Rheological evaluations of CO2 miscible hydrocarbon fracturing fluids

Previous publications (1-4) described the theory and application of CO 2 miscible hydrocarbon fracturing fluids to gas well stimulation. The fluids are ideally suited to gas reservoirs susceptible to phase trapping due to high capillary pressures when water-based fluids are used. Reservoirs particularly prone to phase trapping are those with low permeability (less than 0.1 md), those that are subnormally water-saturated, and those that are under pressured. In order to conduct meaningful rheological evaluations for determination of fluid properties and required chemical concentrations, it is essential that downhole conditions be accurately duplicated. The most fundamental requirement is that the gelled hydrocarbon and liquid CO 2 be combined and homogenized below the critical temperature of CO 2 (31° C) and at a pressure above the bubble point of the resulting fluid mixture to ensure one miscible phase. This normally requires a minimum initial pressure of at least 20 MPa. Temperature is increased to the bottomhole static temperature of the well under consideration as the test progresses. This requires that the rheometer have a pressure rating high enough to withstand the increased pressure caused by expansion. This paper presents several different testing methodologies designed to provide representative rheology vs. time with all chemicals present, and to provide varying insights into fluid behaviour. The first utilizes a conventional bob and sleeve configuration in a heated pressure chamber rated to 102 MPa and 204° C (5) . This allows one to gather shear stress vs. shear rate data as a function of time. Normal Power Law n' and k' parameters are calculated and are in turn used to calculate apparent viscosity vs. time. Secondary mixing is provided by a helical fin attached to the outside of the sleeve, which creates a rotational flow pattern in the rheometer. The second methodology utilizes a capillary tube viscometer allowing for precise and accurate control of the shear rate. The capillary tubes used are capable of 68 MPa at 204° C and are sized according to the expected viscosity range and range of desired shear rates. The fluid of interest is displaced through the tube using a push-pull system of two positive displacement syringe (Ruska) pumpsone in injection and one in extraction mode to keep the system pressure at the desired level. Varying the injection rate allows one to vary the shear rate as desired. Shear stress vs. shear rate data are collected as a function of time, again allowing normal power law parameters as well as apparent viscosity to be calculated. The third methodology uses an oscillating (sinusoidal) strain. The resulting stress has an elastic component and a viscous component. G' is the elastic component and can be thought of like a spring constant. A Newtonian liquid has no storage modulus (G'). Elastic behaviour is important for suspending proppant at low shear rates. This methodology therefore provides insights into fluid behaviour that complement those obtained using shear stress vs. shear rate measurements.