WITHDRAWN: Proppant transport using high viscosity friction reducer fluids: Part I- rheology and static settling velocity characterization

Author(s):  
Mohammed Ba Geri ◽  
Abdulmohsin Imqam
Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 2462
Author(s):  
Ghith Biheri ◽  
Abdulmohsin Imqam

Investigating the key factors that impact fluid rheology and proppant static settling velocity in high viscosity friction reducers (HVFRs) is a critical aspect for successful proppant transport in hydraulic fracture treatment. In this study, the rheological properties of HVFRs were tested at various temperature ranges (i.e., 25, 50, 75, and 100 °C) and different HVFR concentrations (i.e., 1, 2, 4, and 8 gpt). Three sizes of spherical particle diameters (i.e., 2, 4, and 6 mm) were selected to measure the static settling velocity. The fracture fluid was tested in two fracture models: an unconfined glass model and a confined rectangular model with two fracture widths (7 and 10 mm). The settling velocity in the confined and unconfined models was measured using an advanced video camera. HVFR results exhibited acceptable thermal stability even at higher temperatures, also the viscosity and elasticity increased considerably with increasing concentration. Increasing the temperature cut the friction reducer efficiency to suspend the spherical particles for a significant time, and that was observed clearly at temperatures that reached 75 °C. Spherical particles freely settled in the unconfined model due to the absence of the wall effect, and the settling velocity decreased significantly as the HVFR concentration increased. Additionally, the fracture angularity substantially slowed the proppant settling velocity due to both the wall effect and several types of friction. This research provides insights into the rheological parameters of a high viscosity friction reducer as a fracturing fluid and its efficiency in transporting particles in bounded and unbounded fracture networks.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Thomas Hu ◽  
David Fisher ◽  
Pious Kurian ◽  
Ron Calaway

SPE Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 2962-2983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengming Xu ◽  
Xianzhi Song ◽  
Zhaopeng Zhu

Summary Viscoelastic fluids are frequently used as drilling or fracturing fluids to enhance cuttings or proppant transport efficiency. The solid transport performance of these fluids largely depends on the settling behaviors of suspended particles. Different from viscoinelastic fluids, the elastic and viscous characteristics of viscoelastic fluids both affect particle settling behaviors. In this study, to separately quantify the contribution degrees of the shear viscosity and fluid elasticity on the terminal settling velocity, we decompose the total drag force into a viscous drag force and an elastic drag force. Based on the experimental data from the available literature, it is concluded that the elastic drag force is a function of the fluid elasticity, particle diameter, particle terminal settling velocity, and density difference between the fluid and particle. The formula for the elastic drag force is determined on the basis of the force analysis, and a relationship between the elastic drag coefficient and particle Reynolds number (Re) is developed. An explicit equation that directly predicts the terminal settling velocity in viscoelastic fluids is determined by correlating the dimensionless particle diameter and Re. To validate the proposed model, a total of 108 settling experiments in viscoelastic fluids are conducted. The absolute percentage error (APE) between the predicted and measured terminal settling velocities is 15.26%, which indicates that the proposed explicit terminal settling velocity equation can provide satisfactory prediction accuracy of the terminal settling velocity for particles in viscoelastic fluids. Furthermore, an illustrative example is provided to show that the proposed model can be used to calculate the required fluid elasticity to obtain the desired terminal settling velocity when the fluid shear viscosity is fixed. The proposed models are valid with a consistency index range of approximately 0.16 to 1.2 Pa⋅sn, flow behavior index range of approximately 0.282 to 0.579, an Re range of approximately 0.005 to 30, and a fluid relaxation time range of approximately 0.183 to 110 seconds. This study can help operators choose proper drilling/fracturing fluids to enhance the cuttings/proppant transport and maximize drilling/fracturing performance.


1985 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 157-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.A. Cutler ◽  
D.O. Enniss ◽  
A.H. Jones ◽  
S.R. Swanson

Abstract Lightweight, intermediate-strength proppants have been developed that are intermediate in cost between sand and bauxite. A wide variety of proppant materials is characterized and compared in a laboratory fracture conductivity study. Consistent sample preparation, test, and data reduction procedures were practiced, which allow a relative comparison of the conductivity of various proppants at intermediate and high stresses. Specific gravity, proppants at intermediate and high stresses. Specific gravity, corrosion resistance, and crush resistance of each proppant also were determined. proppant also were determined. Fracture conductivity was measured to a laminar flow of deaerated, deionized water over a closure stress range of 6.9 to 96.5 MPa [1,000 to 14,000 psi] in 6.9-MPa [1,000-psi] increments. Testing was performed at a constant 50 degrees C [122 degrees F] temperature. Results of the testing are compared with values from the literature and analyzed to determine proppant acceptability in the intermediate and high closure stress regions. Fracture strengths for porous and solid proppants agree well with calculated values. Several oxide ceramics were found to have acceptable conductivity at closure stresses to 96.5 MPa [14,000 psi]. Resin-coated proppants have lower conductivities than uncoated, intermediate-strength oxide proppants when similar size distributions are tested. Recommendations are made for obtaining valid conductivity data for use in proppant selection and economic analyses. proppant selection and economic analyses. Introduction Massive hydraulic fracturing (MHF) is used to increase the productivity of gas wells in low-permeability reservoirs by creating deeply penetrating fractures in the producing formation surrounding the well. Traditionally, producing formation surrounding the well. Traditionally, high-purity silica sand has been pumped into the created fracture to prop it open and maintain gas permeability after completing the stimulation. The relatively low cost, abundance, sphericity, and low specific gravity of high-quality sands (e.g., Jordan, St. Peters, and Brady formation silica sands) have made sand a good proppant for most hydraulic fracturing treatments. The closure stress on the proppants increases with depth, and even for selected high-quality sands the fracture conductivity has been found to deteriorate rapidly when closure stresses exceed approximately 48 MPa [7,000 psi]. Several higher-strength proppants have been developed to withstand the increased closure stress of deeper wells. Sintered bauxite, fused zirconia, and resin-coated sands have been the most successful higher-strength proppants introduced. These proppants have improved proppants introduced. These proppants have improved crush resistance and have been used successfully in MHF treatments. The higher cost of these materials as compared to sand has been the largest single factor inhibiting their widespread use. The higher specific gravity of bauxite and zirconia proppants not only increases the volume cost differential compared to sand but also enhances proppant settling. Lower-specific-gravity proppants not only are more cost effective but also have the potential to improve proppant transport. Novotny showed the effect of proppant diameter on settling velocity in non-Newtonian fluids and concluded that proppant settling may determine the success or failure of a hydraulic fracturing treatment. By using the same proppant settling equation as Novotny, the settling velocity of 20/40 mesh proppants is calculated for four different specific gravities and shown as a function of fluid shear rate in Fig. 1. The specific gravity of bauxite is 3.65 and sand is 2.65; therefore, bauxite is 37.7 % more dense than sand. The settling velocity for bauxite, as shown in Fig. 1, however, is approximately 65 % higher than sand. Work on proppants with specific gravities lower than bauxite was initiated to improve the transport characteristics of the proppant during placement. It has been demonstrated that vertical propagation of the fracture can be limited by reducing the fracturing fluid pressure. The viscosity range of existing fracturing pressure. The viscosity range of existing fracturing fluids makes minimizing fluid viscosity a much more effective method of controlling pressure than lowering the pumping rate. A potential advantage of decreasing the pumping rate. A potential advantage of decreasing the specific gravity of the proppant is that identical proppant transport to that currently achievable can take place in lower-viscosity fluids. (Alternatively, higher volumes of proppant can be pumped in a given amount of a proppant can be pumped in a given amount of a high-viscosity fracturing fluid.) Not only are low-viscosity fluids capable of allowing better fracture control, they are also less expensive. More importantly, it recently was shown that the conductivity of a created hydraulic fracture in the Wamsutter area is about one-tenth of that predicted by laboratory conductivity tests. P. 157


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang Xu ◽  
James Ogle ◽  
Todd Collier ◽  
Ian Straffin ◽  
Teddy Dubois ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Al-Hulail ◽  
Oscar Arauji ◽  
Ali AlZaki ◽  
Mohamed Zeghouani

Abstract Proppant placement in a tight formation is extremely challenging. Therefore, using a high viscous friction reducer (HVFR) as a fracturing fluid for stimulation treatment in tight gas reservoirs is increasing within the industry because it can transport proppant, help reduce pipe friction generated during hydraulic-fracturing treatments, and efficiently clean up similar to the lower viscosity friction reducers (FRs). In this paper the implementation of the robust HVFR that is building higher viscosity at low concentrations, which minimizes energy loss and promotes turbulent flow within the pipe during the pumping of low viscosity, is discussed in detail. Performance evaluation of the new HVFR was conducted in the laboratory and compared to the lower viscosity FR. The study consisted of viscosity measurements at 70 and 180°F, compatibility with other additives, and proppant transport capabilities. Additionally, the viscosity generated from both FRs was compared using two water sources: water well A and treated sewage water. Viscosity measurements were performed across a wide range of FR and HVFR concentrations and under varying shear rates using a digital viscometer. To validate drag reduction capabilities for this HVFR in the field, the same groundwater with low salinity and low total dissolved solids (TDS) content were used for comparison purposes. The test plan for this new HVFR was for a well to be drilled to a total depth of 17,801 ft MD (10,693 ft TVD) with a 6,016-ft lateral section. Another part of the plan was to complete 41 stages—the first stage with the toe initiator, and subsequent stages using ball drops until Stage 8, were completed using the current FR. For Stage 8, the drag reduction from the new HVFR was evaluated against the current FR only during the pad stage. Then, FR or HVFR concentrations were used, with a gradual reduction from 2 to 1 gpt without compromising proppant placement from stages 9 to 37, alternating current FR and the new HVFR every four stages. From Stage 38 to 41, the same approach was used but with treated sewage water and alternating every other stage using current FR or HVFR at 1gpt. The implementation of the new HVFR showed better friction reduction when using the same concentration of the current FR. Also, achieving better average treating pressures with lower concentration. Based on that it is a cost-effective solution and the performance is better, this lead to reduce the HVFR volume to be pumped per stage compared to the current FR. Applications/Significance/Novelty For this study, drag reduction capabilities for this new HVFR were validated in the field at higher pumping rate conditions, potentially optimizing (reducing) the polymer concentration during a freshwater application. It was shown that lower concentrations of this HVFR provided higher viscosity, which helps improve proppant transport and operation placement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document