Many additives are used in unconventional resources fracturing to enhance performance of the fracture. Chemical additives are carefully chosen after stringent compatibility testing in the lab. Proppant is selected based on API/ISO procedures for quality control methodologies or simply by availability. However, the current procedures view proppant as a material and fail to address its compatibility with friction reducers (FRs) and other chemical additives in fracturing applications. After chemical compatibility was confirmed via flow loop and viscosity testing, an FR was selected for field trial. Operators successfully placed Proppant 1 (Northern White) utilizing FR-A. However, when operators attempted to replace Proppant 1 with three other proppants, high surface pressure was seen, and operators could not maintain suitable pumping pressure. Operators initially concluded that FR-A was incompatible with the formation. Further review and discussion led to chemical compatibility testing of FR-A with each proppant. FR-A combined with field water and proppants shows the compatibility of FR-A with Proppant 1 and incompatibility of the other three proppants due to swelling or flocculation. We demonstrate traditional compatibility testing of water and FR via flow loop and viscosity and quantifying proppant performance through API/ISO procedures are inadequate. Proppant selection should include mechanical and chemical testing to ensure well production is maximized while costs are minimized, ultimately achieving the desired outcome.

No abstract