eCORP Stimulation Technologies, LLC (ecorpStim)

Pure Propane (PPS) and Non-Flammable Propane (NFP) Stimulation of Shale

Presented by John Francis Thrash, CEO
October 9th 2014 Paris, France

Overview
Water Based Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) Today, commonly employed formulations for hydraulically
fracturing source rocks include the use of massive quantities of water in mixture with a variety of chemical
additives combined with various proppant materials which are injected under high pressure into the rock
formations. After stimulation there is an attempt to recover the water, chemicals and dissolved reservoir content
from the newly established fracture system in the rock.

Perceived Risks All of these basic features of the process, as routinely practiced today, are sometimes
associated with real and potential environmental and safety hazards as well as variable performance outcomes
in certain instances.

Infrastructure Limitations This standard technology can present profound logistical challenges in a
number of the newly evolving basins around the planet where there maybe water and infrastructure limitations,
extremely cold climes or other conditions not previously routinely encountered in the North American shale
experience.

Pure Propane Stimulation (PPS) A simple binary system of propane, butane or similar lightweight
hydrocarbon, used in combination with man-made proppants of specifically designed dimensions and densities.
The list of routinely encountered impacts associated with water-based HF obviated by PPS is very nearly
complete.

Flammability Although propane is the third most frequent component of natural gas, and used in over 120
million households in Europe, the primary concern associated with its use in shale stimulation is flammability.
This presentation discusses the science and techniques for safely utilizing PPS to stimulate production from
shale source rocks, including the Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) option and other safety features of
the mechanical system, layout and operating protocols.

Economics The economics of these systems are discussed, in particular, when propane can be selfsupplied by the operator once initial production has commenced.

Background

Who is eCORP International, LLC

Background
Who is eCORP International, LLC ?
eCORP is Headquartered in Houston, Texas with Offices Located in
London, Paris, Madrid, Zurich and Sofia, Bulgaria
eCORP companies have been in business since 1978
eCORP has Closed Billions of USD in Successful Transactions &
Developments
eCORP is a Privately Held Vertically Integrated Energy Company
whose Primary Experiences Include:
Exploration & Production: Conventional and Unconventional
Natural Gas Storage and Pipelines
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
Specialized Field Services
Natural Gas Fired Power Generation

Seeks to be First Mover, Innovative & Environmentally Sound

A Recognized as a Green/Low Environmental Impact Developer
A Developer of Novel and Successful Technical Solutions

Organizing Principles of eCORP Safety and Environmental Care

Impeccable Safety Record in All Operations Since Inception
Zero Incidents with Propane (LPG) Operations for 35 Years
Commitment to Environmentally Sensitive Development Practices
Surface Aesthetics, Noise/Light Abatement, Infrastructure Impacts
Extensive Proactive Community Engagement
Maximize Cultural and Economic Benefit for the Community
Strive to Exceed Industry and Regulatory Standards
Innovate/Adapt Technology to Address Challenging Geologic and
Reservoir Conditions while Maintaining Meticulous Environmental
Care and Concern
Today eCORP continues developments via positive interactions with
regulators, legislatures, communities, NGO, virtually all stakeholders, in
venues such as North America, and in such challenging states as New
York, and in closed markets such as Mexico, as well as in Europe.

History Relevant to Pure Propane Stimulation

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
Propane and Butane EOR Projects Approx. 450 Well Development
in Three Counties in South Texas
Miscible and Immiscible CO2 EOR Projects
Bio-Polymer EOR Project with Pfizer Oil Field Products
Largest Independent in EOR in Texas 1978 1988
Perfect Safety Record with Propane and Butane EOR
Trouble Free Operation of Propane / Butane Recycling

Natural Gas Storage and Pipelines

eCORP has been involved in Approximately 20% of New Storage
Capacity Additions in the United States since Deregulation
beginning in 1985
SalternativesTM Technology (horizontal well drilling and completion
IP) and the Stuart Storage Facility, Stuart, Oklahoma 1991 2001
First All Horizontal Well Storage Development
Propane Stimulation / Clean-up of Storage Wells
Stagecoach Storage Facility 2002 2005
Nearest Storage to NYC / New England Gas Market
Most Productive Wells Drilled in the Lower 48 States
American Institute of Architecture (AIA) Award Winning /
Environmental Design

Located Near Town of Owego New York State

Exploration & Production: Unconventional

eCORP Resource Partners I, LP was the 7th Largest Non-Barnett US
Shale Acreage Holder 2006 2008
Pioneer in US Shale: Example: Early 200,000 Acre Play in the Core
of Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania beginning in 2005
Closest Shale Well to New York City
eCORP Holds a Substantial Shale Acreage Position in Western
Europe (> 1 Million Net Acreages) 2009 to Present

