Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

SPE 86505

Brine Effects on Hydration Rates for Polymers Used in Completion and


Workover Operations
Brian B. Beall, SPE, BJ Services Company, Terry D. Monroe, SPE, BJ Services Company, Daniel P. Vollmer, SPE, BJ
Services Company, and Farid T. Hanna, BJ Services Company

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.


This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 1820 February 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Polymers used in completion and workover operations can
consist of cellulose, cellulose derivatives, guar and guar
derivatives. Normally these polymers are used in completion
and workover fluids consisting of potassium, sodium and
ammonium chloride. As more wells are being completed in
deeper and hotter environments, fluids composed of calcium
chloride, calcium bromide, zinc bromide and combinations of
all three are being used to control well pressures.
Studies were conducted on hydration rates in various
brines for these polymers and are presented in graphical form.
A correlation was also established to predict the hydration
rates and the ultimate viscosity for hydroxyethylcellulose at
temperature based on brine viscosity. These correlations are
particularly useful for field operations during cold
weather months.
Introduction
Water-soluble polymers are extensively used in oil and gas
operations. In high ionic completion fluids, many of these
polymers do not dissolve or require long mixing times to
dissolve and thicken the fluid. Darlington, et al, showed that
dry hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) added to a 13.0 ppg calcium
chloride/calcium bromide solution had no increase in viscosity
at 511 sec-1 from initial to four hours.1 Scheuerman
determined hydration rates for HEC in completion fluids at
various temperatures and densities and showed a relationship
with time to maximum viscosity with brine density. Basically,
the greater the brine density and the lower the temperature the
greater the hydration time. Since completion fluids can be
prepared with various crystallization temperatures and brine
viscosities having the same density, Scheuermans relationship
can only be used as a rough guide.

Polymer systems are used in a variety of applications


in the oil industry including loss circulation material, push
pills, well bore clean out pills, gravel pack operations and
components of drill-in fluids. Unfortunately, damage may be
introduced to the formation due to improperly hydrated
polymers. The occurrence of fish-eyes has been well
documented.2 Additionally, failure to fully hydrate the
polymer is an all too common occurrence when working with
weighted brines.
Both Darlington and Scheuerman along with others
developed prehydrated HEC slurries to decrease the mixing
time for thickening brines.1-4 Vollmer, et al, showed a similar
situation with xanthan gum by using the prehydrated form to
viscosify a 13.1 ppg potassium formate solution.5
Due to the ease of mixing, liquid polymer systems
have enjoyed wide spread acceptance and are operationally
preferred to their dry polymer counterparts. These systems
vary widely in base carrier fluids and polymer activity level.
These liquid polymer systems must be able to allow the
polymer to effectively disperse in the base fluid before
hydration begins avoiding the possibility of fish eyes.
Additionally, environmental concerns regarding oil and grease
content in the systems must be considered. With the wide
variety of liquid polymer systems and diversity of base mixing
fluids, the possibility for introducing formation damaging
mechanisms increases if the polymer is not allowed to
completely disperse and hydrate.
After reviewing the work of Darlington and
Scheuerman, a relationship was observed with brine viscosity,
i.e., the greater the brine viscosity the longer the hydration
rate. Therefore, work was conducted to determine the limits
for various water-soluble polymers to viscosify conventional
completion fluids by relating the brines viscosity to the
polymers hydration rate. Since the brines viscosity changes
with temperature this would elucidate why heating typically
increases hydration rates. This relationship is important when
deciding on slurry types for field use.
Experimental
The experimental approach used in this study focused on field
applications, therefore the rate and ease of hydration of the
polymers in commonly available brines was evaluated. The
rate of hydration is normally related to brine composition,
temperature and pH of the fluid itself. This study focused

SPE 86505

primarily on composition of the brine and temperature. No


attempt to adjust pH values was made.
As shown in previous studies, complete hydration of
some polymers in weighted fluids can take up to seventeen
hours in a laboratory environment.2 Hydrating polymers in the
field requires a more forgiving fluid system design. For this
reason an upper limit of three hours was established as a
practical maximum hydration time in this study.
The liquid polymer systems evaluated in this study
were from commercially available sources along with one
proprietary system. These polymer suspensions were pulled
from existing lots and no laboratory samples used. As with
the polymers, the brine samples used were field supplied.
Basis for investigation
Unforeseen anomalies have been reported when trying to
disperse and hydrate some liquid polymers in various density
calcium chloride completion fluids. Rapid hydration and
apparent crosslinking has occurred in some situations. This
led to the investigation of understanding the brine/polymer
interaction as well as the limitations of these liquid
polymer systems.
Test Procedure. To evaluate hydration rates of the polymers
in the various completion fluids, utilization of an automated
viscometer set up with a R1-B1 rotor-bob configuration and an
F1 spring was used. The polymers were allowed to hydrate
under a constant shear of 511 sec-1 (300 rpm). This method
was chosen to closely follow common field quality control
procedures. The following test procedure was used:

Calibrate
equipment
using
100
centiPoise
calibration oil.
Add completion fluid to be evaluated to
viscometer cup.
Set viscometer to 300 rpm.
Set test temperature.
Allow fluid to stir for 10 minutes to establish
thermal uniformity.
Add liquid polymer to cup.
Begin recording viscosity at one minute intervals
under a constant shear of 511 sec-1.
Maximum time of test was three hours or a viscosity
change of less than 5% in a thirty minute interval.

Once the upper limit of viscosity had been identified in the


three hour time limit, time to reach 10%, 50% and 90%
viscosity was recorded and used to define the rate of
dispersion and hydration for that particular system. During
this testing several of the polymer systems exceeded the
measurable viscosity of the equipment. The procedure was reevaluated and modified for the next phase of testing.
To determine what may be considered the ultimate
viscosity of these polymers in the various brines, the systems
were mixed with an overhead stirrer and placed in a roller
oven for 16 hours at 150F. The following test procedure
was used:

Mix fluid and liquid polymer using overhead mixer.

Place in roller oven at 150F for 16 hours.


Allow samples to cool to ambient temperature.
Determine maximum limits of shear rate.
Select six shear rates lower than the maximum rate
(25 rpm intervals)
Set the test temperature (80 and 120F)
Add the mixed fluid to the viscometer cup.
Allow fluid to stir for 10 minutes to establish
thermal uniformity.
Determine n and K.
From n and K calculate ultimate viscosity at 511
sec-1.

The brines systems evaluated in this study included fresh


water, 9.0 ppg NaCl, 9.0 ppg KCl, 9.5 ppg KCl, 10.0 ppg
NaCl, 10.0 ppg CaCl2, 11.7 ppg CaCl2, 13.5 ppg CaBr2, 14.2
ppg CaCl2/CaBr2 (standard field blend), 14.2 ppg CaBr2 (pure)
and 16.5 ppg CaBr2 / ZnBr2. An analysis of each brine used in
the testing was also performed and is included in Table 1. The
polymer systems were suspensions of HEC, CMHEC and
guar. For HEC testing, the brines were selected so that
viscosifcation would occur and would not precipitate from
solutions at elevated temperatures.6-7
Results
The results of the polymer dispersion and hydration tests for
each of the three suspensions (HEC, CMHEC and guar) are
shown in Figures 1 through 12. Each polymer was hydrated at
80 and 120F in each of the above mentioned brines.
HEC. Dispersion and hydration results for the 80 pptg HEC
solution in fluid densities less than 12.0 ppg show that the
fluids prepared in monovalent salt solutions reach their
maximum viscosity quicker than those prepared in divalent
salt solutions. Also an increase in hydration temperature
results in an increase in hydration rate. The viscosity ranged
from 85 centiPoise for the polymer hydrated in 10.0 ppg CaCl2
to 350+ centiPoise for the 11.7 ppg CaCl2 system at 80F.
Results from the other base fluid hydration tests are shown in
Table 2.
Using the modified viscosity procedure and fluids aged in
the roller oven for sixteen hours at 150F, ultimate viscosities
were measured for the gelled systems that exceeded the limit
of the equipment used in the previous tests. The ultimate
viscosities were calculated as apparent viscosity at 511 sec-1
using the fluid behavior index (n) and the consistency index
(K). These results are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for the 80 pptg
HEC fluid. The ultimate apparent viscosities calculated at
80F ranged from 180 centiPoise for the 9.0 ppg NaCl based
gel to 375 centiPoise for the 11.7 ppg CaCl2 based gel.
Viscosities at 120F ranged from 143 centiPoise for the 9.0
ppg NaCl fluid to 412 centiPoise for the 14.2 ppg
CaCl2/CaBr2 fluid.
To try and determine a correlation between brine viscosity
and ultimate viscosity of the polymer system for these fluids, a
plot of ultimate viscosity of the system versus the viscosity of
the brine itself was made. The result is shown in Figure 13.
The ultimate viscosities used in this evaluation came from the
roller oven tests. Using a logarithmic correlation (Eq. 1) the

SPE 86505

viscosity of an 80 pptg HEC can be related to the viscosity of


the base brine.

