Spe 168645

SPE 168645
Anal ysis of US Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System and Proppant Trends

P.S. Patel, PacWest Consulting Partners; C.J . Robart, PacWest Consulting Partners; M. Ruegamer, Kingsfield
Consulting; A. Yang, PacWest Consulting Partners
Copyright 2014, Society of PetroleumEngineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 46 February 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Building upon the analysis contained in a related paper (SPE-163875), Analysis of U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Design
Trends, presented at the 2013 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, this paper will provide a more
comprehensive and robust analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid systems and proppant trends across major shale plays in the
United States between 2011 and the first half of 2013. This paper will present key insights gleaned from the categorization
and analysis of over 55,000 hydraulic fracturing treatments, collected from FracFocus.org.

FracFocus.org is a website established in early 2011 with a centralized registry to provide hydraulic fracturing chemical
disclosures across the United States. The website provides the data for the analysis presented in this paper, consisting of
chemical disclosure records for nearly 55,000 hydraulically fractured wells. The data set includes information on all chemicals
and proppants, fracture date, TVD, water volume, production type. We have collected all available data, identified key
constituent materials, and classified each treatment according to a widely used set of frac type categories.

This paper investigates changes in key hydraulic fracturing technical parameters at the both the aggregate US level and
regional level between 2011 and the first half of 2013. The analysis identifies changes over time in frac type, using the broad
categories of conventional, water frac, hybrid, energized, etc. The paper also includes analysis on proppant trends, including
usage rates for key proppant types (sand, resin-coated sand, and ceramics) and proppant loading trends.

To date, most knowledge of aggregate consumption trends on hydraulic fracturing chemicals and proppant is anecdotal and
based on the direct experience of operators or service companies. This paper provides a more rigorous quantitative perspective
on hydraulic fracturing fluid trends in the United States between 2011 and the first half of 2013.

Introduction

FracFocus.org was launched in early 2011 to serve as the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry. The registry is
managed by the Groundwater Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission to provide the public
with access to reported chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing within their area. As of the date of analysis for this paper,
there were nearly 55,000 wells reported via the website.

Although the FracFocus website was developed with the intention of providing the public with disclosure to the chemicals
injected downhole within a given area, the chemical disclosure data sheets contain a wealth of technical data about hydraulic
fracturing fluid systems and proppants pumped downhole. The FracFocus website is structured on a well-by-well basis, which
means that it is not possible to understand how each fracturing stage was treated. However, if one assumes that all frac stages
in a well are treated using generally similar frac designs and fluid systems, we have access to a rich data source about frac
fluid systems that allows one to analyze frac fluid and proppant trends across the United States.

Each FracFocus chemical disclosure data sheet contains basic information about the treated well, including fracture date,
latitude/longitude, TVD, and water volume. In addition, the sheet contains detailed information about every additive injected
downhole during the hydraulic fracturing treatment, including trade name, purpose, supplier, ingredients, CAS number, and
2 SPE 168645
maximum ingredient concentrations in the additive and hydraulic fracturing fluid. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 below for a
comprehensive list of FracFocus chemical disclosure data elements and an example of a FracFocus disclosure data sheet,
respectively.

Figure 1: Data Elements of FracFocus.org Chemical Disclosure
Well & Frac Details Detailed Fluid Composition
Fracture date Well number
Additive trade name Additive purpose
State and county Latitude and longitude
Additive supplier Additive ingredients
Well API number Production type
Chemical abstract number
Well operator True vertical depth
Max ingredient concentration in additive
Well name Total water volume
Max ingredient concentration in fluid
Source: FracFocus.org
Figure 2: Example of FracFocus.org Chemical Disclosure Data Sheet


SPE 168645 3
Since early 2011, PacWest Consulting Partners has been collecting, parsing, cleaning, and analyzing all data available on the
FracFocus.org website. At the date of analysis for this paper, the database contained nearly 55,000 wells and more than
1,000,000 additive ingredients. After successfully importing the raw data, we developed a decision-tree and algorithm to
classify all wells into a fracture treatment type, based on the constituents pumped downhole during the hydraulic fracturing
treatment. Within this paper, we have utilized two classification systems, which we have called the Technical and Simple
classification systems. The Technical classification system reflects a classification scheme that is widely used by engineering
professionals throughout the industry. The Simple classification system reflects a classification scheme that is used more
widely by commercial and non-technical professionals throughout the industry. See Figure 3 and Figure 4 below for the two
classification system developed to characterize the hydraulic fracturing treatments into different categories of fluid systems.

