IADC/SPE-170542-MS

LPG-Based Fracturing: An Alternate Fracturing Technique in Shale

Reservoirs
Tanmay M Soni, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University

Copyright 2014, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 2527 August 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association
of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
A novel stimulation technique named Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) based fracturing which can be an
alternative to conventional water based fracturing technique or hydraulic fracturing.
In conventional hydraulic fracturing treatments, it is observed that effective fracture length contributing
to the production is fraction of the propped fracture length. In LPG fracturing effective fracture length is
more than conventional fracture length hence increasing productivity. If we use gelled LPG as a fracturing
fluid, it is highly soluble with the formation hydrocarbon. If natural gas formations are present, then
propane and methane will combine to create unique liquid vapour saturation and returns to the surface at
ambient conditions which can be separated easily. LPG fracturing eliminates the need of flowback water
disposal, which is currently major problem in hydraulic fracturing. In LPG fracturing, a stream of gelled
LPG or a mixture of propane and butane is injected into the well. Proppant is supplied in this stream and
carried into the formation at frac pressures causing fractures though some precautions are must for the
safety issues. It has been observed that with less viscosity, less surface tension and less density, LPG can
rapidly and efficiently clean up while reducing the pressure needed to mobilize fracturing fluids.
In this paper, effective fracture lengths and rapid cleanup are demonstrated with the help of post
fracture pressure transient analysis. Comparison of LPG fracturing with conventional fracturing has been
explained critically. Complete recovery of the LPG has also been demonstrated here. Major advantages
and disadvantages of this technique along with economics are included in this paper. We can use this
technique in order to protect the environment and to increase the productivity. This paper briefly reviews
the previous work and explains an overview and applications of LPG fracturing.

Introduction
In 1970s gas fracturing was used for rock blasting and well shooting. In these jobs fluid and thermal
processes control the flow into the fracture. LPG fracturing or Gas Fracturing is an oil/gas well stimulation
technology by means of powder and/or propellant inflaming in wells to create multiple radial fractures in
the vicinity of well-bore. It enhances the well production and has been widely studied, tested by showing
bright prospect in oil and gas industry. Inert gas such as nitrogen is used for pumping system components

IADC/SPE-170542-MS

of LPG, and to help protect against risk of explosions. Nitrogen may also be added to the LPG mix during
a frac of shale gas or coal gas formations.
This technique is different from conventional fracturing or hydraulic fracturing technique. To understand LPG fracturing in better way, it is very important to know about basics of hydraulic fracturing
technique.

Hydraulic Fracturing Technique

Hydraulic fracturing is a type of stimulation process which increases the permeability of producing
formation helping migration from producing formation to well bore. It helps to overcome the barrier
created for flow which may be due to naturally low permeability common in shale formations or reduced
permeability resulting from near wellbore permeability impairment caused during drilling activities.
Hydraulic fracturing and natural fracture are key areas for optimize production of shale gas and the design
of fracture and propagation of fracture is important criteria in fracturing which is more complex for shale
gas fracturing as we use massive multi stage and multi cluster fracturing. Large amount of water along
with chemicals are injected into the wellbore at frac pressure to create the fracture in this process.
Proppant is then supplied in the fracturing fluid to keep the fractures in open condition. The flowback
water is contaminated with minerals and additives that were initially present. The key challenges in
hydraulic fracturing techniques are contamination of groundwater, risks to air quality and mishandling of
waste materials produced during the entire process. Groundwater methane contamination is a concern as
it has adverse impact on water quality and in extreme cases may lead to potential explosion. Hydraulic
fracturing for the purpose of oil, natural gas, along with geothermal production can be banned under the
Safe Drinking Water Act at few places. There are countries like France where hydraulic fracturing is
banned due to these severe problems.

Limitations of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments

In many unconventional reservoirs, gas wells do not perform up to the mark following water based
fracturing treatments. The reduction in fracture productivity can be a result of combination of factors such
as 1.Low reservoir pressure, 2.Poor proppant placement, 3.Limited fracture length and, 4.Low proppant
conductivity. Numerous mechanisms take part in this reduced fracture conductivity such as 1.Water
Blocking, 2.Gel Damage, 3.Less embedded proppant, 4.Proppant settling, 5.Fines plugging, 6.Clay
swelling. In many shale gas formations water is wetting phase and initial water saturation is very low. The
imbibition of the water from fracturing fluid can be very detrimental to gas productivity as any additional
water remains trapped due to capillary action. The pressure drawdown required to recover water can be
very high in tight formations. Clay swelling and fine generation also reduces gas productivity. The
resulting decrease in rock permeability reduces the ability of the gas to flow from the reservoir to fracture.

LPG as fracturing fluid

Many alternative fluid formulations exist and among these energized fluids are defined as fluids
containing at least one compressible, sometimes soluble gas phase, such as supercritical CO2, N2, LPG
and multiphase such as foams. Numerous authors have shown the benefits of using energized fluids in the
field. Table 1 shows qualitatively advantages and disadvantages of common energized fluids. Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG) is a mixture of petroleum gases existing in a liquid state at ambient temperature and
moderate pressure. Propane has a critical temperature of 213F which limits its use above that temperature. For applications above 213F, Commercial Butane (Butane) is mixed with propane to achieve the
desired performance. Butane has a critical temperature of 350F. Propane is stored at ambient temperature,
and when ambient temperature of 70F, the minimum storage pressure of 125 psi is required to maintain
propane as a liquid. When applying propane as a fracturing fluid, within the surface equipment, it is stored,
gelled, and proppant blended at a constant pressure of 280 psi. It is then pressurized with high pressure

IADC/SPE-170542-MS

Table 1Properties of LPG and Water

pumps to the required surface injection pressure for fracturing. The procedure of these mixed fluids
through well head is as follows:
1. Blender through high pressure pumps to wellhead.
2. Wellhead through tubular into fracture.
3. Fracture and leak-off to reservoir conditions.
During the job control of system components such as frac fluid source, inert gas source, proppant
supply source, frac pressure pump to supply a stream of frac fluid to the well are required. Propane and
Butane provides advantages of liquefied gases for fracs, while also providing high viscosity than carbon
dioxide for carrying proppant deep into the formation. The propane or butane is then vaporized and
become mixed with the formation gas. The butane or propane can then be produced at the surface with
formation gas. Inert gas such as nitrogen is used as a gas blanket and pressure test fluid to ensure the safety
of using LPG as a fracturing fluid. Gelling agent is also mixed during the job in order to maintain the
viscosity requirement. By cooling the LPG mixture before introducing it into the fracture system, reduced
pressure are required, which diminishes the potential for explosions or damage to the fracturing system
which can be caused by high pressures.

Effective Fracture Length

In bi-wing fracturing theory, the effective fracture length that is contributing to the production is fraction
of propped fracture length as illustrated in fig. 1. The reason behind that is in hydraulic fracturing, water
based fluids will react with the clay minerals and salts in the rock. Other reasons are that water will
become trapped within the pores of the rock and water will interact with the gas, oil or water native to
the formation. Whereas, in LPG fracturing effective fracture length is almost equal to propped fracture
length. For the same fracture length, LPG fractures will yield more production than conventional
hydraulic fracturing technique. The difference between effective fracture length and the created fracture
length is missed opportunity for incremental production. Short effective fracture length, relative to created
fracture length, has been linked to fracture fluid properties and their interaction with the formation.

Production
As we have seen that effective fracture length is more in LPG fracturing technique, we can say that from
the same fracture more amount of hydrocarbons can be recovered compared to conventional fracturing.
In case of Ansell, Cardium day wise initial production when comparing with conventional fracturing
system, it turned out that the production was almost double than conventional fracturing system. If the
fracturing fluid is compatible with the formation then the efficiency of the job is going to increase.
Increased production also increases the profit values per job done. Figure 2 and Figure 3 describes initial

IADC/SPE-170542-MS

Figure 1Effective fracture length comparison

Figure 2Ansell Cardium Initial production

and cumulative production datas consequently for the Ansell Cardium formation. According to figure 3,
we can say that the increase in production is around more than 1.5 times of average offset production.
Effective fracture length is used to assess the length of the propped fracture that contributes to
production. Effective fracture lengths can be determined from the flow and build-up data through pressure
transient analysis. For comparison purposes, propped fracture lengths can be estimated using a hydraulic
fracture propagation simulator calibrated by history matching pressure responses observed during each

IADC/SPE-170542-MS

Figure 3Ansell Cardium Average Cumulative Production

treatment. Effective fracture lengths from conventional fracturing fluids in reservoirs of this character are
often less than 50% of the expected length.

CleanUp Efficiency
Efficiency of a fracture treatment also depends upon its clean up job. Specific gravity of water is 1.0
whereas specific gravity of propane is 0.51. When the temperature of reservoir is high, we add butane
along with propane with its specific gravity of 0.58. A low specific gravity fluid, such as propane, allows
the formation to be in an under-balance state during cleanup. Due to its low density, there are no issues
of the well loading up or dying as with conventional fracturing fluids. Surface tension also plays very
important role in cleanup process. Surface tension exhibited by the fracturing fluid greatly impacts
capillary pressure effects in the reservoir. Selecting a fluid with a low surface tension will reduce the
pressure needed to mobilize fracturing fluid for clean-up. Surface tension of water is 72 dynes/cm whereas
of LPG is 7.6 dynes/cm. So in case of LPG we can easily conclude that better cleanup efficiency can be
achieved.

Flowback conditions
Recovery of LPG following a hydraulic fracture treatment can be beneficial in terms of operational
expediency, treatment economics, logistics and environmental care. There are two primary methods to
achieve post-frac LPG recovery; direct to pipeline, or direct to flare. Each method has specific benefits
best fit for different situations and circumstances. Direct to pipeline methods support zero flare targets.
Where LPG recovery is not desired, the well flow back stream is directed to the flare. Fortunately less
overall gas is flared due to the significant reduction in clean up time compared to conventional fracturing.
However, recovery of the LPG can eliminate flaring completely and, when applied effectively, results in
improved economics. The large differential pressures needed to exceed threshold capillary pressures,
typically in excess of 100 psi, inhibit water based fracturing fluid recovery. Applying a sustained
drawdown pressure along a deeply penetrating fracture sufficient to mobilize water is difficult. Investigations into post-fracture cleanup behavior show the fracturing fluid saturated region around the wellbore

IADC/SPE-170542-MS

Figure 4 Fluid Recovery

is removed first. Following that, applied pressure differential for fluid recovery deeper into the fracture
competes with production from the created fracture nearest the wellbore. Evidence of poor load fluid
recoveries, and reduced effective fracture lengths attest to the inability to effectively remove water from
these applications.
Alternatively, removal of low surface tension hydrocarbons from the invaded zone is readily accomplished. Applying differential pressures of 10 psi as needed to mobilize liquefied petroleum gases is much
easier to achieve, even when competing with production near the wellbore. Mixing liquefied petroleum
gases with natural gas further reduces the required drawdown and assists in a complete load fluid
recovery. If we use gelled LPG as a fracturing fluid, it is highly soluble with the formation hydrocarbon.
If natural gas formations are present, then propane and methane will combine to create unique liquid vapor
saturation and returns to the surface at ambient conditions which can be separated easily. Viscosity of the
base fluid of any fracturing fluid is important, as this is the lowest possible viscosity the fluid can achieve
once the gelation system breaks. According to Table 1 Comparing viscosities at 104F, water has a
viscosity of 0.657 cP while propane has a viscosity of 0.087 cP. Figure 4 illustrates typical frac load fluid
recovery where it is clear that LPG fluid recovery is efficient and achieved at early stage than with water.

Conclusions
A recent fracturing fluid properties and its use has been critically analyzed and compared with the
conventional water based fracturing treatment. Like every other treatment LPG fracturing also has its own
advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage of the LPG fracturing process is that it eliminates all issues associated with water
use and disposal which is a key challenge in conventional fracturing. Ability to reuse propane from
production enhances its applicability in field. We can recover almost all the propane at surface. It is reused
then in other fracturing treatment. Generally LPG is compatible with the formation as it doesnt have any
biocides or harmful chemicals. It minimizes flaring due to significant reduction in CO2 emissions. It also
has smaller operating footprint than conventional fracturing treatment.
Combustibility of propane in LPG is very high which makes this process less safe hence risk of
explosions and workers health which is a major disadvantage of this LPG fracturing process. The basic
ingredients for LPG fracturing are more hazardous than some of the conventional fluids, but the hazards
have been greatly reduced by special equipments, techniques and careful safety planning. The initial cost

IADC/SPE-170542-MS

is higher but reduction in total time of the process and higher efficiency with production counts as an
advantage. Better technology with more safety is the key issue to apply this LPG fracturing treatment
globally with increased efficiency. Finally, the exact selectivity which can be obtained in various
situations needs to be studied and the coupling with other stimulation fluids/processes needs to be
ascertained.

Acknowledgement
The author thanks the management of Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University for the permission to
publish this paper and continuous support.

References
1. Don LeBlanc, SPE, Eastex Petroleum Consultants Inc., Tom Martel, SPE, Dave Graves, SPE,
Corridor Resources Inc.; Eric Tudor, SPE, Robert Lestz, SPE, GASFRAC Energy Services Inc.,
Application of Propane (LPG) Based Hydraulic Fracturing In The McCully Gas Field, New
Brunswick, Canada. SPE paper no. 144093 presented at SPE North American Unconventional
Gas Conference and Exhibition held in the Woodlands, Texas, USA on 14 16 June 2011.
2. Eric H. Tudor, P.Eng, Grant W. Nevison, P.Eng, Sean Allen, C.Tech, GASFRAC Energy Services
LP and Blaine Pike, RET, Paramount Resources, 100% Gelled LPG Fracturing Process: An
Alternative to Conventional Water-Based Fracturing Techniques, SPE paper no. 124495 presented at the 2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, West Virginia, USA, 2325
September 2009.
3. Eric Tudor, P.Eng, Waterless Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Gel-Hydraulic Fracturing Technology, presented at SPE liquid rich basin conference, Texas, USA on September 19 20 2012.
4. George E. King, Apache Corporation, Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We
Learned? SPE paper no. 133456 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Florence, Italy, 19 22 September 2010.
5. Loree, D.N.; Mesher, S. T., Liquefied Petroleum Gas Fracturing System, International Patent
Publication Number WO 2007/098606 A1, World Intellectual property Organization, filed date
March 2, 2007, International Publication date September 7, 2007.
6. LPG Fracture Stimulation-Flow back Guide, English Unit V5, January 2012, GASFRAC Energy
Services Inc.
7. LPG Technology, Increased well performance, http://www.gasfrac.com/operator-advantages.html, Accessed on 26/06/14
8. Mark Thomas, LPG fracturing gains acceptance as viable alternativehttp://www.epmag.com/
Technology-Completion/LPG-Fracing-Gains-Acceptance-Viable-Alternative_95529, Accessed
on 26/06/14
9. Nawar Alsaadi, Geoscout, Gasfrac Energy: New evidence of superior production results, http://
seekingalpha.com/article/358551-gasfrac-energy-new-evidence-of-superior-production-results,
Accessed on 26/06/14
10. Waterless Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Gel-Hydraulic fracturing technology, August 2012,
GasFrac Energy Services Inc., EnerCOM Consulting.