See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337439668

Rheological Study of Slickwater Fluid Systems Consisting of High-Vis Friction

Reducers Additives for Hydraulic Fracturing Applications

Conference Paper · September 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 22

6 authors, including:

Navneeth Kumar Korlepara Sumanth Ruthala

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sree Karthik Dangeti

Indian Institute or Petroleum and Energy
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Navneeth Kumar Korlepara on 22 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rheological Study of Slickwater Fluid Systems Consisting of High-Vis Friction
Reducers Additives for Hydraulic Fracturing Applications

Navneeth Kumar Korlepara, Research Scholar, ADRACEPE, IIT Kharagpur,

nkkorlepara@gmail.com, Sandeep D. Kulkarni, IIT Kharagpur, Sumanth Ruttala, Ashok Deva
Kumar, Sree Karthik Dangeti, IIPE Vizag, Avinash Kumar Singh, IIT Kharagpur.

Abstract
Slickwater fracturing was developed in the late 1990’s to address the issue of clean-up of gels
from the fractures; the better clean-up using slickwater systems would improve performance of
fractures created compared to those created by guar gums or cross-linker fluid systems. The reach of
slickwater treatment is to create fracture network and fracture connectivity using huge amounts of
water with additives like friction reducers (FR) and hybrid FR/gellant combination. This approach
enables the pumping rates to go as high as 60-100 bbl./min and beyond that may help in proppant
suspension as well as creating efficient fracture network.

Viscosity impact of Friction Reducers (FR) in slickwater fluid systems was not considered as
an essential component of the fluid system initially. However, the modern FR additives not only impart
friction reduction but also increase the fluid viscosity; providing a key advantage in proppant transport
and suspension from the perforations into the formation. These modern FRs, termed as high-vis FR
(HVFR) additives, influence the viscosity behaviour of the fluid system which may vary significantly
with the fluid properties like TDS (Total dissolved solids), hydration approach, polymer concentration,
additive interaction and applied temperature conditions.

Anionic FRs are known for having effective impact on viscosity and friction reduction of high-
TDS slickwater systems. In this work, a specific anionic FR was chosen for the study. The paper
focuses on viscosity effects of the chosen FR evaluated for different slickwater compositions with
variation in the salt types (NaCl and CaCl2) and salt concentrations up to 250k ppm whereas different
concentrations of the chosen FR added into the system (0.5 – 5 gpt). The viscosity response was
investigated at room temperature (85 oF) using API recommended practices. The time evolution of
viscosity was also studied. Based on the data, a statistical model was derived to predict the viscosity
of a slickwater system for a given fluid TDS (monovalent/divalent salt concentrations) and the FR
concentration. The model also captures the effect of temperature and time on the viscosity behaviour
of the fluid system.

This work would enable the estimation of viscosity impact of the FR additive; accordingly, it
would assist in minimizing the trial-and-error approach in designing/optimizing a slickwater fluid
system. The developed models can also help in providing on-the-fly recommendation for the FR-
additive concentration in a given produced-water/slickwater system; thus providing real-time solution
for effective fracturing treatment.

Keywords: Friction Reducer (FR), High Viscous Friction Reducer (HVFR), Polymer concentration, Brine
composition
Introduction
In the 1860’s, well stimulation was performed with explosive fluids like nitro-glycerine.
Development of well stimulation fluids from explosive to non-explosive started in the first half of the
20th century. Acid stimulations were commercialized in the 1930s. During the late 1940s and early
1950s, commercial hydraulic fracturing has been in practise for well stimulation (Montgomery 2010).
Later half of the 20th century, hydraulic fracturing has become arguably one of the most leveraging
completion technologies in unlocking the potential of several reservoirs specifically, the
unconventional ones (Palisch 2010). The fluids are known as hydraulic fracturing fluids or HydraFracs
(Clark 1949), which are specifically designed in propagating fractures to enhance hydrocarbon
production from wells. Fracturing fluids are mostly comprised of water and proppant sand for 99.5%
of the fluid, along with additives of 0.5%, which characterize the fracturing fluids. Linear gels and
Cross-linked gels are used in the early stages; the shift is towards in employing slickwater fluids.

Slickwater fluids is a water-based fluid with proppant combination having low viscosity. This
is an advantage in using slickwater, as the conventional fracturing fluids pumping rates are pre-60
bbl./min whereas the slickwater fluids pumping rates can exceed 60bbl./min. The high pumping rates
helps in generating narrow fractures with low concentrations of proppant. Designing slickwater fluids
is crucial, as the fluid rheology is the key for proppant transport. The slickwater fluids have additives
like surfactants, friction reducers, acids, gelling agents, scale inhibitors which characterize the fluid
rheology. The weakness in slickwater fluids is the low viscosity, which exhibits low proppant transport
and to overcome the weakness, the slickwater fluids must be pumped at high rates which creates
friction in the tubing (Zhou 2011).

Friction reducers are utilized to address the friction in the tubing. It is one of the critical
additives in slickwater fluids, which facilitates higher pump-rates. Commonly used FRs are
polyacrylamides (PAM) and based on the salinity concentration in slickwater fluid, anionic PAM or
cationic PAM is utilized. The general challenge faced in slickwater fluids is proppant transport, as the
fluid is less viscous. If the slickwater fluids are designed/ comprised with additives which can address
both friction reduction and viscosity, the proppant transport can be dealt off. These additives are
acknowledged as High-Vis Friction Reducers (HVFRs), which are adequate to cope the viscosity
required for proppant transport and friction reduction in the tubing.

HVFRs are widely applied in oil and natural gas development primarily as a friction reducer to
minimize frictional losses during pumping (Sun 2010; Aften 2009; Fink 2013; Al-Sarkhi 2010). PAMs
exhibit drag reduction properties which arise from polymer elongation that dampens the vortices which
is a characteristic of turbulent flow (Dubief 2005; Usui 1988; White 2008). Anionic PAMs perform
better as drag reducers in a fresh water environment to low TDS levels (Rodvelt 2015); at high
salinities, cationic PAMs have shown better performance (Paktinat 2011).

There is limited literature on modelling of the time dynamic viscosity response was of the FR
fluids. This work primarily focuses on consistent dynamic viscosity measurement of FR-brine
solutions which can vary depending on FR hydration, FR concentration and brine concentration (Aften
2018).
Experimental Procedure
FR-brine solution preparation: High-Vis Friction Reducers (HVFRs) have complex chemistry
which are primarily polymers developed from acrylamide. The first step of the experimental procedure
involved preparation of a synthetic brine solution of 400 ml volume and desired salinity at a constant
speed at ambient temperature. Salt weight was determined; to be added in the water for desired salinity.
Water and salt were mixed in a constant speed mixer at 1500 RPM for 90 seconds (1½ minutes). The
selected anionic Friction Reducer (FR) with determined FR concentration was added to the brine
solution. The constant speed mixer was operated again at the 1500 RPM for 10 seconds. The FR–brine
solution was then transferred for further testing on the viscometer.

Viscosity measurements: The FR-brine solution was tested for viscosity using API
recommended practice, i.e., 300 RPM on a FANN 35 viscometer (R1B1 geometry) and ambient
temperature (85 oF). The viscosity measurements were conducted at the intervals of 1 minute, 3
minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes and 60 minutes, to study the dynamics of the polymer
hydration. The testing procedure was repeated for the FR-brine solutions with different FR
concentrations and different salinities (salts of NaCl and CaCl2).

This work focusses on study of impact of three test parameters on FR-brine solution viscosity:
time dynamics, FR concentration and brine salinity. Table 1 shows the test parameters with
intervals/ levels at which FR –brine solution viscosities were determined.

Table 1: Parameters with levels considered in Design of Experiment (DoE).

S. No. Parameter Levels
1 Time, minutes 1, 3, 5, 10, 30, 60
2 Friction Reducer Concentration, gpt 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 5
3 Salt Concentration, ppm 50,000; 100,000; 150,000; 200,000; 250,000

Design of Experiment (DoE) was constructed to study the two parameters: FR concentration
and brine salinity considering the levels shown Table 1. The DoE consisted a half factorial (½
factorial) approach and, additionally testing for the four corners of FR concentration and brine salinity
domain as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Thus, the total test points were sixteen for each type of the brine
considered as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
 6

FR concentration, gpt
4

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
NaCl concentration, ppm

Figure 1: Design of Experiment matrix for FR-brine solution using NaCl salt.

5
FR concentration, gpt

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
CaCl2 concentration, ppm

Figure 2: Design of Experiment matrix for FR-brine solution using CaCl2 salt.

Results and Discussions

The experiments were conducted at ambient temperature (85 oF) at randomly generated test
points from Design of Experiment (DoE). The viscosity of FR – brine solution was captured at different
time intervals (from the instant of the FR addition) and plotted Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 to depict the time
dynamics of FR–brine solution viscosity for both salts: NaCl and CaCl2.
 30
Salt ppm, FR gpt
50000 2.5
25 50000 3.5
50000 5
100000 0.5
20 100000 1.5
Viscosity, cP

100000 3.5
150000 2.5
15
150000 3.5
150000 5
200000 1.5
10
200000 2.5
200000 3.5
5 250000 1.5
250000 5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time, minutes

Figure 3: Plot for viscosity vs. time for different FR-brine solutions comprising of NaCl salt.

14

Salt ppm, FR gpt

12
50000 0.5
50000 1.5

10 50000 2.5
50000 5
100000 1.5
Viscosity, cP

8 100000 2.5
100000 5
150000 1.5
6 150000 3.5
200000 0.5
200000 5
4 250000 0.5
250000 2.5
250000 3.5
2
250000 5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time, minutes

Figure 4: Plot for viscosity vs. time for different FR-brine solutions comprising of CaCl2 salt.

The following observations were made based on the dynamic viscosity data of the FR–brine
solutions.

I. FR-brine solutions comprising of NaCl salt

a. NaCl concentration had an incremental effect on FR–brine solution viscosity.
b. FR concentration has an incremental effect on FR–brine solution viscosity.
 c. FR–brine solution viscosity has peaked at about10 minutes for the studied combinations
of salinity and FR concentration.
d. FR–brine solution viscosity reached to a plateau beyond about 30 minutes for the
studied combinations of salinity and FR concentration.

II. FR-brine solutions comprising of CaCl2 salt

a. CaCl2 concentration had an incremental effect on FR–brine solution viscosity.
b. FR concentration has an incremental effect on FR–brine solution viscosity.
c. FR–brine solution viscosity has peaked at about10 minutes for the studied combinations
of salinity and FR concentration.
d. FR–brine solution viscosity reached to a plateau beyond about 30 minutes for the
studied combinations of salinity and FR concentration.
e. Exothermic nature of brine formulation using the CaCl2 salt needs to be carefully
compensated to obtain consistent data.

Based on the above data and interpretations, statistical models were developed to estimate the
dynamic viscosity of the FR-brine solutions for a given concentration of the anionic FR and brine
salinity. The generic form of the model is represented as:

𝑏
𝜇𝐹𝑅−𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑒 = 𝜇𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑒 ∗ 𝑒 𝑎∗𝑔𝑝𝑡 (1)

𝜇𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑒 = 𝑐 ∗ 𝑒 𝑑∗𝑝𝑝𝑚 (2)

Where
µFR-brine = viscosity of FR-brine solution, cP
a = time dependent empirical constant
gpt = FR concentration, gpt (gallons per thousand gallons)
b = empirical constant
µbrine = viscosity of brine solution, cP
c = water viscosity at ambient temperature, 0.7972 cP @ 85 oF
d = empirical constant based on the literature data of brine viscosity.
ppm = salt concentration in brine, ppm

The constants “a”, “b” and “d” were obtained separately for FR-brine solutions consisting of
the two salts: NaCl and CaCl2. The model accounts for the baseline viscosity of the brines in absence
of the FR as depicted in the above equations.

Based on the developed models, FR–brine solution viscosity was predicted and plotted against
experimental values; Fig. 5 depicts FR-solution viscosity prediction (blue curve) at different
concentrations of the FR for the salinity of 50,000 ppm NaCl brine (at 30 minutes of polymer hydration
interval). The figure also shows the corresponding experimental data points (orange dots). The model
prediction agrees reasonably with the experimental data points. Fig. 6 depicts FR-solution viscosity
prediction (blue curve) at different concentrations of the FR for the salinity of 250,000 ppm NaCl brine
(at 30 minutes of polymer hydration interval). The figure also shows the corresponding experimental
data points (orange dots). The model prediction agrees reasonably with the experimental data points.

Fig. 7 depicts FR-solution viscosity prediction (blue curve) at different concentrations of the
FR for the salinity of 50,000 ppm CaCl2 brine (at 30 minutes of polymer hydration interval). The figure
also shows the corresponding experimental data points (orange dots). The model prediction agrees
reasonably with the experimental data points. Fig. 8 depicts FR-solution viscosity prediction (blue
curve) at different concentrations of the FR for the salinity of 250,000 ppm CaCl2 brine (at 30 minutes
of polymer hydration interval). The figure also shows the corresponding experimental data points
(orange dots). The model prediction agrees reasonably with the experimental data points.

The average error between predicted dynamic viscosity and corresponding experimental data
was 0.76 ± 0.38.

25

20
Viscosity, cP

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FR concentration, gpt

Figure 5: Plot of Experimental vs. Predicted values of viscosity of FR – NaCl

brine solution with 50,000 ppm NaCl at 30 minutes.
 25

Viscosity, cP 20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FR concentration, gpt

Figure 6: Plot of Experimental vs. Predicted values of viscosity of FR – NaCl

brine solution with 250,000 ppm NaCl at 30 minutes.

10

8
Viscosity, cP

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FR concentration, gpt

Figure 7: Plot of Experimental vs. Predicted values of viscosity of FR – CaCl2

brine solution with 50,000 ppm CaCl2 at 30 minutes.
 14

12

Viscosity, cP 10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FR concentration, gpt

Figure 8: Plot of Experimental vs. Predicted values of viscosity of FR – CaCl2

brine solution with 250,000 ppm CaCl2 at 30 minutes.

Conclusions
• The polymer hydration of the studied anionic FR (i.e. APAM) in brines is a time-dependent
phenomenon.
• The FR investigated in this study was found to be more effective in NaCl brines that CaCl2
brine in terms of viscosity improvement.
• The viscosity dependence of the FR-brine solution on the FR concentration was found to be
exponential.
• The empirical based exponential models predict the dynamic viscosity of the FR-brine solution
with reasonable accuracy of the measuring viscometer.

References
1. Aften, C. & Watson, W. P. Improved friction reducer for hydraulic fracturing. (Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX, 2009).
2. Aften, C. (2018, October 5). Analysis of Various High Viscosity Friction Reducers and Brine
Ranges Effectiveness on Proppant Transport. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/191792-18ERM-MS.
3. Al-Sarkhi, A. Drag reduction with polymers in gas-liquid/liquid-liquid flows in pipes: A
literature review. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng. 2, 41–48 (2010).
4. Clark, J. B. Hydraulic completion of wells. US patent 2,642,142. Stanolind Oil and Gas Co.,
1949.
5. Dubief, Y. et al. New answers on the interaction between polymers and vortices in turbulent
flows. Flow. Turbul. Combust. 74, 311–329 (2005).
6. Fink, J. Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Fluids Technology. (Gulf Professional Publishing,
Houston, TX, 2013).
7. Gonçalves, F. A. and Kestin, J. The Viscosity of CaCl2, Solutions in the range 20-50°C, Ber.
Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 83,24-27 (1979).
 8. Lumley, J. L. Drag reduction by additives. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1, 367–384 (1969).
9. Montgomery, C. T., & Smith, M. B. (2010, December 1). Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an
Enduring Technology. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/1210-0026-JPT.
10. Ozbek, H., Viscosity of Aqueous Sodium Chloride Solutions from 0 – 150 oC, American
Chemical Society 29th Southeast Regional Meeting, Tampa, FL, November 9-11, 1971.
11. Paktinat, J., O’Neil, B. J., Aften, C. W. & Hurd, M. D. Critical evaluation of high brine tolerant
additives used in shale slickwater fracs. In SPE Production and Operations Symposium.
(Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX, 2011).
12. Palisch, T. T., Vincent, M., & Handren, P. J. (2010, August 1). Slickwater Fracturing: Food for
Thought. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/115766-PA.
13. Pei, Y., et al. Investigation of the degradation and stability of acrylamide-based polymers in
acid solution: Functional monomer modified polyacrylamide. Petroleum 2, 399–407 (2016).
14. Rodvelt, G., Yuyi, S. & VanGilder, C. Use of a salt-tolerant friction reducer improves
production in Utica completions. In SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. (Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, TX, 2015).
15. Sun, H., Stevens, R. F., Cutler, J. L., Wood, B., Wheeler, R. S. and Qu, Q. A novel non-
damaging friction reducer: development and successful slickwater frac applications. In Tight
Gas Completions Conference. (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX, 2010).
16. Usui, H., Kodama, M. & Sano, Y. Laser-Doppler measurements of turbulence structure in a
drag-reducing pipe flow with polymer injection. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 21, 134–140 (1988).
17. Virk, P. S. Drag reduction fundamentals. AIChE J. 21, 625–656 (1975).
18. White, C. M. & Mungal, M. G. Mechanics and prediction of turbulent drag reduction with
polymer additives. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 235–256 (2008).
19. Zheng, H., Ma, J., Ji, F., Tang, X., Chen, W., Zhu, J., Liao, Y., and Tan, M. Synthesis and
Application of Anionic Polyacrylamide in Water Treatment: A Review, Asian J. Chem., 2013,
25(13), pp 7071-7074.
20. Zhou, M. J., Sun, H., Qu, Q., & Bai, B. (2011, January 1). An Effective Model of Pipe Friction
Prediction from Laboratory Characterization to Field Applications for Friction Reducers.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/146674-MS.

View publication stats