*
SPE&c4st410fWR4SU13EIWtH90fAIS4E
SPE 14477
Foam and Nitrified Fluid Treatments—Stimulation
and More
tiyGeorge E. King, Amoco Production Co,
SPE Member
Copyright
1985,
Society
ofPetroleum
Engineers
Thispaper
wasprepared
forpreaenlation
asa Oktinguished
Lecture
during
the1985-86
ABSTRACT
The addition of compressed gas to a stimuLat ion
fluid may be one of the biggest advances in well
treating technology in the past two decades. When
carefully deeigned and applied, foams and treatment
using gas can result in better stimuLatio,\s through
improved proppant placement, more rapid cLeanup, and
in some cases, Less damage from the treating fLuid.
Alas, foam treatments”are neither magic nor can
they be used as universaL stimulations. Obtaining
the maximum benefit from a foam or nitrified fLuid
requires thoughtful design and carefuL application.
This paper provides information on how to get it
done.
INTRODUCTION
A LittLe History
The” first use of foam as a fracturing fLuid was
reported as 1968.1 The firat widespread use of foam
fracturing foLlowed papers by I!lauer, et al.,2’3’4
in the earLy 1970’s. From its introduction as a
superfluid, foam has rapidly come to be recognized
as an exceLLent fracturing fLuid for many reservoirs
and a poor choice in a few others. The best attri-
butes of foam as a stimulation fLuid were recognized
earLy and have endured the process af reduction of
cure-aLl to reality. They are:
(1) Reduction oi Liquid voLume
(2) Good proppant support
(3) Exceptional fLowback and cleantip.
Other firstheld beliefs such as low fLuid Loss and
very high viscosity vaLues have given way to weLL
researched fact. These are discussed Later.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
Techniques
SPE Distinguished
Lecturer
Program.
FoLLowing the familiar coLLapse from superfLuid
status that is part of the introduction of every new
fluid, the best uses of foam were researched and the
applications base expanded by improvements in sur-
factants and hardware. By the mid to late 1970’s,
foam wbs entrenched as a treatment for shallow, Low
pressure gas reservoirs whete ite Low water volume
and rapid cLeanup made stimulations possible where
previously onLy esarginaL successe~ had been seen.
From thi~ base, advances in foaming agents such as
the fluorocarbons have made oiL reservoir frac-
turing practicaL. Improvements in Liquid geLling/
breaking proce:;~e, 6 the mechanical sand
concentrators, and changes in bLender designg
have increased sardt~;;:ings and helped start foam
massive fracturing, and foam fracturing with
high rate proppant Loading.s’12
Foam is an unusual fLuid; very few testing
techniques applicable to Liquid systems13 were
usabLe in gathering data on foams. The recent
advances in test procedures and stimulation foam
technology have been due to the persistence of
authors such as Harris 14-16 HoL,.omb,i7-le ~en-
dorf, 20 Ford,21 Lord, 24 and others. The technology
of foam is just over a decade old, this paper will
try to report the.advances, the new information, and
the probLems.
DISCUSSION
Foam Basics
Foams are gas-in-Liquid dispersions with many
of the same traits as emuLsions. The Liquid may be
water, acid, aLcohoL, or oiL, and the gas is usuaLly
either nitrogen or carbon dioxide. A surfactant
stabilizes the foam. The type of surfactant depends
on the liquid phase; a hydrocarbon surfactant foamer
is usuaLLy adequate for water or aqueous acid while
a fluorocarbon surfactant or e mixture of fluoro-
carbon and hydrocarbon sur;~ttfii!ts are ceeded for
oiLe and anhydrous alcohoLe.
—...-
 FOAM AN,,N!rRIFIED TLUJIJT“9ATMENTS-STIMULATION TECHNIQUES’AND
2 MORE
The voLume percent of gas in foam is known as
the quality. Most fracturing foams are in the range
of 60 to 85 quality with only a few applicaticms for
Eoam above 85 quality. 23 The bubble and quality
relationships attributed to Einstein24 and Hat-
schek25?28 by Mitchell*’ and BLauer,3 state that
foam enters a bubble interference region (too many
bubbles to avoid contact) at qualities of over 54.
rhis is the Lower limit of the regi~n where fLuid
loss control is noticeably improved over the
gas-in-water dispersions (nitrified fLuids). The 54
quality lowe~’Limit of the bubble interference
region is accurate for monodispersed (sin le bubbLe
9
>ize) foam wtly; for polydisperse foams, 1 s1S the
bubble interference region is higher than S4
quality. Exact Limits for this region will vary
with the variation in bubble size, The references
to Einstein24 ai,dHat~chek2s~26 deal with emuLsions,
~uspensions, and dispersions; all of which are very
similar to foam structure and the behavior of gas
dispersions in liquid.
The deformation region, where bubbles are so
tightly packed that they must deform, starts at
about 74 quality for Eoam with a single bubble size
mnd somewhere above 74 quality fo;,;~~ actual case
~f a foam with many bubble sizes. The final
Eoam bubble region, that of a mist, starts at about
92 to 96 quality. In this region, the foam loses
texture and inverts from a gas-in-liquid emulsion to
s liquid-in-gas emuLsion, and alL suspension and
viscosity characteristics of the foam disappear
The stability of foam is related to its haLf-
Life. This is the time required, at static condi-
tions, to lose half of its volume. The loss of
volume begins-with Liquid drainage between the bub-
bles.2* AS the film around the bubbles thins, the
bubbles may rupture and gas separation occurs. The
longer the half-Life, the more stable the foam.
rhese tests must be run under pressure to obtain
meaningful results.