= 89.362Ln(brine) + 173.2....(1)
= ultimate viscosity of gelled system in centiPoise at
511 sec-1
brine = the viscosity of the brine at temperature, F
Note that Eq. 1 is independent of temperature, brine type
and composition. All that is needed is the brine viscosity at
temperature and the viscosity for 80 pptg HEC at 511 sec-1 can
be obtained at that temperature. All brine viscosities were
obtained from references 8 through 10. Since the correlation
was established at temperatures of 80 and 120F, care must
be used at temperatures outside this range. On-going work is
being performed for HEC at other concentrations and other
temperatures to extend the range. Correlations for CMHEC as
well as guar are also being developed.
Similar correlations were attempted for the consistency
index and flow behavior index as a function of brine viscosity.
Such a correlation would be useful since viscosities at other
shear rates could be obtained. Although, a similar trend was
observed, more error resulted. The belief is that additional
error is introduced when extrapolating to obtain these power
law parameters as opposed to measuring the viscosity at
constant shear rate.
By knowing the ultimate viscosity, a relationship with
hydration rates can be established. Figure 14 show the percent
hydration at 30 minutes with respect to brine viscosity. Note
that the hydration rate is basically unaffected when the brine
viscosity is less than about 3 centiPoise providing greater than
80% of the ultimate viscosity. Above 3 centiPoise the
hydration rate is reduced and follows the correlation described
by the Eq. 2.
%Ultimate = 88.935(brine)-0.0671..(2)
Where the %Ultimate is the percent viscosity at 30 minutes
based on the ultimate viscosity obtained from the hot rolling
tests. Note that the brine viscosity at temperature is all that is
needed to predict the percent ultimate viscosity. Since the
brine viscosity decreases with increasing temperature, heating
the brine will increase the hydration rate and thus the percent
ultimate viscosity.
To further investigate the effects of the completion fluid on
polymer dispersion and hydration each fluid was separated
into weight percentages of individual ions. The breakdown of
each fluid is shown in Table 7. From this analysis it can be
seen that the maximum viscosity of HEC hydrated in a monovalent fluid is not effected by the salt concentration but the
rate of hydration is. The maximum viscosities of the HEC
dispersed and hydrated in 9.0 and 10.0 ppg sodium chloride
were almost identical, 170 and 169 centiPoise, respectively.
However, thirty additional minutes were required to reach this
viscosity for the polymer hydrated in the 10.0 ppg fluid.
Results in which the polymer was hydrated in a divalent
cationic single salt fluid (CaCl2 or CaBr2) were different. It
was found that as the amount of calcium in the fluid increased,

the viscosity of the gelled system increased. The 11.7 ppg


CaCl2 contained 13.68% calcium, the 13.5 ppg CaBr2
contained 9.51% calcium and the 14.2 ppg CaBr2 contained
10.40% calcium. Maximum viscosities were 350+, 147 and
189 centiPoise, respectively. Similar results were obtained in
the divalent two salt (CaCl2/CaBr2 and CaBr2/ZnBr2) tests.
The 14.2 ppg CaCl2/CaBr2 fluid contained 14.96% calcium
compared to the 16.5 ppg CaBr2/ZnBr2 which contained
7.28% calcium. Maximum viscosities were 123 and 67
centiPoise. One interesting correlation observed during
evaluation of the results was the viscosity of the gelled system
was somewhat proportional to the weight percent of the
divalent cation in the completion fluid. The greater the
divalent ion percent the higher the viscosity. In the 10.0 ppg
CaCl2 the weight percent of calcium was 7.73% and the
maximum viscosity was 85 centiPoise. The 11.7 ppg CaCl2
weight percent of calcium was 13.68% and maximum
viscosity was 350+ centiPoise. The same scenario played out
in the two salt systems, CaCl2 / CaBr2 and CaBr2 / ZnBr2 with
the latter having about half the viscosity of the 14.2 ppg dual
salt system. In all of the systems in which long hydration
times were required or in the systems in which very little
hydration occurred the percent by weight calcium was +/- 8%.
CMHEC. Similar results were obtained when running the
same
tests
using
a
liquid
suspension
of
carboxymethylhydroxyethelcellulose (CMHEC). Dispersion
and hydration times were mainly dependent on the completion
fluid used and the hydration temperature. Once again the
results of the 80 pptg dispersion and hydration tests indicate
that fluids prepared in monovalent salt solutions reach their
maximum viscosity quicker than those prepared in divalent
salt solutions. Also an increase in hydration temperature
results in an increase in hydration rate.
The maximum
viscosites were slightly lower when hydrated at 120F which
can be attributed to some thermal thinning of the polymer at
that temperature. The viscosities ranged from 15 centiPoise
in 16.5 ppg CaBr2 / ZnBr2 to 233 centiPoise in 11.7 ppg CaCl2
when hydrated at 80F. Viscosities ranged from 21 centiPoise
in 10.0 ppg CaCl2 to 232 centiPoise in 11.6 ppg CaCl2 when
hydrated at 120F. Again the systems that contained +/- 8%
calcium by weight required longer hydration times and in
some cases developed very little viscosity. Once again
ultimate viscosity was determined by placing the gels in a
roller oven for sixteen hours at 150F. The flow behavior
index (n) and consistency index (K) were determined to
calculate an apparent viscosity at 511 sec-1. Surprisingly, the
ultimate viscosities after hot rolling were lower than the
maximum viscosites at 120F obtained from the hydration
tests, but not at 80F. Apparently, CMHEC slowly thermally
degrades at 150F whereas HEC did not.
GUAR. Guar polymer was evaluated in this study due to its
increased popularity for use in frac-packing operations as well
as a gelling agent for use in fluid loss pills. Dispersion and
hydration of the liquid guar in fluids of densities 10.0 ppg or
less did not pose any problems. Maximum viscosities were all
in the 140 centiPoise range for fluids up to 10.0 ppg CaCl2.
Above this density very little viscosity was achieved even
when the fluid was hydrated at 120F. Guar is found to be

SPE 86505

sensitive to electrolyte concentration.11


Electrolyte
compatibility can be enhanced by hydroxyalkylation in the
manufacture of guar derivatives. Derivatives of guar have
been designed to viscosify di-and trivalent salt solutions in
which guar will fail to hydrate.
Conclusions

Hydration rates were determined for HEC, CMHEC and


guar in various completion fluids.
A relationship was determined for the ultimate viscosity
and the hydration rate of HEC in various completion
fluids as function of brine viscosity.
A relationship was observed between the viscosity of the
gelled system and the weight percent of the divalent
cation in the completion fluid.
Dispersion and hydration of the liquid guar in fluids of
densities 10.0 ppg or less did not pose any problems.
Future work will involve developing relationships for
HEC / brines at other temperatures and concentrations as
well as correlations for other polymers.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the management of BJ Services
Company for their support and permission to publish
this work.
Nomenclature
B1
cP
F1
mls
R1
rpm
n
K
ppm
mg/l

cP
pptg

= Viscometer Bob
= centiPoise
= Viscometer Spring
= milliliters
= Viscometer Rotor
= Rotations per Minute
=lb(f)/(ft2)(sec)
= lb(f)secn/ ft2
= parts per million
= milligrams/liter
= viscosity, centipoise
= centiPoise
= pounds per thousand gallons

SI Metric Conversion Factors


(F-32)/1.8
cp x 1.0*
lbm x 4.535924
gal x 3.785412

E+00=C
E+00=Pa*s
E-01=kg
E-03=m3

* Conversion factor is exact.

References
1.

Darington, R. K., House, R. F., and Hunter, D. V., Viscous


Heavy Brine Completion Fluids, paper SPE 10671 presented at
the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Lafayette, LA, March 24-25.

2. Scheuerman, R. F., Guidelines for Using HEC Polymers


for Viscosifying Solids-Free Completion and Workover
Brines, Journal of Petroluem Technology, (February
1983) 306.
3. Hoover, L., D., Dispersible Hydrophilic Polymer Compositions,
U.S. #4,330,414, May 18, 1982.
4. Hoff, M. H., Dispersible Hydrophilic Polymer Compositions for
Use In Viscosifying Heavy Brine, U.S. 4,758,357, July 19, 1988.
5. Vollmer, D. P., Javora, P. H., and Horton, R. L., Viscosification
of High Density Brines, U.S. #5,785,747, July 28, 1998.
6. Hodge, R.M., HEC Precipitation at Elevated Temperature: An
Unexpected Source of Formation Damage, paper SPE 38155
presented at the 1997 European Formation Damage Conference
held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 2-3 June.
7. Vollmer, D. P., Stewart, C. A., and Alleman, HEC Precipitation
Solutions, Harts E&P, (January 2000) 98.

8. Kestin J., Khalifa, H. E., Ro, S. T., and Wakeham, W., A.,
"Preliminary Data on the Pressure Effect on the Viscosity
of Sodium Chloride-Water Solutions in the Range 10
40C, J. of Chemical and Engineering Data, Vol. 22,
No. 2 (1977) 207.
9. Ershaghi, I., Abdassah, D., Bonakdar, M., R., and Ahmad,
S., "Estimation of Geothermal Brine Viscosity," Journal
of Petroleum Technology (March 1983) 621.
10. Ortego, A. M., and Vollmer, D. P., Viscosities for Completion
Fluids at Temperature and Density, paper SPE 86506 presented
at the 2004 Formation Damage Control Symposium and
Exposition, Lafayette, Feb. 18-20.
11. Davidson., R. L.: Handbook of Water-Soluble Gums and Resins,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1980) 6.

SPE 86505

400

Viscsoity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time (min)
Fresh Water

9.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg NaCl

11.0 ppg CaCl2

11.7 ppg CaCl2

Figure 1. 80 pptg HEC Hydration Rate (80F / Fluid Density < 12.0 ppg)

Table 1. Analysis of Brines

Fluid
Fresh Water
9.0 ppg NaCl
9.0 ppg KCl
9.5 ppg KCl
10.0 ppg NaCl
10.0 ppg CaCl2
11.0 ppg CaCl2
11.7 ppg CaCl2
13.5 ppg CaBr2
14.2 ppg CaCl2/CaBr2
(standard blend)
14.2 ppg CaBr2 (pure)
16.5 CaBr2/ZnBr2

KCl
ppm

Na
ppm

Ca
ppm

Zn
ppm

42,200

Br
ppm

TCT
F

Viscosity (cps)
80F / 120F

21
20
47
23
1

1.03 / 0.682
1.11 / 0.74
1.26 / 0.86
1.65 / 1.07
2.13 / 1.43

383,100

59
-37

8.32 / 4.95
4.17 / 2.51

267,100
414,800
491,000

59
0
-36

26.65 / 15.38
6.00 / 3.60
8.63 / 5.35

65,000
59,400
99,200
155,900
136,700
206,000
242,100

65,500
109,400
101,000
77,300
116,500
136,800
96,100
149,600
104,000
72,800

Cl
ppm

146,300
82,000

SPE 86505

200

180

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Tim e (m in)
13.5 ppg C aB r2

14.2 ppg S tandard B lend C aC l2/C aB r2

14.2 ppg C aB r2

16.5 C aB r2/ZnB r2

Figure 2. 80 pptg HEC Hydration Rate (80F / Fluid Density > 12.0 ppg)

300

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

250

200

150

100

50

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

T im e (m in )
F re s h W a te r

9 .0 p p g N a C l

1 0 .0 p p g N a C l

1 1 .0 p p g C a C l2

1 1 .7 p p g C a C l2

Figure 3. 80 pptg HEC Hydration Rate (120F / Fluid Density <12.0 ppg )

300

SPE 86505

350

300

200

150

100

50

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

T im e ( m in )
1 3 .5 p p g C a B r2

1 4 . 2 p p g S ta n d a r d B l e n d C a C l 2 /C a B r 2

1 4 .2 p p g C a B r2

1 6 . 5 p p g C a B r 2 /Z n B r 2

Figure 4. 80 pptg HEC Hydration Rate (120F / Fluid Density > 12.0 ppg)

250

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

250

200

150

100

50

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time (min)

Fresh Water

9.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg CaCl2

11.7 ppg CaCl2

9.0 ppg KCl

Figure 5. 80 pptg CMHEC Hydration Rate (80F / Fluid Density < 12.0 ppg)

9.5 ppg KCl

SPE 86505

250

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

200

150

100

50

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

T i m e (m i n )
1 3 . 5 p p g C a B r2

1 4 . 2 p p g S t a n d a rd B le n d C a C l2 / C a B r2

1 4 . 2 p p g C a B r2

1 6 . 5 p p g C a B r2 / Zn B r2

Figure 6. 80 pptg CMHEC Hydration Rate (80F / Fluid Density > 12.0 ppg)

250

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

200

150

100

50

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Fresh Water

9.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg CaCl2

11.7 ppg CaCl2

9.0 ppg KCl

Figure 7. 80 pptg CMHEC Hydration Rate (120F / Fluid Density < 12.0 ppg)

9.5 ppg KCl

SPE 86505

250

150

100

50

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

T im e (m in )
1 3 .5 p p g C a B r2

1 4 .2 p p g S ta n d a rd B le n d C a C l2 /C a B r2

1 4 .2 p p g C a B r2

1 6 .5 p p g C a B r2 /Z n B r2

Figure 8. 80 pptg CMHEC Hydration Rate (120F / Fluid Density > 12.0 ppg)

160

140

120
Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

200

100

80

60

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Time (min)

Fresh Water

9.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg CaCl2

11.7 ppg CaCl2

9.0 ppg KCl

Figure 9. 80 pptg Guar Hydration Rate (80F / Fluid Density < 12.0 ppg)

9.5 ppg KCl

10

SPE 86505

30

25

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

20

15

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

T i m e (m i n )
1 3 . 5 p p g C a B r2

1 4 . 2 p p g S t a n d a rd B le n d C a C l2 / C a B r2

1 4 . 2 C a B r2

1 6 . 5 p p g C a B r2 / Z n B r2

Figure 10. 80 pptg Guar Hydration Rate (80F / Fluid Density > 12.0 ppg)

160

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time (min)

Fresh Water

9.0 ppg NaCl

10.0 ppg NaCl

11.7 ppg CaCl2

9.0 ppg KCl

Figure 11. 80 pptg Guar Hydration Rate (120F / Fluid Density <12.0 ppg)

9.5 ppg KCl

SPE 86505

11

14

Viscosity (cps) @ 511 sec-1

12

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

T im e (m in )
1 4 .2 p p g C a B r2

1 4 . 2 p p g S ta n d a r d B le n d C a C l2 / C a B r 2

1 3 .5 p p g C a B r2

Figure 12. 80 pptg Guar Hydration Rate (120F / Base Fluid Density > 12.0 ppg)

Table 2. 80 pptg HEC @ 80F


Base Fluid
Fresh Water
9.0 ppg NaCl
9.0 ppg KCl
9.5 ppg KCl
10.0 ppg NaCl
10.0 ppg CaCl2
11.7 ppg CaCl2
13.5 ppg CaBr2
14.2 ppg
CaCl2/CaBr2
14.2 ppg CaBr2
16.5 ppg
CaBr2/ZnBr2

Table 4. 80 pptg Guar @ 80F

Time to Reach Indicated % of Max Viscosity


10%
50%
90%
Max
Max
(min)
(min)
(min)
(min)
(cp)
<1
<2
7
88
182
<1
<2
7
91
170
<1
<2
5
44
144
<2
4
58
128
122
2
5
16
67
169
2
6
42
96
85
5
23
56
80
350+
15
71
128
95
147
<1
3

28
14

124
67

180
150

123
189

<1

47

90

67

Table 3. 80 pptg CMHEC @ 80F


Base Fluid
Fresh Water
9.0 ppg NaCl
9.0 ppg KCl
9.5 ppg KCl
10.0 ppg NaCl
10.0 ppg CaCl2
11.7 ppg CaCl2
13.5 ppg CaBr2
14.2 ppg
CaCl2/CaBr2
14.2 ppg CaBr2
16.5 ppg
CaBr2/ZnBr2

Time to Reach Indicated % of Max Viscosity


10%
50%
90%
Max
Max
(min)
(min)
(min)
(min)
(cp)
<1
<1
7
35
116
<1
<2
31
113
125
<1
<2
8
46
116
3
33
125
177
108
2
3
15
84
138
4
36
121
144
60
6
30
84
124
233
2
9
30
88
231
<1
5

<1
42

2
137

59
180

30
108

<1

<1

28

15

Base Fluid
Fresh Water
9.0 ppg NaCl
9.0 ppg KCl
9.5 ppg KCl
10.0 ppg NaCl
10.0 ppg CaCl2
11.7 ppg CaCl2
13.5 ppg CaBr2
14.2 ppg
CaCl2/CaBr2
14.2 ppg CaBr2
16.5 ppg
CaBr2/ZnBr2

Time to Reach Indicated % of Max Viscosity


10%
50%
90%
Max
Max
(min)
(min)
(min)
(min)
(cp)
<1
<2
5
43
132
<1
<2
7
90
138
<1
<2
23
63
129
<2
3
37
83
127
1
4
32
89
137
<2
4
47
90
140
<1
<1
2
27
11
<1
<1
1
27
6
<1
<1

<1
<1

<1
<1

2
1

27
7

<1

<1

<1

10

12

SPE 86505

8 0 p p tg H E C
500

Ultimate Viscosity at 511 1/s

450
400
350
300
250

y = 8 9 .3 6 2 L n (x ) + 1 7 3 .1 9
R 2 = 0 .9 7 7 8

200
150
100
50
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

B r in e V is c o s it y , c p .

Figure 13. Viscosity Correlation Plot

8 0 p p tg H E C
1 0 0 .0
9 0 .0
y = 8 8 .9 3 5 e -0 .0 6 7 1 x
R 2 = 0 .8 8 4 7

% Ultimate at 30 min.

8 0 .0
7 0 .0
6 0 .0
5 0 .0
4 0 .0
3 0 .0
2 0 .0
1 0 .0
0 .0
0

10

15

20

B r in e V is c o s ity , c p .

Figure 14. Viscosity Correlation Plot

25

30

SPE 86505

13

Table 5. Rheological Properties at 80F


Fluid System
(80 pptg HEC)

K
(lb(f)secn/ft2)

Apparent Viscosity
@ 511 sec-1

9.0 ppg NaCl

0.294

0.308

180 cps

10.0 ppg CaCl2

0.287

0.405

228 cps

11.7 ppg CaCl2

0.273

0.731

375 cps

13.5 ppg CaBr2

0.320

0.401

277 cps

14.2 ppg CaBr2


(pure)
14.2 ppg CaCl2 / CaBr2

0.265

0.733

358 cps

0.291

0.861

497 cps

16.5 ppg CaBr2/ZnBr2

0.334

0.436

327 cps

Table 6. Rheological Properties at 120F


Fluid System
(80 pptg HEC)

n 7. Weight Percent K
Table
(lb(f)secn/ft2)

Apparent Viscosity
@ 511 sec-1

9.0 ppg NaCl

0.318

0.210

143 cps

10.0 ppg CaCl2

0.321

0.260

180 cps

11.7 ppg CaCl2

0.256

0.678

314 cps

13.5 ppg CaBr2

0.394

0.204

223 cps

14.2 ppg CaBr2


(pure)

0.296

0.511

303 cps

14.2 ppg CaCl2 / CaBr2

0.280

0.769

412 cps

16.5 ppg CaBr2/ZnBr2

0.368

0.294

273 cps

14

SPE 86505

Table 7. Ionic Weight Percent

Completion
Fluid
Total Salt
Weight %
Na
Weight %
Ca
Weight %
Zn
Weight %
Cl
Weight %
Br
Weight %
Water
Weight %
Maximum
Viscosity
(cp)
Time to
maximum
Viscosity
(min)

9.0 ppg
NaCl

10.0 ppg
NaCl

10.74

25.69

4.22

10.10

80 pptg HEC Hydrated @ 80F


10.0 ppg 11.6 ppg 13.5 ppg
CaCl2
CaBr2
CaCl2

14.2 ppg
CaBr2

14.2 ppg
CaCl2
/CaBr2

16.5 ppg
CaBr2 /
ZnBr2

21.39

37.89

47.92

51.88

56.30

64.58

7.73

13.68

9.51

10.40

14.96

7.28
8.20

6.50

15.59

13.67

24.21

14.63
38.31

41.48

26.71

49.1

89.26

74.31

78.61

62.11

52.08

48.12

43.70

35.42

170

169

85

353

147

189

123

67

91

67

96

80

95

150

180

90