SPE 106758
Success of Hybrid Fracs in the Basin
Juan Antonio Coronado, SPE, BJ Services Co.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 31 March–3 April 2007.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In recent years waterfracs have increased in popularity,
providing relatively long fracture lengths without the polymer
damage of conventional crosslinked gelled fracture treatments.
The major disadvantages of waterfracs are proppant settling
and bridging, which limits waterfracs to high pump rates and
low sand concentrations. These disadvantages gave way to
the creation of the hybrid fracture stimulation, which is a
combination of a waterfrac prepad followed by a crosslinked
gelled fluid.
This paper will compare the use of hybrid fracture
treatments in the deep, high pressure, high temperature, tight
gas formations of the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma to the
more conventional waterfrac and crosslink frac. Also the
fracture geometry, cooling effects and cost savings of the
hybrid will be discussed.
Introduction
The term “hybrid” has been used to describe several different
types of fracture stimulations consisting of various
combinations of slickwater, linear gelled and crosslinked
gelled fluid systems.1 For the purpose of this paper a hybrid
frac is in reference to a stimulation fracture treatment
consisting of a waterfrac prepad followed by a crosslinked
gelled fluid. It is also important to note that the term waterfrac
and slickwater frac are used interchangeably to describe a
fluid consisting of water, either fresh or 2 wt% potassium
chloride (KCl) in combination with a friction reducer.
For several years operators have used hybrid fracs in the
Anadarko Basin. Hybrids have been successfully pumped in
various formations of the Anadarko Basin ranging from the
Marmaton (10,800 feet) all the way down to the Atoka A
(15,000 feet). The waterfrac portion of the hybrid fracs
typically ranges from 45 to 60 percent of the total fluid
pumped. 2 wt% KCL water is pumped with a friction reducer
at 0.5 to 1.0 gallon per one thousand gallons of fluid. The
crosslinked portion typically consists of water gelled with 25
to 30 pounds of a guar based polymer per one thousand
gallons of fluid (ppt).
Hybrids vs Crosslinked Fracs
When dealing with the tight gas formations of the
Anadarko Basin, long thin fractures are preferable over short
wide fractures.2 With the use of hybrid stimulation treatments
the initial fracture is created with the slickwater prepad,
creating a long thin fracture. The crosslinked gelled fluid will
follow the path of least resistance. The width and height of
the fracture will increase with the introduction of the
crosslinked gelled fluid into the formation but the increase
does not correspond to the width and height that would be
generated with a conventional crosslinked gelled fluid fracture
treatment. To illustrate the differences in fracture geometry
Meyers 3-D Fracture Modeling was used to model two
fractures on a twelve-foot Red Fork zone located in Roger
Mills County, Oklahoma. A representative openhole log
section of the zone is illustrated in Fig. 1.
First, a conventional crosslinked gelled fluid fracture
treatment was simulated using 40,000 gallons of fluid and
90,000 pounds of proppant pumped at a rate of 35 barrels per
minute (bpm). The fluid used was a crosslinked 30 ppt gelled
water. Based on a 0.5 pounds per square foot proppant
concentration per fracture area cutoff the theoretical geometry
of one fracture wing was found to be 699 feet long, 115 feet
high and have an average width of 0.0855 inches. The
graphical output from the simulation illustrating the proppant
coverage of one wing is shown in Fig. 2
Next, a hybrid treatment was simulated utilizing 40,000
gallons of slickwater prepad in place of 6,000 gallons of the
pad utilized in the previous simulation. The rest of the fluid
and pumping schedule was the same. Using the same cutoff
criteria as above the theoretical geometry was found to be 783
feet long, 101 feet high and have an average width of 0.0796
inches. Fig. 3 illustrates the proppant coverage of this
simulation over one wing.
In comparison, the hybrid fracture design created 84 feet
more propped fracture length than the crosslink design, which
is preferable in a low permeability zone where small well
spacing is not an issue. The propped fracture height of the
hybrid was 14 feet less, which would help reduce wasted frac
fluid and proppant to unproductive zones. Based on the
average propped width within the fracture, the crosslinked
design was .0059 inches or 6.9% wider than the hybrid design.
However propped width outside the productive zone is not
needed. When comparing average propped width within the
2 SPE 106758
pay zone it was found that the hybrid has .0017 inches or 3.6%
more width than in the crosslink design.
Additional advantages of the hybrid design over the
conventional crosslinked gelled fluid design involve the
crosslinked fluid composition. The cooldown effect created
by the waterfrac prepad allows for lower chemical loadings
including base polymer, ph control agent and crosslinker.
Lowering these chemicals will allow a more efficient break of
the crosslinked gelled fluid. A common practice in the area is
to use a technique called “Forced Closure”, which involves the
almost immediate flowback of the fracture stimulation
