SPE 52219

Proppant Conductivity What Counts and Why

Lyle V. Lehman, SPE, Mark A. Parker, SPE, Matt E. Blauch, SPE, Randy Haynes, SPE, and Alan Blackmon, SPE,
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 Mid-Continent Operations Symposium,
held in Oklahoma City, U.S.A., 29-31 March.
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 Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The emergence of accepted proppant conductivity testing
methods has led to much discussion about what is needed to
regain high conductivity levels, and several marketing campaigns have been based on these findings. The industry has
generally accepted the principle that delivering high conductivity levels in the fracture is key to achieving high production
levels. This paper does not refute this point, but modifies it.
This paper presents theory, laboratory data, and case histories indicating that high initial conductivity levels can only gain
high initial levels of potential or actual production. For sustained, high production levels, the proppant packs integrity
must be maintained. With time, most proppant packs are damaged by fines migration, gel clogging, and geochemical precipitation. These processes can be abated with various additives and
techniques. This paper discusses these techniques in detail and
shows case histories in which the techniques proved cost-effective in sustaining higher levels of production than those found in
comparable wells.
Introduction: What is Conductivity?
Conductivity is the capacity to flow reservoir fluids through
porous proppant media. Mathematically, conductivity is the
propped width times the effective proppant permeability. Thus,
propped width is the difference between permeability and conductivity. Today, propped width relates primarily to proppant
conductivity; not fracture conductivity.
Proppant conductivity and fracture conductivity are not
interchangeable.1 Proppant conductivity reflects the flow capacity of a specific amount of proppant in an API flow-test apparaReferences at the end of the paper.

tus. API standards for testing proppant conductivity2,3 make no

reference to the distribution of proppant, correction for connection to the wellbore, degree of effective reservoir exposure, etc.
Fracture conductivity is the total of all components that affect the
delivery of reservoir fluids to the wellbore, including (1) proppant
conductivity, (2) propped fracture communication with the
wellbore, and (3) aftereffects on conductivity in the propped
fracture with respect to production or time. Because many
contributing factors cannot be established before a treatment, no
prejob method of quantitatively testing fracture conductivity
exists. Fracture conductivity must be determined after the job is
completed.
One could assume that proppant conductivity is a product of
proppant and gel damage. Fracture conductivity, then, would be
the placement of proppant conductivity. Based on this perspective, much research about proppant conductivity actually applies
to fracture conductivity, and the information that the production
engineer needs is fracture conductivity contrast. Establishing
and maintaining contrast are key to proppant-pack production.
The production engineer needs a means to deliver reservoir
fluids to the wellbore fulltime. The ideal mechanism would be a
highly conductive pipeline that is resilient to contamination and
stress changes, is properly connected to the tubulars, and never
needs cleaning.
This paper contains authors comments about proppant and
fracture conductivity and the factors that change them with time.
Laboratory examples and case studies that support data from
these studies are presented. Effects of stimulation, fracture load
recovery, production, and stress cycling on fracture conductivity
are discussed. Case histories that relate to laboratory observations and theory are also included.
Obtaining Conductivity Through Better Chemistry
Proppant-pack conductivity measurements provide a performance property for the formation that will be fracture-stimulated, and may not truly represent the effective fracture conductivity or performance of a fracture. However, they can help
identify the major detrimental effects on conductivity and ways
to reduce these effects.
Breakers. The residue in gelled fracturing-fluid systems reduces proppant pack conductivity.4 This residue may be bulk gel

PROPPANT CONDUCTIVITY WHAT COUNTS AND WHY

SPE 52219

filling the pore spaces of the pack, or residual gel that has
adhered to the surface of the proppant grains. In either case, the
proppant-pack permeability and conductivity are reduced. By
design, breakers should eliminate the residue; however, conventional breakers in acceptable concentrations produce no significant increase in conductivity. Encapsulated breakers that can be
placed with the proppant also show no significant benefit.
Recently, a long-acting oxidizing breaker has proven effective in
increasing conductivity.5 However, laboratory conductivity studies indicate that a fluid system effect remains.

test cell and fracture conductivity is measured in the fractures

performance. Because fracture conductivity is not measurable
until after the fracturing treatment, proppant conductivity standards are used as initial values for developing contrasts for most
fracturing treatments. However, other damaging mechanisms
such as gel damage, multiple (several short) fractures, multiphase
flow below the bubble point in oil wells, geochemical precipitates, and fines also merit consideration. Several of these mechanisms have been widely discussed7-9 and are not addressed in this
paper.

Flowback Concerns. Conductivity is primarily needed for

increasing production from the reservoir. However, adequate
conductivity is also important for cleanup and removing the
broken fluid system from the fracture. In fact, greater conductivity may be required for fracture cleanup than for increasing
production.

Fracture Conductivity Components. Fracture conductivity

can be considered the total of several proppant-conductivity
conditions that depend upon wellbore connectivity, fracture
geometry, embedment, closure stress, distribution of proppant in
the pack, and the nature of flow through the pack. Proppant
conductivity plays a principal role in generating fracture conductivity.
The recovery of conductivity is of primary concern in
proppant conductivity research. Currently, the leading techniques involve reducing and removing damage, and preventing
damage to the pack. Recent activities have been focused on
eliminating polymer from the fracturing fluid.10 However, the
overall benefits of using a fluid system to generate fracture
geometry, control fluid loss, and provide proppant transport,
must be carefully considered. These needs and reservoir temperature conditions make the no polymer technique an option
for very few applications.
Although the goal in breaking gel and recovering polymer
(typically at high recovery rates) is to remove damage, a rapid
flowback of the fracturing fluid load can remove proppant from
the near- wellbore area. Therefore, the very mechanism thought
to remove damage may jeopardize the connectivity of the fracture and wellbore.
The proppants angle of repose can also contribute to
proppant flowback. Under dry or saturated conditions, proppant
has an approximate 30 angle of repose. If proppant is allowed
to produce through perforations to the angle of repose, a significant amount of proppant may be removed from the fracture in the
near-wellbore area. The SMA material increases the angle of
repose for sand to about 70. This steeper angle allows less
proppant to be produced out of the fracture, ensuring that
proppant is in place to support the fracture and maintain connectivity with the wellbore.
Fig. 4 compares untreated and SMA-treated proppant in a
fracture. The area of fracture left unpropped is much smaller with
SMA-treated proppant. The steeper angle of repose for treated
proppant causes less material to be produced, and leaves a
greater area of fracture propped. Other flowback-control methods may also increase the threshold for proppant production;
however, the effective conductivity of the proppant pack in the
near-wellbore area is generally reduced by as much as 30% with
these methods.11

SMA Effects on Conductivity. Surface-modifying additives

(SMAs) can significantly improve fracture conductivity by
changing the way the proppant packs together. The most efficient packing of particles is a rhombohedral arrangement that
can produce a pack porosity with about 26% void space. This is
the natural arrangement of particulate solids, such as proppant
grains in a settled or packed fracture.
SMA-treated proppant grains are not arranged in this manner. The tackiness or increased surface friction of the grains
cause them to form a high-porosity pack with relatively large
void spaces. This vugular porosity increases the packs permeability, and therefore, its conductivity. Fig. 1 shows a comparison of the height of treated and untreated proppant grains in a
Plexiglas model. Both tests used the same amount of proppant.
The SMA-treated sand shows a pack-height increase of about
14%. In similar tests, the addition of SMA has increased pack
heights as much as 20%.
Proppant-pack conductivity measurements under stress show
that treated proppant grains increase conductivity about 13%
beyond the conductivity obtained with untreated proppant grains.
Fig. 2 shows a graph of the conductivity data. This benefit is
apparent at low stress.
The proppant pack will be in a low-stress condition during
the cleanup after a fracturing treatment. Fig. 3 shows the conductivity of a proppant pack with the fluid system effects from a
25-lbm/Mgal guar-borate fluid system. The difference between
the treated and untreated proppant pack conductivity is dramatic; the presence of SMA actually shifts the curve to higher
conductivity, which will enhance the early-time cleanup and the
later-time production.
Laboratory Performance vs. Field Performance
Historically, some researchers have attempted to distinguish
between fracture- and proppant-based damage.6 In terms of
production economics, proppant conductivity is measured in the

SPE 52219

L.V. LEHMAN, M.A. PARKER, M.E. BLAUCH, R. HAYNES, A. BLACKMON

Modeling the Fracture Environment in the Laboratory. The

reservoir conditions that determine the conductivity of a proppant
pack can be simulated in a laboratory. Closure stress, a primary
test parameter, is the most important factor in determining
conductivity. However, the detrimental effects that fluid systems
can have on conductivity should also be considered.
The effects of closure stress and fluid systems can be studied
through the simulation of treatment conditions in the laboratory.
Dynamic fluid-loss filter cakes generated on the surface of rock
(core) wafers are often used for this purpose. This filter-cake
covered surface is placed in contact with the proppant, and the
conductivity is measured. These procedures are documented and
accepted as standard laboratory practice for measuring proppantpack conductivity.13,14 The combination of closure stress and
fluid-system filter cake reduces conductivity. Closure stress
reduces conductivity (and permeability) by crushing proppant
grains. Fluid-system filter cakes reduce conductivity (and permeability) by filling the pack porosity. These combined effects
reduce conductivity to realistic values expected in the field.
Laboratory conductivity measurements accurately represent the proppant pack under specific test conditions and scale.
However, the proppant pack being simulated may not truly
represent the entire distribution of proppants in a fracture.
Variations of proppant distribution in the fracture will result in
variations in conductivity. Therefore, when the performance of
the fracture is evaluated, the average conductivity calculated
might be very different from the laboratory test value. These
variations are the main reason that proppant-pack conductivity
values should not be used exclusively as a design tool.
Initial vs. Sustained Conductivity
The conductivity level directly affects the flow of materials
through proppant packs. Obtaining a high conductivity level is
difficult for many reasons. Laboratory tests show that conductivity values can vary widely because of variations in breaker
loading, flowback rate, propped width, and base gel concentration. Conclusions from these tests typically identify gel concentration as a key damage factor.
In a 1985 study, Soliman stated that sufficient conductivity
was important primarily for recovering the fracturing-fluid load.15
Soliman stated that a proppant pack designed for production
was, therefore, insufficient to clean up the fracture, and that the
impact of viscosity in flow through the media must be considered. Likewise, Pope et al. studied guar removal in the Codell
formation of Colorado. They concluded that the percentage of
load recovery was not as important as the amount of polymer
recovered.16 Previously, Pope concluded that viscous fingering
was a damage factor in load recovery,17 and revealed the effects
of having a range of viscosity in the pack. Willberg,18 May,19 and
Samuel20 made similar conclusions about viscosity in the proppant
pack, and concluded that the best method for removing damage
was avoiding the use of damaging fluids for carrying proppant.
Surfactants have also been shown to aid in fluid recovery and
enhance cleanup of damaging fluids.21

Conductivity during production from the reservoir will change

with time. Effective fracture length can increase with time,22
which demonstrates the long-term cleanup effects of production
on the fracture. However, closure stress will generally increase
with production of the well. Other factors that can damage a
proppant pack are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Damage Factors
Stress Cycling. Closure stress will increase as the drawdown of
bottomhole pressure increases, and it will decrease if a well is
shut-in. These stress cycles, which occur in almost every well,
can reduce conductivity. However, the most critical aspect of
stress cycling is the time at the highest closure stress. When stress
is decreased because of shut-in, the overall stress condition
becomes less severe, and conductivity reduction associated with
the higher stress will stop. The conductivity may even increase
when the grains in the pack relax. However, stress cycling may
allow fines to dislodge and migrate.
Geochemical Precipitates. Geochemical precipitates have
played a significant role in fracture conductivity reduction.
Geochemical precipitation occurs downhole during or after the
hydraulic placement of proppant in a fracture. Aqueous fluid and
formation equilibria or disequilibria govern the precipitation of
primarily inorganic substances. The mineralogies observed and
predicted can vary widely, but usually consist of carbonate
species, sulfides, and various forms of iron oxides/hydroxides.
Mechanisms controlling the precipitation and consequent loss of
conductivity are explained through phase equilibria. These equilibria involve a wide range of aqueous-fluid parameters including Eh, pH, partial pressure to various gases such as CO2, and
fugacity of sulfide. Three-dimensional phase relationships (Fig.
5) exist and can be modeled if both the water and rock chemistries are known, along with the reservoir parameters.
Evidence of in-situ geochemical precipitation has been obtained
from many wellbores.23,24 Fig. 6 shows a proppant grain that was
recovered from a producing well where conductivity loss had
caused a severe production decline. This conductivity loss was
largely attributed to siderite precipitation in the proppant pack.
Fig. 7 shows an example of geochemical precipitation that
occurred post-stimulation during production. In this coalbed
methane example, a calcium-carbonate species attaches to
proppant grains by using coal fines or other organic particulates
as nucleation sites.
Geochemical factors that result in premature production declines can be catalyzed through the re-equilibration of stimulation fluids with downhole formation conditions and mineralogy,
or through the direct mixing of stimulation fluids with formation
waters.
Geochemical reduction of conductivity occurs over various time
periods. It can occur immediately following stimulation or as

PROPPANT CONDUCTIVITY WHAT COUNTS AND WHY

much as several years later. Many formations exhibit a natural

propensity to precipitate simply through production, because of
the lowered partial pressures to gases such as carbon dioxide.
Solutions focus on both prediction and prevention, where possible. However, preventive measures often only delay the inevitable natural process. In such cases, some form of remedial
postfracture stimulation treatment is ultimately required for
damage removal.
Fines. Fines can damage conductivity. The fines can be a
product of the proppants breakdown under closure stress, or
they can come from the formation, which is in contact with the
proppant pack. Fines often develop from unconsolidated formations, but they can occur in competent hard rock if the fracture
face crushes under the load of proppants. Fluid flow allows
movement of the fines, and high flow rates can destabilize the
proppant pack,25 allowing the movement of fines. SMA materials
can reduce the fines effects on proppant-pack conductivity by
creating a stable interface between the proppant and the fracture
face. The stable interface traps fines and prevents them from
penetrating the pack and reducing conductivity. Fines migration
in proppant packs has impeded production and has even acted as
a nucleation site for geochemical precipitates.26
Solutions for Reducing Damage
Some current practices significantly reduce fracture and proppant
conductivity damage. For a successful fracturing treatment,
proppant conductivity damage must be reduced. The production
engineer can help reduce proppant conductivity damage by
following these guidelines:
Reduce polymer loadings, increase breaker loadings, and
use rapid fracturing-fluid recovery methods, within acceptable limits. The excessive use of a polymer or failure to use
sufficient breaker at any stage of production can seriously
jeopardize the overall benefit of the fracturing treatment.
Include SMA material with all proppants. This material
improves conductivity in the following ways:
It encapsulates proppant so that gel residue cannot
build up and reduce the porosity and permeability of the
pack.
It catalyzes or enhances breakers by placing the gel in
a more accessible stereo-chemical configuration for
attack by breakers.
It reduces the proppant flowback potential 10-fold.
More rigorous recovery rates can then be incorporated
into the completion practice.
It increases the porosity of the proppant pack during
early flowback to allow viscous materials to be
recovered. This may increase the amount of viscous
fluid recovery.
It maintains a smooth recovery path as closure in
creases, so that non-Darcy flow effects are diminished.

SPE 52219

It places a tacky surface on the proppant. This surface

allows fines to plate-out on the leading edge of the
proppant, lessening the potential for geochemical precipitation. It also helps maintain the proppant packs
resilience, which reduces the effects of stress cycling.
Include select oxidizing breakers in fracturing-fluid systems. Modern technology now permits the use of high
molecular weight oxidizers that require elevated temperatures for activation. Catalyzing these materials at temperatures less than 200F is possible. Before this technology was
developed, treatments in reservoirs with temperatures above
200F usually did not receive a breaker.

Case Histories
The following case histories show how an understanding of
fracture conductivity and techniques for changing this property
can enhance production.
Case History 1. This case history typifies Fruitland Coal production in La Plata County, Colorado. A well that was originally
completed in 1993 was treated with 100-mesh sand, reducing
leakoff into the coal cleat system. Operators thought this addition had severely reduced production. Thirteen months later, the
well received its first refracturing treatment. Table 1 shows a
chronology of the completion and workover history through
May 1998. This table illustrates the expenses typically associated with operating a coalbed methane well in the immediate
area. Eight pump changes and two refracturing treatments are
noted over the 5-year history.
In May 1998, the well was refractured for the third time (the
fourth fracturing treatment overall). In this treatment, 15,000 lb/
min of 40/70-mesh sand and 270,000 lbm of 12/20-mesh sand
were placed with 87,750 gal of a low-base, gel-loading, boratecrosslinked gel at 65 bbl/min. The 12/20-mesh sand was coated
with SMA. In the months following this refracture, the gasproduction rate peaked at 1,020 Mcf/D.
Fig. 8 details the wells last 2 years of production. The
flowline pressure is inserted to show the production-tobackpressure response.
Case History 2. The operator of a west Texas Clearfork field
used a low-base, gel-loading, borate-crosslinked gel fluid system in a multiple-well drilling program. Using the production
numbers supplied by the customer for comparison, the operator
had already significantly lowered costs and increased production revenue by an average of $31,600 per well per year by using
a low-base, gel-loading, borate-crosslinked gel system instead of
a conventional 35-lbm/Mgal borate system. Sand-flowback problems required the operator to hang the pump 600 ft above the top
perforation. Still, the operator had to clean sand out of the
wellbore five or six times per well to allow the pumps to be
lowered and more oil to be recovered. Rod pumps, eroded by
sand, had to be replaced. The operators average cleanout costs,

SPE 52219

L.V. LEHMAN, M.A. PARKER, M.E. BLAUCH, R. HAYNES, A. BLACKMON

including rod pump replacement, was $5,600 per cleanout per

well.
This field study was performed in three parts, with each part
separated by calendar year. In 1995, Service Company A used a
conventional borate gel system (for that era). In 1996, Service
Company B used a similar system. In 1997 and 1998, Service
Company A was again awarded the contract, and used a low
polymer-loading borate-gel system. A surface modification agent
was added in the latter part of the program to improve fracture
conductivity.
Six production tracks were included in this Clearfork unit.
For evaluating the completions and the different components of
fracture conductivity, a system was established for examining
leases in tracks where each service company shared work (in
terms of tracks, not time). Each track representsessentially the
same number of new fracturing and refracturing treatments.
However, the continual lowering of the rod pump and the
production increase associated with the decrease in wellbore
pressure can cause a negative production decline rate for short
periods. Because the goal was to measure completion efficiency,
the authors performed reservoir simulations to match the hyperbolic decline after fracturing treatments. Higher decline rates
typically indicate fracture conductivity appropriate for fracture
length and reservoir character. The fracture-dominated production period was not influenced by inadequate conductivity
(Table 2).
Fig. 9 and Table 3 show the difference between service
companies and their breaker/gel philosophies on the various
tracks. An increase in both the 6-month cumulative production
and completion efficiency indicates improved fracture conductivity. In Track 9, the cumulative production is higher, but the
efficiency is lower. This effect could be a result of any of the
following scenarios: (1) fracture-length dominated performance
is poorer, and length may be greater; (2) conductivity-dominated
performance is greater, but not as good as Track 4 wells; or (3)
increased length and conductivity could have increased peak
rate. In Track 26, the decrease in 6-month cumulative production
and increase in completion efficiency reflects the cleanout and
pump-lowering practices described previously. The 12-month
cumulative results are more favorable for Service Company A.
Case History 3. A 129-well fracture-completion study was
completed in late 1998 in southwest Kansas. In this field, the
parent well may be offset by a second well, according to field
rules. Most of the parent well cases were completed in the 1930s
to 1960s. During that time, the field responded well to very large
acid treatments because the Hugoton is primarily a dolomite
zone with medium- to high-permeability values. The offset wells
have all been fracture-stimulated. When this field study was
performed, all 129 wells were either new fracture-stimulated or
restimulated wells.
In that study, 73 wells used SMA; 56 wells did not. SMA was
used in the fracturing treatments for 16 of the 48 new wells and
57 of the 81 parent wells. SMA was not used in the treatments for

the remaining 32 new wells and and 24 parent wells. Table 4

shows the cumulative production results with and without SMA.
Overall, the operator increased production 5%. Cash flows
increased because less rig time was required for cleanup after the
fracturing treatments. Sand recovery was not as successful in the
SMA-treated parent wells that were initially completed with very
large acid volumes, probably because of the lack of isolation
techniques available during that period.
Conclusions
Although understanding the methods used to generate high
proppant-conductivity levels is important, recognizing
issues that can diminish fracture conductivity is more
important for overall production.
The most important aspect of proppant and fracture conductivity is its effect on production. If normal production
includes fines, debris, high-velocity flow rates, geochemical precipitation, cycle stressing, etc., precautions must be
taken to prevent these properties from decreasing effective
conductivity to zero. Addressing these issues before production begins will save the operator costly workover procedures and help sustain continuous production.
In a broad sense, the use of a surface-modification agent
generally enhances both immediate and long-term conductivity.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE (1989) Chap. 6.1,

Introduction.
RP 56, Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic-Fracturing Operations, API, Dallas (1983).
RP 60, Recommended Practices for Testing High Strength
Proppants Used in Hydraulic-Fracturing Operations, API, Dallas
(1983).
Parker, M.A. et al.: Hydraulic Fracturing-Fluid System Breakers
and Their Effects on Proppant-Pack Conductivity, paper SPE
50735 presented at the 1999 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Feb. 16-19.
Shuchart, C. et al.: Novel Oxidizing Breaker for High-Temperature Fracturing, paper SPE 37228 presented at the 1997 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Feb.
18-21.
Report on the Investigation of the Effects of Fracturing Fluids
Upon the Conductivity of Proppants, Proppant Flowback and
Leakoff, presented at the 1997 STIM-LAB, Inc. Proppant Consortium.
Lehman, L.V. and Brumley, J.L.: Etiology of Multiple Fractures, paper SPE 37406, presented at the 1997 SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, Mar. 9-11.
Tidwell, V. and Parker, M.A.: Laboratory Imaging of Stimulation Fluid Displacement from Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE
36491 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition in Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9.
Norman, L.R., Hollenbeak, K.H., and Harris, P.C.: Fracture
Conductivity Impairment Removal, paper SPE 19732 presented
at the 1989 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11.

PROPPANT CONDUCTIVITY WHAT COUNTS AND WHY

10. Brown, J.E. et al.: Use of a Viscoelastic Carrier Fluid in FracPac

Operations, paper SPE 31114 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
LA, Feb. 14-15.
11. Sales brochures for PropNET, Schlumberger.
12. Nguyen, P.D.F. et al.: Enhancing Fracture Conductivity Through
Surface Modification of Proppant, paper SPE 39428 presented
at the 1998 SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette,
LA, Feb. 18-19.
13. Parker, M.A. et al., Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System Breakers
and Their Effects on Proppant Pack Conductivity, paper SPE
50735 presented at the 1999 International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry held in Houston, Feb. 16-19.
14. Preliminary Report on the Investigation of the Effects of Fracturing Fluids Upon the Conductivity of Proppants, presented at the
1989 STIM-LAB, Inc. Proppant Consortium, June 22.
15. Solomon, M.Y. and Hunt, J.L.: Effects of Fracturing Fluid and
its Cleanup on Well Performance, paper SPE 14514 presented at
the 1985 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WV,
Nov. 6-8.
16. Pope, D. et al.: paper SPE 31094 presented at the 1996 SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, LA, Feb. 14-15.
17. Pope, D.S. et al.: Effects of Viscous Fingering on Fracturing
Conductivity, paper SPE 28511 presented at the 1994 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA,
Sept. 25-28.
18. Wilberg, D.M. et al.: Determination of the Effect of Formation
Water on Fracture Fluid Cleanup Through Field Testing in the
East Texas Cotton Valley. paper SPE 38620 presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8.
19. May E.A. et al.: The Effect of Yield Stress on Fracture Fluid
Cleanup, paper SPE 38619 presented at the 1997 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8.
20. Samuel, Mathew et al.: Polymer-Free Fluid for Hydraulic Fracturing paper SPE 38622 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 58.
21. Blauch, M.E., Gardner, T.E., and Venditto, J.J.: Testing and
Using Surfactants in Tight Gas Sand and Unconventional Gas
Reservoirs, paper SPE 27663 presented at the 1994 SPE Permian
Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Mar. 16-18.
22. Voneiff, G.W., Robinson, B.M., and Holditch, S.A.: The Effects
of Unbroken Fracture Fluid on Gas Well Performance, paper
SPE 26664 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.
23. Blauch, M.E. et al.: Diagnostic Process Enhances Gas Storage
Deliverability A Case Study, paper SPE 51039 presented at
the 1998 Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, Nov. 9-11.
24. Yeager, V.J., Blauch, M.E., Behenna, F.R., and Foh, S.E.: Damage Mechanisms in Gas-Storage Wells, paper SPE 38863 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8.
25. Asgian, M.I., Cundall, P.A., and Brady, B.H.G.: The Mechanical
Stability of Propped Hydraulic Fractures: A Numerical Study,
paper SPE 28510 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28.

SPE 52219

26. Lehman, L.V., Blauch, M.E., and Robert, L.M., Desorption

Enhancement in Fracture-Stimulated Coalbed Methane Wells,
paper SPE 51063 presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, Nov. 9-11.

Table 1Workovers for San Juan Basin Well

Date
Process
Mar-93
Apr-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Feb-95
May-95

Completion
Pump change, refracture
Pump change, replace 1 joint of tubing
Pump change, replace 1 joint of tubing
Pump change, refracture
Pump change

Jun-95

Pump change, reverse circulate proppant,

fines, and scale

Oct-95
Apr-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
May-98

Pump change
Pump change
Acidize
Acidize
Pump change
Refracture with SMA-coated proppant

Table 2Clearfork Production Tracks

Track Service
6-month
Decline Comments
Company Cumulative
(%)
Production
(bbl)
10,915
29.9
1995
A
4
vs. 1996
5,864
26.5
B
9
26
22
37
49

A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A

7,006
2,335
11,579
12,682
8,083
6,522
2,536
2,438
6,704
7,157

41.5
50.9
19.4
13.8
36.5
11.9
36.9
35.2
8.2
49.3

1996
vs. 1997

1995
1997

SPE 52219

L.V. LEHMAN, M.A. PARKER, M.E. BLAUCH, R. HAYNES, A. BLACKMON

Table 3Clearfork Production Comparison

Track Service
6-month
12-month
Company Cumulative Cumulative
Production Production
(bbl)
(bbl)
10,915
16,426
A
4
5,864
8,185
B
7,007
9,153
A
9
2,335
3,490
B
11,579
19,993
A
26
12,682
18,928
B
8,083

A
22
6,522

B
2,536

A
37
2,438

B
6,704

49
A
7,157

Table 4Hugotona Cumulative Production Comparison

(SMA vs. no SMA)
Cumulative
New Wells
Restimulated Wells
Production Change in Wells with/ Change in Wells with/
Period
Production
without Production
without
(months)
with SMA
SMA
with SMA
SMA
(%)
(%)
+3.4
16/32
-10.9
57/24
3
+27
7/30
-5.9
36/23
5
+4.1
1/5
+5.9
15/21
12
a

Most of the parent wells in this study were treated with extremely
large amounts of acid.

ccd01356

Fig. 1(Left) A Plexiglas model used to test proppant settling; (Top right) Untreated proppant grains fill the test
apparatus to a height of about 21 in.; (Bottom right) The same amount of proppant treated with SMA produces a height
of about 24 in.

PROPPANT CONDUCTIVITY WHAT COUNTS AND WHY

SPE 52219

6,000

0.5% SMA
5,000

Conductivity (md/ft)

1.0% SMA
4,000

Base Line
3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Closure Stress (psi)

7,000
ccd01357

Fig. 22 lbm/ft2 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand with SMA at 140F in fresh water (no gel effects).

2,500

1% SMA

Conductivity (md/ft)

2,000

1,500
0% SMA
1,000

500

0
1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000
Closure Stress (psi)

5,000

6,000

7,000
ccd01358

Fig. 32 lbm/ft2 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand with 25 lbm/Mgal guar borate fluid system at 140F, with and without SMA.

SPE 52219

L.V. LEHMAN, M.A. PARKER, M.E. BLAUCH, R. HAYNES, A. BLACKMON

No SMA

With SMA

ccd01359

Fig. 4The drawing on the left (30 angle of repose) shows a typical proppant bank after a rapid fracturing-fluid
cleanup. The drawing on the right (70 angle of repose) depicts a proppant bank that was treated with SMA under
similar conditions. For proppant flowback to occur, the condition on the left requires one-tenth the velocity
required by the condition on the right.

T = 25C
Ptot = 1 bar
m(Fe, total) = 10-6
m(S, total) = 10-6
m(CO3, total) = 1

+20

Fe3+

+1.4
+1.2
+1.0

+15

+0.8
+10

+0.6

pe

2O

Fe2+

+5

+0.4

Fe2O3
+0.2

Fe2O3

2O

Eh volt

-0.2

FeS2

-5

-0.4
FeCO3

-10
0

8
pH

Fe3O4
10

12

-0.6
14
om000006

Fig. 5Theoretical precipitation stability fields for iron species constrained to specific conditions of molar
concentrations of iron, sulfur, and carbonate. While these conditions can be confirmed through observation of a
species, the measurement of fluid properties such as Eh and pH can help predict the fluid equilibration paths that
will result from the introduction of a foreign fluid.

10

PROPPANT CONDUCTIVITY WHAT COUNTS AND WHY

SPE 52219

om000007

Fig. 6Ceramic proppant grain recovered from a downhole bailer sample following a
postfracture production decline. The pore-filling texture is evidence of in-situ siderite
precipitation. In this case, the proppant grain is a nucleation site for the geochemical
precipitate.

ccd01080

Fig. 7Geochemical precipitates affixed to coal fines recovered from a wellbore,

marked by a premature, rapid decline in productivity. Precipitate textures revealed a
combination of calcium carbonate, quartz proppant, and fines.

SPE 52219

11

L.V. LEHMAN, M.A. PARKER, M.E. BLAUCH, R. HAYNES, A. BLACKMON

1,000

MCF/D

PSI
100

BWPD

Refracturing Treatment
May 1998
0
Jan 97 Mar 97 May 97 Jul 97 Sep 97 Nov 97 Jan 98 Mar 98 May 98 Jul 98 Sep 98 Nov 98
ccd01360

Fig. 8San Juan Basin Coal well production for past 2 years. The flowline pressure shows the productionto- backpressure response.

97

% Difference in Cumulative Production

% Difference in Completion Efficiency
100%
80%

71

67
46

60%

29
11

40%
20%

19

0%

-9
-18

-20%
Track 4

Track 9

Track 26

Track 22

Track 37
ccd01361

Fig. 9Comparison of cumulative production and completion efficiency in five tracks in a west Texas
oilfield, serviced by two companies with different breaker/gel philosophies.