SPE 135669

Best Practices for Candidate Selection, Design and Evaluation of Hydraulic

Fracture Treatments
A.N. Martin, BJ Services and Michael J. Economides, University of Houston

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Tunis, Tunisia, 8 10 June 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright .

Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing is a well-established completion technique, most notably in the tight and unconventional gas reservoirs of
North America. Although still not nearly as prevalent, fracturing is the completion method of choice throughout the world,
providing unparalleled contact between the reservoir and the wellbore. Placing a fracture means that it takes less energy to
move the oil or gas from the reservoir to the wellbore. Flow rates are increased dramatically and reservoirs can be depleted to
significantly lower pressures prior to abandonment. The process is accomplished by physically breaking the formation apart
with extreme pressure and then placing a highly conductive and crush-resistant material (proppant) inside the fracture.
Subsequently, oil and gas will flow through the propped fracture and into the wellbore. Because the propping material has a
permeability that is orders of magnitude greater than the formation, virtually all flow passes from the reservoir into the fracture
and then along the fracture into the well. The hydraulic fracture length can reach significant distances into the formation,
providing the inflow area that is essential to the production of gas from tight and unconventional formations, although
remarkable results can also be achieved from medium- and high-permeability reservoirs.
Although fracturing is often perceived as a technique for low-permeability reservoirs or remediation of mature fields, the
best results are achieved from the best wells. One 100-md oil reservoir, effectively fractured, will produce the equivalent of 20
to 30 massive fracture treatments in 1-md reservoirs - and this factor increases to 50 to 70 for gas wells, due to the mitigation
of turbulence within the reservoir.
This paper is concerned with the processes of candidate selection, treatment design and treatment evaluation, and in
particular with the best practices that help optimise these procedures, including measurements that make fracturing more
successful, wellbore design, treatment design techniques and materials selection. Finally, the paper will consider how these
processes may subsequently evolve.
Introduction
Most propped hydraulic fracture treatment candidate wells are selected with little or no involvement of basic scientific and
engineering principles. Usually, candidates are selected by a combination of thats what everyone does in this area, the
offset well had a good result, but unfortunately more often than not, this well is really underperforming, so it needs a frac
job. This latter approach is particularly unsatisfactory and it is a remnant of the now old belief that hydraulic fracturing is for
low permeability reservoirs, poor quality intervals or for the marginal areas of certain fields.
Whilst it is certainly true that results from offsets can be highly indicative and that there is no substitute for experience
gained by others in similar formations, it is also true that the application of a few basic processes can dramatically increase
both the success rate and the size of production increase per well. This is especially true of regions and formations where there
is little or no experience of hydraulic fracturing such as in vast areas of the oil and gas industry outside of North America.
Candidate Selection
The first step in the process is to select the best candidate wells for fracturing. This is not as straightforward as it seems, even
in tight or shale gas areas where at first glance all wells may be candidates. The task of the candidate selection process is not
only to ensure that there is potential for an increase in productivity index (J), but also to ensure that this increase is sustainable,
maximised, economically justifiable and is not accompanied by significant volumes of unwanted water or gas (in the case of
an oil well). Thus, it is useful and indicated to rank wells in a field on the basis of the expected incremental production.

SPE 135669

Skin Factor and Dimensionless Productivity Index

Most industry production engineers are familiar with the concept of skin factor (s) as first rationalised by van Everdingen
and Hurst (1949). The skin factor is usually evaluated from a pressure build-up (PBU) test, using Eq. 1, once radial flow is
detected in the well test. In Eq. 1, which is in field units, p1hr is the pressure 1 hour after the shut-in (psi), pwf is the flowing
bottom hole pressure just prior to the shut-in (psi), m is the slope of the semi-log pressure build-up plot (psi/log10 cycle), k is
the formation permeability (md), is the porosity (fraction), is the fluid viscosity (cp) and rw is the wellbore radius (ft).

p1hr pwf

s 1.151
log10

3
.
23
2
m

cr
w

(1)

The skin factor can be introduced into any radial flow equation, such as the expression for steady-state oil production, to
give the familiar Eq. 2.

khp
.
141.2 B lnre rw s

(2)

As a quick and dirty first-pass candidate selection procedure, it is often useful to substitute values of s ranging from -5 to
-7 into Eq. 2 to provide an idea of post-treatment production. Use -5 if there is little or no history of fracturing in a formation
or when most parameters are uncertain, and use -7 when fracturing in a formation with an extensive history of successful
treatments. Remember that this equation is a rough approximation only, as it applies to radial, steady-state flow, something
that rarely occurs post-treatment.
The productivity index, J, is the ratio of the production rate divided by the pressure difference and for the steady-state case:

q
kh

p 141.2 B lnre rw s

(3)

The productivity index is a generalized expression for each well, allowing comparisons from different formations or well
architecture with evaluation independent of drawdown, which can often vary considerably from well to well. Taking this one
step further, Equations 4 to 6 define a dimensionless productivity index, JD (Diyashev and Economides, 2005), which can be
used to compare and evaluate the productivity from any wells, not just those in similar formations and with similar wellbore
architecture.

JD

141.2 JB
kh

(4)

and therefore for vertical wells:

JD

1
lnre rw s

for steady state

(5)

1
lnre rw 0.75 s

for pseudo-steady state

(6)

and

JD

It should be noted that although Eqs. 2 through 4 are written for oil wells, they can be easily applied to gas wells by
substituting gas pseudo-pressure, m(p), for pressure and by changing 141.2B by 1424T. The rate is then in Mscf/d.
Equations 5 and 6 are universal.
The dimensionless productivity index provides a very easy and quick method for identifying underperforming wells and
allowing comparison between wells of any type or charctertistic. Obviously, the maximum JD for any unstimulated well
(JDmax) will be when s = 0. Therefore, by comparing actual JD with the JDmax, an assessment of the well or interval production
impairement (or stimulation) can be made. The method is independent of pressure, viscosity, net height, permeability, drainage
radius or wellbore geometry.