Figure 3: Technical Classification System for Frac Treatment Types
Frac Type Definition
Conventional
Treatment type that uses a gelling agent and one or more crosslinkers in order to transport proppant
into a hydraulic fracture.
Water Frac
Treatment type that uses a friction reducer, a gelling agent or a viscoelastic surfactant in order to
transport proppant into a hydraulic fracture.
Hybrid
Treatment type that uses a combination of a friction reducer, gelling agent, acid gelling agent, or one
or more crosslinkers in order to transport proppant into a hydraulic fracture.
Energized
Treatment type that incorporates an energizer, normally nitrogen or carbon dioxide, into the base
fluid in order to generate foam that transports proppant into a hydraulic fracture.
Other/Unknown
Treatment type category that includes the following less common treatment types: Acid Frac, Gas
Frac, Matrix Acidizing. This category also includes records for which a classification was unknown
or unavailable, generally due to incomplete data.

Figure 4: Simple Classification System for Frac Treatment Types
Frac Type Definition
Hybrid Crosslinked/Slickwater
Treatment type that uses a combination of a friction reducer, gelling agent, and one or
more crosslinkers in order to transport proppant into a hydraulic fracture.
Hybrid Linear Gel/Slickwater
Treatment type that uses a combination of a friction reducer and gelling agent in order to
Slickwater
Treatment type that uses a friction reducer in order to transport proppant into a hydraulic
fracture.
Linear Gel
Treatment type that uses a gelling agent in order to transport proppant into a hydraulic
fracture.
Crosslinked
Treatment type that uses a gelling agent and one or more crosslinkers in order to
Energized
Treatment type that incorporates an energizer, normally nitrogen or carbon dioxide, into
the base fluid in order to generate foam that transports proppant into a hydraulic fracture.
Other/Unknown
Treatment type category that includes the following treatment types: Acid Frac, Gas
Frac, Matrix Acidizing. This category also includes records for which a classification
was unknown or unavailable, generally due to incomplete data.

Within this paper we have classified proppant types into three categories: Sand, Resin-Coated Sand, and Ceramics. Figure 5
below provides definitions for the three proppant types. Additionally, wells often contain more than one proppant; therefore it
is necessary to develop a more comprehensive classification system to define proppant design. Figure 6 below provides
definitions for all the proppant design analyzed within this paper.

Figure 5: Proppant Type Definitions
Proppant Type Definition
Sand
Includes all raw frac sand types, including Northern White, Ottawa, Brady, Brown Sand,
Texas Gold, etc.
Resin-Coated Sand
Includes only resin-coated proppants for which the substrate is sand. This category does
NOT include any double-counting with the Sand category described above.
Ceramic
Any proppant for which the substrate is a ceramic or otherwise manufactured proppant.
Resin-coated ceramic proppant is included in this category.

4 SPE 168645
Figure 6: Proppant Design Classification System
Proppant Design Definition
Sand Only A well that contains only raw sand.
Sand +RCS +Ceramic A well that contains sand, resin-coated sand, and ceramic proppant.
Sand +RCS A well that contains sand and resin-coated sand.
Sand +Ceramic A well that contains sand and ceramic proppant.
RCS Only A well that contains resin-coated sand only.
RCS +Ceramic A well that contains resin-coated sand and ceramic proppant.
Ceramic Only A well that contains ceramic proppant only.

This paper investigates changes in key hydraulic fracturing technical parameters at the both the aggregate US level and
regional level between 2011 and the first half of 2013. The analysis identifies changes over time in frac treatment type, using
two related classification systems. The paper also provides analysis on proppant trends, including usage rates for key proppant
types (sand, resin-coated sand, and ceramics) and proppant loading trends.

This paper contains analysis of metrics commonly used in the industry. However, due to limited data availability, in some
cases the definition and methodology of the calculations used in this paper differ slightly from the conventional approach. In
numerous cases in this paper we have analyzed proppant loading. Within this paper proppant loading is defined as total
proppant mass divided by total water volume, which differs from the generally accepted definition.

At the date of analysis for this paper, the database contained nearly 55,000 wells and more than 1,000,000 additive ingredients.
However, of the 54,534 wells contained in the complete data set, 29,350 wells were classified as horizontal wells and 25,184
wells were classified as vertical or directional wells. Horizontal wells have become the dominant drilling and construction
approach for E&Ps operating in unconventional oil/gas plays in the US. Due to their overwhelming importance in todays
oil/gas market, we have chosen to limit the analysis contained in this paper to only the 29,350 horizontal well records.

Figure 7 below provides analysis of the sample size of the available horizontal wells data for each quarter between the first
quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2013. The sample size increases from roughly 1,000 records in the first quarter of
2011 to nearly 3,000 records by the first and second quarters of 2013, providing a highly representative population of wells for
which to undertake a robust analysis of well trends.

Figure 7: Sample Size of US Horizontal Well Records


Anal ysi s of Aggregate US Hydraul ic Fracturing Flui d System and Proppant Trends

The US oil/gas market has shifted dramatically since early 2011, from one focused on gas development and production to one
focused primarily on oil and liquids development and production. This shift can be attributed to falling natural gas prices,
prompting operators to focus their development efforts away from gas plays and towards oil/liquids plays. A typical frac
design in an unconventional gas play includes relatively small grades of proppant (40/70 and 100 mesh), carried into fractures
by a low viscosity fluid with friction reducer additive to allow high pump rates. The high pump rate allows for the creation of
1,098
1,633
1,991
2,098
2,552
2,772
2,591 2,604
2,948 2,832
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
SPE 168645 5
complex fracture networks. However, unconventional oil and liquids-rich plays generally require larger grades of proppant
(20/40 and 30/50) than gas plays. Since the larger grades of proppant require higher viscosity fluids to carry them into
fractures, the fluid viscosity is increased with gelling and crosslinking agents to increase fluid viscosity and proppant carrying
capacity. After much experimentation, many operators have also combined the two frac design approaches into hybrid
systems which have high proppant carrying capacity and can create complex fracture networks. See Figure 8 for geographic
distribution of the most common fracture treatment types for select US plays.

Figure 8: Most Common Frac Treatment Type for Select US Plays (2013YTD)


As illustrated in Figure 9 below, US operators have transitioned from Slickwater frac treatments, in favor of Hybrid
Crosslinked/Slickwater frac treatments. Between the first quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012, operators decreased the
proportion of horizontal wells treated with a Slickwater system from 45% to 25%. Similarly, as illustrated in Figure10 below,
over the same time period US operators have transitioned from Water Frac treatments, in favor of Hybrid frac treatments that
incorporate a gelling and/or a crosslinking agent, in addition to a friction reducer. Since early 2012, the proportion of wells
treated with a Slickwater system has been stable, accounting for between 23% and 29% of horizontal wells.

Hybrid frac treatments have accounted for the majority of horizontal wells treated since late 2011. From a low of 42% of
horizontal wells in the first quarter of 2011, hybrid frac treatments increased market share quickly, to 57% of horizontal wells
in the fourth quarter of 2011. The use of Conventional frac treatments has increased since early 2011 but has never amounted
to more than 17% of horizontal wells. Since the third quarter of 2012, conventional frac treatments have fallen moderately in
popularity, amounting to 14% of horizontal wells treated in the second quarter of 2013.

Other frac treatment systems, including Energized, Acid Frac, Matrix Acidizing, and others (herein referred to as Secondary
treatment types, for convenience) , account for a relatively small proportion of horizontal wells treated in the US between 2011
and the first half of 2013. In 2011 and 2012, these Secondary frac treatment types accounted for between 1% and 2% of
horizontal wells treated. In the first and second quarters of 2013, the proportion of horizontal wells treated with these
Secondary types accounted for 3% to 4%, but the increase is due to an increase in the number of records that were classified as
unknown, rather than due to an increase in the number of Secondary treatment types.

Bakken
DJ Basin
Marcellus
6 SPE 168645
Figure 9: US Frac Design Trends (Technical) Figure 10: US Frac Design Trends (Simple)

Source: FracFocus.org, Baker Hughes Source: FracFocus.org, Baker Hughes

Proppant is critical to the production of an unconventional well, creating conductivity in an otherwise low-permeability
formation. The choice of proppant has been much debated among completion engineers and other technical professionals
involved in hydraulic fracturing design. Premium proppants (resin-coated sand and ceramic proppant) have been much
touted for their superior crush-strength, relative to sand. This paper will not attempt to provide an opinion into the ongoing
debate. However, it will attempt to provide an analysis of the proppant design of operators in the US in an attempt to
accurately represent historical trends.

Sand is the overwhelmingly the dominant proppant used in the US for hydraulic fracturing, used in approximately 90% of
wells. However, it is common to pump more than one proppant type in a well during the course of a hydraulic fracturing
treatment. Common combinations include Sand+RCS (sand with resin-coated sand) and Sand+Ceramic (sand with ceramic
proppant). As seen in Figure below there has been a considerable shift in US proppant design trends since early 2011.

The use of resin-coated sand and ceramic proppant increased significantly between early 2011 and mid-2012, from inclusion
in 11% of horizontal wells in the first quarter of 2011 to 35% of wells in the third quarter of 2012. Conversely, the use of sand
as the only proppant has decreased considerably, from 11% of horizontal wells in the first quarter of 2011 to 65% in the third
quarter of 2012. This time period coincides well with the exploration phase for a number of key oil/liquids plays in the US,
most notably the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and Permian unconventional plays. The increase in the use of ceramic and resin-coated
proppant demonstrated in Figure 11 below can partially be explained by increasing representation of these plays in the
population of wells. Another reason for their rapid increase could be increased testing and experimentation with these
proppants, in an effort to determine the proppant design choice that results in the best production.

The use of resin-coated sand and ceramic proppant appears to have decreased quickly since late 2012, from 35% of horizontal
wells in the fourth quarter of 2012 to 25% in the second quarter of 2013. This rapid shift is most likely explained by a focus
on cost management by operators. After a period of rapid cost escalation in the 2010-2011 time period operators began to
focus on optimizing their upstream operations and rationalizing their costs. There is no doubt that premium proppants have
superior crush strength and create improved conductivity downhole; however, the improvement in conductivity comes at a
higher price. It appears that many operators reached the conclusion, sometime in 2012, that the use of only sand as a proppant
in their wells was sufficient for their needs. Between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013, the proportion
of horizontal wells that included only sand as a proppant increased from 65% to 75%.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
XL XL/SW
LG/SW SW
LG ENG
Other/Unknown Oil Rigs (% of Total)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Conventional Hybrid
Water Frac Energized
Other/Unknown Oil Rigs (% of Total)
SPE 168645 7
Figure 11: US Proppant Design Trends


Total proppant consumption in the US has increased quickly as horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing
techniques have been applied to unconventional oil/gas plays across the country. One far-reaching trend that has been widely
discussed within industry is the increasing lateral length of horizontal wells, often used as a metric of service intensity.
Increasing service intensity has important implications for many industries that provide products and services to operators, for
example, the proppants industry.

Conventional wisdom implies that the mass of proppant consumed per well has been steadily increasing in the last few years.
However, analysis of the available data demonstrates a more complex story. Figure 12 below provides an analysis of the
average mass of proppant consumed per horizontal well in the US between the first quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of
2013. It appears that average proppant mass per horizontal well actually decreased significantly between the first quarter of
2011 and the third quarter of 2012, from approximately 4 million pounds to nearly 3.5 million pounds. The decrease in
average proppant mass is most likely due to a shift in the well population towards smaller exploration-phase wells in new
oil/liquids plays, away from larger development-phase wells in more established gas plays.

Proppant consumption increased rapidly between the third quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013, from nearly 3.5
million pounds to nearly 4.3 million pounds, an increase of 24% in less than one year. This increase is partially explained by
increasing well sizes in key US plays, particularly the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Marcellus, and Permian. However another
important factor is the rapid increase in proppant loading during this time period. As seen in Figure 12 below, proppant
loading (defined as total proppant mas / total water mass) increased dramatically between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the
second quarter of 2013, from approximately 1.0 lbs/gal H
2
O to 1.1 lbs/gal H
2
O, a 10% increase. Although the reasons are still
unclear, it appears that operators are pumping more proppant per gallon of water.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Sand Only Sand+RCS Sand+Ceramic Ceramic Only Sand+RCS+Ceramic RCS Only RCS+Ceramic
8 SPE 168645
Figure 12: Aggregate US Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs) vs Proppant Loading (lbs/gal H2O)

Note: Proppant loading is defined as the total pounds of proppant divided by the total gallons of water

As discussed above, proppant consumption is a complex story, with significant variance in consumption per well and proppant
loading across treatment types, as demonstrated in Figure 13 and Figure 14 below. Proppant loading in horizontal wells has
increased by 8% per annum since 2011 in Hybrid treatments, but only by 5% in Conventional treatments. Conversely,
proppant loading has decreased by 8% in Water Frac treatments. As discussed above, Hybrid and Conventional treatments
accounted for nearly 70% of horizontal wells in the first half of 2013, therefore increases in proppant loading within these well
populations have a dominant effect on the average of the total population of all horizontal wells. Per well proppant
consumption has increased in all treatment types, with the exception of Slickwater frac treatments. Most notably, between
2012 and 2013 year-to-date, proppant mass per horizontal well increased by 44% for Conventional treatment types.

