Modern Fracturing

Enhancing Natural Gas Production

Michael J. Economides
University of Houston

Tony Martin
BJ Services

ET Publishing
Houston,TX
 BJ Services Company 2007

BJ Services Company
P.O. Box 4442 [77210-4442]
4601 Westway Park Blvd.
Houston, TX 77041

Graphic design and production: Jay Clark

Production manager: Alexander M. Economides
Copy Editor: Stephanie Weiss
Cover Art: Armando Izquierdo

Published by: Energy Tribune Publishing Inc.

820 Gessner Rd.-Ste. 920
Houston, TX 77040

(713) 647-0903
(713) 647-0940 (fax)

for orders and customer service enquires contact: info@energytribune.com

All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, except under the expressed
permission of BJ Services Company, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

ISBN 978 1 60461 688 0

Printed and bound by Gulf Publishing Co.

Contents
Preface XV
Foreword XVII
Contributing Authors XVIII
Acknowledgements XIX

Chapter 1
Introduction to this Book
1-1 Introduction 3
1-2 Natural Gas in the World Economy 3
1-3 Russia: A Critical Evaluation of its Natural Gas Resources 5
1-3.1 The Resource Base 7
1-3.2 Russian Natural Gas Production 8
1-4 Alaska, its Natural Gas Resources and their Impact on US Imports 8
1-4.1 Alaskan Reserves and Production 9
1-4.2 The Uncertain Destiny of the North Slope of Alaska Natural Gas 10
1-4.3 Alaska in the Context of the United States and Canadian Natural Gas 11
1-5 Qatar Natural Gas 12
1-5.1 North Field Characteristics and Development 13
1-6 Fracturing for the Efficient use of Existing
Resources and for Increasing Recovery Factor 13

Chapter 2
Natural Gas Production
2-1 Introduction 19
2-2 Idiosyncrasies of Dry Gas, Wet Gas and Gas Condensates 19
2-3 Inflow from Natural Gas Reservoirs 20
2-3.1 Fundamentals of Non-Darcy Flow in Porous Media 20
2-3.2 Transient Flow 20
2-3.3 Steady State and Pseudosteady State Flow 21
2-3.4 Horizontal Well Flow 22
2-4 Effects of Turbulence 23


 2-4.1 The Effects of Turbulence on Radial Flow 23
2-4.2 Perforated and Cased Well in a High-Rate Gas Reservoir 24
2-5 Production from Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells 25
2-5.1 Unique Needs of Fracture Geometry and Conductivity 26
2-5.2 Turbulence Remediation in High- and Low-Permeability Wells 26
2-5.3 Multi-fractured Horizontal Gas Wells 28
2-6 Well Deliverability, IPR and Well Flow Performance 33
2-7 Forecast of Well Performance 34
2-7.1 Gas Material Balance and Forecast of Gas Well Performance 34
2-8 Correlations for Natural Gas Properties 35
2-8.1 Pseudocritical Pressure, ppc and Pseudocritical Temperature, Tpc 35
2-8.2 Gas Viscosity 35
2-8.3 Gas Deviation Factor, Z 35

Chapter 3
Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
3-1 Introduction 41
3-2 Background Theory 42
3-3 Radial Flow Solutions 44
3-4 Superposition 45
3-5 Model Development 46
3-6 Hydraulically Fractured Wells 47
3-7 Specialized Plots 48
3-8 Type Curves and the Log-Log Derivative Plot 49
3-9 Flow Regime Identification 51
3-10 Derivatives A Few Cautionary Remarks 54
3-11 PTA Interpretation Methods 56
3-12 Difference Between High and Low Permeability Analysis Techniques 57
3-12.1 High-Permeability Wells 57
3-12.2 Low-Permeability Wells Pre-Treatment Evaluation 59
3-12.3 Example 3-1, PID Test 60
3-12.4 Low-Permeability Wells Post-Treatment Evaluation 61
3-12.5 Example 3-2, Low-Permeability Well, Infinite-Conductivity Fracture 62
3-12.6 Example 3-3, Low-Permeability Well, Finite-Conductivity Fracture 65
3-13 Non-Darcy Flow 66
3-13.1 Example 3-4, Non-Darcy, High-Permeability Well, Finite-Conductivity Fracture 68
3-13.2 Example 3-5, Non-Darcy, Low-Permeability Well, Finite-Conductivity Fracture 69
3-14 Production Analysis 70
II
 3-15 Heterogeneity 76
3-15.1 Dual Porosity 76
3-15.2 Anisotropy 76
3-16 Multiphase Flow 77
3-16.1 Gas Condensates 78
3-16.2 Fracture Fluid Cleanup 79
3-16.3 Example 3-6, Fracture Fluid Cleanup Case 79
3-17 Closure Analysis 81
3-18 Deconvolution 86

Chapter 4
Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
4-1 Introduction to Hydraulic Fracturing 93
4-1.1 Brief History of Fracturing and Qualitative Description of Process 93
4-1.2 High Permeability vs. Low Permeability 94
4-1.3 Near-Well Flow Enhancement vs. Reservoir Stimulation 94
4-1.4 Acceleration vs. Increase of Reserves 95
4-2 Description of the Process 95
4-2.1 One of the Most Energy- and Material-Intensive Industrial Activities 95
4-2.1.1 Understanding the Significance of Pressure 96
4-2.1.2 Different Types of Pressure 96
4-2.1.3 Net Pressure 97
4-2.1.4 Effects of Tortuosity and Perforation Friction 98
4-2.1.5 Fluid Leakoff and Slurry Efficiency 101
4-2.1.6 Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity 102
4-2.1.7 Nolte-Smith Analysis Predicting Fracture Geometry from Pressure Trends 103
4-2.1.8 Step Rate Tests 104
4-2.1.9 Minifracs 106
4-2.2 The Role of Advanced Technology in Design, Execution and Evaluation 109
4-2.2.1 Recent Advances and Breakthroughs 109
4-2.2.2 Pressure Matching 112
4-2.2.3 Getting Closer to Understanding Fracture Geometry 115
4-2.2.4 Real-Time Analysis 115
4-2.3 From Fracturing a Single Vertical Well to Complex Well-Fracture Architecture 116
4-3 Rock Mechanical Characteristics 116
4-3.1 Basic Definitions 116
4-3.1.1 Stress and Strain 116
4-3.1.2 The Poissons Ratio 116
III
 4-3.1.3 Youngs Modulus 117
4-3.1.4 Other Rock Mechanical Characteristics 118
4-3.1.5 Hookes Law 119
4-3.1.6 Failure Criteria and Yielding 119
4-3.2 In-Situ Stress and Fracture Orientation 121
4-3.2.1 Overburden Stress 121
4-3.2.2 Horizontal Stresses 121
4-3.2.3 The Effect of Pore Pressure 122
4-3.2.4 Fracture Orientation 122
4-3.2.5 Stress Around a Wellbore and Breakdown Pressure 123
4-3.3 Fracture Shape 125
4-3.3.1 Two-Dimensional (2-D) Fracture Geometry 125
4-3.3.2 Elliptical Fracture Geometry 125
4-3.3.3 Limitations to Fracture Height Growth 126
4-3.3.4 Complex Fracture Geometry 127
4-3.4 Fracture Propagation, Toughness and Tip Effects 127
4-3.4.1 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics 127
4-3.4.2 Significance of Fracture Toughness 129
4-3.4.3 Complexity at the Fracture Tip 130
4-3.5 Measuring Rock Mechanical Characteristics 132
4-3.5.1 Introduction 132
4-3.5.2 Methods of Measurement 132
4-3.5.3 Core Selection/Sample Preparation Considerations 134
4-3.5.4 Deducing Elastic Properties without Core 135
4-4 Fluid Rheological Characteristics 137
4-4.1 Viscosity 137
4-4.1.1 Shear Rate, Shear Stress and Viscosity 137
4-4.1.2 Measurement of Viscosity 137
4-4.2 Fluid Behavior 138
4-4.2.1 Newtonian Fluids 138
4-4.2.2 Non-Newtonian Fluids 138
4-4.2.3 Apparent Viscosity 139
4-4.3 Flow Regimes 140
4-4.3.1 Plug, Laminar and Turbulent Flow 140
4-4.3.2 Reynolds Number 140
4-4.4 Fluid Friction 141
4-4.4.1 The Influence of Flow Regime 141
4-4.4.2 Predicting Pressure Loss due to Friction 141
4-5 Optimum Treatment Design 141
4-5.1 Dimensionless Productivity Index and Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity 143

IV
 4-5.2 Optimum Dimensionless Conductivity 144
4-5.3 Optimum Length and Width 144
4-5.4 Treatment Sizing and Proppant Placement Efficiency 145
4-5.5 Taking Into Account Operational Constraints 145
4-5.6 Using Fracture Propagation Models 146
4-5.6.1 Height containment 146
4-5.6.2 2-D models 147
4-5.6.3 3-D models 149
4-6 Predicting Production Increase 150
4-6.1 Pseudo-radial Concepts: Equivalent Wellbore Radius, Fracture Skin 150
4-6.2 Finite Reservoir Concepts, Folds of Increase 150
4-6.3 Combining Productivity Index and Material Balance 151
4-6.3.1 Pseudo-steady state 151
4-6.3.2 Combined transient and stabilized flow 151
4-6.4 Reservoir Simulation and Nodal Analysis 152
4-7 Fracturing Under Specific Circumstances 153
4-7.1 Tight Gas 153
4-7.1.1 The Importance of Inflow Area 154
4-7.1.2 Effective vs Actual Propped Length 154
4-7.2 High-Rate Gas Wells 155
4-7.2.1 Non-Darcy Flow 155
4-7.2.2 Wellbore Connectivity 155
4-7.3 High-Permeability Wells 155
4-7.3.1 The Importance of Fracture Conductivity 156
4-7.3.2 The Tip Screenout 156
4-7.4 Unconsolidated Formations 156
4-7.4.1 Re-Stressing the Formation 156
4-7.4.2 The Frac-Pack Treatment 157
4-7.5 Skin-Bypass Treatments 157
4-7.6 Condensate Dropout 158
4-7.6.1 Description of Phenomena 158
4-7.6.2 Mitigating the Effect of Dropout 158
4-7.7 Shale Gas and Coal Bed Methane 158
4-7.7.1 Gas Shales 158
4-7.7.2 Coal Bed Methane 158
4-7.8 Acid Fracturing 159
4-7.8.1 Description of Process 159
4-7.8.2 Estimating Fracture Conductivity 159
4-7.8.3 Use of Diversion Techniques 160


Chapter 5
Well Completions
5-1 Wellbore Construction 169
5-1.1 Effects of Uncertainty in Reservoir Description 169
5-1.2 Fitting Well Design to the Reservoir Potential 169
5-1.3 Well Design 170
5-1.4 Other Well Equipment 171
5-1.5 Well Integrity 171
5-2 Gas Well Cementing 172
5-2.1 General Objectives for Gas Well Cementing Operations 172
5-2.2 Gas Well Zonal Isolation 173
5-2.3 Review of Fundamental Cement Placement Practices 174
5-2.4 Predictive Wellbore Stress Modeling 174
5-2.5 Cement Slurry Criteria for Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells 176
5-2.5.1 Slurry Criteria for Optimized Placement 176
5-2.5.2 Slurry Criteria for Anti-Gas Migration 177
5-2.5.3 Slurry Criteria for Long-Term Zonal Isolation 178
5-2.6 Fracturing Constraints Required to Maintain Long-Term Zonal Isolation 179
5-3 Identifying Gas Pays, Permeability and Channels 179
5-3.1 Pay and Water Zone Logging Methods 179
5-3.2 Effect of Formation Clays and Micro-porosity 180
5-3.3 Wellbore Deviation and Resultant Logging and Flow Problems 181
5-3.4 Completion Considerations for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs 181
5-3.5 Formation Characterization for Well Completions 182
5-4 Sizing the Completion 183
5-4.1 Initial Design Considerations 183
5-4.2 Flow Factors for Tubing Design 184
5-4.3 Tubing Selection 185
5-4.4 Multi-Phase Flow and Natural Lift 185
5-4.5 Multiphase Flow and Flow Correlation Options 186
5-4.6 Critical Lift Factors 187
5-4.7 Liquid Hold-up and Back Pressure 188
5-4.8 Lift Options for Gas Wells 188
5-5 Completion Design for Flow Assurance 188
5-5.1 Completion Design for the Prevention of Gas Hydrates 188
5-5.2 Formation Damage in Gas Wells, Completion Damage and Scales 190
5-5.3 Organic Deposits and Condensate Banking 190
5-5.4 Effects of H2S and CO2 on Corrosion 191

VI
 5-6 Sand Control for Gas Wells 192
5-6.1 Why is the Sand Flowing? 192
5-6.2 Is Sand Flow All Bad? 192
5-6.3 Establishing and Monitoringa Sand-Free Rate 193
5-6.4 Sand Control Methods for Gas Wells 194
5-6.5 Reliability of Sand Control Completions 194
5-6.6 Repairing and Restoring Productivity in Wells hat Flow Sand 194

Chapter 6
Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
6-1 Introduction 201
6-2 Completion Techniques and Their Impact on Well Connectivity 202
6-2.1 Cased-Well Isolation Techniques 202
6-2.2 Open-Hole Completions 205
6-2.3 Open-Hole and Uncemented Liner Fracture Treatment Diversion 205
6-3 Perforating in General 206
6-4 Perforating for Fracturing 206
6-4.1 Oriented Perforations 206
6-4.2 Deviated and Horizontal Well Perforating 208
6-4.2.1 Production Impairment from Inefficient Fracture-to-Wellbore Contact 209
6-4.3 Underbalanced vs. Extreme Overbalanced Perforating 211
6-5 Near-Wellbore Fracture Complexity 213
6-5.1 Near-Wellbore Complexity 214
6-5.2 Diagnosing and Quantifying Near-Wellbore Complexity (Tortuosity) 215
6-5.3 Minimizing the Effects of Tortuosity 217
6-6 Mid- and Far-Field Fracture Complexity 218
6-6.1 An Introduction to Complex Fracture Growth 219
6-6.2 Evidence of Complex Fracture Growth 220
6-6.3 Consequences of Complex Fracture Growth 220

Chapter 7
Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
7-1 Introduction 227
7-2 Fracturing Fluid Function 228
7-2.1 Fracture Initiation 228

VII
 7-2.2 Proppant Transport 229
7-3 Fracturing Fluid Rheology 230
7-3.1 Pressure Loss Gradient in the Fracture 232
7-3.2 Rheology in the Presence of Proppant Material and its Relation to Settling 234
7-3.3 Impact of Fluid Rheology on Fluid Loss 235
7-3.4 Calculation of Pressure Loss in the Wellbore Using Rheological Parameters
and the Virk Maximum Drag Reduction Asymptote 235
7-3.5 Advanced Rheology 235
7-3.6 Foam Rheology 236
7-3.7 Effect of Proppant on Rheology 237
7-3.8 Laboratory Rheology Measurements 239
7-4 Types of Fracturing Fluids 242
7-4.1 Water-Based Fluids 243
7-4.1.1 Low-Viscosity Fluids 243
7-4.1.2 Crosslinked Fluids 243
7-4.1.3 Borate Crosslinked Fluids 244
7-4.1.4 Metallic Ion Crosslinked Fluids 244
7-4.1.5 Delayed-Crosslink Systems 245
7-4.1.6 Function of Breakers in Water-Based Fluids 246
7-4.1.7 Water-Based Fluids in Gas Wells 246
7-4.2 Oil-Based Fluids 247
7-4.3 Energized fluids 248
7-4.4 Foams and Emulsions 249
7-4.5 Unconventional Fluids 250
7-4.5.1 Viscoelastic Surfactant Fluids 250
7-4.5.2 Viscoelastic Surfactant Foams 251
7-4.5.3 Emulsion of Carbon Dioxide with Aqueous Methanol Base Fluid 251
7-4.5.4 Crosslinked Foams 251
7-4.5.5 Non-Aqueous Methanol Fluids 252
7-4.5.6 Liquid CO2-Based Fluids 253
7-4.5.7 Liquid CO2-Based Foam Fluid 254
7-4.6 Acid Fracturing Fluid 254
7-5 Fracturing Fluid Additives 254
7-5.1 Additives for Water-Based Fluids 254
7-5.1.1 Friction Reducers 254
7-5.1.2 Gelling Agents 255
7-5.1.3 Biocide 257
7-5.1.4 Buffers 259
7-5.1.5 Crosslinkers 259
7-5.1.6 Breakers 260

VIII
 7-5.1.7 Clay Stabilizers 262
7-5.1.8 Surfactants 262
7-6 Fluid Damage to Fractures and Sources of Productivity Impairment 262
7-6.1 Example Calculation of Productivity Impairment from Fracture Damage 264
7-6.2 Formation Damage from Saturation Changes 265
7-6.2.1 Fluid Retention 265
7-6.2.2 Rock/Fluid Interactions 267
7-6.2.3 Fluid/Fluid Interactions 267
7-6.2.4 Wettability Alterations 267
7-6.3 Formation Damage from Production 268
7-7 Fracturing Fluid Selection 268
7-7.1 Mineralogical Evaluation 269
7-7.1.1 X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) Analysis 269
7-7.1.2 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) 270
7-7.1.3 Immersion Testing 271
7-7.1.4 Capillary Suction Time Testing 271
7-7.1.5 Core Flow Analysis 271
7-8 Selection of Fracturing Fluids for Applications in Gas Wells 273

Chapter 8
Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
8-1 Introduction 283
8-1.1 Overview 283
8-1.2 The Evolution of Proppants 283
8-1.3 Fracture Conductivity 285
8.2 Conductivity Impact on Fractured Well Production Potential 286
8-2.1 How a Propped Fracture Benefits Well Flow Rate 287
8-2.2 Steady-State Solutions 288
8-2.3 Transient Solutions 288
8-3 Proppants 289
8-3.1 Sands 289
8-3.1.1 Ottawa Sands 290
8-3.1.2 Brady Sands 290
8-3.2 Ceramic Proppants 291
8-3.2.1 Sintered Bauxite 291
8-3.2.2 Intermediate Strength Ceramic Proppant 291
8-3.2.3 Lightweight Ceramic Proppant 292
8-3.3 Resin-Coated Proppants 292

IX
 8-3.4 Ultra-Lightweight Proppants 294
8-4 Proppant Properties, Testing Protocols, and Performance Considerations 295
8-4.1 Proppant Testing Procedure Standards 295
8-4.2 Proppant Sampling 296
8-4.3 Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution 297
8-4.3.1 Proppant Size Testing 297
8-4.4 Proppant Shape 298
8-4.4.1 Proppant Shape Testing 299
8-4.5 Proppant Bulk Density and Apparent Specific Gravity 299
8-4.5.1 Proppant Bulk Density and Specific Gravity Testing 300
8-4.6 Proppant Quality 300
8-4.6.1 Acid Solubility Testing 300
8-4.6.2 Turbidity Testing 301
8-4.7 Proppant Strength 301
8-4.7.1 Proppant Crush and Fines Generation 302
8-4.7.2 Crush Testing 302
8-4.8 Proppant Concentration 303
8-5 Proppant Placement 305
8-5.1 Effects on Fluid Rheology 305
8-5.2 Convection 305
8-5.3 Proppant Transport 305
8-6 Fracture Conductivity 308
8-6.1 API Short-Term Testing Procedure 308
8-6.2 ISO Long-Term Testing Procedure 309
8-6.3 Non-Darcy Flow Testing 310
8-6.4 Multiphase Flow Tests 311
8-6.5 Gel Damage 312
8-6.6 Other Factors 313
8-7 Proppant Flowback 314
8-7.1 Proppant Flowback Control 314
8-7.2 Curable Resin-Coated Proppant 315
8-7.3 Proppant Flowback Control Additives 315
8-7.3.1 Tackifiers 315
8-7.3.2 Fibers 315
8-7.3.3 Deformable Particles 315
8-8 Proppant Selection 316
8-8.1 Productivity Potential 317
8-8.2 Flowback Control 317
8-8.3 Availability 317
8-8.4 The Cost-Value Proposition 318


Chapter 9
Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
9-1 Introduction 323
9-2 Function of Equipment 324
9-2.1 High-Pressure Pumping Equipment 324
9-2.2 Blending Equipment 325
9-2.3 High-Pressure Treating Lines and Manifolds 326
9-2.4 Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Pumping 326
9-2.5 Treatment Control Vans and Cabins 327
9-3 Equipment Quality Control 328
9-3.1 How Much Horsepower and What is the Pressure Rating? 328
9-3.2 How Many High-Pressure Lines and Suction Discharge Hoses to Use? 329
9-3.3 Standby Pumping and Blending Equipment 329
9-3.4 Absolute Essentials for Every Job 329
9-4 Quality Control for Fracturing Fluids 330
9-4.1 Quality Control of Water-Based Fracturing Fluids Before Arriving on Location 330
9-4.2 Fracture Fluid Blending Methods 334
9-4.3 Quality Control of Water-Based Fracture Fluids on Location 334
9-4.4 Quality Control of Other Fluid Systems 335
9-5 Quality Control of Propping Agents 336
9-5.1 Quality Control Guideline for Propping Agents 338
9-6 Quality Control and Execution of Acid Fracturing 338
9-6.1 Quality Control for Acid Fracturing 339
9-7 Multi-Stage Fracturing and Isolation Methods 342
9-7.1 Diverting Agents 342
9-7.2 Ball Sealers 342
9-7.3 Limited Entry 343
9-7.4 Multi-Stage Fracturing with Mechanical Isolation 344
9-7.5 New Multi-Stage Fracturing Technology 346
9-7.6 Horizontal Well Multi-Stage Fracturing 347
9-8 Pre-Fracture Diagnostics and Fracture Evaluation Tests 347
9-9 Real-Time Pressure Interpretation 350
9-9.1 Nolte-Smith Plot (see also Section 4-2.1.7) 350
9-9.2 Surface Treating Pressure as a Tool 351
9-9.3 The Effects of Perforations on Surface Treating Pressure 353
9-9.4 The Effects of Pipe Friction on Surface Treating Pressure 354
9-10 Fracturing Fluid Recovery (Flowback) 355

XI
Chapter 10
Fracturing Horizontal Wells
10-1 Introduction 363
10-2 Production from Transversely Fractured Gas Horizontal Wells 365
10-2.1 A Calculation for Transversely Fractured Gas Horizontal Wells 366
10-3 Open-Hole Horizontal Well Completions 369
10-3.1 Perforating 370
10-3.2 Zonal Isolation 370
10-4 Open-Hole Fracturing 371
10-4.1 Acid Fracturing Execution 372
10-4.2 Proppant Fracturing Execution 372
10-4.3 Cleanup 373
10-5 Cased-Hole Completions 373
10-5.1 Cementing Horizontal Wells 373
10-5.2 Perforating Cemented Completions 374
10-5.3 Zonal Isolation in Cased Completions 375
10-6 Fracturing of Cased-Hole Completions 376
10-6.1 Acid Fracture Execution 376
10-6.2 Proppant Fracturing Execution 377
10-7 Rationale and Conditions of Fracturing
Horizontal Wells in Gas Formation 377

Chapter 11
Unconventional Gas
11-1 Introduction 383
11-2 Description of Unconventional Reservoirs 383
11-3 Production Mechanisms 385
11-3.1 CBM (Coalbed Methane) 385
11-3.2 Shale Gas Reservoirs 385
11-3.3 Shale Gas Reserves 386
11-4 CBM Reservoirs 387
11-4.1 Coalbed Description 387
11-4.2 CBM Fractured Systems 388
11-4.3 Adsorption/Desorption 390
11-4.4 Stimulation Techniques 391
11-4.5 Alternate Completions and Enhanced Production Techniques 393
XII
 11-4.6 Fracture Modeling of CBM Wells 396
11-4.7 Fracturing Treatment Evaluation of CBM Wells 397
11-4.8 Estimation of Reserves and Production Data Analysis 398
11-5 Shale Gas 400
11-5.1 Shale Description 400
11-5.2 Thermogenic and Biogenic Systems 401
11-5.3 Ft. Worth Basin Barnett Shale 402
11-5.3.1 Barnett Shale Slickwater Treatment Design Considerations 404
11-5.4 Barnett and Woodford Gas Shale, Delaware Basin 406
11-5.5 Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas 409
11-5.5.1 Treatment Design Considerations Fayettville Shale 409
11-5.6 Woodford/Caney Shale, Arkoma Basin 410
11-5.7 Floyd Shale/Conasauga Shale, Black Warrior Basin (Alabama) 412
11-5.8 Mancos and Lewis Shales 412
11-6 Shale Treatment Design and Evaluation 413
11-6.1 Stimulation and Treatment Design for Shale Reservoirs 413
11-6.2 Fracture Modeling 416
11-6.3 Summary 416

Chapter 12
Fracturing for Reservoir Development
12-1 Introduction 427
12-2 Impact of Fracturing on Reservoir- or Drainage-Wide Production 428
12-2.1 Example Application of Infield Drilling and Fracturing of Gas Wells 429
12-2.2 Transient Flow of Fractured Gas Wells 430
12-3 Forecasting Natural Gas Well Performance and Recovery 431
12-3.1 A Case Study for Reservoir Recovery Using Unfractured and Fractured Wells 431
12-3.2 Field Development Strategy 432
12-4 Impact of Fracture Azimuth on Well Planning 434
12-4.1 Determination of Fracture Azimuth 435
12-4.2 Considerations Regarding Directional Permeability in the Reservoir 435
12-4.3 Barnett Shale Case Study 437
12-5 Data Mining Techniques 441
12-5.1 Purpose of Data Mining 441
12-5.2 Data Sources 441
12-5.3 Data Preparation 442
12-5.4 Selected Data Mining Tools 442
12-5.5 Data Mining Case History 443

XIII
Chapter 13
Technologies for Mature Assets
13-1 Introduction 455
13-1.1 Definition of a Mature Asset 455
13-1.2 Minimum Cost & Maximum Value 456
13-1.3 Motivation for Fracturing 457
13-1.4 New Technologies/Approaches 458
13-1.5 Reducing Treatment Costs 462
13-2 Candidate Selection 464
13-2.1 Regional Considerations 464
13-2.2 Neighborhood Considerations 465
13-2.3 Localized Considerations 466
13-2.4 Risk Ranking and Data Manipulation 467
13-2.5 Case Histories and Results 468
13-3 Fracture Design in Mature Fields 469
13-4 Depletion Considerations 470
13-4.1 Pore-Pressure Considerations 470
13-4.2 Fracturing Fluid Selection 472
13-4.3 Proppant Selection 473
13-4.4 Cleanout and Flowback 474
13-4.5 Mechanical Deployment 476
13-5 Re-Fracturing Operations 479
13-5.1 Re-Fracturing Case Histories 480
13-5.2 Candidate Selection for Re-Fracturing 481
13-5.3 Re-Fracture Re-Orientation 481
13-5.4 Improved Treatment Design 483

Nomenclature 491
Index 503

XIV
Preface

I
It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to Modern Fracturing: Enhancing Natural Gas Production. BJ Services
Company is proud to be involved in developing and publishing this work. We hope you find this book to be
instructive, informative and interesting.

This book is intended for use by all industry professionals, not just those who are already familiar with the engineering
concepts and field practices of hydraulic fracturing. The pages within comprise a state-of-the-art engineering manual
for planning, preparation, performance and evaluation of hydraulic fracture treatments in natural gas reservoirs. We
envision industry professionals throughout the world benefiting from the information in this book.

Hydraulic fracturing is already the completion method of choice for most natural gas wells in North America. As
global dependence upon natural gas increases, it seems likely the application and popularity of this completion
method will only increase further and spread farther. The techniques described within this book are applicable to all
gas reservoirs, not just to the low permeability formations typically developed in North America. We firmly believe
fracturing is the best possible completion technique for each and every gas reservoir throughout the world.

A wide range of knowledgeable authors from throughout the industry have come together to produce this book. On
behalf of BJ Services, I want to thank them for their sharing their experience and knowledge, as well as for their hard
work and dedication in completing such an ambitious project. We feel certain that in the years to come, each author
will continue to be proud of his or her involvement in this undertaking. We also trust that readers like you will
continue to improve best practices in developing natural gas resources worldwide with the insights derived from
this significant work.

Dave Dunlap
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, BJ Services

XV
Foreword

I
I was very pleased when my friend Michael Economides asked me to write the Preface to his new book. BJ Services
Company should be complimented for sponsoring this effort and for attracting some of the worlds top experts to
contribute. I know many of the contributors, and I am sure the result will be lasting and useful for years to come.

I am even more pleased that this specific book is put together for three reasons. The first is that natural gas will shortly
become the premier fuel of the world economy. Second, hydraulic fracturing, already the most important production
enhancement technique for oil wells, is absolutely indispensable for natural gas wells. Third, the existing know-how and
skill sets of the fracturing community are dreadfully inadequate, especially in management.

Fracturing in the petroleum industry is no longer an experimental or daring activity by some hot-shot, brash engineers,
often working against the established old thinking and even worse, conservative managers who still believe that economics
equal cost reduction, ignoring the benefit from improved well performance. When enhanced production and injection
performance is the motivation, nothing can compete with properly integrated fracturing.

Often, people are confused about the real impact from this well completion and stimulation technique. Most often, any
improvement in production compared to what a well did before fracturing is considered a success. In reality, we already
know how much a well should be producing after fracturing by using the concept of maximizing the JD, the dimensionless
productivity index. Anything less than that should be considered a performance gap and managed as such. We have to
push the limits and manage the completion and execution community to deliver what we know can be done.

All activities in a company must be integrated with hydraulic fracturing. We are by definition can-do people. So the idea
that ultra-high production targets are unrealistic and theoretical should be replaced by developing and implementing
the know-how and skill sets to deliver maximum performance.

Consider this: When my associates and I (including Michael) were working in Russia, in a five-year period we managed
to double a companys production, increasing by 20% per year to almost 2 million barrels per day while shutting-in 50%
of the original well stock. Most of this success occurred by pushing the limits of hydraulic fracturing and integrating the
other parts of the production system. And despite this success, we were constantly enhancing materials and increasing job
sizes to push the calculated performance limits. We established two management rules:

1. All new wells and workovers must be fractured unless top management approves otherwise.
2. All frac jobs must be designed and executed to perform at the peak of the NPV bell curve unless top management
approves otherwise.

The point is that many companies require approval to do it right but delegate enough financial authority, no approval
required, to do it wrong. We reversed this by giving enough authority (no approval required) to do it right and required
top management approval to do it wrong.

It is not so difficult to reproduce the same performance everywhere else. Just look at current worldwide well performance,
and one can easily see huge gaps, including the largest and best-known multinational oil companies. Fracturing can go a
long way to correct this obvious problem. Not only will the benefit to companies be immediate and large, but silly talk
about peak oil and twilight in the desert will go away.

Joe Mach - February 2007

XVII
Contributing Authors
Editors
Michael J. Economides, University of Houston
Tony Martin, BJ Services
Authors
Bob Bachman, Taurus Reservoir Solutions
Steve Baumgartner, BJ Services
Harold Brannon, BJ Services
Andronikos Demarchos, Hess Corporation
Michael J. Economides, University of Houston
John Ely, Ely & Associates, Inc.
Satya Gupta, BJ Services
Robert Hawkes, BJ Services
Barry Hlidek, BJ Services
George King, BP
Randy Lafollette, BJ Services
XVIII
David Mack, Marathon Oil
Mark Malone, BJ Services
Tony Martin, BJ Services
C. Mark Pearson, Golden Energy, LLC
David Ross, InTuition Energy Associates Ltd.
Martin Rylance, BP
Gary Schein, BJ Services
Peter Valk, Texas A&M University
Leen Weijers, Pinnacle Technologies
Xiuli Wang, BP
Don Wolcott, Aurora Oil and Gas
Acknowledgements

F
First and foremost, the editors would like to express their sincere gratitude to JC Mondelli, who has been the
champion of this book within BJ Services from its initial conception, all the way through to printing and publication.
Without his perseverance and vision, this publication would never have come about. We would also like to thank
the senior management of BJ Services for providing funding and, especially, for allowing a great number of highly
dedicated people to put their time and energy into writing chapters, in spite of their busy schedules.
Our thanks to Joe Mach for gracing the book with his Preface and endorsement, and who also, in his unique
style, reminded all of us why doing this book mattered in the first place.
Writing this book was an added task both for our BJ Services colleagues and those from other companies and
institutions, and the result is a testament to their dedication and professionalism. Putting together a multi-authored,
multi-edged book is never an easy task and to no small measure, the authors deserve particular praise for persevering
and having to respond to suggestions and editorial interference by two admittedly highly demanding and opinionated
Editors. Compliments and credit are deserved by all of them, without whom this project would not have been
possible.
Special thanks go to Greg Salerno who shepherded many of the logistical tasks and kept a level-headed approach
on the day-to-day management of the project. Thanks also to Garth Gregory and Margaret Kirick for their invaluable
help with the organisation and administration of this undertaking.
The copy-editor Stephanie Weiss served a key role in the final version of the book. She is a highly experienced
and exceptional technical copy editor, a formidable vacuum cleaner for cleaning up deficiencies, omissions and
errors. Her work reminded all that adherence to detail and perfection are essential in elevating a professional book to
a different level. She was a rare find.
Alexander M. Economides and his staff in the Energy Tribune, headed by Jay Clark and the publication assistants
Alex Lewis and George Song, did a spectacular job in producing the book. They deserve special praise.

Michael J. Economides and Tony Martin - September 2007

XIX
Michael J. Economides is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, and the
managing partner of a petroleum engineering and petroleum strategy consulting firm. His interests include
petroleum production and petroleum management with a particular emphasis on natural gas, natural gas
transportation, LNG, CNG and processing; advances in process design of very complex operations, and
economics and geopolitics. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune. Previously he was the
Samuel R. Noble Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University and served as chief scientist
of the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI). Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M University,
Economides was director of the Institute of Drilling and Production at the Leoben Mining University
in Austria. Before that, he worked in a variety of senior technical and managerial positions with a major
petroleum services company. Publications include authoring or co-authoring 14 professional textbooks and
books, including The Color Of Oil, and more than 200 journal papers and articles. Economides does a wide
range of industrial consulting, including major retainers by national oil companies at the country level and
by Fortune 500 companies. He has had professional activities in over 70 countries.

Tony Martin is business development manager for international stimulation at BJ Services Company. Since
graduating from Imperial College, London, with an honors degree in mechanical engineering and a master's
degree in petroleum engineering, Martin has spent 17 years in the oil industry and has completed engineering
assignments around the world. Martin's primary interest has been hydraulic fracturing and stimulation, and
he has been involved in production enhancement projects in more than 25 countries. He teaches fracturing,
acidizing and sand control both in-house and externally. A constant theme in this teaching is the need
to de-mystify the world of hydraulic fracturing, in an attempt to make the process more accessible and
less intimidating. He is the author or co-author of numerous SPE papers and has served on the technical
committees for several SPE events. He is also the author of BJ Services Hydraulic Fracturing Manual.
Chapter 1 mainstay of the developed world such as the United
States and Europe, can be revitalized through
Introduction to this Book this process (Chapter 13).
Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and Before the technical issues are addressed it is
Tony Martin, BJ Services essential to look at natural gas in the world economy,
why it is becoming increasingly important and what
are the reasons for all the excitement surrounding its
1-1 Introduction enhanced production.

This is a book about enhancing natural gas production 1-2 Natural Gas in the World Economy
using one of the most important and widespread well
completion technologies hydraulic fracturing. Although natural gas, with some 23% of all world energy
The book addresses the way that natural gas is demand in 2005, is still slightly behind coal (25.6%) as
produced from natural reservoirs (Chapter 2) and then the worlds third-largest source of primary energy (oil
describes diagnostic techniques that can pinpoint whether still dominates at 38%), it is poised to move up because
the well is producing as it should or whether intervention of significantly emerging new trade. Member countries
should be undertaken (Chapter 3), which is the central in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
theme of this book. Development (OECD) and the USA, specifically,
Hydraulic fracturing is introduced as the solution consume about 51% and 22% respectively of global
of choice, showing the idiosyncratic nature of natural natural gas, now comprising about 103 Tcf (2.9 Bm3) per
gas wells compared to oil wells (Chapter 4). The year (Energy Information Administration, EIA, 2007).
subsequent two chapters address important peripheral
issues whose successful or failed resolution may affect
the well performance with equal or even more serious
consequences than the fracture treatment itself. These
issues include well completions (Chapter 5) and the
extremely important well-to-reservoir (and fracture)
connectivity (Chapter 6).
The next two chapters deal with materials for
fracturing: fluids and proppants (Chapters 7 and 8). Their
selection is essential to the successful execution of the
treatment. The execution itself becomes the next chapter,
and practical issues are addressed there (Chapter 9).
Then some modern applications are described.
One chapter deals with fracturing horizontal wells,
increasingly an important option among reservoir
exploitation strategies (Chapter 10). Not only new
well architecture but also newer reservoir targets are Figure 1-1 The top 12 holders of natural gas reserves:
Russia, Iran and Qatar dominate (EIA, 2006, BP
opening up, and natural gas demand points towards Statistical Review, 2006, ET, 2007)
unconventional sources, namely coalbed methane
(CBM), shale gas and very low-permeability formations. There are several obvious benefits to the use of
Technology makes their exploitation possible, and this natural gas. First, it is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel
is the subject of the next chapter (Chapter 11). and produces fewer emissions and pollutants than either
Finally, two issues round out the book: oil or, especially, coal. Second, the resource is becoming
Fracturing is employed in the full development of increasingly diverse. Since the early 1970s, world reserves
reservoirs (Chapter 12); and how mature fields, a of natural gas have been increasing steadily, at an annual


Modern Fracturing

Table 1-1 Top 25 Countries Ranked According to Proved Natural Gas Reserves and identifying the proved
reserves-to-production ratio (R/P) for each country
Proved Natural Gas Reserves at January 1, 2006

Reserves /
Trillion Cubic Trillion Cubic Cumulative
Country Share of Total Production (R/P)
Feet (Tcf) Meters (Tm3) Share of Total
Years
1 Russian Federation 1688 47.8 26.6% 26.6% 80.0
2 Iran 944 26.7 14.9% 41.5% >100
3 Qatar 910 25.8 14.3% 55.8% >100
4 Saudi Arabia 244 6.9 3.8% 59.6% 99.3
5 United Arab Emirates 213 6.0 3.4% 63.0% >100
6 USA 193 5.5 3.0% 66.0% 10.4
7 Nigeria 185 5.2 2.9% 68.9% >100
8 Algeria 162 4.6 2.5% 71.5% 52.2
9 Venezuela 152 4.3 2.4% 73.9% >100
10 Iraq 112 3.2 1.8% 75.6% >100
11 Kazakhstan 106 3.0 1.7% 77.3% >100
12 Turkmenistan 102 2.9 1.6% 78.9% 49.3
13 Indonesia 97 2.8 1.5% 80.5% 36.3
14 Australia 89 2.5 1.4% 81.9% 67.9
15 Malaysia 88 2.5 1.4% 83.2% 41.4
16 Norway 85 2.4 1.3% 84.6% 28.3
17 China 83 2.4 1.3% 85.9% 47.0
18 Egypt 67 1.9 1.1% 86.9% 54.4
19 Uzbekistan 65 1.9 1.0% 88.0% 33.2
20 Canada 56 1.6 0.9% 88.8% 8.6
21 Kuwait 55 1.6 0.9% 89.7% >100
22 Libya 53 1.5 0.8% 90.5% >100
23 Netherlands 50 1.4 0.8% 91.3% 22.3
24 Azerbaijan 48 1.4 0.8% 92.1% >100
25 Ukraine 39 1.1 0.6% 92.7% 58.7
Total World 6347.79 179.82 100% 65.1
Sum of Top 25 Countries 5885 166.7 92.7%
Rest of World 463 13.1 7.3%

rate of some 5%. Similarly, the number of countries
with known reserves has also increased from around 40
in 1960 to about 85 in 2005. The distribution among
those countries, dominating the global proved reserves of
natural gas, is shown in Fig. 1-1 and Table 1-1.
One reason for anticipated increase in demand for
natural gas is the public concern over environmental
issues. Furthermore, forecasts of rapid increase in
natural gas demand over the next two decades, in the
biggest market of all, the United States, have been
exacerbated by forecasts of declining production.
Declining production forecasts have been extended to
Canada, a reliable provider to the US thus far (EIA,
Annual Energy Outlook, 2007).
Although natural gas demand is expected to
increase, such an increase in the near future will
be driven by additional demand from current uses,
primarily power generation. There is yet little overlap
between the use of natural gas and oil in all large
markets. However, certain developments on the
horizon, including the electrifying of transportation,
will push natural gas use to ever higher levels.
Although potential natural gas supplies abound
throughout the world, facilities and infrastructure
to receive and distribute the product to market are
expensive to build, and their development can easily be
hindered by geopolitics. These reasons have historically
inhibited natural gas from reaching its full potential in
the worlds energy markets. Natural gas is transported
either by pipeline (73% of internationally traded gas
in 2005, EIA 2007), mainly across land masses, and
by liquefied natural gas (LNG) transportation across
the oceans (the remaining 27%). The rapid expansion
of LNG infrastructure worldwide in the past decade is



enabling natural gas to penetrate many more markets
through the development of many remote reserves once
considered to be stranded and uneconomic to develop.
Ongoing construction and plans to expand and build
new LNG receiving terminals in North America
(Canada, Mexico and the United States) are opening
up rapidly growing gas imports, destined to support
many new LNG supply chains worldwide. European
and Asian markets are also hungry for LNG.
But beyond the usual energy-demanding markets,
China and India have both emerged from the developing
world to become globally significant economies in their
own right, both requiring massive energy imports to
sustain future economic growth. But their approaches are
very different; China is focused on manufacturing, India
more on services. However, both have large populations
with aspirations to lead high-energy consuming lifestyles.
Together, they are promoting globalization that is putting
pressure on the worlds energy resources and existing
supply chain, traditionally directed to serving the OECD
world. The rapid growth in China and India over the
last few years has precipitated huge increases in demand
for all energy sources, because of their lack of sufficient
indigenous energy resources. This has left the rest of
the world scrambling for the same sources of energy,
including natural gas. The US is hampered by the myriad
permit approvals required and public opposition to siting
of LNG receiving terminals. Nevertheless, major US
companies and others are investing heavily in building
new LNG liquefaction infrastructure in Qatar, several
countries in West Africa and Russias Sakhalin Island.
Transportation is an essential aspect of the gas
business because gas reserves are often quite distant
from the main markets. Gas is far more cumbersome
than oil to transport, and the majority of gas is
transported by pipeline. There are well-developed
networks in Europe and North America and a relatively
adequate one in the former Soviet Union. However,
in its gaseous state, natural gas is quite bulky for the
same time, a high-pressure pipeline can transmit only
about one-fifth of the amount of energy that can be
transmitted in an oil pipeline of the same size, even
though gas travels much faster. When gas is cooled to
160 C it becomes liquid and much more compact,
occupying 1/600 of its standard gas volume. Where
long overseas distances are involved, transporting gas
Chapter 1 Introduction to this Book
in its liquid state becomes economic. But the supply
chain consists of expensive and specialized facilities
both upstream and downstream, and generally requires
dedicated marine vessels.
The LNG industry is set for a large and sustained
expansion as improved technology has reduced costs
and improved efficiency along the entire supply chain
during the past decade. This shift in the dynamics of
the natural gas market will further commoditize and
diversify the natural gas globally. New LNG carriers
are 1000 ft long and require a minimum water depth
of 40 ft when fully loaded. The global fleet of LNG
carriers reached 217 by the end of 2006 (Wood et al.,
2006) with more than 11 million tons of LNG capacity.
The order book for new LNG marine carriers to 2010
is some 120 firm and 32 proposed, meaning the future
fleet may exceed 370 vessels by the end of 2010. The fleet
was just 90 vessels in 1995 and 127 vessels in 2000. The
current fleet transports more than 140 million metric
tons of LNG every year (converted to 7 Tcf), about
23% of gas trade internationally and about 6.5% of
total gas consumed worldwide.
Below is a discussion of the state of natural
gas in three of the most important countries/
regions of the world which, for different reasons,
are defining the present and future of natural
gas in the world economy.
1-3 Russia: A Critical Evaluation of its
Natural Gas Resources
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and its
replacement by the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS), prominent among which was the Russian
Federation, was a significant geopolitical event, affecting
the subsequent development of Russian resources
particularly natural gas. Contrary to widely held beliefs,
if current trends continue, Russia likely will have a severe
natural gas shortfall by 2010 (Moscow Institute of Energy
Research, 2007). This prediction is astonishing, given
that Russia has more gas reserves than any other country,
and one of the largest reserves-to-production ratios.
One of the reasons for the looming gas shortfall is
that over the past several years, Russia has not invested
sufficiently and lacks the technology to develop new gas
fields to replace its rapidly depleting ones.


Figure 1-2 Russian gas resources, infrastructure, pipelines and future plans
 Chapter 1 Introduction to this Book

There are complicated reasons behind Figure 1-1 compares Russian gas reserves with those
the state of Russias natural gas industry. A of the other major gas producing countries. Table 1-2
thorough understanding of the industry and its lists the 13 largest gas fields in the world. As is shown,
history is required before we can discuss its future Russia owns two-thirds of them (ET, 2007, EIA, 2007,
(see Section 1-3.2). www.Gazprom.com, and BP Statisitcal review, 2006).
Next, we examine Russias natural gas reserves, Gazprom, tracing its origins to the Soviet Gas
production and transportation. Ministry, is the dominant gas company in Russia.
Fig. 1-3 shows Russias total gas production and
1-3.1 The Resource Base consumption and Gazproms contribution from 2000
to 2005, which accounts for about 80%. Gazprom
Russia has the worlds largest proven natural gas is not only Russias largest gas producer, it also owns
reserves, estimated at 1,680 Tcf (EIA, 2007), about the entire gas pipeline infrastructure in Russia all
double those of Iran, the next largest. Russia is also the 155,000 km of it, along with the compressor stations.
largest gas producer and exporter. In 2004, Russias gas In addition, Gazprom controls the sole means of
production exceeded 22.4 Tcf and exports totaled 7.1 getting gas to domestic and export markets.
Tcf. In addition, the gas industry plays a significant
24
role in the Russian economy, contributing about
26% of total GDP in 2004 (ET, 2007). Fig. 1-2 is an
22
annotated map of Russia with all important natural
gas-related information (EIA, 2007, www.Gazprom. 20
Total Production
com, and BP Statistical review, 2006).
Tcf/year

18

Table 1-2 The Worlds Largest Natural Gas Gazprom's Share

16
Reservoirs (EIA, 1994-2004, Interfax,
2005,www.gazprom.com, ET, 2007)
14
Total Consumption
*Urengoy had been the worlds
largest gas field for years until the 12
North Dome was discovered. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Umm Shaif/Abu el-Bukush

450
Figure 1-3 Russian gas production and consumption and
400
Gazproms contribution (EIA, 2004-2006, Interfax, 2005,
Urengoy*

350 www.gazprom.com, ET, 2007)

North Dome, 1,200 (Tcf)

Shtokman

300
Orenburg
Yamburg

Zapolyarnoye

Panhandle-Hugoton

The reason that Russia has given Gazprom control

Kharasevey

250
Bovanenko

over its natural gas is the so-called social obligation.

Medvezhye

Hassi RMel

South Pars

200
Through Gazprom, the Russian government subsidizes
150
its inefficient domestic industries with low-priced
100
natural gas. Gazprom sells most of its gas to domestic
50
customers at a considerable discount. The wholesale
0 price of 1,000 m3 of gas for a Russian household is
Rank Field Reserves Location
1 North Dome 1,200 Qatar/Iran around $15.90 (about $0.45/Mscf ). For industrial
2 Urengoy 275 Russia
3 Yamburg 200 Russia users, gas costs around $24.20 ($0.69/Mscf ). By
4 Orenburg 200 Russia
5 Shtokman 200 Russia
comparison, in the European Union, household tariffs
6
7
Umm Shaif/Abu el-Bukush
Zapolyarnoye
175
150
Abu Dhabi
Russia
range from Finlands $159 ($4.50/Mscf ) to Denmarks
8 Kharasevey 150 Russia $735 ($20.82/Mscf, ET, 2007). Clearly, Gazprom
9 Bovanenko 125 Russia
10 Medvezhye 100 Russia is losing large amounts of money on domestic sales,
11 Hassi RMel 100 Algeria
12 South Pars 100 Iran compared to international market prices, and must rely
13 Panhandle-Hugoton 80 U.S.A.
on export revenues for the difference.


Modern Fracturing

Gazproms major challenge is the aging of its major and Sakhalin. Obviously, implementing these solutions
producing gas fields. Production from these fields is will require a substantial investment that Gazprom has
declining and studies project steep declines in Russias not yet been able to make.
overall natural gas output between 2008 and 2020. One scenario for the potential contribution
According to projections from the Moscow-based Institute of independent producers shows a net increase of
of Energy Research (2006), Russia will face a gas shortfall 100 Bm3 per year by 2010 (Moscow Institute of
of about 100 Bm3 by 2010. Considering that Russia owns Energy Research, 2006).
the largest gas reserves in the world and one of the largest
600
reserves-to-production ratios (81.5 years compared to
Algerias 55.4 and Canadas 8.8, for example, from EIA, Gazp
ro ms
fo rec
2007, calculated by ET, 2007), the future of Russian ast
p
500 rod
uct
natural gas production efforts is important globally. io nd
ec
lin
e
1-3.2 Russian Natural Gas Production 400

Combined Bcm/year
Gazprom holds about one-third of the worlds natural
gas reserves and produces about 80% of Russias 300
natural gas. The remaining percentage comes from
independent producers. The company operates 155,000
km of natural gas pipeline and 43 compressor stations. 200
As the worlds largest producer and exporter, Russia
is also a huge consumer of natural gas. The country
produces an annual 21 Tcf, consuming 14.5 Tcf and 100

exporting the rest (2002 numbers from EIA and ET,

2007). Despite the countrys huge reserves, natural
gas production has remained essentially flat over the 0
2004 2010 2015 2020
past several years, with a mild production increase
Others Zapadno-Tarkosalinskoye
(1.3%) forecast for 2008. In contrast to the natural gas Orenburg Komsomol'skoye
Astrakhan Zapolyarnoye
stagnation, oil production has flourished. Urengoyskoye(achimov)
Ety-Purovskoye
Medvezhye
Aner'yakhinskoye
The immediate future of natural gas production Yuzhno-Russkoye
Vyngayahinskoye
Kharvutinskoye
Yabburgskoye
in Russia does not allow for much optimism. The Pestsovoye
Yubileynoye
En-Yakhinskoye
Urengoyskoye
overall production decline forecast for Gazprom is Figure 1-4 Gazproms production decline forecast (Moscow
quite steep, as shown in Fig. 1-4 (Moscow Institute of Institute of Energy Research, 2007)
Energy Research, 2006).
Considering that Russias domestic consumption 1-4 Alaska, its Natural Gas Resources
is increasing by 2.5% annually, the current demand and their Impact on US Imports
in Europe, Turkey and the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) for up to 325 Bm3 (ET, It has been known for many decades that Alaska has
2007), and Chinas demand for 38 Bm3 (Moscow prolific hydrocarbon resources, first with the discovery
Institute of Energy Research, 2006) its clear that of oil in the south central part (Cook Inlet) in the
additional sources of natural gas must be found if 1960s and then with the 1969 discovery of Prudhoe
Russia wants to play a major role in the future natural Bay, the USs largest field. Oil has been successfully
gas market. Its equally clear that the problem of Russias commercialized in Alaska since the 1970s construction
looming gas shortage can only be solved by optimizing of the Trans-Alaskan pipeline that stretches from the
existing fields and through the rapid development and North Slope to Southern Alaska. From there, oil is
production of major fields such as Yamal, Shtokman shipped to the lower 48 states.


 Chapter 1 Introduction to this Book

Despite the success of Alaskan oil production, Clearly, Cook Inlet gas production is on decline while
and although it is widely known that natural gas North Slope gas production remains stable with its
exists in large quantities in the state, two important market limited to the local market without a natural
questions have always arisen: 1) in what kind and gas export pipeline to larger markets.
size of reservoirs is the gas trapped and 2) how can
600
it be commercialized? Furthermore, after 30 years of Cook Inlet North Slope
Alaskan oil production and almost 15 years after its 500

production peak, substantial natural gas exploitation 400

from the state is still not forthcoming.

Bcf/Year
300
We are convinced that Alaska has a very large
200
natural gas resource base, larger than commonly
accepted. Beyond the conventional gas reserves 100

on the North Slope (about 100 Tcf ) and Cook 0

Inlet (at least 30 Tcf ), perhaps as much as 1000

1958

1964

1970

1976

1982

1988

1994

2000

2006

2012

2018

Tcf are in the form of coalbed methane and, at
least, 500 Tcf as natural gas hydrates (Anchorage
Chamber of Commerce, 2005).
Economic and technical obstacles abound. The
cost for exploiting conventional reserves, with or
without government subsidies, has been a hindering
factor, but other factors such as the emerging
large LNG trade are having an impact. The most
important question is whether Alaskan gas will be
commercialized any time in the foreseeable future,
and we shall discuss this issue in detail. This has major
implications on the future of the state, the USA and
the natural gas trade into the country.
1-4.1 Alaskan Reserves and Production
2024
Figure 1-5 Historic and forecast gas production (Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, 2006)
The forecast in Fig. 1-5 is only for the current proved
reserves of natural gas. If we consider the unconventional
resources in Alaska, the natural gas resource base grows
much larger. However the technology and economics
for developing the unconventional resource base are
major blockers. The two main unconventional gas
reservoirs that capture a lot of attention are coalbed
methane and natural gas hydrates.
It is estimated that coalbed methane is prevalent
in the northern and southern parts of the state, shown
on the map in Fig. 1-6 (Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, 2006).

There are two major hydrocarbon producing areas Guadalupe Sonora

Barrow 15
in Alaska today: the Cook Inlet region in south-
Russia Hermosillo
central Alaska and the Prudhoe Bay complex on the
North Slope. The proved gas reserves for the Cook Alaska
Fort Yukon
Inlet and the North Slope are 2 Tcf (6% of total) Empalme
Guaymas
and 27 Tcf (94% of the total), respectively (EIA, Nome Fairbanks

2007). Currently all the gas produced on the North Ciudad Obregon
Canada
Navojoa
Slope is re-injected for pressure maintenance except Anchorage Huatabampo
Bering Sea
for the gas needed to maintain field operations Bituminous & Higher Rank Cordova
Los Mochis
and fuel the local villages. Subbituminous
Ciudad Constitucion
Figure 1-5 shows the historical production and Lignite

the prediction of natural gas production to 2025. Rual Sites with Sufficient
Data for Drill Testing 1
Baja California Sur La Paz
As can be seen, the 2006 production from the two of Coalbed Methane
Potential Pacific Ocean
areas is approximately 490 Bcf per year of gas and
is expected to decrease to 240 Bcf per year by 2025 Figure 1-6 Location of potential coalbed methane
(Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2006). reservoirs (Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2006)


Modern Fracturing

Alaskas estimated coal resources exceed 5.5
trillion tons and may contain up to 1,000 Tcf of gas
(Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2006).
In 1994 the Alaska Div. of Oil and Gas drilled the
states first coalbed methane test well near the town of
Wasilla, located in the northern portion of Cook Inlet
Basin. The well was drilled to a total depth of 1245 ft;
coal was continuously encountered, with the thickest
seam measuring 6.5 ft and a net coal thickness of 41
ft. Thirteen seams were sampled for gas content. The
results were encouraging, but as elsewhere they are
A gas pipeline from the North Slope through Canada
to the Lower 48 states.
An All-Alaska gas pipeline from the North Slope to
Valdez, where the gas would be converted into LNG
and taken to markets outside Alaska in LNG tankers.
A spur line to take natural gas from one or more
off-take points on the main gas pipeline (whichever
route it takes) and deliver that gas to customers and
users in Alaska.
All Alaska

likely to suffer from the standard CBM problems: LNG shipped from All Alaska
Y-Branches from All Alaska
low permeability, water disposal and difficult and Northern Route Sonora
Guadalupe
expensive application of hydraulic fracturing and Southern Route Barrow 15

horizontal well technologies. Hermosillo

Our current assessment of the total resource base Alaska
for natural gas in Alaska, derived from a number of Fort Yukon
Empalme
references, is shown in Fig. 1-7. Nome Fairbanks
Guaymas

Ciudad Obregon
Cook Inlet North Slope Canada
Navojoa
Conventional, Conventional,
Anchorage Huatabampo
30, 2% 100, 6%
Bering Sea
Cordova
Los Mochis
Juneau
Ciudad Constitucion
Guasave
North Slope Sinaloa
Prince
Hydrates, Rupert
Unalaska 1
529, 32% Baja California Sur La Paz
Pacific Ocean

CBM, 1000,
60% Figure 1-8 Potential Alaskan natural gas pipeline routes

Figure 1-7 Natural gas resource base in Alaska (Williams

et al., 2005, Meyers, 2005, Hite, 2006, and Kornfeld, 2002)
It is clear the 2006 resource assessment shows
the majority of potential reserves are locked in
unconventional reservoirs. For these plays to be
developed, investment and technology hurdles will
need to be overcome.
1-4.2 The Uncertain Destiny of the North Slope of
Alaska Natural Gas
Methods to deliver natural gas to market from the North
Slope of Alaska have been studied and proposed for over
30 years. The various schemes can be grouped into three
major categories, with variations in each (Anchorage
Chamber of Commerce, 2005). See Fig. 1-8.
There are two variations on the gas pipeline to the
Lower 48 states proposal: the Northern Route and the
Southern Route. The Northern Route, also referred to as the
ARC over-the-top route (ARC is for the Artic Resources
Company that first proposed such a gas pipeline in
the early 1980s), would start from Prudhoe Bay, move
offshore into the Beaufort Sea and run parallel to the
coastline eastward into Canada to the Mackenzie River
Delta, where up to 20 Tcf of natural gas reserves are just
waiting to be produced. From there, if Canadians have
already built a pipeline to transport the Mackenzie River
reserves to Alberta, the Alaskan Northern Route would
simply reach and merge with it.
On the other hand, if Canadians havent started
yet to exploit the Mackenzie Delta reserves and
a pipeline to Alberta is not available, the Northern
Route pipeline would be extended to Alberta, and

10

in all probability it would still offer the prospect to
carry also the Mackenzie gas along with the North
Slope gas. After the Alaskan natural gas is delivered in
Alberta, there still would be the open issue of how to
carry it down to the rest of the United States.
The two systems currently discussed and proposed
to accomplish this goal are:
Rerouting Prudhoe Bay natural gas in the Canadian
pipelines network that currently delivers Alberta gas
to markets in Canada and the Lower 48 states.
Building a dedicated pipeline that would transport
Prudhoe Bay natural gas straight to the Northern
Midwest pipeline network.
The Southern Route, also known as the Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation System or as the Foothills,
would also start from Prudhoe Bay, but it would go
south half-way the length of Alaska, just south of
Fairbanks, and then cross into the Yukon and north
eastern British Columbia.
The All-Alaska route, also known as the Yukon
Pacific LNG Proposal, would start from Prudhoe Bay, run
for 805 miles parallel to the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline to
Valdez and then turn to the east to Anderson Bay.
A final (but tremendously important) part of the
All-Alaska proposal would be the construction of a
liquefaction and shipment plant in the Anderson Bay, to
enable shipping as LNG the natural gas coming from the
North Slope to Asian markets (Japan mainly) and potential
terminals along the Canadian and US West Coast.
1-4.3 Alaska in the Context of the United States and
Canadian Natural Gas
The current situation of the oil and gas industry in
Canada adds substantial reasons for considering the
over-the-top Northern Route (the green line on Fig.
1-8) the most suitable option for the whole North-
American continent.
Canada has been a net exporter of natural gas
for many years, and all of that exported gas has been
imported into the United States. This gas comprises
about 90% of the natural gas imported into the
US and about 17% of the total US natural gas
consumption. Although this relationship has been
Chapter 1 Introduction to this Book
successful for many years, Canada can no longer
be relied upon to single-handedly secure the future
of US natural gas supply.
A declining conventional natural gas resource
has pushed Canada into investing in arctic, CBM and
tight gas plays. To date however, those unconventional
resources have contributed a very small percentage to
that countrys overall production of natural gas.
As is apparent in Fig. 1-9, the conventional
natural gas supply in Canada is predicted to
decline by roughly 35% from 2005 to 2020, while
the production of unconventional/stranded gas is
expected to increase dramatically by 2012 (CAPP,
2006a). This assumes in part the construction of the
Mackenzie pipeline to get arctic gas to the south as
well as an expectation that CBM will be economic
to produce within the next two decades.
25
20
Production, Bcf/D
15
10
5
Conventional Gas
Nova Scotia
Coalbed Methane
Mackenzie Delta
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 1-9, Canadian natural gas production forecast
(CAPP, 2006a)
The amount of gas Canada will have left over
to export to the US remains in question, and this
is what may push the building of the North Slope
pipeline. The first issue is that Canadian natural gas
consumption is expected to increase by 1.6% per year.
This equates to a demand of almost 12 Bcf per day by
2020 (Stringham, 2006.). However, this consumption
does not include the gas that will be needed to produce
the Canadian tar sands.
That Canada expects to be producing about 4
million barrels a day by 2020 (CAPP, 2006b, Fig. 1-
10) means more of Canadas natural gas will be used
for this purpose. In fact, the 0.5 Mcf of gas needed to
process each barrel of this crude equates to at least 2
Bcf per day natural gas needed to meet the production
forecast for Canadas oil sands.
11
Modern Fracturing
5000
4500 1-5 Qatar Natural Gas
4000
3500
Production, Mbbl/D

Qatar is a small, independent nation on the western

3000
2500
coast of the Persian Gulf. The country has good
2000 relationships with its Middle Eastern neighbors
1500 like Iran, and it has been leading the region
1000
in democratic reforms.
500
0
Before the discovery of its vast hydrocarbon
reserves, dominated by natural gas, Qatar was a poor
01

03

05

07

20 9
10

12

14

16

18

20
0
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Conventional
Figure 1-10 Prediction of Canadian heavy oil sands
growth (CAPP, 2006b)
This, of course, causes some concern because the
total natural gas production from Canada in 2020 is
expected to be about 18 Bcf per day, and Canada will
be using 14 Bcf per day for its needs. This leaves 4 Bcf
per day suitable to be exported to the US. However,
the demand in the US over the next several years is far
greater than what Canada can provide. (North Field) and south east (South Pars). The North
The over-the-top Northern Route is surely not the
ultimate solution to the constantly growing hunger for
natural gas in North America. The over-the-top pipeline
may never be built because of competition from LNG
imports, which are expected to boom in the next several
years if additional terminals can be built.
Our assessment of the Alaskan gas resources, and
in particular the North Slope basin, indicates some
opportunities to develop a sustained market for natural
gas with the U.S. Lower 48 states and Eastern Asian
destinations (mainly Japan, South Korea and Taiwan)
via LNG shipments. This motivates all the projects
proposed by several groups of advocates for transporting
the natural gas produced in the North Slope into the
Lower 48 states market, as well as Eastern Asia.
20
Oil Sands country. However, by 2006 Qatar had achieved one of
the worlds highest per capita gross domestic products
(Central Intelligence Agency, 2006).
Figure 1-11 shows that compared to its neighbors
in the Middle East, Qatar is a leader in natural gas
reserves. Iran and Qatar have comparable amounts of
gas reserves. This is because Qatars super giant North
Field and Irans super giant South Pars Field overlie on
the broad Qatar arch. The Qatar arch subdivides the
Khuff formations into two basins located northwest
Field reservoir boundary is the political boundary
between Iranian and Qatari waters as shown in Fig.
1-12. (Note: The names of the fields in Fig. 1-12, at
times cause confusion. Qatars North Field is north of
Qatar but south of the Iranian demarcation boundary.
The Iranian field known as South Pars is actually
in southern Iranian waters but north of Qatars
North Field. The two fields constitute essentially
a single geological structure, one of the largest gas
accumulations in the world.)
1000
900
800
Proven Reserves, Tcf

700

Nevertheless, a wide set of reasons leads us to believe 600

that these projects cannot even be considered marginally 500

competitive to LNG, especially when compared to the 400

economically superior LNG shipped from the recently 300

developed fields and facilities in countries such as Qatar, 200

Russia, Australia and Indonesia. In fact, as is usual for 100

large construction projects, the technical feasibility of 0

ria

en

an

it

ia

n
tar
yp
wa

Ira
Ira

UA

North Slope natural gas exploitation must be weighed

rab
Yem

Om
Sy

Qa
Eg
Ku

iA

against the inexorable balance of the economics. This

ud
Sa

is the bottleneck where all the advocated Alaskan gas

Figure 1-11 Dominant natural gas producers in the
pipeline schemes become difficult to justify. Middle East (after EIA, 2006)

12

South Pars
North Field
Al Manamah
Doha Persian Gulf
Figure 1-12 The North Field extends off the coast of
Qatar and is divided from Irans South Pars Field by a
political boundary
1-5.1 North Field Characteristics and Development
The North Field is the largest non-associated gas
field in the world with estimated reserves of 900
Tcf of gas. Al-Siddiqi and Dawe (1999) explain that
the North Field produces from four intervals in the
Khuff formation. These zones are Permian dolomite
carbonates located at depths of 10,000 to 13,000 ft
with thickness ranging from 1,300 to 2,000 ft. The
gas produced is rich in condensates.
Given the tremendous size of natural gas reserves,
major investments for the production and transportation
of natural gas have followed.
QatarGas was founded 13 years after the North
Field was discovered. Eight years later, in 1992, the first
customer, Chubu Electric of Japan, signed a sales and
purchase agreement (SPA) with QatarGas for 4 million
metric tons per year (Mta) of LNG. Two years later,
Chubu Electric and other buyers signed a second SPA
for 2 Mta of LNG. Two years later, in January 1997,
the first LNG ship delivered gas to Japan. Efficient
production, processing, refrigeration, storing, loading
and shipping processes for LNG established by
QatarGas have allowed it to deliver 100 loads of LNG
to Japan every year since 1997 (EIA, 2007).
In October of 2002, BP signed an SPA with
QatarGas for 0.75 Mta of LNG to deliver to Spain.
To exploit the tremendous demand for natural gas
in Europe, ExxonMobil signed an agreement with
Chapter 1 Introduction to this Book
QatarGas to deliver 15 Mta of LNG to the UK market.
A year later, in June 2005, Shell signed a SPA for 7.8
Mta of LNG for Europe and North America. The
contracts for LNG have been progressively getting
bigger and bigger since the first SPA with Japan.
RasGas was founded in 1993. In 1995, an SPA
with KOGAS, a Korean company, was agreed upon.
Two years later the SPA was increased to 4.9 Mta, and
in April of 1999 the first LNG cargo left for Korea.
The delivery time of LNG to KOGAS was four years,
like the 4-year delivery time between QatarGas and
Chubu Electric. Also, an SPA with Petronet of India
was signed to deliver 5 Mta of LNG. The delivery
time for this order was five years, and the first LNG
cargo left for India in 2004. RasGas also signed a 25-
year SPA for 3.5 Mta of LNG with Edison Gas of
the United States. The SPA agreement was altered to
increase the LNG volume to 4.6 Mta in 2003. RasGas
signed an agreement with ExxonMobil to deliver 15.6
Mta of LNG to the United States. In February of
2005, an SPA with Distrigas of Belgium was signed to
deliver 2.07 Mta of LNG (EIA, 2007).
It is interesting to note the disparity in development
between Qatar and Iran. Qatar and Iran have comparable
gas reserves. Despite its sizeable gas reserves, Iran remains
a net importer of natural gas. According to Wood et al.
(2006), Irans surging internal demand for natural gas and
stiff gas market competition from Russia and Azerbaijan
will present Iranian leadership with difficult hurdles to
overcome in order to externally market those reserves.
While Iran is relatively isolated politically, Qatar has
been busy forging relationships with the major natural
gas consumers such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and
the United States. The Qatari civil reforms, natural gas
resource development, and good political relationships
have culminated in its enormous success.
1-6 Fracturing for the Efficient use of
Existing Resources and for Increasing
Recovery Factor
Since its advent in the 1950s, hydraulic fracturing has
proven to be a very robust technology, lending itself
to many different types of reservoirs. Additionally,
although fracturing is a very complex process, it
remains for the most part extremely forgiving of the
13
Modern Fracturing

industrys overall general lack of expertise. These two
factors have led to fracturing becoming the most widely
used completion process.
Fracturing has its roots firmly planted in the gas
production industry. Even with the widespread use of
fracturing for oil and injection wells, gas well fracturing
is still the largest sector of the industry, by a wide margin
(see Fig. 1-13). The majority of gas reserves in North
America are only produced as a result of hydraulic
fracturing. However, apart from a few specific locations
(such as China, Argentina, Australia and to a lesser
extent Russia), the global gas industry has failed to
embrace this technology to even a fraction of the extent
it is used in North America (see Fig. 1-14).
Unconventional Gas
28%
Tight Gas
Oil
42% 25%
Other
5%
Figure 1-13 Targets of Fracture Treatments Performed in
the USA in 2006 (BJ Services, 2006)
Canada
17%
Rest of the World
(excl. China) 13%
USA
70%
Figure 1-14 Estimated Proportion of Fracturing
Treatments Performed in the USA and Canada,
compared to the Rest of the World, excluding China
(BJ Services, 2007)
One reason for this is the relative size, immaturity
and prolific productivity of the gas reservoirs outside
North America (see earlier discussions in this Chapter).
Another reason is that the USA is the only country in the
world where the landowners often own the mineral rights
under their land. In every other country, the government
controls the mineral resources and decides how they are
exploited. Consequently, in the US there is often a very
fragmented approach to the depletion of a reservoir,
habitually concentrating on wellbore tactics, whilst
elsewhere gas companies are more inclined towards the
big picture, allowing more focus on field development
strategies. Canada sits somewhere in the middle, having
inherited the British system of Crown ownership of all
mineral rights, while at the same time being heavily
influenced by the activities of the US gas industry. In
any case, small operators, eager to maximize short-term
cash flow, have always been the driving force behind the
popularity of fracturing in the US.
Outside the US, Canada, China, Argentina and
possibly Russia, fracturing has failed to reach the critical
mass that has allowed the easy exploitation of its potential
in these countries. Operating companies often complain
that service companies do not have the infrastructure
and expertise necessary for the cost-effective execution of
fracturing operations in a specific geographic area. At the
same time, service companies complain that operators do
not provide enough work to economically justify building
up suitable equipment and personnel resources. This is a
Catch-22 situation that can only be overcome by a)
field development projects that are large enough to justify
the introduction of a complete fracturing operation,
and b) having an operating company (or companies)
with sufficient confidence in the fracturing process to
proceed with fracturing-dependent field development.
Outside the above-mentioned countries, there are very
few companies with sufficient institutional confidence
in the fracturing process to make this happen. Even
companies based in North America with considerable
experience in fracturing seem to be unable to translate
this confidence internationally.
However, confidence in the fracturing process is
required if many countries and companies are to fully
exploit their gas resources. It is hoped that the processes
and experiences described in this book will help
significantly with this process.

14

Ultimately, producing hydrocarbons from a reservoir
comes down to efficient management of the pressure in
the reservoir. Pressure, which is stored energy (or more
accurately, energy per unit volume), lies at the heart of
everything we do. The basic principle of hydrocarbon
production is the fact that liquids and gases will move
from a region of high energy (or pressure) to a region of
low energy, if a flow path exists. When we drill a well,
we are creating a region of low pressure at the wellbore,
and the conductive path is provided by the formations
permeability. If we are lucky, there is sufficient energy left
in the liquids and gases to reach the surface, once they
have arrived at the wellbore. In many cases, however, extra
energy has to be supplied via pumps or gas lift systems,
in order to achieve flow to the surface. Ultimately, the
efficient production of a reservoir is all about getting the
maximum amount of oil and gas out, while using the
minimum energy to do so.
In gas reservoirs, it is difficult to provide extra energy
after the gas reaches the wellbore. Although the density of
the gas means that far less energy is required to reach the
surface, often there is insufficient energy to produce the
gas at sufficient rates.
In its most basic form, fracturing can be thought of
as a process that minimizes the energy required for the
gas to reach the wellbore. This has several benefits:
1. It leaves more energy available for bringing the
gas to the surface.
2. It can reduce the minimum energy (i.e. pressure)
required in the reservoir to achieve economic flow
to the wellbore, thereby extending production
beyond reserve levels that might otherwise be
considered depleted. In gas reservoirs, pressure
is reserves, and so minimizing energy losses during
production can significantly increase the ultimate
recovery from the reservoir.
3. It minimizes secondary pressure-dependent effects
such as water production (and associated problems
such as scale deposition, fines migration and hydrate
formation), retrograde condensation within the
reservoir, and non-Darcy flow.
Fracturing effectively allows the wellbore to achieve
a significant size in comparison with the reservoir.
This allows the wellbores localized depletion to spread
Chapter 1 Introduction to this Book
far further into the reservoir, providing much greater
depletion at the drainage perimeter. This effect can
be maximized if the fracture azimuth is known. Wells
can be drilled further apart in the direction of fracture
propagation and closer together in the perpendicular
direction, allowing maximum depletion of resources.
Such a strategy significantly reduces the localized
or pin-point depletion caused by the wellbores
and spreads the effects of the depletion much more
evenly across the reservoir.
Finally, it must be remembered that although
fracturing can be very effectively used to redevelop a
mature field (see Chapter 13), it reaches maximum
effectiveness when applied to a new reservoir:
1. After the fracture azimuth has been obtained,
the placing of wells can be planned to allow for
increased drainage efficiency in the direction of
fracture propagation. This could easily result in the
need for fewer wells.
2. Wellbores can be planned to facilitate fracturing.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the wellbore can be
completed in such a fashion as to make fracturing
easy and reliable (whereas the completion often
does just the opposite). In addition, perforations
can also be planned to maximize the effectiveness
of fracturing operations (see Chapter 6). Of all
the things under our control, the perforations will
have the single biggest effect on the outcome of any
individual treatment. Finally, multiple intervals can
be more effectively and efficiently stimulated on new
wells than on existing wells (see Chapter 9).
3. Surface facilities also can be planned to facilitate
fracturing, especially with regard to fluid recovery
and handling of returned proppant.
4. Long-term relationships can be built between
operating companies and service providers. This
allows for building and retaining experience
and expertise in both operational and technical
personnel. This also improves project economics
due to efficiencies of scale and a greater ability to
plan for the long term.
Hydraulic fracturing of gas wells is no longer a
luxury instead, it is now a necessity. For economic,
environmental and political reasons, operating
15
Modern Fracturing
companies and national operating companies have
an obligation to maximize the recovery from their
resources, while doing this as efficiently as possible.
There is no question that hydraulic fracturing will
continue to be a major tool for achieving these goals.
Fracturing will only increase in importance as reserves
become more depleted and harder to exploit.
Hydraulic fracturing remains an inherently complex
process, and as a result is viewed with suspicion by many
resources owners and asset managers. However, the
reality is that fracturing is no more complex than any
number of widely accepted practices, such as drilling
deviated wellbores, performing pressure transient
analysis, studying petrophysics and stimulating the
reservoir. Yet these techniques are widely practised
and trusted throughout the world, whereas hydraulic
fracturing remains a largely unexploited technique
outside of North America.
Consequently, the authors of this book hope its
publication will have two profound effects. First, we
hope this book will help to improve the techniques
and practices employed by those who are already
familiar with hydraulic fracturing. Secondly, we hope
this book will increase the utilization of fracturing
technology in reservoirs and geographic areas that
have hitherto failed to appreciate the potential of this
reservoir development technique.
References
Alaska Oil & Gas Report, Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, Div. of Oil and Gas, Anchorage,
Alaska (May 2006).
Al-Siddiqi, A., and Dawe, R.A.: Qatars Oil and
Gasfields: A Review, Journal of Petroleum Geology
(October 1999) 22, 4, 417.
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce: Natural Gas and
Alaskas Future, 2005.
BJ Services Company: Internal Marketing Information
(2006).
BJ Services Company: Internal Marketing Information
(2007).
BP Statistical Review, 2006
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP):
Canadian Natural Gas, A stable Source of Energy
16
Supply, 2006a.
CAPP: Canadian Crude Oil Supply and Forecast
2006-2020, 2006b.
Central Intelligence Agency: Fact Book, 2006.
Energy Information Administration: Annual Energy
Outlook, 2007.
Energy Information Administration, 2007 http://www.
eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table18.xls
Energy Tribune, Various articles, February, 2007.
Hite, D.M.: Cook Inlet Resource Potential Missing
Fields Gas (and oil) Distributive/Endowment A
Log-Normal Perspective, presented at the South
Central Alaska Energy Forum, September 2006.
Kornfeld, S.: Alaska North Slope Gas Task Force,
Presentation to the US Department of Energy,
April 2002.
Meyers, M.D.: Alaska Oil and Gas Activities,
presentation to The House Special Committee on
Oil and Gas, January 2005.
Moscow Institute of Energy Research: Russias Natural
Gas Future, 2006 (in Russian).
Stringham, G.: Canadian Natural Gas Outlook,
presentation by CAPP, October 2006.
Williams, T.E., Millheim, K., and Liddell, B.: Methane
Hydrate Production from Alaskan Permafrost,
Final Report, (March 2005).
Wood, D., Mokhatab, S., and Economides, M.J.:
Iran Stuck in Neutral, Energy Tribune
(December 2006).
Wood, D., Mokhatab, S., and Economides, M.J.:
Global Trade in Natural Gas and LNG Expands
and Diversifies, Hydrocarbon Processing, 2007.
www.interfax.com, 2006
www.Gazprom.com, 2007
Michael J. Economides is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, and the
managing partner of a petroleum engineering and petroleum strategy consulting firm. His interests include
petroleum production and petroleum management with a particular emphasis on natural gas, natural gas
transportation, LNG, CNG and processing; advances in process design of very complex operations, and
economics and geopolitics. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune. Previously he was the
Samuel R. Noble Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University and served as chief scientist
of the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI). Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M University,
Economides was director of the Institute of Drilling and Production at the Leoben Mining University
in Austria. Before that, he worked in a variety of senior technical and managerial positions with a major
petroleum services company. Publications include authoring or co-authoring 14 professional textbooks and
books, including The Color Of Oil, and more than 200 journal papers and articles. Economides does a wide
range of industrial consulting, including major retainers by national oil companies at the country level and
by Fortune 500 companies. He has had professional activities in over 70 countries.

Dr. Xiuli Wang is a petroleum engineer with BP in Houston, currently functioning as a completion engineer
with worldwide responsibilities. She serves as the project leader of a major companywide project in injection
well completions and sand control. She has more than seven years of service with BP, from work as a
reservoir engineer to full-field modeling work. She supported the completion team as a petroleum engineer,
developing flux models and guidelines for minimizing erosion of producer well screens. Finally, she was the
lead production engineer for a major field in the continental shelf. Before immigrating to the United States,
Wang earned a MS degree from Chinas premier technical university, Tsinghua University, followed by six
years of work with one of Chinas major petroleum companies, Sinopec. She joined BP after earning a PhD
in chemical engineering, with a number of professional publications in the fundamentals of multi-phase
and complex flow through porous media. She was recently featured in a major journal as an exemplary
representative of Chinese-born engineers employed by the US based petroleum industry. In 2007, she was
named the US 2007 Asian American Engineer of the Year.
Chapter 2
Natural Gas Production
Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and
Xiuli Wang, BP
2-1 Introduction
The natural gas we use in everyday life - as a
source of space heating after combustion, for power
generation even as industrial feedstock - is primarily
methane. Such fluid has been stripped of higher-order
hydrocarbons. This is not how natural gas appears just
one or two steps before its ultimate use.
At the present time there are two main sources for
natural gas as a petroleum production fluid.
First, gas is found in association with oil. Almost
all oil reservoirs, even those that in-situ are above their
bubble point pressure, will shed some natural gas, which
is produced at the surface with oil and then separated
in appropriate surface facilities. The relative proportions
of gas and oil produced depend on the physical and
thermodynamic properties of the specific crude oil
system, the operating pressure downhole, and the
pressure and temperature of the surface separators.
The second type of gas is produced from reservoirs
that contain primarily gas. Usually such reservoirs are
considerably deeper and hotter than oil reservoirs. We
will deal with the production characteristics of these
reservoirs in this chapter.
There are other sources of natural gas, one of which
(coalbed methane desorbed from coal formations) is
already in commercial use. This process is described
in relative detail in Chapter 11 of this book. In the far
future, production from massive deposits of natural
gas hydrates is likely, but such eventuality is outside
the scope of this book.
2-2 Idiosyncrasies of Dry Gas, Wet Gas
and Gas Condensates
Petroleum fluids found in nature, are always multi-
component mixtures of hydrocarbons. Characterizing
these fluids is difficult both from a scientific/laboratory
point of view and in production operations. Thus,
petroleum engineers have traditionally examined oil
field hydrocarbons in the context of phase behavior,
separating the mixture into liquid and gas. Fig. 2-1
shows a two-phase envelope with a pseudocritical
point (C) separating the bubble-point curve (AC)
from the dew point curve (BC) at a constant
composition. Emanating from the pseudocritical
point are equal saturation quality curves (DC,
EC) inside the two-phase envelope. To the right of
the pseudocritical point is the maximum possible
temperature, called the cricondentherm.
Natural gas reservoirs whose pressure and
temperature lie to the right of the cricondentherm
are known as dry gas reservoirs. If fluids from
these reservoirs stay outside of the two-phase
envelope in traversing a pressure and temperature
path from the reservoir to the wellhead,
they will produce only dry gas.
If the path from reservoir to surface carries
the fluid into the two-phase envelope below the
cricondentherm wet gas is produced.
Figure 2-1 Phase diagram showing regions of retrograde
condensate
Between the critical point and the cricondentherm,
liquid emerges as the pressure declines below the dew
point value (at a constant temperature) from point 1 to
point 2, shown in Fig. 2-1. As pressure decreases from
point 2 to point 3, the amount of liquid in the reservoir
increases. Further pressure reduction causes liquid to re-
vaporize. This is the region of retrograde condensation
(McCain, 1973). Many natural gas reservoirs behave in
this manner. During production from such reservoirs, the
pressure gradient formed between the reservoir pressure
and the flowing bottomhole pressure may result in liquid
condensation near the wellbore (Wang, 2000).
19
Modern Fracturing
One way to prevent condensate formation is
to maintain the flowing well bottomhole pressure
above the dew point pressure. This is often not
satisfactory because the reservoir pressure drop may
not be sufficient to achieve economic production
rate. An alternative is to allow condensate to form
but occasionally to inject methane gas into the
producing well. The gas dissolves and sweeps the
condensate into the reservoir. The well is then put
back in production. This approach is repeated several
times in the life of the well. It is known as gas cycling
(Sanger and Hagoort, 1998).
2-3 Inflow from Natural Gas Reservoirs
2-3.1 Fundamentals of Non-Darcy Flow
in Porous Media
Fluid flow is affected by the competing inertial and
viscous effects, combined by the well-known Reynolds
number whose value delineates laminar from turbulent
flow. In porous media the limiting Reynolds number is
equal to 1 based on the average grain diameter (Wang
and Economides, 2004).
Because permeability and grain diameter are
well connected (Yao and Holditch, 1993), for small
permeability values (e.g., less than 0.1 md) the production
rate is generally small, flow is laminar near the crucial
sandface and it is controlled by Darcys Law:
dp g
= vg , (2-1)
dx k g
where x represents the distance, p the pressure, vg
the gas velocity, g the gas viscosity, kg the effective
permeability to gas. A small amount of connate water
is almost always present besides the gas. The water
saturation is often small and it does not affect the gas
permeability significantly. Therefore, kg is often equal
to k, the single-phase permeability.
Non-Darcy flow occurs in the near-wellbore
region of high-capacity gas and condensate reservoirs
as the flow area is reduced substantially, the velocity
increases, inertial effect becomes important, and the
gas flow becomes non-Darcy. The relation between
pressure gradient and velocity can be described by the
Forchheimer (1914) equation:
20
dp g
= vg + g g vg 2 , (2-2)
dx k g
where g is the gas density and g is the effective non-
Darcy coefficient to gas. The condensate liquid may
flow if its saturation is above the critical condensate
saturation, Scc (Wang and Mohanty, 1999a). Additional
condensate dropout because of the further reduced
pressure will aggravate the situation. Therefore,
two phenomena emerge Non-Darcy effects and a
substantial reduction in the relative permeability to
gas. Because of the radial nature of flow, the near well
bore region is critical to the productivity of a well.
This is true in all wells, but it becomes particularly
serious in gas-condensate reservoirs.
Forchheimers equation describes high-velocity,
single-phase flow in isotropic media. Many naturally-
occurring porous media are, however, anisotropic
(Wang et al., 1999). A direct understanding of
multiphase non-Darcy flow behavior in porous media
that are anisotropic at the pore-scale is studied elsewhere
(Wang, 2000, Wang and Mohanty, 1999b).
2-3.2 Transient Flow
To characterize gas flow in a reservoir under transient
conditions, the combination of the generalized Darcys
law (rate equation) and the continuity equation
can be used. Thus:
k
= p , (2-3)
t
where is porosity, and in radial coordinates:
1 k p
= r . (2-4)
t r r r
Because gas density is a strong function of pressure (in
contrast to oil, which is considered incompressible),
the real gas law can be employed:
m pM
= = , (2-5)
V ZRT
and therefore
p 1 k p
= rp . (2-6)
t Z r r Z r
 Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production

In an isotropic reservoir with constant permeability, The solution of Eq. 2-13 would look exactly
Eq. 2-6 can be simplified to: like the solution for the diffusivity equation
cast in terms of pressure. Dimensionless time is
p 1 p p
(2-7) (in oilfield units):
= r .

k t Z r r Z r
0.000264kt
tD =
2
, (2-14)
( ct )i rw
Performing the differentiation on the right-hand
side of Eq. 2-7 - assuming that the viscosity and gas and dimensionless pressure is
deviation factor are a small functions of pressure -
kh[m( pi ) m( pwf )]
and rearranging gives:
pD = . (2-15)
1424qT
p 2 2 p 2 1 p 2
(2-8) Equations 2-13 to 2-15 suggest solutions to
= 2
+ .
kp t r r r natural gas problems (e.g., well testing) that are
For an ideal gas, cg = 1/p and, as a result, Eq. 2-8 leads exactly analogous to those for an oil well, except
to: now it is the real gas pseudopressure functions
that needs to be employed. This function is
2 p 2 1 p 2 c p 2
(2-9) essentially a physical property of natural gas,
+ = .
r 2 r r k t dependent on viscosity and the gas deviation
This approximation looks exactly like the classic function. Thus, it can be readily calculated for
diffusivity equation for oil. The solution would look any pressure and temperature by using standard
exactly like the solution of the equation for oil, but physical property correlations.
instead of p, the pressure squared, p2, should be used, By analogy with oil, transient rate solution under
as a reasonable approximation. radial infinite acting conditions can be written as:
Al-Hussainy and Ramey (1966) used a far more
appropriate and exact solution by employing the real kh[m( pi ) m( pwf )]
q=
gas pseudo-pressure function, defined as: 1638 T
1
k
p p log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 s ,

m( p ) = 2
dp, (2-10)
2
( ct )i rw (2-16)
po Z

where po is some arbitrary reference pressure (usually where q is gas flow rate in Mscf/d, pi is reservoir
zero). The differential pseudo-pressure, m(p), pressure, pwf is the flowing bottomhole pressure, is
defined as m( p) m( pwf ), is then the driving force porosity, ct is the total compressibility of the system,
in the reservoir. and s is the skin effect.
Equation 2-16 can be used to generate transient
Using Eq. 2-10 and the chain rule: IPR (Inflow Performance Relationship) curves
for a gas well.
m( p ) m( p ) p
= . (2-11)
t p t
2-3.3 Steady State and Pseudosteady State Flow
Similarly,
Starting with the well known Darcys law equation
m( p ) 2 p p
= . (2-12) for oil inflow,
r Z r
kh( pe pw )
Therefore, Eq. 2-9 becomes q= ,
(2-17)
r
141.2 B[ln( e ) + s ]
rw
2 m( p ) 1 m( p ) ct m( p ) (2-13)
+ = .
r 2 r r k t and recognizing that the formation volume factor,

21
Modern Fracturing

B, varies greatly with pressure, then an average Similarly, the same coefficient can be employed
expression can be used as shown by Economides to the more rigorous expression using the real-gas
et al. (1994): pseudopressure. As an example, for pseudo-steady
state with q in Mscf/d:
0.0283ZT
Bg = . (2-18)
( p e + p wf )/ 2
kh[m( p ) m( pwf )]
q= .
With relatively simple algebra, and introducing the 1424T [ln(0.472re / rw ) + s + Dq ] (2-24)
gas rate in Mscf/d, Eq. 2-17 and 2-18 yield:
2-3.4 Horizontal Well Flow
141.2(1000 / 5.615)q (0.0283) Z T
pe pwf =
[( pe + pwf ) / 2]kh Analogs to Eq. 2-23 (for steady state) and 2-24 (for
re (2-19) pseudo-steady state) can be written for a horizontal
[ln( ) + s ],
rw well. Allowing for turbulence effects, the inflow
performance relationships for a horizontal well in a
and, finally: gas reservoir are for the steady state:

1424q ZT r
pe2 pwf
2
= [ln( e ) + s ], (2-20) k H h( pe2 pwf 2
)
kh rw q= ,

I ani h I ani h


1424ZT Aa +
+ Dq (2-25)

which re-arranged provides the steady-state ln
L
rw ( I ani + 1)


approximation for natural gas flow, again showing a where
pressure squared difference dependency.
A similar expression can be written for pseudo- a + a 2 ( L / 2) 2


steady state: Aa = ln ,

L/2

22



kh( p pwf )
q= . (2-21) and for pseudo-steady state:
0.472re
1424ZT [ln( ) + s]
rw k H h( p 2 pwf2
)
q= ,

I ani h I ani h 3

All expressions given thus far in this chapter have
1424ZT Aa +
+ Dq
ln
ignored one of the most important effects in natural L rw ( I ani + 1) 4



gas flow: turbulence. (2-26)
One of the simplest and most common
ways to account for turbulence effects is where Iani is a measurement of vertical-to-horizontal
through the use of the turbulence coefficient, permeability anisotropy given by:
D, which is employed by adding a component
kH
to the pressure drop, as shown below for the I ani = . (2-27)
kV
steady-state equation:
In Eqs. 2-25 and 2-26, a is the large half-axis of the
2 1424ZT
2 r drainage ellipsoid formed by a horizontal well of
p p =
e wf [ln( e ) + s ]q
kh rw length L. The expression for this ellipsoid is
1424ZTD 2 (2-22)
+ q , 0.5 0.5

L
kh r
4

a=
0.5 + 0.25 + eH

2
L / 2






which rearranged, provides the well-known:
L
for < 0.9reH , (2-28)
kh( pe2 pwf
2
) 2
q= .
re (2-23) where reH is the equivalent radial flow drainage radius.
1424ZT [ln( ) + s + Dq ]
rw

22
 Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production

2-4 Effects of Turbulence For an isotropic formation, k equals the horizontal

permeability. For an anisotropic formation, k is defined
The effects of turbulence have been studied as the equivalent permeability,
by a number of investigators in the petroleum
kV k 1
literature, pioneer and prominent among which keq = [1 log( )]( V ) 3 k H , (2-31)
kH kH
have been Katz and co-workers (Katz et al., 1959;
Firoozabadi and Katz, 1979; Tek et al., 1962). In where kV is the vertical and kH the horizontal
their work they suggested that turbulence plays permeability.
a considerable role in well performance showing To demonstrate the effects of turbulence on
that the production rate is affected by itself: The natural gas production, a number of calculations are
larger the potential rate, the larger the relative shown here, using the Katz et al. (1959) approach for a
detrimental effect would be. One interesting means range of permeabilities. Table 2-1 contains the well and
to account for turbulence was proposed by Swift reservoir data; Table 2-2 presents the results.
and Kiel (1962), who presented Eq. 2-22, which
when rearranged gives Eq. 2-23. Table 2-1. Well and Reservoir Characteristics
Equation 2-23 is significant because it suggests pe 3000 psi Case 1 Case 2
that turbulence effects can be accounted for by a rate-
re 660 ft pwf 1500 psi 2500 psi
dependent skin effect, where the turbulence (at times
referred to as the non-Darcy) coefficient, D, has the rw 0.359 ft 0.0162 cp 0.0186

units of reciprocal rate. One of the implications is h 50 ft Z 0.91 0.9

that in testing a high-rate gas well, a calculated skin T 710R
effect must be construed as apparent, rather than the
g 0.7
real damage skin. Among the procedures suggested
for testing test gas wells are multi-rate testing with
subsequent determination of apparent skins at Table 2-2 Turbulence Effect at Different Permeabilities
and Different Drawdowns
each rate, and straight-line construction graphing
of s+Dq vs q. The graph allows field determination Case 1: p = 1500 psi
k,
of s, the skin not affected by turbulence, from md q (=0, s=0) q (>0, s=0) q (>0, s<0)
s
MMscf/d MMscf/d MMscf/d
the vertical axis intercept, and D from the slope
1 3.0 2.9 8.1 -5.7
(Economides et al., 1994). 5 15.1 13.0 24.6 -5.1
25 75.3 51.9 71.7 -4.3
2-4.1 The Effects of Turbulence on Radial Flow 100 301.2 151.2 179.1 -3.7

Case 2: p = 500 psi

k,
Katz et al. (1959) have presented an explicit md q (=0, s=0) q (>0, s=0) q (>0, s<0)
s
relationship for the radial flow of gas into a well, using MMscf/d MMscf/d MMscf/d
natural gas properties and by providing correlations 1 1.1 1.1 3.7 -5.7
5 5.4 5.1 12.2 -5.1
for the coefficient, :
25 27.0 23.0 37.9 -4.3
1424ZT r 100 108.1 75.5 100.1 -3.7
pe2 pwf
2
= [ln( e ) + s ]q
kh rw
The first two columns of Table 2-2 show
1 1
3.16(10)12 g ZT ( ) the expected production rates for two flowing
rw re
+ q2 , (2-29) bottomhole pressures, for laminar and turbulent
h2
where conditions, and for permeabilities from 1 to 100 md.
At low permeability, as expected, the rate reduction is
2.33(10)10
= . (2-30) negligible; however, at 100 md and pwf = 1500 psi the
k 1.201
reduction is almost 50%.

23
Modern Fracturing
Turbulence effects, viewed as an apparent skin, result
in values of 0.3, 1.2, 3.4 and 7.5, for the 1-, 5-, 25- and
100-md cases, respectively (and pwf = 1500 psi).
Because the range of 5 to 25 md is perhaps the
most likely to be encountered in emerging natural gas
fields, the ratio of actual to ideal (without considering
turbulence) rates is perhaps the most telling. For the two
different drawdowns, these ratios are 0.86 and 0.94 (for
the 5-md case) and 0.68 and 0.85 (for the 25-md case).
These results, plotted on Fig. 2-2, show the effect of both
the permeability value and the drawdown. The ratio
between turbulence-affected production and production
calculated under the assumption of laminar flow declines
precipitously as reservoir permeability and drawdown
(and, hence, production rate) increase.
1.0
0.9
%p = 500 psi
0.8
q actual / q ideal
0.7
0.6
%p = 1500 psi
0.5
0.4
1 10
Permeability, md
Figure 2-2 Turbulence effects for a permeability range
and different drawdowns
An additional interesting issue is the question
of the negative skin effect. This will become even
more pronounced in a later section of this chapter
presenting the expected production rate from
hydraulic fracturing. For now, a hypothetical negative
skin effect is used to represent, for example, matrix
acidizing of carbonate rock. In Table 2-2, the listed
negative skin effects result from fracturing. What
will become apparent is that hydraulic fracturing in
natural gas wells has a much larger effect than merely
imposing a negative skin because of the extraordinary
reduction in turbulence effects.
When turbulence effects are insignificant, the
negative skin effect is very large. In the 1-md case with
1500-psi flowing bottomhole pressure, the production
ratio between the negative skin (-5.7) and the zero skin
is nearly 3. Conversely, when the turbulence effects are
great, as in the 100-md case, the production ratio between
24
the negative skin (-3.7) and the zero skin is far less (1.2),
but again, these production ratios do not paint the true
effect of fracturing, which will be addressed later.
2-4.2 Perforated and Cased Well
in a High-Rate Gas Reservoir
The previous section deals with the flow reduction in
an open-hole well and could also be considered as a
reasonable approximation for a slotted liner.
For a cemented and perforated well, in the absence of
turbulence, a configuration skin effect can be envisioned
and added to the denominator of the deliverability
relations. Karakas and Tariq (1988) have published a
method to calculate this skin effect which depends on
the length of the perforation tunnel, the perforation
diameter, the phasing (degrees among adjoining planes of
perforations) and, especially, the perforation density, i.e.,
how many perforations per unit net thickness, measured
in shots per foot (SPF). They also quantified the effect
of vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy: The
lower the vertical permeability, the larger the value of
the skin effect would be. Finally, they showed that if the
perforation tunnel lengths end outside a damage zone,
100 rather than inside, the composite damage/perforation
skin effect is substantially reduced.
Using the Karakas and Tariq (1988) model, one
important conclusion is that in a permeability-isotropic
formation without near-well damage, 4 SPF of typical
tunnel length and diameter result in a perforation skin
effect equal to zero; i.e., this configuration may be
construed as open-hole equivalent.
Ichara (1987) used a similar approach, constructing
a numerical model for a perforated natural gas well
and accounting for turbulence effects. He showed that
perforations add a production impediment because of the
increase in turbulence. Fig. 2-3 presents some of Icharas
results, which show the effect of permeability anisotropy
and perforation tunnel length. One observation is that
long perforations are useful, making a well with reasonable
perforation density (4 SPF) near the performance of an
open-hole well (still affected by turbulence). From Fig.
2-3 it can be concluded that a gas well with 4 SPF and
a typical 8-in. tunnel length in a sandstone reservoir
(kv /kh = 0.1) will perform at about 85% of an open-hole
well. Fig. 2-3 is for 0 perforation phasing.
 Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production
1.2
2-5 Production from Hydraulically
1.1
Open Hole
Fractured Gas Wells
Productivity Ratio

1.0
0.9
kv / kh
0.8 1.0
0.1
0.7
0.01
0.6
0 3 6 9
Perforation Length, in
Figure 2-3 Productivity ratio vs. perforation length for
kV /kH = 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 (after Ichara, 1987)
Figure 2-4 (for an isotropic formation) suggests
that improving the perforation phasing to 90 and,
especially, increasing the perforation density to 8 or
12 SPF may render the cased and perforated well
an even better performer than an open hole. This
is because of the penetration of the flow channels
beyond the sand face. In short, high perforation
density of long-penetrating tunnels will reduce
turbulence effects. For example, from Fig. 2-4,
for 8 SPF of 18 in. perforation tunnels, the well
performance would be about 10% larger than that
of an open-hole well.
(Note: Icharas work assumes that all perforations
are open and undamaged. This is of course rarely true
and the results presented here should be considered
an upper limit. Turbulence effects would be enhanced
with damaged or partly open perforations.)
1.2
1.1
Open Hole
1.0
Productivity Ratio
Hydraulic fracturing has been established as the
premier production enhancement procedure in the
4 SPF
p = 1500 psi petroleum industry. For the first 40 years since its
0 Phasing Angle inception, hydraulic fracturing has been for primarily
low-permeability reservoirs; in the last two decades
it has expanded into medium- to high-permeability
12 15 18 21
formations through the tip screenout (TSO) process
(see section 4-7.3.2). For natural gas wells, a reservoir
above 0.5 md should be considered a medium-
permeability reservoir. Above 5 md it should be
considered a high-permeability formation. In all
high-permeability cases, the fracture should be a TSO
treatment (Economides et al., 2002a). Even in many
medium-permeability formations with relatively small
elastic moduli, TSO is the indicated method.
Valk and Economides and co-workers as in Romero
et al. (2002) introduced a physical optimization technique
to maximize the productivity index of a hydraulically
fractured well. They call it the Unified Fracture Design
(UFD, Economides et al., 2002a) approach. They
introduced the concept of the dimensionless Proppant
Number, Nprop, given by:
4k f x f w 4k f x f whp
N prop = I x2C fD = 2
=
kx
e kxe2 hp
2k f V p (2-32)
= ,
kVr
where Ix is the penetration ratio, CfD is the
SPF
12 dimensionless fracture conductivity, Vr is the reservoir
8
drainage volume, Vp is the volume of the proppant in
4
the pay (the total volume injected times the ratio of the

12
90 8 net height to the fracture height), kf is the proppant
4
0.9
Phasing Angle
pack permeability, k is the reservoir permeability,
xe is the well drainage dimension, hf is the fracture
0.8
0 height and h is the reservoir thickness. The proppant
permeability for gas wells will have to be adjusted
0.7
because of turbulence effects. This adjustment will be
shown in a later section.
0.6
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Valk and Economides also found that for a
given value of Nprop there is an optimal dimensionless
Perforation Length, in
fracture conductivity at which the productivity index
Figure 2-4 Effect of shot density and phasing angle on is maximized.
productivity ratio for kV /kH = 1

25
Modern Fracturing
2-5.1 Unique Needs of Fracture
Geometry and Conductivity
At low Proppant Numbers, the optimal conductivity,
CfD = 1.6. The absolute maximum dimensionless
productivity index (see Section 4-5.1), JD , is 6/ = 1.909
(the productivity index for a perfect linear flow in a
square reservoir). When the propped volume increases
or the reservoir permeability decreases, the optimum
dimensionless fracture conductivity increases somewhat.
Valk and Economides (1996) also presented
correlations for the maximum achievable dimensionless
productivity index as a function of the Proppant
Number (see Eq. 2-33 at the bottom of the page).
Similarly, correlations were presented for
the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity
for the entire range of Proppant Numbers (see
Eq. 2-34, at bottom).
After the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity
is known, the optimal fracture length and width can be
readily determined from:
0.5
k f V f C kV
x fopt = and wopt = fD ,opt f
C fD ,opt kh k f h
where Vf is the volume of one propped wing,
Vf = Vp/2.
The idea of using the maximized dimensionless
productivity index to 1) design a hydraulic fracture
treatment and 2) to evaluate the subsequent well
performance against a benchmark and indeed any
other well configuration allows a generalized approach
to production engineering. It becomes important to
rationalize sub-standard performance and a constant
effort to push the limits (Economides et al., 2001.)
1
0.990 0.5 ln N prop
J D max ( N prop ) =
6 0.423 0.311N prop 0.089( N prop ) 2
exp
1 + 0 . 667 N prop + 0. 015( N prop )
1.6
0.583 + 1.48 ln N prop
C fD ,opt ( N prop ) = 1.6 + exp
1 + 0 .1
1 42 ln N prop
N prop
26
2-5.2 Turbulence Remediation
in High- and Low-Permeability Wells
In the case of a potentially high-rate natural gas well, the
effective proppant pack permeability used to calculate
the Proppant Number and the dimensionless fracture
conductivity depends on the production rate because of
the non-Darcy flow effects.
Economides et al. (2002b) presented an iterative
procedure combining the UFD method with the Gidley
(1990) adjustment to proppant pack permeability and
the Cooke (1973) correlations for flow in fractures.
The procedure starts with correcting the effective
permeability using the in-situ Reynolds number by:
k f ,n
k f ,e =
, (2-36)
1 + N Re
where kf,n is the nominal fracture permeability.
First a Reynolds number is assumed. A good first
value is Reynolds number equal to zero. Then from
Eq. 2-32 and the adjusted proppant pack permeability
the Proppant Number is calculated from which the
0.5
maximum JD (Eq. 2-33) and optimum dimensionless
.
(2-35) conductivity (Eq. 2-34) are calculated. The latter
allows the determination of the indicated fracture
dimensions using Eq. 2-35.
From the dimensionless productivity index and
drawdown, the actual production rate is calculated,
which in turn is used to obtain the Reynolds number.
The procedure ends when the assumed and calculated
Reynolds numbers are close enough.
The Reynolds number for non-Darcy flow
is given by
k f ,n
N Re = , (2-37)
if N prop 0.1
(2-33)
2
if N prop > 0.1
if N prop < 0.1
if 0.1 N prop 10 (2-34)
if Nprop >10
 Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production

where kf,n is the nominal permeability (under Darcy

Table 2-4 Results from Hydraulically Fractured Well
flow conditions) in m2, is in 1/m, v is the fluid ( kf = 60,000 md)
velocity at reservoir conditions in m/s, is the
Case 1: pwf = 1500 psi
viscosity of the fluid at reservoir conditions in Pa.s k, md s
and is the density of the flowing fluid in kg/m3. The q, MMscf/d kf,e , md xf , ft

value of is obtained from: 1 -5.7 13.1 9251 218

5 -5.1 43.5 7950 91
b 25 -4.3 160.3 6670 36
= (1108) , (2-38)
(k f ,n )a 100 -3.7 524.0 5525 16

where a and b are obtained from Cooke (1973). Some Case 2: pwf = 2500 psi
k, md s
values are given in Table 2-3.
q, MMscf/d kf,e , md xf , ft
1 -5.7 5.8 12493 250
Table 2-3 Constants a and b
Prop Size a b 5 -5.1 18.9 10770 108
8 to 12 1.24 17,423 25 -4.3 69.2 8980 44
10 to 20 1.34 27,539 100 -3.7 224.0 7494 20
20 to 40 1.54 110,470
40 to 60 1.60 69,405
Table 2-5 shows even more prolific fractured wells if
The velocity, v, is determined as the volumetric flow premium proppants are used (kf = 600,000 md),
rate in the fracture near the well divided by the fracture pushing the limits of hydraulic fracturing (Demar-
height times the fracture width (both determined from chos et al., 2004).
the design in each iteration.) For a detailed approach
and example see Economides et al. (2002b). Table 2-5 Results from Hydraulically Fractured Well
Table 2-4 presents the results for the fracture ( kf = 600,000 md)
designs and expected production rates for the four Case 1: pwf = 1500 psi
k, md s
permeabilities used earlier for the non-fractured wells q, MMscf/d kf,e , md xf , ft
presented in Table 2-2. These designs assumed sand as 1 -6.1 19.9 38300 375
a proppant with kf = 60,000 md. 5 -5.9 59.2 32050 182
There are some very important implications 25 -5.4 202.0 27110 75
in comparing the results in Tables 2-2 and 2-4. 100 -4.8 637.0 22410 35
At 5 md the non-fractured well would deliver 13
Case 2: pwf = 2500 psi
MMscf/d (with pwf = 1500 psi). If the fracture- k, md s
induced skin of -5.1 is assumed the production q, MMscf/d kf,e , md xf , ft

rate would be 24.6 MMscf/d, approximately a two- 1 -6.1 8.8 51600 456

fold increase (see Table 2-2) This production ratio 5 -5.9 26.3 44150 211

increase would be expected in an oil well flowing 25 -5.4 88.4 37020 91

under laminar conditions. However, the implicit
reduction in turbulence effects (because of the flow
profile modification in going from converging radial
flow to fracture flow) leads to a considerable further
increase in the production to (in this example)
43.5 MMscf/d, a more than three-fold increase
(see Table 2-4). For higher-permeability wells, the
resulting folds of increase are similar, albeit in
actual production rates the achievable results are
spectacular (see Fig. 2-5).
100 -4.8 270.0 31720 41
In summary, turbulence affects are the dominant
features in the production of high-permeability (>5
md) gas wells. Turbulence may account for a 25 to 50%
reduction in the expected open-hole production rate
from such wells, if laminar flow is assumed. Cased and
perforated wells may experience further turbulence-
induced rate declines, which can be alleviated somewhat
with long-penetrating perforation tunnels and large

27
Modern Fracturing
perforation densities (e.g., 8 to 12 SPF). However,
nothing can compete with hydraulic fracturing. In
higher-permeability gas wells, the incremental benefits
greatly exceed those of comparable permeability oil wells,
exactly because of the dramatic impact on reducing the
turbulence effects beyond the mere imposition of a
negative skin. It is fair to say that any gas well above
5 md will be greatly handicapped if not hydraulically
fractured. Indeed, pushing the limits of hydraulic
fracturing by using large quantities of premium
proppants will lead to extraordinary production rate
increases (Wang and Economides, 2004).
1000.0
Fractured Well
(Premium)
100.0
q, MMscf/d
10.0 Negative
Skin Radial
Flow
1.0
1 10
Permeability, md
Figure 2-5 Comparison of gas production rates from non-
fractured wells, wells with negative skin and fractured wells
2-5.3 Multi-fractured Horizontal Gas Wells
As discussed in the previous section, in vertical gas wells
turbulence can be greatly reduced through hydraulic
fracturing because the flow pattern (shown in Fig. 2-
6) through the hydraulic fracture towards the well is
different than for radial flow (Wang and Economides,
2004). The same is not necessarily true for transversely
fractured horizontal gas wells (see Section 10-2).
Because turbulence effects are enhanced in the latter
(due to the very small contact area between the well
and the fracture), the conclusion is more nuanced. The
limited communication between the transverse fracture
and the wellbore generates an additional pressure drop
and a choking effect for all transversely fractured
horizontal gas wells. This also increases turbulence,
which precludes application to essentially any well
whose permeability is 1 md or more and, perhaps, to
even much lower values of permeability, depending on
project economics (Wei, 2004).
28
Depending on the well orientation with respect to
the state of stress, either a longitudinal or a transverse
fracture may be created in a horizontal well (Soliman
and Boonen, 1997; Mukherjee and Economides, 1991;
Soliman et al., 1999). The longitudinal configuration
is generated when the well is drilled along the expected
fracture trajectory. The performance of such well is
almost identical to a fractured vertical well when both
have equal fracture length and conductivity. Therefore,
existing solutions for vertical well fractures can be applied
to a longitudinally fractured horizontal well (Economides
et al., 2002a; Soliman et al., 1999; Villegas et al., 1996;
and Valk and Economides, 1996).
Fractured
Well
Radial flow
100
Hydraulically fractured vertical well
Figure 2-6 Configurations of radial flow and fractured
vertical well
Almost all reported applications of fractured
horizontal wells are for transverse fractures (Crisby et al.,
1998; Emannuele et al., 1998; Eirafie and Wattenbarger,
1997; Minner et al., 2003; and Fisher et al., 2004). A
transverse hydraulic fracture is created when the well
is drilled normal to the expected fracture trajectory
(Valk and Economides, 1996; Soliman et al., 1999;
and Economides et al., 1994). The configuration of a
transversely fractured horizontal well is demonstrated
in Fig. 2-7. The cross section of the contact between a
transverse fracture and a horizontal well is 2 rww where
w is the width of the fracture (which can be obtained by
using a design procedure such as the Unified Fracture
Design approach) and rw is the radius of the horizontal
well. In this case, the flow from the reservoir into the
 Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production

fracture is linear; the flow inside the fracture is converging
radial (Economides et al, 1994). This combination of
flows results in an additional pressure drop that can
be accounted for by a choke skin effect, denoted as sc
(Mukherjee and Economides, 1991). The horizontal
well is assumed to be in the vertical center of a reservoir
(see Fig. 2-7) and the flow is from the reservoir into the
fracture and then from the fracture into the wellbore
(Mukherjee and Economides, 1991). The produced fluid
enters the wellbore only through the fracture, regardless
of whether the remaining part of the well is perforated.
In this study, this assumption is also valid.
Side view, fluid flow from reservoir to the fracture
Calculation Method and Theory
for Transversely Fractured Gas Well
To study the performance of a transversely fractured
horizontal gas well, it is essential to account for
turbulence effects, which are likely to be large
because of high gas-flow velocity. Economides et
al. (2002b) have developed an iterative procedure
to account for turbulence effects in a hydraulic
fracture. The main steps and the correlations used
are described below.
1. Assume a Reynolds number, NRe , and
calculate the effective fracture permeability kf,e
using Eq. 2-36.
2. Using kf,e , calculate the Proppant Number, Nprop
, from Eq. 2-32.
3. With Nprop , calculate the maximum productivity
index, JDmax , and optimal dimensionless fracture
conductivity, CfDopt , from Eq. 2-33 and 2-34,
respectively.
4. With CfDopt , calculate the indicated optimum
fracture dimension xfopt and wopt from Eq. 2-35.
5. With the known kf,e and wopt, calculate the choke
skin factor by:
kh h
sc = ln . (2-39)
k f w 2rw 2

6. With the calculated JD,max and sc, calculate the

dimensionless productivity index of transversely
fractured horizontal oil well JDTH (neglecting
turbulence effects for now), JDTH :
1
J DTH =
1
+ s (2-40)
J c
DV

where JDV is the dimensionless productivity

index of the fractured vertical well calculated
using the procedure described by Wang and
Economides (2004).
Top view, fluid flow from the fracture to the wellbore 7. With JDTH and drawdown, the actual production
Figure 2-7 One transverse fracture intersecting a
rate can be obtained using Eq. 2-41. With this
horizontal well production rate, a new Reynolds number NRe
can be calculated with Eqs. 2-37 and 2-38, and
In the following section, the theory and calculation the flow velocity v obtained from the cross-
method for transversely fractured horizontal sectional area of flow.
gas well are described. Then some results and
kh( p 2 pwf
2
)
discussions are presented. q= J DTH . (2-41)
1424ZT

29
Modern Fracturing

8. Compare NRe calculated in Step 7 with the The details of the fracture design are omitted here.
assumed NRe in Step 1. If they are close enough, What are presented are fractured well performance
the procedure can be ended. If they are not, repeat results, summarized in Table 2-6.
from Step 1 until they are close enough. It should be noted that the skin choke effect,
The calculated results are optimum, which means sc , (from Eq. 2-39) is inversely proportional to the
that at a given Proppant Number the dimensionless proppant-pack permeability. Thus, choosing high-quality
productivity index is the maximum at the optimum proppant would decrease sc and benefit the dimensionless
dimensionless fracture conductivity (Demarchos et productivity index, JDTH (Eq. 2-40), and the Equivalent
al., 2004). However, this optimization often must Number of Vertical wells, X (Eq. 2-42).
be tempered by physical and logistical constraints
(Economides et al., 2002a) Table 2-6 Results for kf = 600,000 md
To compare the performance of fractured vertical kf = 600,000 md, 150,000 lbm mass,
and transversely fractured horizontal gas well, the single transverse fracture
Equivalent Number of Vertical Wells, X, is defined as: k, md JDV JDTH w, in. sc kf,e
1 0.739 0.121 0.35 4.64 1002

J DTH 5 0.457 0.056 0.69 13.3 871
X= . (2-42)
J DV 10 0.389 0.036 0.86 22.3 832
25 0.324 0.018 1.04 48.7 794
Assume the formation permeability is the same 50 0.288 0.013 1.48 69.1 783
throughout and n transverse fractures are generated 100 0.255 0.009 2.07 100 774

intersecting a horizontal well (Fig. 2-8). JDTHt is the total

dimensionless productivity index (sum) for n transverse
fractures. JDTH1 is the dimensionless productivity
index of one isolated zone for a transversely fractured
horizontal well. Therefore:
J DTHt = nJ DTH 1. (2-43)
Figure 2-8 Multiple transverse fractures intersecting a
horizontal well
Results and Analysis
for Formation Permeability from 1 to 100 md
A case study is presented here for the multiple fracturing
of a horizontal well in a gas reservoir with h = 50 ft,
g = 0.7, reservoir pressure of 3000 psi and flowing
bottomhole pressure of 1500 psi.
Assume a single transverse fracture is generated in
the horizontal well and the mass of proppant is 150,000
lbm. Proppant-pack permeability, kf , is 600,000 md.
The results in Table 2-6 show the value of JDTH is
very small (compared to that of the vertical well, JDV)
and decreases dramatically with increasing formation
permeability. It is obvious that turbulence effects
influence the performance of a transversely fractured gas
well so much that even with the most premium proppant
(permeability 600,000 md), the results are unacceptable.
The comparison of production between a fractured
vertical well, a transversely fractured horizontal well and
laminar flow open-hole well (the ideal case in Wang and
Economides, 2004) is summarized in Fig. 2-9. The top
solid curve (qv /qideal) represents the ratio of the fractured
vertical well production to that from a laminar-flow,
open-hole vertical well. The solid bottom curve shows
the ratio of a transversely fractured horizontal well (one
fracture) with the same laminar-flow, open-hole vertical
well (qTH /qideal). Results clearly show that because the
fracture in the vertical well changes the flow pattern in
the near-wellbore area and alleviates the non-Darcy effect
the qv /qideal is considerably larger than 1. Conversely,
the qTH /qideal is much smaller than 1 even at reservoir
permeability equal to 1 because of the choke skin and
non-Darcy effects. The dashed line in Fig. 2-9 shows that
even with four transverse fractures, the productivity ratio
of a fractured horizontal well to an ideal open-hole is still
less than 1 for permeability larger than 10 md.

30
 Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production

Would increasing the mass of proppant improve The JDTH is smaller than JDV when other parameters
the performance? The answer is no. The reason is are the same.
that the main factor that makes JDTH so low is the The JDTH decreases with increasing formation
converging skin effect, sc , which cannot be reduced permeability regardless of proppant-pack permeability,
by increasing the mass of proppant (see Eq. 2-39). as expected.
For example, for the 1-md formation, doubling the When reservoir permeability is less than 0.1 md,
mass of proppant to 300,000 lbm (with all other proppant-pack permeability has slight impact on sc.
variables kept the same) increases the JDTH only to When reservoir permeability increases, sc increases
0.122, almost the same as that for the 150,000-lbm and X decreases.
mass case, where JDTH is 0.121.
These results further suggest that for high- and
6 even moderate-permeability reservoirs, a transversely
fractured horizontal gas well is not attractive because of
5
the production impediment from turbulence effects and
4
converging skin effect. For low-permeability (k 0.5 md)
qv / q ideal
reservoirs, the results should be attractive if multiple
q / q ideal

3 fractures intersecting a horizontal well are generated (and

if the project economics are attractive.)
2 4q TH / q ideal

2.0
Open Hole
1 1.8
qTH / q ideal 1.6
1.4
0
JDV and JDTH

1.2
1 10 100
1.0
k, md JDV (kf =60,000 md) JDV (kf =600,000 md)
0.8
0.6
Figure 2-9 Turbulence effect on fractured vertical and 0.4
0.2 JDTH (kf =600,000 md)
transversely fractured horizontal wells JDTH (kf =60,000 md)
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
k , md
The conclusion from this part of the study is that
hydraulic fracturing is essential for both stimulating Figure 2-10 (a) JDV, JDTH, vs. k for different proppants

and reducing the strong turbulence effects in higher-

0.8 40
permeability vertical gas wells, but the same is not 0.7 35
necessarily true for transversely fractured horizontal gas 0.6 30
X (k f =600,000 md)
wells. Transversely fractured horizontal gas wells are not 0.5 sc (kf =60,000 md) 25
attractive in terms of productivities for moderate and 0.4 20
Sc
X

higher formation permeability (e.g. k > 1 md). 0.3 X (kf =60,000 md) 15
0.2 sc (k f =600,000 md) 10

Results and Analysis 0.1 5

for Formation Permeability from 0.01 to 10 md 0

0.01 0.1 1 10
0
k, md
A second study presents results for a much lower
permeability range (0.01 to 10 md). Designs assume the Figure 2-10 (b) sc, X vs. k for different proppants
use of 150,000 lbm mass of proppant with proppant-
pack permeabilities of 60,000 md and 600,000 md. Because JDV and sc are functions of the mass
Drainage radius is 660 ft. of proppant and proppant-pack permeability, it is
A single transversely fractured horizontal gas well is worth performing a parametric study to show the
calculated. The results are plotted in Figs. 2-10 (a) and effect of important reservoir and treatment variables
2-10 (b). The obvious trends from these results are: on JDTH , JDV and X.

31
Modern Fracturing

Impact of Fracture Treatment Size a horizontal well are generated. Thus, it is useful to study
To find the impact of the mass of proppant on JDTH, a range how the number of isolated zones affects the Equivalent
of proppant mass from 75,000 to 300,000 lbm is used. Number of Vertical Wells.
The proppant-pack permeability used in this study is sand, Assume the total drainage radius is 1320 ft, the
with permeability 60,000 md, and the drainage radius is proppant-pack permeability kf is 60,000 md and mass
660 ft. The results are summarized in Table 2-7. of proppant is 150,000 lbm. The number of isolated
zones and, thus, the number of transverse fractures
Table 2-7 Impact of Mass of Proppant on X and JDTH intersecting a horizontal well vary from 1 to 4.
75,000 lbm
The results, plotted in Fig. 2-11, show that
k, md JDTH X sc when the number of transverse fractures is more
0.01 0.786 0.531 0.16 than four for low permeability (k < 0.5 md), X
0.05 0.465 0.481 0.45
0.1 0.31 0.35 0.86 becomes more than 1, which makes transversely
0.5 0.105 0.198 5.63 fractured horizontal gas wells attractive. The lower
1 0.067 0.152 10.5
the formation permeability is, the more attractive
5 0.029 0.092 28.6
10 0.017 0.06 51.3 the transverse fracture configuration is (subject to
150,000 lbm overall economic considerations). If the formation
k, md JDTH X sc permeability is larger than 1 md, the transverse
0.01 1.075 0.589 0.08 configuration does not appear attractive. For
0.05 0.345 0.487 0.43 example, X is only 0.280 for k = 10 md formation
0.1 0.323 0.294 0.91
0.5 0.106 0.162 5.66 with four transverse fractures generated.
1 0.067 0.127 10.6
5.0
5 0.029 0.08 28.7
10 0.018 0.058 51.3 4.5 k =0.01 md

300,000 lbm 4.0

k, md JDTH X sc 3.5

0.01 1.42 0.755 0.19 3.0

0.05 0.314 0.518 0.46 2.5 k =0.05 md
X

0.1 0.332 0.235 0.95 2.0 k =0.1 md

0.5 0.107 0.138 5.69
1 0.068 0.116 10.6 1.5
5 0.029 0.071 28.9 1.0 k =0.5 md
10 0.018 0.053 51.3 k =1 md
0.5 k =5 md
k =10 md
0.0
1 2 3 4 5
It is apparent that increasing the mass of proppant n
has impact on the results for the low-permeability
(k 0.1 md) formation but virtually no impact in higher Figure 2-11 Impact of number of fractures, n, on X
permeabilities. The reason is that increasing the mass In summary, turbulence effects have a great
of proppant, while it may increase the dimensionless impact on transversely fractured horizontal gas wells
productivity index, also increases the skin factor sc (see due to the small cross-section of the contact between
Table 2-7). The one effect nullifies the other. Thus, the well and the fracture. Although a vertical fractured
there is no need to increase the mass of proppant. A gas well in the permeability range of 1 to 100 md
modest treatment is sufficient. may perform very well, turbulence effect procduce
in unacceptable results in transversely fractured
Impact of the Number of Isolated Zones horizontal gas wells in the same permeability range.
on Equivalent Number of Vertical Wells, X For low permeability (k < 0.5 md), the results are
As mentioned earlier, for low-permeability (k 0.5 attractive if a fracture stimulation treatment generates
md) reservoirs, fracture stimulation results will not be multiple fractures intersecting a horizontal well.
attractive unless multiple transverse fractures intersecting However, if the permeability is larger than 0.5 md,

32

the configuration appears unattractive. For relatively
higher-permeability (0.1 md < k <10 md) formations,
increasing the mass of proppant has very small or
virtually no effect on results. A medium mass of
proppant is enough for this permeability range.
2-6 Well Deliverability, IPR
and Well Flow Performance
All expressions relating gas well production rate
with the reservoir and bottomhole pressures can lead
readily to an inflow performance relationship, IPR.
Graphically, an IPR is plotted traditionally with the
bottomhole pressure on the vertical axis and the
production rate on the horizontal axis.
The IPR of a single-phase oil well forms a straight
line. The IPR of a gas well is a parabola because of
the pressure-squared dependence, even without the
additional complication of the turbulence term, e.g.,
Eq. 2-23 (for vertical well, steady state) or 2-26 (for
horizontal well, pseudo-steady state.)
An IPR describes a very simple and very useful
picture of well performance. It says that for any given
flowing bottomhole pressure there is a corresponding
rate. Intersection of the IPR with the vertical axis is the
driving reservoir pressure, i.e., the initial pressure for
transient conditions, the outer boundary pressure for
steady state and the average reservoir pressure for pseudo-
steady state. The intersection with the horizontal axis at
pwf = 0 is the well absolute open-hole potential.
One of the main tasks of production engineering
is modifying IPR. Indeed, all well intervention actions
aim to enhance IPR. Damage removal, re-perforating,
matrix stimulation and hydraulic fracturing all modify
the IPR. For a given reservoir pressure, all of these
production enhancement techniques shift the IPR
to the right. Reservoir pressure decline also de-facto
changes the IPR, lowering the vertical axis intersection
and shifting the curve downward.
What the reservoir can deliver into the well at
the bottomhole must be tempered by what the well
hydraulics (e.g., tubing diameter, depth, restrictions,
valves etc.) can allow on the way to the surface.
Thus, for any given production rate there is a unique
combination of flowing bottomhole and wellhead
pressures that would produce that rate. In practice,
Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production
a basic requirement is the value of the wellhead
pressure, which determines the necessary value of the
bottomhole pressure for the desired rate.
Another important task of production engineering
is to design the well tubulars, primarily the tubing
diameter, to try to accommodate the combination of
pressures in the well and rate.
A plot of the well flow performance, for a given
wellhead pressure, is then done with rate on the horizontal
axis and the required flowing bottomhole pressure on the
vertical axis. Such a plot is convenient because superposing
the IPR with the well flow performance provides exactly
the unique solution for well deliverability.
Well deliverability is a central theme of petroleum
production engineering. Calculations and solutions
of various scenarios seek to predict and optimize well
performance. Changing the IPR can be easily related
by plotting the original and new IPR and predicting
well deliverability in combination with the well
flow performance. At times, one well intervention
(e.g., hydraulic fracturing of a gas well) may not
provide maximum benefit without changing the
well performance curves. The existing tubing may be
restricting the rate (tubing-limited). Changing the
tubing size can remedy the situation.
The relationship between upstream and
downstream gas pressures flowing in a vertical
or inclined tubing, is given in oilfield units, by
(Economides et al., 1994):
f ( ZTq ) 2 s
p22 = e s p12 + 2.685103 (e 1), (2-44)
sin Dtbg 5
where is the well deviation from the horizontal and e
is the natural exponent derived from:
g0.0375 sin L
s=
. (2-45)
ZT
For horizontal flow the relationship is:
g f ZTq 2 L
p12 p22 = 1.007 104 . (2-46)
Dtbg 5
To obtain the friction factor, ff , the Reynolds number
must be calculated, and the Moody friction factor chart
can be used:
g q
N Re = 20.09 .
Dtbg (2-47)
33
Modern Fracturing
In Eq. 2-44 through 2-47, p is in psia, q is in Mscf/
d, Dtbg is in in., L is in ft, is in cp, T is in R, and all
other variables are dimensionless.
The indicated calculation procedure is iterative.
If either pressure is known, usually the well head or
downstream pressure, then the other pressure can be
calculated by iteration. The reason is that natural gas
physical properties are functions of the pressure value
to be calculated. Given one pressure value (upstream
or downstream) the other pressure is assumed, the
properties are calculated and then the unknown pressure
is calculated using Eq. 2-44 to 2-47. The assumed
and calculated values are compared and the procedure
repeated until a desired convergence is achieved.
Example of Gas Well Deliverability
Figure 2-12 shows the results for two skin effects (s=0 and
-5). Table 2-8 contains the well and reservoir variables for
this example. For the first case the resulting flow rate q =
4415 Mscf/d at pwf = 945 psi. For the stimulated well, q
= 10,500 Mscf/d at pwf = 2010 psi. Changing the tubing
diameter to 3 in. results in (for s =0) q = 4560 Mscf/d at
pwf = 630 psi, not a great impact on well performance
but for s = -5, the results are more pronounced: q =
12,800 Mscf/d at pwf = 1225 psi, both of which are
desirable. For higher reservoir permeability, the impact
of tubing size will be even more significant. This example
demonstrates the importance of considering both the
well IPR and well flow performance in reaching the
desirable well deliverability.
6000
IPR at s = 0
5000 IPR at s = -5
V LP
4000
pwf , psi
3000
2000
1000
0 production, is plotted against o/Z, it should form a
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000
q, Mscf/d
Figure 2-12 Gas well deliverability example
34
Table 2-8 Resevoir Data for Gas Well Deliverability
Example
k = 0.3 md h = 78 ft re = 1490 ft p = 5100 psi
g = 0.65 Tres = 185F Ttf = 140F rw = 0.328 ft
H = 9800 ft Dtbg = 2.259 in. = 90 ptf = 300 psi
2-7 Forecast of Well Performance
The final step of natural gas production engineering and
one that infringes on reservoir engineering is the forecast
of well performance, adding the necessary element of time.
Any economic calculation requires this step. To make such
calculation it is necessary, of course, to know the drainage
area of the well, which can be physically delineated from
geologic information, augmented by well testing analyses,
or surmised by allocating drainage areas through well
spacing in a fully developed field. Material balance is
essential, and basic elements are presented below.
2-7.1 Gas Material Balance and Forecast of Gas
Well Performance
If Gi and G are the initial and current gas-in-place within
a drainage area, the cumulative production from a gas
reservoir, considering the expansion of the fluid, is
Bgi
G p = Gi G = Gi Gi
, (2-48)
Bg
where Bgi and Bg are the corresponding formation
volume factors.
Equation 2-18 provides Bg in terms of pressure,
temperature and gas deviation factor. Substitution in
Eq. 2-48, assuming isothermal operation throughout,
and rearrangement results in:
p / Z
G p = Gi 1 . (2-49)
pi / Z i
This expression suggests that if Gp, the cumulative
straight line. Usually, the variable is plotted on the
vertical axis and the cumulative production on the
horizontal axis. At Gp=0, then, o/Z=pi /Zi, and at p/Z=0
 Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production

then Gp=Gi. For any value of the reservoir pressure
(and associated Z), there exists a corresponding Gp.
Coupled with the gas well IPR expressions presented
earlier in this chapter, a forecast of well performance
versus time can be developed readily.
2-8 Correlations for Natural Gas
yH2S are the mole fraction of nitrogen, carbon dioxide
and hydrogen sulfide, respectively, in the gas mixture.
Therefore the pseudocritical temperature Tpc1 and
pressure ppc1 for the whole mixture are:
Tpc1 = ATpc + 227.3 yN 2 + 547.6 yCO2 + 672.4 yH 2 S
p pc1 = Ap pc + 493.0 yN 2 + 1071 yCO2 + 1306 yH 2 S . (2-53)

