SPE-170965-MS

Optimal Hydraulic Fracture Angle in Productivity Maximized Shale Well

Design
Nadav Sorek, Jose A. Moreno, Ryan Rice, Guofan Luo, and Christine Ehlig-Economides, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2729 October 2014.
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
In general, hydraulic fractures propagate perpendicular to the horizontal well axis whenever the drilling
direction is parallel to the principal minimum stress plane. However, operators frequently drill horizontal
wells parallel to lease boundaries resulting in slanted hydraulic fracture planes at angles less than 90
degrees from the well axis.
This study provides a model for the inclined fracture case. It applies and further extends the unified
fracture design approach for rectangular drainage areas, relating the dimensionless proppant number to the
maximum productivity index in pseudo-steady state conditions. When simulating flow in shale reservoirs,
the stimulated shale volume was represented as a rectangular drainage area that varies with changing
angle, but preserves total area. Similarly, fracture length and width varies with changing angle, but total
propped fracture volume stays constant.
Results show that for any given set of reservoir and proppant properties along with a given proppant
mass, as long as the created fractures drain the same stimulated rock volume, there exists a well direction
resulting in maximized well productivity that is not necessarily parallel to the minimum stress direction.
In addition, results yield two main correlations. The first one relates the optimal fracture angle to
proppant number, for a given ratio of well spacing to primary-fracture spacing. In this way, operators can
choose the drilling azimuth that would maximize production. The second correlation determines the
optimal ratio of well spacing to primary-fracture spacing as a function of proppant number for a given
fracture angle. This can be applied when selecting the optimum number of fracture stages given a well
spacing plan and fracture angle. Two case studies show the application of these findings. In the end, this
work provides a simple framework for well design incorporating slanted hydraulic fractures.

Introduction
Industry experience suggests that horizontal shale gas development is enhanced by drilling in the direction
parallel to the local minimum principal horizontal stress (H,min) (Zinn et al, 2011). Because US mineral
leases frequently are rectangular areas with NS and EW boundaries, operators often drill parallel to the
lease boundaries, prioritizing well saturation over optimum fracture length propagation (Zinn et al, 2011).
This practice leads to creation of hydraulic fracture planes that are slanted at an angle less than 90 degrees
with the well axis.

SPE-170965-MS

Extensive research has investigated the effects of angled fractures on well productivity. Zinn et al
(2011) utilized theoretical and empirical data to address the impact of wellbore azimuth on well
performance in the Marcellus Shale. Zinns results showed that for each degree a well was suboptimal to
minimum horizontal stress, EUR decreased by 7.25 Mscf per foot of effective lateral length. Next,
Olorode and Freeman (2013) supported Zinns findings by demonstrating superior well performance for
wells with orthogonal hydraulic fractures, 90 degrees from the wellbore axis (Olorode et al, 2013)
Unified Fracture Design (UFD) methodology (Economides et al, 2002), indicates the hydraulic
fracturing treatment design that maximizes well productivity for any set of reservoir and proppant
properties and a given injected proppant mass. This methodology introduces the concept of proppant
number (Np), which describes the weighted ratio of propped fracture volume to a square reservoir volume.
Later on, Daal and Economides (2006) and Sabaev et al. (2006) extended the definition of Np to elongated
rectangular reservoir drainage volumes.
This study applies and further extends the UFD approach to show that for any given set of reservoir
and proppant properties along with a given proppant mass, as long as the created fractures define the same
stimulated rock volume, there exists a well direction resulting in maximized well productivity that is not
parallel to the minimum stress direction. First, we establish a correlation between the proppant number
and the optimum drainage area aspect ratio. Then, this correlation is used to express what the optimum
fracture angle is for a specific proppant number. Because we are considering ultra-low reservoir
permeabilities, we demonstrate the motivation for modeling proppant numbers larger than the maximum
value of 100 found in previous applications.

Methodology
In the following section, we establish a correlation between proppant number (NP) and optimal
drainage area aspect ratio (ArXe/Ye). This correlation eventually translates into an expression relating
proppant number (NP) and optimal fracture angle. In this way, the determination of one of two design
parameters, optimal horizontal drilling direction or fracture spacing is achieved. It continues with
demonstrating the need for expanding previous UFD publications and describing the implemented
method.
Motivation
The base case describes a horizontal well drilled in a direction parallel to the minimum horizontal stress
with hydraulic fractures propagating perpendicular to the well axis (90). As the trajectory azimuth
deviates from this base case scenario, fracture angles decrease (90). Following the methodology
presented by Song and Ehlig-Economides (2011), this work models the multiple transverse fracture
horizontal well as one fracture fully penetrating a rectangular drainage area; the well model multiplies the
single fracture result by the number of fractures in the well. No-flow boundaries are set at the fracture tips
and at the locations interference occurs between two adjacent fractures. Fig. 1 shows a schematic for the
base case, as well as the streamlines for the pseudo-steady state flow regime model.
As the well path deviates from the minimum horizontal stress, the angle at which the hydraulic fracture
extends will begin to decrease, thereby altering the fracture geometry. Rather than modeling the change
in geometry with a parallelepiped shaped Stimulated Shale Volume (SSV), an equivalent rectangular SSV
is defined using a different aspect ratio established by and Xe/Ye. By adjusting fracture width, fracture
spacing, and half-length accordingly, the stimulated shale area remains constant, and thus total SSV is
conserved. Fig. 2 illustrates this concept.
), which are a function of the angle at
Note from Fig. 2 the new drainage area parameters ( and
which the fracture deviates (for the purpose of this work, the superscript tag denotes deviated fracture
angle parameters). In addition, the well and fracture spacing (Ye and Xe, respectively) remain constant,
irrespective of the fracture angle. Next, assuming no additional capital is invested in the fracture treatment,

SPE-170965-MS

Figure 1Reservoir and fracture geometry schematic. Pseudo-steady state flow regime model (Song and Ehlig-Economides, 2011)

Figure 2Fracture drainage area arrangement after fracture angle deviation

we set proppant mass constant and thus maintain the same proppant number. As a result, fracture
half-length (xf) and width (w) become a function of the fracture angle.
The geometric relations between parameters are as follow:
(1)
Note that fracture area and SSV are conserved:
(2)
Next, two aspect ratios are defined:
(3)
(4)
Where, Ar and
are the aspect ratio of the base (90) and modified case (<90), respectively.
Reorganizing Eq. 1 yields,
(5)

SPE-170965-MS

Figure 3UFD Type Curves for aspect ratios equal to one, two, and four (Daal and Economides, 2006)

From Eq. 5 the fracture angle is defined as,

(6)
Obtaining the optimal fracture angle
The UFD approach strives for conditions that maximize the pseudo-steady state productivity index
(JD ). Though in many shale reservoir cases transient flow regime persists for a long period until a PSS
flow is present, the authors belief is that a good design should minimize the transient period. Because of
this, (JD ) is still considered a valid key performance index, even for shale reservoirs.
Productivity index is defined as,
(7)
PSS

PSS

While dimensionless productivity index in oil field units is:

(8)
Eq. 8 holds valid for both transient flow and pseudo-steady state (PSS) flow. In pseudo-steady state
flow, JD becomes approximately constant (JD ).
Next, Daal and Economides (2006) adjusted the proppant numbers definition for irregular shaped
drainage areas as:
(9)
PSS

Where kf and k are the proppant and reservoir permeabilities, respectively. Vfrac and Vres are the fracture
and reservoir volumes, while w and Ye are the fracture and stimulated reservoir width, respectively. Xf and
Xe represent fracture half-length and stimulated reservoir area length, respectively. Reservoir thickness
and fracture height are represented as h and assumed equal. The penetration ratio ((2xf)/Xe) is represented
as Ix. Lastly, the fracture dimensionless conductivity is represented as CfD).
Economides et al. (2002) showed that proppant number correlates to a maximum and unique
productivity index (in PSS flow), which corresponds to an ideal fracture conductivity. Daal and Economides (2006) and Sabaev et al. (2006) developed this concept further to account for rectangular drainage
areas. Fig. 3 illustrates three different aspect ratios from Daal and Economides work, as well as the
relation between CfD, Np and JD .
The dashed lines in Fig. 3 represent fully penetrating fractures (Ix(2xf)/Xe). For our purposes, we
consider high proppant numbers in order to model low permeability reservoirs. Fig.3 shows that for high
proppant numbers, the maximum productivity coincides with full penetration of the reservoir by the
fractures. Therefore, for a specific drainage area and high proppant numbers, the maximum (JD ) is
associated with full reservoir penetration.
PSS

PSS

SPE-170965-MS

Figure 4 JDmax for different proppant number values ranging from 0.1 to 100. On the left, the horizontal axis is 1/AR (Daal and Economides, 2006).
On the right, the horizontal axis is AR (Sabaev et al, 2006).

Consequently, Fig. 3 also reveals that for a given proppant number, different JD values are obtained
depending on the drainage area aspect ratio. Because of this, each proppant number is associated with an
optimum aspect ratio that maximizes well productivity. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 4
The green line on the right plot of Fig. 4 implies that one can derive a unique relation between proppant
number and optimal aspect ratio. Thus, expressing Eq. 4 and 5 in terms of these parameters results in,
(10)
(11)
Eq. 11 is an important result of this work. If a unique relation between proppant number and optimal
aspect ratio is found, then Eq. 11 could be expressed as a function of Np. As a result, opt can calculated
in advance since Np is a function of initial model parameters (e.g. Xe,Ye). For practical purposes, previous
knowledge of the optimal fracture angle (and direction of H,min) allows the operator to choose the correct
optimum drilling azimuth. By doing so, field development and economics can be optimized. In the
following section, a relation between opt and Np is developed for high proppant numbers (Np100) in
order to simulate flow in shale reservoirs.
Modeling Methods
For modeling purposes, GASSIM simulator was used to simulate flow in hydraulically fractured
reservoirs (Lee and Wattenbarger, 1996). GASSIM is a single-phase numerical simulator for simulating
liquid and real gas flow. To reduce computation time, we used symmetry and simulated only one fourth
of the drainage area by considering only one half the fracture length and width. The simulation was run
under constant-pressure production and stopped only when the productivity index reached a constant
value at pseudo-steady state. We applied logarithmic gridding to simulate flow from the matrix to the
fracture and from the fracture to the well. In addition, hydraulic fractures fully penetrated the drainage
area. Simulations considered different aspect ratios ranging from one to 2,000, as well as different
proppant numbers ranging from 100 to 1,000,000.

Results
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 summarize the simulation results. Fig. 5 shows the relation between productivity index
at pseudo-steady state conditions and aspect ratio for different proppant numbers. For each proppant

SPE-170965-MS

Figure 5Relation between productivity index and aspect ratio for varying proppant number values

Figure 6 Correlation between optimal aspect ratio and proppant number

number there is a distinctive concave-like function, which exhibits an absolute maximum JD value. The
black line intercepts the corresponding maximum JD value for each proppant number. For Np100, the
Ar value corresponding to the maximum JD is 7. This value matches the Sabaevs results shown in Fig.
4. Dall and Economides work did not predict a maximum value for Np100 because none of their
simulations considered aspect ratios between 5 and 10, thereby missing the maximum point.
One should recognize that these productivity indices values decrease for horizontal wells due to choke
skin effect (Wei and Economides, 2005). However, the overall total trend remains the same.
By using the results shown in Fig. 5 and applying a logarithmic regression, we correlate the proppant
number to the optimal aspect ratio. A plot of this correlation is shown in Fig. 6.
PSS

PSS

PSS

SPE-170965-MS

Figure 7Relation between proppant number and fracture spacing for varying fracture angles.

A practical approximation for the equation shown on Fig. 6 would be

(12)
Now, by substituting Eq. 12 into Eq. 10 and Eq. 11 we get
(13)
(14)
Eq. 13 and 14 are the main resulting correlations of this work. Eq. 13 can be applied in the
determination of the optimal fracture stage spacing (Ye) given a predefined well spacing plan (Xe). Note,
that we consider a stage as a single primary hydraulic fracture. Fig. 7 shows a relationship of fracture stage
spacing with respect to proppant number for different fracture angles.
Finally, Eq. 14 describes the valuable relationship between opt and Np. Eq. 14 suggests that by
knowing the aspect ratio (Xe/Ye) and proppant number, one can determine what the optimal fracture angle
would be. With this information, the drilling azimuth that maximizes production can be easily determined.
Fig. 7 shows a relationship of fracture angle with respect to proppant number for different drainage area
aspect ratio values.
Fig. 7 shows a relationship of fracture stage spacing with respect to proppant number for different
fracture angles (assuming well spacing of 1,000 feet). This is a different case, where the fracture angles
are predetermined. We can see that for all proppant numbers, as angles decrease the optimal fracture
stage-spacing increases. In other words, lower fracture angle can lead to a fewer primary hydraulic
fractures.
Fig. 8 shows a type curve plot of optimal fracture angles as a function of proppant number for different
aspect ratios. As the proppant number increases, the optimal angle decreases. Similarly, the decrease in
proppant number is associated with an increase in fracture angle up to 90. This behavior is explained by
the fact that as fracture angle decreases, the fracture length extension increases and fracture width
decreases as to conserve propped fracture volume. Thus, as the fracture becomes longer and the contact

SPE-170965-MS

Figure 8 Relation between proppant number and fracture angle for varying drainage area aspect ratio values

Figure 9 Lease dimension, top view. The red lines represent the principle minimum horizontal stress (sHmin).

with the reservoir increases, the fracture width decreases and so does the fracture conductivity. However,
at high proppant numbers, the benefit of having an elongated fracture overcomes the drawbacks from
fracture conductivity reduction associated with the decrease of fracture width.

Example Application
Let us assume a rectangular lease with a length (a), equal to 5,000 feet and width (b), equal to 2,000 feet.
We also assume a homogenous stress regime with a principle minimum horizontal stress, which lie in the
azimuth of 30 to 210 (See Fig. 9 below).
The operator intends to drill two multi-fractured horizontal wells (nw2) and to pump 1,000,000 lb.
of proppant. Reservoir and proppant properties are shown in Table 1.
The propped volume (Vp) and reservoir volume (Vr) are

SPE-170965-MS

Table 1Reservoir and fracture properties for case studies.

Property
k
kf
SG
p
h
Mp

Description

Value [units]

Reservoir permeability
Proppant permeability
Proppant specific gravity
Proppant porosity
Reservoir height
Proppant mass

5.10-4 [md]
10,000[md]
2.65
0.38
100[ft]
1,000,00[lb]

The proppant number can be calculated from Eq. 8,

Then, Eq. 11 can obtain an optimal aspect ratio,

Next, we consider two cases. In Case 1, the operator wants to determine the optimal drilling azimuth
that will create an optimal fracture angle and to align the lease boundaries parallel and perpendicular to
the well axis. In Case 2, the direction of drilling is predetermined, by state regulation for example, and
the operator wants to know the optimal fracture spacing that will optimize production.
Case 1 The well design calls for hydraulic fracture spacing of 100 ft (equal to fracture spacing, Ye).
Thus, the number of fractures per well is

The well spacing is

Now, we can obtain the optimal fracture angle by using Eq. 11

Consequently, we can obtain optimal drilling direction. Since the fracture is expected to propagate
perpendicular to Hmin plane, the fracture azimuth is expected to be

The drilling azimuth then would be

The results are illustrated also in Fig. 10 below. Note that the stimulated area remains constant.
Case 2 Let us assume the state regulation mandates drilling parallel to the lease boundary, from east to
west. In that case, the fracture angle from the well axis would be 30, as shown in Fig. 11. Note that if

10

SPE-170965-MS

Figure 10 Optimal drilling azimuth (green), fracture azimuth (yellow) and minimum horizontal stress azimuth (red).

Figure 11Case 2- Drilling azimuth (green), fracture azimuth (yellow) and minimum horizontal stress azimuth (red).

regulations allow drilling from north to south, that would results in a 60 fracture angle, which is nearly
the optimal angle from case 1, and thus it would be a better option in that sense.
First, we calculate the ratio of well spacing to fracture spacing using Eq. 10

The resulting fracture spacing is

As a result, the number fractures per well will be

With each fracture containing 29411.8 lb.

The results are illustrated also in Fig. 10 below. Note that the stimulated area remains constant.

Conclusions
This study applies unified fracture design principles to determine the angle between a horizontal well and
created hydraulic fractures that will maximize the well productivity. We found that, as long as the
multi-fractured well drains the same stimulated shale volume, the angle between the horizontal well and
the created hydraulic fractures that maximizes the well productivity for a given total proppant mass is not

SPE-170965-MS

11

necessarily 90. Instead, we show that the optimum angle depends on the proppant number determined
based on the total proppant mass, the well drainage volume, and fracture and shale permeability values.
We also showed that smaller fracture angle might lead to less required primary fractures. Or, alternatively,
when the well must be drilled parallel to EW and NS lease boundaries even if this direction is not parallel
the minimum stress direction, we show how to find the fracture spacing that maximizes the well
productivity, again for a given total proppant volume.
Nomenclature
nf
B
CfD
h
Ix
J
JD
kf
k
pwf
q
Vf
Vres
w
w=
Xe
xf
(Ye/Xe)opt
Ye

number of fractures, fractures

formation volume factor, res bbl/STB
dimensionless fracture conductivity, dimensionless
reservoir/fracture thicknes, ft
penetration ratio, fraction
productivity index, STB/D/psi
dimensionless productivity index, dimensionless
fracture permeability, md
formation permeability, md
average pressure in the reservoir, psia
well flowing pressure, psia
flow rate, STB/D
fracture volume, ft3
reservoir volume, ft3
fracture width, ft
inclined fracture width, ft
Inclined fracture length, ft
well spacing, ft
90 fracture half length, ft
Inclined fracture half length, ft
optimal drainage ratio, fraction
optimal perforation spacing to well acing ratio, fraction
perforation spacing, ft
distance between two adjusted inclined fractures, ft

Greek variables

proppant porosity, fraction

viscosity, cp
angle, degree

References
Daal, J. A., and Economides, M. J. 2006. Optimization of Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Irregularly
Shaped Drainage Areas. Paper SPE 98047 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisianna, 15-17 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
98047-MS
Economides, M. J., Oligney, R. E., and Valko, P. 2002. Unified Fracture Design: Bridging the Gap
between Theory and Practice. Vol.1, Alvin, TX:
Lee, J., and Wattenbarger, R. A. 1996. Gas Reservoir Engineering. Vol. 5, 349. Richardson, TX:
Textbook Series, Spe.

12

SPE-170965-MS

Olorode, O., Freeman, C. M., Moridis, G. et alet al. 2013. High-Resolution Numerical Modeling of
Complex and Irregular Fracture Patterns in Shale-Gas Reservoirs and Tight Gas Reservoirs. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 16(04): 44355 http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/152482-PA
Sabaev, V. V., Mach, J. M., Wolcott, D. S. et alet al. 2006. Vertically Fractured Well Performance in
Rectangular Drainage Area. Paper SPE 101048 presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibitio, Moscow, Russia, 3-6 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/101048-MS
Song, B., and Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 2011. Rate-Normalized Pressure Analysis for Determination
of Shale Gas Well Performance. Paper SPE 144031 presented at the North American Unconventional Gas
Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 14-16 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144031-MS
Wei, Y., and Economides, M. J. 2005. Transverse Hydraulic Fractures from a Horizontal Well. Paper
SPE 94671 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94671-MS
Zinn, C. J., Blood, D., and Morath, P. 2011. Evaluating the Impact of Wellbore Azimuth in the
Marcellus Shale. Paper SPE149468 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Colombus, OH, 1
January. http://dx.doi.org/149468-MS