Figure 13: US Proppant Loading (lbs proppant/gal H2O) Figure 14: US Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs)

Source: FracFocus.org Source: FracFocus.org

In an effort to better understand proppant loading trends, we have provided a detailed analysis of proppant loading (lbs
proppant/1,000 gal H
2
O) for two common frac treatment types: Hybrid Crosslinked/Slickwater and Slickwater (see Figure 15
and Figure 15 below). These treatment types were chosen because together they account for 68% of all available horizontal
wells in our data set, and they each demonstrate very different trends.

Within the population of horizontal wells treated with a Hybrid Crosslinked/Slickwater fluid system (see Figure 15 below),
proppant loading has increased steadily since early 2011, with growth accelerating in the first half of 2013. Also notable are
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

P
e
r

W
e
l
l

Proppant Mass Per Well Proppant Loading
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
XL/SW LG/SW SW LG XL ENG
2011 2012 2013
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2011 2012 2013
SPE 168645 9
the changes in loading trends for the different proppant types. Proppant loading for resin-coated sand and ceramic proppant
increased quickly between the first and fourth quarters of 2011, whereas proppant loading for sand appears stable until the first
half of 2013, when it increased quickly.

Proppant loading within the population of horizontal wells treated with a Slickwater fluid system (see Figure 16 below) has
increased steadily since early 2011, from over 0.9 lbs/gal H
2
O in the first quarter of 2011 to under 0.7 lbs/gal H
2
O in the first
quarter of 2013. Proppant loading of resin-coated sand and ceramic proppant is also considerably lower for Slickwater
treatment types. Proppant loading for Slickwater treatments has decreased by the equivalent of approximately 9% per annum
since 2011.

Figure 15: US Crosslinked/Slickwater Proppant Loading Trends Figure 16: US Slickwater Proppant Loading Trends


Anal ysi s of Regional US Hydrauli c Fracturing Flui d System and Proppant Trends

This section will provide an analysis of fracture designs and proppant trends for three plays: the Bakken, DJ Basin, and
Marcellus.

Bakken

Operators unlocked the full potential of the Bakken tight oil play though horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic
fracturing, resulting in a sharp increase in activity since 2011. Production of oil in the Bakken requires the use of viscous
crosslinked gels with large-mesh proppants to create and sustain wide and deep fractures. Many fracs in the Bakken now
include a slickwater portion to the frac fluid in order to create a complex network of fractures, while keeping the advantages
present with using a crosslinked gel.

The number of stages and frac size has increased in the Bakken as well, faster than the national average since 2012. In
addition, proppant loading in the Bakken has increased faster than the national average, resulting in a 30% increase in proppant
per well 2013. Bakken is unusual in that nearly half of Bakken wells use ceramic proppant, and in large volumes rather than a
small amount at the end of a stage. Much research and testing is being done to test the cost effectiveness of this practice, but
early data from 2013 indicate that ceramic will be used less than in 2012.

The number of Bakken wells in the database has increased dramatically from 2011 to 2013. Although the data is not complete,
the amount of data nevertheless reflects the increase in Bakken horizontal drilling and completion activity and provides a
robust data set for analysis.

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Sand RCS Ceramic
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Sand RCS Ceramic
10 SPE 168645
Figure 17: Sample Size of Bakken Horizontal Well Records


Figure 18 and Figure 19 are maps of 2013 Bakken frac activity. Conventional crosslinked frac fluid activity is primarily
concentrated in the eastern portion of the active play, while there are clumps of hybrid crosslinked gel and slickwater fracs in
the surrounding areas.

Figure 18: Map of Bakken Wells, by Frac Treatment Type (2013YTD)


Figure 19: Map of Bakken Counties, by Most Common Frac Treatment Type (2013YTD)


74
99
211
260
367
476
516
467
481
396
0
100
200
300
400
500
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
SPE 168645 11
In the Bakken, operators have been switching to hybrid fracs in order to allow for more fracture complexity and networking,
but still allow for larger proppant grades to provide near wellbore conductivity. Conventional or crosslinked frac fluids have
been on a constant decline since the beginning of 2011. However, Hybrid horizontal frac share increased from 20% in the first
quarter of 2011 to more than 70% in 13Q3. Experimentation with slickwater and linear gel fracs appears to emerge in 2012,
but subsides to 2011 levels by mid-2013. Despite the strong shift to Hybrid fracs, Conventional frac designs appear to
maintain roughly 30% share of horizontal fracs. See Figure 20 and Figure 21 for quarterly frac design trends in the Bakken.

Figure 20: Bakken Frac Design Trends (Technical) Figure 21: Bakken Frac Design Trends (Simple)


Bakken operators have been the primary consumer of ceramic proppant. A greater proportion of Bakken wells use ceramic
proppant than any other play in the United States. In the third quarter of 2012, the peak of Ceramic usage in the US, 15% of
wells in the US used Ceramic (see Figure 11). In the Bakken, 50% of the third quarter of 2012 wells used Ceramic, and that
number was higher in the second quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2012. For their preference for ceramic proppant,
operators cite the geology of the Bakken and need to maintain near wellbore conductivity by avoiding proppant degradation,
embedment, stress and flowback as especially important in a liquids play as reasons. Regional oilfield culture and accepted
practices may also be a factor. Figure 22 below shows proppant design trends in the Bakken. The proportion of fracs using
only sand declined by 20% in 2012, in favor of treatments using only ceramic proppant or ceramic proppant with sand.
However, the use of ceramics has declined in 2013, as many operators shift to lower-cost proppants, such as sand and resin-
coated sand.

Figure 22: Bakken Proppant Design Trends


Both proppant loading and proppant mass per well increased the past year, following a decline from 2011 to 2012. Proppant
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Hybrid Water Frac Conventional
Energized Other/Unknown
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
XL/SW LG/SW SW LG XL ENG Other/Unknown
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Sand Only Sand+RCS+Ceramic Sand+RCS Sand+Ceramic RCS Only RCS+Ceramic Ceramic Only
12 SPE 168645
loading increased 17% YoY from the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013 while mass per well increased 35%
YoY in the same period, mirroring the national trend where about half the increase in mass per well can be attributed to an
increase in proppant loading while the other half can be attributed to an increase in fluid pumped. The increase in the Bakken
was steeper than the national average, however (See figure 23 for details).

Figure 23: Bakken Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs) vs Proppant Loading (lbs/gal H2O)


Fracture treatment fluids have different proppant loading and proppant mass per well characteristics. Crosslinked slickwater
hybrid fracs and conventional crosslinked fracs, the two most common in the Bakken, both demonstrated a decrease in average
loading from 2011 to 2013, but both showed a dramatic increase in mass per well. Figure 24 and Figure 245 show the yearly
proppant mass per well and proppant loading by frac types. Slickwater proppant loading decreased every year even though the
Slickwater mass of proppant has increased, indicating a dramatic increase in frac size. The caveat though is that there were
very few slickwater fracs in 2011 and 2013. The trend for crosslinked fracs is that same as the one for hybrid fracs, showing a
general trend of increasing frac sizes, although mass per well decreased in 2012 7% from 2011 while loading decreased 19%.
Similar to national trends, Crosslinked Gel and Crosslinked/Slickwater hybrids had the highest proppant loadings among the
frac types.

Figure 24: Bakken Proppant Loading (lbs proppant/gal H2O) Figure 25: Bakken Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs)


An interesting trend appears when examining the proppant design distribution for wells using both sand and ceramic proppant.
Rather than wells using primarily Sand with a tail-in of Ceramic, Bakken sand and ceramic wells use more than 40% ceramics.
Figure 26 provides a detailed analysis of this distribution from 2011 to 2013.

1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

P
e
r

W
e
l
l

Mass Per Well Loading
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2011 2012 2013
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2011 2012 2013
SPE 168645 13

Figure 26: Bakken Sand+Ceramic Proppant Distribution (MM lbs)


DJ Basin

The landscape of hydraulic fracturing activity in the DJ Basin has changed significantly in the past three years, shifting from
primarily vertical/directional to horizontal wells. The DJ Basin is primarily oil/liquids rich play, therefore activity in the region
has ramped up recently due to relatively low natural gas prices. Similar to the Bakken, oil production in the DJ Basin requires
a fracture treatment that employs a viscous gel combined with a proppant to prevent closure of fractures. As a result, wells in
the DJ Basin generally include a Hybrid treatment type with sand and resin-coated sand for additional crush-resistance
downhole. These trends are expected to continue as horizontal well sizes increase along with the number of stages treated.

The dataset used for the analysis of horizontal wells in the DJ Basin increased significantly from early 2011 (see Figure 27).
However, the number of records available is much smaller than other plays, resulting in some variability for certain detailed
analyses.

