SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 27663

Testing and Using Surfactants in Tight Gas Sand

and Unconventional Gas Reservoirs
M.E. Blauch, T.R. Gardner, J.J. Venditto
Halliburton Energy Services

SPE Members

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Permian Basin oil and Gas Recovery Conference held inMidland, T~~~~
on March 16-18, 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of 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 correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any 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 Petroleum
Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 8333836.
Richardson. TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Summary stimulation performance may be strongly dependent

This paper describes laboratory and field results used
for evaluating and selecting surfactants for tight, gas-
bearing formations such as shales, sandstones, coal and
carbonates. The data presented include multiphase
displacements using various classes of foaming surfac-
tants, regain permeability testing and case histories with
emphasis on tight shales. This paper also describes the
testing methods and reservoir characterization require-
ments of various foaming agents for application in low-
permeability reservoirs, and gas and fluid displacement
behavior in Devonian shale.
Introduction
One of the primary mechanisms impacting stimulation
treatments, especially in low-pressure, low-permeabil-
ity, gas-producing formations, is the cleanup of stirnula-
tion fluids from the propped fracture and formation
matrix.'" Emphasis in the petroleum industry regarding
stimulation fluid clean-up has been placed on conduc-
tivity impairment of the proppant bed."' It has more
recently been realized that gas recovery and post-
~~
References at the end of the paper.
First published in the Oil and Gas Journal, January 4, 1993
upon other factors, including water/gas relative perme-
ability and saturation states. Major developments in this
area of research have been evolving from the concept of
enhancing fluid recovery and affecting the dynamic
displacement behavior through the application of
surfactants.
It is proposed, based on results of this and previous
work, that ultimate recoverable reserves (URR)are
often significantly affected because of the poor effi-
ciency in expelling fluid into and through the formation
matrix, hydraulic fractures, and/or natural fractures
using conventional stimulation fluids. In many cases,
this condition could extend payout time beyond eco-
nomic margins. The primary emphasis of this paper is to
present some of the key concepts and examples that
illustrate this phenomenon and to present a possible
solution through the application of a new surfactant
system developed as a result of studying this behavior.
Testing Approach
As part of this research effort designed to investigate
stimulation treatment processes and fluid systems in
low-permeability, unconventional gas reservoirs such as
Devonian shale, tests were conducted to study the

- - ~ ~.
2 Treating and Using Surfactants in Tight Gas Sand and Unconventional Gas Reservoirs
displacement behavior and rocWfluid interaction in
microdarcy to nanodarcy permeability cores. This work
has led to the development of a unique surfactant
system, referred to as a microemulsion foaming surfac-
tant (MFS) or surfactantlsolvent system. The chemistry
of this system differs from that of “conventional”
charged surfactant systems.’ In this study, a number of
experimental techniques were applied to study the
behavior of certain surfactant systems on the gas
displacement process. Such testing includes core
displacement testing, sand pack model displacement
experiments, micromodel studies, foam studies, and
field evaluation.
Laboratory Testing
In the laboratory testing phase, one of the prime objec-
tives is to define the mechanisms and assess the poten-
tial impact of stimulation fluids on the flow of gas
through low-permeability porous media and proppant
beds. A secondary objective is to determine the optimal
surfactant to use in stimulation of tight, gas-producing
formations with high capillary pressures and poor
displacement efficiency. A surfactant that would return
the stimulation fluid after stimulation, rather than
adsorb or add to in-situ water content of the proppant
bed and formation matrix, was the focus of the develop-
ment phase.
With the above goal in mind, tests were designed to
determine (1) native-state flow properties of low-
permeability core, (2) surfactant chemistry that would
not adversely affect the flow properties, and (3) gas/
fluid flow characteristics before and after treatment with
various fluid systems.
Experiments were conducted under relatively low
(realistic) gas displacement pressures to test displace-
ment behavior, and rock/fluid interaction in microdarcy
to nano-darcy permeability cores. The displacement
phenomenon under lower gas displacement pressures
reduces the anomalous end effects on short core plugs
and allows simulation of response to low-permeability,
low-pressure reservoirs. Such testing methods had
previously been lacking in the stimulation industry.
It is important to understand the effects of surfactants on
both steady-and unsteady-state flow of surfactant
solutiodgas in porous media. Previously published
studies have documented use of sand packs, high-
permeability porous media, and generic foaming
agents.“” This previous work had not been extended to
low permeabilities in the range of less than 1 millidarcy
SPE 37663
and in formation-specificcores. Sand-pack and
micromodel studies have also been extended in this
study to the application of various charged surfactant
systems and flow testing using common proppants.
Testing is also performed to (1) study the effects of
various stimulation fluids, base salt solutions, surfac-
tants, and other additives used in stimulation of “uncon-
ventional” Devonian shale-type reservoirs and (2)
obtain data relating to development of improved foam-
ing surfactants, because tight “marginal” gas reservoirs
often require the use of foamed stimulation fluids for
optimal stimulation and production results in compari-
son to linear or crosslinked gel systems. Surfactant
additives would ideally have the versatility to be applied
in both foamed and non-foamed stimulation fluids.
Surfactant Systems
Surfactant systems considered in this study are from
four generic classifications based on ionic charge. These
include 1) anionic, 2) cationic, 3) amphoteric, and 3 )
non-ionic surfactants. Table 1 lists the generic “conven-
tional’’ surfactants for the aforementioned application
tested in this study along with the MFS surfactant
system. The MFS system consists of a microemulsify-
ing agent, co-solvent, alkyl alcohol, (a mutual solvent
system), and a non-ionic foaming surfactant.
Table 1: List of Surfactants
I Surfactant
Foaming or
Non-Foaming” I
Surfactant A I Amphoteric I Foaming
Surfactant B Cationic
Non-foaming
Flurosurfactant I
1
1 1
MFS I Non-ionic I Foaming
Experimental Procedures
Surfactant foam generation characteristics are evaluated
with a static sand pack foam generator. Cores used in
the surfactant development tests included ( 1 ) Eastern
Devonian shale samples selected from the lower Huron
member and (2) Quarried Ohio sandstone for investigat-
ing gadfoam displacement behavior in low-permeabil-
ity, porous media. In the shale core plug experiments, it
was necessary to obtain initial steady state nitrogen gas
permeability in one direction with native-state core
 SPE 27663 M.E. Blauch, T.R. Gardner, J.J. Venditto
plugs prepared with nitrogen as the cutting fluid.
Special procedures were required to prepare core plug
ends because of physical damage to horizontally aligned
illite and micas. A technique that involved “shaving”
with a sharp razor edge proved to be the most effective
method for core end preparation. Other Devonian shale
core analysis techniques involving petrophysical and
log measurements have been reported in the literature.12
Cores were loaded with a radial hydraulic pressure of
1,000 to 1,500 psi to simulate the in-situ confining-
stress state of the reservoir using the “stress averaging”
appr0a~h.l~
Hydnulic Fluid
1 relative to gas
Valve Valve
Flow Rate
Measurement
Dwue
Dram
.Figure I-Special equipment (US.Patent 5,263,360)
was constructed to measure gas permeabilities under
low pressures in low-permeabiliry cores. The equipment
is capable of sequentially measuring a core‘s initial
permeability, injecting treatmentfluid into the core,
backflowing treatmentfluid from the core, and then
measuring the resultant permeability, all without
removing the core from the apparatus. The simplified
schematic shown here presents the basic components of
the equipment. It depicts permeability being measured,
with nitrogenflowing from left to right through the core
and then on to thepow rate measurement device.
A specially designed test apparatus was constructed for
achieving steady-state end point gas relative permeabil-
ity measurements (Fig. I).‘ Using this test apparatus,
nitrogen gas flow was initiated at 100 psi upstream
pressure. A modified traveling oil meniscus-type
flowmeter was used to measure downstream flow rates.
A high-pressure precision syringe pump was used for
fluid metering, maintaining constant flow rate, and
constant pressure displacements. Initial treatment fluid
3
was injected at a constant pressure opposite the original
nitrogen injection end. Following fluid treatment,
nitrogen pressure was applied to simulate reservoir
displacement pressure and was held for a period of time
before it was lowered initial reference permeability
pressure to obtain gas permeability measurements vs.
time. Experiments required lengthy flow time intervals
for obtaining steady-state flow and equilibrium values.
The basic measuring procedures are illustrated and
described in more detail in Fig. 2.
, Low-Permeability Flow Test Procedures
Measure initial
(jJ permeability
Inject treatment
@ fluid
@ Cease injection
fx:y.l; treatment
Measure iinal
@ permeability
relative to gas
Figure 2-Permeability regain is measured in the
following manner. ( 1 ) Pressurized nitrogen gas is first
flowed through the core in one direction to determine
an initial value of the core’s relative permeability to
gas, krg.iniriur (2) Treatmentfluid is then injected into the
core in the opposite direction until (3)suficient satura-
tion is achieved. ( 4 )Ajler this occurs, pressurized
nitrogen gas isflowed through the core in the original
flow direction to begin treatment fluid cleanup. (5)
Finally, after steady-state flow is achieved, a final value
of the core’s endpoint relative permeability to gas. k ,
is determined. Permeability regain cljier treatment.is
find
then defined as k r , ~ . / i n u J c r , qmirlul’
,
4 Treating and Using Surfactants in Tight Gas Sand and Unconventional Gas Reservoirs
In the displacement experiments featuring Ohio sand-
stone samples, cores were coated with epoxy resin
around the circumference and dried in an oven. Initial
dry-state nitrogen gas permeability measurements were
obtained in one direction. Cores were then saturated
with 2%KC1 in the same direction as the initial nitrogen
flow, while the pump was operated at a constant flow
rate of 1 cc/min. Pressure, time, and volume were
recorded. Flow continued until a stable injection pres-
sure was obtained. Fluid was displaced across the
injection core’s face by circulation at constant pressure.
Spontaneous capillary imbibition rates and initiation
pressures were obtained by monitoring fluid movement
in the downstream capillary tubes vs. slowly increasing
differential pressure placed against the injection face of
the cores.
The first drainage cycle was performed at a differential
nitrogen pressure of 100 psi. Once initial gas break-
through occurred, relative gas permeabilities were
measured vs. time until stable. The surfactant solution
was mixed into 2%KC1 brine and displaced in the same
manner as the initial 2%KC1 solution without surfac-
tant. Nitrogen gas displacement pressure was increased
and then decreased to evaluate relative permeability and
saturation state effects. The reference relative
permeabilities were compared at the same reference
flowing gas pressures after each drainage cycle.
Capillary Suction Time (CST)Screening. One of the
topics of concern to flow studies involving shales is the
question of clay-fluid sensitivity or swelling. Such
effects can mask or complicate the effects caused by
relative permeability or fluid displacement behavior.
Clay stability characterization of the shale was con-
ducted through capillary suction time (CST) testing.
This technique was used in this study to quantify the
degree of shale stability in various salt solutions and salt
concentrations to screen the samples for potential clay
swelling. Optimal salt types and concentrations could
thus be determined for optimal shale stabilization
requirements. This effect needed to be studied to
evaluate the variables related to surfactant effects.
Sand-Pack Macromodel and Micromodel Tests. An
acrylic sand-pack model was used to model the
macroscale behavior of the surfactant displacement
behavior featuring various fluids with and without
surfactants. The experimental model was used for both
qualitative process mechanism study in addition to
quantitative testing incorporating the measurement of
fluid displacement volumes and sand pack gas and
water saturations following displacement. Fig. 3 illus-
SPE 27663
trates the sand-pack model configuration for the
macroscale testing. Micromodel visualization was also
used to confirm the displacement mechanisms observed.
Micromodel visualization was performed using a
petrographic transmitted light microscope and sand
proppant pack micromodels.
Model
MFS Demons~raaon
”’ +
Figure 3-A sand-pack model is used for studying
qualitative process mechanisms as well as to perform
quantitative testing. Quantitative testing incorporates
the measurement ofjlrrid displacement volumes as well
as sand-pack gas and water saturation afrer displace-
ment. Afrer injection, pressurized nitrogen forces the
fluids to flow back through the packs, into the central
conduits, and on into collection vessels. Gasfingering
effects and the amounts of retrtrnedfluids can then
easily be observed.
Experimental Results and
Discussion
Gas/Fluid Displacement Shale Core Tests. Native-state/
preserved-state shale displacement experiments were
conducted to developing and optimize a “shale surfac-
tant” for improved load recovery and enhanced relative
gas permeability. Initial nitrogen gas permeabilities
were presumed to be at steady state at some value of
irreducible connate fluid Saturation. Test data indicate
that the shale exhibited overall relatively high native-
state gas permeabilities over a wide range of permeabil-
ity compared to that previously reported in other shale
core samples using cleaned, dried cores.12This primary
flow mechanism is interpreted as being dominated by
small scale microheterogeneity effects within the shale
laminae. This permeability variation appears to be
 SPE 27663 M.E. Blauch, T.R.Gardner, J.J. Venditto
depositionally controlled and conelatable to laminar
features, based on CT scanning images and high-
resolution induction logs.
An endpoint relative permeability core test illustrating
the effects of 2% KC1 without additive is shown in Fig.
4.Based on screening tests, 2% KC1 was found to
provide adequate shale stability. Post treatment perme-
ability is normalized to the initial “native-state’’end-
point nitrogen gas permeability. All values shown are
nitrogen gas permeability following the indicated
treatment fluid. The sample was treated with 2% KC1
following the initial permeability measurement. After
the treatment with brine (fluid did not exit the outlet end
of the core), the endpoint relative gas permeability
following fluid displacement was drastically reduced,
and the test did not show any cleanup response over the
16-day nitrogen gas-flow period. In an attempt to
investigate the effects of methanol for restoring gas
relative permeability, a 70% methanol solution was
injected under conditions similar to those existing when
KC1 was initially injected.
Devonian Shale Permeability Regain
With KC1 and Methanol Fluids
Reference gas pressure = 1 0 0 PSI
Maxlmum pressure durmg test = 300 PSI
Inmal permeabdity = 133 md
0.014 0.003 0.027
4 Foamer
Figure 4-A Devonian shale core was injected with a
2%KCljluid and was thenjlowed back for 16 days.
Permeability regain was extremely low (0.014).Subse-
quent injection of a 70% methanolfluid to remove the
blockage produced poor results. Permeability regain
was only 0.027 after 27 days offlowback.
5
Application of methanol is a typical field treatment for
“water blocks.” Little positive response was observed
from this treatment; permeability marginally increased
from 1.07 to 9.04 microdarcies over a 27-day period
(Fig. 4).The behavior was confirmed through repeated
testing. In Devonian shale stimulation treatments, the
use of high methanol concentrations for fluid removal
from the formation therefore does not appear to be the
correct approach.
Similar tests evaluated combinations of gelled fluid
systems with added gel breaker (Fig 5). Based on
previous tests performed on sandstone cores with a
foaming surfactant, additional tests were performed to
evaluate the response in gelled and nongelled fluid on
shale endpoint relative gas permeability. The response
to the foaming surfactant incorporating gelled fluid
produced favorable core test results. Figure 5 illustrates
a test result incorporating the total stimulation fluid
system including a “conventional” surfactant foamer
and a system incorporating MFS.
Devonian Shale Perrneabili Regain
With MFS and Conventiona Foamer
in Gelled Fluid
Y
Reierence gar pressure = 1 00 P S I
1.2 -. Maximum Dressure dunnc lest = 5 0 0 DSI 1.14
.-mc 1 .o
00
2 0.8
x
.- 0.6
G
0.4
2 0.2
0.0
Native state Conventional MFS
Figure 5-Devonian shale cores were injected with
gelledfluids, one of which contained MFS and the other
of which contained a conventionalfoaming sugactant.
Fluid System 1 includes conventional foaming surfac-
tant, diesel-based liquid gel concentrate. and a breaker.
Fluid System 2 includes MFS, a cellulose gelling agent
batch-mixed without diesel, and a breaker.
Testing Surfactant Solutions using Ohio Sandstone.
Behavior of gadfoaming surfactant solutions in Ohio
Sandstone, a low-permeability sandstone medium, was
examined. Results of the Ohio sandstone core tests can
be used as baseline comparisons to help better under-
stand the mechanism of surfactant response in low-
6

permeability, porous media. Effects of gas displacement
of a solution containing foaming agent in conventional
porous media have been reported to produce the effects
listed in Table 2.*-”
Table 2: Response of Conventional Surfactants
in Gaswater Porous Media Displacements
1 . “Conventional” foaming surfactants produced (a) high
gas saturation without high relative mobility to gas,
and (b) high trapped-gas saturation, resulting reduced
gas permeability during initial displacement.3
2. Blocking effect of the foam in porous media is
interpreted as being caused by the foam lamellae
bridging the pore constrictions; this is a function of
pore size and g e ~ m e t r y . ~
gas mobility through the Ohio sandstone core (Fig. 6).
The “conventional” surfactant solution (Surfactant A)
showed the lowest relative gas mobility.
Foam Stability. Static foam stability tests were con-
ducted using various foaming surfactants and fluid
additives, such as methanol, gelling agent, breaker,
reducing agent, and diesel. Conclusions are made based
on these tests. The MFS blend was shown in the labora-
tory and field to provide adequate static and dynamic
foam stability similar to other conventional foaming
agents being applied (Fig. 7). Hence, the dual objectives
of (1) foaming and (2) desired surfactant properties to
affect relative gas mobility and fluid recovery are
achieved with the non-ionic system.

3. initial mobility reduction followed by increased

mobility of the gas phase is dependent on the number
Ohio Sandstone Initial Relative
of lamellae generated and on the bubble stability
Cas Mobility Ratio
With MFS and Conventional Surfactants
within the porous media.’”

4. internally generated foam creates longer gas break- 0’35 1 k, measured .x 25 psi

through time, larger amounts of liquid displacement,

and better liquid recovery, resulting in low residual
water saturations (dewatering).

5 . Relative permeability t o brine is not significantly

affected by the presence of the foaming surfactant.H-”

Surfactant A Surfactant B MFS

Observed responses in the Ohio sandstone tests gener- 1 Yo 1 0% 1 Yo
ally followed the trends reported in the literature for
displacement of foaming solutions by nitrogen. How-
Figure &Ohio sandstone cores were individually
ever, significant differences in the surfactant response
injected with two solutions containing KCL and a
observed with the MFS system, although it retained the
conventional surfactant and with a third solution
desired foaming properties. Foam solutions showed
containing KC1 and MFS. Initial relative gas mobility
similar reductions in capillary initiation pressures to
was substantially higherfor the MFS solution than for
gas; this is likely to be a direct response to surface
the two conventional surfactant solutions.
tension reduction of the solutions but does not have a
direct relationship to the relative gas mobility response
following gas displacement.
Relative gas mobility ratio of surfactant/microemuIsion 12
solutions calculated from the ratios of relative gas 10
.-
S MFS
mobility following saturation of 2% KC1 to those € 8
following the treatment solution are summarized in Fig. <- 6
‘I Foamer A Base Fluid - 2 % KC1 brine at 150’ F.
6. These data indicate higher gas mobility following 2 4
treatment with 1.0%MFS in KC1 treating fluid. Signifi- s 2
1
cantly reduced mobilities were observed at 100 psi t I I I I .
0
differential gas pressure, while the other solutions tested 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
showed complete blockage of gas flow through the core Foamer Concentration
following the LOO-psi drainage phase. However, follow-
ing higher differential displacement pressure (500 psi),
the MFS solution responded with the highest relative Figure 7-Foam Stability
 SPE 27663 M.E. Blauch, T.R.Gardner, J.J. Venditto 7

Fluid Displacement With MFS Sand Pack Model

Fluid Displacement Response
Flow --+

initial
Displacement
Stage

Cas ’ ‘Aqueous
Phase 0
1

20 40
I I
60
1
80
Front Time (rnin)
Flow

Figure 9-Displacement response in the sand packs

Transient
were compared for severalfluids. The same amount of
Displacement eachfluid was injected into the pack, and each fluid was
Stage flowed back for the same length of time. With the MFS
fluid, fluid recovery was much greater and occurred
much more rapidly than with the other samples. Table I
Aqueous /’ ‘Cas Foam
Phase Phase Lamella
summarizesjnal saturation resultsfor each of the
Flow fluids. (Sugactant A was an amphotericfoamer, and
Su@actant B was a cationicflourosugactant.Each pack
consisted of 40160 mesh sand across which 5-psi
Final differential gas pressure was applied during jlowback.
Displacement
Stage Pore volume was 1,500 mL; treatment volume was 500

Aqueous / ‘Cas
Influence of Surfactants on
Phase Phase
Water Recovery

Figure 8-The action of MFS in improving gas produc- _L 0.2% MFS ddded

tivity occurs in three stages. In the initial displacement

stage, MFS increases aqueous phaseflow by enhancing -- 0.2% Conventtonal
.foamong ~ u ~ a c r a n t
added
suq5ace wetting and by reducing interfclcial tension. In
the transient displacement stage, the encroaching gas 3% NHaCI

causes the generation of foam, which temporarily

blocks the further passage of gas through those pores.
Passage of aqueousfluids continues through other I I I
pores until gas appears in them and foam lamellae 0 7
L 4 6 a 10
form. In the final displacement stage, the foam in the Cumulative gas production (liters)
pores collapses to allow further gas flow.
Figure IO-A high-permeability sandstone core was
pretreated with HCl and was then treated with an
additional fluid. Betterfluid recovery was obtained
from the core when it was treated with an MFS solution
than when it was treated with a conventionalfoaming
surfactant or with NH,CL. (The core had an initial
permeability of 1,209 md. It was pretreated with 15%
HCl. The pressure differential over 5 cm of core was
0.37 bar for all tests.)
 Fluid Recovery Mechanisms
The ultimate result of this displacement process, which
has been proposed and observed in the laboratory and
field, involves alteration of the displacement process
during well clean-up (load recovery). This process
begins with an initial enhancement of aqueous phase
flow at high initial water saturations caused by surfac-
tant wetting and IFT properties. This single phase
aqueous flow period is proposed to occur during initial
production. This mechanism observed in both macro
and micromodel experiments is illustrated in Figure 8.
As the aqueous phase front is displaced through the
pores, the gas phase enters the surfactant containing
pores. Low interfacial tension foam appears within the
pore system, reaching an equilibrium hexagonal foam
structure that conforms to the size of the pore system
and capillary pressure. At this point, the principal effect
of surfactant is activated. As the gas displacement
proceeds, the relative permeability to gas is temporarily
reduced in the regions of highest initial flow (gas
channeling), while the relative permeability to aqueous
phase is enhanced. This transient behavior creates a
favorable situation for uniformly displacing the aqueous
phase from higher capillary pressure pores and hetero-
geneous regions. The net result of this process is more
uniform and efficient displacement of the aqueous phase
contained within the porous media. This effect is
described from observations based on sand-pack model,
micromodel, and core displacement tests. Figure 9 and
Table 3 illustrates a series of fluid displacement runs
performed with the sand-pack model to demonstrate the
behavior observed with the MFS system in comparison
to 1) water only, 2) other surfactants, and 3) methanol +
water only. The transient period of reduced gas mobility
and enhanced aqueous phase mobility ultimately results
in higher gas mobility after gas breakthrough and water
recovery has occurred. Regions that would have re-
mained at high saturation state are thereby swept more
efficiently with gas flow through the process of foam
lamellae generation and collapse (Figure 8).
Additional core tests in (Fig.) 10 using high- permeabil-
ity sandstone core show similar effects to the sand pack
model studies regarding the influence of surfactants on
water recovery from the porous media.
Table 3: Sand-Pack Gas Saturation
After Various Treatments
Fluid Treatment
Methanol (25%) + I I
Surfactant B (1 S-gal/Mgal) ay/o
Methanol (25%)+
I
Water (75~~);
MFS (2-gal/Mgal)
no surfactant
I
36.3%
60.3% I
Propped Fracture Conductivity
Testing of Gas-Well Surfactants
Gelled fluid systems cause a reduction in the hydraulic
fracture conductivity of proppant This conduc-
tivity reduction is caused by the gel filter cakes that
develop on the fracture face during the fracture stimula-
tion process. The filter cakes block the flow along the
wall of the fracture and extrude into the proppant pack
to reduce the available effective porosity and resultant
flow conductivity. Currently, fluid systems are being
developed within the energy industry to determine the
potential for enhancing the conductivity of propped
fractures after the formation of filter cakes. Several
surfactants including MFS have been shown to have
beneficial effects on single-phase fracture conductivity
measurements in the laboratory.
Figure 1 1 shows the percentage of baseline fracture
conductivity for 2-lb/sq2 ft 20/40 mesh Carbo-Prop HC
(ISP) at 250 F. The conductivity of the proppant pack
with the Borate-Crosslinked fluid system without
additive shows 14% of the conductivity of a clean
proppant pack. The fluid system effects reduce the
conductivity by 86%. The conductivity with the same
fluid system containing MFS shows 58% to 25% of the
baseline conductivity to single-phase brine flow. The
fluid system effects are reduced, resulting in higher
fracture conductivity of the proppant pack. This effect
provide greater cleanup of gelled fluid from the fracture.
 SPE 27663 M.E. Blauch, T.R. Gardner, J.J. Venditto 9

Fracture Conductivity Comparison Types of Treatments

With MFS in Borate-Crosslinked Fluid
Propped foam fracture stimulation in dry gas wells,
^ r
u.0 - 0.58
retrograde gas condensate and wet-gas reservoirs
.- 0.5 -
0

cz Matrix or fracturing rate treatment of gas-producing

0.4 -
h
.?
.- formations requiring lowering the saturation of
e

0.3 - connate waters or fluid blocks from the formation

U
4
s matrix
0.2 -
Foamed matrix rate acidizing treatment or wellbore
; 0.1 -
e

clean out
LL

0.0 ,
No MFS MFS
MFS 2-gal/Mgal S-gal/Mgal
Figure 1I-Fracture conductivity was measured ( I ) in
a proppant pack that had been formed with a KClfluid
system and (2) in proppant packs that had been formed
with a borate-crosslinkedfluid system. Differing
amounts of MFS were added to the crosslinkedfluid,
and one crosslinked sample contained no MFS. Ratios
were formed of thefracture conductivity when a
crosslinkedfluid was used (CxL)to thefracture conduc-
tivity when the KClfluid was used (C,,). With one of the
MFSfluids, this fracture conductivity ratio, CXL/CK,
was more than four times that when no MFS was used.
(Tests were conducted at 250 O F and 6,000-psi closure
stress. A 2-lb/fr’, 20/40-mesh proppant was used.)
Surfactant Applications
Potential examples of surfactants in aqueous-based gas
well stimulation fluids are as follows:
Foamed non-acid (non-gelled) (i.e. 2% KCI)
Foamed or non-foamed acid (gelled or non-gelled)
Foamed gelled fracturing fluids
Conventional gelled fracturing fluids
Foam generation with CO, or N, gas
Application of Sufactants in Retrograde Gas Conden-
sate and Wet-Gas Reservoirs. Gas-producing reservoirs
are generally classified into five types: black oils,
volatile oils, retrograde gas condensates, wet gases and
dry gases. Black oils and volatile oils initially exist in
the liquid state in the reservoir, reach bubble point as
reservoir pressure decreases during production, and
release gas in the reservoir pores as pressure drops
below the bubble point.
Retrograde gases, wet gas, and dry gases are considered
as being initially gas in the reservoir. Retrograde gases
reach dew point as reservoir pressure is reduced and
then release increasing volumes of liquid condensate as
pressure is further reduced below the dew point. How-
ever, condensate normally occurs as an immobile phase
and is not only lost to production, but reduces the
formation’s relative permeability to gas.
Wet gases and dry gases remain gaseous in the reservoir
throughout depletion without releasing condensate in
the reservoir. As pressure and temperature are reduced
to separator conditions, wet gases do release conden-
sate. However, dry gases remain gaseous at the surface.
Certain classes of surfactants can help mobilize conden-
sate that is normally immobile. This mobilization can
occur only in regions of the reservoir that are contacted
by the surfactant. MFS is one of these surfactants and
operates by wetting and stripping the liquid condensate
from the interstitial pores. This reaction occurs through
theprocess of both solvency and emulsification, and has
been confirmed through micromodel process visualiza-
tion. The resulting reduction in residual oil saturation
(Sw)enhances k . This response has been documented
‘g.
in a number of stlmulation treatments performed using
the MFS system in retrograde gas condensate wells.
nique was applied immediately after a failed conven-
tional treatment was conducted, so a direct comparison
of techniques was possible. Use of this technique in
other low-permeability reservoirs has led to gas produc-
tion improvements ranging from 10% to 15-fold.
Applications have included stimulation of other reser-
voir types including carbonates, sandstones, siltstones,
and carbonaceous formations including coal.
The technique of applying the surfactandsolvent system
fluid involving specific case histories are summarized in
Tables 4 through 8 and are described in the following
discussion.
CASE 6.A coalbed methane well had been fracture-
stimulated by standard means, and then was refractured
with a IvlFS system fluid. Figure 12 shows the produc-
tion result from the re-fractured coalbed methane well
incorporating the surfactant additive as compared to
water and gas production performed initially without the
surfactant additive. Production response was beyond
expectations of other wells in the area. Significantly
higher initial and cumulative volumes of water were
produced prior to significant gas breakthrough as
compared to the treatment performed with a different
type of “coalbed methane additive.”

CASE I . A group of Devonian shale wells in West

Virginia and Kentucky was treated with MFS systems,
i‘ . . .
in which nitrogen-foam quality was from 70 to 85. BHT ............
.... .......,!.........-.-*
............ I
..............................................................
.?, ........................................................ 280 Q
ranged from 100 to 120” F, at 3,000 to 5,000 ft deep. 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L ”

Production improvements ranged from 500 mcf/D to 1

mmcf/D. Flowback was typically above 70%. with
......
higher initial pressures and better cleanup of perforation ..... .................

-
................ ....... ...........
debris, rust, and fines. Following load recovery there
was a distinct breakthrough of formation-derived
*o .... .-
&
....... ............................. ._.._
........? .............................
1...............
.................................... .......L........
”
+pl+udi~~:::
...........
40 u
m
.I-, lrst lob
0 -e-.-
0
cations, indicating efficient load recovery and water 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 2830
mobilization followed by gas production. Days
CASE 2. A 2,lO-ft Virginia gas well produced 20 mcf/ Figure 12-perfomance of well Refraced
D after initial stimulation with a “conventional” stimu- with MFS Fluid
lation treatment. After a 70-quality nitrogen foam frac
incorporating the MFS system, production increased to
300 mcf/D.
CASE 3. Five sands of a Pennsylvania well were treated
with 70-quality nitrogen foam frac. Where offsetting
wells had typically returned up to 20% of treatment
fluid, 50 to 70% of the MFS treatment fluid was recov-
ered. Initial production was about 20% higher than on
offset wells treated in the standard manner.
CASE 4. A carbonate reservoir in the Williston Basin of
North Dakota was treated with 65-quality nitrogen-
foamed acid incorporating the MFS system. BHT was
220” F. Permeability was 0.1 md; porosity was 5 to
15%.Wells in the basin normally yield from 0 to 50%
recovery of treating fluid, but 100% of the MFS treating
fluid was recovered.
 SPE 27663 M.E. B1auch.T.R. Gardner, J.J. Venditto 11
Table 4: Foam Frac in Shales

Higher initial production.

Enhanced cleanup of perioration debris, rust, and fines.

Table 5: Foam Re-Frac in Coal Seams '.

- 2

Location Eastern U.S.: Virginia

Stimulation Treatment Type 70quality nitrogen foam frac using MFS
Formations Treated Pocahontas #3 and War Creek Coal Seams
Depth 2,100 ft
Bottomhole Temperature 80°F
Initial Treatment Results 20 md/D
Re-stimulation Results 300 m d D

Table 6: Foam Re-frac in Sandstones

Location Eastern U.S.: Indiana and Pennsylvania

Re-stimulation Treatment Type
Formations Treated
Depth
Bottomhole Temperature
Permeability
Porosity
Treatment Results
7Oquality nitrogen foam frac using MFS
Bradford, Speeckley, Balltown, and Fifth sands
2,000 to 4,500 ft
75 to 95°F
0.01 to 0.1 md
6 to 18%
Recovery of 50 to 70% of the treating fluid volume.
Initial production 10 to 20% higher than offset wells treated without MFS.

Table 7: Foamed Acid in Carbonate

1 Western U.S.: Williston Basin, North Dakota

Location
Stimulation Treatment TYW I 65-aualitv foamed acid with MFS I
180 to 220°F

5 t0 15%

Table 8: Fluid Block Removal in Sandstone

 7. Penny, G.S.; An Evaluation of the Effects of
Conclusions
Environmental Conditions and Fracturing Fluids
1. Selection and use of surfactants can have a signifi- Upon the Long-Term Conductivity of Proppants,
cant impact on the post-stimulation production paper SPE 16900 presented at the 62nd Annual
results from gas wells. Technical Conference, Calgary, June 10-13,1990.
2. Unconventional low-permeability, low-pressure gas 8. Huh, D.G. and Handy, L.L.; “Comparison of
wells require special considerations to design and Steady- and Unsteady-state Flow of Gas and
select stimulation fluid systems to achieve optimal Foaming Solution in Porous Media,” SPEW,
gas flow characteristics. February 1989, pp.77-84.
3. Alteration of the relative permeability and sweep 9. Holm, L.W.; “The Mechanism of Gas and Liquid
efficiency of the stimulation fluid displacement Flow Through Porous Media in the Presence of
during well flowback through the use of surfactant Foam,” SPEJ, December 1968, pp.359-69.
is possible. Load water recovery is an important
10. Sanchez, J.M. and Schechter, R.S.; “The Effect of
aspect of this response.
Trace Quantities of Surfactant on Nitrogemater
4. A new surfactant system has been developed that Relative Permeabilities,” paper SPE 15446, SPe
enhances the ability to recover aqueous treatment Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
fluids during flowback and well cleanup, resulting Orleans, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
in to a more efficient displacement process.
11. Persoff, Radke, et al.; “A Laboratory Investigation
of Foam Flow in Sandstone at Elevated Pressure,”
SPEJ, August 1991, pp.365-72.
References
12. Luffel, D.L., and Guidry, F., Reservoir Rock
1. Blauch, M.E. et al.; SurfactantlSolventCombination Properties of Devonian Shale From Core and Log
Aids Flow Back of Treatment Fluids, OGJ, Jan. 4, Analyses, Paper No. Sca 8910, Society of Core
1993, pp. 40-44. Analysts, New Orleans, 1989.
2. Penny, G.S., Soliman, M.Y., Conway, M.W., and 13. Teeuw, D.; “Prediction of Formation Compaction
Briscoe, J.E.; Enhanced Load Water -Recovery From Laboratory Compressibility Data,” SPEJ
Technique Improves Stimulation Results, Paper No. (Sept. 1971).
12149 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference, San Francisco, CA, 1983.
3. Snow, R.H. and Ward, D.C.; Formation Damage
Due to Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, NIPER Annual
Report, 1984.
4. Phillips, A.M. and Wilson, W.J.; New Stimulation
Technique Improves Frac Recovery and Increases
Production, Paper No. 13374 presented at the
Eastern Regional Meeting of the Society of Petro-
leum Engineers, 1984.
5. Raible, C.J. and Gall, B.L.; Laboratory Formation
Damage Studies of Western Tight Gas Sands,
presented at the 1985 SPEIDOE Joint Symposium
on Low Permeability Reservoirs, Denver, CO,
1985.
6. Parker, M.A.; Effect of Gelled Fracturing Fluids on
the Conductivity of Propped Fractures, paper CIM/
SPE 90-92 presented at the CIM/SPE Technical
Conference, Calgary, June 10-13, 1990.