Properties
Finally, the actual corrected critical properties must
Natural gas properties are used throughout production include the Wichert and Aziz correction factor given by:
engineering, from reservoir inflow to well flow 0.90 1.6
performance. In the past, graphical correlations have = 120 ( yCO2 + yH 2 S ) ( yCO2 + yH 2 S )
been used and can be found in almost all production 0.5
+ 15 ( yH 2 S ) ( yH 2 S ) .
4 (2-54)
and reservoir engineering textbooks. This book uses
explicit correlations which can be readily programmed to And thus, the corrected pseudocritical temperature and
calculate physical and thermodynamic properties. pressure are

2-8.1 Pseudocritical Pressure, ppc Tpc* = Tpc1

and Pseudocritical Temperature, Tpc p pc1 * Tpc*
p*pc = .
Tpc1 + yH 2 S (1 yH 2 S ) (2-55)
The critical temperatures and pressures are derived
from correlations for pseudocritical temperatures, Tpc 2-8.2 Gas Viscosity
and pressures, ppc, (Brown et al., 1948), with g= gas
gravity to air = 1. Gas viscosity is calculated with the Lee et al. (1966)
For condensate fluids, g < 0.00001: correlation:

Tpc = 187 + 330 g 71.5 g2 (2-50) = K exp X Y , (2-56)

p pc = 706 51.7 g 11.1 g2 .
where
For miscellaneous fluids, g 0.00001:
(9.4 + 0.02M )T 1.5
Tpc = 168 + 325 g 12.5 2 K=
g (2-51) 209 + 19 M + T
p pc = 677 + 15.0 g 37.5 g2 . 986
X = 3.5 + + 0.01M
T (2-57)
Equations 2-50 and 2-51 were developed for Y = 2.4 0.2 M
gases with no contaminants such as H2S, CO2 and pM
= ,
N2. If any of these contaminants are present, the ZRT
pseudocritical values must be corrected using the
Wichert and Aziz (1972) correction. and where M is molecular weight, is gas density, and
The gas gravity, g in Eq. 2-50 and 2-51, is replaced T is temperature in R.
by hc as given by:
2-8.3 Gas Deviation Factor, Z
g 0.967 yN 2 1.5195 yCO2 1.1765 yH 2 S
hc = .
A (2-52) The gas deviation factor, Z is calculated using either the
Hall and Yarborough (1974) or the Dranchuk-Purvis-
where A=(1 yCO2 YN2 yH2S), and yN2, yCO2 and Robinson (1974) correlations:

35
Modern Fracturing

Hall and Yarborough Correlation. The method is valid within the following ranges of
pseudo-pressure and temperature:
0.06125 p pr t
Z= exp 1.2(1 t ) 2 , (2-58) 1.05 < Tpr < 3.0
Y
0.2 < ppr < 3.0
where ppr is the pseudo-reduced pressure, t is the reciprocal
of the pseudo-reduced temperature, (i.e., Tpc /T), and Y is
the reduced density that can be obtained from:
References
Y +Y 2 +Y 3 +Y 4
F (Y ) = X 1 + 3
(1 Y ) (2-59) Al-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J.: Jr., Application of
2
( X 2)Y + ( X 3)Y X4
=0 Real Gas Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability
Forecasting, JPT (May 1966) 637-642.
where Brown, G.G., Katz, D.L., Oberfell, C.G., and Alden,
R.C.: Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons,
X 1 = 0.06125 p pr t exp 1.2(1 t ) 2
NGAA, Tulsa, OK (1948).
X 2 = (14.76t 9.76t 2 + 4.58t 3 ) Cooke, C.E., Jr.: Conductivity of Proppants in
X 3 = (90.7t 242.26t 2 + 42.4t 3 ) Multiple Layers, JPT (Sept. 1973) 1101-1107.
X 4 = (2.18 + 2.82t ). Crosby, D.G., Yang, Z., and Rahman, S.S.: Transversely
Fractured Horizontal Wells: A Technical Appraise
The Dranchuk-Purvis-Robinson correlation of Gas Production in Australia, paper SPE 50093,
1998.
1 + T1r + T2r2 + T3r5 + Demarchos, A.S., Chomatas, A.S., Economides, M.J.,
T4 r2(1+ A 2 ) exp( A 2 ) T5 = 0, (2-60) Mach, J.M. and Wolcott, D.S.: Pushing the
8 r 8 r
r Limits in Hydraulic Fracture Design, paper SPE
with 86483, 2004.
Dranchuk, P.M., Purvis, R.A. and Robinson, D.
A A B.: Computer Calculation if Natural Gas
T1 = A1 + 2 + 33
Tpr Tpr Compressibility Factors Using the Standing and
Katz Correlation, Institute of Petroleum, IP 74-
A
T2 = A4 + 5 008, 1974.
Tpr
Economides M.J.: Hydraulic Fracturing-a short course
T3 = A5 A6 / Tpr by Prof. Michael J. Economides, 2004.
T4 = A7 / Tpr3 Economides, M.J., Hill A.D., and Ehlig-Economides,
C.A.: Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice Hall,
T5 = 0.27 p pr / Tpr . NY (1994).
Economides, M.J., Valk, P.P. and Wang, X.: Recent
The coefficients A1 through A8 have the following Advances in Production Engineering, JCPT
values: (October 2001) 35-44.
Economides, M.J., Oligney, R.E., and Valk, P.P.: Unified
A 1 = 0.31506237 A 2 = -1.0467099 Fracture Design, Orsa Press, Houston (2002a).
A 3 = -0.57832720 A 4 = 0.53
3530771 Economides, M.J., Oligney R.E., and Valk, P.P.:
A 5 = -0.61232032 A 6 = -0.10488813 Applying unified fracture design to natural gas
A 7 = 0.68157001 A 8 = 0.68446549 wells, World Oil (Oct. 2002b), 52-62.
Eirafie, E.A., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Comprehensive
Evaluation of Horizontal Wells with Transverse

36

Hydraulic Fractures in the Upper Bahariyia
Reservoir, paper SPE 37759, 1997.
Emanuele, M.A., Minner, W.A., Weijers, L.,
Broussard, E.J., Blevens, D.M., and Taylor. B.T.:
A Case History: Completion and Stimulation
of Horizontal Wells with Multiple Transverse
Hydraulic Fractures in the Lost Hills Diatomite,
paper SPE 46193, 1998.
Fisher, M.K., Heinze, J.R., Harris, J.R., Davidson, B.M.,
Wright, C.A., and Dunn, K.P.: Optimization
Horizontal Completion Techniques in the Barrnett
Shale Using Microseismic Fracture Mapping,
paper SPE 90051, 2004.
Forchheimer, P., Hydraulik, Teubner, Leipzig and Berlin
(1914) 116-118.
Firoozabadi, A., and Katz, D.L.: An Analysis of High-
Velocity Gas Flow Through Porous Media, JPT
(Feb. 1979) 211-216.
Gidley, J.L.: A Method for Correcting Dimensionless
Fracture Conductivity for Non-Darcy Flow
Effects, paper SPE 20710, 1990.
Hall, K.R. and Yarborough, I.: A New Equation of
State for Z-Factor Calculations, Oil & Gas J.,
June 18, 1973, 82-92.
Ichara, M.J.: The Performance of Perforated Completions
in Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 16384, 1987.
Karakas, M., and Tariq, S.: Semi-Analytical Production
Models for Perforated Completions, paper SPE
18247, 1988.
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann,
F.H., Vary, J.A., Ellenbaas, J.R., and Weinang, C.F.:
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-
Hill, NY (1959).
Lee, A., Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E.: The
Viscosity of Natural Gases, JPT (Aug. 1966) 997-
1000.
McCain, W.D., Jr.: The Properties of Petroleum Fluids,
Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa (1973).
Minner, W.A., Ganong, B.L., Demetrius S.L., and
Wright, C.A.: Rose Field: Surface Tilt Mapping
Shows Complex Fracture Growth in 2500 Laterals
Completed with Uncemented Liners, paper SPE
83503, 2003.
Mukherjee, H., and Economides, M.J.: A Parametric
Comparison of Horizontal and Vertical Well
Performance, paper SPE 18303, 1991.
Chapter 2 Natural Gas Production
Romero, D.J., Valk, P.P., and Economides M.J.:
Optimization of the Productivity Index and the
Fracture Geometry of a Stimulated Well With
Fracture Face and Choke Skins, paper SPE 73758,
2002.
Sanger, P.J., and Hagoort, J.: Recovery of gas
condensate by nitrogen injection compared with
methane injection, SPEJ. (1998) 3(1), 26.
Soliman, M.Y., and Boonen, P.: Review of Fracturing
Horizontal Wells Technology, paper SPE 36289,
1997.
Soliman, M.Y., Hunt, J.L., and Azari, M.: Fracturing
Horizontal Wells in Gas Reservoirs, SPEPF (Nov.
1999)14 (4).
Swift., G.W., and Kiel, O.G.: The Prediction of Gas-
Well Performance Including the Effects of Non-
Darcy Flow, JPT (July 1962) 791-798.
Tek, M.R., Coats, K.H., and Katz, D.L.: The Effect
of Turbulence on Flow of Natural Gas Through
Porous Reservoirs, JPT (July 1962) 799-806.
Valk, P., and Economides, M.J.: Performance of a
Longitudinally Fractured Horizontal Well, SPEJ
(March 1996) 11-19.
Villegas, M.E., Wattenbarger, R.A., Valk, P., and
Economides, M.J.: Performance of Longitudinally
Fractured Horizontal Wells in High-Permeability
Anisotropic Formations, paper SPE 36453,
1996.
Wang, X.: Pore-Level Modeling of Gas-Condensate
Flow in Porous Media, PhD dissertation,
University of Houston (May 2000).
Wang, X., and Economides, M.J.: Aggressive Fracture
Slashes Turbulence in High-Permeability Gas
Well, (July 2004).
Wang, X., and Mohanty, K.K.: Critical condensate
saturation in porous media, J. Coll. & Interf. Sci.
(1999a) 214, 416.
Wang, X., and Mohanty, K.K.: Multiphase non-Darcy
flow in gas-condensate reservoirs, paper SPE
56486, 1999b.
Wang, X., Thauvin, F., and Mohanty, K.K.: Non-
Darcy flow through anisotropic porous media,
Chem. Eng. Sci. (1999) 54, 1859.
Wei, Y.: Transverse Hydraulic Fractures From A
Horizontal Well, MS thesis, University of Houston
(November, 2004).
37
Modern Fracturing

Wichert, E., and Aziz, K.: Calculation of Zs for Sour

Gases, Hydrocarbon Processing (1972) 51(5).
Yao, C.Y., and Holditch, S.A.: Estimating Permeability
Profiles Using Core and Log Data, paper SPE
26921, 1993.

38
Bob Bachman is currently at Taurus Reservoir Solutions in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Areas of expertise
include all aspects of traditional reservoir engineering, reservoir simulation and analyzing the performance
of hydraulically fractured wells. He graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1976 and 1978 with
BSc and MSc degrees in civil engineering. He began his career as a reservoir engineer at Mobil Oil Canada,
looking at hydrocarbon miscible floods. He currently has over 27 years consulting experience. Companies
he has worked for include Intercomp, SSI, Simtech and Duke Engineering.

Robert Hawkes is team leader of reservoir services for BJ Services Company Canada, overseeing petrophysical
and reservoir engineering services. He graduated from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in 1979
with a diploma in petroleum engineering. He began his career with Esso Resources in Calgary as a reservoir
technologist in the testing department and went on to become a senior well testing specialist with Fekete
Associates Inc. Hawkes is well-published in CIM and SPE and is a distinguished lecturer for the SPE 2007-
2008 Distinguished Lecture Program. He is a member of SPE, the Petroleum Society of CIM, Society of
Petroleum Petrophysicists and Well Logging Analysis (SPWLA) and the Alberta Society of Engineering
Technologists (ASET).
Chapter 3
Gas Well Testing
and Evaluation
Bob Bachman, Taurus Reservoir Solutions and
Robert V. Hawkes, BJ Services
With special contributions on closure analysis from
Bob Barree, Barree and Associates
3-1 Introduction
Pressure transient testing of wells is now a commonly
accepted sub-discipline of reservoir and production
engineering. The analysis of such a test is called
pressure transient analysis (PTA). Conducting such
tests is costly in both an absolute sense and in possible
temporary loss of production. The benefits must
therefore outweigh the costs if the test is to be done.
Nevertheless, pressure transient testing is performed
around the world because it is one of only a few
processes that help to quantify well behavior. Within
the context of hydraulic fracturing it is especially
useful in answering the following questions:
1. What are the reservoir properties so that
optimal hydraulic fracturing treatments can
be designed? In designing fracture treatments
(as presented throughout this book and, in
particular in Section 4-5), knowledge of reservoir
permeability is crucial. This property is one of the
most important findings of a pressure transient
test and it is most unambiguously determined
before a treatment. Other properties that can
be obtained from the test include the initial
pressure pi, and the damage around the well. This
damage is referred to as skin, s, and is normally
considered a short-distance phenomenon. A
positive skin indicates that damage has occurred
and will result in production impairment
and additional pressure loss around the well.
A negative skin corresponds to a production
enhancement compared with the normal state.
The goal of a hydraulic fracture treatment is
to create an equivalent negative skin situation,
which is the result of the fracture half-length
and conductivity (see Chapter 2).
2. How does the actual treatment, with respect to
the propped fracture properties, compare to
what was designed? Here the analyst is trying to
compute the fracture length and the conductivity
of the proppant pack. This would quantify if there
were any positive skin left after the treatment
and whether the stimulation was successful in
removing it. Results of the analysis may determine
if future design changes need to be made. This
in turn could lead to recommended changes in
fracture geometry (propped length and width), the
materials in use (proppant type and stimulation
fluid) and the size of the treatment.
Tests are most often done immediately after drilling,
casing and perforating, although open-hole DST tests are
sometimes performed. This allows stimulation decisions
to be made. Tight gas wells (those with permeability
below 0.1 md) may not flow without being stimulated.
In these cases other methods, such as closed chamber
testing, may be done to determine permeability. These
alternative tests will be discussed in Section 3-12.2.
Another important area for pressure transient
testing is determining the average well pressure and
how this changes with time from well to well in the
pool. This in turn helps determine the contacted gas
in place and, indirectly, well reserves, in addition to
connectivity among various wells in the pool.
A large number of commercially available software
packages are available to help the user in the design
and analysis of PTA tests. This removes the burden of
data manipulation and problem set-up from the user.
However by making problem set-up so easy and the
mathematics largely hidden by various plotting and
calculation techniques, the user may not understand
what is going on. The focus of this chapter will be in
giving background PTA theory and more importantly,
guidance about accepted practices in interpreting test
results. This chapter is intended as a supplement to
the already excellent books on the subject of PTA
(e.g., Dake, 1978; Horne, 1997; Lee et al., 2003; and
Houz et al. (2007)) and will have a particular focus
on natural gas testing.
Before proceeding, pressure transient test must
be defined. The classical definition is a process whereby
the production from the well is controlled, usually
41
Modern Fracturing
at the wellhead, and the resulting pressure measured
either at the wellhead or, preferably, at bottomhole
conditions. The overwhelming majority of tests have
a sequence of production rates followed by a build-
up. A build-up occurs when the well is shut-in and
produces at a zero rate. Interpreting test results is most
easily performed when rates are held constant, and a
well being shut-in is the easiest constant rate condition
to obtain operationally. In the literature, there is an
overwhelming focus on the proper interpretation of
the last build-up. The authors feel strongly that all flow
periods need to be reviewed and analyzed, in order to
reduce non-uniqueness issues that frequently occur.
The typical duration of a test is less than one month,
often less than 10 days and in some cases as little as 24
hours of flow, followed by a 24-hour build-up.
The time duration of a test gives a natural limit as
to how far into the reservoir properties can be inferred.
From the analysts point of view, all tests appear to be
of insufficient length, as one is always on the verge of
determining properties further into the reservoir at any
time. The realities of the oil and gas business dictate
that compromises be made; enough time is granted
to conduct a test so that operational and stimulation
decisions can be made, and no more.
3-2 Background Theory
There is a tremendous body of literature dedicated to
PTA, summarized in a review paper by Gringarten
(2006). Equations describing flow in porous media
involve combining the continuity equation (conservation
of mass) with Darcys law (relationship between flow
rate and pressure drop) as was shown in Chapter 2. This
results in a second-order partial differential equation.
For vertical wells in radial coordinates, where vertical
and angular properties do not vary, this results in a one-
dimensional linear differential equation:
1 k p
r = , (2-4) and Holditch (1982) set the pressure equal to the
r r r t
where r is the radial distance, t is time, is the fluid
density, k is the permeability, is the porosity and
the viscosity. This equation is appropriate for both
oil and gas because no constitutive assumptions
have been made about the density term. For liquids,
42
the assumption of constant density, viscosity and
compressibility is appropriate. If, in addition, constant
permeability is assumed then:
2 p 1 p ct p
+ = , (3-1)
r 2 r r k t
where ct is the total compressibility and p is pressure.
This is a linear equation, as none of the coefficients
are a function of pressure. This is known as the radial
diffusivity equation. The left side of this equation
represents the flow term in the reservoir. The right side
represents the accumulation of material at a given point
over time. For gas reservoirs, it is possible to linearize
the left side of Eq. 2-4 by the process described in
Section 2-3.2, using the definition for real gas pseudo-
pressure, m(p). From now on this will be referred to as
just pseudo-pressure. This gives:
2 m( p ) 1 m( p ) ct m( p )
(2-13)
2
+ = .
r r r k t
The right side terms (viscosity) and especially
ct (total compressibility) are strong functions of
pressure. Initial attempts to get around this non-
linearity assumed the product of these terms was
constant at the initial pressure value, which is only
approximately true. Agarwal (1979) introduced an
additional term called pseudo-time, ta, which has
been slightly modified to be:
t dt '
ta = (ct )i
, (3-2)
0 ct
where the subscript i represents initial conditions. This
definition allows pseudo-time to retain units of time.
Subsequently, Lee and Holditch (1982) gave a strong
theoretical justification for the approach. Pseudo-time
accounts for the large change in gas compressibility
that occurs at low pressures (early time in a build-
up). It has little effect on the late time data, and was
introduced for build-ups only. For drawdowns, Lee
initial pressure in Eq. 3-2 for the entire flow period.
Implicit in this calculation is that pressure must be
known as a function of time.
Which pressure should be used? The pressure
typically measured is at the well, so it seems a logical
choice, and indeed this is what Lee and Holditch

(1982) imply. Production Analysis (or PA) techniques
use the average pressure so that material balance
can be rigorously applied. This requires the size of
the container (i.e. the drainage area) to be specified
before the analysis can begin, or else an iteration
to be performed upon it as a part of the solution
process. Well test programs typically have not
required this in their analytical engines. For software
using the bottomhole pressure in the pseudo-time
calculation, long-term forecasts will not honor
material balance (Houz, 2002).
When Eq. 3-2 is substituted into Eq. 2-13, and
higher-order terms are dropped, then one has:
2 m( p ) 1 m( p ) ( ct )i m( p )
+ = , (3-3)
r 2 r r k ta
which is linear. This final transformation recasts the
gas equation into the same form as the oil equation.
Mathematically there is now no difference between
the two formulations. For gas problems, care
must be taken as to how the compressibility term
is entered into commercial PTA software. Most
software codes require the user to specify only the
rock compressibility term, as the gas compressibility
is automatically calculated from the specified PVT
properties. Current software is formulated in terms
of pseudo-pressure and possibly pseudo-time. For
pseudo-time-based software, rock compressibility
will be added to the pressure-dependent gas
compressibility derived from the specified or
correlated PVT properties. For software using the
concept of constant ct, viscosity and compressibility
would be specified at initial conditions, and the
user may be expected to enter the combined
rock and gas compressibility.
By applying the additional transformation of
dimensionless time (Eq. 2-14) and dimensionless
pressure (Eq. 2-15) into Eq. 3-3, a standard form is
achieved to report solutions to well test equations for
radial problems with a constant producing rate:
0.000264kta
tD = , (3-4)
( ct )i rw2
and
kh[m( pi ) m( pwf )]
p D = , (2-15)
1424qT
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
where tD is the dimensionless time, pD is the
dimensionless pressure, r w is the wellbore radius, T
the reservoir temperature, q is the rate, m(pi) is the
pseudo-pressure at the initial pressure pi and m(pwf) is
the flowing pseudo-pressure at the sandface pressure
pwf. The difference between Eqs. 2-14 and 3-4 is
that the time function is different. For hydraulically
fractured wells, the definition of dimensionless time
changes by replacing the wellbore radius by the
fracture half-length, xf:
0.000264kta
tD = . (3-5)
( ct )i x 2f
Frequently one wishes to solve the problems where pwf
is constant and the rate declines with time. For this case
the pD definition in Eq. 2-15 is not appropriate and
solutions are expressed in terms of the dimensionless
rate, qD:
1 kh[m( pi ) m( pwf )]
= . (3-6)
qD 1424qT
Although the right side is apparently identical to Eq.
2-15, it must be remembered that in Eq. 2-15 q is
constant, while in Eq. 3-6 pwf is constant.
Two terms that play a significant role in PTA
interpretation are the diffusivity () and storativity
coefficients (). These are defined as:
k
= ,
(c t )i (3-7a)
and
= (ct )i h, (3-7b)
where h is the total net pay. The velocity of a
pressure disturbance from a given rate change is
proportional to the diffusivity coefficient. The
higher the permeability and the lower the system
compressibility, the faster the disturbance travels, and
the sooner boundaries will be encountered. Pressure
disturbances typically travel much faster in oil wells
than gas wells due to the significant differences in
compressibility. The storativity is less important,
especially in short-term tests, but it can be significant
when defining heterogeneities within a system or
when depletion occurs.
43
Modern Fracturing
3-3 Radial Flow Solutions
Van Everdingen and Hurst (1949) were the first to
solve Eq. 3-1. The initial cases considered a constant
well rate at the inner boundary. Various outer boundary
conditions, such as no flow and constant pressure,
were also solved. They extended the solutions to
include wellbore storage, and in subsequent work (van
Everdingen, 1953; and Hurst, 1953) solutions included
both wellbore storage and skin effects, but only gave
partial solutions. Raghavan et al. (1970) extended the
solution to all circumstances.
Wellbore storage is the phenomenon that occurs
when the rate is controlled at the surface rather than
the sand face. This results in a delay in the production
response at the sand face. Wellbore storage occurs
due to the compressibility of the wellbore fluids or a
changing fluid level in the well (Horne 1997). Even
for the relatively simple case of no wellbore storage
or skin, the mathematical solution as a function
of time remains formidable.
For all flow problems, and not just the
homogeneous radial flow solution, there are two
special asymptotic cases. The first occurs at early
time, but not so early that wellbore storage affects
the results. This is called the transient solution, where
there is no influence from any outer boundaries.
This has already been given in Chapter 2 as Eq.
2-16 in terms of t. In general:
(3-8)
T is temperature and rw is wellbore radius. This can be
expressed in dimensionless terms as:
1
pD = (ln t D + 0.80907) + s, (3-9)
2
The second asymptotic solution occurs at late time when
all the boundaries are felt. For the special case of a constant
rate with a no-flow outer boundary, this is referred to as
the pseudo-steady solution, and pseudo-pressure at all
points in space declines at a constant rate with time:
44
m( pi ) m( pwf ) 0.000528kta
1422T r 3
= + ln e + s ,
q kh ( c ) r 2
rw 4
t i e
(3-10)
where re is the outer drainage radius. Fig. 3-1 shows
a comparison of the transient and pseudo-steady
state cases. When wellbore storage dominates
at the earliest times:
m( pi ) m( pwf ) 0.420082T
= ta . (3-11)
q i C
where C is the wellbore storage coefficient, which is a
measure of how the compressibility of the well and its
contents affects the early time pressure response.
Transient
Pseudo-Steady State
pe
p
Time
r
Figure 3-1 Comparison of transient and pseudo-steady
state cases
The complexity of the van Everdingen and
Hurst (1949) solution comes from the so-called
late transient term, where there is a transition from
pure transient flow to pseudo-steady state flow. For
radial flow, the late transient flow period is of short
duration. For more complicated geometries, some
but not all boundaries are felt for significant periods
of time, making the late transient period significant.
This late transient time presented great difficulties for
the first generation of theoreticians in PTA.
After a well has reached pseudo-steady state
conditions, it is not possible to decouple permeability
and skin effects. Instead, one can only determine
the overall productivity index (J) of the well, which
represents a combination of permeability and skin.
For cylindrical drainage this equation is:

kh q flow, which is similar to pseudo-steady state flow.
J=
= Bounded flow assumes all the reservoir boundaries
1422T [ ln(re / rw ) (3 / 4) + s ] m( pavg ) m( pwf )
(3-12)
where m(pavg) is the pseudo-pressure at the average
reservoir pressure pavg. The average pressure changes with
time according to the material balance equation. For
hydraulically fractured wells, an overall negative skin
can represent the fracture after radial flow is achieved.
The treatment itself does not affect the permeability
of the well, only the skin. For wells draining differing
reservoir shapes, Eq. 3-12 can be appropriately
modified, by using the Dietz shape factor. The time to
get into bounded flow has been determined by Dietz
(1965) and is also dependent on the drainage area
shape. For convenience, an additional dimensionless
time function, tDA, is defined as:
0.000264kt
t
DA = , (3-13)
( ct )i A
where A represents the drainage area of the well. For a
well in the center of a square or circular drainage area,
the time to pseudo-steady state flow is tDA = 0.1. For wells
with the vast majority of drainage area shapes, Brown
and Hawkes (2005) developed a simple relationship for
comparing the benefit of a stimulation treatment based
on a ratio of the pre- and post-stimulated skin effect,
which is a simplification of Eq. 3-12. They called it the
rule of eight, and it is a slight modification of earlier work
by Golan and Whitson (1991):
[8 + so ]
qf =
[ qo ], (3-14)
8 + s f
equations are linear, superposition (sometimes called
where so and sf represent the skin effects before and
after fracture treatment, respectively. Similarly qo and
qf represent the boundary-dominated flow rates before
and after fracture treatment.
Evaluating the effectiveness of fracture stimulation
treatments for wells with long-term production data
onlywithout knowledge of permeability or skin
is difficult. These wells are assumed to be in bounded
1422Tq t pa + ta
m( pi ) m( pwf ) = 1.151 log + pD (t pa ) ln pa ,
kh t
a
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
have been encountered and the well is flowing at
constant pwf, with a declining rate.
For a typical gas well the range of permeability is
between 0.001 to 10 md, or 4 orders of magnitude.
Permeability is typically highly variable across a
group of wells. For a given constant pressure drop
the calculated rate is proportional to permeability,
indicating a possible rate variation of 4 orders of
magnitude, as given by Eq. 3-12. Independent of
permeability, a well normally has a positive skin after
the initial completion. In practice this varies from +25
(highly damaged) to 0 (no damage). After a fracture
stimulation treatment the best skin factor that can
be expected is about 6. For an initially undamaged
well (s = 0), a stimulation treatment can result in a
four-fold change in rate by Eq. 3-14. Permeability
dominates the resultant production rate, making the
success or failure of a treatment hard to quantify if
permeability is unknown.
The only way to determine the effectiveness of
a fracture treatment is to separate the permeability
and skin effects. This can only be accomplished
from an analysis of the transient portion of the flow.
Skin can then be related to the fracture geometry
and proppant conductivity, from data prior to the
establishment of radial flow.
3-4 Superposition
During actual pressure tests, rate variation with time has
to be dealt with. Because the fundamental mathematical
rate convolution) can be applied to develop more
general solutions from the building block of the
constant rate solution, as shown by Odeh and Jones
(1965). By definition, a new transient is introduced at
each rate change. If the last flow rate was a shut-in,
one then has a pressure build-up test. Transient flow is
guaranteed for at least some period of time. Assuming
a single constant rate and build-up, Theis (1935) and
1 4t
(3-15)
2
45
Modern Fracturing
Horner (1951) determined a special superposition time
function (Horner time) appropriate for the build-up
portion of the test (see Eq. 3-15), where is a constant
equal to 1.781. ta is delta pseudo-time or alternatively
the pseudo-time since shut-in, tpa is the pseudo-time at
shut-in and pD(tpa) is the dimensionless pressure at tpa
and is an unknown constant.
If radial flow is present, then a semi-log plot of
m(pwf) versus (tpa + ta)/ta (the Horner plot) should
be linear. The permeability can be calculated from the
slope of this plot, and the y-intercept gives the false
pseudo-pressure (or m(p)*). An auxiliary equation
eliminates the unknown term pD(tpa) and gives the
skin. (In Section 3-12.1, Fig. 3-16 will illustrate the
use of this plot.) m(p)* can be interpreted as m(pi)
if minimal production from the field has occurred.
Matthews et al. (1954) established ways to determine
m(pi) from m(p)* where significant production has
occurred. Curvature in the Horner plot indicates
other flow regimes or a breakdown in the assumptions
related to the development of the plotting function,
such as a boundary. In practice it has proven very
difficult to pick the correct straight line on the Horner
plot, and a number of plausible and significantly
different results could be generated. This point will
be addressed in Section 3-11.
One can extend the Horner time concept for an
arbitrary series of rates, assuming infinite acting radial
flow (Earlougher, 1977). The resulting time function
is commonly called superposition time. The arbitrary
rate solution is presented in two forms:
(3-16a)
and
(3-16b)
46
where qn is the gas rate in the nth flow period. Equation
3-16a is the classical definition in the textbooks (Dake,
1978, Eq. 8.49), and the superposition time function,
tasuper1, would plot on a linear scale. Equation 3-16b is
t
just a mathematical trick because ta sup er 2 = 10 . The
a sup er 1
second superposition time function plotted on log
scale is identical in form to the Horner plot. Even
where radial flow is not strictly true, or boundaries
are felt in some of the earlier flow periods, the radial
superposition definition is used.
Some well test software no longer allows the direct
plotting of the original Horner plot, preferring to use
the more general superposition time concept. Dake
(1978 and 1994) strongly objected to analyses based
on superposition time because it is based on infinite
acting radial flow occurring throughout the entire test,
and not just the last flow period. He argued that if this
assumption were incorrect, the test would be inherently
misinterpreted. Until fairly recently there was no
adequate answer to his objections. This point will be
deferred to Section 3-11.
When superposition is used to generate plots in
the manner described so far, one can only analyze the
equivalent of the time within one flow period. This puts a
limit on the volume of the reservoir for which properties
can be determined. While the rate information is
incorporated into the superposition time term, causing an
adjustment in the pressure response, limited information
about earlier rates seeing a possible boundary is available.
This is an additional reason the build-up is the preferred
flow period to match: Direct control over the length of
this flow period can be exercised, independent of normal
field operating conditions. These limitations are only now
being circumvented by a process called deconvolution,
which will be discussed in Section 3-18. Deconvolution
allows the transformation of the entire well test, with
all its rate variations, into an equivalent constant rate
drawdown, covering the full length of the test.
3-5 Model Development
As work progressed from the 1950s, the solutions to
ever more complicated cases with a variety of boundary
conditions were being published (see Gringarten,
2006, for an overview). The most significant cases in
modern software include:

1. Non-centered wells in a rectangle.
2. Multiple radial composite rings (composite in
diffusivity (Eq. 3-7a) and storativity (Eq. 3-
7b) coefficients, the normal variation being in
permeability only).
3. Multi-layered wells, which are only in pressure
communication through the wellbore.
4. Dual-porosity or naturally fractured wells.
Typically, these wells have a high-diffusivity,
low-storativity media connected to the wellbore.
A second media, with low diffusivity and high
storativity, feeds fluid into the first media. The
time delay in the low-storativity media becoming
dominant is what makes this system unique.
5. Infinite-conductivity hydraulically fractured wells
within a rectangle/circle.
6. Finite-conductivity hydraulically fractured wells
within a rectangle/circle.
7. Horizontal wells.
The difference between infinite- and finite-
conductivity fracture behavior will be discussed in
the next section. A wide variety of inner boundary
conditions (constant rate or constant pressure with
or without wellbore storage and skin) and outer
boundary conditions (no flow, constant pressure or
leaky fault) have all been solved.
3-6 Hydraulically Fractured Wells
The analysis of hydraulically fractured wells is of
particular significance, because it is possible to quantify
in-situ fracture properties. PTA is one of the best ways
to determine the effectiveness of the treatments placed
in the field. Prats et al. (1962) performed one of the
first analyses of hydraulically fractured wells. For an
infinite-conductivity fracture, no significant pressure
drop occurs in the fracture. Laterafter radial flow
has been achievedthere is a relationship between
the fracture half-length, xf, and the effective wellbore
radius, rw. Knowing the effective wellbore radius, the
skin effect can be directly calculated from:
1
rw = x f ,
(3-17a)
2
rw = rwes or s = ln(rw / rw ). (3-17b)
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
These formulae are used as simple checks to more
detailed analyses. Gringarten et al. (1974) developed
full solutions for the cases of infinite fracture
conductivity and uniform flux into a hydraulic
fracture within a rectangular drainage area. Cinco-
Ley et al. (1978) and Cinco-Ley and Samaniego
(1981a) developed solutions for the case of a finite-
conductivity fracture (see also Section 4-6). The
dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD (see Section
4-2.1.6) of a fracture is given by:
k w
C fD =
f
(3-18)
kx f
where kf w is the fracture conductivity. It is made
up of the fracture permeability kf and the fracture
width w. Values of CfD > 30 are normally considered
to be infinite conductivity. This concept is further
discussed in Section 4-2.1.6. In Cinco-Ley and
Samaniego (1981a) four possible transient flow
regimes are identified for hydraulically fractured
wells. These are shown in Fig. 8-4.
The first of these is fracture linear flow. No
production pressure response from the formation
has occurred at this stage. This is of extremely
short duration and is in practice not visible due to
wellbore storage effects. The second flow regime is
either bilinear flow (for finite-conductivity fractures)
or formation linear flow (for infinite-conductivity
fractures). For either case, this is followed by
elliptical flow, which is sometimes referred to as
pseudo-radial flow, and finally radial flow (infinite
acting radial flow or IARF).
Bilinear flow, which should be expected in the
vast majority of hydraulic fractures, and formation
linear flow have simple pseudo-pressure relationships
with time given by:
for bilinear flow (3-19a)
with
443.3581qT (3-19b)
(k f w)0.5 k 0.25 = ,
h 0.25 (ct )i0.25 mbf
and for formation linear flow,
and (3-19c)
47
Modern Fracturing

Table 3-1 Duration of Flow Regimes in Hours

Flow Regime Equation Value of tD or tDA

1.53
a) t D = 0.0205 (C fD 1.5)
1.6 CfD 3.0, first use Eq. a) to find tD
End of Bilinear Flow
0.000264kt then use tD to solve Eq. b)
b) tD =
( ct )i x 2f

0.000264kt
End of Formation Linear Flow tD = 0.016
( ct )i x 2f

0.000264kt 3.0
Start of Radial Flow tD =
( ct )i rw2 slightly lower value for CfD 3

0.000264kt 0.1
End of Infinite Acting Behavior t DA =
( ct )i A circular bounded reservoir

0.000264kt 0.1
Start of Pseudo-Steady State t DA =
( ct )i A circular bounded reservoir

rw 0.5
40.9521 = f (C fD ) = .
x f k 0.5 = 0.5
, (3-19d) x f C fD
1.01
(3-20)
h (ct )i0.5 mlf 1 +
1.7
where mbf is the bilinear flow slope and mlf is the linear Work by Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1981b) introduced
flow slope. Horne (1997) has provided comprehensive the idea of a damaged hydraulically fractured well. Two
formulae to determine when these and other flow possible cases were quantified: the so-called choked
regimes start and end (Table 3-1). fracture (Fig. 7-39) and a fluid loss damage case (Fig.
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1981a) presented 7-40). In practice it is not possible to determine from
a chart, Fig. 3-2, showing how, after radial flow has pressure data alone which of these is occurring.
occurred, rw /xf relates to fracture conductivity. The An analog to the radial superposition plot (a.k.a. the
skin effect can be calculated from Eq. 3-17b. generalized Horner plot) can be made for both bilinear
and linear flow, accounting for rate changes over the
1.00
production history. These are sometimes referred to as
the tandem quad-t and tandem root-t plots, respectively.
Like the radial superposition plot, they are generated
assuming transient flow occurs through all flow periods.
rwa/xf

0.10

3-7 Specialized Plots

Returning to the general case, specialized plots can

0.01 be constructed versus an appropriate time function
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
CfD
for a flow regime. These plots allow the calculation
of reservoir properties if the correct straight lines are
Figure 3-2 Relationship between effective wellbore
radius and CfD (from Cinco-Ley and Samaniego, 1981a) chosen. For radial flow, a plot of m(pi) m(pwf) or m(pwf)
versus log ta the so-called MDH plot from Miller et
Subsequently, Barree et al. (2003) used a curve fit to al. (1950) should give a straight line. From Eq. 3-
put Fig. 3-2 into a simple equation: 8, the slope is inversely proportional to permeability.

48

Analogous plots for bilinear (m(pwf) versus ta0.25) and
linear flow (m(pwf) versus ta0.5) will allow one to determine
combinations of reservoir properties involving either (kf
w)0.5 k0.25 or xf k0.5, as given in Eqs. 3.19b and 3-19d and
shown in Figs. 3-3 and 3-4, respectively.
CfD = 1.6
CfD > 1.6
m(pwf)
CfD < 1.6
Slope Proportional to
1/((kf w)0.5k0.25)
ta0.25
Figure 3-3 Specialized bilinear flow plot (m(pwf) versus
ta0.25) for the determination of (kfw)0.5 k0.25
End of Linear Flow
m(pwf)
Slope Proportional to
1/(xf k0.5)
ta0.5
Figure 3-4 Specialized linear flow plot (m(pwf) versus ta0.5)
for the determination of xf k0.5
Without radial flow, where permeability can be
uniquely determined, no decoupling of these terms is
possible. For bilinear flow there is no information with
respect to fracture length; in this case, length can only be
determined indirectly by history matching.
For multi-rate tests, one simply ignores the effect
of all previous flow periods for these specialized
plots, plotting variables in terms of ta, ta0.25 or
ta0.5 as appropriate. In the real world, determining
the correct straight line (or determining whether a
straight line even exists) is difficult, just as in the case
of the generalized Horner plot. The MDH plot, in
particular, is notorious for showing false straight lines,
or in some situations where radial flow is actually
occurring, no straight line at all.
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
3-8 Type Curves and the Log-Log
Derivative Plot
All of the analysis procedures presented so far allow
one to analyze distinctive flow regimes such as radial or
formation linear flow. They do not allow one to analyze
transitions to other flow regimes or the late transient
flow period. The inability to pick an unambiguous
straight line for a hypothesized flow regime from the
plots was an additional frustration. To address both
of these issues, Ramey (1970) introduced the idea of
type curves. Gringarten et al. (1979) further extended
the type curve concept with a judicious choice of
variables to be used in the matching process. The
well test equations were re-formulated in terms of a
pressure difference defined as:
m( p ) = m( pwf , ta = 0) m( pwf , t a ) , (3-21)
where the vertical bars represent the absolute value
and m(pwf , ta = 0) represents the pseudo-pressure
at the beginning of the appropriate flow period (or
build-up). Fig. 3-5 illustrates the concept for both a
drawdown and build-up.
pi
%p
%p
pwf
tp %t
q1 q2 = 0
Figure 3-5 Drawdown and build-up plots showing
definition of p and, by analogy, m(p) for each case
The distinguishing feature of any type curve is that
both axes are plotted in log coordinates. All reservoir
properties can be directly obtained from an overlay
match. For build-ups, there are problems in developing
type curves because they depend on the length of time
of the drawdown. Empirically it was shown that if the
flow period is long, then the build-up matches the
drawdown type curve, until bounded flow is observed.
49
Modern Fracturing

Agarwal (1980), assuming transient radial flow, applied
superposition consistent with the definition of m(p)
in Eq. 3-21. A time function called equivalent pseudo-
time, tae, was derived to handle these arbitrary flow
rate variations. This allowed the creation of an adjusted
drawdown type curve for all flow periods. For radial
flow, the solution for any flow period is:
where qn represents the flow rate for flow period
n. Equation 3-22 is analogous to Eq. 3-8. Similar
analogous expressions for wellbore storage, bilinear and
radial flow were developed as:
m( p )
= a1tae n ,
qn1 qn
capability at late times and large m(p) is poor,
making it almost impossible to match different
middle to late time flow regimes.
In 1983, the biggest breakthrough in PTA occurred
with the introduction of the logarithmic pressure derivative
technique of Bourdet et al. (1983). This coincided with
the industry adaptation of high-resolution electronic
gauges capable of a virtual avalanche of recorded data
values. Because numerical differentiation of data is
inherently a dispersive process, the pressure derivative
could not be successfully applied to older, less accurate,
pressure measurements. The logarithmic derivative (often
(3-22) just called the derivative) for gas wells is defined as:
d (m( p )) d (m( p ))
m( p ) =
d (ln tae )
= tae
d tae (3-24)
For various flow regimes this results in:
1637T (qn1 qn )
(3-23a) m( p ) = (radial flow), (3-25a)
2.303kh

or
0.420082T
a1 = (n = 1), (3-23b)
i C
m( p ) = nm( p ), (3-25b)
443.3581qT
a1 = (n = 0.25), (3-23c) where n = 1 for wellbore storage, n = 0.25 for bilinear
h 0.25 ( ct )i0.25 (k f w)0.5 k 0.25
flow and n = 0.5 for linear flow.
and For build-ups qn = 0. The standard plot is a combined
Gringarten/derivative type curve alternatively called the
40.9521
a1 = (n = 0.5), (3-23d) log-log derivative type curve and is shown in Fig. 3-6.
h ( ct )i0.5 x f k 0.5
0.5

102
where n is 1.0 for wellbore storage, 0.25 for bilinear CDe2S 1060

flow and 0.5 for formation linear flow, respectively. 1060 1020
1010
Different equivalent pseudo-time expressions, which
pD and (tD/CD) pDa

101 1020 104

are flow regime-specific, could be developed for these 1010
102
3 x 10-1
last three flow regimes. In practice most software uses 10 4

the radial equivalent pseudo-time definition for all 1 102

cases because it typically does not appear to make much CDe2S 3 x 10

-1

difference. Even when the condition of transience is

10-1 -1
violated as often happens in PTA the equivalent 10 1 10 102 103 104
tD/CD
pseudo-time function is still used.
The merits of type curve matching at early Figure 3-6 Radial flow with wellbore storage type curve
(after Bourdet et al., 1983)
times and small m(p) are obvious. The log-log
plot magnifies the data in this region. In practice At early times, while in wellbore storage, m(p)
the transition from wellbore storage to radial flow has unit slope. There is then a transition into pure
could more or less be determined. The resolution radial flow, which is different for various skin values.

50
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

Once radial flow is achieved m(p) is constant and
is inversely proportional to permeability. At times
beyond those shown in the figure, the character would
change depending upon whether the test was a build-
up or a drawdown. For build-ups m(p) approaches
zero, while a drawdown approaches pseudo-steady
conditions and m(p) has unit slope, much like the
wellbore storage curve.
For the other three flow regimes referenced in Eq.
3-25b, the derivative curves are parallel to the m(p)
curve and displaced by n. In Section 3-12.1, Fig. 3-
17 illustrates the concept for a finite conductivity
fracture. Fig. 3-17 also shows how skin affects a
finite-conductivity fracture. This skin can be either as
a result of a choked fracture or fluid damage. Note the
flattening of the slope of the derivative curve coming
out of wellbore storage, before bilinear flow.
The process of computing the derivative
is clear; derivatives are taken with respect to
equivalent pseudo-time, tae. What time function
is used when plotting log-log derivative type curves?
Anderson et al. (2002) showed that the correct
time function to plot on the x-axis is the delta
pseudo-time, ta. The equivalent pseudo-time, tae,
should not be used. This ensures that the shape
of the build-up type curve is as close as possible
to the drawdown type. Figure 3-7 shows how a
hydraulically fractured well with finite conductivity
( slope) may be misinterpreted as an infinite
conductivity fracture ( slope) when the wrong time
function is used on the x-axis plot.
In practice one can use t, defined as the time from
the end of the previous flow period, instead of ta as an
x-axis plotting variable for the majority of cases.
Derivative plots are useful primarily for build-
ups because even very small changes in production
rate destroy the character of the derivative plot in
drawdown periods. Another useful definition is
the normalized derivative:
m( p )
m( p ) q =
, (3-26a)
qn1 qn
or
m( p ) m( p )
m( p) q = or
qn1 q
(3-26b)
for build-ups, qn = 0, and qn-1 is the flow rate before the
build-up. For the previously identified flow regimes
the normalized derivative is independent of rate. For
complicated multi-rate tests with a number of build-
ups, overlaying the various normalized derivatives for
all the build-ups in a single plot is a necessary quality
control step (Fig. 3-8). Differences in permeability from
one build-up to the next may be a result of reported rate
errors. Changes in skin may be an indicator of non-Darcy
effects. For hydraulically fractured wells any changes in
properties may be a result of post-fracture cleanup.
1000
q1 > q 2 > q3
100
%m(p)a/q

q1
q2
1000 10 q3
%tae
%ta
Correct Stabilized Derivative Slope

100 1
mIf = 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
%m(p)a

%ta
mbf =
Figure 3-8 For a multi-rate test, overlay of rate
10 normalized derivatives for different build-ups

mc = 1
3-9 Flow Regime Identification
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time The log-log derivative type curve is the flow
regime identification/diagnostic tool for PTA. It
Figure 3-7 Possible misinterpretation of finite
conductivity fracture ( slope) as infinite conductivity
is uniquely capable of identifying all flow regimes
fracture ( slope) when the wrong time function is used from early time through the late transient period

51
Modern Fracturing

into boundary-dominated flow. The plot can These type curves are more or less appropriate
also be used as a property calculator after the for build-ups if the procedure for calculating and
appropriate lines for a flow regime are overlaid on plotting them (outlined in Section 3-8) is followed.
the plot. Alternatively or in addition, superposition In boundary-dominated flow the build-up type curves
plots or specialized plots can be used as property significantly differ from the drawdown type curves,
calculators after identifying from log-log but this behavior is readily identified. A summary of
derivative type curves the appropriate time ranges the most significant derivative responses is given by
over which they apply. Economides et al. (1994) and Economides and Nolte
A library of derivative responses for various types (2000), and represents a generalization of the material
of reservoir models and flow regimes is shown in Fig. presented in Section 3-8.
3-9 (The annotated letter below correspond to the The late transient flow regime is a particularly
graphs in Fig. 3-9). interesting topic. Except for the case of a single bounding
fault, this flow period was not analyzable before the
advent of the log-log derivative type curve. The late
1. Early Transient Time
transient period is characterized by irregularities in the
Wellbore storage: 1 slope A derivative. Because of the present emphasis on matching
the last build-up in a test, the current generation of
Spherical flow: slope B
analysts has gone to great lengths to match these irregular
Infinite-conductivity derivative responses. This is helped by powerful non-
slope C
fracture:
linear regression algorithms, which are part of most
Finite-conductivity current software systems.
slope D
fracture: To match the late transient time, one of two models
2. Middle Transient Time is typically chosen: the non-centered well in a rectangle
or the multi-composite radial model. A maximum of
Radial flow: 0 slope A
three boundaries can be felt at varying times in the
3. Late Transient Time non-centered well model before bounded flow occurs.
0 slope line (stabi- Each boundary gives half the value of the apparent
lizes at double the permeability on the derivative plot, by the equivalent
Single bounding fault: E
value of a previous of doubling the slope on the Horner plot (Earlougher,
0 slope line 1977). This model can only work if the derivative is
increasing with time at the end of the test.
Well producing from a monotonically in-
The radial multi-composite model is less restrictive.
corner of a rectangle: creasing derivative
One can put radial rings of different diffusivity (normally
Composite by changing permeability) and storativity. With this
wavy derivative
permeability: model a match of any derivative signature is possible,
dip and then climb whether the derivative goes up or down. Are such models
Dual porosity: H to be believed, or is this just a mathematical exercise? It
in derivative
is clear that in most circumstances the analyst is only
Channel flow (long
slope G accomplishing the latter. Kelly (1996) describes the
narrow rectangle):
absurdity of this approach to PTA matching, where the
4. Bounded Flow geological framework is completely ignored.
Drawdown: 1 slope Dake (1994) recounts a story where a number of
software vendors were asked to present solutions to well
derivative falls
test problems at a comparative solution forum. These
Build-up: downward off the F
problems exhibited a variety of late transient effects.
plot
Unfortunately the vendors were given only the pressure

52
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

Log-Log
Diagnostic Homer Plot Specialized Plot
10.0 1.00
Wellbore Storage
101
Infinite-acting
A 100
5.0 0.50 radial flow
C From specialized plot

10-1 -1 0.0 0.00

10 100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 0.0 0.50 1.00
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta %ta

102 8.0

101 Wellbore Storage

Partial penetration
B 10 0 4.0
Infinite-acting
10 -1

radial flow
10-2 0.0
100 101 102 103 104 105 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta

4.0 0.50
101
Linear flow to an
100
infinite-conductivity
C 2.0 0.25 vertical fracture
10-1 xfk0.5 From specialized plot

10-2 -4 0.0 0.00

10 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 100 101 102 103 104 105 0.0 0.01 0.02
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta %ta0.5

101 3.0 0.50

10 0 Bilinear flow to a
finite-conductivity
D 10 -1 1.5 0.25 vertical fracture
10-2 (kfw)0.5 k0.25 From specialized plot

10-3 0.0 0.00

10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 0.0 0.25 0.50
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta %ta0.25

102 10.0

Wellbore storage
101
Infinite-acting
E 100
5.0
radial flow
Sealing fault
10-1
0.0
101 102 103 104 105 106 100 101 102 103 104 105
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta

102 10.0

101
Wellbore storage
F 100 5.0
No-flow boundary
10-1

10-2 -5 0.0
10 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta
40
60
102
Wellbore storage
101 Linear channel flow
G 20 30
100 bk 0.5
From specialized plot

10-1 -5 0 0
10 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-1
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta %ta0.5
10.0
10 2

101 Wellbore storage

H 10 0 5.0 Dual-porosity matrix
to fissure fow
10-1
(pseudosteady state)
10-2 0.0
10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
%ta (tpa

%ta) %ta

Pressure Slopes Data Points

Figure 3-9 Derivative responses for various types of reservoir models and flow regimes (from Economides et al., 1994)

53
Modern Fracturing
data without the framework of a geological setting. Not
surprisingly, a wide variety of incompatible solutions
were presented. PTA cannot exist in isolation from a
geological model because uniqueness issues inherently
plague the analysis process. After a PTA is performed, it
has to be revisited in the terms of the actual production
performance of the well. Too often reports are simply
filed away and never looked at again. If the analyst is
truly interested in reservoir characterization the
discipline of integrating various disparate information
sources everything must be subject to continuous
review as more information becomes available. Only in
this way will the industry have a hope of generating
better production forecasts.
3-10 Derivatives A Few Cautionary
Remarks
Log-log derivative plots have truly revolutionized PTA.
However, the analyst needs to be aware of a number of
issues when applying the technique.
Although the derivative plot significantly reduces
the uncertainty of flow regime identification, it can also
generate false information in two circumstances:
1. If a drawdown is terminated in the middle of a late
transient flow regime, the subsequent build-up type
curve will have a different shape than the drawdown
type curve. This is usually not significant but can
result in either a false diagnostic or an inappropriate
reservoir property value being calculated.
2. A more serious problem is the effect of rate variation
on the build-up type curve. Traditionally in PTA
the rate profile variation has been de-emphasized
because the rate information has historically been
of poor quality. As a result, since the time of the
introduction of the Horner plot, the well test
community has adjusted producing time by the
known cumulative production divided by the
last measured rate, giving one big flow period.
Additionally, the pressure data during the drawdown
at the best of times shows scatter, and the derivative
technique fails during these flow periods.
As a result, industry practice is to worry about only
one pressure in the drawdown period the last point
before shut-in and match exclusively on the last
54
build-up. What are the consequences of simplifying
rate variation in a PTA? Gringarten (2006) has studied
this problem. Figure 3-10 shows an example of the
derivative of the last build-up for various simplifications
of the actual rate history. This shape might mistakenly
be interpreted as boundary effects. The bad news is that
the distortion occurs primarily at late time in the build-
up, a non-intuitive finding. Rate errors particularly
occur for post-fracture tests that are conducted shortly
after treatment because cleanup of fracturing fluid
may go unreported or be considerably simplified.
The effect of oversimplification on the pressure
derivative also holds for the Horner, superposition and
specialized plots. The current paradigm in well test
analysis is to match every variation in the derivative
of the last build-up to a high level of accuracy,
while completely ignoring the drawdown. This is
fundamentally flawed, and more attention must be
paid to the drawdown both in terms of describing
its rate variation and in matching the pressure. PTAs
major objective is to provide a production forecast,
which involves a drawdown. To achieve higher-quality
matches, a linear pressure plot versus time throughout
the whole test has to be used as a guideline to any
match. This can help resolve inevitable uniqueness
issues in matching field data.
1000
45% Error in
%m(p) and %m(p)a
100 Produced Volume in
the Rate History.
Correct
10
Stabilzation Line
%m(p)
%m(p)a
Model
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
%ta
Figure 3-10 Example of the derivative response of the last
build-up for various simplifications of the actual rate history
The dispersive nature of taking pressure derivatives
has already been mentioned. Each commercial software
package makes default decisions about how derivatives
will be calculated for observed pressure. The software
vendor is in a quandary as to the degree of smoothing

that is applied. With too little smoothing, the plots look
bad from an aesthetic point of view; with too much,
some artifacts of the smoothing algorithm may look like
real reservoir effects.
In most cases the user will have some control
over how the derivative is calculated (i.e. the amount
of smoothing that will take place). Therefore, it is
imperative that the analyst understand the ideas behind
these algorithms. The simplest and, perhaps best, way
of calculating derivatives was presented by Bourdet et
al. (1987). It is a 3-point calculation, and as the name
implies, three values are used. The central point is at
the time value in question. The other two points are
selected at a set distance (delta or ) in each direction
(one earlier and one later in time). Because the plots are
logarithmic, the distance is a set fraction of a log cycle.
This can be thought of as the window for the derivative
calculation. This has been called the Bourdet derivative
or "moving window" derivative and is available in most
software. By default most vendors give a of 0.1 (1/10
of a log cycle) as shown in Fig. 3-11
Figure 3-11 Consequences of using a derivative
smoothing window of 0.1
Figure 3-12 Consequences of using a derivative
smoothing window of 0.0001 when the data is at the
limits of the gauge resolution
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
When one is within of the end of the flow period,
the calculation uses only 2 points because it cannot look
upstream. It is too dangerous to use only the last point
in the flow period. Therefore there is a loss of accuracy
at the end. Trying to attribute reservoir affects to these
last few points in time is not recommended.
As a start, it is recommended that raw unfiltered
data be used and be made equal to the smallest value
permissible. This will force the use of successive points
for derivative calculations. This will create maximum
dispersion of the derivative (minimal smoothing).
Bands of unit slope emanating into a widening cloud
(trumpeting) will result in some cases, as seen in a
comparison of Figs. 3-12 and 3-11. This is an indication
that either limits on gauge resolution or the sampling
algorithm used for reporting data from the gauge are
being met: The pressure data is being gauged off.
Careful consideration is required before attributing
any fluctuations in the derivative plot after this time to
reservoir effects, regardless of the smoothing algorithm
one ultimately chooses for presentation purposes.
There is a danger that the smoothing algorithm may
introduce artifacts (Mattar, 1996).
After resolving the issue of which data to use, the
analyst will inevitably see variations in the derivative
curve. The question the analyst faces is what should be
matched and what can safely be ignored? Brown and
Hawkes (2005) addressed this issue: If a derivative
transition concludes in less than one-half a log cycle,
it is not a reservoir effect. Transition is defined as a
change from one flow regime to another.
On a related manner, Mattar and Zaoral (1992)
have studied the issue of distinguishing between
wellbore effects and reservoir effects. Due to the
nature of the diffusivity equation it is intuitively
obvious that after a rate change there will be an
associated pressure change, the effect of which will
diminish with time. Mathematically this is equivalent
to stating that the primary pressure derivative with
respect to time (or the PPD), defined as dp/dt, must
decrease with time for a build-up. If it increases with
time at any point, then this is not a reservoir effect
and is instead related to something going on in the
wellbore. One should not attempt to match non-
reservoir effects, and as a precaution such data should
be removed from the observed data. Unfortunately
55
Modern Fracturing

non-reservoir effects cannot be seen in the log-log
derivative. As a result, a PPD diagnostic plot should
be plotted for all build-up flow periods at the pre-
screening stage of the interpretation.
3-11 PTA Interpretation Methods
One might think that with proper implementation of
the log-log derivative type curve, all other plots would be
rendered obsolete. This is not the case. The determination
of initial pressure for early tests still requires the
generalized Horner plot extrapolation to m(p)*. Issues
related to where to draw the straight line on a Horner
plot are resolved by determining the times associated
with radial flow from the log-log derivative plot. This
is shown by comparing both Figs. 3-13 and 3-14. The
log-log derivative plot has therefore resolved Horner plot
ambiguity that plagued early analysts.
1000
100
%m(p) and %m(p)a
One common error in well test interpretation
is to indiscriminately draw a straight line through
the last few points of the Horner plot to determine
k and m(p)*. Theory only supports extrapolation in
the time range where radial flow is identified. In the
case of a hydraulically fractured well, where clearly
defined bilinear or formation linear flow occurs at the
end, extrapolation is not permitted. Each of these flow
regimes occurs before radial flow is achieved. However,
extrapolation is often done to see what k and m(p)*
would be if radial flow occurred at the instant the test
was finished. This is a bounding case where k would
be at a maximum and m(p)* would be at a minimum.
When late transient effects are occurring, as in Fig. 3-
14, extrapolating the last few points of the Horner plot
is completely unjustified.
Another reason that log-log pressure derivative
plots cannot be used exclusively for matching is that
for large values of m(p) on the log-log derivative
plot, the m(p) values are highly compressed. The
m(p) values are also not so sensitive to an absolute
error difference in the calculated pressure. Therefore
plots where pressure is on a linear scale on the y-axis

must be included in the matching process. Specialized

Correct Semilog Slope plots including the generalized Horner plot are also
acceptable, although interpreting straight lines on
10
specialized plots can be fraught with danger.
It is recommended that four plots be included in
%m(p)
%m(p)a any match:
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1. Linear plot of pressures versus time for all flow
%ta periods
Figure 3-13 Onset of semi-logarithmic (Horner) straight 2. Log-log derivative plot
line identified on log-log derivative plot 3. Superposition (or Horner) plot for radial flow
700
4. Specialized plot (depending upon the flow regime)

650 At this point the reader may feel skeptical of

Cor
600
rec
t Sem
everything that has been discussed. The authors have
ilog
Slo
pe
presented some complex mathematics and a number
m(p)

550 of plotting techniques, all of which appear to be

500
flawed. It seems to be impossible to verify whether
the underlying simplifying assumptions are correct or
450
not. If this were the mid 1970s, as Gringarten (2006)
400 implies, the reader would have a right to feel this way.
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
By their very nature, straight-line analyses based on the
Horner Time
recommended plots may lead to incorrect flow regime
Figure 3-14 Correct semi-logarithmic straight line on
Horner plot as identified by log-log plot identification with false reservoir properties.

56

Things are not as bad as they seem. The following
steps are recommended and form the basis of all current
interpretation techniques:
1. Perform flow regime identification via the log-log
derivative plot and calculate reservoir properties
from any plot as if the appropriate underlying
assumptions are correct.
2. Use forward simulation to calculate a pressure
profile. In the forward simulation step all
unknowns have been defined. A rigorous pressure
versus time calculation is made based on the
selected flow model and rate superposition.
3. Overlay the calculated pressure profile on the
various plots. If the underlying assumptions
used in the straight-line analysis are correct, the
computed pressure will overlay the straight-line
analysis. This in turn will overlay the observed
pressure data. Even in the best of circumstances,
there will be some mismatch.
4. If one is close, then fine-tune the selected model
by either manually adjusting reservoir properties
or by using non-linear regression.
5. If the flow regime is completely off, the calculated
pressure profile may be significantly different than
anticipated. One then needs to select another
plausible flow model and repeat the process.
A natural consequence of this procedure is
that any incorrect assumptions will be picked up by
inconsistencies in the resulting forward simulation
pressure match. The process has a feedback loop, which
is self-checking, and alleviates Dakes (1994) previously
mentioned objections.
3-12 Difference Between High and Low
Permeability Analysis Techniques
Permeability controls two aspects of reservoir
response: The first aspect is the rate at which a well
can be produced. The higher the permeability, the
higher the production rate will be. The second aspect
is the velocity at which the pressure signal travels
through the reservoir. Velocity is proportional to
the diffusivity coefficient given in Eq. 3-7a, which
also shows velocity is proportional to permeability.
It is important to note that Eq. 3-7a does not
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
include a rate term. If a flow and build-up test were
performed on a high- and low-permeability well with
flow periods of the same duration, with otherwise
identical properties, the depth of investigation into
the reservoir would be much smaller for the low-
permeability case. Of course for the low-permeability
well the absolute drawdown at the well would be
higher if the rates were the same in the corresponding
tests. As a result, low-permeability reservoirs will take
much longer to achieve radial flow. For this reason,
hydraulically fractured low-permeability wells rarely
exhibit radial flow. The amount of time allocated for
testing will simply not allow it to happen. The lack of
a distinct period of radial flow leads to interpretation
difficulties, which in turn directly affects the analysts
ability to generate accurate production profiles, or
indeed optimize any future wells treatment.
3-12.1 High-Permeability Wells
High-permeability gas wells will flow even when
heavily damaged. As a result it is possible to do a proper
pre-treatment test, so that fracture optimization
according to the principles outlined in Section 4-5
can be performed. When high-permeability wells
have been tested before fracturing, one is typically
looking for an estimate of permeability, skin and
reservoir pressure. Techniques outlined in Section 3-
9 work for most cases because radial flow normally
occurs quite quickly. For wells exhibiting classic
wellbore storage, positive skin and radial flow, the
match is done with a combination log-log derivative
type curve and the superposition plot.
Complications occur only when non-Darcy effects
become large (see Section 3-13) or late transient effects
complicate the derivative interpretation. For the latter
case, instead of trying to reconcile all of the characteristics
in the build-ups derivative, it is recommended to keep
the models fairly simple and develop a reasonable
range of reservoir properties. Reservoir drainage areas,
shapes and possibly heterogeneities should be estimated
based on offset well production performance data
when available, and not on late time characteristics in
the derivative plot of the subject well. In the authors
experience, long-term production profiles rarely match
early complex PTA-derived models.
57
Modern Fracturing

In other cases a post-fracture well test is performed. particular match value of value for m(p) and ta
For high-permeability wells, radial flow will likely be to compute xf k0.5). Using the permeability from
evident at the end of the build-up. The interpretation of Step 1, calculate xf.
such a test is relatively straightforward for an infinite- or 4. Compute the wellbore storage coefficient from
finite-conductivity fracture. The log-log plot in Fig. 3- early time data.
15 and the corresponding superposition plot in Fig. 3-16 5. Perform forward simulation with nonlinear
illustrate the case for an infinite-conductivity fracture. regression to improve the match.

1000
%m(p)
The case for a finite-conductivity fracture is
%m(p)a illustrated in Fig. 3-17 and is slightly different:
Step 1
1. Determine permeability from the derivative or
%m(p) and %m(p)a

100
superposition plot.
mrf= 0
2. Calculate m(p)* from an extrapolation of the
n= superposition plot.
10
Step 4 3. Compute the permeability/fracture conductivity
mc = 1 Step 3: From term (kf w)0.5k0.25 from the derivative plot by
Position of Slope
mlf= Line Determine xf k0.5 overlaying a quarter-slope interpretation line on the
1
derivative curve. (Use Eqs. 3-23a, 3-23c and 3-25b
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
%ta at a particular match value of value for m(p) and
Figure 3-15 Log-log analysis procedure for high- ta to compute (kf w)0.5k0.25).Using the permeability
permeability, infinite-conductivity fracture from Step 1 calculate kf w.
1000 4. Make an initial estimate of xf based upon
m(p)* gives m(pi)
side information.
900
Steps 1 and 2
5. Compute the wellbore storage coefficient from
800 early time data.
700 6. Perform forward simulation with nonlinear
m(p)

Slope Inversely
Proportional to kh regression, on amongst other variables, xf, to
600
improve the match.
500
1000
400

300 The Early Time "Hump"

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 in the Derivative is an Indicator Step 1
100 of Fracture Face Skin.
%m(p) and %m(p)a

Horner Time
n= mrf= 0
Figure 3-16 Superposition plot procedure for high- Step 3: From
permeability, infinite-conductivity fracture Position of
10 Step 5 mbf= Slope Line
Determine
The interpretation process for an infinite mc = 1 (kfw)0.5k0.25

conductivity fracture is as follows: %m(p)

%m(p)a
1. Determine permeability from the derivative or 1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
superposition plot. %ta

2. Calculate m(p)* from an extrapolation of the Figure 3-17 Log-log analysis procedure for low-
superposition plot. permeability, finite-conductivity fracture
3. Compute the permeability/fracture half-length
term xf k0.5 from the derivative plot by overlaying Six months or so after the well has been stimulated
a half-slope interpretation line on the derivative and put on production, the well tests should be reviewed
curve. (Use Eqs. 3-23a, 3-23d and 3-25b at a in light of actual production data.

58

3-12.2 Low-Permeability Wells Pre-Treatment
Evaluation
Low-permeability (tight) gas wells normally do not flow
before being hydraulically fractured. Additionally, post-
treatment evaluation of low-permeability wells can be
difficult to analyze as will be discussed in Sections 3-12.5
and 3-12.6. To circumvent this problem one can run
pre-fracture tests that do not require flow to the surface.
Alternatively, mini-frac tests can be performed. They will
but will be addressed separately in Section 3-17.
The types of tests that do not require flow to
surface are Perforation Inflow Diagnostic (PID) tests,
impulse tests, back-surge tests and closed chamber
tests (CCT). These are all similar in methodology.
This section will concentrate on PID testing, a
subset of general CCT technology. The procedure for
measurements during perforating testing is:
1. Remove liquids and gases from the wellbore
in order to create underbalanced conditions
before perforating.
2. Perforate the well.
3. Record surface and/or subsurface pressures in
a closed-chamber environment continuously
throughout the wellbore fill-up period. This is
accomplished by having the surface valve closed
throughout the test.
The range of tool configurations is wide and can be as
elaborate as a tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP) system
using a drill stem test (DST) string through to a rigless
operation with an E-line perforating truck and surface
pressure recorders. Production rate into the wellbore is
not measured. The PID test can be repeated up-hole as
necessary with a plug being placed between successive
perforation events, possibly with a recorder below the
plug to monitor earlier perforation events. Alternatively,
because the wells are usually producing at such a low rate,
the wellhead valve can be re-opened before the second
perforating event and the well blown down. Then one
has commingled flow from the second perforating event
and the still-flowing first event to interpret. If at any time
the build-up in pressure is occurring too slowly for the
time allotted for the test, various plugs can be placed in
the tubing via wireline to reduce the tubing volume and
correspondingly reduce the wellbore storage.
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
Open-hole wireline tests, commonly referred to
as repeat formation tests (RFTs), are another way of
obtaining reservoir pressure and permeability. However
RFTs have proved problematic in low-permeability
gas reservoirs because of the possibility of pressure
supercharging. This occurs when excess pressure is
locked into the formation as a result of the drilling
process. Low reservoir permeability prevents the excess
pressure from bleeding off into the formation. Because
the container volume of the RFT tool is small, one
may not be able to get beyond the supercharged region
during the test. Obviously interpreting such a test for pi
may lead to wrong or ambiguous values. In cased-hole
CCT, the volume of the tubing/wellbore combination
is on the order of barrels, and the test data sees well
beyond any supercharged zone.
The modern interpretation process for closed
chamber testing was introduced to industry by
Alexander (1977). Rate, although not measured, is
calculated from the wellbore pressure using the wellbore
compressibility equation:
dp
= Vwcw
q . (3-27)
dt
where Vw is the wellbore storage and cw is the
compressibility of the wellbore fluid. The term Vw
may change with time as a result of an intervention,
such as placement of a plug that changes the wellbore
volume. The rate typically declines rapidly, with a
possible early time plateau if sonic velocity occurs
through the perforations.
For analysis purposes the reservoir is assumed
to always be in transient radial flow. Rahman et al.
(2005) have solved this problem for all times, when
the wellbore volume is constant. Early and late time
solutions are respectively:
kh(m( pi ) m( pwf 0 ))ta
m( pwf ) = m( pwf 0 ) +
603.63Vw (ct )i S
(early time), (3-28a)
301.82Vw (ct )i (m( pi ) m( p f w0 ))
m( pwf ) = m( pi ) +
khta
(late time), (3-28b)
59
Modern Fracturing

where m(pwf0) is the initial pseudo-pressure of the skin, which contains the true skin and permeability.
wellbore. The logarithmic derivative of both of these Equation 3-30 has the form of a straight-line y
functions can be calculated from Eq. 3-25b. The early = b m x when permeability and skin have been
time solution, Eq. 3-28a is identical in form to the estimated properly. The right side of Eq. 3-31a is
standard wellbore storage equation and will plot as a the rate convolution build-up time function and is
unit-slope line on a log-log derivative plot. The late time plotted as the x-axis with the left side of the equation
solution from Eq. 3-28b will have a 1-slope on the as the y-axis The slope m is inversely proportional
same log-log derivative plot. Permeability can be directly to formation flow capacity, kh. For a full PID
determined from this plot after the 1-slope radial flow evaluation, four plots are generated, each of which
regime has been identified. A hump on the derivative has diagnostic and calculation capabilities. These will
plot is an indicator of skin damage, analogous to that on be reviewed in Example 3-1.
a PTA derivative plot. Rahman et al. (2005) use the so-
called impulse derivative of Kuchuk (1999) to develop a 3-12.3 Example 3-1, PID Test
slightly different form of the log-log derivative plot. The
impulse derivative is defined as: This shallow gas well was perforated underbalanced (dry),
and pressures were obtained using only surface recorders
d (m( p ))
m( p )im = ta2 . (3-29) for 16 hours. Surface pressures were converted to sandface
dta
conditions using the wellbore and gas properties shown
In their approach, wellbore storage is represented by a line in Table 3-2. Figure 3-18 is the interpreted pwf and
of slope of 2, and the radial flow regime has a slope of 0. calculated gas rate response during the fill-up period. The
The late time solution from Eq. 3-28b is of the log-log derivative plot is shown in Fig. 3-19.
same form as one given by Soliman (1986). The impulse
solution is the limiting case when the flow time is small Table 3-2 Wellbore and Reservoir Properties for
compared with the build-up time. A plot of m(pwf) Example 3-1
versus 1/ta will be a straight line when radial flow is Gas Specific Gravity 0.56
occurring. Extrapolation to 1/ta = 0 will give the initial Reservoir Temperature, F 72
pressure. To handle the most general case of changing Expected Reservoir Pressure, psi 690
wellbore conditions, such as would occur if a plug were Casing Volume, ft 3
387
lowered in the hole during the test, one requires rate Perforation Interval, ft TVD 2086 - 2101
convolution (superposition). Based upon the work Shots Per Foot 5
of Simmons (1986) and Meunier et al. (1985), the
working equation for gas then becomes: Radial flow begins at 1.65 hours. If a hump in the
derivative occurs, indicated by the region having a slope

log (ta ) +
m( pwf ) = m( pi ) m n + q (ta ) s ,
(3-30) steeper than 1, there is positive skin. This does not
q ref q ref
happen in Fig. 3-19. The m(pwf) plot in Fig. 3-20 allows
where qref represents the calculated rate at time zero via the calculation of an initial pressure by extrapolating to a
Eq. 3-27, immediately after the closed chamber test 1/ta of 0. The rate convolution plot used for calculating
is initiated, m
is a slope term and s is an apparent permeability is given in Fig. 3-21.

n2 q
j +1 q j
= ((t an t aj ) log (t an t aj ) (t an t a ( j +1)) log (t an t a ( j +1)))

t j +1 t j
j =1
n

+ 0.434 (q 0 q n ) + (q n q n1) log (t an t a ( n1))
(3-31a)
and
k
s = 1.151 s log
2
+ 2.09 .
(3-31b)
(ct )i rw

60
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

500 200 Experience with using these tests indicates that

450 180
400 160
the following guidelines should be applied:
350 140 1. CCTs are particularly suited to low-permeability
300 120 (k 10 md) wells because of the relatively

q, Mscf/d
Pressure
pwf, psi

CCT Rate
250 100
small wellbore volume. Performing the test in
200 80
150 60
wells with higher permeability will nevertheless
100 40 provide an excellent estimate of reservoir
50 20 pressure because the pressure builds up rapidly,
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 overcoming wellbore storage effects.
Time Since Perforating, hrs
2. In ultra low-permeability wells (k 0.01 md),
Figure 3-18 For Example 3-1, observed pressure data downhole shut-in tools may be required to
and calculated gas rate response during fill-up
achieve practical testing times.
100
3. Confidence levels on permeability estimates
can be low on some ultra low-permeability
10 Approximate reservoirs due to such factors as limited
%m(p) and %m(p)a

Start of Radial
Flow @ 1.65 hrs entry perforating and perforation efficiency.
1
Confidence level for reservoir pressure, on the
mrf = -1
other hand, remains high.
0.1 4. Typically CCTs are run underbalanced to allow
%m(p)
%m(p)a
perforation clean-up and often result in negative
0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
skin effects (see Section 6-4.3).
ta
5. In overbalanced wells (pore pressure gradient
Figure 3-19 Log-log derivative plot for Example 3-1 is greater than hydrostatic gradient of wellbore
fluid) surface pressures recorders typically
2.5
provide excellent results.
m(p)*gives p*=478 psi 6. A pressure rate of change of 7 psi/day can be
2.0
used as End of Test for field engineers when
Approximate Start of
diagnostic log-log plots are not utilized to ensure
m(p) x 107

Radial Flow @ 1.65 hrs

1.5
the end of storage dominated flow.
1.0
7. Because the skin term in Eq. 3-31b is a
function of both skin and permeability,
0.5
several iterations may be necessary to calculate
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1/ta
the formation properties. Typically an iterated
skin range of 2.5 will provide a satisfactory
Figure 3-20 For Example 3-1, an inverse time plot
straight line when using the rate convolution
2.5 plotting technique.
s = - 0.2
2.0 s = +1.2
s = +2.2 3-12.4 Low-Permeability Wells
Match Properties Post-Treatment Evaluation
m(p) x 107

1.5
kh = 1.8 md-ft
s = +1.2
1.0 Interpretation difficulties for hydraulically fractured
wells primarily arise because radial flow does not
0.5
occur by the end of the test. This happens in the
0 majority of lower-permeability wells. Many low-
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Rate Convolution Time permeability gas wells are tested immediately after
Figure 3-21 For Example 3-1, a rate convolution time being stimulated because it is a convenient time
plot

61
Modern Fracturing

and regulatory authorities often require that all gas value for permeability. It is the equivalent of
wells be tested. It is convenient because the pipeline assuming that the well immediately goes into
is probably still being built, and the well cannot radial flow at the end of the test. They also
produce anyway. An interpreter must be aware that conclude that if initial pressure is known from an
such wells may not have sufficiently cleaned up, and independent source, a correct interpretation of
the assumption of single-phase flow may be violated. reservoir properties is possible. Hategan and Hawkes
Monitoring of the liquid production rate under such (2006) showed that permeability variation from
circumstances is critical. This topic will be reviewed one plausible interpretation to another caused the
in detail in Section 3-16.3. biggest difference in rate forecasts and hence reserves
Low-permeability wells are typically in estimates. This is extremely discouraging because
formation linear flow or bilinear flow at the end the value of any well test is greatly diminished if
of the test because it takes a very long time to meaningful forecasts cannot be generated.
get into radial flow. Operators are normally not
willing to run tests for the length of time required 3-12.5 Example 3-2, Low-Permeability Well,
to achieve radial flow. Because there is no radial Infinite-Conductivity Fracture
flow, permeability and initial reservoir pressure are
hard to determine (if a pretreatment test was not The goal of this example is to re-examine the Garcia
performed). Without initial pressure, it is difficult et al. (2006) conclusions with a comparable problem:
to decide the ideal well spacing for the field. The a well with the reservoir properties as shown in Table
trend in the industry is to drill low-permeability 3-3 and flow rate history shown in Table 3-4.
gas wells on lower and lower well spacing. At some
point, depleted areas are bound to be encountered, Table 3-3 Well Initial Properties for Example 3-2
and efficient drainage of reserves will not occur. Initial Pressure, pi, psia 3000
Pay Thickness, ft 30
Without the initial pressure, it is not possible to
Porosity, % 10
make rational well spacing decisions. Additionally, Water Saturation, % 25
without a reasonable value for permeability, initial Permeability (k), md 0.03
production forecasts will be significantly off, Propped Fracture Half-Length (xf), ft 150
CfD >30
diminishing any ability to diagnose the success or
rw, ft 0.3
failure of the actual treatment. xf k0.5, ft-md0.5 25.98
Garcia et al. (2006) assigned typical well CD 5000
and hydraulic fracture properties from a North
American gas well. They considered the case of an Table 3-4 Rate Schedule for Example 3-2
infinite-conductivity fracture. They then modeled Duration, Gas Rate,
Commentary
hours MMscf/d
a typical well test on such a well and tried to Cleanup post fracture
120 0.5
interpret the calculated results in the normal treatment
manner, i.e., they tried to determine k, xf and 2 0 Run gauges into well
Resume flow for a period 3
pi. At the end of the test the well test showed the length of the interruption.
formation linear flow with no indication of a 6 0.5
This is an application of S.C.
Swifts three times rule as
transition to radial flow. Their conclusion is described by Brown and
that one can get visually appealing matches of Hawkes (2005)
24 0 Build-up
the build-up in a variety of ways, leading to an
unacceptably broad range in values for k, xf and pi. If
radial superposition time is used (i.e. a Horner plot) The well properties and rate schedule are typical of a
and the last few points are used to perform an Western Canada low-permeability, post-stimulation gas
extrapolation, initial pressure is always under- well test. Forward simulation is performed to calculate
estimated. This will also give the largest possible BHP as a function of time (Fig. 3-22).

62
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

3000 3000 Preliminary values of initial pressure and

Pressure
2900
Gas Rate
2500
permeability are calculated from the superposition
plot, assuming radial flow occurs over the last few
2800 2000
points. This results in pi = 2832 psi and k = 0.175 md.

q, Mscf/d
This permeability is the maximum value possible. The
p, psi

2700 1500

fracture length is determined from slope analysis

2600 1000
on the log-log derivative plot, where the constraint
2500 500 equation (xf k0.5= 27.74) applies. The initial estimated
2400 0
fracture length is 66.3 ft, using k = 0.175 md. This is a
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 lower bound on the possible fracture length.
t, hrs
A typical analysis would proceed in the following
Figure 3-22 For Example 3-2, synthetic pressure
response for low-permeability fractured well with infinite- manner. A forward simulation based on the estimated
conductivity fracture reservoir properties would be made. The analyst
would then refine the match by simultaneously
A conventional PTA is then performed, regressing with k and xf. Pressure points to be used
treating the model calculated BHPs as observed in the regression analysis would be from the final
data to be matched. The reservoir properties to be build-up. This process would make the modeled final
determined are k, xf and pi. build-up look visually perfect on the superposition
The last flow periods final BHP was used as an and log-log derivative plots. As will be shown, this
anchor point for the analysis. Radial superposition and leads to an almost random set of reservoir properties
the log-log derivative plot for the build-up are shown in being presented as a match.
Figs. 3-23 and 3-24, respectively.
Table 3-5 Fracture half-length, xf ,matrix for Infinite
630 Conductivity Fracture from Example 3-2 with
m(p)* gives p* = 2832 psi Acceptable Build-up Solutions Highlighted
610
xf k0.5, ft-md0.5
590
k = 0.175 md k, md
570 24 25 26 27 27.74 28 29
m(p)

550 0.001 758.9 790.6 822.2 853.8 877.2 885.4 917.1

530 0.005 339.4 353.6 367.7 381.8 392.3 396.0 410.1

510 0.010 240.0 250.0 260.0 270.0 277.4 280.0 290.0

0.020 169.7 176.8 183.8 190.9 196.2 198.0 205.1
490
0.030 138.6 144.3 150.1 155.9 160.2 161.7 167.4
470
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 0.040 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 138.7 140.0 145.0
Horner Time
0.050 107.3 111.8 116.3 120.7 124.1 125.2 129.7
Figure 3-23 For Example 3-2, the Horner build-up plot
0.060 98.0 102.1 106.1 110.2 113.2 114.3 118.4
100 0.070 90.7 94.5 98.3 102.1 104.8 105.8 109.6
mrf = 0
mlf = 0.080 84.9 88.4 91.9 95.5 98.1 99.0 102.5
xfk0.5 = 27.74 ft-md0.5
10 k = 0.175 md 0.090 80.0 83.3 86.7 90.0 92.5 93.3 96.7
%m(p) and %m(p)a

Direction of 0.100 75.9 79.1 82.2 85.4 87.7 88.5 91.7

Decreasing
1 Permeability 0.110 72.4 75.4 78.4 81.4 83.6 84.4 87.4
0.120 69.3 72.2 75.1 77.9 80.1 80.8 83.7
0.130 66.6 69.3 72.1 74.9 76.9 77.7 80.4
0.1
0.140 64.1 66.8 69.5 72.2 74.1 74.8 77.5
%m(p)
%m(p)a 0.150 62.0 64.5 67.1 69.7 71.6 72.3 74.9
0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.160 60.0 62.5 65.0 67.5 69.4 70.0 72.5
%ta
0.170 58.2 60.6 63.1 65.5 67.3 67.9 70.3
Figure 3-24 For Example 3-2, the log-log build-up 0.175 57.4 59.8 62.2 64.5 66.3 66.9 69.3
derivative plot

63
Modern Fracturing

An alternative technique called the matrix method
is proposed. The technique requires a matrix, shown
in Table 3-5. Columns are acceptable ranges in values
for the parameter xf k0.5. Rows are possible permeability
values. The entries in the matrix are xf calculated from
the constraint equation xf k0.5 = value. The low-end
permeability has a natural lower bound. This is based
upon a maximum possible value for xf, based on modeling
the treatment with a fracture simulator. After the matrix
is filled in, forward simulation is then performed on these
permeability and fracture half-length values.
Values colored in grey represent solutions where
the build-up match on the superposition and log-log
derivative plots is acceptable. All other solutions are
rejected. What is the consequence on productivity from
this acceptable family of solutions? Using a combination
of Eqs. 3-12, 3-14, 3-17a, 3-17b and 3-20 for the case
where both the permeability and skin vary:
f (C fD1 ) x f 1
8 ln
J 2 k2 rw
J ratio = = ,
J1 k1 f (C fD 2 ) x f 2 (3-32a)
8 ln
rw
and
0.5 x f 1
8 ln
J 2 k2 r Variation in Calculated Initial
w Pressure
J ratio = = , (3-32b)
J1 k1 0.5 x f 2
8 ln
r k=0.04
w 2900
J and, in particular, k can be correlated to ultimate
gas recovery. The figure shows that permeability
dominates the productivity index. The corresponding
change in fracture half-length required to match the
build-up pressure does not change the productivity
nearly as much. Even knowing the initial pressure may
not be enough for a unique solution because at low
permeability values, the calculated average reservoir
pressure is insensitive to permeability. For intermediate
permeability, knowing the initial reservoir pressure
reduces uncertainty in permeability determination.
Without any knowledge of initial pressure, no amount
of nonlinear regression and related visual perfection
on the build-up match can sort out this uniqueness
problem. Any forecasts that have such a wide range of
uncertainty are effectively useless.
To make further progress, one must look at the
drawdown data. The drawdown character is significantly
different for each of these cases (Fig. 3-26). Increasing
permeability causes the calculated pressures to move
to the left and down, and causes pi to drop. The only
acceptable match is the input case. Mathematically it
appears that when radial flow is not achieved, the build-
up can solve for at most two of the three unknowns. The
drawdown allows the solution of the third unknown.
3200
Input Case
k=0.001
3100 k=0.005
k=0.01
3000 k=0.02
k=0.05
k=0.06
p, psi

k=0.07
for both CfD1, CfD2 30, 2800
Direction of Increasing
Permeability
2700
where Jratio is the productivity index ratio and the 2600
subscripts 1 and 2 refer to different interpretations. 2500

1.0 3150 2400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.9
t, hrs
0.8 3100
0.7 Figure 3-26 For Example 3-2, pressure drawdown
0.6 3050 response profiles
pi , psi

J ratio
Jratio

0.5
pi
3000
0.4 For real problems, it is important to put in as detailed
0.3
0.2 2950 a rate profile in the drawdown portion of the test as is
0.1 reflected in the data set. The corresponding observed
0.0 2900
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 BHP will be noisy, so the matching process should be
k, md
performed on a linear pressure versus linear time plot
Figure 3-25 For Example 3-2, Jratio and pi that come in the drawdown portion. When the well test is run
from each match of the matrix method for the infinite
conductivity case after cleanup has been completed, reasonably unique

64
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

matches are theoretically possible. For such a case, if
drawdown behavior cannot be matched regardless of
permeability and fracture half-length combination, this
may be an indicator that the proppant pack is behaving
differently under drawdown compared with build-up.
This could be an indicator of non-Darcy flow in the
fracture. If the well is not cleaned up before the test, the
The overall pressure and rate history is given in
Fig. 3-27. A log-log derivative diagnostic plot showing
bilinear flow, with either late time superposition effects
or boundaries at late time, is shown in Fig. 3-28.
1000
Late Time Superposition
Effects or Boundary Effects.

match becomes more complicated.

%m(p) and %m(p)a

100

3-12.6 Example 3-3, Low-Permeability Well,

mc = 1
Finite-Conductivity Fracture mbf =
(kfw)k0.5 = 83.3 ft-md1.5
10

The procedure outlined in the previous section will be

%m(p)
re-examined for the case of a finite-conductivity fracture. %m(p)a
Solutions for a finite conductivity fracture have one 1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
additional degree of freedom: fracture conductivity. Basic %ta
reservoir properties for the well are given in Table 3-6.
Figure 3-28 For Example 3-3, log-log derivative plot for
The well was fracture stimulated with 132,000 lbs of low-permeability fractured well with finite-conductivity
25/50-mesh pre-cured, resin-coated proppant. Total fluid fracture
pumped was 1080 bbl of oil-based fracturing fluid, at 25
bpm. The maximum proppant concentration during the Some late time superposition effects or boundary
job was 8.3 lbs/gal. After an initial clean-up period of effects are evident. At no time is there any evidence
33 hours, fracture fluid recovery was close to 100%. The of radial flow. The constraint equation for bilinear
well was then shut in for 16 hours. Pressure gauges were flow is (kf w)k0.5 = 86.9 ft-md1.5, as evident from Fig.
then run in via wireline, and flow was resumed. A rate 3-28. This constraint equation is the square of the
decline was evident over the remaining 34 hours of the fundamental term (kf w)0.5k0.25 in Eq. 3-23c and has
drawdown. A 413-hour build-up followed. more convenient units.
The well properties to be determined are k, xf, kf w
Table 3-6 Well Properties for Example 3-3 and pi. These values will be determined by an extension
Pay Thickness, ft 26 of the matrix method to finite conductivity wells:
Porosity, % 8
1. Assume radial flow occurs at the very end
Water Saturation, % 30
rw, ft 0.3 of the test.
2. Use the radial superposition plot to determine k,
4000 8000 m(p)* and then pi. This results in k = 0.196 md
3500 7000 and pi = 3591 psi.
3000 6000 3. Build a matrix of plausible solutions based upon
the value (or plausible range of values) for (kf
q, Mscf/d

2500 5000
p, psi

2000 4000 w)k0.5 as shown in Table 3-7. The rows of the

1500 3000 matrix will be the possible permeability values,
1000 2000 k, and the columns the corresponding values for
500 Pressure 1000 fracture conductivity, kf w.
Gas Rate
0 0 4. Use non-linear regression in conjunction with
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
t, hrs forward simulation to adjust xf and the fracture
face skin for each element in the matrix, to get
Figure 3-27 For Example 3-3, pressure and rate
history for low-permeability fractured well with finite-
the best possible match of the build-up. The last
conductivity fracture flow periods final BHP was used as an anchor

65
Modern Fracturing

point for the analysis. This analysis showed
that the late time effects shown in Figure 3-
28 were superposition related and not as a
result of a boundary.
5. Highlighted in grey (Table 3-7) are acceptable
matching cases of the matrix for the build-up.
Table 3-7 Fracture Permeability width, kfw, matrix
for Finite Conductivity Fracture for Example 3-3 with
Acceptable Build-up Solutions Highlighted
(kf w)k0.5 ft-md1.5
k, md
75.5 78.7 82.0 85.3 88.6
0.040 377.3 393.7 410.1 426.5 442.9 459.3 475.7
0.060 308.1 321.5 334.8 348.2 361.6 375.0 388.4
0.080 266.8 278.4 290.0 301.6 313.2 324.8 336.4
0.100 238.6 249.0 259.4 269.7 280.1 290.5 300.9
0.120 217.8 227.3 236.8 246.2 255.7 265.2 274.7
0.140 201.7 210.4 219.2 228.0 236.7 245.5 254.3
0.160 188.6 196.9 205.1 213.3 221.5 229.7 237.9
0.170 183.0 191.0 198.9 206.9 214.8 222.8 230.8
Table 3-8 and Fig. 3-29 summarize the build-up
match results with the appropriately determined
reservoir properties. Plotting these solutions for the
drawdown would result in a very similar character
to the corresponding infinite-conductivity example
shown in Fig. 3-26. Knowledge of pi from an
independent source would help the matching process,
except at the lowest permeability range. At the lower
values of permeability the required fracture length
appears to be becoming unreasonably long, based
upon preconceived ideas about maximum attainable
91.9 95.1 fracture half-lengths. Figure 3-30 shows the best
drawdown match, with k = 0.16 md. As in the infinite-
conductivity case, increasing permeability causes the
calculated drawdown pressures to move to the left and
down in Fig. 3-30 and causes pi to drop.
3100
2900
Match (k=0.16 md)
2700 Obs Pressure

2500
Table 3-8 Build-Up Match Results for Example 3-3
p, psi

2300
k, Jratio kf w, xf , p i, Fracture
CfD
md md-ft ft psi Face Skin 2100
0.040 0.4417 426.5 567.9 18.78 3704 0.009
1900
0.060 0.5360 348.2 439.3 13.21 3701 0.010
0.080 0.6268 301.6 367.1 10.27 3702 0.013 1700
0.100 0.7140 269.7 321.3 8.40 3650 0.018 1500
0.120 0.8041 246.2 294.3 6.97 3624 0.022 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
t, hrs
0.140 0.8735 228.0 259.1 6.29 3614 0.024
0.160 0.9605 213.3 247.7 5.38 3594 0.030 Figure 3-30 Drawdown match for Example 3-3
0.170 1.0000 206.9 241.1 5.05 3588 0.034
3-13 Non-Darcy Flow
1.0 3780
Jratio
pi 3760 Section 2-3.1 gives the necessary background
0.9
3740 material on the Forchheimer (1914) equation, which
0.8
3720 is the porous media analog of the fluid mechanics
3700 transition from laminar to turbulent flow. The
pi, psi
Jratio

0.7 3680 modern formulation of this law applied to the field

3660 of reservoir engineering was given in Section 2-
0.6
3640 5.2 for flow in a fracture. However it is equally
0.5
3620 applicable for radial flow:
3600
k
0.4 3580 ke = k = , (3-33)
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 1 + N Re
k, md

Figure 3-29 For example 3-3, Jratio and pi that come where
from each match of the matrix method for the finite-
conductivity case k
N Re =
, (3-34)

66

where ke is the effective permeability, is the non-
Darcy correction factor to permeability, is the non-
Darcy coefficient, v is the Darcy velocity and NRe is the
Reynolds number. It is apparent that a nonlinearity
has been introduced because the velocity is dependent
upon the variables that are being solved for. All the
nonlinearities are combined into the term.
Because non-Darcy effects are severe, it is not
readily apparent how to solve Eq. 2-6 where ke replace
k. For radial flow it can be shown that although the
non-Darcy effects are severe, the zone of influence
is small. Consequently, the nonlinearity in the
permeability term was dropped and the non-Darcy
pressure drop was included as an instantaneous effect
related to velocity and included in the skin term. An
effective skin is then defined as:
s = s + Dq.
(3-35)
in Eq. 3-33 is set to 1.0, and the term s (the rate-
dependent skin) then replaces s in all the skin-related
equations in Chapters 2 and 3. The term D, which
is usually derived from PTA, can be related back to
as given in Dake (1978).
Originally it was felt that non-Darcy effects were
only important in high-rate gas wells, which were rarely
stimulated. For such wells one typically performs a
multi-rate test, such as a modified isochronal test.
The goal of the test is to determine s during each
drawdown period and plot it as a function of rate. The
application of Eq. 3-35 will allow the effective skin to
be split into its two components. The pressure signature
for a multi-rate test on a high-permeability well will
tend to have a stair-step profile with little additional
pressure drop occurring during a given flow period. s is
very easy to determine for such a test.
Further progress in the interpretation of non-Darcy
effects has been made by modeling well tests with
reservoir simulators. Reservoir simulation, by its nature,
is not restricted to solving linear problems. Settari et al.
(1990 and 2000) formulated and solved models where
the term in Eq. 3-33 was directly included in the
flow equations. The historical problem associated with
simulating a well test has involved errors associated
with gridding and calculating the productivity index.
Puchyr (1991) and Settari et al. (1990) have developed
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
automated techniques so that accurate solutions are
possible for both radial and non-Darcy hydraulic
fracture flow. This allows rigorous solutions to non-
Darcy problems and eliminates the need for the small
local region assumption. Using such models, Warren
(1993) showed that non-Darcy effects exhibit a unique
signature for radial flow during build-ups: Wells have
a high apparent positive skin, which rapidly dissipates,
leading to a sharp drop in the derivative, which is
controlled by after-flow effects resulting from the link
between wellbore storage and skin. Spivey et al. (2004)
extended this concept and developed radial flow type
curve solutions shown in Fig. 3-31. One consequence of
their work is that non-Darcy flow can now be analyzed
for single-rate flow and build-up tests.
104
103
CDe2s= 101000
CDe2s= 10500
pwD or tD(dpwD / dtD)
CDe2s= 10250
CDe2s= 10125
102 CDe2s= 1050
CDe2s= 1030
CDe2s= 1015
CDe2s= 106
101
100
10-1
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
tD/CD
Figure 3-31 Build-up curves for high-permeability well
with non-Darcy skin (from Spivey et al., 2004)
For hydraulically fractured wells, flow is
predominantly in the fracture, and non-Darcy effects
occur down the entire fracture length. Guppy et al.
(1982) provided the first technique for incorporating
classical PTA based methods to analyze well tests.
Similarly Economides et al. (2002a and 2002b) have
extended the theory of Unified Fracture Design in
a similar manner. On a related topic, Settari et al.
(2002) quantified the effect of proppant factor
on well productivity index. Correlations were
developed relating this to various reservoir and
fracture properties. Miskimins et al. (2005) also
quantified the effects of non-Darcy fracture flow on
long-term production performance.
It has also become apparent that non-Darcy flow
can occur over a much broader range of cases than
just high-rate gas wells. It has been observed in high-
67
Modern Fracturing

rate oil wells and, more importantly in the context Table 3-10 UFD Design for Example 3-4
of this book, in low-permeability hydraulically Property Value Type
fractured gas wells. Barree et al. (2005) studied such k, md 5 Input
a case. The usual problem when conducting a PTA Fracture Height (hf), ft 60 Input
is that fracture lengths appear to be significantly Proppant Porosity (p), % 32 Input
shorter than designed. Barree et al. (2005) examined kf , md 100,000 Input
lower-permeability gas wells where PTA indicated Proppant Number (Nprop) 0.036 Calculated
longer fracture lengths than could be justified by CfD,opt 1.6 Calculated
production analysis. These wells had estimated Optimal xf , ft 197 Calculated
permeability between 0.1 and 1 md and fracture Optimal w,in. 0.19 Calculated
lengths of 300+ ft. Production analysis indicated
lengths of less than 30 ft. The length discrepancies At this point, non-Darcy effects have been
could not be attributed to the finite-conductivity ignored. The treatment is assumed to be pumped and
nature of the PTA lengths alone. Using an iterative placed as per the design. Subsequently a flow and
production history-matching program, Barree et al. build-up test is done on the well with the flow rate
(2003) incorporated a variety of laboratory-measured history given in Table 3-11.
damage mechanisms on proppant pack conductivity.
They concluded that non-Darcy effects dominate the Table 3-11 PTA Flow Rate History for Example 3-4
production response. When the well is shut in, the Gas Rate, Flow Period 1, MMscf/d 5
non-Darcy effects quickly dissipate. PTA properties Duration, Flow Period 1, days 3
based on the build-up, therefore, over-estimate the Gas Rate, Flow Period 2, MMscf/d 0
actual production response of the well. Duration, Flow Period 2, days 3

3-13.1 Example 3-4, Non-Darcy, High-Permeability If everything went according to plan, the derivative
Well, Finite-Conductivity Fracture plot of the build-up would look like Fig. 3-32: The well
comes out of wellbore storage, has a short period of
In this example it will be assumed that reservoir bilinear flow, and finally goes into radial flow.
properties are known, as shown in Table 3-9.
108
%m(p)- Darcy Case, kf=100,000 md
Table 3-9 Well Properties for Example 3-4 %m(p) - Non-Darcy Case, kf=100,000 md
%m(p) - Non-Darcy Case, kf=250,000 md
Reservoir Temperature, F 120
Gas Specific Gravity 0.65
Pay Thickness, ft 30
%m(p)

Porosity, % 10 107
mbf =
Water Saturation, % 20
pi, psi 3000
rw , ft 0.25
Drainage Area, miles 2
0.25
Wellbore Storage Coefficient, rb/psi 1 106
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
%ta

For a pre-determined, fixed amount of proppant
to be pumped and a known reservoir permeability, k,
one can determine an optimum stimulation design by
applying the UFD design approach given in Section
4-5. This results in the fracture treatment design
parameters set out in Table 3-10.
Figure 3-32 For example 3-4, derivative plots comparing
Darcy and non-Darcy flow in a high-permeability
fractured well with finite-conductivity fracture
If non-Darcy flow is occurring, then the effective
permeability of the proppant can be significantly
reduced. Assuming that the factor is given by Eq. 2-

68
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

38, one finds that = 6.72 104 ft-1. Substituting this 0.1 in., corresponding to a revised fracture length of 673
into the reservoir simulation model of the well test, one ft. Fracture design parameters can now be calculated
finds that 0.21 in the fracture just before shut-in. and are given in Table 3-12.
In the simulation model, actually varies in both space
and time in the fracture, and the value given represents Table 3-12 UFD Design for Example 3-5
an average at the selected time. corresponds to the Property Value Type
reduction factor for permeability of the proppant pack k, md 0.1 Input
at these flowing conditions. At higher rates, the value Fracture Height (hf), ft 60 Input
for would be much lower. Now instead of a designed Proppant Porosity (p), % 32 Input
CfD = 1.6, a value of CfD = 0.34 has been achieved. The kf , md 100,000 Input
derivative plot for this case is also shown in Fig. 3-32. Proppant Number (Nprop) 3.22 Calculated
The fracture is not evident at all in this build-up. The CfD,opt 12.4 Calculated
plot looks very similar to a standard radial model with Optimal xf , ft 673 Calculated
a positive skin. Radial flow is achieved at an earlier Optimal w,in. 0.1 Input
point in time than in the Darcy-flow fractured case.
A steep fall-off in the derivative plot is not evident, At this point non-Darcy effects have been ignored.
as occurs in the pure radial non-Darcy case of Warren The treatment is then assumed to be pumped and
(1993). This indicates that the high-velocity region is placed as per the design. Subsequently a flow and
not as concentrated near the well as in the radial case. build-up test is done on the well with the flow rate
There is therefore no clear diagnostic of non-Darcy history given in Table 3-13, which is at a slightly
flow from the build-up data alone. lower rate than the previous example.
To perform a proper UFD design with non-Darcy
flow, Economides et al. (2002b) have shown that the Table 3-13 PTA Flow Rate History for Example 3-5
designed xf must be decreased and the designed w Gas Rate, Flow Period 1, MMscf/d 3
increased. In this example, the 100,000-md proppant Duration, Flow Period 1, days 3
(assumed to be Ottawa sand) is replaced with Gas Rate, Flow Period 2, MMscf/d 0
intermediate-strength proppant (ISP) with permeability Duration, Flow Period 2, days 3
of 250,000 md. Increasing the permeability also reduces
the factor via Eq. 2-38. The new value is = 1.64 104 The derivative plot of the build-up portion of the
ft-1. All other properties remain the same. Re-running test would look like Fig. 3-33. The well comes out of
the well test through the reservoir simulator results in a wellbore storage into a transition period and then goes
pressure response very similar to the 100,000-md Darcy into linear flow. No radial flow is evident.
flow case, as is seen in Fig. 3-32 with a corresponding
109
0.29 in the fracture just before shut-in. Fracture
Response
False Radial Delayed
Flow
3-13.2 Example 3-5, Non-Darcy, Low-Permeability
108
Well, Finite-Conductivity Fracture
%m(p)

mlf =

As in the previous example, all the reservoir properties 107

will be assumed to be known and identical to the
high-permeability properties in Table 3-9, but with %m(p)- Darcy Case, kf = 100,000 md
%m(p) - Non-Darcy Case, kf = 100,000 md
reservoir permeability of k = 0.1 md instead of 5 md. 106
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Following through on the UFD design approach given
%ta
in Section 2-5.1, xf = 1313 ft and w = 0.051 in. for
Figure 3-33 For example 3-5, a derivative plot comparing
the kf = 100,000-md proppant. This width is felt to be Darcy and non-Darcy flow in a low-permeability fractured
unreasonably small; a more realistic minimum width is well with high-conductivity fracture

69
Modern Fracturing
If non-Darcy flow is occurring then = 6.72
104 ft-1 based upon Eq. 2-38. Substituting this into the
reservoir simulation model of the well test, one finds
that 0.16 in the fracture just before shut-in. Now,
instead of a designed CfD = 12.4, a value of CfD = 1.98
occurs. The derivative plot for this case is also shown in
Fig. 3-33. After coming out of wellbore storage, there
is a long period of apparent radial flow, followed by a
transition into linear flow. The interpretation of a real
test exhibiting this behavior would lead the analyst to
assume the fracture was not there and that radial flow
had been achieved. This would result in a significant
over-estimation of permeability. Late time behavior
would be interpreted as boundary or composite
reservoir effect. From the authors experience, this false
radial flow is evident in other types of tests as well, as
will be shown in Section 3-16.3. Clearly non-Darcy
effects can lead to complications in PTA interpretation
of hydraulically fractured wells.
3-14 Production Analysis
Production analysis (or PA) has a tradition dating
back even further than PTA and involves forecasting
future performance. The equations and mathematics
are identical to PTA; only the boundary conditions
at the well are different. Classical PA assumes a well
is producing at a constant pwf, with the rate declining
with time. This restriction has now been removed,
and modern PA allows very general well behavior
to be analyzed. One underlying assumption is that
rate changes are smooth and not too rapid, so that
full rate superposition can be replaced with simpler
techniques. One difference between PA and PTA is
in the nature and quality of the data. A PTA can be
viewed as a controlled experiment with the rate and
BHP data being precisely known. PA involves taking
field data as-is and doing the best analysis possible.
Field data, by its nature, is extremely noisy, and the
pressure data is typically much less precise.
The most commonly used forecasting technique
uses Arps (1945 and 1956) decline curves. These are
illustrated in Fig. 3-34.
By implication, these curves apply to wells
with constant pwf. Arps unified earlier decline curve
methodology into three related models: exponential
70
decline (previously called constant percentage decline),
hyperbolic decline and harmonic decline. The unification
parameter is called b, and it ranges from 0 (exponential
decline) to 1 (harmonic decline). Intermediate values
of b represent hyperbolic decline. These models form
the basis for reserves calculations to this day. They are
entirely empirical in nature. The three most useful
curves are semi-log rate versus linear time, linear rate
versus linear cumulative, and semi-log rate versus linear
cumulative. The first two of these curves plot as straight
lines for exponential decline, and the latter plots as a
straight line for harmonic decline.
From the late 1940s onward, rigorous solutions to
single-phase flow problems with different boundary
conditions were becoming available. For a slightly
compressible fluid with a constant permeability in
a radial bounded container producing at a constant
pwf, Raghavan (1993) has shown that the solution
is exponential decline at late time. Arguments have
been made that the hyperbolic and harmonic decline
models account for real world heterogeneities and
multiphase flow effects that are not accounted for
in simple analytical solutions (Laustsen, 1996; and
Ahmed and McKinney, 2005). Alternatively gas
compressibility effects associated with declining
pressure in gas wells cause decline behavior to become
more hyperbolic than exponential.
Using Arps decline models for production
forecasting implicitly assumes that bounded flow has
occurred. Transient radial solutions to the constant pwf
case have also been developed:
1 1
+ s = (ln t D + 0.80907). (3-36)
qD 2
Fetkovich (1980) developed a type curve of rate
versus time that tied the transient radial solution
(Eq. 3-36) to the Arps boundary-dominated flow
solutions. This results in a type curve appropriate
for all times (Fig. 3-35).
A general type curve of rate versus time will be
referred to as a Fetkovich plot. Such a plot has a
number of distinguishing features. When a well is in
radial flow, the slope is much shallower than when
the well is in bounded flow. Highly damaged wells
(wells with high positive skins) have very shallow
slopes approaching zero. Wells with negative skins
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

show initially steeper slopes with a maximum value
of , which flattens out to approximately at
late transient time. With the transition to bounded
flow, the slope gets steeper. For harmonic flow, the
slope becomes unit slope. For exponential decline, the
slope eventually becomes infinite. Hyperbolic flow is
between these two extremes.
For an infinite-conductivity hydraulically
fractured well, the Fetkovich type curve was developed
by Locke and Sawyer (1975), and is shown in Fig 3-
35. The production declines on a slope. This is an
indicator of formation linear flow analogous to the
slope of on the log-log derivative type curve being
an indicator of formation linear flow for a well test.
After a well begins radial flow, the slope becomes very
shallow, approximately . This figure also shows
that when bounded flow occurs, the type curve drops
off. By analogy, for a finite conductivity fracture one
would see an initial slope of .
Fetkovich et al. (1987) have shown that the Arps
decline curves cannot be applied to wells in transient
flow. The problem with traditional Arps curves is that
they contain no flow diagnostic information within
them; they result in only a forecast. Because the onset
of bounded flow is clear from the Fetkovich plot,
a necessary condition for doing Arps decline is to
first generate a Fetkovich plot of production data to
determine when bounded flow starts. Arps plots can
then be constructed, ignoring data in the transient
portion. In the past this process may not have been so
important because only high-permeability reservoirs
were developed. Bounded flow occurs quite quickly
for high-permeability reservoirs because the time to
boundary of a pressure wave is proportional to the
permeability (or, more correctly, the diffusivity of Eq.
3-7a). With the development of lower-permeability
gas reservoirs throughout the world, transient flow
can occur for many years before bounded flow
occurs. As a result, the assumption of bounded flow
needs to be verified. An attempt to fit a traditional
decline curve through transient data can lead to
hyperbolic coefficients greater than 1.0 (b > 1.0). This
has been termed super-harmonic decline and is not
justified (Fetkovich et al., 1987).
The Fetkovich plot is to production analysis what the
log-log derivative plot is to well test analysis. It gives flow
regime identification capabilities and can be extended
to variable rate conditions by normalizing the rate
(replacing q with q/(m(pi) m(pwf)) on the y axis). This
is sometimes called a rate-normalized Fetkovich plot.

Coordinate Semilog Log-Log

3040 3040 3040

1000 1000 II
I
Rate, q

2000 I
Log Rate, q

Log Rate, q

II III
I
III
1000 II 100 100
III
0 0 0
0 120 0 120 0 10 100 120
Time, t Time, t Time, t

Coordinate Semilog Log-Log

3040 3040 3040

I I
1000 1000
Log Rate, q

II
Log Rate, q

2000
Rate, q

II III
I

1000 100 III 100

II
III
0 0 0
0 100,000 0 100,000 0 1000 10,000 100,000
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative

Figure 3-34 Decline curve plots (from Arps, 1956) (I. Exponential Decline b = 0, II. Hyperbolic Decline 0 < b < 1,
III. Harmonic Decline b = 1)

71
Modern Fracturing

For future discussions, no distinction will be made as a function of time to perform the normalized time
between the two types of Fetkovich plots. Unlike calculation. In practice this requires iteration on the
the log-log derivative plot it cannot be used directly drainage volume. In transient flow, the average pressure
to calculate reservoir properties for gas wells. This is does not change, and iteration is not required.
a consequence of the change in gas compressibility Palacio and Blasingame (1993) further generalized
during late time, resulting in unacceptable errors. the Fraim and Wattenbarger (1987) technique by
Unfortunately, the Fetkovich plots shape is sensitive to considering the variable-rate, variable-pwf case. They
shut-ins and significant rate changes due to operational showed that with a new definition of time called
issues. If these occur, it is recommend that one re-zero material balance time, tm, in days, and given by:
the time axis at the beginning of the high-rate event. It
(ct )i q t
is imperative that before production forecasts are made for tm =
0 dt ,
q
(3-37)
any well, the target well and offset wells production data ct
be reviewed with a Fetkovich plot. then one can show
When using analytical solutions to the flow (m( pi ) m( pwf )
equations at late time, as opposed to the Arps decline = bpss + ms tm , (3-38a)
q
curve model, one can theoretically determine all reservoir
properties from a type curve match. For gas wells, this where
requires circumventing the assumption of constant
compressibility. Carter (1985) was the first to modify the (3-38b)
Fetkovich curves for such a case. Fraim and Wattenberger
(1987) extended this work. They showed that instead and
of using time, one should use a new function called
1000
normalized time. This is quite similar to the pseudo-time ms =
, (3-38c)
Gi cti
definition given in Eq. 3-2, except the average pressure
is used in the integration. With this definition of time, and where bpss and ms are the y intercept and
analytical solutions for the variable compressibility slope, respectively, on the material balance time
case plot as exponential decline, on the Fetkovich plot. plot, Bgi is the initial gas formation volume factor
The practical disadvantage of the technique is that the in rcf/scf, Gi is the original gas in place in scf, and
average reservoir pressure has to be known or estimated CA is the Dietz shape factor. As in the Fraim and

100

- Slope Region
Infinite Conductivity Fracture
re/rwa=10
10

re/rwa=30 Transient Boundary Dominated

1
re/rwa=1000
Direction of Increasing Skin
qDd

0 < slope <= -

0.1

0.01

b = 0.0 b = 0.5 b = 1.0

0.001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
tDd

Figure 3-35 Fetkovich (1980) type curve including the transient radial solution with Arps (1956) decline curves

72
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

Wattenbarger (1987) technique, the drainage volume The advantage of the derivative function as defined
(or alternatively Gi) needs to be first estimated and by Eq. 3-40b is that it is considerably smoother than
then iterated to get a solution. more traditional derivative formulae. It therefore has
Reformulating Eq. 3-38a in a form consistent with diagnostic capability even when data are scattered.
the Fetkovich variables produces: The transition from transient flow to bounded flow is
1 evident at much earlier times than from the Fetkovich
qDd = 1 + t , (3-39a) plot alone. The biggest difficulty with this technique is
mDd
that identifying the initial flow regime is not possible
qbpss
qDd =
, (3-39b) with this plot, as the x- axis is a function of Gi, which
(m( pi ) m( pwf )
initially is not known. One is immediately involved in
and history matching well performance by changing reservoir
properties to fit the data. Flow regime identification is
ms tm
tmDd =
(3-39c) best performed with a Fetkovich plot.
bpss
A number of alternative approaches have been
where tmDd is the normalized material balance pseudo- developed for PA. One class of techniques is based
time and qDd is the normalized rate. Equation 3-39a is on the concept of a well having constant productivity
the harmonic decline formula and will plot as a unit index when in bounded flow. Adjustments are made
slope on the Fetkovich plot at late times. to the original gas in place and the average pressure
To improve interpretations, Palacio and Blasingame is recalculated from material balance until a constant
(1993) used a derivative technique first described by productivity index is achieved at late time. If one
McCray (1990). New functions are defined as: is not truly in bounded flow, these techniques will
underestimate Gi. West and Cochrane (1995), Agarwal
1 tm
q
qDdi =
tm 0 (m( p ) m( p )) dtm and
i wf
(3-40a) et al. (1999), and Mattar and Anderson (2003) give
variations of this idea and a number of different
straight-line plotting techniques. It is recommended
1 d 1 tm q that this class of techniques be used in conjunction with

qDdid = t dt t
m m
0 (m( p ) m( p )) dtm , (3-40b)

the Palacio and Blasingame (1993) technique, which is
m
i wf
better at determining the onset of bounded flow.
where qDdi is the integrated normalized gas rate and A third class of PA techniques concentrates on the
qDdid is the derivative of integrated normalized gas transient flow period. In transient flow, the average
rate. Plotting the new rate and time functions plus pressure does not change. As a result there is no need
the derivative function on a type curve produces the for either iteration on drainage area or for special time
Blasingame type curves shown in Fig. 3-36. functions. Reitman (1995) looked at wells in radial
transient flow producing at a constant pwf. Equation 3-
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103
101 101 36 describes the flow of such wells. A specialized plot of
1/q versus log t should be a straight line if radial flow is
100 100 occurring. In a direct analog to PTA, picking the proper
qDdi and qDdid

straight line may be difficult. As a result, a Fetkovich

10-1 10-1 plot should be done first to identify the flow regime. The
Fetkovich plot will quantify the time interval for which
10-2 10-2 radial flow is occurring. The slope of the 1/q versus log
t plot can be used to determine permeability. At the
10-3 10-3
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 end of radial flow, there is significant upward curvature
tmDd in the plot. Arevalo-Villagrain (2001) extended this
work to deal with the variable-rate, variable-pwf case.
Figure 3-36 Blasingame type curves for production
analysis (from Palacio and Blasingame, 1993) The specialized plot then becomes (m(pi) m(pwf))/q

73
Modern Fracturing

versus log tdays. By choosing a time to the end of radial 107 10,000
q
flow from the specialized plot, and the slope of the line
while in radial transient flow, one can determine the
permeability, the Gi and the drainage area from: m = - tel = 6630

%m(p)/q

q,Mscf/d
Days
10 6 1,000
1640T
k=
, (3-41a) m=
m
cpr h

163T ter %m(p)/q

Gi = 100
cpr and (3-41b) 105
(ct Bg )i m 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
t, days

Bgi Gi Figure 3-37 Reciprocal Fetkovich plot of a hydraulically

A = , (3-41c) fractured well (from Arevalo-Villagran et al., 2006)
h

where m cpr is the slope of the specialized plot and ter is
the time to the end of radial flow. Gi can be determined
without knowledge of porosity, thickness, h, or drainage
area, A. The reason for this is that the transition from
linear flow to bounded flow is quite sharp. Table 3-
1 shows that this occurs at a value of tDA = 0.1. The
definition of tDA has been given in Eq. 3-13 and involves
permeability, porosity and drainage area, among other
variables. Arevalo-Villagrain (2001) found that the
transition out of radial transient flow starts a little earlier,
at tDA = 0.065. Using tDA = 0.065 in the flow equation,
one can then derive the expression for Gi shown in Eq.
3-41b and eliminate the other variables.
This well shows slope production decline for
6630 days (18.2 years). Hydraulic fracture treatments are
designed to have fracture half-lengths of at most 1500 ft.
Using the formula in Table 3-1 for the end of formation
linear flow, one would calculate unreasonably large
fracture lengths for any permeability range. What is going
on here? From a PTA viewpoint one normally sees fracture
lengths appearing to be much shorter than designed; this
initial production analysis shows the exact converse.
10,000
Gas Rate
q, Mscf/d

This is a powerful technique for comparing 1000

production results to volumetric estimates. If the end of
radial flow has not been observed, then the last available
time is used and Gi represents the currently contacted
gas in place. This would be expected to increase with
time until bounded flow occurs. Forecasting with
this technique is not possible after bounded flow has
been achieved. A general theory of forecasting for all
conditions will be given later in this section.
With the increase in efforts to produce gas reserves
from lower-permeability basins in North America, it is
becoming evident that many wells do not achieve radial
flow and instead exhibit long-term linear flow. From the
authors experience, long-term linear flow for tight gas
reservoirs is very common. Stright and Gordon (1983)
were some of the first to identify this behavior. Linear
flow can be identified by a slope on the Fetkovich
plot. Figure 3-37 is a reciprocal Fetkovich plot (mirrored
along the y axis) of a single-zone, hydraulically fractured
well from Arevalo-Villagran et al. (2006).
100
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
t, days
Figure 3-38 Semi-log rate versus time production
analysis plot (Arevalo-Villagran et al., 2006)
The cause of long-term linear flow in this case
is either the presence of channels or, alternatively,
anisotropic permeability. Anisotropic permeability is
discussed in more detail as a case history in Section 3-
16.3. Both reservoir descriptions result in identical
slope decline on the Fetkovich plot and can be shown
to be mathematically equivalent. Determining which
mechanism is appropriate requires geological input.
The transition from formation linear flow as a result
of the hydraulic fracture to channel linear flow can, in
practice, be near impossible to detect because the slopes
are the same. One then must rely on well test theory

74
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

equations (Table 3-1) to decide when formation linear

flow should end. A well having long-term linear flow
xf
has more rapid production decline than a well in the
Formation
center of a square drainage area. Linear Flow ye
Fig. 3-38 is one of the main plots for traditional
Arps decline curves analysis, a semi-log rate versus linear
time plot. An attempt to fit a traditional decline curve
through all this data leads to hyperbolic coefficients
greater than 1.0, or so-called super harmonic decline. As
stated previously, it is not justified because the Fetkovich
plot (Fig. 3-37) shows the well is still in transient flow
up to 6630 days. Despite this, industry still tries to use
semi-log rate versus linear time plots for forecasting,
even when transient flow occurs. Fig. 3-38 shows that
xe
after a long time a semi-log rate versus linear time plot
will appear to exhibit straight-line decline behavior. In Figure 3-39 Fractured well in a long channel, (from
Arevalo-Villagran and Wattenbarger, 2001b)
Canada this combination of an initially steep and finally
a straight-line decline on a semi-log rate versus time Long-term linear flow results for all flow times until
plot is referred to as hockey stick decline. People in boundary effects occur. A specialized plot of (m(pi)
the industry often talk of time to stabilization to this m(pwf))/q versus tdays0.5, called the Neal-Wattenbarger plot,
constant decline rate. From that perspective, Fig. 3-38 will be a straight line if linear flow is occurring. Upward
shows that the well reaches stabilized decline at about curvature occurs in this plot after boundary effects begin.
5000 days. This is close to the time associated with the A Fetkovich plot should first be plotted to ensure that the
beginning of bounded flow, when Arps decline curves linear flow regime is properly identified.
are justified. Forecasting production profiles at earlier Arevalo-Villagran et al. (2006) have identified
times on this plot is impossible. a dimensionless time function when linear flow
Neal and Mian (1989) developed a forecasting ends. Picking the actual time to the end of linear
technique for wells producing under long-term formation flow and determining the slope of the straight
linear flow at a constant pwf. Reservoir properties can line on the Neal-Wattenbarger plot allows one to
be directly related to the decline curve parameters. In calculate reservoir properties:
their case the key reservoir properties were permeability 0.5 315.43T
xe k = ,
and fracture half-length. Their technique involved a ( ct )i0.5 m
cpl h (3-42a)
specialized plot of 1/q versus t0.5. This should be a straight 0.5
ktel
line if linear flow is occurring. If the well is in formation ye = 0.1591 , (3-42b)
( ct )i
linear flow as a result of the hydraulic fracture, the slope
of the plot is proportional to 1/(xf k0.5). This is the same
grouping of variables as in infinite conductivity flow in 200.74T tel0.5 and (3-42c)
Gi =
PTA, as seen in Eq. 3-19d in Section 3-6. (ct Bg )i m
cpl
Wattenbarger et al. (1998) and Arevalo-Villagran
et al. (2006) have extended this solution to the A = 4 xe ye ,
(3-42d)
variable-pwf case and have looked at various special
cases to preserve the one-dimensional character of the where m cpl is the slope of the specialized plot, tel is the
solution. One case they consider is a well located in time to the end of linear flow, xe is the channel half-
a long, narrow channel with an infinite conductivity length in the short direction and ye is the channel half-
hydraulic fracture extending to the boundary in the length in the long direction. As in the radial case, Gi can
short direction (Fig. 3-39). be determined without knowledge of porosity, thickness

75
Modern Fracturing
or drainage area. Other reservoir properties are coupled.
Note that the coupling between permeability and channel
half-width is of the same form as the permeability and
the fracture half-length in PTA. If permeability, porosity
and thickness are known from independent data, the
complete channel geometry can be calculated. When the
production data from the hydraulically fractured well
from Arevalo-Villagran et al. (2006) already plotted in
Figs. 3-37 and 3-38 is plotted on a Neal-Wattenbarger
plot one gets Fig. 3-40. Gi can be calculated directly from
this plot from Eq. 3-42c.
16
8 diffusivity equation, Eq. 2-4, acts like a huge low-pass
14
7 tel= 6630 days (18.2 years)
12
6 variations in horizontal permeability included just
%m(p)/q x 106
Cum Gas, Bcf
10
5
Cum Gas
4 8
3 6
2 4
~ fixes the average permeability of the system to be 0.1
1 mcpl = 25 x 103 2
%m(p)/q
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
t0.5, days0.5
Figure 3-40 Neal-Wattenbarger plot for a fractured well
in a long channel with long-term linear flow (from Arevalo-
Villagran et al., 2006)
As in the radial flow case, if the end of linear flow
has not been observed, then Gi is calculated using the last
available time. This result is the currently contacted gas in
place. For either the radial or linear transient case, forecasts
can be made assuming that this currently contacted gas
in place represents the actual Gi. This is equivalent to
stating that bounded flow begins immediately at the
end of the observed data. This forecast should have a
100% probability of occurring (P100 case) and could be
performed with simple material balance type models as
used by West and Cochrane (1995) because J is now
constant. Of course, economic limits and the possible
onset of liquid loading in the wellbore, among other
things, may constrain this forecast. Continuing the
transient case forever will represent the zero probability
case (P0 case). These two bounding cases are easily
constructed for a well still exhibiting transient flow. This
technique can also be used to forecast the increasing value
of the contacted Gi versus time. Offset wells production
may be used as a guideline for determining how long
76
transient flow occurs for typical wells, leading to a most
likely forecast. Stotts et al. (2007) have extended the
technique by considering infinite-conductivity fractured
wells in arbitrary locations within a rectangle.
3-15 Heterogeneity
Anyone who has looked at core or log data recognizes
that real reservoirs show a remarkable variation of
reservoir properties on a very fine vertical scale. Why
is layered heterogeneity not reflected in well tests?
The short answer is that by its nature the underlying
filter. Most high-frequency information vertical
gets averaged out. As an example, if one generates
an infinite-acting two-layer reservoir model with all
properties being identical except permeability, and
md, even a 1000-fold contrast in permeability among
the layers will not affect the log-log derivative plot.
Complications occur when layers experience boundary
effects at different times during the test.
3-15.1 Dual Porosity
So what other kinds of heterogeneity are seen in well
tests? The dual-porosity model where there is a low-
storativity, high-diffusivity media connected to a high-
storativity, low-diffusivity matrix shows a distinct
signature on the derivative plot (Fig. 3-9). This is a
consequence of the time delay in the lower-permeability
matrix contributing to the production response of
the system. Gringarten (1984) has shown that a high-
permeability contrast, two-layered model is equivalent
to a dual-porosity model. Dual-porosity reservoirs are
extremely complicated, and the reader is referenced to
Aguilera (1995) for a thorough review of the topic.
3-15.2 Anisotropy
A type of heterogeneity that has been largely neglected
in the well test literature is permeability anisotropy. This
discussion will consider only permeability anisotropy
in the horizontal direction (i.e., kx ky). The neglect
is understandable in one sense because an isotropic
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

medium can always be mapped mathematically into an
equivalent homogenous medium by a process known
as conformal mapping. The problem is solved in the
homogenous space and then projected back onto the
original co-ordinates. Time is not involved in this
process. Anisotropic well test models will thus have a
functionally equivalent solution in homogeneous space.
By an application of Occams razor, why bother? Occams
razor basically says: do not unnecessarily complicate a
problem if a simple solution works just as well with the
available data. The answer is that additional information
not normally part of the usual PTA process may force
the analyst to complicate the problem. The additional
information in question is the long-term production
data normally collected long after the well test.
Earlier it was stated that channel linear flow and
(Xnew and Ynew) are not determinable. However the
fracture length is still affected by Eq. 3-43d. If all
PTA matching is performed in homogeneous space,
as is recommended, and then mapped backward into
anisotropic space, the fracture length will grow in
anisotropic space. This is essentially moving from the
right side of Fig. 3-41 to the left.
xe
Ynew
ye
Geometry for Equivalent
xf
Isotropic Reservoir

anisotropic linear flow are mathematically identical.

Actual Anisotropic Geometry
Collins (1961) and Raghavan (1993) developed
the mapping functions from anisotropic space to
homogeneous space and vice versa: Xnew

Figure 3-41 Equivalent geometries of drainage and

0.5
k = (k x k y ) , fracture: isotropic case (right) and anisotropic case (left)
(3-43a)
(from Arevalo-Villagran et al., 2006)

k
0.5
ky
0.25 The long fracture in anisotropic space may
X new = X e = X e
, (3-43b) represent the actual treatment pumped; the short
k x k x
fracture in homogeneous space represents the PTA
k
0.5
k
0.25 interpreted length. This is one mechanism whereby
Ynew = Ye = Ye x and (3-43c) PTA-derived fracture lengths could appear shorter
k y k y
than actual treatment lengths. This will also have an
k
0.5
ky
0.25 effect on the associated production forecast, so this
x fnew = x f = x f
, (3-43d) action needs to be justified.
k x k x

where kx and ky are the x and y direction permeabilities,
Xe and Ye are the distances in the x and y direction from
the well to the boundary in anisotropic space. Xnew and
Ynew are the corresponding distances in homogeneous
space. xfnew is the equivalent fracture half-length in
homogeneous space. Equation 3-43d only applies
when the fracture is in the x direction and is of infinite
conductivity. Figure 3-41 illustrates the mapping
function for severe anisotropy associated with widely
spaced directional natural fractures, where kx >> ky.
The hydraulic fracture is shown parallel to the natural
fractures because, logically, they would be oriented in
the same direction due to the stress regime of the well.
For an infinite-acting system, the outer boundaries
3-16 Multiphase Flow
Multiphase flow effects as they pertain to PTA have
their origin in the work of Perrine (1956). The essence
of the technique is that it determines the total mobility
of the system as opposed to a single-phase permeability.
Perrines (1956) technique relies on the relative mobility
of the fluids not changing significantly with time.
This approach is of limited use because the
two multi-phase problems of most interest are gas
condensates and the cleanup of fracture treatment
fluids immediately after the treatment. They both
can show significant changes in mobility over
relatively short periods of time.

77
Modern Fracturing
3-16.1 Gas Condensates
Gas condensates have been briefly described in Chapter
2. As pressure drops below the dew point, hydrocarbon
liquid drops-out. By its nature, this will occur around
the producing wells, where the drawdown is largest.
Relative permeability effects restrict the gas mobility
around the well. As a result there is a significant loss in
well productivity. This can be severe and is especially
prominent in wells producing in radial flow. The most
successful means of combating this productivity loss
is hydraulic fracturing. One consequence is that the
pressure drop is dispersed more uniformly away from
the well. Hydraulic fracturing does not remove the
problem; it just makes the best of a bad situation. For
a stimulated or unstimulated well, GOR is typically
almost constant, or slowly increasing with time.
After a gas condensate well begins production
below the dew point, three distinct flow
regimes quickly occur, as described by Fevang
and Whitson (1996):
1. The inner region is nearest the well and has
both mobile gas and oil (oil and condensate
are the same fluid). Oil saturation is above
residual oil saturation.
2. The intermediate region has the oil phase present,
but only gas is mobile. The oil saturation is
therefore below residual oil saturation.
3. The outer region has only gas present (single
phase), with solution condensate.
These regions are dynamic in that they change
shape with time. The problem to be solved from a PTA
perspective is a flow-induced composite permeability
system with moving boundaries.
PTA techniques that use extended analytical
solutions ignore the moving boundary. For radial
flow, Raghavan et al. (1999) compared a number of
traditional approaches to more detailed numerical
simulation cases to get a feel for what was going on.
The first attempt to perform PTA with numerical
reservoir simulators for hydraulically fractured
wells was done by Yadavalli and Jones (1996). The
effect on the derivative curve for a well in which a
significant bank has formed was dramatic (as will be
shown in more detail later).
78
Bachman et al. (2006) were involved in a study
of Saudi Arabian gas condensate wells that had been
successfully acid fracture stimulated. The wells had
PTA tests immediately after stimulation and cleanup,
prior to the BHP dropping below the dew point.
They consistently showed good infinite-conductivity
fracture behavior. Long-term production data
showed a significant loss in productivity. After about
one year of production, additional flow and build-
up tests were performed. The goal of the study was
to determine the reason for the loss of productivity.
Possible damage mechanisms included liquid
dropout effects, collapse of the stress-sensitive acid
fracture or stress-dependent reservoir permeability.
Comparisons were made of the first and subsequent
PTAs. The reservoir simulation models pressure
response is shown in Fig. 3-42.
1010
109
%m(p) and %m(p)a
108
%m(p) - Initial build-up
107 %m(p)a - Initial build-up
%m(p) - Second build-up
%m(p)a - Second build-up
106
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
%ta
Figure 3-42 Derivative response of fractured gas
condensate well before and after liquid drop-out (from
Bachman et al., 2006)
The humping behavior is identical to what
Yadavalli and Jones (1996) identified as a type 2
condensate response. A simple procedure was then found
to convert the long-term pressure match to relative
skin changes associated with the identified damage
mechanisms. The vast majority of the skin increase
resulted from condensate liquid dropout.
Gringarten et al. (2006) give a comprehensive review
of the complex issues associated with gas condensate
PTA and present numerous field cases. Bozorgzadeh
and Gringarten (2007) give further examples related to
PTA. Mohan et al. (2006) have considered non-Darcy
flow, in addition to other effects. The whole field is
complex and is an active area of research.
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

3-16.2 Fracture Fluid Cleanup Table 3-14 Well Initial Properties for Example 3-6
pi, psia 2960
In North America, wells are usually hydraulically Pay Thickness, ft 26
fractured immediately after drilling. Cleanup and well Porosity, % 10
testing tend to be lumped together while tie-in of the Water Saturation, % 25
pipeline is occurring. This is logistically an ideal time Estimated Permeability Range, md 0.1 to 0.3
to do a test because production is not lost. From a test Breakdown Pressure, psi 4325
interpretation viewpoint, however, this is hardly ideal Pumped Fracture Half-Length, ft 700
because the effects of fracture fluid cleanup are readily (Best Estimate from Treatment Model)
apparent during early flow periods. However, this must Total Treatment Fluid, bbl 2420
be dealt with as well as is possible. Fluid Recovered to First PTA, bbl 1040
In the authors experience, fluid cleanup effects Fluid Recovered to First PTA, % 43
on test interpretation are often profound. Fracture Proppant Type ISP
lengths often appear to be much shorter than what Proppant, lbs 225,0000
has been designed. This inevitably leads to questions Max Concentration, lbs/gal 7.5
about where did the fracture go? Barree et al. (2003)
looked at a number of factors associated with There are extensive shales around the producing zone,
conductivity and length, including: and fracture height containment was not an issue (see
1. Non-Darcy effects (see Section 3-13) Section 4-3.3.3).
2. Packing of the proppant in the fracture
1011
3. Embedment and spalling in soft formations Superpostion Effects or
4. Filter cake and gel residual migration into the Boundary Effects?

proppant pack
%m(p) and %m(p)a

1010
mlf =
5. Gel yield effects from the concentration of gel xf = 52.5 ft
residue at the fracture tip, reducing its effective mrf = 0

producing length 109

6. Multiphase flow of stimulation and formation %m(p) - Observed

fluids in the proppant pack
Items 3 through 6 are directly related to
multiphase flow (if a solid can be considered a phase).
The proppant pack relative permeability curves shown
by Barree et al. (2003) have been used by Sullivan et
al. (2006) in sensitivity work to see how they would
affect various modeled PTA cases.
3-16.3 Example 3-6, Fracture Fluid Cleanup Case
In the Deep Basin area of Western Canada an
operator wanted to assess the effectiveness of past
hydraulic fracture treatments. As is the norm for
this field, a standard well test was performed with
gauges in the hole after the fracture treatment.
The wells were still cleaning up at this point. The
wells were all single-zone completions. Table 3-14
shows the reservoir properties.
%m(p)a
- Observed
108
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
%ta
Figure 3-43 For Example 3-6, log-log derivative plot for
first build-up
The initial PTA interpretation (Fig. 3-43), done
shortly after the treatment was completed, looks like
a textbook example of a short, infinite-conductivity
fracture proceeding into radial flow. The fracture
half-length was interpreted to be 52.5 ft. Production
forecasts were generated assuming the well drained
a square drainage area, following standard industry
practice. Because the drainage area is unknown, a
number of what ifs based on reasonably estimated
drainage areas were made.
When the well was put on production, the forecast
almost immediately dropped below expectations, even
for pessimistic drainage areas. Fig. 3-44 shows actual
long-term production data.

79
Modern Fracturing

10,000 1. The fracture treatment (injection period)

mlf = - 2. All the cleanup flow periods before the first PTA
3. The first PTA
q, Mscf/d

1,000 4. The long-term production data

5. The second PTA

100 The keys to this study centered on two independent

1 10
t, days
Figure 3-44 For Example 3-6, Fetkovich plot for long-
term production data
What is evident is that linear flow is occurring for
a long time. Calculations as to when formation linear
flow should end (Table 3-1) indicate that it should be
within a few days of the start of production. Clearly
linear flow is continuing because of reservoir effects.
A review of offsetting wells production showed
that about 50% of the interpretable production
data from a group of over 50 wells indicated long-
term linear flow. For the well in this example, at
the 280-day mark, a fluid level-based well test was
performed. The log-log derivative plot for this second
test is shown in Figure 3-45.
1010
100 1000
issues. The first was explicitly modeling cleanup after
the fracture treatment, circumventing any simplifying
assumptions with respect to ignoring cleanup on the PTA
interpretation. The second was identifying the source of
the long-term linear flow. The depositional environment
of the pool did not support channel linear flow. Because
of extensive faulting in the field, permeability anisotropy
seemed plausible. The simulation model was run on
BHP control throughout the long-term production
history with varying levels of anisotropic permeability.
The match was then done on gas production rate. The
magnitude of the calculated gas production was most
sensitive to the overall permeability, and the shape of
the decline on the Fetkovich plot was sensitive to the
anisotropy ratio. This simplified the process of dialing in
the correct amount of anisotropy. Table 3-15 gives final
reservoir properties.

Table 3-15 Final Well Properties for Example 3-6

Overall Permeability (kx ky)0.5, md 0.175
%m(p) and %m(p)a

109 kx/ky ratio 400

Propped Fracture Half-Length, ft 525
Fracture Conductivity, md-ft 833
mlf =
CfD 9.1
108
Homogeneous Equivalent Fracture
117
%m(p) - Observed Half-Length, ft (from Eq. 3-43d)
%m(p)a
- Observed Gi, scf 1.97 x 109
10 7
Drainage Area, acres 120
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
%ta
1011
Figure 3-45 For Example 3-6, log-log derivative plot for %m(p) - Observed
second build-up, after long production period %m(p)a
- Observed
1010 %m(p)
- History match
%m(p) and %m(p)a

%m(p)a
- History match

This test does not indicate radial flow and shows
109 Observed Data Showing
slope until late time. This can be interpreted as evidence False Radial Flow
that a long, highly conductive hydraulic fracture was
108
indeed placed. Cleanup issues appear to mask the
fracture in the first PTA test. 107
It was decided to run a multiphase numerical 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
%ta
simulation model and attempt to match all
data simultaneously. This involves modeling the Figure 3-46 For Example 3-6, log-log derivative match of
following distinct events: first PTA test

80

The final fracture half-length is ten times the
estimate from the first PTA. Figures 3-46 and 3-47
show the match of the two PTA tests. Figure 3-48
gives the treatment fluid saturation profile around
the well after the fracture treatment at the end
of the first well test.
1010
%m(p) and %m(p)a
109
108
%m(p) - Observed
%m(p)a
- Observed
%m(p)
- History match
%m(p)a
- History match
107
0.01 0.10 1 10
%ta
Figure 3-47 For Example 3-6, log-log derivative match of
second PTA test
Wellbore 525 ft fracture half length
5.3 ft
invasion
Figure 3-48 Saturation profile around the well after the
fracture treatment at the end of the first PTA test
There is still a lot of fluid surrounding the
fracture, with a significantly different mobility from
the gas. For the first build-up match, the early
flattening of the derivative in Fig. 3-46 is modeled
quite well. The flattening is associated with a skin-
like effect, as was similarly shown in Figs. 3-17 and
3-33. It is easy to mistake this as the onset of radial
flow. Hategan and Hawkes (2006) warn about the
appearance of false radial flow in fractured wells that
are cleaning up. This example quantifies its effect
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
and could easily result in interpreting too high a
permeability and too short a fracture half-length.
Because permeability dominates the productivity
index calculation, forecasts would be optimistic. With
the lower-mobility fracture fluid around the well,
it simply takes longer to make the transition into
formation linear flow. This is evident in comparing
the time to the start of formation linear flow in the
second test to the corresponding same time in the
first test, where linear flow is not occurring.
With the final history-matched model it is possible
to test the concept that a bigger fracture job is better.
Traditional gas forecasting techniques based upon
square drainage areas and homogeneous properties
usually indicate this. With anisotropy the benefit of a
bigger treatment is reduced.
100 1000
It is concluded that the treatment was pumped
properly and the desired high-conductivity fracture
was created. This analysis highlights the impact of
two apparently reasonable assumptions: Neglecting
cleanup and assuming a square drainage area can
result in forecasts that are unrealistically optimistic.
0.25 In mature producing areas, a Fetkovich plot of any offset
0.30
0.35
wells is an absolute necessity in helping identify field-
0.40 wide production flow regimes.
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
3-17 Closure Analysis
0.65
0.70
0.75 Industry has been involved in analyzing pressure
Water behavior of wells during pumping of the fracture
Saturation
Legend treatment or from preliminary fracture data for a long
time. Nolte and Smith (1981) pioneered the process
of interpreting fracture geometry from the shape of
the pressure response. The types of analysis have been
split into two categories:
1. Before Closure Analysis The pressure data during
pumping is examined. The value of the treating
pressure minus the closure pressure (piw pc) is the
key parameter in determining the geometry and
leak-off characteristics of the fracture.
2. Closure Analysis After the treatment is
complete, the pressure begins to fall off, much like
a conventional PTA fall-off test. Complications
exist because there is a fracture in the media, which
is very much in a dynamic state. Over time this
open fracture will close. Before closing the fracture
81
Modern Fracturing

may continue to grow as a result of energy stored
during the treatment. The analysis of pressure
to closure will give an indication of the leak-off
behavior of the combined fracture/porous media
(see Section 4-2.1.9). After the fracture is closed,
continued analysis of the pressure signature may
give information about permeability and other
reservoir properties for the well.
a change in flow regime. Nolte (1986) identified this as
the closure time, from which pc could be determined.
From the closure time alone, it is then possible to
determine the fluid efficiency, , which is the amount
of fluid remaining in the fracture at closure, normalized
to the total pumped volume:
Gc
, (3-45)
2+G c

Both categories of analysis critically require
knowledge about or the determination of the
closure pressure, pc. The various pressures involved
in hydraulic fracturing are more fully defined in
Section 4-2.1.2. This section will deal exclusively
with pressures after pumping has stopped. Further
restrictions are that the analysis will be applied to
clean, ungelled fluid without proppant.
Nolte (1986) introduced a dimensionless
function called the G function, or sometimes just
called G time. Castillo (1987) recognized that when
the G function is plotted against the fall-off pressure
after a fracture injection test, under ideal conditions a
straight line would form and the slope would lead to
the calculation of the leak-off coefficient.
The development of the G function was based
on the assumption that the leak-off coefficient during
fracturing is constant. Different forms of the G
function are possible for low- and high-leak-off cases.
The reader is referred to Section 4-2.1.9 for a more
detailed explanation. In practice, there is little difference
between these two extreme cases, and the low-leak-off
definition will be used:
4
g (t D ) = (1 + t D )1.5 t D1.5 ,
(3-44a)
3
4 4
G (t D ) = g (t D ) and (3-44b)
3
t t
i
t D =
, (3-44c)
ti
where ti is the time to the end of injection, tD is
dimensionless time, g is an intermediate variable, and
G is the G function. When the leak-off coefficient is
constant, a plot of pressure versus G should be a straight
line. Deviation from such a straight line would indicate
where Gc is the G function at closure. This is
independent of fracture geometry and is a key
parameter in hydraulic fracturing design because it
will directly affect the size of the pad. An additional
plot used in the industry is the t plot, where pressure,
p, is plotted against t. It is an empirical plot, based
on the general idea of linear flow, as in PTA. However
because the point of initiation of leak-off for fracturing
fluid is different for each point in the fracture, the G
function is rigorous, while t is not.
In practice, picking closure time from a G
function plot has proved to be problematic. As with
specialized plots in PTA, multiple interpretations are
often possible. Additionally, a very significant number
of wells have pressure-dependent leak-off (PDL) or
other nonlinearities that invalidate Noltes (1986) basic
assumptions. Approaches and solutions to the PDL
problem began with Castillo (1987) and Mukherjee et
al. (1991). Barree and Mukherjee (1996) developed a
diagnostic plot, which will be called the combination
G function plot, that involves plotting three quantities
p, dp/dG and G[dp/dG] on the same plot. The
combination G function plot is the equivalent of the
log-log derivative plot in PTA and can be used to
identify flow regimes and to choose pc.
Other specialized plots have been developed by
Nolte et al. (1997) and Talley et al. (1999) for two
special cases after the fracture has closed. The first
case assumes the well is in radial flow after closure and
the second that the well is in linear flow after closure.
Soliman et al. (2005) have pointed out that the well
can also be in bilinear flow after closure, and give
ways to determine reservoir properties. These flow
regimes are all possible because it is unclear whether
the fracture will completely heal or not.
For radial flow Talley et al. (1999) give the following
flow equations:

82
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

1. Combination G function plot

p (t ) pi = mR FR (t , tc ),
(3-46a) 2. Combination pressure, dp/dt and t[dp/dt]
versus t plot
3. Log-log derivative plot
1 t
FR (t , tc ) = ln 1 + c , with t > t , (3-46b) 4. Log-pressure and derivative versus log FL2 plot
4 t tc c
5. If radial flow, a) Horner plot, b) Pressure
versus FR plot
16
= 1.6 , and (3-46c)
2
The concepts will be illustrated for two cases:
Vi constant matrix leak-off and pressure-dependent leak-
kh
= 251, 000
, (3-46d) off. Additional cases considered in Barree et al. (2007)
mR tc
but not covered due to space limitations include
where FR is the Nolte radial after-closure leak-off fracture tip extension after shut-in and fracture height
function, tc is the closure time, Vi is the injection recession during closure.
volume and mR is the slope of the radial flow The constant matrix leak-off case is shown in
after closure analysis plot. For linear flow the Figs. 3-49 through 3-52. Figure 3-49 shows the
corresponding equations are: combination G function plot. Constant leak-off is
shown by the straight-line character of the observed
p (t ) pi = mL FL (t , tc ),
(3-47a) G[dp/dG] data through the origin.

10500 2000
2 t 1
FL (t , tc ) = sin 1 c , with t > t , and
1800
(3-47b) 10000
t c pp 1600
1400
9500 Fracture Closure

G(dp/dG)
1200

P, psi

mL = CL k c
, (3-47c) 9000 G(dp/dG) 1000
800
8500
dp/dG 600
where FL is the Nolte linear after-closure leak-off 8000
400

function, CL is the combined leak-off coefficient and 200

7500 0
mL is the slope of the linear flow ACA plot. In these 0 5 10 15 20 25
formulae , refers to the far-field viscosity, i.e. the G time

gas viscosity. For the majority of cases pi must also be Figure 3-49 Combination G function plot, constant matrix
considered an unknown. Various diagnostics plots to leak-off case
be introduced will rely on special derivatives of these Closure time is picked at deviation from the straight
functions. Although the value p(t) pi depends upon line. Figure 3-50 shows the combination t plot.
the possibly unknown pi, derivative plots do not.
10500 1000
Therefore diagnostic plots will be presented that rely on 1
900
p
first identifying the correct flow regime and secondly 10000
800
Fracture Closure
determining reservoir properties including pi. More 9500 700
Derivatives

recently Craig and Blasingame (2006) came up with a t(dp/dt) 600

p, psi

9000 500
very general theory that accounts for all possible flow dp/dt 400
regimes after the fracture has closed. 8500
300
Now that the underlying theory has been reviewed, 8000 200
Barree (1998), and Barree et al. (2007) describe a 100
7500 0
comprehensive methodology utilizing multiple plots to t
ensure a consistent interpretation of the closure process.
Figure 3-50 Combination t plot, constant matrix leak-
The following plots need to be constructed: off case

83
Modern Fracturing

This plot has frequently been misinterpreted
when picking pc, even for this simple case.
Originally it was felt that departure from the
straight line, as in the combination G function
plot, should give pc. This is incorrect and leads to
a later closure time and lower apparent closure
pc. The correct pick occurs at the inflection point,
as shown in Fig. 3-50. The best way to pick the
inflection point is from the local maximum of the dp/
dt curve. In Fig. 3-50 the dashed vertical line is at
the same time in both the combination G function
plot and the combination t plot. Figure 3-51 shows
the log-log derivative plot with the G function
closure time superimposed.
BH ISIP = 9998 psi

%p and %t(d%p/d%t)
changing fracture/wellbore storage. The deviation
from constant separation suggests fracture closure
and is consistent with the earlier plots pick of closure
time. After closure, the 1 slope line is an indicator
of radial flow. If the slope had been this would
indicate after-closure linear flow. Figure 3-52 shows
the log-pressure and derivative versus FL2 plot.
Time increases to the left in this plot. After closure,
the unit slope line indicates radial flow. If after closure
linear flow occurred, the line would have a slope.
Because radial flow is evident, a Horner plot and a
pressure versus FR plot could also be constructed to
compare k and pi values.
The corresponding pressure-dependent leak-off
(PDL) example is shown in Figs. 3-53 to 3-56. Figure
1
3-53 shows the combination G function plot.

1000 m = 0.632
Radial Flow
10,500 1000
1 2
10,250 900
m = -1
p 800
10,000 Fracture Closure
100 700
9750
600

G(dp/dG)
%t(d%p/d%t) 9500 G(dp/dG)
p, psi

%p 500
Fracture Closure 9250
10 400
0.1 1 10 100 1000 9000
300
%t
8750 dp/dG 200
Figure 3-51 Log-log derivative plot, constant matrix leak- 8500 100
off case with G function closure time superimposed 8250 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
G, Time
10000
Figure 3-53 Combination G function plot, pressure-
dependent leak-off (PDL) case
%p vs FL 2

10250 500
%p and FL2 d%p/dFL2

1000 Start of Radial Flow False Closure 2

10000
p Fracture Closure 400
9750
9500 t(dp/dt) Derivatives
m=1 300
p, psi

100
FL2 (d%p/dFL2) 9250
9000 200

8750
dp/dt 100
10 8500
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
FL2 8250 0
Figure 3-52 Log-pressure and derivative versus FL2 plot t

Figure 3-54 Combination t plot, PDL case

It is common for the pressure difference
and logarithmic derivative curves to be parallel Pressure versus G shows concave upward
immediately before closure. In many cases a near curvature during PDL. The G[dp/dG] plot shows a
perfect slope line is evident, strongly suggesting hump above the characteristic straight line. The end
linear flow in the open fracture. In this case the slope of the hump corresponds to the end of PDL. Fracture
is greater than , suggesting linear flow coupled with closure is still exhibited by departure of the G[dp/dG]

84
 Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation

function through the origin, as one is back to the
constant matrix leak-off situation. The combination
t plot is shown in Fig. 3-54.
As in the combination G function plot there
is a hump in the t[dp/dt] plot. Incorrect picks of
closure time occur when the dp/dt curve is used to
pick a flat derivative at early time. Instead one should
use the separation of t[dp/dt] from the straight line
thorough the origin to eliminate this apparent closure
time. The correct closure time occurs with a later flat
derivative showing the correct behavior on the t[dp/
dt] curve (line 2 in Fig 3-54). This plot shows that the
multiple-plot approach is far better than relying on a
single diagnostic plot. It is not recommended to use the
combination t plot in isolation. The log-log derivative
plot in Fig. 3-55 shows near perfect slope flow with
the pressure difference and logarithmic derivative curves
showing a separation of .
BH ISIP = 10000 psi
1000
%p

%p and %t(d%p/d%t)
the fracture must still be highly conductive. Later,
a 1 slope occurs, indicating a transition to radial
flow. The log-pressure and derivative versus log-FL2
plot in Fig. 3-56 shows the linear and radial flow
features at the appropriate times.
Barree et al. (2007) also found that for
either the constant matrix leak-off case or PDL
case, one can develop a correlation between
permeability, k, and Gc:
0.0086 f 0.01 pz
k= 1.96
, where (3-48a)
G Er
ct c p
0.0038
pz = pISI pc
(3-48b)
and where f is the minifrac fluid viscosity, pz is the
process zone pressure, and E is Youngs modulus.
The fracture fluid viscosity, f , is normally set to 1.0.
1 The storage ratio rp, represents the amount of excess
Linear
Flow Radial fluid that needs to be leaked off to reach fracture
(m = -0.5) Flow

closure when the fracture geometry deviates from the

(m = 0.5) normally assumed constant-height planar fracture.
(m = -1)
100 For the constant matrix leak-off and PDL cases, it is
1.0. This permeability correlation allows design work
%t(d%p/d%t) when all other data is lacking. Figure 3-57 is a plot of
Fracture the permeability function, with the PDL example case
Closure
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 permeability estimate shown.
%t
100
Figure 3-55 Log-log derivative plot, PDL case
rp 1
10000 10 G 0.08 V/V
ct 6.0 x 10-5 psi-1
Start Linear Flow
E 5.0 x 106 psi
%p and FL2 d%p/dFL2

End Linear Flow 1 N 1 cp

Gc
k,md

1000 2.9
%p
Pz 841.0 psi
Start Radial Flow 0.1
(m = 1)

100 (m = 0.5)
0.01
FL2 (d%p/dFL2)

3 2 1 0.001
10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 Gc
FL2
Figure 3-57 Permeability versus G function (Eq. 3-48a)
Figure 3-56 Log-pressure and derivative versus FL2 plot, for the PDL case (from Barree et al., 2007)
PDL case

This is a strong indication of fracture linear Conway et al. (2007) have also developed a
flow before closure. The slope immediately after correlation relating initial expected post-fracture rate
closure indicates linear flow, so some remnants of versus Gc, as shown in Fig. 3-58.

85
Modern Fracturing
100,000
10,000
Post-fracture Rate, Mcf/d
1000
Lower Reservoir Pressure
100
Post-fracture Rate
10
0 1
Figure 3-58 Expected post-fracture rate vs. Gc (from
Conway et al., 2007)
The rate is defined as the rate 24 hours after
burnable gas was recovered at surface. In general, each
field should have its own correlation, and the best-fit
line represents an optimal stimulation. Having said
that, Fig. 3-58 was originally developed for the low-
permeability sub-thrusted Deep Morrow in Oklahoma,
but the same plot has proved useful in the Moxa Arch
Frontier in Wyoming and the Deep Basin area in
Canada. Evidence indicates that Gc values greater than
8 may be uneconomic to stimulate.
3-18 Deconvolution
The idea behind deconvolution is not new; it is
essentially the same principle of superposition
discussed in Section 3-4. The promise of the
technology is this: Variable-rate pressure history can be
converted mathematically into an equivalent constant-
rate drawdown over the entire duration of the data.
The standard log-log derivative type curves could
then be used to analyze the test. This would provide
a means to see all flow regimes that occur over the
production history of the well in a type curve plot
that is already understood.
The reason this technology has proven to be
elusive is that the numerical process is inherently
unstable. A general algorithm proved beyond reach
until von Schroeter et al. (2004) found a stable way
to implement the mathematics. Their technique was
radically different and converted the problem to a
standard nonlinear least-squares optimization problem.
Subsequently Levitan (2005) published a variation
86
of the same basic idea. Both procedures require user
specification of control parameters, so the algorithms
Higher Reservoir Pressure cannot be treated like a black box.
For the average person the best description of
technique is given by Houz et al. (2007). They include
a number of thought-provoking examples, with mixed
results. The problem is not with the algorithm of von
Schroeter et al. (2004) but with nonlinear regression in
general. To quote Houz et al. (2007): Any engineer
that has been using non-linear regression on analytical
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
models knows how this process is impressive when it
Gc
succeeds and pathetic when it fails.
The demands for a successful deconvolution
study are high. The data must be self-consistent. For
instance, if a well has multiple build-ups throughout
its producing life, they all must show quite similar
character at each time. If they do not, the analysis is
doomed; therefore, the technique cannot be used on a
well with both pre- and post-fracture tests. A necessary
first step in any study with multiple build-ups would
be to overlay the normalized derivative plots on top of
each other as was shown in Fig. 3-8.
100
FP 06 (Exploration Build-up)
10 FP 35 (Production Build-up)
Deconvolved Derivative
Rate Normalized Derivatives
1 for Various Smoothness Values
Dimensionless Unit Rate
Pressure & Derivative Curves
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Maximum Flow Period
Durations Test Duration
0.00001
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
10 5
106 107 108
Time, hrs
Figure 3-59 Normalized log-log derivative plot and
deconvolution derivative (from Gringarten et al., 2006)
On a last note, a simple example from Gringarten
et al. (2006) will be shown. This well has only BHP data
on an initial DST and on a PTA test two years later.
Other than that, only production data was available.
Figure 3-59 shows the normalized log-log derivative
plot for the two tests along with the deconvolution
derivative. For this test it may not seem necessary to
use deconvolution as the drainage area could be treated
as a history matching parameter on its own right. This

is true and is indeed how the industry has and will
continue to solve such problems, but it shows that an
alternative approach is now available. Deconvolution
reveals character in the late transient period not seen in
any one-flow period. This feature alone is of great value.
The technology is only in its infancy and it remains to
be seen where it will go.
References
Agarwal, R.G.: Real Gas Pseudo-TimeA New
Function for Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF
Gas Wells, paper SPE 8279, 1979.
Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method to Account for
Producing Time Effects when Drawdown Type
Curves are Used to Analyze Pressure Build-up and
Other Test Data, paper SPE 9289, 1980.
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W., and
Fussell, D.D.: Analyzing Well Production Data
Using Combined-Type-Curve and Decline Curve
Analysis Concepts, SPEREE (October 1999).
Aguilera, R.: Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, 2nd Ed.,
PennWell Books, Tulsa, Okla., 1995.
Ahmed, T., and McKinney, P.D.: Advanced Reservoir
Engineering, Elsevier, Burlington, Mass., 2005.
Alexander, L.G.: Theory and Practice of the Closed-
Chamber Drillstem Test Method, paper SPE
6024, 1977.
Anderson, D., Jordan, C.L., and Mattar, L.: Why Plot
the Equivalent Time Derivative on Shut-in Time
Coordinates? paper SPE 75703, 2002.
Arevalo-Villagran, J.A.: Analysis of Long-Term
Behavior in Tight Gas Reservoirs: Case Histories,
Ph.D Thesis, Texas A&M University, 2001.
Arevalo-Villagran, J.A., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Long-
Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells, Internal
Document, Texas A&M University, 2001.
Arevalo-Villagran, J.A., Wattenbarger, R.A., and
Samaniego-V., F.: Some History Cases of Long-
Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells, JCPT
(March 2006).
Arps, J.J: Analysis of Decline Curves, Trans. AIME,
1945.
Arps, J.J: Estimation of Primary Oil Reserves, Trans.
AIME, 1956.
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
Bachman, R.C., Settari, A., Walters, D.A, Rahim,
Z., and Ahmed, M.S.: Decoupling Damage
Mechanisms in Acid-Fractured Gas Condensate
Reservoirs, paper SPE 100570, 2006.
Barree, R.D: Applications of Pre-Frac Injection/Falloff
Tests in Fissured Reservoirs Field Examples,
paper SPE 39932, 1998.
Barree, R.D., Barree, V.E., and Craig, D.P.: Holistic
Fracture Diagnostics, paper SPE 107877, 2007.
Barree, R.D., and Mukherjee, H.: Determination
of Pressure Dependent Leakoff and its Effect on
Fracture Geometry, paper SPE 36424, 1996.
Barree, R.D., Cox, S.A., and Barree, V.L.: Realistic
Assessment of Proppant Pack Conductivity for
Material Selection, paper SPE 84306, 2003.
Barree, R.D., Cox, S.A., Gilbert, J.V., and Dobson,
M.: Closing the Gap: Fracture Half-Length
from Design, Build-up, and Production Analysis,
SPEPF (November 2005).
Bourdet, D.P., Whittle, T.M., Douglas, A.A., and
Pirard, Y.M.: A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies
Well Test Analysis, World Oil (May 1983).
Bourdet, D.P., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M.: Use of
Pressure Derivative in Well Test Interpretation,
paper SPE 12777, 1987.
Bozorgzadeh, M., and Gringarten, A.C.: Estimating
Productivity-Controlling Parameters in Gas/
Condensate Wells from Transient Pressure Data,
SPEREE (April 2007).
Brown, L.P., and Hawkes, R.V.: Rules of Thumb in
Well Testing: What Works and Doesnt Work
and Why, JCPT (May 2005).
Carter, R.D.: Type Curves for Radial and Linear Gas-
Flow Systems: Constant Terminal-Pressure Case,
paper SPE 12917, 1985.
Castillo, J.L.: Modified Fracture Pressure Decline
Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff,
paper SPE 16417, 1987.
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V. F., and Dominguez,
N.: Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with
a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ
(August 1978).
Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient
Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells, SPEJ
(September 1981a).
Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient
87
Modern Fracturing
Pressure Analysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture
Case Versus Damaged Fracture Case, paper SPE
10179, 1981b.
Collins, R.E.: Flow of Fluid Flow through Porous
Materials, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York,
1961.
Conway, M.W., Lindeman, S.W., and Barree, R.D.:
Selection of Stimulation Fluids and Treatment
Design for Low-Permeability Reservoirs, paper
SPE 106085, 2007.
Craig, D.P., and Blasingame, T.A.: Application of a
New Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting
for Propagating, Dilated, and Closing Hydraulic
Fractures, paper SPE 100578, 2006.
Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1978.
Dake, L.P.: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994.
Dietz, D.N.: Determination of Average Reservoir
Pressures from Build Up Surveys, JPT (August
1965).
Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Monograph Vol. 5, SPE, Dallas, 1977.
Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D., and Ehlig-Economides,
C.A.: Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice
Hall, NY, 1994.
Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir
Stimulation, 3rd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, West
Sussex, U.K., 2000.
Economides, M.J., Oligney, R.E., and Valk, P.P.:
Unified Fracture Design, Orsa Press, Houston,
2002a.
Economides, M.J., Oligney, R.E., and Valk, P.P.:
Applying Unified Fracture Design to Gas Wells,
World Oil (October 2002b).
Fetkovich, M.J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type
Curves, JPT (June 1980).
Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D., and
Kiesow, U.G.: Decline Curve Analysis Using
Type Curves Case Histories, SPEFE (December
1987).
Fevang, O., and Whitson, C.H: Modeling Gas-
Condensate Well Deliverability, SPERE
(November 1996).
Forchheimer, P.: Hydraulik, Teubner, Leipzig and
Berlin 116-118 (1914).
88
Fraim, M.L., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir
Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves with
real Gas Pseudopressure and Normalized Time,
paper SPE 14238, 1987.
Garcia, J.P., Pooladi-Darvish, M., Brunner, F., Santo,
M., and Mattar, L.: Well Testing in Tight Gas
Reservoirs, paper SPE 100576, 2006.
Golan, M., and Whitson, C.H.: Well Performance,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1991.
Gringarten, A.C.: Interpretation of Tests in Fissured
and Multilayered Reservoirs With Double-Porosity
Behavior: Theory and Practice, JPT (April 1984).
Gringarten, A.C.: From Straight lines to Deconvolution:
the Evolution of the State of the art in Well Test
Analysis, paper SPE 102079, 2006.
Gringarten, A.C., Bourdet D.P., Landel, P.A., and
Kniazeff, V.J.: A Comparison between Different
Skin and Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for Early-
Time Transient Analysis, paper SPE 8205, 1979.
Gringarten, A.C., Bozorgzadeh, M., Daungkaew, S.,
and Abdolnabi, H.: Well Test Analysis in Lean
Gas Condensate Reservoirs: Theory and Practice,
paper SPE 100993, 2006.
Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.:
Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created by a
Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity Fracture,
SPEJ (August 1974).
Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey H.J. Jr., and
Samaniego-V., F.: Non-Darcy Flow in Wells with
Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures, paper SPE
8281, 1982.
Hategan, F., and Hawkes, R.V.: The Importance
of Initial Pressure For Tight Gas Completions
and Long-Term Production Forecasting, paper
2006-171, Canadian International Petroleum
Conference, 2006.
Horne, R.H.: Modern Well Test Analysis, A Computer-
Aided Approach, 2nd Ed. Petroway, Palo Alto,
Calif., 1997.
Horner, D.R.: Pressure Build-ups in Wells, Proc.
Third World Pet. Cong., 1951.
Houz, O.P.: Why We Should Stop Using
Pseudopressures and Other Good Old Well Test
Interpretation Tools After So Many Years of Good
Service, paper SPE 77619, 2002.
Houz, O.P., Vituart, D., and Fjaere, O.S.: Dynamic

Flow Analysis, The Theory and Practice of Pressure
Transient and Production Analysis, Kappa
Engineering, Online Book, 2007.
Hurst, W.: Establishment of the Skin Effect and its
Impediment to Fluid Flow into a Well Bore, Pet.
Eng. (October 1953).
Kelly, R.T.: Non-uniqueness in Well Test Analysis:
Case History, paper SPE 36528, 1996.
Kuchuk, F.J.: A New Method for Determination of
Reservoir Pressure, paper SPE 56418, 1999.
Laustsen, D.: Practical Decline Analysis Part 1 Uses
and Misuses, JCPT (November 1996).
Lee, J., Rollins, J.B., and Spivey, J.P.: Pressure Transient
Testing, SPE Textbook Series Vol. 9. Richardson,
Texas, 2003.
Lee, W.J., and Holditch, S.A: Application of Pseudotime
to Build-up-Test Analysis of Low Permeability
Gas Wells With Long-Duration Wellbore Storage
Distortion, JPT (December 1982).
Levitan, M.M.: Practical Application of Pressure/Rate
Deconvolution to Analysis of Real Well Tests,
SPEREE (April 2005).
Locke, C.D., and Sawyer, W.K.: Constant Pressure
Injection Test in Fractured Reservoir History
Match Using Numerical Simulation and Type
Curve Analysis, paper SPE 5594, 1975.
Mattar, L.: Critical Evaluation and Processing of Data
Before Pressure-Transient Analysis, SPEFE (April
1996).
Mattar, L., and Anderson, D.: A Systematic and
Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced
Analysis of Production Data, paper SPE 84472,
2003.
Mattar, L., and Zaoral, K.: The Primary Pressure
Derivative (PPD) A New Diagnostic Tool In Well
Test Interpretation, JCPT (April 1992).
Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A
Method for Determination of Average Pressure in
a Bounded Reservoir, Trans. AIME, 1954.
McCray, T.L.: Reservoir Analysis Using Production
Decline Data and Adjusted Time, M.S. Thesis,
Texas A&M University, 1990.
Meunier, D., Wittmann, M.J., and Stewart, G.:
Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using
In-Situ Measurements of Afterflow, JPT (January
1985).
Chapter 3 Gas Well Testing and Evaluation
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A. Jr.:
The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir
Pressure From Bottom Hole Pressure Build-Up
Characteristics, Trans. AIME, 1950.
Miskimins, J.L., Lopez-Hernandez, H.D., and Barree,
R.D.: Non-Darcy Flow in Hydraulic Fractures:
Does It Really Matter? paper SPE 96389, 2005.
Mohan, L., Pope, G.A., and Sharma, M.M.: Effect
of Non-Darcy Flow on Well Productivity of
Hydraulically Fractured Gas/Condensate Wells,
paper SPE 103025, 2006.
Mukherjee, H., Larkin, S., and Kordziel, W.: Extension
of Fracture Pressure Decline Curve Analysis to
Fissured Formations, paper SPE 21872, 1991.
Neal, D.B., and Mian, M.A.: Early-Time Tight Gas
Production Forecasting Technique Improves
Reserves and Reservoir Description, SPEFE
(March 1989).
Nolte, K.G.: A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure
Decline Analysis with Application to Three
Models, SPEFE (December 1986).
Nolte, K.G., and Smith, M.B.: Interpretation of
Fracturing Pressures, JPT (September 1981).
Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., and Owens, K.A.: After
Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests,
paper SPE 38676, 1997.
Odeh, A.S., and Jones, L.G.: Pressure Drawdown
Analysis, Variable Rate Case, JPT (August 1965).
Palacio, J.C., and Blasingame, T.A.: Decline-Curve
Analysis Using Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well
Performance Data, paper SPE 25909, 1993.
Perrine, R.L.: Analysis of Pressure Build-up Curves,
Drill. & Prod. Prac., API, 1956.
Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., and Strickler, W.R.: Effect
of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior
Compressible-Fluid Case, SPEJ (June 1962).
Puchyr, P.J.: A Numerical Well Test Model, paper
SPE 21815, 1991.
Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis, Prentice Hall, N.J.,
1993.
Raghavan, R., Al-Hussan, R., and Ramey, H.: An
Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect
in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment,
paper SPE 2466, 1970.
Raghavan, R., Chu, W.C., and Jones, J.R.: Practical
Considerations in the Analysis of Gas-Condensate
89
Modern Fracturing
Well Tests, SPERE (June 1999).
Rahman, N.M.A., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Mattar,
L.: Development of Equation and Procedure for
Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA), paper
SPE 95510, 2005.
Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Short-Time Well Test Data
Interpretation in The Presence of Skin Effect and
Wellbore Storage, JPT (January 1970).
Reitman, N.D.: Determining Permeability, Skin Effect
and Drainage Area from the Inverted Decline
Curve (IDC), paper SPE 29464, 1995.
Settari, A., Bale, A., Bachman, R.C., and Floisand V.:
General Correlation for the Effect of Non-Darcy
Flow on Productivity of Fractured Wells, paper
SPE 75715, 2002.
Settari, A., Puchyr, P.J., and Bachman, R.C.: Partially
Decoupled Modeling of Hydraulic Fracturing
Processes, SPEPE (February 1990).
Settari, A., Stark, A.J., and Jones, J.R.: Analysis of
Hydraulic Fracturing of High Permeability Gas
Wells to Reduce Non-Darcy Skin Effects, JCPT
(May 2000).
Simmons, J.F.: Interpretation of Underbalanced Surge
Pressure Data by Rate-Time Convolution, paper
SPE 15477, 1986.
Soliman, M.Y.: Analysis of Buildup Tests With Short
Producing Time, SPEFE (August 1986).
Soliman, M.Y., Craig, D., Bartko, K., Rahim, Z., and
Adams, D.: After-Closure Analysis to Determine
Formation Permeability, Reservoir Pressure, and
Residual Fracture Properties, paper SPE 93419,
2005.
Spivey, J.P., Brown, K.G., Sawyer, W.K., and Frantz,
J.H.: Estimating Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient
From Build-up-Test Data With Wellbore Storage,
SPEREE (August 2004).
Stotts, G.W.J, Anderson, D.M., and Mattar, L.:
Evaluating and Developing Tight Gas Reserves-
Best Practices, paper SPE 108183, 2007.
Stright, D.H., and Gordon, J.I.: Decline Curve
Analysis in Fractured Low Permeability Gas Wells
in the Piceance Basin, paper SPE 11640, 1983.
Sullivan, R.B., Rushing, J.A., Bachman, R.C., Settari,
A., Ji, L., Conway, M.W., and Barree, R.D.:
Evaluation of Nonlinear Relative Permeabilities
and Their Impact on Water-Frac Performance in
90
Tight Gas Wells, paper SPE 98329, 2006.
Talley, G.R., Swindell, T.M., Waters, G.A., and Nolte,
K.G.: Field Application of After-Closure Analysis
of Fracture Calibration Tests, paper SPE 52220,
1999.
Theis, C.V.: The Relationship between the Lowering of
the Piezometric Surface and the Rate and Duration
of Discharge Using Ground-Water Storage, Trans.
AGU, 1935.
van Everdingen, A.F.: The Skin Effect and its Influence
on the Production Capacity of a Well, Trans.
AIME, 1953.
van Everdingen, A.F., and Hurst, W.: The Application
of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in
Reservoirs, Trans. AIME, 1949.
von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., and Gringarten, A.C.:
Deconvolution of Well-Test Data as a Nonlinear
Total Least-Squares Problem, SPEJ (December
2004).
Wattenbarger, R.A., El-Banbi, A.H., Villegas, M.E., and
Bryan, J.: Production Analysis of Linear Fractured
Tight Gas Wells, paper SPE 39931, 1998.
Warren, G.M.: Numerical Solutions for Pressure
Transient Analysis, paper SPE 26177, 1993.
West, S.L., and Cochrane, P.J.R.: Reserves
Determination Using Type-Curve Matching and
EMB Methods in the Medicine Hat Shallow Gas
Field, paper SPE 28609, 1995.
Yadavalli, S.K., and Jones, J.R.: Interpretation of
Pressure Transient Data from Hydraulically
Fractured Gas Condensate Wells, paper SPE
36556, 1996.
Tony Martin is business development manager for international stimulation at BJ Services Company. Since
graduating from Imperial College, London, with an honors degree in mechanical engineering and a master's
degree in petroleum engineering, Martin has spent 17 years in the oil industry and has completed engineering
assignments around the world. Martin's primary interest has been hydraulic fracturing and stimulation, and
he has been involved in production enhancement projects in more than 25 countries. He teaches fracturing,
acidizing and sand control both in-house and externally. A constant theme in this teaching is the need
to de-mystify the world of hydraulic fracturing, in an attempt to make the process more accessible and
less intimidating. He is the author or co-author of numerous SPE papers and has served on the technical
committees for several SPE events. He is also the author of BJ Services Hydraulic Fracturing Manual.

Dr. Peter P. Valk is a professor of Petroleum Engineering and holder of the L.F. Peterson Professorship
at Texas A&M University. A native Hungarian, Valk holds BS and MS equivalent degrees in chemical
engineering and technical mathematics from Veszprm University, Hungary. He received his PhD
("Candidate of Sciences") in chemical engineering from the Institute of Catalysis, Novosibirsk, Russia, in
1981. Before joining Texas A&M in 1993, he was an adjunct professor at the Mining University in Leoben,
Austria; worked for the Hungarian Oil Company (MOL); and was a faculty member at Etvs University,
Budapest, Hungary. A Steering Committee member of the 1999 and 2006 Forum Series and previous
member of the Editorial Board of SPE Journal, Valk is an active participant in the SPE. At Texas A&M,
he teaches advanced hydraulic fracturing, well completion and stimulation, petroleum numerical methods
and general engineering courses. His research interests include design and evaluation of hydraulic fracture
stimulation treatments, rheology of fracturing fluids, performance of advanced and stimulated wells and
the underlying numerical methods. He published several dozen research papers in well-known journals.
Chapter 4
Hydraulic Fracture Design for
Production Enhancement
Tony Martin, BJ Services and
Peter Valk, Texas A&M University
With special contributions from
Dr Russell Maharidge, BJ Services
4-1 Introduction to
Hydraulic Fracturing
4-1.1 Brief History of Fracturing and Qualitative
Description of Process
The first attempts at fracturing formations for the
purpose of improving production were not hydraulic
in nature they involved the use of high explosives to
break the formation apart and provide flow channels
from the reservoir to the wellbore. There are records
indicating that this took place as early as 1890. This
type of reservoir stimulation reached its ultimate
conclusion with the experimental use of nuclear
devices to fracture relatively shallow, low-permeability
formations in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Howard
and Fast, 1970 and Coffer et al., 1964).
By the late 1930s, acidizing had become an accepted
well development technique. Several practitioners
observed that above a certain breakdown pressure,
injectivity would increase dramatically (Grebe and
Stosser, 1935). It is probable that many of these early
acid treatments were in fact acid fractures. In 1940,
Torrey recognized the pressure-induced fracturing of
formations for what it was. His observations were based
on squeeze cementing operations. He presented data to
show that the pressures generated during these operations
could part the rocks along bedding planes or other lines
of sedimentary weakness. Similar observations were
made for water injection wells by Grebe in 1943 and by
Yuster and Calhoun in 1945.
The first intentional hydraulic fracturing process
for stimulation was performed in the Hugoton gas field
in western Kansas, in 1947 (see Fig. 4-1). The Klepper
Gas Unit No. 1 well was completed with four gas-
producing limestone intervals, one of which had been
previously treated with acid. Four separate treatments
were pumped, one for each zone, with a primitive packer
being employed for isolation. The fluid used for the
treatment was war-surplus napalm, surely an extremely
hazardous operation. However, 3000 gals of fluid were
pumped into each formation.
Figure 4-1 Klepper Gas Unit No. 1, Hugoton field, Kansas:
The very first frac job
Although post-treatment tests showed that the gas
injectivity of some zones had been increased relative to
others, the overall deliverability from the well was not
increased. It was therefore concluded that fracturing would
not replace acidizing for limestone formations. However,
by the mid-1960s, propped hydraulic fracturing had
replaced acidizing as the preferred stimulation method in
the Hugoton field. Early treatments were pumped at 1 to
2 bpm with sand concentrations of 1 to 2 ppga.
At the time of this writing, tens of thousands
of these treatments are pumped every year, ranging
from small skin-bypass fracs at less than $20,000, to
massive fracturing treatments that end up costing well
over $1 million. Many fields produce only because of
the hydraulic fracturing process. In spite of this, many
industry practitioners remain ignorant of the processes
involved and of what can be achieved.
Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of special
fluids into the formation. As the flow rate increases, the
pressure differential also increases. Pressure and stress
are essentially the same thing (see Section 4-3.1.1), so
that as the fluid flow generates a pressure differential, it
also creates a stress in the formation. As flow rate (or
viscosity) increases, so does the stress. If we can keep
increasing the rate, eventually a point will be reached
where the stress becomes greater than the maximum
stress that can be sustained by the formation and the rock
93
Modern Fracturing
physically splits apart. It is important to remember that
it is pressure and not rate that creates fractures (although
we often use rate to create this pressure).
Pressure and stress is stored energy, or more
accurately stored energy per unit volume. Energy is
what hydraulic fracturing is all about. In order to create
and propagate a fracture to useful proportions, we have
to transfer energy to the formation. Producing width
and physically tearing the rock apart at the fracture
tip both require energy. Overcoming the often highly
viscous frac fluids resistance to being pumped also
takes energy. So the key to understanding the hydraulic
fracturing process is to understand the sources of energy
gain, such as the frac pumps and the wells hydrostatic
head, and the sources of energy loss and use. The sum
of these is always equal to zero.
A great deal can be learned about a formation by
studying the pressures and pressure profile produced
by a treatment. The product of the pressure and the
flow rate gives us the rate at which energy is being
used, i.e. work. This is usually expressed as hydraulic
horsepower. The analysis of the behavior of fracturing
pressures is probably the most complex aspect of the
entire process for most frac engineers.
4-1.2 High Permeability vs. Low Permeability
Just as formation permeability has a huge effect on
production from an unfractured formation, it also
has a similar impact on post-treatment production
from a hydraulically fractured interval. Moreover, the
formation permeability also affects the size and shape
of the fracture required to maximize the production
increase obtained from fracturing. Put simply, a fracture
has to be designed for specific formation permeability.
This design process is covered in Section 4-5.
Low-permeability formations require stimulation
because the permeability of the formation just isnt high
enough for the well to produce naturally at economic
rates. Although the reservoir may contain significant
reserves, sufficient production cannot be obtained
simply by drilling wells, no matter how well-engineered
they are. In low-permeability formations, it is easy to
produce a fracture that is many times more conductive
than the formation. Fractures in low-permeability
reservoirs are designed for length.
94
High-permeability fracturing is quite different.
Usually, production is constrained by effects around the
wellbore, caused by the dual phenomena of skin damage
(van Everdingen and Hurst, 1949, and van Everdingen,
1953) and the increasing constriction of flow as it
approaches the wellbore. Fractures in high-permeability
formations are designed to be short and highly conductive,
which in turn usually means maximizing propped fracture
width (see Section 4-2.1.6).
However, every formation has a specific combination
of propped length and propped width that must be
designed for (more of this in Section 4-5). For now, it is
enough to simply realize that for every combination of
formation and proppant permeability, there is a specific
combination of propped length and propped width
that must be designed for. Therefore, understanding
the formation permeability is vital to maximizing post-
treatment production. If the formation permeability is
unknown the usual situation, unfortunately then
stimulation will be less efficient (although still potentially
highly successful in economic terms).
4-1.3 Near-Well Flow Enhancement
vs. Reservoir Stimulation
Hydraulic fracturing has evolved into a technique
suitable to stimulate most wells under extremely
varying circumstances. Originally suggested
for low-permeability gas, it still plays a crucial
role in developing low-permeability sandstone
formations, and is increasingly used to produce from
low-permeability carbonates, shales and coal seams.
In general, a vertical well drilled and completed
in a tight gas reservoir must be successfully
stimulated to produce at commercial gas-flow
rates and produce commercial gas volumes. In
fact, Holditch (2006) considers the best definition
of tight gas as follows: A reservoir that cannot be
produced at economic rates nor one can recover
from it economic volumes of gas without large-
scale hydraulic fracturing treatment or advanced
(horizontal, multilateral) wellbores. Although in
some naturally fractured tight gas reservoirs horizontal
wells are successful, often they also need fracture
stimulation. In this sense hydraulic fracturing is truly
a reservoir stimulation technique.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
However, in higher-permeability soft formations
(for instance in the Gulf of Mexico) hydraulic fracturing
is primarily a near-wellbore flow enhancement (well
stimulation) technique, and often its side effects such
as sanding prevention might be the primary reason
of application. In recent years high-permeability
fracturing has become as significant in the economic
sense as low-permeability fracturing.
4-1.4 Acceleration vs. Increase of Reserves
As we move along a hypothetical line from tight
gas to high permeability, the recovery acceleration
aspect of the technique becomes increasingly evident.
However, one should recall that the gas produced
through the year 2000 from US tight gas reservoirs
is estimated to be 58 Tcf, and most of this gas would
be still underground without the development and
application of hydraulic fracturing technology
(Holditch, 2006). The US experience lets the industry
believe that in virtually every basin worldwide
producing substantial volumes of natural gas from
conventional resources, large volumes of gas are still
to be recovered using hydraulic fracturing and other
up-to-date technology.
Therefore, one should not use some artificial
classification boxing hydraulic fracturing into
either of the above categories and settle for design
recommendations that were developed as rule of
thumb in a specific geographical area. The design
methodology presented in Sections 4-5 and 4-6 is
based on a more rigorous approach and emphasizes the
importance of optimization with respect to the actual
reservoir (or drainage volume) that is usually neither
clearly tight or high perm but rather represents
some kind of transition between these extremes.
4-2 Description of the Process
4-2.1 One of the Most Energy-
and Material-Intensive Industrial Activities
As fluid is pumped into a permeable formation, a
pressure differential between the wellbore pressure and
the original reservoir pressure is generated. As the rate
increases, this pressure differential also increases. This
pressure differential causes additional stress around the
wellbore. Eventually, as the rate increases, this pressure
differential will cause stresses that will exceed the
stress needed to break the rock apart, and a fracture
will form. At this point, if the pumps are shut down
or the pressure is bled off, the fracture will close again.
Eventually, depending on how hard the rock is and the
magnitude of the force acting to close the fracture, it
will be as if the rock had never been fractured. By itself,
this would not necessarily produce any increase in
production (although there are specific circumstances
when this may increase productivity temporarily, but
generally these cannot be relied upon).
However, if we pump some propping agent, or
proppant, into the fracture and then release the pressure, the
fracture will stay propped open, providing the proppant is
stronger than the forces trying to close the fracture. If this
proppant also has significant porosity and permeability,
then under the right circumstances a path of increased
conductivity has been created from the reservoir to the
wellbore. If the treatment has been designed correctly,
this will lead to an increase in production.
Generally, the process requires pumping a highly
viscous fluid into the well at high rate and pressure.
Pumping at high rate and high pressure requires
horsepower, and lots of it. This is why the process
generally involves large trucks or skids with huge
diesel engines and massive pumps. A typical frac pump
will be rated from 700 to 2700 hydraulic horsepower
(HHP). To put this in perspective, 1300 HHP is
approximately equal to 1 MW, enough electricity to
power ~500 homes in Western Europe.
In order to create the fracture, a fluid stage known as
the pad is generally pumped first. This is then followed
by several stages of proppant-laden fluid, which carries
the proppant into the fracture. Generally, the fluid and
proppant is mixed into a slurry on-the-fly, and pumped
downhole using equipment specifically designed to
pump a mixture of liquids and solids. Finally, the
whole treatment is displaced to the perforations. These
stages are pumped consecutively, without any pauses.
After the displacement has finished, the pumps are
shut down and the fracture is allowed to close on the
proppant. The frac engineer can vary the pad size,
proppant stage sizes, number of proppant stages,
proppant concentration within the stages, the overall
95
Modern Fracturing
pump rate and the fluid type in order to produce the
required fracture characteristics. Typically, a plot of
treatment variables will look like Fig. 4-2.
Pressure, Rate, Proppant Concentration
BHTP
STP
Slurry Rate
Proppant
Concentration
Time
Figure 4-2 Job plot from a typical hydraulic fracture
treatment
Hydraulic fracture treatments place hundreds of
thousands of pounds of proppant into fractures hundreds
of feet long, using tens of thousands of gallons of
fracturing fluid and thousands of hydraulic horsepower.
Fig. 4-3 shows an idealized fracture with two
symmetrical, elliptically-shaped fractures positioned
on either side of the wellbore. In reality, the situation
is often quite a bit more complex. However, this figure
does demonstrate the basic fracture characteristics of
length, xf , height, hf , (assumed to be at a maximum at
the wellbore, for this idealized case) and width, wf (again,
assumed to be at a maximum at the wellbore).
xf
hf
wf
Figure 4-3 Idealized elliptical fracture showing length,
height and width
96
4-2.1.1 Understanding the
Significance of Pressure
Understanding the sources of energy gain and energy
loss (or use) is fundamental to understanding the
fracturing process (see Table 4-1). Nolte-Smith analysis
(Nolte and Smith, 1981) is based on analyzing the
gradient of the bottomhole treating pressure plot
during fracturing operations. On a standard job plot,
where pressure is plotted against time, the gradient of
this curve is energy divided by time, or work. Thus, an
analysis of the pressure plot gradient can indicate how
much work is being performed by the fracturing fluid
on the formation, or vice versa.
Table 4-1 Sources of Energy Gain and Energy Use
During Fracturing Operations
Energy Gain Energy Use
Conversion of mechanical Wellbore friction
energy into pressure and Perforation friction
rate by frac pumps Tortuosity
Hydrostatic head Fluid friction in fracture
Overcoming in-situ stresses
Fluid leakoff
Producing fracture width
Splitting rock at the fracture tip
4-2.1.2 Different Types of Pressure
In hydraulic fracturing it is common to refer to a large
number of different pressures encountered during
operations and analysis. Each has its own name (or
more usually, several common names) which refer to
either where the pressure is being measured or what
the pressure is doing:
Injection Pressure, pinj . Also referred to as
wellhead pressure (WHP), surface treating pressure
(STP) or simply treating pressure. It is the
pressure at the wellhead, against which the frac
pumps must act.
Hydrostatic Head, phead . Also referred to as HH,
hydrostatic pressure (ph) or fluid head. This is the
pressure exerted by the wellbore fluid due to its depth
and its density.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Pipe Friction Pressure, ppipe friction. Also referred to as
tubing friction pressure or wellbore friction pressure.
This is the pressure loss due to friction effects in the
wellbore as fluids are injected.
Bottomhole Injection Pressure, piw. Also referred to
as bottomhole treating pressure (BHTP) or bottomhole
pressure (BHP). This is the downhole pressure, in the
wellbore, in the center of the interval being treated.
BHTP can be calculated from surface data as follows:
piw = pinj + phead ppipe friction
(4-1)
Perforation Friction Pressure, ppf. This is the pressure
lost as the fracturing fluid passes through the restricted
flow area of the perforations. Perforation friction
pressure can be calculated by:
q 2
ppf = 0.2369 2 s2 2 ,
(4-2)
N perf D p Cd
where is the slurry density (ppg), q is the total flow rate
(bpm), Nperf is the number of perforation (so that q/Nperf
is the rater per perforation) and Dp is the perforations
diameter (inches) and Cd is the discharge coefficient.
Tortuosity Pressure, ptort. Also known simply as
tortuosity, this is the pressure lost by the fracturing fluid
as it passes through a region of restricted flow between
the perforations and the main fracture or fractures.
Near-Wellbore Friction, pnear wellbore. This is the
total pressure loss due to near-wellbore effects and is
equal to the sum of perforation friction pressure plus
tortuosity pressure.
Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure, pISI. Also known as
ISIP or instantaneous shut-down pressure (ISDP). This
is the bottomhole injection pressure immediately after
the pumps have been shut down, so that the effects of
all the fluid friction-based pressure losses (ppipe friction, ppf
and ptort) have gone to zero.
Closure Pressure, pc. This is the pressure exerted by
the formation on the proppant. It is also the minimum
pressure required inside the fracture in order to keep
it open. For a single layer, pc is usually equal to the
minimum horizontal stress, allowing for the effects
of pore pressure (see Sections 4-3.2.2 and 4-3.2.3).
Otherwise, pc is the result of some natural averaging
process involving all the layers. For distinctly multi-
layered formations, it is possible to observe more than
one closure pressure.
Extension Pressure, pext. Also known as fracture
extension pressure. This is the pressure required
inside the fracture in order to make the fracture grow.
By definition, pext > pc as the fracture has to be held
open before it can gain length, height and width.
Extension pressure is not a constant and will vary
with fracture geometry.
Fracturing Fluid Pressure, pf. Although used in a
variety of situations, strictly speaking the fracturing
fluid pressure is the pressure of the fracturing fluid
inside the main body of the fracture, after it has passed
through the perforations and any tortuosity. Fracturing
fluid pressure may not be constant over the entire
fracture due to friction effects.
4-2.1.3 Net Pressure
Net pressure, pnet, is the excess pressure in the fracturing
fluid inside the fracture, above that required to simply
keep the fracture open (i.e. pc). In other words, it is the
energy in the fracturing fluid available for propagating
the fracture and for producing width.
Net pressure, as used in analyzing fracture geometry,
is immediately beyond the wellbore and just inside the
fracture and can be calculated as follows:
pnet = p f pc , and (4-3)
pnet = piw p pf ptort pc . (4-4)
It is difficult to over-emphasize the importance of
net pressure during fracturing. Virtually all analysis
involving fracture geometry uses net pressure as the
common variable linking all parts of the mathematical
model. The net pressure, multiplied by the volume
of the fracture, gives us the total quantity of energy
available at any given time to make the fracture
grow. How that energy is used (generation of width,
97
Modern Fracturing
splitting of rock, fluid loss or friction loss) is decided
by the individual fracture model being employed to
simulate fracture growth.
Net pressure also defines the fracture width. For any
given real (i.e. positive) net pressure, there is a specific
fracture width that will be generated by a specific net
pressure. For an elliptical fracture, the maximum width
is defined as follows:
2 pnet d (1 2 )
wmax = , (4-5)
E
where is the Poissons ratio (see Section 4-3.1.2), E
is the Youngs modulus (see Section 4-3.1.3) and d is
the minimum dimension of the ellipse, such that for
a fracture with good height containment, d = hf. The
term E/(1 2) is often abbreviated to E, the plane height and length in addition to width. In order to
strain modulus (see Section 4-3.1.3).
Net pressure also defines the propagation of the
fracture (the physical splitting of the rock at the
fracture tip) to produce height and length. For the
fracture to propagate, the condition pnet > pext must
be satisfied, which is the same as saying that the net
pressure has to be high enough to induce a critical
stress in the formation sufficient to split the rock.
Determining the value for the pext and hence the critical
stress is not simple; it varies with fracture geometry.
In addition, fractures often propagate through layers
of rocks with varying rock mechanical characteristics
and hence different values for fracture toughness (see
Section 4-3.4). Therefore, given that in-situ stress and
Youngs modulus may also vary from rock layer to rock
layer, it is often easier for the fracture to propagate in
one particular layer than in any of the others. Like
everything else in nature, fractures follow the path of
least resistance. Hopefully, this path of least resistance
is in the reservoir rock, leading to the maximum
designed length and good height containment within
the zone of interest.
Consequently, net pressure falls into three
regimes:
pnet 0 Fracture is closed, no propagation possible.
0 < pnet pext Fracture is open with wf pnet. No
propagation possible.
pnet > pext Fracture is open with wf pnet, and pressure
generates sufficient stress to propagate fracture.
98
Given that fluid is continually leaking off into the
formation (see Section 4-2.1.5), the volume of the
fracture will start to decline if the leakoff volume is
not replaced. In practical terms, this means that as
the fluid leaks off, the pressure declines and the width
decreases. To stop the width decreasing, the fluid lost
into the formation has to be replaced. Pumping into
the fracture at the same rate that the fluid is leaking
off will maintain constant fracture geometry. In order
to increase fracture volume, fluid has to be pumped
into the fracture faster than it is leaking off. As extra
volume is introduced, the width will increase in
accordance with the rise in pnet. If fluid is pumped in
at sufficient rate, pnet will rise to a point where it is
greater than the current pext, and the fracture will gain
continue fracture growth, fluid has to be pumped into
the fracture faster than the sum of the fluid lost to
leakoff, the volume gained by expanding width and
the volume gained by expanding length and height.
Otherwise, pnet will decline below current pext and the
fracture will cease to grow, even if pnet is sufficient
to maintain width. This, then, defines a minimum
treatment rate for fracture propagation.
4-2.1.4 Effects of Tortuosity
and Perforation Friction
Near-wellbore friction (NWBF) is a catch-all term
designed to encompass a number of effects that act to
restrict the flow path between the wellbore and the main
body of the fracture or fractures. Usually, near-wellbore
friction is the sum of the effects caused by tortuosity and
perforation friction (see Section 6-6). There are different
techniques for dealing with each of these, and a step-
down test may be required to decide which phenomenon
is causing the problem (see Section 4-2.1.8).
NWBF manifests itself as a frictional pressure drop.
In fracturing, the surface treating pressure is driven
by the bottomhole treating pressure, which in turn is
driven by the pressure of the fluids inside the fracture.
Near-wellbore friction adds to the fluid pressure
inside the fracture, making the BHTP (and hence
the STP) higher than it would normally be. Because
measurements of closure pressure are unaffected by
NWBF (as they are taken under static conditions,