Nitrified Fluids and C02 Mixtures
Nitrified fLuids and fluids containing carbon
dioxide are most often used where flowback is diEfi-
cuLt because of Low bottomhole pressures or where
long fluid recovery times must be avoided. Volumes
of nitrogen gas Erom 300 scf per bbl in a 2000 ft
well with an effective bottomhole pressure of
500 psi to 900 ccf per bbl. in a 10,000 ft welL (at
effective BHP 2000 psi) are common flow ratios for
water or acid.zg Ratioa of gas to liquid other than
those necessary for~~as lift are sometimes used for
formation cleaning, weLL circulating, 31’32 and
reestablishing gas saturations in a water damaged
gas reservoir. One common and successful treatment
for removal of water blocks in low pressure gas res-
ervoirs is 20% methanol alcohol in 5% HC1 or water,
nitrified at 300 to 500 scf per barrel. Flow back
ratios for COZ fluids were not found during the lit-
erature search for this paper although reports OE
300 to 500 scf per barreL are common.33 Foam frac-
turing with COZ is also widely used although there
are a few disadvantages such as increased corro-
sion.34 Other usefuL informatioq~on C02 are
reported by Black and Langsford.
,
w 14477 “
Multiphase gas-in-liquid mixtures have some
fLuid Loss advantage over a single phase fluid. The
effectiveness of the fluid loss control is reported
to be a function Jf the gas phase voium~ with fluid
Loss control increasing as gas concentrati~n rises
from’5% to 20%.3’ Additional gas VOIUIW over 2JZ
showed no improvement in Flu;d loss. Pressure cnn-
trol with these gas-cut fluids must account for
their lighter densities.
Although many beneEits are touted for the
nitrified fluids, the most important is rapid Load
Eluid recovery and debris removal by faster back-
flow.
Additional benefits of C02 are Less trapped gas sat-
uration37 and interracial tens~on and oil viscosity
Lowering effects.
Fracturing Foams
Foam, as well as any other fluiti, can be used
for hydrauLic fracturing. Fractures can be created
by gas-in-water dispersions, foams of any quality,
and even gas.38’39 ALthough compressible, the foam
can generate bottomhole treating precsure by hydro-
static Loading and wiLL transfer surface pressure to
bottomhole. Foams are aLso used to store energy for
backflow of other fluids40’41 or in special cases of
no-proppant fracturing. 42 Where a proppant needs ‘0
be carried, foams of at Least 65 quality are nor-
mally used aLthough there are reports of success at
lower quality. 43 Foams bf 65 and greater quality
are more stable (have Longer measured half-lives)
than the Lower quality foams and probably exhibit
better proppant support. .4sfoam quality increases,
however, the water phase must cairy larger amounts
of proppant. A 65 quality foam with 4 pounds of
proppant per gallon of foam requires the water
volume (35% of totaL) to transport 11.4 pounds of
proppant per gaLLon. To get 4 ppg of proppant in an
80 quality foam wouLd make the water volume (20% of
total) carry 20 ppg. Obviously, trying this more
than once or twice in a conventional blender will
result in shoveL work to clean out a jammed blender
tub or a pump. When Lar~e proppant loadings are
needed in a foam, conventional equipment and techni-
ques must give way to devices such as the mechanical
sand concentrators or specially designed blending
equipment.
One important difference between foam and an
alL liquid fLuid is the surface pressure during a
job: Since foam fracturing fLuids in the 65 to 85
quality range exert only about 17% to 40% as much
hydrostatic pressure as a pure Liquid, the surface
pressure when using foam must be higher to achieve
che necessary downhole fracturing pressure.
Rheology
Foam ia a complex fluid which may display dif-
Eerent viscosit at different shear condi-
tions.a$ll ,27,4~-WavierAt shear.rates close to what is
encountered in a frac treatment foam behaves in a
manner which Harris and Reidenbach describe as a
yield pseudopLastic 14?47 (where the yield point ‘s a
function of che quality).
 G. E. KTNC 1
.

~.a.

The basic Lam~nar flow equation for pressure by 5% or more from surfac$gto bottomhole conditions,
Loss of foam at 75 F in a pipe was given as:47 published friction charts can be at least 10% off
a..doften more than 20% in error. To arrive at
better estimates of friction loss requires a calcu-
DAP/4L = T + K’ (8V/D)n’ Lation of foam quality and friction at every point
YP in the tubing during pumping. The information for
this type of calculation is available from several
yield point, T , is a iunction of quality, r, sources .so’s’
YP
Fluid Loss ControL
For r s 0.6, T s o.07r
YP Foam was originally thought to have excellent
fluid loss contro12 but a number of scr~enouts have
shown instances where foam must have leakoff control
For r > 0.6, ‘r = 0.00022r fielp.11~12 There are even a few caaes of leakoff
YP
that foam cannot handle without use of additionaL
fluid loss additives such as 100 mes~ sand.12’s2 As
(Clr+ 0.75r2) shown in several Laboratory papers53 55 and some
=K{~ field reports, 56,57 the fluid 10SS of foam increases
‘:
rapidly in formations with naturaL fractures or
where permeability is above about 5 md. Fluid Loss
1.8 data generated by severaL authora is contained in
where C Figure 2. The best data is probabLy that of
L = 4 ‘is
Harris,54’s5 Craighead,48
?r a5i98&;’#4°;o::~d
acid (in inert cores) by King.
n’ of the foam is assumed :0 be the same as n’ of Lates that Leakoff cuntrol from foams in formations
the base fluid at 75 quaLity and 75°F. with permeabilities below 5 md is heavily influenced
by the vir.coaity of the external phase.
A parent viscosity may then be calculated
from: 4? Spurt Loaa voLumes generated on 2“ diameter by
4-L/2’$long sandstone cores are shown in Figure 3.
The tests were run using snap opening balL valves
n’
4 below a liquid saturated core. The upper surface of
the core was exposed CO flowing foam at 1500 psi and
papp =47880 [we + K (8V/D)n’-11 the chamber beLow the vaLve was set at 500 psi back-
pressure.sa

where 47880 is the conversion factor to centi-
poise.
Ottierrecent work in foam viscosity has pred-
icted sLightLy Lower vaLues. 4S Viscosity curves
calcuLa~~d from the equations of4~idenbach,
et al., and Craighead, et al., are shown in
Figure 1.
In their work at higher temperature, Harris and
Reidenbach14 presented equations for n’ and K’
which were functions of foam temperature and [he
room temperature base fluid parameters n~s and
K#5.
In highLy naturaLLy fractured formations, the
Leakoff from foam treatments may be so severe that
large concentrations of fluid loss control additive
are required. 12 In the early days of foam ‘rac-
turing, few screenout were seen since the initial
proppant concentration in the foam was very low and
the proppant support characteristics of even m
unstable foam are very good. Much of the fluid
voLume could be lost without over concentrating the
sand in the foam. With the development @i processes
and equipment that can doubLe or triple the initiaL
sand concentrations of early treatments, more
screenout~o;~2foam treatments are being
observed.

In small volume foam fracs, in low proppant

e(0.0028-0.0019r) (T-75)
concentration jobs of about the 2 lb/gaLLon, or
‘; = ‘;5
where a caii end screenout is beneficial, very
LittLe fLuid Loss concroL is needed with foam. In
‘ couLd not have a maximum vaLue of more than 1. Larger jobs and in higher permeability or naturalLy
‘t
fractured formations, additional fluid loss control
in the foam is required. The fluid loss controL
(C2r-0.018)(T-75) additive most compatible with foam is one of the
K: = K* cLean breaking poLymers.53’s7 In severe fluid Loss
75 e
a cross Linked poLymer foam may be neces-
::;;:? or use of a fLuid Loss concrol additive such
-(3.1 + 3n’ as 100 mesh sand.’2’52 With the polymers, fluid
where C = e 75)
Loss control can be improved over clean foam as
2 shown in Figure 4. With the addition of polymer;
however, comes a new consideration, the foam will be
more stabLe and may require a Longer break time
Viscosity and the resultant friction caLcuLa-
tions are heaviLy influenced by changes in the
quaLity of foam. Since foam quality changea, often

.–. .— —.. .
 tw.w AND NIrRi”” EIJ LUIII
prior to flowback. The break Ilme should h~~
established by Laboratory tests prior to the tre~t.-
nent. This wilL heLp avoid trial and error backflow
rates and damage to the fracture proppant pack.
A method of fluid diversion using foams of dif-
ferent qualities has been proposed.43 The main
basis of this argument is that the higher quality
Eoams are more viscous and will divert the treat-
nent. Although still advanced by some, the system
tas not worked for this author in field tests using
95 quality pads in a 65 quality treatment. Part of
the reason for the failure appears to be no signifi-
cane difference in fluid loss between 65 and 80
qualit foams, especially at permeabiLities beLow
5 ~d.5~*54 Some success has been reported, however,
using 70 quality stages in 40 to 50 quality
(unstabLe foam) treatments.sg
Proppant Carrying Capacity
Foams are evidentLY excellent proppant support
Eluids. There has not been an analytical study of
the proppant silpportof fracturing foams at high
pressure. The only known studies of proppant car-
rying capacity of fracturing foam were done at
atmospheric pregsure.“6° There is, however, a good
study on slip velocities in drilling foam avail-
~ble.sl The results of sLip of sphericaL particLes
in this air foam indicate very low settling veLoci-
ties. ALso, numerous foam treatments have been
stopped for over an hourll’62 without accumulating
sand in the casing and without difficulty on the
restart with a proppant laden fluid and no pad. The
onLy case of severe proppant dropout in the tubulars
due to a shutdown that I have observed was a foam
which fLashed back through a broken surface connec-
tion. The flowback Left a sand plug in the tubing
at about 1200 fc in a 2700 ft well. The pressure
was reduced sufficiently to reach the mist region
during the uncontrolled fLow back, which dropped the
sand from the foam.
As with any fLuid that has demonstrated good prop-
pant carrying capacity, there are a few important
considerations for design and application. After
the pad, the entire foam frac fluid volume shouLd
contain proppant. Any use of no-proppant pads in
the body of the treatment would Likely result in
parts OE the fracture cLosing or severely reduc~ng
fracture width. A foam frac (with proppant) shoul,d
never be overflushed. The proppant will be carried
away from the weLLbore and the well will appear to
be damaged.
Nonaqueous Foams
With the introduction of foamers for hydrocar-
bons and aLcohoLs, foams can be even less damaging
to water sensitive formations. The use of an
aLcohoL in foam was first reported in 1978.e3’64
Since the earLy jobs using mixtures of alcoh~~ and
water, 100% methanol has been used in foams.
These nonaqueous systems, especially the 100%
aLcohoL foams, are not as stable as the water base
fLuids. Leakoff is more rapid (Figure 5) and a
higher incidence of screenout may be expected. The
aLcohoL in the foamed alcohol fracs normally has to
“P $l”!lFN7S-STIMULATION
TEcHNIQUES AND
WE 144?7
be gelled to carry the proppant prior to creating
foam. Rheology and fluid loss daLa on the alcohol
foams are available in the literature.4s’6s In gen-
eral, the aLcohoL foams are Less viscous and have
higher fLuid Loss than aqueous foams. Addition of
poLymer improves performance in both areas. Cra[g-
head, e& al., 48 aLso agree with Harris
“ 54 that the
viscosity of the externaL foam phase directly
affects leakoff. Use of polymers in the alcohol
foams generated some walL buiLding effects which
further reduced fluid leakoff.
Foamed oiLs have been availabLe for some time
but have not grown in popularity aLong with the
water foams. The oiL foams have been6g:g$ for sti-
muLation in very sensitive formations and in
some cases of paraffin removaL. ‘8’69 The foamed
oiLs are probably a better choice than foamed waters
for fracturing of oiL reservoirs since there is less
chance of destabilized foam during tht treatme~ts or
creating emuLsions during fLowback.
Backflow
Even the best proppant-;ontaining fo~m frac can
be ruined by a poor flowback procedure.’” 72
Because of Its proppant support capacity, ?oam can
easily pull the proppant out of the fracture and
drop it in the pit where its use as landfill is
quite expensive. On a few occaaions, I have
observed 20% to 50% of the totaL amount of proppant
used in the treatment returned to the pit after
fLowback of some earLy foam treatments. Uncont-
roLLed or poorly supervised flowbacks can “severeLy
reduce the capacity of a propped fracture.
Uhen using a foam which carriea proppant, the
formation must be alLowed to cLose on proppant
before the weLL is turned around. Too short a clo-
sure time wiLl aLlow the proppanc to be removed, too
long a shut-in time wiLL aLlow the recovery energy
to dissipate.
A recovery procedure advanced by Holcomb73’74
is probably the most effective in recovering the
fluids without proppant pack damage. He points out
that when brought back as a mist, foam Losses its
proppant support. A brief recapitulation of this
procedures is as follows:
L. Rig up aLL flow Lines and wellhead with an
adjustable choke prior to treatment. -
2. Rig Fressure gauge to maintain a welLhead preb-
sure no higher than 200 psi under closure pres-
sure.
3. Open choke to 12/64, allow enough time for
flush voLume to be recovered, check for prop-
pant flow. If proppant is being produced,
shut-in for 15 minutes and then resume the
flowback on a 12/64 inch choke.
4. If no significant proppant is detected, open
the choke to 24/64 inch for 1 hr.
5. If no significant proppant is detected, open
the choke for 36/64 inch for L hr and finaLLy
. .
.—
.
C. E. KING
to 48/64 inch. If proppant is detected at any
time, shut-in the wellhead and restart the
procedure with the choke on 12/64 inch. Sig-
nificant proppant “in the backfLow ie considered
to be 50 or more grains obtained in 1 pint of
the returning fLuid. Some proppant fLowback is
associated with any type of fracturing treat-
ment, if kept to a minimum, it causes little
harm.
ROFP detailed fLowback procedures are available
73*74 (jther
in the referenced articles.
articles offer additional comments on flow-
backOt!5?70?72
The controlled flowback procedure also reduces
the chance of casing collapse due to rapidLy
reducing preseure in the pipe before the
pressured-up zone behind the pipe can be relieved.
This point is important in foamed acid recoveries
where fLowbacks can usuaLLy be much quicker. [t
should be noted, however, that casing collapse after
a foam job is virtuaLly unknown. BackfLow of prop-
pant or high rate return of soLids can also severeLy
damage chokes. One source reports cutting out,~s
many as 30 chokes on a high velocity backfLow.
Foam Acidizing
Foam acidizin$ is one of che highLights of the
foam fLuids.19*5s~ 6-80 Nitrogen has been used in
acid for a number of years to speed flow back
response and remove undissolved soLids from the
fractures and vugs. Foaming the acid goes one step
further by changing the acid reaction rate to some
carbonates. The basic acid reaction control
reported by Fordzl is “mass transfer or diffusion”
(the same as for liquid HCL) for Limestones. Foam
acid reactions, however, with dolomites at low tem-
peratures were said to be controlled by surface
rea@ion kinetics. In limes~t~ngS,.andin dolomites
at higher temperatures, the speed of the mass
transfer of acid to and from the waLL of fracture
wiLl dictate the speed of the acid reaction. The
acid reaction rate of foamed acid wiLL be Less since
foam viscosity will SLOW the mixing of acid in the
fracture. An::.her interesting observation about
was the creation of stabLe
such as shown in the photographs and
~~~~n~~~;!!~gbehavior
metal cast of Figure 6.
The greatest benefits in Eoam acidizing, how-
ever, may be from the rapid recovery of spent acid,
Liberated fines, and partially dissolved scales. In
several casuaL studies of foam fracs I have seen, as
much as 70% more solids have been recovered with a
foamed acid job as compared to an aLL Liquid job.
Reservoirs
Foams have been successfu\~y used on
z3*81 Lightsandstones~ and carbo-
~fi~;~;6’7g From the early operations base of Low
pressure gas sands, the jump to shaLe and other sen-
sitive formations was rapid. Among the most inter-
esting applications has been the use of foam
fracturing of the Devonian Shale73’al’82 the compLex
Niobrara Formation,64’67 and coal degas weLLs.42
5
SPE
--- -— 1447.7
These formations had,a,hisr.ory .f damage or “death”
after treating “with conventional liquid fluids. The
Eoamed fluids, including foamed alcohoL and hydro-
carbons, have shown dramatic success.
At the present time, the only reaL constraints
on foam are (1) surface pressure limitations and
well control on high pressure wells, and (2) the
relative permeability problems associated with the
use of nitrogen foams and nitrified fluids in an oil
reservoir which is above the bubble point. The
nitrogen gas, which is only slowly soluble in crude
oil, will create a trapped gas saturation. This
relative permeability effect will be slowly removed
by soLubilization in produced oil. Carbon dioxide
foams also may protiucea trapped gas saturation, but
C02 is more soluble in oil and water.
High permeability formations (above about
20 md) are aLso more difficult to treat with foam
due to leakoff Leases. This can be controlled in
some cases by polymers or fluid loss additivee; how-
ever, the very limited folds of production increase
at the higher permeabilities usuaLLy make any type
of fracturing uneconomic.
P@&!!
The design of a foam frac may be done by com-
puter simulation package or by hand caLcuLa-
tions.sO’51’a3-8s The application of a foam frac
requires knowledgeable corrections to deal with
changirigpressure cf~$~~~~ns which may radically
aLter foam quality. The corrections are
simple, if properly done. Modifying the design in “
the field, even changing sand Loading, requires
changes in nitrogen or,~~ Mid injeccion rate to
maintain foam quality. ‘i?
Application
The mechanical equipment used in foam fra~-
turing has been described in nurnerons papersa’ ‘1
and need not be mentioned beyond a brief synopsis.
In nitrogen jobs, a nitrogen pumper pumps liquid
nitrogen (-325°F) through a diesel fired heat
exchanger which converts the Liquid co a gas and
delivers it at pressure to the “T” junction in the
treating string. The gas mixes at this point with
the surfs tant containing sand-Liquid mixture or
acid from ~he bLender and pump truck. The foam is
formed and stabilized by the turbulent mixing of the
gas and liquid at the “T” and down the length of the
tubing. In carbon dioxide treatments, the C02 is
pumped as a liquid, mixing with the sand-water mix
or acid between the blender and the pump truck. In
the initial stage, the C!2Z “Foam” is COZ Liquid
mixed with the stable liquid. After heating in the
tubing or in the formation, or when pressure is
reduced, the C02 enters a dense phase and finally a
gas form. More compLete discussions on C02 are
available in Che literature.
33-35?37)62}90
One of the original drawbacks to foam was the
inability to get more than about 2 pounds of sand
per gaLlon of foam. Since the sand was necessarily
mixed in the water before foaming, only about 8 ppg
of sand was carried to mix at 1 part water to 3
.-
 FOAM AND NTTRI,PIRD FIJIJO“’REATMENIS-S1lM
6 MONK
parts gas. The sand Concentrate.nn dropped ff 2 ppg
in the foam. The problem was ti’Rstaltacked by
using a crosslinked gelled wfitpr to carry more sand
to the “T”.6 Since the crossllnked fiuids tended to
over stabilize the foam, snap acting breakers were
included ’to drop the water viscosity about the time
it was foamed. Like most chemical breakers, it is a
bit touchy to get everything =ight. Recent improve-
ments to carry more sand have been the sand concen-
trators”a which by centrifugal action or vacuum
remove a portion of the water immediately before the
gas is added. Charges in blender tub and pump
designg have also been incorporated in the evolution
of equipment to achieve higher sand concentrations.
Success with these devices have been very good and
proppant concentrations in the foam of 4 to 8 ppg
have been achieved.
Effect of Temperature
The effect of temperature on foam appears to be
minor in the few high temperature experimefits to be
run thus far. The viscosity is reduced,14 ae shown
in Figure 7, but the other properties~~uch as fluid
loss control,54’5s foam acid etching, and proppant
sup ort are LittLe affected tittemperatures to
~
300 F.
Foams have been applied in the field in wells
with bottomhole temperatures from 80°F7a to 185°F12
on a regular basis. Deeper wells with temperatures
to 280°F have also been fractured with foam.11
Surface Monitoring of Foam Fracs
140nitoring surface pressure to check on
diverter performance or to use the Nolte-Smithg2’g3
technology is more difficult with foams because of
their compressibility and resultant pressure sensi-
tive nature. The best approach to the gathering and
use of pressure data is to use downhole monitors
with surface readouts.
Nomenclature (after Harris and Reidenbach)14’47
C1,2 = Foam consistency, index exponent
K’ = consistency index
= consistency index of foam
‘;
K; = consistency index of liquid phase
K+5 = consistency index of liquid phase at 75°F
K; = consistency index of liquid phase at high
temperature
n’ = flow behavior index
n+s = flow behavior index
n’ = flow behavior index of liquid phase ac
high temperature
r = fractional.foam quality
T = temperature, F
ULATION TECHNIQUES AND
.
S?E 14477
—
t = foam yield point, lbf/ft2
YP
DAP/4L = water shear stress, lbf/ft2
8VID = Shear rate, sec -1
Bibliography
1. Crundmen, S. R., and D. L. Lord: “Foam Stimu-
lation” SPE 9754, presented at the Prod. Opera-
tions Symposium” OkLa. City, March 1-3, 1981
2. Blauer, R. E., and C. A. Kohlhaas: “Formation
Fracturing with Foam”, SPE 5003, presented at
the 49th Annual Tech. Conf., Houston Oct. 6-9,
1974.
3. Blauer, R. E., and B. J. MitchelL: “Determina-
tion of Laminar, Turbulent, and Transitional
Foam FLOW Losses in Pipes”, SPE 4885, presented
at the Calif. Regional Mtg, San Francisco, .
April 4-5, 1974.
4. Blauer, R. E., and D. L. Holcomb: “Foam
Fracturing-Application and History,” South-
western Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, April
1975.
5. Clark, H. B., M. T. Pike, and G. L. RengeL:
“The Use of Fluorochemical Surfactants in Non
Aqueous Stimulation Fluide”, J. Pet. Tach.
(Oct. 1980), pp. 1695-1697. .
6. Lewis, A. D., and C. F. Ferguson: “An Improved
Foam Fracturing Process”, Southwestern Petro-
Leum Short Course, Lubbock, April.1976.
7. Anderson, H. A., and J. B. Palmer: “The Sand
Intensifier--Its Development and Application to
Fracturingt’,J. Can. Pet. Tech. (April-June
1981), pp. 45-50.
8. “Proppant Concentrator Boosts Foam Frac Effec-
tiveness”, Drilling (Nov. 1981), pp. 124, 126,
131.
9* Ely, J. A.: *’RecentMechanical and ChemicaL
Improvements in Foam Fracturing,” Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, April 1985.
10. Bleakley, W. B.: “Mitchell Energy Foam Fracs
Tight Gas Zones”, Petrol. Eng. Int.
(Dec. 1980), pp. 24, 26, 28.
11. Wendorf, C. L., and B. R. AinLey: “Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing of High Temperature Wells
with Stable Foam Fracs”, SPE 10257, presented
at the 56th Annual Tech. Conf., San Antonio,
Oct. 5-7, 1981.
12. Coelitz, R., and G. E. Evertz: “Foam Frac-
turing in the Unita Basin - A Field Study of
the Dakota and Uasatch Formations”, SPE 10883,
presented at the Rocky Mtn Regional Mtg., Bill-
inge, Hay 19-21, 1982.
13. Howard, C. C., and C. R. Fast: “Hydraulic
Fracturing,” SPE Monograph, VOL. 2 (1970),
p. 31.
—
14. Harris, P. C., and V. G. Reid?nbach: “High
Temperature Theological Study of Foam Frac-
turing Fluids”, SPE 13177, presented at tha
59th Annual Tech. Conf., Houston, Sept. 16-19,
1984.
1s. Gaydes, J. S., and P. C. Harris: “Foam Frac-
turing Theories, Procedures, and Results”,
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock,
April 1982.
16. Harris, P. C., and D. E. Bailey: “Stimulation
Results in the Low Permeability Wasatch Forma-
tion - An Evolution to Foam Fracturing”, &
Pet. Tech., (Sept. 1SS4), pp. 1545-1551.
17. Holcomb, D. L., R. E. Callaway, and L.L. Curry:
“Chemistry, PhysicaL Nature, and Rheology of
Aqueous Stimulation Foams”, Sot. Petrol. Eng.
~ (Aug. 1981), pp. 410-414.
18. Holcomb, D. L., B. C. Ewing, and M. A. Scott:
“The Structure of FLowing Aqueous Stimulation
Foams at High Pressures,” presented at AIChE
Summer Meeting, Denver, Aug. 28-31, 1983.
19. Holcomb, D. L.: “Foamed Acid aa a Means for
Providing Extended Retardation”, SPE 6376, pre-
sented at the Permian Basin Oil and Gas
R.scovery Conf., HidLand, Harch 10-11, 1977.
20. Wendorf, C.L., and R.B. Earl, “Foam Fracturing
Laboratory”, SPE 12025, presented at the 58th
Annual Tech. Conf., San Francisco, Oct. 5-8,
1983.
21. Ford, W. G. F., and L. D. Roberts: “The Effect
of Foam on Surface Kinetics in Fracture Aci-
dizing”, J. Petrol. Tech. (Jan. 1985),
pp. 89-97.
22. Lord, D. L.: “Analysis of tiynamicand Static
Foam Behavior”, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1981),
pp. 39-45.
23. Scrang, D. L., and J. L. Norton: “Foamed Sand
Provides Improved Stimulation Results from
Devonian Shale’’,”SPE 2312, presented at the
Eastern Regional Meeting, Champion, PA.,
NOV. 9-11, 1983.
24. Einstein, ALbert: “Eine Neve Bestimmung Der
Mole Kuldimensiowen,” AnnaLen Der Physik
(1906), V. 19, SFl?4, p. 289.
!lDieViskositat Der Disper-
25. Hatschek, Emil:
soide, I. Suspensoide,” Kolloid Z (1910), v. 7,
p. 301-304.
~!DieViskositat Des Disper-
26. Hatschek, Emil:
soide II. Die Emulsionen Und Emulsoide.”
,_ Kol-
LoidZ (1910), v. 8, p. 34-39.
21. Mitchell, B. J.: “Viscosity of Foam,” Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1969.
28. Haas, P. A., and H. F. Johnsm: “A Model and
Experimental Results for Drainage of Solution
Between Foam 8ubbles,” I. and E.Q
Fundamentals, Vol. 6, N~y 1967),
p. 225-231.
29. Nowsco Services’: “Nitrogen Calculator,”
approximations. (Effective BHP is 80% of
static 8HP for gas wells and 50% of static BHP
for oil wells).
30. Boren, R. J.: “Stimulation and BackfLow of
Injection Wells Using Nitrogen Techniques”,
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock,
April 1973.
31. Milhone, R. S., C. A. Haskin, and A. H. @eyer:
“Flow Behavior of Foam, as a Well Circulating
Fluid”, SPE 4001, presented at the 47th Annual
Tech. Conf., San Antonio, Oct. 8-11, 1972.
32. Beyer, A. H., R. S. Millhone, and R. W. Foote:
“Flow Behavior of Foam as a UeLL Circulating
Fluid”, SPE 3986, presented at the 47th Annual
Tech. Conf., San Antonio, Oct. 8-11, 1972. “
33. Chapman, R.: “Acidizing Low Pressure Gradient
Wells Lking Carbon Dioxide”, SPE 9694, pre-
sented at the Deep Drilling and Production Sym-
posium, Amarillo, April 5-7, 198L.
34. Harris, P. C., R. J. Haynes, and J. P. Egger:
!~Theuse of C02 Based Fracturing Fluids in Rad
Fork @ormation~” J. Pet. Tech. (June 1984),
pp. 1003-1008.
35. Black, H. N., findR. W. Langsfoid: “Energized
Fracturing with 50% COZ for Improved Hydro-
carbon Recovery”, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1982),
pp. 135-1400
36. Foshee, W. C., and R. E. Hurst: “Improvement
of Well Stimulation Fluids by Including a Gas
Phase,” J. Pet. Tech., (JuLY 1963), p. 768-772.
37 ● Poettman, F. H.: “Vaporization Characteristics
of Carbon Dioxide in a NaturaL Gas-Crude Oil
System, Trans. A.I.K.E. (195L), 192, 141-144.
38. Freeman, E. R., J. C. Abel, and C. M. Kim: “A
Stimulation Technique Using onLy Nitrogen”, SPE
10129, presented at the 56th Annual Tech.
Conf., San Antonio, Oct. 5-7, 1981.
39. Abel, J. C.: “Application of Nitrogen Frac-
turing in the Ohio Shale,” SPE 10378, pre-
sented at the Eastern RegionaL Meeting,”
Columbus, Nov. 4-6, L981.
40. Ainley, 8. R. and J. C. Charles: “Fracturing
Using Stabilized Foam Pad;’,SPE/DOE L0825, pre-
sented at the Symposium on Unconventional Gas
Recovery, Pittsburgh, May 16-18, 1982.
41. Rullen. R. S.: “Combination Foam/Fluid Frac-
turing;” J. Can. Pet. Tech., (JuLy-Sept.~
1980), p. 51-56.
42. Mahoney, J. V., P. B. Stubbs, F. C. Schnerer,
and F. X. Dobscha: “Effect of a No-Proppant
I
 n
. .. ....
MORE
Foam Stimulation Treatmenl ~n a Coal Seam
De~asification WelL”, SPE/DOK 8931, presented
at the Symposium on Unron ‘en~ional Gas
Recovery, Pittsburgh, May 18-21, 1980.
43, HoLcomb, D. L., and S. C. WiLson: “Foamed Aci-
dizing and SeLective Diverting Using Stable
Foam for Improved Acid Stimulation”, South-
western Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, April
1978.
44. Mitchell, 8. J.: “T~st Data Fill Theoretical
Gap on Using Foam as a Drilling Fluid”, Oil and
Gas J. (Sept. 6, 1971), pp. 96-100.
45. Vocadlo, J. J., and K. E. Charles: “Character-
ization and Laminar Flow of Fluid-T.ikeVisco-
plastic Substances”, Can. J. of Chern.Eng.,
(Feb. 1973), pp. 116-121.
46. Hoffer, M. S., and E. Rubin: “FLow Regimes of
Stable Foams”, I. & E.G. Fundamentals,
Aug. 1969. pp. 483-490.
47* Reidenback, V. G., P. C. Harris, Y. N. Lee, and
D. L. Lord: “Theological Study of Foam Frac-
turing FLuids Using Nitrogen and Carbon
Dioxide”, SPE 12026, presented at the 58th
Annual Tech. Conf., San Francisco. Oct. 5-8,
1983.
48. Craighead, M. S.p M. Hossaini, and R. W.
Watson: “Foamed A,nhydrous Methanol StimuLa-
tion”, SPE 12315, presented at the Easterri
Regional Meeting, Champion, PAF, Nov. 9-11,
1983.
49. Krug, J. A.: “Foam Pressure Loss in Vertical
Tubing”, Oil and Gas J. (Oct. 6, 1975),
Pp. 74-76.
50. Nowsco Services “Nitrogen Technical Manual”.
51. Smith Energy “Foam Manual”.
52. Ford, W. G. F.: “Foamed Acid Stimulation of
OLd Wells,” Pet. Eng. Int. (Dec. 1980), p. 96,
98, 100.
53. King, C. E.: “Factors Affecting Dynamic FLuid
Leakoff with Foam Fracturing Fluids”, SPE 6817,
presented.at the 52th Annual Tech. Conf.,
Denver, Clct.9-12, 1977.
54. Harris, P. C.: “Dynamic Fluid LOSS Character-
ist’icsof Foam Fracturing Fluids”, SPE 11065,
presented at the 57th AnnuaL Tech. Conf., New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29, 1982.
55. Harris, P. C.: “Dynamic Fluid-Loss Character-
istics of C02 Foam Fracturing Fluids”,
SPE 13180, presented at the 59th Annual Tech.
Conf. , Houston, , Sept. 16-19, 1984.
56. Norton, M. C., and S. J. Hoffman: “The Use of
Foam in Stimulating Fractured California Reser-
voirs”, SPE 10769, Calif. Regional Mtg, San
Francisco, March 24-26, 1982.
s~E 14477
57. Watkins, E. K., C, L. Wendorf, and B. R.
Ainley: “A New Crosslinked Foam Fracturing
Fluid”, SPE 12027, 58th Annual Tech. ConF., San
Francisco, Oct. 5-8, 1983.
58. Kings G. E.: “Laboratory Investigation of
Foamed Acid as a Fracturing Fluid in Carbonate
Formations”, independent study project, Univer-
sity of Tulsa, June, 1!381.
59. Conversation with Dave ‘!oLcomb, Smith Energy.
60. Elswi, T. D., and G. W. Anderson: “Foam Gravel
Packing,” SPE 11013, presented at 57th Annual
Tech. Conf., New Orleans, Sept. 26-29, 1982.
llAeAnalysis of Slip velocities
61. Abbott, W. A.: ...
of Spherical ParticLes in Foam Drilling Fluid,”
Master of Science Thesis, Colorado School of
Mines, 1974.
62. Warnock, W. E., P. C. Harris, and D. S. King:
“Successful FieLd Applications of C02 Foam
Fracturing Fluid in the Ark-La-Tex Region”, ~
Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1985), pp. 80-88.
63. King, G. E., and T. M. Brown: “Performance of
Amoco A-SOL aa a Mutual Solvent”, Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, April 1978.
64. Rohret, M. T., and T. C. Jones: “Stimulation
of the Niobrara Formation Using Foamed Methanol.
Water’”, SPE 7174, pr>sented at the Rocky Mtn
Regional Meeting, Cody, May 17-19, 1978.
65. 8J Hughes: “Nitrogen/Foam Technical Oata.”
66. Holcomb, D. L., R. E Callaway, and L. L. Curry:
“Foamed Hydrocarbon Stimulation of Water Sensi-
tive Formations”, SPE 9033, presented at Rocky
Mtn. Regional Meeting, Casper, May 14-16, 1980.
67. Driscoll, P. L., J. C. Bowen, and M.A. Roberts:
“Oil Base Foam Fracturing AppLied to the Nio-
brara ShaLe Formation”, SPE 9335, presented at
the 55th Annual FalL Ileeting, DaLlas,
Sept. 21-24, 1980.
68. Smith, H. A., and D. L. Holcomb: “Foamed
Hydrocarbons: Compatible Stimulation and
CLeanout Agents,” Pet. Eng. Int. (Sept. 1969),
p. 76, 78, 82, 84, 86.
69, Smith, M. A.t and D. L. Holcomb: “Foamed
Hydrocarbons: An Effective and Economical
Alternative to Conventional Stimulation
Methods”, Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Lubbock, April 1979.
70. Fielder, E., and C. L. Boney: “The Use of Foam
Fracturing Fluids in the Fort Worth Basin”,
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock,
ApriL 21-22, 1982.
71. King, G. E.: “Foam ~timulation Fluids: What
They Are, Where They Work”, PetroL. Eng. [nt.,
iiOL. 8, N.54 (July 1982), pp. 22, 56, 58, 60.
72. Hack, D., M. Mooney, and C. Terry: “Correct 87. Bullen, R. S., and T. F, Bratr~d: “Fracturing
Procedures Improve Foam Fracture Treatments,” with Foam”, Pet, Soc . of CIM preprint, pre-
PetroLeum Eng. Inst., (Nov. 1983)) p. 64? 66, sented at the 26th ~nnual Tech, Mtg. Banff,
68, 70-?2, 74. June 10-13, 1975.

73. Holcomb, D. L.: “Correct Flowback Procedure -
A Key to Successful Foam Stimulation”, South-
western Petroleum Short Course, ApriL 1983.
74. Holcomb, D. L.: “Plinimizing Problems D~ring
FLowback After Foam Stimulation”, presented at
the The Denver Petroleum Exhibition and Confer-
ence, Denver, October 2-3, 1984.
75. Tiner, R. L., and C. E. Folmnsbee: “Foam
Stimulation-State of the Art,” Proc. of
Drilling and Prod. Inst. Ur.iv. of Kansas,
Feb. 4-5, 1981.
76. Wilson, S. C.: “Foamed Acid Stimulation of the
San Andres: An Area Study”, Petrol. Eng. Inter-
national (M.v 1978), pp. 90-98.
77, SherubeL, C. A. and C. W. Crowe: “Foamed Acid,
A New Concept in Fracture Acidizing”, SPE 7568,
presented at the 53rd Annual Tech. Conf., Hou-
ston, Oct. 1-3, 1978.
78. Ford, W. G. F., L. F. Burrkleca, and K. A.
Squire: “Foamed Acid Stimulation: Succe?=~ in
the IILinois and Michigan Basins’*,SPE 9356, -
presented at the 55th Annual Tech. Conf.,
Dallas, Sept. 21-24, 1980.
79. Petryk, R. P., and B. W. Coruk: “Fracture Aci-
dizing with Foamed Acid: Success in the Cross-
field D-1 Carbonate,” Paper 69-30-37, presented
at Pet. Sot. of CIM, Banff, Hay 8-11, 1979.
88. Abbott, 8.: “Design, Logistics, and Implemen-
tation of a Foams Frac Job”’t presented at the
Symposium on Stimulation of Low Permeability
Reservoirs, Colorado School of Hines,
Feb. 16-17, 1976.
89. Holditch, S. A. and R. A. plumer: #*TheDesign
of Stable Foam Fracturing Treatments”, South-
western Petroleum Short Course, ApriL 1976.
90. Leinan, A. C., and P. C. Harris: “Carbon
Dioxide Aqueous Mixtures and Fracturing Fluids
in Western Canada,)’ paper 83-.34-36, presented
at 34th Annual Tech. !ftg.of CIM, 8anff,
May 10-13, 1983.
91. BalLard, J. L.: “Successful Application of
Foam Frac to Shallow Cas Sands”, SPE 6377, pre-
sented at the Permian Basin OiL and Gas
Recovery Conf., MidLand, March 10-11, 1977.
92. Nolte, K. C., and M. B. Smith: “Interpretation
of Fracturing Pressures,” SPE 8297, presented
at the 54th Annual Tech. Conf. Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26, 1979.
93. Nolte, K. C.: “Determination of Fracturing
Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline,”
SPE 8341, pre:?nted at the 54th Annual Tech.
“ Conf., Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.

80. Ford, W. C. F.: “Foamed Acid, An Effective

Stimulation Fluid”, J. Petrol. TechnoL. (July
1981), pp. 1203-1210.

81. Komar, C. A., A. B. Yost, and A. R. Sinclair:

“Practical Aspects of Fracturing the Devonian
Shale”, SPE 8345, presented at the 54th Annual
Tech. Conf., Las Vegas (Sept. 23-36), 1979.

82. Komar, C. A., A. B. Yost, and A. R. Sinclair:

“Foam Fracturing the Devonian ShaLe,” World OiL
(July 1980), p. 119, 120, 122, 124} 126, 128,
132, 134.

83. Holcomb, D. L.: “Foam for Fracturing and Acid

Stimulation, Pt. 1“, DrilLing (Jan. 1982),
pp. 46-48, 52, 168.

84. Holcomb, D. L.: “Foam f-r Fracturing and Acid

Stimulation, Pt. 2“, DriL1.ing (Feb. 1982),
pp. 128, 131, 132, 134, 136.

85. Holcomb, D. L.: “Foam for Fracturing and Acid

Stimulation, Pt. 3“, DrilLing (May 1982),
pp. 199, 200, 203, 20A, 206, 210.

86. Shotton, B.: “EFF .< of Sand Concentration in

Foam Fracturing’’,”Southwestern Petroleum Short ,
Course, Lubbock, April 1982.
 NITROGEN FOAM FLUID LOSS COEFFICIENTS
VISCOSITY VS QUALITY FOR AQUEOUS NITROGEN FOAMS
75 QUALITY FOAM, NO POLYMERS OR STABILIZERS
AT 170 SE~AND 75 F
flGURE 2
FIGURE 1
300

250

200

150

100

50

o.000;~; , , ,, mm I , I I 1

’60 65 70 75 80 85 90 10 110
FOAM QUALITY CORE PERMEABILITY. MD

NITROGEN F@W! SFUHT LOSS. 75 QUALITY FOAM, NO POLYMERS NITROGEN FOAM FLUID LOSS COEFFICIENTS
75 QUALITY FOAM, WITH POLYMER
OR STABILIZERS, 2“ DIAM X 4.5” LONG CORE – FROM KING w
FIGURE 3 “ FIGURE.4 .

o
“ ‘“”r~

I I I I 1-
11
I I I
g
0.01 .
t
Ii
ii
E
% 0.001
0
-1
n
q .—
L
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
CORE PERMEABILITY, MD

.
*

* SPE 14477

ax

d; ‘J:S il~L LV A.ISK&A LN3&VdaV

l\
1
.—