Polymer Emulsion Fracturing
A. Richard Sinclair, * SPE-AIME, Exxon Production Research CO.
W. M. Terry, SPE-AIME, Exxon Production Research CO.
O. M. Kiel, ** SPE-AIME, Exxon Production Research Co.
Summary and Conclusions
In the past 5 years, viscous fracturing fluids have
been shown to have advantages 2 over conventional,
low-viscosity gelled-water fluids. Many viscous fluid
systems were developed 3 - 9 and tested with various
degrees of success. The main limitations of those
fluids are their high cost and, in some instances, the
difficulty of removing the fluid from the formation.
A new hydraulic fracturing systemt has been
developed and tested under a variety of field condi-
tions in both oil and gas wells. I Fluids used in this
system are viscous emulsions prepared with a lease
crude, refined oil, condensate, or liquefied petroleum
gas as the internal phase, and water, brine, or acid
containing a water-soluble polymer and a surfactant
as the external phase. This adaptable fluid system is
inexpensive, its properties can be controlled, and it
breaks readily after the treatment, permitting the in-
jected fluids to be easily produced from the formation.
Properties of these emulsion fluids are controlled
by varying the polymer concentration in the water
and the volume of oil in the emulsion. Sufficient poly-
mer is used to provide the aqueous phase with an
apparent viscosity from 10 to 100 cp at 75°F and at
a shear rate of 511 sec-I. The concentration of the
dispersed oil phase is maintained between 50 and 80
volume percent.
For field applications, the preferred emulsion con-
"Now with Exxon Company, U.S.A., New Orleans.
". Now with Cooperative Energy Search, Houston.
tThe terms "polymer emulsion" and "emulsion" will be used
interchangeably in this paper to describe the fluid system.
A new hydraulic fracturing system has been developed and tested in both oil and gas
wells. The fluids used are viscous polymer emulsions made from commonly available
lease fluids such as crude oil and brine. By varying the oil and polymer content, the
properties of the system can be easily controlled. Relative to other viscous fluid systems,
for comparable results the costs are much less.
JULY, 1974
tains from 60 to 75 volume percent oil and from 1 to
2 Ib of guar per barrel of water or brine. This com-
position is generally chosen since it can be emulsified
easily and allows for a margin of mixing error. The
fluid viscosity will be too low if the oil content is
50 percent or less, and the emulsion may become
unstable or too viscous if the oil content is greater
than 80 percent.
A surface-active emulsifier capable of forming an
oil-in-water emulsion is added to the aqueous phase
at a concentration of about 0.5 percent by weight to
help form the emulsion and temporarily stabilize its
properties. The two basic types of surfactants used
for this application are sodium tallate (for fresh water)
and a quaternary amine (for brine; i.e., water con-
taining more than 10,000 ppm chlorides). A fluid loss
additive (FLA) - normally a mixture of silica flour
and a commercial additive composed of particles
coated with a water-soluble polymer - may be added
at a concentration of 20 to 40 Ib per 1,000 gal of
emulsion.
Polymer emulsion fracturing resulted in an average
production increase of 3.4 for 97 Exxon Co. U.S.A.
oil and gas wells treated in 1971 and 1972. Clean-up
after these treatments was rapid and most gas wells
were placed back on production without swabbing.
Behavior of Polymer Emulsion Systems
Viscosity
To be effective, a fracturing fluid needs sufficient
viscosity to generate large fractures and carry large
