SPE-180083-MS

Optimization of Post-Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Cleanup Utilizing

Polymer Content Determination in Flowback Liquid Samples
Ammar H. Al-Ali, Hamoud A. Al-Anazi, and Azly Abdul Aziz, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec featured at 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria, 30 May – 2 June 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Cross-linked gel hydraulic fracturing fluid can induce high damage in the fracture when left for a long
period of time. Any residual gel not produced back reduces the conductivity of the fracture and the well
productivity, leading to an extended flowback for cleanup operation, which is not cost-effective.
The objective of this study is to assess cleanup operation effectiveness by conducting laboratory testing
on the flowback fluid samples from hydraulically fractured wells. These development wells are located
in a clastic gas field in Saudi Arabia. This Devonian age reservoir has a range of permeability varying tight
rocks of 0.1 md that require stimulation to highly prolific rocks with more than a Darcy that produce
naturally. The laboratory analysis technique that was used for assessing the cleanup effectiveness is based
on determination of the polymer content in the flowback fracturing fluid with a size exclusion chroma-
tography (SEC). This laboratory technique provides the polymer concentration in the return fluid in a
series of samples collected throughout the cleanup operation, and based on its results coupled with the
production performance, the polymer strength of the residual fracturing fluids can be inferred. This study
shows that the SEC technique is effective in qualitatively determining the polymer concentration trend
with the flowback time, to assess the residual polymer content. The results are useful in establishing trends
for the effective flowback practices based on different reservoir and fracture characteristics, even if
fracturing fluids contain breaking agents. Using the laboratory results to optimize these parameters,
formation damage can be minimized and well productivity will be ultimately enhanced.
This paper summarizes results from the chemical analyses of the flowback fluids from three gas wells
that help establish the basis for the flowback cleanup behavior, matched with the reservoir characteristics,
fracturing design, fracturing fluid formulations; and concludes with operational recommendations. This
study was conducted for the first time in this field with the goal of optimizing flowback duration and cost,
and minimizing formation damage; and thereby enhancing well productivity.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing has been used successfully during the past two decades to exploit clastic gas-
condensate reservoirs in Saudi Arabian gas fields (Rahim et al. 2013). Although there are different
completion strategies adopted in these gas fields, the most common approach is to drill vertical wells
completed with monobore tubular assemblies to be hydraulically fractured in a single or multiple stages.
2 SPE-180083-MS

This strategy has proven to be the most successful in enhancing well performance and controlling the sand
production (Al-Ali et al. 2015).
Hydraulic fracturing treatments have been introduced since the 1940s as the main stimulation technique
to enhance productivity of oil and gas wells, especially in low permeability formations (Clark 1949; Farris
1953; Howard and Fast 1970). Proper selection of hydraulic fracturing fluids is considered one of the main
success factors of the stimulation treatment. The main feature of an optimum fracturing fluid formulation
is to generate sufficient rheological properties to allow efficient fracture initiation, propagation, and
packing the induced fracture with proppant at the end of a treatment. Subsequently, the fracturing fluid
must degrade to a very low viscosity to allow flowback and fracture cleanup (Rae and Di Lullo 1996; Lu
et al. 1999). Any unbroken gel residue remained inside the fracture may cause damage resulting from
chemical interactions with time (Almond and Bland 1984; Gulbis et al. 1992). Over the past years,
hydraulic fracturing in Saudi gas fields underwent significant improvements with regard to job design and
execution, fracturing fluid recipes, proppant type and strength, number of fracturing stages, and treatment
volume optimization that resulted in enhanced productivity (Al-Ali et al. 2015; Rahim et al. 2013).
The most common fracturing fluids used in the industry are water-based fluids. These types of
fracturing fluids consist mainly of thickening agent, cross-linker, and a breaker in addition to other
essential additives. The thickening agents comprise of different polymer types, and the cross-linker is
added to react with this polymer to create complex bonds that significantly increase the viscosity of the
fracturing fluid. Delayed breakers are added to degrade the cross-linked polymer into smaller oligomers,
and therefore the viscosity of the fluid is considerably reduced (Nickerson 1971; Kramer et al. 1988;
Brannon and Ault 1991; Dawson 1991; Wang et al. 2002). The most common, effective, and low cost
polymer systems used as thickening agent are guar gums that have two main derivatives: hydroxypropyl
guar (HPG) and carboxymethyl-hydroxypropyl guar (CMHPG) (Nickerson, 1971; Kramer et al. 1988). To
ensure that the fracturing fluid is effective in carrying the proppant and initiating the fracture, the viscosity
of the fluids has to be significantly increased to allow the use of low polymer concentration of guar gum
derivatives. Cross-linkers are used in low polymer fluids to increase fluid viscosity. The two main types
of cross-linkers are organometallic materials such as titanium and zirconium based compounds and
monoborate ions. The organometallic materials are shear degradable, and can withstand high temperatures
while the monoborate materials are temperature degradable and shear resistant. The combination of these
two cross-linkers in a ⬙dual cross-linker⬙ fluids system is a common and effective technique to withhold
fluid properties throughout the treatment. (Nickerson 1971; Kramer et al. 1988; Powell et al. 1991; Wang
et al. 2002).
Another important success criterion of the optimum hydraulic fracturing fluid selection is the breaking
agent effectiveness in achieving proper fracture cleanup. There are three main types of most widely used
breakers: oxidizers, acids, and enzymes. Many factors can affect the performance of the breaking agents,
such as the type of breaker and loading, temperature, time, polymer content, and liquid or solid state of
the breaking agent (Almond and Bland 1984; Gulbis et al. 1992; Brannon and Tjon-Joe-Pin 1994;
Reinicke et al. 2012).
Flowback analysis is an effective means of assessing and quantify the fracture cleanup process. It is a
systematic approach of analyzing fluid for polymer returns after a fracture treatment. The polymer return
concentrations are determined as a function of time or flowback volume. Flowback analysis will establish
a trend of cleanup efficiency among wells based on different factors such as reservoir quality, fracture
design, flowback procedures, and breaking agents (Pope et al. 1995; Yang et al. 1997; Wellberg et al.
1998; Ghahri et al. 2011).
This paper provides a thorough post-fracturing flowback chemical analysis from three gas wells with
different reservoir characteristics in one of the Saudi Arabian gas fields. The objective is to realize and
deduce optimum cleanup criteria under different conditions. It is based on experimental work utilizing the
gel permeation chromatography (GPC) technique to analyze multiple flowback samples that were
SPE-180083-MS 3

