SPE-191520-MS

Viscous Slickwater as Enabler for Improved Hydraulic Fracturing Design in

Unconventional Reservoirs

Haiyan Zhao, Samuel Danican, Hortencia Torres, Yenny Christanti, Max Nikolaev, Sergey Makarychev-Mikhailov,
and Andrew Bonnell, Schlumberger

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2018 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 24-26 September 2018.

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
The development of unconventional fields has experienced major efficiency gains. One main breakthrough
in efficiency is the introduction of viscous slickwater fracturing fluids. Viscous slickwater enables placement
of higher proppant concentration than conventional slickwater and is less damaging than guar-based fluid,
leading to aggressive fracturing designs and improved production.
High viscosity friction reducer is the main component in viscous slickwater, which can replace hybrid
and crosslinked fracturing fluids in unconventional reservoir completions. The successful application of
high viscosity friction reducing fluid requires proper fluid hydration and adequate viscosity, which depends
on water salinity and proppant concentration. We developed techniques for improved testing of friction
reducers and friction reducer selection guidelines to support optimum placement of the fracturing design. A
comparison of production results of wells fractured by viscous slickwater to those offset wells demonstrated
the effectiveness of aggressive design with viscous slickwater fluids.
A high viscosity friction reducer was tested in the laboratory and applied in the field. Experimental
data demonstrate a good correlation between low shear viscosity and proppant transport capability. Static
and dynamic proppant transport data were used to design viscous slickwater to replace linear gel. The
friction reducer has been successfully applied in the field in more than 3,000 stages. Formations that
were traditionally fractured with crosslinked gel were successfully fractured using viscous slickwater with
ease. Replacing conventional slickwater with viscous slickwater enables the transport of higher proppant
concentration with little change in operations. Aggressive designs deliver a boost in production, thus
confirming viscous slickwater as the fluid of choice.
Improved chemistry enables easier operations, faster well completion, and improved initial production,
as confirmed by case studies. This study provides information for the application of viscous slickwater and
the rigorous testing that is required and often overlooked.

Introduction
Unconventional development has successfully recovered from the oil price drop in late 2014. One of the
main factors is that the reservoir stimulation cost has dropped significantly. Slickwater treatment is gaining
2 SPE-191520-MS

popularity in unconventional reservoirs, due to its simple operation, good cleanup, high fracture-network
complexity, and low cost (Palisch et al. 2010). In a typical slickwater job, large amounts of proppant and
water are injected into the formation to create fractures and prop them open. The treatment relies on the high
pumping rate (60 to 120 bbl/min) to transport the proppant to the fractures. The high pipe friction is reduced
by adding friction reducer into the mix-water. Friction reducers are typically copolymers of polyacrylamide
with high molecular weight. Most common friction reducers are usually delivered in the form of a water-
in-oil emulsion, in which the polymer is partitioned between water and the mineral oil phases. When the
emulsion is added to water, it quickly inverts and releases the polymer into water, where it is further hydrated.
Besides the friction reducer, the slickwater may also include flowback aids, clay stabilizers, biocides, and
scale inhibitors.
The maximum proppant loading in slickwater treatment is limited to no more than 2 lbm/gal (ppa) in
most cases. To place large quantity of proppant, an excessive amount of water is needed. To reduce the
water usage, we must increase the proppant concentration. Higher proppant loading requires viscosified
fluid. The most common and cost-effective gelling agent is guar gum, which can hydrate in the water to
form linear guar gel. The loading is usually 15 to 30 lbm/1,000 gal. To increase the viscosity, guar can be
crosslinked by crosslinkers, which can increase the viscosity by 100 times (Lei and Clark 2007). The linear
and crosslinked gels have improved proppant transport capability compared to slickwater fluid. In a typical
hybrid job, slickwater is pumped initially, with low concentration and/or small size of proppant (mostly
100 mesh and 40/70 mesh), and this is followed by linear/crosslinked gel when higher concentration and/
or larger size of proppant (up to 20/40 mesh) is pumped. This design has combined the advantages of both
slickwater and linear/crosslinked gels. The slickwater fluid creates a complex fracture network, and the high
conductivity of the fracture in the near-wellbore area can be achieved by placing high volume of large-size
of proppant with the linear and crosslinked fluids. However, the guar-based gels have some disadvantages.
Guar polymer requires a dedicated hydration unit to develop stable viscosity in water. It generates solid
residues after break, resulting in formation and fracture damage. Crosslinked guar gel requires additional
chemicals, such as a pH buffer, crosslinker, and delaying agent, and careful formulation design. This means
more operation equipment, more chemicals on location, and higher cost (Blamble and Pyncheon 2016).
Recently, we developed a new fluid type by combining the advantages and eliminating the problems of
both slickwater and guar-based gels. The new fluid is viscous slickwater, which uses a high viscosity friction
reducer (HVFR) for drag reduction and water viscosification. Viscous slickwater fluid enhances proppant
carrying capability, as in a linear or crosslinked gel system, but with minimum proppant pack damage
associated with conventional slickwater fluids. It can replace linear and crosslinked gels by achieving same
proppant loading with less damage and lower treating pressure. With a single chemical added, viscous
slickwater allows on-the-fly pumping schedule changes by adjusting the HVFR concentration. It hydrates
very fast as a regular friction reducer. Therefore, it can be operated easily as a regular slickwater job. The
HVFR polymer can be broken easily with oxidative breakers without any solid residue, leading to high
fracture conductivity.