treatment allowing the formation to close on the proppant
quicker. A quick break of the pumped fluids avoids the
flowback of proppant. Furthermore, the combination of
improved fluid breaking and lower polymer loading helps
reduce the potential for polymer damage to the formation.
There is a considerable cost savings associated with the
above mentioned lower chemical loadings. One operator in
Roger Mills County has experienced cost savings of 38.8% on
chemicals. These savings may be larger on wells where
reduced breaker loadings may be used.
Hybrids vs Waterfracs
Hybrid and waterfrac fracture treatment designs possess
similar advantages over crosslinked gelled fluid fracture
treatments, in the area of polymer damage. It is important to
note that polyacrylamide friction reducers have been known to
create formation damage.3 However, the 0.5 to 1.0 gpt
loading minimizes the damage. Also, recently breakers have
been developed for polyacrylamide friction reducers.4
The biggest problem with waterfracs is the inability to
effectively carry the proppant out into the formation. Using
Modified Stoke’s Law, the terminal settling velocity of a
lightweight ceramic proppant was compared to a bauxite
proppant in a 30 ppt crosslinked gelled fluid (Table 1).5 Even
when using a conservative viscosity of 500 centipoise and a
heavier proppant in the crosslinked gelled system, the settling
velocity of the ceramic proppant is over 10 times faster .
A smaller proppant mesh size is often used in slickwater
fracs to decrease settling velocities, however due to high
closure pressures of the Anadarko Basin formations a higher
strength proppant is needed. Lightweight ceramic proppants
in smaller mesh sizes are currently not available to fill this
need. However, a lightweight ceramic proppant was included
in Table 1 in order to illustrate the effects of mesh size on
settling velocity. A 20/40 mesh lightweight ceramic, with a
specific gravity slightly higher than sand, was compared to
40/70 mesh sand in slickwater. It was found that the ceramic
proppant had over two times the settling velocity.
Due to their high settling velocities, waterfracs create a
banking effect that limits the fracture length and creates an
uneven distribution of proppant, with the bulk of the proppant
at the bottom of the fracture. Fig. 4 illustrates the uneven
proppant coverage over one wing created by a slickwater
fracture simulation. The inefficient proppant displacement
could also cause bridging of proppant at the perferations
causing higher pressures and possibly pressuring out and
premature shutdown. A look back at one operator’s last 18
Atoka waterfracs in Washita County, Oklahoma shows that 7
were pumped successfully, 2 were cut short and 9 ended in
screenouts. It was these types of results that led to the switch
to hybrid fracs. The most recent 14 Atoka fracture
stimulations have been hybrid fracture treatments 12 were
successful and only 2 resulted in screenouts. The screenouts
were both during the flush and a total of 34 bbls of fluid was
not displaced into the formation between the two jobs.
Because of inefficient sand transport of waterfrac designs,
more fluid, higher injection rates and less proppant pumped,
are required than on a hybrid fracture design for an equivalent
zone. A case in point is illustrated in Table 2, where two
Atoka wells with equivalent 40 feet sections are compared.
Well A was treated with a waterfrac design and Well B with a
hybrid design. Reflected in the table is that it took 35.9%
more fluid at a rate 26.8% higher to pump 47.6% less proppant
to fracture stimulate Well A than Well B. Further cost
differences between the jobs are a result of higher horsepower
requirement on Well A and higher total proppant costs on
Well B. However, in the end a comparison of costs
normalized to the pounds of proppant pumped the hybrid
fracture treatment was 58.7% less than the waterfrac
treatment.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of BJ Services for
allowing the publication of this paper.
Nomenclature
KCl Potassium Chloride
ppt Pound Per Thousand
bpm Barrels Per Minute
Gallon Per Thousand
gpt
References
1. Coulter, G. R., Gross, B. C., Benton, E. G. and Thomson,
C. L.: “Barnett Shale Hybrid Frac-One Operator’s Design,
Application, and Results,” paper SPE 102063 presented at
2006 SPE Annu8al Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Sept. 24-27.
2. Gidley, J. L., Holditch, S. A., Nierode, D. E. and Veatch, R.
W.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson (1989) 1, 2-3.
3. Al-Assi, A. A., Wilhite, G. P., Green, D. W. and McCool,
C. S.: “Formation and Propagation of Gel Aggregates
Using Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide and Aluminum
Citrate,” paper SPE 100049 presented at SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 22-26,
2006.
4. Carmen, P. S. and Cawiezel, K. E.: “Successful Breaker
Optimization for Polyacrylamide Friction Reducers Used in
Slickwater Fracturing,” paper SPE 106162 presented at the
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College
Station, Jan. 29-31, 2007.
5. Economides, M. J. and Nolte, K.: Reservoir Stimulation, 3rd
ed., John Wiley & Sons, LTD,New York (2000) 8, 8-19 to
8-21.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft X 3.048*E-01 =m
psi X 6.894757*E+00 = kPa
lbm X 4.535924*E-02 = kg
gal X 0.2642*E+00 =L
SPE 106758 3

