFACE MODIFICATION AGENT
rates, as opposed to opening the well wide to full flow. The
pressure function is plotted vs. flow rate on a log-log plot and is
typically referred to as a back-pressure or deliverability plot. The
methods are more fully discussed in Craft and Hawkins.5 Slopes
on deliverability curves are quantified by an n value and are
generally constant vs. flow time unless a major event (such as a
fracturing job) occurs to the well. The lines from the flow points
are extrapolated to AOF conditions by the difference in maxi-
mum well pressure to atmospheric pressure. The value of n takes
into account non-Darcy effects and tubulars (done at surface).
The flow string ranges from 7 in. down to 3 ½-in. pipe. The AOF
values are presented in Tables 2 through 4.
Table 2 lists 24 control wells where no SMA was used with
the proppant. Tables 3 and 4 both list study wells that had SMA
added to the proppant. The column headers are consistent for the
three tables. The first column lists the study well designation
used to track the results. The second column lists the year the
hydraulic fracture treatment was pumped in the well. The next
column lists the initial post-frac AOF rate which is extrapolated
from a multi-point flow/pressure buildup test and is usually
based on 3-hr flow. The final four columns list the follow-up
well-test results as a percentage of the initial post-frac AOF
presented in the third column.
The initial post-frac well tests each followed one complete
storage cycle. Following the stimulation treatments, the wells in
some storage fields clean up and reach full potential after the first
withdrawal season. Other fields take about two withdrawal
seasons to reach full potential. This variation in clean-up time
has more to do with the basic operation of the field as a whole as
opposed to the well quality. However, some poorer deliverability
wells may require even more time. The longer clean up occurs at
fields that are relatively more pipeline-constrained and have
lesser pressure differential pulls. Table 3 lists 16 study wells
with SMA that are in fields which typically clean up after one
withdrawal season. Table 4 lists 16 study wells with SMA that
are in fields that typically clean up after two withdrawal seasons.
The average initial post-frac AOF for the 24 wells listed in
Table 2 is 57,546 Mcf/D. None of these wells had an SMA or any
other additive included with the proppant for proppant-flowback
control. One third of the wells have been through five storage
cycles, and the other wells have been through four storage cycles.
The group as a whole has maintained an average AOF of 52,016
Mcf/D, or 90% of the initial or baseline value. Two of the wells
suffered exceptionally poor performance, wells 331 and 353.
Excluding wells 331 and 353, the group maintained 98% of the
baseline performance.
An earlier internal study, based on multi-point flow tests
with one extended flow period, indicated that deliverability
decreases 7% from one hour to three hours on stimulated wells.
The deliverability of wells listed in Table 1 decreased only 2%
from the initial AOF to the AOF after four or five withdrawal
seasons. However, owing to the time-sensitive nature of the C
value, perhaps the 2% decrease is in addition to the 7% time
factor to yield 91% of maintained AOF. Comparing the 1-hr follow-
SPE 72366
up points to the initial 3-hr flows can be misleading and is therefore
noted.
The 91% maintained performance would be approximately
equivalent to a 2% yearly decline in well performance. While
this value is much better than the industry average, there is still
room for improvement. Wells 331 and 353 were even excluded
to obtain the more favorable results. Remediation on these
wells is now necessary because well performance is less than
pre-fracturing levels. Proppant depths will be checked in the
wells to verify that much of the proppant is now in the wellbore.
Much of the proppant that caused operational problems may
have flowed out of these wells. The treatment for well 331
included 22,000 lb of sand, and 353 included 38,000 lb of sand.
Both wells were cased-hole completions and have permeabil-
ity-thickness values (kh) of 2,200 and 3,200 md-ft respectively.
The permeability-thickness values and skin factor values were
obtained from the multi-point flow/buildup tests that serve as
the basis for the initial post-frac AOF. Skin factors were
evaluated as a function of rate. Both the SMA and non SMA
wells reached designed levels of stimulation and both showed
adequate fracture conductivity.
The average initial post-frac AOF for the 16 wells listed in
Table 3 is 32,066 Mcf/D. All of these wells had an SMA included
with the proppant for sand flowback control. Table 3 wells are
generally located in the same fields as Table 2, but well quality
was slightly diminished, as shown by the average AOF of only
33,282 Mcf/D. Seven of the wells have been through three
storage cycles and the other nine wells have been through two
storage cycles. The group as a whole has maintained an average
AOF of 33,282 Mcf/D, or 104% of the initial or baseline value.
The deliverability of wells listed in Table 3 likely decreased
about 3% from the initial AOF to the AOF after two or three
withdrawal seasons when the 7% time factor is applied. Those
results are still showing evidence of only half the decline rate of
wells that did not include the SMA with the proppant. Further-
more, no subsequent fracturing failures (such as 331 and 353
above) were noted in this group.
The average initial post-frac AOF for the 16 wells listed in
Table 4 is 38,936 Mcf/D. All of these wells had an SMA included
with the proppant for sand flowback control. The wells included
in Table 4 are located in different fields than the study wells in
Tables 2 and 3, and the deliverability is back to top-quality wells
with an average AOF of 47,637 Mcf/D. Six of the wells have
been through three storage cycles and the other ten wells have
been through two storage cycles. The group as a whole has
maintained an average AOF of 47,637 Mcf/D, or 122% of the
initial or baseline value. Obviously, these wells were still clean-
ing up after the first withdrawal season when the initial post-frac
multi-point test was completed. Only one well showed any
deliverability decrease, and no subsequent fracturing failures
were noted in this group. The Table 4 results are difficult to
compare directly to Table 2 results, but qualitatively indicate
that SMA works at better wells.
SPE 72366 G.A. KOZERA, S.F. WILLIS, J. S. SHAW 5

