Next Article in Journal
History-Dependent Stress Relaxation of Liquids under High-Confinement: A Molecular Dynamics Study
Previous Article in Journal
Study of the Influence of Temperature on Contact Pressures and Resource of Metal-Polymer Plain Bearings with Filled Polyamide PA6 Bushing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Lubricants
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/lubricants10020014
lubricants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Friction Challenge in Hydraulic Fracturing

by
Yanbao Guo
1,
Min Zhang
1,
Hui Yang
2,
Deguo Wang
1,*,
Melvin A. Ramos
3,
Travis Shihao Hu
3 and
Quan Xu
1
1
College of Mechanical and Transportation Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China
2
CNPC Oilfield Service Limited Company, Beijing 100097, China
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, California State University, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Lubricants 2022, 10(2), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants10020014
Submission received: 1 December 2021 / Revised: 28 December 2021 / Accepted: 7 January 2022 / Published: 18 January 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Hydraulic fracturing has become one of the most popular techniques for exploring sustainable energy sources. However, friction is associated with the entire fracturing process, presenting significant challenges for development. Facing the huge friction challenges, this review is elaborated in the following three aspects: (1) the fundamentals of hydraulic fracturing, including three aspects of rock fracture mechanism, fracturing fluid, and proppant; (2) the friction challenges in hydraulic fracturing, which mainly exist in friction along the path and friction near wellbore; (3) hydraulic fracturing drag reduction technologies, which are considered proppant segment plug, fracturing fluid viscosity enhancement, and proppant surface modification technologies. Therefore, we should not only understand the challenges in hydraulic fracturing but also know how to mitigate them. Additionally, we call for a strong focus on environmentally friendly, green friction-reducing technologies for oil and gas fields in the future development of the fracturing industry.

1. Introduction

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a key process to the exploitation of oil and gas and plays an important role in enhancing oil recovery. It consists of four major processes: downhole pressure-out, fracture formation and extension [1], proppant filling [2], and oil/gas channel formation. For each fracturing process, there exists serious friction challenges to the fracturing machinery.
Fracking not only changes the situation of oil/gas fields but also enhances the production of oil/gas [3,4]. In practical applications, the effects of fracturing are often important indicators to evaluate the maturity of the fracturing. In the last few years, hundreds of fracturing wells [5] have been installed in the oil/gas fields of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). However, the results were not as expected. It is worth noting that all most of those problems are caused by frictional resistance [6], which leads to insufficient pressure at the bottom of the well, reducing the capacity to form fractures. Therefore, the challenge posed by friction are a foundational and ubiquitous problem in the fracking process.
The use of fracturing fluid imposes a couple side effects. During the formation of rock fractures, it requires breaking down the forces in the rocks formation, by shearing and relative motion, which induce frictional behaviors and energy lose [7]. The fracturing fluid could lubricate and reduce drag, but the proppant filling and propping are still affected by friction, which cause wear and tear. When flowback, the fracturing fluid and proppant of couple are subjected to friction. On one hand, the fluid reacts with the formation to form residuals and filter caking, increasing formation blockage and friction loss. It will cause water sensitivity damage to the formation. On the other hand, the accumulation of proppant particles in the embedded fractures can cause clogging, thereby reducing formation permeability. At the same time, the proppant can erode the formation surface and clamp surface of downhole tool at a certain velocity, causing surface erosion wear. Therefore, the challenge is how to reduce friction during fracturing. Understanding the friction challenges and friction reduction mechanism [8] is the key to improving hydraulic fracturing technology and stimulating innovations, as well as boosting the profit of oil/gas production.
In this review, the following three aspects are mainly described as follows: (1) hydraulic fracturing fundamentals, including rock fracture mechanism, fracturing fluid, and proppant; (2) friction challenges in hydraulic fracturing mainly exist in friction along and near wellbore; (3) hydraulic fracturing drag reduction technology—this review considers proppant slug technology, fracturing fluid viscosity enhancement technology, proppant surface modification technology, etc. Based on the summary and expression of the above three aspects, we know that friction challenges in hydraulic pressure are a difficult problem that cannot be ignored. Facing this challenge, we still need to redouble our efforts and try to find new methods, techniques, and theories to alleviate the friction problem in fracturing.

2. Hydraulic Fracturing Basics

Hydraulic fracking is one of the most important technologies for extracting shale oil/gas [9]. Traditionally, fracking injects fracturing fluid with a high viscosity to create a large displacement at the bottom of the well, in order to generate the fracture. Subsequently, high conductive proppant is filled to form non-closed or incomplete closed fractures. Eventually, the mixture of oil/gas flows to the wellhead (Figure 1).

2.1. Mechanism of Hydraulic Fracturing Rock Fracture

Fracking was unsuccessfully tested for the first time in the United Kingdom in 1880s [10]. Decades of research and improvement of the technology made a successful breakthrough in the United States, which has been applied to various fields ever since [11]. In comparison, fracking was studied and applied relatively late in China. Through continuous efforts, the technological gap becomes smaller and smaller; fracking is widely utilized in the oil/gas fields of China.
Fracture formation and extension is the core technology of fracking, which is related to the distribution of in situ stresses, the mechanical properties of rocks, the properties of the fracturing fluid and the proppant properties [12]. According to the Mohr–Coulomb theory, the formation friction is directly related to the formation stress [13], which affects the formation and extension of fractures. When the shear stress of the formation is greater than the tensile stress of the rock, cracks are formed [14]. In general, the stress distribution in the stratum is heterogeneous. At the same time, the inhomogeneity of formation stress will make pressure of the string increase, leading to equipment for high-load work. Hence, during the fracturing process, the homogeneity of the formation stress should be as close to perfection as possible, which not only reduces chances of friction resistance but also improves the fracturing effectiveness.
It is well known that in situ stress is mainly composed of stress from the formation fluid and fracture from the rock skeleton. The direction of the stresses is primarily horizontal and vertical, as shown in Figure 2. There is a horizontal stress shown in Figure 2a. On the other hand, there is a vertical stress shown in Figure 2b,c, in the X and Y directions, respectively. In most cases, the horizontal stress in the fracture is 1–3 times larger than the vertical stress, while the vertical stress is 1.5–3 times larger than the gravitational stress. The crack tips of the formation are destroyed easily, which bring about energy loss and causes fatigue failure in the fracturing equipment. It is important that the proper fracking force be used, and it is a critical factor in the success of technology.

2.1.1. The Mechanism of Fracture Formation

After many years of research and analysis by scholars, the mechanism of the fracture formation by hydraulic fracturing has been well understood. It provides a theoretical basis for hydraulic fracturing tests. Hubberts and Willis [15] established the H-W formation stress prediction model and studied the minimum principal stress perpendicular to the fracture formation. Scott and Williams researched the maximum principal stress of fractures parallel to the formation and further studied the influence of fractures formed in the formation, as well as the fractures of the rock itself. Considering the theory of fracture initiation and elongation under multi-factor conditions, Haimson and Fairhurst [16] built the H-F model and calculated the pressure required for formation of fracture. Eaton et al. [17] set up a model for the relationship between a rock pressure’s gradient and formation depth, for which they used the formation stress coefficient and formation Poisson’s ratio to perfect the model. Anderson considered the influence of the formation stress concentration and referred to optimize the H-W model. Bradley [18] analyzed the relationship between shear stress and wall cracks, which demonstrated that shear force is the decisive factor in the formation of cracks. Yew et al. [19] utilized a three-dimensional elastic model to describe the impact of stress distribution around the wellbore on the fractures. Fallahzadeh [20] studied the influence of the stress distribution around the casing and cementing sheath around the fractures. Lv et al. [21] established a mathematical model for determining crack pressures based on the elastic mechanics theory. Therefore, in order to obtain effective fracture germination for hydraulic fracturing, it is necessary to overcome the friction between rock layers. Moreover, to avoid friction between rock layers, we need further carry out fracturing fluid lubrication.

2.1.2. The Mechanism of Fracture Extension

Fracture extension refers to the extension and expansion of the fracture, which signifies the expansion of the high-pressure region to the low-pressure region and increases the effective area of the fracture. The extending direction is always perpendicular to the direction of the minimum principal stress, which is influenced by the lithology of the rock formation [22,23], the rock’s fracture surface, and natural fractures. According to the linear elastic fracture mechanics model, the fracture stress and strain field at the top of the seam are proportional to the stress intensity factor. Anderson [24] thought that rock strength was the main factor affecting fracture extension from high strength to low strength. Warpinski [25] studied the laws of hydraulic and natural fractures to analyze the mechanism of crack fracture. In doing so, he calculated the extension direction of hydraulic fractures. Martin [26] researched the process of the fracture formation in soft rocks, deriving the mathematical formula for the opening threshold of cracks on the plastic fracture surface. In brief, the friction of the formation causes different degrees of fracking slips, which are horizontal slips and shear slips. It is in facing the challenge of friction on the rock surface that the formation of cracks requires fluid lubrication, which makes it easy to form cracks.
Fracture formation and extension are significant steps in the fracturing process, which are deeply influenced by downhole friction, fracture fluid filling [27], and proppant propping [28]. The greater the friction, the more difficult it is to crack and extend. However, the high viscosity of fracturing fluids can transfer energy to the formation and extension of cracks. Fracturing fluids carry proppant and maintain conductivity. The high viscosity fracturing fluids can compensate for the energy dissipation during fracturing and form rock crevices and extensions. Meanwhile, high-strength proppants sustain the crack, so that it does not close. However, low intensity proppant is more likely to flowback and accumulate, and crack extension is more difficult.

2.2. Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

Fracturing fluid [27,29] is a high viscosity fluid, which plays a role in lubrication and transportation during fracturing. Common examples include water-based [30], oil-based [31], emulsified, foam [32,33,34,35], alcohol-based [36,37,38,39] acid-based fracturing fluids, and so on. The most widely used is a water-based fracturing fluid [36], which is shown in Figure 3.
Water is mainly used in fracturing fluids [30] as the dispersion medium. It needs to add water-soluble polymers and various reagents (thickening agents [40], cross-linking agents [41], and gel breaking agents [42] to form the working fluid required for the process. Water accounts for 99.2% of the weight percentage. The processing is safe, reliable, and has low production costs. When compared to oil-based and foam fracturing fluids, the friction resistance of water-based fracturing fluids is lower. Under atmospheric pressure, the fluid is controlled easily, due to the high hydrostatic pressure of water-based fracturing fluid.
Water-based fracturing fluid consists of many additives, including thickening agents [40], cross-linking agents [41,43], and gel breaking agents [42]. So, the first step involves adding thickening agents, mainly to increase the viscosity, reduce its filtration performance, reduce its frictional loss, and improve the carrying capacity. The cross-linking agents can fuse with thickening agents to improve the proppant carrying capacity and reservoir permeability. After the gel breaking are added, these agents mainly reduce the viscosity of the crosslinking agent to ensure the dredging ability of the crack and reduce the damage of reservoir. Finally, these fracturing reagents need to be recycled back to reduce the permeability loss to the reservoir. The classification of thickening agents, cross-linking agents, and gel breaking agents are shown in Table 1.
According to the apparent viscosity theory [44], the viscosity of a fracturing fluid is an important factor effecting the friction. However, viscosity has two effects on friction. On one hand, it can increase the shear stress between the fluid and the pipe wall, leading to an increase of friction losses. On the other hand, with the increase of the viscosity, the polymer solution produces a transition delay effect, which inhibits turbulence and reduces friction loss.
Table
Table 1. Classification of main additives for water-based fracturing fluids.
Table 1. Classification of main additives for water-based fracturing fluids.
Type of AdditivesClassification of AdditivesFeaturesCaseReferences
ThickenersVegetable gum and its derivativesStrong thickening ability, low price, poor temperature resistance, and large residue contentGuanidine gum, sesbania gum, and coumarin gum[45,46]
Cellulose and its derivativesGood sand suspension, low filtration loss, high thermal stability, and high costCarboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethylcellulose, and carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose[47,48,49]
Synthetic polymer fracturing fluidGood gel stability, strong sand suspending ability, and less formation damageAA, AM, and NFT[50,51]
Cross-linking agentBoron cross-linking agentBetter delayed cross-linking and high-temperature resistanceInorganic boron/organic boron cross-linking agent[46,52,53,54]
Transition metal cross-linking agentHigher cross-linking efficiency, less damage to the reservoir, lower cost, and poor shear resistanceTi4+/Zr4+ cross-linking agent[55]
Composite cross-linking agentHigh shear performance and good temperature resistanceYM-A[56,57]
Nano cross-linking agentImprove the cross-linking efficiency, reduce the dosage of thickening agents, and save the cost.ZrO2/TiO2 cross-linking agent[58,59,60]
Gel breakersAcid gel breakerLow damage to reservoir permeabilityHJD-W[61,62]
Enzymatic gel breakerSpecificity and green environmental protectionβ-Mannanase[55,63]
Oxidized gel breakerEasy to flow back, low price, and high breaking efficiencyAmmonium persulfate and Potassium persulfate[64]
Controlling the fluid’s viscosity becomes the key to reducing friction losses (which have an important role in reducing the suspended sand), fluid friction, and filtration loss. During the pumping stage, the fluid viscosity needs to be moderated to achieve a state of suspended sand and low friction. During the fracture formation stage, the fracturing fluid viscosity needs to increase. The increased fracturing fluid has enough fluid pressure to complete the expansion [65] and extension of fractures. During the drainage stage, the fluid viscosity needs to be reduced. A low viscosity fluid can flow back to avoid blockage collapse of the stratigraphic structures.

2.3. Hydraulic Fracturing Proppant

Fracturing proppant is an indispensable filler in the fracking process. The proppant [9] supports fractures and prevents their closure by forming a highly dredging oil/gas flow channel. The proppant type and particle characteristics (i.e., size, strength, sphericity, and roundness) determine the flow conductivity of the fractures. The stronger the flow conductivity, the higher the oil/gas production capacity. However, based on the fitting formula theory, the proppant particle size and ratio to sand have an impact on the friction. This causes abrasion near the well and sand blockages in the crack.
In the fracturing process, ideal proppants (Figure 4) have high compressive strengths and a small crushing rate. Most proppants are spherical particles with uniform size [65] and smooth surface, which are easy to transport in fracturing fluid. When the proppant supports the fracture, it does not react with the formation fluid. The origin of the proppant is river sand, which comes from the Arkansas River in the United States. Until the mid-1950s, natural quartz sand [66], which is shown in Figure 4a, was widely used in fracking. After a few decades, ceramic proppants [67,68] were utilized in the fracturing process. Ceramic proppants have the advantages of having high strength, as well as good corrosion resistance and roundness. From the 1980s till now, coated [69], biological, and self-suspending proppants continue to improve proppant performance [70]. Propant transportation schedule is shown in Figure 4.
Proppants are carried by the fracturing fluids, also known as sand-carrying fluids. The fluids are transported to the formation, via coiled tubing, in order to realize the fracturing operation. Unfortunately, walls of coiled tubing suffer from proppant erosion and wear, causing the structure to fail. In line with Dean’s theory [71], the flow rate and viscosity of the fluids correlate with the degree of erosion and wear. As the flow rate and viscosity of the fluid increases, the erosive and wear of the tubing increases. During the conveying process, the roller will produce centrifugal forces on the fluid. Under the centrifugal force, the fluid will rotate and float and can increase the friction of the tubing. Therefore, researchers pay close attention to the friction and erosion of proppants. Carpenter proposed that new proppants [72] need to reduce the concentration of the fluid, in order to reduce friction and erosion of proppants.

3. Friction Mechanism in Hydraulic Fracturing (Problem)

The impacts of friction in hydraulic fracturing cannot be ignored. Researchers began to pay the attention to the friction problem in the 1980s. Excessive friction will cause serious pressure loss in the fracturing process, leading to increase the risk in the fracturing construction. Friction loss in the process is mainly composed of two parts: the friction along the path and near the wellbore.

