i Wlety

of Petroleum Engineers ~
.

SPE 36495
Effects of High Temperature on Polymer Degradation and Cleanup
M.L. Samuelson,

~PYr!Qht
This

l%

paperwas

Exhlbt!on

lnfo,mabon
correcbrm
PesAon
SPE

was

tor presentation

are

subject

Eg,ncem
111.strattom

The

Box 83332-+3 Richardson

wat

SPE

Ortcber

by an SPE

subm!tted
as

Engineers

to publication

Pernmss,o
may

of were

&9

material,

of Petroleum

Annual

Program

Commlmee

presented

dws

or members

TX 75003%%,

The

U S A

and

Papers

Commdtees

Wr!te

rewew

of

paper

as

reflect

to
any

presented

at

of the Society

of

of not rrwre

should

presented

of the

and are subjti

necessarily

to an atsbact

abstrad

tollowng

C2mte.ts

Eoglnec&

Ik office=,

the paper was

Conference

1996

r.?vk?w by Edrtonal

copmd

Techmcal

by the autho, (s)

to cmpy IS restricted
be

and by whom

lower cost, an improved understanding

of gudbreaker
interactions and the flow processes which occur at high
temperatures is needed. Recent work by Pope et al] and Penny
and Jinz have given insight into the impact of gel
concentration . mult iphase flow and viscous fingering on
cleanup of fracturing fluids in gas wells. In a field flowback
study by Pope et a13.a relationship was suggested between gas
production and fracturing fluid polymer returned from the
WCI1.Concurrent with this field study, latmratory work was
king completed which defined the relationship between
polymer mass remaining in the proppant pack and loss of
pack porosity. This paper will illustrate these results.

I.c

by the Som?tV of Petroleum

[mewed

author(s)

Dowell

at the tS96

U S A

m an abstract

of the Seaety

acknoiwedgment

Colorado,

not been

by the

Eng,n=m

for pr~ntat!on

selectee

contained
have

meetfngs

Petroleum
words

of p~roleum

pfepamd

held m Oenver,

This papw
presented

~feb

V.G. Constien,

contan
L!braoan

than

303

conspncuo.s
SPE,

P O

?ax 01-216S52-9435

Abstract

Production from high temperature gas wells is strongly

related to effective fracture length. Previous literature has
descrkd
the Importance of degrading gelling agents to very
low moleeular weights in order to minimize mobility ratio
differences between the fracturing fluid and gas during
cleanup. so that viscous fingering and channeling do not
Icavc Iargc unproductive areas in the propped haclurcs,
However, degraded guar-based fluids at high temperature
tend to form insoluble fragments as the backbone M reduced
to low molecular weights.
The problem in maximizing
cleanup and cffcctivc frac Icngth is then onc of degrading the
guar sufficiently so that viscous fingering is minimized while
preventing the formation of Insoluble material.
Recent
analysis of flowback from gas wells indicates that channeling
is indeed a problem.
This paper presents laboratory data of degraded fracturing
fluids at temperatures above 18(YF using laboratory fracture
conductivity results and residual polymer analysis. Field data
IS presented which indicate current trends in poljmcr cleanup
at these temperatures.

Damage

Mechanisms

Permeability reduction in a proppant pack is the result of a

reduction of pack porosity. Factors such as VISCOUS
fingering,
fines generated by proppant crushing and polymer residue
from fracturing fluids can ph] sically occupy pore spaces in
its porosity and
the proppant
pack. thus reducing
permeability. The efkct of VISCOUSfingenng on fracture
conductivity damage was discussed in reference 1 for the
temperature range of 125- 175F. Other factors m addition to
purely viscous effects become important in conductivity
damage at higher temperatures,
For example. the intrinsic
viscosity of a guar moleeule has been found to decrease with
Increasing temperature indicating the poly-rner is txcoming
less soluble, This hydrophobic property of the polymer will
tend to make the molecules conglomerate together, especially
after they are broken down into fragments by chemical
breakers or hydrolysis by tcmpmture.
This aggregation may
increase their abihty to block pore spaces in the proppant
pack or more importantly, pore throat spaces. Blocking a pore
throat will essentially remove the corresponding pore volume
from availabili(j for flow. Therefore, the resuhmg aggregates
may block an effective volume to flow that M much larger
than the volume which they physically occupy. In order to
maximize retained permeability. it is necessary to either
prevent the aggregates from forming or mobllrze thcm once
they have formed.
lt is chfflcult to decouple the effkcts on conductwity

Introduction

The success of a frac(unng operation ultirnii(el~ depends on

the cumulative production increase resulting from the
treatment, lhe chemistry of the kactunng flwd wh]ch IS
utilized in high temperature gas wells and the physleal
processes during the multiphase flow cleanup determine the
fracture area from which production will occur.
[o provide the industry better fracture stimulation at

849

SPE 3649S

M.L Samuelson, V G, Constien

temperatures.
At all temperatures, the curves show a steep
drop in retained permeability for only small amounts of
To obtain a
polymer king
retained in the pack.
mathematical interpolation, all curves were tlted with an
exponential function (Equation 1) and Lhc coefficients are
summarized in Table 3.

damage contributed from viscous and insoluble effects.

However, to a first approximation. the factors can be lumped
together since it can be assumed that all factors would cause
volume blockage in the proppant pack thereby leading to a
In order to corrclatc the
reduction in permeability.
permeability reduction with volume blockage. a measurable
experimental quantity is required. Measurement of polymer
concentration was used to determine the amount of polymer
removed from the pack during the fluid loss and flowback
stages of Iaboratoty conductivity experiments,
In addition,
the amount of polymer removed from actual fracturing
treatments was measured both with and without an additive
to counteract the hydrophobic agglomeration of polymer
aggregates.
The following sections discuss the results of the polymer
analyses, the correlation of frachwe permeability with the
amount of polymer left in the pack, the prediction of fracture
conductivity at high temperatures using these results. and
finally the application of this method for actual fracture
treatments,

K ~ ~*e

8*IV,

(1)

These coefficients, together with the measured WP, allow

the prediction of retained permeabilities for the conductivity
experiments with an error of t 15/0.
Effective Density of Polymer Residue

(pm)

If the assumption of permeability reduction by loss of porosity

is made, W,, can be related to the volume blockage that causes
damage to the proppant pack. According to the KozenyCarman equation. reduction of permeability by porosity
blockage can be defined by:
Kq

Polymer Mass in the Proppant Pack ( WP)

= (:)-

;;:

:;2

Laboratory fracture conductivity tests were run by the method

described by Hawlcins4 using various fracturing fluids and
breaker systems. The majority of testing utilized a high
temperature borate crosslinked fluid with a high temperature
oxidizing breaker, Table 1 summarizes the test parameters.
Iwo different methods were used to obtain the amount of
polymer left in the proppant pack after a conductivity
These methods include subtrachon
and
cxpcrimcnt.
gravimetric analysm. Table 2 summarizes the results from
these analyses.
The results m Table 2 inchcate a cbfference of
approximately 10?/o in the amount of polymer as analyzed by
the two methods [t should be noted that both methods have
For example. despite the lo~v
certain inherent errors.
permeability of the rock core (e.g., .3 red), a small amount of
polymer penetrates the outer layer of the reek surface during
fluid loss and becomes wapped.s
The trapfxd polymer
molecules. which are accounted for in the method of
subtraction, may or may not contribute to permeabilig
damage measured by the experiment.
For the gravimetric
analysis, volatile particles beside guar might also be
combustcd in the oven and thus contribute to the weight of
polymer in the pack.
Since the two methods give
approximately the same results. the method of subtraction
was chosen for its simplicity.

(2)

where K and K are the permeabilitics of a proppant pack

before and after porosity blockage, c and c are designated as
the initial and final porosities. i Figure 2 illustrates plots of
fractional retained permeability versus fractional reduction in
porosity with different initial porosity values. Each curve
shows a steep drop in retained permeability with only small
reductions from the original porosity.
To relate the porosity to the volume occupied by polymer.
the following equation can be used which is derived from the
definition of porosity:
;=l.

~
&

(3)

where V is the pore volume blocked due to the presence of

polymer residue and V is the original undamaged pore
volume of the pack. For a typical conductivity experiment,
the pore volume V and the initial porosity c can lx ealctdatcd
by measuring the proppant pack width after closure, /W,the
fracture area. A.. and the volume of the proppant. b:. placed
in the cell (Equations 4 and 5), Thus. WP can be related to V
by equating (1) to (2)-(5).
v=(,4,

*f)-

P,

(4)

v
Correlation
mass (WP)

of Retained Permeability

(K/K)

with Polymer

=(A4

The amount of polymer retained in the proppant pack.

defined as WP, is found to vary systematically with the
measured retained permeabilities, K/K. Figure 1 illustrates
the corrclat ion fxtwcen
K /K and WP at different

Since it is dit%eult
solution between WP and
instead,
With known
cxpcrimcntal conditions.

850

*/w)

(5)

to obtain an exact mathematical

V, a numerical approach is used
values of V and s from the
V and K/K can be calculated by

SPE364S5

Effects of High Temperature

on Polymer Degradation and Cleanup

respectively,
Another way to understand the meaning of
these values is to take their reelproeal (22.2. 32.3 and 35.7
cm /g rcspccti~cly). which is the volume cffccti~cly lost for 1
gmm of @ymcr rcmainmg in the proppant pack.
This
cx~lains why very small amounts of pdymcr remaining in the
sand pack great Iy impact retained permeability in Figure 1.
In terms of common oilticld units. one pound of polymer
remaining in the fracture in a 250F well could effectively
bicrek ().80 ft of Porosity in the proppant pack. (This equates
to approximately 2.5 ft ] of actual fracture volume in a typical
proppant pack with around 30% porosny. ) In lcrms of actual
fracture treatments. the mass of polymer remaining in the
ttacturc kmcomes cWemcly cnttcal In detcrrmmng
the
efkcli!e fracture area a~ailable for production
It should be noted that the cffec[ive density values are
esomauons based on the cxpcrrmental data set and do not
consider all possible \anablcs in fractures. In fact, previous
smdics b! Cook( suggested that IM can be strongly affected
by factors such as closure stress in the fracurrc and initial
@rosit> of proppant pack in addition to the temperature of
the WCII.
[n low permeability} gas wells. fracture conductil ity
seldom
limits
production
rote: howe~-cr, cumulatitc
production has been shown to have an almost linear
dependence on fracture length. The issue for maximizing well
production ati.er a fracturing treatment in low Permeability
gas wells IS then to remove as much of the polymer from the
well as possible In order 10 create the longest possible
eff&live fracture length. For several years now. the indr.rst~
has been focusing on developing fracturing fluds and
These
which
improve
fracture
cleanup,
additives
improvements inciudc a wide vancty of oxidizers and enzyme
breakers in both delayed and non delayed ~ersions.
Also.
fracturing fluids have been formulated using borate and
organometallic
cross] inkers,
low
polymer
special
concentration fluds and f.mlymer dispersant additives. Field
studies have been conducted to determine the effects of these
improvements on well productivity. These studies are difficult
to conduct and evaluate because it is usually difficult to find
close matches of formation properties and treatment designs
to be able to clearly diiYerentiate the effects of chemical
addl(i}cs In fluid Syslcms, .~ polymer mass baiance approdch
appears to be a possible approach to make evaluations of
treatments wilh data from only a single well.

substituting different values of s into Equations (3) and (2).

respectively. The corresponding values of K/K are then used
to sol~e for WP from Equation (1). Figure 3 illustrates the
rclat ionship between WP and V at different Icmp.xat ures.
A striking observation is that all thrm plots show a fairly
linear correlation between WP and V. [n other words. it
appears as though each incremental increase m polymer mass
causes about the same incremental decrease in pore \olumc
available for flow.
If the retained polymer residues are
assumed to behave as solids. the volume blocked by tmlymer
can be related to mass of polymer in the sand pack through a
term defined as efketive density. p.tT:

w
Pcy = ;

(6)
The effective density is essentially the slope of the lines in
Figure 3. This term can be visualized as ~hc mass of polymer
required to block off a given amount of pore volume 10 flow.
The cffcctivc density, pcff, is plotted against the retained
porosity in Figure 4. Again. values of constant cffectivc
density arc obsmcd except for cxtrcmcly damaged packs.
This increw
in cffectivc density for cxtrcmcly damaged
packs is to h cxpeclcd and can lx explained as follows For
a given temperature. assume that some si~e distribution of
polymer aggregates exists. It is reasonable that the polymer
particle size distribution overlaps that of the pore throal size
distribution in the pack: thcrcforc. some of the polymer
oggregatcs will block some of the pore throats while others
will pass through
The number of pore throats blocked (i.e.
blocked
pore volume)
\vill determine
the retained
permeability.
For a lightly damaged pack it may be wsualized that only
pore throats are blocked by the polymer aggregates with the
pore \olumc essentially vod 0[ poly mcr as sho~ n In ihc top
schematic of Figure 5. This situation would result m a low
et%ctivc density s:ncc only a small amount of polymer is
required to block a Iargc amount of pore volume to flow.
This c~cctivc density \ aluc should remain relatively constant
until a situation occurs such that a large proportion of the
pore throats are bloekcd.
Once a Iargc proportion of the pore throats arc blocked
(i .c. a scvcrel} damaged pack). i( may b ~isualiz.cd that
during the course of flow. polymer aggregates
nra~
accumulate behind the pore throat m the pore space Itself m
shown in the bottom schematic of Figure 5. This situation
will lead to an incrcasc in effective density since more
polymer will bc associated \vith the ~olumc blocked 10 flo~v.
As \vas showm in Figure 4, the effective density was
approximately constant over most of the range of retained
permcabilitics, therefore, it would be reasonable IO estimate
the effectlvc density- by a constant. The average values of pcm
obtained from a linear regression of the cumcs in Figure -1arc
().045, ().t)31. and ().()28 g/cm at 200. 250 and 2752F

Prediction

of K/K for Fracture

Treatments

The numerical approach based on a constant cffcctivc density

can be applied to evaluate fracture permeability from an
actual field treatment. By assuming a porosity. s. associated
with the proppant pack the initial undamaged pore volume,
V. can be calculated from the mass of proppant pumped
during the treatment. The amount of plymer retained in the
fracture. WI,. is also required to evaluate the final
permeability of the fracture. To obtain WV. an analysis of

851

ML. Samuelaon, V.G. Constien

SPE 364S5

polymer content in the well flowback fluids is necessmy. By

knowing the volumes and concentrations of fracturing fluids
during well flowback the amount of polymer returned from
the fracture can ke determined. Assuming minimal polymer
leak off during fluid loss and that the created fracture area is
the propped fracture area, the amount of polymer retained in
the proppant can be obtained by subtracting the amount
collected in flowback stages from that pumped into the
fracture during the treatment, Thus, an accurate estimate of
WP requires correct sampling of fracturing fluids during
flowback. The procedure for obtaining samples is given in
the Appendix
The value of V can be determined using the value of WP
from well flowback analysis and Figure 3 at various BHST.
The fractional reduction in porosity is then used to obtain the
fractional reduction in fracture permeability from Figure 2 at
the assumed porosity. However, this method of describing
K/K is restricted to fractures contained within the pay zone.

Although a direct prediction of K/K from field results has

not yet been verified, the procedure described gives an
objective approach to verify pack cleanup fkom dissimilar
fracturing treatments, The correlation of V to WP and the
corresponding values of peffshould be verified in larger scale
Iaboratoxy conductivity tests to try to determine fracture
geometrydependent
effects. Additional field comparisons of
various fracturing fluids and breaker combinations should be
used to veri~ which fluid system is giving the highest amount
of fracture cleanup.

Analysis of a Fluid System Using Polymer Mass

Balance
An example of the use of polymer flowback as a method to

3.

Conclusions

1.

2.

determine improvements in a fluid system is illustrated with

the following case study. Laboratory conductivity tests had
indicated that either borate or zirconium crosslinked fluids
with an oxidizing breakerlpolymer
aggre@e
dispersing
additive (PADA) combination provided retained permeability
increases ranging from 30% to as much as 150!0 over those
of breaker alone (Fig. 6]. A series of wells were fractured
with fluids containing breaker only and breaker with the
PADA additive. Polymer mass balance was obtained on these
treatments (Table 4). Greater return of polymer was obtained
in wells where breaker was used with the additive than in
wells using breaker only. Calculations of V from this data
give values typically higher than the original V (based on
assumptions ofs values of O.2 for sand and O.33 for ceramic
proppant). It is proposed that for many of these treatments,
the pack is in the severely damaged pxtion of Figures 3 and
4. thus the value of IM is signitleantly higher than the values
calculated above. In addition, there is some question of the
direct correlation of Iaboratory+rived
values for P,E with
field results, due to potential geometyspeci!ic
effects of pack
porosity blockage that might nol be adequately simula~ed in
the typical APl conductwity test setup. However, the relative
changes in the ratio of V to V should still give a valid
comparison of porosity blockage in the proppant pack even
lhough absolule pxrneabiliiy values cannot be obtained from
Figure 2.
Comparison of the V/l ratios from the field analyses
show an average decrease of approximately 50/0. When this
is correlated with a corresponding decrease in fractional
reduction in porosity, and assuming the change is occurring
in the highly damaged portion of Figure 2, a greater than
50% increase in retained permeability is strongly indicated.

4.

5.

6.

Polymer mass balance coupled with the Kozeny-Carman

of
relationship
effectively describe the mechanism
reduction in retained permeability due to pore blmkage
from agglomerated polymer fragments.
A correlation has km
derived between the volume
blocked by polymer and the mass of polymer in the sand
pack through a term defined as effective density, peR.
Due to the effective density being constant over most of
the range of retained permeabilities, p=ffis estimated to be
0.045, 0.031, and 0,028 g/cm3 at 200, 250 and 275F,
respectively.
Pore blockage at high temperatures can be mitigated
through the use of a polymer aggregate dispersant,
resulting in retained permeability increases of as much as
15(YYo
over breaker alone.
Field results verify these relative increases through
comparison of percentage increases in polymer recoveg
and relative changes in the calculated V/V ratio.
Field results indicate that the efketive density correlation
may be affected by proppant pack geometry effects.
Additional lab testing in a larger scale pack geometxy is
warranted to quanti~ these effects.

Nomenclature
Wp = amount of polymer retained in the

proppant pack. g
K = proppant pack permeability before pmosity
blockage, md
K = proppant pack permeability atler porosity
blockage. md
E = initial porosity
s = final prosity
V = original undamaged pore volume of the pack.
cm3
V = pore volume blocked by polymer residue.
cm3
1. = proppant pack width after closure, cm
AA = the fracture area. cmz
VP = vohimc of proppant placed in the cell, cm3
peff = effective density. g/cm3

852

Effects of High Temperature

SPE Wt9S

Subscripts
p = proppant

wv = width
.1 = area
efl = effective
Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Dave Pope and Larry Leung for much

of the laboratory work and discussion that went into this
paper, We also wish to acknowledge Glenda Plemons
for all of her valuable assistance in publishing the paper.

Sample Volumes:

1. POP, D. S., Lxwng. L. K.. Gulbis, J., and Constien. V.G.:

Fracture
Viscous
Fingering
on
Effects
of
Conduclivily. paper SPE 28511 presented al the 1994
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans. LA Sept. 25-28,
2. Penny. G. S., Jin. L.: The Use of Inertial Force and
LOW Shear Viscosiiy to Predict Cleanup of Fracturing
Fluids within PropPant Packs,- paper SPE 31096
presented
at the 1996 SPE Formation
Damage
Symposium, Lafayette, LA. Sept. 22-25.
3 Pope, D. S.. 13ritt. L. Constlen. V, .4ndcrson, A. and
Leung, L,. Field Stu@ of Guar Removal From
Hydraulic Fractures. paper SPE 31094 presented at the
1996 SPE Formation Damage Symposium. Lafayette.
LA. Scpt, 22-25.
4. Hawkins. G W Laboraton Study of Proppant-Pack
Permeablllh
Reduction Caused by Frachu_ing Fluids
During Closure. Papr SPE 18261 presented at the
1988 SPE Annual 1echmcal Confcrencc and Exhibition,
Houston. rx. Oct. 2-5,
5. Prudhomme. R. K. and Wang. J. K.: Filter+ake
Formation of Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 25207
presented at the 1993 SPE Intcmationtil ~mposium on
Oilfield ChcmistV, Ncw Orleans, LA. March 2-5
6, Cooke. C. E.: Conducti\it\ of Fracture Prormarrts
in
..
Multilaycrs, JPT (Sept. 1973) 1101.
- Polymer

Sampling

The abilit} to measure (he

frac fluids afler a treatment
success of the stimulation.
dcserrptlon of the guldclmcs
In collcct]ng flowback lluds

time and total volume flowed when each of the samples is

collected.
Collect 20 to 25 samples during the last two-third of the
flowback period
Again record the time and the total
volume flowed when each of the samples is collected
(e.g.. For a total of a three-days of flowback period
collect 15 to 20 samples in the first day and then 20 to 25
samples during the second and third days.)

The volume of fluid collected during the sampling wriod is

importan[ for the evaluation and therefore should be recorded.
Depcndrng on the size of the fracturing treatment and the
rate of flowback. volume of fluid collected within a sampling
The following
procedures
are
period could vary.
recommended:
.
If pssible, allow fluids to flow into a tank so that the
total fluid volume ean be gauged with time.
.
Samples should be collected from the line into the ta~
instead of from the tank
.
Collect 4 to 5 increments of samples during one sampling
wriod with the ~olume of each increment approximately
equal to 1/2 gallon. At the end of the period. mix the
increments together and extract approximately 100 to
200 cn13 of the mixture for analysis,
(e.g.. During a one-hour sampling period. colleet a l/2@lon increment of fluid for every 15-minute and place it
in a 5-gallon bucket, At the cnd of the hour, mix the
increments and extract 1()() to 200 cm3 of the mixture
from the bucket.)
.
Make sure to record the volume of flowback fluid
collected in the tank at the end of each sampling period.
Also reeord the cumulative volume by adding it to the
reading from the pre~ious period.

References

Appendix

on Polymer Degradation and Cleanup

r.\tlLlt 1Ik?191

!!wc@

TEST

CWND[Cf[\TTY

dc+
~z

Closure

.\\g

Initial

(Ihn)

(psi)

Pore V(>I , v
(cm)

es

(F)

PARA\lttTERS
AVc rnltlal

B!!z@YJ

201)

Carholite

2040

20

45(?O

I 2.45

035

25(1

Carholile

2040

20

6000

11.23

().33

275

lnterprq

2040

20

5000

1I 80

().37

Procedure

amount of polymer in flowback

is impmtant in evaluating the
The following provides a brief
and procedures that wII1 be used
after a ftiacturlng treatment

I!z!Q

Sampling Frequency:

Itis important to coIlcct more samples at the beginning of the

flowback stage,
Since different wells might vary in the length of time in
fhrid flowback. the following guidelines should be used:
.
ColIect 15 to 20 samples during the first one-third of the
estimated total flowback period, Make sure to record the

853

TABLE 2- RESIDUAL POLYMER RESULTS

;Mmmnt
of POlym~~io the propp ml mid
0. Rd.

(F)

200

29

() 151

() 160

275

34

(),()66

().()73

275

1s

[1 167

0.182

From

Suhtradi,m

From Chvim~ic

(g)

,tia[vsis

M.L. Samuelson, V.G

SPE 3649S

Constin

TABLE 3- SUMMARY OF EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION

COEFFICIENTS FROM EQUATION 1.
Temp. (F)

Constant A

200
250
275

91.1
83.3
1073

Exponent

-8.7
-12.9
-19.4

TABLE 4.

- CALCULATED WELL COMPARISONS

Well No, Temp.

F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
Cv-1
CV-2
CV-3

~F)
220
220
220
220
270
250
230

sand

ceramic

(lb)
(lb)
394500
50040
301060
50780
545900
0
263000
42000
0 328200
0 425000
0 265000

VP (sand)

(R)

VP(ceramic)

(I+)

2388
1822
3304
1592
0
0
0

Polymer

Polymer

Pumped

Returned

(ff)

(lb)

Wells with Breaker Only

303 748
307 609
0 826
254 525
1987 993
2573 1286
1604 802

WP

(lb)

(rt)

2768
2489
3351
1984
11192
11227
6585

WJV

VPJ

3792
3275
4352
2875
12435
16039
10130

27%
24%
23%
31%
10%
30%
35%

Ave. =

26?4.

6.26 4.68

2750
7374
2787
4527
3731
16974

58?4. 1155
601
26%
5457 3138
62%
1059
609
33%
3033 1820
62%
1418
936
25% 12731 10146

1.70
2.99
1.78
3.40
1.85
9.39

1827 3.70 2.44

1643 4.09 2.70
2212 4.06 2.68
1309 3.78 2.49
9625 11.27 9.69
8948 8.73 6.96
4675 8.21 5.83

Wells w/breaker and additive

0 225000
195
205
0 603327
0 196480
205
0
210 590000
220 507420
0
250
448000

GW-I
GW-2
AW
F-1
F-2
Cv

0
0
0
3571
3072
0

1362

681

3652

1826

1189

595

893

0 768
2712 1356

Ave. =

44%

3.52 2.39
==i

:Note

- italicized

ceramic

values

are calculated

based

on similar

treatment

854

schedules

- no field numbers

0.88
1.72
1.02
2.04
1.22
7.48

available,

Effects of High Temperature

SPE =

i .i

.3;;;.+
0

0.06

0.1
Pap

4.15

0,2

n06dlNd

~oo

0.25

0,s

In UN P6ck

1,,

,,!

(b) 260F

0.O6

0.1
~

too

0:16

0,2

-hd

I
,

0.2S
h

On

so.

}\

0.3
Pock

[c)

Kn(

0.3S
w,

(g)

200

l-.;.

01,1

0.4

w, (0)

O,*6

0,4

47T.+
,

xtid.6t

W,]

,oi\

2j&,~
o

0.06

0.1

otymac

0.15
nudlwd

0.2
h

0.2s

0.3

Uw POek, w,

0.3s

0.4

(g)

Fig. 1- Correlation between K and WP at three different

temperatures.

on Polymer Degradation and Cleanup

SPE 38#5

M.L. Samuelson, V.G. Constien

LOWeffeatlvsdsnaltyfor atlghtlydamagsd pack

o.a.

J
0.4-

POrr*= Wpvi v

o.2 -

(*)

0.2
1 - CIt,

0.6

0.4

0.6

Wp,

0
1

Fr~cllorrnlraductlonIII porosity
High .fladvo

Fig. 2 - Fractional

in porosity versus
permeability for three
(i.e. 20 to 40A initiai

reduction

fractional reduction in retained

different initiai porosity values
porosity).
0.40

~-

O,as

[&m*.F,

T T,

250

*,

200F

.A

Pcrb =

?)!gy

r~-~-+~

\m

0.26

w) L

*.

0.$0

dentlty tir savsmtydamagedpack

and pm

Fig. 5 - Fiow path schematics

damaged packs.

};

-1..

0.0

2.0

0.00

r,

Pam

1
*.O

voluma

Fig. 3 - Relationship
different temperatures.

10.0

6.0

by

between

rwtmtrwd mlrmw

(emq

40,

three

0,06

1.* ..

***

9
*

*.

51

*.+*.*

..

AA

0+

O.oa

k *
--

0.2

1.e/4

0.4
Fmotlorrd

0.6
mouctlon

0.8

7-

No breaker

0.00 I
0.0

-1

---

0.08

0.04

ieveis of

12.0

V and WP at

**

for different

6.0

mouplod

> p~a

wp,,2,p

WPl+wp,+w,w ;

Smakrir .3111y

SreakeriPADA

J
1.0

Fig. 6- Laboratory conductivity comparisons with various

fluids and breaker systems (temperature
= 225F,
polymer concentration = 300 ib/1000 gal for berates, 450
IW1OOOgal for zirconates) .

la porodty

between effective density and

Fig. 4 - Relationship
reduction in porosity at three different temperatures.

856