gal X 3.785*E-03 = m3

Table 1 – Terminal Settling Velocity Comparison

Slickwater w/ 20/40 Slickwater w/ 40/70 30# Crosslink Fluid
mesh Lightweight mesh Ottawa Sand w/ 20/40 mesh
Ceramic Bauxite
Fluid Density, (lbm/gal) 8.4 8.4 8.4
Proppant Specific Gravity 2.68 2.65 3.57
Particle Diameter(in) 0.0258 0.012 0.027
Fluid Viscosity (cp) 1 1 500
Terminal Settling Velocity (ft/min) 11.82 4.49 1.19

Table 2 – Atoka Frac Comparison

Well A Well B
Frac Design Waterfrac Hybrid
Rate (bpm) 52 41
Fluid Volume (gallons) 136,340 100,338
Proppant Type 20/40 Bauxite 20/40 Lightweight Ceramic
Pounds of Proppant 66,750 127,400
Average Treating Pressure (psi) 8,483 8,151
Average Horsepower 10,812 8,191
4 SPE 106758

Fig. 1 – Log Section of a twelve foot Red Fork Zone in Roger Mills County

Width Profiles
12780
Concentration/Area (Closure)
% Length
0 lbm/ft^2
20 0
40 0.1
12800 60 0.2
80 0.3
90 0.4
95 0.5
99 0.6
12820 0.7
0.8
0.9
>1

12840
Depth (ft)

12860

12880

12900

12920
-0.1 0 0.1 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Width (in.) Length (ft)
Fig. 2 – Contour Plot of Crosslink Frac Design
SPE 106758 5

12780
Width Profiles Concentration/Area (Closure)
lbm/ft^2
0
0.1
0.2
12800 0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
12820 0.7
0.8
0.9
>1

12840
Depth (ft)

12860

12880

12900

12920
-0.1 0 0.1 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Width (in.) Length (ft)
Fig. 3 - Contour Plot of Hybrid Frac Design

Width Profiles
12780
Concentration/Area (Closure)
lbm/ft^2
0
0.3
0.6
12800 0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
12820 2.1
2.4
2.7
3
> 3.3
12840
Depth (ft)

12860

12880

12900

12920
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Width (in.) Length (ft)
Fig. 4 - Contour Plot of Slickwater Frac Design