Specialized Field Services

ecorpStim (www.ecorpstim.com)
Launch of Pure Propane Stimulation (PPS) for Shale 2011
Key GasFrac Personnel Join ecorpStim 2012
Preliminary Field Testing of PPS 2012
Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) Launched in 2013
Formation of the ecorpStim R&D Consortium 2014
eCORP subsidiary eCOREx founded 2011
Provides Minimal Discharge Micro-hole Coring Drilling for Rapid
Inexpensive Evaluation of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs with Minimal
Environmental Footprint and Impacts

Summary of Key eCORP History Relative the ecorpStim Proposition

Long History and Operating Experience with Propane (LPG)
Stimulation in a Variety of Reservoir Settings
Perfect Safety Record with Propane (LPG) Stimulation Employed in
eCORP Projects of All Kinds
Commitment to Innovation for the Preservation of the Environment
Extensive and Varied Shale Experience Internationally
Strong Track Record of Commercial Successes in Applying New
Technologies
Safety + Environmental Care + Propane History + Shale Experience

= PPS and NFP

Challenges in the Stimulation of Shale Reservoirs

Challenges in the Stimulation of Shale Reservoirs

How can we get the Maximum Rates and Recoveries from Extremely Low
Permeability Reservoirs?
Low Recovery Factors
How can we get the Maximum Effective Fracture Length from the Stimulation
Process?
How do we Manage High Capillary Pressure Reservoirs
How do we Contend with Historically Low Frac-Water Recoveries (~20%) How
can we Insure the Mechanical Fluid is Compatible with the Shale and Formation
Fluids?
Easily Damaged Reservoirs Swelling Clays, Imbibition, Water Blockage, etc.
Changes in the Strength of the Rock Facies?
How will we Minimize the Environmental Impact?
Water Usage
Disposal of Fracturing Fluids/Waste Streams
Venting/Flaring

How will we Achieve Safe Operations?

In Search of the Perfect Fluid?

Reservoir Performance
Non-Damaging (Water Blocks/Imbibition, Clay Swelling, Softening
Formation, Scale, Emulsions, Gel Damage)
Create the Required Fracture Geometry
Effective Proppant Transport
Only Proppant Remains in the Fracture
100% Fluid Recovery
100% Fracture Volume Contributes to Production
Environmental & Economic Performance
No Chemicals Required to Modify the Mechanical Fluid
All Fluids Recovered are Marketable or Recyclable
Sustainability and Natural Substances)
Eliminate Water Usage, Disposal Needs, & CO2 Venting
Operationally Safe
Injury and Accident Free Execution

Consider LPG Past Use in Reservoir Stimulation

A 100% Compatible Stimulation Fluid
Morris Muskat, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, July 1953
Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that complete removal of
oil from a porous medium can readily be obtained by displacing it with
the liquefied petroleum gases, propane, and butanes
Koch & Slobod, SPE 714, Oct 1956
Miscible phase displacement oil has been an intriguing idea because
the elimination of capillary effects in the reservoir leads to 100% recovery
in the areas contacted by the miscible displacing phase.
Roger Sessions, SPE 341, Jan 1963
A number of laboratory tests with Slaughter crude indicates small
propane slugs would efficiently displace 100% of the oil contacted in a
sand packed column.

Henderson, et. al., Petroleum Transactions 3501, Vol. 198, 1953

A laboratory investigation of oil displacement from porous media by a
liquefied petroleum gas.

Thrash & Thrash, Oil World, Oct 1985

Gaseous propane brings new life to field.

Challenges with Todays LPG Gel Technology

Challenges with Todays LPG Gel Technology

Source: Frac Focus Job Start Date 11-8-13; Zavala, County TX

Challenges with Todays LPG Gel Technology Cont.

Source: Frac Focus Job Start Date 11-8-13; Zavala, County TX

Gel Residues Left Behind

Chemical Interactions Barium or Strontium Sulfate Scales
Un-reacted Phosphates Impact on Refinery Catalysis
Proppant Transport Thermal Thinning of Fluids Downhole
Aromatics Injected as Dispersants
Safety Record

Summary Comparison of Key Features - PPS vs. LPG Gel Frac

Process Fundamentals

PPS

LPG Gel Fracturing

Chemicals Added to Propane

Zero

Many Reactive Species

Use of Petroleum Distillates (Aromatics)

Zero

Numerous

Fluid Costs (Other than Propane)

Zero

Chemicals + Storage + Combining Both Components Expense

Issues at Refinery

Zero

Catalysis Poisoning Due to Free Phosphorus

Residue Left in the Formation

Zero

Yes

Negative Interactions with Formation Water

Zero

Yes / Insoluble Scale

Viscosity

Low (<1 cp)

High on Surface Only (~300 cp)

Low at Bottom Hole Temp (<10s cp)

