URTeC: 99

Comprehensive Study of Elasticity and Shear-Viscosity Effects on

Proppant Transport Using HFVRs on High-TDS Produced Water
Mohammed Ba Geri*, Ralph Flori, Huosameddin Sherif; Missouri University of Science
and Technology.
Copyright 2019, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2019-99

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA,
22-24 July 2019.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract
submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the
accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is subject to corrections by
the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information
herein does not necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper by
anyone other than the author without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract

High-viscosity friction reducers (HVFRs) have been gaining popularity and increase in use as
hydraulic fracturing fluids because HVFRs exhibit numerous advantages such as their ability to
carry particles, their promotion of higher fracture conductivity, and their potentially lower cost
due to fewer chemicals and equipment on location. However, concerns remain about using
HVFRs with produced water containing a high level of TDS (Total Dissolved Solids). This study
investigates the influence of the use of produced water on the rheological behavior of HVFRs
compared to a traditional linear guar gel. This work also aims to correlate proppant settling
velocity behavior with rheological properties of HVFRs vs. linear gel on hydraulic fracturing
operations. Comprehensive rheological tests of different HVFRs compared with linear gel were
performed including, shear-viscosity and dynamic oscillatory-shear measurements using an
advanced rheometer.

The results of these rheological measurements reveal that these polyacrylamide-based HVFR
systems achieve a high viscosity profile in fresh water with associated high proppant-carrying
capacity. On the other hand, increasing water salinity lowers HVFR’s viscosity, increases
proppant settling velocity, and lessens the fluid’s proppant-carrying efficiency. Although in fresh
water linear gel showed similar viscosity measurements with HVFR-A, the HVFR-A recorded a
lower proppant settling rate because HVFR-A has a higher relaxation time (15.3 s) than the
relaxation time of linear gel (1.73 s).

As expected, in high-TDS produced water the relaxation time and elastic behavior decreased for
all the fracturing fluids tested. HVFR-B recorded the smallest reduction in relaxation time (about
14%) when tested in produced water vs. fresh water, and the resulting settling velocity increased
by 29% from 3.4 cm/s to 4.85 cm/s. For linear gel, its reduction in relaxation time exceeded of
URTeC 99 2

70% when changing water salinity from fresh water to high-TDS brine water. This high
reduction of relaxation time leads to over 40% increase in proppant settling velocity from 5.3
cm/s to 8.7 cm/s in fresh water and produced water, respectively. This study confirms that
HVFR’s elasticity (vs. it viscosity) properties enable successful proppant transport for a wide
range of shear rates while viscosity (vs. elasticity) properties controls proppant settling velocity
in linear guar-based fluids. This paper will provide greater understanding of the importance of
complete viscoelastic characterization of the HVFRs. The findings provide an in-depth
understanding of the behavior of HVFRs under high-TDS brine, which could be used as
guidance for developing fracturing fluids and for fracture engineers to design and select better
friction reducers.
Introduction
Understanding particle settling velocity plays a key role in many applications such as cuttings
transport in drilling and carrying proppant during hydraulic fracturing. To optimize hydraulic
fracturing treatments, proper proppant placement deep into fractures is required. Achieving
effective placement of proppant depends on a number of criteria, but two significant parameters
are the proppant properties and fluid characterization (Motiee et al. 2016; Van Domelen et al.
2017). A well-designed fracturing fluid creates the desired fracture half-length and transports
proppant adequately to the desired location into the fractures. Extensive work has been
conducted to study settling velocity in both static and dynamic conditions within oil industry
applications. (Hu et al. 2015; Acharya 1986; Harris et al. 2005; Malhotra and Sharma 2011; Ba
Geri et al. 2019b; Ba Geri et al. 2019c).
In designing and evaluating hydraulic fracturing fluids, understanding fluid viscosity has long
been regarded as important, but in recent years studies have shown that the elasticity profile of
fracturing fluids also plays a major role (Gomma et al. 2015 and Hu et al. 2015). Rheological
properties (viscosity and elasticity) of fracturing fluids are measured using a rheometer. Limited
studies have investigated settling velocity of particles quantitatively using orthogonal shear rate.
Under orthogonal shear rate conditions, the settling velocity of three different liquids was studied
by Van and Gheissary (1993). The results observed that fluid elasticity reduced settling velocity.
Padhy et al. (2013) studied numerically improving particle drag forces because polymer chains
could stretch in viscous fluid while elastic properties play a minor role once the viscous portion
of the polymer is broken. Tanner et al. (2014) reported that the first normal stress (N1)
suspended and lifted the particles. Ba Geri et al. (2019a) compared proppant settling velocity in
HVFR fluids versus linear gel. The study underscored that the elasticity of HVFR fluids
promoted proppant suspension and proppant transport over a wide range of shear rates from 1𝑠 −1
to 501𝑠 −1 ; while linear gel’s performance depended on its viscous properties.
The rheology and performance of fracturing fluids depends on the available make-up water.
Most polymers perform better in fresh water than in brines, but due to increasing government
regulations on the use of fresh water in hydraulic fracturing operations, designing fracturing
fluids that can perform well when mixed with high-TDS produced water is getting more attention
from the oil industry. The US Environment Protection Agency (EPA, 2017) reported that
hydraulic fracturing treatments in the United States alone consumes massive amounts of fresh
water annually—an estimated 70 to 170 billion gallons. Operators have discovered that HVFR-
based fluids require less water in general to deliver the same mass of sand, they are tolerant of
high-TDS make-up water, and they reduce cost by requiring fewer chemicals and less mixing
equipment on site. A few recent studies have compared the performance of guar-based and
URTeC 99 3

HVFR fluids in produced water. Johnson et al. (2018) and Ellafi et al. (2019) presented
successful case studies of using HVFRs implemented in the Marcellus shale play. They reported
cost reductions from using fewer chemicals and less equipment on the relatively small Marcellus
pads when replacing linear gel fluid systems by HVFR fluids.
Galindo (2019) proposed that proppant transport can be affected negatively by HVFR fluids with
too-high viscosity. Their study observed that viscosity should not be the sole property of HVFRs
that dominates proppant suspension and transport, and elasticity might provide better proppant
transport performance under wide range of shear rate. Ba Geri et al, 2019 presented a critical
review of using HVFRs in lab studies and field operation. The investigation provided a screening
guideline of utilizing HVFRs in terms of viscosity and concentration. The study notes that in
field application the average concentration of HVFRs is 2.75 gpt (gal per 1,000 gal). However,
neither the elastic characterization of the HVFR fluids nor their specific behavior in produced
water was taken into account in that review.
This paper provides a comprehensive study of the effects of elasticity and shear viscosity on
proppant settling velocity using HVFRs and linear gel in fresh water and produced water. Two
cases were implemented to study the effect of proppant settling velocity in fracturing fluids.
Settling velocity of HVFRs and linear gel in fresh water was investigated in Case I (base case)
while, the effect of high brine TDS on settling velocity with same fracture fluids was
investigated in Case II. In both cases, the viscosity profile and elasticity measurements were
performed to determine the relative roles of these properties in achieving proppant suspension
and transport in hydraulic fracturing treatments.

Experimental Description
Experimental Materials
Fracturing Fluids: Two different samples of HVFRs (HVFR-A and HVFR-B) and one linear
gel were selected to prepare typical hydraulic fracturing fluids. Based on industry practice,
concentrations of HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and linear gel were 4 gpt (gal per 1,000 gal), 2.5 gpt and
20 ppt (lb per 1,000 gal), respectively. Each sample was mixed with deionized water (DI) to
prepare fracturing fluid at lab temperature.
Proppant: 20/40 mesh size of sand proppant was selected for this study.
Produced water: A synthetic produced water was created by dissolving reagent-grade
chemicals into DI according to the composition shown in Table 1.
Instruments
Rheometer: An advanced rheometer was used to measure viscosity and elasticity profiles of the
fracturing fluids.
Camera: A high-resolution camera was used to capture the proppant movement in the fracturing
fluids.
Measurements of Rheological Property
Shear Viscosity Characterization (k, n)
Based on the hydraulic fracturing industry practice, the most typical measured shear rates during
slurry into the fractures are within the range 10 𝑠 −1 to 170 𝑠 −1 as well as 511 𝑠 −1 to determine
fluid apparent viscosity. In lab studies the common shear rate was either 40 𝑠 −1 or 100 𝑠 −1 (Hu
URTeC 99 4

et al. 2015, Gomaa et al., 2015). This study investigated fracturing fluid shear rate from 1𝑠 −1 to
200𝑠 −1 .

Elasticity Characterization
Several methods can be used to measure the elastic properties of viscoelastic fluid such as the
viscoelastic characterization of the fracturing fluids, N1, relaxation time, dynamic oscillatory
frequency test, and amplitude sweep test. This study investigated the viscoelasticity behavior of
the tested fluids by measuring N1 and testing dynamic oscillatory frequency. The Weissenberg
dimensionless number was calculated to quantify the fluid elasticity.
Proppant Static Settling Velocity Setup
Figure 1 shows the experimental setup of measuring proppant settling velocity in hydraulic
fracturing fluids (HVFRs and linear gel). For best results, after hydration of the fluid in DI, the
solution was allowed to rest overnight to ensure no bubbles were present. To minimize settling
velocity measurement error, each test was repeated three times and the average results were used
for the study’s calculations.

Figure 1. Schematic of experimental setup of measuring proppant settling velocity

Experimental Procedure
To prepare a fracturing fluid, the selected volume or mass of viscosifier (gel or HVFR) was
hydrated using DI at room temperature. Once the fracturing fluid samples were prepared at the
desired concentration, these samples were placed in a graduated cylinder; with 2000 ml volume
to measure the proppant settling velocity. To achieve more accurate results, air bubbles were
removed from the test fluid by leaving the fluid to rest overnight, as bubbles affect both rheology
and settling velocity measurements. Next, the proppant was dropped into the fluid column and
the camera started capturing the proppant movement. The distance between the top point of fluid
column and the bottom point was 45 cm. Tracker software was used to track and measure
terminal velocity of the proppant. Settling velocity measurements for each particle were taken
four times to improve accuracy of results and minimize the experimental error. In this case, the
settling velocity was repeated five times. A 30-minute waiting time was implemented between
measurements to ensure the previous particles caused no fluid disturbance.

Produced Water Preparation

To mimic harsh conditions of high-salinity reservoirs, a produced water composition typical of
the Permian Basin was selected. Table 1 shows the chemical composition of produced water of
URTeC 99 5

tight oil well in Wolfcamp formation in the Permian Basin. The Wolfcamp formation was
deposited during the Devonian period of the Palezonic Era (Engle et al. 2016). To study the high-
TDS effect on proppant suspension and transport in both HVFRs and linear gel, a synthetic
produced water was prepared in the lab. The ratio between Permian produced water and
synthetic produced water was 1:5. Thus, the total TDS in the Permian produced water was
102,000 ppm, and the TDS in the synthetic brine water was 20,400 ppm.

Table 1. Chemical composition of the Permian basin produced/synthetic water

Permian Produced Water Synthetic Produced Water
(ppm) (ppm)
Specific Gravity 1.2 1.18
Sodium 37,300 7,460
Calcium 1,450 290
Potassium 1,060 212
Alkalinity 82100 16,420
Chloride 60,100 12,020
Sulfates 660 132
pH 6.5 6.5
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 102,000 20,400

Results and Analysis

Fracturing Fluid Performance
Shear-viscosity measurements and amplitude oscillatory shear (AOS) tests were performed to
characterize the rheology of the fracturing fluids in both fresh and produced water. The study
also investigated the effect of proppant settling velocity, Reynolds number, particle shear rate,
and viscoelastic ratio on proppant transport performance.

Viscosity Profile Measurements

Two different HVFRs (HVFR-A & HVFR-B) and a linear gel that has same shear-viscosity
profile with different elasticity properties were selected to study the effect of different elasticity
on proppant settling velocity. Figure 2 presents the viscosity profiles of these three fluids as a
function of shear rate. The range of shear rate of this study was within the practical shear rate
range of the fracturing industry between 1 𝑠 −1 to 200 𝑠 −1 . All three of the test fluids (two
HVFRs and a linear gel) follow a shear thinning behavior in which as shear rate increases as
viscosity decreases. For example, the viscosity of all three fracturing fluids at a shear rate 40 𝑠 −1
was right at 53 cp. These fluids were selected because they had nearly the same viscosity
profile. It was confirmed by the rheology results that the viscosity profile showed virtually
identical shear -viscosity findings. Therefore, dynamic oscillatory test was required to evaluate
elasticity of test fluids due to structure sensitivity to polyacrylamide fluids.
URTeC 99 6