when all friction pressure is zero), NWBF can have the
effect of making pnet seem higher than it really is. This
is illustrated in Fig. 4-4, showing the shut-down at the
end of a minifrac. Note the pressure immediately drops
by approximately 170 psi as soon as the rate is stopped
(this is an accurate figure as the BHTP is being taken
from a downhole gauge). Without allowing for NWBF,
the engineer (and the simulator) would believe that
the net pressure was 170 psi higher than it actually is.
In this particular case, with closure pressure measured
at 3335 psi, the actual pnet is about 100 psi, whereas
if NWBF had not been allowed for, the figure would
have been 270 psi. Consequently, the engineer would
have believed that the fluid needed more energy for
creating a fracture than it actually had. Accordingly, the
treatment would have been designed with significantly
more proppant than the fracture could actually hold,
leading to a premature screenout.
3600
3500 +/- 170 psi Near-Wellbore Friction
Pressure, psi
3400 Gauge BHTP
3300
3200 Slurry Rate
3100
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 4-4 Minifrac shutdown showing approximately
170 psi near-wellbore friction pressure
Perforation friction is easy to visualize. Perforations
consist of a number of small holes, through which a
highly viscous fluid is pumped at very high rate.
Therefore, it is almost a foregone conclusion that there
is a pressure drop. However, four things act to make
this pressure drop complex and hard to predict:
1. The treatment will not be pumped through all
the perforations. Even over a long perforated
interval with 200 to 400 perforations, it is
likely that only 10 to 20 of the perforations will
actually be taking the injected fluid. This has
been demonstrated many times: The formation
breaks down at the weakest point, not over the
entire perforated interval simultaneously.
Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
2. The active perforations will erode and increase in
diameter throughout the treatment. Proppant is
highly abrasive and can significantly increase the
size of a perforation opening as the treatment
progresses (Cramer, 1987).
3. Some perforations are more equal than others.
Perforating guns will lie along the low side of the
well; consequently, holes on the low side will be larger
than holes on the high side. This puts into question
the uniformity of the perforation diameters.
4. Some perforations may be blocked or partially
blocked. Blockages may be due to materials
produced from the formation (scales, asphaltenes,
waxes, fines, produced sand), debris from
perforating, damaging materials introduced from
the wellbore (such as fluid loss additives), or a
combination of these.
Most fracture simulators will automatically calculate
50
perforation friction and back this out of any net pressure
40 calculations. However, this calculation is only as good as
the data input. The engineer must be aware of this and
Slurry Rate, bpm
30
also be wary of behavior as seen in Fig. 4-4.
20 Fixing poor-quality perforations usually requires
some kind of intervention such as a ball-out (with or
10
without acid) or re-perforating.
0
24 25
Figure 4-5 Diagrammatic illustration of the restricted
Flow Paths between the Perforations and the Main
Fracture(s) that Cause Tortuosity
Tortuosity begins where the perforations end. In
an ideal world, there would be a straight, smooth and
wide connection between the perforations and the main
body of the fracture or fractures. However, sometimes
this is not the case and the flow path is restricted.
Sometimes this flow path can be so restricted that it
significantly affects the treatment (see Section 6-6). In
fact, tortuosity is probably the single biggest cause of
premature screenouts. Figure 4-5 shows a diagrammatic
illustration of tortuosity. Because fracture-to-well
99
Modern Fracturing
connectivity is crucial in higher-permeability reservoirs,
alleviating tortuosity is essential; for lower-permeability
formations it is less critical but still desirable.
Tortuosity was first documented by Palmer and
Veatch (1990), although many others had been observing
this phenomenon for some time without realizing
exactly what it was. Cleary et al. (1991) were able to
further describe tortuosity and begin to account for it in
fracture modelling. In 1993, Cleary et al. were the first
to document field procedures for mitigating and even
curing the effects of tortuosity.
Not all wellbores are affected by tortuosity. Not all
formations are susceptible to tortuosity. However, in
some formations it can be almost impossible to place any
proppant, in spite of the fact that it is relatively easy to
create and propagate the fracture itself. The following are
some factors that affect tortuosity, some of which can be
controlled and some of which cannot:
Length of perforated interval. Every perforation is
a potential source of fracture initiation. The more
perforations there are, the greater the chance of having
both multiple fractures and complexity between
the perforations and the fracture(s). Reducing the
number of perforations helps to keep things simple.
While this may aid in fracture execution, it may lead
to choked fractures during production, a considerable
impediment in higher-permeability formations.
Perforation phasing and direction. The optimum
perforation strategy in vertical wells is to shoot 180-
phasing perforations, oriented in the direction of
maximum horizontal stress. The fracture will also tend
to propagate in this direction (see Section 4-3.2.4).
However, the only way to do this is through the use
of oriented perforating guns and the knowledge of the
fracture azimuth a priori. Perforations that are pointed
away from the direction of maximum horizontal
stress will add to the complexity of the near-wellbore
situation. In addition, perforation strategies that
produce spirals of holes around the wellbore, rather
than vertical lines, will also add to the complexity.
Shot diameter and depth of penetration. Recent work
by Pongratz et al. (2007) indicates that the fracture
will initiate from the base of the perforation, at the
cement-to-rock interface rather than at the tip or
side of the perforation tunnel. In such cases, small-
100
diameter holes (usually, but not always, associated with
deep-penetrating charges) produce a smaller stress
cage around the perforation tunnel and thus make
fracture initiation easier and less complex. This effect
is greatest in harder, lower-permeability formations.
Wellbore deviation. Fractures tend to propagate along
a vertical plane (see Section 4-3.2.4) as this is the path
of least resistance and controlled by the formations
in-situ stresses. However, in the region around the
wellbore, because of its cylindrical shape, the stresses
are no longer far-field stresses. In addition, the act of
drilling the wellbore (which will have almost certainly
have been drilled and cemented overbalanced) and
of pumping into the formation to create the fracture
further change the stresses around the wellbore. This
means that for non-vertical wellbores, with an azimuth
away from one of the principal stress orientations, the
fracture will probably initiate on a different plane to
that determined by the far-field stresses. However,
at some point away from the wellbore (within a few
wellbore diameters) the far-field stress regime will
become again dominant and the fracture will change
plane often quite suddenly. This increases fracture
complexity and pressure losses.
Rock mechanical characteristics of the formation (see
Section 4-3). Formations that are hard and brittle (i.e.
have high Youngs modulus (see Section 4-3.1.3) and
low fracture toughness (see Section 4-3.4.1)) tend to
be more susceptible to tortuosity than those that are
soft and ductile. This is because it is easier to create
and propagate fractures in hard, brittle materials.
Contrast between maximum and minimum
horizontal stresses. The effect of the contrast between
the minimum horizontal in-situ stress (h,min) and
the maximum horizontal in-situ stress (h,max) (see
Section 4-3.2) is illustrated in Fig. 4-6. If the far-field
stresses are in a significantly different direction from
the orientation of the initial fracture propagation,
the fracture will have to make a radical change in
direction at some point. When the horizontal stresses
are very similar, this will be a gradual change in
direction, accompanied by plenty of fracture width.
However, when there is a large contrast between these
stresses, the change in direction will be a lot more
abrupt and will introduce a dramatic reduction in
width, leading to restricted flow. Large contrasts in
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
horizontal stresses are typically found in formations
that have experienced significant tectonic and other
geological activity. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that formations in geologically active areas,
or with a significant history of faulting, will have an
increased tendency towards tortuosity.
Figure 4-6 Illustration of the effects of horizontal stress
contrast on tortuosity (after Wright et al., 1996)
Premature Screenouts. Tortuosity has a far more sinister
effect than simply adding to the BHTP. Unfortunately,
because tortuosity is caused by restricted flow paths
between the perforations and the main body of the fracture,
it can often be difficult to pump even moderate proppant
concentrations into the fracture. Proppant bridging in
this region is all too common. Often, the geometry of
the near-wellbore flow paths is such that lower proppant
concentrations can pass through without any serious
problems, but as soon as a critical proppant concentration
is passed, the grains bridge over the flow channel and
cause a premature screenout. There are numerous cases
of treatments screening out just as increased proppant
concentration reaches the formation.
Techniques for curing tortuosity rely on deliberately
screening out the narrowest of the flow channels and
then using increased rate and pressure to force the
remaining flow channels sufficiently wide (Cleary et
al., 1993). Of course the best plan is to incorporate
drilling and perforating practices, along with appropriate
measurements of stresses and stress orientations, in a
holistic approach with hydraulic fracturing.
4-2.1.5 Fluid Leakoff and Slurry Efficiency
Hydraulic fracture treatments are pumped into permeable
formations there is little point in carrying out the
process in a formation with zero permeability. This
means that as the fracturing fluid is being pumped into
the formation, a certain proportion of this fluid is being
lost into the formation as fluid leakoff. Understanding
the rate of fluid leakoff is essential to understanding
the fracture geometry. To start with, material balance
tells us that the volume of the fracture, Vf, will be equal
to the total volume pumped (or injected), Vi, less the
volume of fluid leaked off, VL:
V f = Vi VL . (4-6)
Carter (1957) was the first to try to quantify fluid
leakoff and defined the leakoff volume in terms of an overall
leakoff coefficient, CL (referred to as Ceff elsewhere). The
velocity of fluid flow into the formation, perpendicular to
the fracture face at a specified point is given by
CL
vL = ,
t texp (4-7)
where t is the time since the start of pumping and texp
is the time at which the specified point of the fracture
face was exposed to fluid loss. Solving for the entire
fracture gives the following result:
t A
(4-8)
VL = 2
0 0
uL dAdt.
The double integral is the summation of leakoff
over the entire fracture for the entire treatment period.
Remember that each individual segment of the fracture
is leaking off at a different rate in proportion to the
square root of its exposure time. For a constant fracture
area, such as during a post-treatment pressure decline
(provided pnet < pext), Eq. 4-8 can be approximated as:
VL CL Af t , (4-9)
in field units, where Af is measured in ft2 (and includes
both sides of the fracture), t in minutes and CL in ft
min-. Note that this fluid leakoff is independent of
changes in pressure, filtrate viscosity and formation
permeability to the filtrate (which can change due to
relative permeability effects).
Often, the leakoff coefficient can be assumed to
be constant; there is usually not enough data available
to do anything else. This is what is usually calculated
from a minifrac pressure decline (see Section 4-2.1.9).
101
Modern Fracturing
However, the coefficient can also be approximated by
calculating three fluid leakoff components and then
combining these to form the overall leakoff coefficient,
as described by Howard and Fast (1970). The three
components are the viscosity controlled coefficient
(Cv), the compressibility controlled coefficient (Cc) spurt loss coefficient, Sp:
and the wall-building controlled coefficient (Cw)
often referred to simply as the wall-building coefficient
(Howard and Fast, 1957). These three components
can be combined as dynamic fluid loss (Williams
et al., 1979) or harmonic fluid loss (Smith, 1965),
although there are some problems associated with
this, including the fact that most of the required input
data is very rarely available and has to be estimated.
This approach is employed in some of the commonly
used fracture models. Other models employ a grid-
based leakoff approach, as discussed by McGowen et
al. (1999). A more complex approach was proposed
by Mayerhofer et al. (1993), which accounts for the
filter cake and reservoir response, allowing for the
superposition of injection history, filter-cake deposition
and associated rate convolution. A full discussion of
these fluid loss models can be found in Economides
and Nolte (1987 and later editions).
Slope = m
Total Filtrate Volume, ml
Spurt Volume
Time, mins
Figure 4-7 Illustration of the effects of horizontal stress
contrast on tortuosity (after Wright et al., 1996)
Spurt loss. Spurt loss is the extra fluid loss that occurs
before the fracturing fluid builds up a complete filter
cake on the fracture face. As illustrated by Fig. 4-7,
the total fluid loss due to filtration-based fluid loss
can be expressed as:
102
C A
w f
VL ,C =
t + VS , (4-10)
0.0164
where VS is the spurt loss volume, which is a function
of leakoff area. To account for this, it is usual to define a
Vs = S p A, (4-11)
where A is the area over which the spurt loss occurs.
Fluid Efficiency. Fluid efficiency is a concept used in
many fracturing applications and is relatively simple. At
any given time, the fluid efficiency is given by:
f V V V VL
= = i L
= 1 , (4-12)
Vi Vi Vi
where Vi is the total volume of fluid injected into the
fracture and Vf is the volume of the fracture itself. Thus,
the greater the fluid efficiency, the greater the volume
of the fracture and the less fluid leak-off. As a result,
when a fluid system is described as being efficient, it
has low fluid-loss characteristics. Efficiency depends on
the fracture size and treating rate, and usually it refers to
the value at the end of fluid injection or pumping, p.
However, efficiency can be defined at any point when the
fracture is open (i.e., pnet > 0).
Care should be taken when using fluid efficiency as a
comparison between fluids and/or treatments. Efficiency
is highly variable and not dependent solely upon fluid and
formation characteristics. Being fluid loss-based, it is also
dependent upon the fracture area, the pressure differential,
the pumping time and several other variables. This means
that for two treatments pumped into identical formations,
significantly different fluid efficiencies can be observed by
changing only the pumping rate or injected volume.
4-2.1.6 Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD, is a measure
of how conductive the fracture is compared to the
formation. The consequences of this will be discussed
in detail in Section 4-5. To start with, the dimensioned
fracture conductivity is:
C f = wave k f ,
(4-13)
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
where wave is the average propped width (ft) and kf is
the permeability of the fracture ( in-situ proppant
permeability) in md. Think of Cf as the flow capacity of
the fracture. The dimensionless fracture conductivity is
calculated from the fracture conductivity:
Cf wave k f
C fD = = . (4-14)
xf k xf k
Equation 4-14 compares the ability of the fracture to
transport fluids to the wellbore (the numerator) with
the ability of the formation to transport fluids to the
fracture (the denominator). CfD is a major variable used
in fracture design and has a massive influence on post-
treatment production. It will be used extensively in
numerous subsequent sections of this book.
4-2.1.7 Nolte-Smith Analysis Predicting
Fracture Geometry from Pressure Trends
Nolte and Smith (1981) introduced a method for
analyzing the pressure response of a formation during
pumping, in order to interpret the fracture geometry
being produced. Based on the 2-D Perkins and Kern
Nordgren (PKN) fracture geometry (Perkins and Kern,
1961, and Nordgren, 1972), Khristianovich and Zheltov
(1955) and Geertsma and de-Klerk (1969) (KGD), and
radial models (see Section 4-5.6), the method analyzes
the expected pressure response from the formation during
fracture propagation, and then predicts the pressure
response when certain types of behavior take place.
PKN fracture geometry assumes constant height,
with length considerably longer than height, and also
that net pressure is a function of time such that pnet(t)
te, where 1/8 < e < 1/5 for a Newtonian fluid (see Section
4-4.1.1). Taking logs of this relationship gives:
log pnet = e log t + constant.
(4-15)
This means that on a plot of log pnet against log t,
fractures exhibiting PKN fracture geometry will have
a straight line of gradient e. This represents Mode I
on the Nolte-Smith plot (see Fig. 4-8). For power law
fluids (see Section 4-4.1.3) the gradient e is defined
with upper and lower boundaries as:
1
< e < 1
. (4-16)
4n '+ 4 2n '+ 3
These upper and lower boundaries are the result
of solving a polynomial equation. This means that
for practical values of n, the lower boundary of e
will be between 0.25 and 0.125, while the upper
boundary will be between 0.3333 and 0.2. So any
straight line on a Nolte-Smith plot with gradient
between 0.3333 and 0.125 probably indicates that
there is very good height containment (provided
the fluids bottomhole rheological properties are not
changing significantly).
Nolte and Smith went on to define the pressure
response of other behaviors during fracturing. The results
of this are illustrated in Fig. 4-8 and Table 4-2.
b
a
log pnet II III
I
IV
log t
Figure 4-8 Nolte-Smith analysis pressure response
Table 4-2 Nolte-Smith Analysis Pressure Response
Modes (with reference to Fig. 4-8)
Mode Behavior
Propagation with PKN fracture geometry. Gradient
I is equal to e (see Eq. 4-16) for constant frac fluid
rheology.
Constant gradient = 0. Represents height growth
in addition to length growth, or increased fluid loss,
II or both. Can also be explained by a change in the
relationship between pnet and wf (see Eq. 4-5 this
implies a change in rock mechanical characteristics).
Unit slope. This means that pnet is now directly
proportional to time (and also to rate, as this is
IIIa usually constant with respect to time). This behavior
is usually associated with additional growth in wf
such as during a tip screenout (see Section 4-7.3.2).
IIIb
Slope > 2. Screenout, usually a near-wellbore event
with a very rapid rise in pressure.
Negative slope. Rapid height growth. Potentially
IV
KGD or radial fracture geometry.
The introduction of Nolte-Smith analysis in the early
1980s coincided with the first practical use of computers
on fracturing locations. Consequently, fracturing service
103
Modern Fracturing
companies were able to provide the first real-time fracture
diagnostics using Nolte-Smith plots that were continually
updated during the treatment. For the first time in
fracturing history, it became important to stay inside the
control van and watch the computer screens.
Nolte-Smith analysis remains a very powerful tool
for predicting fracture geometry, despite the fact that it is
based on explaining deviations from ideal 2-D behavior.
4-2.1.8 Step Rate Tests
Step rate tests, along with minifracs (see Section 4-
2.1.9), are collectively referred to as calibration tests.
These are fluid injections before a fracture treatment,
designed to collect important information to help
calibrate the fracture simulator and hence provide a
more accurate prediction of fracture geometry. They
can also provide some important information about
near-wellbore restricted flow. Step rate tests come in
two varieties, step up and step down.
When performing step rate tests, it is necessary
to obtain reliable bottomhole pressure data. BHTP
calculated from STP does not provide accurate enough
data for treatment-critical analysis such as this. Often,
BH memory gauges can be run on slickline and held
in place during the calibration tests, to be retrieved
afterwards. The data can be merged with surface data
to provide an accurate basis for the analysis. This can be
done quickly and cheaply.
Step-Up Tests. Step-up tests are performed with
the fracture initially closed. The objective of the test
is to obtain the fracture extension pressure, pext, by
injecting into the formation in a series of increasing
rate steps and then by analyzing the data on a pressure
against rate cross-plot.
To pump a step-up test, start with the fracture closed
(often, the step-up test is the first operation performed
on the well). Start at the lowest rate possible with the frac
pumps this is usually in the region of 0.5 to 0.75 bpm.
Then step up the rate by as little as possible; an experienced
pump operator will probably be able to get the next rate
step at 1 bpm. Keep stepping up in small increments,
a difficult task with modern, high-horsepower fracturing
pumps, requiring good control from the pump operator.
However, it is important to get at least three good rate
104
steps before the fracture opens, so that a pressure trend can
be seen. At each rate step, it is important not to proceed
to the next step until the pressure has stabilized, so the
pump operator should get to approximately the right rate
and then leave the pumps alone. It is more important to
stabilize the rate and pressure for each stage than it is to
achieve exactly the right rate. Record the stabilized rate
and bottomhole treating pressure for each stage. As the
rate increases, bigger steps can be taken: Typical pumping
rates for a step-up test could be 0.7, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8,
2.1, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 15.0 bpm. After the
test, plot stabilized BHTP against slurry rate to find the
fracture extension pressure, as illustrated in Fig. 4-9.
4500
4300
Gauge BHTP, psi
4100
3900
pext= +/- 3920
3700
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 4-9 Typical pressure-rate cross-plot from a step-
up test
The following points should be remembered when
conducting a step-up test:
1. Always start with the fracture closed.
2. Use any fluid. However, if BHTP is being
calculated from surface data, the wellbore contents
must be understood.
3. Note that the fracture extension pressure, pext, is
not constant. It will vary throughout a fracture
treatment, usually decreasing. As the fracture
grows (per unit volume of fluid injected), it
becomes easier to create fracture length and
height, and harder to create width.
4. Although the step-up test is the least useful of the
calibration tests, it does provide a useful upper
boundary for finding pc from a pressure decline
(which can sometimes be quite difficult). A pext
generated through a step-rate test is usually 100
to 200 psi greater than pc.

Step-Down Tests. Step-down tests are usually pumped
in order to differentiate between perforation-dominated
and tortuosity-dominated near-wellbore friction, as
documented by Cleary et al. (1993) (see Section 6-
6.2). The test starts with the fracture open. This means
that significant pumping has to be performed before
the step-down test can commence. Often, the step-
down test is done as the second half of a combined
step-up and step-down test. Sometimes, a step-down
test is performed at the end of a minifrac (this is not
recommended, however, because the step-down can
obscure both the pressure decline and any assessment
of the magnitude of pnear-wellbore calculated from the
difference between piw and pISI).
Performing a step-down test is radically different
from performing a step-up test. It is important that
the test is performed quickly, because the fracture must
remain open throughout the test. Start at fracturing rates
(ideally 15 to 20 bpm) with a significant volume already
pumped into the fracture (at least 5 minutes pumping
at fracturing rates). Step down rapidly in four or five
approximately equal rate steps, spending no longer than
15 seconds at each step. Then plot BHTP against slurry
rate in a similar fashion to the step-up test. Figure 4-
10 shows the results of two step-down tests performed
on the same well. The first test illustrates perforation-
dominated NWBF, with the characteristic concave curve.
As a result of the test, the operator decided to re-perforate
the interval and perform a second step-down test. The
results of the second test display the characteristic convex
shape of tortuosity-dominated NWBF. However, note
the dramatic decrease in BHTP as a result of the re-
perforating this clearly illustrates that the decision to
re-perforate was a good one.
10,200
Step-Down Test 1
9800
Gauge BHTP, psi
(Perforation Dominated)
9400
9000
8600
1 2 3 4 5 6
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 4-10 Results of two step-down tests performed
on the same interval, before and after re-perforating
Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Perforation-dominated near-wellbore friction
is easy to quantify. From Eq. 4-2 we can see that
ppf q2 and so a rapid increase in pressure with
increasing rate is observed. However, if the number
of open perforations taking fluid changes (opening of
blocked perforations) or if the perforation diameter
increases (through erosion of blocking material),
the pressure will rise more slowly.
For tortuosity-dominated near-wellbore friction,
the relationship between pressure and rate is more
complex. Often this relationship is approximated
to ptort q, although in reality the relationship
is quite a bit more complex, as there are several
possible underlying causes of tortuosity (indeed,
Wright et al., 1996, suggested that ptort q).
Whatever the cause, it is clear that ptort will
rise more slowly than q. This is because as the
pump rate increases, so does the fluid pressure
due to viscous friction effects within restricted
flow channels. However, the geometry of these
channels is pressure dependent the higher
the pressure, the wider they get (consequently,
one of the accepted approaches to dealing
with tortuosity is simply to pump as fast as
possible). Therefore, friction effects, and hence
the pressure upstream of the tortuosity, increase
more slowly than the slurry rate.
Things to remember when conducting a step-
down test:
Make sure the fracture is open throughout the
test and is of significant size. The test is trying to
measure the pressure response of the tortuosity. If
the fracture is small, significant pressure changes
will be generated simply by the varying fracture
geometry; the larger the open fracture is, the less
significant these become.
If the results from a step-down test are to be
used in the near-wellbore friction pressure tables
included in many modern fracture simulators,
then the step-down test has to be conducted
Step-Down Test 2
(Tortuosity Dominated)
with the same fracturing fluid that is planned for
the main treatment. Otherwise the magnitude
of the near-wellbore pressure response which
7 8 9 10 11
is viscosity-dependent will be meaningless.
If these tables are not to be used, then any
known fluid can be pumped.
105
Modern Fracturing
Step down as fast as possible, as described above. It is
important that the geometry of the fracture behind
the tortuosity not change significantly during the
step-down. If the steps take too long, the fracture will
start to get smaller and may even close.
Monitor the pressure decline after the last step and the
pumps have been shut down. If the test is performed
correctly, the fracture will still be open at the end of
the step-down, and it may be possible to identify
fracture closure from the decline curve.
Some simulators are capable of importing the data
and producing a plot of p against q (i.e., the
change in BHTP against the change in slurry rate).
Consequently, this is a direct plot of NWBF against
rate. Usually, such plots can back out the theoretical
perforation friction and produce a calculated ptort.
The closer this calculated curve is to the actual
curve, the more the MWBF is dominated by
tortuosity and vice versa. Of course, this calculation
is not to be trusted if the diameter and/or number
of perforations are unreliable.
4-2.1.9 Minifracs
The purpose of the minifrac is to provide the best
possible information about the formation, prior to
pumping the actual treatment.
The minifrac is designed to be as close as possible to
the actual treatment, without pumping any significant
volumes of proppant. The minifrac should be pumped
using the anticipated treatment fluid, at the anticipated
rate. It should also be of sufficient volume to contact all
the formations that the estimated main treatment design
is anticipated to contact. A well planned and executed
minifrac can provide data on fracture geometry, rock
mechanical properties and fluid leakoff information
that is vital to the success of the main treatment. Below
is a summary of the process involved in minifrac analysis
see Martin (2005) for a more detailed discussion.
Minifrac Data During Pumping. As previously
discussed (see Section 4-2.1.1), the shape and gradient
of the pressure-against-time plot tells us a great deal
about the fracture itself. This is illustrated in Fig. 4-11.
Nolte-Smith analysis (see Section 4-2.1.7) can be use to
obtain a general idea of how the fracture is propagating
106
in terms of length, height and possibly width. However,
this analysis is somewhat qualitative. To further increase
the accuracy of the fracture geometry it is necessary to
perform a pressure match (see Section 4-2.2.2). This
process involves the input of selected treatment data (rate
and proppant concentration) into the fracture simulator
model and comparing the predicted net pressure response
with the actual net pressure response. Key variables in
the simulator (usually stress, Youngs modulus, fracture
toughness and fluid leakoff) are adjusted until the
predicted pressure response matches the actual pressure
response. The problems associated with this process are
discussed in detail in Section 4-2.2.2. However, the
pressure match does enable a much more quantitative
assessment of the fracture geometry.
Rate, bpm, and Proppant Concentration, ppa
6000 50
Gauge BHTP Near-Wellbore
Friction
5000 40
Pressure, psi Frature
4000 Geometry 30
Fluid Leakoff, Closure
Pressure, Reservoir
3000 Slurry Rate
Pressure and Permeability 20
2000 10
Tortuosity Proppant
Concentration
1000 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 4-11 Example minifrac job plot, illustrating the
significant parameters (italics) that can be derived from its
analysis
Figure 4-11 also illustrates a proppant slug. This
is a test to see how aggressive any tortuosity is; simply
measuring the quantity of the pressure drop is not
sufficient. The near-wellbore region needs to be tested
for its ability to transmit proppant. The proppant slug
is designed to do this. It is a very short stage of proppant
usually less than 1000 lbs. As the slug passes into the
fracture, the response of the BHTP is observed. Ideally,
no pressure rise is seen, indicating that the near-wellbore
flow channels have adequate width. However, if tortuosity
is significant, a pressure rise will be observed. In the
worst cases, the well will screen out with the proppant
slug. While this may seem to be a disaster, it has in fact
prevented a premature screenout during the treatment,
after pumping a wellbore full of proppant. Note also that
it is common practice to pump a series of proppant slugs
at increasing concentrations, in order to further test the
response of the near-wellbore region.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement

Minifrac Pressure Decline\Up to Fracture fracture area and closure time will yield the leakoff
Closure. The analysis of the pressure decline after the rate and, hence, the leakoff coefficient. Note that
end of pumping is an important part of the minifrac this is an iterative process because leakoff also plays
analysis process. Analyzing the data up to fracture a significant role in the shape of the pressure plot
closure will provide the following information, as during pumping. The pressure match also needs
illustrated in Fig.4-12: to match the before-closure pressure decline and
the pressure response during pumping. Often, it is
5200 20
Bottomhole Treating Pressure (BHTP) easiest to match the pressure decline first and then
Total Near-Wellbore Friction
5100 16 adjust to match the pressure while pumping.
Closure Pressure
Pressure, psi

Rate, bpm
5000 12
Instantaneous Shut-In One method to determine fracture closure is to
4900
Pressure (ISIP)
Gauge BHTP 8 produce a plot of BHTP against the square root of time.
Because fluid loss through the fracture face is dependent
4800 Slurry Rate 4
upon the square root of time, in theory when the pressure
4700 0 data is plotted against t, there should be a straight line
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
while the fracture is open and a curve after it has closed.
Elapsed Time, mins
This works well for pressure-independent fluid loss.
Figure 4-12 Example minifrac pressure decline, However, when the fluid loss is dependent upon pressure,
illustrating the parameters (italics) that can be derived
from its analysis
the fluid loss rate will decrease as the pressure declines,
making the relationship much more complex.
1. Quantitative assessment of near-wellbore friction, Because finding fracture closure is all about finding
from the difference between pinj (BHTP) and pISI the point on the decline curve where the gradient changes,
(ISIP). Note that this may not be constant, as it makes sense to plot the gradient (or derivative) itself at
perforations can increase in diameter (erosion) and the same time. Often, it is easier to spot the change in
number (opening of blocked perforations), while gradient from the derivative plot than from the decline
tortuosity is a dynamic phenomenon, changing itself. Figure 4-13 shows the pressure decline from Fig.
with pressure, rate, time and viscosity. 4-12 on a square root time plot, complete with derivative
2. ISIP. At shutdown, when all friction goes to and identification of closure pressure.
zero, pISI = pf the pressure of the fluid inside
5100 80
the fracture. This is needed for the calculation Fracture Closure
of net pressure.

Derivative dp/dt0.5, psi/mins0.5

5050 Pressure Decline 40
3. Fracture closure. Closure pressure is the pressure
on the decline plot at the point when the fracture
Gauge BHTP, psi

5000 0
closes. This is usually marked by a change in
Derivative
gradient, indicating a change from Darcy linear 4950 -40

flow through the fracture faces to Darcy radial

flow from the wellbore. Sometimes this change in 4900 -80

gradient can be hard to spot, and there is a wide

4850
variety of different plots and methods available to 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
help with this process (see below). Square Root of Time Since ISIP, mins0.5
4. Net pressure. This is the difference between pISI Figure 4-13 Example minifrac pressure decline square
and pc. root time plot, showing derivative and fracture closure
5. Fluid leakoff. After the closure pressure has been
identified, the time taken for the fracture to close Nolte G-Function Analysis. Nolte (1979, 1986a)
can be measured. Analysis during pumping will developed a method for analyzing minifrac pressure
give the fracture geometry and, hence, area. The declines that has direct application to the three 2-D

107
Modern Fracturing

frac models (KGD, PKN and radial see Section 4- The actual value of used for the extrapolation is
6.2.2). This analysis is based on the use the G function dependent upon the fluid efficiency and n. Values
to help identify fracture closure and, from this, the tend to be almost always in the region of 0.5 to 0.7;
fluid leakoff and fracture geometry. in practice 0.6 is often used. Also, given that n is
Nolte derived the following relationships for the often variable, a quicker method is just to take the
decline curve: average of the upper and lower expressions for g(tD).
3/ 2
4 / 3(1 + t D ) t D3 / 2 As shown in Fig. 4-14, as tD increases, the difference
, (4-17)
g (t D ) = 1/ 2
between the upper and lower boundaries becomes
(1 + t D ) sin (1 + t D ) + t D
1 1 / 2
smaller and eventually becomes negligible compared
with to the accuracy of the rest of the system.
t t Nolte G time is then a function of tD such that:
i
t D =
, (4-18)
ti
G (t D ) = g (t D ) g (t D = 0).
(4-20)
where t is the time since he start of fluid
injection and ti is the injection time. The upper Note that for = 1 and = 0.5, g(tD = 0) is equal to 4/3
part of Eq. 4-17 represents the upper boundary, and /2 respectively.
and the lower part represents the lower boundary. A typical plot of a pressure decline against Nolte G
In practice, to find the actual value of g(tD), time is shown below in Fig. 4-15.
both values are calculated, and an extrapolation
is made based on the power law exponent of the
fracturing fluid (n) and the fracture geometry Additional Fracture Extension
(radial, PKN or KGD). (Note: When calculating
from the lower boundary, the trigonometric function
BHTP

Fracture Closure
is in radians, not degrees.) Ideal ISIP

5
Lower (B  0.5, g (%t D )  (1  %t D ) sin -1 (1  %t D )-1/ 2  %t D1/ 2 )
Gc
4
0
G (tD)
3
g(tD)

Figure 4-15 Idealized Nolte G time pressure decline plot.

The match pressure is the gradient of the straight line
2 g (%t D  0)  Q / 2
section in the middle of the decline before closure.

1 g (%t D  0)  4 / 3

Upper (B  1, g (%t D )  4 / 3[(1  %t D )3 / 2 - %t D 3 / 2 ]) Figure 4-15 illustrates three important points. First,
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
the ISIP recorded using field data may be artificially
tD
high, due to the effects of fracture storage and fluid
Figure 4-14 Graph showing the variation of g(tD) with tD friction. Second, there is a period of constant gradient
for Nolte analysis before the fracture closes, which is often referred to as the
match pressure (pm) and has pressure units (as G time is
The extrapolation is performed between two dimensionless). This is an important parameter in Noltes
values of the variable . At the lower boundary, = minifrac pressure decline analysis. Finally, closure occurs
0.5 and at the upper boundary = 1. The actual value when the decline pressure deviates from this constant
for is given as: gradient. At this point G(tD) = Gc.
It should be noted that if the closure time equals the
(2n '+ 2) / (2n '+ 3) : PKN
(4-19) pump time, then Gc = 1.
= (n '+ 1) / (n '+ 2) : KGD
From the g(tD) time at closure [ = g(tcD)], the fluid
(4n '+ 4) / (3n '+ 6) : Radiaal.
efficiency can be determined as follows:

108

g (tcD ) g (t D = 0) 1 v prop
= , (4-21)
g (tcD ) 1 v prop /
where vprop is the fraction of the total fracture volume
occupied by proppant. For a minifrac, vprop will be equal
to zero. Therefore:
g t g t = 0
( cD ) ( D )
=
. (4-22)
g (tcD )
This can be simplified to:
G
c
,
(4-23)
2 + Gc
which is a quick and easy method for determining fluid
efficiency. Most modern real-time data monitoring
systems can plot G function in real time, so if the
closure pressure can be determined, the fluid efficiency
can be easily calculated from Eq. 4-23.
The fluid loss coefficient (constant, pressure
independent) can be calculated as:
p
CL = m s X , (4-24)
rp ti E '
where pm is the match pressure (see Fig. 4-15), s a
geometry-dependent factor (see Eq. 4-25, below), rp is
the ratio of fracture area in permeable formation over
total fracture area (i.e., net to gross area ratio for the
fracture), E is the plane strain modulus (see Section
4-3.1.3) and X is a factor dependent upon which
geometry model is being used (see Section 4-6.2.2),
such that for KGD, X = 2xf, for PKN, X = hf and for
radial, X = (32Rf /32), where Rf is the fracture radius
for the radial fracture model.
(2n '+ 2) / (2n '+ 3 + a ) PKN
s 0.9 KGD
(4-25)
2
(3 / 32) Radial
where n is the power law exponent for the fluid and
a is a variable describing how constant the viscosity of
the frac fluid is in the fracture, such that for a constant
viscosity, a = 1 and for a falling viscosity a < 1. Usually,
a is assumed to be 1.
Thus, not only is Nolte G time a useful tool for
finding the ideal ISIP and the closure pressure, it can
also be used to find fluid efficiency and fluid leakoff
(assuming a 2-D fracture geometry).
Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Finally, Nolte G time can be used to find the
fracture dimensions:
(1 )Vi
Af =
, (4-26)
2 g (t D = 0) CL rp ti
where Af is the area of one fracture wing. Given that for
the 2-D models:
(4-27)
then the fracture length or fracture radius
can be easily found. Average fracture width can also
be obtained:
( D ) Lp i
2 g t = 0 C r t
(4-28)
wave = .
(1 )
When using Nolte analysis, remember
that it is based on 2-D fracture geometry. An
example of Nolte G function analysis can be found
in Martin (2005).
4-2.2 The Role of Advanced Technology
in Design, Execution and Evaluation
Hydraulic fracturing is a technology-driven process.
Fluid systems, proppants, equipment, simulators and
fracturing theory are all in state of constant update,
and staying up to date with the latest and greatest
can often become a time-consuming process. The
following list illustrates some of the major advances
in fracturing over the last 15 years.
4-2.2.1 Recent Advances and Breakthroughs
Advances in Fluids Tecchnology. Major
advances in fracturing fluid technology have been
made over the past 15 years or so. This has been
driven by a growing recognition of the following
fluid issues: proppant transport; the potential for
damage to the proppant pack from fluid residues;
and reservoir compatibility, for high-permeability
reservoirs where fracture-face damage is important
and for low-permeability reservoirs with respect to
the prevention of fluid retention issues. Chapter 7
covers fluid technology in detail.
109
Modern Fracturing
Proppant transport has become increasingly
recognized as a major function of the fracturing fluid
(see Section 7-2.2), thanks to the pioneering work of the
Stim-Lab Rheology and Proppant Transport Consortium.
The phenomena of convection and settling have been
identified, quantified and built into fracturing simulators
(a good summary of this work was presented by Clark
in 2006). In addition, the important role played by the
fluids proppant transport characteristics in mitigating
the effects of tortuosity has also been recognized. Fluid
systems and treatments are now designed to account for
these factors, and treatment results have reflected this.
The pioneering work performed by another of
the Stim-Lab consortia, the Proppant Conductivity
Consortium, led to a general recognition that the damage
caused by fracturing fluids to proppant packs was far
worse than had been previously realized (see Section
7-6.2). This in turn led to the advent of low-polymer-
loading fluids and to the increasing use of polymer-
free fracturing fluid technology (such as viscoelastic
surfactant-based fluids and brine systems incorporating
neutral-density proppants). Today, understanding the
regained permeability of the proppant pack is a key part of
the fracture design process.
A more widespread understanding of issues relating
to the effects of fluid imbibition, capilliary pressures
and immobile fluid blocks, as presented by Bennion
et al. (1996), has significantly improved the ability of
engineers to stimulate low-permeability formations.
The use of low-surface-tension surfactants, methanol
and micro-emulsion additives have proved crucial
in developing many tight gas reservoirs. In addition,
CO2-based systems (both as foams and as 100% CO2
systems) have become increasingly popular to both
reduce liquid content and increase fluid recovery. See
Section 7-4.4 for more details.
Advances in Proppant Technology. Advances in
understanding how proppant characteristics can affect
post-treatment production have taken a major step
forward (see Chapter 8). In a seminal paper, Vincent et
al. (1999) detailed how the effects of non-Darcy flow
(see Sections 2-4.1 and 8-7.3) and multi-phase flow
(see Section 8-7.4) could significantly affect the effective
permeability of the proppant, further reducing the
conductivity of the fracture.
110
Resin-coated proppants have become increasingly
popular for a significant number of treatments (see
Section 8-4). Resin coatings come in two types: those
designed to increase proppant (or more usually frac
sand) conductivity by reducing point loading and the
production of fines; and those designed to prevent
proppant flowback by physically adhering the grains
together. Often, both of these effects are combined. As
technology progresses, the performance of these coatings
continues to improve. Additionally, in many cases the
problems associated with resin-contaminated frac fluids
have been completely resolved.
The use of low- and neutral-density proppants
(see Section 8-11.1) has become increasingly common
(Rickards et al., 2003). Currently, the full potential
of these products has yet to be realized in the field.
Ultimately, they have the capability to completely
revolutionize the way treatments are performed, as
it will no longer be necessary to use highly viscous
fracturing fluids, nor to use complex blending
equipment to add proppant on the fly. Instead,
proppant will be pre-mixed into brine carrier fluids
with relatively simple blending equipment.
Proppant flowback is another area that has received
considerable attention, led once again by another
of Stim-Labs consortia, the Proppant Flowback
Consortium (see Sections 8-10 and 8-11.2). Various
techniques have been used in the field, including mesh-
creating micro-fibers (Card et al., 1995), deformable
particles (Rickards et al., 1998) and surface coatings
added on the fly (Nguyen et al., 1998). In addition, Ely
et al. (1990) demonstrated that controlled flowback of
fracturing fluid immediately after the treatment could
help to stabilize the near-wellbore region of the fracture
and prevent proppant flowback.
Understanding Fracture Tip Effects. It had long been
recognized that the process of physically tearing the rock
apart at the fracture tip was consuming more energy
than was predicted by classical linear elastic fracture
mechanics (Griffith, 1921), as detailed in Section 4-
3.4. Four different and not mutually exclusive theories
have been put forward to explain this phenomenon.
The first theory concerns the fluid lag effect, in which
viscous and surface tension effects prevent the fracturing
fluid (and hence the net pressure) from penetrating all
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
the way into the very narrow fracture tip (Jeffrey, 1989).
This acts to reduce the width at the fracture tip and has
the effect of increasing the apparent fracture toughness.
The second theory, proposed by Johnson and Cleary in
1991, involves non-linear elastic deformation of the rock
around the fracture tip, producing a pinching effect. This
is commonly referred to as dilatancy. The third theory
involves the production of a damaged zone (also referred
to as the process zone) ahead of the fracture, in which
micro-fractures form, absorbing additional energy (Yew
and Liu, 1993, and Valk and Economides, 1993). The
final theory concerns the plastic deformation of the
formation in a region around the fracture tip. Although
rocks are traditionally considered brittle materials, under
conditions of tri-axial loading they can deform and flow
plastically, absorbing significant quantities of energy
(Martin, 2000, and van Dam et al., 2000).
Each of these theories is based on established
principles, often taken from more general theories
developed outside the oil industry. There is no doubt
that these effects occur. Possibly the real answer to
understanding tip effects lies in understanding how
significant each effect is in any given situation.
Unified Fracture Design. As previous discussed, low-
permeability formations require long, thin fractures,
while high-permeability formations require short, wide
fractures. Consequently there has always been a problem
deciding the right combination of length and width for
any fracture in a formation that falls between these two
extremes. This conundrum was solved by Economides
et al. in 2002, in introducing the concept of Proppant
Number and Unified Fracture Design. This theory states
that for a ratio of formation and proppant permeability,
there is a specific ratio of propped length and propped
width that will produce the maximum possible
production increase. This theory is dealt with in more
detail in Section 4-5.
Microseismic and Tiltmeters. A significant step forward
in understanding fracture geometry and azimuth has
been made by the use of microseismic and tiltmeter
measurements, allowing the actual geometry of the
fracture to be mapped (Cipolla and Wright, 2000).
Microseismic involves the use of surface and downhole
seismometers to measure small seismic events produced
by the propagation of the fracture or fractures, which
are assumed to occur around the fracture tip. If these
seismometers are placed effectively in 3-D space around
the well to be fractured, the position of each microseismic
event can be mapped, allowing real-time measurement
of fracture geometry. Tiltmeters are placed on the surface
and downhole to measure minute deflections in the
earth, caused by the fracture. Tiltmeters are used mainly
for obtaining fracture azimuth. Section 6-8 has a more
detailed discussion of these subjects.
Perforating for Fracturing. Of all the things that can
be controlled by the engineer, the perforations probably
have the most significant single influence on the success of
the treatment (Behrman and Nolte, 1999, and Pongratz
et al., 2007). When used effectively for fracturing, they
can be used to control the point of fracture initiation.
Indeed, as most propped fractures will connect to the
wellbore through fewer than 20 perforations, in low-
permeability formations there is little need to perforate
the rest of the net height (other than for reservoir
evaluation purposes). However, in high-permeability
gas formations, the fracture may become choked due to
turbulence effects, and it may be necessary to perforate
longer intervals, if these will connect to the fracture
during proppant placement.
Fracturing Equipment. To most people involved in
the fracturing process, the most obvious advances in
technology have been to the equipment used to perform
fracturing operations. Since the early 1990s, the fracturing
industry has fully embraced the rapid advances made in
computerized control, measurement and display systems
(see Section 9-5). These have produced significant
operational and safety advantages. Fracturing pumps are
no longer controlled by individual operators positioned on
or by the pumps. Instead, a single remote panel is placed
inside the control cabin or vehicle, allowing the pumps to
be run by a single operator, under the direct supervision
of the frac supervisor. Not only does this significantly
improve communication and reduce complexity, it also
has a significant safety advantage, dramatically reducing
the number of personnel exposed to the high-pressure
lines. In addition, the electronic pump controls allow
more efficient operation of the equipment, prevent
damage to the equipment during equipment failure (e.g.,
111
Modern Fracturing
automatic engine shut-downs when oil pressure is lost)
and allow the use of automatic, adjustable, over-pressure
quick-to-neutral shut-downs.
In general, fracturing pumps have become larger,
as it became apparent that efficiency was gained by
using a smaller number of larger pumps. Because
equipment reliability has increased as well, the
effects of losing a pump during the treatment have
not been significantly affected.
Blending equipment has also seen a dramatic
advance. Today, almost all frac blenders are fully process-
controlled. This means that all mixing and blending
operations are run by computer-controlled positive
feedback systems. These adjust additive rates (liquids,
powders and proppant) automatically, significantly
reducing the complexity of the treatment for the blender
operator. The job is pre-programmed into the equipment,
and under most circumstances the blender will operate
automatically during the treatment. Manual overrides
usually allow the rate adjustments if necessary.
Remote Data Transmission. With the advent of modern
communications technology, it is no longer necessary
for the engineer to be on location during the treatment.
Treatment data can be transmitted in real time from
any location to any location, often accompanied by a
voice link. The latest version of this technology uses the
Internet. The treatment is broadcast real-time on the
Web, with each control van or cabin having its own
Web address. Anyone with the job-specific password
can log on and view the treatment. This means the
treatments can be monitored using standard PCs, with
no specialized software, from anywhere in the world
with a high-speed internet connection.
Remote data transmission has its greatest use in remote
locations, especially offshore. It is an enabling technology
because it makes it easier for engineers to treat wells.
4-2.2.2 Pressure Matching
Pressure matching is part science and part art. In order
to perform a quick and efficient pressure match, it is
essential to have a good knowledge of the fracturing
process, an understanding of the various rock mechanical
properties, an understanding of fracture mechanics and,
ideally, a reasonable idea of how the fracture simulator
112
works. In spite of this need for an understanding of the
physics behind the fracturing process and the fracture
simulation, there is still an art to pressure matching.
Some have a feeling for this process, and some do not.
Pressure matching is a very powerful tool that allows
the engineer to tune the fracture simulator to the
formation. The idea is that once the simulator has been
tuned, further fracture simulations can be performed
with a high degree of accuracy.
The Process of Pressure Matching. Pressure matching
is all about making the simulator predict the same
pressure response as the reaction actually produced by
the formation (see Fig. 4-16).
Before After
Net Pressure
Net Pressure
Job Time Job Time
Actual Net Pressure Calculated Net Pressure
Figure 4-16 Pressure matching: variables in the simulator
are adjusted to make the calculated net pressure match
the actual net pressure
In Fig. 4-16, before the pressure match (left) the
net pressure predicted by the fracture simulator does
not match the actual net pressure in any way. After the
pressure match has been performed (right) the computers
pressure response prediction is very similar to that of
the actual treatment. Now, according to the theory,
the simulator has been tuned to the formation. This
allows the frac engineer to input any desired treatment
schedule, and the simulator will be able to predict the
fracture geometry with a reasonable degree of precision.
There is no doubt that the advent of pressure
matching has greatly improved the success rate and
effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing. Modern fracture
simulators equipped with this facility have gradually
made the process increasingly user-friendly, helping
to reduce the black art associated with fracture
engineering, as more and more engineers feel capable
of designing a fracture treatment.
However, there are some definite limitations to this
process:
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Garbage In = Garbage Out. The computer model
of the formation generated by this process is only as
good as the data used to create it. Poor data on items
such as permeability, net height, fluid properties (both
formation and fracturing fluids) and perforations can
make an otherwise perfect pressure match almost
irrelevant. Another major source of errors is the use of
surface pressure data to calculate BHTP. In order to
calculate BHTP, the model first needs to calculate the
fluid friction pressure, something that is notoriously
difficult to do for a crosslinking fluid. Variations in
fracturing fluid properties (such as those caused by
problems with liquid additive systems or varying gel
properties) can also be very difficult to account for.
Therefore, the engineer should do everything possible
to acquire reliable bottomhole pressure data, such as
that from a gauge or dead string.
No Unique Solution. The process of pressure
matching involves adjusting four major variables
(Youngs modulus, stress, fracture toughness and
leakoff) and many other minor variables for each
rock strata affected by the fracture, until the pressure
response predicted by the model matches the actual
pressure response of the formation. This means that
the engineer may have 30 or 40 variables available
for adjustment. It is therefore quite possible for
two engineers to get good pressure matches with
significantly different sets of variables.
The Fracture Model. The results of the pressure match
are only as good as the fracture model itself. Modern
fracture simulators are tremendously advanced
the product of more than 20 years of innovation,
experimentation and inspiration. However, different
fracture simulators will still predict different fracture
geometries for the same input data. Which one
is right? This is difficult to say and the subject of
considerable debate in the fracturing industry. The
popular conception is that one fracture simulator is
good for a certain type of formation, while another is
good for a different type. The debate continues.
The Four Main Variables. There are four main variables
that the engineer should be adjusting in order to achieve
the pressure match that is to say, four main variables
in each formation affected by the fracture. These variables
are Youngs modulus, stress, fracture toughness and fluid
leakoff.So even for the most basic formation lithology,
the engineer will have to be able to track of a minimum
of 12 variables (four each in the zone of interest and the
formations above and below).
Of course, each fracture simulator comes complete
with a plethora of variables the user can adjust. In
fact there are so many that an engineer could vary
several hundred parameters for a complex reservoir
with several rock strata. This is for fracture simulator
and rock mechanical experts only. Unless there is a
really good reason, the engineer is advised to stick to
the four main variables.
Youngs Modulus, E. In order for the fracture to
propagate it must obtain width, to a greater or lesser
extent. In order to do this, the rock on either side of the
fracture has to be displaced. As discussed in Section 4-3.4,
Youngs modulus defines how much energy is required to
accomplish this displacement, which is a classic linear
elastic fracture mechanics concept. Rocks with a large
Youngs modulus will require a lot of energy (i.e., net
pressure) to displace. In these formations, fractures tend
to be relatively narrow, and the rock is referred to as
hard. Similarly, rocks with a small Youngs modulus
require relatively little energy to produce width. In these
formations, fractures tend to be relatively wide, and the
rock is referred to as soft.
A large Youngs modulus makes it harder for
the fracturing fluid to produce width. This will
make the fracture thinner, higher and longer. A
small Youngs modulus has the opposite effects.
Increasing E only in the perforated interval will have
the effect of forcing the fracture out of the zone of
interest i.e., increasing fracture height. A decrease
in E has the opposite effect.
In-Situ Stress, h. In-situ stress (often referred
to as confining stress and, in the vast majority of
cases, horizontal stress) is the stress induced in the
formation by the overburden and any tectonic activity.
Put simply, it is pre-loading on the formation, the
stress that has to be overcome (or pressure that has
to be applied) in order to actually start pushing the
formation apart. The actual bottomhole fracturing
113
Modern Fracturing
pressure is the pressure required to overcome these in-
situ stresses, plus the pressure required to propagate
the fracture (as a consequence of fracture toughness)
and the pressure required to produce width.
In the pressure matching process, increasing h
reduces net pressure (for a fixed BHTP). This means that
the fracturing fluid has less energy available to fracture
the formation, and so the width, height and length of the
fracture decrease. This in turn means that the volume of
the fracture has decreased. However, the same volume of
fluid has been pumped into the formation, so an increase
in h also has the effect of increasing leakoff rate and
decreasing fracture efficiency. The opposite effect applies
for a decrease in in-situ stresses.
Fracture Toughness, K1c. Strictly speaking, K1c is the
critical stress intensity factor for failure mode 1 (see
Section 4-3.4 and more specifically fig. 4-30). However,
it is commonly referred to as the fracture toughness and
is a measure of how much energy it takes to propagate
a fracture tip through a given material. In hydraulic
fracturing, where the energy needed to propagate the
fracture comes in the form of fluid pressure, fracture
toughness is that portion of the available energy required
to physically split the rock apart at the fracture tip.
Note that some fracture models have moved away
from the concept of fracture toughness and instead
model nonlinear elastic effects at the fracture tip as being
more significant. In such models, variations in Youngs
modulus and in-situ stresses are far more significant than
variations in fracture toughness.
Fluid Leakoff Rate, qL. The fluid leakoff rate can be
controlled by altering a number of variables, depending
upon the fracture simulator being used, and the fluid
leakoff model being employed:
Pressure differential (fracturing fluid pressure minus
pore pressure)
Formation permeability
Formation porosity
Formation compressibility
Formation fluid viscosity
Fracturing fluid filtrate viscosity
Fracturing fluid wall-building coefficient
Spurt loss
114
Fluid leakoff is a loss of energy from the fracturing
fluid: The total energy available for propagating the
fracture is equal to the net pressure multiplied by
the fracture volume. High leakoff means low fracture
volume, and vice versa. Therefore, an increase in fluid
leakoff will tend to decrease width, height and length.
The opposite applies for a decrease in leakoff.
The basic effect of each of these variables
when applied to a fracture in a single formation is
summarized in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 effects of increasing each of the Four Main
Pressure Matching Variables. (Note that these are the
overall effects when the change is taken in isolation (i.e.,
no other changes take place). It also assumes that the
fracture is unaffected by boundary layers above and
below.)
Effect of an Increase in Selected Variable
Variable
Height Length Width
Net
Pressure
Fracture
Toughness, K1c
Decrease Decrease Increase Increase
Youngs
Increase Increase Decrease Increase
Modulus, E
In-Situ
Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease
Stress,
Fluid Leakoff
Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease
Rate, qL
Table 4-3 should be used with caution because
it applies only when the fracture is confined within
a single formation. If the fracture propagates
into separate formations above and/or below the
productive interval, then an increase in (for instance)
fracture toughness will make it harder for the fracture
to propagate through the main formation, forcing
the fracture up and down. So, in this instance, an
isolated increase in a property in just one formation
can actually increase the fracture height.
The Effect of Poissons Ratio. The Poissons ratio is
at the same time important and largely irrelevant to
pressure matching. It is important because it has a
major effect on defining the horizontal stresses in a
formation. However, in most cases, the engineer will
be determining these stresses from pressure data, not
from the Poissons ratio data. In most fracture models,
the Poissons ratio is used in the form (1 - 2) to modify
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
the Youngs modulus (i.e., E/(1 - 2) the plane strain
modulus, see Section 4-3.1.3). This means that a large
change in the Poissons ratio, say from 0.25 to 0.35,
will only change (1 - 2) from 0.9375 to 0.8775 (i.e.,
a 40% increase in produces only a 6.4% decrease in
(1 - 2). Therefore, it is not worth varying the Poissons
ratio during a pressure match.
4-2.2.3 Getting Closer
to Understanding Fracture Geometry
Exactly how well do we understand fracture geometry?
Todays simulators are the products of 30 years of
innovation, invention and discovery, from some of the
most able minds in the industry. However, we must ask
ourselves just how reliable these models are.
The first thing we must consider is the model
itself. Currently there are four main models in use
three simulators described as lumped-parameter 3-
D models and one fully 3-D grid-based model. Feed
the same input data into each model, and they will
produce dramatically different results. So which one
is correct? This is an area of considerable debate and
controversy in the industry.
Fortunately, two methods that are independent of
the fracture simulators can be used to remove a lot of the
uncertainty associated with modeling. The first method
uses microseismic measurements to produce an estimate
of fracture height and length (as outlined in Section 4-
2.2.1 and discussed in detail in Section 6-8). The second
method is to use post-treatment pressure transient
analysis (see Section 3-7) to evaluate fracture dimensions
(Agarwal, 1980; Economides and Nolte, 1987; Arihara et
al., 1996; and Cipolla and Meyerhofer, 2001).
4-2.2.4 Real-Time Analysis
Some fracture simulators have a facility that enables
fracture modeling in real-time. This is a very
powerful tool that under the right conditions can
enable the engineer to redesign the main treatment
on-the-fly, as it is pumped.
The modeling computer is set up to receive data
from either the data processing computer or the
engineers computer. The user then runs the fracture
model, selecting the real-time data input option. The
user enters the relevant formation data and treatment
schedule, which can be loaded from a previously created
data file. The treatment starts, and the computer starts
to collect the data. As the treatment progresses, the
simulator models the created fracture. The model will take
fluid, proppant, formation and wellbore characteristics
from the input model, and the pump rate, pressure and
proppant concentration from the real-time data. Using
this data, the simulator will model the fracture that has
already been created, constantly updating as more data is
collected. This enables two operations:
The engineer can perform a pressure match with the
data that has already been collected by the simulator,
until the net pressure predicted by the computer
matches up with the actual net pressure.
The engineer can instruct the simulator to run the
job until completion, predicting the characteristics
of the fracture based on the ongoing pressure match.
For the treatment schedule, the simulator will use
the actual treatment data as far as possible, and then
project forward until the end of the job using the
remaining input treatment schedule. This allows
the engineer to predict the fracture characteristics
based on the most accurate data possible. This
process can be taken one step further: The engineer
can alter the remaining treatment schedule and
predict the fracture characteristics based on this
revised schedule. Thus the engineer can redesign
the treatment schedule on-the-fly.
Limitations of Real-Time Modeling. The ability to
redesign on the fly, while usually not very popular
with the frac crew, is a very powerful tool, with the
following caveats:
Do not over-react to short-term trends. All fracture
simulators treat formations as homogenous
materials with uniform rock mechanical properties
throughout. In reality this is usually not the case.
The fracture is constantly propagating through rock
with varying properties, producing unpredictable
variations in the net pressure plot. The engineer
needs to find an average value for each of these
properties, such that the simulators predicted net
pressure curve follows the trend (an average value)
of the job plot, but does not necessarily follow every
minute rise and fall in pressure.
115
Modern Fracturing
The engineer must be able to react quickly when
a short-term trend has become a long-term trend.
When this happens, its time to start adjusting
formation properties.
Real-time modeling is only effective on long
treatments, where the engineer has time to spot
long-term trends, adjust the model and still be
able to make change the treatment schedule
in time for the changes to have some effect. If
the job is too short, the crew can be pumping
the displacement before the engineer has
finished the pressure match.
The problem above is exacerbated if the wellbore
volume represents a significant part of the treatment.
If this is the case, the treatment can be close to
displacement before the proppant has even passed
into the fracture. In such cases, there is little point
in modeling the fracture real-time.
4-2.3 From Fracturing a Single Vertical Well
to Complex Well-Fracture Architecture be fully defined by a magnitude and an area across
As it was discussed in Section 2-5.3, the industry
moves away from the single vertical hole paradigm
and develops towards complex well-fracture
configurations. It is now common practice to place
multiple fractures into one wellbore (vertical or
horizontal) or even to combine the draining capacity
of multiple holes and multiple fractures. A draining
system can be still characterized by its overall
productivity, and that is how it should be analyzed
and optimized. In Section 4-6 we will present a
significant tool for such analysis.
4-3 Rock Mechanical Characteristics
4-3.1 Basic Definitions
4-3.1.1 Stress and Strain
Stress. If a force, F, is acting on a body with cross-
sectional area, A, perpendicular to the direction of
action of the force, then the stress, , induced in this
body is equal to the force divided by the area:
F plane on which the stress induced by the strain is
= . (4-29)
A
116
Note that this is very similar to the formula for
calculating pressure. Stress and pressure have the
same units and are essentially the same thing
stored energy. The main difference between the
two is that in liquids and gases, the material will
flow away from an applied force until the force
and stress (or pressure) is the same in all directions
(i.e. equilibrium has been reached). However,
solids cannot deform in such a manner, so these
materials will always have a plane across which
the stresses are at a maximum. They will also have
a plane perpendicular to this, across which the
stresses are at a minimum.
Properties such as mass and volume
are said to be scalars they require only a
magnitude to define them. Quantities such as force
and velocity are vectors they require not only a
magnitude, but also a direction in which they are
acting in order to be fully defined. Stress takes this
one step further as a tensor property it can only
which it is acting.
Strain. Strain is measure of how much the material
has been deformed when a stress is applied to it.
As the force, F, is applied in the x-direction, the
original height of the block of material, x, changes
by x (so that the new height is x - x). The strain
in the x-direction, x, is given by:
x
x = .
(4-30)
x
Note that the strain is defined in the same
direction as the applied force, F, and perpendicular
to the plane across which the stress acts. Strain is
important because this is the way we measure stress
by observing the deformation of a known piece of
material. Strain is dimensionless.
4-3.1.2 The Poissons Ratio
The Poissons ratio, , is a measure of how much a
material will deform in a direction perpendicular
to the direction of the applied force, parallel to the
acting (see Fig. 4-17).
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
F
y
x Because strain is dimensionless, E has the same units
y + y
Figure 4-17 Application of force F in the x-direction will
also produce a deformation in the y-direction
The strain in the x direction, x, is given by Eq.
4-30 (see Section 4-3.1.1). Similarly, the strain in the
y direction is given by:
y
y = .
(4-31)
y
Note that this value is negative, a result of the way
we define the forces and the direction the forces act.
Compressive strain is positive; tensile strain is negative.
The Poissons ratio, , is defined by:
y
= .
(4-32)
x
The Poissons ratio is an important factor in determining
the stress gradient of the formation but is less important
in defining fracture dimensions, although it does have
some effect. By definition, the Poissons ratio is always
less than 0.5 (otherwise a uniaxial compressive stress
would result in an increase in volume) and typical
values for rocks are between 0.2 and 0.35. The Poissons
ratio is, of course, dimensionless.
4-3.1.3 Youngs Modulus
Youngs modulus, E, (also known as modulus of
elasticity or elastic modulus) is defined as the ratio of
stress over strain:
E= .
(4-33)
as stress. Youngs modulus is a measure of how much
a material will elastically deform under a load. This is
another term for hardness.
On a more fundamental level, if stress and
pressure are closely related (applying a pressure to a
surface induces a stress), then in fracturing we can
think of Youngs modulus as a measure of how much
a material (i.e. rock) will elastically deform when a
pressure is applied to it. Because pressure is stored
energy, E is also a measure of how much energy it
takes to make the rock deform.
Materials with a high Youngs modulus (e.g., glass,
tungsten carbide, diamond and granite) tend to be
very hard and brittle (susceptible to brittle fracture).
Conversely, materials with a low E (e.g., rubber,
polystyrene foam and wax) tend to be soft and ductile
(resistant to brittle fracture).
Elastic vs. Plastic. Elastic deformation is reversible: If
the force (or pressure or stress) is removed, the material
returns to its original size and shape. If so much force
is applied to a material that it passes beyond its elastic
limit, then the material will start to plastically deform.
This is permanent. A good illustration of this is the small
spring from a ball point pen. When the spring is lightly
stretched, it will return to its original shape. However,
if the spring is stretched too far, it will be permanently,
or plastically, deformed. Youngs modulus only applies
to elastic deformation. As a group of materials, rocks
tend not to plastically deform very much. Instead they
will elastically deform and then fracture if the stress
gets too high. Notable exceptions to this are salt beds,
soft carbonates (e.g., chalk) and young coals.
Static Youngs Modulus. This is the standard
measure of E and is applicable to hydraulic fracturing.
The material is being deformed slowly and in
only one direction.
Dynamic Youngs Modulus. This is the rock
property measured by special sonic logging tools.
The material is no longer static; instead, it is
117
Modern Fracturing
being continually stretched and then compressed
rapidly. There is often a significant variation between
static and dynamic values for E due to a process
known as hysteresis. Hysteresis is a retardation of
the effects of forces, when the forces acting upon
a body are changed (as if from viscosity or internal
friction). In this situation, it represents the history
dependence of the physical systems. In a perfectly
elastic material, elastic stress and strain are infinitely
repeatable. In a system exhibiting hysteresis, the
strain produced by a force is dependent upon the
magnitude of the force and the previous strain history
(see Section 4-3.5.3).
Plane Stain Modulus. In hydraulic fracturing, the
strain in the direction perpendicular to the fracture
plane (i.e., the direction in which fracture width is
produced) is effectively zero. This is because in this
situation the denominator in Eq. 4-30 (the x) is so
large that the strain is effectively zero, even though
there has been measurable material deformation. This
is known as plane strain, which implies that strain
only exists in a direction perpendicular to the direction
in which strain is zero. To account for this anomaly,
fracture models use the plane strain modulus, E, to
calculate fracture width:
E
E'=
. (4-34)
2
(
1 )
In fracturing, Youngs modulus will typically
have values ranging from as low as 50,000 psi
(for a shallow, very soft chalk or weak sandstone)
to as high as 6,000,000 psi for deep, tight,
shaley sandstone. It should be noted that Youngs
modulus may not be constant in weak or
unconsolidated formations.
4-3.1.4 Other Rock Mechanical Characteristics
Tensile Strength. The tensile strength of a material is
the level of tensile stress that is required to make the
material fail. Usually as stress is applied, the material
will elastically deform (reversible), plastically deform
and then fail. In most rocks plastic deformation
is negligible and the material will, for all practical
purposes, elastically deform and then fail.
118
This property is important in hydraulic fracturing
because this stress level has to be overcome in order
to split the rock. Usually, the frac gradient (the
pressure i.e., stress needed to fracture the rock)
has two components: the stresses induced by the
overburden, and the tensile strength of the rock.
See Section 4-3.2 for a more detailed explanation
of in-situ stresses.
Materials also have a compressive strength,
which is the compression load beyond
which a material will fail. Failure mechanisms
are more complex because the material is
often compressed in several directions at once.
Generally, rocks are much stronger in compression
than in tension, a fact we take advantage
of during fracturing.
Shear Modulus. The shear modulus is similar to
Youngs modulus, except that it refers to the material
being in shear rather than in compression or tension.
It defines how much energy is required to elastically
deform a material in shear (see Fig. 4-18).
x
F
h
b
a
Figure 4-18 Force F applied to produce a shear stress
The shear stress, , is given by:
F
= , (4-35)
A
where A is the area of the block of material parallel to
the line of action of the force F (this is the plane along
which the shear stress acts) and is equal to a b.
The shear strain, , is defined as:
x
= = tan .
(4-36)
h
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Therefore, the shear modulus, G, is equal to the shear
stress divided by the shear strain:
Fh
G= =
. (4-37)
Ax
Bulk Modulus. This is another elastic constant,
which defines how much energy is required to
deform a material by the application of external
pressure. This is a special form of compressive
stress, in which the applied compressive stress is
equal in all directions. Imagine a block of material,
which originally has a pressure p1, applied to it
and has a volume V1. This pressure is increased to
p2, which causes the volume to decrease to V2, as
illustrated in Fig. 4-19. The increase in bulk stress
is the same as the increase in pressure, p2 p1. The
bulk strain is equal to the change in volume, V2 V1
divided by the original volume, V1. Thus, the bulk
modulus, K, is given by:
( p2 p1 ) V ( p p1 )
K = = 1 2 and (4-38)
(V2 V1 ) V1 (V2 V1 )
dp
K = V
. (4-39)
dV
V1
V2
Figure 4-19 Volume changes from V1 to V2 as pressure
increases from p1 to p2
The minus sign is introduced into the equation
because the term V2 V1 will always be of the opposite
sign to the term p2 p1. The bulk modulus is therefore
a measure of how much energy it takes to compress a
material using externally applied pressure.
Relationships Between the Four Elastic Constants.
The four main elastic constants Youngs modulus,
shear modulus, bulk modulus and Poissons ratio are
all related. If two of these material properties are known,
the other two can be deduced:
E = 3K (1 2 ) ,
(4-40)
E
K= ,
3 6 (4-41)
E
G= , and (4-42)
2 + 2
= 3K E . (4-43)
6K
Therefore, if the Youngs modulus and the Poissons ratio
are known, the shear modulus and the bulk modulus
can be deduced. Thus, fracture simulators only require
the input of E and .
4-3.1.5 Hookes Law
Stresses under the ground do not act only on a single
plane. There is a complex three-dimensional stress
regime. To simplify things, stresses are usually resolved
into three mutually perpendicular stress components in
the x, y and z directions.
Additionally, because the stresses are three-
dimensional, so are the strains. The elastic
relationship between these stresses and strains in
the mutually perpendicular directions, x, y and z, is
governed by Hookes law:
1
x = x ( y + z ) .
(4-44)
E
Equation 4-44 means that the strain in any direction
can be found in a three-dimensional stress regime,
provided the stress in that direction and the stresses
in two other mutually perpendicular directions are
also known. This will have implications for the in-situ
stresses as discussed in Section 4-3.2.
4-3.1.6 Failure Criteria and Yielding
Under conditions of uniaxial (one-dimensional) loading,
material failure is simple: The material elastically deforms
until a yield stress occurs, and then plastically deforms
119
Modern Fracturing
until the material fails. The point at which the strain
changes from elastic to plastic is referred to as the yield
point or yield stress. The maximum stress the material
can withstand under plastic loading is often called the
ultimate tensile (or compressive) stress or strength. For
brittle materials such as most rocks, plastic deformation
under uniaxial loading is almost nonexistent. The material
will, for all practical purposes, deform elastically and fail
(i.e., the yield stress ultimate tensile stress).
However, under conditions of triaxial loading, such
as those experienced by subterranean rock formations,
the situation is much more complex. To start with, the
three principal mutually perpendicular stresses (here
referred to as x, y and z), will induce shear stresses
on planes between the directions x, y and z. This means
there are six principal shear stresses (xy, xz, yx, yz, zx
and zy) and therefore nine principal stresses overall (see
Fig. 4-20). It must also be recognized that under triaxial
compressive loading, failure occurs by shearing, not by
conventional tension or compression. This means that
under triaxial compressive loading, if a suitable balance
is maintained among the three principal stresses, the
shear stress can be kept below the level required for
failure, and the material can essentially withstand
infinite stress. Such a situation occurs when a solid
block of material is subjected to hydrostatic pressure.
Finally, it must also be recognized that under triaxial
compressive loading, even materials traditionally
considered brittle (such as most rocks) can display
substantial plastic deformation before failure.
Ty
Uyz Uyx
Uyz
Tz
Uzx
Uxz
Tx
Uzx
Tz
Uzy
Uxy
Uyz
Uyx
Ty
Figure 4-20 General state of stress (after Budynas, 1999)
120
The three-dimensional state of stress at any given
point is described by the following matrix:
x xy zx
[ ] = .
xy y yz
yz z (4-45)
zx
Using standard three-dimensional transformation
techniques (see Budynas, 1999, for example),
these stresses can be resolved to a coordinate
system such that:
' x 0 0
[ ] = 0 ' y 0 .
0 0 'z (4-46)
These are the three principal stresses, 1, 2 and
3, defined so that 1 > 2 > 3 (note that tension is
positive and compression is negative, so a small tensile
load is greater than a large compressive load). To put
this another way, the direction of these three principal
stresses has been defined such that they are in a direction
that produces no perpendicular shear stresses. In all
other directions, shear stresses will exist.
Triaxial Failure Criteria. Several methods have been
developed for deciding when a material will fail under
triaxial loading. The main ones used today are Tresca
(maximum shear stress), von Mises (maximum-energy
of distortion) and Mohr-Coulomb. Both Tresca and von
Mises apply to ductile materials. The Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion, which is more applicable to brittle
materials, will be dealt with in more detail below.
Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion. This failure
criterion, as illustrated in Fig. 4-21, relies on the
Uxy use of two key factors that must usually be obtained
empirically: SUC (the ultimate strength under uniaxial
compression) and SUT (the ultimate strength under
Tx uniaxial tension). For rocks, as for most brittle materials,
Uxz
SUC is usually many times greater than SUT.
Figure 4-21 looks complex but can be easily
explained. To construct this diagram, first plot two
y
Mohrs circles based on the values of SUT and SUC.
These are the two dotted circles in Fig. 4-21. Then
z
x draw tangents to these lines as illustrated; these are
the failure lines. Finally, construct a Mohrs circle
based on the magnitude and difference between 1
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
and 3, as illustrated by the solid circle in Fig. 4-
21, remembering that 1 > 3. If the solid circle is
small enough to remain inside the tangents, then the
material will not fail. However, if the difference and
magnitude of 1 and 3 are such that the solid circle
goes outside the tangents and into the region marked
Failure in Fig. 4-21, then the material will fail. In
Fig. 4-21 the stresses are such that the material is just
at the point of failure, with the principle stress Mohrs
circle falling right on the tangents.
U
Failure
Stability
sUC T3 T1 sUT
T
Failure
Figure 4-21 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for brittle
materials
4-3.2 In-Situ Stress and Fracture Orientation
In-situ stresses are the stresses within the formation,
which act as a load (usually compressive) on the
formation. They come mainly from the overburden,
and these stresses are relatively easy to predict. However,
factors such as tectonics, volcanism and plastic flow
in adjacent formations can significantly affect the in-
situ stresses these factors are much harder to predict.
In addition, the act of creating a localized anomaly
such as an oil well can also significantly affect the
stresses in a specific area.
4-3.2.1 Overburden Stress
The stresses due to the overburden (also called the
vertical stress) are simply the sum of all the pressures
induced by all the different rock layers. Therefore, if
there has been no external influences such as tectonics
and the rocks are behaving elastically, the vertical
stress, v, at any given depth, H is given by:
H
v = n g hn ,
(4-47)
0
where n is the density of rock layer n, g is the acceleration
due to gravity and hn is the vertical height of zone n,
such that h1 + h2 + ..... + hn = H.
This is often expressed more simply in terms of an
overburden gradient, gob:
v = g ob H .
(4-48)
4-3.2.2 Horizontal Stresses
As previously discussed, a complex three-dimensional
stress regime exists in most subterranean rock
formations. To simplify things, stresses are usually
resolved into three mutually perpendicular stress
components: the vertical stress, v, and two horizontal
stresses, h,min and h,max.
Additionally, because the stresses are three-
dimensional, so are the strains. The elastic relationship
between these stresses and strains in three mutually
perpendicular directions, x, y and z, is governed
by Hookes law (Eq. 4-44 and Section 4-3.1.5).
For the case of elastic deformation with no outside
influences (such as tectonics) in a homogenous
and isotropic formation, there are two important
things to note. First, h,min = h,max because the
stresses will be symmetrical on the horizontal plane.
Second, as each individual unit of rock is pushing
against another identical unit of rock with the same
horizontal force, h,min = h,max = 0 (i.e., no deformation
on the horizontal plane).
Therefore, from Hookes law, setting x = h = 0,
x = y = h and z = v, then:
h = v . (4-49)
1
Equation 4-49 indicates that the Poissons ratio can
have a considerable influence on the horizontal in-
situ stresses. Additionally, given that < 0.5 and that
it is usually in the region of 0.25 for rocks, Eq. 4-
49 also shows us that unless there are some extreme
outside influences, the horizontal stress will always be
less than the vertical stress. This has implications for
fracture orientation (see Section 4-3.2.4).
121
Modern Fracturing