Experimental Section
In this paper, HVFR-1 was evaluated and compared to the regular friction reducer (FR-1), and also other
high viscosity friction reducers (HVFR-A and HVFR-B).

Fluid Preparation
To prepare the HVFR-1 fluid, an overhead mixer fitted with a 1.5-in. propeller was used. A volume of 200
mL of tap water was added to a 400-mL plastic beaker; the propeller was placed at the lowest position
possible without touching the bottom of the beaker. The speed was set at 800 rpm, at which point the desired
SPE-191520-MS 3

amount of HVFR was added. It was allowed to mix for 30 seconds and then the speed was lowered to 300
rpm and mixing continued for an additional 14.5 minutes.
A check for quick hydration, simulating what the fluid would see when mixed on-the-fly, was done by
adding 200 mL tap water to a 400-mL Waring blender cup attached to a Chandler speed mixer blender and
set to manual control. The speed was set at 8,000 rpm, the desired amount of HVFR-1 was quickly added
and blended for 5 seconds at which point the blender cup was removed and fluid analyzed.

Rheology
The viscosities of HVFR-1 fluids at high shear rates (51 to 511 s-1) were determined using a Fann Model 35
viscometer with a standard rotor R1, bob B1, and torsion spring F1. For lower shear rates, the viscosities
were determined using a TA HR-3 Discovery Hybrid rheometer with Couette geometry. The same rheometer
was used to obtain elastic and viscous moduli of HVFR-1 fluids from small amplitude strain-controlled
oscillatory measurements. The viscosities of HVFR-1 fluids at high temperatures were determined using
Chandler Model 5550 rotational viscometer with standard R1 rotor and B5 bob combination and F440
spring.

Sand Settling
Sand settling at room temperature was measured by two methods, static sand settling test and dynamic slot
flow test. For the static sand settling test, sand was sieved to the desired size with a very narrow mesh
size range, i.e., 20 to 25 mesh and 40 to 45 mesh. The HVFR-1 fluid was prepared as mentioned in Fluid
Preparation section and added to a 1-L graduated cylinder. The fluid was then allowed to sit until no bubbles
were present. A grain of sand was added near the wall of the cylinder. Because the fluid is opaque, the use
of a flashlight was necessary to see the sand grain. The time was measured when the sand grain traveled
from the 900 mL mark to the 400 mL mark. For best results, the test should be repeated at least five times
and then using the average. The settling rate is calculated by taking the length of the cylinder section (900
mL mark to 400 mL mark) and dividing it by the average time of the five runs:

Dynamic sand settling tests were run in a slot flow apparatus with dimensions of 12.7×0.1× 42.5 cm (H
× W × L). Fluid was prepared as mentioned in the hydration section and placed in a 1-L beaker. Then, a
1.5-in. propeller was inserted and set to 800 rpm, at which point the desired sand concentration was slowly
introduced. Mixing was continued to prevent sand from settling. The flow rate was set at 10 cm/s, and the
sand slurry was passed through the slot for 30 seconds. After 30 seconds of flow, water was introduced
to flush the sand slurry out. The amount of the sand that settled at the bottom of the slot provided visual
comparison of the sand transport capability among different fluids.

Friction Reduction
Friction reduction was tested by circulating 8 L of tap water through a mixing tank that feeds into a triplex
pump and circulates in ½-in.- and 3/8-in.-diameter tubings. Each line has a straight portion, which is used
to measure the differential pressure. The test is run at a flow rate of 20 kg/min for a total of 5 minutes,
at which point the HVFR is added and then the test continued for an additional 5 minutes. The test was
performed at 80 and 50 °F.

Break
The breaker profile of the fluids was evaluated via viscosity measurements and by performing bottle tests.
To analyze the breaker profile at high temperatures, a Chandler 5550 rheometer was used. The geometry
configuration used was R1/B5 and spring F440; 52 mL of fluid were used for each test. The test was set
4 SPE-191520-MS

up as follows: 2 hours at 180 °F, at a constant rate of 40 s-1 and pressure of 450 psi. Tests were conducted
with and without breaker.
Bottle tests were also performed to observe the amount of residue each fluid generated after break. Fluids
with desired amount of breaker were added to 20 mL glass vials. The samples were placed in an oven at
150°F for 2 hours. Samples were then removed and checked for the presence of solid residue.

Results and Discussions

Rheology
Viscosity (Low and High Shear). HVFR-1 is designed for two purposes: reduce friction and increase
water viscosity. In this section, the viscosity properties will be presented. The viscosity of HVFR-1 fluids
was measured with a Fann 35 viscometer at 70°F from 51 to 511 s-1 (Fig. 1). It generates higher viscosity
than regular friction reducer at equivalent concentration. As shown in Fig. 1, the use of 8 gpt (galUS/1,000
galUS) HVFR-1 results in a viscosity of 38 cP at 511 s-1, whereas 8 gpt regular FR (FR-1) only provides a
viscosity of 18 cP. HVFR-1 generates different viscosity at various concentrations. At loading of 2 to 4 gpt
HVFR-1, the viscosity is comparable to 15 to 20 ppt (lbm/1,000 galUS) linear guar fluids in tap water.

Figure 1—Viscosity vs. shear rate for HVFR-1 in tap water at 70°F compared to regular FR and linear gel.

Another difference for HVFR-1 fluid is that it generates much higher viscosity than regular FR and linear
guar gel at low shear rate. The viscosity of HVFR-1 fluids has been measured over a wide range of shear
rate and compared to regular FR and linear guar gel. As shown in Fig. 2, 8 gpt HVFR-1 fluid yields one
order magnitude higher viscosity than 8 gpt regular FR at low shear rate. The viscosity of 4 gpt HVFR-1
fluid is close to 20 ppt linear guar gel at 511 s-1, but it is much higher at low shear rate. The high low-shear
viscosity of HVFR-1 fluid can contribute to its superior sand suspension ability (Hu et al. 2018).
SPE-191520-MS 5

Figure 2—Viscosity vs. shear rate for HVFR-1 in tap water at 77°F compared to FR-1 and linear gel.

The elasticity property of HVFR-1 fluid can also be correlated to its superior proppant transport ability
(Hu et al. 2018). Small-amplitude oscillatory shear (SAOS) has been used to evaluate the viscoelastic
property of HVFR-1 fluid. The storage modulus (G′) and loss modulus (G″) were measured at different
frequencies. The frequency where G′ is equal to G″ is the crossover point, which can be referred to the
relaxation time of the polymer network (Loveless et al. 2011). The lower the crossover point, the higher
the proppant suspension ability of the fluid. The viscoelasticity of 4 gpt HVFR-1 and 25 ppt linear guar are
shown in Fig. 3. For 25 ppt linear guar, G″ is always higher than G′ in the entire measured range, indicating
a typical viscous linear gel. However, for 4 gpt HVFR-1 fluid, the crossover point is about 0.2 rad/s. G
′ is higher than G″ when frequency is above 0.2 rad/s, which shows viscoelastic solution behavior with
significant elasticity at high frequencies. These results have shown that HVFR-1 fluid can have better sand
suspension ability than linear guar gel and may replace crosslinked gel.