1000
HVFR-A
HVFR-B
Linear gel

100
Viscosity, cp

10

1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Shear rate, 1/s

Figure 2. Shear-viscosity profile of HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and linear gel in fresh water

Generally both HVFR and guar-based linear gel fracture fluids suffer some performance loss in
high-TDS produced water. High levels of salt reduce their ability to achieve a desirable shear
viscosity profile. A key goal of this study was to assess the performance of the HVFR fluids
compared to a linear gel in synthetic produced water modeled after a typical Permian
composition. Figure 3 presents viscosity profile as a function of shear rate for various fluids in
high-TDS water. Whereas Figure 1 shows that the HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and linear gel in fresh
water have identical viscosity vs. shear rate plots, Figure 3 shows that high-TDS water lowers
the viscosity vs. shear rate plots of the three fluids. For example, at shear rate of 40 𝑠 −1 the
viscosity of the three fluids are 14.2 cp, 40.8 cp, and 31 cp for fluids HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and
linear gel, respectively. Aften et al. (2018) reported results that agree with these shear rates
where they found the HVFRs viscosities vary according to aqueous downhole brine environment
and polymer hydration history.
1000
HVFR-A
HVFR-B
Linear gel

100
Viscosity, cp

10

1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Shear rate, 1/s

Figure 3. Shear-viscosity profile of HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and linear gel in produced water
URTeC 99 7

For comparison purposes, Figure 4 shows the shear viscosity measurements at 40 𝑠 −1 of all the
tested fracturing fluids in both fresh and produced water. Interestingly, HVFR-B has the highest
viscosity profile in both fresh water and brine. At shear rate 40 𝑠 −1 , the viscosity of HVFR-B is
58.6 cp and 41cp in fresh water and produced water, respectively, which is a reduction of around
30%. The reduction due to brine on the linear gel viscosity is 45%, while HVFR-A has the
highest viscosity reduction of about 75%.

70

60

50
viscosity, cp

40

30

20

10

0
HVFR-A HVFR-B Linear gel

Fracturing fluid type

Fresh water Produced water

Figure 4. Viscosity profile of different fracturing fluids at 40 𝑠 −1 for fresh water versus produced water

Elasticity Property Measurements

To evaluate the elastic profile of HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and linear gel, coupling analysis of first
normal stress and relaxation time were investigated. First normal stress was obtained from shear
viscosity measurements using a double plate rheometer setup, and an oscillatory frequency test
was used to measure relaxation time (τ) of the fluid. Figure 5 presents the elastic property
(normal force N1) as a function of shear rate. Both HVFR-A and HVFR-B have high elastic
profile than the elastic property of linear gel. HVFRs are polyacrylamide based and have elastic
characterization e.g. (normal stress and relaxation time) higher than guar-based fluids Hu et al.
(2018) and Ba Geri et al. (2019).

20 16
HVFR-A HVFR-A
HVFR-B 14
Linear gel HVFR-B
15 12
Normal force, Pa

Normal force, Pa

10
10 8
6
5
4
2
0
1 10 100 0
1 10 100
Shear rate, 1/sec Shear rate, 1/sec

Figure 5. Normal force profile of HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and linear gel in fresh water (left) and produced water (right)
URTeC 99 8

Figure 6 presents the elasticity properties of the different fracturing fluids at 40𝑠 −1 . HVFR-B
has the highest elasticity in both fresh and produced water. The normal stress profile has 21%
reduction of HVFR-B. In contrast, linear gel has the lowest elasticity profile. Although HVFR-A
has a lower viscosity than the linear gel, the elastic characterization of HVFR-A is higher than
the linear gel.

6
Normal force, Pa

0
HVFR-A HVFR-B Linear gel

Fracturing fluid type

Fresh water Produced water

Figure 6. Elasticity profile of different fracturing fluids at 40 𝑠 −1 for fresh water versus produced water

In addition to normal force, relaxation time and Weissenberg number (Wi) equation 1 can be
used to characterize the elastic properties of a fluid. The Weissenberg dimensionless number can
be defined as follows:
Elastic forces
Wi = Viscous forces = λ ∗ ϔ (1)
where Wi is the Weissenberg number, λ is the relaxation time, and ϔ is the particle shear rate

At the same experimental conditions, all three fracturing fluids tested in fresh water have
identical viscosity measurements. Table 2 demonstrates that fluid elasticity relaxation time and
Weissenberg number have different values for all the test fluids. To illustrate, HVFR-B has
strong elastic profile where relaxation time was 21 s and Weissenberg number was 2295 while
linear gel showed a weak elasticity profile 285. On the other hand, in produced water the
viscoelastic characterization for all the tested fluids decreased as shown in Table 3. For instance,
the Power law parameter (K) of HVFR-A decreased from 630 mPa.sn to 159 mPa.sn, which is a
75% reduction. Furthermore, the relaxation time of the same fluid also decreased from 15.3 s to
9.12 s. This sharp reduction in rheology property of fracturing fluids due to the high-level TDS
brine does not tolerate HVFRs.
URTeC 99 9

Table 2. Viscoelastic characterization of fracturing fluids test in fresh water

Viscosity profile Elasticity profile
Fracturing
fluid type K Weissenberg number
n Relaxation time (s)
(mPa.sn) (Wi)
HVFR-A 630 0.65 15.3 2029
HVFR-B 628 0.64 21 2295
Linear gel 631 0.64 1.73 285

Table 3. Viscoelastic characterization of fracturing fluids test in produced water

Viscosity profile Elasticity profile
Fracturing
fluid type K Weissenberg number
n Relaxation time (s)
(mPa.sn) (Wi)
HVFR-A 159 0.65 9.12 1755
HVFR-B 442 0.64 18.3 2795
Linear gel 350 0.64 0.53 144

Elasticity to Viscosity Ratio (𝜆𝑒/𝜐 )

To characterize the viscoelastic properties (viscosity and elasticity) of the fracturing fluids,
Equation 2 defines the elasticity to viscosity ratio (𝜆𝑒/𝜐 ) for a fluid. The viscoelastic ratio is a
significant factor to understand which property controls the proppant settling velocity and
proppant transport during hydraulic fracturing treatments. If the elastic/viscous ratio is greater
than unity, this suggests that elasticity is the greater effect, while if the elastic/viscous ratio is
less than unity that indicates that viscosity largely contributes to proppant transport Ba Geri et al.
(2019a):
0.5𝜏𝑁1 (ϔ)
𝜆𝑒/𝜐 = (2)
𝜂(ϔ)

where, λe/υ is the elasticity to viscosity ratio 𝑁1 (ϔ) is the first normal stress, 𝜏 is relaxation
time, and 𝜂(ϔ) is the shear viscosity.
Figure 7 is a log-log plot of the elasticity to viscosity ratio (λe/υ) as a function of shear rate for
the various fluids. For the HVFR-A and HVFR-B fluids in fresh water, the plotted lines were
𝜆𝑒/𝜐 = 8.02 ϔ1.23 and 𝜆𝑒/𝜐 = 9.8 ϔ1.3, respectively. Both of these lines show that elastic lifting
dominated the entire investigated shear rate range (1 to 200 𝑠 −1 ) for HVFR-A and HVFR-B.
For the linear gel in fresh water, the plotted line is given by 𝜆𝑒/𝜐 = 0.00086 ϔ1.57 which falls
almost entirely in the viscous range, particularly in the range of 10 𝑠 −1 to 100𝑠 −1 which is the
range of shear rates needed to suspend and transport proppant in fractures. Thus, for linear gel,
the elastic effects are almost negligible in this realistic shear rate range.
The plot also shows that a high-level of TDS in the produced water reduces the viscoelastic
property of the fracturing fluids. For HVFRs the elastic property still dominated the proppant
transport within the studied shear rate range even though the polymer chains are already
influenced by the solution salinity as illustrated by 𝜆𝑒/𝜐 = 2.68 ϔ1.4 for HVFR-A and 𝜆𝑒/𝜐 =
URTeC 99 10

8.5 ϔ1.38 . The linear gel shows significant reduction in the λe/υ ratio due to the use of produced
water, as plotted by 𝜆𝑒/𝜐 = 0.00013 ϔ1.38 . The elastic effects are negligible. These results
confirm that the guar-based linear gel system performance depends mainly on fluid viscosity
rather than elastic properties.

100000
10000
1000
Elasticity dominate
100 proppant tarnsport
10
λ e/v

1
0.1
Viscosity dominate
0.01
proppant tarnsport
0.001
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Shear Rate, 1/s
HVFR-A in fresh water HVFR-B in fresh water
Linear gel in fresh water HVFR-A in produced water
HVFR-B in produced water Linear gel in produced water
Figure 7. Calculated elastic/viscous ratio as a function of shear rate for HVFR-A, HVFR-B, and linear gel.

Proppant Settling Velocity Analysis

Carrying proppant is one of the main functions of a fracture fluid. This study used a 20/40 mesh
size to study the settling velocity effect on both HVFRs and guar-based fracturing fluids. The
20/40 mesh proppant is the most common size; and represents around 85% of the proppant in the
hydraulic fracturing industry (Montgomery and Smith, 2010).
Figure 8 presents the relationship between proppant settling velocity and the three fracturing
fluids studied. For fresh water, HVFR-B recorded the lowest settling velocity—around 3.5 cm/s
due to HVFR-B fluid having a strong viscoelastic characterization profile. Although linear gel
has higher viscosity measurements than HVFR-A, the HVFR-A has a lower settling velocity (4.2
cm/s) than the linear gel settling velocity (5.3 cm/s) because the relaxation time of HVFR-A
(15.3 s in fresh water) is higher than that for linear gel (1.73 s in fresh water). The results are
consistent with Galindo, 2019 study where it was found that higher viscosity profile was not
beneficial and could reduce the proppant suspension rate properties.
In addition, produced water negatively impacted all the tested fluids. All three values of settling
velocity are higher. For example, the proppant settling velocity for linear gel (8.7 cm/s in brine
water) was 40% higher than its settling velocity in fresh water (5.23 cm/s).
The use of high-TDS produced water hinders the hydration of the polymer chains, lowers the
fluid viscosity, and thus reduces the fluid’s ability to carry and transport proppant. Results show
that all the tested fracturing fluids have limited salt tolerance. Fluid HVFR-B showed the least
reduction in proppant-carrying capacity (as indicated by proppant settling velocity), HVFR-A
showed the scond lowest, and the linear guar gel had the worst.
URTeC 99 11

10
Fresh water

Proppant settling velosity, cm/s

9
Produced water
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
HVFR-A HVFR-B Linear gel
Fracturing fluid type

Figure 8. Proppant settling velocity of 20/40 mesh size versus different fracturing fluids

Figure 9 presents the elastic effect (e.g. relaxation time on settling velocity of different HVFRs
and linear gel). High levels of salinity water also negatively impacted the elastic properties of
fracturing fluids. HVFR-B recorded the smallest reduction in relaxation time, about 14% when
tested in fresh water and produced water, so the settling velocity increased by 29% from 3.4 cm/s
to 4.85 cm/s. Moreover, 70% reduction in relaxation time of linear gel occured from 1.73 s to
0.53 s when changing water salinity from fresh water to high-TDS brine water. This high
reduction leads to an increase of over 40% increasing on proppant settling velocity from 5.3 cm/s
to 8.7 cm/s in fresh water and produced water, respectively.

20/40 proppant
10
9
8
Settling velocity (cm/s)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Relaxation time (s)
HVFR-A in fresh water HVFR-B in fresh water Linear gel in freshwater
HVFR-A in produced water HVFR-B in produced water Linear gel in produced water
Figure 9. Proppant settling velocity of 20/40 mesh size versus relaxation time of different fracturing fluids
URTeC 99 12

However, using produced water reduced the fluids’ ability to generate viscous profile, results
data suggested the development of HVFR fluids that have higher elastic profile than viscous
because the viscous property does not dominate proppant suspension. Also, using high viscosity
HVFRs increase the potential of formation damage by increasing the polymer residual.

Discussion the Potential of Formation Damage

Hydraulic fracturing operations have increased dramatically in the Wolfcamp formation in the
Permian Basin. The gross thickness of this formation varies from 700 ft to 4,000 ft with total
organic carbon between (TOC) 2 to 7 %. The porosity ranges from 4% to 12%, and the average
permeability is around 10mD (Blomquist, 2016). Due to the average pore-throat size of the
Wolfcamp formation in the Permian Basin that varies from 22 to 89 nm, high viscosity friction
reducers and guar-based fluids will build a filter cake on the surface of the shale matrix.
Therefore, the potential of formation damage of using viscous fracturing fluids increases because
the formed filter cake will block the pore-throat of low permeability rocks. In addition, it has the
potential of decreasing the fracture conductivity due to higher residual polymer. However,
StimLab (2012) tested higher concentrations of HVFRs up to 14 gpt and the results showed that
guar-based fluids (e.g. linear gel or crosslinked) caused higher damage than using 14 gpt
HVFRs. This leads to increasing well productivity as a result of increased fracture conductivity.
Galindo (2019) studied the effect of increasing HVFRs viscosity on formation damage. The
results showed that HVFRs might cause formation damage if used without a breaker because of
polymer residuals. Van Domelen (2017) reported a comparison study between 15 lb/Mgal of
crosslinked and 3 gpt of viscosity-building friction reducers (VFR). Table 4 and Figure 10 show
under the same conductivity condition, the final regained conductivity was 106% and 36% of
3gpt of VFR and 15 lb/Mgal of crosslinked, respectively. This study examined that using 4 gpt of
HVFR-A has less capability of carrying proppant than using 2 gpt of HVFR-B in both fresh
water and produced water. In conclusion, the proppant transport can be affected negatively by
using high loading of HVFRs. Therefore, screening the critical concentration of HVFRs in harsh
conditions is needed to evaluate proppant transport performance and minimize the potential of
formation damage.
Table 4. Regain Fracture Conductivity for Various Frac Fluid Systems
Retained conductivity of 15 Ib/Mgal crosslinked gel with breaker
Stress, psi Time @ Time Conductivity Permeability Width %
stress (Total) (md-ft) (Darcy) (in) Regain
2,000 0 24 hrs 173 9 0.242 8
2,000 50 hrs. 50 hrs 752 38 0.239 36

Retained conductivity of 3gpt VFR fluid with breaker

Stress, psi Time @ Time Conductivity Permeability Width %

stress (Total) (md-ft) (Darcy) (in) Regain
2,000 0 24 hrs 2031 100 0.243 93
2,000 50 hrs. 50 hrs 2242 111 0.243 106
URTeC 99 13

Figure 10. Regain fracture conductivity for various frac fluid systems (Van Domelen, 2017, Dahlgren et al., 2018)

Conclusions
This paper investigates the rheological characterization of hydraulic fracturing fluids such as
HVFRs and linear gel on high-TDS produced water. Proppant settling velocity effect was also
studied in fresh water and produced water as well. The obtained results from this experimental
investigation provides new insights into the proppant transport theories that leads to the
developing conclusions as follows:
1. Identical shear-viscosity profile of fracturing fluids e.g. HVFRs and linear gel can have
different proppant settling velocity measurements in fresh water due to the different elasticity
properties of each fluid.
2. Even though the tested fluids have similar viscosity measurements in fresh water, the
rheological characterization differ in produced water. Elasticity properties (e.g. normal forces
of HVFRs) show significant reduction with brine water which leads to reduction in proppant
transport efficiency.
3. Proppant settling velocity is governed by different factors such as a fracturing fluid’s
viscosity, elasticity, concentration, and water salinity. Although HVFR-A had the highest
fluid concentration, the proppant settling rate was higher, which caused the potential of
formation damage by using high concentration of HVFRs fluids.
4. In high-TDS produced water, the reduction in settling velocity was over 40% for the linear
gel. The reduction was less (around 27%) for HVFR’s, indicating that the HVFR fluids are
more tolerant of the brine.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express his appreciation to Hadramout Establishment for Human
Development (HEHD) for sponsoring him for the PhD degree. The authors would like to
aknowladge Mabkhot Bin Dahbag at the University of Calgary for his support during this work.
URTeC 99 14

References
Acharya, A. R. (1986, March 1). Particle Transport in Viscous and Viscoelastic Fracturing
Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/13179-PA
Aften, C. (2018, October 5). Analysis of Various High Viscosity Friction Reducers and Brine
Ranges Effectiveness on Proppant Transport. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi:10.2118/191792-18ERM-MS
API, A. P. (n.d.). Energy and Opportunity. Retrieved April 10, 2017, from
http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/#/?section=energy-and-opportunity
Ba Geri, M., Imqam, A., Bogdan, A, Shen, L. (2019a, April 9). Investigate the Rheological
Behavior of High Viscosity Friction Reducer Fracture Fluid and Its impact on Proppant
Static Settling Velocity. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/195227-MS
Ba Geri, M., Imqam, A., & Flori, R. (2019b, April). A Critical Review of Using High Viscosity
Friction Reducers as Fracturing Fluids for Hydraulic Fracturing Applications. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. https://doi:10.2119/195191-MS
Ba Geri, M., Imqam, A., & Suhail, M. (2019c, March 15). Investigate Proppant Transport with
Varying Perforation Density and its Impact on Proppant Dune Development Inside
Hydraulic Fractures. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/195018-MS
Blomquist, P., 2016. Wolfcamp Horizontal Play, Midland Basin, West Texas. AAPG Pacific
Section and Rocky Mountain Section Joint Meeting.
Dahlgren, K., Green, B., Williams, B., Inscore, J., Domelen, M. V., & Fenton, A. (2018, January
23). Case Studies of High Viscosity Friction Reducers HVFR in the STACK Play.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/189893-MS
Ellafi, A., M. Ba Geri, B. Bubach, and H. Jabbari (2019, June 23). Formation Evaluation and
Hydraulic Fracture Modeling of Unconventional Reservoirs: Sab’atayn Basin Case
Study. American Rock Mechanics Association.
Engle, M.A., Reyes, F.R., Varonka, M.S., Orem, W.H., Ma, L., Ianno, A.J., Schell, T.M., Xuc,
P., Carroll, K.C. (2016) Geochemistry of formation water from the Wolfcamp and
Shales: Insights into orgin, reservoirs connectivity, and fluid.
Galindo, T. (2019, January 29). Can Proppant Transport be Negatively Affected by Too Much
Viscosity? Society of Petroleum Engineers. http://doi:10.2118/194317-MS
Gomaa, A. M., Gupta, D. V. S. V., & Carman, P. S. (2015, February 3). Proppant Transport?
Viscosity Is Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi:10.2118/173323-MS
Harris, P. C., Morgan, R. G., & Heath, S. J. (2005, January 1). Measurement of Proppant
Transport of Frac Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/95287-MS
Hu, Y. T., Chung, H., & Maxey, J. E. (2015, February 3). What is More Important for Proppant
Transport, Viscosity or Elasticity? Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi:10.2118/173339-MS
Hu, Y. T., Fisher, D., Kurian, P., & Calaway, R. (2018, January 23). Proppant Transport by a
High Viscosity Friction Reducer. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi:10.2118/189841-MS
Johnson, M., Winkler, A., Aften, C., Sullivan, P., Hill, W. A., & VanGilder, C. (2018, October
5). Successful Implementation of High Viscosity Friction Reducer in Marcellus Shale
Stimulation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/191774-18ERM-MS
Malhotra, S., and M. M. Sharma, "Settling of Spherical Particles in Unbounded and Confined
Surfactant-based Shear Thinning Viscoelastic fluids: An Experimental Study", Chemical
URTeC 99 15

Engineering Science, 84: 646-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2012.09.010.

Montgomery, C.; Smith, M. Hydraulic Fracturing: History of An Enduring Technology. J.
Petroleum Tehcnol., 2010.
Motiee, M., Johnson, M., Ward, B., Gradl, C., McKimmy, M., & Meeheib, J. (2016, February 1).
High Concentration Polyacrylamide-Based Friction Reducer Used as a Direct Substitute
for Guar-Based Borate Crosslinked Fluid in Fracturing Operations. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/179154-MS
STIM-LAB Proppant Consortium, Report July 2012, Section 3.1 Friction Reducers used in
Slickwater Applications.
Padhy, S., Shaqfeh, E.S.G., Iaccarino, G. et alet al 2013. Simulation of a sphere sedimenting in a
viscoelastic fluid with cross shear flow. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics
197:48-60.
Tanner, R.I., Housiadas, K.D., and Qi, F. 2014. Mechanism of drag increase on spheres in
viscoelastic cross-shear flows. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 203: 51-53.
Van den Brule, B.H.A.A and Gheissary, G. 1993. Effect of Fluid Elasticity on the Static and
Dynamic Settling of a Spherical Particle. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanica 49
(1): 123-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-0257(93)85026-7.
Van Domelen, M., Cutrer, W., Collins, S., & Ruegamer, M. (2017, March 27). Applications of
Viscosity-Building Friction Reducers as Fracturing Fluids. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. https://doi:10.2118/185084-MS