PRODUCTION
STIMULATION
Friction Pressure Reducers in Well Stimulation
GARLAND L WHITE
MEMBER AIME
I BYRON JACKSON INC.
Abetract
Reducing frictiov pressure by the deliberate use of addi-
tives was stimtdated by field observations of this pheno-
menon in fracturing and acidizing operations. The most
commonly used additives have been used for other advan-
tages for nearly 10 years.
The mechanics of friction pressure reduction are ex-
plained. A brief outline of the laboratory testing of fric-
tion pressure reducers is presented, and a method of transl-
ating these data to field opera~ions is d[scussed, A survey
is made of the five types of friction reducers now in use.
These a<ents are compared according to their effect On
apparent yiscosity, leak-ofl control and friction reduction.
[t is concluded that friction reducers should be chosen
on tile basis of all properties a~ecting well stiitudation.
Introduction
Friction pressure reduction, resulting in lower surface
treating pressures or increased injection. tates, is a com-
paratively new technique in well simulation. The advertise-
ment and- application of materials specifically for this pur-
pose is about five years old, although the phenomenon had
been reported in the literature’ a few years earlier. Also,
the additives first used (and’,still occupying a predominant
position in the market) have been observed by field per-
sonnel to exhibit low friction pressure since 1954, How-
ever, these additives were then being used as sand suspend-
ing and leak-off control agents.
‘The re#ization that the use of friction reducers would
permit the higher injection rates required for more success-
ful stimulation treatments at reasonable equipment costs
instigated the search for better and cheaper agents. At
least two significant developments have resulted from this
search; the discovery and use of several new additivw, and
new knowledge of this phenomenon has been gained.”’
Also, the use of the original additives has increased greatly.
The major points of this discussion are: (1) a look at
the mechanics involved; (2) an explanation of one method
of, translating laboratory results to field use; (3) a com-
parison of the additives presently available; and (4) some
considerateions in choosing the right additive.
Mechanics of Friction Reduction
The characteristics of fluid flowing through a conductor
,, . .,
Orieinal manuscript received In Society of Pctrcdeum Engineers ofsice
Feb. 11 15S4. Retied manuscript recekwl June 5, 1964. Paper Dresented
at bfeclknkd Engineering Asw?nts of Drllllng and Production Sympo.
shun held in Fort Worth. March 2S-24, 19S4.
Ylteferencsa given at end of paper.
1)
ARLINGTON, lEX.
/
‘can be Compdred to traflic on a highway. Visualize a
multi-lane superhighway with a bumper-to-bumper flow of
tratiic in all lanes, The surface of this highway is iced over.
So long as the speed of the automobiles does not exceed
a certain velocity, the drivers can keep them proceeding
straight ahead. Above thk velocity, however, enough trac-
tion is lost to cause the cars to swerve, As speed is in-
creased, swerving increases with a resultant increase in
collisions caused by cars sliding into other lanes. More
cars travel along the highway under the latter conditions,
but energy losses due to random motion are much greater.
This is analogous to the change from Iaminar through
transition to turbulent fluid flow patterns, Figs, I-A and
l-B, depicting longitudinal cuts through pipe sections, ,rep-
resent laminar and turbulent flow patterns.
If flexible dividers are placed between the lanes of the
above highway, nearly all of the swerving autom~biles are
retained within their own lanes. Also, most of the colli-
sions are between txars and flexible material. This tends to
keep the vehicles proceeding straight ahead and greatly
increases the flow of traftic. Less energy is lost to random
motion and to collisions. This represents the effect of fric-
tion pressure reducers in dampening turbulence by the
orientation of long polymers parallel to the fluid laminae.
, ~This type of flQw might be represented by Fig. l-C. “
Another factor to which it seems logical to credit some
of the efficiency of friction reducers is the minimizing of
pipe roughness. It is in the turbulent velocity region that
friction reducers are most effective; and this is the fldv
pattern under which pipe rcpghness becomes the most im-
portant factor in friction pressure.’ It has been observed
that friction reduction in galvanized pipe is greater than
in the smoother stainless steel drawn pipe. Fig. 2 illu-
strates the effect of relative roughness on friction factor f,
Predicting Friction Reduction l?rom
Laboratory Data
Laboratory data generally cannot ,be translated with ex-
treme accuracy to field operations in weil stimulation. This
is tfue beoause the variables can be rriore closely con-
trolled in the laboratory, and is particularly true of friction
reducirtg systems and the tubular goods in which they are .—.
.—
-.. ...
,\:—
A. Lamlnar B.’Turbulent C. Dampened .,
Fig. l—Typee Of fluid fiOW.
. ?.......
,.

.,
applied. In the field, uncontrollable variations in pipe TASLE I
well 1 wall2
—— “ wall 3
roughness, base fluid properties, ambient temperatures and Cashg Size, Inches
mixing procedure often lead to difference between calcu- In[ectlan Rate, bbl/mln ’29; 31; 2s%
Calculated APjeIwI/1 ,000 ft 1S50 2070 1775
lated and actual performance. APr-iWl ,000 ft
Predkted 334 372 320
Site these basic inaccuracies exist, engineering infor- Actual 300 325 300
R-AP,/APn
mation obtained from experimental friction pressure data Predicted 0.18 0.1s O.ls
must be considered very good estimates rather than abso- Actual 0.17 0.16 0.17
lute values. This is not objectionable, since this informa-
tion is generally more accurate than the estimates of other Ap. = pressure drop due to flow of friction re-
components of wellhead pressure. Scale-up, from labora- ducing fluid, psi
tory to field conditions, should be conservative; and labo- This method is lacking in theoretical accuracy, as it
ratory procedures should, as closely as possible, simulate does not take into account diameter effects. However, as
field methods. an estimate, it gives very reliable values for field use, Table
The simplest method of scaling up experimental data 1 shows field results as compared to the predicted results
obtained from laboratory equipment, such as that shown for three fracturing jobs.
schematically in Fig. 3, is:
1, Obtain pressure drop, (p, – p,) =Ap, and flow rate Survey of E’rictionReducers
Q, data for the base fluid,
,Friction reducers have a few properties in common.
2. Obtain same dati for fluid with additive. They are large polymers; the longer the polymer chain the
3. Plot curves of Q, vs Ap as shown in Fig. 4. more effective the material; they tend to build non-
4, Calculate ratios (ApJAp. ) =R; for several values of Newtonian gel structur~ and, to varying degrees, they
Q,. Calculate average R. lose some of their effectiveness with prolonged agitation
5. Calculate Q, vs Apn for field-sized tubular goods of (i.e. they are shear sensitive).
interest, In classifying friction reducers, the most obvious cate-
6, Use the average value of R to obtain reduced friction gories to use are the base fluids. The two base fluids of
pressure at any desired, pump rate Q,. interest to well stimulation are aqueous (water, brine and
where PI, P2 = upstream and downstream uressures from hydrochloric acid solutions) and hydrocarbon (kerosene,
diesel fuel and crude oils), The agents used to reduce ”Wlc-
laboratory apparatus (Fig. 3), psi
tion in aqueous systems are guar, itnionic polymers and
Q, = flow rate, gal/rein nonionic polymers. Additives for hydroc~rbons are synthe-
Q, = flow rate, bbl/min tic polymer solutiops and in situ soap gels, These agents
Ap. = pressure drop due to flow of Newtonian can be compared as to their cotnmon properties and other
base fluid,-psi characteristics of importance to well stimulation,
..
Gsar
Guai is a natural polymer. It is sometimes called a cold
swelling colloid, because it does not require heat to cause
geiation as does, for example, starch. Guar is usually used
in concentrations of 5 to 50 lb/ 1,000 gal of water,
brine or acid. While not the most efficient friction reducer
(see .Figs, 5 and 6) in all aqueous systems, it is the only
such agent which reduces leak-off. It is also the most econ-
omical agent for obtaining high apparent viscosity (Fig.
7), It is the oldest and most used friction reducer for
aqueous stimulation fluids.
Anionic Synthetic polymers
Anionic synthetic polymers are the most’ efficient fric-
tion reducers in fresh water (Figs. 5 and 6), They are not
recommended for use ,in highly ionic systems, because
Reynolds Number -- NR.
cations greatly reduce their efficiency, This is especially

‘O”-=-=== ‘ 7
I 50 ----- ______ .._.

~ ,00

.-~
3
=
k.

-. 0 .
0 10 203040’5s J
FIOW ROte

Fig. 4--Chart for determining preamsre reduction ratio.

JOURNAL OF PETttCiLEUM T~CHNOLOCY

 ,“

true of divsdent cations, such as calcium arid magnesium. Synthetic Polymer Solutions
These polymers give no appreciable leak-off reduction and The synthetic polymer soiutions, used in hydrocarbon
are more shear sensitive than guar. AS illustrated in Figs. systems, are effective friction reducers at low concentra-
7 and 8, they thicken fresh water, They are generally tions, They have the interest”htg characteristic, illustrated
used in concentrations of 2 to 4 lb/ 1,000 gal, in Fig. 9, Point 1, of producing a lower than average R
factor, On subsequent passes through the laboratory teat
NonIonic Synthetic Polymers apparatus, the friction pressure, while still low, is greater
Nonionic synthetic polymers have the advantage, since than during the first pass, Neither leak-off reduction nor
they are electrically neutral, of being compatible with all thickening is obtained with these agents. They can be used
aqueous systems. On a cost basis, they are not as etliciertt in combination with in situ soap gels. They are generally
as guar for friction reduction in all systems, nor as effi- used in concentrations of 3 to 8 gal/1,000 gal of base
cient as anionic polymers in fresh water. They give no fluid (Fig. 11).

—
increase in thickness of the base fluid and no leak-off con-
trol. They are generally used in concentrations of 2 to 4 In Situ Soap Geie
, lb/1,000 gal. In situ soap geis have been used iihnost as long as has

+=
.5 —- .. . . ..— —----- .— .-. ..— .-—. — -.. ...— .. . .. . ... ..._-....-.

Q ,4 -
/’
s
e
/’,
/

i?
z

;
.2 -

“1 -

0
o

.6

.5
Fig,
1 1
IQ
------

cod
#

--
‘.20
S per

5--Aqueous system friction reducers.

I
--------

1000
1 I
30
qollons
I
40

F&

50
4“’”
—.

it-Effect
‘
10
+’0

Pounds
L..._...—L–– .. .

per
20
1000

of friction reducers on viwosit y.

6+
~<

gal.
30 40

L“
a - RI = .25
c

‘L%
.’
.-o .4 ~.40 - ‘average ‘ “55
-G ‘3
4 .3 &
30 -
1% c
0 ------ ------ -
=
~ ,2 v -------------
3 = 20 =
Ln U.

: “’ 10 - 1! ~

o ~.
( 5 10 0
0 2 4 6 8
Pounds per [000 gal, Flow R@e
(
Fig, 6—Aqueous system friction reducers.
Fig. 9—Polymer solution in kerosene.

u
d ~. eo -

~
830 40 -
— !s
20 -“

1 10-
2
-..
-’30 ‘“-” 40 0 2 “’i-”:” “6 “-e ““”IO” - [z
cost -- s PW’iOOO gallons Flow Rata

Fig. 7—Effeet of friction reducers on viscosity. Fig. 10+OUP ge[s in kerosene.

.*
ASJGUST, 1964 a67

. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . ...,, . . ... ,.
—
“i
formation. The gel structures developed by friction redhc.
~ .60 – ers will accomplish this to some extent.
Q ,:. .. The choice of a friction reducing agent must take into
z.. consideration all properties of each additive. When all
= :56
.+9 these properties are engineered into the treatment program,
the most intelligent selection can be made,
: ,52 –
& Conchts$xts
: .4e – a
Friction reducers are valuable tools in providing more
m
effective stimulation,
$ .44
& Laboratory data can be scaled up for field use by using
I I I I I I I simple mathematical relationships,
.40 ~
234567 8,910 The best selection of friction reducers for a specific +
treatment program cart be made only when they are com-
Gal. of Solufion per 1000 Gal.
pared on the basis of all desired properties.
Fig. 1 l—IMeet of conceintrara, of polymer solution on
Ackrtowledgtttents
guar. They were also originally used for sand suspension The author wishes to thank the management of Byron
and leak-off control. As shown in Fig. 10, the gel labeled Jackson Inc., for permission to publish this paper. Ac-
.
L is more efiective than Gel S under laboratory test con- knowledgment is especially due to J, W, Latham, E. M.
ditions. Gel L. is sensitive to low concentrations of water Cloughly, J. L, Buster and C, H, Mohr for their assistance
contamination of the base fluid, while Gel S is not. Neither and suggestions in preparing this paper.
of the gels is shear sensitive, but the amount of friction
reduction obtained with either is affected to some extent
References
by the amount of agitation they have experienced just
prior to their use. Both gels thicken the base fluid and 1. Brmdrmh C 0. and Matthews, ~honras A. II: “Friction Loss of
reduce leak-off, Fmc;turfng Fluids”, Paper 531-C,, pr*er Ited at 30th Annual Fall
Mee,ting, Society of Petroleum Etrghu:ers, New Orleans, Oct.
Chooshtg Fnictiort Reducers 2.5, 1955.
2. 0~t6rItottk R, S. and Hali, C. D.:*’’Reduction of Friction LAW
What criteria govern the choice of a friction reducing in Fracturing Operations”, tour. Pet. Tech. (March,
. .. 1961) 217. I
agent? Basically, the same prime aim is, as in any phase of 3. M-f ton, L. L. and Malon~,-W. T.: “PI uid Mechanics Research
well stimulation, to get maximum benefit at lowest cost. Engineerifig Applica~on in Non.Newtonian .F1uid S~tems”,
Sot, Pet. Eng. jour. (March, 1964) 56.
The method of Howard and Fast’ for predicting eiflciertt 4. Browq G. G,: Unit Operations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
fracture extension shows that the calculated fracture area York (1950) 139,
increases directly with incr&ing flow rate. Without &Ic- 5. Moody, L F.: “Friction Factyrs For Pipe Flow”, Trans., ASME
/in””, Zz 011.
<-,,
tion reducers, pressure limitations on the tubular goods H) Wo.

can prevent the attainment of the required injection rates, 6. Howard, G.’C, and Fast, C, R.: “Optimum Fluid Characteristics
The leak-off coefficient also greatly influences the fracture ~;57~~cturc ~ven~id’, API Paper No, 851-31-M (April,
**
area extension in the above correlation, since fracture area
varies inversely with the square of the coefficient. “Also,
the high apparent viscosity of some of these agents at low
flow rates aids in carrying the proppant to the limits of I
the fracture and in reducing-the possibility of screen outs.
GARI.AND L, WHITE is a senior engi-
In acidwing, the injection rate has the same @fh.wnceon neer in the Research and Development
fracture extension as in fracturing, However, each acidiz-
Div. of ,Byrou Jackson Inc. in Arlin@
ing sohttion has a definite reaction time under each set ‘~f ton, Tex. A graduate of The U. of Tex-
conditions. The extent of the zone eroded by acid reaction as, he received a BS degree in chemical
is limited to the penetration allowed by the volume in- engineering in 1951.
jected in this reaction time. Another consideration is that
the retarding of reaction rate is believed to be acconl-
plished by physically limiting contact between acid and

‘,

. .. . —. .,. . . . . . ---- . ... 5

,.
,

. . ..