SPE 135669

The theoretical maximum production from a single fractured well (JfDmax) in a closed (no-flow boundary) box is relatively
simple and is given by (Valk and Economides, 1996):-

J fD max 6

1.909

(7)

The result of Eq. 7 is for a fully developed linear flow from the reservoir into the fracture, clearly the most efficient way
for fractured well production. Therefore, by comparing the actual JD with the value that would be obtained by pushing the
limits of fracturing, any group of wells can be quickly ranked in order of the greatest potential for fracture stimulation.
However, be cautious when using this approach. JfDmax is a theoretical number and is often a long way from being pratically
acheivable. So whilst comparing JD and JfDmax provides a good way of ranking wells and intervals relative to each other, the
actual treatment that is practically achievable and economically justifiable may produce post-treatment productivity that is
significantly less than the theorectical maximum (see below). A good example of the use of dimensionless productivity index
for candidate selection can be found in Rueda et al., (2005).
So now we have a method for identifying and ranking suitable candidates for hydraulic fracture stimulation. However, up
to this point, the exercise has been largely theoretical. Just because a well has a large potential increase in JD doesnt
necessarily mean that it is a good candidate for fracturing. For instance, two intervals with similar pre- and post-treatment JDs
may have dramatically different post-treatment production due to differences in net height, permeability and/or reservoir
pressure. Therefore, in addition to ranking potential candidates by increase in JD, it is also necessary to take a step back from
the thoeretical and rank them according to their maximum potential post-treatment Jf.
Nodal Analysis, first described by Mach et al. (1979) has become a very widely-used technique for modelling the pressure
contribution of a producing interval, incorporating the three segments of flow through the porous medium, flow through
vertical or directional conduit and flow through a horizontal pipe. The technque uses up to 8 nodes along the production
system. Mach et al. defined a node as a place where .a pressure differential exists across it and the pressure or flow rate
response can be represented by some mathematical or physical function. The idea behind nodal analysis is that if reliable data
exists at one node (such as the production separator) it is possible to calculate pressure and rate data at all other nodes. Modern
nodal anaylsis software packages allow a simple fracture to be placed in the formation, with input data for length, width and
proppant permeability. Using this, it is possible to estimate post-treatment productivity and perform a sensitivity analysis for
fracture length and propped width, allowing fracture dimensions to be optimised. A good example of the use of nodal analysis
can be found in Meng et al. (1982).
Practical Limitations on Candidate Selection
Frequently, the main limitations to candidate selection are not the technical aspects of reservoir and fracture performance.
Instead, more mundane reasons may cause an interval or a wellbore to be rejected as a candidate for hydraulic fracturing, as
listed below, in no particular order:1.

2.

3.

Proximity to Water Contacts. In general, fracturing into a water zone has a detrimental effect on post-treatment
performance. The industry is full of anecdotal evidence for this, although for obvious reasons it is rare for
engineers to publish when this occurs. Systems exist for mitigating the effects of water zone penetration, such as
incorporating relative permeability modifiers into the fracturing fluid (dos Santos et al., 2005, Mahajan et al.,
2006) or the use of proppant systems that will preferentially prop open the top of the fracture (dos Santos et al.,
2009). Nevertheless, a substantial increase in water production often at the expense of oil or even gas production
is almost inevitable when this happens. Proximity to a water contact is often the reason for rejecting a potential
candidate entirely, or for reducing the size of a treatment - which in turn can significantly reduce post-treatment
performance and may consequently lead to candidate rejection. Unfortunately, in companies with little fracturing
experience, water phobia - even when the water will be produced in demonstrably small quantities - may be a
factor in rejecting good fracturing candidates. Remember also that the position of the contact can move
significantly over the life of a well; old wireline logs cannot be trusted.
Proximity to Gas Contacts. In oil reservoirs, fractures can just as easily penetrate upward into a gas contact as
they can penetrate downward into a water contact. The main difference is that few methods exist to mitigate gas
production under these circumstances. As for water contacts, the proximity to a gas contact in an oil reservoir can
lead to candidate rejection or severe limitation of treatment size.
Completion Pressure Limitations. There is no escaping the fact that fracturing requires significantly greater
pressures than the completion will experience duing normal cycles of production and shut-in. In addition to
checking the pressure limitations of wellbore tubulars (casing and tubing), particular attention should be paid to
completion jewelry such as gas lift mandrels and valves, sliding side doors, subsurface safety valves and flow
control devices. Another issue is the packer hydraulics: Additional pressure on the inside of the completion can
result in a net upward force on the packer, and the engineer must ensure that it will not become unseated or move
up the wellbore. Many of these problems can be mitigated by placing pressure on the annulus side of the
completion or treating string, thus reducing pressure differential and net upward force on the packer. However, it

SPE 135669

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

is not always possible to place sufficient pressure in the annulus, for a variety of reasons. When calculating,
remember to use the worst-case scenario a screenout with a wellbore full of high-concentration slurry.
Tubing Contraction. Two factors will cause the tubing to contract in length: additional internal pressure and
cooldown caused by the relatively cold treatment fluids. The engineer must ensure that this does not cause
unacceptible stress on the tubing and packer, or depending upon the type of completion cause the seal
assembly to disconnect from the production packers polished bore.
Wellhead Pressure Limitations. Many production wellheads will not withstand the pressures required for
fracturing. To counter this, it is common practice to use a wellhead isolation tool (or treesaver) or to replace the
wellhead with a special frac tree. Both of these options add time and expense to the operation.
Poor-Quality Tubulars. Tubulars with damage from corrosion, erosion or mechanical effects can often prevent a
treatment from being performed, due to their inability to withstand the increased stresses. Damaged tubing can
usually be replaced (at the additional cost of a workover), but damaged casing can be much more costly and
problematic to rectify.
Poor-Quality Cement Bond. There are a lot of misconcenptions regarding poor quality cement bonds and
fracturing. In short, a cement bond is required to promote zonal isolation, so that the fracture initiates where the
perforations are and not somewhere else. So as long as there is sufficient cement bond above and below the zone
of interest, that is sufficient. Microannuli are not a problem, as they will be squeezed shut by the internal pressure
on the casing.
Inability to Recover, Recycle or Dispose of Treatment Fluids. Post-treatment fracturing fluid recovery is a vital
part of the process, and treatments should not be attempted if the treatment fluids cannot be recovered and
somehow disposed of.

In addition, several factors can significantly increase the cost of a treatment and, occasionally, may make the process
difficult to justify financially. Again, these are listed in no particular order:1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Formation Fluid Sensitivity. Many formations are sensitive to water-based fluids and some (especially dry gas
formations) are sensitive to any fluids whatsover. Systems exist to bypass or mitigate these problems, but they
will usually lead to substantially increased treatment costs, especially if the infrastructure does not exist locally.
Zonal Isolation. Ideally, fracturing treatments need to be performed through single perforated intervals, or
through openhole sections of limited length. Usually this is relatively easy to accomplish on new wells, but for
existing wells, some kind of intervention may be required, often substantially increasing overall costs.
Inability to Perform Workovers. Most existing wells require some kind of workover before fracturing can be
effectively applied. It is very rare to find an existing well that has a completion and perforating strategy that is
condusive to fracture and which has not already been fractured. Consequently, these wells will require some kind
of intervention. If this is not possible, such as with a limited facilities offshore structure, the well may have to be
rejected as a fracturing candidate.
Lack of Fracturing Infrastructure. In many parts of the world without an existing fracturing infrastructure
(including all the support infrastructure, such as frac tanks, water supply, treesavers, fluid recovery and disposal
services, workover rigs, well testing equipment, wireline services, proppant suppliers, N2 and CO2 suppliers, etc.),
the cost of establishing even the minimum necessary infrastructure can be prohibitive, especially for a small scope
of work.
Well Location. Obviously, some wells are easier (and hence cheaper) to treat than others. The classic example of
this is the offshore environment, where wells have to be orders of magnitude more prolific than for land locations.
However, remote land locations with poor vehicular access and limited space can also be very problematic.
High-Pressure/High-Temperature (HPHT) Considerations. As with everything to do with HPHT formations,
fracturing becomes much more expensive and hence the wells have to be much more prolific for fracturing to be
economically justifiable. There are clear dividing lines as to what consitutes HPHT. For pressure, the barrier is
15,000 psi surface treating pressure (STP). Most fracturing equipment is rated to 15,000 psi, or can be easily
adapted to cope with this maximum. Above 15,000 psi, highly specialised equipment is required which is
normally made to order. Another pressure limitation is the closure stress on the proppant. The strongest proppant
available (sintered bauxite) is usually only suitable to about 14,000 psi - above this proppant permeability and
fracture conductivity rapidly decrease, resulting in much poorer post-treatment performance. As for temperature,
once the bottom hole static temperature (BHST) rises above the region of 350 to 370 F, speciality fluid systems
are required, increasing costs dramatically.

SPE 135669

JfD

JD

The Best Wells Are The Best Candidates for Fracturing

Too often, especially in countries and regions inexperienced with the hydraulic fracturing process, the technique is seen as
entirely a remedial process, to be used as a last resort on dramatically underperforming wells. In reality, far more production
gain can be obtained from fracturing one really good well than from treating dozens of poor wells.
For example, consider a hydraulic fracture
12
treatment on a vertical well that places 200,000 lb of
150,000-md proppant (SG = 2.65, = 0.38). Given a
10
net height of 50 ft, fracture height of 100 ft, a
drainage area of 320 acres and a wellbore radius of
4 in., Figure 1 shows the expected folds of increase
8
in dimensionless productivity index against
permeability (after Economides and Martin, 2007).
On the face of it, the 1-md reservoir gives a much
6
better result than the 100-md reservoir: JfD/JD of 5.2
against JfD/JD of 2.0, respectively. However, its not
4
quite that simple, as the 100-md reservoir is already
much more prolific and a 2-fold increase in
productivity counts for far more production than a
2
5.2-fold increase in the 1-md reservoir.
Assuming a fluid viscosity of 5 cp and a
0
drawdown of 500 psi in both cases, before and after
0.1
1.0
10
100
fracturing, the 1-md well increases in productivity by
16.3 STB/d, while the 100-md well increases in
Reservoir Permeability, md
productivity by 389 STB/d (assuming pre-treatment
Figure 1 Example illustrating the potential folds of increase in JD
skin = 0). So for similar per treatment costs, it would
from fracturing a vertical oil well, against reservoir permeabilty (after
take 24 treatments in wells with 1-md formations to
Economides and Martin, 2007).
give the same net oil gain as a single treatment in a
100-md formation. This difference would be even more pronounced in a gas formation, where mitigating turbulent flow effects
in the 100-md formation by the propped fracture, would increase the expected JfD/JD from 2 to 15!
Optimum Propped Fracture Dimensions
Over the last two decades, the fracturing industry has moved a long way beyond defining a good job as something that
results in a production increase. Today, it is not enough simply to increase production fracturing is a very robust process and
an increase in productivity is relatively easy to achieve. Instead, the industry has moved toward achieving the maximum
possible increase in productivity, within the practical and economic contraints of the real world.
This means fracture optimisation the process of obtaining the optimum combination of proppant selection, propped
fracture length and propped fracture width.
Proppant Number and Optimum Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD, is a commonly used variable in the fracturing industry and is defined by the wellknown equation:-

C fD

wave k f

(8)

xf k

where wave is the average propped fracture width and xf is the propped fracture half length (i.e. the distance from the center of
the wellbore to the tip of the propped fracture). What Equation 8 represents is the ability of the fracture to deliver fluids to the
wellbore, divided by the ability of the formation to deliver fluids to the fracture. In order to obtain the maximum possible
production increase, there must be careful balance between these two i.e. there is an optimum value of CfD that the fracture
must be designed for.
Economides et al. (2002) developed the principles of Unified Fracture Design (UFD) and introduced the concept of a
dimensionless proppant number, or Np. This was defined as follows:-

2x f
N p
re

C fD

(radial flow system)

(9)

SPE 135669

2x f
N p
xe

C fD

(square drainage, area = xe2)

(10)

Rearranging and substituting in Equation 8 gives the following results:-

Np

4k f x f w

Np

4k f x f w

re k
2

xe k

4k f x f w h

4k f x f w h

re hk
2

xe hk

4k f V f

4k f V f

kVres

kVres

(radial flow system)

(11)

(square drainage, area = xe2)

(12)

Eqs. 11 and 12 show that the Proppant Number is the ratio of two volumes, that of the proppant pack (one wing) Vf, and the
reservoir, Vres, adjusted by two permeabilities, that of the proppant pack and that of the reservoir. UFD tells us that for every
combination of proppant and formation permeability, for a given proppant volume, there is a specific combination of propped
fracture half length and average propped width that will produce the maximum post-treatment productivity. This optimum
combination of length and width is described by the optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfDopt, as defined in
Equations 13 to 15.

C fDopt 1.6
C fDopt 1.6 e

C fDopt N p

0.5831.48 ln N p

1 0.142 ln N p

for Np < 0.1

(13)

for 0.1 Np 10

(14)

for Np > 10

(15)

CfDopt

100
Given that there is an inverse relationship
between formation permeability and proppant
number, Equations 13 to 15 tells us that for mediumto high-permeability formations, treatments should
be designed for a CfD of 1.6. At lower permeabilities
the relationship becomes more complex, but there is
10
still an optimum CfD that will produce maximum
productivity. This is represented in Figure 2. As
discussed above, CfDopt represents the optimum
combination of length and width, which is
independent of treatment volume. In general, the
bigger the treatment, the greater the production
1
increase provided this optimum combination is
maintained.
Low Permeability
Medium to High Permeability
The importance of obtaining reliable data for the
formation permeability cannot be overstated. The
entire process of fracture optimisation is based on the
0.1
permeability of the formation, and usually any time
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
and effort spent in determining this value is time and
N
p
effort well-spent. The best source of permeability
Figure 2 Relationship between proppant number and optimum
data is a pressure- or rate-transient test, as this
dimensionless fracture conductivity (from Martin, 2009).
provides an overall average producing permeability
and also measures deep into the reservoir (over similar distances to the penetration of the fracture).
Obviously, there are times when obtaining relevant permeability data is impractical or impossible very low-permeability
formations that barely flow prior to fracturing and stratified formations with large permeability contrasts are two examples. In

SPE 135669

such formations, the process of fracture optimisation is considerably more difficult and consequently relies much more on
offset data.
Fractured Well Dimensionless Productivity Index
Once the optimum fracture dimensions have been defined, the Proppant Number can also be used to define the maximum
fractured well dimensionless productivity index, as a function of proppant number, JfDmax(Np), as follows (Economides and
Martin, 2007):-

1
0.990 0.5 ln N p

J fD max ( N p ) 6 e

0.4230.311N p 0.089 N 2p

2
1 0.667 N p 0.015 N p

Equations 16 and 17 give the engineer a powerful

tool to assess treatment design and execution. First,
by compairing JfDmax(Np) with JfDmax (Eq. 7), the
effectiveness of the treatment design can be assessed.
It is often useful to make a plot of JfDmax(Np) divided
by JfDmax against treatment size, as illustrated in
Figure 3. This clearly shows that for this example,
there is little to be gained by placing a treatment
larger than 400,000 lb, assuming that CfDopt is
maintained.
Second, by comparing the measured posttreatment JfD to the theoretical JfDmax(Np) for that
treatment, it is possible to assess the overall
effectiveness of the fracture simulation, materials
selection and fracturing operations. This will be
discussed in greater detail below.

for Np 0.1

(16)

for Np 0.1

(17)

1.0

0.8

0.6

JfDmax(Np)
JfDmax

J fD max ( N p )

0.4

0.2

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Practical Limitations to Treatment Design

Treatment Size, 1000s lbs
Figure 3 demonstrates an important principle in
Figure
3

Plot
of
treatment
size against the ratio of JfDmax(Np) over
fracturing. Whilst bigger fractures will generally
J
fDmax, illustrating that for this example there is little to be gained from
produce bigger production increases, provided CfDopt
pumping a treatment of greater than 400,000 lbs.
is maintained, there are diminishing returns to be
gained from increasing treatment size. In Figure 3 the point of diminishing returns appears to be in the region of 300,000 to
400,000 lb of proppant, a value that varies with formation permeability. With reference to Figure 3, higher permeability will
shift this point to the left (i.e. smaller treatments) whilst lower permeability will shift this point to the right. This is in line with
industry intuition that low-permeability formations require much longer fractures than high-permeability formations. This
principle of permeability-related diminishing returns is best illustrated in the well-known work of McGuire and Sikora (1960).
Unfortunately, Figure 3 is a rather blunt instrument with which to assess the maximum effective treatment size. Proppant
volume is used in this figure, as this is a common gauge for treatment size. However, what we really need to look at is fracture
half length (xf). Figure 3 has a pronounced curve because fracture length does not vary linearly with proppant volume.
Remembering that CfDopt must be maintained, then as fracture length increases, so do width and height. Consequently, if there
are no barriers to height growth, proppant volume is proportional to the cube of the fracture half length. In practice, because
hydraulic fractures often encounter at least partial barriers to height growth, doubling the fracture length will increase proppant
volume between 4 and 8 times, together with a corresponding increase in fluid volume. This means that doubling the propped
fracture half length which at best will only double the post-treatment productivity and may produce substantially less folds of
increase could easily make the treatment 8 times more expensive. However, if the production increase is large enough, the
increase in treatment size and cost may still be justified. A net present value (NPV) analysis is the best way to assess this.
Ideally, the engineer should pump the maximum treatment size that will produce an economically justifiable production
increase. However, more mundane factors often limit or reduce the size of treatment that can be performed:1.

Expense. In spite of the above, the well operator may still be working on a fixed budget, regardless of the fact that
an increased treatment volume is economically justifiable and technically possible. In such cases, the maximum
treatment volume is fixed by the amount of money that can be spent. Under these circumstances, it is often
tempting to use poorer-quality materials in order to be able to purchase larger quantities, especially for proppant.

SPE 135669

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Generally, this is not advisable, unless specific testing has been used to assess the impact of this reduction in job
quality.
Equipment Limitations. Often, the treatment is limited by the equipment available, especially in more remote
locations. Usually this means limited proppant and/or fluid storage capacity, but can also be caused by insufficient
pumping capability. In many cases especially in low-permeability formations this means that the treatment
will simply be the biggest that the equipment can manage.
Maximum Pressure Limitations. In order for a fracture to propagate, the volume of slurry being pumped into the
fracture must exceed the leakoff rate, which is proportional to the area of the fracture (i.e. the square of the
fracture half length, provided the fracture continues to gain height in net pay). This is not a problem in lowpermeability formations, but in high-permeability formations and/or formations with natural fractures, it is quite
possible to reach a point where the leakoff rate equals the slurry rate and the fracture ceases to grow. The only
option at this point is to increase the pumping rate. However, as fracturing fluids usually have significant friction
pressure, increasing the rate can often result in a disproportionate rise in wellbore and surface treatment pressure.
If this additional pressure exceeds maximum working pressure for any part of of the wellbore or wellhead, then
the treatment will be limited in size by the maximum allowable pumping rate.
Water or Gas Contacts. As discussed above, as the fracture length increases, so does the fracture height the
distance the fracture grows upward and downward from the point of intiation. If there is a water contact (or in the
case of oil formations, a gas contact) close to the point of fracture initiation, then the treatment size may have to
be limited in order to avoid penetrating into these contacts. This will limit propped fracture length and hence
production increase.
Location Limitations. Some fracturing locations have limited space for rigging up equipment, which can often
limit treatment sizes. Access to the location, especially in remote areas, can also affect the type and quantity of
equipment available. The most notable example of this is offshore, where the equipment will have to either be
positioned on a vessel, or will need to be placed on the deck of the platform or rig (a process that presents massive
logistical challenges, ranging from sourcing suitable skid-mounted equipment, to managing deck loading
limitations and supply vessel operations).
Geohazards. These are items such as faults, karsts or pressure-depleted formations. These should be avoided
when fracturing, and their proximity may limit treatment size. Knowledge of the fracture azimuth is often
essential in order to accurately assess the potential risks. Similarly, it is advisable to avoid fracturing toward a
water injection well, as this may simply result in the cycling of injection water from one well to another,
significantly reducing the effectiveness of both the stimulation and the water injection.

Post-Treatment Evaluation
Obviously, the most important post-treatment evaluation is whether or not the treatment produced sufficient production
increase to justify the expense of the intervention. However, and as stated previously, the industry has moved well beyond this
point over the last couple of decades.
In the modern industry, there is a need to obtain not just a production increase, but the best possible production increase.
Consequently, there is a need to accurately assess the individual interval and formation productivity, and to compare
treatments performed in often significantly different formations. Only when the effectiveness of treatments can be accurately
assessed and compared is it possible to continuously improve the stimulation process.
Use of Dimensionless Productivity Index
Equation 7 defined the maximum theoretical dimensionless productivity index for a fractured well, JfDmax. As discussed,
this represents a fracture with the optimum CfDopt and a propped fracture half length equal to the drainage radius. In practice,
this is almost impossible to achieve, but a comparison with this figure does give the engineer a very useful metric with which
to assess formation and well productivity.
In order to do this assessment, there is no alternative to physically measuring the post-fracture productivity index of an
individual treatment and then calculating the actual post-fracture dimensionless productivity index, JfD. This then allows two
comparisons and assessments. First, by comparing JfD with JfDmax, it is possible to perform an assessment of the overall
effectiveness of the entire process, from candidate selection through optimisation, treatment design and finally job execution.
Second, by comparing JfD with JfDmax(Np) it is possible to assess the effectiveness of the treatment and its execution.
This process is very powerful, as the concept of dimensionless productivity index allows formations and wells from any
producing environment to be compared and for the treatments to be impartially assessed. In addition, because JD is
independent of net height, permeability, reservoir pressure and viscosity, it also allows wells with multiple intervals to be
effectively assessed and compared.

SPE 135669

Pressure Matching
Of course, in order to be able to compare JfD with JfDmax(Np), an accurate value for Np must be obtained, and this means
using a fracture simulator to model the fracture dimensions and proppant placement. The best way to do this is to perform a
post-treatment pressure match.
Pressure matching is the process of adjusting the fracture simulator to predict the same pressure response as that witnessed
during the treatment. Some fracture simulators are better than others for doing this, but all modern simulators have this facility.
Usually, the simulator will use the rate and proppant concentration from the actual treatment, together with hard input values
for fluid, wellbore and formation characteristics. The simulator will then compute two values for net pressure the calculated
value based on this data and the observed value based on the actual treating pressures and the input formation stresses. The
model is then adjusted until the calculated value matches the observed value, and the final fracture dimensions are used.
Unfortunately, there are three basic problems with pressure matching:1.

2.

3.

No unique solution. There are so many variables in a modern fracture simulator that it is possible to get multiple
pressure matches with different formation characteristics. As a result, it is possible to generate what is referred to
as a computer frac a treatment that looks good on the computer but has very little basis on reality.
Consequently, there is no substitute for experience and a knowledge of what is realistic and what is unrealistic.
Fracture model. The industry uses a number of commercially available fracture simulation models. A pressure
match with each of the models will produce different results. The industry is still debating which gives the best
results and, by implication, which is the best model. In reality, the skill of the engineer is probably more important
than the model. However, it is important to avoid use of different simulators to analyse and compare treatments on
different wells. Use the same simulation software to pressure match each treatment, so that the errors or
assumptions will cancel each other out when comparisons are being made.
Data quality. As with any computer models, the results are only as good as the input data. Whilst it is relatively
easy to get accurate data for the main treatment parameters (pressure, rate and density), it is much harder to get
reliable values for formation charactistics such as Youngs modulus, fracture toughness and permeability.
Furthermore, not only are these values usually uncertain, but also the level of uncertainty may vary from wellbore
to wellbore and from interval to interval such that the errors are not constant and will not cancel out when
comparisons are made

Consequently, pressure matching is as much a qualitative process as it is a quantitative one, which means that there is
always a degree of uncertainty associated with post-treatment values for Np. Unfortunately, the only value known with any
degree of certainty is the volume of the fracture or fractures, which is equal to the bulk volume of the proppant placed behind
the casing (allowing for any embedment issues).
One additional factor may significantly affect the quality of a post-treatment pressure match, and this is the use of
downhole pressure data, either from a gauge or from a dead string/live annulus. Even after 30 years of computer-based realtime modelling, it is still very difficult to model the friction pressure of a crosslinked fluid. Issues such as fluid composition,
shear rate and temperature all have significant effects. This is made even more complex by the fact that some factors
especially temperature are themselves dynamic, making solving the problem an order of magnitude more complex. Then, of
course, we add proppant, adding yet another order of magnitude of complexity.
In fact, modern real-time fracture monitoring software doesnt even try to calculate the friction pressure of crosslinked
fluids from fundamental principals and relies instead on empirical friction data contained in databases. Consequently, whilst
calculated bottom hole treating pressures (CBHTP) may be reasonably reliable for non-gelled and linear fluids, only the largescale trends can be trusted when pumping crosslinked fluids. When pumping crosslinked fluids and proppants (usually of
increasing concentration, so that even the density of the fluid in the wellboire is not constant), CBHTP is so unreliable that it
should not be used for treatment-critical decisions. A more complete discussion on the friction pressure of proppant-laden
crosslinked fluids can be found in Gupta and Valks Chapter 7 of Economides and Martin (2007).
The inability to reliably calculate friction pressure whilst pumping proppant means that it is very difficult to perform an
accurate pressure match using surface pressure data only. The situation is improved if the basis for the post-treatment pressure
match is a minifrac pressure match, especially if it is based on downhole data. However, as the process of using dimensionless
productivity index to measure treatment performance is dependent upon obtaining a reliable value for Np, and as the process of
obtaining a reliable value for Np is dependent upon performing a credible pressure match, every effort should be made to
obtain bottom hole data during fracturing treatments.
Pressure and/or Rate Transient Testing
As discussed, pressure matching suffers from the fact that the only fracture dimension we know with any certainty is its
volume. In order to increase the accuracy of the pressure match, it is necessary to remove a degree of freedom from the
fracture dimensions. This is usually done with pressure transient testing.
Post-fracture pressure transient testing relies on pre-fracture pressure transient testing, as items such as permeability and
reservoir pressure are required for the post-treatment analysis. Put very simply, the analysis techniques rely on comparing preand post-treatment pressure transient tests and assuming that all the differences are due to the propped fracture.

10

SPE 135669

Propped hydraulic fractures exhibit two different types of behaviour under pressure transient testing (Economides and
Nolte, 1987). Finite-conductivity fractures experience a significant pressure drop as the reservoir fluids flow through the
fracture toward the wellbore, a characteristic typical of fractures in high-permeability formations. By contrast, infiniteconductivity fractures exhibit no significant pressure loss in the propped fracture, so productivity is determined solely by
fracture length and formation characteristics. This type of behaviour is typical of low-permeability formations.
For finite-conductivity fractures, it is possible to use pressure transient testing to determine the effective average propped
fracture width. In higher-permeability wells, the presence of late-time pseudoradial flow during the well test may provide the
estimation of the skin effect from a Horner plot, which then can be used to provide the fracture half-length as well, using the
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego relationship (1981). For infinite-conductivity fractures, similar testing and analysis can be used to
determine effective propped fracture half-length. Whatever the situation, these values can be used in a pressure match to
remove a degree of freedom from the simulation, making the results significantly more reliable.
Such analysis requires further refinement. Pressure transient analysis produces effective half length or average width under
producing conditions. Any number of factors, such as turbulent flow, poor fracturing fluid recovery, proppant embedment and
damaged proppant can result in a fracture that behaves (under producing conditions) as if it is significantly smaller than the
created fracture. Consequently, a great deal of care must be taken when analysing post-treatment pressure transient data.
Another Achilles heal of pressure transient testing is the length of time it takes to reach stable bilinear or formation linear
flow and for enough of a trend to be established to allow meaningful analysis. In the majority of gas wells fractured today, this
could mean shutting in a potentially highly productive well for weeks of pressure build-up, something that most operators are
understandably reluctant to do.
One way around this is a technique known as the Reciprocal Productivity Index (RPI) method (Crafton, 1997, 2001 and
Cramer, 2003). This technique uses production data and performs a pressure and rate transient analysis. The technique uses a
combination of a semi-log MDH plot (Miller et al., 1950), an Agarwal-Gringarten type-curve plot (Agarwal et al, 1979(2) and
Gringarten, 1974), a pseudosteady-state plot and an Aarps production decline plot (Aarps, 1944) to determine factors such as
effective fracture half length, kh and (effective post-treatment) skin factor. The method is quite complex and relies heavily on
the use of computer-based plotting and type-curve matching techniques. The reader is invited to consult the references
(especially Crafton and Cramer) for further details.
Conclusions
1. Many operating companies, especially those outside North America, fail to use hydraulic fracturing to its full
potential due to a combination of lack of knowledge of the processes involved, poor candidate selection, poor
treatment design and ineffective post-treatment evaluation.
2. Contrary to some persistent (but understandable) misconceptions, fracturing is not just for underperforming or failed
wells. The best wells are the best candidates for stimulation. Higher-permeability wells produce much greater returns
than low-permeability wells. This is especially true in gas wells, where the hydraulic fracturing process not only
stimulates the reservoir but also mitigates the effects of turbulent flow in the formation.
3. The best method to select and rank potential hydraulic fracturing candidate wells and/or intervals is by comparing
values for dimensionless productivity index (JD), whilst being aware of the significant practical constraints that often
limit fracture design and execution.
4. For every combination of proppant and formation permeability, there is an optimum dimensionless fracture
conductivity (CfDopt). This is determined by using the proppant number (Np) and Unified Fracture Design.
5. The optimum CfDopt leads to optimum and specific values of the propped fracture width (wave) and propped fracture
half length (xf). This represents the most efficient use of a given volume of proppant and provides the best possible
increase in production.
6. The effectiveness of any individual treatment design can be determined by comparing the simulated fractured well
productivity index (JfDmax(Np)) with the theoretical maximum possible fractured well dimensionless productivity
index (JfDmax). Pushing the limits of fracture design can bring the two closer.
7. By comparing the measured post-treatment dimensionless productivity index (JfD) with JfDmax it is possible to assess
the overall effectiveness of the entire process, from candidate selection through optimisation, treatment design and
finally job execution.
8. By comparing JfD with JfDmax(Np) it is possible to assess the effectiveness of the treatment and its execution.
9. Post-treatment production testing is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of the fracture treatment and for
continuously improving candidate selection, treatment design and treatment execution.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Stephanie Weiss for her assistance in the preparation of this paper.
References
Aarps, J.J.: Analysis of Decline Curves, Trans AIME 228, May 1944.
Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D. and Pollock, C.B.: Evaluation and Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, paper SPE 6838, JPT, 362-372, March 1979.

SPE 135669

11

Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D. and Pollock, C.B.: Type Curves for Evaluation and Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells
Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE 8145, JPT, 651-656, May 1979. (Published as an accompaniment to SPE 6838,
above).
Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego, V.F.: Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells, SPE 7490, JPT, 1749-1766, 1981
Crafton, J.W.: Oil and Gas Well Evaluation Using the Reciprocal Productivity Index Method, SPE 37409, 1997.
Crafton, J.W.: Reciprocal Productivity Index Method A Production Analysis Method, Production Analysis Short Course, Performance
Science Inc, 2001.
Cramer, D.D.: Evaluating Well Performance and Completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically Fractured Low-Permeability Gas Wells, paper
SPE 84214, 2003.
Diyashev, I.R. and Economides, M.J.: A General Approach to Well Evaluation, SPE 94644, May 2005.
Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Stimulation, Schlumberger Educational Services, 1987.
Economides, M.J. and Martin, T.: Modern Fracturing: Enhamcing Natural Gas Production, Energy Tribune Publishing, 2007.
Economides, M.J., Oligney, R.E. and Valk, P.P.: Unified Fracture Design, Orsa Press, 2002.
van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, 1949, Trans.,
AIME, 186, 305-324.
Mach, J., Proano, E. and Brown, K.E.: A Nodal Approach for Applying Systems Analysis to the Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas
Well, SPE 8025, 1979.
Mahajan, M., Rauf, N., Gilmore, T. and Maylana, A.: Water Control and Fracturing: A Reality, SPE 101019, 2006.
Martin, T.: BJ Services Hydraulic Fracturing Manual, version 2, BJ Services Company, 2009.
McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity, Trans. AIME, 219, 401-403, 1960.
Meng, H.-Z., Proano, E.A., Buhidma, I.M. and Mach, J.: Production Systems Analysis of Vertically Fractured Wells, SPE 10842, 1982.
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B. and Hutchinson, C.A., Jr.: The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom Hole Pressure
Buildup Characteristics, Trans. AIME 189, pp 91-104, 1950.
Rueda, J.I., Voronkov, A. and Mach, J,: Optimum Fracture Design Under Transient and Pseudosteady Conditions Using Constant Fracture
Volume Concept, SPE 94157, 2005.
dos Santos, J.A.C.M, de Melo, R.C.B. and di Lullo, G.: Case History Evaluation of RPMs on Conform Fracturing Applications, SPE
94352, 2005.
dos Santos, J.A.C.M, Cunha, R.A., de Melo, R.C.B., Aboud, R.S., Pedrosa, H.A. and Marchi, F.A.: Inverted-Convection Proppant
Transport for Effective Conformance Fracturing, SPE 109585, SPEPO, 187-193, February 2009.
Valk, P. and Economides, M.J.: Performance of a Longitudinally Fractured Horizontal Well, SPEJ, 11-19, March 1996.

Nomenclature
c
= overall reservoir compressibility
CfD
= dimensionless fracture conductivity
CfDopt
= optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity
h
= net height
J
= productivity index
JD
= dimensionless productivity index for unstimulated well
JDmax
= maximum possible dimensionless productivity index for unstimulated well (i.e. when S = 0)
Jf
= fractured well productivity index
JfD
= fractured well dimensionless productivity index
JfDmax
= maximum theoretical fractured well productivity index
JfDmax(Np) = maximum fractured well dimensionless productivity index, as a function of proppant number
k
= permeability
kf
= proppant (or fracture) permeability under producing conditions
m
= gradient of plot
m(p)
= gas pseudo-pressure
Np
= proppant number
p1hr
= bottom hole pressure 1 hour after shut-in
pr
= reservoir pressure
pwf
= flowing bottom hole pressure, often immediately prior to shut-in
q
= production rate
re
= drainage radius
rw
= wellbore radius
s
= skin factor
Vf
= proppant bulk volume or fracture volume (in net pay)
Vres
= volume of reservoir being drained by the wellbore
wave
= average propped fracture width
xe
= drainage dimension for square drainage pattern (such that drainage area = xe2)
xf
= propped fracture half length
p

= pressure differential, usually drawdown (i.e. pr pwf)

= viscosity

12

SPE 135669

= porosity

SPE Metric Conversion Factors

bpm
x 2.649 788
E 03 = m3/s
cp
x 1.0*
E 00 = Pa.s
F
(F 32)/1.8*
= C
ft
x 3.048*
E 01 = m
gal
x 3.785 412
E 03 = m3
inch
x 2.54*
E 02 = m
lbs
x 4.535 924
E 01 = kg
ppg
x 1.198 264
E + 02 = kg/m3
psi
x 6.894 757
E + 00 = kPa
* - conversion factor is exact

Appendix Minimum Required Information for Candidate Selection, Optimum Fracture Geometry,
Treatment Design and Post-Treatment Evaluation
Candidate Selection
Average producing formation permeability (k)
Effective producing porosity ( )
Wellbore radius (rw)
Drainage radius (re)
Net height (h)
Viscosity under production conditions ( )
Reservoir pressure (pr)*
Production rate (q)*
Reservoir temperature (Tr) for gas reservoirs
Viscosity at reservoir conditions ( r) for gas reservoirs
Flowing bottom hole wellbore pressure (pwf) or drawdown (p)*
Skin factor (S)
Steady-state, pseudo steady-state or transient flow
Recoverable reserves per well
Completion diagram, including tubular dimensions and types, deviation survey and perforation details
Location of water and/or gas contacts
* - or productivity index (J).
Determination of Optimum Fracture Geometry
Average producing formation permeability (k)
Effective proppant permeability under producing conditions (kf)
Drainage radius (re) for radial drainage patterns
Drainage dimension (xe) for square drainage pattern (such that total area = xe2)
Net height (h)
Proppant volume (Vf)
Reservoir draiange volume (Vres)
Treatment Design
Optimum fracture geometry (i.e. CfDopt)
Fluid characteristics
Proppant characteristics
Leakoff properties
Rock mechanical data
In-situ stresses
Completion diagram, including tubular dimensions and types, deviation survey and perforation details
Location of water and/or gas contacts
Equipment limitations
Pressure Match
Fluid characteristics

SPE 135669

13

Proppant characteristics
Leakoff properties
Rock mechanical data
In-situ stresses
Completion diagram, including tubular dimensions and types, deviation survey and perforation details
Treatment data (slurry rate, proppant concentration, bottom hole pressure)
Post-Treatment Evaluation
Proppant permeability under producting conditions (kf)
Average producing formation permeability (k)
Effective producing porosity ( )
Wellbore radius (rw)
Drainage radius (re)
Net height (h)
Overall formation compressibility (c)
Viscosity under production conditions ( )
Reservoir pressure (pr)*
Post-treatment production rate (q)*
Reservoir temperature (Tr) for gas reservoirs
Viscosity at reservoir conditions ( r) for gas reservoirs
Post-treatment flowing bottom hole wellbore pressure (pwf) or drawdown (p)*
Fracture dimensions (especially propped length (xf) and average propped width (wave)) from pressure match and pressure
transient testing
Proppant number (Np) from pressure match
* - or fractured well productivity index (Jf).