Five things you didnt want to know

about hydraulic fractures

Mike Vincent
mike@fracwell.com
Fracwell
LLC

Microseismic image: SPE 119636

Outline
Why we need to frac
The bad news
5 things you didnt want to know

The good news

Compensating for some of these problems can
significantly improve production and profitability!

5 Things To Investigate
1. Fluid Flow Assumptions
Can I use Darcys Law & published conductivity data?

2. Are fracs durable?

3. Can I simulate a reservoir as a homogeneous
layer?
4. Can I model a frac as a simple vertical plane?
5. Will I reach a unique match with careful analyses?

Why Fracture Stimulate?

Top View

Hydraulic Fractures:

Unstimulated Wells:
Require high reservoir
permeability for sufficient
hydrocarbon flow

Side View

Accumulate hydrocarbons
over enormous area,
achieving economic
flowrates from low
permeability formations

Figures not to scale!

Reservoir Contact
Overhead, map view of 5 laterals
drilled from one wellhead.

Tiny Frac - 20,000 lbs of proppant

Multi-Lateral 15,000 ft of drilled length in 5 laterals

<24,000 ft2 of reservoir contact

Fracture Stimulated Completion: 200 ft half-length, 50 ft height

2 wings * 2 faces * 200 ft * 50 ft = 40,000 ft2

3700m2 of contact

Propped fractures touch more rock than multi-lateral

wells
It is more cost-effective to touch rock with a fracture
than with a drill bit

Transversely Fractured Horizontal

Wells let you Repeat this!

One small transverse frac = 40,000 ft2

Bakken = 6,000,000 ft2

3700m2 of contact

560,000m2 of contact

Barnett style complex network >10,000,000 ft2

>1,000,000m2 of contact

Technology Progression
10

Reservoir Contact
Economic Gas Reservoir Perm
Economic Oil Reservoir Perm

100,000

10,000
0.1

1,000
100

0.01

10
0.001

Reservoir Perm mD

Reservoir Contact m2

1,000,000

1
0

0.0001
Perforated
Vertical

Openhole
Vertical

Openhole
Horizontal

Biwing
Fracture

Multiple
Transverse
Fractures

Increasing our reservoir contact by 1,000,000 fold

has allowed pursuit of reservoirs with thousands of times lower perm

In low perm reservoirs, fractures are often

the most critical component of our
completion

However, they are the most poorly optimized

element!

Two basic design goals

for fracture treatment
Adequate reservoir contact (frac length)
Adequate flow capacity (conductivity)

Convenient Assumptions
Fracs
Simple (bi-wing), planar, vertical, hydraulically
continuous, highly conductive, durable

Reservoir
Homogenous reservoirs (or simplified layering)

Fluid Flow
Simple fluid flow regimes

Do we envision fracs correctly?

We picture fracs as perfect vertical planes
without restriction to hydrocarbon flow

Fracs are very narrow

ribbons, massively long!
Frac length frequently
thousands of times greater than
the wellbore diameter
15

SPE 128612

Realistic Conductivity Reductions

Effective Conductivity (md-ft) (D-m)

20/40 proppants at 6000 psi

2.1

7000

1.8

6000

Chinese Sand

7000

Jordan Sand

CarboLITE

5715

1.5

5000

1.2

4000

0.9

3000

Effective conductivities can be

less than 1% of API test values

3481

98.6%
0.029 D-m
reduction

99.7%
0.001 D-m
reduction
0.6

2000

1500

99.9%
0.0001 D-m
reduction

1243

1137

0.3

1000

672

500
182

72

225
24

479
5

14

49

1.4

144
7

0.6

130
0.3

96

0
API Test

16

Modified 50"Inertial
Hour Test Flow" with
Non-Darcy
Effects

Lower
Multiphase
50% Gel
Fines
Cyclic
Achieved
Flow
Damage
Migration /
Stress
Width (1
Plugging
lb/sq ft) Conditions: YM=5e psi, 50% gel damage, 250F, 1 lb/ft , 6000 psi, 250 mcfd, 1000 psi bhfp, 20 ft pay, 10 blpd
6

YM=34e3 MPa, 50% gel damage, 121C, 5 kg/m2, 41 MPa, 7000 m3 /d, 7 MPa bhfp, 6 m pay, 1.6 m3l/d

References: ST Sand: SPE 14133, 16415, CL: Carbo typical, LT: Stim-Lab PredK 2002, SPE 24008, 3298, 7573, 11634, CARBO Tech Rpt 99-062, Run #6542, StimLab July 2000, SPE 16912, 19091, 22850, 106301, 84306

Does Conductivity Degrade?

McDaniel , SPE 15067

This degradation has nothing to do with

diagenesis. Occurs dry, wet, mineral oil, N2
gas, between Teflon, steel, sandstone or shale

All published lab data show proppants

continue to crush, compact, rearrange over
time and lose conductivity.
SPE 12616, 14133, 15067, 110451,128612,
134330, 136757, Hahn, Drilling Vol 47, No 6,
April 1986

Some proppants are more durable than

others. But none are constant
Why dont engineers recognize this?

What does this mean?

Even if fracs are perfect, wide fracs with optimal
proppant placement throughout
Pressure losses are 50 to 1000 times higher
than we estimated!!

Now What if the fracs are not perfect planes?

Relatively simple, extremely wide fracture

Extends 9500 feet at
surface, average width
exceeding 7 feet!

We have created hydraulic

fracs 2200 ft half-length but
less than 0.1 inches wide

24

Pollard (2005) Northeast Ship Rock Dike, New Mexico

Outcrop actually comprised of >30 discrete

echelon segments separated by intact host rock

Even this dike appeared discontinuous in outcrop.

Are you certain your frac is continuous?

25

Pollard (2005) Northeast Ship Rock Dike

Is Fracture Complexity Good or Bad?

Simple Fracture

Complex Fracture

Very Complex Fracture Network

Pro:

Con:

Complex fracs increase

the reservoir contact
(beneficial in nanoDarcy shales?)

Complex fracs
complicate the flow path,
and provide less
cumulative conductivity
than simple, wider
fractures [SPE
115769,119143,144702]

26

SPE 77441

Observations of Fracture Complexity

Physical evidence of
fractures nearly always
complex
NEVADA TEST SITE - HYDRAULIC FRACTURE MINEBACK

Multiple
Fractures

Initiation At Perforations
Multiple Perforations
Provide Multiple Entry
Points For Fracture
Initiation
Five Separate
Fractures Are Visible
In These Fractures
Initiated From
Horizontal Wellbore
12 Perforations Total
6 Top & Bottom

I would have modeled/predicted a single frac with much

higher conductivity than 5 narrow fracs added together
[This actually is a bad outcome!]

Multiple Strands in a
These fractures are narrow, you are looking
Propped Fracture
at an angle to the exposed frac face
(Vertical Well)

NEVADA TEST SITE

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
MINEBACK

10

Multiple Strands in a Propped Fracture

(Vertical Well)

30
Mesaverde
MWX test, SPE 22876

7100 ft TVD [2160m]

32 Fracture Strands Over 4 Ft Interval

HPG gel residue on all surfaces

Gel glued some core together (>6
yrs elapsed post-frac!)

All observed
sandof(20/40
Physicalfrac
evidence
RCS)fractures
pulverized
<200
mesh
nearly
always
complex

A second fractured
zone with 8
vertical fractures in 3 ft interval
observed 60 feet away (horizontally)

Is complexity
solely attributed
to rock fabric?
Chudnovsky, Univ of Ill, Chicago

32

Unconsolidated 200 mesh sand, 35 lb XLG,

Flow  SPE 63233

Many other examples! [TerraTek, Baker, Weijers, CSM FAST consortium]

11

Fracture Complexity
in Vertical direction
Physical evidence of
fractures nearly
always complex

NEVADA TEST SITE

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
MINEBACK

Laminated on every scale?

Figure 2 On every scale, formations may have laminations that hinder vertical permeability and fracture penetration.
Shown are thin laminations in the Middle Bakken [LeFever 2005], layering in the Woodford [outcrop photo courtesy of
Halliburton], and large scale laminations in the Niobrara [outcrop and seismic images courtesy of Noble]

34

SPE 146376

12

Will frac complexity change my understanding of

required frac design?
Failure to breach all laminae?

Will I lose this

connection due to
crushing of proppant in
horizontal step?

Narrower aperture plus

significantly higher stress in
horizontal steps?

Woodford Shale Outcrop

Our understanding of frac

barriers and kv should
influence everything from
lateral depth to frac fluid
type, to implementation

Fractures Intersecting Stacked Laterals

Bakken Three Forks
Inability to create an effective,
durable fracture 30 feet tall?!
Drill redundant well in each
interval since frac has inadequate
vertical penetration/conductivity?!
Lateral separation 250 feet at
toe/heel, crossing in middle

23 ft thick Lower Bakken Shale

Fraced Three Forks well ~1MM lb proppant in 10 stages
1 yr later drilled overlying well in Middle Bakken;
Kv<0.000,000,01D (<0.01 D)
kv/kh~0.00025 even after fracing!
36

Modified from Archie Taylor SPE ATW Aug 4 2010

13

Continuity Loss
Necessitates vertical downspacing?

A number of operators are investigating vertical downspacing in the Bakken petroleum

system. Similar efforts underway in Niobrara, Woodford, Montney and Permian
formations.
Is it possible that some number of these expensive wells could be unnecessary if
fractures were redesigned?
37 Fracturing or Vertical Downspacing Image from CLR Investor Presentation, Continental, 2012
Array

Uniform Packing
Arrangement?
A simulator may predict
this is sufficient!

Pinch out, proppant

pillars, irregular
distribution?

Is this ribbon laterally

extensive and continuous
for hundreds of meters as
we model?

40

14

With what certainty can we explain this production?

200

Actual Production Data

1800

180

1600

160

1400

140

1200

120

1000

100

800

80

600

60

400

40

200

20

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Cumulative Production (MMscf)

Stage Production (mcfd)

2000

0
600

Production Days
41

SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters

2000

Actual production data

200

1800

Long Frac, Low Conductivity

180

500' Xf, 20 md-ft, 0.5 uD perm, 23 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

1600

160

1400

140

1200

120

1000

100

800

80

600

60

400

40

200

20

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Cumulative Production (MMscf)

Stage Production (mcfd)

Nice match to measured microseismic, eh?

0
600

Production Days
42

SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters

15

Is this more accurate? Tied to core perm

2000

Actual production data

200

1800

Long Frac, Low Conductivity

180

1600

Medium Frac, Low Conductivity

500' Xf, 20 md-ft, 0.5 uD perm, 23 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

Stage Production (mcfd)

1400

140

1200

120

1000

100

800

80

600

60

400

40

200

20

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Cumulative Production (MMscf)

160

100' Xf, 20 md-ft, 5 uD perm, 11 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

0
600

Production Days
43

SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters

Can I reinforce my misconceptions?

2000

Actual production data

200

1800

Long Frac, Low Conductivity

180

1600

Medium Frac, Low Conductivity

500' Xf, 20 md-ft, 0.5 uD perm, 23 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

Stage Production (mcfd)

Short Frac, High Conductivity, Reservoir Boundaries

1400

140

50' Xf, 6000 md-ft, 10 uD perm, 7 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

1200

Even if I know it is a simple planar frac, I cannot

prove whether it was inadequate reservoir quality, or
inadequate completion with a single well

1000
800

600

400

120
100
80

History matching of production is

surprisingly non-unique.
60
Too many knobs available to tweak
40
We can always blame it on the geology

200

Cumulative Production (MMscf)

160

100' Xf, 20 md-ft, 5 uD perm, 11 Acres 4:1 aspect ratio

20

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

0
600

Production Days
44

SPE 106151 Fig 13 Production can be matched with a variety of fracture and reservoir parameters

16

5 Things You Didnt Want to Know

1. Complex Flow Regimes
100x higher pressure losses

2. Conductivity Degrades
3. Heterogeneous Reservoirs
Dependant on fracs to connect reserves

4. Complex Frac Geometry

Require commensurate increase in conductivity

5. Non-unique interpretations

Removing the Uncertainty

If we require a production match of two different
frac designs, we remove many degrees of
freedom
lock in all the reservoir knobs!
Attempt to explain the production results from
initial frac AND refrac
143 published trials in SPE 134330
100 Bakken refracs 136757

Require simultaneous match of two different

frac designs in same reservoir!
200+ trials in SPE 119143
46

17

Field Studies Documenting Production Impact

with Increased Fracture Conductivity
>200 published studies identified,
authored by >150 companies

Oil wells, gas wells, lean and rich condensate

Carbonate, Sandstone, Shale, and Coal
Well Rates
1 to 25,000 bopd
0.25-100 MMSCFD
47

Well Depths
100 to 20,000 feet

SPE 119143 tabulates over 200 field studies

Production Benefit
In >200 published studies and hundreds of
unpublished proppant selection studies,
Operators frequently report greater benefit than
expected using:
Higher proppant concentrations (if crosslinked)
More aggressive ramps, smaller pads
Screen outs (if sufficiently strong proppant)
Larger diameter proppant
Stronger proppant
Higher quality proppant
More uniformly shaped & sized proppant
Frac conductivity appears to be much more
important than our models or intuition predict!
49

A tabulation of 200 papers in SPE 119143

18

We are 99.9% certain the Pinedale Anticline

was constrained by proppant quality
Effect of Proppant Selection upon Production

800

Averages based on 95 stages ISPBS and 54 stages ISP 20/40

Versaprop
ISP-BS

700

ISP 20/40
CarboProp

600
500
400
300

70% increase
in productivity
achieved with
a more
uniformly
sized
proppant!

200
100

SPE 106151 and 108991

Av
er
ag
e

V0
M

V1
M

V2
M

V3
M

V4
M

V5
M

LL
1

LL
2

LL
3

Production Rate 100 days post-frac (mcfd)

900

Reservoir Sub-Interval (Lower Lance and Mesa Verde)

Can we learn from refracs?

Gas Condensate wells in DJ Basin up to 5
restimulations

Pagano, 2006

19

Increase Conductivity in Refracs?

Dozens of examples
in literature
.
Phase I refrac (20/40 Sand)

Phase III refrac (16/20 LWC)

2500
First
Refrac
Incremental
Oil Exceeds
1,000,000
barrels

1500
1000
500

Incremental
Oil exceeds
650,000
barrels

Initial Frac
Refrac

Well A

Well B

Well C

Well D

2000

1500

1000

500

Well E

Second
Refrac

Pre Frac

0
May-84 May-86 May-88 May-90 May-92 May-94 May-96 May-98 May-00

Date

Dedurin, 2008, Volga-Urals

oil

10,000 gal
3% acid +
10,000 lb
glass beads

80,000 gal +
100,000 lb
20/40 sand

75,000 gal +
120,000 lb
20/40 ISP

Ennis, 1989 sequential

refracs, tight gas

Pospisil, 1992 6 years later,

20 mD oil
3500

500

Gas
Water

3000

2500

2000

May 1999 Frac:

450

300,000 lb 20/40
LWC

Initial Frac in
1989:

May 1995 Frac:

48,000 lb 40/70
sand + 466,000
lb 12/20 sand

5,000 lb 100 mesh

+ 24,000 lb 20/40
Sand

400
350
300
250

1500

200
150

1000

Water Rate, BWPD

3000

y)a 100
ds/
en 80
nto
(e
ta 60
R
nio 40
tc
ud 20
roP

Stabilized Rate (MSCFD)

3500

2000

2500

120

Original Fracture (20/40 Sand)

Gas Rate, MCFD

Production from Fracture (bfpd)

4000

100
500
50
0
Jan-90

Shaefer, 2006 17 years later,

tight gas
52

0
Jan-91

Jan-92

Jan-93

Jan-94

Jan-95

Jan-96

Jan-97

Jan-98

Jan-99

Jan-00

Jan-01

Vincent, 2002 9 years later,

CBM

If this is not compelling

Is there additional irrefutable
evidence that our fracs are not
as effective as we thought?

20

Fractures Intersecting Offset Wellbores

Evidence fraced into offset wells
(at same depth)
1500
Barnett Shale
Microseismic mapping
Slurry to surface1000
Increased watercut
500
Solid radioactive tracer (logging)
Noise in offset monitor well
0

Observation

South-North (ft)

Offset wells (orange)

Well
Documented in-500
perfed at same depth
Tight sandstone (Piceance, Jonah, Cotton
loaded with frac
fluid Codell) -1000
Valley,
High
permfluid,
sandstone -1500
(Prudhoe)
After
unloading
Shale
Marcellus, Muskwa, EF)
several(Barnett,
offset wells
-2000
Dolomite (Middle Bakken
)
permanently stimulated
Chalk (Dan) -2500
by treatment!
Often EUR, pulse tests interference
-3000
-1000
-500
0
tests fail to indicate sustained
hydraulic
connectivity!
54

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

West-East (ft)
SPE 77441

Two Stage Cemented Barnett Shale Lateral

3000
2800

= First Stage Perf Clusters

3000 x 2900

2600
2400

= 2nd Stage Initial Perf Clusters

2200
2000

= Revised 2nd Stage Perf Clusters

1800
1600
1400

1000
800
600
400

9 million square feet

>200 acres

200
0

Treatment Well

-200
-400
-600

Observation Well

-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600

1st Stage

-1800

2nd Stage
1500

900

1300

700

1100

500

300

100

-100

-300

-500

-700

-900

-1100

-1300

-1500

-1700

-1900

-2100

-2300

-2500

-2700

-2900

-3100

-3300

-2000
-3500

South-North (ft)

1200

SPE 90051

West-East (ft)

21

How far do we drain? Barnett Infill Drilling

When
operators
have infill
drilled on

385 avg
spacing
Infill wells
steal 6%
of parent
EUR
Infill wells
produce
80% of
parent EUR

Source: Brian Posehn, EnCana, CSUG April 28, 2009

Fractures Intersecting Bakken Laterals

Sometimes adjacent wells are improved by bashing!

Well spacing ~1250 ft. Communication at 2500 ft

30/50 MgLite, 8 BASS stages @150klbs
Borate XL fluid to 5-6 ppg at tail

Enerplus SPE 139774 Jan 2011

22

Horn River, BC SPE 140654

Horn River, BC Microseismic Map

We can bash offset laterals at 5000 ft
spacing with frac water.
Sometimes we miss laterals in between.
This map is not assurance that we have
drained all the hydrocarbons in the well
vicinity!!!

Source: esgsolutions.com

23

How far do we drain? Ante Creek, Montney Oil

16 years later
encountering
near-virgin
pressure.
Demonstrates
that initial wells
were insufficient
to recover all
available
reserves.
Is this due solely
to reservoir
discontinuity?
Well locations?
Frac
insufficiency?

Source: ARC Investor Presentation Nov 2012

Marcellus Fractures Intersecting Offset Laterals

Marcellus - Slickwater
Microseismic, DFITS, downhole pressure
gauges, PTA, chemical tracers, production
interference
950 ft spacing. 1H treated 5 weeks after 2H
Cemented, 7 stage PnP
Slickwater 100 mesh, 40/70 and 30/50 sand
~6000 ft TVD
Pressure communication in 6 of 7 stages
Chem tracers from 2,3,5,6,7 recovered in 2H
When one well is shut in, the other well
increases in rate by ~20% demonstrating

some degree of connection, but

clearly imperfect after 6 months.
Large pressure losses inside the
fractures. Can we fix this?

Mayerhofer SPE 145463 Nov 2011

24

Marcellus Wells on 500 ft spacing do not

appear to share reserves
SPE 140463 Edwards, Weisser, Jackson, Marcotte

All diagnostics (microseismic, chemical tracers, surface pressure

gauges, etc) indicate fracturing treatments interact.
Well-to-well connection while the reservoir is dilated with frac fluid.
Microseismic suggests lengths >1000 ft
Production analysis estimates ~150 ft effective half length after 6
months
However, wells drilled on 500 ft spacing are similar in productivity to
those on 1000 ft spacing, suggesting they are not competing for
reserves

Any new opportunities to learn

something on a single well?

25

Percent Contribution

Horizontal Well - Production Log

20

15

10

0
15
heel

14

13

12

11

10

Stage Number

toe

Stages 2,7,13 screened out, average contribution = 13.5%

Stage 1 could not be accessed, Stages 3 and 4 were unpropped
Average contribution others (omitting 3&4 unpropped)= 6.3%
Stage 10, frac fluid volume reduced by 25% (more aggressive)

Intentional Screenouts?
Probable advantages to screenouts

Wider frac (more net pressure)

Better connection to wellbore
Treatment diversion into other perforation clusters
Reduced proppant flowback
A screened-out fracture may be immune to subsequent
overdisplacement when pumping plug/dropping ball
May be immune to subsequent refrac injection?
Perhaps advantage is simply avoiding overflush?

Disadvantages to screenouts

Standby time and cost to cleanout/flowback

Higher pressures may induce more gel damage
Stress on equipment and tubulars during treatment
Higher stress must be borne by proppant
Never screenout wells with ULWP or deformable proppant
May crush cleats in CBM, delicate formations
High net pressure may induce unwanted height growth,
sacrificing propped length

26

SPE 106151
Most statistically valid field trial published in industry
Pinedale Anticline, tight gas ~5 microDarcy, vertical wells

Between 2 and 15% of the stages screenout depending on

depth/stress/proppant type
5 stages screened out with sand or RCS
Only 1 provided acceptable Q100 rates.
4 were extremely disappointing

Stages that screened out on ceramic were very productive

Every ISP screenout was 1st or 2nd most productive stage in well
Effective frac lengths: 10 of 11 ceramic screenouts in upper 50%. 11th
was in upper 55%...

Screenouts are NOT beneficial in all situations. Careful

evaluation is needed.

Summary 1 of 2
1) Incredible reservoir contact provided by hydraulic fractures
2) Bad News: At least 5 reasons fracs are not optimized

Fluid flow is complicated

Conductivity degrades. Many fractures collapse or heal
Heterogeneous reservoirs depend on frac continuity
Frac geometry is tortuous, often with poor connection
between the frac and wellbore
Typical interpretations are NOT unique
3) Great News: Fracs are not optimized
Reservoirs are often capable of tremendous increases in
productivity with improved frac design

27

Summary 2 of 2
Take home messages to optimize frac productivity
All these complexities compromise flow capacity
You need much more conductivity than you think!
Be wary of modeling, intuition, or conventional wisdom
Experiment and validate
Keep searching for a better completion. We are NOT
optimized!
Focus on fracture EFFECTIVENESS, not dimensions
Horizontal wells provide some unique data gathering
opportunities!

28

Conventional versus Unconventional Reservoirs

Myths and Misunderstandings that hinder Frac Optimization
Detailed Rock Mechanics, Fluid Rheology, and Propagation Theory
Physics of Fluid Flow
Frac Sand mining and QC,
Ceramic manufacturing and QC
Proppant Types, Characteristics Understanding the differences between sand, resin and
ceramic
Conductivity Testing
Non-Darcy Flow
Multiphase Flow
Understanding Proppant Crush Testing - Are hot/wet crush tests superior?
Other Issues - Embedment, Stress Cyclic, Elevated Temperature
Determining Realistic Proppant Conductivity
Field Results 200 summarized on SPE 119143; ~30 in PowerPoint
PTA / Well Testing considerations / Effective Frac Lengths
Fines Migration & Plugging
Significance of Proppant Density, Frac width, sieve distribution upon proppant value
Gel Cleanup

Available Seminars

Lab studies and field examples documenting load recovery

Proppant Flowback and Erosive Potential of sand, ceramic, and resin-coated proppants
Frac Pack concepts and field studies
Zero Stress applications Flow in wellbore annuli or packed perforations
Frac Optimization
Mike Vincent

CBM frac optimization

Fracturing Carbonates
Where do unpropped fractures work?

Insight Consulting
mike@fracwell.com
303 568 0695

Horizontal Wells Comparisons with Vertical Fractured Completions

Specific Field Results (Pinedale, Kuparuk, Cardium, Wamsutter, Birch Creek, Siberia,
Cotton Valley, Vicksburg, Haynesville Lime, UP + Ranger, others)
Bakken Horizontal Wells Importance of Frac Intersection with Wellbore
Performance under Severe Conditions (Steam, Acid) + Diagenesis
Waterfracs/Slickwater Fracturing
Frac Geometry What do Fracs Really look like? What errors are we making?
100 mesh sand pros & cons
Refracturing