You are on page 1of 13

SPE-184815-MS

Development of a Universal Ranking for Friction Reducer Performance

Ross C. Tomson, Paula Guraieb, Shane Graham, Chao Yan, and Nasser Ghorbani, Tomson Technologies; Ty
Hanna and Cal Cooper, Apache Corporation

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
In hydraulic fracturing, large amounts of water are pumped at high speed down the wellbore. To reduce
pump pressure and costs, a friction reducer is added to the stream. There is currently no unified performance
criteria for selection of friction reducers. This work outlines the methodology for producing such a unified
method of comparing performance between any friction reducer chemical additives, both liquid and dry
powder.
A 0.5 inch stainless steel high-flow low-shear flow loop pumping at ranges between three and twenty
gallons per minute was custom-built. The loop uses a Coriolis flow meter, two absolute pressure transducers,
and one differential pressure transducer to accurately determine the friction reducer additive performance in
any given fluid by measuring pressure drop across a section of developed flow. This paper utilizes over 400
in-house flow loop tests to establish a novel unified ranking system for the evaluation of friction reducers
performance. The ranking is independent of the type of friction reducer used and quality of water. Produced
waters, fresh water, treated produced waters, and synthetic waters were all used to validate the methodology
and ranking system to create a unified criteria to compare performance of any friction reducers.
Tomson Technologies created a standardized metric for assessing and ranking friction reducer
performance. This standardization was achieved through the use of an unique performance scale comprised
of the weighted average of the most important friction reduction parameters of a friction reducer in any
produced water: (1) inversion time (InvT), (2) maximum percent friction reduction (Max% FR), (3) time to
sustain maximum percent friction reduction (RetT@%Avg.FRmax), and (4) the percent friction reduction at
the end of 500 seconds (% FR@500s). 500 seconds is used because fluid during hydraulic fractures travels
from the pumps to the reservoir in 500 or fewer seconds in almost all cases. This scale is measured in a
new unit called "Friction Reducer Units" (FRU), which ranges from 0 to 10. FRU has been used to rank
and correlate the performance of different classes of friction reducers in various types of waters, resulting
in a comprehensive results database and is used to show applicability of the overall metric.

Introduction
Slickwater fracturing is a hydraulic fracturing technique where water based fluid is injected into a well at
high pressures, causing the formation rock to crack or fracture. Slickwater fracturing treatments involve
2 SPE-184815-MS

combining a base fluid with a friction reducer, a polymer that enables faster pumping of the fluid into the
formation, and a propping agent, or proppant, such as sand, that is carried into the formation by the fluid
and holds the fractures open once the treatment is complete.
Most friction reducers used in slickwater fracture stimulations are based on high-molecular weight
polyacrylamide polymers. They are typically pumped at low concentrations (0.5 to 2 gallons per thousand
gallons, gpt) into the base fluid to reduce the frictional losses in the pipe flow by up to 70-80%. Friction
reducers are generally supplied as an inverse emulsion of a water internal phase containing the polymer
dispersed in an oil continuous phase, which allow the product package to be easily pumped and handled.
The active polymer content of the product ranges from 20-50%. Most friction reducers are 30 mole percent
acrylic acid co-polymers which gives them their anionic nature. Friction reducers may also be cationic,
non-ionic, hydrophobic, and amphoteric depending upon the application. These polymers are delivered
in dispersed liquid form or dry form. They can be fresh water friction reducers or brine tolerant friction
reducers, thus used in a variety of water types from fresh to produced brines. In order for a polymer to
perform well as a friction reducer, it must be a linear, uncoiled and high molecular weight polymer. These
polyacrylamides can have varying chain lengths or molecular weights (10-30 million Dalton). With too
short a chain length, the polyacrylamides will not provide enough friction reduction. Polyacrylamides with
long polymer chain lengths can break when exposed to high shear, called scissoring, and again provide
inadequate friction reduction. Linearity and coiling are affected by the presence of ionic agents that can
electrostatically reduce the radius of gyration of the polymer and sometimes crosslink to other polymers
creating a non-linear network which may affect friction reducer performance (Paktinat et. al 2011; Kelland
2014).
For a typical slickwater operation, friction reducers are normally added to the water-based fracturing
fluids "on the fly" as water-in-oil emulsions to reduce friction while pumping. These friction reducers reside
inside water droplets in an oil solution. Once the friction reducer is added into water, the polymer is released
from the water droplets in the emulsion into the water phase, where it proceeds to hydrate and disentangle.
This process is also known as "polymer inversion". To obtain maximum friction reduction for any friction
reducer, the polymer must fully invert by dissolving into the aqueous solution before the fracturing fluid
enters the well head. For example, in a standard job with flow rate of 100 bbl/min, fluids travel from surface
to 15,000 ft in less than 3 minutes in a 5.5-in tube. Thus, the less the inversion time of the friction reducers,
the more effective they are. If the product does not invert and reduce the friction reduction quickly enough,
the treating pressure can climb and force the operator to reduce the pumping rate (Sareen et. al 2014).
The composition of the water used in slickwater operations can negatively impact the performance
of friction reducers. Two solution parameters that are known to affect friction reducer performance are
ionic strength and specific ionic species. High Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and presence of certain di-
and trivalent salts can hinder the performance of a friction reducer. As the level of TDS increases, the
performance of friction reducers often decreases, however in some cases it can also remain unaffected
depending on the product. The dosage of a friction reducer may or may not offset the performance decline.
Many multivalent ions like Ca2+, Fe2+/Fe3+ or Al3+ can interact with the friction reducers causing partial
or complete precipitation of the polymer. Crosslinking, bridging and ion pair formation are some of the
terms that describe the interaction of the cations with the polymer. A comprehensive review on potential
mechanisms associated with polyacrylamide friction reduction has been reported in the literature (Ellis
2015)
Friction reducer performance is routinely evaluated in laboratories by measuring the pressure drop over
a standard length of pipe at a constant flow rate. This standard length of pipe must have fully developed
flow in order to be utilized. Since flow loop design variance between service or production companies
and test laboratories exists, the comparison of absolute friction reduction results is difficult and probably
SPE-184815-MS 3

unnecessary. However, the performance of friction reducers can be compared within the same loop and the
performance ranking between loops is expected to be consistent.

Theory
In 1947, Toms B. A. (1948) accidently discovered polymeric drag reduction while studying degradation
of polymers under high shear conditions. Despite considerable research in the area of drag reducing
agents, there is no universally accepted model, which explains the mechanism of frictrion reduction in
turbulent flow by polymers or even surfactants. Experimental and analytical results have shown that friction
reducers interact with turbulent eddies but lack of a theory to describe the flow has made it impossible
to quantitatively characterize the behavior of polymers in solution. While mechanisms of drag reduction
are not fully understood, polymer additives are routinely used in industry to improve flow rates in existing
piping networks without increasing equipment sizes or energy costs. A recirculating friction flow loop is an
essential apparatus to study the effectiveness of a friction reducer in varying qualities of water. Frictional
flow loops compare the frictional losses of one fluid to another fluid by measuring their respective pressure
drops across a pipe segment. A detailed derivation for the calculation of percent friction reduction is outlined
in SPE 118747 (Aften and Watson 2009). In brief, the percent friction reduction achieved by a specific
friction reducer is calculated using Eq. 1.

(1)

where fsolvent represents the Fanning Friction Factor of the solvent and fsolution represents that of the solvent
with friction reducer.
The frictional losses experienced by the flow in the pipe can be calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach
equation as depicted below. Eq. 2 shows that pressure drop (P) is proportional to the friction factor if fluid
velocity, pipe diameter, pipe length and temperature are held constant. Thus Eq. 1 can be greatly simplified
to Eq. 3 by maintaining constant flow conditions.

(2)

(3)

This allows for percent friction reduction to be calculated by measuring pressure drop of the solvent and
comparing that to pressure drop of the solvent with the friction reducer across a segment of tubing under
the same conditions. While the relative effectiveness of the friction reducers in different solutions will be
maintained in both laboratories and fields, the exact friction reduction percentages could vary.

Experimental set-up
A schematic and a photo of the flow loop used in this work are shown Fig. 1. A 7-gallon reservoir holding
the testing fluid is pumped by a low-shear, high flow rate, progressive cavity pump. An overhead stirrer
with a low-shear paddle mixes the fluid before and in real time as it is pumped into the system. A high
flow rate low shear progressive cavity pump delivers non-pulsating steady flow at 5 gpm through 316
L stainless steel tubing. A Coriolis flow meter is placed downstream of the pump to monitor flow rate,
temperature and density of the fluid, and flowing viscosity. The fluid then proceeds to flow through a 6.5
ft. long section of straight tubing where pressure drop is measured by two absolute pressure transducers.
The distance from the bend to the pressure transducers ensures that the flow is fully developed in the testing
section. The fluid re-enters the reservoir at the end of one complete cycle through the loop. Pressure drop
is continuously measured as the fluid recirculates through the loop for 10-15 minutes. The lowest pressure
4 SPE-184815-MS

values determine the point of maximum friction reduction. The time that maximum friction reduction is
sustained reflects how long the friction reduction can withstand before the polymer degrades and loses its
effectiveness (Ellis 2015).

Figure 1a) Schematic and b) photo of flow loop used in this work.

General operational instructions: standard operating procedure (SOP)


The water to be tested can be produced water sampled from the field or synthetic produced water with
matching composition as analyzed from field samples. Since it is often difficult to acquire field water in
ample quantity for the flow loop, synthetic produced water mimicking the composition of field waters are
often created in the laboratory and used for testing. A full suite of water analysis is done (pH, TDS, Total
Suspended Solids (TSS), alkalinity, cations, and anions) before each run. The following steps are routinely
followed to test friction reducers in a flow loop:
1. Clean and flush the loop with soap and fresh water until the differential pressure recorded with fresh
water is obtained (typically 4.5 psig in the loop).
2. Fill the reservoir tank with 6.5 gallons of the water to be tested and circulate it in the flow loop at
rate of 5 gpm. Record the differential pressure (Psolvent) and flow rate for 2-5 minutes to establish a
baseline pressure drop before beginning each experiment.
3. Add fracturing additives, if applicable, (other than friction reducer) at the desired concentration and
circulate for 2-5 minutes to disperse additives and obtain a baseline pressure drop for water with
additives.
4. Add the friction reducer directly to the reservoir tank to simulate "on the fly" addition in the field
into the fluid vortex created by an overhead stirrer to allow for quick and maximum dispersion of
the fluid. A pre-hydrated and concentrated polymer solution can also be added if needed in the case
of powder polymers.
5. Circulate the loop with the friction reducer for 5-10 minutes at 5 gpm or other desired rate and record
the pressure drop, flow rate and density every second.
6. Clean and flush the whole system with fresh water and compare to the baseline pressure initially
recorded to ensure that there is no residual friction reducer in the system.
7. Calculate maximum friction reduction using Eq. 3.

Experimental results validation


Fresh water runs are periodically performed, resulting in consistent pressure drop values throughout our QA/
QC procedures, further verifying the accuracy and repeatability of the friction flow loop. Specific friction
SPE-184815-MS 5

reducer performance will vary between different flow loops since the performance is sensitive to factors
such as tubing diameter, pipe roughness, flow rate, Reynolds number and others. Hence, results obtained in
different flow loops may not be comparable. Published results from other flow loops should only be used
for relative comparison purposes.
The experiments were conducted at a flow rate of 5 gallons per minute (gpm) and the pressure drop (P)
was measured across a 6.5 feet of straight 316L stainless steel tubing. At 5 gpm flow rate, the Reynolds
number is approximately 38,000 and the shear rate is approximately 2,300 sec-1. In the field with casing
diameters ranging between 3-5 inches typically, the Reynolds number can range between 1-10 million and
the shear rate could be 103 - 104 sec-1. It is challenging to replicate all the parameter values of the field into the
laboratory scale setup, therefore a compromise was made for certain parameters. While designing the flow
loop the shear rate was determined to be a critical factor in affecting the performance of the friction reducers
in the fluid. The shear rate in the " flow loop was in the range of the values for shear rate experienced in
the field. Due to limitations in the pump flow rate range, tubing size and the laboratoty scale equipment,
the Reynolds number in the field was higher than replicated in the laboratory.

Results and discussion


Standard scale for assessing friction reducer performance
Friction reduction performance curves are created by plotting percentage friction reduction calculated from
Eq. 3 on y-axis with respect to time in seconds on x-axis. A typical friction reducer performance curves
is shown in Fig. 2. The pressure drop data is collected (every three seconds in this work) for the duration
of 10-15 minutes to record the transition of the friction reducer from water-in-oil emulsion to bulk water
system. Time zero is defined as the point of addition of the FR into the system. From several post job reports
provided by operators, it has been determined that for an average slurry rate of 80 barrels per minute (bpm)
flowing through a casing diameter of 4.5 inches, it would take 3-5 minutes to reach a true vertical depth
of approximately 13,000 15,000 ft. Therefore, it is imperative for the typical emulsion friction reducer to
reach its maximum performance as quickly as possible within the first 1-2 minutes of the introduction into
the fluid and to maintain friction reduction for up to 5 minutes.

Figure 2A typical friction reducer performance curve.

Parameterization of the performance curve


The results of friction reducer performance for different friction reducer tests in various conditions in the
laboratory can deviate from the trend shown in Fig. 2. This creates challenges for engineers to choose the
best friction reducer for their field conditions. As seen from Fig 3, it is not easy to interpret and compare the
6 SPE-184815-MS

results of friction reducer performance curves created by different friction reducer chemicals or in variouse
water compositions. In addition, diverse experimental set-ups can produce different trends of %FR with
respect to time. Therefore, it is necessary to create a standardized metric for assessing and comparing friction
reducer performance independent of types of friction reducer chemicals, quality of water and experimental
conditions.

Figure 3Possible different friction reducer performance curves by various friction reducer chemicals.

In order to assess friction reducers perfirmances with a standardized metric, the friction reduction curves
can be parameterized into four sections: i) inversion time, ii) maximum friction reduction, iii) retention time
of maximum friction reduction and iv) friction reduction performance of friction reducer at 500 sec. These
parameters are defined as below:
i. Inversion time (InvT): The time it takes the friction reducer to invert from water-in-oil emulsion
to bulk water system is called the inversion time of the polymer (InvT). This is the transition time
when the friction reducer uncoils and straightens its structure in the bulk water phase. The initial
steep rise of the curve (e.g. in the first 30 80 seconds) is the inversion and mixing time of the
polymer into the system. A faster inversion time is better for friction reducer performance. Since
powder friction reducers are pre-hydrated in field before pumping downhole, InvT has a different
shape but is still correctly accounted for.
ii. Maximum % friction reduction (Max% FR): It is the maximum friction reduction reached after
inversion and mixing of the polymer. The higher the friction reduction reached, the better the friction
reducer performance.
iii. Retention time at average maximum friction reduction (Ret T@% AvgFR max): After inversion
and mixing of the polymer, it is expected that the friction reduction curve reaches a plateau and
that is the maximum friction reduction of the polymer (Max % FR). The duration for which the
friction reduction is 95% of Max% FR is defined as the retention time at average maximum friction
reduction. A longer retention time better achieves the goal of the friction reducer along the entire
flow path and is therefore better for friction reducer performance.
iv. Friction Reduction at 500 seconds (%FR @ 500s): This is the percent friction reduction at the end
of 500 seconds after the addition of the friction reducer (time t=0 seconds). Mostly in literature and
product data sheets, the first 5 minutes (300 seconds) of the performance curves are shown to prove
the effectiveness of the friction reducer (Aften and Watson 2009; Tucker and McElfresh 2014; Sun
et. al 2010). However, to get a complete picture and cover a wider range of wells, we have defined
the effective duration of friction reduction as 500 seconds. The higher the friction reduction at 500
seconds the better the friction reducer's performance.
SPE-184815-MS 7

Fig. 4 shows general parameterized of a typical friction reducer performance curve introduced above.

Figure 4Parameterized friction reduction curve.

Novel standardized performance scale (FRU Scale)


The output curve from the friction reduction test and its subsequent parameterization are used to determine
friction reduction efficacy. However, a single value scale is essential and is hereby proposed for the first
time to rank and correlate friction reducers. The four parameters are combined as shown in Eq. 4 to get a
single performance value.

(4)

Eq. 4 is a formulated combination of the four parameters taking into account their respective minimum
and maximum values based on database obtained by running over 400 flow loop experiments and as reported
in industry literature. Table 1 shows the possible minimum and maximum values of the four parameters in
our database. These minimums and maximums represent the ideal performance and/or lowest performing
cases as seen through the hundreds of experiments performed and many hundreds studied.

Table 1Minimum and Maximum functions of the 4 parameters

InvT (sec) Max %FR RetT @ % Avg % FR @


FR max (sec) 500 (sec)

Min 70 20 30 20

Max 400 100 500 100

The performance equation also takes into account the weighted average of the individual parameters.
Also note that the inversion time is given as a negative value because a longer inversion time worsens the
8 SPE-184815-MS

performance of the friction reducer. The average maximum %FR is given the most weight (~50%) as this
is considered to be the most important parameter in friction reduction.
The units of the scale are in Friction Reduction Units "(FRU)." The theoretical range of the scale can be
from 0 to 10 FRU. This scale has been used in the subsequent sections to rank friction reducer performance.
The Eq. 4 can be further simplified as:

(5)

Application of FRU
The flow loop set-up in this wok has routinely been employed for the study of friction reducer performance
and to compare the performance of various types of friction reducers with different concentrations in either
produced water or produced water mixed with fresh water (different ratios). More than 400 flow loop runs
were performed up to the date of the paper:

24 friction reducers from various vendors of different types including anionic emulsion, anionic
powders, and cationic emulsions were tested, which are listed in Table 2 including their charge and
type of chemicals. The individual friction reducer names have been anonymized for confidentiality.
Various friction reducers concentration (0.25-2 gpt) were tested.

Experiments were conducted with simple to complex brines of varying TDS (246-300,000 mg/l).

The largest collection of flow loop runs (50 runs) is for anionic polyacrylamide co-polymer emulsion-
based friction reducer, listed as FR-A in this work.

Table 2Different friction reducer tested in this work with the number of runs, charge and type of the chemical

Name Loop run Charge Type Name Loop run Charge Type

FR-A 50 Anionic Emulsion FR-M 5 Anionic Emulsion

FR-B 10 Anionic Powder FR-N 5 Anionic Emulsion

FR-C 10 Anionic Powder FR-O 4 Cationic Emulsion

FR-D 9 Anionic Powder FR-P 4 Anionic Emulsion

FR-E 8 Anionic Emulsion FR-Q 4 Anionic Emulsion

FR-F 8 Cationic Emulsion FR-R 2 Anionic Emulsion

FR-G 8 Anionic Emulsion FR-S 2 Anionic Emulsion

FR-H 8 Anionic Emulsion FR-T 1 Anionic Emulsion

FR-I 6 Anionic Emulsion FR-U 1 Anionic Emulsion

FR-J 6 Anionic Emulsion FR-V 1 Anionic Emulsion

FR-K 5 Cationic Emulsion FR-W 1 Anionic Emulsion

FR-L 5 Anionic Emulsion FR-X 1 Anionic Emulsion

Total 164

In order to show the application of using FRU, various friction reducers from different vendors were
tested in a same synthetic water composition shown in Table 3 with the same concentration of friction
reducers (0.5 gpt).
SPE-184815-MS 9

Table 3Synthetic water compositions

Ion Concentration (mg/l) Ion Concentration (mg/l)

Ba2+ 0.08 B+ 0.9

Sr2+ 0.9 Silicon 0.93

Ca2+ 258.2 Na+ 24.09

Fe2+ 0.02 Cl- 634.4

Mg2+ 83.32 SO42- 640

K+ 3.31

Fig. 5 illustrates the friction reduction results (%) of various friction reducers using the same synthetic
water shown in Table 3 and the same friction reducers concentrations (0.5 gpt). As seen, it is challenging to
the rank friction reducers performance based on the results illustrated in Fig. 5. For instance, FR-I has the
highest maximum reduction (%) compared with others; however, the reduction decreases over time compare
with FR-F which has lower maximum reduction (%) but steady up to 420 seconds. In case of choosing
among FR-B, FR-F, FR-H and FR-I, it is impossible to identify the best friction reducer performance based
on the laboratory experiments. Another example is to choose among FR-A, FR-D and FR-G where FR-D
and FR-G have quicker inversion time compared with FR-A; on the other hand, FR-A stays at maximum
reduction (%) for a longer time compared the other two.

Figure 5Friction reducer results (%) in the same synthetic water using the same concentration (0.5 gpt) of friction reducer.

It is obviously difficult to rank the performance of friction reducers even where all the experimental
conditions were kept constant. Therefore, it is essential to rank friction reducers based on a single value
scale. FRU for the friction reduction results shown in Fig. 5 are listed in Table 4. It is observed that based on
parameterization of the performance curve introduced in this paper, the performance of each friction reducer
can now be ranked. Based on the FRU scale, FR-F showed the best performance among other friction
reducers. FR-B, FR-I, FR-H, FR-G, FR-A and FR-D come after FR-F; respectively. It is demonstrated that
by just looking at an individual parameter like faster inversion time or just the maximum reduction, the
performance of friction reducers cannot be evaluated. It is necessary to use the combination of all four
parameters explained earlier to assess the performance of a friction reducer chemicals.
10 SPE-184815-MS

Table 4FRU for the friction reduction results (%) shown in Fig. 5 based
on parameterization of the performance curve proposed in this paper

Friction Reducer InvT (sec) Max %FR RetT @ % Avg FR max (sec) % FR @ 500 (sec) FRU

FR-A 170 55 100 45 4.1

FR-B 135 65 317 55 5.9

FR-D 130 53 40 16 3.5

FR-F 126 70 310 56 6.3

FR-G 75 55 141 29 4.4

FR-H 135 68 159 46 5.3

FR-I 105 80 65 37 5.7

Below the performance of different types of friction reducers in various ratios of fresh and synthetic
produced waters (different TDS) are briefly presented. The water compositions are listed in Table 5.

Table 5Synthetic produced water from a Canadian shale basin and fresh water compositions

Synthetic produced water Fresh water

Concentration (mg/l)

Ba2+ 0 0.1

Sr2+ 0 0.4

Ca2+ 10700 45.4

Mg2+ 1220 4.4

K+ 792 6.4

Na+ 52500 32.6

Si 0 4

B- 0 0.4

SO4 2- 613 53

Cl- 107967 96.3

TDS 169616 243

Fig. 6 presents FRU results of various friction reducers with respect to TDS adding the same FR
concentration (1 gpt). Different TDS were obtained by mixing the synthetic produced water and fresh water
(100% synthetic produced water, 75%:25%, 50%:50% and 25%:75% produced water/fresh water, and 100%
fresh water). As seen, the friction reducer performance decreased as TDS increased. At low TDS (fresh
water) all tested FRs performed well. FR-D is an anionic powder friction reducer, which shows the best
results as the performance of friction reducer was less affected by TDS. Among anionic emulsion FRs (FR-
A, FR-H and FR-P), FR-A is more brine tolerant than its counterparts in all TDS ranges studied.
SPE-184815-MS 11

Figure 6FRU results of various friction reducers with respect to different TDS (mg/l).

The results are also presented in Table 6. It is observed that the performance of different FRs in different
conditions can be easily compared with using the parameterization method introduced in this paper.

Table 6FRUs with respect to different fresh/synthetic produced water ratios for four different FRs.

Friction Reducer Synthetic InvT (sec) Max %FR RetT @ % Avg % FR @ 500 (sec) FRU
produced FR max (sec)
water/Fresh
Water ratio (%)

FR-A 0:100 78 74.1 422 75 7.5

FR-A 70:30 105 76.2 237 67.4 6.7

FR-A 50:50 126 63.4 267 57.2 5.7

FR-A 100:0 200 30 300 30 2.8

FR-D 0:100 90 75 410 73.2 7.5

FR-D 70:30 93 75 273 61 6.7

FR-D 50:50 120 73.8 270 60.4 6.5

FR-D 100:0 78 69 177 43 5.7

FR-H 0:100 96 73.4 321 64.5 6.8

FR-H 70:30 99 40.5 168 30.7 3.5

FR-H 50:50 303 17.4 197 17.3 1.1

FR-H 100:0 342 7.8 158 10 0.7

FR-P 0:100 69 63.5 431 63.5 6.7

FR-P 70:30 168 12 332 12 2.2

FR-P 50:50 192 20 308 20 2.0

FR-P 100:0 132 10 201 12 2.0

Field Trial
The ultimate goal of the friction reducer flow loop testing is to extrapolate the laboratory results for field
applications. Fig. 7 illustrates a snapshot of the pressure profile provided by an operator when different
friction reducers were used within a hydraulic fracturing stage in order to compare the performance of
powdered friction reducer FR-D with a standard emulsion friction reducer (FR-P). It was observed that the
12 SPE-184815-MS

powder friction reducer (FR-D) performed better than the emulsion friction reducer in that stage without
changing any other parameter of the fracturing stage. These results provided a relative agreement in the
percent friction reduction results that were obtained in the laboratory for the emulsion (FR-P) and powder
(FR-D) friction reducers. The relative performance of friction reducers, as determined by the FRU units can
be applied to the selection of the best friction reducer option for use in the field. Optimizing friction reducer
performance through FRU rankings in the laboratory helps with selection of the best friction reducer for
a region and many compatibility issues could be avoided in the field which translates into time and cost
savings.

Figure 7Field results of using different friction reducer during fracturing job.

Conclusion
Friction reducers are normally added to water-based fracturing fluids "on the fly" as water-in-oil emulsions
to reduce frictional pressure loss, thereby reducing operating costs and improving fracturing efficiently.
Currently, the standard practice of determining the friction reducer performance is to measure the pressure
drop over a standard length of pipe at a constant flow rate in the laboratory-scale flow loop.
A custom designed flow loop was built to test the efficacy of different friction reducers in varying qualities
of water. At the time of this paper, more than 400 flow loop runs with 24 different friction reducers of
varying types were tested. The standard output of a flow loop run calculates percentage of friction reduction
by measures differential pressure over a fixed length with respect to time. This curve can be parametrized
into four important variables affecting the performance of a friction reducer: Inversion time, maximum %
friction reduction, time to sustain maximum % friction reduction and the % friction reduction at the end
of 500 seconds. Currently, there is no mechanistic way to predict the performance of a friction reducer in
any water type as performance can vary widely depending on the components of the base fluid. The most
efficient and cost-effective way to screen the performance of a friction reducer is to screen it in produced
waters and produced water blends anticipated to be used in the field application with that particular friction
reducer.
A unique performance scale in FRU units has now been developed to take into account the weighted
average of output friction reduction curve variables. The range of the scale is from 0.0 to 10.0 FRU units. The
FRU scale has been applied to over 400 flow loop runs with 24 different friction reducers of varying types
in order to formulate the FRU ranking system and to rank each of these friction reducers performance. This
unique scale can be treated as a standard and can further empower operators who can require the friction
reducer vendors to provide FRU rankings.
SPE-184815-MS 13

From field experiences, it is presumed that multivalent ions such as iron affects FR peromance as in some
cases operators seek the concentration of iron that will make the risk associated with iron fouling avoidable.
So, it would be necessary to look at the effects of multivalent ions such as iron, calcium, and others on FR
performance. Effects of other various additives used during pumping on friction reducer performance should
also be studied for various reasons such as cost saving, improvement of friction reducers performance,
and treatment for particular ions. For instance, chlorine dioxide, citric acid, and some surfactants could
potentialy influence FR performance when iron is present in the water. Future studies will validate and
further add to the FRU ranking by including the effects of individual multivalent ions, pH, other additives,
temperature, shear, and tubing diameter on the performance of friction reducers in simple and complex
brines.

Numenclature
%FR Friction Rreduction, %
%FR@500s The percent friction reduction at the end of 500 second
d Diameter, inches
f Fanning friction factor
FRU Friction Reducer Units
InvT Inversion Time, second
l Length, ft
Max%FR Maximum percent friction reduction
ReT@ Time to sustain maximum percent friction reduction, second
%Avg.FRmax
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TSS Total suspended solids
v Fluid velocity, ft/min
P Differential pressure, psi
Density, lb/ft3

References
Aften, C.W. and Watson, W.P., 2009, "Improved Friction Reducer for Hydraulic Frcaturing", SPE-118747.
Ellis, V.B., 2015 "Characterization of Friction Reducer Properties in Oil-Field Operations," Master's Thesis, Rice
University.
Kelland, M.A., 2014 Production chemicals for Oil and Gas Industry. Second Edition.
Paktinat, J., O Neil, B., Aften, A. et al, 2011, "High Brine Tolerant Polymer Improves the Performance of Slickwater
Fracs in Shale Reservoirs", SPE-144210.
Sareen, A., Zhou J., Zaghmoot, I. et al, 2014, "Successful Slickwater Fracturing in Ultrahigh TDS Produced Water by
Novel Environmentally Preferred Friction Reducer", IPTC-17824-MS.
Sun, H., Stevens, R.F., Cutler, J.L. et al, 2010, "A Novel Nondamaging Friction Reducer: Development and Successful
Slickwater Frac Applications", SPE-136807.
Toms, B.A., 1948, "Some observations on the flow of linear polymer solutions through straight tubes at large Reynold
numbers," Proceedings of the 1st International Congressional Rheology, 135141.
Tucker, K.M. and McElfresh P.M., 2014 "Could Emulsified Friction Reducers Prevent Robust Friction Reduction",
SPE-168115.

You might also like