Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
of Petroleum Engineers ~
.
SPE 36495
Effects of High Temperature on Polymer Degradation and Cleanup
M.L. Samuelson,
~PYr!Qht
This
l%
paperwas
Exhlbt!on
lnfo,mabon
correcbrm
PesAon
SPE
was
tor presentation
are
subject
Eg,ncem
111.strattom
The
wat
SPE
Ortcber
by an SPE
subm!tted
as
Engineers
to publication
Pernmss,o
may
of were
&9
material,
of Petroleum
Annual
Program
Commlmee
presented
dws
or members
TX 75003%%,
The
U S A
and
Papers
Commdtees
Wr!te
rewew
of
paper
as
reflect
to
any
presented
at
of the Society
of
of not rrwre
should
presented
of the
necessarily
to an atsbact
abstrad
tollowng
C2mte.ts
Eoglnec&
Ik office=,
Conference
1996
r.?vk?w by Edrtonal
copmd
Techmcal
to cmpy IS restricted
be
and by whom
I.c
[mewed
author(s)
Dowell
at the tS96
U S A
m an abstract
of the Seaety
acknoiwedgment
Colorado,
not been
by the
Eng,n=m
for pr~ntat!on
selectee
contained
have
meetfngs
Petroleum
words
of p~roleum
pfepamd
held m Oenver,
This papw
presented
~feb
V.G. Constien,
contan
L!braoan
than
303
conspncuo.s
SPE,
P O
?ax 01-216S52-9435
Abstract
Damage
Mechanisms
Introduction
849
SPE 3649S
temperatures.
At all temperatures, the curves show a steep
drop in retained permeability for only small amounts of
To obtain a
polymer king
retained in the pack.
mathematical interpolation, all curves were tlted with an
exponential function (Equation 1) and Lhc coefficients are
summarized in Table 3.
K ~ ~*e
8*IV,
(1)
(pm)
= (:)-
;;:
:;2
(2)
~
&
(3)
*f)-
P,
(4)
v
Correlation
mass (WP)
of Retained Permeability
(K/K)
with Polymer
=(A4
Since it is dit%eult
solution between WP and
instead,
With known
cxpcrimcntal conditions.
850
*/w)
(5)
SPE364S5
respectively,
Another way to understand the meaning of
these values is to take their reelproeal (22.2. 32.3 and 35.7
cm /g rcspccti~cly). which is the volume cffccti~cly lost for 1
gmm of @ymcr rcmainmg in the proppant pack.
This
cx~lains why very small amounts of pdymcr remaining in the
sand pack great Iy impact retained permeability in Figure 1.
In terms of common oilticld units. one pound of polymer
remaining in the fracture in a 250F well could effectively
bicrek ().80 ft of Porosity in the proppant pack. (This equates
to approximately 2.5 ft ] of actual fracture volume in a typical
proppant pack with around 30% porosny. ) In lcrms of actual
fracture treatments. the mass of polymer remaining in the
ttacturc kmcomes cWemcly cnttcal In detcrrmmng
the
efkcli!e fracture area a~ailable for production
It should be noted that the cffec[ive density values are
esomauons based on the cxpcrrmental data set and do not
consider all possible \anablcs in fractures. In fact, previous
smdics b! Cook( suggested that IM can be strongly affected
by factors such as closure stress in the fracurrc and initial
@rosit> of proppant pack in addition to the temperature of
the WCII.
[n low permeability} gas wells. fracture conductil ity
seldom
limits
production
rote: howe~-cr, cumulatitc
production has been shown to have an almost linear
dependence on fracture length. The issue for maximizing well
production ati.er a fracturing treatment in low Permeability
gas wells IS then to remove as much of the polymer from the
well as possible In order 10 create the longest possible
eff&live fracture length. For several years now. the indr.rst~
has been focusing on developing fracturing fluds and
These
which
improve
fracture
cleanup,
additives
improvements inciudc a wide vancty of oxidizers and enzyme
breakers in both delayed and non delayed ~ersions.
Also.
fracturing fluids have been formulated using borate and
organometallic
cross] inkers,
low
polymer
special
concentration fluds and f.mlymer dispersant additives. Field
studies have been conducted to determine the effects of these
improvements on well productivity. These studies are difficult
to conduct and evaluate because it is usually difficult to find
close matches of formation properties and treatment designs
to be able to clearly diiYerentiate the effects of chemical
addl(i}cs In fluid Syslcms, .~ polymer mass baiance approdch
appears to be a possible approach to make evaluations of
treatments wilh data from only a single well.
w
Pcy = ;
(6)
The effective density is essentially the slope of the lines in
Figure 3. This term can be visualized as ~hc mass of polymer
required to block off a given amount of pore volume 10 flow.
The cffcctivc density, pcff, is plotted against the retained
porosity in Figure 4. Again. values of constant cffectivc
density arc obsmcd except for cxtrcmcly damaged packs.
This increw
in cffectivc density for cxtrcmcly damaged
packs is to h cxpeclcd and can lx explained as follows For
a given temperature. assume that some si~e distribution of
polymer aggregates exists. It is reasonable that the polymer
particle size distribution overlaps that of the pore throal size
distribution in the pack: thcrcforc. some of the polymer
oggregatcs will block some of the pore throats while others
will pass through
The number of pore throats blocked (i.e.
blocked
pore volume)
\vill determine
the retained
permeability.
For a lightly damaged pack it may be wsualized that only
pore throats are blocked by the polymer aggregates with the
pore \olumc essentially vod 0[ poly mcr as sho~ n In ihc top
schematic of Figure 5. This situation would result m a low
et%ctivc density s:ncc only a small amount of polymer is
required to block a Iargc amount of pore volume to flow.
This c~cctivc density \ aluc should remain relatively constant
until a situation occurs such that a large proportion of the
pore throats are bloekcd.
Once a Iargc proportion of the pore throats arc blocked
(i .c. a scvcrel} damaged pack). i( may b ~isualiz.cd that
during the course of flow. polymer aggregates
nra~
accumulate behind the pore throat m the pore space Itself m
shown in the bottom schematic of Figure 5. This situation
will lead to an incrcasc in effective density since more
polymer will bc associated \vith the ~olumc blocked 10 flo~v.
As \vas showm in Figure 4, the effective density was
approximately constant over most of the range of retained
permcabilitics, therefore, it would be reasonable IO estimate
the effectlvc density- by a constant. The average values of pcm
obtained from a linear regression of the cumcs in Figure -1arc
().045, ().t)31. and ().()28 g/cm at 200. 250 and 2752F
Prediction
Treatments
851
SPE 364S5
3.
Conclusions
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
Nomenclature
Wp = amount of polymer retained in the
proppant pack. g
K = proppant pack permeability before pmosity
blockage, md
K = proppant pack permeability atler porosity
blockage. md
E = initial porosity
s = final prosity
V = original undamaged pore volume of the pack.
cm3
V = pore volume blocked by polymer residue.
cm3
1. = proppant pack width after closure, cm
AA = the fracture area. cmz
VP = vohimc of proppant placed in the cell, cm3
peff = effective density. g/cm3
852
SPE Wt9S
Subscripts
p = proppant
wv = width
.1 = area
efl = effective
Acknowledgments
Sample Volumes:
Sampling
References
Appendix
r.\tlLlt 1Ik?191
!!wc@
TEST
CWND[Cf[\TTY
dc+
~z
Closure
.\\g
Initial
(Ihn)
(psi)
Pore V(>I , v
(cm)
es
(F)
PARA\lttTERS
AVc rnltlal
B!!z@YJ
201)
Carholite
2040
20
45(?O
I 2.45
035
25(1
Carholile
2040
20
6000
11.23
().33
275
lnterprq
2040
20
5000
1I 80
().37
Procedure
I!z!Q
Sampling Frequency:
853
(F)
200
29
() 151
() 160
275
34
(),()66
().()73
275
1s
[1 167
0.182
From
Suhtradi,m
From Chvim~ic
(g)
,tia[vsis
SPE 3649S
Constin
Constant A
200
250
275
91.1
83.3
1073
Exponent
-8.7
-12.9
-19.4
TABLE 4.
~F)
220
220
220
220
270
250
230
sand
ceramic
(lb)
(lb)
394500
50040
301060
50780
545900
0
263000
42000
0 328200
0 425000
0 265000
VP (sand)
(R)
VP(ceramic)
(I+)
2388
1822
3304
1592
0
0
0
Polymer
Polymer
Pumped
Returned
(ff)
(lb)
303 748
307 609
0 826
254 525
1987 993
2573 1286
1604 802
WP
(lb)
(rt)
2768
2489
3351
1984
11192
11227
6585
WJV
VPJ
3792
3275
4352
2875
12435
16039
10130
27%
24%
23%
31%
10%
30%
35%
Ave. =
26?4.
6.26 4.68
2750
7374
2787
4527
3731
16974
58?4. 1155
601
26%
5457 3138
62%
1059
609
33%
3033 1820
62%
1418
936
25% 12731 10146
1.70
2.99
1.78
3.40
1.85
9.39
GW-I
GW-2
AW
F-1
F-2
Cv
0
0
0
3571
3072
0
1362
681
3652
1826
1189
595
893
0 768
2712 1356
Ave. =
44%
3.52 2.39
==i
:Note
- italicized
ceramic
values
are calculated
based
on similar
treatment
854
schedules
- no field numbers
0.88
1.72
1.02
2.04
1.22
7.48
available,
SPE =
i .i
.3;;;.+
0
0.06
0.1
Pap
4.15
0,2
n06dlNd
~oo
0.25
0,s
In UN P6ck
1,,
,,!
(b) 260F
0.O6
0.1
~
too
0:16
0,2
-hd
I
,
0.2S
h
On
so.
}\
0.3
Pock
[c)
Kn(
0.3S
w,
(g)
200
l-.;.
01,1
0.4
w, (0)
O,*6
0,4
47T.+
,
xtid.6t
W,]
,oi\
2j&,~
o
0.06
0.1
otymac
0.15
nudlwd
0.2
h
0.2s
0.3
Uw POek, w,
0.3s
0.4
(g)
SPE 38#5
o.a.
J
0.4-
POrr*= Wpvi v
o.2 -
(*)
0.2
1 - CIt,
0.6
0.4
0.6
Wp,
0
1
Fr~cllorrnlraductlonIII porosity
High .fladvo
Fig. 2 - Fractional
in porosity versus
permeability for three
(i.e. 20 to 40A initiai
reduction
~-
O,as
[&m*.F,
T T,
250
*,
200F
.A
Pcrb =
?)!gy
r~-~-+~
\m
0.26
w) L
*.
0.$0
and pm
};
-1..
0.0
2.0
0.00
r,
Pam
1
*.O
voluma
Fig. 3 - Relationship
different temperatures.
10.0
6.0
by
between
rwtmtrwd mlrmw
(emq
40,
three
0,06
1.* ..
***
9
*
*.
51
*.+*.*
..
AA
0+
O.oa
k *
--
0.2
1.e/4
0.4
Fmotlorrd
0.6
mouctlon
0.8
7-
No breaker
0.00 I
0.0
-1
---
0.08
0.04
ieveis of
12.0
V and WP at
**
for different
6.0
mouplod
> p~a
wp,,2,p
WPl+wp,+w,w ;
Smakrir .3111y
SreakeriPADA
J
1.0
la porodty
856