Study on the Mechanism of Microbial Removal for Fracturing Fluid Residue in Formation

  • Lei Guanglun
  • Wang ZhihuiEmail author
  • Ma Xin
  • Da Qian
  • Zhang Xin
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)


Hydraulic fracturing is the necessary technology to develop unconventional oil and gas reservoirs such as low permeability reservoirs and ultra-low permeability reservoirs. However, during the fracturing process, the residue after gel breaking can seriously block the oil and gas seepage channel which is an important cause of formation damage. This paper intends to explore the mechanism of microbial removal of fracturing fluid residue by microbial reduction and decompression. In order to study the mechanism of the microbial removal for fracturing fluid residue, some experimental researches were carried on as the following: ① The microorganism was isolated from formation water which is able to utilize guar gum as a sole carbon source. ② The residue was collected, and biodegradation experiments were carried out. ③ The changes of residue quality and particle size during the biodegradation process were analyzed by macroscopic gravimetric method and microscopic laser particle size method to explain the mechanism of removal of formation damage. The results showed that: (1) With the increase of microbial biodegradation time, the degradation rate of fracturing fluid residue is up to 36.73%. It indicated that the microorganism used in this paper can use the guar residue as a sole carbon source for microbial growth and can reduce the total amount of fracturing fluid residue in the formation. (2) The particle size of fracturing fluid residue decreased with the increase of biodegradation time, and the median particle diameter decreases by more than 60%. The research results provide a theoretical basis for the removal of fracturing fluid residue by microorganisms.


Low permeability Fracturing fluid residue Damage clogging Microbial biodegradation 


  1. 1.
    Clark JB (1949) Ahydraulic process for increasing the productivity of wells. J Petrol Technol 1(1):1–8MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruizhong J, Tingxue J, Yongli W (2004) Recent development and prospect of hydraulic fracturing technology. Pet Drilling Prod Technol 26(4):52–57Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guangsheng C, Yingxin L, Mingbiao Z et al (2006) Evaluation of three kinds of fracturing fluid performance and analysis of reservoir damage. J Northeast Pet Univ 30(6):34–36Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Junli W, Fushan C, Zhong L (2003) The nature and application of guanidine and modified guanidine. Paper Paper 01:56–57Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beicheng X (2002) Biobiodegradation of environmental pollutants. Chemical Industry Press, Environmental Science and Engineering Publishing Center, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bin Z (2014) Microbiology experiment. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kovárovákovar K, Egli T (1998) Growth kinetics of suspended microbial cells: from single-substrate-controlled growth to mixed-substrate kinetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62(3):646Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liwei W, Chuanxiao M, Mingyue C et al (2007) Effect of fracturing fluid residue and proppant embedding on crack damage. Drill Fluid Completion Fluid 24(5):59–61Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Danfeng X, Youqi W, Zhiquan M, et al (2014) Experimental study of modified guar gum fracturing fluid on reservoir damage. Oil recovery engineering volume fourth, volume firstGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu P, Zhang L, Xing X, et al (2014) Damage characteristics of guar gum fracturing fluid to reservoirs. Oilfield Chem 31(3):334–338Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lei Guanglun
    • 1
  • Wang Zhihui
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ma Xin
    • 1
  • Da Qian
    • 1
  • Zhang Xin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Petroleum EngineeringChina University of PetroleumQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations