SPE 60322
Viscoelastic Surfactant Fracturing Fluids: Applications in Low Permeability Reservoirs
Mathew Samuel, -Schlumberger; Dan Polson, -BP Amoco; Don Graham; Walt Kordziel; Tim Waite; George Waters;
Vinod, P.S; Dan Fu and Rich Downey, All SPE, -Schlumberger.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, 12–15 March
2000.
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, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The introduction of viscoelastic surfactant (VES) base
fracturing fluids has changed the way industry views
fracturing fluids and proppant transport during a fracture
treatment.1 Elimination of polymers allows one to achieve
highly conductive proppant packs with no polymer damage.
Retained permeability and leakoff control are two of the most
important requirements for fracturing fluids. Traditional and
new generations of cross-linked gels provide good leakoff
control, but they often adversely affect the retained
permeability of the proppant pack. In addition, minimizing
frac-height growth and increasing effective fracture length are
a few other advantages of using VES fluids.2
In the majority of cases in low permeability formations, a long
and conductive fracture is the ultimate aim of hydraulic
fracturing. Borate or metal crosslinked guar fluids, because of
their inherent high viscosity, typically result in height growth
rather than increased fracture length. With VES fluids
proppant transport is based on the elasticity and structure
rather than the viscosity of fluid. Therefore VES fluids
efficiently transport proppants at lower viscosities. At the
same time, VES fluids let one achieve a better fracture
geometry, that with minimum fracture height and maximum
fracture length. Pressure transient analysis and tracer studies
have shown that this non-damaging low viscosity fluid can
give longer effective frac-length even when using much less
fluid and proppant volumes (Figure 1). Reduced friction
pressure is another added advantage while using VES fluids.
Hence VES fluid is the fluid of choice when fracturing is
performed through coiled tubing.3,4 Simplicity and reliability
of this two component system are the other features of this
fluid that attract the industry globally.5
The use of VES technology is now extended to other oilfield
applications, such as selective matrix diversion,6 filtercake
removal,7 and coiled tubing clean out. VES technology is also
defining new engineering practices in hydraulic fracturing that
cannot be accomplished with conventional fluid systems, such
as fracturing through coiled tubing.
Introduction:
Hydraulic fracturing has long been considered an effective
stimulation treatment for low permeability formations. In
these treatments, the goal is to create a long, thin fracture that
provides a large surface area. Fracture half-lengths can be of
the order of 100 to 1000 ft and have widths in the order of
tenth of an inch.
The perception that a successful hydraulic fracturing treatment
is the one that was pumped without problems, has changed in
the industry. The true measure of a successful fracturing
treatment is increased production or injectivity. The key
objective is to improve fluid communication between reservoir
and the wellbore. Polymer residues that stay in the fracture
contribute significantly towards lower proppant pack
permeability, thus leading to a loss in treatment effectiveness.
Laboratory experiments have shown that unbroken residues
from polymer-base fluids can indeed plug the pores of the
proppant pack. Analysis of the flowback fluid obtained from
wells treated with conventional and low guar fluids indicates
that even in low permeability reservoirs, only 35 to 45% of the
polymer that is pumped during the treatment flows back
during the flowback period.8 The remaining polymer stays in
the fracture and will adversely affect the well productivity.
An ideal fracturing fluid should show minimal pressure drop
in the pipe during placement, should have adequate proppant
carrying ability and should inactivate the transport mechanism
after the fracture closes. This will allow the fluid to break and
flowback without leaving any residue that minimizes
conductivity.
2 SAMUEL, POLSON, GRAHAM, KORDZIEL, WAITE, WATERS, VINOD, FU AND DOWNEY
In 1997, a revolutionary fracturing fluid was introduced to the
oilfield.9 As an alternative to the conventional polymer/
breaker approach, the newly developed fluid system uses a
viscoelastic surfactant (VES); similar to that is used in
shampoos or liquid detergents, to develop sufficient viscosity
to create a fracture and transport proppant.
The principal advantages of viscoelastic surfactant fluids are
ease of preparation, no formation damage and high retained
conductivity of the proppant pack. The fluid is prepared by
mixing sufficient quantity of VES in brine. Since no polymer
hydration is required, the surfactant concentrate can be
metered continuously into the brine. No crosslinkers, breakers
or other chemical additives are necessary.
This product has made fracturing operation simple and
reliable. This is not only because of the fewer number of
chemicals required at the location compared to guar systems,
but also due to its simple operation. A comparison of the
chemicals required to prepare VES fluid and those for a
typical guar fluid system is listed in Table 1.
Case histories of VES treatments in low permeability gas
wells at Rock Springs, Wyoming and El Reno, Oklahoma are
presented in this paper.
Theory:
The key to this technology is the use of a viscoelastic
surfactant that eliminates the use of polymers in fracturing
operations. There are different types of fluid formulations
available for various temperatures and for different stimulation
techniques. The most commonly used formulation is that
using a quaternary ammonium salt with inorganic salt such as
potassium chloride, ammonium chloride or ammonium nitrate.
Changing the brine to an organic salt such as sodium salicylate
(Figure 2) can increase the high temperature performance of
this fluid.
The properties of the VES fluid are due to its unique
chemistry. Viscoelastic surfactants are very small molecules
with a size of the order of 5,000 times smaller than guar
molecules. It consists of a hydrophilic head group and a long
hydrophobic tail. In the presence of brine, they form
elongated micellar aggregates. When the surfactant
concentration in the VES fluid is above a certain critical
concentration, the micellar structures entangle and form a
mesh like structures. These structures are responsible for the
extraordinary proppant transport characteristics at low
viscosities.
Upon contact with oil or gas or dilution by formation water,
the VES fluid reduces viscosity by breaking down the worm-
like micelles to much smaller spherical micelles. The
spherical micelles can not entangle with each other and hence
the resulting fluid has water-like viscosity, allowing the
fracturing fluid to flowback to the surface along with the
produced fluids, leaving a highly conductive proppant pack.
SPE 60322
Case Histories:
Since the introduction of the VES fluid, over 2,400 successful
fracturing treatments have been performed and the results
from these treatments proved that VES system offers better
opportunity than alternate technologies (polymer systems) to
achieve long term production, while utilizing much lower
volumes of fracturing fluid and proppant.
Case 1:
Two identical offset wells were hydraulically fractured at
the Mesa Verde formation at Rock Springs, Wyoming. Both
wells had three zones (Lower Almond, Middle almond and
Lewis) and the bottom hole temperatures of these zones
ranged between 176oF and 190oF. The permeabilities of the
zones were between 0.03 md to 0.05 md with a frac gradient
between 0.72 to 0.95 psi/ft. These treatments were pumped
through a 2 7/8th inch tubing at a rate of 24 to 31 bbls/min. Of
these two wells, one was fracture stimulated with a low guar
fluid (25 lb/1000 gallon) and the other with the VES fluid.
The logs from both wells were identical, especially in the
pay zones. The first well that was fracture stimulated using
polymer fluid was designed based on standard practice from
past treatments in the area. The fracture stimulation treatment
utilized 32% pad and placed 81% of the designed proppant
volume into the formation. Since the well showed signs of
screening out during the 4 ppa stage, the 5 ppa stage was
delayed, and the designed 6 ppa stage was eliminated. The
well was flowed back immediately after the frac, a standard
practice for the area. Induced Stress Diversion (ISD)
technique,10 a staged hydraulic fracture treatment
methodology without the aid of a positive zonal isolation via
bridge plugs, frac baffles, sand plugs or ball sealers, was used
to separate frac stages.
After the well was flowed for a short period, the middle
zone was perforated. Again for this stage also only 80% of the
designed proppant volume was placed. For the first two stages
of these treatments, the maximum proppant concentration that
was pumped did not go beyond 5 ppa (6 ppa was the designed
maximum proppant concentration). This was due to the
increase in bottom-hole pressure as the 4 ppa stage entered the
perforations. In both cases the wellbore was flushed
completely. When pumping polymer fluid system on the
upper zone, the pad volume was increased to 36% and the job
was redesigned to go up to 5 ppa and to place 217,000 lb
proppant. Details are listed in Table 2.
The offset well with identical three zones was then fracture
stimulated with the VES fluid system. The proppant and fluid
volumes used were calculated in order to achieve fracture
lengths comparable to those fractured with the polymer fluid.
A calibration treatment was performed on the Lower Almond
zone to determine the fracture closure pressure, fluid leak-off
coefficient, and fluid efficiency. The fluid efficiency for the
VES fluid in the lower zone was 50% compared to 42% for
SPE 60322 VISCOELASTIC SURFACTANT FRACTURING FLUIDS: APPLICATIONS IN LOW PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS
the guar fluid system. A 40% pad was used for the lower zone
and job was pumped at a rate of 25 bpm to completion. As
designed, up to 6 ppa proppant concentration was placed. The
average treating pressures were 7,000 psi for the VES fluid
compared to 7,850 psi for the polymer fluid. The two upper
zones were also pumped to completion as designed, with a pad
volume of 32 and 20% respectively. Use of such low volumes
of pad was due to the improved fluid efficiency noticed on
calibration tests and the initial two fracturing operations using
VES.
Post-job pressure history matching on the two wells
indicated that the two lower zones had fairly equivalent
calculated hydraulic fracture lengths in both polymer and VES
treatments. The amounts of fluid and proppant used for the
job, and the calculated hydraulic fracture properties based on
post-job pressure history matching are listed in Table 2.
The major difference between the crosslinked polymer
system and VES treatments is the resulting fracture height.
For all treatments utilizing guar, the fracture heights were
more than twice when compared to VES fluids. This is due to
higher viscosity of the polymer fluid systems (Figure 3). The
polymer fluids resulted in fractures outside of the pay zones
and propping open non-productive zones. With the low
viscosity of the VES fluids, the fracture tends to stay confined
in the pay zone. The proppant-pack conductivity is also
maximized due to the non-damaging feature of the VES fluid
system. These unique characteristics of the fluid can result in
long effective fractures compared to those with polymer fluids
(Figure 1). This is conformed by pressure transient studies
and also from pressure history match for the various zones
using fracture simulators. The results showed that similar
fracture lengths could be obtained when using VES fluids by
using lower volumes of fluid and proppant. Flowback results
showed that the wells that were fracture stimulated with the
VES fluid cleaned-up faster than the offset well fracture
stimulated with the polymer fluid. Initial stabilized production
from both wells showed that the wells treated with the VES
fluid had better production; 2.8 MMSCF/D compared to 1.3
MMSCF/D for the offset well stimulated with the low guar
fluid.
Case 2.
In this example, a gas bearing sandstone formation in South
Texas was fractured utilizing coiled tubing as a conduit. The
field is predominantly produced using 2 7/8” tubingless
completed wellbores. A previously bypassed zone located at
6,870 – 6,885 ft was selected for CoilFRAC stimulation. This
interval had an average bottom hole static temperature of
188oF, and a reservoir pressure of approximately 3,000 psi.
The reservoir permeability was estimated to be 0.1 mD and a
fracture gradient of 0.85 psi/ft.
For this application, a VES fluid containing 2% surfactant and
30 lb/1000 gal organic brine (sodium salicylate) was used. A
potassium chloride substitute was used for clay stabilization.
3
This fluid exhibits reduced frictional pressure losses because
of its drag reducing property of the VES fluid. Field data has
shown that the VES fluid system exhibits a frictional pressure
losses that could be as low as 1/3 of those with conventional
polymeric fluids (Figure 4). VES is the fluid of choice for
coiled tubing fracturing primarily due to
1. the reduced friction pressure in the smaller diameter
coiled tubing is necessarily to achieve the desired
injection rate at acceptable surface pressures.
2. the non-damaging nature of VES fluids provides optimum
fracture conductivity even at lower proppant
concentrations.
3. the unconventional fluid rheology reduces the sensitivity
of the fracture geometry to the fluid injection rate. The
fracture characteristics thus will be largely unaffected by
the low injection rates that is inevitable for the coiled
tubing fracturing procedure.
The well was initially injection tested down the coiled
tubing with 4% KCl at an injection rate of 4 bpm at a surface
pressure of 10,800 psi. A step rate test was performed using
VES fluid at injection rate increments of 1 bpm increments to
a maximum of 10.2 bpm when a surface pressure of 10,800 psi
was recorded. (Figure 5). The higher injection rate achieved
with the viscoelastic surfactant system when compared to the
4% KCl fluid clearly exhibits reduced frictional properties.
Based on injection test, it was decided to pump 14,000 lb
of 20/40 ceramic proppant at a rate of 8 BPM with a
maximum proppant concentration of 4 PPA. Ceramic
proppants were selected for this job because its roundness and
sphericity, attributes that would further reduce friction
pressures. Ceramic proppants can also result in higher
conductivity than that with regular sand. The fracturing
treatment was pumped at 8.2 BPM and showed a maximum
treating pressure of 10,800 psi at a proppant concentration of 4
ppa (Figure 6).
Prior to the fracture stimulation, the well was producing at
approximately 100 MCFD at 800 psi flowing tubing pressure.
Following the treatment, a production rate of 1 MMscf/d was
recorded. The well continues to produce at approximately 800
Mscf/d with 300 psi flowing tubing pressure.
In summary, the unique characteristics of the VES fluid
systems made coiled tubing fracturing a feasible operation.
Case 3.
This case describes the stimulation treatment at El Reno,
Oklahoma, where VES-fluid showed its superior fluid
efficiency over polymer-base fluids. The BHT of the well was
190 oF and the permeability of the formation was 0.3 md. The
VES-fluid has excellent leakoff control characteristics
especially in low perm gas wells. Based on previous
experience in this reservoir, the treatment was originally
designed with 45% pad fluid volume. A minifrac was
performed prior to the stimulation indicating that the fluid was
85% efficient. As a result, the job was redesigned using less
4 SAMUEL, POLSON, GRAHAM, KORDZIEL, WAITE, WATERS, VINOD, FU AND DOWNEY
than 10% pad followed by an aggressive proppant schedule
with stages of 4, 6 and 8 ppa. A total of 66,000 lb of proppant
was placed. The treatment schedule for this job is given in
Table 3. Because of the high fluid efficiency of VES fluid,
the fluid volume used for the treatment was reduced by 55%
compared to what is normally designed for a polymer fluid.
VES fluids do not form a filtercake and the leakoff is filtrate
viscosity controlled. The rate at which the fluid leaks off into
the matrix is found to be very low, due to the high filtrate
viscosity compared to that of water, which is in the case of
polymer fluids.
Conclusions
VES fluids are providing significant advantages and
improved well production for low and high permeability oil
and gas wells. VES fluids have unique properties and require
engineered fracturing treatment designs as opposed to gallon
for gallon fluid replacement with conventional polymer based
systems. The broad spectrum of benefits of VES system needs
to be examined when designing these fracture treatments. The
use of VES fluids can result in higher proppant-pack
conductivity, longer effective fracture lengths, less fracture
height growth due to lower viscosity and reduced friction
pressures allowing non-conventional jobs to be placed
successfully (fracturing through coiled tubing).
Field results have shown that VES fluids provide the
following benefits/advantages over conventional polymer fluid
systems:
1. Due to a combination of very high fluid efficiencies
(~85%) and 100% retained conductivity for the proppant
pack, the non-damaging visco-elastic surfactants based
fracturing fluids yield very high effective (producing)
fracture lengths.
2. Similar proppant-pack conductivities in comparison to
polymer based systems can be obtained with VES fluids
with significantly less proppant.
3. QA/QC becomes much more manageable when using
VES fluids due to the simplicity of the two additive
system. VES fluid can be gelled even in seawater.
4. The use of a low viscosity fluid, that is capable of
efficiently transporting proppant, minimizes unnecessary
fracture height growth.
5. Lower hydraulic horsepower costs or higher pump rates
are achievable when pumping VES fluids as a result of
the lower friction pressure behavior
6. Selective stimulation of pay zones is possible with coiled
tubing strings as small as 1 3/4” in wells up to 12,000 ft
when pumping VES fluids.
7. Significant savings in rig time, cleaning up the well faster,
getting the well on production earlier and higher
production rates have been achieved by using VES fluids.
SPE 60322
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank BP Amoco and
Schlumberger management for the permission to publish this
paper. We also acknowledge Golchi Salamat and Sylvie
Neyret in acquiring some of the lab data and Ken Nolte for
analyzing the minifracs.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
ft2 x 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
o
F (oF -32)/1.8 = oC
cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s
md x 9.869 223 E-04 = µm2
D x 9.869 223 E-01 = µm2
lbm x 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
References
1. “Polymer-free fracturing fluid targets well productivity”,
Fracturing Technology news, World Oil, Sep 1999.
2. Rimmer, B. et al.: “Fracture Geometry Optimization: Designs
utilizing New Polymer-Free Fracturing Fluid and Log-Derived
Stress Profile/ Rock Properties” paper SPE 58761 to be
presented at the 2000 SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, U.S.A., Feb. 23-24.
3. Lemp, S., Zemlack, W., McCollum, R.: “An Economical
Shallow-Gas Fracturing Technique Utilizing a Coiled Tubing
Conduit” paper SPE 46031 presented at the 1998 SPE/ICOTA
Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, TX, U.S.A., April 15-16.
4. Olejniczak, S et al.: “Fracturing Bypassed Pay in Tubingless
Completions” paper SPE 56467 to be presented at the 1999 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,
U.S.A., Oct. 3-6.
5. Pitoni, E et al.: “polymer-free fracturing fluid revives shut-in
well” World Oil (Sept. 1999).
6. Parler, H. et al., “Laboratory Development of a Noval,
Simultaneous Cake Cleanup and Gravel Packing System for
Long, Highly-deviated or horizontal open hole completions”
paper SPE 50651 presented at the 1999 SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, U.S.A., Feb.
16-19.
7. Chang, F.F et al.: “Case Study of a Novel Acid-Diversion
Technique in Carbonate Reservoirs” paper SPE 56529 presented
at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, U.S.A., Feb. 18-19.
8. Willberg, 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, U.S.A., Oct. 5-8.
9. Samuel, M et al.: “Polymer-Free Fluid for Hydraulic Fracturing”
paper SPE 38622 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, U.S.A., Oct. 5-8.
10. Hewett, T., Spence, C.: “Induced Stress Diversion: A Novel
Approach to Fracturing Multiple Pay Sands of the NBU Field,
Uintah Co., Utah” paper SPE 39945 presented at the 1998 SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, CO, U.S.A., April 5-8.
SPE 60322 VISCOELASTIC SURFACTANT FRACTURING FLUIDS: APPLICATIONS IN LOW PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS 5

Tables
Table 1. Additives necessary to make VES and Guar base- Table 3. A comparison of job parameters and fracture
fracturing fluids. simulations for polymer and VES fluid (Case 3).

VES Treatment # Guar Treatment * VES Job schedule Designed Actual

Minifrac 5,000 gal 5,000 gal
− VES surfactant concentrate − Biocides Pad volume 9,000 gal (38 %) 843 gal (8%)
− Stabilizer − Clay stabilizer 2 ppa 4,000 gal --
− Polymer 4 ppa 4,000 gal 2,000 gal
− Hydration buffer
6 ppa 7,000 gal 3,000 gal
− Buffer
− Surfactant 8 ppa -- 5,000 gal
− Caustic Total fluid 24,000 gal 10,843 gal
− Delay additives Total proppant 66,000 lb 66,000 lb
− High Temperature stabilizer Fluid Efficiency >85%
− Iron control agents
− Crosslinker
− Crosslinker stabilizer/
activator
− Breakers
− Breaker aid

#
The stabilizer of the fluid is normally KCl. When KCl is
used no additional Clay stabilizers are required.
* The amounts for polymer and number of additives depends
on the fluid type and application temperature.

Table 2. A comparison of job parameters and fracture

simulations for polymer and VES fluid (Case 1).

Lower Almond Middle Almond Lewis Total Average/well

VES Guar VES Guar VES Guar VES Guar VES Guar
Proppant Volume (lb) 86K 140K 106K 121K 118K 217K 310K 478K 103 159
Fluid Volume (bbl) 1049 1727 951 1609 877 2084 2877 5420 959 1806
Pad Volume (bbl) 354 662 427 714 164 723 945 2099 315 700
Conductivity (md/ft) 511 394 1096 270 908 697 838 453
Frac Length (ft) 369 385 438 435 204 385 337 401
Frac Height (ft) 97 167 80 203 127 245 101 205
Cumilative Production for first six
months (MMscf/D) 222,151 162,568
 6 SAMUEL, POLSON, GRAHAM, KORDZIEL, WAITE, WATERS, VINOD, FU AND DOWNEY SPE 60322

Figures

Figure 1. A pictorial representation of fracture half lengths

obtained when stimulation treatment is performed using
polymer (left and) VES (right) fluids

Figure 2. The rheology of the two formulations of VES fluids. Figures 4 a and 4b. A comparison of the surface pressure
experienced when VES and polymer fluids are used.

80 16,000
Viscosity@170 s-1 (cp)

70 2% VES in KCl 2.375" X 0.190"

Su rface Pressu re (p

8 b pm ; 4 P P A
60 2% VES in J463 12,000

50
8,000
40

30
4,000
ClearF RAC
20
YF 120L G
10 0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
0
D ep th (ft)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
o
Temperature ( F)
16,000

Figure 3. A comparison of the rheologies between

S u rface P ressu re (p

polymer and VES fluids used in Case 1. 12,000

8,000 1.75" X 0.190"

1000 8 bp m ; 4 P P A
Viscosity @170 s-1 (cp)

4,000
ClearF RAC
YF 120L G
100 0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
D ep th (ft)

10
25 Lb Guar
2% VES in J463
1
0 50 100 150 200
Time (min)
SPE 60322 VISCOELASTIC SURFACTANT FRACTURING FLUIDS: APPLICATIONS IN LOW PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS 7

Figure 5: Injectivity test for the viscoelastic surfactant fluid

through the 1 ¾” coiled tubing. The observed increase in
friction pressure at the end is due to the lowering of VES
concentration during the flush stage (Case 2).

15000 20
Surface Pressure
Injection Rate
Surface Pressures (psi)

15

Injection Rate (bpm)

10000

10

5000
5

0 0
52 54 56 58 60 62
Time (min)

Figure 6: Surface pressure measurements during the main

fracture treatment described in Case 2.

15000 20
Surface Pressure
Inj. Rate (bpm) / Prop. Conc. (PPA)

Injection Rate
Surface Pressure (psi)

Prop. Conc.
15
10000

10

5000
5

0 0
125 150 175
Time (min)