Figure 3—Elastic and viscous modulus of HVFR-1 in tap water at 77°F compared to linear gel.

Hydration. To check if the high viscosity friction reducer reaches complete hydration when pumped on
the fly, the field mixing conditions were simulated in the laboratory in a Waring blender. The scaling from
6 SPE-191520-MS

field to laboratory is based on the same mixing energy, which shows mixing at 8,000 rpm for 5 seconds in a
Waring blender simulates mixing in the hydration unit with typical discharge rates in slickwater treatments.
The viscosity was fully developed after mixing at 8000 rpm for 5 seconds. Another concern is that HVFR-1
may degrade after going through the high shear. As shown in Fig. 4, the zero shear rate viscosity, which is
indicative of molecular weight, is insensitive to the mixing conditions, suggesting that no significant shear-
induced degradation of the polyacrylamide in solution is expected as a result of mixing in the hydration
unit. Therefore, HVFR-1 does not need a dedicated hydration unit, unlike guar polymer, which will make
the operation of HVFR-1 as easy as a conventional slickwater job.

Figure 4—Effect of mixing conditions on viscosity of 8 gpt HVFR-1 in tap water.

Thermal Stability. The viscosity of HVFR-1 fluids has been tested at elevated temperature and compared
to other friction reducers. As shown in Fig. 5, HVFR-1 fluid is stable at 194 °F for at least 2 hours; however,
the viscosity of FR-A and FR-B fluids decreased significantly.

Figure 5—Viscosity of 8 gpt HVFR-1 in tap water at 194°F

SPE-191520-MS 7

Sand Settling
Both static and dynamic sand settling tests were performed to evaluate HVFR-1 fluids and linear guar gel.
The static sand settling test used a single sand particle traveling in static fluids in a graduated cylinder,
and the traveling time was recorded. In the dynamic sand settling test, sand-loaded slurry flowed through a
rectangular slot at a specific flow rate. Some sand may settle at the bottom of the slot. The sand transport
ability of different fluids can be compared by measuring the amount of the sand settled at the bottom of
the slot.
In the static sand settling test, the fluid was placed in a graduated cylinder. Single sand particles of various
mesh sizes were placed on top of the fluid. The time for the sand particle to travel from the top to bottom was
recorded, and the fall rate was calculated accordingly. In Fig. 6, 2 gpt HVFR-1 fluid shows a fall rate close
to 20 ppt linear guar, which indicates that 2 gpt HVFR-1 can replace 20 ppt linear guar in this case. These
results have provided general guidelines on the replacement of linear gel by HVFR-1 fluid with equivalent
performance.

Figure 6—Settling velocity of sand in HVFR-1 fluid compared to linear gel.

The dynamic sand settling tests provided visual observation of the sand transport capability of different
fluids. As shown in Fig. 7, for 2 gpt regular FR fluid, a large amount of sand settled at the bottom of the slot,
whereas only a small amount of sand settled for 2 gpt HVFR-1 fluid. These results have clearly shown that
HVFR-1 fluid (viscous slickwater) has improved sand transport capability compared to regular slickwater
fluids. The 20 ppt linear guar is slightly better than 2 gpt HVFR-1 fluid, but the difference is very small.
For 4 gpt HVFR-1 fluid, no sand settled at the bottom of the slot.
8 SPE-191520-MS

Figure 7—Photographs of sand-laden fluid flowing through a slot flow cell (left to right).

Friction Reduction
As with conventional friction reducers, HVFR-1 is an effective friction reducer when pumped at low
concentrations (0.5 to 1.0 gpt). As shown in Fig. 8, when 0.5 gpt HVFR-1 is added to water, it can reach
up to 70% drag reduction with 30 seconds at 80°F. This result shows the fast hydration of HVFR-1. Even
when the water temperature drops to 50°F, the drag reduction of over 60% can be reached within 1 minute
for 0.5 gpt HVFR-1, which becomes more important in cold weather. However, the hydration can be very
slow for other friction reducers, such as HVFR-A.

Figure 8—Drag reduction of 0.5 gpt HVFR-1 in tap water measured in 3/8-in. tubing at 20 kg/min.
SPE-191520-MS 9

Break and Conductivity

HVFR-1 can be broken by common oxidizer breakers (Fig. 9). The broken fluid is water-like with very low
viscosity. One important advantage of HVFR-1 fluid over guar gel is that HVFR-1 can be broken with no
or little solid residue. However, linear guar gel produces much more solid residue after break. As shown in
Fig. 10, 20 ppt linear guar and 4 gpt HVFR-1 fluid were broken with 1 ppt ammonium persulfate at 150
°F for 2 hours. A large amount of solid residue was observed for broken 20 ppt linear guar, whereas little
residue was seen for broken 4 gpt HVFR-1 fluid.

Figure 9—Break profile of 8 gpt HVFR-1 in tap water without and with oxidizer breakers at 180°F.

Figure 10—Photographs of broken fluids: 20 ppt guar (left) and 4 gpt HVFR-1 (right).

Guidelines for Job Design

Considering the viscosity and sand settling tests of HVFR-1 fluids and linear guar gel, the design guidelines
for HVFR-1 to replace linear gel have been established. Because HVFR-1 uses an anionic polymer, its
performance is sensitive to total dissolved salts (TDS) in water, especially the divalent cations. Therefore,
the design must be specific to water salinity and the concentrations of divalent cations (calcium and
magnesium). Based on the best practices and field job experiences, to replace crosslinked gel, 1 to 3
gpt HVFR-1 must be added on top of the recommended loading for the corresponding linear guar gel
replacement.
10 SPE-191520-MS

Table 1—Guidelines for replacing linear gel with HVFR (TDS, total dissolved solids).

Mix Water Guar Loading, ppt Equivalent HVFR-1 Loading, gpt

Fresh water with 400 mg/L TDS and 30 mg/L 15 1.5

divalent cations 25 3.0

Fresh water with 1,000 mg/L TDS and 100 mg/ 15 2.0
L divalent cations 25 4.0

Fresh water with 2,000 mg/L TDS and 200 mg/ 15 3.0
L divalent cations 25 5.0

Case Studies
Replace Conventional Slickwater to Increase Proppant Loading and Prevent Screenout
In the Montney play in British Columbia, Canada, the lower section of the Montney formation is often
more difficult to fracture than the upper Montney due its higher Young's modulus. Operators are often
limited to smaller proppant sizes and lower maximum proppant concentrations and face a higher risk of
screening out when fracturing this zone compared to the Upper Montney. One operator in the Montney was
having a particularly difficult time successfully pumping stages on a well drilled into the Lower Montney.
After 26 stages of conventional slickwater (with regular friction reducer), the operator decided to switch to
HVFR-1 at 3 gpt to attempt to achieve their desired maximum proppant concentration. After switching to
HVFR-1, they were able to increase their maximum proppant concentration by 50% on average (Fig. 11).
They switched back and forth between regular slickwater and viscous slickwater (with HVFR-1) on the final
stages of the well to confirm that HVFR-1 was allowing them to achieve higher proppant concentrations,
not just the fact that they were treating in a lower-stress portion of the reservoir. As shown in stage 29 and
32, when regular slickwater was pumped, the maximum proppant concentration was lower than viscous
slickwater used in other stages.

Figure 11—Maximum proppant concentration of slickwater and viscous slickwater stages in the same well.
SPE-191520-MS 11

Another advantage of viscous slickwater is that there were less unexpected treating pressure spikes which
often risk leading to screenouts. Fig. 12 gave one example of the job profile for regular slickwater, where
several treating pressure spikes occurred and the pumping rate had to be dropped to prevent screenouts.
However, when switched to viscous slickwater, the treating pressure was lower and more stable (Fig. 13).

Figure 12—Job profile of conventional slickwater with pressure spikes.

Figure 13—Job profile of viscous slickwater with stable treating pressure.

Effect on Production
The effect of HVFR treatments on the initial well production was evaluated in the Haynesville shale. Three
test wells, stimulated with HVFR, were compared with 13 offset wells within a 3-mile radius surrounding
the test wells (Fig. 14).
12 SPE-191520-MS

Figure 14—Schematic of the test (blue) and offset (red) wells relative locations in Haynesville.

All 16 wells are operated by the same company and were completed in the last 5 years, using slickwater
or hybrid jobs, as assessed using the public FracFocus database (FracFocus 2018), using the methodology
described elsewhere (Khvostichenko and Makarychev-Mikhailov 2018). Well completion data and allocated
well production were obtained from the commercial database (IHS Markit 2018) and were aggregated for
particular wells, if more than one production entity per well was reported. As the well lateral lengths and
their corresponding perforated intervals vary, the production was normalized per 1,000 ft of the perforated
interval (MMcf/1,000 ft). The mean cumulative production, both non-normalized and normalized, for test
and offset wells with corresponding standard deviations, is shown on Fig. 15. Whereas production data are
currently only available for the first few months, the test wells demonstrate 70% higher initial production,
which difference diminishes with time, but still is over 40% in the fourth month.

Figure 15—Mean cumulative production for test (blue) and offset (red) wells,
non-normalized (a) and normalized per 1,000 ft of perforated interval (b).
SPE-191520-MS 13

Conclusions
Viscous slickwater became a step change solution for the entire industry as it pursued better and efficient
operations that aid to production gains. This paper has characterized the fluid and demonstrated comparative
rheology of the fluid with different loading and typical linear gel viscosity performance. It was shown that
sand carrying capacity can not only be assessed by viscosity measurement but also with both dynamic and
static sand settling tests. It is clear that viscous slickwater is reliably performing as a friction reducer as well
as a viscosifier that enables higher sand concentration placement. Fluid can be broken with conventional
breaking systems and have no or little residue left in the formation and sand pack in comparison with guar-
based fluids.
Recommendations are given for viscous slickwater loadings for different water quality sources. Case
studies have demonstrated an improved efficiency both in production and stimulation operation.
Authors continue to study the fluid and develop new more efficient fluid for even better performance to
facilitate industry taking another leap in efficiency and cost reduction.

References
Blamble, E. A. and Pyncheon, J., 2016, Guar Replacement with Synthetic Polymers – Utica Shale Case Histories.
Presented at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
24-26 February. SPE-179012-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179012-MS.
FracFocus. 2018. FracFocus National Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Registry. http://fracfocus.org/ (accessed 7 May
2018).
Hu, Y. T., Fisher, D., Kurian, P., et al. 2018. Proppant Transport by a High Viscosity Friction Reducer. Presented at
the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference & Exhibition. The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 23-25 January.
SPE-189841-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189841-MS
IHS 2018. IHS Enerdeq Browser, IHS Markit, https://penerdeq.ihsenergy.com (accessed 23 May 2018).
Khvostichenko, D. and Makarychev-Mikhailov, S. 2018. Oilfield Data Analytics: Linking Fracturing Chemistry and Well
Productivity. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) Houston, Texas, USA, 23–
25 July. URTeC-2903086.
Lei, C. and Clark, P. E. 2007. Crosslinking of Guar and Guar Derivatives. SPE Journal 12 (3): 316–321. SPE-90840-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/90840-PA.
Loveless, D., Holtsclaw, J., Saini, R., et al. 2011. Fracturing Fluid Comprised of Components Sourced Solely from the
Food Industry Provides Superior Proppant Transport. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October-2 November. SPE-147206-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/147206-MS
Palisch, T. T., Vincent, M. C., and Handren, P. J. 2010. Slickwater Fracturing: Food for Thought. SPE Prod & Oper 25
(3): 327–344. SPE-115766-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/115766-PA.