Proppant Transport Above / Below Ground

High / High

High / Low

Mechanical Fundamentals

ecorpStim

LPG Gel Fracturing

Pumpable Proppant Volume

No Limit

200,000 lbs Maximum

Frac Pump Emissions

Zero

Diesel Engine Emissions

Ignition Points in Hot Zone

Zero

Significant Including Prime Mover Engines

Fully Automated & Remote Operational Control

Yes

No

Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer

Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer

LPG is Non-Damaging to the Formation and Reservoir Fluids
No Clay Swelling/Interactions
No Scale
No Softening of the Formation Fracture Facies
No Damage
Low Surface Tension and Viscosity
10 Times Less Surface Tension than Water
Capillary Threshold Pressures are 10x Less with Propane
8 Times Less Viscosity than Water
Non-Wetting Fluid in Most Reservoirs
No Negative Relative Perm Effects
Soluble with the Gas or Oil (Can Precipitate Asphaltenes)
Mixes with Natural Gas Causing Propane to Vaporize
1st Contact Miscible with Most Crude Oils

Consider Regain Permeability Studies

Canadian Institute of Mining Metallurgy & Petroleum 2009
Indicates that LPG Frac fluid (#6) reaches 100% regain permeability in Montney shale at
the lowest pressure exceeding the performance of 95% N2 (#2), 50/50 Light Oil/CO2 (#3),
and 80% N2 (#11). Water regain perm of 20% - 40%.

Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer Cont.

Environmental Benefits

No Water
No Chemical Additives Biocides, Polymers, Surfactants
Non-Toxic
Non-Carcinogenic
No Waste Streams
No Seismicity from Long Term Water Injection/Disposal
Recoverable & Recyclable
Smaller Volumes for Equivalent Effective Fracture Lengths
o Less Trucking
o Less Emissions
o Less Disturbance
o Smaller Footprint

Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer Cont.

Safety Reasons
> 100 Year of History of Handling Propane
Established Industry Recommended Practices
Well Established Safe Infrastructure Exists Today
Disperses at Ambient Temperature and Pressure
Low Flammability Rating = Ignition Only > 940 degrees F
versus Gasoline Ignition Temperature <500 degrees F
Propane Use in Europe
120 Million Households/Businesses Using LPG in Europe
30.6 Million Tons Per Year
200 Million Cylinders Located in Homes and Businesses
9 000 Road Tankers Permitted to Drive European Roadways
Source : AEGPL Technical Commission

PPS is Amenable to Safe Application in the Oil Patch

eCORP Next Generation Propane Stimulation Spread Layout

Intrinsically Safe All Electric Drive Compression & Mechanicals

Benefits of eCORP All Electric Power Spread

Safety
Explosion Proof Motors vs. Diesel Engines &Transmissions
Elimination of Engines Ignition Points
Remaining Ignition Points Removed from Hot Zone
Operational/Economical Considerations
Greater Control of Pump Rate
Micro-Sec Kickouts & Ability to Soft Start
Improved Reliability Less Moving Parts
Longer Life of Pumping Equipment
Elimination of Engine and Line Pulsations
Lower Maintenance
Ability to Operate in Extreme Cold Weather
Real Time Diagnostics Leads to Predictive Maintenance
Reduced Human Interface to Execute a Job
Remote Control and Ease of Automation
Reduced Cost of HP on Location

Benefits of eCORP All Electric Power Spread Cont.

Sustainable Operations with Grid Power

Completely Eliminate Emissions from Pumping Equipment

Eliminate Noise Associated from the Pumps
Reduced Traffic to Location
Horsepower Loads Reduced by 50%
Dramatically Reduce Location Footprint

ecorpStim Innovative Safety Enhancement Collaborations

Define Critical Challenge
Identify Similar Circumstances Encountered in other Disciplines
Investigate and Adapt
Non- O&G Sector Industries Sources

Military (Propulsion, Material Science, Safety)

Automotive (Mobile Air Conditioning, Light Weight Parts)
Refining (Safety Sensors, Spill Proof Connectors)
Shipping (Material Logistics)
Railroad (Propulsion)
Construction/Cement (Specialized Pumps)
Agriculture (Grain Dust Collectors)
Fire Protection (Low Toxicity and Low Residue Extinguishers)
Plastics Molding (Fillers and Lightweight Additives)
Medical (Anesthesia, Propellants & Drug Delivery Systems)

Non-Flammable Propane via Heptafluoropropane

Members of the ecorpStim Safety and Environmental

R&D Consortium
Rice University (USA) to advance the optimization of non-flammable
propane chemistry, manufacturing, operations and cost. The fundamental
components being investigated include:
Process engineering Reduce Cost of HFP
Commercial effects of HFP purity
Advanced field separation and recycling Complete Re-Capture Life of Project

Energy Safety Research Institute at Swansea University (UK) The

enlarged research group builds upon the work completed to date to extend
and amplify their applied research in safety and environmental performance
for shale gas development using HFP as a stimulation fluid replacing fresh
water used in hydro-fracing.
The focus of this partnership is the
comprehensive study and design of the safety aspects of achieving an
environmentally and socially acceptable technology for oil and gas
production from shales. The key subject areas of collaborative study include:
The capture, recycling and loss prevention of injected HFP
The chemistry and material science for systems associated with the use of
HFP.