4-3.2.3 The Effect of Pore Pressure 4-3.2.4 Fracture Orientation

and Fracture Gradient
After the work of Biot (1956) the vertical stress (Eq. 4-
48) is usually modified to allow for the effects of pore (or
reservoir) pressure, such that:
v = g ob H pr ,
(4-50)
where gob is the overburden pressure gradient (usually
between 1.0 and 1.1 psi/ft) and is Biots poroelastic
constant, which is measure of how effectively the
fluid transmits the pore pressure to the rock grains.
depends upon variables such as the uniformity and
sphericity of the rock grains. By definition is always
between 0 and 1, usually assumed to be between 0.7
and 1.0 for petroleum reservoirs. We can see from Eq.
4-50 that the vertical stress is reduced by the action of
the reservoir pressure, as if the reservoir fluids partially
lift the overburden. This value is often referred to as
the effective stress. It should also be noted that as the
reservoir pressure declines (i.e., during depletion), the
effective vertical stress can increase.
The horizontal stress is also modified to allow for
the effects of pore pressure. As a result of work by
Handin et al., 1963 (based on previous investigations
by van Terzaghi, 1923; and on Biot, 1956), Eq. 4-
49 is generally modified to allow for the effects
of the pore pressure:
h = (v pr )
+ pr . (4-51)
1
Under most circumstances, h will decrease as pore
pressure declines.
Frac Gradient. Equation 4-51 gives the magnitude of
the horizontal stresses in the formation, provided the
two horizontal stresses are equal and the formation is
uniform. In order to determine the stress at which the
formation will fracture, it is often necessary to add a
component (T) to account for the tensile strength of
the rock (often minimal due to brittle fracture effects
see Section 4-3.4) and the effects of tectonics, etc.
The fracture gradient, gf, therefore becomes:
1 (v 2 pr )
g f =
+ pr + T . (4-52)
H 1
Fractures will always propagate along the path of least
resistance. In a three-dimensional stress regime, a
fracture will propagate so as to avoid the greatest stress
and will create width in a direction that requires the least
force. This means that a fracture will propagate parallel
to the greatest principal stress and perpendicular to the
plane of the least principal stress. This is a fundamental
principle; therefore, the key to understanding fracture
orientation is to understand the stress regime.
v
h, max
h, min
Figure 4-22 Fracture propagation perpendicular to the
minimum horizontal stress
Propagation perpendicular to the least principal
stress (usually h,min) means that the fracture will almost
always propagate on a vertical plane (see Fig. 4-22).
However, there are some exceptions.
Equations 4-50 and 4-51 define the magnitude
of horizontal and vertical stresses in undisturbed
formations. The horizontal stresses are induced by
the vertical stresses. There is evidence to suggest
that these horizontal stresses get locked into place
(Economides and Nolte, 1987) and remain relatively
constant regardless of what later happens to the
vertical stress. Figure 4-23 illustrates what happens
when the vertical stress is reduced.
If formation is lost due to erosion or glaciation,
the overburden stresses are reduced. However, because
the horizontal stresses are locked in, they have not
been reduced. Therefore, there is a region, close to the
new surface, where the horizontal stresses are greater
than the vertical stresses. This means that the fracture

122
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement

will propagate horizontally a pancake frac. Thus,
in shallow formations in areas with a history of surface
erosion, horizontal fractures are not only possible they
are in fact, likely. This does not apply to formations that
are very weak or unconsolidated because stresses cannot
be locked in if the rock strata have no strength.
wellbore, it will eventually reach a point at which the
normal stress regime becomes more significant than the
near-wellbore stress regime. At this point, the fracture
will change orientation. Sometimes this re-orientation
can be quite sudden, resulting in sharp corners in the
fracture, which can cause premature screenouts.

Magnitude of In-Situ Stress Magnitude of In-Situ Stress

4-3.2.5 Stress Around a Wellbore
Formation Lost
Due to Erosion and Breakdown Pressure
Depth

Depth

v v
A wellbore is essentially a pressure vessel with a very
thick wall. Consequently, the same theories that apply
h h to thick walled pressure vessels can also be applied
to wellbores, providing that the in-situ stresses and
Original Stress Regime Stress Regime after Loss
of Height by Erosion reservoir pressure are accounted for. Figure 4-24
illustrates how the stresses at any given point near the
Figure 4-23 Changes in stress regime due to erosion or
glaciation
wellbore can be resolved into three principal stresses:
vertical, radial and tangential stresses. Once again,
Another consequence of this phenomenon these are perpendicular to each other.
is that in formations where the v and the h are
v
approximately equal, it can be very hard to predict
fracture orientation.
The action of outside forces, such as tectonics t

and volcanism, can also significantly affect fracture

r r

orientation. The extra stresses imposed by the movement

of the Earths crust do not usually alter the overburden t
stress but can significantly alter the horizontal stresses.
In addition, formations can sometimes be bent and
v
buckled. For example, in Barbados, there is a formation
that has experienced so much tectonic stress that it now
Figure 4-24 Three-dimensional stresses around a
runs vertically. Its stresses have been locked into place,
wellbore
so now the original vertical stress is horizontal, and vice
versa. So the fractures propagate horizontally. The vertical stress, v , is as defined in Sections 4-
3.2.1 and 4-3.2.3 (Eqs. 4-47 and 4-50). From Deily
Influence of Wellbore Orientation. Drilling a well can and Owens (1969) we can get expressions for the
significantly alter the stress regime in an area around radial and tangential stresses induced by a pressure in
the well. How far this effect reaches from the wellbore the wellbore, pw, at a radius, R, from the center of the
depends upon the Youngs modulus of the formation. well (wellbore radius r w):
Hard formations (high E) tend to transmit stress
more easily than soft formations (which will deform r2 r2
r = pw ( pr + pw pR ) w2 + 1 + w2 v
to reduce the stress). Therefore, hard formations are R R (4-53)
affected more than soft formations.
In the area around the wellbore the area affected by and
the new stress regime fractures may propagate parallel r 2 2

to the wellbore, even if the wellbore is highly deviated t = ( pw pr ) w2 + 1 rw ( p p ) , (4-54)

R 1 R 2 ob r

or horizontal. As the fracture propagates away from the

123
Modern Fracturing
where pR is the pressure at a radius R from the
center of the well, is Biots poroelastic constant
(Biot, 1956), pr is the reservoir or pore pressure
and pob is the overburden pressure ( vertical
stress without the effects of pore pressure, see
Deily and Owens, 1961).
At the wellbore face, the stresses due to wellbore
pressure will be at a maximum. Also, this is by
definition the point at which the fracture initiates.
Therefore, these are the stresses that interest us most.
At the wellbore R r w and pR pw so that:
2
t =
1 ( ob
g H pr ) ( pw pr ) and (4-55)
r = pw pr ,
(4-56)
where gob is the overburden pressure gradient and H is
the vertical height, such that pob = gob H.
Furthermore, Barree et al. (1996) went on to show
that provided the rock does not have any significant
tensile strength or plastic deformation, failure of the
rock (i.e., breakdown) occurs when the tangential stress
is reduced to zero. Therefore, from Eq. 4-55 with t =
0 and pw equal to the breakdown pressure (or initial
fracture pressure), pif, rearranging gives:
2 2 (1 )
pif =
1 ( ob
g H pr ) + pr . (4-57)
The breakdown pressure is the pressure
required to initiate a fracture from the wellbore.
Due to the effects of the stresses induced by the
presence of the wellbore, the breakdown pressure
is usually greater than the fracture gradient,
which is a measure of the pressure required to
propagate the fracture through the formation,
away from the influence of wellbore effects.
Both are usually expressed as pressure gradients
(i.e., in psi/ft or kPa/m) so that similar formations
in different wells at different depths can
be more easily compared. The fracture gradient is a
very important quantity in fracturing because it is
the most significant contributor to the bottomhole
treating pressure, which in turn helps to define
the surface treating pressure, the loading on the
completion and the proppant selection. Between
124
80 and 90% of the energy in the fracturing
fluid will be used simply to overcome the stresses
in the formation.
In order to produce a fracture in the formation,
two forces have to be overcome. The first force is
the in-situ stress, which is defined in Eqs. 4-49
and 4-51 when there are no external influences
such as tectonics, etc. The second force to be
overcome is the tensile strength of the rock,
which is usually in the region of 100 to 500 psi.
Roegiers (1987) defined the breakdown pressure in a
different manner to Eq. 4-57:
pif , upper = 3h ,min h ,max pr + T and (4-58)
3h ,min h ,max 2 pr + T
pif , lower = , (4-59)
2 (1 )
where pif, upper is the breakdown pressure assuming no
fluid invasion into the formation (i.e., the maximum
possible theoretical breakdown pressure), pif, lower is the
lower boundary for breakdown pressure, assuming
significant alteration of the near-wellbore pore pressure
due to fluid, and is a parameter defined by the Poissons
ratio and Biots constant, as follows:
(1 2 )
= .
(4-60)
If there are no significant external influences on
the stress regime, the two horizontal stresses are equal
and Eqs. 4-58 and 4-59 can be simplified to:
pif , upper = 2h pr + T and (4-61)
2h 2 pr + T
pif , lower = . (4-62)
2 (1 )
The breakdown gradient is simply the breakdown
pressure, pb, divided by the TVD.
The fracture gradient is the pressure required to
make the fracture propagate outside of the influences
of the wellbore (the region referred to as far-field). As
stated above, this is often significantly lower than the
breakdown pressure, depending upon the viscosity of the
frac fluid, the reservoir pressure and the contrast between
maximum and minimum horizontal stresses.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
4-3.3 Fracture Shape
4-3.3.1 Two-Dimensional (2-D) Fracture Geometry
Until the early 1990s, fracture simulation was limited
to two-dimensional modeling. Although these
models had been extensively developed and refined
over a period of 25 years or so, they represented a
simple, albeit elegant, approximation to simplified
fracture geometry. Three main models existed; radial,
KGD (Kritianovitch and Zheltov, Geertsma and
DeKlerk, further refined by Daneshy) and PKN
(Perkins and Kern, Nordgren). A more detailed
explanation of these models will be provided in
Section 4-6.2.2. However, below is a brief, qualitative
description of the models.
Radial. Various radial models have been developed,
but in each one the height is assumed to be directly
related to the fracture length, such that hf = 2xf (=
2rf, the radius of the fracture). This is illustrated
in Fig. 4-25. In this model, fracture width is
proportional to fracture radius.
rf
hf (= 2rf ) wf (rf )
Figure 4-25 Radial fracture geometry
KGD. This model was originally developed by
Khristianovich and Zheltov in 1955 and was later
modified by Geertsma and de Klerk (1969), Le
Tirant and Dupuy (1967) and finally by Daneshy
(1973). This model is illustrated in Fig. 4-26. In
this model, fracture height is fixed and width is
proportional to fracture length. This model also
assumes constant width against height and slippage
at the formation boundaries.
wf (xf )
hf
xf
Figure 4-26 KGD fracture geometry
PKN. This fracture model was originally conceived
by Sneddon (1946) and later developed by Perkins
and Kern (1961), with further work by Nordgren
(1972), Advanti et al. (1985) and Nolte (1986b).
In this model, the fracture height is again assumed
to be constant. However, this time there is no
slippage between the formation boundaries, and
the width is proportional to fracture height,
as illustrated in Fig. 4-27.
wf (hf )
hf
xf
Figure 4-27 PKN fracture geometry
4-3.3.2 Elliptical Fracture Geometry
It quickly became apparent that the simple two-
dimensional fracture geometry, with either a
fixed fracture height or a radial shape, was not
adequate for many fractures. Consequently, attempts
were made to extend the 2-D models to simulate
the fractures as ellipses (e.g., Martins and Harper,
1985). Other attempts were based on extending the
radial model so that hf < 2xf (instead of hf = 2xf),
although the user still had to specify the
ratio of length to height.
125
Modern Fracturing
Ultimately, attempts at 2-D elliptical
fracture modeling did not find widespread use,
as they were quickly superceded by lumped-
parameter 3-D models.
Today, most fracture modeling is performed using
lumped-parameter 3-D simulators. These models are
considerably more sophisticated than the 2-D models
outlined in Section 4-3.3.1 but are not fully 3-D.
Instead, these models relate all fracture parameters
back to a characteristic dimension, which is found
using proprietary methods. These simulators model
the fracture as two semi-ellipses, which meet on
a horizontal line level with the point of fracture
initiation, as illustrated in Fig. 4-28.
Upper
Semi Ellipse
Lower
Semi Ellipse
Point of Fracture Initiation
Figure 4-28 Lumped-parameter 3-D modeling, showing
two semi-ellipses
Special sets of consistency equations are used to
ensure that the two semi-ellipses have the same length
and width characteristics where they meet. The main
differences between the models are how they find the
characteristic length, how they ensure consistency
between the two halves of the fracture, and how they
model propagation at the fracture tip.
4-3.3.3 Limitations to Fracture Height Growth
Engineers often refer to boundary formations above
and below a zone of interest. Sometimes this is based
on wishful thinking a desire to achieve preferential
fracture extension and minimal height growth. Often
there is very little evidence to back up these claims of
fracture containment. However, it is also true that
126
sometimes fracture height is contained; the evidence,
usually based on microseismic analysis or post-treatment
pressure transient analysis, is hard to contradict. So what
can cause fracture height containment?
Stress Contrasts. The classic and often-abused formation
characteristic of stress contrasts is often used as evidence
for fracture height containment. Without question, a
significant increase in the minimum principal stress
(usually caused by a change in the Poissons ratio) as
the fracture propagates up or down into a different
formation, can make it very difficult for the fracture
to extend. The fracturing fluid does not have sufficient
pressure to separate the rock and without a significant
increase in pnet, will extend only laterally, rather than
grow into the high-stress region.
However, how often do these stress contrasts exist?
It is not appropriate to assume that an over- or under-
lying stratum will automatically have higher in-situ
stress than the reservoir sandstone. In fact, neighboring
layers are just as likely to have reduced stresses (in which
case we will get preferential fracture height growth) as
increased stresses. Unless there is some independent
evidence to corroborate stress-based fracture height
containment, it can not be relied upon.
Fracture Toughness and/or Tip Effects. In order for
the fracture to propagate, the rock must be physically
split apart at the fracture tip. In formations where this
is easy (i.e., relatively little energy is used to do this),
the formation is said to be brittle and has a low
apparent fracture toughness. The opposite effect, in
which relatively large quantities of energy are used to
split the rock apart, is referred to as ductility (high
apparent fracture toughness).
Although there is still considerable debate as to what
exactly is happening at the fracture tip, there is no doubt
that a significant portion of the net pressure (the energy
available in the fracturing fluid for making the fracture
grow) is used up at the fracture tip. How much energy is
used is controlled by ductile the formation is.
If the fracture propagates from a formation that
is brittle into a formation that is ductile, extra energy
(i.e. net pressure) will be required to keep the fracture
propagating in that direction. If this energy is not available
or if it is easier for the fracture to grow in an alternative
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
direction then the fracture will not significantly
penetrate the ductile formation. Consequently,
contrasts in apparent fracture toughness can form the
most reliable barriers to height growth, especially for
shales (as many shales exhibit plastic properties).
It is possible that fracture height containment
often attributed to stress contrasts is in fact due to
apparent fracture toughness contrasts.
Youngs Modulus. Contrasts in Youngs modulus are
not very good at preventing fracture height growth.
There is an inverse relationship between fracture
toughness and Youngs modulus; formations tend to
be either soft and ductile or hard and brittle. This
means that a rapid increase in E can also coincide
with a rapid decrease in apparent fracture toughness,
making it easier for the fracture to propagate.
However, as illustrated in Eq. 4-5, fracture width is
inversely proportional to E for any given net pressure.
Therefore, a rapid increase in E will result in a rapid
decrease in fracture width, possibly even to the point
where it is too narrow for proppant placement.
Fluid Viscosity. In spite of a common industry
perception, reduced fluid viscosity cannot be relied
upon to reduce fracture height growth, although a
contrast between pad fluid and proppant-laden fluid
viscosity can under the right circumstances result
in proppant-laden fluid entering only the central part
of the fracture. In fact there is considerable evidence
from the Gas Research Institute (GRI) Staged Field
Experiments (1988, 1989 and 1990), as discussed by
Wright et al. (1993), that formations will produce the
same pressure response (indicating similar fracture
geometry) regardless of fluid viscosity. There is also
very little evidence from microseismic analysis that
thin fracturing fluids produce less height than highly
viscous fluids (Cipolla, 2006).
4-3.3.4 Complex Fracture Geometry
In reality, even with the most advanced models available,
we are using simplifications to model the hydraulic
fracture. In general, what we try to do is make a regular,
symmetrical, simulated fracture behave in a similar
fashion to a far more complex reality:
Simulators assume symmetry on either side of
the wellbore, but this is highly unlikely given the
variations in formation properties and perforation
characteristics that almost certainly exist.
Simulators generally assume with notable
exceptions an elliptical or semi-elliptical
fracture geometry.
Simulators assume again with notable exceptions
horizontal isotropy in the formations. Even
in simulators that allow variations in formation
characteristics on the horizontal plane (such as the
grid-base simulators), there is usually very little
data available to justify doing this.
Simulators generally assume a single fracture on
each side of the wellbore. In reality, engineers
hope that a single fracture will predominate
and force any others closed, but there is no
guarantee that this will happen. Every perforation
is a potential source of fracture initiation, and
it is highly likely that more than one fracture
will propagate on either side of the wellbore
especially if the wellbore is deviated.
However, one over-riding fact determines
that relatively simplistic representations of fractures
will persist. There is little point in making the
models any more complex, as we cannot acquire
the data necessary to do justice for even these
simple models. Indeed, most inputs into the
current generation of fracture simulators require a
considerable degree of educated guesswork, refined
by experience. Consequently, there is little point
in making the models even more complex until we
can find significantly improved ways to determine
the required input data.
4-3.4 Fracture Propagation,
Toughness and Tip Effects
4-3.4.1 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) is all
about predicting how much stress (i.e. energy) is
required to propagate a fracture. LEFM assumes
linear elastic deformation (constant Youngs
modulus) followed by brittle fracture it is implicit
that no significant energy is absorbed by non-linear
127
Modern Fracturing
or non-elastic effects. That is to say, energy stored
as stress in the material is transferred directly to
fracturing the material, and no energy is lost to
plastic deformation or other effects.
The Griffith Crack. The first person to adopt a
meaningful analytical approach to studying the
mechanics of fracture propagation was Griffith
(1921). Fig. 4-29 illustrates the concept of the
Griffith crack, which can be expressed as:
U 2 2 a
= , (4-63)
a E
where U is the elastic energy (i.e., the energy used
to produce elastic stress on the material), a is the
characteristic fracture length, is the far-field stress
(i.e., the bulk stress away from the influence of
the fracture) and E is Youngs modulus. Therefore,
Eq. 4-63 defines the amount of additional energy
(U) that is required to make the fracture grow from
length a to length a + a.
2a
Figure 4-29 The Griffith crack
Usually, U/a is replaced by 2G. G is referred
to as the elastic energy release rate or the crack
driving force, such that:
2 a
G =
. (4-64)
E mechanics
128
In order to reach this relationship, Griffith makes a
significant assumption that there is no energy lost
at the fracture tip, so all energy is used to propagate
the fracture, either to elastically deform or to rupture
the material. Therefore, there can be no plastic
deformation at the tip and the Griffith model is only
applicable to materials liable to elastic deformation
followed by brittle fracture.
Griffith Failure Criterion. Given that for a uniform
material with constant geometry U/a is a constant,
there is a critical value of stress, c, at which the material
will experience catastrophic failure, i.e., the fracture
propagates at high velocity across the material causing
failure. This critical stress is defined as:
EG
c = 1c
. (4-65)
a
The critical energy release rate, Glc, is determined
experimentally and is a material characteristic,
although it will vary with both temperature and
the overall geometry of the test specimen. Equation
4-65 also defines, for a given stress, a critical
fracture length. If the fracture is less than this
critical length, the material will not fail. However,
if the fracture grows beyond this critical length,
the material will fail.
The subscript 1 refers to the failure mode, as
illustrated in Fig. 4-30. Failure mode 1 is the opening
mode, mode 2 the sliding mode and mode 3 the
tearing mode. In hydraulic fracturing, we are usually
concerned only with failure mode 1.
Mode 1: Mode 2: Mode 3:
Opening Sliding Tearing
Figure 4-30 Failure modes for linear elastic fracture

Stress Intensity Factor. With reference to Fig. 4-31, the
stresses in the principal directions, at some point away
from the fracture tip, can be expressed as:
K1 3
xx = cos 1 sin sin and (4-66) instance, relationships linking K, a and for most
2 r 2 2 2
K1 3
yy = cos 1 + sin sin , (4-67)
2r 2 2 2
where K1 is the stress intensity factor (failure mode 1) at
the polar coordinates (r, ) away from the fracture tip.
y
r 1.12
Fracture
x ) 8
a f
Figure 4-31 Coordinate system for the stress intensity
factor
Considering the plane strain situation (i.e., zz = 0,
an object with a thickness large enough to make strain
on the z-axis negligible), and the case that a r, then
the stress in the y-direction across the line of the
fracture (i.e., = 0) can be expressed as:
K
yy =
1
. (4-68)
2r
Obviously, from Eq. 4-68, as r 0, yy . This
represents a fundamental difficulty in this approach
to modeling fractures because the stresses can become
infinite at the fracture tip. In reality, some kind of
plastic deformation is likely as the stress rises above
the yield point. In brittle materials, the region around
the fracture tip in which plastic deformation occurs
is very small and the amount of energy consumed
by this process is not significant. This is not the
case for ductile materials.
Using this approach, K is the only factor
that affects the magnitude of the stress at a given
distance from the fracture tip. While K is a material
Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
characteristic, it is also a variable, depending upon the
gross geometry of the fracture and its surroundings,
as well as temperature.
Assuming a constant temperature in any given
situations have been solved, either analytically or
numerically. At material failure, c can be described in
terms of a critical stress intensity factor, K1c, which is
more commonly referred to as the fracture toughness:
K1c
c = .
(4-69)
a
This is a fundamental equation of Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics, where is a geometrical factor and is equal
to 0.4 for a radial fracture. For elliptical fractures, can
be found as follows (from Broek, 1986):
2
.
3 x f
+ 2 (4-70)
8 ( 12 h
K1c is related to G1c by:
K12c
G1c = (1 )
2
. (4-71)
E
For a given gross geometry, fracture toughness
is a material characteristic. Equation 4-71 shows
that it represents the amount of mechanical energy a
material can absorb before it fails by brittle fracture.
Put simply, a material with a low K1c is brittle, and a
material with a high K1c is tough.
4-3.4.2 Significance of Fracture Toughness
In hydraulic fracturing, fracture toughness represents
the amount of energy required to split the rock apart
at the fracture tip. The relative values of fracture
toughness and Youngs modulus determine how
energy is used to create fracture width and how much
it is used to create fracture height and length.
At the start of fracture propagation, the fracture
half-length (equivalent to a in Eq. 4-69) will be very
small. While the stress (and hence energy) required
to create length is proportional to 1/xf, the energy
required to create width is directly proportional to
the half-length. This means that the energy used
as a result of the fracture toughness is much more
129
Modern Fracturing
significant for smaller fractures (or at the start of
a treatment) than it is for larger fractures (or at
the end of a treatment).
4-3.4.3 Complexity at the Fracture Tip
From the extensive work done in this field, it is clear
that LEFM alone does not adequately account for the
pressure needed to make the fracture grow. There is a
tip over-pressure effect, which means that more pressure
(energy) is required than is predicted by LEFM. A few
of the possible and not necessarily mutually exclusive
theories for this are described below.
Fluid Lag Effect. The fluid lag effect was first identified
by Khristianovitvh and Zheltov in their original 1955
paper that is better known for the description of the
frac model that would become known as the KZD
model. Jeffrey (1989) quantified the effect by defining
an apparent fluid lag due to the crack tip pinching effect
caused by fluid lag as illustrated by Fig. 4-34.
Process Zone
pnet
ptip
pnet
2xf
Figure 4-32 Crack tip pinching effect caused by the
inability of the fracturing fluid to penetrate into the fracture
tip (from Jeffrey, 1989)
Because the frac fluid cannot penetrate into the
far tip of the fracture, the rock at the tip experiences
less pressure than the rock exposed to the fracturing
fluid in the main body of the fracture. Because the
rock is subjected to less pressure, the fracture width is
reduced. This acts to decrease the apparent length of
the fracture, which has the same effect as increasing
the fracture toughness of the rock. Therefore the main
effect of the fluid lag is to increase the net pressure
required to propagate the fracture.
130
Jeffrey defines the effective fracture toughness
produced by the fluid lag effect as:
K1effc = K1c + K1lag
c and (4-72)
R R
K1lag
c = 2 ptip
arcsin , (4-73)
2 R
where ptip is the net pressure in the non-wetted part of
the fracture tip, R is the radius of the fracture at any
given point, K1ceff is the effective fracture toughness
caused by the fluid lag effect, K1clag is the additioanl
fracture toughness caused by the fluid lag effect, and
is the length of the non-wetted zone (parallel to the
direction in which xf is measured). Note that R is the
distance from the point of fracture initiation and does
not imply radial fracture geometry.
Johnson and Cleary (1991) showed that the
length of the non-wetted part of the fracture could be
approximated by:
2
R pnet (4-74)
,
2 pnet + pc
if the condition set out in Eq. 4-75 is met.
Crack Tip Dilatancy. The theory of crack tip dilatency
was first put forward by Johnson and Cleary (1991)
and has been used extensively by them in one of
the major fracture models. They used the concept
of dilatancy (first observed by Reynolds, 1885) in
which granular materials are observed to deform
in a non-linear elastic fashion. During hydraulic
fracturing, dilatancy causes a volumetric expansion
of the material in the process zone, which requires
extra energy (i.e. net pressure). This approach almost
entirely eliminates the concept of fracture toughness.
Instead, the theory states that deep underground,
the effect of the confining stress is much more
significant than the effect of the fracture toughness.
Thus K1c can be ignored if:
pnet R K1c , (4-75)
where R is the radius of the fracture (as defined above)
and is analogous to the LEFM characteristic of fracture
length. Johnson and Cleary combined the effects of
dilatancy and fluid lag, as illustrated in Fig. 4-33.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement

Dilation Contribution where C is the Kachanov (1971) parameter and is

Fluid Lag Pinching Effect considered a material characteristic.

Crack Tip Plasticity. The phenomenon of plastic flow

at the fracture tip, even in materials believed to be
pnet
w elastic-brittle, was first described in relation to hydraulic
fracturing by Yew and Liu (1993). van Dam, et al.
(2000) presented experimental evidence of the existence
of the plastic zone, while Martin (2000) described the
R shape of the plastic zone and quantified the amount of
Figure 4-33 Illustration of the Effects of Fluid Lag and energy lost to plastic deformation.
Dilatancy (from Johnson and Cleary, 1991)
Referring to Eq. 4-68, we can see that as we near the
Process or Damage Zone. Yew and Liu (1993) fracture tip (i.e., as r approaches zero) the stresses can rise
showed that a damaged zone exists beyond the fracture dramatically and will tend to infinity as r actually reaches
tip, in which extra energy is absorbed to create the zero. Obviously, this is not possible; as the material passes
damage, ahead of the propagation of the fracture. This its yield stress, y, it will plastically deform to reduce the
produced an increase in fracture toughness: stresses and absorb energy. This has the effect of producing
E Et a blunt fracture tip with a diameter, d, defined as:
72 2
K1c =
K , (4-76)
2 1
K12 (1 2 )
2
( )
1 + 3 (1 + ) Et
d= ,
(4-80)
E y
where Et is the Youngs modulus of the damaged
zone, K1 is the stress intensity factor (= pnet(xf )), remembering that K1 = pnet(xf). The plastic region
and is found from: around the fracture tip has a radius rp, as defined by:
3 2
y rp 1 3
tan =
2
,
112
(4-77)
K 2
1
=
4 2 ( )
sin 2 + (1 2 ) (1 + cos ) .
2

(4-81)

where is the internal friction angle of the material. Figure 4-34 shows Eq. 4-81 plotted in polar coordinates,
From Eq. 4-76 we can see that the change in fracture to give the size and shape of the plastic zone around the
toughness is driven by a change in Youngs modulus in fracture tip.
the affected area. If the Youngs modulus is unaffected
(i.e. Et = E in Eq. 4-76), then K1c is zero. 0.5
Valk and Economides (1993) used the
Continuum Damage Mechanics concept to modify y2rp
traditional LEFM to account for the existence of O = 0.25 K12
microfractures in a damaged zone normal to the
fracture path. They showed that Eq. 4-68 could be
modified to define the stress at a distance r from the R
fracture tip, to allow for the presence of microfractures -0.5 0.5
of average length, :
K1
(r ) = 1 / r h ,min . (4-78)
2 ( + x f )

They also showed that the fracture propagation rate, u,

could be determined by: -0.5
2 Figure 4-34 Polar coordinate plot showing the size and
C 2 K1
, shape of the crack tip plastic zone, for = 0.25 (from
u= (4-79)
h ,min + x f Martin, 2000)

131
Modern Fracturing
4-3.5 Measuring Rock
Mechanical Characteristics
4-3.5.1 Introduction
This section reviews testing methods that are generally
used in acquiring rock mechanical properties necessary
to run current hydraulic fracture models. In cases where
core is not available, alternative methods of estimating
mechanical properties are reviewed.
Many hydraulic fracture models require some or
all three of the following elastic constants for each layer
used in the simulation:
Youngs modulus
Poissons Ratio
Biot-Willis poroelastic constant
In addition, proppants are used to maintain fracture
width and enhance conductivity. If the formation is too
soft, excessive proppant embedment may detrimentally
reduce conductivity. This is especially true for low
proppant loadings. Formation hardness is a simple test
that can be used to assess the degree of embedment that
one can expect at net closure stress.
4-3.5.2 Methods of Measurement
The measurement of the elastic properties of the
formation have been divided into two general
categories; static and dynamic. Dynamic elastic
properties derive their name from the oscillatory
nature of the applied loads used in the measurement,
while the term static implies measurements in
which the loads are applied at such low rates that the
axial and confining stresses are uniformly distributed
over the entire sample. Static elastic constants are
measured using conventional triaxial test equipment
that measures the deformation of core samples as
a function of applied stress. The rates of stress and
strain in static measurements are orders of magnitude
lower than those used in dynamic testing. The stress/
strain amplitudes applied in static measurements are
also order of magnitude greater than those used in
dynamic testing (typically). Because of differences
in stress/strain rates and amplitudes between the two
general test methods, the calculated values of the
elastic constants usually turn out to be different (Plona
132
and Cook, 1995, Obert et al., 1946). For example,
the dynamic Youngs modulus of sandstone is often
greater than the static value by a factor of 2 to 10.
The predominant view in the industry is that static
values of elastic constants are a better representation
of the values needed in hydraulic fracture models.
Therefore, elastic constants derived by dynamic
methods often have to be corrected or transformed
into static equivalents before use in hydraulic fracture
models. Below, we discuss how these constants
may be obtained and how to transform dynamic
values into static values.
Dynamic Methods. It can be shown (Auld, 1990) that
for linear elastic, isotropic, homogeneous solids, the
relationships among the dynamic Youngs modulus
(Edyn) and Poissons Ratio (dyn) and the longitudinal
and shear wave velocities are as follows:
1 (u u )2 1
dyn = 2
p s
2
and (4-82)
(u p us ) 1
Edyn = 2bus2 (1 + dyn ) , (4-83)
where up is the longitudinal mode of wave propagation,
us is the transverse mode of wave propagation and
b is the bulk density, which can be calculated
from porosity (), rock matrix density (ma) and
fluid density(f) by:
b = ma (1 ) + f .
(4-84)
Eqs. 4-82 and 4-83 form the basis for calculating
elastic constants from wireline conventional sonic and
dipole sonic density logs. They are used throughout the
industry and usually provide a reasonable estimation
of the dynamic elastic constants. A more convenient
form of Eqs. 4-82 and 4-83 uses the transit times or
inverse wave velocities:
1 (t t )2 1
dyn = 2
s p
(ts t p ) 1 and (4-85)
2
Edyn = 2.694104 b (1 ts ) (1 + dyn ).
2
(4-86)
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Shear (Gdyn) and bulk moduli (Kdyn) can also be
calculated from the transit times:
2
Gdyn = 1.347 104 b (1 ts ) and (4-87)
2 2
K dyn = 1.347104 b (1 t p ) 4 3 (1 ts ) , (4-88)
where ts = 1/us and tp = 1/up. The coefficient in Eq. 4-86
is the conversion factor allowing Youngs modulus to
be expressed in units of millions of pounds per square
inch (Mpsi), while the bulk density is expressed in units
of g/cc and the shear-wave transit time in sec/ft. Eqs.
4-85 and 4-86 are convenient because sonic data is
typically expressed in units of sec/ft.
The Biot-Willis poroelastic constant, , can also
be calculated from wave velocity data (Klimentos
et al., 1995):
= 1 K dry K s ,
(4-89)
where Kdry is the dynamic bulk modulus of the rock
tested under drained conditions and Ks is the average
bulk modulus of the mineral components comprising
the rock. Drained measurements are performed
by allowing the pore fluids to freely drain from the
pore space, thus maintaining constant pore pressure
during the test. The subscript dry is used in Eq. 4-89
because testing dry core is the easiest way to ensure this
condition is met. Like other dynamic measurements
of elastic properties in porous rock, obtained from
wave velocity measurements may be different from
obtained using static testing methods.
Wireline logging companies provide options for
obtaining the wave velocities of different modes of wave
propagation. For example the compressional, shear, and
Stonely modes of propagation are routinely collected.
Conventional shear velocities are derived from mode-
converted compressional wave signals that fall incident
on the borehole wall. Dipole-sonic logs induce torsional
and flexural modes of propagation but travel essentially
at the shear velocity. For elastic constants, data from the
compressional and shear wave transit times are used in
Eqs. 4-85 to 4-88.
The longitudinal and transverse wave velocities are
also measured in the laboratory on cores using a set
of transmitting/receiving ultrasonic transducers. The
pulsed through-transmission method is most common.
The ultrasonic transducers are designed to generate
longitudinal, transverse or torsional waves. The
transverse- and torsional-mode transducers generate
ultrasonic waves that travel at the shear velocity. The
transverse wave measurement has the advantage over the
torsional wave measurement in that the transverse wave
is polarized and therefore suitable for measuring elastic
anisotropy. However, torsional-mode transducers tend
to generate more energy; therefore, the signal-to-noise
ratio is greater than that produced by polarized shear
transducers. This can be important when measuring
shear velocities in highly attenuating rock, such as
unconsolidated, saturated sands.
Static Methods. The most reliable method for
determining the elastic constants for use in hydraulic
fracture models is by testing cores under triaxial
conditions of stress. The most common triaxial method
tests cylindrical core plugs. Loads are imparted to the
sample by a pressurized fluid (usually hydraulic oil)
applied to the outer circumference of a sleeved core
plug and an independent axial stress applied to each
end of the sample by a hydraulic press. Typical stress
paths involve an initial hydrostatic ramp to some
predefined value, followed by an additional increase
in axial stress while maintaining a constant confining
pressure. In some instances, the axial stress path may
be cycled one or two times to remove stress hysteresis
effects from the strain measurements. The cores may or
may not be saturated with a fluid. For gas-producing
wells, testing the cores in a room-dried state usually will
not affect the elastic properties to a large extent.
The axial and radial displacements are usually
measured using either strain gauges or LVDTs
(Linear Variable Differential Transformers). The
axial strain is calculated from the fractional change
in length along the deviatoric axial stress cycle. The
radial strain is calculated from the fractional change
in diameter or circumference along the same portion
of the stress cycle. Youngs modulus is calculated
from the secant slope of the change in axial stress
to axial strain. Poissons Ratio is calculated from
the secant slope of the change in radial strain to
axial strain. In some instance, the volume strain
is monitored during the stress cycle(s) to ensure
133
Modern Fracturing
that volume strain of the core is not in a state of
dilatation. Dilatation implies the volume is increasing
with additional stress/strain and is associated with
permanent deformation and the onset of plastic
deformation (Reynolds, 1885). Sections of stress/
strain curves where dilatation is observed should be
avoided when calculating elastic constants.
Brinell Hardness. Formation hardness is easily
measured on core materials using a single-ball
penetrometer, which is used to determine the Brinell
hardness (BH) of the material. This measurement is
often performed to estimate the amount of proppant
embedment that can be expected in a hydraulic
fracture at maximum anticipated closure stress.
Brinell hardness is also measured to determine the
softening effect that fracturing fluids have on fluid-
sensitive formations such as shale and coal.
Brinell hardness, BH, is defined by ASTM E50
and ISO 6506 standards as the ratio of the applied
force, F, of the steel ball to the contact area, Ac, of the
indentation created by the steel ball:
F
BH = ,
(4-90)
Ac
where the contact area is given by:
Ac = 2rh = 2r r
(r 2 r 2 ) , (4-91) Preparation Considerations
and where definitions of the penetration depth, h,
radius of indentation, r, and proppant radius, r are
illustrated in Fig. 4-35. The test can be designed to
measure either h or r.
Proppant Grain
of Radius r
r plugs are usually drilled parallel and/or perpendicular to
ra
h but typically, 1- and 1.5-in.-diameter plugs are taken.
h = Embedment Depth
ra = Radius of Indentation
Figure 4-35 Diagram illustrating the Brinell hardness test
134
Typically, BH values less than 5 to 6 kg/mm2
indicate soft formations. Care should be taken to
ensure that proppant loadings are high enough to
compensate for proppant embedment.
Formation Porosity-Permeability. Routine
measurements of porosity and single-phase
permeability (either liquid or air) should be performed
if core materials are available. These tests are relatively
easy to perform and provide important data needed
to calculate production rates, hydrocarbon volumes,
completion strategies, etc. This data is often needed
as input into hydraulic fracture models. Porosity/
permeability cross-plots from core measurements
can often provide useful transforms for estimating
permeability from wireline log data.
Mineralogy. Mineral content as determined from
powdered X-ray diffraction (XRD) techniques
provides clues to mechanical and petrophysical
properties. For example, XRD is routinely performed
on cores to identify hydrophilic minerals such as
expandable illite/smectite clays that can be the cause
of much formation damage from water-based muds
and fracturing fluids.
4-3.5.3 Core Selection/Sample
Core material can be acquired by various means.
Conventional whole cores are extracted during the drilling
operations and have to be planned with the drilling
program. Typical coring barrels extract 4-in.-diameter
cores. Core barrel lengths typically come in 30-ft sections.
Although some analytical laboratories have the means
to test whole core for mechanical, electrical and poro-
permeability properties, most testing is performed on core
plugs extracted from whole core sections. Cylindrical core
the whole core axis. The size of the core plugs is variable,
The length of cores cut parallel to the whole core axis can
vary depending on the test objectives. Core plugs drilled
perpendicular to the whole core axis, are limited to the
whole core diameter. For mechanical properties, a length-
to-diameter ratio of 2:1 is recommended.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Rotary and percussion sidewall plugs are a second
source of core material. Rotary plugs tend to have less
mechanical damage than percussion sidewall plugs and
are favored over percussion sidewall for testing mechanical
properties, routine porosity and permeability. By
definition, sidewall cores are drilled perpendicular to the
axis of the borehole. In vertical wells, rotary sidewall cores
are correctly oriented for determining elastic properties in
hydraulic fracture applications. Percussion sidewall cores
are useful for assessing mineral content and grain size and
measuring formation hardness. The diameter of sidewall
cores is slightly less than 1 in.
Drill cuttings are a third source of core material.
By definition, cuttings are fragmented rock that is
transported by the drilling mud to the surface. The
cuttings acquired at the surface are a mixture of
cuttings from different depths, and the depths from
which they are collected are usually not accurately
known. The use of cuttings to determine mechanical
properties is therefore severely compromised. However,
advances in the use of cuttings to infer mechanical
properties have been reported (Ringstad et al., 1998,
and Santarelli et al., 1996).
Outcrop is a fourth source of reservoir core material.
Caution should be exercised when interpreting data
acquired from outcrop material. Outcrop is weathered
rock whose mechanical properties have most likely
been altered from initial in-situ values through drying,
freeze-thaw cycling and stress relaxation. In addition,
the location of outcrop is often miles from the well
site. Considerable effort is often required to relate the
outcrop test results to reservoir properties.
The following items should be considered when
selecting core for testing:
1. Try to obtain a representative sampling
both the reservoir and the bounding rock
layers, if available.
2. Use available gamma ray (GR), density, and
compressive wave transit time (DTC), shear wave
transit time (DTS) logs to determine the location
and number of samples needed. Select samples
that span the range of density, porosity and GR
values. This will increase the chance of selecting a
wide range of rock properties.
3. If available, use a LithoLog to select core.
Choose enough core from each rock type so
that there will be enough core data generated
to establish empirical relations among the
different rock types.
4. Find out if there is a core-log depth shift. Note the
shift when selecting core plug locations.
5. For hydraulic fracturing, drill plugs in the
direction of minimum principal stress. In a
vertical well with anticipated vertical fracture, drill
plugs perpendicular to the core axis. In horizontal
wells with anticipated vertical fracture, drill plugs
parallel to bedding planes (if visible). If horizontal
fractures are anticipated, cores should be drilled
in the vertical direction.
6. Drill plugs with length-to-diameter ratio
of 2:1.
7. If the core was recently taken, try to preserve
formation fluids. Wrap core plugs in plastic
wrap and seal before shipping to laboratory.
Tests should be performed with reservoir fluids
in place if possible. In gas wells, testing as
received should be adequate.
4-3.5.4 Deducing Elastic Properties without Core
There may be occasions in planning hydraulic
treatments when core material is not available. It will
then be necessary to use other resources to estimate
the static elastic constants. The following resources
should be considered:
1. Rock properties database
2. Reference literature studies
A database of core measurements (in-house) of
static and dynamic elastic properties can be used as
a look-up tool to determine whether measurements
on cores from the same formation, location and/
or rock type have been made. If so, this data may
be correlated to available wireline log data to help
generate a synthetic mechanical property log.
If not, then the use of empirical correlations
reported in the technical literature between quantities
routinely measured by wireline logs and static/dynamic
elastic constants on similar rock types may suffice. The
135
Modern Fracturing
most common wireline log data that often correlates
well to elastic properties are porosity, density, gamma
ray (total clay) and sonic transit times. However, it
is important that reported empirical correlations be
applied only to the rock types similar to those in
which the study was conducted.
One basic strategy for estimating mechanical
properties from logs is to first determine which
of the following information is known for a set
of rock types:
1. Bulk density
2. Porosity
3. Clay volume
4. P-wave transit time
For example, if bulk density, porosity and
clay volume are known from wireline logs, then
an appropriate correlation found in the literature
relating these two quantities to the p-wave (and/or s-
wave) transit times can be used to generate a synthetic
p-wave (and s-wave) log. If s-wave log data is not
available, an appropriate correlation can then be used
to estimate s-wave transit times from p-wave transit
times. Once the p-wave and s-wave transit times have
been estimated, the dynamic elastic constants can be
calculated from the above equations. The static elastic
constants can then be estimated from appropriate
static-to-dynamic transforms.
Below is a partial list of references that may be
useful in constructing synthetic logs from reported
empirical trends:
1. Wyllie et al. (1956, 1958, 1963) provided time
average equation relates the p-wave velocity in
rock to the porosity and p-wave velocities in the
pore fluid and mineral constituents of the rock.
The correlation is limited to moderately to well-
cemented sandstone with primary porosity where
all minerals have the same velocity.
2. Raymer et al. (1980) also related the p-wave
velocity to porosity and the p-wave velocities
of the pore fluid and mineral content. The
correlation is limited to moderately to well-
cemented sandstone where all minerals
have the same velocity.
136
3. Han et al. (1986) provided empirical relations
for shaly sandstone, relating the p-wave
and s-wave velocities to porosity and clay
content. The study was conducted on well-
consolidated Gulf Coast sandstones with
porosity ranging from 3% to 30% and clay
content from 0% to 60%. These relations
do not extrapolate well beyond the range
of data tested.
4. Eberhart and Phillips (1989) related the p-wave
and s-wave velocities to porosity, clay content
and effective pressure in water-saturated cores
from Hans data set.
5. Castagna et al. (1985) related p-wave and s-
wave velocities to porosity and clay content for
clastic silicates composed of mostly clay and
siltstone. The relations should be used only for
rock types of similar properties.
If p-wave data is available, but not s-wave, the
following sources may be of use:
6. Castagna et al. (1993) and Pickett (1963)
derived empirical correlations between p-
wave and s-wave velocities in water-saturated
limestone and dolomite.
7. Castagna (1985, 1993) and Han (1986) derived
empirical correlations between the p-wave and
s-wave velocities in water-saturated sandstone,
shale and shaly sands.
8. Greenberg and Castagna (1992) gave empirical
relations of s-wave to p-wave velocities of the
mineral constituents making up water-saturated
rock. Correlations were developed for sandstone,
limestone, dolomite and shale.
If bulk density is the only known quantity, then
the following sources may be of use:
9. Gardner et al. (1974) derived an empirical
relation between the p-wave velocity and bulk
density for many rock types.
10. Castagna et al. (1993) improved Gardners
relations by applying power-law fits to individual
sets of data representing shale, sandstone,
limestone, dolomite and anhydrite.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Additional sources that may be of use include:
11. Brevik (1995) and Urmos and Wilkens (1993)
presented relations between p-wave and s-
wave velocities in gas- and brine-saturated
chalk from sonic-density logs. Included
are relationships between p-wave, s-wave
velocities and porosity.
12. Geertsma (1961) and Yale and Jamieson (1994)
presented data for deriving correlations between
p-wave, s-wave velocities and porosity in dry
dolomite and limestone.
13. Blangy (1992) presented data for deriving
correlations between the p-wave, s-wave
and porosity in poorly consolidated,
saturated sandstone.
After obtaining an estimate of the dynamic elastic
constants, the following sources may be useful in
estimating the static elastic constants. Most studies
focused on the relationship between the dynamic and
static Youngs modulus. To this authors knowledge,
strong empirical correlations between the static and
dynamic Poissons Ratio have not been published.
14. Lacy (1997) derived empirical correlations
between the static and dynamicYoungs modulus
for sandstone, shale and the combined data set
of sandstone, shale and carbonate rock.
15. Yale and Jamieson (1994) presented data for
deriving empirical correlations between static
and dynamic Youngs modulus, static and
dynamic Poissons ratio, static Youngs modulus
and porosity, and static Poissons ratio and
porosity in different types of carbonates.
16. Morales (1993) derived an empirical correlation
between static and dynamic Youngs modulus
for sandstone from various fields.
4-4 Fluid Rheological Characteristics
4-4.1 Viscosity
Viscosity is a measure of how much a fluid resists
deformation as a result of an applied force or pressure.
It is a measure of how thick the fluid is. Viscosity
is only very rarely a constant value, as it can change
dramatically with temperature, applied shear stress and
fluid composition. Viscosity is defined as the relationship
between shear stress and shear rate (see below).
4-4.1.1 Shear Rate, Shear Stress and Viscosity
Shear Rate, . In fluid mechanics, shear rate is a
measure of how fast a fluid is flowing past a fixed
surface. Shear rate can be thought of as a measure of
how much agitation a fluid is receiving.
Causes of Shear Rate:
Spinning centrifugal pump
Flow through a pipe
Model 35 viscometer test
Jet mixer
Tank agitators
Shear Stress, . Shear stress is the resistance the fluid
produces to an applied shear rate. For instance, it
requires more force (or pressure) to pump water at
20 bpm than at 10 bpm.
Viscosity, . The fluid property that defines how
much shear stress is produced by a shear rate, is called
viscosity. The greater the viscosity, the greater the
resistance of a fluid to shear agitation.
4-4.1.2 Measurement of Viscosity
The standard method for measuring the viscosity of
a fluid is to agitate it at a known shear rate and then
see how much force is produced on a fixed surface,
positioned close to the source of agitation, with a thin
layer of the test fluid between them. For a fixed rate
of shear, the greater the force on the fixed surface, the
greater the viscosity of the fluid.
Figure 4-36 shows the components of a typical
viscosity-measuring device. The device consists of a
fixed solid cylinder (or bob) surrounded by a hollow
cylinder, which is positioned concentrically to the bob.
The cylinder (also referred to as the rotor) spins around
the bob such that a fluid positioned between the rotor and
the bob will produce a drag effect on the bob. The greater
the viscosity of the fluid, the greater the drag force on the
137
Modern Fracturing
bob. The bob is connected, via a shaft, to a torsion spring
and a measuring device. As the fluid produces drag on
the bob/shaft assembly, it is allowed to deflect against the
torsion spring, so that the greater the drag force, the more
the shaft and bob assembly will deflect. The deflection is
measured and displayed as viscosity. Because some fluids
have viscosity that is not constant (c.f.) and will vary with
shear rate, most viscometers allow the rotational speed of
the rotor (and hence the shear rate) to be varied.
Torsion Spring
Bob Shaft
Rotor
Fluid
Bob
Cross-Section Through Rotor & Bob
Figure 4-36 Diagrammatic illustration of the rotor and
bob configuration used to measure viscosity
Viscometers based on this rotor and bob method
are available in various configurations, including fully
computer-controlled versions capable of testing fluids
at high temperatures and high pressures.
4-4.2 Fluid Behavior
4-4.2.1 Newtonian Fluids
Newtons law of fluids states that there is a linear
relationship between shear rate and shear stress, as
illustrated in Fig. 4-37. The gradient of this straight
line is the viscosity:
Shear Stress, t
Gradient =
0 Figure 4-38 The relationship between shear rate
0 Shear Rate,
Figure 4-37 Relationship between shear rate and shear
stress for a newtonian fluid
138
= .
(4-92)
For oilfield units, with in cp, in lbf/ft2 and in
sec-1, Eq. 4-92 is expressed as:
= 47, 479 . (4-93)
Newton was the first to realize the relationship in
fluids between an applied force and the resistance to
that force. His experiments were carried out on simple
fluids such as water and brine, and not on more
complex fluids, such as those used in stimulation
activities. A fluid that exhibits a linear relationship
between shear rate and shear stress is referred to as
being Newtonian. However, there are a wide variety
of fluids that do not exhibit this behavior and are
referred to as non-Newtonian (see below).
Examples of Newtonian fluids include fresh
water, seawater, most brines, non-gelled acid,
diesel, alcohols and gases (at constant density
and temperature).
4-4.2.2 Non-Newtonian Fluids
Non-Newtonian fluids do not exhibit a linear
relationship between shear rate and shear stress,
except in very specialized circumstances. They
can be divided into three basic types, as
illustrated in Fig. 4-38.
Shear Stress,
d
c
b
0
0 Shear Rate,
and shear stress for a) Newtonian fluid; b) power law
fluid (shear thinning); c) Bingham plastic fluid and d)
Herschel-Buckley fluid
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement

Bingham Plastic Fluids Shear-thickening fluids. These fluids have an n greater

This type of fluid requires an initial shear stress to be
induced before they will deform. Put another way, they
have a yield point or gel strength that must be broken
before the fluid can move (although some fluids have a gel
strength that has nothing to do with yielding). This type of
fluid is not Newtonian, although it usually has a constant
viscosity once the initial gel strength has been overcome:
= yp + p ,
(4-94)
where yp is the yield point and has oilfield units of
lbf/100 ft2 (note that in laboratory measurements, yp
has the units lbf/ft2, so the value for has to be converted
before it is used), and p is the plastic viscosity in cp.
Power Law Fluids
The next group of fluids is generally referred to as
power law fluids, although other names have been
used to describe them. In general, there is no linear
relationship between shear rate and shear stress, so
that apparent viscosity (the viscosity which the fluid
appears to have, at a specific shear rate) changes with
shear rate. Equation 4-95 describes the behavior
of the power law fluid:
n
= K . (4-95)
In order to find K (the power law consistency index)
and n (the power law exponent), viscometer readings are
taken at a variety of different shear rates. The log of shear
rate is plotted against the log of shear stress, so that K is
the intercept of the log axis and n is the gradient. K
has the rather awkward units of lbf.secn/ft2, in order to be
consistent, while n is dimensionless.
Power law fluids can be divided into three
than one, so they exhibit an increase in apparent
viscosity as shear rate increases. Extreme examples of
these fluids can behave as if they were solids when
exposed to even moderate shear forces.
Herschel-Buckley Fluids
Another example of a power law fluid is the Herschel-
Buckley fluid, which is often used to model the flow
behavior of foams:
n
= 0 + K ,
(4-96)
where o is the threshold shear stress, K is the
Herschel-Buckley consistency index and n the
Herschel-Buckley exponent.
Herschel-Buckley fluids are basically a combination
of Bingham plastic and power law fluids. An initial
threshold shear stress has to be overcome before the fluid
will flow. Once this has happened, the viscosity is not
constant and will vary according to the shear rate.
4-4.2.3 Apparent Viscosity
The apparent viscosity of a fluid is the viscosity of
the fluid at a specific shear rate. For a Newtonian
fluid, the apparent viscosity is the same as the actual
viscosity. For all other fluids, the apparent viscosity is
the slope of a line on a shear rate vs shear stress curve,
from the origin to the line, at a specific shear rate, as
shown in Fig. 4-39.
Shear Stress,

major categories:
1
t=
Shear-thinning fluids. In these fluids, n is less than 1, so en
dia 2
Gr nt =
the fluids experience a decrease in apparent viscosity as the ad
ie
G r
shear rate increases. Most of the fluids used for fracturing
fall within this category. 1 2
0
0 Shear Rate,
Newtonian fluids. Newtonian fluids are a special case
of power law fluids in which n is equal to one, i.e., the Figure 4-39 Change in apparent viscosity for a power
viscosity is constant and equal to K. law fluid at two shear rates

139
Modern Fracturing

As can been seen in Fig. 4-39, for a shear-thinning into turbulent flow. This is characterized by a series
power law fluid, the apparent viscosity of the fluid of small-scale eddies and whirls, all moving in the
(the slope of the two lines) decreases as the shear rate same overall direction.
increases. At shear rate 1, the slope of line 1, 1, (and The friction pressure produced by the fluid
hence the apparent viscosity) is greater than the slope flow is highly dependent upon the flow regime.
of line 2 at the greater shear rate 2. Hence the fluid Therefore, it is important to be able to determine
is said to be shear thinning. the flow regime.
In practice, it is the apparent viscosity that
is usually measured. The model 35 viscometer is 4-4.3.2 Reynolds Number
set up so that at 300 rpm (with an R1 rotor,
B1 bob and spring factor = 1), the apparatus The flow regime is found by using the Reynolds number
reads apparent viscosity directly with no additional (NRe), as follows:
calculations required.
NRe< 100 Plug Flow
4-4.3 Flow Regimes 100 < NRe< 2000 Laminar Flow
NRe> 2000 Turbulent Flow
4-4.3.1 Plug, Laminar and Turbulent Flow
The Reynolds number for pipe flow can be
Figure 4-40 illustrates the three different flow regimes that found from:
a fluid can experience, with plug flow being at the lowest
dv
fluid velocity and turbulent flow being at the highest.
N Re = , (4-97)

where is the fluid density, d is the inside diameter of
the pipe, v is the bulk fluid velocity along the pipe
and is the viscosity. Equation 4-97 is for SI units,
and for field units:

fluid q
N Re =132, 624
, (4-98)
d
Plug Laminar Turbulent
where fluid is the specific gravity of the fluid, q is the
Figure 4-40 The three flow regimes flow rate in bpm, d is the inside diameter in inches and
is the viscosity in cp.
Plug Flow. At low flow rates, the fluid flows with an Obviously, Eqs. 4-97 and 4-98 only apply to
almost uniform velocity profile. The fluid moves with Newtonian fluids, i.e., fluids with a constant viscosity.
a uniform front across almost the entire flow area. As stated before, in fracturing engineers only rarely
deal with Newtonian fluids, so below is Eq. 4-98
Laminar Flow. As the flow rate increases, the velocity converted for power law fluids:
profile begins to change. Fluid close to the walls of fluid v 2n
the pipe (or duct, or fracture) flows slowest, while N Re = 15.49
n
, (4-99)
K (96 d )
fluid in the center of the pipe flows fastest. Fluid
velocity is a function of distance from the pipe wall. where v is the velocity in ft/sec. To make things easier,
This is also known as streamline flow. v can be easily found from the flow rate, q:

Turbulent Flow. As the flow rate continues to q (4-100)
v =17.157 2 ,
increase, the contrast in velocity across the flow area d
becomes unsustainable, and the fluid breaks down with q in bpm and d in inches.

