Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 50 (2006) 293 298

www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Methodology to break test for surfactant-based fracturing gel

Tereza N. Castro Dantas a,*, Vanessa C. Santanna b, Afonso A. Dantas Neto b,
Fabola D.S. Curbelo b, Alfredo I.C. Garnica b
a

Departamento de Qumica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Campus Universitario, 59072-970, Natal (RN), Brazil
Departamento de Engenharia Qumica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Campus Universitario, 59072-970, Natal (RN), Brazil
Received 6 May 2004; received in revised form 1 November 2005; accepted 6 December 2005

Abstract
Surfactant-based fracturing gels are considered as clean gels due to the absence of insoluble residues in their composition. This
kind of fluid has been developed to minimize or eliminate damages to fractures. In view of this, new studies about properties of this
kind of gel have become more and more important. Gel break is an important parameter for hydraulic fracturing gels. This research
was carried out with the purpose of developing a laboratory break methodology for surfactant-based fracturing gel. It was observed
that the studied gel presented optimum break results, due to a viscosity decrease to 10 mPa s in the first 6 h of the test.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Surfactant; Fracturing gel; Break test; Damage; Viscosity

1. Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique that aims to
increase well productivity. The fracturing gel is applied
against the reservoir rock under high differential pressure to create fractures. A proppant (sand, bauxite or
ceramic) is pumped into the well with the fracturing gel
with the purpose of keeping the fracture open and
creating a high conductivity path that eases the flow
of fluids from the geological formation to the well
(Grothe et al., 2000).
A fracturing gel should provide sufficient viscosity
to suspend and transport the proppant into the fracture, and should break into a low-viscosity fluid after
the fracturing is completed. This break facilitates the
fracture cleaning by allowing rapid counter flow of
fluids to the surface. According to Terracina et al.
(1999), a broken gel is one that has a final room* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +55 84 215 3827.
E-mail address: tereza@eq.ufrn.br (T.N. Castro Dantas).
0920-4105/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2005.12.001

temperature viscosity less than 8 mPa s at 511 s
1 on

a Fann model 35A rheometer. According to Voneiff et
al. (1996), a fracturing gel must break to a viscosity
of 50 mPa s to ensure that the gas reserves are
maximized.
Surfactant-based fracturing gels can be broken when
exposed to hydrocarbons or formation water. Therefore,
conventional breakers, commonly used in polymerbased gels, are not required, and the oil or gas produced
can act as breakers for surfactant-based gels.
Current methodologies devised for gel break tests
are specific for polymer-based fracturing gels. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate a proper methodology
for surfactant-based gels.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Chemicals
The chemicals used to prepare the surfactant-based
gels (SBG) were: a commercial anionic surfactant

294

T.N. Castro Dantas et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 50 (2006) 293298

2.3. Surfactant-based gels (SBG)

After obtaining the pseudoternary diagram with a gel
region, a point inside the gel region was chosen. The gel
was prepared in a Waring blender, where all the chemicals were added at the same time, and stirred for 30 min.
2.4. Rheological measurements

Fig. 1. Experimental apparatus developed for the break tests with

surfactant-based gels.

(soap) derived from fatty acids (20 to 30 wt.% vegetable oils and 70 to 80 wt.% animal oils Unilever
Group); isoamyl alcohol (C5H11OH Merck); pine oil
(organic phase used without previous purification)
and distilled water.
2.2. Pseudoternary phase diagrams
The gel region was determined from phase diagram.
The diagram was built at room temperature (26 8C)
using a pseudoternary system composed of: distilled
water, regional vegetable oil and a fixed cosurfactant /
surfactant ratio (0.5).
The phase diagram regions were obtained in agreement with Winsors classification (Friberg and
Bothorel, 1988):
! WINSOR I (WI): a microemulsion phase in equilibrium with an excess organic phase,
! WINSOR II (WII): a microemulsion phase in equilibrium with an excess aqueous phase,
! WINSOR III (WIII): three-phase system, where the
microemulsion is in equilibrium with both excess
aqueous and organic phases,
! WINSOR IV (WIV): a macroscopically homogeneous system only consisting of a microemulsion
phase.
To determine the Winsors regions in a pseudoternary diagram, the oil phase was mixed with the surfactant / cosurfactant pseudocomponent and the mixture
was titrated with water to observe the changes in the
Winsors regions. The volume of water used was determined in each phase change assay. The pseudoternary phase diagram was constructed by plotting the
amounts of water, oil, and surfactant/cosurfactant
phases used in the experiment.

Rheological experiments were performed in a

Brookfield rheometer. The apparent viscosity measurements were obtained by varying shear rate or time, at
different temperatures. It was found that, in these
experiments, a period of time of 1 min, prior to the
actual measurement recording, was necessary in order
to allow the system to reach equilibrium (so as to avoid
complexities arising from time-dependent phenomena
related to gel rheology).
2.5. Break test
The gel break test consisted, basically, on the injection
of fluids into sandstone core samples collected from the
Assu geological formation (Brazil), as shown in Fig. 1.
The core samples were isolated with resin and presented the following dimensions: 3.78 cm diameter and
8.67 cm length. The brine used was composed of 2
wt.% KCl. The oil (petroleum) used presented 130 mPa
s viscosity and 0.89 g/cm3 density, at 26 8C. All the
core samples were roasted at 700 8C for 18 h, prior to
isolation with resin, with the purpose of removing
humidity and increasing core permeability.
The experiments were conducted in the following
sequence:
1. In order to determine the absolute permeability of
the core samples, brine (2 wt.% KCl) was injected at

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram showing the flow directions used in the gel
break tests.

T.N. Castro Dantas et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 50 (2006) 293298

295

collected, gel break was verified by assessing the

viscosity, in a Brookfield rheometer, at 26 8C.
The core samples permeability was calculated with
Eq. (1), which is Darcys equation, used in studies of
fluid flow in porous medium:
K

Fig. 3. Pseudoternary diagram with the gel region (SBG) of interest.

a constant flow rate into the core, in the opposite

direction to oil production, at 100 psi (Fig. 2);
2. Once the core sample was 100% saturated with
brine, oil was injected at a constant rate, in the
production direction, at 200 psi. The oil injection
into the core sample was continued until obtaining
connate water saturation;
3. To simulate reservoir conditions, brine was again
injected into the core sample at constant rate, once
the reservoirs presented residual oil, in the opposite
direction to oil production, at 200 psi;
4. The gel was then injected at a constant flow rate, in
the opposite direction to oil production, at 200 psi.
Samples were collected, initially with some oil content, until limpid samples were observed. These were
collected at specifically determined periods of time,
starting from the activation of a chronometer when
the pressure was applied. After the samples were

QdldL
AdDP

where K is the absolute permeability of the porous

medium (mD), Q is the flow rate (cm3/s), l is the
fluid viscosity (mPa s), L is the porous medium length
(cm), A is the porous medium area (cm2) and DP is the
applied pressure differential (psi). 1 Darcy (D) is equal
at 9.87 d 10
13 m2.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Pseudoternary phase diagram
A pseudoternary phase diagram was constructed in
order to identify the gel region (Fig. 3). A well-defined
gel region can be observed in this pseudoternary phase
diagram. With the aim of studying the gel break, a point
inside the gel region was chosen, with the composition:
18 wt.% surfactant, 9 wt.% cosurfactant, 14 wt.% oil,
and 59 wt.% water.
3.2. Gel break tests
Gel break tests can be performed to examine the
break capacity of the surfactant-based gel when in
contact with oil or formation water. The break results
were verified by determining the viscosity of the col-

Fig. 4. SBG break results viscosity as a function of shear rate.

296

T.N. Castro Dantas et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 50 (2006) 293298

Fig. 5. Viscosity of the surfactant-based gel (white test) as a function of the shear rate at 66 8C.

lected samples, after flooding the gel into the cores

saturated with oil and brine. Samples were thus collected as a function of time, initially containing oil and
brine, until limpid gels (without oil) were formed.
The results obtained therein are presented in Fig. 4.
In this figure, it can be observed that the gel breaks in
the first hours of the tests due to the initial presence of
oil and brine in the core. According to many authors
(Di Lullo et al., 2001; Samuel et al., 1999; Maitland,
2000; Brown et al., 1996), when oil and/or water are
introduced into surfactant-based gels, the micelles
move apart and the viscosity decreases. However, Fig.
4 also shows that the viscosity increases with time and
approaches its original viscosity. This is due to the fact
that the gel was constantly injected into the brine-oil
saturated core over a period of time, with viscosity
readings being taken at different time intervals. As
the brine and oil saturations, which are mainly respon-

sible for the gel break, decreased during the time period
considered, the rate of gel break was decelerated and
thus higher viscosities were recorded. The SBG viscosity increased with time (Fig. 4), however, the last
sample (gel without oil) featured a lower viscosity
when compared to the white test. In this experiment,
the white test is the gel sample collected prior to its
injection in the core. It can also be verified that the SBG
presented optimum break results, because the viscosity
was less than 10 mPa s in the first 6 h of test.
Some practical limits of hydraulic fracturing in the
land wells of the Potiguar Basin (Brazil) impose a mean
temperature of 66 8C and a shear rate of 100 s
1. If
these practical limits and the results shown in Fig. 5
(relating SBG viscosity to shear rate at 66 8C, as a white
test) are accounted for, one observes that, at 66 8C and a
range of shear rate between 100 and 120 s
1, the
viscosity is effectively constant, with a small variation

Fig. 6. Viscosity of the surfactant-based gel (white test) as a function of temperature at 100 s
1.

T.N. Castro Dantas et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 50 (2006) 293298

297

Fig. 7. Viscosity of the surfactant-based gel (white test) as a function of time at 100 s
1 and 66 8C.

from 66 to 61 mPa s, respectively. This result confirms

the efficiency of the break test, since the broken gel
showed a lower viscosity (5 mPa s) at 100 s
1, after
6 h of test (Fig. 4).
The efficiency of the test may be further demonstrated when analyzing the viscosity of the SBG (white test)
at 100 s
1, by varying the temperature between 26 and
86 8C. According to Fig. 6, the viscosity decreased
from 124 mPa s (at 26 8C) to 66 mPa s (at 86 8C). It
can also be seen that the viscosity is practically constant
from 66 8C. Furthermore, comparison with the results
shown in Fig. 4 indicates that, at such circumstances
and a shear rate of 100 s
1, the SBG in the white test
has a higher viscosity than the broken gel, after 6 h of
test.
In view of this, an assay was carried out with the
SBG (white test) involving the examination of the
viscosity as a function of time at 66 8C and a constant
shear rate of 100 s
1. The purpose of this experiment
was to demonstrate that the gel break occurs due to
contact with oil and brine found in the core, regardless
of the period of time taken to perform the break test.
According to Fig. 7, the time variable did not significantly affect the viscosity, in that only a small decrease
from 72 to 62 mPa s was promoted over a 1-h assay.
Moreover, the viscosity does not vary much from
2000 s. This result is thus useful to verify the efficiency of the break test, since the SBG (white test) had a

Table 1
Cores parameters
Core Porosity (%) Pore volume (cm3) Absolute permeability (mD)
1
2

22
20

21.42
19.50

2.2
4.85

mean viscosity of 62 mPa s, at 66 8C and 100 s
1, i.e., a

higher viscosity than the broken gel after 6 h, as suggested by Fig. 4.
Table 1 presents some core parameters used in the
gel break tests. Porosity and absolute permeability were
obtained in the first brine flooding through the core.
The difference in the parameters is due to the heterogeneity of the cores used.
Overall, from these results, the efficiency of the
methodology developed to investigate the SBG break
at room temperature has been verified. However, some
adjusts in the method would be interesting when applying high temperature, pressure differential and high
core permeability.
4. Conclusion
From the gel break tests, it could be observed that
surfactant-based gel (SBG) was broken in the first
hours of test, during which lower values of viscosity
were obtained when compared to the white test. This
break enables prompt return of gel to the surface,
hence facilitating the cleaning steps after the fracture
is treated with the surfactant-based gel. The efficiency
of the break test has been demonstrated by means of
a few rheological assays with the SBG (white test).
Also, the methodology applied in break tests of
surfactant-based gels proposed in this work has proven to be satisfactory to achieve the break results
desired.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by ANP-PRH14 (Agencia
Nacional do Petroleo) and CNPq.

298

T.N. Castro Dantas et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 50 (2006) 293298

Appendix A
K
Q
l
L
A
DP

absolute permeability
flow rate
viscosity
porous medium lenght
porous medium area
Pressure differential

mD
cm3/s
mPad s
cm
cm2
psi

References
Brown, J.E., King, L.R., Nelson, E.B., 1996. Use of a viscoelastic carrier fluid in frac-pack applications. SPE 31114,
439 448.

Di Lullo, G., bte Ahmad, A., Rae, P., Anaya, L., Meli, R.A., 2001.
Toward zero damage: new fluid points the way. SPE 69453, 1 8.
Friberg, S.E., Bothorel, P., 1988. Microemulsions: Structure and
Dynamics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 2 4.
Grothe, V.P., Ribeiro, P.R., Sousa, J.L.A.O., Fernandes, P.D., 2000.
Hydraulic fracturing physical simulation: an analysis of crosslinked fluids leakoff. Rio Oil and Gas Expo and Conference.
Brazilian Petroleum Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 16 19.
Maitland, G.C., 2000. Oil and gas production. Curr. Opin. Colloid
Interface Sci. 5, 301 311.
Samuel, M.M., Card, R.J., Nelson, E.B., Brown, J.E., Vinod, P.S.,
Temple, H.L., Qi Qu,, Fu, D.K., 1999. Polymer-free fluid for
fracturing applications. SPE Drill. Complet. 14, 240 246.
Terracina, J.M., McCabe, M.A., Shuchart, C.E., Walker, M.L., 1999.
Novel oxidizing breaker for high-temperature fracturing. SPE 14,
144 149.
Voneiff, G.W., Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A., 1996. The effects of
unbroken fracture fluid on gas well performance. SPE 26664, 11.