Members of the ecorpStim Safety and Environmental

R&D Consortium Cont.
The Universit Joseph Fourier (FR)
Seismic analysis, risk analysis, release of toxic elements by anoxic shale
type systems
Baylor College of Medicine (USA) evaluating and furthering developments
in delivery of ecorpStims non-water, chemical-free stimulation technologies,
with the goal of making them environmentally sustainable and safe to
humans.
Glass Technology Services (UK) furthering ecorpStims goals of
advancing proprietary concepts for the use of silica, the raw material with
which glass is made, in the environmentally sustainable development of
shale hydrocarbon production.
One such patent pending technology involves the novel combination of two
components only a stimulation fluid (heptafluoropropane) and a proppant
(mesoporous silica) both of which are approved in different forms of
medical treatments.

Airbus Defence & Space (FR) Monitoring / Satellite assessment of mm

altimetric changes, surface temperature & aerosol concentration, gravimetric
reservoir estimates.

Access to data from:

Landsat 8 OLI - Vegetation Changes
Landsat 8 (Thermal InfraRed Sensor) - Surface Temperature
Sentinel 1 (Synthetic Aperture Radar) mm Land Height

Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP)

with Heptafluoropropane (HFP)

HFP Comparison with Propane and n-Butane

Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP)

with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
NFP Suppresses 100% of the Industrial Risks Associated with
the Use of Regular Propane:
Flammability risk
Explosion risk
NFP Strengthens the Security System as it is Applied to All
Stages of the Operation Chain:
On roads, during transport of the stimulation fluid in trucks
On the exploration/exploitation platform for the stimulation
operation
On site or in a warehouse, for storage of the fluid
Sites will not be submitted to SEVESO classification

Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP)

with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
NFP Excels in Every Defining Category of Chemical and
Physical Properties that Dictate Performance as a Stimulation
Fluid in Shale Reservoirs:
Low surface tension (1/10 that of water)
NFP is very efficient in proppant transport and placement:
specific gravity is one and a half times that of water
A wide variety of proppants (sand, ceramics) may be
utilized with NFP
NFP can be recovered, just like pure propane
NFP is easily separable from other components of natural gas
coming out of the well (especially propane and butane, NFPs
closest molecular analogs).

Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP)

with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
NFP is Safe for Human Health and the Environment
Non-toxic
Non-carcinogenic
Non-Mutagenic
Non-irritating
Zero ozone depleting potential
If Released above Ground, it Dissipates as a Gas
HFP Safety Fully Demonstrated and Widely Used:
As the Propellant in Inhalers for Children and Adults
As a fire extinguishing agent for use in human environments
such as homes, offices, work places and schools
Fire Extinguisher for Formula One Racing Exclusively
Exceedingly Thermally Stable, Inert and Non-Reactive

Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP)

with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
HFP has High Global Warming Potential & Very High Expense
NFP was Developed to Replace Chlorofluorocarbons in Order to
Protect the Ozone Layer in which it is Effective
However NFP using HFP Cannot Contribute in to Global
Warming in any Significant Way
Any NFP Process that would Release HFP to the Atmosphere
would be Ruinously Uneconomic and Thus Discontinued

Inescapable Economic Condition is the Ultimate Safety

Guarantee Imposed upon the NFP (HFP) Proposal
Relative to HFP Global Warming Potential

Comparison of PPS (and NFP) Efficiency

with Water and Gelled Stimulation Systems

Water Based Fracturing Systems

Damage Created by Imbibition/Relative Perm Effects, Clay Swelling and Reducing Shale
Strength in the Near Fracture Area Results in Shorter Effective Fracture Length and Lower
Recoveries
Volume of Frac Fluid Recovered is Proportional to the Effective Frac Length/Height
(Based on Shells Work by Gdanski)

NoFractureInflow

ReservoirInflow

TopView

SideView
EffectiveFractureLength
ProppedFractureLength

The Reality Gel Propane Fracturing Systems

Superior Early Production Followed by Rapid Declines

Shorter Effective Lengths Leading to Lower Cumulative Production
Poor Proppant Transport and Gel Residue Issues
Wasted Energy, Resources and Expense to Create Excessive Non-Productive Fracture Area

SideView

UnProppedArea
FracturedArea

ProppedArea

PumpingFractureLength
UnProppedLength
EffectiveLength DamagedLength

Pumping
FracHeight

Propane as a Stimulation Fluid

No Damage Created in the Near Wellbore, Fracture, or in the Reservoir

Dual Stimulation is Achieved via 1) the Created Fracture and 2) Improved Relative Perm in the
Near Wellbore Area due to Propane Miscibility

TopView

ReservoirInflow
EffectiveFractureLength
ProppedFractureLength

SideView

Fracture Geometry as a Function of Fluid Viscosity

Fracture Geometry as a Function of Fluid Viscosity

Viscous Fluids have Demonstrated a Great Likelihood to Create Relatively Planar Fractures
Thinner Fluids Such as Slickwater have Shown via Microseismic to Create a More Complex
Fracturing Network
But How Effective is a More Complex Fracturing Network in Contributing to Long Term
Production?
Are Todays Proppants Effectively Being Placed and Propping Any Fracturing Complexity?
Can ecorpStim Proppants Be a More Effective Solution?

XLinked

Slickwater

Comparison of Barnett Shale Initial X-Linked Stimulation toSlickwater ReFrac,

from SPE 95565

Fracturingwithpropaneandheptafluoropropane
Howdothesegasesbehave?
Experimentalandcomputationalstudies
Needtobeabletoinvestigatethedifferencesbetweenfluids
Gasfractures

Compactionzonearoundfractures

Gaspressureasafunctionoftime

Pressuredrop=growthinfracturebranch

Porous/deformable
medium

Fracture Modeling with a Low Viscosity Fluid

Model Parameters
Newtonian Fluid = .144 cP
(lower limit of FracPro)
Job Volume

133,000 gals of Propane

200,000 gals of 100 mesh

Pump Rate = 20 BPM

Max Prop Conc = 3 PPG
Perf Depth = 13,500
Youngs Modulus = 6x106 psi
Poissons Ratio = .3
Permeability = 10
nanodarcies

Simulated Geometry
Propped Half Length = 1090
Propped Height = 283
Max Pumping Width = .66
Avg Pumping Width = .32
Avg Prop Conc = .41 lb/ft2
Fcd = 699

Source:ModelingProvidedbyACBEnergy

Impact of Viscosity on Net Pressure (and Width)

Modeled3SuccessiveIdenticalPumpIn
VaryingonlyFluidViscosity
1st Fluid Saltwater
2nd Fluid Linear40#Gel
3rd Fluid Xlinked40#Gel

NetPressureDevelopedVariedSlightly
AmongAll3Injections
19psiincreaseoverLinearGelfromSaltwater
90psiincreaseoverXLinkedFluidfrom
Saltwater(12%Increase)

WidthatthePerfsShowedMinimalChanges
asitisProportionaltoNetPressure(Pnet)in
PKNModel(.395to.445)

2 1

NetPressurewereinthe700800psiRange
DuetoaHighCriticalStressIntensityFactor
(KIc ).
PreviousYearsLowKIc ValueswereUsed
ResultinginNarrowerFractureWidthsand
=70psi)
thusSensitivetoViscosity(
FieldExperimentshaveValidatedLow
ViscousFluidsCanCreateSufficientWidthto
PlaceProppant(WaterfracTreatments)

Net Pressure (psi)

Surf Pressure (psi)

1000
10000

Slurry Rate (bpm)

50

800
8000

40

600
6000

30

400
4000

20

200
2000

10

0
0

0.0

112.0

224.0

336.0

448.0

560.0

Time (min)
Total Frac Ht. (ft)
Slurry Rate (bpm)
Average Width (in)
Frac Length (ft)

200.0
50
0.5
500

Surf Pressure (psi)

Width at Perfs (in)
Net Pressure (psi)

10000
0.5
1000

160.0
40
0.4
400

8000
0.4
800

120.0
30
0.3
300

6000
0.3
600

80.00
20
0.2
200

4000
0.2
400

40.00
10
0.1
100

2000
0.1
200

0.0
0
0.0
0

0.0

122.0

244.0

366.0

488.0

610.0

0
0.0
0

Time (min)

Source:ModelingProvidedbyACBEnergy

Source:SchubarthInc.

Impact of Fracture Length and Number of Stages

hL f Pi Pwf
t

4.064 Bo
k

c
t

1
2

t 948ct ri 2 k

Source:SchubarthInc.

31

Water Based Fracturing Systems

Damage Created by Imbibition/Relative Perm Effects, Clay Swelling and Reducing Shale
Strength in the Near Fracture Area Results in Shorter Effective Fracture Length and Lower
Recoveries
Volume of Frac Fluid Recovered is Proportional to the Effective Frac Length/Height
(Based on Shells Work by Gdanski)

NoFractureInflow

ReservoirInflow

TopView

SideView
EffectiveFractureLength
ProppedFractureLength

Propane as a Stimulation Fluid

No Damage Created in the Near Wellbore, Fracture, or in the Reservoir

Dual Stimulation is Achieved via 1) the Created Fracture and 2) Improved Relative Perm in the
Near Wellbore Area due to Propane Miscibility

TopView

ReservoirInflow
EffectiveFractureLength
ProppedFractureLength

SideView

Impact of Fracture Length and Number of Stages

5 - 200
Created Frac
Length
5 -100
Effective
Frac Length

Top View

Impact of Fracture Length and Number of Stages

Acceleration vs. Incremental
10 X100
Effective Frac
Length
w/Water
5 X100
Effective
Frac Length
w/Water

Top View

Impact of Fracture Length and Number of Stages

Acceleration vs. Incremental

5 X 200
Effective Frac
Length w/LPG
10 X100
Effective Frac
Length
w/Water

Top View

Area of
Incremental
Recovery
Due to
Larger
Effective
Length

IdentifyingtheOptimalCombinationof
FracturingVariables TerranautSimulator

TerranautSimulatorCouplesFracturing,Reservoir,andEconomicModeling
intoaSingleMultivariableModelingTool
Evaluates100sofVariousCompletion/FracturingandReservoirScenarios
Simultaneously
IdentifiestheOptimalCombinationsProvidingtheMostFavorableEconomics

Source:SchubarthInc.

Optimization LessFracStagesCanResult
inMoreProductionandGreaterValue
Current Optimized

Delta

FracStages

13

7Less
Stages

EffectiveFrac
Length (ft)

120

240

120 ft
Longer

WellCost
($MM)

6.1

5.2

$900K Less

Cumulative Gas
(BCF)

4.2

200MMCF
Higher

Return on
Investment(%)

148

182

34%
HigherROI

NPV($MM)

2.9

4.3

$1.4MM
More

Source:SchubarthInc.

OverStimulating(FracStagesInterferingwitheachother)isaWasteofMoney
andDegradesProjectEconomics
AchievingtheLongestMaximumEconomicEffectiveFracLengthisCriticalto
AttainingHigherRecoveryFactorsandReturnsinLowPermeabilityReservoirs

Specialized Proppant Transport Design

Specialized Proppant Transport Design

StokesLaw
VerticalSettlingRate=

where,
g Accelerationduetogravity
Density
d Proppantdiameter
Fluidviscosity

KeyFactors

ProppantSizeVariesasaSquare
FluidViscosity
DensityDifferencebetweentheFracFluidandProppant
StokesLawDoesnotIncorporateDynamicEffectsSuchasTurbulence,Hindered
Settling,WallEffects,Saltation,WhichallBenefitsProppantTransport

Challenge
ReducingGrainSizeReducesProppantConductivity

Pure Propane
Transport Suspension Velocity
Stokes Equation (Vertical Sections)

Vs =(rhop-rhof)*g*Diap2/18*v
rhop = specific gravity of particle
rhof = specific gravity of fluid
Diap = Diameter of particle (cm)
v = fluid viscosity (g/cm-s)
g = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec 2)
1 centimeter / second =
1 centimeter =

values
table
0.51
table
0.0011
980.665
0.03281
10000

(for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)

pure propane
(for Diap between 20 to 100 microns)
pure propane
feet / second
microns

Diameter of Particle
(microns)

Suspension Velocity (ft/s)

Specific Gravity
0.50
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
100
0

of Particle (rhop)
0.75
1.00
0.0016 0.0032
0.0035 0.0072
0.0062 0.0127
0.0097 0.0199
0.0140 0.0287
0.0191 0.0390
0.0250 0.0510
0.0316 0.0645
0.0390 0.0796

1.25
0.0048
0.0108
0.0192
0.0301
0.0433
0.0589
0.0770
0.0974
0.1202

1.50
0.0064
0.0145
0.0257
0.0402
0.0579
0.0788
0.1030
0.1303
0.1609

1.75
0.0081
0.0181
0.0322
0.0504
0.0725
0.0987
0.1290
0.1632
0.2015

2.00
0.0097
0.0218
0.0387
0.0605
0.0872
0.1186
0.1550
0.1961
0.2421

2.25
0.0113
0.0254
0.0452
0.0707
0.1018
0.1385
0.1810
0.2290
0.2827

2.50
0.0129
0.0291
0.0517
0.0808
0.1164
0.1584
0.2070
0.2619
0.3234

2.75
0.0146
0.0328
0.0582
0.0910
0.1310
0.1784
0.2330
0.2948
0.3640

3.00
0.0162
0.0364
0.0647
0.1012
0.1457
0.1983
0.2590
0.3277
0.4046

Pure Propane
Transport Suspension Velocity
Durand Equation (Horizontal Sections)
http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2000263/tr2000263.html

1/6

vt= F[2g(s-1)D] (dp/D)

F = constant between .4 and 1.5
s = rhop/rhof
rhof = specific gravity of fluid
rhop = specific gravity of particle
D = pipe diameter (in)
D = pipe diameter (cm)
dp = particle diameter (cm)
g = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec 2 )
1 centimeter / second =
1 centimeter =

values
1.5
0.51
table
6.0
15.24
table
980.665
0.03281
10000

pure propane
(for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)

(for dp between 20 to 100 microns)

feet / second
microns

Diameter of Particle
(microns)

Suspension Velocity (ft/s)

Specific Gravity
0.50
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
100
0

of Particle (rhop)
0.75
1.00
1.3157 1.8800
1.4077 2.0115
1.4769 2.1103
1.5328 2.1902
1.5801 2.2578
1.6213 2.3166
1.6577 2.3687
1.6906 2.4156
1.7205 2.4584

1.25
2.3104
2.4719
2.5933
2.6916
2.7746
2.8468
2.9109
2.9686
3.0212

1.50
2.6723
2.8591
2.9995
3.1132
3.2093
3.2928
3.3669
3.4336
3.4945

1.75
2.9907
3.1998
3.3570
3.4842
3.5917
3.6852
3.7681
3.8428
3.9109

2.00
3.2784
3.5076
3.6799
3.8193
3.9371
4.0396
4.1305
4.2124
4.2870

2.25
3.5428
3.7904
3.9766
4.1273
4.2546
4.3654
4.4636
4.5521
4.6327

2.50
3.7887
4.0536
4.2527
4.4138
4.5500
4.6684
4.7735
4.8681
4.9544

2.75
4.0197
4.3007
4.5119
4.6829
4.8274
4.9530
5.0645
5.1649
5.2564

3.00
4.2381
4.5343
4.7571
4.9373
5.0896
5.2221
5.3396
5.4455
5.5419

Heptafluoropropane
Transport Suspension Velocity
Stokes Equation (Vertical Sections)

Vs =(rhop-rhof)*g*Diap2/18*v
rhop = specific gravity of particle
rhof = specific gravity of fluid
Diap = Diameter of particle (cm)
v = fluid viscosity (g/cm-s)
g = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec 2)
1 centimeter / second =
1 centimeter =

values
table
1.42
table
0.0028
980.665
0.03281
10000

(for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)

(for Diap between 20 to 100 microns)

feet / second
microns

Diameter of Particle
(microns)

Suspension Velocity (ft/s)

Specific Gravity of Particle (rhop)
0.50
0.75
1.00
20
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
90
0
0
0
100
0
0
0

1.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.50
0.0002
0.0005
0.0008
0.0013
0.0018
0.0025
0.0033
0.0041
0.0051

1.75
0.0008
0.0019
0.0034
0.0053
0.0076
0.0103
0.0135
0.0171
0.0211

2.00
0.0015
0.0033
0.0059
0.0093
0.0133
0.0181
0.0237
0.0300
0.0370

2.25
0.0021
0.0048
0.0085
0.0132
0.0191
0.0260
0.0339
0.0429
0.0530

2.50
0.0028
0.0062
0.0110
0.0172
0.0248
0.0338
0.0441
0.0558
0.0689

2.75
0.0034
0.0076
0.0136
0.0212
0.0306
0.0416
0.0543
0.0688
0.0849

3.00
0.0040
0.0091
0.0161
0.0252
0.0363
0.0494
0.0646
0.0817
0.1009

Heptafluoropropane
Transport Suspension Velocity
Durand Equation (Horizontal Sections)
http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2000263/tr2000263.html

1/6

vt= F[2g(s-1)D] (dp/D)

F = constant between .4 and 1.5
s = rhop/rhof
rhof = specific gravity of fluid
rhop = specific gravity of particle
D = pipe diameter (in)
D = pipe diameter (cm)
dp = particle diameter (cm)
g = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec 2 )
1 centimeter / second =
1 centimeter =

values
1.5
1.42
table
6.0
15.24
table
980.665
0.03281
10000

(for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)

(for dp between 20 to 100 microns)

feet / second
microns

Diameter of Particle
(microns)

Suspension Velocity (ft/s)

Specific Gravity of Particle (rhop)
0.50
0.75
1.00
20
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
90
0
0
0
100
0
0
0

1.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.50
0.4553
0.4871
0.5110
0.5304
0.5467
0.5610
0.5736
0.5850
0.5953

1.75
0.9246
0.9893
1.0379
1.0772
1.1104
1.1393
1.1650
1.1880
1.2091

2.00
1.2258
1.3115
1.3759
1.4281
1.4721
1.5104
1.5444
1.5750
1.6029

2.25
1.4664
1.5689
1.6460
1.7083
1.7610
1.8069
1.8475
1.8841
1.9175

2.50
1.6727
1.7896
1.8775
1.9487
2.0088
2.0611
2.1075
2.1493
2.1873

2.75
1.8562
1.9860
2.0836
2.1625
2.2292
2.2872
2.3387
2.3851
2.4273

3.00
2.0232
2.1646
2.2710
2.3570
2.4297
2.4930
2.5491
2.5996
2.6456

Comparing Settling Rates between Pure LPG and Slickwater

PureLPG
MeshSize ProppantSG
175(81)
Sand
270(53)
Sand
270
1
270
0.6
270
0.54

Settling
Velocity
ft/s
0.1592
0.0965
0.0288
0.0038
0.000

Relativeto
Settlingin
Slickwater

LPGisSlower
NoSettling

Assumptions:
Pure LPG Density = .54 g/cc
Pure LPG Viscosity = .08 cP
Water Density = 1.0 g/cc
Slickwater Viscosity = 10 cP
No Turbulent Suspension Benefits
Considered
Conclusion:
Effective Proppant Transport can be
Achieved with Lightweight Proppant in
Pure LPG

Slickwater
MeshSize
20/30
20/40
40/70
40/70
40/70

Proppant
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand

Settling
Velocity
ft/s
.208 .104
.208 .047
.047 .013
.047 .013
.047 .014

Proppant Dimension Considerations

Why Small Grains Can withstand Higher Loads without Failing

Bed of Nails Principle

Cubic Packing Yields the Highest Porosity

thus Providing the Least Amount of
Contact Points for Distributing the Load
For 30 Mesh Particles
Dia = .0232 or 595 microns
Cubic Packing = 1849 grains (432) per in2

Cubic Packing

For 270 Mesh Particles

Dia = .0021 or 53 microns
Cubic Packing = 226,576 grains (4762) per
in2
270 Mesh Particles Provide 122 Times
more Contact Points

Example at 8000 psi Closure

30 Mesh Particles = 4.3 lbf per grain
270 Mesh Particles = .035 lbf per grain

Permeability &Tri-Axial Screening at Fugro Mechanics Lab

Capable of 8 Permeability and 30 Tri-Axial Tests

Simultaneously
Computer Controlled Load Frames and Pressure Pumps
Multi-Stage / Multi-Direction Tests Performed
High Confining Stress Capability to 3 MPa
Un-drained, Drained, Creep, Stress Path & Extension Loading
Internal Force Measurements

www.fugro.com

Why Proppants That Did Not Work in the Past Might Work Today

Infinite Conductivity is Achieved as Fcd Approaches 30

PastReservoirs

TodaysShaleReservoirs

Formation Perm=.1md(tightgas)

Formation Perm=.00005md(50nanodarcies)

FracLengths=300ft

FracLengths=300ft

Small SizeProppantsPerm=58md

Smaller SizeProppantsPerm=58md

Fcd ~ 0(noeffectivestimulation)

Proppant Conductivity=.48mdft

MinimumProppantPermRequired for
InfiniteConductivity =100Darcies (833
mdft)!

BUTFcd =30+InfiniteConductiveFracture
(IdealFracturePerformance)

One Example: High Strength Hollow Glass Bubble

True
Product Density
(g/cc)

ParticleSize(microns)

Isostatic
Strength
(psi)

10%<

50%<

90%<

Max

Avg.Wall
Thickness
(microns)

S60

0.6

10,000

15

30

55

55

1.49

iM16K

0.46

16,000

12

20

30

40

0.72

S60HS

0.6

18,000

11

30

50

60

1.09

iM30K

0.6

28,000

16

25

29

0.70

Non-Crystalline Borosilicate Glass

Softening Temperature 600 C
Water Resistant
Various Coatings are Available
Current Oil Field Application in
Drilling Fluids and Cements
Primarily Used in Injection Molding
as Filler and Weight Reduction

Data and Photos from 3M Advance Materials Division

Conclusions
Pure Propane Stimulation and Non-Flammable Propane could offer
a compelling alternative to tradition water-based fracturing
methods.
Beneficial Characteristics Should Include:

No water consumption
No water disposal or associated seismicity risks
No chemicals or additives
Fewer trucks and smaller environmental footprint
New proppant designs and improved proppant transport in fracture
Increased fracture length and more complex fractures
Improved relative permeability near wellbore
Increased reservoir recoveries

Business Drivers for Fracturing with Propane / NFP

1. Rapidly Achieving Maximum Production Rates
Minimal to No Clean-Up Period of Non-Hydrocarbon Fluids
2. Reducing Negative Environmental Costs and Exposure
No Water
Reduced Emissions
Less Truck Traffic
3. Maximizing the Gas Recovery and Achieving it Sooner
Larger Effective Stimulated Reservoir Volumes
4. Greater NPVs
Larger Drainage Areas, Less Wells, Lower Cost to Find and Develop
Competitive Advantage
Requirements for Success
1. Ensure Safe Operations throughout the Completion Procedure
Building upon 100+ Years of Propane History
2. Job Execution
Fracture Geometry and Proppant Transport
Flawless Pumping Procedures and Operations
Timing of the Completion Phrasing
3. Cost Effective
Successful Capture and Re-Use

Commercialization The companies expect to deploy their field services and environmentally sound
technologies in Europe, and globally, to develop eCORPs portfolio of E&P assets as well as to provide
the services to any and all third parties. IP and patent filings have been completed for the processes,
mechanicals and protocols worldwide.

eCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC

eCORP SERVICES

DRILLING (CTD/SHD)
eCOREX

STIMULATION T ECHNOLOGY
ecorpStim

_________________________________
John Francis Thrash Chairman & CEO
eCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC
10000 Memorial Drive
Second Floor
Houston Texas 77024
Office 713.520.0993
jfthrash@ecorpintl.com
www.ecorpintl.com
www.ecorpstim.com

OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES