QAQC MANUAL - Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing Manual - V1 - Jul04

i
ONSHORE
HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
QA/QC MANUAL
Version 1.0
July 2004
George A. Turk, EPTG

Cecil Parker, EPTG
Mark Glover, EPTG
Harmon Heidt, OUSBU
Ian Lambeth, EPTG
BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual
July 2004
- ii -
VERSION HISTORY
Review Date
Reviewers
Mark Glover, EPTG
Harmon Heidt, OUSBU
Cecil Parker, EPTG
George Turk, EPTG
August 2003
September 2003
Melissa Beck, Frontline Group
June 2004
OUSBU Wells Team
July 2004
- iii -
July 2004
- iv -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P ur pos e of t he M anu al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I nt r oduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Taking Execution out of the Equation ..................................................................... 2
Leave a Trail............................................................................................................... 5
The Rest of the Story................................................................................................. 5
The BP Fracturing QA/QC Principles....................................................................... 6
Lab Work Prior to Frac Day............................... 8

11
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 8
12 Fluids ............................................................................................................... 8
12.1 Fann 50 Recipe Validation ______________________________________ 8
12.2 Fluid Formulation Sensitivity Tests_______________________________ 11
12.3 Chemical Batch/Lot Tests______________________________________ 13
12.4 Water Analysis ______________________________________________ 13
12.5 Pad Lab Pilot Test ___________________________________________ 14
12.6 Pilot Test Acceptable Variance Ranges ___________________________ 17
13 Proppant ........................................................................................................ 19
13.1 Pre-Job Proppant Quality Assurance _____________________________ 21
Frac Day Pre-Frac Preparation ....................... 24

21 Introduction ................................................................................................... 24
21.1 Personnel Requirements ______________________________________ 24
22 Fluid Testing.................................................................................................. 24
22.1 Equipment _________________________________________________ 24
22.2 Materials___________________________________________________ 25
22.3 Water Analyses _____________________________________________ 25
22.4 Pad Pre-Job Pilot Test ________________________________________ 26
23
Proppant Testing .......................................................................................... 33
24 Pumping and Metering Validation ............................................................... 34

24.1 Equipment Layout ___________________________________________ 35
24.2 Metering ___________________________________________________ 36
24.3 Gelling the Hydration Unit______________________________________ 41
24.4 Materials___________________________________________________ 42
24.5 Frac Van Preparation _________________________________________ 42
24.6 Densometers _______________________________________________ 45
July 2004
-v-
QA/QC During the Frac .................................... 46

31
Introduction ................................................................................................... 46
32
Densometers ................................................................................................. 46
33 Gel Quality Monitoring.................................................................................. 47

33.1 Bad Gel Decision Process ____________________________________ 47
33.2 Mass Balance Process ________________________________________ 48
33.3 Contingency Plans ___________________________________________ 50
Unplanned Shutdowns ....................................................................................... 51
Planned Pump Rate Unachievable..................................................................... 52
Proppant Concentration...................................................................................... 53
Loss of Automatic Control for Additive Pumps.................................................... 53
Loss of Blender and/or Wellhead Densometer ................................................... 54
Bad Gel Samples ............................................................................................. 54
Unachieved Designed Liquid Gel Concentration ................................................ 55
Unacceptable Crosslinker Additive Rate ............................................................ 56
Unacceptable Buffer Additive Rate..................................................................... 56
Unacceptable Surfactant Additive Rate .............................................................. 56
Unacceptable Unencapsulated (Granular or Liquid) Breaker (SP) Additive Rate57
Unacceptable Encapsulated Breaker Additive Rate ........................................... 57
Q A / Q C Follow ing t he Fr ac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
41
BP QA/QC Form and Mass Balance Spreadsheet...................................... 58
42
Post-Frac Job Review................................................................................... 58
43
Additional Stages.......................................................................................... 58
A ppendi x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Glossary ............................................................................................................. 60
Generic Frac QA/QC Guidelines ........................................................................ 65
July 2004
- vi -
PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL

This manual defines and documents the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
process for hydraulic fracture stimulations performed in the Onshore U.S. Business
Unit. Numerous case studies and examples are included to demonstrate and explain
the process in real-world terms. It is hoped that this manual clearly explains each step
to the novice and serves as a valuable reference for the more experienced practitioner.
July 2004
-1-
INTRODUCTION
TA K I N G E X E C U T I O N
OUT OF THE
EQUATION
In late 2000, BPs Exploration and Production Technology Group (EPTG)

Completions Team became involved in a fracturing fluid R&D project in one of BPs
Lower 48 Business Unit assets. Initial project results were excellentthe wells with
the new fluid were outperforming the offset wells fractured with the standard borateguar fluid systems. However, as the number of wells in the frac-fluid project
increased over time, the average initial production significantly declined.
Investigation into the details revealed that the screen-out frequency had increased
dramatically. Various solutions were discussed and evaluated, and some were
attempted but with no improvement. The frac-fluid project was scrapped, and
subsequent wells were stimulated with conventional borate-guar fluids. Despite this,
the screen-out rate did not return to acceptable levels.
What could be the problem? Geology? Probably not. This was not a new
development. Some of the screen-outs were in wells with numerous 160-acre
offsets. Was the completion technique the problem? Possibly. Engineers are always
changing some phase of the program, looking for ways to reduce completion costs.
Still, even this could not explain the high screen-out frequency. Was the problem the
frac treatment design goals, e.g., length, height, or conductivity? Possibly. But with
the majority of frac jobs screening out, it was difficult to say the problem was a
design that did not get executed to completion. After a significant amount of
evaluation, it was determined that nothing could be resolved until wed first
answered the simple question, Are we pumping what we think were pumping?
BP then began an intense examination of the job execution phase of fracturing in
this field. The process included tests to answer such questions as
Fluids
Is the water quality OK? Is it clean? Is the temperature OK?
Is the base gel OK? Is it mixed correctly?
Are the right additives being added? Is the quality of each OK?
Is the gel crosslinking like it should?
Is the gel crosslinking when it should?
Does the crosslinked fluid look right?
Proppants
Is the proppant right-sized?
Is the proppant quality OK?
Is the proppant metered correctly?
July 2004
-2-
Equipment
Are the right amounts of water, gel, and additives being added?
How much variance in the additive rates is acceptable?
Are the additives being added at a rate the equipment can adequately handle?
Are the meters properly calibrated?
Do the post-job straps confirm the meters? If not, what is being done to correct
the error?
Is the equipment being used to its full capability?
Is the equipment right for the job?
Is the equipment maintenance program adequate?
Are the frac tanks clean?
Personnel
Are the service company personnel sufficiently capable?
Are sufficient numbers of personnel on location?
Are personnel adequately experienced?
Are the key positions staffed appropriately?
And so on.
BPs QA/QC process philosophy is simple: Pump the job as designed and prove
it. To pump the job as designed means that only a 5% deviation from job design
specifications is permitted. This might seem unreasonably precise. Nonetheless, in
areas where the QA/QC process is fully implemented and now second nature, it is
not uncommon to see margins of error below 2%. If the fluids, proppant, meters, or
pumps are incapable of performing within 5% of design, the job is postponed and the
problem fixed. Jobs are not started until the margin of error is 5% or less. No
exceptions.
Heres a hypothetical situation to put it into perspective:
Lets say youre the BP representative on a job and its 2 p.m. The service company
has been trying to get the delay crosslinker additive pump calibrated for over two
hours. If the job doesnt start within the hour, time will run out to pump today. And of
course, if the job is delayed until tomorrow, tomorrows frac job will be pushed back
a day. And so on, leading to a growing backlog of wells to fracture. Delayed
production costs money.
The crosslinker additive pump meter is showing a fairly steady rate of between 0.8
and 1.2 gpt (gallons of chemical per 1,000 gallons of fluid). The target is 1.0 gpt. We
have a Fann 50 test (viscosity profile) for the design recipe, but no additive
July 2004
-3-
sensitivities have been run. The service company electronics expert is confident he
knows what the problem is, but it cannot be repaired in the fieldonly in the yard,
100 miles away. The service company treater assures everyone the problem will be
repaired after they get back to the yard tonight. Besides, if the additive is 20% too
low one moment but then 20% too high the next, the average is right on target. The
design pump rate is 60 bpm. The blender has a 1-barrel tub.
Do you pump today? For several reasons, the answer is no. Heres why:
YF130LGD System at 195F - Varying Delay Agent
350
Viscosity (cP @ 100sec-1)
The +/- 20% rate variance

doesnt average out to no
error. At 60 bpm, the fluid is
in the tub for only one
second. Thats not much
time for mixing.
Recipe
300
-10%
250
-20%
200
+10%
Are you sure + or 20%

+15%
150
does not affect fluid quality?
+20%
100
Figure I-1 shows a Fann 50
50
plot of a 30 ppt borate fluid.
Look at the effect of
0
increasing
the
delay
0
50
100
150
200
Time at 195F (minutes)
crosslinker
additive
on
viscosity. An additional 10% Figure I-1. Fann 50 plot of viscosity at different delay agent
or 15% has little impact. concentrations vs. time.
However,
when
an
additional 20% is added,
the viscosity drops from about 230 to 125 cp. Thats a 45% loss of viscosity! Are
you willing to pump this fluid?
Perhaps the most important reason not to pump is to send a message that job
quality is important to BP. Suppose you go ahead and pump and get the job
away as planned? Then for whatever reason, the meter isnt repaired. The same
equipment will show up on your location the next day, and guess what? Its still
+/- 20%. Dont you think youll hear, Hey, we got away with it yesterday! If it was
all right yesterday, why not today? Will you be able to tell the service company
that it is not all right to pump today when it was all right yesterday? If anything,
you will be lucky if the meter isnt reading +/- 40%. Problems dont improve with
time.
Our choice is simple. We can have either:
a frac job pumped as designed with a resulting high-quality fracture but with a 24hour delay in production, or
a lower-quality, lower-conductivity fracture, and a possible screen-out, resulting

in lower well productivity, but with gas-to-sales one day sooner.
July 2004
-4-
LEAVE
TRAIL
The second half of the BP Fracturing QA/QC philosophy, after the charge to pump
the job as designed, is to prove it. Documentation is a critical component of the
learning process. Job performance must be documented properly so we can learn
from our mistakes. For example, without proper documentation, an engineer new to
a field may review last years dismal infill drilling program and determine that the
poor performance was due to a poor design. In this example, proper documentation
may have revealed that the design was fine but the execution was the problem. So,
not only must we do everything we can to pump the job as designed, but we must
also document the results and pass that information on to our successors so we
arent continually reworking the same problems.
THE REST
OF THE
STORY
You might be asking, What was the result of the QA/QC program on that screenout-plagued field? Figure I-2 shows the improvement made from the first to the third
quarter of 2001 in both reducing cost and improving rate. The Asset confirms that
these improvements could not be explained by better reservoir completion or some
other well completion factor. The consensus was that the 35% improvement in
mcfd/$M was due to improved job execution.
BP
BPFrac
FracQA/QC
QA/QCProcess
Process
$1,200
$1,200
$1,000
$1,000
$800
$800
$600
$600
$400
$400
$200
$200
$0$0
2001
ellellCapex,
2001Per
PerW
W
Capex,Gross
Gross$k
$k
1100
1100
700
700
500
500
2Q
2Q
3Q
3Q
2001
2001IP's
IP's(30
(30Day
DayAvg
AvgMCFD)
MCFD)
Cost
Cost
($k/well)
($k/well)
900
900
700
700
500
500
2001
CFD/$M
2001MM
CFD/$M
900
900
1Q
1Q
1100
1100
2001
2001BP
BPFrac
FracQA/QC
QA/QCProcess
Process
Not
NotInconsequential!!!
Inconsequential!!!
1Q
1Q
2Q
2Q
3Q
3Q
1Q
1Q
2Q
2Q
01
01 Act.
Act.
YTD
YTD 1Q
1Q
1002
1002 1122
1122
3Q
3Q
Act.
Act. Act.
Act.
2Q
2Q 3Q
3Q
931
931 945
945
IP
IP
(MCFD)
(MCFD)
904
904
851
851
892
892
968
968
MCFD
MCFD
IP/$M
IP/$M
902
902
758
758
958
958 1024
1024
Figure I-2. QA/QC program impact.
July 2004
-5-
THE BP FRACTURING QA/QC PRINCIPLES

Many of the methods in this manual must be tailored for a specific reservoir. The
information here is not meant to be taken to the field and used directly as written.
The steps may require extensive testing and reviews by all involved before
implementation. However, there are fundamentals or key aspects of this process
that will apply wherever BP is fracturing wells. Here are the universal principles,
which are by no means comprehensive:
All HSE practices required by the BP Drilling & Well Operations Policy, the
Golden Rules, Business Unit and/ or Operating Center and the service company
must be adhered to. Any deviation from these will require written dispensation
from the appropriate authorities.
All additive rates and volumes must be pumped to within 5% of design.
All equipment, including additive pumps and the proppant delivery system, must
be verified as being capable of delivering the desired rates and concentrations
before being dispatched to location.
All equipment to be used in the frac job must be fully operational and functional
prior to beginning the treatment.
All pre-job test results of the pumps and flow meters must be within 5% of design
before the treatment commences.
Except where noted, all additives must be pumped in the automatic mode.
All additive flow lines and manifolds should be fully primed prior to taking
beginning job straps to ensure an accurate measurement of additive rates and
volumes.
Alterations to additive concentrations are not to be based solely on samples
obtained during the treatment. Refer to the Contingency Plan (Sec. 3-2.3) for
recommended actions for various additives.
Every hydraulic fracturing fluid formulation and breaker schedule must be
supported by Fann 50 test data.
Any changes in fluid or product formulation must adhere to the BP Management
of Change (MOC) process. Such changes must be supported by relevant QA/QC
tests including Fann 50 test data.
BP design engineers must approve any design change not validated by a Fann
50 test before pumping.
All additive variance guidelines should be based on data provided by the service
company technology center.
All QA/QC test results are to be transferred to the BP QA/QC form by the service
company mass balance person and included in the Final Treatment Report.
July 2004
-6-
The purpose of these procedures is to take job execution out of the job design and
evaluation process. The frac design engineer must be able to evaluate performance
results of a frac design without wondering whether the job was pumped as designed.
These guidelines are to be followed so that we:
Pump the job as designed and prove it.
July 2004
-7-
LAB WORK PRIOR TO FRAC DAY

11
INTRODUCTION
The key to a successful frac job is preparation. Every facet of the treatment must be
thought out in advance. What could go wrong? What tests can be run to preempt a
problem? What tests can be run to help with a decision if a problem crops up in the
middle of the job? The best place to perform such fluid tests is in the non-stressed
environment of the service company laboratory, ideally the day or days before the
frac job.
Some of these tests (e.g., chemical additive Fann 50 sensitivity tests) need to be run
only once for a given fluid system. BP EPTG Completions has collected and stored
examples of these on its website to make them accessible around the world.
(http://ewpstim.bpweb.bp.com). These tests should be validated by area with
each local mix-water. Chemical lot tests need only be run as often as new lots or
batches of chemical additives are used. A gel pilot test, a bacteria test, and a
breaker test must be run prior to every frac job.
A set of tests run in the lab can be a great resource to the onsite service company
fluid technician.
12
FLUIDS
12.1 Fann 50 Recipe Validation

A frac job should never be
pumped without a fluid test being
performed
to
replicate
downhole pumping conditions. A
Fann 50 machine is the state-ofthe-art tool for this purpose.
Quite expensive (~$50,000),
these are generally, though not
always, located in the service
company lab. The essential
difference in the Fann 50 and
Fann 35 (Figure 1-1) is that the
Fann 50 tests can be run at
downhole pumping conditions of
temperature, shear rate, and
pressure (1000 psi max.). With a
heat cup, a Fann 35 can
Fann 50
35
Fann 35
Figure 1-1. Fann 50 and Fann 35 machines.
July 2004
-8-
somewhat duplicate the bottomhole temperature up to perhaps 200F, but it can only
be run at ambient pressure. A Fann 50 is the best routine test we have to infer the
key properties of a fluid at downhole fracturing conditions.
Fann 50 tests on the fluid to be used for the pad stage of the frac job should be run
at static reservoir temperature. Because the pad stage significantly cools down the
fracture face walls, the slurry stages always see cooler temperatures than the pad.
Designing the slurry stages at static temperature is unnecessary. Since the slurry
stages see cooler temperatures, they can typically be designed with a less robust
(less polymer, fewer crosslinkers, and fewer buffers) and less expensive system.
Most fracture simulators are capable of generating a fracture temperature profile for
use in fluid and breaker design. For a safety margin, run the Fann 50 tests at the
simulator-predicted temperature plus 20F. The minimum Fann 50 temperature
setting should be surface temperature plus 20F. In the absence of this computersimulator-generated data, tests for the slurry stages should be run at approximately
75% of static reservoir temperature.
Figure 1-2 is an example of a Fann 50 plot of apparent viscosity at temperature
versus time. For this particular fluid, note how viscosity rapidly deteriorated after
about 45 minutes.
Without
additional
testing, there would
be no way of knowing
if this degradation
were due to poor gel,
too high a breaker
loading, or too much
or
too
little
crosslinker, and so
on. Whatever the
reason,
this
fluid
should not be pumped
on a job lasting over Figure 1 2. Fann 50 plot of apparent viscosity at temperature vs. time.
half an hour. On the
other hand, if the total pump time were less than 30 minutes, then perhaps this fluid
would be fine.
Shear rate in the fracture is estimated to be between 40 and 100 sec-1, depending
on the frac width and pump rate. Normally, shear rate ramps are run to generate n
and k (fluid parameters which describe the fluid and generate the above plot). One
shear rate (40 or 100 sec-1) should be selected to approximate fracture shear for frac
design. Either rate is acceptable to use, but running the Fann 50 tests at 100 sec-1
is recommended. Tests must be run at the same shear rate for comparisons to be
meaningful. Ensure that the service company notes on the plot as to how the test
was run. Be consistent so apples-to-apples comparisons can be made.
July 2004
-9-
The bob and sleeve

configuration can also
affect the results. Fann 50
tests are typically run with
an R1B1, R1B5, or R1B5
extended
bob
configuration (R1 is the
sleeve, B1, B2, and B5
are bobs), as shown
Figure 1-3. The B5
extended bob is being
used more and more
because
its
smaller
diameter minimizes the
crosslinked fluid climbup on the bob and stem Figure 1 3. Fann 50 bob and sleeve configurations.
(known as the viscoelastic effect), providing greater test consistency. The R1B5 extended bob is the
recommended configuration for Fann 50 crosslinked gel testing. The details of the
bob/sleeve configuration should be noted on each test. Brookfield PSV viscometers
are being used in many locations and are equivalent in performance to the Fann 50.
Other available viscometers should be reviewed prior to use to ensure they comply
with API specifications.
For linear gel viscosity measurements with the Fann 35, the R1B1 bob and sleeve
configuration is recommended. Examples of bob and sleeve configurations for the
Fann 35 are shown in Figure 1-4.
Figure 1 4. Fann 35 machine, bobs and sleeve.
July 2004
- 10 -
12. 2
Fluid Formulation Sensitivity Tests

Anytime a change is
YF130LGD
made
to
a
fluid
YF130LGDSystem
Systematat195F
195F- -Varying
VaryingDelay
DelayAgent
Agent
formulation, a Fann 50
350
350
test result must be
Recipe
available to validate those
300
Recipe
300
-10%
changes. Without these
-10%
250
250
data, a fluid change
-20%
-20%
200
should not be made. For
+10%
200
+10%
example, suppose the
+15%
150
+15%
150
treating pressure during
+20%
+20%
100
the early pad stage is
100
higher than anticipated.
5050
One of several potential
00
solutions
is
to
add
00
5050
100
150
200
100
150
200
chemical to delay the
Time
at
195F
(minutes)
crosslink time until the
fluid crosslinks threefourths of the way down
the tubing (rather than at
Figure 1 5. Fann 50 plot of viscosity at different delay agent
half way) in order to
concentrations vs. time.
reduce friction pressure.
But would it be safe to
assume that increasing this additive X% would have no other consequence on the
fluid? If you had the Fann 50 data in the graph in Figure 1-5 available, you would
see that adding 10% to 15% crosslink-delay chemical has minimal effect on viscosity
but that adding 20% reduces the viscosity to ~40% less than designed. The Fann 50
data is essential to determining the safe range of chemical concentration.
Do not assume that a change in one additive is inconsequential to the abilities of the
other chemicals to perform their functions. Since an integral part of the QA/QC effort
is to reduce the unknowns and provide documentation for as many decisions as
possible, do not rely solely on experience or assumptions.
Fann 50 testing for every fracturing fluid formulation and breaker schedule must be
performed and validated before pumping that fluid formulation. Sensitivity tests
should be run for every critical additive in the formulation. Critical additives are
those additives that affect the fluids ability to perform as designed. For most jobs
these are the crosslinker, crosslink-delay, buffer, and breaker additives. Other
additives that enhance other characteristics of the fluid, such as surface tension, do
not normally affect the ability of the fluid to create and maintain fracture width and to
transport proppant and therefore are not deemed to be critical. However, even
these non-critical additives should pass through an initial screening to determine the
effects, if any, on the fluid system.
July 2004
- 11 -
A test matrix like the one in Figure 1-6 should

be designed and run to ensure all
combinations of additives are tested.
Sensitivities of +/-15% should be run for each
critical additive.
Sensitivity Test Combinations for 3 Critical Additives

Test #
Buffer
Xler
Del Xler
1
0%
0%
0%
2
0%
15%
0%
3
0%
-15%
0%
4
15%
0%
0%
5
15%
15%
0%
6
15%
-15%
0%
7
-15%
0%
0%
8
-15%
15%
0%
9
-15%
-15%
0%
10
0%
0%
15%
11
0%
15%
15%
12
0%
-15%
15%
13
15%
0%
15%
14
15%
15%
15%
15
15%
-15%
15%
16
-15%
0%
15%
17
-15%
15%
15%
18
-15%
-15%
15%
19
0%
0%
-15%
20
0%
15%
-15%
21
0%
-15%
-15%
22
15%
0%
-15%
23
15%
15%
-15%
24
15%
-15%
-15%
25
-15%
0%
-15%
26
-15%
15%
-15%
27
-15%
-15%
-15%
It might be thought that just varying the

concentration of one additive at a time would
be sufficient. However, it has been found that
this is not always the case. Figure 1-7 shows
a suite of Fann 50 tests performed on the
same fluid system discussed previously. In
the plot shown, two additives were changed
by various amounts. The ideal formulation
is the dark blue curve, averaging about 230
cp. Note that when 20% too little crosslinker
is added on top of the 20% excess in the
delay agent, the viscosity plummets to
virtually nil. So, in this hypothetical case, the
Fann 50 test shows what could happen if the
delay-crosslink additive was increased by
20% to achieve a longer crosslink time to Figure 16. Test matrix used to test critical
reduce
friction
pressure
and
you additive sensitivity.
inadvertently pumped too little crosslinker.
The resultant low fluid viscosity would almost certainly result in a failure. The point is
that the tests need to be run to check out all combinations.
Comparison of Viscosity of 30ppt Delayed BorateSystem at 195F
Varying both Crosslinker and Delay Agent
350
300
250
200
150
Standard Crosslinker, Standard Delay Agent
100
20% Less Delay Agent, 20% More Crosslinker

20% Less Delay Agent, 20% Less Crosslinker
20% More Delay Agent, 20% More Crosslinker
50
20% More Delay Agent, 20% Less Crosslinker
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 17. Fann 50 plot of additive sensitivity tests.
July 2004
- 12 -
12.3 Chemical Batch/Lot Tests

Not only must every recipe be validated and documented, but every chemical batch
or lot should be tested as well. Do not assume that a chemical from a new lot will
perform identically with another lot. A single Fann 50 test will validate that Product X
performs as required. Every time a new lot arrives at the service company yard, a
validating Fann 50 test must be run and compared to the standard for that fluid.
These tests need not be run for every set of well conditions. The service company
should set up a standard test for a single, uniform set of conditions. The test
temperature should be >150F to minimize the visco-elastic effect of fluids, which
can mask the results at low temperatures. Use of distilled water is preferable as it
eliminates differences in waters from affecting the results. The viscosity variance
from the standard should be less than 15%.
12.4 Water Analysis

The following discussion uses examples from generic QA/QC documents. Specific
QA/QC forms and related documents for Halliburton and Schlumberger are provided
in the appendices.
Collect and transport water tank samples so the analyses can be performed prior to
the frac job in the service company lab. Data should be entered into Section I of the
BP QA/QC Form. Ensure samples are not taken from the very first water out of the
valve. Figure 1-8 shows an example of Section I.
Figure 18. Example of Section 1 of the BP QA/QC Form.
The acceptable ranges for the water analyses should be developed for each fluid
system and provided to the fluid technician by the service company technology
center. An example table of acceptable ranges built for the Schlumberger fluids in
the Arkoma Basin is shown in Figure 1-9.
July 2004
- 13 -
Required
Temperature (o F) at
Time of Hydration:
WF100
WF200
YF100/D
YF200/D
YF100.1HTD
YF100HTD
YF100EC
YF100LG
YF100ST
YF300LpH
YF400LpH
YF500HT
YF600
YF600UT
YF800LpH
YF800HT
PrimeFRAC
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
40 - 100
(4.4 - 37.8 o C)
50 - 90
(10 - 32.2
C)
pH:
Iron
Content:
BiCARB
Content:
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 600 ppm
Recommended*
Chloride
Mg Content:
Content:
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
Not Required
Silica
Content:
Calcium
Content:
Total Salts:
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
NA
NA
5-7
< 25 ppm
< 400 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
6 - 8;
6-7
(D)
< 25 ppm
< 600 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
NA
NA
5-7
< 25 ppm
< 400 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
6-8
< 20 ppm
< 500 ppm
< 4%
< 50 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
NA
6-8
< 8 ppm
< 450 ppm
< 4%
< 50 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
NA
NA
6-8
< 8 ppm
< 450 ppm
< 4%
< 50 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 600 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
NA
6 - 7.5
< 25 ppm
< 500 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
NA
NA
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 600 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
5-7
< 25 ppm
< 400 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
NA
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 1400 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
< 20 ppm
< 20 ppm
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 1200 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 400 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
< 20 ppm
< 20 ppm
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 300 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 500 ppm
< 4%
< 1200 ppm
< 1100 ppm
< 40,000
ppm
< 20 ppm
6-8
< 25 ppm
< 400 ppm
< 2%
< 250 ppm
< 100 ppm
< 20,000
ppm
< 20 ppm
Table 1: Base water testing requirements for water based fluids.
Figure 1 9. Table of acceptable ranges for water analyses for Schlumberger fluids.
12.5 Pad Lab Pilot Test

A Pad Lab Pilot Test using actual job chemicals and water should be performed in
the service company lab ahead of time. This test provides assurance that all
materials to be used in the frac job meet specifications and produce a fluid of the
required properties. This test also provides a baseline for the Onsite Pilot Test run
immediately prior to the frac job. This pilot test should be documented in Section II of
the BP QA/QC Form (Figure 1-10) and the form should be on location on frac job
day.
The Pad Lab Pilot Test includes:
Oil Viscosity Calibration. The calibration of the Fann 35 should be verified prior
to every job. To calibrate, use a standard calibration oil with a viscosity of 25-50
cp (close to base gel viscosity) at 300 rpm with an R1B1 configuration. Measure
the temperature of the calibration oil and record it in the cell on the BP QA/QC
July 2004
- 14 -
Form labeled Actual Oil Temp F. Measure the viscosity of the calibration oil and
record it in the Actual Oil Visc. @ 300 rpm cell. Then refer to the calibration oil
suppliers chart of oil viscosity versus temperature. Record the standard viscosity
at actual temperature in the Standard Oil Visc. @ Actual Temp cell. The Visc
Corr cell calculates the difference between the actual viscosity and the standard
viscosity. All subsequent Fann 35 readings should be corrected by that value.
Figure 1-10. Example of Section II of the BP QA/QC Form.
Gel Concentrate Sp. Gr. Enter the specific gravity measured by weight. All gel
concentrates have a known specific gravity at temperature for a given polymer
concentration. Figure 1-11 shows an example of a specific gravity chart for the
frac fluid gelling agent LGC-8. Every gelling agent pumped should have a similar
chart in the fluid van.
Gel Concentrate, ppg. Enter the actual pounds of polymer per gallon of gel
concentrate. The chart shown in Figure 1-11 is used to make adjustments, if
necessary, in the amount of gel concentrate to be added to the mix water to
prepare the desired polymer loading. The process is detailed more completely in
Section 2-2.4.
Pad Gel Loading, ppt. Enter the designed polymer loading of the pad. This is
the reference point to be used for comparing measured data to known data for
that polymer loading.
Water pH. Enter the pH of the mix water being used for the pilot test. A pH meter
with an accuracy range of +/- 0.1 units is required. The meter must be calibrated
with standard 4.0, 7.0, 10.0 pH solutions prior to each job or as necessary if the
pH is in question at any time. The use of broad range pH paper is not
recommended.
Linear Gel pH. Enter the pH of the linear gel after initial polymer hydration.
Cor. Linear Gel Viscosity, 300 RPM. This refers to the Fann 35 reading at 300
rpm with an R1 rotor (sleeve) and B1 bob configuration with the applied
correction, if any, from the Calibration Oil Test.
Temperature, F. Enter the temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit, of the linear gel
to be used for referencing the linear gel viscosity reading.
July 2004
- 15 -
LGC-8 / WG-35 (Guar) Specific Gravity vs. Gel Load

5.00
Adjusted LGC-8 concentration =
Desired Polymer Concentration

Equivalent Lbs. LGC-8
4.50
LGC-8 (lb/gal)
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
0.95
0.97
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.09
1.11
Specific Gravity (g/ml)
Figure 1 11. Specific gravity chart for gelling agent LGC-8.
Figure 1 12. Fann 35 plot of acceptable viscosity ranges for different polymer loadings.
July 2004
- 16 -
Equivalent Gel Loading, ppt. Enter the equivalent polymer loading of the linear
gel based on Fann 35 viscosity and temperature from the data above. Figure 112 is a chart of acceptable viscosity ranges for a specific gel type, generated with
an R1B1 configuration. Service companies must provide a chart like this for
every gel system to be pumped. Be aware that some charts are generated at 100
rpm. Ensure the 300 rpm reference charts are being used. In the field, simply plot
the intersection of the linear gel viscosity reading from the Fann 35 with the
temperature of the linear gel. As an example, a Fann 35 reading of 32 cp at 300
rpm at 70F is shown by the yellow dot. Interpolating between 30 and 35 ppt, this
fluid is equivalent to a 33 ppt fluid. This is clearly out of the acceptable range for
either 30 or 35 ppt. If the gel concentrate has been added at the designed
concentration, then we must determine why the viscosity is out of spec. Refer to
Section 2-2.4 for a detailed discussion of the procedure to troubleshoot out-ofspec viscosity.
Design loading, ppt. Enter the target or design polymer loading of the pad in
ppt.
Crosslink time, seconds. Crosslink time from the Pad Lab Pilot Test is a
relative measurement that reflects the actual crosslink time down the wellbore.
Crosslink times can vary significantly depending upon the speed and
configuration of the blender. The following recommended procedure achieves
consistent results. The photographs in Figure 1-13 demonstrate this procedure.
1) Put 200 ml of gel in a 1000 ml blender jar.
2) With a rheostat, adjust rpm until the nut at the bottom of the blender is
exposed.
3) Add crosslinker.
4) Crosslink time is defined as the point at which the fluid vortex closes and the
static fluid surface covers the nut.
Crosslink pH. Enter the final pH of the crosslinked fluid.
Bacteria Check. Refer to Section 2-2.4.
15-Minute Breaker Test. This test is optional, depending on the type(s) of
breaker used. Refer to Section 2-2.4.
12.6 Pilot Test Acceptable Variance Ranges

For each of the items listed above, an acceptable range (as shown in the example)
should be provided in Section II of the BP QA/QC Form. These ranges need to be
developed by the service company technology center for each field and reservoir
and for each fluid system to be pumped. The ranges should be set such that the
downhole performance of any fluid outside any of the ranges will be affected. These
data give the onsite fluid technician guidance for acceptable ranges for the fluid.
July 2004
- 17 -
0 sec
Rheostat, crosslinker, buffer water
in graduated cylinder, and blender.
28 sec
Low rpm. Nut not visible.
30 sec
Rpm higher; vortex formed; nut
visible.
34 sec
Add dye and crosslinker.
37 sec
Nut still exposed.
38 sec
Starting to crosslink; vortex
closing.
45 sec
Nut not visible, but fluid is
still moving at the surface.
47 sec
Crosslinked.
Figure 1-13. (Continued on next page.)
July 2004
- 18 -
130 sec
Lip Test.
132 sec
Lip Test.
Figure 1- 13. A demonstration of the crosslink time test.
13
P R O P PA N T
Unlike fluid or equipment, once the proppant is on location, little can be done to
improve its quality. API RP-56 and 60 (Recommended Practices for Testing Sand
Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations) states that 90% of the proppant should fall
between the two designated sieves, i.e. 12/20, 20/40, etc. The API specs do not
address the mesh-size distribution within a size range, but there is a direct
correlation between mesh-size distribution within a size range and the resulting
fracture permeability and conductivity. In general, if the proppant distribution is
skewed toward the larger or smaller mesh sizes, the fracture conductivity will be
similarly skewed. Skewing the proppant distribution toward the smaller sizes will
reduce fracture conductivity, while still meeting API specifications. If the well didnt
respond as expected, then fault might be erroneously placed on the design, fluid, or
reservoir quality.
Most suppliers submit their proppants to the Stim-Lab Consortium for API testing,
which includes a detailed sieve analysis, fracture permeability, and conductivity
tests. The results are recorded in their proppant database. The detailed sieve
analysis includes all the intermediate sieves within the size designation to
characterize the mesh size distribution. For example, a detailed sieve analysis of
20/40 proppant would include 16, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 50 sieves. The sieve
analysis defines the weight percent of the proppant retained on each sieve, as well
as the cumulative percent to that point. Each proppant size and type has a signature
mesh-size distribution associated with the corresponding permeability and
conductivity. Most industry frac design computer programs use fracture permeability
and conductivity data from the Stim-Lab proppant database.
Man-made proppants generally have smaller variances in mesh-size distribution
than naturally occurring sands like Brady or Jordan (Ottawa). Due to the effect of
July 2004
- 19 -
mesh-size distribution on fracture conductivity, BP proppant quality guidelines

require that actual mesh-size distribution reasonably match the distribution reported
in the Stim-Lab database. These requirements are in addition to the standards as
outlined in API RP-56 and 60 and are detailed in Section 1-3.1.
For example, the plot in Figure 1-14 shows the result of a recent proppant sieve
analysis from a BP frac job. Note that only 6% of the actual proppant was larger than
30 mesh as compared to 38% (1+10+27%) according to Stim-Labs database.
Essentially, the job sample was 30/40 sand. The actual sample is within API
standards, i.e., 90% of all proppant is between (including) the two designated
screens, which in this case, were the 20 and 40 mesh screens. However, Stim-Lab
data indicate that this 30-40 sample has 14% less conductivity than the standard.
Figure 1- 14. Proppant sieve analysis from a BP

frac job.
Figure 1- 15. Example of Sections VI and VII of the BP QA/QC Form.
July 2004
- 20 -
Figure 1-15 shows the Pre-Job Proppant Sections from the BP Frac QA/QC
Guidelines, which explain the required data and refer to the appropriate entries on
the BP QA/QC Form.
13.1 Pre-Job Proppant Quality Assurance

All proppants used for BP must meet or exceed API RP-56 standards and need to
have been tested by Stim-Lab, which should have performed the tests described in
API RP-56 as well as standardized industry fracture permeability and conductivity
measurements. If this information is not in the Stim-Lab proppant database, StimLab must supply it to BP directly.
Following are the recommended practices for sampling and testing proppant prior to
delivery to location. (The mesh-size distribution requirements are detailed later in
this section.)
Take three samples from a moving steam of proppant for every 20,000 pounds of
proppant or from each compartment on a truck bulk transport, per API RPs 56
and 60.
Combine the samples from each 20,000-pound batch or compartment.
Conduct a sieve analysis on each combined sample and record the results on
the designated QA/QC Forms. The results of these analyses must be on location
and must be reviewed with the BP foreman prior to pumping.
Calculate the sieve average of all the truckloads and enter it in Section VII of
the BP QA/QC Form in the Ave. Truck Load Composite column.
In addition to API minimum standards, it is recommended that a particle size

distribution standard also be applied. As described earlier, proppant mesh-size
distribution significantly impacts fracture conductivity. To assure adherence to
reasonable minimum proppant size distributions, a critical sieve size, and a minimum
cumulative weight percent coarser than that critical sieve size are specified in the
table below for all common proppant sizes (Figure 1-16). The critical sieve size is
analogous to median grain size. For each proppant type and size in the Stim-Lab
database, a standard cumulative weight percent coarser than the critical screen
size can be determined. This defines the coarse: fine skewness of the distribution.
The minimum required cumulative weight percent coarser than the critical sieve size
is defined as the standard minus 10% (to account for sampling and measurement
error).
July 2004
- 21 -
Supplier
Proppant
Size
Critical
Screen
Size
Minimum
Cumulative
%
Ottawa
Badger
20/40
30
25
Ottawa
Santrol
(Wedron)
20/40
30
25
Proppant
Type
40/70
Brady
Brady
Brady
Ottawa
Ottawa
Brady
Brady
PR-6000
Santrol
(Wedron)
Unimen
Unimen
Unimen
Unimen
Unimen
Oglebay
Oglebay
Borden
12/20
16/30
20/40
16/30
20/40
12/20
20/40
20/40
18
25
30
25
30
16
30
30
45
80
40
75
25
45
40
65
SB Excel
Borden
20/40
30
40
20/40
30
50
20/40
30
30
20/40
30
85
20/40
20/40
20/40
30/50
20/40
30
30
30
40
30
70
60
60
75
70
Ottawa
SAND
RESINCOATED
SAND
EconoProp
Carbo-Prop
CERAMIC
HSP
VersaProp
Bauxite
InterProp
InterProp
SinterBall
CarboCeramics
CarboCeramics
CarboCeramics
Norton
Norton
Norton
Norton
Sintex
Figure 1- 16. Proppant guidelines for sieve analyses tied to proppant databases.
For proppants not listed in the above table, the following is the recommended
procedure for determining the minimum cumulative weight percent for the critical
sieve.
1) The Stim-Lab Database PredictK provides a complete sieve analysis for all
the proppants. Extract the sieve distribution for the proppant in question from
the database.
2) Calculate the cumulative weight percent coarser than and including the critical
sieve size. The critical sieve is 25 for 16/30 proppants, 30 for 20/40
proppants, and 40 for 30/50 proppants.
July 2004
- 22 -
3) To determine the required minimum cumulative weight percent coarser than

the critical sieve, subtract 10 percentage points from the value calculated in
Step 2 above. That is, if the cumulative weight percent coarser than the 30
sieve is 35% for 20/40 Unimen, then the required minimum cumulative
percent coarser than the 30 screen is 25%.
If the proppant tested is outside the guidelines shown in Figure 1-16, the job should
not be pumped until BP and service company engineers are consulted to determine
the impact on fracture conductivity. Stim-Labs proppant database tool PredictK can
be used to estimate this impact. A possible solution could be to increase proppant
concentration to compensate for lower proppant permeability.
Results from sieve analyses of any samples that did not follow API RPs 56 and 60
sampling guidelines will be considered estimated data. The sieve data from the
individual truckloads will determine the proppants acceptability. Unless BP
grants specific permission, no load of proppant is to be delivered to a BP location
that is outside the guidelines listed in Figure 1-16.
Prior to pumping the frac job, review weight tickets and sieve analyses for each
truckload of proppant with the BP foreman. Record the weight and type of proppant
for each proppant field bin by compartment in Section VI of the QA/QC Form. In the
event it is necessary to split loads in order to fill the proppant field bin, use the first
column for the entire field bin. If possible, load a known weighed amount (25,00050,000 pounds) into at least one compartment in order to perform a densometer
check during the initial stages of the job as outlined in Sections 2-4.6 and 3-2.2. For
continuous tracking of proppant, it is preferable the exact amount of proppant be
known for each compartment. If that is not possible, estimate the amount in each
compartment before pumping for monitoring during the job.
For reference, detailed proppant sampling and testing regimens are given in the
following API publications:
API RP-56: Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic Fracturing.
API RP-58: Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing
Operations.
API RP-60: Recommended Practices for Testing High Strength Proppant Used in
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations.
Additionally, ISO/WD/13503-2 addresses proppant sampling and testing
specifications. The ISO proppant guidelines were developed under the auspices of
API. ISO/WD/13503-2 combines the proppant testing specifications and guidelines
of the above API documents. Currently the ISO guidelines are in the draft stage and
are designated as a working document (WD). They are somewhat more
comprehensive and current in scope than the API documents and are an
acceptable substitute for API proppant guidelines.
July 2004
- 23 -
FRAC DAY PRE-FRAC PREPARATION

21
INTRODUCTION
No job should start without a thorough discussion beforehand of the job design,
anticipated rates and pressures, wellsite layout, service company equipment layout,
frac tank layout and HSE issues. If time permits, this is best performed on site in
advance of frac job day. Additionally, the BP company man, service company field
supervisor, service company engineer and service company fluid technician should
review the status of the corrective actions identified following the prior job. In case of
simultaneous operations, all service companies need to be included.
Typically, the fluid van is the first service company equipment to show up on
location, and since it requires minimal setup, it can be ready to go long before any
other facet of the operation is ready. Therefore, most of the fluids QA/QC forms and
testing should be done first to prevent delaying the frac job.
21.1 Personnel Requirements

Though the following list of qualified personnel is not all-inclusive, these staff are
critical to a high degree of onsite quality control.
Experienced treater
Experienced fluid technician
Experienced electronic technician
Experienced field engineer for mass balance control
Experienced blender, hydration unit, and chemical add unit operators
22
FLUID TESTING
The fluid van should arrive on location with the Pad Lab Pilot Test data completed
on the BP QA/QC Form. Also, gel concentrate specific gravity and base gel viscosity
charts, along with past QA/QC forms, should be available.
22.1 Equipment
The following equipment is required for each and every fracturing operation:
pH meter (accurate to within 0.1 pH units) plus an extra probe.
Narrow range pH (5-8 and 8-12) paper as back-ups for the meter and to provide
an additional calibration of the pH meter. Broad (e.g., 0-14) range pH paper is too
insensitive to provide minimum accuracy.
July 2004
- 24 -
Lab scales (accurate to within 0.01 grams). This method is preferred over a
hydrometer for measuring the specific gravity of the gel concentrate.
A thermometer or temperature probe.
Water bath.
Microwave oven.
Blender with rheostat.
Fann 35 viscometer.
1) R1B1 bob/sleeve for linear gel measurements.
2) B5 bob/sleeve for XL gel breaker test.
3) Heat cup.
4) Enclosed sleeve for crosslinked gels.
5) 25 or 50 cp calibration oil with viscosity vs. temperature calibration chart.
Water analysis kits (Cl, Fe, bicarbonates, and sulfates).
250 ml beakers.
Graduated cylinders (100, 250, 1000 ml).
Syringes (1, 5 and 10 ml).
Sand sieves (standard kit plus key screens for specific proppants to be pumped).
Stopwatch.
22.2 Materials
The following materials should be collected and/or available prior to each and every
frac job:
Water samples from each frac tank.
Samples of additives from the frac lots.
Samples of fresh, previously proven, validated additives. These should be from
lots previously validated and confirmed, e.g., a prior frac. These may be needed
if a fluid chemistry problem arises.
Distilled water.
22.3 Water Analyses

Completing Section I of the BP QA/QC Form (Figure 2-1) should be the first task.
Obtain a composite sample and perform water analysis. Compare composite test
results with pre-job individual tank analyses. If a water analysis has not been
conducted on each frac tank at this point, one must be completed and the data
entered in Section I of the BP QA/QC Form before proceeding.
July 2004
- 25 -
Figure 2- 1. Example of Section I of the BP QA/QC Form.
The acceptable ranges for the water analysis for each fluid system are available
from the service company and should be provided to the fluid technician by the
service company technology center.
22.4 Pad Pre-Job Pilot Test

The gel should not be added to the water in the hydration unit or frac tanks until all
QA/QC checks have been made. Dumping gel due to poor quality is an expensive
delay and an HSE disposal problem. The Pad Pre-Job Pilot Test is exactly the same
test as the Pad Lab Pilot Test discussed in Section 1-2.6. All gel and crosslink fluid
test data should be recorded in Section II, as shown in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2- 2. Example of Section II of the BP QA/QC Form.
July 2004
- 26 -
The Pad Pre-Job Pilot Test includes:

Oil Viscosity Calibration. The calibration of the Fann 35 should be verified prior
to every job. To calibrate, use a standard calibration oil with a viscosity of 25-50
cp (close to base gel viscosity) at 300 rpm with an R1B1 configuration. Measure
the temperature of the calibration oil and record it in the cell on the BP QA/QC
form labeled Actual Oil Temp F. Measure the viscosity of the calibration oil and
record it in the Actual Oil Visc. @ 300 rpm cell. Then refer to the calibration oil
suppliers chart of oil viscosity versus temperature. Record the standard viscosity
at actual temperature in the Standard Oil Visc. @ Actual Temp cell. The Visc
Corr cell calculates the difference between the actual viscosity and the standard
viscosity. All subsequent Fann 35 readings should be corrected by that value.
Gel Concentrate Sp. Gr. Enter the specific gravity measured by weight. All gel
concentrates have a known specific gravity at temperature for a given polymer
concentration. Figure 2-3 is an example of a specific gravity chart for the frac
fluid gelling agent LGC-8. Every gelling agent pumped should have a similar
chart in the fluid van.
LGC-8 / WG-35 (Guar) Specific Gravity vs. Gel Load
5.00
Adjusted LGC-8 concentration =
Desired Polymer Concentration

Equivalent Lbs. LGC-8
4.50
LGC-8 (lb/gal)
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
0.95
0.97
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.09
1.11
Specific Gravity (g/ml)
Figure 2- 3. Specific gravity chart for gelling agent LGC-8.
Gel Concentrate, ppg. Enter the actual pounds of polymer per gallon of gel
concentrate.
1) Ensure that the gel concentrate storage tanks are adequately mixed.
2) Collect samples from the top of the gel storage tanks to be used.
3) Measure the specific gravity by dividing the weight in grams of a tared 10 ml
syringe of gel concentrate by 10.
July 2004
- 27 -
4) Using a chart similar to Figure 2-3, determine the actual polymer loading. If
the loading is different than the Pad Lab Pilot Test, a simple correction in gel
concentration can be made to obtain desired polymer loading.
Pad Gel Loading, ppt. Enter the designed polymer loading of the pad. This is
the reference point to be used for comparing measured data to known data for
that polymer loading.
Water pH. Enter the pH of the mix water being used for the pilot test. A pH meter
with an accuracy range of +/- 0.1 units is required. The meter must be calibrated
with standard 4.0, 7.0, 10.0 pH solutions prior to each job or as necessary if the
pH is in question at any time. The use of broad range pH paper is not
recommended.
At this point, hydrate ~1000 mls of linear gel at the pad polymer loading for a
minimum of 5 minutes, using a composite water sample from all frac tanks to be
used. Separate into Samples 1, 2, and 3. These are to be used for measuring linear
gel viscosity and pH, crosslink time, crosslink pH, a bacteria check, and a 15-minute
break test.
Linear Gel pH. (Sample 1) Enter the pH of the linear gel after initial polymer
hydration.
Cor. Linear Gel Viscosity, 300 RPM. (Sample 1) This refers to the Fann 35
reading at 300 rpm with an R1 rotor (sleeve) and B1 bob configuration with the
applied correction, if any, from the Calibration Oil Test.
Temperature, F. (Sample 1) Enter the temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit, of
the linear gel to be used for referencing the linear gel viscosity reading.
Equivalent Gel Loading, ppt. (Sample 1) Enter the equivalent polymer loading
of the linear gel based on Fann 35 viscosity and temperature from the data
above. Listed below are some troubleshooting procedures to consider when
evaluating the linear gel viscosity.
1) Figure 2-4 is a chart of acceptable viscosity ranges for a specific gel type,
generated with a R1B1 configuration. Service companies must provide such a
chart for every gel system to be pumped. Ensure that the chart covers the
anticipated fluid temperature range. Be aware that some charts are generated
at 100 rpm. Ensure that the 300-rpm reference charts are being used. Plot the
intersection of the linear gel viscosity from the Fann 35 and the temperature
of the linear gel.
2) Is the viscosity where it should be? For example, three different samples are
shown by the yellow, green, and pink circles. All samples are at 70F. If the
gel concentrate has been added at the designed concentration, then it must
be determined why the viscosity is out of spec.
3) If the correct amount of gel concentrate was added, for a 30 pptg fluid, then a
viscosity between 26 and 28 cp would be expected (i.e., the green circle).
July 2004
- 28 -
4) If the viscosity is too low (pink circle) or too high (yellow circle), then
something is wrong. Possibilities include:
Hydration time was too short.
Too little or too much gel was used.
The temperature was measured incorrectly.
Hydration was interfered with by contamination.
Hydration equipment was not functioning properly.
Bacteria affected the results.
Figure 2- 4. Fann 35 plot of acceptable viscosity ranges for different polymer loadings.
5) Check the water by repeating the tests with distilled water instead of location
water. If the viscosity of this test agrees with the polymer loading, then the
problem is with the source water, and it is affecting the system chemistry.
Attempt to understand and correct the chemistry problem, or run more tests
using separate samples from each of the water tanks. Locate and replace the
bad water or isolate the bad tank(s).
6) If the problem is not the source water, then it may be the additives. Repeat
the tests using the proven additives instead of the additives from the totes
for the frac job. These tests may locate a bad chemical lot.
July 2004
- 29 -
0 sec
Rheostat, crosslinker, buffer water in
graduated cylinder, and blender.
28 sec
Low rpm. Nut not visible.
30 sec
Rpm higher; vortex formed; nut
visible.
34 sec
Add dye and crosslinker.
37 sec
Nut still exposed.
38 sec
Starting to crosslink; vortex
closing.
45 sec
Nut not visible, but fluid is
still moving at the surface.
47 sec
Crosslinked.
Figure 2-5. (Continued on next page.)
July 2004
- 30 -
130 sec
Lip Test.
132 sec
Lip Test.
Figure 2- 5. Photographs showing a demonstration of crosslink time test.
7) If these tests still have not isolated the problem, then call a timeout and
consult with the service company and the BP engineer.
8) If the equivalent gel loading (Section II of the QA/QC Form) is not the correct
loading for the 30 pptg fluid (e.g., the specific gravity of the gel concentrate
was too low (or too high) then the expected viscosity will be less than
26 cp (or more than 28 cp). If it is correct, then the gel concentrate may be
OK. If the specific gravity is too low, then add more gel concentrate to the
hydration unit and then repeat the tests. If, however, the specific gravity is too
high, then add less gel concentrate.
9) If these tests still have not isolated the problem, then call a timeout and
consult with the service company and the BP engineer.
Design loading, ppt. Enter the target or design polymer loading of the pad in
ppt.
Crosslink time, seconds. (Sample 1) Perform a crosslink test using the
chemical additives per the recipe, taken directly from the additive compartments
on location. Add crosslinker, measure pH, and run the vortex closure test. If
crosslink is OK, gel the hydration unit.
1) For delayed crosslinking systems, fluid must be crosslinked within 75% of the
time at which fluid enters the perforations.
2) Conduct the crosslink test at ambient temperature plus 10-15F to account
for heat due to friction.
3) Crosslink time from the Pad Lab Pilot Test is a relative measurement which
reflects the actual crosslink time down the wellbore. Crosslink times can vary
significantly depending upon the speed and configuration of the blender. The
following recommended procedure achieves consistent results. The
photographs in Figure 2-5 demonstrate this procedure.
Put 200 ml of gel in a 1000 ml blender jar.
July 2004
- 31 -
With a rheostat, adjust rpm until the nut at the bottom of the blender is
exposed.
Add crosslinker.
Crosslink time is defined as the point at which the fluid vortex closes and
the static fluid surface covers the nut.
4) If the fluid does not appear properly crosslinked (e.g., per the vortex closure
test and the common qualitative fluid appearance, lip performance, and dry
hand test) or if the pH is not within range, check the calibration of the pH
meter and repeat the test. If the same results occur, use the proven
additives and repeat the test.
Crosslink pH. Enter the final pH of the crosslinked fluid.
Bacteria Check. Perform a bacteria test on gel sample 2 that was set aside
earlier.
1) After one hour, measure the viscosity at 300 rpm and measure the
temperature. If the viscosity has dropped more than 1 cp since the initial
measurement, bacteria may be present.
2) Check the viscosity again after another 30 minutes.
3) If the viscosity degrades further, notify the BP field foreman/engineer and
service company treater to immediately stop mixing the hydration unit.
4) Take separate samples from each water tank.
5) Gel and hydrate the samples from each tank separately. Measure and record
the viscosity and temperature.
6) Set the samples aside.
7) After one hour, measure the temperature and measure the viscosity for
degradation on each of the samples.
8) Identify the bacteria-contaminated water tanks and dump and refill or isolate
the tanks.
9) Dump the hydration unit if potentially contaminated. Flush all lines as well as
the hydration unit and blender.
Under no circumstances is it permissible to add gel to the hydration unit to
account for the bacteria degradation.
15-Minute Breaker Test. The Fann 50 test described in 1-2.1 is performed on
the complete fluid recipe, which includes breaker. If there were no issues with
time, it would be preferable to run a complete breaker test onsite prior to the job.
(This entails mixing a crosslinked gel with the breaker, placing the mixture in a
water bath, and then waiting for the fluid to break.) But because time is usually
an issue, a simpler test can be performed, as follows: On gel sample 3, perform
a linear gel breaker test. This test is designed to verify the breaker
(unencapsulated) activity level and is not designed to prove the loading amount
July 2004
- 32 -
1) Pull ~50 ml of breaker from

the tote tank.
2) Measure
viscosity
and
confirm gel loading at
ambient temperature.
35
35ppt
pptLinear
LinearGel
GelBreaker
BreakerTest
Test
-1
R1B1
R1B1Bob
Bobon
onFann
Fann35
35@
@511
511sec
sec-1
27
27
24
24
55ppt
ppt
44ppt
ppt
21
21
Viscosity(cp)
(cp)
Viscosity
is right for the job. That has

already been determined from
Fann 50 tests. The service
company technology center
should have run these tests
and built a standard breaker
chart at 140F. An example is
found in Figure 2-6. The field
test procedure is as follows:
18
18
66ppt
ppt
15
15
12
12
99
66
33
00
00
55
10
10
Time
Time(min)
(min)
15
15
20
20
Figure 2-6. Example plot of linear gel breaker test.
3) Pre-heat Fann 35 bob and

sleeve to 140F using the
heat cup.
4) Microwave gel to approximately 140F.
5) Pour heated gel into the heat cup. Record the initial temperature. When the
gel stabilizes at 140F, add breaker at 5 ppt. This is time zero. Note: the 5
ppt breaker loading is independent of the loading for the days job. This test is
strictly run to confirm the breaker activity level by comparing it to a
standardized test.
6) Place the heat cup on the Fann 35 with an R1B1 sleeve/bob configuration.
7) Record viscosity and temperature by minute for 20 minutes.
8) Plot viscosity vs. time on a chart similar to the hypothetical one in Figure 2-6.
A breaker will be deemed acceptable if the viscosity drops below 3 cp within +/- 2
minutes of the 15-minute target. If the fluid breaks too quickly or too slowly, re-run
the test to verify results. If the results are the same, ensure the breaker is thoroughly
mixed, mix up another batch of breaker and re-test, or adjust the breaker
concentration accordingly.
23
P R O P PA N T T E S T I N G
Proppant testing is critical for validating the correct type, size, and amount of
proppant on location for the frac job. The testing procedure is as follows:
Collect proppant samples from each compartment of each proppant field bin.
Conduct a sieve analysis on a composite sample. Enter the sieve analysis in the
BP QA/QC Form Section VII, Location Pre-Job Composite. The primary
purpose of this step is to ensure that the correct type and size of proppant is on
location. The resulting sieve analysis is only for the purpose verifying that
July 2004
- 33 -
the mesh size is correct and is not a binding sieve analysis. The mesh-size
distribution criterion is established by the sieve analysis of each truckload.
Prior to pumping, the following needs to be reviewed by the BP foreman and
service company treater:
1) Examine the proppant samples from the field bin and refer to the stimulation
procedure to ensure the proppant is the correct type and that the mesh size is
correct.
2) Examine the weight tickets to ensure the correct amount of proppant is on
location. Additionally, verify the proppant type and weight for each field bin
compartment on location.
3) Examine the sieve analysis of each truckload of proppant to ensure all the
proppant is within specifications as listed in Section 1-3.1.
4) The BP foreman and service company treater must review the proppant type,
size, amount, and mesh-size distribution and verify that it is correct before
pumping.
5) Prior to pumping, the BP foreman and service company treater must visually
inspect the proppant hopper after it is filled to ensure the proppant is correct.
If 100-mesh is used, do not cycle the gates on the proppant bins until all the 100mesh is in the hopper. This is to avoid contaminating the 100-mesh with larger
proppant that may result in a premature screen-out.
24
PUMPING
AND
M E T E R I N G VA L I DAT I O N
At this point in the QA/QC process, we have validated the fluid and proppant quality.
It has also been verified that sufficient quantities of both are on location to meet the
job specifications. Next, steps must be taken to ensure the pumping equipment can
deliver the additives and fluids in the correct concentrations. It is of critical
importance not to pump the treatment unless all equipment is fully operational and
functional. This includes the hydration unit, blender, all magnetic flow meters,
additive flow meters, dry add screws, sand screws, pumps, and the densometer. If
any piece of equipment is only marginally within specifications, do not continue the
job until the equipment accuracy is improved. The chances are virtually nil that
equipment quality or accuracy will improve over time if problems are ignored.
The service company must thoroughly review the frac design and ensure that all
equipment, including additive pumps and the proppant delivery system, is capable of
delivering the desired rates and concentrations before dispatching equipment to
location. As an example, if required additive rates are below the optimum range of
the add pumps, then the additive can be diluted to allow pumping within the optimum
range.
The goal of all testing is to be within 5% of the target rate. With the advances in
oilfield electronics over the past decade, this is easily achievable with properly
July 2004
- 34 -
maintained equipment. MicroMotion flowmeters are accurate to less than 1% under

typical oilfield operating conditions. Turbine flow meters operate easily within 5%
accuracy. A 5% goal is very reasonable and routinely achievable.
Figure 2- 7. Typical frac layout for a gel-on-the-fly job.
24.1 Equipment Layout

A typical frac layout for a gel on the fly job is shown in Figure 2-7. The service
companies may have specialized names for their equipment but the functions are
essentially the same across the service companies.
The fluid path for the layout in Figure 2-7 is as follows:
Water is sucked from manifolded water tanks into a hydration unit, where the gel
is added and allowed to hydrate. (Schlumberger calls their hydration unit a PCM,
Halliburtons is a Gel Pro, and BJ call theirs a hydration unit.) Here the fluid and
gel mix until the gel is fully hydrated. If the pump rate is very high and the fluid
residence time in the hydration unit is less than four minutes, gel hydration may
July 2004
- 35 -
Figure 2-8. BJ Services single-tub blender.
be compromised. If this is the case, an additional frac tank may be placed

between the hydration unit and the blender to increase residence time.
The hydrated gel is transferred to the blender via a suction pump on the blender
or a discharge pump on the hydration unit. The blender may have 1 or 2 tubs.
Figure 2-8 is a photo of a BJ single-tub blender.
As this transfer takes place, flow meters slaved to either of these two pumps
control the rates at which chemicals are added to the frac fluid.
Proppant is added to the fluid in the blender tub by either sand screws or gravityfed gated mechanisms.
High-pressure pumps send this slurry to the well and downhole.
24.2 Metering
All of the pumps are metered. The three basic types of metering are magnetic, Micro
Motion, and turbine flowmeters. If properly maintained and calibrated, the magnetic
and Micro Motion flowmeters are routinely accurate to within 1% to 2%. Turbine
flowmeters are routinely accurate to within 5% and are much more difficult to
maintain than the Micro Motion and magnetic flowmeters, further compromising
accuracy. The Micro Motion flowmeter can be used for all additives and is the meter
of choice. Magnetic flowmeters can be used for electrically conductive additives and
frac fluids. Turbine meters must be used for non-conductive, oil-based frac fluids.
July 2004
- 36 -
Although some service companies have been slow to adopt the more accurate
meters, it is strongly recommended that Micro Motion and magnetic flowmeters be
used when possible. Sacrificing metering accuracy limits our ability to accomplish
our objective: Pump the job as designed and prove it.
Like any other instrument, metering accuracy is only as good as the maintenance
and calibration. In some areas miscalibrated or poorly maintained meters have
resulted in high error and job delays. At times there is a temptation to bypass high
technology and revert back to the less accurate but more familiar turbine flowmeters
and tachometers. This is not an acceptable practice.
Note: When performing bucket tests and loop tests as described in the following
sections, any necessary changes required to bring the flowmeters into compliance
must be done using a multiplier or a change in ppus (pulses per unit). The
calibration factor (cal factor) specific to each flowmeter must not be changed to
achieve accuracy compliance.
The Loop Test
Loop
Loop
Test
Test
Add Add Add
Downhole
Blender
D
Blender
Blender
Tub
Tub
Mixing
Compartment
(Tub)
S
Gel
Gel
The accuracy of the blender and hydration unit

flowmeters is validated with a loop test prior to gelling
the hydration unit. As indicated in Figure 2-9, the
blender is connected to the hydration unit to form a
closed loop and water is pumped at a constant rate for
a fixed amount of time. Unless there is a leak, all
meters and counters should display the same rates
and volumes. This is a very simple and quick test that
only requires connecting a hose from the blender
discharge pump back to the hydration unit. The
blender and hydration unit tubs are to be by-passed.
Rather than tie the test to the specifics of the planned
frac job, we recommend a standard test (i.e., 5
minutes at 20 bpm). Therefore, the total time for setup
and execution takes only 15-20 minutes.
First, validate the accuracy of the hydration unit

suction flowmeter. If this flowmeter is accurate to
within 5%, it becomes the control flowmeter for the
loop test. If not, the test cannot be performed until this flowmeter is calibrated. Strap
all frac tanks and set the hydration unit suction totalizer to zero. If it has not already
been done, we recommend an easily visible mark be placed in the tank to define an
exact volume. Isolate one frac tank and load the hydration unit from that single tank
with a known volume of fluid. Where approved tank access is allowed, validate the
volume by strapping the frac tanks after filling the hydration tank. Alternative
methods of estimating tank volumes include using internal floats with external level
indicators and hydrostatic gauges. Measure and record the volume of all frac tanks
to ensure that no valves leaked during the test. Compare the totalizer reading with
Figure 2-9. Example of loop
test configuration.
July 2004
- 37 -
Hydration Unit Fill Test
III
Flow Meter
Tank Strap
Pre-Gel
%Var
4000 gal Blender / Pre Gel Flowmeter Test ( Loop Test )

Blender
Discharge
Blender Suction
Pre Gel
Driver
Pre Gel
Passenger
% Var.
Rate, bpm
Total gallons
Variance =(Max - Min) / Min
Max Variance +/- 5%
Figure 2- 10. Example of Section III of the BP QA/QC Form.
the hydration unit fill mark and the measured tank volume. Record data in the
Hydration Unit Fill Test of Section III of the QA/QC form (Figure 2-10).
After calibrating the flowmeter, begin the loop test:
1) Connect the blender discharge to the hydration unit suction and the hydration
unit discharge to the blender suction.
2) Set up a monitor in the frac van to chart all flowmeters with a scale small
enough to easily see 2%5% error. At 20 bpm, the error range would be
0.41 bpm. For this test, a scale of 15 to 25 bpm is recommended.
3) Chart the flow rates continuously.
4) Achieve a stabilized rate of 20 bpm.
5) Set all flowmeter totalizers to zero.
6) Pump five minutes at this stabilized rate. At 100 bbls, simultaneously read all
flowmeter totalizers and record this information on the BP QA/QC Form.
7) If at any single point in time, there is more than a 5% difference in rate
between the rates of any two flowmeters, troubleshoot the errant flowmeter
and repeat the test. Likewise, the totalizer volumes must be within 5%.
Repeat troubleshooting/test cycle until all flowmeters are within 5%.
Note that Table III in the BP QA/QC Form has a space to record a rate (bpm) as well
as the final counter volume (bbls) for each flowmeter. No flowmeter should have wild
fluctuations during the loop test. Fluctuations of that type are induced by electronic
or calibration problems and are not actual rate fluctuations. A few errant spikes are
acceptable, assuming the general trend is flat and the totalizer is within 5% of the
control flowmeter. An erratic, spiking signature is unacceptable, even if the totalizer
is within 5%.
The following example demonstrates why flowmeter calibration and apparent fluid
rates are important. Since the add pumps are slaved directly to (connected to and
un by) a designated clean rate flowmeter, they attempt to follow or track any rate
change in the clean rate flowmeter. If the clean rate flowmeter bounces up or down
10 bpm, the add pump would speed up or slow down accordingly to deliver the
right amount of chemical.
July 2004
- 38 -
The plot in Figure 2-11 shows the hydration unit suction and discharge rates and the
blender discharge rate from a recent hydraulic fracture treatment. Note that the
hydration unit discharge meter was the designated clean flowmeter for additive
control. Clearly the two hydration unit flowmeters are not measuring a steady rate as
compared to the blender discharge. Remember, the add pumps are trying to track
the hydration unit discharge rate. So, in this case, one moment the add pumps are
trying to add the right amount of chemical for 25 bpm and then the next moment they
are trying to add the right chemical for 35 bpm. Even if the add pumps could keep
upwhich they probably could notthe fluid quality would be highly questionable.
Blender
Blender Discharge
Discharge Rate
Rate
Hydration
HydrationUnit
Unit Suction
SuctionRate
Rate
Hydration
Unit
Discharge
Hydration Unit Discharge Rate
Rate
Figure 2- 11. Example plot of hydration unit and blender suction and discharge rates
during a loop test.
In Figure 2-12, note the consistent measurement of each flowmeter. The totalizers
range from 100-102 bbls and the rates range from 20.4-21.0 bpm, a variance of
~2%. The only recommendation for improvement here is to expand the scale from
20-25 bpm to 17.5-22.5 bpm (~5 bpm bracket of the target rate) to allow better
resolution of the pump rate variance.
July 2004
- 39 -
Hydration Unit Suction

Hydration Unit Discharge
Blender Suction
Blender Discharge
20.4
20.4
21.0
20.6
Total
100
101
102
100
Hydration
Hydration Unit
Unit Suction
Suction Rate
Rate
Hydration
Hydration Unit
Unit Discharge
Discharge Rate
Rate
Blender
Suction
Rate
Blender Suction Rate
Blender
Blender Discharge
Discharge Rate
Rate
Figure 2-12. Example loop test plot showing consistent measurement.
Bucket Tests
After validating the frac fluid flowmeters, the chemical additive add pumps, and
flowmeters need to be addressed. With the chemical add system in automatic mode,
measure the time it takes to pump a known volume from each add pump into a
calibrated container. Its just that simple: Can the pump deliver a known volume in
the right amount of time? This should be within +/- 5% of the target time. These tests
are standard operating procedures for all service companies and are not new. The
only new feature of BPs QA/QC program is the documentation and testing prior to
every job as shown in Section IV of the BP QA/QC Form (Figure 2-13).
IV
Bucket Tests
LGC Test
LA 1 LA 2 LA 3 LA 4 LA 5 LA 6 LA 7 CA 1 CA 2 CA3
a) chemical
b) gpm setting
c) flowmeter
d) calc time, sec
e) actual time, sec
f) actual gpm
g) variance, %
% Variance = (d - e) / d
Max Variance +/-5%
Figure 2-13. Example of Section IV of the BP QA/QC Form.
July 2004
- 40 -
Some service companies have

a dedicated in-line enclosed
bucket-test system for each
pump, as shown in Figure 214.. This allows the chemical
additive to be pumped straight
back into the tote or storage
bin, so that no mixing of
chemicals occurs. Additionally,
the pumps are in-line and
contained, and there is no
danger of spill or exposure to
personnel.
Some
service
companies have developed
enclosed and open systems to
conduct the test with water,
Figure 2-14. Example of in-line enclosed bucket-test system.
further
limiting
spill
and
exposure risk. These tests can
be conducted with a simple calibrated portable bucket; however, it is strongly
recommended that a closed system be used to minimize safety and environmental
risk. The fluid tech must confirm that any combination of chemicals on
location will not cause a dangerous reaction. Only necessary personnel should
be in the vicinity of the equipment during the bucket tests. Appropriate personal
protective equipment (PPEs) must be worn to prevent exposure.
These tests can be customized for a specific service company or location. As an
example, for Schlumberger POD blenders, the add pump rate is set to run on
automatic at 4 gallons per minute. With a stopwatch in hand, record the amount of
time it takes to fill a graduated one-gallon container. With a target of 15 seconds and
a 5% margin of error, the acceptable range is 14.25 to 15.75 seconds. It is common
for this equipment to perform within 2% of target. Repeat the test for every additive
flowmeter, including backups, making adjustments in the flowmeter settings as
necessary until they are all within the acceptable range. All test results are recorded
in Section IV of the BP QA/QC Form.
Typically, 4-7 chemical additives are used on a given job. If all equipment is in good
working order, a bucket test is run only once, taking no more than 2-3 minutes per
test. A typical set of bucket tests should take no more than 10 to 20 minutes.
24.3 Gelling the Hydration Unit

After the flowmeters have been properly validated, the treating lines have been
successfully pressure tested, and the Pad Pre-job Pilot Test completed, the
hydration unit can be gelled. The gel tank must be strapped before and after gelling
July 2004
- 41 -
the hydration unit to validate the gel flowmeter. These straps are to be recorded in
Section V of the BP QA/AC Form (Figure 2-15).
Note: Schlumbergers PCM gel storage tank is a dual-compartment tank built with a
non-unique baffle placement (i.e., the tank compartment volumes differ from PCM to
PCM). Therefore, each tank compartment must have its own unique strap chart.
Using a strap chart that came from a different PCM can lead to gross error.
LGC Flowmeter Test (Gelling Hydration Unit)
Beginning
Gals
Ending
Gals
a) Design, gals LGC

b) LGC Tank
c) Total, strap gals
d) Actual, (strap) used gals
e) Totalizer, gals
f) Variance, %
% Variance = (f - e) / e
Figure 2-15. Example of Section V of the BP QA/QC Form.
24.4 Materials
The final pre-frac step is to ensure that all chemicals are on location as required.
After the loop and bucket tests have been completed, all water tanks and chemical
totes should be strapped and recorded on the mass balance sheets of the BP
QA/QC Form (see Section 3-2.2 and Appendix).
24.5 Frac Van Preparation

Work with the service company to develop a standard format for the plots and digital
readouts you will need to effectively manage the job, as shown in the example in
Figure 2-16. We recommend using both tabular and graphical representations of
rates and volumes.
July 2004
- 42 -
Figure 2-16. Sample formats for plots and digital readouts.
July 2004
- 43 -
It is critical that the plot scales be properly set to reduce confusion and permit the
observer to easily identify variance from the 5% target error band. For example,
examine the chart in Figure 2-17.
Figure 2-17. Example chart of additive rates with poor scale.
How do the additive rates look? Now look at the second chart in Figure 2-18. The
only difference is the scale.
Figure 2-18. Example chart of additive rates with better scale.
July 2004
- 44 -
The 5% error bars for the chemicals are shown in corresponding color (i.e., the 5%
error bars for the crosslinker are in pink). On this particular job, the top plot was on
the service company monitor. Based on this plot, the add rates appeared to be
within spec. However, when replotted as shown in the second plot it becomes
obvious that a significant variance from targets exists. This illustrates the need for
properly scaling the charts showing the additive rates or concentrations to identify
variances outside the 5% target.
24.6 Densometers
Densometers should be checked in the following way:
Calibrate the blender and downstream densometers and ensure that the correct
proppant specific gravity is used for the ppa (pounds of proppant added)
calculation. Calibrate both the blender and wellhead densometers.
Check to ensure correct fluid and proppant densities are entered.
Adjust the ppa zero setting after the treating line is primed.
July 2004
- 45 -
QA/QC DURING THE FRAC

31
INTRODUCTION
Eighty percent of the QA/QC work is done prior to the frac job. However, the
remaining 20% is not inconsequentialin fact it may be key to the success of the
frac. Key components are:
Densometers
Gel quality monitoring
Mass balance
Treatment contingency plans
Under no circumstances should the frac job be pumped unless all equipment is fully
operational and functional. This includes the hydration unit, blender, all frac fluid flow
meters, additive flow meters, dry add screws, sand screws, pumps, and the
densometer. If any piece of equipment is only marginally within specifications, do not
continue the job before resolving the problem. The chances are virtually nil that
equipment quality or accuracy will improve over time.
32
DENSOMETERS
It has been our experience that densometers

concentration by ~7%, (i.e., more proppant is
indicates). This inaccuracy could result in running
procedure can be used to adjust the densometer
factor can be determined as follows:
typically underestimate proppant

going downhole than the meter
out of proppant early. However, a
during the job. A ppa correction
During the pad, verify the densometers are reading correctly. Adjust the
calibration if necessary.
During set up, place one load of proppant in a single compartment to be
designated as Compartment 1.
When the frac job begins, load the belt and hopper from another compartment.
Empty Compartment 1 during the first part of the job.
When Compartment 1 is empty, compare the sand totalizer to the weight ticket to
verify the accuracy of the densometer.
Adjust the densometer to compensate for the error.
At the end of the job, compare the blender proppant totalizer to the proppant
weight tickets and inspect each compartment to determine the amount of
proppant pumped.
July 2004
- 46 -
33
GEL QUALITY MONITORING
Throughout the frac job, collect linear and crosslinked gel samples downstream of
the hydration unit and blender, respectively, to validate the quality. The only
measurements made of the uncrosslinked gel during the frac job are viscosity and
temperature. The only tests conducted on the crosslinked sample are pH and a
visual lip test. These data are recorded in the highlighted area of Section II as
shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Example of Section II of the BP QA/QC Form.
The sampling frequency should be a function of the job size and available
manpower. Clearly the most important sampling period is during the pad and early
proppant stages. During these stages, changes can be made or the job stopped
temporarily, or permanently, with potentially minimal impact on the final outcome of
the frac job. At a minimum, samples should be collected at the following points
during the job:
After the initial displacement of the hydration unit.
After ~25% of the pad volume.
After ~50% of the pad volume.
Prior to beginning the proppant.
At least every proppant stage or every 200 bbls, whichever is less.
33.1 Bad Gel Decision Process

Suppose the job has started and the third crosslink gel sample in the pad appears
bad, i.e., out of spec per pH or with poor visual gel quality. Do we add more buffer
to adjust the pH? Do we add more crosslinker to enhance the crosslink and make
the lip test look better? No! By job time, we will have run two gel quality control
checks (a pad lab pilot test and pad pre-job pilot test) under calm conditions. All of
the additives, frac fluids, and flow meters have been checked out. Everything has
been validated on location and in the lab. Now, during the job, a bad sample pops
July 2004
- 47 -
up. Having systematically gotten this far, we dont want to overreact. The first step is
to collect another sample and repeat the test. More often than not, the apparent
problem is due to a bad sample. Perhaps the additives were not thoroughly mixed or
the sample was contaminated. If the repeat test gives the same result, refer to the
frac treatment contingency plans found in Section 3-2.3 of this manual.
If multiple samples are bad and all quality control processes described up to now
have been rigorously followed, you have a problem. Do not ignore it! Though this
rarely occurs when good QA/QC practices are implemented, it can happen. The
quality of the water, additives, gel and equipment have been thoroughly validated,
and thus sudden changes in gel quality or appearance would not be expected. If the
Fann 50 additive sensitivity tests (as outlined in Section 1-2.2) suggest that additive
concentrations can be altered to improve gel quality, then make such changes.
However, do not change the fluid design on a hunch. Only make changes based
on test data.
33.2 Mass Balance Process

All chemical additives should be strapped after all pre-frac testing (bucket tests, loop
tests, etc.) has been completed and the lines have been primed. As with the gel
sampling frequency, the number of straps during the job is a function of job size and
available manpower. Suggested strapping guidelines are as follows:
Schedule the straps after enough additive has been pumped for you to know that
the additive is being measured correctly and pumped in the right amount.
If treatment time will be less than 45 minutes, perform one to two straps during
the stimulation treatment. At least one strap should be performed during the pad
prior to starting the addition of proppant to ensure all additives are in compliance.
If treatment time is greater than 45 minutes, stagger the additive straps to allow
time to record the data and take another strap if the reading appears erroneous
or outside the guidelines.
If the additive volume/rate is outside the design guidelines, take another strap
immediately. If it is still greater than the design guidelines, do another bucket
test to verify flow rate. If the bucket test verifies the error, correct the flow rate
by adjusting the additive concentration by the percentage indicated. If any
additive rate is outside the design range, refer to the variance guidelines in the
Appendices for the appropriate action.
Straps should be scheduled with stage size and chemical tote size in mind. There
needs to be at least a half-inch pumped from any chemical tote to determine an
accurate rate. For jobs with small pads, the amounts of chemicals may be too small
to accurately measure early on. These strap measurements should be taken, but
should be used primarily to determine if the additives are being pumped. As an
alternative, the smaller liquid additive tanks on the blenders can be used for lowvolume critical additives such as buffers and crosslinkers.
July 2004
- 48 -
Volume used before adds started

Crosslinker J920
4493
Starting volume
3950
Ending Volume
Quantity Used
543
Stage
Totals
50
bbls
Final Metered Volume

Final % off metered to strap
Final % off strap to design
534.0
-1.7%
1.8%
Fluid
Volume
bbls
Metered
volume
gallons
Remaining
volume
strap
gallons
Conc
gal/1000
200
328
4165
8400
4461.5
328
328
31.5
0.0%
941.3%
0.0%
941.3%
403
74
4419
16926
4418.87
-254
-254
42.63
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.2%
602
118
4375
25284
4377.08
44
44
41.79
0.0%
5.3%
0.0%
1.8%
809
162
4331
33978
4333.61
44
44
43.47
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
1.6%
1000
203
4290
42000
4293.5
41
41
40.11
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
1.8%
1200
246
4257
50400
4251.5
33
43
42
30.3%
-21.4%
4.2%
-2.3%
1401
289
4204
58842
4209.29
53
43
42.21
-18.9%
25.6%
0.0%
1.9%
1601
332
4161
67242
4167.29
43
43
42
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
1.9%
1800
374
4119
75600
4125.5
42
42
41.79
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
1.8%
2001
417
4076
84042
4083.29
43
43
42.21
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
1.8%
-64.6%
Clean
Volume
gallons
Designed
strap
Volume
volume used strap
gallons
gallons
Volume
used
metered
gallons
Design
volume
gallons
Cum. Stage
Stage % off Stage % off
% off
Cum. Stage
metered to
strap to
metered to % off strap to
strap
design
strap
design
2201
450
4333
92442
4041.29
-257
33
42
-112.8%
0.0%
181.3%
2402
502
3991
100884
3999.08
342
52
42.21
-84.8%
710.2%
0.0%
1.6%
2590
534
3950
108780
3959.6
41
32
39.48
-22.0%
3.9%
-1.7%
1.8%
3959.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3959.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3959.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3959.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3959.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
543
534.0
533.4
18210
764820
Figure 3-2. Example of the BP QA/QC Mass Balance Form.
Some chemical containers are so large that straps during each stage may measure
less than a half-inch difference. Straps are somewhat inaccurate to start with, and a
strap in a large container may have a high percentage of error. Be cautious about
making any decisions from these straps. The preferred solution is to have the
service company size all chemical totes well in advance of the job with accurate
strap measurements in mind.
Strap results should be radioed in to the treater at the planned intervals. The service
company engineer in the frac van should record these measurements and make the
mass balance calculations immediately so that at all times we know where we are in
the job. The additive strap is converted to volume pumped and compared to
flowmeter totalizers and to the designed volumes. A sample Mass Balance Form is
shown in Figure 3-2 (refer to the Appendix for whole sheet). In this example form,
the data is input into the cells shaded in gray. The yellow shaded cells are
calculations.
In addition to performing the densometer calibration check described in Section 24.6, take additional steps to monitor the proppant during the treatment. It is very
important that measures similar to those used with liquid additives and fluid volumes
be taken during the job to ensure the proppant is added as designed. If the addition
of the proppant is not adequately monitored, you could run out of proppant early,
compromising final concentrations and frac job length, both of which affect well
performance. At predetermined points during the job, compare the proppant totalizer
volume with actual or estimated volumes added from the field bins. If necessary,
either adjust the densometer or alter the proppant concentration to compensate for
July 2004
- 49 -
the observed variance. If possible, add the proppant from one compartment at a time
to make tracking easier. This might not be possible at high proppant rates because
the volume required may exceed the delivery capacity of a single compartment.
Normally, there is a record of the amount of proppant in each compartment of the
field bin, i.e. weight tickets. In pre-job planning consider the feasibility of adding full,
pre-weighed loads to each compartment. However if the exact volumes for each
compartment are not known, estimate the volumes for comparison during the
treatment. The data can be entered and tracked in Section VI of the BP QA/QC
Form under Compartments 1-5 as shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3. Example of Section VI of the BP QA/QC Form.
33.3 Contingency Plans

Planning is the key to success and this includes planning what to do if something
goes wrong. The best decisions are seldom made in the heat of battle. A key
aspect of the BP QA/QC process is gathering key people (service company treater,
fluid technician, engineer, field supervisor, BP frac foreman, and stimulation
engineer) in a calm, non-distracting environment to develop detailed contingency
plans.
Each unplanned event should be examined in the context of how it could affect well
performance, i.e., effective frac length and conductivity. Seldom can the urgency of
getting the job pumped overcome the impact of production loss due to a poor
fracture stimulation.
Note: The Contingency Plan shown below is a generic plan based on guidelines
from a U.S. Lower 48 field. All decision point values and specific criteria for job
shutdown, alteration, etc are examples only. Specific contingency plans must be
developed for each location.
July 2004
- 50 -
Unplanned Shutdowns
During the pad stage:
1) Refer to the hydraulic fracture simulator output for estimated pad leakoff.
Stimplan, as well as all service company frac models, will estimate fluid
leakoff rate at any point in the treatment. This information should be included
in all frac procedures. The table in Figure 3-4 shows such data for a typical
low permeability sand formation. For a pump rate of 20 bpm, the fluid
efficiency is approximately 60% during the pad. That is, about 40%, or 8 bpm,
is leaking off to the formation. If the job is shut down for 15 minutes during the
pad, about 120 bbls will have leaked off during the shutdown. Therefore, if the
job can be restarted with only a 15-minute shutdown, simply continue with the
frac, adding 120 bbls, or 5,000 gals, to the remaining pad.
Figure 3-4. Example of frac simulator output showing estimated leak-off rate.
2) If the treatment is shutdown at any point during the pad and adequate
materials are on location to make up for the fluid lost during the shutdown, the
preferred course of action is to continue the treatment as designed.
3) If adequate materials are not available to make up for the fluid lost during
shutdown, consult with the BP and service company engineers to redesign
the job based on the available materials on location. If adequate materials are
not available to accomplish well objectives, restock and perform the original
job at a later date.
4) If fluid efficiency is unknown, and consultation with the BP and service
company frac design engineer is not possible, assume that everything
pumped has leaked off (0% efficiency). If enough material is on location to do
so, start the job over. Otherwise, restock and perform the original job at a
later date.
5) If a table like the one in Figure 3-4 is not provided on the frac procedure and
less than half of the pad has been pumped, assume that everything pumped
has leaked off. If enough material is on location to do so, start the job over.
6) If a table like the one in Figure 3-4 is not provided on the frac procedure and
greater than half of the pad has been pumped, then consult with BP and
service company engineers to redesign the job based on the available
July 2004
- 51 -
materials on location. If adequate materials are not available to accomplish

well objectives, restock and perform the original job at a later date.
During proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped:
1) In order to determine what pumping schedule modifications need to be made,
consult with BP and service company engineers, re-run the frac simulator and
make adjustments accordingly. In the absence of such information, proceed
to the next two steps.
2) If the problem can be resolved within 5 minutes, continue the job as designed
as long as pressures allow.
3) If the problem cannot be resolved within 5 minutes, then over flush by 200%
of cumulative slurry volume. Remedy the problem and start the job over.
During proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped:
1) In order to determine what pumping schedule modifications need to be made,
consult with BP and service company engineers, re-run the frac simulator and
make adjustments accordingly. In the absence of such information, proceed
to the next two steps.
2) If the problem can be resolved within 10 minutes, continue the job as long as
pressures allow. Anticipate a (quick!) wellbore screenout. If this occurs do not
attempt to reestablish injection.
3) If the problem cannot be resolved within 10 minutes, there is a high risk that
the job will not be pumped to completion. There are two options:
Proceed with the job, and be aware of the risk of a screenout and the
potential to leave the pipe full of proppant.
Or, immediately go to flush.
Planned Pump Rate Unachievable

During the pad stage:
1) If the planned rate is unachievable because the treating pressure is too high,
shut down and record ISIP. Consult BP and service company engineers to
determine if the problem is caused by underestimated frac gradient,
excessive fluid friction, or near wellbore pressure effects. Possible solutions
include redesigning the job at a lower pump rate, checking fluid friction
pressure against known values, or pumping a high-viscosity gel plug or
proppant slug.
2) If the pump rate is not reached because of equipment failure, shut down and
remedy the problem. After consultation with BP and service company
engineers, and based on fluid efficiency estimates, either start the job over or
continue the job with adequate pad fluid replacement volume.
During the proppant stages:
July 2004
- 52 -
1) If enough fluid and additives are available, extend the stages proportionally to
actual versus desired rate. For example, if the actual rate that can be
achieved is only 50 bpm and the design rate is 60 bpm, then extend each
proppant stage 17% [(60-50)/60 = 0.17]. Also be aware that by extending the
planned proppant stages, a screen-out is more likely due to additional leak-off
exposure. A consideration might be to reduce the proppant concentrations of
the early stages accordingly. If possible, rerun the frac simulator to alter
proppant schedule as necessary to achieve desired frac geometry.
2) If there are not enough materials to extend the stages, then continue with the
job as designed with a heightened awareness of screenout potential.
3) If there are critical design goals that need to be accomplished (e.g., a final
proppant concentration, adding special products to the final stage(s), etc.), it
is recommended those be started earlier than designed in the event the well
should screenout early. Consult BP and service company engineers to
determine appropriate job modifications.
Proppant Concentration
If equipment problems (blender or proppant field bin) limit the ability to achieve
designed proppant concentrations, two choices are available. The pump rate can be
reduced to a point where the desired proppant concentration can be maintained, or
the job can be continued at a reduced proppant concentration. The former sacrifices
length for conductivity and the latter sacrifices conductivity for length. BP and service
company engineers should rerun the frac simulator to determine the impact of these
changes.
Loss of Automatic Control for Additive Pumps

Definitions:
1) Auto RemoteThe treatment van computer controls all additive rates based
on a designated fluid flowmeter. This is the preferred method of additive rate
control. If the frac equipment is configured for this capability, do not begin the
job until it is fully functional.
2) Auto LocalThe blender and hydration unit proportion additives based on a
designated clean rate from their own independent flowmeters. The chemical
add unit can take a clean rate feed from either the blender or hydration unit.
Each device has its own computer, which independently proportions its own
additives based on its own clean rate input.
3) Manual LocalAn operator manually proportions the additives and controls
the additive rates on each additive pump. For every clean rate change,
intended or otherwise, this requires determining the appropriate rate for up to
eight different chemicals, and manually adjusting each pump to deliver that
rate. This is the least preferred method. It should be employed as a last resort
July 2004
- 53 -
only if the point of no return has been passed in the treatment as defined in
the following pumping contingency plans. Automated systems were
developed because of the extreme difficulty of manually controlling additives
with the required accuracy.
Contingency Plans for Loss of Automatic Control:
1) Before the start of the jobDo not begin the treatment until the problem is
resolved.
2) During the padShut down and resolve the problem before continuing.
Consult with BP and service company engineers to determine volume
replacement to account for fluid loss during shut down.
3) During proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped
Overflush by 200% of cumulative slurry volume. Remedy problem and start
over.
4) During proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped
Continue to control additive as closely as possible and complete the
treatment as scheduled.
Loss of Blender and/or Wellhead Densometer

Be sure to check the calibration of the blender and downstream densometers with
clean fluid during the pad, and ensure that the correct proppant specific gravity is
used for the ppa calculation. If blender or densometer are lost:
Before the start of the job. Do not begin the treatment until the problem is
resolved.
During the pad stage. Shut down and resolve the problem before continuing.
Consult with BP and service company engineers to determine volume
replacement to account for fluid loss during shut down.
During proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped. Overflush by
200% of cumulative slurry volume. Remedy problem and start over.
During proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped. Complete
the job using the blender mechanical control mechanism (proppant screw rpm or
knife/gate setting).
Bad Gel Samples

If repeated gel samples are unsatisfactory and all quality control processes have
been rigorously followed:
July 2004
- 54 -
Verify that the sampling point is in the dynamic fluid stream. Has the sampling
point provided valid samples in the past? If the sampling point is valid, proceed
to the next step.
Identify the problem. What measurement is off? pH? Crosslink quality? What
appears to be wrong, or put another way, what is causing the bad sample?
Check the plumbing to ensure that all additives are rigged up correctly and that
there are no leaks.
Check the flowmeter reading in the frac van for the potentially offending
additive, e.g., if the pH is correct, then perhaps the crosslinker is not being added
as designed.
Strap the tank of the potential problem additive. Check the strap against the
mass balance calculations and flowmeter totalizer to this point. Does the strap
suggest the correct or incorrect concentrations have been added up to now? If
there is no discrepancy then proceed to the next step.
Perform another bucket test. If the bucket test verifies the error, correct the flow
rate by adjusting the additive concentration by the percentage error indicated.
Contingency plans if the problem with the gel samples cannot be resolved after
the above procedure. If the bad gel samples occur:
1) During the pad stageAbort the job, remedy the problem, and start over.
2) During the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumpedAbort
the job and overflush by 200% of cumulative slurry volume. Remedy the
problem and start over.
3) During the proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped
Continue to investigate and remedy the problem. Continue the treatment.
Unachieved Designed Liquid Gel Concentration

Loss of gel pump:
1) During the pad stageAbort the job.
2) During the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumpedAbort
the job and over flush by 200% of cumulative slurry volume.
3) During the proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped:
If an alternative or backup (centrifugal gel pump) is available, attempt to
complete the job.
Or, immediately go to flush.
Low linear gel viscosity. If insufficient hydration or low base gel polymer
loading occurs for more than 2 minutes:
July 2004
- 55 -
1) During the pad stageIf equivalent gel loading falls >10% below target, abort
the job, remedy the problem, and start from the beginning.
2) During the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumpedIf
equivalent gel falls >15% below target, abort the job and over flush by 200%
of cumulative slurry volume of base liquid or foam. Remedy the problem and
start from beginning.
3) During the proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped
Adjust buffer and cross linker loading according to equivalent gel loading and
continue job as scheduled.
Unacceptable Crosslinker Additive Rate

During the pad stage: If additive rate variance exceeds +/- 5%, abort the job,
remedy the problem, and start over.
During the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped: If additive
rate variance exceeds +/- 10%, overflush by 200% cumulative slurry volume.
Remedy the problem and start over.
During the proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped: Maintain
additive rate as close to design as possible and continue treatment. Based on
additive sensitivity tests, it may also be necessary to adjust the buffer and delay
additive rates accordingly.
Unacceptable Buffer Additive Rate

additive rate as close to design as possible and continue treatment. Based on
additive sensitivity tests, it may also be necessary to adjust the crosslinker and
delay additive rates accordingly.
Unacceptable Surfactant Additive Rate

July 2004
- 56 -
additive rate as close to design as possible and continue treatment.
Unacceptable Unencapsulated (Granular or Liquid) Breaker (SP)

Additive Rate
If additive delivery rate is not within agreed tolerances or fails, continue the job as
scheduled. Compensate by:
Increasing the encapsulated breaker by an equivalent loading.
Adding granular unencapsulated breaker manually to the tub.
Unacceptable Encapsulated Breaker Additive Rate

During the proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped:
1) If additive rate variance exceeds +/- 25%, terminate automated rate control
and add encapsulated breaker manually to tub.
2) If additive delivery mechanism fails, add encapsulated breaker manually to
tub and continue.
July 2004
- 57 -
QA/QC FOLLOWING THE FRAC

41
BP QA/QC FORM
SPREADSHEET
AND
MASS BALANCE
After the treatment stage, verify that the BP QA/QC Form and Mass Balance
Spreadsheet are completed and are attached to the Treatment Report for inclusion
in the well record.
42
P O S T- F R AC JO B R E V I E W
If no other stages are planned, the job should be reviewed in detail before any of the
key personnel leave location. Review BP QA/QC Form, mass balance, and additive
rate variances. If the actual rates and volumes pumped are not within 5% of the
target, verify data with appropriate personnel. Review the mass balance
calculations. Were all the additive rate variances within agreed sensitivity ranges? If
not, why not? Were the proppant densometer totalizers and weight tickets within
5%? Develop action plans to ensure compliance with QA/QC targets. Agree on the
timing for these actions to take place.
Complete Service Company Job Evaluation Form and the BP GWSI scorecard.
Constructively review job performance and service quality. Identify opportunities for
improvement and develop action plans to close gaps.
43
A D D I T IO NA L S TAG E S
If other stages are planned for the same day, start another BP QA/QC Form.
Perform tests and record data on the form as required below.
If additional water has been delivered, conduct appropriate analyses and record
in Section I.
Conduct the Pad Pre-job Pilot Test on fluid and record in Section II.
Gel the hydration unit and record liquid gel concentrate volumes in Section V.
Conduct Pad Pre-job Hydration Tank Pilot Test and record in Section II.
Obtain beginning straps on all gel and additives and record on a new Mass
Balance Spreadsheet.
Repeat the Bucket Test only on additive pumps whose mass balance
calculations were outside the design range in the previous stage. If the blender
and/or chemical additive units are powered down between stages, the Bucket
Tests must be repeated prior to beginning the next stage. Record in Section IV.
July 2004
- 58 -
Conduct another Loop Test if the hydration unit or blender is powered down
between stages or there is evidence of any fluid flowmeters being out of
compliance. Record in Section III.
July 2004
- 59 -
APPENDIX
Glossary
API: American Petroleum Institute. Sets standards for the petroleum industry in the
USA.
bpm: Pump rate in Barrels Per Minute.
Break: Reduce viscosity of a fluid. The desire is to reduce the viscosity to <5-10 cp
to aid in fracture clean-up and improved production. Additional breaker can be added to
attack the broken polymer and reduce it into smaller components and improved cleanup.
Breaker Additive: An additive used to reduce (break) the viscosity of a fluid. For
water-based systems, they are usually persulfates (oxidizers) or enzymes.
Brookfield PSV: A brand of rotational viscometer similar and comparable to the
Fann 50.
Bucket Test: Used to verify the calibration of a chemical additive flow meter/pump.
The flow meter is set to pump at a pre-determined rate. The volume is then verified with
a timed test vs. volume. If the flow meter is out of calibration, adjustments are made to
bring it into compliance.
Buffer Additive: An additive used to adjust the pH of a fluid system to optimize
stability and/or crosslink time.
Centipoise (cp): A standard unit of viscosity measurement, 0.01 of Poise. Water at
standard temperature and pressure has a viscosity of 1.0 cp.
Crosslinker Additive: Most fracture fluids contain a base gallant (polymer) that
imparts a viscosity usually in the range of a few centipoises, ~20-50 cp. A crosslinker is
an additive that binds the polymer chains together creating viscosities from ~100 cp to
several thousand cp. The crosslinked viscosity increases as the base polymer loading
increases.
Crosslink-Delay Additive: An additive used to delay the crosslink time of the
fracturing fluid to reduce the surface treating pressure and/or minimizes viscosity
degradation going down tubing or casing. When most fracturing fluids are crosslinked,
they typically have increased friction pressure. Also, some crosslinked fluids (other than
Borate Crosslinked Systems) are sensitive to shear degradation, especially in pipe,
which may cause permanent degradation of the viscosity.
July 2004
- 60 -
Dry Hand Test: When performing the Lip Test as described below, touch the fluid
to the palm of your hand and retract the fluid. If all that remains on your hand is a moist
area (no gel), the gel is considered Dry.
Encapsulated Breaker: A coating is placed around breakers, usually oxidizers, to
prevent/minimize dissolution while pumping. The encapsulated particle size is similar to
that of proppant. The breaker is released when the fracture closes, crushing the
encapsulation. This reduces the danger of breaking the fluid prematurely and allows
more breaker to be run for better fracture clean-up.
EPTG: Acronym for BP Exploration and Production Technology Group providing
assistance to BP worldwide.
Frac Conductivity: A measure of flow capacity of the propped fracture, usually in
mDft. It is calculated by multiplying the propped frac width and the permeability of the
proppant pack. Propped frac width is commonly expressed in inches or feet. The units
of permeability are expressed in millidarcies (mD) or Darcies (D).
Fann 50: A rotational viscometer (bob and sleeve) used to measure (estimate) the
rheological performance (viscosity) of high viscosity fracturing fluids at simulated
(approximated) conditions in the fracture. It is capable of testing the fracturing fluid at
up to 500F, 1000 psi pressure, and a shear rate of up to ~1000 sec-1. The stress
(shear) exerted on the fluid between the rotating sleeve and bob is an attempt to
simulate what the frac fluid experiences moving down the fracture. Fann is the name of
the company that manufactures the machine, however, Fann 50 has almost become a
generic name for all such machines.
Fann 35: A rotational viscometer (bob and sleeve) used to measure the viscosity of
fluids at atmospheric pressure. Typically, it is used to measure the base gel viscosity of
uncrosslinked frac fluids. However, in the absence of a Fann 50, it can be used to
approximate the viscosity performance of crosslinked frac fluids by using a heat cup that
can raise the fluid temperature up to ~200F. These rheological measurements are not
of the same quality as those from a Fann 50 type machine. Fann 35 is a brand and
model name and has almost become a generic name for all such viscometer types.
Fluid Efficiency: The volume of the fracture at the end of pumping divided by the
total volume of fluid pumped. During the treatment frac fluid leaks off into the reservoir
reducing the amount of frac fluid available to generate the designed/desired frac
geometry. It is most commonly used to determine Pad size and prepare the proppant
schedule.
Flush Volume: The calculated casing/tubing volume to the top perforation, less a
safety factor, that is pumped to displace the last proppant stage.
July 2004
- 61 -
Gel on the Fly: Refers to hydrating and pumping the fluid as it is pulled from the
frac tanks. It is also referred to as Continuous Mixing. This is opposed to Batch
Mixing which is pre-gelling all the frac tanks prior to pumping.
GWSI Scorecard: BP system by which well service contractor performance is
tracked and managed.
HSE: An acronym for Health-Safety-Environment. These are the primary concerns
to be addressed and considered when performing all operations.
ISIP: Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure. This is the observed surface pressure at the
cessation of pumping.
Leak-off: The fluid lost to the formation during pumping.
Linear Gel: Hydrated, uncrosslinked base polymer (gel).
Lip Test: A visual observation of a crosslinked fluid. Place a crosslinked sample in a
container. Tip the container allowing the fluid to pass over the edge. A lip is observed
if the fluid remains intact.
Loop Test: Tests to confirm the calibration of all the fluid flow meters on the blender
and hydration unit that control additives rates, proppant, and fluid volumes. A closed
loop is created which includes all related fluid flow meters. A circulation rate is
established. Once the rates are stabilized, a pre-determined volume is circulated. At
the end, all flow meter rates and volume totals are compared. To be satisfactory, they
must agree within 5%.
Overflush: The amount of fluid over the calculated casing/tubing volume to the top
perforation that is pumped to displace the last proppant stage deep into the generated
fracture in the event of a fluid or equipment problem early in the job.
ISO: International Standards Organization.
Pad Stage: The initial, non-proppant laden, fluid portion of the frac treatment
pumped ahead of the proppant-laden stages. The main purposes of this fluid are to
open the frac wide enough to accept proppant and generate the desired frac length.
Pad Lab Pilot Test: Pilot tests (pH, viscosity, crosslink time, etc) conducted in the
service company lab facility (district and/or regional) on the Pad fluid formulation using
the actual job fluid and additives. This is to serve as a reference for comparison with
similar tests to be conducted on location the day of the job.
Pad Pre-Job Pilot Test: Duplicate tests of the Pad Lab Pilot Test conducted on
location with actual job chemicals and fluid.
July 2004
- 62 -
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Personal Protective Equipment; safety

glasses with side shields, hard toed boots, hard hat, hearing protection, gloves, etc.
ppa: Denotes Pounds of Proppant Added to a gallon of fluid. It is commonly used
interchangeably with ppg (pounds of proppant per gallon of slurry), which is technically
incorrect. It is necessary to make sure the terms are defined prior to starting the
treatment.
ppg: Most accurately, it is the pounds of proppant in a gallon of slurry, as opposed to
ppa, pounds of proppant added to a gallon of fluid. However, it is commonly used
interchangeably with ppa. Care should be taken to ensure the terms are defined prior
to starting the treatment.
ppt: Denotes pounds of material per 1000 gallons.
Screen-out: The slurry (proppant laden fluid) dehydrates, due to leak-off, as it
travels down the fracture. This dehydration concentrates the proppant in the slurry.
The concentration can become so great that the slurry is no longer pumpable, or a
proppant bridge is created in the fracture. Both conditions cause the fracturing pressure
to increase. Screen-out occurs when the maximum surface treating pressure is
reached and pumping is ceased. This can occur very rapidly within a few seconds or
over several minutes.
Shear Rate: A value calculated as the velocity difference between two planes
(rotational speed between bob/sleeve, frac faces, etc) divided by the distance between
the two planes (gap between the bob/sleeve, frac faces, etc.). It is usually expressed in
reciprocal seconds, sec-1 or 1/seconds. In viscometers, each bob and sleeve
configuration (gap width) has a multiplier to convert rpm to shear rate.
Sieve Analysis: To determine the mesh size distribution of a proppant sample, pass
the sample of proppant through a prescribed series of sieves (screens). The amount of
proppant retained on each screen is used to calculate the % distribution.
Slaved Pumps: Most additives are based on clean volumes (no proppant). It is
impossible to control all the additives manually during the job. So, the additive
pump/flow meter rates are tied to (slaved) to a designated clean flow meter rate, usually
the blender suction flow meter.
Slurry Stage: The proppant-laden portion of the frac treatment.
Straps: The physical volume measurement of chemicals/products in containers.
This is done at the beginning, during and at the end of the job to track the volume of
additives used.
July 2004
- 63 -
Visco-Elastic Effect: Fluids that exhibit properties of a fluid and a solid. Manifested
in the cohesive properties of a crosslinked fluid that hold it together when trying to pour
it out of a beaker (lip), or when the fluid climbs the spindle of a rotational viscometer.
July 2004
- 64 -
Generic Frac QA/QC Guidelines

Note: It is intended that this document and all procedures contained within be
customized for each specific fluid & proppant used in each field, and for each service
company, using local & specific terminology for all equipment, products, and services.
This will increase field ownership of the guidelines and avoid confusion during the
course of a treatment. Throughout this document, generic placeholder names for fieldspecific, service company-specific, or trade name-specific products, equipment, and
services are identified by underlined italicized type. All such occurrences should be
replaced by the correct names.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
General Guidelines and Principles

Pre-Job Preparation
2.1. Fluid Testing
2.2. Proppant Testing
Day of Job - Prior to Treatment
3.1. Fluid Testing
3.2. Proppant Testing
During the Treatment
4.1. Fluid Monitoring
4.2. Proppant Monitoring
After the Treatment/Stage
Additional Stages/Wells Conducted on Same Day
Appendix
1.
Service company fluid name Pumping Contingency Plans
Attachments
1.
Fluid & Proppant Quality & Metering QC Form for fluid name #1
2.
Fluid Mass Balance Form
3.
Proppant Quality Control Form for proppant size mesh proppant type
4.
Specific Gravity vs. Polymer Concentration Chart for gelling agent name
5.
Base Gel Hydration Chart for gelling agent name
1.
GENERAL GUIDELINES AND PRINCIPLES:
These guidelines are specific to the field name field. Notice must be given to all
impacted BP and service company personnel before any alterations are made to these
guidelines. These guidelines should be readily available in the treatment van during all
fracture stimulations.
1.1.
No visible leaks are permitted anywhere in the treating line, pumps, or wellhead
before pumping. The only permissible leak while pumping is a drip through a
July 2004
- 65 -
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6.
1.7.
1.8.
1.9.
1.10.
1.11.
1.12.
1.13.
chicsan "weep hole". If the drip becomes a continuous stream, pumping must be
terminated immediately if it cannot be isolated.
No more than " mushroom on any hammer union wing (frac iron or
suction/discharge hose connections) is allowed. Any iron with loose metal burrs
or splitting mushrooms will not be used and should be ground off at the service
company district shop as soon as possible.
Before implementation of any change to the procedures or products listed in
these guidelines or appendices, the proposed change must be reviewed and
approved through the BP MOC (Management of Change) process.
The gel hydration unit and blender must be fully operational and functional prior
to beginning the treatment. This is to include all turbine flow meters, magnetic
flow meters, additive flow meters, pumps, and densometers.
All additives must be added in the automatic mode.
All equipment, including additive pumps and proppant delivery system, must be
capable of accurately delivering the desired rates and concentrations before
dispatching equipment to location.
All additive rates and volumes are to be pumped within +/- 5% of the design rate.
The accuracy of all additive pumps and meters must be proved on location, prior
to the job, to within +/- 5% of the required design rate.
In order to obtain a more accurate measurement of stage additive rates and
volumes, all additive flow lines and manifolds are to be fully primed prior to taking
beginning job chemical straps.
Each hydraulic fracturing fluid formulation and breaker schedule must be
supported by Fann 50 (or similar cuette type viscometer) test data. All tests are
to be conducted using a B5 Extended Bob at a constant shear rate of 100 sec-l.
The data is to be presented at 100 sec-1. BP and service company design
engineers must approve any changes to the design not validated by Fann 50
tests.
The additive variance guidelines given in the appendices, "Pumping Contingency
Plans" are based on fluid testing results presented by service company labs
located in location name, dated effective date.
If samples obtained during the treatment appear "bad", do not immediately
change additive concentrations in an attempt to correct the fluid properties. First
take another sample, and then follow the contingency plan in Appendix 1 Section
4.
Refer to the Appendix and Attachments for the pumping contingency plans for
the specific fluid systems data, and the applicable QA/QC Forms and Mass
Balance Spreadsheets.
All data gathered during this QA/QC process is to be transferred to the BP
QA/QC form by the service company mass balance technician, and is to be
included in the Final Treatment Report.
The purpose of these procedures is to take job execution out of the job evaluation
process. The frac design engineers must be able to evaluate performance results of a
frac design without worrying about whether the job was pumped as designed. Following
these guidelines ensures that we "Pump the Job as Designed and Prove It."
July 2004
- 66 -
2.
PRE-JOB PREPARATION
2.1.
Fluid Testing
a.
All fluid formulations require Fann 50 tests using materials from the same
production lots to be used in the frac treatment. These tests should be
repeated every time a different chemical or a new production lot is used.
b.
If possible, water analysis and fluid pilot tests are to be completed prior to
the day of treatment and recorded in BP QA/QC Form Sections I and II.
The pilot test data can be from the district lab or from previous treatments
using the same chemical production lots.
c.
Base gel viscosity, base gel pH, crosslink stability, crosslink pH, and
crosslink time tests are to be conducted on each tank or on a composite
water sample, per stage or per job as appropriate. Additionally, the gel
concentrate specific gravity and polymer concentration must also be
recorded.
d.
When obtaining water samples from frac tanks, all BP and OSHA
guidelines must be strictly followed regarding working at heights and
avoiding spills. Working within those guidelines, make every effort to
collect representative water samples from each frac tank.
e.
Documentation of pre-job test results conducted by the service company
district lab are to be on location and appropriately recorded in BP QA/QC
Form Sections I and II in the "Pad Lab Pilot" Column.
Proppant Testing
a.
Weight tickets for each truckload of proppant are to be reviewed with and
provided to the BP onsite supervisor prior to the treatment.
b.
Record the weight and type of proppant in each proppant field bin, by
compartment, in Section VI of the QA/QC Form. In the event it is
necessary to split loads in order to fill the proppant field bin, use the first
column for the entire field bin. If possible, load a known weighed amount
(25,000-50,000 pounds) into at least one compartment in order to perform
a densometer check during the initial stages of the job as outlined in
Section 4.2 of these guidelines. If possible, continuously track the
proppant remaining in the field bin to know exactly the amount in each
compartment. If that is not possible, estimate the amount in each
compartment before pumping for monitoring during the job In the event it
is necessary to split loads in order to fill the proppant field bin, then use
the first column for the entire field bin.
c.
All proppants used for BP must meet or exceed the standards as
described in API RP 56 and 60, ISO/WD/l3503-2 , and in Section 2.2g
below. The ISO guidelines also address proppant sampling and testing
specifications to be used on BP jobs.
d.
Every proppant supplier must submit their product to be tested by
StimLab or FracTech. The tests are to include those described in API RP
56 as well as standardized industry fracture permeability and conductivity
measurements. If a proppant to be pumped is not in the StimLab
2.2.
July 2004
- 67 -
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Proppant Database, the information must be supplied directly to BP for

approval prior to use.
Each load of proppant delivered to location must have the following sieve
analysis performed, prior to delivery to location. The mesh size
distribution requirements are detailed later in this section.
Take three samples from a moving stream of proppant for every
20,000 pounds of proppant, or for each compartment on a truck
bulk transport, whichever is greater.
Combine the samples from each 20,000-pound batch or
compartment.
Conduct a sieve analysis on each combined sample and record the
results on the designated Proppant QA/QC Forms. The results of
these analyses must be available on location and must be
reviewed with the BP Foreman prior to pumping.
Calculate the "sieve average" of all truckloads, and enter it in
Section VII of the BP QA/QC Form in the "Ave. Truck Load
Composite" column
All proppant sieve analysis are to include the following sieve series: 16,
20, 25, 30,35, 40, 50, and Pan.
All 20/40 mesh proppant must meet the following minimum required total
weight percent for proppant coarser than the 30 mesh critical screen:
20/40 Versaprop:
>70%
20/40 PR 6000:
>65%
20/40 EconoProp:
>50%
20/40 Unimen (Northern White) Sand: >25%
(Other proppant types and minimum required total weight percent
coarser than the critical sieve can be found in Section 1-3.1 of the
QA/QC Manual)
No load of proppant is to be delivered to a BP location that is outside the
above listed guidelines unless BP grants specific permission.
Results from the sieve analysis of samples collected on location, or
elsewhere, that do not follow API & ISO sampling guidelines will be
considered estimated data. The sieve data from the individual truckloads
determined in Section 2.2e. will determine the proppants' acceptability.
3.
DAY OF JOB - PRIOR TO TREATMENT:
3.1.
Fluid Testing
a.
Water analyses must be completed on all water in every tank prior to the
job, before beginning fluid preparation.
b.
Conduct on location pre-job pilot test using on-site chemicals and
composite water sample from tanks to be used for that stage or job. To
ensure a representative water sample is taken, be sure to flush the valves
before catching a sample or take the samples from the top of the tanks
provided the proper safety and environmental precautions are taken as to
spills and working at heights. If anything other than fresh water is in the
July 2004
- 68 -
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
frac tanks, care must be taken not to spill any on the ground during
sampling.
BP QA/QC Form Section I: Perform and record water analysis as listed in
Section I, if not conducted in the district lab prior to the job.
BP QA/QC Form Section II "Pad Pre-Job Pilot": The calibration of the
Fann 35 should be verified prior to every job. Use standard "Calibration
Oil" with a viscosity of 25-50 cp (close to base gel viscosity) at 300 RPM
with an RIB1 configuration. Measure the temperature of the calibration oil
and record it in the cell labeled "Actual Oil Temp F." Measure the viscosity
of the calibration oil and record it in the "Actual Oil Visc. @ 300 rpm" cell.
Then refer to the calibration oil suppliers' chart of oil viscosity versus
temperature. Record the Standard Viscosity at Actual Temperature in the
"Standard Oil Visc. @ 300 rpm @ Actual Temp" cell. The "Visc Corr" cell
calculates the difference between the "Actual Viscosity" and the
"Standard Viscosity." All subsequent Fann 35 readings should be
corrected by that value. Measure and record slurry gel concentrate
specific gravity, slurry gel polymer concentration based on specific gravity
(refer to appropriate LGC Specific Gravity vs. Polymer Concentration
Chart), base gel viscosity, (refer to appropriate Polymer (LGC) Loading
vs. Temperature vs. Linear Gel Viscosity chart), base gel pH, final
crosslink pH, crosslink stability, and crosslink time tested on composite
water sample. If composite sample tests are out of compliance, test each
tank as necessary to identify the source of the water problem.
Bacteria Test Section II.l & II.m: As noted above, the initial linear gel
viscosity and temperature have been recorded in Sections II.f and II.g.
After one-two hours, measure and record the viscosity and temperature of
the sample in Sections II.l and II.m. Compare to the results to the initial
reading. Less than 2 cp reduction in viscosity is acceptable. A loss in
viscosity of 2 cp or more usually indicates bacterial degradation. Re-run
the test on each frac tank to determine the extent of the contamination.
Do not use any contaminated tanks. If the tanks have bacteria, the
problem cannot be remedied by simply adding more gel.
After the hydration unit has been gelled take another sample and repeat
the test as in the "Pad Pre-Job Pilot" and record in Section II "Pad PreJob Hyd. Tank Pilot".
Zero the Pre-Gel Blender Driver Suction Totalizer prior to filling. Fill the
Pre-Gel Blender to the 3,000 gallon (70 bbl) mark and record volume in
BP QA/QC Form Section III "Fill Test". Record and compare the Pre Gel
Blender suction flow meter totalizer reading to the known 3000-gallon
Pre-Gel Blender volume and/or with volume from the frac tank. Be sure to
account for Pre-Gel Blender suction manifold plumbing. No more than 5%
error is permitted. This flow meter now becomes the anchor flow meter to
calibrate the other flowmeters to during the Loop Test.
Conduct Loop Test of all four TFM's (Turbine Flow Meters) and record
results in the BP QA/QC Form Section III. Be sure to simultaneously zero
all totalizers after desired rate is attained. Conduct test at a minimum rate
July 2004
- 69 -
i.
j.
k.
l.
3.2.
of 20 BPM (or actual rate if possible), for at least 5 minutes (100 bbls).
Record BPM and totals for each TFM. No more than 5% variance is
acceptable: Variance = 100 X (Max rate - Min rate)/Min Rate. Each loop
test is to be charted and results recorded on BP QA/QC Form and
included in the Final Treatment Report.
Conduct additive flow meter test on each Pre-Gel Blender and Downhole
Blender additive pump to be used, including back-ups. Record the results
on BP QA/QC Form, Section IV. No more than 5% error is acceptable.
The Downhole Blender Suction TFM is the designated clean rate for
proportioning all additive rates.
Witness and record the beginning and ending straps of all the additives
for each treatment. Record the information on BP Mass Balance Sheet.
Conduct Pre-Gel Blender/Hydration Tank Fill Test: BP QA/QC Form
Section V. Verify gel flow meter as follows:
Record beginning strap of slurry gel.
Zero slurry gel totalizer.
Add prescribed amount of slurry gel to gel the hydration tank
Re-strap slurry gel and compare to slurry gel totalizer.
NOTE: Since the amount of gelling agent is small relative to the size of the
gel compartment, a strap error of +/-10% is acceptable.
Proppant Testing:
a.
Collect proppant samples from each compartment of each proppant field
bin. Combine the samples and conduct a sieve analysis on a composite
sample. Enter the sieve analysis in BP QA/QC Form Section VII.
"Location Pre-Job Composite". This sieve analysis only verifies that the
correct type and mesh size of the proppant is on location. The mesh size
distribution criterion is established by the sieve analysis of each truckload
as described above in Section 2.2.
b.
Prior to pumping, the BP Foreman and service company treater should
review the following proppant quality criteria:
Visually inspect the proppant hopper after it is filled to ensure the
proppant is of the correct type.
Examine the proppant samples from the field bin and check
against the stimulation procedure to ensure the proppant is of the
correct type and size.
Examine the weight tickets to ensure the correct amount of
proppant is on location.
Examine the pre-job sieve analysis of each truckload of proppant
to ensure all proppant is within specifications as listed above in
Section 2.2.
c.
If 100 mesh sand is to pumped in the pad, do not cycle the gates on the
proppant bins until all the 100 mesh is in the hopper. This avoids
contaminating the 100 mesh with larger proppant, which could cause a
premature screen-out.
July 2004
- 70 -
4.
DURING THE TREATMENT
4.1.
Fluid Monitoring
a.
Provide real time monitoring of all additives and proppant. First
preference is to display additives in concentration. If this is not possible,
then display the additives in rates. On the additive plot, scale each
additive concentration or rate such that +/-5% variance is easily
detectable.
b.
Conduct and record additive mass balance for each of the fluid systems
on the appropriate Mass Balance Spreadsheet.
c.
Guidelines for strapping tanks and chemical totes:
Since many jobs are small, the amount of chemical pumped may
be too small to accurately measure early in the job. These strap
measurements should be taken, but primarily used to determine if
the additives are being pumped. At least 3-4 gallons (0.25-0.50
inches) must have been pumped from the large chemical totes to
determine an accurate volume & rate. For small jobs, the critical
additives, buffers and cross linkers should be placed in the smaller
liquid additive tanks on the blender or in small totes.
Schedule the timing of the straps so that a sufficient volume of the
additive has been pumped to provide accurate measurement is so
that good decisions can be made regarding material balance and
rate variance throughout the job.
If treatment time is less than 45 minutes, perform 1-2 straps during
the job. At least 1 strap should be performed during the pad to
ensure that all additives are in compliance, prior to starting the
proppant.
If treatment time is greater than 45 minutes, stagger the additive
straps to allow time to record the data and take another strap if the
reading appears erroneous or outside the guidelines.
If the additive volume/rate is outside the design guidelines, take
another strap immediately. If it is still outside the design guidelines,
do another "bucket test" to verify the flow rate. If the "bucket test"
verifies the error, correct the flow rate by adjusting the additive
concentration by the percentage indicated. If any additive rate is
not within +/-5% of the design range, refer to the variance
guidelines in Appendix 1 for the appropriate action.
4.2.
Proppant Monitoring
a.
Check the Downhole Blender and Wellhead Densometer against a known
pumped volume of proppant. Record in BP QA/QC Section VI. If possible,
put one load of proppant in a single compartment and empty it during the
first part of the job. Initially, load the belt and hopper from another
compartment. When the compartment is empty, compare the sand
totalizer to the weight ticket to verify the accuracy of the densometer.
Adjust the densometer if necessary or compensate for the % error by
July 2004
- 71 -
b.
increasing or decreasing the "proppant multiplier" to correct the proppant

concentration.
As per API RP 56, catch one (1) sample midway through each
compartment. Conduct a sieve analysis on a composite sample and
record sieve results in Section VII. POST-JOB COMPOSITE. As before,
the results of the sieve analysis should be viewed only as a confirmation
of the proppant type and mesh size.
5.
AFTER THE TREATMENT/STAGE
5.1.
Calculate mass balance of all additives. Record on BP Mass Balance Form and
include in the Final Treatment Report.
Compare the blender proppant totalizer to the proppant weight tickets for
accuracy. Conduct an inspection of each field bin compartment to determine the
amount of proppant remaining in the bins. If pumping additional stages on the
same well, adjust the densometer by the appropriate % error to bring it into
compliance with the weight tickets.
Complete the BP QA/QC Form and enter it into service company computer.
Include the QA/QC Form in the Final Treatment Report.
Note any additive volumes/rates outside design range (per sensitivity tests) and
take corrective action to bring into compliance. Corrective action should be noted
on the Job Evaluation Form or listed as an action item for follow-up before next
stage or job.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
6.
ADDITIONAL STAGES/WELLS CONDUCTED ON SAME DAY
6.1.
6.2.
Start another BP QA/QC Form. Only record data as required below.

Conduct pilot test on fluid after gelling Pre-Gel Blender/Hydration Tank and
record in Sections I and II. If additional water has been delivered, conduct
appropriate water analysis and record in Section I of the BP QA/QC Form.
Obtain beginning additive straps on all chemicals.
Only repeat the "Bucket Test" on additive pumps that are outside the acceptable
variance range of 5%. Record in Section IV.
If the Pre-Gel Blender and/or Downhole Blender are powered down between
stages, or there is evidence that any of the TFM's were out of compliance by
more than 5%, conduct "Bucket Tests" and "Loop Test" before beginning the
next stage or job. Record in Sections III and IV.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
July 2004
- 72 -
APPENDIX 1: Service Company Fluid Name Pumping Contingency Plans

Fluid Name Additive System:
Product Trade Name
product name
product name
product name
product name
product name
product name
product name
product name
product name
product name
Additive Function/Description
Gelling agent
Crosslinker
pH buffer
Surfactant
Catalyst
Un-encapsulated Breaker
Encapsulated breaker
Biocide
KCI substitute
Other additives as appropriate
Contingency Plans For Additive and/or Proppant Delivery Problems

Critical proppant volumes and rate accuracy percentage "set points" for decisions (e.g.
"1/3 of proppant pumped" or "+/- 10%") should be customized for each specific field,
service company, and fluid system. The following contingency plans are offered as a
starting point for the development of field-specific contingency plans.
1.
Unplanned shutdowns
1.1.
During the Pad:

a.
Refer to the hydraulic fracture simulator output for estimated pad leak-off
rate. Multiply the estimated downtime by the predicted fluid loss rate at
that point in the frac schedule, and pump that much extra fluid once the
job commences again. If sufficient extra fluid is not available on location,
stay shut down until fluids can be replenished, and start the job over. Be
sure to perform all QA/QC tests on the new fluid delivered to location
before starting to pump again.
b.
If the pad leak-off rate is not available, and less than half of the pad has
been pumped, assume half of the pad pumped thus far has leaked off,
add this volume to the remaining pad, and continue the job as designed
when ready.
c.
If the pad leak-off rate is not available, and greater than half of the pad
has been pumped, remain shut down. Redesign the job based on the
available materials on location with the first priority being that the new
design will not be significantly different that the original design. Do not
reduce the Pad Volume by more than 20% from the original design
without consulting the BP/service company frac design engineers. If
adequate materials are not available to do this then restock and perform
the original job at a later date.
July 2004
- 73 -
1.2.
1.3.
During proppant with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped:

a.
In order to determine what pumping schedule modifications need to be
made, re-run frac simulator and make adjustments accordingly. In the
absence of such information, use the following guidelines:
If the problem can be resolved within 5 minutes, continue the job
as designed as long as pressures allow.
If the problem cannot be resolved within 5 minutes, then over flush
by 200% of cumulative slurry volume of base liquid or foam.
Remedy the problem and start the job over.
During proppant with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped:
a.
In order to determine what pumping schedule modifications need to be
made, re-run the frac simulator and make adjustments accordingly. In the
absence of such information, the following guidelines are to be followed.
b.
If the problem can be resolved within 10 minutes, continue the job as long
as pressures allow. Anticipate a wellbore (quick!) screenout. If the job
screens out, shut down. Do not reduce rate to continue pumping while
trying to squeeze more proppant in.
c.
If the problem cannot be resolved within 10 minutes, the job will likely be
difficult to finish. Two options exist:
If the possibility of leaving the pipe full of proppant is an acceptable
outcome, proceed with the job, expecting a wellbore screenout.
If a screenout is not acceptable, immediately go to flush. If 80% of
the proppant is placed, this is often the best option.
2.
Unable to achieve the design pump rate
2.1.
During the pad:

a.
If because the treating pressure is too high, shut down, record ISIP and
determine if the problem is underestimated frac gradient, excess
perforation friction, near well bore tortuosity, or excessive fluid friction.
Consult BP/service company engineers for resolution. Adjust pad volume
as described in Section 1.1. Consider redesigning job at a lower treatment
rate.
b.
If due to equipment failure, shut down, remedy the problem and start the
job over.
During the proppant stages:
a.
If enough fluid and additives are on location, extend the stages
proportionally to actual versus desired rate. E.g.: If the actual rate is 50
BPM and the design rate is 60 BPM, then extend each prop stage 17%.
b.
If possible, rerun frac simulator to alter proppant schedule as necessary
to achieve desired frac geometry.
c.
If there are enough materials on location, continue with the job as
planned.
d.
If there are critical design goals that must be accomplished, e.g., a final
prop concentration, resin coated proppant tail-in, etc., it is recommended
2.2.
July 2004
- 74 -
those be started earlier than designed (reduce or omit a middle stage) in

the event the well should screen out early.
3.
Unable to achieve the design proppant concentration
3.1.
If the design proppant concentration exceeds the capacity of the blender or

proppant field bin, reduce the pump rate to a point where the desired proppant
concentration can be maintained. Rerun the frac simulator to determine what
changes, if any, are necessary to the proppant schedule.
4.
Loss of automatic control for additive pumps (Auto-Remote / Auto-Local /

Manual-Local)
4.1.
Definitions:
a.
Auto-Remote: The treatment van computer is controlling all additive rates.
This is the preferred method of additive control. If the equipment is not so
configured, do not begin the job until it is fully functioning.
b.
Auto-Local: The blender, hydration unit, and/or chemical additive unit are
being fed a clean rate and are proportioning the additives automatically.
This is the next best method in the event the equipment cannot be
configured to operate in Auto Remote, or if Auto Remote capabilities are
lost at some point late in the job.
c.
Manual-Local: The unit operator controls the additive rates manually. This
is the least preferred method because of the difficulty in attempting to
operate the unit as well as manually control many different additives. It
should be employed only as a last resort once the point of no return has
been passed in the treatment, as defined in the following pumping
contingency plans.
If automatic control of one or more additive pumps is lost:
a.
Before the start of the job: Do not begin the treatment until the problem is
resolved. Correct the problem before beginning the job.
b.
During the pad: Shut down and resolve the problem before continuing.
Consider pad volume replacement to account for shut down as described
in Section 1.1.
c.
During proppant with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped: Over flush by
200% of cumulative slurry volume. Remedy problem and start over.
d.
During proppant with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped: Continue to
control additive as closely as possible and complete the treatment as
scheduled.
4.2.
5.
Bad Gel Samples (Poor Crosslink Quality or Time, Poor Viscosity, etc)
5.1.
If repeated gel samples are unsatisfactory and all quality control processes have
been rigorously followed:
a.
Verify that the sampling point is in the dynamic fluid stream.
b.
Check sample pH
July 2004
- 75 -
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Check the plumbing to ensure that all additives are rigged up correctly
and that there are no leaks.
Check the additive flowmeter readings in the frac van for additive rate
control accuracy.
Strap the tank of the suspect additive. Check the strap against the mass
balance calculations and flowmeter totalizer.
Perform another bucket test on the suspect additive. If the "bucket test"
identifies an inaccurate add rate, correct the flow rate by adjusting the
additive concentration by the percentage error indicated.
If the problem with the gel samples cannot be resolved after following the
above procedures then:
If during the pad, abort the job, remedy the problem, and start over.
If during the proppant with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped,
abort the job, and overflush by 200% of cumulative slurry volume
pumped. Remedy the problem and start over.
If during the proppant with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped,
continue to investigate and attempt to remedy the problem.
Continue the treatment.
6.
Loss of down stream dirty densometer
6.1.
If during the Pad, shut down and remedy the problem before continuing. Pump
additional pad as described in Section 1.1.
If during proppant with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, over flush by 200%
of cumulative slurry volume of base liquid or foam. Remedy the problem and
start the job over.
If during proppant with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, complete the job
using the Blender proppant screw rpm control mechanism.
6.2.
6.3.
7.
Base gelling agent (product name) problems
7.1.
Loss of gel pump:

a.
If during the pad, abort the job.
b.
If during proppant with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, abort the
job and over flush by 200% of cumulative slurry volume of base liquid.
c.
If during the proppant with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, review
the effective stimulation at that point and determine if it is satisfactory or
over-flush by 200 bbls and attempt the treatment again.
Loss of gel hydration unit (equipment name) concentration for more than 2
minutes:
a.
If during the pad stage, and if equivalent gel loading if off by more than
10% of design gel loading, abort the job. Remedy the problem and start
from the beginning.
b.
If during the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped,
and if equivalent gel loading is off by more than 15% of target, abort the
7.2.
July 2004
- 76 -
c.
job and over flush by 200% of cumulative slurry volume pumped. Remedy
problem and start from beginning.
If during the proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped,
adjust buffer and cross linker loading according to equivalent gel loading
and continue job as scheduled.
8.
Loss of crosslinker (product name) add rate control:
8.1.
If during the pad, and crosslinker rate variance is more than +/- 10%, abort job,
remedy problem and start over.
If during the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, and
crosslinker rate variance is more than +/- 10%, overflush by 200% cumulative
slurry volume of base liquid or foam. Remedy problem and start over.
maintain additive rate as close to design as possible and continue treatment.
8.2.
8.3.
9.
Loss of buffer (product name) add rate control:
9.1.
If during the pad, and buffer add rate variance is more than +/- 5%, abort job,
remedy problem, and start over.
If during the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, and
buffer add rate variance is more than +/- 10%, overflush by 200% cumulative
9.2.
9.3.
10.
Loss of surfactant (product name) add rate control:
10.1. If during the pad, and surfactant add rate variance is more than +/- 5%, abort job,
10.2. If during the proppant stages, with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, and
surfactant add rate variance is more than +/- 25%, overflush by 200% cumulative
slurry volume of base liquid or foam, remedy problem and start over.
10.3. If during the proppant stages, with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped,
11.
Loss of catalyst (product name) add rate control:
11.1. If during the pad, and variance is more than +/ - 10% of target rate, abort job,
11.2. If during the proppant with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, and add rate
variance is more than +/- 25% of target rate, overflush by 200% cumulative slurry
volume of base liquid or foam. Remedy the problem and start over.
11.3. If during the proppant with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, and rate is
lost or is >25% out of range, add an extra 2-4 pounds/l000 gals encapsulated
breaker.
July 2004
- 77 -
12.
Loss of encapsulated breaker (product name) add rate control:
12.1. If during the pad, and add rate variance is more than +/ - 10% of target rate,
abort job, remedy problem and start over.
12.2. If during the proppant stages with less than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, and add
rate variance is more than +/- 25% of target rate, overflush by 200% cumulative
12.3. If during the proppant stages with more than 1/3 of the proppant pumped, and
breaker add rate is lost, add breaker manually to blender tub and continue the
job.
13.
Loss of un-encapsulated breaker (product name) add rate control (usually

only added during last 15-20 minutes of the treatment):
13.1. If lost or outside guidelines, continue the job as scheduled. Compensate by

increasing the encapsulated breaker by an equivalent loading.
July 2004
- 78 -

QAQC MANUAL - Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing Manual - V1 - Jul04

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

QAQC MANUAL - Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing Manual - V1 - Jul04

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

i

George A. Turk, EPTG

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

Melissa Beck, Frontline Group

OUSBU Wells Team

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

Lab Work Prior to Frac Day............................... 8

Frac Day Pre-Frac Preparation ....................... 24

Proppant Testing .......................................................................................... 33

24 Pumping and Metering Validation ............................................................... 34

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

QA/QC During the Frac .................................... 46

33 Gel Quality Monitoring.................................................................................. 47

BP QA/QC Form and Mass Balance Spreadsheet...................................... 58

Post-Frac Job Review................................................................................... 58

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

In late 2000, BPs Exploration and Production Technology Group (EPTG)

The +/- 20% rate variance

Are you sure + or 20%

a lower-quality, lower-conductivity fracture, and a possible screen-out, resulting

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

Figure I-2. QA/QC program impact.

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

THE BP FRACTURING QA/QC PRINCIPLES

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

LAB WORK PRIOR TO FRAC DAY

12.1 Fann 50 Recipe Validation

Figure 1-1. Fann 50 and Fann 35 machines.

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

The bob and sleeve

Figure 1 4. Fann 35 machine, bobs and sleeve.

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

Fluid Formulation Sensitivity Tests

Viscosity (cP @ 100sec-1)

A test matrix like the one in Figure 1-6 should

Sensitivity Test Combinations for 3 Critical Additives

It might be thought that just varying the

Viscosity (cP @ 100sec-1)

20% Less Delay Agent, 20% More Crosslinker

20% More Delay Agent, 20% Less Crosslinker

Time at 195F (minutes)

Figure 17. Fann 50 plot of additive sensitivity tests.

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

12.3 Chemical Batch/Lot Tests

12.4 Water Analysis

Figure 18. Example of Section 1 of the BP QA/QC Form.

BP Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing QA/QC Manual

< 600 ppm

< 1200 ppm

< 1100 ppm

< 400 ppm

< 1200 ppm

< 1100 ppm

< 600 ppm

< 1200 ppm

< 1100 ppm

< 400 ppm

< 1200 ppm