Figure 27: Sample Size of DJ Basin Horizontal Well Records


0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2

Sand Ceramic Ceramic % by Mass
21
34
49
57
89
126
136
163
145
127
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
14 SPE 168645
In the area of activity within the DJ Basin, most of the wells consist of a Hybrid Crosslinked/Slickwater treatment type, while
wells with a Conventional (Crosslinked) treatment type constitute much of the remainder (see Figure 28 and Figure 29).

Figure 28: Map of DJ Basin Wells, by Treatment Type (2013YTD)

Figure 29: Map of DJ Basin Counties, by Most Common Frac Treatment Type (2013YTD)


Figure 30 and Figure 31 show the treatment type distribution for horizontal wells in the DJ Basin between 2011 and 2013.
Horizontal wells in the DJ Basin were overwhelmingly treated with a Hybrid design. In 2011, more than 20% were
Conventional (Crosslinked) treatments, but over the next two years, this percentage fell to less than 10%. Although some
wells treated still utilize a Slickwater design, most operators have switched over to a Hybrid treatment design.
SPE 168645 15
Figure 30: DJ Basin Frac Design Trends (Technical) Figure 31: DJ Basin Frac Design Trends (Simple)


Figure 32 below provides an analysis of proppant design trends in the DJ Basin. The two major proppant design profiles in the
DJ basin are sand only and a combination of sand and resin-coated sand. Following the first half of 2011, the most common
treatment design shifted from using predominantly sand to sand and resin-coated sand. This proportion peaked in 2012, but has
decreased steadily to 61% in the second quarter of 2013 as operators slowly shift away from premium proppants to sand,
likely in an effort to minimize costs.

Figure 32: DJ Basin Proppant Design Trends


Figure 33 provides an analysis of proppant mass per well and proppant loading in the DJ Basin. The quarter-on-quarter changes
are much more volatile than in the other plays, most likely due to limited sample size in this region. Despite the instability in
the analysis results, mass per well and proppant loading appear closely correlated.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
Hybrid Water Frac Conventional Energized
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Sand Only Sand+RCS Sand+RCS+Ceramic Sand+Ceramic RCS Only
16 SPE 168645
Figure 33: DJ Basin Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs) vs Proppant Loading (lbs/gal H2O)

Note: Proppant loading is defined as total proppant mass divided by total gallons of water.

Figure 34 and Figure 35 below show the changes in loading and mass per well by treatment type. Although the quarterly
changes appear erratic, the trends look clearer when the data is viewed on a yearly basis for each treatment type. Since the
Crosslinked/Slickwater treatment type constitutes for 85% of horizontal wells in the DJ Basin, a small sample size causes
much of the fluctuations in other treatment designs.

Figure 34: DJ Basin Proppant Loading (lbs proppant/gal H2O) Figure 35: DJ Basin Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs)

Note: Proppant loading is defined as total proppant mass (pounds) divided by total water volume (gallons)

Unlike the fracture treatments in the Bakken, using both sand and ceramic proppant, sand with resin-coated sand fracs in the
DJ Basin contain a small proportion of resin-coated sand by mass of total proppant. The trends are slightly volatile, but the
proportion of the well using resin-coated sand consistently stays below 30%. Figure 36 demonstrates the trends between 2011
and 2013 year-to-date.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

p
e
r

W
e
l
l

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2011 2012 2013YTD
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2011 2012 2013YTD
SPE 168645 17
Figure 36: DJ Basin Sand+Resin-Coated Sand Proppant Distribution (MM lbs)


Marcellus

The Marcellus Shale, one of the largest natural gas resources in the world and has been, since 2008, the centerpiece of the
hydraulic fracturing and Shale boom. Since a drop in natural gas prices, activity has declined but has not stopped. There are
still hundreds of horizontal wells drilled every quarter, and operators are still refining their frac designs to lower costs and
increase production.

One distinguishing characteristic of the Marcellus shale is the proliferation of linear gel and slickwater hybrids that include
less proppant per gallon of water than pure slickwater fracs do, in contrast with hybrid gel and slickwater fracs in other plays.
Marcellus treatments have had relatively constant proppant loading, possibly due to the proppant carrying capacity of
slickwater and linear gel slickwater hybrids, but have increased in size, leading a to higher overall usage of fine mesh sands.

Marcellus sample is not as large and does not increase as fast as the sample in the Bakken, though it starts at a much higher
level than the DJ basin. Though Figure 37 is not accurate count of Marcellus drilling and completion activity, it does reflect
general trends in the activity. The number of horizontal wells increases quickly in the beginning of 2011, before slowing down
and eventually collapsing due to low natural gas prices, and then stabilizes in the third quarter of 2012.

Figure 37: Sample Size of Marcellus Horizontal Well Records

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2

Sand RCS RCS Proppant (% of Total Mass)
172
245
296
306
264
298
205
200
223
231
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
18 SPE 168645

In Figure 38 below, we see that slickwater fracs are mostly concentrated in the northeast while linear gel slickwater hybrids are
spread throughout the rest of the play in 2013.

Figure 38: Map of Marcellus Wells, by Frac Treatment Type (2013YTD)


Figure 39: Map of Marcellus Counties, Classified by Most Common Frac Treatment Type (2013YTD)


Marcellus is a shale gas play that uses slickwater fracs to increase fracture complexity. It has seen an increase in hybrid fracs,
although unlike most other regions, these hybrids are of linear gel and slickwater (See Figure 40 and Figure 41 below). By our
technical classification, Marcellus has been treated by a combination of Hybrid and Water Frac designs. By our simple
classification, the overwhelming majority have been either linear gel/slickwater or slickwater treatment designs. Slickwater
treatments started out in the majority of horizontal wells (58%), with roughly 31% of wells using linear gel/slickwater
treatments. In the second quarter of 2012, the slickwater share decreased to 39% while the linear gel/slickwater hybrid share
increased to 53%. In the past four quarters, the percentages have fluctuated with no specific trend. There has been a small
increase of the percentage of crosslinked gel and slickwater hybrid fracs from 2% to 14% in the first quarter of 2013. This
could be attributed to Utica activity, where the target production is liquids and therefore use a more viscous frac fluid.

SPE 168645 19
Figure 40: Marcellus Treatment Design Trends (Technical) Figure 41: Marcellus Treatment Design Trends (Simple)


In contrast, with the DJ Basin and Bakken, proppant choice in Marcellus has been overwhelmingly been sand only. Towards
the middle of 2012, there seems to appear some experimentation with tailing in ceramic proppants or resin-coated sands, but
this trend seems to be dying down. This contrast with Bakken and DJ Basin can be attributed to the nature of the production.
The low price of natural may force operators to seek lower drilling and completion costs and Gas may require less near
wellbore conductivity than liquids do. Figure 42 shows that there were never more than 13% of wells in the Marcellus that
used proppants other than sand. This experimentation with higher price proppants seems to have peaked in the third quarter of
2012, although the usage of ceramics peaked in the second quarter of 2012.

Since the Marcellus produces dry gas, the overwhelming preference for frac sand might be attributed to a lower necessity to
avoid proppant degradation and prevention of flowback control. Surprisingly, the experimentation with higher priced
proppants looks like it occurred after natural gas prices collapsed.

Figure 42: Marcellus Proppant Design Trends
Notes: The scales minimumis at 80% so that the usages of other proppant profiles besides Sand Only can be seen

Proppant loading has increased and then decreased over the period shown, but the difference between the peak in the first
quarter of 2012 and the through the third quarter of 2012 as seen in Figure 43 was only 13%. Proppant mass per well, in the
other hand, increased 37% from the first quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2013.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Hybrid Water Frac Conventional
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
XL/SW LG/SW SW LG XL
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
Sand Only Sand+RCS+Ceramic Sand+RCS Sand+Ceramic RCS Only RCS+Ceramic Ceramic Only
20 SPE 168645

Figure 43: Marcellus Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs) vs Proppant Loading (lbs/gal H2O)


Looking at proppant usage by frac type will yield similar results: loading remained flat, but mass per well increased
significantly. Proppant loading in the most common frac types has stayed flat from 2011 to 2013 in the Marcellus as shown in
Figure 44 and Figure 45. The proppant loading for wells using linear gel/slickwater treatments remained stable around one
pound per gallon of water, while the loading for wells using slickwater treatments was slightly higher This is in contrast to
other plays where gelled fracs generally have higher proppant loadings than slickwater fracs. In both cases, however the
proppant mass per well increased in 2013 over 2011 and 2012.

Figure 44: Marcellus Proppant Mass per Well (MM lbs) Figure 45: Marcellus Proppant Loading (lbs/gal H2O)


0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
11Q1 11Q2 11Q3 11Q4 12Q1 12Q2 12Q3 12Q4 13Q1 13Q2
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

p
e
r

W
e
l
l

0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
2011 2012 2013
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2011 2012 2013

Spe 168645

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Spe 168645

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SPE 168645

Anal ysis of US Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System and Proppant Trends

Você também pode gostar