3.1. Friction along the Path

Installing coiled tubing is one of the vital steps in the fracturing process. During the process, the coiled tubing comes into contact with the borehole wall, resulting in frictional resistance along the path. Friction loses becomes more serious as the depth of tubing increases. The main factors affecting the friction along the path is the coiled tubing diameter, fracturing fluid viscosity, and proppant concentration.

3.1.1. Coiled Tubing Friction

Coiled tubing is required to be installed to a depth of more than seven kilometers. As the depth increases, the tubing starts to act like a soft rope in the borewell. As a result, experts build soft rope models to analyze the tubing stress. Wojtanowicz et al. [73] studied the effects of a borehole’s friction on the tubing’s stress, in which the high friction in the wellbore leads to a stress concentration in the tubing, resulting in structural failure of the tubing and thread seal on the casing. In 1983, Johancsik et al. [74] first performed a stress analysis on the tubing and established the micro-element soft rod for structural mechanics model. Sheppard et al. [75] considered friction and torque factors when designing and optimizing a borehole’s trajectory. Based on the Sheppard model, Maida’s team [76] considered the effect of viscous resistance of a fluid on the friction of the tubing. Daring et al. [77] established a two-dimensional model to analyze the deformation of the tubing in the wellbore. His team [78] built a three-dimensional model to analyze the force on the tubing in the wellbore. In conclusion, the increase of tubing depth and friction along the pipeline is a problem that cannot be ignored. In order to further alleviate the oil and gas pipeline’s structural wear, the main way to prevent damage during drilling is to reduce friction with lubrication.
During the process of tubing friction and wear, the coefficient of friction (COF) also becomes a crucial factor to determine the stability and reliability of the tubing. Ho et al. [79] considered the effect of large deformations on the COF of the borehole. Sheppard used theoretical models to research the influence of borehole geometry on frictional resistance. Dikken et al. [80] introduced the effect of pressure gradient along the borehole on the COF. Landman and Goldthorpe [81] studied the relationship between uniform flow and the COF, which established the relevant prediction model. Johancsik et al. [74,82] investigated the effects of the type of mud and wellbore conditions on friction coefficients. When researching the influence of the COF on pipeline wear, not only should the sliding friction be considered but also the comprehensive friction, including drilling fluid lubrication and rock properties. Therefore, the COF usual empirical value is summarized in Table 2. The data in Table 2 are derived from the measured calculation in the study of the friction coefficient of the string in a large displacement well.

3.1.2. Fracturing Fluid Viscosity

After the fracturing fluid enters the formation, the balance of forces in the formation breaks, causing different degrees of shearing damage and energy loss in the formation. The losses are mainly caused by water damage and water sensitivity damage and are related to the fluid’s viscosity. At certain locations of the pipe the friction becomes severe.
Water damage of the fracturing fluids mainly occurs in low permeability reservoirs. Some water is locked in the formation, due to the low permeability and poor porosity of the formation; as a result, this causes water damage in the formation. Water damage can lead to an increase in the viscosity of the fluid and, as a result, the friction resistance increases within the well. Bahrami et al. [83] studied the mechanism of water lock damage, in order to analyze the factors of increasing viscosity. Ni’s team [84] used nuclear magnetic resonance to research the water damage in coal seams. They proposed protective measures for surfactants, in order to reduce the viscosity. Fan et al. [85] invented a waterproof sealing agent, used to reduce water damage and decrease the viscosity of the fluid. Bijeljic’s team [86] utilized the multi-component porosity model to analyze the effects of water damage on multiphase oil/gas. Holditch et al. [87] used the capillary pressure changes of tight sandstone formations to study the combined effects of hydraulic fracturing intrusive formation permeability damage and relative permeability damage The greater the pressure, the more severe the water lock damage. Lin et al. [88] used a combination of experimental and numerical simulations to research the influence of water lock damage on formations. Therefore, the phenomenon of water lock damage is a non-negligible phenomenon that causes shale formation damage. To a certain extent, water lock damage leads to increased formation pressure. The inner surface of downhole devices and pipelines are eroded and worn down by proppant particles, resulting in surface stress concentrations. Under the comprehensive stress caused by the pressure of the medium in the pipe, as well as other external forces, it is feasible to form cracks and expand, which can eventually lead to the collapse of an oil and gas pipeline. In order to mitigate this damage, the main measures focus on effectively reducing the viscosity of the fluid and friction between downhole devices, pipes, and borehole walls.
Besides water lock damage, water sensitivity damage can also cause damage in the formation. Water sensitivity damage is caused by the chemical reactions between the fracturing fluid and minerals in the formation. This causes erosion of the formation, which causes the particles in the formation to fall off, accumulate, and increase the tubing friction along the path. Researchers began to focus on this type of damage in the 1930s. Monaghan et al. [89] studied the interactions between the aqueous phase and clay minerals in the reservoir. They found that water-sensitive damage was severe, but the reservoir permeability decreased. Mungan et al. [90] analyzed the fluid’s pH and salinity when the reservoirs were damaged. Tchistiakov et al. [91] investigated the water sensitivity damage of the charged particles around clay. Aradeiba et al. [73] researched the water sensitivity damage of strata without expansive clay minerals. However, the impact of water sensitivity damage on the formation was not great. Effective prevention and protection can decrease the friction along the path and, as a result, reduce the impact of the water sensitivity damage on the formation.

3.1.3. Proppant Concentration

Proppant, like the Great Wall, supports cracks formed by the fracturing fluid. The ability to embed and accumulate proppant particles can damage the original formation structure, resulting in erosive wear and different degrees of friction in the cracks [92]. Holditch et al. [93] studied the effects of different concentrations of proppant in the deep well formation. They determined that the higher the concentration, the more serious the erosion wear. Lacy’s team [94] established a proppant embedment model to research the relationship between the depth of proppant embedment and degree of formation damage under different formation rocks. Cook et al. [95] investigated the relationship between fluid viscosity and the depth in which the proppant embedded itself within complex formations. Using the shunt loading method, Penny et al. [96] studied the formation damage caused by proppants. Therefore, it is inevitable that proppant embedment will cause damage within the formation, resulting in erosion and wear of the formation and equipment. This is a problem that should be avoided and prevented.
Failure caused by the wear of the downhole device, pipeline surface, and accumulation of metal particles in the pipeline caused the blockage in the formation. Blockage can cause local formation pressure to be too high and is the main way to erode and destroy the formations. In the process of proppant filling cracks, the movement of fluid assists proppants with large diameters to fill the cracks, and some proppants with small diameters will also accumulate and block. Subsequently, the pressure and friction in the bottom of the well would increase. In the oil-loosened sandstone formation, Wong et al. [97] found that proppants are easy to accumulate after the sandstone particles fall off the multi-layer formation skeleton and damage the formation. Carroll et al.’s [58] research found that broken proppants would block the crack even more, reducing its permeability. However, in the clay mineral formation, the clay would set off the hydration and expansion reaction. Hayatdavoudi et al.’s [98] research showed that after the reaction, proppants block the cracks, thereby increasing the friction along the cracks. Khilar and Fogler [99] studied the friction loss of salt chemical proppants to the formations. Civan et al. [100] established the mathematical model of clay hydration expansion, finding that more serious clay hydration would have more proppant accumulation and, therefore, more frictional losses in the formation. The damage mechanism of the proppant is shown in Figure 5. When the proppant first accumulates in the crack (as shown in the figure with a II), and when the proppant breaks, the proppant accumulates again (shown in the figure as part I). To reduce the accumulation of the proppant in the crack, researchers have proposed a mechanism study of the surface modifications of the proppant.

3.2. Friction near Wellbore

During hydraulic fracturing, the fluid enters the cracks of the formation from the pump through surface lines, coiled tubing, and perforation holes. The whole process is influenced by frictional resistance, leading to pressure loss. Excessive friction causes crack length to grow, resulting in serious sand plugging. In the 1980s, near-wellbore friction refers to the concentration of stress around the perforations and wellbore, which caused near-well friction. Near-well friction is mainly divided into perforation friction and fracture bending friction.

3.2.1. Perforation Friction

During the fracturing process, an insufficient number of perforations and perforation pollution will give rise to perforate friction and occur in the perforation hole. The schematic diagram of perforation abrasion is shown in Figure 6. It can be seen from Figure 6 that the number of perforations is insufficient; as the perforation resistance increases, proppant will settle faster, leading to blockages. Economides and Nolte [101] showed from reservoir stimulations that friction causes pressure loss. Daneshy et al. [102,103] performed simulations on perforation fractures and found physical relationships between perforation friction and the number of perforations. After that, Crump and Conway [104] established the friction model for hole perforations and discovered that different perforation parameters generated different perforation friction types. Cramer et al. [105] found a linear relationship between the hole’s diameter and amount of proppant passing through the hole. Wu’s team [106,107] analyzed the effects of the size of the diameter, as well as the effect that the number of perforations had, with regard to friction. Lecampion et al. [108,109] showed that pressure drop would cause friction from the perforations to decrease. El-Rabaa and Shah [110] established a mathematical model of the perforation friction on the hole. This model showed that an insufficient number of perforations will cause an increase in friction. Therefore, in hydraulic fracturing, the ideal case is to maintain the number of perforations within a reasonable range.
When the number of perforations is insufficient, the friction (as a result of perforations) is larger, resulting in a lower fracturing rate, in which the solid particles of proppant flushed the surface of the perforation, causing serious erosive wear of the surface of the perforation. Meanwhile, erosive wear can also generate perforation pollution, which is the main cause of perforation wear. Long’s team established a perforation wear model to explore the effect of perforation wear on crack propagation.

3.2.2. Fracture Bending Friction

The friction caused by bend after a fracture is another friction mechanism near the well. In hydraulic fracturing engineering, bending friction is mainly caused by inclination, the number of fractures, an improper perforation stage, and other factors. Zhu’s team [111] established a dynamic frictional torque model for large, deviated wells, in order to study the influence of inclination of friction resistance on oil/gas well. They determined that the higher the inclination, the greater the friction wear. According to the Besilianke formula, a mathematical model of friction is built and can be used to more easily analyze the influence of the inclination on the friction coefficient [112]. All in all, we need to further consider the influence of wellbore inclination and friction. In order to reduce the corresponding frictional resistance, it is necessary for us to reasonably reduce the wellbore inclination.
On the other hand, multiple cracks are a factor that effect the bending friction from fracture. Multiple cracks, caused by the improper phase of natural fractures and perforations, can result in the increase of bending friction in near-well friction. Overbuy et al. [113] confirmed the existence of multiple cracks. Lyle et al. [114] discussed the causes of multiple cracks. According to Michael’s theory, the fracture bending friction is related to the total displacement of the fracturing fluid [115]. McDaniel at al. [116], Brumley et al. [117], and Mahrer et al. [118] observed multi-crack morphology and found that the greater frictional resistance, the more serious the damage of the construction. Lu studied the relationship between the crack width and severity of wear (due to friction). Using a numerical model, Jeffrey et al. [119] proved that the formation pressure of the second crack was 7% higher than that of the first crack. As a result, how many cracks would be reasonable is known. More cracks mean more pressure drops and a more serious friction wear at the formation.

4. Friction Reducer

Friction along the path and near the well are two forms of friction that generate varying degrees of fracture losses. Because the hydraulic fracturing process is relatively complicated, a problem to solve is how to effectively avoid friction challenges in the fracturing process. There are several techniques to reduce fracturing friction, which include proppant slug technology, fracturing fluid viscosity increasing technology, proppant surface modification technology, and so on.

4.1. Proppant Slug Technology

Proppant slug technology is the most common way to reduce fracturing friction. This technology is mainly used to chock off the imperfect perforations and curved fractures, so that the flow path of the cracks become perfectly smooth, reducing the formation filtration. Therefore, the technology can reduce the frictional resistance and pressure losses. Cleary et al. [120] first proposed the proppant bridge slug technique. This technology was then widely adopted in engineering practices. Malhotra et al. [121] used an alternative slug technology to reduce the friction and provide the deepest and most uniform proppant distribution in the cracks. Medvedev et al. [122] utilized multi-proppant slug technology to reduce the friction during fracture processes. The proppant bridge slug technology will also clog the natural fractures, in order to reduce the formation filtration and ensure the extension of the primary fracture. This technology improves the efficiency of fracturing operations and reduces the friction losses. At the same time, the technology to increase the fluid viscosity, as well as proppant surface modification technology, will become more widespread.

4.2. Fracturing Fluid Viscosity Increasing Technology

Fracturing fluids can cause serious friction wear to the formation. Optimizing the fracturing fluid’s viscosity is an important technology to improve the lubrication of the fluid. Increasing the viscosity of the fluid [123] not only decreases the frictional resistance but also increases oil/gas production. Huang et al. [124], Liang et al. [28,125], and Guzmán et al. [126] used nanomaterials to hybridize with the fracturing fluids to increase the viscosity, control friction losses, and change rock filtration properties and the lubricating property of fluid. Using Gemini surfactant technology, Blanzat et al. [127], Chu et al. [128], and Lu et al. [129] improved the thermal resistance, shearing resistance, recovery, and sand-carrying properties of the fracturing fluids. This increased the lubrication of the fracturing fluid and avoided friction and formation damage. Fracturing fluid viscosity enhancement technology is now used in oil and gas fields in many countries, such as the Vaca Muerta formation in Argentina [130], the Fat Achimov formation in Russia [131], and many others. To a large extent, it overcomes pipeline resistance.
New fracturing fluids in the future will greatly improve the lubrication. When the fluid enters the high temperature complex formation, the fluids need more lubricity and high temperature resistance. At the same time, efforts are underway to invent green and environmentally friendly fracturing fluids, which not only lubricate and reduce the frictional resistance but also protect the environment. For example, the addition of D-Limonene [132], which is a green surfactant, to the pressure fluid improves the viscosity of the fluid, while reducing wellbore friction by 50%.

4.3. Proppant Surface Modification Technology

The friction losses in the fracturing process can also be improved by proppant surface modification technology. Proppant surface modification technology improves the lubrication of proppant surfaces, in order to change their performance. While researching proppant surface modification technology, Boyer et al. [133] proposed the proppant transport modifier technology (PTM, coating of hydrophobic surfactant on proppant surface), which modified the proppant surface to increase the concentration of the fracturing fluid and reduce friction losses. Songire’s team [134] used a surface modifying agent (SMA) emulsion coating to invent a new proppant and found that the coating surface was beneficial to reduce particle migration and accumulation, in order to improve the surface lubrication of proppants. Palisch et al. [70] researched the neutral lubricity of proppant surfaces. Lu’s team [135] studied the application of the proppant consolidation assistant (PCA) to propose a proppant-controlled reflux technology. Wang et al. [136] used the surface coating the sand upgrade agent (SUA) method to improve surface pressure resistance and lubricity. Therefore, proppant surface modification techniques not only improve proppant concentrations and lubricity but also reduce friction during fracturing.
The proppant surface technology still needs to be further refined. First, an evaluation system of proppants needs to be constructed. Afterwards, proppants need to improve their temperature resistance and pressure resistance under complicated working conditions, improve surface lubricity, and reduce proppants concentration, in order to reduce the friction.
Friction reduction techniques, a major issue in the hydraulic fracturing challenge, include not only the methods described above but also the addition of anionic and cationic [137] drag reducing agents [138] to the fracturing fluid to reduce resistance. Alternatively, optimization algorithms are used to improve fracturing systems [139], and additives [140] are used to increase production and preserve value. We need to do our best to reduce friction challenges to research the fracturing mechanism, propose new fracturing technology and materials, study the friction mechanism, and reduce friction in fracturing, as shown in Figure 7. We should pay attention to the challenges of friction in hydraulic fracturing and constantly explore the friction performance and material structure optimization techniques in fracturing. In the future, the green development of hydraulic fracturing will fundamentally reduce the harm of friction.

5. Conclusions and Perspective

In the production of oil/gas, hydraulic fracturing has become an indispensable technology, suitable in a variety of different environments. Although hydraulic technology has become very mature in the oil/gas fields, the friction challenges in fracking have not been fully resolved. This paper analyzed the mechanism of fracture formation, in order to better understand the fracture and extension processes. Formation fractures are formed under the influence of formation friction, and the fractures are further extended under the comprehensive stresses generated by the pressure of the fracturing fluid, as well as other external forces delivered in the tube. It is undeniable that friction has a huge impact on hydraulic fracturing. Its main exposition has the following points:
(1)
Basic research of hydraulic fracturing, fracture extension, proppant filling, and fracturing fluid filling are all related to friction problems in the fracturing process.
(2)
The friction problem of hydraulic fracturing mainly lies in the resistance challenge of wellbore and near wellbore, which destroys the water sensitivity of formation and causes formation instability.
(3)
In the face of friction challenges in fracturing, three technologies, such as proppant slug technology, fracturing fluid viscosity enhancement technology, and proppant surface modification technology are proposed to alleviate friction problems in fracturing and improving oil and gas production and preservation.
Additionally, friction reduction is the main challenge in the hydraulic fracturing process. In the future developments, hydraulic fracturing fundamentals, friction challenges, friction mitigation, and new fracturing techniques and materials will continue to be a more ancient theme. So, further research is needed on the following points.
(1)
Fracturing fluid performance improvement. Green and recyclable fracturing fluids are proposed to not only reduce friction losses in the fracturing process, but also to break through the development of new high-performance materials.
(2)
Proppant surface modification technology optimization. The use of biodegradable, high performance surface materials would reduce proppant build-up in the fracturing fluid and reduces frictional wear of the proppant in the fracturing fluid.
(3)
Intelligent fracturing process. Intelligent process flow could shorten unnecessary fracturing process, optimise fracturing structure, and improve frictional loss during fracturing.
All in all, the future of hydraulic fracturing is expected to be highly efficient, environmentally friendly, and economic. Reducing the friction in the fracturing process will require a continuous effort and breakthroughs in developing newly high-performance materials. Successfully addressing the frictional challenge of hydraulic fracturing will drive the development of ‘green’ technologies in the production of oil/gas, as well as in other related engineering applications.

Author Contributions

Resources, H.Y.; data curation and supervision, D.W. and Q.X.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G. and M.Z.; writing—review and editing, H.Y., M.A.R., D.W. and T.S.H.; project administration Y.G. and D.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 51875578), and the Tribology Science Fund of State Key Laboratory of Tribology (grant number SKLTKF20B15).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, R.; Hou, B.; Zeng, Y.; Zhou, J.; Li, Q. Investigation on Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation with LPG Fracturing in Shale Formation based on True Tri-Axial Laboratory Experiments. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 27–29 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Parker, M.A.; Ramurthy, K.; Sanchez, P.W. New Proppant for Hydraulic Fracturing Improves Well Performance and Decreases Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing Operations. In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KY, USA, 3–5 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Dhamen, M.; Makmun, A.; Hilal, A. Production Optimisation with Hydraulic Fracturing: Application of Fluid Technology to Control Fracture Height Growth in Deep Hard Rock Formation. In Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. Williams, V.; McCartney, E.; Nino-Penaloza, A. Far-Field Diversion in Hydraulic Fracturing and Acid Fracturing: Using Solid Particulates to Improve Stimulation Efficiency. In Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, Beijing, China, 24–26 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. An, M.; Zhang, F.; Chen, Z.; Elsworth, D.; Chris, M. Mineralogy-Controlled Frictional and Stability Properties of Longmaxi Shale: Implications for Hydraulic Fracturing Induced Seismicity. In Proceedings of the 5th ISRM Young Scholars’ Symposium on Rock Mechanics and International Symposium on Rock Engineering for Innovative Future, Okinawa, Japan, 1–4 December 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wang, J.; Yao, E.; Qiu, Y.; Zhou, F.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Rui, W. Research and Evaluation of a Novel Low Friction, High Density and High Temperature Resistance Fracturing Fluids System. In Proceedings of the 53rd U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, New York, NY, USA, 23–26 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhang, X.; Jeffrey, R.G. Hydraulic fracture propagation across frictional interfaces. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the 1st Canada—U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 27–31 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khan, S.; Shen, L.; Everson, N. Engineered Friction Reducers Enhance Proppant Transport; A Hart Energy Publication; E & P: Singapore, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 68–71. [Google Scholar]
  9. Xie, L.; Min, K.B.; Shen, B. Simulation of hydraulic fracturing and its interactions with a pre-existing fracture using displacement discontinuity method. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 36, 1284–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mair, R.; Bickle, M.; Goodman, D.; Koppelman, B.; Roberts, J.; Selley, R.; Shipton, Z.; Thomas, H.; Walker, A.; Woods, E.; et al. Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing; Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering: London, UK, 2012; pp. 9–59. [Google Scholar]
  11. Smith, M.B.; Miller, W.K.; Haga, J. Tip screenout fracturing: A technique for soft, unstable formations. SPE Prod. Eng. 1987, 2, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shlyapobersky, J.; Chudnovsky, A. Review of recent developments in fracture mechanics with petroleum engineering applications. In Proceedings of the Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, 29–31 August 1994. [Google Scholar]
  13. Huang, J.; Morris, J.P.; Fu, P.; Settgast, R.R.; Sherman, C.S.; Ryerson, F.J. Hydraulic-fracture-height growth under the combined influence of stress barriers and natural fractures. SPE J. 2019, 24, 302–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dam, D.B.V.; Pater, C.J.D. Roughness of Hydraulic Fractures: The Importance of In-Situ Stress and Tip Processes. SPE J. 2013, 6, 4–13. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hubbert, M.K.; Willis, D.G.W. Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Trans. AIME 1972, 18, 369–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Haimson, B.; Fairhurst, C. In-Situ Stress Determination at Great Depth by Means of Hydraulic Fracturing. Rock Mechanics—Theory and Practice. In Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, CA, USA, 16–19 June 1969; pp. 559–584. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eaton, B. Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its Application in Oilfield Operations. J. Pet. Technol. 1969, 21, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bradley, W.B. Failure of Inclined Boreholes. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1979, 101, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yew, C.H.; Li, Y. Fracturing of a Deviated Well. SPE Prod. Eng. 1988, 3, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fallahzadeh, S.A.H.; Shadizadeh, R.S.; Pourafshary, P. Dealing with the Challenges of Hydraulic Fracture Initiation in Deviated-Cased Perforated Boreholes. In Proceedings of the Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad, 27–30 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lv, Z.; He, S.; Gu, D.; Zhang, H. Hydraulic fracture initiation while staged fracturing for horizontal wells. In Proceedings of the IPTC 2013: International Petroleum Technology Conference, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013. Cp-350–00067. [Google Scholar]
  22. Van Dam, D.B.; Papanastasiou, P.; De Pater, C.J. Impact of Rock Plasticity on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation and Closure. SPE Prod. Facil. 2000, 17, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schmidt, R.A.; Rossmanith, H.P. Basics of rock fracture mechanics. In Rock Fracture Mechanics; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 1983; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  24. Anderson, G.D. Effects of friction on hydraulic fracture growth near unbonded interfaces in rocks. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1981, 21, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Warpinski, N.R.; Teufel, L.W. Influence of geologic discontinuities on hydraulic fracture propagation (includes associated papers 17011 and 17074). J. Pet. Technol. 1987, 39, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martin, A.N. Crack tip plasticity: A different approach to modelling fracture propagation in soft formations. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 1–4 October 2000. [Google Scholar]
  27. Barati, R.; Liang, J.T. A review of fracturing fluid systems used for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liang, F.; Sayed, M.; Al-Muntasheri, G.A.; Chang, F.F.; Li, L. A comprehensive review on proppant technologies. Petroleum 2016, 2, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Montgomery, C. Fracturing fluids. In Proceedings of the ISRM International Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, Brisbane, Australia, 20–22 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  30. Oprea, S. Effects of guar gum content on structure and properties of multi-crosslinked polyurethane composite films. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 44, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mao, J.; Wang, D.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J. Experimental study on high temperature resistance aluminum-crosslinked non-aqueous fracturing fluids. J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 258, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sun, X.; Liang, X.; Wang, S.; Lu, Y. Experimental study on the rheology of CO2 viscoelastic surfactant foam fracturing fluid. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2014, 119, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, C.; Huang, Y.; Sun, X.; Gao, R.; Zeng, F.; Tontiwachwuthikulac, P.; Liang, Z. Rheological properties study of foam fracturing fluid using CO2 and surfactant. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2017, 170, 720–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Harris, P.C.; Haynes, R.J.; Egger, J.P. The Use of CO2-Based Fracturing Fluids in the Red Fork Formation in the Anadarko Basin, Oklahoma. J. Pet. Technol. 1984, 36, 1003–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Reynolds, M.M.; Bachman, R.C.; Peters, W.E. A comparison of the effectiveness of various fracture fluid systems used in multistage fractured horizontal wells: Montney Formation, unconventional gas. In Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 4–6 February 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. Alharthy, N.; Teklu, T.W.; Kazemi, H.; Graves, R.; Hawthorne, S.; Braunberger, J.; Basak, K. Enhanced oil recovery in liquid-rich shale reservoirs: Laboratory to field. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2018, 21, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, L.; Yao, B.; Cha, M.; Alqahtani, N.B.; Patterson, T.W.; Kneafsey, T.J.; Jennifer, L.; Miskimins, J.L.; Yin, X.; Wua, Y. Waterless fracturing technologies for unconventional reservoirs-opportunities for liquid nitrogen. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 35, 160–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Grundmann, S.R.; Rodvelt, G.D.; Dials, G.A.; Robert, E.A. Cryogenic nitrogen as a hydraulic fracturing fluid in the devonian shale. In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 9–11 November 1998. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rogala, A.; Krzysiek, J.; Bernaciak, M.; Hupka, J. Non-aqueous fracturing technologies for shale gas recovery. Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Processing 2013, 49, 313–322. [Google Scholar]
  40. Elloy, F.C.; Teel, A.L.; Watts, R.J. Activation of persulfate by surfactants under acidic and basic conditions. Groundw. Monit. Remediat. 2014, 34, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ghanbari, E.; Dehghanpour, H. The fate of fracturing water: A field and simulation study. Fuel 2016, 163, 282–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Malone, M.R.; Nelson, S.G.; Jackson, R. Enzyme breaker technology increases production, Grayburg-Jackson field, southeast new Mexico: A case history. Paper presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, USA, 21–23 March 2000. [Google Scholar]
  43. Churakov, A.V.; Pichugin, M.N.; Fayzullin, I.G.; Gainetdinov, R.R.; Makarevich, S.B.; Mikhaylov, D.Y.; Williams, B.; Thomas, H. Non-Guar Synthetic Hydraulic Fracturing Gels–Successful Concept of Choice. In Proceedings of the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Virtual, 26–29 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
  44. Edwards, M.F.; Smith, R. The turbulent flow of non-Newtonian fluids in the absence of anomalous wall effects. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 1980, 7, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Goel, N.; Shah, S.N.; Yuan, W.L.; O’Rear, E.A. Suspension characteristics of borate-crosslinked gels: Rheology and atomic force microscopy measurements. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2001, 82, 2978–2990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bishop, M.; Shahid, N.; Yang, J.; Barron, A.R. Determination of the mode and efficacy of the cross-linking of guar by borate using MAS 11B NMR of borate cross-linked guar in combination with solution 11B NMR of model systems. Dalton Trans. 2004, 2621–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vollmer, D.P.; Alleman, D.J. HEC no longer the preferred polymer. In Proceedings of the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, USA, 13–16 February 2001. [Google Scholar]
  48. Prado, H.J.; Matulewicz, M.C. Cationization of polysaccharides: A path to greener derivatives with many industrial applications. Eur. Polym. J. 2014, 52, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cao, X.; Sun, S.; Peng, X.; Zhong, L.; Sun, R. Synthesis and characterization of cyanoethyl hemicelluloses and their hydrated products. Cellulose 2013, 20, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, Y.; Mao, J.; Zhao, J.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, B.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, H. Preparation of a novel ultra-high temperature low-damage fracturing fluid system using dynamic crosslinking strategy. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 354, 913–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mao, J.; Tan, H.; Yang, B.; Zhang, W.; Yang, X.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, H. Novel hydrophobic associating polymer with good salt tolerance. Polymers 2018, 10, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Sun, H.; Qu, Q. High-efficiency boron crosslinkers for low-polymer fracturing fluids. In Proceedings of the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 11–13 April 2011. [Google Scholar]
  53. Brannon, H.D.; Ault, M.G. New, delayed borate-crosslinked fluid provides improved fracture conductivity in high-temperature applications. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 6–9 October 1991. [Google Scholar]
  54. Legemah, M.; Guerin, M.; Sun, H.; Qu, Q. Novel high-efficiency boron crosslinkers for low-polymer-loading fracturing fluids. SPE J. 2014, 19, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kalgaonkar, R.A.; Patil, P.R. Performance enhancements in metal-crosslinked fracturing fluids. In Proceedings of the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 20–22 February 2012. [Google Scholar]
  56. Williams, D.A. Crosslinker Composition for High Temperature Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids. U.S. Patent 4534870, 13 August 1985. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hodge, R.M. Method of Fracturing a Subterranean Formation Using Delayed Crosslinker Compositions Containing Organic Titanium Complexes. U.S. Patent 4657080, 14 April 1987. [Google Scholar]
  58. Al-Muntasheri, G.A.; Liang, F.; Hull, K.L. Nanoparticle-enhanced hydraulic-fracturing fluids: A review. SPE Prod. Oper. 2017, 32, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hurnaus, T.; Plank, J. Behavior of titania nanoparticles in cross-linking hydroxypropyl guar used in hydraulic fracturing fluids for oil recovery. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 3601–3608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, F.; Yang, Y.; He, J.; Bu, T.; He, X.; He, K.; Xiang, C.; Yu, Z.; Wu, H. The gelation of hydroxypropyl guar gum by nano-ZrO2. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2018, 29, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dawson, J.C.; Le, H.V.; Cramer, D. Successful application of a novel fracturing fluid in the wasatch formation in eastern. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 27–30 September 1998. [Google Scholar]
  62. Norman, L.R. Properties and early field results of a liquid gelling agent for acid. In Proceedings of the SPE Production Technology Symposium, Hobbs, NM, USA, 30–31 October 1978. [Google Scholar]
  63. Beadle, B.M.; Baase, W.A.; Wilson, D.B.; Gilkes, N.R.; Shoichet, B.K. Comparing the thermodynamic stabilities of a related thermophilic and mesophilic enzyme. Biochemistry 1999, 38, 2570–2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gong, Y.; Lei, Y.; Chen, X.; Song, H.; Liu, R. A novel silica aerogel microspheres loaded with ammonium persulfate gel breaker for mid-deep reservoirs. J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2018, 88, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Carroll, H.B., Jr.; Baker, B.A. Particle size distributions generated by crushed proppants and their effects on fracture conductivity. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, CO, USA, 20–22 May 1979. [Google Scholar]
  66. Keshavarz, A.; Badalyan, A.; Johnson, R., Jr.; Bedrikovetsky, P. Productivity enhancement by stimulation of natural fractures around a hydraulic fracture using micro-sized proppant placement. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 33, 1010–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Laird, J.A.; Beck, W.R. Ceramic Spheroids Having Low Density and High Crush Resistance. U.S. Patent 4632876, 30 December 1986. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wu, T.; Wu, B. Corrosion resistance of ceramic proppant in BaO–CaO–P2O5–Al2O3 system. Corros. Sci. 2012, 63, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gore, G.L.; Terry, L.L. Radioactive tracer techniques. J. Pet. Technol. 1956, 8, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Palisch, T.; Duenckel, R.; Wilson, B. New technology yields ultrahigh-strength proppant. SPE Prod. Oper. 2015, 30, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dean, W.R.; Muskhelishvili, N.I.; Radok, J.R.M. Some Basic Problems of the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. Math. Gaz. 1955, 39, 352. [Google Scholar]
  72. Carpenter, C. Novel proppant surface treatment for enhanced performance and improved cleanup. J. Pet. Technol. 2016, 68, 64–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Wojtanowicz, A.K.; Krilov, Z.; Langlinais, J.P. Study on the effect of pore blocking mechanisms on formation damage. In Proceedings of the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 8–10 March 1987. [Google Scholar]
  74. Johancsik, C.A.; Friesen, D.B.; Dawson, R. Torque and drag in directional wells-prediction and measurement. J. Pet. Technol. 1984, 36, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sheppard, M.C.; Wick, C.; Burgess, T. Designing well paths to reduce drag and torque. SPE Drill. Eng. 1987, 2, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Maidla, E.E.; Wojtanowicz, A.K. Field comparison of 2-D and 3-D methods for the borehole friction evaluation in directional wells. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 27–30 September 1987. [Google Scholar]
  77. Rocheleau, D.N.; Dareing, D.W. Effect of Drag Forces on Bit Weight in High-Curvature Well Bores. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1992, 114, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. He, X.; Sangesland, S.; Halsey, G.W. An integrated three-dimensional wellstring analysis program. In Proceedings of the Petroleum Computer Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 17–20 June 1991. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ho, H.S. An improved modeling program for computing the torque and drag in directional and deep wells. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 October 1988. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ben, J.D. Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect on Production Performance. J. Pet. Technol. 1990, 42, 1426–1433. [Google Scholar]
  81. Landman, M.J.; Goldthorpe, W.H. Optimization of perforation distribution for horizontal wells. Paper presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Perth, Australia, 4–7 November 1991. [Google Scholar]
  82. Johancsik, C.A.; Leraandd, A.E.; Petovello, B.G.; Gust, D.A.; Smith, B.W. Application of Measurement While Drilling in a Shallow, Highly Deviated Drilling Program. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 1985, 24, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bahrami, H.; Rezaee, R.; Clennell, B. Water blocking damage in hydraulically fractured tight sand gas reservoirs: An example from Perth Basin, Western Australia. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2012, 88, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ni, G.; Cheng, W.; Lin, B.; Zhai, C. Experimental study on removing water blocking effect (WBE) from two aspects of the pore negative pressure and surfactants. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 31, 596–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fan, H.; Lyu, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhao, S.; Fan, H.; Geng, J.; Dai, C.; Kang, W. Evaluation method and treatment effectiveness analysis of anti-water blocking agent. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 33, 1374–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bijeljic, B.R.; Muggeridge, A.H.; Blunt, M.J. Effect of composition on waterblocking for multicomponent gasfloods. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 29 September–2 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
  87. Stephen, A.H. Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas Flow from Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells. J. Pet. Technol. 1979, 31, 1515–1524. [Google Scholar]
  88. Lin, E.C.; Huang, E.T.S. The Effect of Rock Wettability on Water Blocking During Miscible Displacement. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1990, 5, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Monaghan, P.H.; Salathiel, R.A.; Morgan, B.E.; Kaiser, A.D. Laboratory studies of formation damage in sands containing clays. Trans. AIME 1959, 216, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Necmettin, M. Permeability Reduction through Changes in pH and Salinity. J. Pet. Technol. 1965, 17, 1449–1453. [Google Scholar]
  91. Tchistiakov, A.A. Colloid chemistry of in-situ clay-induced formation damage. In Proceedings of the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, USA, 23–24 February 2000. [Google Scholar]
  92. Sinkov, K.; Weng, X.; Kresse, O. Modeling of Proppant Distribution during Fracturing of Multiple Perforation Clusters in Horizontal Wells. In Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, Virtual, 4–6 May 2021. [Google Scholar]
  93. Holditch, S.A.; Ely, J. Successful Stimulation of Deep Wells Using High Proppant Concentrations. J. Pet. Technol. 1973, 25, 959–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lacy, L.L.; Rickards, A.R.; Ali, S.A. Embedment and fracture conductivity in soft formations associated with HEC, borate and water-based fracture designs. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 5–8 October 1997. [Google Scholar]
  95. Cooke, C.E., Jr. Conductivity of fracture proppants in multiple layers. J. Pet. Technol. 1973, 25, 1101–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Penny, G.S. An evaluation of the effects of environmental conditions and fracturing fluids upon the long-term conductivity of proppants. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 27–30 September 1987. [Google Scholar]
  97. Xu, B.; Wong, R.C.K. A 3D finite element model for history matching hydraulic fracturing in unconsolidated sands formation. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2010, 49, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hayatdavoudi, A. Changing chemophysical properties of formation and drilling fluid enhances penetration rate and bit life. In Proceedings of the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, USA, 16–19 February 1999. [Google Scholar]
  99. Khilar, K.C.; Fogler, H.S. Colloidally induced fines migration in porous media. Rev. Chem. Eng. 1987, 4, 41–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Civan, F. Interpretation and correlations of clay swelling measurements. In Proceedings of the Drilling and Production Millenium Bound, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 28–31 March 1999; pp. 167–175. [Google Scholar]
  101. Economides, M.J.; Nolte, K.G.; Ahmed, U.; Schlumberger, D. Reservoir Stimulation; Prentice Hall Inc.: Old Tappan, NJ, USA, 1989; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  102. Ali, A.D. A Study of Inclined Hydraulic Fractures. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1972, 13, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  103. Daneshy, A.A. Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing through Perforations. J. Pet. Technol. 1973, 25, 1201–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Crump, J.B.; Conway, M.W. Effects of Perforation-Entry Friction on Bottomhole Treating Analysis. J. Pet. Technol. 1986, 40, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cramer, D.D. Limited entry extended to massive hydraulic fracturing. Oil Gas J. 1987, 85, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  106. Wu, K.; Olson, J.E. Investigation of critical in situ and injection factors in multi-frac treatments: Guidelines for controlling fracture complexity. In Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 4–6 February 2013. [Google Scholar]
  107. Wu, K.; Olson, J.; Balhoff, M.T.; Yu, W. Numerical analysis for promoting uniform development of simultaneous multiple-fracture propagation in horizontal wells. SPE Prod. Oper. 2017, 32, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lecampion, B.; Desroches, J.; Jeffrey, R.G.; Bunger, A.P.; Burghardt, J. Initiation versus Breakdown Pressure of Transverse Radial Hydraulic Fracture: Theory and Experiments. In Proceedings of the 13th ISRM International Congress of Rock Mechanics, Montreal, QC, Canada, 10–13 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lecampion, B.; Desroches, J. Simultaneous initiation and growth of multiple radial hydraulic fractures from a horizontal wellbore. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2015, 82, 235–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. El-Rabaa, A.M.; Shah, S.N.; Lord, D.L. New perforation pressure loss correlations for limited entry fracturing treatments. SPE Prod. Facil. 1999, 14, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhu, X.H.; Li, B.; Liu, Q.Y.; Chang, X.; Chuan, L.; Zhu, K.; Xu, X. New Analysis Theory and Method for Drag and Torque Based on Full-Hole System Dynamics in Highly Deviated Well. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 535830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Van den Bergh, W.J.B.; Scarlett, B. Influence of particle breakage on the wall friction coefficient of brittle particulate solids: Part 1. Influence of wall inclination, normal load and displacement. Powder Technol. 1991, 67, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Overbey, W.K.; Yost, A.B.; Wilkins, D.A. Inducing multiple hydraulic fractures from a horizontal wellbore. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 October 1988. [Google Scholar]
  114. Lehman, L.; Brumley, J.L. Etiology of multiple fractures. In Proceedings of the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 9–11 March 1997. [Google Scholar]
  115. Ghaderi, A.; Taheri-Shakib, J.; Sharifnik, M.A. The effect of natural fracture on the fluid leak-off in hydraulic fracturing treatment. Petroleum 2019, 5, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. McDaniel, B.W.; McMechan, D.E.; Stegent, N.A. Proper use of proppant slugs and viscous gel slugs can improve proppant placement during hydraulic fracturing applications. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 September–3 October 2001. [Google Scholar]
  117. Brumley, J.L.; Abass, H.H. Hydraulic fracturing of deviated wells: Interpretation of breakdown and initial fracture opening pressure. In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, OH, USA, 23–25 October 1996. [Google Scholar]
  118. Mahrer, K.D.; Aud, W.W.; Hansen, J.T. Far-field hydraulic fracture geometry: A changing paradigm. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 6–9 October 1996. [Google Scholar]
  119. Jeffrey, R.G.; Vandamme, L.; Roegiers, J.C. Mechanical interactions in branched or subparallel hydraulic fractures. In Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Joint Symposium on Low Permeability Reservoirs, Denver, CO, USA, 18–19 May 1987. [Google Scholar]
  120. Cleary, M.P.; Johnson, D.E.; Kogsbøll, H.H.; Owens, K.A.; Perry, K.F.; de Pater, C.J.; Stachel, A.; Schmidt, H.; Tambini, M. Field implementation of proppant slugs to avoid premature screen-out of hydraulic fractures with adequate proppant concentration. In Proceedings of the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 26–28 April 1993. [Google Scholar]
  121. Malhotra, S.; Lehman, E.R.; Sharma, M.M. Proppant placement using alternate-slug fracturing. SPE J. 2014, 19, 974–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Medvedev, A.V.; Medvedev, O.; Mikhaylov, A.V.; Fredd, C.; Butula, K.K.; Lassek, J. Methods for providing proppant slugs in fracturing treatments. U.S. Patent 9447673, 20 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  123. Abdrazakov, D.; Juldugulov, Y.; Kruglov, R.; Pavlova, S.; Vereschagin, S.; Chuprakov, D.; Valentin, I. Proppant Transport Capabilities of High-Viscosity Friction Reducers at Relatively Low Rates: Advanced Modeling and Field Validation. In Proceedings of the SPE Symposium: Hydraulic Fracturing in Russia. Experience and Prospects, Virtual, 22–24 September 2020. [Google Scholar]
  124. Huang, T.; Crews, J.B. Nanotechnology applications in viscoelastic surfactant stimulation fluids. SPE Prod. Oper. 2008, 23, 512–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Liang, F.; Al-Muntasheri, G.A.; Li, L. Maximizing performance of residue-free fracturing fluids using nanomaterials at high temperatures. In Proceedings of the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, AK, USA, 23–26 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  126. Guzmán, J.D.; Pineda, D.; Franco, C.A.; Botero, O.F.; Lopera, S.H.; Cortés, F.B. Effect of nanoparticle inclusion in fracturing fluids applied to tight gas-condensate reservoirs: Reduction of Methanol loading and the associated formation damage. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 40, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Blanzat, M.; Perez, E.; Rico-Lattes, I.; Prome, D.; Prome, J.C.; Lattes, A. New catanionic glycolipids. 1. Synthesis, characterization, and biological activity of double-chain and gemini catanionic analogues of galactosylceramide (galβ1cer). Langmuir 1999, 15, 6163–6169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Chu, Z.; Feng, Y. pH-switchable wormlike micelles. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 9028–9030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Lu, H.; Shi, Q.; Wang, B.; Huang, Z. Spherical-to-wormlike micelle transition in a pseudogemini surfactant system with two types of effective pH-responsive groups. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2016, 494, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ba, G.M.; Imqam, A.; Flori, R. A Critical Review of Using High Viscosity Friction Reducers as Fracturing Fluids for Hydraulic Fracturing Applications. In Proceedings of the SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 9–10 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  131. Chaplygin, D.; Khamadaliev, D.; Sednev, A.; Dmitry, N. Case Studies of Re-Fracturing Achimov Reservoirs with High-Viscous Friction Reducer on Salym Group of Oilfields. In Proceedings of the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Virtual, 12–15 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  132. Mohd Aji, A.Q.; Wan Nadhari, W.N.F.; Savitri, C.D.; Mohshim, D.F.; Maulianda, B.; Arvindraj, K. Application of D-Limonene as the Green High Viscosity Friction Reducer in Hydraulic Fracturing. In Proceedings of the SPE/AAPG/SEG Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Virtual, 16–18 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
  133. Boyer, J.; Maley, D.; O’Neil, B. Chemically enhanced proppant transport. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  134. Songire, S.; Uppuluri, R.; Rama, M.S. Aqueous-based surface modifying agent for mitigation of fines migration. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference and Exhibition, Astana, KZ, USA, 12–14 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
  135. Lu, W.; O’Neil, B.; Zhang, K.; Wang, C.; Harvey, Q. Enhancing Proppant Flowback Control Through Surface Treatment of Proppant. In Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 14–16 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  136. Feng, W.C.; Nurafza, P.; Al-Shamma, B.; Alain, G. Bilinear Flow in Horizontal Wells in a Homogeneous Reservoir: Huntington Case Study. In Proceedings of the EUROPEC 2015, Madrid, Spain, 1–4 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  137. Shen, L.; Khan, S.; Heller, D.; Dan, F. A Cationic Friction Reducer Fully Compatible with Produced Water. In Proceedings of the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 22–24 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
  138. Rutherford, S.; Hurtado, J.; Mayer, M. Real-Time Friction Reduction Efficacy Monitoring with Root Cause Analysis. In Proceedings of the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Virtual, 20–22 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
  139. Yan, J.; Wang, W.; Wei, W.; Gregory, W. Optimizing the Selection and Application of Chemical Additives in Shale Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 26–28 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
  140. Overin, A.; Samoilov, M.; Kudrya, S.; Konstantin, B. Multistage Stimulation: Fracturing Optimization at Samotlorskoe Field. In Proceedings of the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Moscow, Russia, 22–24 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
Lubricants 10 00014 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic of the hydraulic fracturing process.
Figure 1. Schematic of the hydraulic fracturing process.
Lubricants 10 00014 g001
Lubricants 10 00014 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagram of crack orientation. (a) Horizontal fracture; (b) vertical fracture in direction σy; (c) vertical fracture in direction σz.
Figure 2. Diagram of crack orientation. (a) Horizontal fracture; (b) vertical fracture in direction σy; (c) vertical fracture in direction σz.
Lubricants 10 00014 g002
Lubricants 10 00014 g003 550
Figure 3. Diagram of the water-based fracturing fluid.
Figure 3. Diagram of the water-based fracturing fluid.
Lubricants 10 00014 g003
Lubricants 10 00014 g004 550
Figure 4. Diagram of hydraulic fracturing proppant. (a) natural quartz sand; (b) proppant.
Figure 4. Diagram of hydraulic fracturing proppant. (a) natural quartz sand; (b) proppant.
Lubricants 10 00014 g004
Lubricants 10 00014 g005 550
Figure 5. Friction and damage mechanism of the proppant. (I) second proppant accumulation; (II) first proppant accumulation.
Figure 5. Friction and damage mechanism of the proppant. (I) second proppant accumulation; (II) first proppant accumulation.
Lubricants 10 00014 g005
Lubricants 10 00014 g006 550
Figure 6. The schematic diagram of perforation abrasion.
Figure 6. The schematic diagram of perforation abrasion.
Lubricants 10 00014 g006
Lubricants 10 00014 g007 550
Figure 7. Schematic of hydraulic fracturing friction challenge.
Figure 7. Schematic of hydraulic fracturing friction challenge.
Lubricants 10 00014 g007
Table
Table 2. Value of borehole friction coefficient (COF).
Table 2. Value of borehole friction coefficient (COF).
Drilling Fluid SystemCOF in a CasingCOF in the Naked Eye
Water-based drilling fluid0.240.29
Oil-based drilling fluid0.170.21
Brine drilling fluid0.300.30
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guo, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yang, H.; Wang, D.; Ramos, M.A.; Hu, T.S.; Xu, Q. Friction Challenge in Hydraulic Fracturing. Lubricants 2022, 10, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants10020014

AMA Style

Guo Y, Zhang M, Yang H, Wang D, Ramos MA, Hu TS, Xu Q. Friction Challenge in Hydraulic Fracturing. Lubricants. 2022; 10(2):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants10020014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guo, Yanbao, Min Zhang, Hui Yang, Deguo Wang, Melvin A. Ramos, Travis Shihao Hu, and Quan Xu. 2022. "Friction Challenge in Hydraulic Fracturing" Lubricants 10, no. 2: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants10020014

APA Style

Guo, Y., Zhang, M., Yang, H., Wang, D., Ramos, M. A., Hu, T. S., & Xu, Q. (2022). Friction Challenge in Hydraulic Fracturing. Lubricants, 10(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants10020014

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop