Using Complex nano Fluids (CnF®) to Optimize Hydraulic ... 1015 Flotek EN.pdf · Using Complex nano Fluids (CnF®) to Optimize Hydraulic Fracturing Performance Glenn Penny, Ph.D.,

Using Complex nano Fluids (CnF®) to Optimize Hydraulic Fracturing Performance

Glenn Penny, Ph.D., Director of Technology

MENA and Asia

Providing Quality and Service to the Global Oilfield

16th U.S.-China Oil & Gas Industry Forum

September 27-29, 2016

THE MESSAGE TODAY • Hydraulic fracturing of unconventional

resources has been successful but requires large volumes of water and proppant

• The addition of Flotek’s CnF® has resulted in 50 to 100% higher production rates in these treatments

• Optimizing the design and adding CnF® makes it possible to pump less water and proppant and get as much or more production

Providing Quality and Service to the Global Energy Sector 16th U.S.-China Oil & Gas Industry Forum

• Foot print is large • Water is limited • fracturing a typical

horizontal well requires • 3-5 million gallons (10 –

20000 m3) of water • Massive amounts of

proppant required • high pressure, high rate,

long hours of pumping

Challenges in China


• Social impact in – Many wells are in

agricultural and residential areas

– Flowed back water and gas management can be a big issue

Challenges in China


What can be done?

• Technologies available to limit use of water – LPG frac – Explosives – radial drilling – Foam, CO2, N2, energized fluid

system

• How can we reduce the size and improve results? – Optimize frac size and

additives – Water recycle and

management


Radial Drilling\Jetting

Shale “Waterfrac Volumes ” seismic work shows the fracture network length grows with volume. Average is 24,000 bbl or 1 million gal per frac with 10 to 12 fracs

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Fluid Volume, bbl

Frac

ture

Net

wor

k Le

ngth

, ft

Shale Fracturing performance is controlled by Stimulated Reservoir Volume This stimulated area must be propped open and cleaned up to be effective

Making proppant and fluid selection very important


Proppant types available

9 Providing Quality and Service to the Global Energy Sector 16th U.S.-China Oil & Gas Industry Forum

Proppant Permeability vs size and closure at 250 F. Perm ranges from100 Darcies for Ceramic to as low as 1 Darcy for 100 mesh at 10,000 psi


Factors Influencing Proppant Performance??

• Proppant Permeability vs type size and closure • Influence of embedment, pressure cycling and multiphase non-

Darcy Flow • Frac fluid Damage • Capillary Pressure in the proppant pack vs proppant type and

size, closure and surfactant type and concentration • Position of the lateral within the pack: Impact of fracture flow

orientation on relative perm of pack • Impact of gelling agents, surfactant type and concentration on

the relative permeability profile vs proppant type and size and orientation: Rel perm of the pack correlates with production

12 Providing Quality and Service to the Global Energy Sector 16th U.S.-China Oil & Gas Industry Forum

Complex nano Fluid (CnF®) Improves relative perm of the formation and proppant pack

• Applications • Drilling: Drilling Fluid

Cleanup • Fracturing, Acidizing • Remediation • IOR/EOR

13

CnF® technology combines surfactants and solvent in a nanoscopic structure

Can add other components to

the nano droplet – Shale Stabilizers – Demulsifiers – Foamers, asphaltene

paraffin solvents inhibitors

10-20 nm droplet Heads out tails in the solvent


14

Advantages of CnF over common Surfactants

1. CnF liquid liquid interface means the surfactant is less likely to adsorb on the invaded matrix. This means more surfactant is available at the oil/water or gas water interface as the treating fluid enters the reservoir

2. This allows invaded fluid to be displaced at half of the pressure increasing rel perm to gas

σLL

σLG

σSL

CnF®

nanodroplets

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8

Pore Volumes

Surfa

ce T

ensi

on (d

ynes

/cm

)

2% FS

NP

AE

ME

ME+2%FS

CnF+AE

CnF+ FS

AE=AlcoholEthoxylate FS=Fluorsurfactant NP=nonylphenol Ethoxylate


Common Surfactants Penetrate about half way due

to adsorption

CnF® Additives Penetrate to tip of

invaded area


Advantages of CnF® • 2. The pressure to remove the

treating fluid is reduced by as much as a factor of 4 over common surfactants by maintaining low surface tension and a contact angle of 60 degrees This allows recovery of more treating fluid and produces a higher relative permeability to hydrocarbon

• Common surfactant look 1000 psi to initiate flow. CnF initiated flow at 100 psi and has 2 to 3 times the relative perm at 2000 psi pressure drop

16

Capillary Pressure Reductionwith CnFTM

3000

1500

750

309

200

1375

688

344

142

92

688

344

172

71

46

10

100

1000

10000

0.001 0.01 0.1Permeability (mDs)

Cap

illar

y Pr

essu

re E

nd E

ffect

(PSI

)

No SurfactantConventional SurfactantComplex nano-FluidTM

0%

50%

100%

0 100 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Pressure Drop (PSI)

Reg

aine

d R

elat

ive

Gas

Per

m (%

)

Regained Permeabilitywith 2 gpt CnFTM

Regained Permeability with

2 gpt Conventional Surfactant

Absolute Gas Permeability = 0.001 mDs


Relative Perm to Gas: Average of up and down column flow tests vs Conductivity: CnF 2X common Surfactant

19

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Rel P

erm

to g

as K

rg

Conductivity mD-ft normalized to 2 lb/ft2

water Conv Surf CnF

70/140 30/50 20/40 20/40 sand sand sand Ceramic


Average

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Field Performance Comparisons Cumulative Production depends on: • Reservoir Quality (Permeability*Area) • Fluid Properties • Pressure Drawdown • Reservoir Geometry

Effective Fracture Length depends on: • Reservoir Quality • Fluid Properties

Incremental Value Darcy’s Law 1856

Providing Quality and Service to the Global Energy Sector 16th 16th U.S.-China Oil & Gas Industry Forum

21 21 21 21 21

Normalized using RPI®

Shift due to damage

Slope ~ kh or psuedo-potential; steeper slope is worse reservoir quality Intercept ~ connectivity; higher level is lower frac connectivity or Xf

Reciprocal Productivity Index


22 22 22 22 22 22

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Cumulative Frequency (% less than)

Fully

Nrm

d 30

Day

Eqv

Rec

over

y(m

cf E

qv/K

#)

CnF P50 Nrmd 30D Cum Eqv = 0.985 mcf Eqv/K# (167 wells)non-CnF P50 Nrmd 30D Cum Eqv = 0.591 mcf Eqv/K# (202 wells)

Probability Data Sets are Different = 99.999987%

With CnF Up to 40% less proppant

to get same 30 Day Eqv Recovery

22 Introduction to CnFTM Technology

Composite 3- Basin Study

23 23 23

Comparison of proppant type with and without CnF®

250750

12502250

non-CnF

CnF$0

$250

$500

$750

$1,000

Nor

med

30

D G

as E

qv G

ross

Val

ue($

/K#

Prop

@ $

4/m

cfeq

)

Stressed Proppant Conductivity (mDs*Ft)

Comparative Gross Value of

Proppant Conductivity versus Complex nano-Fluid Usage

non-CnFCnF

Penny – SPE 152119


Conclusions • Lab data shows using a CnF® allows surface tension to remain low at the

leading edge of the fluid, thus lowering the pressure to remove the fluid • Relative perm to gas and oil is improved up to a factor of 2 over common

surfactants • Production of 240 wells was normalized based on reservoir quality,

drawdown and treatment stages and sizes. Production and effective fracture length shows a clear dependence on the conductivity of the proppant placed in low permeability shale reservoirs

• There is several folds benefit between 100 mesh and 20/40 or better when complex nano-fluid is employed at 0.15% or greater

• Overall it is possible to achieve the same production using 40 to 50% less water and proppant as long as a complex nano fluid is employed to insure formation and pack cleanup.


Documents

Using Complex nano Fluids (CnF®) to Optimize Hydraulic ... 1015 Flotek EN.pdf · Using Complex nano Fluids (CnF®) to Optimize Hydraulic Fracturing Performance Glenn Penny, Ph.D.,