Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Charleston, WV, U.S.A., 15-17 September 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Low-temperature fracturing applications are considered here
to be those in which in-situ reservoir temperature is
insufficient to facilitate fracturing fluid degradation (e.g.,
about 200F or less.) In these cases, careful consideration
must be given to fracturing fluid and gel breaker design to
mitigate post-treatment clean-up problems while still
providing for significant viscosity development throughout the
treatment. Recently, improved manufacturing processes have
led to the introduction of processed enhanced guar (PEG),
enabling significantly reduced polymer concentrations to be
applied with specialized crosslinked guar-borate formulations.
These so-called PEG systems have led to enhanced fracture
clean-up while achieving excellent proppant placement in the
fracture.

Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing is a means of enhancing reservoir
drainage in low-permeability formations. Most fracturing
applications are performed with water-based hydraulic fluids
that are typically prepared with viscosifiers such as guar gum
or its derivatives. Recently, new water-based viscosifiers have
been developed in an effort to overcome deficiencies in the
guar-based fluids. These new alternatives include low
proppant-concentration slick water fracs
1
, viscoelastic
surfactant fluids
2
, micro-polymer fluids
3
and others. Although
there are some applications that are suited for these new
methods, the vast majority of candidate wells requiring
fracturing are still best treated with guar-based fluids. The
reason for this is the guar polymer offers so many favorable
properties as a fracturing-fluid viscosifier.

These properties include availability, cost efficiency, mixing
simplicity, viscosity control, fluid loss control, proppant
suspension, controlled degradation and clean-up. However,
studies over the last decade have identified fluid degradation
and clean up as the most serious weakness of the guar-based
fracturing fluids.
4
As a result, the industry has focused on
improving the controlled degradation of the fluids with
various polymer (gel) breakers
5-7
.

In addition to improvement in gel breakers, regained
conductivity tests in proppant packs also suggest that under
certain circumstances, borate cross-linked guar fluids can
degrade and clean-up readily. This trait is due to the
reversible nature of the borate-guar crosslink junctions, with
the reversibility being driven by increasing temperature and
declining alkalinity. As the pH declines, the degree of cross-
linking is reduced, diminishing gel quality and the viscosity of
the fluid. The declining viscosity, due both to reduced cross-
linking and gel breakers reducing the molecular weight of the
polymer, contributes to improved regained fracture
conductivity. Guar-borate systems are particularly suited for
low temperature application as defined above, since high
viscosity is achieved with minimal chemical input. This
advantage starts to diminish in applications over 200F as
using more thermally stable derivitized guar/ zirconium
crosslinked systems becomes advantageous.

Other guar-based fluid components are also undergoing
improvement. The latest improvement is the guar polymer
itself.
8
Certain guar suppliers have modified their processes to
reduce the degree of polymer damage during processing.
Typically, guar splits are hydrated in hot water, then fed
through a roll mill and finally ground into a fine powder in a
high impact grinder. During this process, the guar polymer is
subjected to a high degree of shear that can mechanically
degrade the polymer. This degradation reduces potential
molecular weight and ultimate viscosity development.
Modification of the process, by primarily reducing mechanical
shear, has led to the development of process-enhanced guar,
referred to as PEG for the duration of the paper.

Using polymer possessing a higher molecular weight, coupled
with high efficiency borate cross-linkers, fracturing treatments
in low-temperature applications have a better chance of
pumping to completion and in many cases, the polymer
loading can be reduced without fear of sacrificing essential
fracturing fluid properties necessary to successfully fracture

SPE 91418
Development and Implementation of a Low-Polymer-Concentration Crosslinked
Fracturing Fluid for Low-Temperature Applications
David D.Cramer, SPE, BJ Services Company; George T. Woo, SPE, BJ Services Company; Jeffrey C. Dawson,
BJ Services Co.
2 SPE 91418
formations. This paper will describe a new efficient borate
cross-linked fracturing fluid designed with the PEG polymer.
The essential properties of the fluid in low-temperature
fracturing applications will be presented as well as field
considerations, case histories and post treatment production
interpretation.

Fluid Chemistry
The basic components of this fluid system include the PEG
polymer, a pH-adjusting additive, a borate cross-linking agent,
a polymer-recovery surfactant and specialized gel breakers.
The alkalinity is usually adjusted between a pH of 9.5 to 10.5
with an alkaline buffer or strong base. The borate cross-
linking agents are selected based on test temperature or the
reservoir bottom hole static temperature (BHST.) Low
temperature applications are associated with shallow wells
requiring shorter pumping transit times through the tubulars.
This is ideal for cross-linkers that provide rapid gelation and
rapid attainment of the ultimate (peak) fluid viscosity.

In contrast, higher temperature applications are associated
with longer pumping transit times through the tubulars and
may require some delay in cross-linking. The cross-link time
must be balanced to provide minimal friction pressure but
enough viscosity as fluid enters the fracture to prevent
proppant settling or bridging in the lower shear environment
of the fracture. The cross-linking equilibrium of the borate ion
to two PEG polymers is shifted to the uncrosslinked state with
either increasing temperature and/or declining alkalinity. As a
consequence, it is necessary to add more borate ion than
necessary for surface conditions to account for this
temperature-induced equilibrium shift. This assures that
adequate numbers of cross-link junctions exist at the higher
temperatures. These junctions are necessary to give the fluid
acceptable gel quality at higher temperatures. To be sure that
enough viscosity has developed by the time the fluid reaches
the perforations, it may be necessary to tolerate some
additional friction pressure. Also, it has been determined with
down-hole temperature gauges that after pumping into the
fracture a volume of fluid equivalent to two tubing strings, the
fluid temperature adjacent to the perforations is only about 15
to 20F higher than the fluid temperature at the surface for the
duration of the treatment (Fig. 1.) This minimizes
temperature-assisted gelation in the tubulars for most of the
treatment.

In order for the fracturing treatment to be successful, it is
important to gradually degrade the gel to achieve low fluid
viscosity shortly after the treatment is complete. Degradation
is achieved by the action of gel breakers that reduce the
molecular weight of PEG, and thus the fracturing fluid
viscosity. Preferred gel breakers are either enzymes or
oxidants often used with a pH-regulating substance. It is
important in the treatment that the fluid has enough viscosity
to create suitable fracture geometry and adequately transport
proppant as designed during the placement of proppant. The
pH-regulating substance is an organic compound that slowly
decomposes to produce an acid, thus reducing fluid pH. The
decline in alkalinity promotes higher enzyme activity or less
specificity of the oxidizing breaker. In either case, extensive
degradation is observed. In addition, filter cakes formed
during injection are easier to degrade in declining-pH
environments, especially when assisted with enzymes or
oxidants.

Lastly, the PEG system contains a surfactant designed to
promote polymer recovery. This surfactant prevents broken
polymer residue from coagulating and maintains the PEG
polymer in a dispersed state. In addition, filter cakes were
also observed to degrade better in the presence of the
dispersing surfactant. Based on the components of this fluid
system, a fracturing treatment can be designed that adequately
transports proppant, then cleans-up.

Fluid Design and Rheological Characterization
The PEG system has undergone extensive characterization
from its initial evaluation through continual development for
specific field applications. Although applicable wherever
guar-borate fluid systems are used, its best use is in low
temperature applications, in which guar-borate systems thrive
in comparison to competitive fracturing fluid systems.

The original testing work that initiated interest in the PEG
system is summarized in the chart shown in Fig. 2. It is an
unfiltered rheogram of fluid evaluation using a high-pressure
high-temperature (HTHP) concentric cylinder rheometer such
as the Fann 50C with a R1B5X cup and bob combination. The
fluid samples were sheared at the maximum possible
instrument rate (467 sec
-1
) for 5 minutes at ambient
temperature to emulate the conditions of pumping down the
wellbore tubular to the fracture. As evinced in Fig.1, little
fluid heat-up occurs during this period, even in cases of
relatively high bottomhole temperature. Following the high
shear period, the shear was reduced to a continuous rate of 100
sec
-1
to replicate a more likely shear environment in the
fracture, and then the fluid sample was heated to the maximum
test temperature. That is usually taken to be BHST and in this
case was 200F. The source water used in Wamsutter WY
area fracture treatments (high sulfate) was selected for the
testing. The fluid was not optimized for gel breaking.

Comparing the four tests shown, it can be seen that the PEG-
based 25 lb/1000 gal (pptg) guar-borate fluid (PEG 25, red and
blue curves) produced about twice the viscosity of the
conventional 25 pptg guar borate system (purple curve.)
When the gelant concentration was reduced to 20 pptg (PEG
20, magenta curve), the rheological performance was very
comparable to the conventional 25 pptg system, even though
polymer concentration was 20% less. In general, for medium
and low temperature applications (e.g., 240F or less),
polymer concentration of the PEG system can be reduced by
at least 20% to achieve comparable rheological results with
conventional guar-borate systems.

Note the relatively slow development of crosslinking in the
PEG 20 and conventional 25 pptg guar-borate tests in Fig. 2.
This is evinced by the low fluid viscosity, which is well less
than 100 cp, as the shear rate is initially brought to 100 sec
-1

(at 5 minutes.) It takes additional time and temperature for
SPE 91418 3
those fluid samples to exceed 100 cp. Field experience
suggests that 100 cp (at 100 sec
-1
) is usually a suitable cut-off
or threshold viscosity to mitigate proppant induced treatment
problems such as bridging and settling. Sub-threshold early-
time viscosity was not evident with the PEG 25 system. The
crosslinking agent utilized in all tests was a delayed-release
type. Low gelant concentration systems, of 20 pptg or less,
usually need some means of quickly initiating crosslinking
with delayed crosslinkers, such as using heated water (e.g.,
95F or greater), and adjusting fluid pH to a relatively low
level (9.5 or less.) Otherwise, a rapid-acting crosslinker needs
to be used for low-gelant PEG applications. Using a blend of
fast and slow crosslinking agents has seen limited usefulness
in testing evaluation so far.

The implications of crosslinker strategy are revealed in Fig. 3.
This shows rheological testing for a Uinta Basin project;
BHST and final test temperature is 185 F. A PEG 17 system
is evaluated using both fast and delayed crosslinking agents.
In all three tests, the ultimate peak viscosity is very similar.
With the delayed crosslinking system (magenta curve), several
minutes are required at increasing temperature before viscosity
builds to 100 cp. The delayed system does not match the rapid
crosslinking systems until about 10 minutes of testing has
elapsed and the sample temperature is in excess of 150F. In a
real treatment, the fracturing fluid would be well down the
fracture by the time this event occurred. As noted above, slow
crosslinking when base gel viscosity is low can cause
problems with near-wellbore proppant transport. Unless pipe
friction is a major issue, rapid-crosslinking PEG systems are
advantageous when polymer concentration is 20 pptg or less.

Another comparison of 25 pptg conventional guar borate (red
curve) and PEG 20 (blue curve) formulations is shown in Fig.
4. The tests were done to support an application in the
Fruitland Coal in the San Juan Basin; BHST is about 120F.
This time, a fast-acting borate crosslinker is used in the testing
and the fluid is continuously sheared at a rate of 40 sec
-1
in a
Fann 35-type rheometer having a R1-B2 rotor and bob
combination. For the most part, the data of the two tests
overlay, showing the same 20% reduction factor in polymer
concentration as seen in original tests with the delayed
crosslinker. Additional testing was done with that system in
preparation for a treatment campaign, using a Fann 50C
HTHP rheometer with the configuration and testing sequence
described with Fig. 2. The resulting test results are shown in
Fig. 5. The system shows reliability as evinced by early time
test repeatability and robustness in that the gel breaker can be
adjusted in concentration or varied in type to achieve a
predictable timing and rate of viscosity degradation.

With the great majority of fracturing applications, including
the Fruitland Coal case above, gelant is delivered to the well-
site dispersed in a hydrocarbon-base carrying fluid; the
package is known as liquid gel concentrate. The liquid gel
concentrate facilitates gelant metering and is continuously
mixed with water during the treatment to produce a base gel in
which crosslinker is added downstream of the proppant
addition point at the frac blender. The residence (hydration)
time in a holding vessel following mixing of the polymer with
water varies depending on the size of the holding vessel and
the injection rate of the treatment and is as brief as 1-1/2
minute in the Fruitland Coal application. Consequently, peak
base gel viscosity may not be achieved prior to crosslinker
addition, as indicted in Fig. 6, a graph of viscosity versus
water temperature for various times since mixing. Yet it is
important in the field to use the same concentration of
polymer evaluated in testing with fully hydrated gels (60
minute data set.) Fig. 7 shows a set of tests comparing PEG
20 using base gels with different hydration times and gel
breaker loadings. Even though the briefly hydrated fluids
(blue and brown curves) achieved a base gel viscosity of only
10 cp as compared to a fully hydrated gel of 16+ cp (magenta
curve), the crosslinked gel is very comparable to the fully
hydrated gel test, even at the earliest time recorded in the tests.

As noted previously, the sequential high initial shear/ reduced
steady shear is meant to emulate the shear-history
characteristics of an actual treatment, in which fluid shear is
initially very high as it travels down the relatively small cross-
sectional area of the wellbore, then reduces as it enters the
fracture. Certain fluid systems are adversely affected by the
high initial shear, and it is important to expose weakness in
shear-stability characteristics to assure that a high-quality,
predictable fluid is used for the treatment. Transition-metal
crosslinked fluids are more prone to shear degradation than
borate fluids. With fast-crosslinking PEG systems, the high
shear period followed by reduced shear often produces a
curious effect, the nature of which is shown in Fig. 8, which
summarizes a series of pre-job tests for a PEG 18 application
in the Uinta Basin. In this testing, the operator requested that
the steady shear period be performed at 40 sec
-1
. With that
test (magenta curve) the fluid dramatically falls in apparent
viscosity as the shear rate is reduced from 467 sec
-1
to 40 sec
-1
.
After the fluid sample starts to heat up, the apparent viscosity
rebounds, increasing tenfold. When the test was repeated with
reduced-rate shear at 100 sec
-1
(red curve), the instantaneous
decline in apparent viscosity was present but much less severe,
eventually rebounding and stabilizing at a lower viscosity
level than the 40 sec
-1
test, as expected for a typical power law
fluid. A third test was run at 40 sec-1 without applying the 5-
minute high shear period (magenta curve.) That test starts out
at a viscosity in excess of 1500 cp and gradually declines over
time, leveling off at an elapsed test time of about 20 minutes
to overlay the test data of the initial test implementing the
high-shear first step.

Considering the three tests together, the apparent degradation
and subsequent rehealing of the magenta-curve test is found to
be an artifact of the testing. Due to the semi-solid (plastic)
characteristics of the highly-crosslinked PEG gel, the sharp
change in shearing rate caused severe slippage to occur
between the gel and the Fann 50 cup. Consequently, torque
was not being transferred properly to the Fann 50 bob. With
the higher-shear test at 100 sec
-1
, there is slightly better torque
transfer to the bob and less slippage. As the fluid heats up
later in the test, some of the borate linkages are thermally
reversed (less crosslinking),the fluid thins to something less
than a semi-solid and the Fann 50 begins behaving properly
4 SPE 91418
again. The fact that both 40 sec
-1
tests ultimately converge to
the same value indicates that shear degradation is not
occurring with the specific PEG formulation tested, and
excellent proppant transport would be expected with this
system. The actual treatment using this tested formulation
proceeded extremely well and post-treatment well productivity
has been excellent.

In low temperature application, the PEG system has been used
at gelant concentrations as low as 15 pptg. A set of pre-job
tests supporting a specific multi-stage treatment application in
the Uinta Basin is shown in Fig. 9. The PEG 15 system
maintained adequate viscosity for at least 30 minutes and has
been used on many treatments.

Fracture Conductivity
The benefit of reduced polymer loading is to enhance
fracturing fluid clean-up after treatment and reduce the clean-
up time. Enhanced clean up of the PEG system was evaluated
by analyzing fluid/proppant pack interactions in a series of
fracture conductivity tests. The fluid also contained 1
gal/1000 gal of water of surfactant designed to assist clean up,
a pH-regulating substance and an oxidant. The rheological
performance of the fluid containing gel breaker additives is
shown in Fig. 10. The results demonstrate that the fluid had
adequate front-end stability to conduct the treatment.

The fluid cell was the standard API sand pack conductivity
cell using Ohio Sandstone core plates and 2 lb/ft
2
of 20/40
mesh proppant. After bringing the cell to temperature, 25 pore
volumes of the PEG fluid was injected into the cell initially at
500 psi and ramped up to 1500 psi during injection as a
method to create filter cake deposition. After fluid injection,
the cell was shut-in overnight to allow the fluid to degrade.

After the shut-in period, DI water was flowed through the cell,
initially at a low rate and increasing to 10 ml/min. The
baseline was determined from Stimlabs Predict K software to
be 160 Darcies and this was used to calculate the degree of
damage after clean-up for 50 hours at temperature.

The results are shown in Table 1 and in each case the regained
conductivity exceeded 75%. The PEG system can be used at
reduced polymer concentration as a means to affect the
ultimate degree of clean-up and reduce the time necessary to
return the treated wells to production. Although reduced
polymer concentration leads to improved clean-up with all
polymer-based fluid systems, it is extremely important that the
essential fluid properties needed to stimulate the well are not
compromised, and this is demonstrated by the PEG system.

Field Implementation
Since its introduction in mid-2003, application of the PEG
system has continually expanded, especially in the stimulation
of low-permeability oil and gas wells and coalbed methane
(CBM) wells. Fig. 11 shows the location of wells in which the
PEG system has been applied. Fig. 12 shows the monthly
usage pattern since the first PEG treatment was implemented.
Over 1000 PEG treatments have been done to date. Jobs have
been pumped as planned to completion in over 95% of the
cases.

The first application of the PEG system was in the Piceance
Basin, in the Grand Valley field of Garfield County, Colorado.
The main reservoir is a 2000 ft sequence of fluvial sands
encased in coals, mudstones and siltstones in the Cretaceous
Williams Fork (Mesaverde) formation. The Grand Valley
field is within 10 miles of the Department of Energy Multiwell
Experiment (MWX), where numerous tests were conducted to
characterize fracture propagation in the low-permeability gas
sandstones of the same Williams Fork formation. In the
Grand Valley application, multiple wells (up to 6 at a time) are
drilled from a single pad site and fracture treatments are
conducted in stages covering up to 300 ft of gross interval per
stage. Limited entry treatment methods are used to insure all
perforated sands (as many as 8 per stage) are treated
9,10
. A
combination log of Grand Valley pay section is shown in Fig.
13. Generally, 4 to 6 treatment stages are done per well, and
up to 30 total fracturing applications are performed at each
pad site. For each stage, fracturing treatments are performed
sequentially on all of the pad wells in a single trip to the
location. The first well in the group is treated, and is flowed
back while the next well is stimulated. This process continues
until all zones are treated. The wells are flowed for about a
week to clean up most of the residual fracturing fluid, then the
next set (stage) of sands are stimulated in the same manner.
This process is repeated until all sands in all wells are
completed. It is extremely critical in this rapid-paced
fracturing process that the job designs go according to plan,
because there is no tolerance in the plan (or on the small-
footprint locations) for well screenouts and cleanouts. As
Warpinski et al described at the MWX site, treatment
screenouts do occur in the Williams Fork sands due to
pressure-dependent fissure opening and subsequent proppant
bridging
11
. To prevent this occurrence, fracturing fluid
systems must be robust, developing significant viscosity early
in the treatment, when fluid temperature is slightly greater
than ambient (see Fig. 1) and later in time, when the fracturing
fluid temperature approaches bottomhole static temperature
(BHST), which ranges from 150 to 240F within the field. For
PEG 20 and 18 applications, this usually necessitates using a
fast-crosslinking borate component. When all stages are
completed, the wells are temporarily shut-in awaiting hook-up
to the gas sales line. To achieve necessary performance,
conventional guar-borate and most derivitized guar systems
need to possess polymer loadings in the range of 25 to 35
pptg. A preferred high-yield CMG system could rarely be
used because the local source water for the fracturing
treatments did not meet its stringent chemical requirements.
The PEG system was found to perform well with the local
source water, and its use enabled polymer concentration to be
significantly reduced, to a range of 18 to 22 pptg. This
enabled a reduction in polymer concentration of at least 20%
without any loss of fracturing fluid performance, offering the
potential for improved clean up of the fracturing fluid and
better well performance. Fig. 14 shows the 30-day cumulative
production normalized for perforated net pay in the first pad
site location in which offset wells existed for a comparison.
The bar-graph plot focuses on comparisons at a specific point
SPE 91418 5
in time and does not compensate for variable wellhead and
bottomhole flowing pressure (back pressure) and other more
subtle petrophysical and completion variations. Consequently,
systematic production analysis has been used to bring the
realm of well testing into the evaluation of stimulation
effectiveness
12-14
. Fig. 15 shows a graphical production
analysis of one of the PEG-treated wells. Performing such an
analysis is a stretch given that a single-layer completion is
assumed in the model. In the multi-zone Grand Valley field,
there are many factors that violate this assumption and all tend
to give false indications of fracture under performance. The
effective fracture half-length (X
F
) calculated from the analysis
will always be substantially less than the geometric X
F

contributing to fluid flow
15
and is mainly used for ranking of
similar wells. The effective X
F
computed for the evaluated
PEG-treated well is good for the area and indicates the well
was effectively stimulated. Other applications of the PEG
system in the Piceance Basin include CBM wells completed in
the Mesaverde formation.

In the Uinta Basin of Utah, the PEG system is used widely.
Major areas of application include the oil-productive water
flooded Green River sandstones of the Monument Butte area
and the gas (and water) productive Wasatch and Mesaverde
sands in the Natural Buttes and Red Wash fields. These fields
are typified by multizone completions and wells are normally
fracture treated in several stages. Table 2 summarizes basic
treatment and post-treatment well productivity information for
a multi-pay development project done in mid to late 2003 for a
particular operator in the Uinta Basin. BHST for the majority
of the treated wells ranges from 120 to 188F. Most
treatments utilized 15 and 17 pptg gelant loading with the
PEG system (see Figure 9 for a sample rheogram) and were
pumped to completion as per job design. Some of the best
instances of incremental improvement in well productivity
attributable to the PEG system come from this area, but the
results are considered preliminary or confidential by the well
operator and detailed production data has not been released at
this time.

In the San Juan Basin of New Mexico and Colorado, 18 and
20 pptg PEG systems have been used in treatment of the
Fruitland Coal and Dakota sandstone. BHST ranges from
100 to 230 F in this area. Production results have not been
released. The CBM application is novel in that a non-toxic
EPA-approved liquid gel concentrate is used to add the PEG
polymer in a continuous operation during the treatment.
Rheological testing relating to this project is shown in Figures
4-7.

In the Greater Green River Basin of Wyoming, the PEG
system has been extensively utilized in treatments in the
Pinedale Anticline, Moxa Arch / La Barge Platform, Washakie
and Red Desert sub-basins. The targeted reservoirs are oil and
gas-producing sandstones in the Almy, Transition Zone,
Lance, Lewis, Almond, Ericson, Rock Springs, un-
differentiated Mesaverde and Frontier formations. Most of the
wells are multizone completions involving multiple treatment
stages. CBM wells targeting the Ft. Union and Mesaverde
formations have also been treated with the PEG system. The
BHST range in these PEG applications is 90 to 270F and
polymer loadings have ranged from 16 to 32 lb/1000 gal. The
PEG system has also been used in remedial stimulation
treatments with success. An example is shown in the
production analysis of a Greater Green River Basin well
completed in a low-permeability Cretaceous-age gas
sandstone (k=0.01 md.) BHST of this well is 180F. Initially,
the subject well was treated with 57,500 gallons of a
conventional 30 pptg guar borate system (featuring single-
component buffer/ crosslinker) containing an additional 30%
by volume N
2
. Proppant consisted of 208,500 lb of 20/40
mesh sand and 52,000 lb of 20/40 mesh resin-coated sand.
Well performance was mediocre for the area, stabilizing at an
effective X
F
of 68 ft following a remedial methanol/ CO2
huff and puff treatment, Fig 16. Finally, the well was re-
fractured with 75,500 gallons of 25 pptg crosslinked PEG and
151,000 pounds of 18/40 mesh ceramic proppant. Neither N
2

nor CO
2
gas assist was utilized in this remedial effort. The
treatment resulted in a significant increase in gas production.
Fig. 17 shows that the effective X
F
is currently about 230 ft
and may be still increasing as post-treatment cleanup
continues.

Primary and remedial PEG applications have expanded into
many other areas. These include gas sandstones in the Wind
River Basin of Wyoming (Ft. Union and Lance formations),
and oil sandstones in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming
(Sussex, Shannon, Turner/ Wall Creek/ Frontier, Muddy,
Lakota and Dakota formations). PEG systems have also been
applied in CBM wells in the Raton Basin of Colorado and
New Mexico (Raton and Vermejo formations), CBM wells in
eastern Kansas, gas sandstones in the Cook Inlet of Alaska
(Beluga formation), and numerous applications in the Permian
and San Joaquin Basins and U.S. Mid-continent region. It is
becoming the most widely applied innovation in fracturing
fluid technology in more than a decade.

Summary
1. Process enhanced guar (PEG) is an ultra high-yield
polymer that represents a significant improvement in
polymer processing technology. Used in specially
formulated guar-borate systems, PEG enables
polymer concentration to be reduced by 20% or
greater as compared to systems using conventional
polymer - without compromising proppant placement
in the fracture.
2. PEG systems are well suited for low temperature
fracturing applications (e.g., 200F or less).
3. Acceptance of the PEG system has been widespread.
It has been applied in over 1000 treatments
throughout the US and Mexico in the first 12 months
of its usage.
4. PEG is suitable for treatment of reservoirs that are
prone to damage by polymer-based fracturing fluids,
such as coalbed methane (CBM) reservoirs.
5. PEG 15 and 17 systems (15 and 17 pptg gelant
concentrations, respectively) have been used very
effectively in massive hydraulic fracturing
applications. Low polymer systems such as this
require the use of a high-activity crosslinking agent
6 SPE 91418
to produce acceptable early-time viscosity (at
ambient temperature.) Shear degradation of the PEG
system is extremely minimal when specific chemical
formulations are used.
6. PEG systems have been effectively applied in
remedial (refracturing) applications, often without
using N2 gas assist.

Acknowledgements
Appreciation goes to Hoang Le and Brett Dempsey of BJ
Services who helped introduce the PEG system to the field
and Chris Stephenson of BJ Services for fracture conductivity
evaluation work. Thanks to Steve Trippett of Petroleum
Development Corporation and Mike Khachatrian and Bharath
Rajappa of BJ Services for compiling completion and
production data for the referenced Grand Valley and Uinta
Basin projects.

References
1) Mayerhofer, M, et al: Proppants? We Dont Need No
Proppants, paper SPE 38611 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual
Technical Conference, San Antonio, Oct 5-8.
2) Samuel, M, et al: Polymer-Free Fluid for Fracturing
Applications, SPEDC, Dec 1999.
3) Weaver, J, et al: Application of New Viscoelastic Fluid
Technology Results in Enhanced Fracture Productivity, paper
SPE 71662 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans, Sept 30-Oct 3.
4) Penny, G: An Evaluation of the Effects of Environmental
Conditions and Fracturing Fluids Upon the Long-Term
Conductivity of Proppants, paper SPE 16900 presented at the
1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Sept 27-30.
5) Gulbis, J, et al: Encapsulated Breakers for Aqueous Polymetric
Fluids, SPE Production Engineering, Feb 1992, 9-14.
6) Norman, L, et al: New Breaker Technology for Fracturing
High-Permeability Formations, paper SPE 30097 presented at
the 1995 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, May 15-16.
7) Tjon-Joe-Pin, R, et al: Enzyme Breaker Technoloies: A Decade
of Improved Well Stimulation, paper SPE 84212 presented at
the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, Oct 5-8.
8) Dawson, J, Cramer, D, Le, H: Reduced Polymer Based
Fracturing Fluid: Is Less Really More? paper SPE 91418
presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference,
Houston, Sept. 26-29.
9) Cramer, D: Limited Entry MHF- Conclusion: Study indicates
guidelines improve results, Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.21, 1987,
41-46.
10) Cramer, D: Limited Entry MHF-1: Limited entry extended to
massive hydraulic fracturing, Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.14,
1987, 40-45.
11) Warpinski, N.: Hydraulic Fracturing in Tight, Fissured Media,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (Feb 1991), 146.
12) Cramer, D.: Evaluating Well Performance and Completion
Effectiveness in Hydraulically Fractured Low-Permeability Gas
Wells, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March 2004), 39-40.
13) Cramer, D: Evaluating Well Performance and Low-
Permeability Gas Wells, paper SPE 84214 presented at the
2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Oct. 5.
14) Completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically Fractured Cramer, D:
Evaluating Well Performance and Completion Effectiveness in
Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells: Non-Ideal Cases, paper
SPE 90777 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 26-29.
15) Barree, R et al: Closing the Gap: Fracture Half Length from
Design, Buildup and Production Analysis, paper SPE 84491
presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 5-8.













SPE 91418 7








Polymer
Loading
(pptg)
Temperature
(F)
Closure
Stress
(psi)
% Regained
Conductivity
16 125 (52C) 2000 82
18 175 (79C) 2000 77
22 200 (93C) 3500 84
Table 1
Regained Conductivity of the PEG
System at Various Temperatures
Well
Designation
# of
Job
Stages
Proposed
Proppant
All Stages
(lb)
Actual
Propppant
Used (lb)
Min BH
Static
Temp
(deg F)
Max BH
Static
Temp
(deg F)
Fluid Systems
(lb/1000 gal)
30-Day
Cuml Gas
(mscf)
30-Day
Cuml
Water
(bbls)
90-Day
Cuml Gas
(mscf)
90-Day
Cuml
Water
(bbls)
A 4 1,115,500 995,060 148 187 PEG 17 46,382 15,539 105,302 20,765
B 1 150,000 156,580 150 150 PEG 17 70,835 3,183 196,288 5,808
C 4 824,000 848,480 137 169 PEG 17,15 670 266 1,976 576
D 5 1,237,000 1,262,260 126 175 PEG 17,15 25,992 4,665 58,954 11,802
E 3 783,500 801,580 158 171 PEG 17 32,976 3,278 67,723 6,444
F 5 1,125,002 1,147,540 131 176 PEG 17,15 35,175 11,824 87,785 26,258
G 6 1,121,000 1,142,380 139 188 PEG 17,15 38,161 11,931 113,751 20,407
H 3 663,000 663,577 221 225 PEG 25 18,376 - 38,941 -
I 4 536,000 587,296 146 180 PEG 18,17,15 28,724 462 73,462 1,521
J 1 98,000 97,778 174 174 PEG 17 14,208 963 30,574 3,241
K 3 260,000 265,914 152 159 PEG 17,15 44,870 513 100,741 1,222
L 7 1,500,000 1,295,662 128 168 PEG 20,17,15 63,137 6,111 160,183 13,001
M 4 750,000 561,065 134 165 PEG 17,15 35,206 2,721 78,236 5,715
N 1 90,000 93,411 120 120 PEG 15
O 5 890,000 904,154 151 185 PEG 17 57,543 164 165,161 13,977
P 4 663,000 779,480 146 188 PEG 20,17,15 50,503 3,217 120,650 7,573
Q 6 851,000 1,071,367 168 202 PEG 18 23,388 7,565 49,802 15,955
Table 2: Summary of PEG Treatments and Results in a Uinta Basin Project
8 SPE 91418
Figure 1: Temperature and Pressure Measurements Recorded by Downhole Memory Gauge During a Fracturing Treatment






Figure 2: Rheology Comparison of PEG System to Conventional Guar-Borate System, Field Chemicals Used in Testing





0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Elapsed Clock Time (hours)
B
o
t
t
o
m

H
o
l
e

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
g
0
37.5
75
112.5
150
187.5
225
262.5
300
B
o
t
t
o
m

H
o
l
e

T
e
m
p

(
d
e
g

F
Pressure (PSIG) Temperature (F)
Diagnostic Injection/Falloff
Frac Treatment in progress
Well SI Waiting
For Flowback
Flowback
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Elapsed Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

1
0
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
35
70
105
140
175
210
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
Test Temperature (dotted)
Conventional 25 Guar-Borate,
0.8 gal/1000 Delayed Crosslinker
PEG 20, 0.7 gal/1000
Delayed Crosslinker
PEG 25, 1.0 gal/1000
Delayed Crosslinker
PEG 25, 0.8 gal/1000
Delayed Crosslinker
1st 5 Minutes of Test:
High-Shear (467 sec-1)
at Ambient Temperature
SPE 91418 9
Figure 3: PEG 17 Application in the Uinta Basin, Comparison of Fast and Delayed Crosslinking Systems





Figure 4: Comparison of PEG to Conventional Guar-Borate System, Fruitland Coal Application with Fast Crosslinking Systems





0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elapsed Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

1
0
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
1st 5 Minutes of Tests:
High-Shear (467 sec-1)
at Ambient Temperature
Test Temperature (dotted)
PEG 17 w/ Fast Crosslinker +
1 lb/1000 Encap Gel Breaker
PEG 17 w/ Fast Crosslinker +
2 lb/1000 Encap Gel Breaker
PEG 17 w/ Delayed Crosslinker +
1 lb/1000 Encap Gel Breaker
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Elapsed Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

4
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
30
60
90
120
150
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
Conventional 25 Guar-Borate w/
Optimized Gel Breaker Formulation
PEG 20 w/ Optimized Gel
Breaker Formulation
Test Temperature (dotted)
10 SPE 91418
Figure 5: PEG System in Fruitland Coal Application Evaluation and Optimization of Gel Breaker Design





Figure 6: PEG System - Base Gel Viscosity Versus Water Temperature for Various Hydration Times
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elapsed Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

1
0
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
Test Temperature (dotted)
PEG 20 + catalyzed
2 lb/1000 Breaker B
PEG 20 + catalyzed
3 lb/1000 Breaker B
PEG 20 + catalyzed
1 lb/1000 Breaker A
PEG 20 + catalyzed
2 lb/1000 Breaker A
PEG 20 + catalyzed
4 lb/1000 Breaker B
1st 5 Minutes of Test:
High-Shear (467 sec-1)
at Ambient Temperature
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Water Temperature (deg F)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

5
1
1

s
e
c
-
1
)
2 min 3 min 6 min 60 min
Viscosity Measurement of Linear PEG Gel (20 lb/1000 gal) at
Specified Time Following Mixing of Polymer with Field Water
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elapsed Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

1
0
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
Test Temperature (dotted)
PEG 20 + catalyzed
2 lb/1000 Breaker B
PEG 20 + catalyzed
3 lb/1000 Breaker B
PEG 20 + catalyzed
1 lb/1000 Breaker A
PEG 20 + catalyzed
2 lb/1000 Breaker A
PEG 20 + catalyzed
4 lb/1000 Breaker B
1st 5 Minutes of Test:
High-Shear (467 sec-1)
at Ambient Temperature
SPE 91418 11
Figure 7: Influence of Base Gel Hydration Time and Viscosity on PEG System Rheology





Figure 8: Effect of the Testing Shear History on Apparent Viscosity Over Test Time

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elapsed Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

4
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
Test Temperature (dotted)
PEG 20 w/ 1 lb/1000 Catalyzed Gel Breaker
Base Gel Hydrated for 1 minute, to 10 cp at 511 sec-1
PEG 20 w/ 1 lb/1000 Catalyzed Gel Breaker
Base Gel Hydrated for 60 minutes, to ~16 cp at 511 sec-1
PEG 20 w/ 2 lb/1000 Catalyzed Gel Breaker
Base Gel Hydrated for 1 minute, to 10 cp at 511 sec-1
Variable crosslinker loading
among tests
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Elapsed Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

a
t

4
0

o
r

1
0
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
Test Temperature (dotted)
PEG 18 w/ optimized gel breaker system:
5-min high shear period applied then
continuously sheared at 40 sec-1
PEG 18 w/ optimized gel breaker system:
5-min high shear period applied then
continuously sheared at 100 sec-1
PEG 18 w/ optimized gel breaker system:
continuously sheared at 40 sec-1
12 SPE 91418
Figure 9: Evaluation Of PEG 15 and PEG 17 Systems Used in Uinta Basin Application







Figure 10: Break Profiles of PEG Fluid Systems Used in Regained Conductivity Tests





0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Elasped Test Time (min)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
c
p

@

1
0
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
T
e
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

F
)
Test Temperature (dotted)
PEG 17 + 2 lb/1000
Encap Gel Breaker
PEG 17 + 1 lb/1000
Encap Gel Breaker
PEG 15 + 1 lb/1000
Encap Gel Breaker
1st 5 Minutes of Test:
High-Shear (467 sec-1)
at Ambient Temperature
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 25 50 75 100 125
Time (min)
V
i
s

(
c
P

a
t

1
0
0

s
e
c
-
1
)
16pptg-125F 18 pptg-175F 20 pptg-200F
SPE 91418 13
Figure 11: Location of Hydraulic Fracturing Applications Utilizing the PEG System

Figure 12: Monthly Usage of PEG Since Introduction (total=100%)
Greater Green
River Basin
Uinta Basin
Piceance
Basin
San Juan
Basin
Powder
River
Basin
Permian
Basin
Eastern Kansas
CBM Play
San Joaquin
Basin
Cook Inlet, Alaska
Wind
River
Basin
Mid-Continent
Area
Raton
Basin
Blue Dots Indicate
PEG Application
Mexico
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04
%

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

U
s
a
g
e
1st 12 Months of Application
14 SPE 91418
Figure 13: A Well Log Suite of Grand Valley Field Pay Section


Figure 14: Early-Time Production Results in the Grand Valley Field, PEG-treated Wells (from a single pad)
and Direct Offsetting Wells Treated with Different Fracturing Fluid Systems


Engineers Log Assistant
Operator Name: Stage 3 of 4
Well Name: Puckett 218-25
File Name: Puckett 218-25.las (No Layer File Saved)
CALI 6 16
GR 0 150
DPHI 0.3 -0.1
NPHI 0.3 -0.1
7,450
7,500
7,550
7,600
Engineers Log Assistant
Operator Name: Stage 3 of 4
Well Name: Puckett 218-25
File Name: Puckett 218-25.las (No Layer File Saved)
CALI 6 16
GR 0 150
DFL 1 200
HDRS 1 200
HMRS 1 200
7,450
7,500
7,550
7,600
8%
Type Log: Grand Valley Well, Williams Fork, Stage 3 Zones
density
porosity
neutron
porosity
Dual Induction Log
Porosity Log
pay
cut-off
gamma ray
caliper log
perfs
30 Day Cumulative Gas
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
M
S
C
F
30 Day Cum Gas per Net Foot
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
S
C
F
/
F
o
o
t
XL PEG
XL
CMHPG Guar
Borate
XL
CMG
SPE 91418 15
Figure 15: Production Analysis of a PEG-treated Well in the Grand Valley Field

Figure 16: Production Analysis of a Greater Green River Basin Following Treatment
with Conventional Guar-Borate Fracturing Fluid + Remedial Clean-up Treatment
kh=2.4 md-ft
skin= -4.8
x
F
=70 ft
Lightning Frac 20
5-Stage Treatment
947,500 lb 20/40 mesh sand
X-axis: Log
10
exponents
10 1 0.1 0.01
Semi-log trend line
Semi-Log (MDH) Plot
Log-Log Type Curve Plot
Cartesian
Plot
Production
Simulation
Plot
modeled vs actual
rate match
wellhead
pressure
critical
unloading
rate
kh=0.54 md-ft
k=0.011 md
x
F
=68 ft
Semi-log trend line
Pre re-fracturing
gas
water wellhead
pressures
CO
2
remedial
huff and puff
Original frac
Re-frac
16 SPE 91418
Figure 17: Production Analysis of the same Greater Green River Basin Well Above
(see Fig 16) Following a Re-Fracture Treatment Utilizing the PEG System
kh=0.54 md-ft
k=0.011 md
x
F
=230 ft
Semi-log trend line
Post re-fracturing
re-fracturing
treatment