The authors intend to continue monitoring the longer-term Acknowledgements

performance of these study wells. Not all of the wells will be tested The authors thank Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and Colum-
each year, as was the case with the data in Tables 2 through 4. The bia Gas Transmission Corp. for their support and permission to
tests will be sporadic, but most wells will be checked eventually. publish this paper.

Conclusions
• SMA was effective in the immediate objective of control-
ling proppant flowback after stimulation treatments in low-
temperature wells.
• SMA clearly demonstrated a long-term positive impact on
deliverability.
• Wells treated without SMA can have significant degrada-
tion of deliverability. Note wells 331 and 353.
• SMA was used successfully on wells with low and high
flowrates with no negative impact on deliverability. The
highest-volume well in this study had a flowrate of approxi-
mately 90 MMcf/D AOF.
• Most importantly, the positive deliverability results have
continued over several injection and withdrawal cycles.
• Proppant flowback under peak deliverability continues to
be controlled even after several injection and withdrawal
cycles. Damage to surface equipment, such as pipe, valves,
and tanks caused by fracturing sand has been virtually
eliminated.
References
1. “State-of-Technology Assessment and Evaluation of Gas Storage
Well Productivity Enhancement Techniques,” Topical Report,
Contract No: GRI-93/0001, Gas Research Institute, Chicago,
Illinois, December 1993.
2. Nguyen, P.D., et al.: “Enhancing Fracture Conductivity Through
Surface Modification of Proppant,” paper SPE 39428 presented
at the 1998 Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette,
18-19 February.
3. The Atlas of Major Appalachin Gas Plays, West Virginia Geo-
logical and Economic Survey, Publication V-25, 1996, funded by
U.S. Department of Energy, pg. 120. Edited by J.B. Roen and B.J.
Walker, contributions from D.G. Patchen and J.A. Harper.
4. Terracina, J.M., et al.: “Low Gel Loading Increases Well Produc-
tion in Eastern U.S.,” paper SPE 51070 presented at the 1998
Eastern Regional Conference, Pittsburgh, 9-11 November.
5. Craft and Hawkins, Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959) pp. 326-328.
6. Cullender, M.H.: “The Isochronal Performance Method of Deter-
mining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells,” Trans. AIME
(1955) 204, 137.

Table 1—Typical Job Design

Stage Clean Volume Proppant Concentration Slurry Rate Nitrogen Rate
(gal) (ppg) (bpm) (scf/min)
Pad 6,000 0.00 12.8 4,400
1-lb sand 2,800 1.25 13.5 4,400
2-lb sand 2,800 2.50 14.2 4,400
3-lb sand 1,600 3.75 15.0 4,400
4-lb sand 1,600 5.00 15.7 4,400
Flush 2,500 0.00 12.8 4,400
6 MULTI YEAR GAS STORAGE DELIVERABILITY RESULTS USING A PROPPANT SURFACE MODIFICATION AGENT SPE 72366

Table 2—Post-Frac AOF vs. Time Study for Non-SMA Wells

Study Well Frac Year Initial 1998 Test 1999 Test 2000 Test 2001 Test
Designation Post-Frac AOF Followup Followup Followup Followup
(Mcf/D) (% AOF) (%AOF) (% AOF) (% AOF)
49 1997 46302 100 — 89 94
71 1997 54783 100 — — 82
90 1997 62063 100 — 97 99
92 1997 26289 100 — — 103
93 1997 39317 100 — — 91
109 1997 81556 100 — 74 83
110 1997 30615 100 — 101 103
111 1999 38995 — — 100 105
199 1997 68043 100 — 88 94
222 1996 95509 122 — 114 99
224 1997 48128 100 — — 94
225 1997 110948 100 — — 79
226 1999 34164 — — 100 119
324 1996 68094 100 — 87 93
327 1996 84365 107 — 117 113
331 1996 65699 108 — 20 39
335 1995 38651 104 — — 110
336 1996 36459 83 — — 81
353 1996 70356 — — — 9
354 1996 55684 101 — — 84
355 1996 45765 98 — — 94
375 1997 73371 100 — 100 127
379 1997 86535 100 — — 86
383 1997 19401 100 — — 228

Table 3—Post-Frac AOF vs. Time Study for SMA Wellsa

Study Well Frac Year Initial 1998 Test 1999 Test 2000 Test 2001 Test
Designation Post-Frac AOF Followup Followup Followup Followup
(Mcf/D) (% AOF) (%AOF) (% AOF) (% AOF)
43 1998 65847 — 100 96 86
54 1998 40060 — 100 102 98
56 1999 11085 — — 100 95
58 1999 22313 — — 100 110
72 1998 34556 — 100 72
79 1999 24892 — — 100 148
94 1998 20286 — — 100 99
96 1998 42851 — 100 86 87
102 1999 48067 — — 100 100
104 1998 32985 — 100 102
108 1999 30453 — — 100 123
216 1998 44762 — 100 84 87
229 1999 29593 — — 100 119
422 1999 43338 — — 100 136
423 1999 2693 — — 100 247
424 1999 19222 — — 100 119
a
Fields achieved cleanup in 1 year.
SPE 72366 G.A. KOZERA, S.F. WILLIS, J. S. SHAW 7

Table 4—Post-Frac AOF vs. Time Study for SMA Wellsa

Study Well Frac Year Initial 1998 Test 1999 Test 2000 Test 2001 Test
Designation Post-Frac AOF Followup Followup Followup Followup
(Mcf/D) (% AOF) (%AOF) (% AOF) (% AOF)
287 1999 53176 — — 100 115
238 1998 37821 — 100 n/a 103
260 1998 28673 — 100 n/a 78
294 1998 25345 — 100 91 95
297 1999 50940 — — 100 112
313 1999 56235 — — 100 141
316 1998 43239 — 100 92 102
317 1999 23832 — — 100 122
339 1998 67883 — 100 121 122
342 1999 71669 — — 100 111
344 1998 59573 — 100 117 101
347 1999 16623 — — 100 122
411 1999 14478 — — 100 142
413 1999 6474 — — 100 218
414 1999 27136 — — 100 117
416 1999 39875 — — 100 245
a
Fields achieved cleanup in 2 years.

20/40, 1%
0.01
0.009 20/40, 2%
Proppant Rate (ft3/D)

0.008 16/30, 0%
0.007 16/300, .5%
0.006 16/30, 2%
0.005 16/30, 1%
0.004 20/40, 0%
0.003 12/20, 0%
0.002
0.001
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fluid Rate (B/D)

Fig. 1—Effect of fluid flow rate on flowback of SMA-treated and untreated proppants, as seen in SPE 39428.
8 MULTI YEAR GAS STORAGE DELIVERABILITY RESULTS USING A PROPPANT SURFACE MODIFICATION AGENT SPE 72366

Ottawa sand
20/40-mesh
2 lb/ft2 water
Conductivity, md-ft 6,000 140°F

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 SMA-Treated
2,000 Untreated
3,000
4,000
6,000 Fiber-Based
Closure Stress, psi

Fig. 2—Effect of closure stress on the conductivity of sand packs, as seen in SPE 39428.

120

100
No Treatment

80
% Settled

SMA-Treated Sand,
0.12 gal/sk
60

40 Low-Guar Borate-Crosslinked Fluid

(25lb/Mgal), 70°F
20 20/40-Mesh Ottawa Sand

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)

Fig. 3—The coating on SMA sand grains allows them to form a looser pack than an untreated sand pack, as seen in SPE 39428.
SPE 72366 G.A. KOZERA, S.F. WILLIS, J. S. SHAW 9

Fig. 4—Closeup of vugular regions in the vertical slot packed with SMA-treated sand, as seen in SPE 39428.