731
proppant or high concentrations of proppant into the
fracture. The viscosity of the polymer emulsion fluids
can be adjusted by varying the polymer content in the
aqueous phase and the volume fraction of oil. Several
other variables affect viscosity. For example, viscosity
decreases as temperature and effective shear rate are
increased; it is affected slightly by variations in the
types of oil, water, and polymer used and by the sur-
factant concentration. Effects of the variables were
measured with Model 39 and Model 50 Fann rota-
tional viscometers and the results of those tests are
reported below.
Fig. 1 shows the fluid composition needed to give
a desired viscosity. Intermediate values can be calcu-
lated using Eq. 112 ,13 which relates the fluid viscosity
(7]RT) at 70°F and 511 sec~l to the aqueous viscosity
(7]0) and the volume fraction of oil (4)). Eq. 1 is sim-
ilar to Eiler's equation, but it has been modified for
polymer solution viscosity and curve-fitted to viscom-
eter data (a = 1.1 for all polymer emulsion fluids at
70°F and 511 sec-I).
_ ( )0.6 [ 1 + 2.54> ] 2 (1)
7]RT - 7]0 2(1 - a4»
A comparison of measured and predicted polymer
emulsion viscosities is shown in Fig. 1. Eq. 1 fits
measured data within -+- 15 percent for either the
brine or fresh-water emulsions when the oil content
is in the preferred range of 60 to 75 percent by vol-
ume. The rapid increase in apparent viscosity as oil
volume fraction increases is due to the interaction of
oil droplets within the emulsion.
As temperature increases, polymer emulsion viscos-
ity decreases as a result of polymer degradation at
high temperatures and, in some instances, as a result
of demulsification. * Fig. 2 shows the effect of tem-
-Temperature, of course, has a pronounced effect on the vis·
cosity of oil. But since oil is the internal phase, variations in
oil viscosity have little effect on polymer emulsion viscosity
(see Fig. 5).
perature on the viscosity of three fluids: a guar solu-
tion, a fresh-water emulsion, and a brine emulsion.
The viscosity of 3.5 lb/bbl guar gum solution shows
a sharp decrease above 190°F. The fresh-water poly-
mer emulsion containing 2 lb/bbl guar gum has a
similar viscosity/temperature curve, but with a higher
viscosity at all temperatures. The brine polymer emul-
sion is the most stable fluid and its viscosity uniformly
decreases with temperatures to 320°F. The improved
viscosity behavior of this fluid is believed to be due to
synergism between the guar-brine solution and the
quaternary amine. These apparent upper temperature
limits can be overcome by designing the treatment to
precool the formation.14
The temperature dependence of an emulsion's vis-
cosity can be predicted with Eq. 2, which was obtained
from Eq. 1 by adding an exponential term." 5 This
equation is limited to temperatures below 200°F for
the fresh-water emulsion and 320°F for the brine
emulsion.
= 1 822 ~1.0075T ( )0.6 [ 1 + 2.54> ] 2 (2)
7]T • e 7]0 2(1 - 1.14» .
Polymer emulsion viscosity (7]) decreases as the
shear rate (;) increases. Typical viscosity/shear-rate
curves are plotted in Fig. 3. Since the viscosity /
shear-rate relationship is a straight line on log-log
paper, the power-law model" (Eq. 3) describes fluid
behavior.
7]
.
= K (y)n~l. (3)
During a hydraulic fracturing treatment the shear
rate can vary from zero to several thousand reciprocal
seconds; so apparent viscosity can vary widely (from
several thousand to less than a hundred centipoises).
The viscosity is highest at the shear rate in the frac-
ture that controls sand transport and settling and
lowest at tubular flow shear rates at which friction

200r----------r----------r---------~
600

BRINE POLYMER
EMULSIONS
500 75 0 F
100
...u 0..
U
I
I
U
w
400 I
en ~
~
It)
It)
@J
50
@
300 >
...
>
iii
!:::
Vl
0 0
u U
en Vl
:; 200
:>

100

~10----~5;0~==~6~0:::::70~----8LO----~OOL---~100
VOLUME % OIL
Fig. I-The effect of polymer concentration and oil TEMPERATURE - OF
volume percent ·on the viscosity of the Fig. 2-The effect of temperature on polymer
brine polymer emulsion. emulsion viscosity.

732 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

loss is determined. 700r------------------~

Water salinity determines the type of emulsifier

required to form and stabilize the emulsion. A brine
is normally available and used because of its preferred
properties. For brine, a quaternary amine emulsifier
is normally used at 0.5 percent by weight of water. ""u
600

500
If PREDICTIVE EO. 1

I
Sodium tall ate is used in fresh water at the same con-
u
l
centration. Fig. 4 compares the viscosity of the brine ~ 400
and fresh-water systems as a function of oil volume
percent at 70°F and 511 sec-i. Notice that the dotted "'@;
line representing Eq. 1 gives a satisfactory estimate of 300
>-
l-
viscosity for either system. e;;
o
u GUAR POLYMER EMULSIONS
Polymer emulsion viscosity is not a direct function (I) 200 2 LB GUAR/BBL
of oil viscosity since the oil is the internal phase of the ;; AT 70°F
emulsion. Some crude oils decrease the apparent vis-
100
cosity slightly because they contain impurities and
natural surfactants. The polymer emulsion viscosity /
shear-rate curves in Fig. 5 illustrate the small changes ~~0-~5~0~-~60~-~7~0--8~0~-~90~-~lO~0~~,10
caused by oils of vastly different viscosities. Normally,
VOLUME PERCENT OIL
the oil used in the emulsion does not change the slope
Fig. 4--The effect of salinity and type of surfactant
of the viscosity /shear-rate relationship, but can on polymer emulsion viscosity.
change the absolute viscosity slightly. The compati-
bility of the fluids and additives used in the system
should be checked before a fracturing treatment is
BRINE POLYMER EMULSIONS AT 750 F
performed. CONTAINING, 2 LB GUAR/BBL WATER
The amount and type of polymer in the aqueous 67% OIL
33% 9 LB/GAL BRINE
phase does change the emulsion viscosity. Depending 0.5% QUATERNARY AMINE

on the type of polymer used, about Yz to 2Yz lb of

polymer is required to give a sufficient apparent vis-
cosity to the aqueous phase (10 to 100 cp at 70°F
and 511 sec-i). Viscosity varies slightly when different TYPE QF
OIL
VISCOSITY
water-soluble polymers, commonly available in the OIL (cp)

DIESEL 2.0
oil field, are used to gel the water. Fig. 6 shows vis- -HEPTANE 0.3
cosity /shear-rate curves of polymer emulsion made 100 ~~~~~~~~~~ CCRRUt?~E ~050.0
from four commonly used polymers. The highest 8 (360 API)

viscosity at any shear rate is obtained when guar

polymer is used.
The surface-active emulsifier appears to contribute
to emulsion viscosity, but little additional viscosity is
obtained by adding excess surfactant. Generally,
about 0.5 percent by weight of either the sodium SHEAR RATE (SEC-')

tall ate (fresh water) or the quaternary amine (brine) Fig. 5-The effect of oil type on polymer emulsion
Viscosity.

10.000,,--------------------,
8 FRESH WATER GUAR POLYMER EMULSIONS
FRESH WATER POLYMER
6 CONTAINING 0.5% SODIUM TALLATE EMULSIONS EACH CONTAINING
4 70% OIL
30% WATER 2 LB POLYMER/BBL WATER
TYPE OF
33% WATER
POLYMER
67% DIESEL OIL
0.5% SODIUM TALLATE

~
s
> 4
>-
OJ
0
u
'"
;:;
100
8
6
4 4

SHEAR RATE - SEC-'

SHEAR RATE (SEC-')
Fig. 3 -The effect of shear rate on polymer Fig. 6--The effect of polymer type on the polymer
emulsion viscosity. emulsion viscosity.

JULY, 1974 733

 TABLE l-CALCULATED TUBULAR FRICTION PRESSURE FOR POLYMER EMULSION (AT 70°F)

Tubing Pressure Drop at the Following Flow Rates (bbl/min)

Size _ (psi/100 ft)
Emulsion Type ~ 1 5 10 20 30
Fresh water -- 1 Ib guar /bbl 2% 17.7 50.5 82.7 153. 268.
21's 9.7 27.8 43.8 69. 93.
3 112 5.3 15.2 23.9 37. 48.
Brine -- 1 Ib guar/bbl 2% 13.7 41.7 67.5 118. 225.
21's 7.4 22.4 36.2 58. 78.
3 112 3.9 11.9 19.3 31. 41.

is needed for optimum viscosity and stability. When
K~l is used in the fresh-water system 0.7 percent by
weIght of the sodium tall ate is required; at tempera-
tures above 180°F, 1.0 percent by weight of sodium
tallate is used to stabilize the fresh-water emulsion
system.
Tubular Friction Loss
The e~pected tubular friction losses for the polymer
em~lslOn fluids are given in Table 1, for typical frac-
tunng rates and tubing sizes. These predictions were
made by (1) measuring the pressure drop for the fluid
in I~in. tubing, (2) evaluating unknown parameters
reqUIred to fit these data with theoretical relations
developed by Metzner et aIY-20 (discussed in the
Appendix), and (3) predicting the pressure loss in
larger-size tubing with these equations. The excellent
fit between the theoretical model and the laboratory
data is illustrated in Fig. 7. Since these predictions
ani extrapolations of data obtained in small tubing,
and since the friction pressure drop for the emulsion
fluid is a function of fluid temperature and emulsion
composition, the predicted friction pressures must
be considered to be approximate.
The necessary equations for calculating tubular
friction loss using the approach are given as Eqs. A-I
through A-lO in the Appendix. The final equation
1000.-------------------------,-----~--~
900 • MEASURED FRICTION
LOSS OF 2 LB GUARiBBL WATER
800 POLYMER EMULSION IN
700 1-INCH DIAM, TUBING
600
(55% OIL - 45% WATER)
,..:
... 500
~ Polymer emulsion systems have a fracture friction
en
Q.
shows that tubular friction loss (D-P) depends on the
,,:iscoelastic coefficient of friction (C FV), the relaxation
tIme for the fluid (8), and the radius of pipe or tubing
(R).
2
Ig%ft (psi) = 1.719 X 10- 0 C;;28 • (4)
Fracture Friction Loss
The fracture width and length are determined by the
force exerted on the fracture walls and the rate of
fluid loss to the formation. The force is transmitted
by the fluid and is equal to the resistance of the fluid
flowing along the narrow, rough-walled fracture
(fracture friction loss). As the friction loss increases
th.e f,racture :vidth/length ratio increases. Thus, a high
fnctIon loss IS needed to produce a wide fracture when
a large-diameter propp ant is to be used. Fracture
volume is determined primarily by the rate of fluid
leakoff into the formation (discussed in the next
section).
Measurement of friction loss in the field is both
difficult and expensive, so laboratory tests were run
to determine the friction loss of the polymer emulsion
fluids. Two laboratory models were prepared by frac-
turing I-ft-long cores in tension and then casting
four of the split cores in epoxy. The width between
the exposed faces of the split cores was controlled by
using small balls or thin wire as a spacer. As shown
schematically in Fig. 8, the experimental equipment
consisted of two emulsion containers two fracture
models with different widths, and pres~ure, tempera-
ture, and flow rate measuring instruments. Fig. 9
shows a cross-section of the fracture model to illus-
trate the typical geometry and wall roughness. It is
believed that this model accurately simulates an actual
fracture in a formation.

gj"
0
...J

Z
0
1=
~
...
0:

0:
«
...J
:::>

...'":::>

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FLOW RATE, BPM
Fig. 7-Tubular friction loss of a polymer emulsion Fig. 8-Schematic of propagation pressure (fracture
in l·in.-diameter laboratory flow loop. friction loss) measuring equipment.

734 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 2-COMPARISON OF POLYMER EMULSION

t--·-------2-3/8"-------~
.. 1
VISCOSITY AND RHEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
(From a Rotational Viscometer and Flow
Through a Rough-Wall Slit)
Guar Polymer Emulsion Rough-Wall Percent
Viscosity' (cp) Split Flow Viscometer Difference
170 sec· ' 442 405 + 9
500 sec· ' 261 195 +34
Rheological Parameter'·
BANDERA
CORE
2-5/16"
n 0.508 0.514 -1.2
K 0.1253 0.1044 +16
'Apparent viscosity was calculated from the measured pressure
drop in the fracture model. using the following equation:
6P W'H
'I. = 47.833 6L Q
•• Power-law model.

loss that is generally 10 to 100 times higher than that SCALE 2,1 SPACER FRACTURE FLOW
WIRE SLIT
of water, as shown in Fig. 10. Viscosities calculated
Fig. 9-Cross-section of fracture friction loss flow model.
from these data agree fairly well with viscosity read-
ings made with a rotational viscometer. A compari- 10r-----------------~~=_--__,
son of the viscosities and the power-law parameters 8
(n and K) for the 2 Iblbbl guar polymer emulsion is 6

given in Table 2. Because of the surprisingly good 4

POLYMER TYPE
agreement between viscometer readings and rough- HEC __
GUAR~
walled fracture flow data, an approximate prediction POLYACRYLAMIDE
of the fracture friction loss can be made using only ~
..J
1.0
XC - - -
FRESH WATER POLYMER
viscometer data evaluated at the shear rate expected z
8 EMULSIONS
o 6 2 lB POlYMER/BBl WATER
during flow along the fracture.
~
33% WATER
4 67% DIESEL Oil
II:
0.5% SODIUM TAllATE
Fluid-Loss Characteristics U.
w
II:
The rate of fluid loss of polymer emulsion fluids con- :::>

taining fluid loss additives* is low over a wide tem- ~a: 0.1
u. 8
perature range. This low rate of fluid loss means that 6
the emulsion will have a high fluid efficiency, so a 4
minimum volume of fluid is needed for any partic-
ular treatment. Fig 11 shows dynamic fluid loss test
data for both fresh water and brine emulsions and for
a viscous oil, all containing fluid loss additives.
Temperature does not appreciably affect the rate of SH EAR RATE (SEC· 1 )
polymer emulsion fluid loss until it reaches about Fig. 10-A comparison of the fracture friction loss of
polymer emulsion systems and water_
170°F_ The rate of fluid loss of the viscous oil is very
temperature sensitive compared with that of the poly-
mer emulsion. Dynamic fluid-loss '6 parameters spurt 25r------------------------------~

volume (V spt) and steady-state fluid loss velocity (VL) enw

for polymer emulsions are shown in Table 3 at several ....
:::>
temperatures. ~ 20
The low fluid loss rate of the polymer emulsions o
N

occurs because of the two emulsion phases, which ....

-0:
hinder the fluid loss due to relative permeability U
effects_ Also, the polymer combines with fluid loss 2 15
u.
u.
additives to form a thin filter cake that temporarily o
blocks fluid leakoff. '"-0:w
...J
o 10
Cleau-Up Characteristics 5
...J
To be most effective, a fracturing fluid should be U.

<..l
removed from an oil or gas well promptly after the
~z
treatment so production can be resumed without >
delay_ Since polymer emulsion systems degrade into o
two low-viscosity fluids after entering the formation,

'Water-based fluid loss additives are silica flour and a commer-
cial product made from finely divided particles coated with a
water-soluble polymer. Oil-based fluid loss additives are a com-
mercial product made from finely divided particles coated with
an oil-soluble surfactant.
°1~0~0---------~15~0----------~20~0----------~2~50
TEMPERATURE - OF
Fig_ 11--The effect of temperature on the dynamic fluid
loss of polymer emulsion and viscous oil.

JULY, 1974 735

 TABLE 3-DYNAMIC FLUID LOSS OF POLYMER EMULSION FLUID SYSTEMS
THROUGH BANDERA CORES WITH 20 LB/l,OOO GAL FLUID-LOSS ADDITIVES
Dynamic Fluid Loss Parameters
Temperature C F) 100 150 200 250 300
Spurt volume, V,Pt 0.00324 0.00385 0.00453 0.00902 0.01214
Steady· state fluid
leakoff velocity, VL 0.00085 0.00095 0.00109 0.0017 0.0040

clean-up is rapid. The brine emulsion is stabilized by
a cationic surfactant that rapidly adsorbs on forma-
tion materials; as adsorption proceeds, the emulsion
breaks. Fresh-water emulsions are broken by contact
with formation brines and exposure to high temper-
atures. Also, polymers can be degraded chemically or
thermally.
Laboratory tests show that polymer emulsions are
easily removed from formation cores and their clean-
up times are comparable with that of water. Fig. 12A
shows the number of pore volumes of gas required to
restore gas saturation to a Berea sandstone core after
the core was filled with water at ambient conditions
and with the polymer emulsion at 200°F. Fig. 12B
shows the core's relative permeability to gas for the
same tests. These results show that for both fluids,
25 percent gas saturation is restored before one full
pore volume of gas is injected into the core; after
10 PV, the gas saturation is 35 percent. At 40 percent
gas saturation, relative permeability to gas is 25
percent for water and 20 percent for the emulsion.
Clean-up for field treatments using the emulsion
18
• POLYMER EMULSION AT 200°F
0
16 • WATER AT 75°F
w
l-
t)
...,w 14
~
systems has been rapid. Fig. 13 compares the clean-up
time required for a polymer emulsion with that
required for other viscous fluid systems. In this
comparison, three wells were fractured in a low-
permeability chert formation. Fluids containing large
amounts of gelling agents were used in Wells Band
C, and a fresh-water polymer emulsion was used in
Well A. Well A reached its maximum production rate
in about 5 days, whereas Wells Band C required
about 30 days to achieve their maximum production
rate.
Field Results
Production rates have been increased by a factor of
3.4 in oil wells and 4.0 in gas wells 6 months after
polymer emulsion treatments were performed for
Exxon Co. U.S.A. Results from fracturing 64 Exxon
oil wells are given in Table 4, where they are iden-
tified by location, lithology, and depth. Table 5 shows
Exxon gas well fracturing experience. Fracturing
treatments on 16 initial completions are not included
in these tables. The wells now produce 1,815 BOPD.
Exxon's gas wells have all returned to stimulated
rates and normal gas/fluid ratios in a week or less.
Many of the wells required no swabbing to restore
production. Only minimum swabbing was required
in the few wells where it was used.

'"<t
12
Acknowledgment
(!)
LL
10 We would like to express our appreciation to D. E.
0 Nierode, who conducted laboratory friction-loss tests
8
'"2w
~ 6
.J
0
> 4 16
w
a:
0 2 BEREA CORE
"-
14
____L -____ ____L-____L -_ _
O~

o 10 20
~~~L-

30 40 50
~

60
e
LL
POL YMER EMULSION
WELL "A"r /
,
U /

,,
CI)
/
Fig. 12A-The gas volume required to displace fracturing :;:
:;:
12
fluids and establish a gas saturation. I
/
uJ
I- /VISCOUS GEL
« 10 t- I WELL "B"
o:
I
z
'"
«
(!) BEREA CORE Q f
I
l- f
o U
:J
S f
I- I
0
0.3 f VISCOUS GEL
>
I-
0
0: f ....----WELL .. c ..
:::; 0-
6 I
f ,/
iii w
« c:> f /
w « f
f
/
::< 0.2 0::
I
a:
W
> 4 I /
w
c.. « I /
I
w
> I /
1= 0.1 2 I
/
«
.J
w
1/
a: jI'
0
0~0----~10-----2~0-----3~0-----4LO----.J---~60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

TIME SINCE TREATMENT. DAYS

GAS SATURATION - %
Fig. 13-Production rates after stimulation by polymer
Fig. 12B-Relative permeability (to gas) of water emulsion and viscous gel fracturing treatments
and polymer emulsion fluids. in a low-permeability chert.

736 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

and proposed the use of the Seyer-Metzner Fluid T =
temperature, OF
model, and also to D. M. Kehn, who generated the
clean-up test data for the polymer emulsion fluids.
u= average velocity, ft/sec (see Eq. A-3)
V spt = spurt volume from dynamic fluid loss
tests, ft3 /ft2
Nomenclature VL = steady-state dynamic fluid leakoff, ft/min
Cn = laminar friction factor (see Eq. A-5) W = average fracture width, in.
CFT = turbulent friction factor (see Eq. A-6)
C n = viscoelastic friction factor (see Eq. A-2) y = shear rate, sec- 1
D = inside tubing diameter, in. 'I] = apparent fluid viscosity, cp
K = consistency index for a power law fluid, 'l]a = apparent viscosity exhibited during flow
Ib/fF-sec- 1 along a fracture, cp
ilL = length, ft '1]0 = apparent viscosity of the polymer solu-
n = flow behavior index for power-law fluids tion at 511 sec 1 and 70°F, cp [for
N Re , = generalized Reynolds number (see Eq. guar, '1]0 = 45.7 (C - 0.568), where C
A-8) is guar gum concentration (limited to
N Deb = Deborah number (see Eq. A-7) 0.75 < C < 2.75 Ib/gal)]
ilP = friction loss, psi 'l]RT = apparent viscosity of the emulsion at 511
Q = flow rate, bbl/min sec- 1 and 70°F, cp
R = pipe radius, in. 'l]T = apparent viscosity of the emulsion at 511

TABLE 4-EXXON'S EXPERIENCE WITH POLYMER EMULSION FRACTURING IN OIL WELLS·

Daily Oil Production (bbl)
Area (State/County) Lithology'" " Number of Wells Depth (ft) Before Aftert
Oklahoma/Carter SS 19 2,300 680 2,561
Oklahoma/Garvin SS 2 9,600 10 210
Mississippi/Lamar SS 1 9,100 0 0(&)
Texas/ Andrew SS 1 8,600 0 145
Texas/ Austin SS 1 6,300 4 7
Texas/ Atascosita SS 16 5,100 279 617
Texas/Cherokee SS 3 4,700 79 374
Texas/Coke LS, SS 2 5,000 103 154
Texas/Crane Chert 3 5,400 145 394
Texas/Kleberg SS 1 9,700 13 79
Texas/Montgomery SS 1 4,900 16 34(b)
Texas/Pecos LS 1 10,300 S.I. 50
Texas/Rusk SS 4 3,800 9 75
Texas/Uinta SS 1 5,400 123 300
Texas/Van Zandt SS 1 2,700 100 270
Texas/Willacy SS 1 7,900 25 70
Texas/Winkler Chert 3 8,400 36 160(C)
Texas/Wood SS 2 4,700 9 33
Utah, S. E. LS 1 4,800 0 80
T>otal oil wells 64 1,631 5,563
'Not included are 16 initial completions with total current production of 1,815 SOPD.
• ·SS = sandstone, LS = limestone,
tProduction rate reported is 6 months or longer after the fracturing treatment.
(a) Watered out.
(b) Small volume treatment.
(c) One well not evaluated.

TABLE 5-EXXON'S EXPERIENCE WITH POLYMER EMULSION FRACTURING IN GAS WELLS

Daily Gas Production
(MMscf/D)
Area (State/County) Lithology':' Number of Wells Depth (ft) Before After
Texas/Nacogdoches SS 5 8,000-8,700 0.23 17.3
Texas/Navarro SS 1 6,200 0.04 0.95
Texas/Brooks SS 5** 5,400-8,100 8.6 16.3
Texas/Jackson SS 1 8,000 0.0 2.0
Texas/Kenedy SS 1 7,700 0.0 3.5
Texas/Nueces SS 1 8,900 2.4 9.0t
Texas/Kleberg SS 1 7,600 2.4 5.3
Texas/Ward Chert 1 13,400 3.5 13.8
Total gas wells
- 68.15
16 17.17
·ss = sandstone.
"Includes two completions in marginal reservoirs and one mechanical failure.
tProduction later limited to 4.1 MMcf/D by sand production.

JULY, 1974 737

 sec -1 at temperature of interest, cp friction loss of a polymer emulsion fluid are given
£)= relaxation time of fluid (see Eq. A-I), sec below.
p = fluid density, lb/cu ft The relaxation time (£), sec) at a given velocity (u)
T = shear stress, lb/ft" and for a given ins:de pipe diameter (D) was found
cp = volume fraction of oil in the emulsion to be constant for the normal range of polymer con-
centrations in the emulsion system and can be written
References as follows:
1. Kiel, O. M.: "Method of Fracturing Subterranean For-
mations Using Oil-in-Water Emulsions," U. S. Patent
3,710,865 (Jan. 16, 1973).
8u ) -A2

2. Kiel, O. M.: "A New Hydraulic Fracturing Process,"

J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1970) 89-96.
£) = A, ( 1O~00 (A-I)
3. Sinclair, A R.: "Rheology of Viscous Fracturing Fluids,"
J. Pet. Tech. (June 1970) 711-719. The experimental constants, A 1 and A 2, are found
4. Rosene, R. B., and Shumaker, E. F.: "Viscous Fluids by curve fitting laboratory data. Values for these
Provide Improved Results From Hydraulic Fracturing coefficients were found to be A, = 2.02 X 10 4 and
Treatments," paper SPE 3347 presented at SPE-AIME
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Billings, Mont., June A2 = 4.516.
2-4, 1971. The friction factor (CFV) for viscoelastic fluid be-
5. Alderman, E. N.: "Super Thick Fluids Provide New havior is written thus:
Answers to Old Fracturing Problems," paper SPE 2852
presented at SPE-AIME Meeting on Practical Aspects
C FT FV
of Improved Recovery, Fort Worth, Tex., March 8-10, C -- C
C -_ 1 - exp [ A3 (N Deb ) A4] , (A-2)
1970. Fl' FL
6. Seidel, W. R., and Stahl, E. J., Jr.: "Gas Well Stimula-
tion With a Viscous Water-Base Fracturing Fluid," J. where the experimental constants, A3 and A 4 , were
Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1972) 1385-1390. found to be functions of the generalized Reynolds
7. Kucera, C. H., Smith, C. F., and Braunlich, F. H.: "New number,
Oil Gelling Systems Prevent Damage in Water-Sensitive
Sands," paper SPE 3503 presented at SPE-AIME 46th A3 = [(N Re )/1,000]1.073, (A-3)
Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, La., Oct. 3-6, 1971.
8. Coulter, G. R., and Wells, R. D.: "The Advantages of A4 = 0.577 - 0.0396 (N Re /10,000) . (A-4)
High Propp ant Concentration in Fracture Stimulation,"
J. Pet. Tech. (June 1972) 643-650. The laminar friction factor (C n ) can be defined as
9. Dysart, G. R., Richardson, D. W., and Kannenberg, B. G.:
"Second Generation Fracturing Fluids," API Paper 906- 16 (A-5)
15-H presented at API 1970 Spring Meeting, Odessa, Tex. C FL = - - ,
Nne'
10. Davidson, R. L., and Sittig, M.: Water-Soluble Resins,
Reinhold Book Corp., New York (1968). and the turbulent friction factor (Cn) for fluids with-
11. Wilkinson, M. A: Non-Newtonian Fliuds, Pergamon out viscoelasticity is
Press, New York (1960).
12. Sherman, P.: Emulsion Science, Academic Press, Lon-
don and New York (1968). ~ C~T = n;7G log 10 (N Re C n 2-n/2) ~~~ (A-6)
13. Becher, P.: Emulsions: Theory and Practice, Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York (1957).
A Deborah number can be calculated by Eq. A-7.
14. Sinclair, A R.: "Heat Transfer Effects in Deep Well
Fracturing," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971) 1484-1492;
Trans., AIME, 251. N Deb -- U (N
D Re'
)0,75
,
(A-7)
15. Eirich, F. R.: Rheology: Theory and Application, Aca-
demic Press, New York (1960) 3, 222 and 612.
16. Williams, B. B.: "Fluid Loss From Hydraulically In- and a generalized Reynolds number (Nne) can be
duced Fractures," J. Pet. Tech., (July 1970) 882-888; written
Trans., AIME, 249.
17. Kiel, O. M., and Weaver, R. H.: "Emulsion Fracturing Dn u2- n p
System," Oil and Gas J. (Feb. 21, 1972) 72-73.
18. Matthews, T. M.: "Field Use of Superfrac - A new
Hydraulic Technique," paper SPE 2625 presented at
8n - 1 K ( 3n 4:
N Re' = ----,--:;:-----'-----:-,,---
1) n
(A-8)

SPE-AIME 44th Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colo.,

Sept. 28-0ct. 1, 1969. The average fluid velocity is written as
19. Dodge, D. W., and Metzner, A B.: "Turbulent Flow
of Non-Newtonian Fluids," AIChE Jour. (June 1959) - Q (A-9)
U = 0.0298 R2 •
189-204.
20. Seyer, F. A., and Metzner, A B.: "Turbulent Flow
Flow Properties of Viscoelastic Fluids," Cdn. J. of The viscoelastic friction factor, relaxation time, and
Chern. Eng. (June 1967) 45, 121-126. pipe radius can be combined to predict the tubular
friction drop in psi per 100 ft by Eq. 4 in the report;
APPENDIX or
Tubular Friction-Loss Prediction Equations
Tubular friction-loss data can be predicted using the ~P/100 ft (psi) = 1.917 X 10- 5 C;'2£)2 (A-lO).
Seyer-Metzner20 theory, which describes the flow of JPT
viscoelastic, power-law fluids. To predict tubular
friction losses with this theory, a viscoelastic friction Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office July 30, 1973. Revised manuscript received April 2, 1974.
loss coefficient and a relaxation time must be calcu- Pa"er (SPE 4675) was presented at the SPE·AIME 48th Annual
Fall Meeting, held in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30·0ct. 3, 1973. ©
lated from measured data. The method for evaluating Copyright 1974 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
these coefficients and the final equations for tubular Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

738 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY