SPE 165086

Fracturing Fluid Conductivity Damage and Recovery Efficiency

J.D. Weaver, F. Liang, and N.C. Schultheiss, Halliburton

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 5–7 June 2013.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The primary purpose of hydraulic fracturing is to provide highly conductive paths from the reservoir to the wellbore. This is
accomplished by pumping fracturing fluids at extreme pressures to create fractures in the reservoir rock. In addition to
creating the fractures, the fluid is used to carry proppant into the fractures to keep them open for flow after the pressure is
relieved.
The performance of fracturing fluids is generally determined by their ability to 1) create fracture width and length with
minimal loss of energy caused by friction, 2) efficiently transport proppant through the tubulars and deep into the fracture, 3)
keep the proppant suspended to help distribute proppant vertically in the fracture, 4) break on a planned schedule to permit
rapid and efficient flowback without producing back the proppant, and 5) perform all of these goals economically.
There are several good methods available to determine fluid efficiencies, proppant transport properties, and fluid break
times that are important to a stimulation engineer when designing fracture treatments. However, there are few methods
available that adequately simulate post-fracturing fluid recovery that provides the expected well cleanup rate, efficiency, and
impairment of proppant pack conductivity.
This paper presents the development of a laboratory method that permits the determination of post-fracture cleanup
parameters of a fluid system under realistic reservoir conditions. Fluid rheology and fluid recovery data are presented that
compare commonly used fracturing fluid systems with a variety of breakers and proppant types. The use of this data should
aid stimulation engineers in the selection of the optimum fluid system, breaker package, and proppant combination for
specific reservoir conditions.

Introduction
Hydraulic fracture stimulation is a process applied to hydrocarbon-producing wells to help increase production rates, which
provides significant enhancements to the economic value of the well. This process was first employed in the mid-twentieth
century and has continuously evolved since its introduction. In the most basic description of the process, a fluid is pumped
down the well and through the perforations into the pay zone at a rate and pressure that causes the formation to fracture. The
fracture continues to grow away from the well as long as the rate and pressure can be sustained. Pressure limits are generally
determined by limitations of the weakest well component exposed to the pressure developed during well treatment.
Formation pressures combined with fluid friction pressures, which are dependent on fluid properties and injection rate, are
usually responsible for determining the downhole pressure. When pumping is stopped, fracture growth ceases, pressure is
reduced as leakoff continues, and the fracture begins to close. To prevent complete fracture closure, proppants are usually
pumped with the fracturing treatment to hold the fracture open to flow.
Proppants are usually granular materials ranging from quartz sand to a variety of manufactured particles, such as ceramic
materials to high-strength sintered bauxite, which provide a wide range of mechanical properties. Typically, concentrations of
proppant are low at the beginning of a fracturing treatment and are increased toward the end of the treatment. This provides a
generally increasing fracture width and conductivity as produced fluid moves toward the wellbore. It is generally desirable
that proppant be distributed uniformly in the vertical dimension of the fracture. To achieve this, viscosified fracturing fluids
are used, which provide better transport through the length of the fracture as well as provide proppant suspension, resulting in
superior vertical proppant distribution.
As injection is stopped and pressure decreases, the formation begins to close on the proppant and form a packed fracture.
This closure to trap the proppant can happen very quickly or slowly, depending on the nature of the formation being
fractured. It is the ability of the proppant packed fracture to conduct fluids from the reservoir to the wellbore that is of import
for this paper.
2 SPE 165086

Major parameters that affect the fluid conductivity of a proppant-packed fracture include proppant size, shape, size
distribution, and crush strength. These characteristics are measured as part of standard quality control of proppants. Technical
selection of proppant type (composition) is generally dependent on the formation temperature and the closure stress expected
to be exerted on the proppant pack during the life of the well. Larger proppants generally deliver higher conductivity but tend
to fail at lower stresses. Soft formations often allow embedment of the proppant into the formation and cause formation
spalling, both contributing to conductivity damage and generation of fines. This is often minimized by using smaller proppant
sizes. Proppant availability and/or cost constraints often impact the selection process.
Many types of fracturing fluids are available to deliver the proppant deep into the fracture, with the goal to achieve
maximum horizontal transport and maximum vertical distribution of the proppant. These historically include fluids such as
water, oil, gelled oil, emulsions, viscosified water, and gelled water optionally with carbon dioxide or nitrogen used to foam
the fluid. As the temperature of the target reservoir increases, the chemistry of fracturing fluids generally becomes more
complex. Some of the target properties for successful fracturing fluids include the following:
• Ability to deliver various components to surface blending equipment under difficult weather conditions.
• Ability to rapidly blend and mix the fluid on-the-fly (2 to 10 sec).
• Ability to control gelation time with varying temperature ramp.
• Ability to withstand high shear through tubulars and perforations.
• Ability to suspend proppant while pumping in a fracture (dynamic flow).
• Ability to suspend proppant after pumping stops (static).
• Ability to become non-viscous and flow back with little flow resistance and pressure loss.
• Ability to rapidly clean up, reducing the probability of damage to the proppant pack.
• Fluid components must be safe for both people and the environment.
• Fluids systems must be reliable, easily tested on site for quality, and provide good return on investment (ROI).

Fracturing fluid technology has evolved throughout the past 64 years from the use of crude oil or non-gelled water to very
sophisticated chemical blends that enable engineers to achieve complex fracture designs. The majority of gelled water fluids
currently used are based on natural polysaccharides, such as guar and derivatized guar, because of performance and low cost.
In addition to the polysaccharide-based viscosifying agents, the fluids often include many additives, such as buffers, biocides,
scale inhibitors, non-emulsifier surfactants, dispersing aids, wetting aids, crosslinkers, secondary crosslinkers, breakers,
breaker catalyst, secondary breakers, gel stabilizers, salts or other clay-treating compounds, and many others. Each of these
materials might impact the final fracturing fluid performance and requires rigorous testing with the water source that is to be
used to help ensure rheological and formation compatibility.
The laboratory development of a new fracturing fluid requires a large investment in manpower. Generally, specific targets
for water source composition, application temperature range, acceptable cost, acceptable pipe friction, and required rheology
are set at the onset of the project. Often, hundreds of individual optimization tests are performed before all of the project
goals are achieved. Once the fluid development is near completion, the fluid is subjected to conductivity testing using a
modified API testing protocol to determine the fracture conductivity, fluid-loss values, and fracturing fluid damage that might
be expected with the use of this fluid. It is because these tests are very expensive to perform, and can require weeks to obtain
a single data point, that this type of testing is generally performed only after achieving all of the primary targets. Only when
conductivity numbers are very poor does the project loop backward for efforts to improve the fluid performance with respect
to conductivity.
It is the vision of this work to develop a simple yet reliable method that will allow the fracturing fluid developer to
optimize fracturing fluid formulations for conductivity concurrently with rheology optimization. This should reduce the
overall cost of fluid development and result in superior fluid systems.

Laboratory Measurement of Fracture Conductivity

Detailed description of the laboratory method used to determine the conductivity of proppants placed with fracturing fluids,
including fluid-loss measurement and filter cake formation, is described by Parker (1990). The API cell is modified (Fig. 1)
by including a spacer to set the fracture width. Then, it is set up to run dynamic fluid-loss tests by conditioning the fluid to be
evaluated by flowing it through a high shear loop and heat bath (Fig. 2) to simulate realistic fluid conditions found during
fracturing treatment. The fluid is then flowed through the API cell for 90 min, allowing filter cake to form by fluid loss at
(6894-kPa) differential pressure across the core faces. After 90 min, a screen is installed in the exit end of the API cell, and
proppant-laden fluid is injected to fill the cell. Upon completion, the cell is placed in a press, and stress is applied along with
the designed temperature. After an appropriate amount of shut-in time to allow the fluid to break, flow is initiated at
approximately 1 mL/min. Every 24 hr, the rate is increased to 10 mL/min and a conductivity measurement is made. Once
conductivity stabilizes, the stress is increased and the process is repeated until the full stress spectrum is obtained.
SPE 165086 3

Fig. 1—Schematic drawing of the API linear conductivity cell. Fluid passes through the proppant pack, which is in between fluid-
loss wafers. As fluid is lost through the wafers, gel filter cake builds up. After sufficient fluid has been lost, proppant slurry is
injected into the cell and retained as it packs off on a screen, which is attached to the outlet end (Parker 1990).

Fig. 2—Schematic drawing of the fluid conditioning loop used to expose the fluid to realistic shear and thermal conditions before it
is injected into the API conductivity cell (Parker 1990).

Conductivity measurements made with water flow using the API conductivity cell are used to provide proppant selection
criteria for the industry and generally have been found to be reliable with acceptable deviation (API RP 61 1989). This
method, modified (Parker 1990) for use with fracturing fluid, can provide useful information regarding the impact of
fracturing fluid cleanup on expected proppant conductivity. These tests are often much less reproducible than tests with water
only. However, these tests with gelled fluids might provide overly optimistic values for fracture fluid damage. The API cell is
approximately 4-cm wide with a path length of about 18 cm, which results in a flow area of about 72 cm2. Because the cell is
packed full and the porosity filled with fracturing fluid, it contains one pore volume (PV) of fluid. Water is then used to
4 SPE 165086

displace the fracturing fluid from the pack. This final flow process does not simulate realistic conditions very well, as the
fluid being produced back from a freshly fractured well is broken fracturing fluid, not water.
Filter cake issues tend to complicate the determination of fracturing fluid damage using the API cell even further. The
methodology used to form filter cakes through the dynamic loss of fluid at realistic pressures permits the filter cakes to reach
a level of equilibrium between building up as a result of fluid loss and erosional thinning (McDaniel and Parker 1993). This
dynamic fluid loss is performed with fluid only and not with proppant-laden fluid, which should exhibit a higher erosion
factor. Even with these factors of uncertainty, the technique has been and is used to provide a ranking of fluid systems with
selected proppant and reservoir conditions. Numerous papers have reported efforts to evaluate fracturing fluid cleanup and
proppant conductivity.
The understanding and quantification of fracturing fluid damage was pioneered by several researchers (Cooke 1975;
Penny 1987; Almond and Bland 1994). In addition to the extensive API cell testing performed by McDaniel and Parker
(1993), an extensive set of unpublished data was generated in the present authors’ laboratory using stainless steel columns
that were 3-m long and 2.54-cm in diameter. In these tests, 3 PVs of crosslinked fluid were injected through a proppant pack
for which the permeability was determined before the fracturing fluid injection. Then, it was shut in at the simulated reservoir
temperature and allowed to break. The regained permeability was determined using water. In general, the results of the study
were similar to those obtained from the modified API method. While the method provided more rapid assessment of the
fracturing gel damage propensity of a fracturing fluid, it was still difficult and required considerable effort to perform.
However, the results did lead to an effort to use lower polymer concentration fluid systems and aided in identifying that
certain gel breakers could lead to the formation of breaker-generated residue (Weaver et al. 2003).
The primary problem with all of the methods described is the large expenditure of time required to obtain a data point.
The API method can require up to two weeks to generate two or three points. The column method requires two to three days
per data point. None of these are conducive for use for fracturing fluid development, where it is important to understand the
impact of varying each component and component concentration not only on rheology but also on gel damage.
The purpose for this work was to develop a quick, economic method that permits determination of the gel damage
potential concurrent with rheology optimization studies during the early stages of fracturing fluid development.

Rapid Gel Damage (RGD) Method

The objective of this test method was to provide a rapid low-cost assessment of potential gel damage to the conductivity of a
proppant pack that would be expected from a particular fracturing fluid formulation. This method should be suitable to run in
conjunction with rheology development studies. That is, a portion of the same fluid that is mixed for rheology testing can also
be used to determine gel damage tendency. Specifically, 278 g of 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand was added to a volume of 400 mL
of fracturing fluid, which made approximately 500 mL of nominal 0.7 kg/L proppant slurry. This is a proppant concentration
often used near the end of a typical fracturing treatment (~6 lbm/gal). The sand, crosslinkers, breakers, and any other fluid
components were added with strong mixing as soon as the crosslinking process began, and then the fluid was decanted into
jars. Jars designed for canning (0.95 L Mason jars) operations are convenient for use as they can be placed in either a water
bath (<90°C) or a canning pressure cooker (>90°C) for testing up to 120°C.
After the designated time at temperature to allow the fluid to break (in this study, from 24 to 96 hr), it was cooled to room
temperature and then the fluid viscosity and pH were measured. When ready to load the test cell, the jar was shaken
vigorously to disperse the sand and gel residue, and then it was quickly transferred from the Mason jar (Fig. 3) into the test
cell.

Fig. 3—Mason jar containing a 0.7-kg/L sand slurry after aging 24 hr at 82°C. Gel residue is apparent in this sample. Some fracturing
fluids develop little residue, while others produce significant concentrations and can actually produce more with continued time at
temperature.
SPE 165086 5

The test cell is a transparent PVC column (Schedule 40 pipe, 2.54-cm inside diameter and 107-cm long) with a screen at
the bottom to retain the proppant pack and plumbed with quick disconnect fittings that remain completely filled with water
during the time the cell is removed for cleaning and refilling. The column has a total capacity of about 540 mL (Fig. 4). The
broken slurry (~500 mL) was transferred to the column and topped off with wash water to completely fill and to exclude any
air from the column.
Once sealed, the column was vibrated for a standard period of time to achieve maximum proppant compaction, and the
proppant height was measured. The column was connected to a flow system that uses dual syringe pumps to inject water at a
programmed rate. Continuous measurement of pressure drop across the proppant pack during flow was obtained using a low-
pressure differential transducer. Using the proppant pack height, flow rate, and pressure drop, the permeability of the pack
was determined with water after sufficient water flow was produced to ensure that the fracturing fluid had achieved
maximum cleanup. A volume of 9 L of water is sufficient for most fluids evaluated.

Fig. 4—Clear PVC column containing 500 mL of broken fracturing fluid containing 0.7 kg/L of Ottawa 20/40-mesh sand.

This system can accurately measure differential pressure from 0 to 100 kPa, and the maximum operational system
pressure pump limit was set at 2,000 kPa for safety. When evaluating fluid systems that evolve gas, a back pressure (~700
kPa) was applied to keep the gas in solution.
It was found that, generally, gel break times of less than 24 hr were insufficient to allow fracturing gel in the proppant
pack to break adequately and resulted in high differential pressure while injecting water during the initial stages of the
cleanup tests. After several trials, a standard injection schedule was developed (Table 1). It was found that most of the poorly
broken gels could be displaced with two column volumes of water injected at a low rate (20 mL/min). Afterward, the water
injection rate was incrementally stepped up to the maximum (120 mL/min) rate at which the pumps could reliably deliver
fluid and hold constant flow rate for a significant time (45 min) to flush the proppant pack with more than 100 PVs of water.
Then, the flow rate was reduced to 40 mL/min, and the final permeability was determined. Fig. 5 shows the standard water
injection rate selected for use in this study.

TABLE 1—WATER INJECTION SCHEDULE USED TO PERFORM

RGD ASSESSMENT OF BROKEN FRACTURING FLUIDS
Pump Rate, Time, Volume,
mL/min min mL
20 50 1000
40 25 1000
80 12 960
120 45 5400
40 20 800
5 10 50
Total 162 9210
6 SPE 165086

Fig. 5—Flow rate versus time program used in all RGD tests.

Fig. 6 presents an overall schematic of the RGD flow system and the data acquisition. It uses dual ISCO Model 500D
syringe pumps controlled by custom data acquisition software. Pressure measurements were acquired every 15 sec using a
Honeywell STD9240 (0 to 100 kPa) transducer.
To calibrate and verify the RGD flow system, 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand was used. Fig. 7 is a plot of differential pressure
versus flow rate for the system using 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand (all sand samples used were split according to laboratory best
practices guidelines). The linearity of this plot indicates that flow was not in turbulence and that a rate of 40 mL/min
provided a sufficiently high pressure drop to achieve adequate accuracy from the transducer for this test method.

Fig. 6—Overall RGD test schematic showing flow circuit and data acquisition equipment.
SPE 165086 7

Fig. 7—Graph of differential pressure versus flow rate demonstrating that the RGD system was linear over this flow rate regime.

Calibration runs and most tests were performed using 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand. Calibration runs are shown in Fig. 8,
which demonstrated that the method is capable of generating results that are adequately reproducible. Achieving the same
pack density appears to be the primary variation for the RGD system, which is most apparent with Pack 4. Achieving uniform
proppant packing is the primary source of permeability variation in most sand pack studies, including the API conductivity
test methods. Care was taken to ensure that packing was performed the same way each time as the column was loaded. The
permeability of 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand was determined to be 108 darcies, with a standard deviation of 8.7 darcies.

Fig. 8—Comparison of multiple tests using 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand demonstrating that evaluation with this system resulted in a
suitable measurement of Ottawa sand permeability. Standard deviation was 8.7 darcies for this series. Most of this deviation was
caused by Pack 4, which had a significantly less-dense pack.

It was determined that acquiring pressure data every 15 sec provided sufficient data when used with the pump schedule
shown in Fig. 9, which yielded about 600 data points. By performing all tests with the same flow schedule, it was easy to
obtain a quick and direct comparison of test data by simply plotting the data in a line graph. Fig. 9 demonstrates that, for this
fluid system, 22 hr at 82°C was insufficient to break the fluid. The pressure obtained from the data points at approximately
550 to 600 sec (during the 40 mL/min flow rate section) was used to calculate regained permeability. This particular fluid is a
new fluid system claimed to be a residue-free fluid. It is a non-guar, polysaccharide-based fluid, using a metal crosslinker and
an encapsulated oxidizer as the breaker. Use of this type of breaker in this test procedure is somewhat problematic as it is
designed to rapidly release oxidizer once crushing begins to occur as closure stress is applied by the reservoir. Because there
is no closure stress in these tests, the release rate of the oxidizer was slower because it depended solely on osmosis and
diffusion through the encapsulating coating. Using the raw data in line plots such as this provides the analyst with a quick
understanding of the data. Because 3.5 kPa differential pressure was the value obtained at 40 mL/min with clean Ottawa
sand, the relative impact of the testing conditions on cleanup could quickly be determined without requiring a complete
workup of the data. Rheological behavior of the broken fluid (or partially broken) is apparent in these comparative data
8 SPE 165086

charts. For example, notice that the curves for the 22-hr break show a significant viscoelastic effect each time the flow rate is
changed. With increasing break time, this effect is diminished.
The average differential pressure obtained during the 40 mL/min flow rate stage after flowing 8360 mL of water through
the proppant pack was used to calculate the permeability as per the standard flow schedule. This was compared to the
baseline permeability for Ottawa sand to provide the percent regained permeability.
Fig. 10 shows the final result derived from the raw data shown in Fig. 9. It is apparent from this data that the breaking
mechanism is affected by the ability of the encapsulation to prevent the release of the breaker. An interesting observation is
that the proppant pack height is generally very consistent for a particular fluid, regardless of the time allowed for breaking,
but varies between the different fluid systems. This phenomenon is consistent and reproducible, indicating that there was
some kind of chemistry impacting the ability of the proppant to pack that is yet to be understood.

Fig. 9—Line graph comparing raw data from four tests using a new residue-free fracturing fluid that was allowed to break at different
times.

Fig. 10—Chart showing the final presentation of regained permeability calculated from the pressure data shown in Fig. 9. This is an
example of a quick and easy evaluation of a new fracturing fluid. This fluid is claimed to be residue-free and is composed of a metal-
crosslinked, non-guar polysaccharide broken with an encapsulated oxidizing breaker. It is apparent that the closure stress release
mechanism normally used by the encapsulated breaker did not function well in this test, as it took four days before complete fluid
break occurred.
SPE 165086 9

To evaluate the ability of the RGD method to provide a rapid estimate of fracturing fluid damage, testing was performed
on four commercial fracturing fluids using real fluid formulations. For the purpose of this paper, they are identified as Fluids
A, B, C, and D, and were all formulated for use at 82°C. The 82°C rheology at 40 sec-1 of these fluids is shown in Figs. 11
through 14, along with a general fluid description. Viscosities were measured with a Chandler model 5550 viscometer fitted
with a B5X bob. A constant shear rate of 40 sec-1 was used in all tests, with a test temperature of 82°C.
Fig. 15 shows the results using the RGD method to evaluate Fluids A through D. Table 2 attempts to show direct
comparisons between the RGD results and those from the modified API conductivity method. Unfortunately, the same exact
fluid formulations were not run in the case of Fluids C and D. These will be obtained at a later time. It is apparent from Fig.
15 that the results do follow the generally accepted trend that guar is more damaging than derivatized guar and that double
derivatized guar is the cleanest.

Fig. 11—Fluid A: Borate crosslinked guar-based (0.3 wt%) fluid using a soluble oxidizing breaker. Viscosity was measured on a
-1
Chandler model 5550 viscometer with a B5X bob with a constant shear rate of 40 sec at 82° C.

Fig. 12—Fluid B: A new residue-free, metal-crosslinked, non-guar polysaccharide-based fluid (0.6 wt%) system using an
encapsulated oxidizing breaker. Viscosity was measured on a Chandler model 5550 viscometer with a B5X bob with a constant
-1
shear rate of 40 sec at 82°C.
10 SPE 165086

Fig. 13—Fluid C: Borate-crosslinked derivatized guar-based (0.36 wt%) fluid using a soluble oxidizing breaker. Viscosity was
-1
measured on a Chandler model 5550 viscometer with a B5X bob with a constant shear rate of 40 sec at 82°C.

Fig. 14—Fluid D: Metal-crosslinked, double derivatized guar-based (0.36 wt%) fluid using a soluble oxidizing breaker with a catalyst.
-1
Viscosity was measured on a Chandler model 5550 viscometer with a B5X bob with a constant shear rate of 40 sec at 82°C.

Fig. 15—Results of fracturing gel damage evaluation performed using the RGD method. Clearly, the performance of Fluid B > D > C
>A, which agrees with available API determined values.
SPE 165086 11

The RGD method provides a tool by which fracturing additives that claim to enhance fracturing fluid cleanup following a
stimulation treatment can be readily evaluated. As an example, tests were performed using proppant that had been coated
with a surface modification agent (SMA) and is claimed (Weaver et al. 1999) to improve fluid cleanup and enhance
stimulation results. This material is a non-hardening resin, which is not soluble in oil or water. It was coated onto the dry
proppant before adding it to the fracturing fluid. It forms a tacky film on the surface of the proppant and seems to prevent the
fracturing gel from sticking to the proppant.
In this example, two samples were prepared using Fluid A, as previously described. One sample used Ottawa sand, and
the other used Ottawa sand that was coated with the SMA material at approximately 2% based on proppant weight. Both
formed good crosslinked gels and were placed in a water bath at 82°C for 48 hr. Fig. 16 provides a quick assessment of the
raw data, which shows that the fluids broken for 48 hr behaved very differently. It is apparent that this SMA had a significant
impact on the nature of the system.

Fig. 16—Comparison of SMA-coated proppant to non-coated proppant in Fluid A. Both samples formed good crosslinked fluids, and
both were broken for 48 hr at 82°C.

Additional evidence to support the RGD findings for these four fluid systems was obtained by evaluating them with
respect to break time by measuring the breaker-generated residue by filtration. After the fluids had been at 82°C for the
prescribed break time, the fluids were cooled and then decanted and filtered through No. 41 filter paper. The sand was
washed several times with water, which was also filtered. After drying the filter paper, the gain in mass was attributed to
residue generated during the breaking process. Data from these filtration tests (Table 3) agree well with the results obtained
from the RGD test method.

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF REGAINED PERMEABILITY DATA BY THE RGD METHOD COMPARED

a
WITH THE SAME FLUID FORMULATION USING THE MODIFIED API METHOD
Fluid API Regained Conductivity, % RGD Regained Permeability, %
Fluid A 46 42
Fluid B 84 91
Fluid C NA 61
Fluid D NA 77
a b
Fluid A/SMA 78 217
a
An exact match for fluid, proppant, and temperature conditions for the modified API method was not available for
Fluids C and D and will be added at a later time.
b
Comparison of SMA treated sand to untreated sand by use of sand pack experiments normally results in more
than 100% regained permeability because of the increase in pack porosity caused by the tacky surface of the
SMA treated proppant preventing the formation of a tight pack.
12 SPE 165086

TABLE 3—DETERMINATION OF RESIDUE AFTER BREAKING THE TEST FLUIDS

(FLUID A THROUGH D) FOR VARYING BREAK TIMES AT 82°C
Residue, mg
Fluid 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr 96 hr
Fluid A 320 265 255 220
a
Fluid A/SMA 64 15 — —

Fluid B 230 11 5 1
Fluid C 285 157 150 137

Fluid D 60 42 29 25
a
This test had the proppant coated with 2% SMA.

Conclusions
The following conclusions are a result of this study:
• The RGD method is easy and economical. It requires approximately four hours of laboratory time while using only
one man-hour to prepare the fracturing fluid, clean and load the RGD flow test column, and download and analyze
the generated data to obtain results.
• The RGD method provides an easy-to-use tool that is particularly useful during the development of fracturing fluids,
where the interaction of the many commonly used fracturing fluid additives can have a significant impact on the
generation of residue formed during gel breaking stages, which ultimately affects the regained fracture conductivity.
• The method is conducive for the evaluation of source waters, which can have a significant impact on apparent gel
damage.
• This method provides a tool to obtain data to support claims that certain chemical aids used in hydraulic fracturing
operations can reduce gel damage and promote well cleanup.
• The RGD method was shown to be reproducible and to provide results that mirror those obtained using the very
lengthy modified API method.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Halliburton for support of this study and permission to publish this paper, and
especially thank Noe Vera and Dustin Durbin for their able assistance with assembling the flow apparatus and generating
reliable data.

References
Almond, S.W. and Bland, W.E. 1994. The Effect of Break Mechanism on Gelling Agent Residue and Flow Impairment in 20/40 Mesh
Sand. Paper SPE 12485 presented at the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield, California, USA, 13–14 February.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12485-MS.
API RP 61: Recommended Practices for Evaluating Short Term Proppant Pack Conductivity. 1989. Washington, DC: API.
Cooke, C. 1975. Effect of Fracturing Fluids on Fracture Conductivity. JPT 27 (10): 1273–1282.
McDaniel B.W. and Parker M.A. 1993. Accurate Design of Fracturing Treatment Requires Conductivity Measurements at Simulated
Reservoir Conditions. Paper SPE 17541 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, USA, 11–13
May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80226-MS.
Parker, M.A. 1990. Effect of Gelled Fracturing Fluids on Conductivity of Propped Fractures. Paper SPE 21585 presented at the CIM/SPE
International Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 10–13 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/21585-MS.
Penny, G.S. 1987. An Evaluation of the Effects of Environmental Conditions and Fracturing Fluids Upon the Long-Term Conductivity of
Proppants. Paper SPE 16900 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 27–30
September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16900-MS.
Weaver, J.D., Baker, J.D., Parker, M.A., and Woolverton, S. 1999. Application of Surface Modification Agent in Wells with High Flow
Rates. Paper SPE 54645 presented at the Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 26–27 May.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/54645-MS.
Weaver, J., Gdanski, R., and Karcher, A. 2003. Guar Gum Degradation: A Kinetic Study. Paper SPE 80226 presented at the International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 5–7 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80226-MS.