collected at various time from three gas wells. The analytical results are supplemented by pressure
transient analysis conducted to understand reservoir characteristics and well performance in this field. The
paper concludes with some practical design and operational conclusions and recommendations to be
applied to optimize flowback operation and cost, minimize formation damage, and enhance well
productivity.
Reservoir Characterization
The clastic reservoir in this study is Devonian age sandstones. The formation is shallow marine sands
deposited over a broad shelf and consists of wide ranges of very fine to very coarse grains with
laminations. These sand layers can be classified into three types based on their depositional fabrics:
1. Muddy sandstone of packstone fabric is the most prolific reservoir based on an open hole logging
and core description supported by the production performance. These sandstones display variable
permeability and porosity with extensive microporosity in the detrital matrix due to recrystalli-
zation.
2. Sandy mudstones (wackestone fabric) are not a target layer because of their low porosity and
permeability, but they act as a good vertical fluid migration barrier.
3. Matrix-free sandstones (grainstone fabric) of marine deposition are more uniform and laterally
continuous, have less clay content, but tend to be very well cemented with either quartz or illite
cement. These sandstones exhibit higher reservoir pressures with lower porosity and permeability
due to cementation.
These three different classes can exist partially or together in different areas of the field (Al-Qahtani
et al. 2002). The unconsolidated sections exhibit excellent flow capacity. Seismic interpretation indicates
a high degree of faulting in the formation, differences in fluids type and contacts, and compartmental-
ization (Rahim and Bartko 2005).
Well-A is a vertical well drilled in the flank close to the gas-water contact of the clastic reservoir in
Field-A. The open-hole logs of Well-A, Figure 1, indicates both gas and water fluid columns. The plan
was to perforate 30 feet of the gas-bearing zone and produce the well without stimulation. Due to the tight
nature of the reservoir the well did not flow, and consequently was hydraulically fractured taking into
consideration of contained fracture growth and avoid the nearby water zone.

Figure 1—Open hole log section of well-A showing GWC

4 SPE-180083-MS

Well-B is a vertical well drilled close to but updip of Well-A. The open hole logs of Well-B, Figure
2, exhibited poor reservoir development with a very thin reservoir layer relative to the average field
quality. The thin reservoir is due to its proximity to reservoir truncation close to the field boundary.

Figure 2—Open hole log section of well-B showing poor reservoir development

Well-C is a vertical well drilled in the same Field-A and the open hole logs results showed a good
reservoir development with a thick gas bearing interval, as shown in Figure 3. After perforating the zone,
the well flowed gas naturally, but the rate was intermittent and therefore it was hydraulically fractured for
improved and sustained productivity.

Figure 3—Well-C Open hole log showing good reservoir

Treatment Designs
Hydraulic fracturing treatments for the three wells were pumped by placing more than 100,000 lb of
proppant into the formation for each case with an average of 100,000 gal of fracturing fluid starting with
SPE-180083-MS 5

a polymer loading of 45 lb/1,000 gal containing CMHPG polymer with a dual cross-linker and subse-
quently switching to 40 lb/1,000 gal and then to 35 lb/1,000 gal in the last stage. The cool down effect
allowed reducing the polymer loading with time. Table 1 gives a summary of the hydraulic fracturing
treatments for the three wells.

Table 1—Summary of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments Designs of Well-A, B, and C

Proppant Mass Fluid Volume Maximum Polymer Loading
Well (lb) (gal) (lb/ 1,000 gal)

Well-A 270,000 120,000 45

Well-B 180,000 100,000 45
Well-C 100,000 80,000 45

For Well-C, the hydraulic fracturing treatment was performed by placing only half of the design
volume of about 100,000 lb of proppant into the formation with about 80,000 gal of fracturing fluid. The
pumping was prematurely terminated due to equipment failure.
Experimental Procedure and Results
Flowback Fluid Sampling
Post-stimulation flowback liquid samples were collected from all wells at regular intervals during the
flowback period. Polymer content in each sample was determined using the GPC and geochemical
analyses were performed to measure TDS and other key ions. The flowback operations for Well-A,
Well-B, and Well-C lasted for three weeks, five days, and one week, respectively.
Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)
The aqueous GPC method was developed and applied to determine the concentration of the polymer in
the flowback fluid samples from the three wells. Each sample was found to have two phases: hydrocarbon
and aqueous. Assuming that the polymer is only present in the water phase as the polymer is a water-based
polymer, about 1 gram sample was collected from the aqueous phase of each flowback fluid sample. The
aqueous sample was further diluted with 3 mL water and filtered through a 0.45 ␮m hydrophilic syringe
filter. A standard solution was prepared by weighing about 50 mg of the raw fracturing fluid used in the
treatment in 5 mL water. Then, the samples and standard solution were directly injected to the Agilent
1260 series GPC system. All the GPC separations were carried out on a PL Aquagel-OH 30 (7.5 ⫻ 300
mm, 8 ␮m) column. The mobile phase was 0.05 M NaNO3. The flowrate throughout the separation was
maintained at 0.8 mL/min and the injected volume was 50 ␮L. The column oven temperature was
maintained at 30 °C and the analysis time was 15 minute. The GPC system consisted of a binary pump,
a degasser, an autosampler and a refractive index detector.
Laboratory Analysis Results The goal was to quantify the polymer content in the flowback fluid
samples to evaluate the effectiveness of the fracture cleanup process. An analytical GPC method was
adopted. The technique separates the polymers based on their molecular size in solution. At the beginning,
it was vital to select the column with the right pore size for the successful separation and hence for the
determination of the polymer molar mass distribution. A column with a small pore size was selected to
eliminate the coelution of chemicals with smaller molecular sizes so that the polymer of interest can elute
in the excluded volume. This helps determine the low concentration of polymer in the samples. It was
observed from the obtained GPC that the polymer in the raw fracturing fluid formulation elutes at around
6 minutes without any interference from other molecules whereas there was no corresponding peak for the
polymer at the same elution time in the flowback fluid samples, Figure 4. There were other peaks at about
9.5, 10.5 and 11.5 minutes, as illustrated in Figure 5.
6 SPE-180083-MS

Figure 4 —Overlaid chromatograms of water, fracturing fluid standard and a flowback sample.

Figure 5—Overlaid chromatograms of water, fracturing fluid standard and a flowback sample.

The typical water-based fracturing fluid mainly contains a thickening agent (guar gum or modified guar
gum), cross-linker, and a breaker. By the reaction of the thickening agent with the cross-linker, the
viscosity of the fracturing fluids increases. Breakers of different types such as acids or enzymes or
oxidizers are used to reduce the viscosity of the fracturing fluid by cleaving the thickening agent
molecules into smaller fragments (Almond and Bland 1984; Gulbis et al. 1992; Brannon and Tjon-Joe-Pin
1994; Reinicke et al. 2012). The most widely common breakers are oxidizers, as used in the three wells
in this study. At relatively high temperature, oxidizers produce highly reactive radicals that reduce the
polymer molecular weight and viscosity.
It is expected that the polymer will not remain intact in the flowback fluid samples as corroborated from
the laboratory analysis thereby ruling out the possibility of quantifying the polymer content in the
flowback fluid samples. To qualitatively monitor the polymer content trend in flowback fluid, two peaks
at 9.5 (Peak 1) and 10.5 minutes (Peak 2) corresponding to the degraded polymer were considered,
SPE-180083-MS 7

assuming that the broken polymer and/or oligomers elute at 9.5 minutes and the other smaller molecules
elute at 10.5 minutes, Figure 4. Earlier, Al-Anazi et al. (1996, 1998) developed an analytical technique to
determine the polymer degradation during the flowback. In another study conducted on the same
fracturing fluids used in this experiment, has shown that during the breaker treatment, the degradation of
polymer increases with time. This shows that the breaker used in fracturing fluid was effective in breaking
the polymer of the raw samples as per the laboratory test (Almubarak et al. 2015). This needed to be
confirmed with field fracturing fluid samples. The decrease in Peak 1 height can be due to a decrease in
the content of the sheared polymer or the sheared polymer has further sheared and thereby eluting as Peak
2. Since each sample involves various molecules and various degrees of breaker treatments, it is a
challenge to accurately quantify the polymer content. Instead, Peak 1/Peak 2 height ratio was proposed to
monitor the relative concentration of the sheared polymer with respect to the well cleaning time.
Results Discussion
Qualitative Assessment of Polymer Strength
It has been observed that the ratio gradually decreases with respect to time, indicating gradual decrease
in polymer content and/or increase in further shearing of sheared polymer for Well-A and Well-B, Figures
6A and 6B. The time window for the collection of the flowback fluid samples for Well-B may be too small
to determine the condition of the sheared polymer in the well.

Figure 6A—Ratio between peak 1 and peak 2 heights for Well-A

Figure 6B—Ratio between peak 1 and peak 2 heights for Well-B

8 SPE-180083-MS

In the case of Well-C, there was an increase in the relative concentration of the polymer in the middle
of the time window, Figure 6C. It is assumed that the maximum amount of sheared polymer produced
back from Well-C with the flowback fluid by the middle of the flowback time window.

Figure 6C—Ratio between peak 1 and peak 2 heights for Well-C

From a direct observation of the GPC profiles, it can be assumed that the breakthrough time where the
maximum amount of the polymer backflow from Well-C was reached after 4 days whereas for Well-A,
the removal of polymer with flowback fluid from the well was very slow even after two weeks. For
Well-B, the breakthrough was not conclusive. From the 5th day of sampling period, it can be concluded
that the removal of the polymer from this well with the flowback fluid was also slow similar to Well-A.
Factors Affecting Cleanup Performance
Based on the experimental results and the observed production performance, the efficiency of the cleanup
was not the same in the three wells. Well-C showed much better results compared to the other two wells
in terms of both cleanup and production performance – the more effective the hydraulic fracture cleanup
is, the more productive the well can be.
Further to the flowback fluids analyses, an investigation of the factors that affect the cleanup
performance was performed with the aid of PBU and a recently published laboratory work on the
fracturing fluids used in the three treatments here (Almubarak et al. 2015). It is found that the main factor
greatly affecting fracture cleanup effectiveness is reservoir properties. Tight reservoirs with very low
permeability can have considerably high capillary forces requiring enough viscous forces across the
fracture face to displace the entrapped fracturing fluids (Holditch 1979). Also, formation water production
can hinder the fracture cleanup operation considerably due to viscous fingering; this will weaken the
effects of other factors in enhancing the cleanup (Willberg et al. 1997; Mahadevan and Sharma 2003).
Analyzing the PBU data of the three wells or their offsets, the effect of reservoir characteristics on the
flowback analyses results can be deduced and presented below.
Well-A
Analysis of the PBU test showed no fracture signature of either linear or bilinear flow and the pressure
response was matched with skin of ⫹20, and 0.8 md permeability indicated that the well is located in a
tight area. Geochemical analysis of collected flowback liquid samples confirmed formation water
production. Figure 7 shows the log-log response of the PBU of Well-A, and Table 2 shows matching
parameters of the model for all wells.
SPE-180083-MS 9

Figure 7—Pressure and its derivative plot of Well-A PBU.

Table 2—Summary of PBU analysis interpretation parameters of Well-A, B, and C

Permeability,
Well Stimulation Status Model k (md) Skin

Well-A Fractured Vertical well – No Fracture 0.8 ⫹20.0

Well-B* Fractured Fractured well (Finite Conductivity) 0.1 -4.5
Well-C* Not Fractured Vertical well – No Fracture 1.7 ⫹5.0

In general, the post-fracture PBU analyses for wells in the cleanup stage can be a very difficult task
for proper interpretation due to impairment of cleanup fluid, even if there is only a single-phase flow. It
becomes more complex in the presence of water, oil, and gas that may require three-phase flow model.
It is always recommended to perform the PBU analysis on wells which are planned to be stimulated prior
to the stimulation to assess the formation properties (Lee and Holditch 1981; Holditch 1979; Soliman and
Hunt 1985). This was not possible in this case, since the well did not flow after perforation. In the case
of Well-A, there was formation water production that would complicate the analysis even further. The
most probable source of this formation water is the water zone below the gas. One clear indication of
damage around the fracture is a pronounced wellbore storage that ends late and can mask any fracture flow
behavior (Montgomery et al. 1990). This wellbore storage behavior is obvious in Well-A. The behavior
of the pressure response as if there is a boundary effect is not reliable since there was insufficient flow
period before the test of only two weeks.
The formation water production as stated above can hinder residual gel recovery and so lowering the
cleanup efficiency and ultimately well productivity. Willberg et al. (1997, 1998) showed that formation
water production can limit the effective polymer recovery during cleanup. In their study, they compared
the laboratory testing results on recovered flowback samples for 10 wells producing formation water in
one of East Texas fields to neighboring fields with no formation water production issues. As formation
water breakthrough starts, channels can create and viscous fingering by the low viscosity water in the
proppant pack could cause bypassing a large fraction of the residual polymer in the fracture (Pope et al.
1994; Willberg et al. 1997). In Well-A, this behavior can be seen clearly since even after two weeks of
cleanup, the water kept flowing with no clear decrease in the polymer content. One further step to this
outcome presented in this paper is the PBU analysis interpretation that proved ineffective cleanup and
high skin near the wellbore.
Well-B
No PBU test was conducted on the well since the gas rate was very minimal. One of the offset wells,
Well-B*, that has better reservoir thickness (about 10 folds more) was used in this analysis to get an
estimate of the reservoir permeability in the area.
10 SPE-180083-MS

Analysis of the PBU test conducted on Well-B* after one year of production showed bilinear flow
fracture signature and the pressure response was matched with a reservoir permeability of 0.1 md, total
skin of -4.5, and conductivity of 200 md-ft, Figure 8 and Table 2. Without any PBU test on Well-B, it is
not possible to observe the inefficient fracture cleanup. The tight nature of the reservoir can be inferred
from Well-B* PBU results, and the even poorer flow capacity of Well-B due to a thinner layer. The slow
fracture cleanup was due to the well’s low potential that could not provide enough energy to lift the liquids
out of the wellbore.

Figure 8 —Pressure and its derivative plot of Well-B* PBU.

Well-C
This well showed much better reservoir development compared to the previous wells, as was reflected in
the production performance and the cleanup efficiency of the well. Although Well-C was not hydraulically
fractured successfully as per design because of the premature screen-out, it turned out to be a commercial
producer.
Well-C*, an offset to Well-C with similar reservoir quality was used in this analysis to get an estimate
of the reservoir permeability although due to the proximity to water, Well-C* was not hydraulically
fractured.
In summary, it can be concluded that for tight wells, an effective cleanup is difficult but can be
achieved as in the case of Well-B*. The formation water production can hinder the fracture cleanup and
introduce high near wellbore damage as seen in Well-A that has a relatively better quality reservoir
compared to Well-B*, but inefficient cleanup. If the formation does not have potential to flow commercial
gas rates due to limited reservoir thickness, Well-B, the cleanup will not be effective. The damage near
the wellbore due to drill-in fluids if the well is not stimulated may be much less than the one introduced
by the ineffective fracture cleanup as deduced by comparing skin factors of Well-C* to Well-A.
Another critical factor that has major effects on fracture cleanup is related to fracture characteristics.
For tight reservoirs, a long hydraulic fracture is needed to achieve the most efficient stimulation. The
design for such long hydraulic fractures requires pumping large amount of fracturing fluids and total job
volumes (Holditch 1979). According to Montgomery (1990), high conductivity fracture will provide
better cleanup of fracturing fluids. It is recommended to properly design the fracture treatments to account
for the sufficient conductivity required to effectively cleanup the fracture. A common helpful design
practice is the use of the dimensionless fracture conductivity number (FCD) relating fracture properties to
reservoir properties represented in the following equation:
SPE-180083-MS 11

For optimum design purposes, FCD > 10 is recommended to obtain sufficient fracture conductivity
taking into account non-Darcy flow effects and closure pressure effects (Robinson et al. 1986). Soliman
and Hunt (1985) observed that a cutoff of FCD > 12.7 is better to obtain fracture conductivity high enough
to effectively recover back fracture fluids.
In the case of the three wells, Well-A and Well-B were treated with large fracture fluid volumes, to
attain longer fracture half-length. Well-C treatment was not designed to be as large, since the well is
located in a better reservoir area. Table-3 shows a summary of the comparison between simulated fracture
characteristics of the three wells based on the post-job reports and FCD.

Table 3—Summary of Hydraulic Fracturing End-of-Job Estimation of Fracture Properties for Well-A, B, and C.
Fracture Conductivity Fracture Half-Length Formation Permeability
Well (md.ft) (ft) (md) FCD

Well-A 1,700 430 0.8 5

Well-B 1,100 500 0.8 4.5
Well-C 3,800 230 2 8.5

Based on the calculated FCD values, it is clear that as the fracture conductivity increases and the
fracture half-length is shortened, the fracture cleanup will be easier as experienced in Well-C. For tight
reservoirs, it may be necessary to create long fractures to achieve better reservoir contact, but this has to
be with the understanding that the fracture cleanup will be difficult and must require other measures to
improve it.
Another important factor to optimize fracture cleanup is the flowback operation procedure. There have
been number of studies in the literature on how flowback procedures could be optimized to improve
cleanup efficiency for fractured wells. They all showed that aggressive flowback procedures significantly
improved fracture cleanup, and also the use of the ⬙forced closure⬙ practice was considered to be helpful.
(Anderson et al. 1996; Willberg et al. 1998; Frederick et al. 1994). In Willberg’s work, the fracture
cleanup of the wells producing formation water was not improved by the aggressive flowback procedures.
In the studied cases, the ⬙forced closure⬙ practice was not conducted after the fracture treatment. The
flowback operation was quite conservative rather than aggressive to avoid sand/proppant flowback.
The final factor that has major impact on the effectiveness of the fracture cleanup is related to the
effectiveness of the breaking agent (Cooke 1975; Voneiff et al. 1996; Rae and Di Lullo 1996). As there
are different types of breakers, oxidizers (persulfate or bromate), acids, and enzymes, used in hydraulic
fracturing treatments, it would be prudent to test the effectiveness of each type. This effort has been made
and published in a recent experimental study on samples of the raw fracturing fluids used for the three
wells in this study. Almubarak et al. (2015) proved that the effectiveness of the enzymes as breaking
agents surpassed the other types.
Enzymes take longer time to react and start breaking the polymer compounds, and are temperature and
pH sensitive. Figure 9 shows the peak molecular weights for the fracturing fluids with different breakers
over time showing the minimum polymer content when using enzymes as breakers.
12 SPE-180083-MS

Figure 9 —Peak molecular weights for the fracturing fluid standard with different breakers over time (After Almubarak et al. 2015)

The use of enzymes as breaking agents for fracturing treatments is preferred over the oxidizers as they
are polymer specific, safer for the environment and the equipment, and are not consumed at the end of the
process since they work as catalysts (Tjon-Joe-Pin 1993; Peterson et al. 2007; Armstrong et al. 2010).
Conclusions and Recommendations
The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the cleanup operation of hydraulically fractured
gas wells in a Saudi clastic gas field by conducting laboratory tests on the flowback fluid. The analytical
technique used for assessing the cleanup effectiveness is based on the determination of the polymer
relative concentration in the flowback fluid with SEC. The polymer strength of the residual fracturing
fluids can be inferred from the polymer concentration in the flowback fluid in a series of samples that were
collected at different interval over the flowback period. The following conclusions can be inferred from
the test results:
1. Well-A and Well-B fracturing treatments were not as successful as that of Well-C in terms of the
fracture cleanup efficiency. One reason could be related to the fracture design that involved
pumping large volumes of fracturing fluids aimed for a long fracture The other reason is due to
the production of the formation water in case of Well-A. Those two wells are also drilled in a
tighter area compared to Well-C making the fracturing fluid flowback more difficult.
2. The ineffective polymer recovery in Well-A caused damage in both fracture face and proppant
conductivity.
3. Liquid and gas measurements during flowback operations are essential to determine polymer
content and residual polymer left in the fracture thereby making it easy to assess production
performance and well behavior and recommend if any remedial action should be taken if gel is left
behind.
Some practical insights and operational recommendations can be deduced from this study.
1. Use knockout tanks or test separators to measure gas and liquid cleanup volumes, especially for
wells with formation water production to quantify accurately the polymer content recovery.
2. Formation water production does not allow efficient fracture fluid cleanup; breakthrough of
formation water dominates the flowback and polymer recovery will be minimum. Flowback period
in such cases has to be optimized since the well will clean itself up with time once start producing.
3. Conduct a statistical analysis of the time needed for reaching an acceptable polymer concentration
for the remaining wells in the field to determine optimum flowback time.
4. Post-stimulation PBU analysis can be very complicated due to presence of frac fluid and gel so
should be coupled with a pre-stimulation PBU if possible to compute reservoir properties and use
SPE-180083-MS 13

those results in analyzing post-stimulation results.

5. Post-frac cleanup becomes more challenging with large pumped fluid volumes. Pumping to attain
long fractures in tight areas comes at the cost of slow fracture cleanup.
6. Aggressive flowback operations and forced closure technique can improve fracture cleanup. This
procedure should be adopted while taking sand/proppant production measures as well as avoiding
any crushing or embedment of the proppant pack.
7. Use of enzymes as breakers can improve polymer recovery.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Thunayyan A. Al-Qunaysi, Research & Development Center, Saudi
Aramco for the sample preparation and running gel permeation chromatograph, as well as Saroj K. Panda
and Adnan Al-Hajji, Research & Development Center, Saudi Aramco for their major contribution in the
analytical work. Special thanks goes to Dr. Zillur Rahim for his final useful technical advices and
guidance.

References
1. Al-Ali, A. H., Al-Anazi, H. A., Abdul Aziz, A. A. 2015. ⬙Successful Exploitation of Heterogeneous Unconsolidated
Clastic Gas Reservoirs in Saudi Arabia: Case Histories,⬙ Paper presented at The 2015 SPE Middle East Oil & Gas
Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, March 8-11. SPE-172617.
2. Al-Ali, A. H. and Islam, A. 2015. ⬙Step Change in Hydraulic Fracturing Methodology by Analyzing Clastic Gas
Reservoir Field Experience to Achieve Production Enhancement,⬙ Paper presented at The 2015 SPE Saudi Arabia
Section ATS&E held in al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, April 21-23. SPE-178014.
3. Al-Anazi, H. A., Nasr-El-Din, H. A., and Bitar, G. E. 1996. ⬙Stability of Diverting Gels Used during Well
Stimulation,⬙ Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Chemistry in Industry, ACS, Manama, Bahrain,
November 18-20.
4. Al-Anazi, H. A. and Nasr-El-Din, H. A. 1998. ⬙Optimization of Borate-Based Gels Used for Wellbore Diversion
during Well Stimulation-Case Studies,⬙ Paper presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 19-22. SPE-39699.
5. Almond, S. W. and Bland, W. E. 1984. ⬙Effect of Break Mechanisms on Gelling Agent Residue and Flow Impairment
in 20/40 Mesh Sand,⬙ Paper presented at the Formation Damage Symposium held in Bakersfield, CA, February 13-14.
SPE-12485.
6. Almubarak, T. A., Alkhaldi, M. H., Panda, S. K. et al. 2015. ⬙Insights on Potential Formation Damage Mechanisms
Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing,⬙ Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held
at Doha, Qatar, December 6-9. IPTC-18401.
7. Al-Qahtani, M., Rahim, Z., Biterge, M. et al. 2002. ⬙Development and Application of Improved Reservoir Charac-
terization for Optimizing Screenless Fracturing in the Gas Condensate Jauf Reservoir, Saudi Arabia,⬙ Paper presented
at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held at San Antonio, TX, Sep. 29-Oct. 2. SPE-77601.
8. Anderson, A. J., Ashton, P. J., Lang, J. et al. 1996. ⬙Effect of Fracture Fluid Invasion on Cleanup Behavior and
Pressure Buildup Analysis,⬙ Paper presented at the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Denver, CO,
October 6-9. SPE-36468.
9. Armstrong, C. D., Stevens, R. F., Le. H. et al. 2010. ⬙The Next Generation of Regenerative Catalytic Breakers for Use
in Alkaline and High-Temperature Fracturing Fluids,⬙ Paper presented at the International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control held in Lafeyette, LA, February 10-12. SPE-127936.
10. Brannon, H. D. and Ault, M. G. 1991. ⬙New, Delayed Borate Crosslinked Fluid Provides Improved Fracture
Conductivity in High-Temperature Applications,⬙ Paper presented at Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held
in Dallas, Texas, October 6-9. SPE-22838.
11. Brannon, H. D. and Tjon-Joe-Pin, R. M. 1994. ⬙Biotechnological Breakthrough Improves Performance of Moderate
to High-Temperature Fracturing Applications,⬙ Paper presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 25-28. SPE-28513.
12. Clark, J. B. 1949. ⬙A Hydraulic Fracturing Process for Increasing the Productivity of Oil Wells,⬙ Petroleum
Transactions. AIME. January 1949: 1–8.
13. Cooke, Jr. C. E. 1975. ⬙Effect of Fracturing Fluids on Fracture Conductivity,⬙ JPT. October 1975: 1273–1282.
14 SPE-180083-MS

14. Dawson, J. C. 1991. ⬙A Thermodynamic Study of Borate Complexation with Guar and Guar Derivatives,⬙ Paper
presented at the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, TX, October 6-9. SPE-22837.
15. Farris, R. F. 1953 ⬙Hydraulic fracturing, a method for increasing well productivity by fracturing the producing
formation and thus increasing the well drainage area,⬙ U.S. Patent No. 23, 733.
16. Frederick, J. M., Hudson, H. G., Bilden, D. M. 1994. ⬙The Effect of Fracture and Formation Flow Variables on
Proppant Pack Cleanup: An In-Depth Study,⬙ Paper presented at the International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control held in Lafeyette, LA, February 7-10. SPE-27381.
17. Ghahri, P., Jamiolahmady, M., Soharbi, M. 2011. ⬙A Thorough Investigation of Cleanup Efficiency of Hydraulic
Fractured Wells Using Response Surface Methodology,⬙ Paper presented at the European Formation Damage
Conference held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 7-10. SPE-144114.
18. Gulbis, J., King, M. T., Hawkins, G. W. et al. 1992. ⬙Encapsulated Breaker for Aqueous Polymeric Fluids,⬙ SPE Prod
Eng. February 1992: 9 –14.
19. Holditch, S. A. 1979. ⬙Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas Flow from Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells,⬙ JPT,
December 1979: 1515–1524.
20. Howard, G. C. and Fast, C. R. 1970. Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE Monograph Series.
21. Kramer, J., Prud’homme, R. K., Wiltzius, P. al. 1988. ⬙Comparison of Galactomannan Crosslinking with Organoti-
tanates and Berates,⬙ Colloid and Polymer Science, 266: 145–155.
22. Lee, W. J. and Holditch, S. A. 1981. ⬙Fracture Evaluation with Pressure Transient Testing in Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs,⬙ JPT, September 1981: 1776 –1792.
23. Lu, Y., Chen, Y., Zhao, Z. et al. 1999. ⬙A Case Study of Boron Crosslinked Fracturing Fluid in Ultra-Deep Well,⬙
Paper presented at International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, February 16-19.
SPE-50787.
24. Mahadevan, J. and Sharma, M. M. 2003. ⬙Clean-up of Water Blocks in Low Permeability Formations,⬙ Paper
presented at the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Denver, CO, October 5-8. SPE-84216.
25. Montgomery, K. T., Holditch, S. A., Berthelot, J. M. 1990. ⬙Effect of Fracture Fluid Invasion on Cleanup Behavior
and Pressure Buildup Analysis,⬙ Paper presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in New
Orleans, LA, September 23-26. SPE-20643.
26. Nickerson, R. F. 1971. ⬙Thickening of Poly (vinyl alcohol) by Borate,⬙ Journal of Applied Poly Science, 15: 111–116.
27. Peterson, M. E., Daniel, R. M., Danson, M. J. 2007. ⬙The Dependence of Enzyme Activity on Temperature:
Determination and Validation of Parameters,⬙ Biochem. J. 402: 331–337.
28. Pope, D., Britt, L., Constien, V. et al. 1995. ⬙Field Study on Guar Removal from Hydraulic Fractures,⬙ Paper presented
at the International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, LA, February 14-15. SPE-31094.
29. Pope, D. S., Leung, L. K., Gulbis, J. et al. 1996. ⬙Effects of Viscous Fingering on Fracture Conductivity,⬙ SPE Prod
& Fac, November 1996: 230 –237.
30. Rae, P. and Di Lullo, G. 1996. ⬙Fracturing Fluids and Breaker Systems - A Review of the State-of-the-Art,⬙ Paper
presented at the Eastern Regional Meeting held in Columbus, Ohio, October 23-25. SPE-37359.
31. Rahim, Z., Al-Anazi, H. A., Al-Kanaan, A. A. 2013. ⬙Selecting Optimal Fracture Fluids, Breaker System, and
Proppant Type for Successful Hydraulic Fracturing and Enhanced Gas Production – Case Studies,⬙ Paper presented
at the 2013 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition held at Muscat, Oman, January 28-30. SPE-163976.
32. Rahim, Z. and Bartko, K. 2005. ⬙On the Use of Acid and Proppant Fracturing Treatments to Develop Carbonate and
Sandstone Reservoirs – Field Examples,⬙ Paper presented at the Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section held
at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, May 14-16. SPE-106328.
33. Reinicke, A., Blocher, G., Zimmermann, G. et al. 2013. ⬙Mechanically Induced Fracture-Face Skin—Insights from
Laboratory Testing and Modeling Approaches,⬙ SPE Prod & Oper. February 2013: 26 –35.
34. Robinson, B. M., Holditch, S. A., Whitehead, W. S. 1988. ⬙Minimizing Damage to a Propped Fracture by Controlled
Flowback Procedures,⬙ JPT, June 1988: 753–756.
35. Soliman, M. Y. and Hunt, J. L. 1985. ⬙Effect of Fracturing Fluid and its Cleanup on Well Performance,⬙ Paper
presented at the Eastern Regional Meeting held at Morgantown, WJ, November 6-8. SPE-14514.
36. Tjon-Joe-Pin, R. M. 1993. ⬙Enzyme Breaker for Galactomannan Based Fracturing Fluid,⬙ U.S. Patent No. 5, 201, 370.
37. Voneiff, G. W., Robinson, B. M., Holditch, S. A. 1996. ⬙The Effects of Unbroken Fracture Fluid on Gaswell
Performance,⬙ SPE Prod & Fac, November 1996: 223–229.
38. Wang, X., Qu, Q., McCarthy, S. et al. 2002. ⬙Successful Application of Borate Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids at High
Temperature,⬙ Paper presented at the International Symposium and Exhibition of Formation Damage Control held in
Lafayette, LA, February 20-21. SPE-73789.
SPE-180083-MS 15

39. Willberg, D. M., Card, R. G., Britt, L. K. et al. 1997. ⬙Determination of the Effect of Formation Water on Fracture
Fluid Cleanup through Field Testing in the East Texas Cotton Valley,⬙ Paper presented at the Annual Technical
Symposium & Exhibition held in San Antonio, TX, October 5-8. SPE-38620.
40. Willberg, D. M., Steinsberger, N., Hoover, R. et al. 1998. ⬙Optimization of Fracture Cleanup Using Flowback
Analysis,⬙ Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium & Exhibition
held in Denver, CO, April 5-8. SPE-39920.
41. Yang, B. H. and Flippen, M. C. 1997. ⬙Improved Flowback Analysis to Assess Polymer Damage,⬙ Paper presented
at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, March 9-11. SPE-37444.