140
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
4-4.4 Fluid Friction
One of the ultimate objectives of fluid mechanics as
far as the fracturing engineer is concerned is to be
able to predict the friction pressure (ppipe friction) of the
fluids that are being pumped. This is often very difficult
because fluid composition and temperature is constantly
changing as the treatment progresses. In addition,
two-phase (liquid and proppant) and even three-phase
(liquid, proppant and gas) flow is common.
Predicting fluid friction pressure is, therefore, an
unreliable process; there really is no substitute for reliable
bottomhole pressure data. Failing that, the next best option
is to use friction pressure tables, using data generated by
actually pumping the fluid around a flow loop (therefore
data is based on a situation similar to the actual treatment
process). Most modern fracture simulators incorporate
data from these tests in their fluid models, so friction
pressures predicted by these are also reasonably reliable
(although not perfect, as the temperature of the wellbore is
constantly changing) unless there is proppant in the fluid.
When the three methods outlined above are not
possible, the friction pressure may be calculated from fluid
data, using one of several available methods. The method
outlined in Section 4-4.4.2, based on the use of Fanning
friction factors, is fairly reliable (i.e. it is just as good as the
data used as inputs), but is not intended for use in narrow-
diameter pipes at higher-than-normal flow rates (such as
for coiled tubing treatments).
4-4.4.1 The Influence of Flow Regime
Flow regime has a huge influence on friction pressure
because the mechanisms that create the loss of energy
vary massively in significance. In plug and turbulent flow,
the main energy loss is due to friction effects between
the fluid and the wall of the flow channel (usually a
pipe, but also a duct or even a fracture). This is roughly
proportional to the velocity of the fluid.
However, for turbulent flow, the situation is far more
complex. Inertial and internal viscous forces become
much more significant, and the energy lost increases
much more quickly than the velocity of the fluid. It is
therefore important to know the type of flow regime
being experienced by the fluid because different methods
are used for calculating the friction.
4-4.4.2 Predicting Pressure Loss due to Friction
Fannings method uses a friction factor, , to calculate
the fluid friction:
fluid Lv 2 f
p pipe friction = 0.325
. (4-101)
d
Eq. 4-101 is in field units, with the length of the pipe,
L, in ft, the velocity, v, in ft/sec and the pipe inside
diameter, d, in inches.
The friction factor is determined by using the
Reynolds number. For plug and laminar flow:
16
f = ,
(4-102)
N Re
and for turbulent flow for smooth pipes:
0.0303
f 0.1612 .
(4-103)
N Re
Effect of Proppant on Fluid Friction. Proppant
concentration has a significant effect on the
friction pressure of the fluids. Generally, increasing
proppant concentration will increase the friction
pressure. Shah and Lee (1986) developed the
following correlation, based on the effect of
varying proppant correlation and pipe size, for
HPG borate fracturing fluids:
m 1m
p friction = (r ) (r )
, (4-104)
where pfriction is the ratio of the fluid friction
pressure with and without solids, r is the ratio of
the apparent viscosities of the slurry to the clean
fluid and r is the ratio of the densities of the slurry
and the clean fluid. The exponent m is the gradient
of the log-log slope of friction plotted against
Reynolds number; often; 0.2 is used.
4-5 Optimum Treatment Design
Hydraulic fracturing treatments are designed using
various software tools. There are two main groups of
hydraulic fracturing software systems. Almost all in
commercial use can be called fracture simulators. The
others are fracture design programs.
141
Modern Fracturing
A fracture simulator takes as an input a treatment
schedule. Using additional information relevant to the
well, formation, fracturing fluids and proppants, it
simulates the growth of the fracture, the distribution
of the proppant within it, and the pressure response.
The primary use of fracture simulators is to analyze (or
match) actual treatment data commonly observed
pressures and compare those pressures to the model
response to estimate the various parameters of the
created fracture. Ultimately, a good match of observed
and simulated pressures provides confidence that the
model describes well the already executed treatment.
Because of this goal, many options are built in to
influence the calculated pressure response.
Over the past many years fracture simulators have
evolved into complex software that can do related tasks,
such as design a fracturing treatment. Starting with
two-dimensional (2-D) models, they have evolved into
pseudo-three-dimensional (p-3-D) and, even, in some
versions, three-dimensional (3-D) models. Design
using these models is done with a series of simulations,
basically feeding numerous treatment schedules into
the simulator, calculating the created fracture geometry
and using the geometry to predict the improvement
in well productivity. The final step is selecting the
best injection schedule from the set of calculated
ones. However, finding the optimum design for well
production is not the original objective of such software;
rather, it is a special application of the computational
model developed originally for other purposes. In
fact, even with the most up-to-date versions of such
software there is no guarantee that the calculated subset
of treatment schedules contains the optimum one in
any reasonable engineering sense. Approaching the
optimum depends very much on user intuition and
on the number of calculated cases.
The fact that fracturing technology is often new in
a given geographical area implies that merely copying
standard treatment practices and then making small
steps of gradual improvement is not a viable strategy. In
other words, in a new environment there is less use for
golden rules derived from accumulating experience
and more use of basic design principles and well-defined
design methods. The ultimate goal is to provide a
systematic method for creating the optimum fractured
well performance for a given well and formation, taking
142
into account several technical and economic constraints.
Fracture design software does not create a fracture
geometry first and then investigate its likely effect on well
productivity, but rather starts from petroleum engineering
principles, determines the best possible placement of a
given amount of proppant that maximizes production
and then back-calculates the necessary parameters of
the treatment schedule that will realize the optimum
treatment within the given constraints. Over many years,
fracture design software has become sophisticated and can
also provide additional functionality, such as calculated
pressure responses and model parameter matching.
Nevertheless, the ultimate goal remains to create a
treatment design, rather than to reconstruct an already
executed treatment. More importantly, an optimum
design software, although it can respect logistical and
practical constraints, may also help to overcome such
constraints by pushing the limits of execution and
improving practices and products.
While the basic results for optimum fracture
dimensions were already presented by Prats (1961),
Economides at al., (2002) suggested the first practical
step towards such an optimum design methodology. In
the book Unified Fracture Design (UFD), the original
methodology was developed using only the simplest
2-D fracture propagation models (PKN and KGD).
Since the publication of UFD many applications and
improvements have been presented in the literature:
Meyer and Jacot (2005) and Daal and Economides (2006)
considered non-square drainage area; Lopez-Hernandez
et al. (2004) applied the methodology to compensate
for non-Darcy effects in the fracture; Dietrich (2005)
considered steady-state performance optimization for
water-flooding scenarios; Poe and Manrique (2005) and
Manrique and Poe (2007) extended the optimization
methodology for cases where the transient flow regime
lasts extremely long. Field-scale applications are described,
for instance, in Economides et al.,(2004), Demarchos
et al. (2004, 2005), Diyashev and Economides (2005),
Oberwinkler and Economides (2003, 2004), Rueda et
al. (2004, 2005), Timonov et al. (2006), Nikurova et al.
(2006), and Rozo et al. (2007).
Some key concepts of the methodology
Dimensionless Productivity Index (JD), Dimensionless
Fracture Conductivity (CfD), Penetration Ratio (Ix) and
Proppant Number (Nprop) are summarized below.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement

4-5.1 Dimensionless Productivity Index Following McGuire and Sikora (1960) it is

and Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
A well in a reservoir developed on a certain pattern
has a finite drainage area. During most of its lifetime,
it is producing in a stabilized flow regime called
pseudo-steady state (or more precisely: boundary-
dominated state). During the stabilized flow regime
the productivity index of a well (PI), defined
by the production rate divided by the pressure
drawdown, is calculated as:
customary to plot JD (or some similar performance
indicator) as a function of CfD (or some similar variable)
with an additional curve parameter representing Ix (or
some similar variable). Such a plot, shown in Fig. 4-42,
used to be popular to select treatment size and fracture
dimensions simultaneously. Unfortunately, it is not
obvious which curve to select and what point to select on
a given curve, because this type of presentation blurs the
cost of creating a propped fracture.

q
J =
(4-105)
p pwf ye=xe

If we consider a square drainage area (see Fig. 4-41)

and compare two possible fractures executed for 2xf
a vertical well in the center, the fracture providing
the larger PI is better. xe
The Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD, is defined
as w

B
JD = 1
J (4-106)
kh h

For an unstimulated well in a circular reservoir, JD is

given by the well-known formula (see also Eq. 2-21): 2xf
1
JD = , Figure 4-41 Basic notation, top and side view (assuming
r (4-107)
ln 0.472 e + s fracture height and formation thickness are the same)
rw
2 Ix= 1
Dimensionless Productivity index, JD

with the skin factor, s, representing deviation ye = x e 0.9

0.8
from the base case (without any near-wellbore 1.5
2xf
0.7
damage or stimulation). xe 0.6

For a fracture stimulated well, JD is affected 1

0.5
0.4
by the volume of proppant placed into the 0.3
pay layer, by the permeability ratio of the proppant 0.2
0.5
0.1
bed and the reservoir, and by the geometry
0.01
of the created fracture. All these factors can be
0
characterized by two dimensionless numbers 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000
the dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD, and Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD
the penetration ratio, Ix: Figure 4-42 McGuire-Sikora-type representation of
kf w Dimensionless Productivity Index
C fD = and (4-108)
kx f
As it was first shown in Valk and Economides
2x f
Ix = , (4-109) (1998), certain aspects of the fractured well performance
xe
can be described by a single combination of these two
where the notation is obvious from Fig. 4-41. dimensionless numbers. This combination is called the

143
Modern Fracturing

Dimensionless Proppant Number, Nprop, and it is the 4-5.2 Optimum Dimensionless Conductivity
appropriate way to express the relative size of a given
treatment. Nprop is defined as the ratio of propped volume As seen from Fig. 4-43, Nprop already
of the fracture in the pay to the volume of the reservoir, determines the achievable maximum dimensionless
weighted by twice the permeability ratio: productivity index from the given amount of
resources. The maximum productivity index is
f p 2k V
N prop
= = I x2C fD , (4-110) realized at a well-defined value of the dimensionless
kVr
fracture conductivity. Since a given proppant number
where Vp is the propped fracture volume contained represents a fixed amount of proppant reaching the
within the payzone and Vr is the drained volume of pay, the best compromise between length and width
the pay (in short, the reservoir volume). Recently the is achieved at the dimensionless fracture conductivity
name Stimulation Index has been also suggested for located under the peaks of the individual curves.
Nprop, (Poe, 2006). Nprop represents in a dimensionless The corresponding CfD is called the optimum
form the amount of resources spent on the treatment. dimensionless conductivity.
Algorithms are available to calculate JD as a function of Although large Proppant Numbers lead to larger
CfD with Nprop as a parameter; see, for instance, Romero Dimensionless Productivity Indices, the absolute
et al. (2003), and Meyer and Jacot (2005). Typical maximum for JD is 6/ = 1.909 (the JD for a perfect
results are shown in Figs. 4-43 and 4-44. linear flow in a square reservoir; see for instance, El-
Banbi and Wattenbarger, 1998).
Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD

0.5
Ix= 1 a: Np = 0.0001
At low Proppant Numbers, the optimal CfD = 1.6.
xe = ye
b: Np = 0.0003
c: Np = 0.0006
At larger Proppant Numbers, the optimum CfD is larger.
ye
0.4 2Xf d: Np = 0.001
e: Np = 0.003
When the propped volume increases or the reservoir
Np = 0.1
xe permeability decreases, the optimal compromise
0.3 Np = 0.06 happens at larger dimensionless fracture conductivities
Np =0.03
Np = 0.01
(the penetration cannot exceed unity).
0.2
Np = 0.006
e It is also customary to present the actual
c d
a b
performance of the fractured well in terms of
10 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102
effective fracture length; see, for instance, Barree
-4

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

et al. (2005).
Figure 4-43 Dimensionless productivity index as a
function of dimensionless fracture conductivity with 4-5.3 Optimum Length and Width
proppant number as a parameter, for Nprop <= 0.1
A reasonable optimization scheme for fracture
design can be readily established because once
Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD

2.0
xe = ye Ix=1 Np= 100 the optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity
ye Np= 30
1.5 2Xf Np= 10
Np= 60
is identified, the optimum fracture dimensions of
Np= 6
xe length and width are determined by two equations
Np= 3
1.0 (compare with Eq. 2-35, where the one-wing
Np= 1
Np= 0.6 propped volume was denoted by Vf):
Np= 0.3
0.5 0.5
Np=0.1
k f V p / 2
0 x fopt = and
0.1 1 10 100 1000 C fD ,opt kh
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD
0.5
C fD ,opt kV p / 2
Figure 4-44 Dimensionless productivity index as a wopt = .
function of dimensionless fracture conductivity with
kf h
proppant number as a parameter, for Nprop > 0.1 (4-111)

144
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Example 4-1: Designing for formation permeability
In the center of an 80-acre drainage area, a vertical
well of radius rw = 0.5 ft is to be fracture stimulated.
The fracturing engineer plans to place 2500 lbm
proppant (retained permeability kf = 50,000 md,
specific gravity of the proppant material is 3.3, and
porosity of the proppant pack under closure stress is
0.20). The engineer is uncertain about only one thing:
the formation permeability. Optimistic estimates go up
to 10 md, but the pessimistic value is 0.1 md. From
the above data and taking just 1 ft of the formation,
the engineer can calculate the propped volume (Vp).
Depending on the assumed formation permeability,
however, the Nprop, the maximum achievable JD and
the best possible pseudoskin vary considerably. Using
UFD, we can calculate the optimum placement for
various assumed permeabilities:
Table 4-4 Results for Example 4-1
k,md Nprop JD,opt CfD,opt sf,opt xf,opt,ft
0.1 4.35 1.39 6.60 -6.18 757
1 0.435 0.695 1.86 -5.46 451
10 0.0435 0.391 1.63 -4.34 152
We can continue the previous example, investigating
the effect of a wrong assumption about permeability. For
example, if the engineer designs for a 757-ft half-length
fracture, but the real formation permeability is k = 10
md, she will not realize a JD = 1.39 nor even a JD = 0.391
value (the maximum value for the optimum treatment
and resulting geometry for a 10-md reservoir). The
actual realized JD will be only 0.359. On the other hand,
if she designs for a 152-ft half-length fracture, but the
real formation permeability is k = 0.1 md, she will not
realize the achievable JD = 1.39 value, but less than half
of it: JD=0.631. All of these calculations can be easily
done with the publicly available FracPI.xls spreadsheet,
available via http://www.pe.tamu.edu/valko
4-5.4 Treatment Sizing and Proppant
Placement Efficiency dynamically created fracture volume will be determined
One can consider the selection of a target Proppant
Number as the sizing of the treatment. The sizing
determines the treatment cost. In fact the operator
mainly pays for the Proppant Number that is, for
the proppant volume and the retained permeability
of the propped pack. Other items on the bill are
secondary in the sense that they just assist with placing
the proppant. Increasing the proppant number costs
money. On the other hand, optimum dimensions
with respect to a given amount of resources already
follow from Nprop via CfD,opt.
Theoretically, it is quite easy to determine the
optimum treatment, after we know the amount of
proppant (Vp) reaching the net pay. In real life, however,
a considerable fraction of the injected proppant will end
up outside the net pay and hence will not contribute to
the proppant number. A key parameter is, therefore,
the fraction of injected proppant reaching the pay: the
proppant placement efficiency, prop. Most profoundly,
prop is affected by the created fracture geometry. For
instance, if there is a considerable height growth during
the treatment, prop will be much smaller than for a well-
contained fracture. Also, proppant settling may reduce
prop significantly. Therefore, a thorough design process
has to find the optimum dimensions with respect
to the actual Nprop calculated with the actual prop. In
UFD, this is done iteratively because any change in the
treatment parameters affects prop via the most up-to-
date calculated fracture geometry.
4-5.5 Taking Into Account Operational Constraints
There are many technical constraints to consider during
fracture design. By far the most significant limitation is
the maximum concentration of proppant in the slurry
feed that we can safely pump.
This limitation (often expressed in added proppant
concentration, ppga) often makes it impossible to place a
given amount of proppant according to the requirements
of the theoretical optimum. Depending on the equipment
and materials, the pumpable limit is around 0.35 to 0.45
volume fraction of solid, translating to 14 to 18 ppga
added proppant concentration.
When the target length is reached, the actual
by the dynamically created width, which, in turn,
is determined by the reached length, the injection
rate, fluid rheology and formation elastic modulus.
(Interestingly, the leakoff parameters significantly
affect pumping time but do not really influence the
145
Modern Fracturing
dynamically created width at the time of reaching
the target length.) The dynamically created fracture
volume multiplied by the maximum pumpable
concentration gives the mass of proppant we can
place into the fracture. If this amount of proppant is
less than the amount we started the design with (for
instance the 2500 lbm per 1 ft of pay in our previous
example), the design engineer should select among
various practical options:
1. A viable option is to keep the target length
but place only as much proppant as the limit
allows. In simple terms we can call this the
reduced proppant mass option. This will result
in a suboptimal placement and a reduction in
realized JD. However, the cost of the treatment
is also reduced because we place less proppant
than originally targeted.
2. More rigorous is to keep the original mass of
proppant unchanged and stretch the fracture
as much as necessary until it can accept all the
proppant (in our specific example, 2500 lbm per
1 ft). Such a design will be suboptimal in the
sense that it will realize less than the theoretically
achievable JD. The actual JD achieved will be
suboptimal with respect to the theoretical
setting but it will be optimal in a practical
sense: It will provide maximum JD within the
technical limitation of the maximum pumpable
concentration. As we express this fact in UFD, we
depart from the theoretical optimum as little as
possible to satisfy an additional constraint.
3. A third option in sufficiently soft, unconsolidated
formations is to use the procedure of Tip
Screenout (TSO) (see Section 4-7.3.2). In a
TSO design, we adjust the proppant schedule so
that at the time of reaching the target length (for
instance, 152 ft for the 10-md case in the previous
example) we also reach a critical situation with
respect to proppant transport inside the fracture.
The critical situation can be postulated in various
ways and can be specified in various forms of
TSO criteria. The most important thing is
that once this critical condition is reached, the
fracture length does not increase any more. In
the subsequent part of the treatment only the
146
fracture width is inflated until the required
amount of proppant is placed. In the TSO phase,
the inflating width causes a sharply increasing
net pressure; this is the main signature of an
actual TSO. From the point of optimization,
the TSO design means we can work around the
technical limitation of the maximum pumpable
concentration and use smart tactics to realize the
theoretically achievable maximum JD.
Additional constraints. In actual fracture design,
we have to consider various additional technical
constraints. For instance an approximate knowledge of
the damage penetration distance may put a special
requirement on the minimum fracture length. Net
pressure limitation may also force us to depart from
the theoretical optimum. When designing for longer
fractures, one should consider a minimum width and/or
minimum areal proppant concentration requirement.
All these issues can be handled similarly: The key is to
depart from the theoretical optimum only as much as
necessary to satisfy an additional constraint.
4-5.6 Using Fracture Propagation Models
The above described design logic is basically
independent of the method of predicting height
containment and fracture propagation.
4-5.6.1 Height containment
Height is often calculated by subtracting the
vertical stress profile from fluid pressure and
calculating stress intensity at the upper and lower
tips. One way to provide sufficient data for the
data-hungry 3-D simulators is using rock tables
(Leshchyshyn et al., 2004).
Recently considerable effort has been spent on
fracture diagnostics methods (Cipolla et al., 2000, and
Mayerhofer et al., 2006.) A common theme emerging
from such investigations is that fracture height is
controlled by far more complex parameters than just
vertical stress profile (Weijers, 2005). Consequently,
the simple concept of aspect ratio (2xf /hf) seems to
be more predictable, at least in a certain well-defined
geographical/lithological setting.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement

4-5.6.2 2-D models
The two most widespread 2-D design models are due to
Perkins and Kern, 1961 (PKN), who used the vertical
plane strain assumption; and Kristianovich-Zheltov,
1955, and Geertsma and deKlerk, 1969 (KGD), who
Table 4-6 Design Procedure Based on UFD Concepts
1. Select the type of proppant to be pumped.
2. For various treatment sizes (e.g. 25,000, 50,000, 100,000,
150,00, 200,00, 300,000, 500,000 lbm)
3. Assume a fracture height at end of pumping and calculate
corresponding proppant placement efficiency.

used the horizontal plane strain assumption for the 4. Estimate retained proppant pack permeability, taking into
consideration possible further reduction due to non-Darcy flow
crack opening. For simplicity, those early models (see Sections 2-5.2, 8-7.3 and 8-7.4).
assumed a rectangular fracture shape (side view). 5. Using the proppant placement efficiency and the effective
The basic outcome of those models was the width proppant pack permeability, calculate Nprop, the optimum JD and
the optimum target length, xf. (Here the knowledge of formation
equation relating length and width via additional permeability is crucial.)
parameters including injection rate, fluid rheology
6. Calculate dynamic fracture dimensions and net pressure at the
parameters and formation elasticity parameters. A time of reaching the target length (see Table 4-5 for the simplest
modified PKN model assuming elliptical side view is 2-D model equations or use a more sophisticated 3-D model).
7. Using leakoff parameters CL and Sp and an opening time
summarized in Table 4-5. distribution factor (Economides et al., 2002), = 1.5, solve the
material balance:
qi ,1wing
Table 4-5 Modified PKN Model for Elliptical Fracture t (2 C L ) t 2 S p wavg = 0,
Shape (consistent units), power law fluid h x
f f
for injection time, ti, or use a 3-D model to obtain the necessary
1.107 + 0.891n injection time.
w0 = exp
1 + n Vi ,1wing = qi ,1wing ti
n 8. Calculate injected slurry volume from:
1
1 + ( 1)n 2+ 2n
Maximum Width at K 2+ 2n h f x f wavg
Wellbore n 9. Calculate fluid efficiency from: =
1 Vi ,1wing
q n x 2+2n
i f 10. Determine pad injection time, tpad, and create a proppant
E h n-1
f schedule according to Nolte (1986):

t t pad 1
c = ce where t pad = ti and = and
ti t pad 1+
Average Width wavg = w0
5
m1wing
ce =
Vi ,1wing
Surface of one
Face of one Wing
A = x f hf
4 11. Convert concentration into proppant added to clean fluid:
c
cadded =
1 (c / p )
Volume of one
V = Awavg
Wing 12. Assume uniform concentration at end of pumping, ce, or
calculate proppant concentration at end of pumping from a more
detailed model taking into account various possible proppant
Net Pressure at 2E transport mechanisms and possible settling.
pnet = w0
Wellbore hf
13. Using the concept of fixed aspect ratio or net pressure to
stress contrast and fracture toughness, recalculate fracture height
at end of pumping.
Whether a simple 2-D width equation or a more 14. Knowing the fracture height (and possible detailed proppant
sophisticated fracture simulator is used, the goal of distribution), recalculate proppant placement efficiency.

the design should be to create optimum fracture
dimensions with respect to the actual treatment
size (proppant volume used) and to select among
possible treatment sizes.
15. Repeat steps 4 through 13 until convergence.
16. Having constructed the optimum treatment for each specified
treatment size and having calculated the corresponding
dimensionless productivity indices realized, select the particular
size satisfying a specific economic criterion (e.g., maximizing Net
Present Value).

147
Modern Fracturing

The reader is cautioned that several software We use the thickness of the perforated interval as
products claim to do net present value optimization, the fracture height at the wellbore. However, if the
but they do not ensure that the individual fracture fracture design would call for larger lengths, we
geometries compared are optimal with respect to adjust the fracture height not to exceed the aspect
their own treatment size. ratio, AR=2xf /hf=4. (The calculations are made with
an in-house non-commercial fracture design program
Example 4-2: Optimum Design Based on Aspect Ratio written in Mathematica.)
and Minimum Height
Table 4-8 Main Results for Example 2
As an example, we consider a certain geographical Case A (k = 0.25 md)
area where, according to some fracture diagnostics Proppant in Fracture 300,000 lbm
results, the aspect ratio of created fractures seems to Clean Liquid Needed 117,200 gal
be 4. Because this is hard rock country, extensive
Fraction of Proppant in Net Pay (Proppant
TSO (width inflation) is not a viable option. We are 0.514
Placement Efficiency)
going to design an optimum treatment for two cases: Proppant Number 0.979
In Case A, formation permeability is 0.25 md; in Case
Optimum (and Realized) Dimensionless
B, formation permeability is 2.5 md. The vertical plane Productivity Index
JD = 0.884
strain elliptical model is used (PKN width equation
Theoretical Optimum Dimensionless
combined with an elliptical shape of the fracture face). 2.35
Fracture Conductivity
Additional data are summarized in Table 4-7. Target half-length 426 ft

213 ft (aspect
Table 4-7 Input Data for Example 4-2, Optimum Design Fracture Height at Wellbore
ratio controlled)
Based on Aspect Ratio and Minimum Height
Fracture face Area of one Wing 71,230 ft2
Drainage area 40 acre
Net pay thickness 70 ft Areal Proppant Concentration 2.11 lbm/ft2
Gross pay thickness Slurry Efficiency 0.416
(also perforated interval
180 ft
and hence minimum Pad Time 42.0 min
height)
Pumping Time 102 min
Plane strain modulus 2 106 psi
Proppant Intermediate strength ceramics Needed Maximum Added Proppant
7.2 ppga
Concentration
Total proppant mass 300,000 lbm
Proppant retained Nolte Exponent and Pad Fraction for
0.412
permeability (after all 15,000 md Proppant Schedule
effects accounted for)
Specific gravity 3.1
8
Proppant pack porosity
0.2
under closure stress
Allowed maximum 6
added proppant 15 ppga
concentration in feed
cadded, ppga

Frac fluid HPG 40 (Borate-crosslinked) 4

Rheology flow behavior
0.45
index
Rheology consistency 2
0.6 lbf sn / ft2
index
Slurry rate 30 bpm
0
Leakoff coefficient in
0.003 ft/min0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100
net pay
t, min
Spurt loss neglect
Fluid loss multiplier out Figure 4-45 Continuous and staged proppant schedule
0.67 (bottomhole) for Case A
of net pay

148
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement

100 14
12
50 10

cadded, ppga
8
z, f t

0 6
4
- 50
2
0
- 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
t, min
0 100 200 300 400 Figure 4-47 Continuous and staged proppant schedule
x, ft
for Case B (at bottomhole conditions)
Figure 4-46 Created frac profile for Case A. Dashed lines
show gross pay; the gray area represents net pay (but its On the other hand, in the higher-permeability case
exact distribution within the gross is not known) (k = 2.5 md), the optimum placement would call for
a short fracture (xf,opt = 175 ft), but at that length the
Table 4-9 Main Results for Example 2 dynamically created width is not enough to take all the
Case B (k = 2.5 md) proppant, even at the largest pumpable concentration.
Proppant in Fracture 300,000 lbm
We use option No. 2 of Section 4-5.5 and elongate the
Clean Liquid Needed 57,600 gal
fracture as much as necessary. After elongation, the target
Fraction of Proppant in Net Pay
(Proppant Placement Efficiency)
0.598 half-length becomes 335 ft, and the height at the wellbore
Proppant Number 0.114
remains at the minimum value of 180 ft because the
Theoretical Optimum Dimensionless
aspect ratio condition would require a smaller height (so
JD,opt = 0.482
Productivity Index the already perforated 180 ft has no reason to increase).
Theoretical Optimum Dimensionless
1.62
See Table 4-9 and Fig. 4-48.
Fracture Conductivity
Realized Dimensionless Productivity
JD = 0.441
Index (with elongated frac) 100
Realized Dimensionless Fracture
1.62 / 1.912=0.444
Conductivity
50
335 ft (optimum
Target half-length
elongated by 1.91)
z, ft

0
180 ft (minimum /
Fracture Height at Wellbore
perforation controlled)
- 50
Fracture face Area of one Wing 47,300 ft2
Areal Proppant Concentration 3.17 lbm/ft2 -100
Slurry Efficiency 0.457
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Pad Time 20.5 min
x, ft
Pumping Time 54.9 min
Figure 4-48 Created frac profile for Case B, the gray
Needed maximum added Proppant area indicates net pay (its exact distribution within the
15 ppga (limit controlled)
Concentration gross is not known)
Nolte Exponent and Pad Fraction for
0.373
Proppant Schedule
4-5.6.3 3-D models

In the lower permeability case (k = 0.25 md), the After the issues of treatment size and corresponding
optimum fracture half-length of 426 ft induces a fracture optimum fracture geometry are settled, it is useful to
height of 213 ft (via the aspect ratio condition). See Table take into account more information (if available) and
4-8. The fracture length creates enough dynamic width to simulate the growth of the fracture. Figure 4-49 shows
place the proppant with a moderate final added proppant additional key data necessary for simulating the fracture
concentration, way below the technical limit. propagation for Example 4-2 Case A.

149
Modern Fracturing

Stress
Gradient Stress
Youngs
Modulus
4-6 Predicting Production Increase
15900
16000
16100 4-6.1 Pseudo-radial Concepts:
16200 Equivalent Wellbore Radius, Fracture Skin
TVD (ft)

16300
16400
16500 In the case of a propped fracture there are several
16600
ways to incorporate the stimulation effect into the
16700
0.6 0.7 0.8 0 dimensionless pseudo-steady-state productivity index

7
11 00
12 00
13 00
0

6
+0
00

+0
0
0
0
(psi/ft)
indirectly, via an additional parameter. One can use
10

0e
0e
1.
5.
(psi)
(psi)
Poissons
Toughness
the pseudo-skin concept:
Ratio

1
JD = ,
r 3 (4-112)
ln e + s f
rw 4
or Cinco-Ley and Sameniegos (1981) f-factor
concept:
0.1 0.2 0.3
1
00
10 990

JD = ,
.0
9.

(4-113)
00

(psi^1/2) re 3
99

ln + f
Figure 4-49 Rock properties and stress state for 3-D xf 4
design
or Prats (1961) equivalent wellbore radius concept:
A snapshot of the areal proppant concentration at
the end of pumping as obtained with a commercial 1
JD = .
re 3
3-D fracture simulator is shown in Fig. 4-50. ln (4-114)
r 'w 4
Concentration / Area (EOJ)
The form of these expressions may induce
additional thoughts in petroleum engineers who
may be tempted to talk about pseudo-radial flow.
In reality, these expressions are all equivalent (if used
correctly) and are not associated with any deeper
information regarding the nature of the flow field. The
actual parameters, sf, f or rw can be easily converted
0 200 400 600
into each other, but they bear completely formal
Stress
Width meaning: They are just different scales to express the
Profiles
16280
deviation from some pre-defined basis of comparison
16320
(the undamaged, unstimulated well). These concepts
16360
16400 might be handy to use in the context of some part of
TVD, ft

16440 the transient flow, but they might be very misleading

16480 in other periods of the life of a well.
16520
16560
4-6.2 Finite Reservoir Concepts, Folds of Increase
16600
-0.5 0 0.5
0
11000
12000
13000
00

Width, in.
10

Stress, psi
To make things even more blurred, fracturing engineers
like to speak about folds of increase, flow efficiency,
Figure 4-50 Areal proppant concentration obtained
from 3-D design using a commercial fracture
effective half-length, etc. Each of these concepts has
simulator (Case A) some advantages in conveying certain basic information

150
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
visually. There are, however, serious dangers associated
with using any of the concepts of Section 4-6.1 and
2. For instance, although Eq. 4-112 suggests that the
fracture can be represented by a pseudo-skin, it is not true
that the same pseudo-skin value can be used in transient
regime as in pseudo-steady-state regime. Also, we already
saw in Example 4-1 that the achievable pseudo-skin is
limited partly by the fracture and partly by the well/
reservoir system, including the location of its boundaries.
This is why we suggest using JD directly. Equation 4-
114 might suggest that an equivalent wellbore radius
remains the same in various flow regimes (and this idea
might be reinforced further if we speak about effective
fracture length) but in reality none of these indicators
can be used in such a general way. Strictly speaking, the
productivity is a common feature of the reservoir, the
fracture, the boundaries and the actual flow history.
4-6.3 Combining Productivity
Index and Material Balance
In order to forecast production from a fractured well,
we need to combine the Productivity Index with
material balance.
4-6.3.1 Pseudo-steady state
The pseudo-steady-state value of JD can be easily
obtained from Figs. 4-42 and 4-43, or from the
FracPi spreadsheet (see Section 4-5.3). Optimum
values can be also calculated from correlations
(see Section 2-5.1).
After we know the JD value, we can obtain
the Absolute Openflow Potential (expressed in
mscf/day) from:
kx k y h
AOF = J D m ( p ), (4-115)
1424 T
as a function of the average reservoir pressure, p .
4-6.3.2 Combined transient and stabilized flow
To describe the production (often quite significant)
during the transient period, we need a description of
JD covering the whole time span. Strictly speaking,
such a complete presentation is possible only for
well-defined flow history. Mathematically, the
easiest method is to handle the constant-rate type
of flow history. In such case, the late-time stabilized
part is called pseudo-steady state. Other types of
flow histories (such as the one implicitly defined
by constant wellbore pressure) may lead to slightly
different productivity indices at any moment of time;
even their stabilized values might differ in pseudo-
steady state (Helmy and Wattenbarger, 1998).
Of course, it is possible to calculate a productivity
index curve for any specified rate history, but this
would be impractical in general. In reality, we do
not know the production history that will happen
in the fractured well in the future. Fortunately, the
productivity index curve obtained with the constant-
rate condition is generally a good average indicator
that provides a reasonably accurate forecast of any
particular production history. Valk and Amini
(2007) developed a reliable and efficient procedure,
the method of Distributed Volumetric Sources (DVS),
to generate the combined JD curve that describes
both transient and stabilized (pseudo-steady state)
production regimes.
Example 4-3: Transient and Pseudo-steady State
Dimensionless Productivity Index
We calculate the productivity index of a fractured
vertical well with CfD=1.6 and Ix = 0.25 (pseudo-
steady state optimum for Nprop = 0.1) using the DVS
method (Valk and Amini, 2007). See Figure 4-51.
Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD
102
Calculation Parameters:
CfD = 1.6
Ix = wx/xe = .025
101
100
10-1
10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
Dimensionless Time, tDA
Figure 4-51 Transient and pseudo-steady-state
dimensionless productivity index (Nprop = 0.1) calculated
with the DVS method (Example 4-3)
151
Modern Fracturing
The productivity index stabilizes around
dimensionless time, tDA = 0.3 (with respect to the
drainage area). The stabilized value is JD = 0.470
according to the DVS method. This compares well
with the Unified Fracture Design value of JD = 0.467
(and probably is even more accurate).
The transient flow regime can last for months or
even years for tight gas wells. It is sometimes speculated
that a fracture designed for optimum with respect to
pseudo-steady state would somehow under-perform
if we also take into account the transient period. This
is actually a misunderstanding. For short times, some
(shorter and wider) fractures can outperform the
pseudo-steady state optimized fracture, but sooner or
later the latter will catch up. By the time the whole
drainage volume is affected (that is, at dimensionless time
about 0.3), the pseudo-steady state optimal fracture is
not only the best for the current productivity, but also
has produced the maximum cumulatively with regard to
the given drawdown history, or the least final drawdown
with regard to the given production history.
A rather straightforward approach to
forecasting the production from a fractured well is
depicted in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10 Production Forecast Method (Field units)
1. Prepare pseudopressure function (see Section 2-3.1) from
p
p
m( p ) = 2 dp.
p0
( Z ) p
2. Specify initial pressure.
3. Specify wellbore flowing pressure.
4. Take a time interval, t.
5. Calculate production rate and production in the time interval
(see also Section 2-3.2) from:
V = Awavg
and
G p = qsc t.
6. Apply material balance and calculate new average pressure
(Section 2-7.1) from
pi Z G p
p= 1 .
Z i Gi
7. Repeat steps 1 6.
152
The notation JD,tDA in step 5 means that
we should use the dimensionless productivity
index corresponding to the dimensionless
equivalent of the current time (elapsed from the
start of the production.)
4-6.4 Reservoir Simulation and Nodal Analysis
In their everyday jobs, petroleum engineers rely
more and more on reservoir simulators and wellbore
simulators. One of the key trends in the industry is
to integrate these powerful tools (and provide them
with as much information as possible). One should
keep in mind, however, that the use of such an
ultimate tool neither is nor ever will be easy. Fit-
for-purpose simulators and semi-analytic methods
are readily available and are usually more practical
for optimization. As a further illustration we
consider a non-trivial problem.
Example 4-4: Horizontal well with transverse fractures
in an anisotropic reservoir
We are to place four transverse fractures
intersecting a horizontal well in an anisotropic
reservoir. The drainage volume and permeability
anisotropy are shown in Fig. 4-52.
The well will also contribute to the production
and is considered to be of infinite conductivity.
The four fractures are of finite conductivity
(infinite-conductivity fractures are more a
mathematical construction than reality) and suffer
from convergence skin (see Section 2-5.3). The
total amount of proppant used is 100,000 lbm,
and the retained permeability of the proppant pack
is kf=10,000 md. The specific gravity of the
proppant material is 2.65, and the porosity
of the proppant pack is 0.3.
The reader may have the opinion that the
ultimate method of calculating production from such
a complex well/fracture system is to use a reservoir
simulator with a wellbore model. That is a possibility
because the simulator can handle multiple transverse
fractures with finite conductivity. However, despite
all the progress made in reservoir simulation, such a
task might be challenging even today.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
kx= 4 md
ky= 0.25 md
kz= 0.1 md
ze=100 ft
kx
kz
xe=1320 ft
ky ye=1320 ft
Figure 4-52 Drainage volume in anisotropic reservoir
(for Example 4-4)
ze
kx
kz
ky
xe
ye
Figure 4-53 Horizontal well (rw = 0.3 ft) drilled in the
direction of minimum horizontal stress (and minimum
horizontal permeability). The horizontal well is 75%
penetrating and is intersected by four transverse
fractures created from a total of 100,000 lbm proppant
(for Example 4-4)
Using the DVS method, one can find out that
for the configuration shown in Figs. 4-52 and 4-53,
the optimum fracture half length is xf=78 ft, and the
optimum areal proppant concentration is 4.6 lbm/
ft2.(This quite large value is not surprising because it
should compensate the detrimental effects of converging
flow in the fractures.) The resulting transient and
pseudo-steady state JD is shown in Fig. 4-54.
After the transient and stabilized productivity of
the well/fracture configuration is known, it can be
easily incorporated into a reservoir simulation model
and/or a nodal analysis model. However, in such a case
the actual productivity of the complex well/fracture
architecture is not an output of the simulation tool,
but rather an input to it.
10
Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD
7
5
3
2
1.5
1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Dimensionless Time, tDA
Figure 4-54 Log-log plot of the transient and pseudo-
steady state productivity index for Example 4-4. The
stabilized value is JD = 1.8
4-7 Fracturing Under Specific
Circumstances
There are various different types of hydraulic fractures,
which have evolved around the basic process of creating a
fracture and then propping it open. The type of treatment
selected depends upon formation characteristics
(permeability, skin damage, fluid sensitivity, formation
strength), treatment objectives (stimulation, sand control,
skin bypass or a combination) and practical constraints
(cost, logistics, equipment etc).
4-7.1 Tight Gas
This type of fracturing is often carried out in tight
gas formations, found in areas such as the Rocky
Mountains, Algeria, Western Germany, parts
of Australia and many other places worldwide.
Permeabilities for such formations range from 1 md
down to 1 d and less.
Tight gas formations are referred to as tight
because they have low permeability and are also usually
composed of so-called hard rocks. In the context of
fracturing, hard means high Youngs modulus and
low fracture toughness, which in turn means that any
fracture produced in such a formation will tend to be
long and thin. This is one if the rare instances in the
production of oil and gas where the natural tendencies
of the formation work in our favor because the ideal
fracture geometry for low-permeability formations
(see below) is also long and thin.
153
Modern Fracturing
Tight gas fracturing forms by far the largest sector
of the fracturing industry. In 2006, over 36% of the
fracture treatments performed by one of the leading
service companies were in formations of below 0.1 md
(and this does not include treatments performed in
coalbed methane or gas shale formations). Most of the
industrys perceptions of hydraulic fracturing originate
from this sector of the business. Many gas reservoirs
can only be produced because of hydraulic fracturing.
In many areas, there is such confidence in the process
that whole fields are developed without any hope of
ever being economic without fracturing.
4-7.1.1 The Importance of Inflow Area
In order for hydrocarbons to flow down the fracture,
rather than through the adjacent formation,
the fracture must be more conductive than the
formation. Given that the permeability for 20/40
frac sand is 275 darcies (if closure pressure is
below 3,000 psi), we can see that even a very narrow
fracture will have a much higher conductivity than
the formation. This does not consider the effects of
non-Darcy flow (see Section 2-5).
Therefore, the most significant limiting factor
defining how far the reservoir production has
increased is not how conductive the fracture is (any
realistic propped fracture will be significantly more
conductive than the formation), but rather how easily
the formation can deliver the hydrocarbons to the
fracture. Therefore, when treating low-permeability
reservoirs, fractures should be designed with a specific
minimum fracture conductivity and a large surface area.
Because formations are usually limited in height, this
means designing for maximum fracture half length,
xf. See Section 4-5.2 for a detailed discussion of how to
determine the required fracture conductivity.
Because formation permeability is low,
fluid leakoff also tends to be low. This has two
consequences. First, pad volumes tend to be very
low, relative to the rest of the job volumes. In some
cases, a pad is hardly needed at all; the proppant-
laden fluid can be used to create the fracture. The
second consequence is that fracture closure time
the length of time taken for the fracture to close on
the proppant after the treatment has finished tends
154
to be long. This means that the fracturing fluid has
to suspend the proppant for a relatively long period
of time at bottomhole temperature.
Therefore, hydraulic fracture treatments in low-
permeability formations tend to have fairly large
fluid and proppant volumes, although the overall
proppant concentration in the fluid is relatively
low. Pad volumes are small. Treatment fluids are
usually fairly robust, capable of maintaining viscosity
for extended periods of time.
4-7.1.2 Effective vs Actual Propped Length
It is not uncommon to perform pressure transient
testing on fractured tight gas wells. Because of the
reciprocal productivity index methods pioneered by
Crafton (1997) (see Section 3-7), operators can do this
with post-treatment production data, rather than having
to wait inordinately long periods of time for pressure
build-up data. More often than not, this analysis shows
that the effective propped fracture length is much less
than that predicted by the simulators. Obviously, some
of this inconsistency is due to the inaccuracies of the
fracture simulators. However, it is also apparent (e.g.,
Cramer, 2003) that fractures in tight gas formations
are also susceptible to loss in effective fracture length
for a variety of reasons. This is because fracture
width is very limited, especially towards the fracture
tip, and conductivity is relatively low. As a result, it
does not take very much damage to the fracture to
change sections of the propped length from infinite
conductivity (i.e., no significant pressure drop) to
finite conductivity (significant pressure drop). When
a fracture has some sections of finite and some sections
of infinite conductivity, it will behave as if it were a
shorter fracture of infinite conductivity.
Causes of such losses of fracture conductivity include:
Loss of fracture width due to embedment.
Loss of fracture conductivity due to proppant
crushing (i.e., poor-quality proppant and/or
higher than expected closure stress).
Loss of fracture conductivity due to damage from
fracturing fluid residues (poor fluid design and/or
treatment execution).
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Loss of fracture conductivity and/or length
due to immobile fluids (reservoir fluids or
fracturing fluids).
Insufficient fracture conductivity due to poor
treatment design.
Reduction in effective fracture permeability
due to unexpected multiphase and/or non-
Darcy flow effects.
It is important to realize that good treatment
design, together with selecting suitable fluid and
proppant systems, can go a long way to mitigating
or even eliminating these effects. However, it is
also important to realize that fractures in tight
gas wells are particularly susceptible to loss of
effective fracture length, and this must be allowed
for during treatment design.
4-7.2 High-Rate Gas Wells
4-7.2.1 Non-Darcy Flow
Section 2-3.1 introduced the concept of non-Darcy
flow within the reservoir and also introduced the
Forcheimer equation (Eq. 2-2). Non-Darcy flow can
also be a significant problem within the propped
fracture. For linear flow along a propped fracture, the
Forcheimer equation is usually expressed as:
p v
= + v 2 .
(4-116)
L k
The left-hand side of Eq. 4-116 represents the total
energy lost per unit length. The expression ( / k)
represents the energy loss due to viscous friction effects
and the expression (v2) is a kinetic energy term that
represents energy loss due to non-Darcy inertial flow
effects. The constant, , is specific to a given proppant
type and closure stress, and can usually be obtained from
tables provided by proppant manufacturers/suppliers.
In hydraulic fracturing, the inertial flow
effects manifest themselves as an effective drop in
proppant permeability; this needs to be allowed
for during treatment design. Data for this is widely
available (such as from Stim-Labs excellent PredictK
software) if the engineer has some idea of the
expected post-treatment flow rate.
The phenomenon of non-Darcy flow
through proppant is covered in more detail
in Section 8-7.3.
4-7.2.2 Wellbore Connectivity
As discussed in detail in Section 2-5, turbulence
can have significant effects on the production
from high rate gas wells, due to the constriction
of flow at the connection between the propped
fracture and the wellbore. Often, a hydraulic
fracture will only connect to the wellbore via a
small number of propped perforations and this
can have a significant impact on post-treatment
production from high rate gas wells. Not only is
production reduced because of turbulence effects,
but the extremely high flow velocities seen in
such areas can produce excessive drag forces on
individual proppant grains. This can lead to
proppant flow back (see Section 8-10).
Efficient and effective treatment design, coupled
with an engineered perforation strategy, can do
a lot to mitigate these effects. However, they
can still be significant and must be allowed for
when designing a treatment. For instance, there is
little point in pumping a 600,000 lbm treatment
with a length of 400 ft, when the near wellbore
turbulence effects make it behave like a 150,000
lbm, 200-ft-long treatment.
The issues surrounding the connectivity of
the fracture to the wellbore will be discussed in
detail in Chapter 6.
4-7.3 High-Permeability Wells
High-permeability fracturing is, not unexpectedly,
the opposite of low-permeability fracturing. In
high-permeability formations, moving the fluid
through the rock to the fracture is relatively easy.
The difficulty lies in creating a fracture that has
sufficient conductivity to increase productivity. This
means that for this type of treatment, generating
sufficient fracture conductivity is more important
than generating fracture length (remembering that the
fracture needs to be of sufficient size to mitigate the
effects of turbulence in the formation).
155
Modern Fracturing
4-7.3.1 The Importance of Fracture Conductivity
With reference to Eq. 4-108, in order to maintain the
ideal fracture conductivity of 1.6 (see Section 4-5.2)
as formation permeability increases, it is necessary
to increase width, increase proppant permeability
and/or reduce fracture half length. Given that for
a specific treatment, proppant permeability will
be fixed, then there will be an ideal relationship
between propped length and propped width.
Maintaining this relationship for increasing formation
permeability means designing treatments that are
increasingly short and wide.
In such fracture/formation systems, the factor that
controls post-treatment production is the pressure drop
through the proppant pack. These fractures are often
referred to as finite-conductivity fractures.
4-7.3.2 The Tip Screenout
As previously discussed, the relationship between fracture
length, width and height is defined by the formation
rock mechanical characteristics and is generally outside
the control of the frac engineer. Usually, all that can be
controlled is the fracture volume and the final propped
width (because the initial, created fracture width will close
onto the proppant and hence the proppant concentration
per unit area will control the final width).
However, as permeability rises, it becomes
increasingly difficult to produce sufficient width
without also generating excessive length. A point is
reached at which is it no longer possible to generate
sufficient width; without artificial intervention,
fractures would not be effective. This permeability
is in the region of 50 to 100 md. Above this
permeability range, it is necessary to use a technique
known as the Tip Screenout (TSO) in order to
artificially generate extra width.
With reference to Fig. 4-55, a TSO is achieved by
forcing proppant into the fracture tip at a relatively
early stage in the treatment. As the proppant collects
in the fracture tip, a pressure differential is created
by fluid trying to penetrate through the proppant to
reach the tip. In the main body of the fracture, pnet >
pext, which means the energy in the fluid is sufficient
to make the fracture propagate, if this pressure is
156
transmitted to the tip. However, as proppant builds
up in the tip, the pressure at the tip will fall until
it is no longer sufficient to make the fracture
grow. This is the TSO.
Proppant Fracture Tip
pnet
p
Figure 4-55 Diagram illustrating the tip screenout
However, fluid is still being pumped into the
formation at a (usually) constant rate. Given that the
TSO will not significantly affect the fluid leakoff rate
(at least initially), the fracture volume has to increase
at the same rate, even though the fracture is no
longer gaining length and height. This means that the
fracture width has to increase.
As the tip screenout occurs, the net pressure starts
to rise because this is usually directly proportional to
fracture width. The rate at which the net pressure
starts to rise is controlled by the formations Youngs
modulus: If the rock is too hard, the pressure will
rise too quickly and the treatment will soon be over.
Therefore, in order for a formation to be a candidate
for a TSO treatment, it must have sufficiently high
fluid leakoff to allow proppant accumulation in the
fracture tip and sufficiently low Youngs modulus so
that the pressure does not rise too quickly.
4-7.4 Unconsolidated Formations
The majority of high-permeability fracture treatments are
performed in weak or unconsolidated formations. Such
treatments are often referred to as frac and packs or
simply frac-packs because they combine the effects of
fracture stimulation and gravel packing.
4-7.4.1 Re-Stressing the Formation
An undisturbed formation will normally exist in a state
of three-dimensional compressive stress. Drilling the
wellbore and applying a drawdown radically change
the stresses. Although the tangential and vertical
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
stresses will remain compressive, the radial stresses may
become tensile. When this happens in a weak or poorly
consolidated formation, sand production occurs.
The major mechanism for controlling sand
production (sand control) is re-stressing the formation.
In this process, proppant is forced into any void spaces
behind the casing (including perforation tunnels),
physically compressing the formation. As the slurry is
pumped into these areas, the voids fill up and a screenout
will occur. The higher the pressure rise that results, the
more the formation is compressed, or re-stressed.
Fracturing the formation offers an unparalleled
opportunity to re-stress the formation because
the fracture width will compress the formation
either side of the frac.
4-7.4.2 The Frac-Pack Treatment
The main elements of a frac-pack completion are
illustrated in Fig. 4-56. Put simply, the treatment is
pumped down the tubing and into the crossover tool.
The crossover tool transfers the flow into the annulus
between the casing and the blank pipe. The slurry then
flows down between the screens and the casing, and then
on into the perforations.
Tubing
Packer Elements
Slips
Crossover Tool
Blank Pipe
Proppant
Screens
Sump Packer
Figure 4-56 Typical components of a frac-pack completion
The treatment is designed as a conventional high-
permeability TSO treatment. The only exceptions are
that the treatment is designed to screenout at the end
to ensure the maximum possible re-stressing of the
formation. Therefore, the final stage is designed with
extra slurry, so that the screen/casing annulus is filled
with proppant after the screenout.
4-7.5 Skin-Bypass Treatments
Skin-bypass treatments are designed to do exactly
what the name describes bypass skin damage.
These treatments are not necessarily designed to
be the absolute optimum stimulation treatment for
the well. Instead, these treatments are designed to
be small, cost-effective and easy to perform. Often
these treatments are pumped in places where space
or equipment weight is a limiting factor, such
as offshore. In many cases, if the engineer were
given a technical free hand to design the optimum
treatment, the job would be much larger. However,
given the restraints of cost and space that are often
placed upon engineers, the skin-bypass frac is an
attempt (often highly successful) to produce effective
stimulation. Rae et al. (1999) derived the following
equation for predicting production increase from a
skin-bypass fracture treatment:
JF ln (re rw ) + s
=
, (4-117)
Jo ln 4 (C fD x fD )
where s is the skin factor of the unfractured well,
Jo is the initial PI of the well, JF is the PI of the
fractured well and xfD is the dimensionless fracture
half length (i.e. xf/re).
The skin-bypass frac can also be considered as a
more effective alternative to matrix acidizing when
factors such as mineralogy, temperature, logistics and
cost prevent the use of acid.
Figure 4-57 shows the basic concept behind
the skin bypass frac. Although the formation has
considerable damage (dark-shaded area), this is
effectively bypassed by the more conductive path
created by the fracture. In order for the fracture to
produce a production increase, it does not have to
be more conductive than the formation. It merely
has to be more conductive than the damaged area.
Of course, normally the fracture conductivity is
significantly higher than this. Given that skin-
bypass fracs are normally carried out on marginal
157
Modern Fracturing
wells (wells that cannot justify the expense of
a major stimulation treatment), often economics
dictate that significant production increase (over
and above that obtained from bypassing the
skin) must be obtained.
Permeability
Low
Figure 4-57 Skin bypass fracture penetrating through
skin damage
4-7.6 Condensate Dropout
4-7.6.1 Description of Phenomena
The phenomenon of retrograde condensation was
described in detail in Section 2-2 and illustrated
in Fig. 2-1. Put simply, for wet gas reservoirs,
as the pressure falls, liquids can condense out of
the gas mixture. This can result in a reduction of
the relative permeability to gas due to changes in
saturation and the development of immobile fluid
banks. In the context of fractured wells, retrograde
condensation can be a problem if the condensate
builds up in or around the fracture.
4-7.6.2 Mitigating the Effect of Dropout
Generally speaking, condensate dropout will occur
wherever the gas pressure and temperature changes
enough to move the gas into the two-phase envelope
in Fig. 2-1. If this happens in the formation or the
fracture, conductivity will be reduced.
The process of designing fractures to mitigate
the effects of condensate dropout is based on the
principle that the best place for condensate to
158
form is the wellbore and the next best place for it
to form is the fracture. The worst place for it to
form is the formation.
To that effect, fractures are designed to minimize the
pressure drop in the reservoir. This produces the same effect
on fracture geometry as having low permeability: The
inflow area (and hence xf) needs to be at a maximum.
4-7.7 Shale Gas and Coal Bed Methane
A more detailed discussion of the specific aspects of
fracturing these types of unconventional reservoir will
be the subject of Chapter 11.
4-7.7.1 Gas Shales
High Fracturing in gas-bearing shales (such as the Barnett shale
in north-central Texas) has become a major focus of the
fracturing industry over the last few years, see Fig. 1-13
(Lancaster et al., 1992, Fisher et al., 2004, and Schein et
al., 2004). Although the shales are porous and contain
significant quantities of gas, they have almost no matrix
permeability. Production is through natural fractures.
Hydraulic fracturing concentrates on trying
to link up the natural fractures. Treatments are
extreme; rates over 100 bpm are common, with
proppant concentrations rarely exceeding 2 ppga. The
treatments try to link sets of natural fractures with
the absolute minimum fracture conductivity. Even
with such low proppant concentrations, the fracture
still acts with infinite conductivity because matrix
permeability is so low. The proppant is carried in slick
water, and so the high rates are needed to carry the
proppant deep into the formation.
4-7.7.2 Coal Bed Methane
Hydraulic fracturing is one of several completion
methods used successfully in coal beds. The choice
of method depends upon the highly variable nature
of the coal seams. However, fracturing is probably
the most widely used method (Nimerick et al.,
1991, and Cramer, 1992).
The vast majority of the coal bed methane (CBM)
fracturing takes place in 9 or 10 major basins in the US,
Australia, Canada and China. CBM fracturing also takes
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
place in the UK, the Middle East and Russia. In all of
these places, each particular coal field or basin tends to be
dominated by a single operating company.
Each of these basins has its own particular
characteristics, in terms of the age and maturity of the
coal, reservoir pressure, fines mobility, water production
and mechanical characteristics of the coal seams and
surrounding rock layers. As a result, each operating
company has developed its own particular method for
producing the gas, and when this involves fracturing,
each has developed its own method for this as well.
CBM fracturing remains to this day, very difficult
to simulate on a computer. Conventional models
cannot be applied to the coal due to the extensive
cleat systems that exist in the seams, the extremely
plastic nature of the coal and the shear decoupling
that exists between the coal and the over- and under-
lying rock strata. Without the aid of reliable fracture
models, engineers have developed a number of rules
of thumb for CBM fracturing, most of which are
specific to a particular basin.
4-7.8 Acid Fracturing
Acid fracturing is an alternative to proppant fracturing
in carbonate reservoirs (King, 1986, and Kalfayan,
2007). The process relies on acid etching of the
fracture face, rather than the placing of proppant, to
produce conductivity. Consequently, its intentional
use has been limited to carbonate formations, which
are usually > 95% soluble in acid systems. However, it
has also been suggested that with modern acid systems,
these techniques could be applied to sandstone
reservoirs (di Lullo and Rae, 1996).
4-7.8.1 Description of Process
The basic difference between acid fracturing and
proppant fracturing is that the fracture conductivity
is generated by the acid reacting with the formation
at the fracture faces, rather than by the placement of
proppant. To start, a non-reactive pad fluid is pumped
into the formation to create a fracture with the desired
half length. This is followed by the acid system, which
is usually as concentrated as is practical (the most
commonly used acid fracturing fluid is 28% HCl), so
that as much rock volume as possible can be removed.
The acid system is also usually viscosified to reduce
wellbore friction, to suspend and transport any fines
released by the acid, and to retard the acid reaction rate.
Crosslinked acid systems are commonly used to retard
the reaction rate even further. A combination of retarded
reaction rate and high pumping rate is intended to get
live acid as far from the wellbore as possible.
It is usual practice to pump acid fractures at high
rate, usually the maximum rate possible based on
equipment, completion and wellhead constraints. This
allows the acid to penetrate as far from the wellbore as
possible, while minimizing the near-wellbore pinching
effect described by Roodhart et al. (1993).
At the end of the treatment, the fracture is allowed to
close and the spent acid flowed back as soon as possible.
However, sometimes a closed fracture acidizing treatment
may be performed (Frederickson, 1986). This consists of
pumping additional acid down the closed fracture, below
fracturing pressure, to widen the etched width of the
fracture and hence artificially increase conductivity.
Generally, acid fracturing is limited to harder rock
formations because soft formations will plastically
deform into the etched width created by the acid,
reducing and sometimes eliminating the effects of
the treatment. In addition, acid fracture conductivity
tends to be significantly less than that which can be
generated by proppant fracturing. These two facts
mean that fracture acidizing is generally performed
on lower-permeability, tight carbonate formations,
rather than soft, more permeable rocks.
The design of acid fracture treatments is generally
much less scientific than the process of designing a
propped fracture treatment. Available simulators tend
to be very primitive and almost unusable. In addition,
it is often very difficult to estimate etched width and
length. Consequently, treatments are usually refined on
an empirical basis over a campaign.
4-7.8.2 Estimating Fracture Conductivity
The most reliable method for estimating acid fracture
conductivity was presented by Nierode and Kruk (1973).
Other methods, including laboratory testing, have been
developed subsequently, but none have proved to be as
reliable. A summary of the method follows.
159
Modern Fracturing
The created fracture conductivity, Cf (md-ft), can
be calculated using etched fracture width, wetch (in.),
rock embedment strength, SRE (psi), and closure
pressure, pc, (psi):
C f = C1eC2 pc and (4-118)
7 2.47
C1 = 1.47 10 wetch .
(4-119)
The average etched fracture width, wetch, can be obtained
by calculating the volume of rock dissolved by the acid
and dividing by the fracture area. The C2 term is related
to rock embedment strength, SRE (see also Economides et
al., 1994, pp. 412-413) as follows:
C2 = 0.001(13.9 1.3 ln S RE )
for SRE < 20,000 psi or (4-120)
C2 = 0.001(3.8 0.28 ln S RE )
for SRE > 20,000 psi. (4-121)
The rock embedment strength has to be determined
experimentally from core or outcrop samples. Extensive
library data for SRE is available for many of the more
commonly fractured carbonate formations.
The obtained acid fracture conductivity can
be used in the expression of dimensionless fracture
conductivity (Eq. 4-108) instead of the product kfw.
Therefore, using the penetration ratio Ix, an equivalent
proppant number can also be calculated using Eq. 4-
110; consequently Unified Fracture Design is readily
applicable for acid fracture design.
4-7.8.3 Use of Diversion Techniques
One major difference between propped fracturing and
fracture acidizing is the use of diversion techniques. In
propped fracturing, precise control over fluid and slurry
placement along the wellbore is required to maintain
control over fracture dimensions and to ensure that a
treatment is not over-displaced. This is not so critical
for acid fracturing. Consequently, acid fracturing can
become the stimulation method of choice over long
perforated intervals and multiple intervals, even if the
160
treatment produces less fracture conductivity than
proppant fracturing. Selected recommended diversion
techniques are listed below, presented in no particular
order. Their use depends upon specific wellbore and
operational circumstances. It is usual practice when
fracture acidizing to use separate diversion stages, so
that a treatment sequence could be pad, acid, overflush,
diversion, and then repeating as often as required before
concluding with a final over-displacement.
1. Foam (acid and non-acid)
2. Ball sealers (only in perforated wellbores)
3. Benzoic acid flakes and other soluble particulates
4. Viscoelastic surfactant systems
5. Self-viscosifying acid (as the acid neutralizes, the
pH rises and a crosslinker becomes active, causing
a dramatic increase in viscosity).
References
Advanti, S.H., Khattib, H., and Lee, J.K.: Hydraulic
Fracture Geometry Modeling, Prediction and
Comparisons, paper SPE 13863, 1985.
Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method to Account for
Producing Time Effects When Drawdown Type
Curves are Used to Analyze Pressure Buildup and
Other Test Data, paper SPE 9289, September
1980.
Arihara, N., Abbaszadeh, M., Wright, C.A. and Hyodo,
M.: Integration of Fracturing Dynamics and
Pressure Transient Analysis for Hydraulic Fracture
Evaluation, paper SPE 36551, October 1996.
Auld, B.A.: Acoustic Fields and Waves in Solids, v. I,
II, Robert E. Krieger Publ. Co., Florida, 856 pp,
1990.
Barree, R.D., Cox, S.A., Gilbert, J.V. and Dobson,
M.: Closing the Gap: Fracture Half-Length From
Design, Buildup, and Production Analysis, SPE
Production and Facilities (2005), 20, 274-285.
Barree, R.D., Rogers, B.A., and Chu, W.C.: Use of
Frac-Pack Pressure Data to Determine Breakdown
Conditions and Reservoir Properties, paper SPE
36423, October 1996.
Behrman, L.A. and Nolte, K.G, Perforating
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Requirements for Fracture Stimulation, paper
SPE 59480, 1999
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B. and Bietz, R.F.:
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs: Problems,
Opportunities and Solutions for Drilling,
Completion, Stimulation and Production, paper
SPE 35577, May 1996.
Biot, M.A.: General Solutions of the Equations of
Elasticity and Consolidation for a Porous Material,
Journal of Applied Mechanics (1956), 23, 91-96.
Blangy, J.P.: Integrated Seismic Lithology
Interpretation: the Petrophysical Basis, Ph.D.
dissertation, Stanford U. (1992).
Brevik, I.: Chalk data presented at workshop on
effective media, Karlsruhe (1995).
Broek, D.: Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 4th Ed., Dordrecht,
1986.
Budynas, R.G.: Advanced Strength and Applied Stress
Analysis, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1999.
Card, R.J., Howard, P.R. and Feraud, J-P.: A Novel
Technology to Control Proppant Backproduction,
SPE 31007, SPE Prod. & Fac. (November 1995),
No. 4, 110, 271-276.
Carter, R.D.: Derivation of the General Equation for
Estimating the Extent of Fracture Area, Appendix
1 of Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture
Extension, Drilling and Production Practice,
Howard, C.R. and Fast, C.R., API, New York
(1957), 261-269.
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Eastwood, R.L.:
Relationships between Compressional-Wave and
Shear-Wave Velocities in Clastic Silicate Rocks,
Geophysics, 50, 571-581, 1985.
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Kan, T.K.: Rock
Physics the Link between Rock Properties and
AVO Response, in Offset-Dependent Reflectivity
Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis, ed. J.P.
Castagna and M.M. Backus, SEG Tulsa, 1993.
Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V.F.: Transient Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 1749-1766, 1981.
Cipolla, C.L. and Mayerhofer, M.J.: Understanding
Fracture Performance by Integrating Well Testing
and Fracture Modelling, SPE 74632, SPE Prod. &
Fac., November 2001.
Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A.: State-of-the-Art
in Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics, paper SPE
64434, October 2000.
Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A.: Diagnostic Techniques
to Understand Hydraulic Fracturing: What? Why?
and How? Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics, paper
SPE 59735, Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary,
Canada, 2000.
Cipolla, C.L.: Personal Communication, 2006.
Clark, P.E.: Transport of Proppant in Hydraulic
Fractures, paper SPE 103167, September 2006.
Cleary M.P., Johnson, D.E., Kogsbll, H-H., Owens,
K.A., Perry, K.F., de Pater, C.J., Stachel, A., Schmidt,
H. and Tambini, M.: Field Implementation of
Proppant Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out
of Hydraulic Fractures with Adequate Proppant
Concentration, paper SPE 25892, April 1993.
Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A. and Wright, T.B.:
Experimental and Modelling Evidence for Major
Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field
Procedures, paper SPE 21494, January 1991.
Coffer, H.F., Bray, B.G., Knutson, C.F. and Rawson,
D.E.: Effects of Nuclear Explosions on Oil and
Gas Reservoir Stimulation, JPT, May 1964, 473-
480.
Crafton, J.W.: Oil and Gas Well Evaluation using the
Reciprocal Productivity Index Method, paper SPE
37409, March 1997.
Cramer, D.D.: Limited Entry MHF Part 1 Limited
Entry Extended to Massive Hydraulic Fracturing,
Oil & Gas J., December 14, 1987.
Cramer, D.D.: Limited Entry MHF Part 2 Study
Indicates Guidelines Improve Results, Oil & Gas
J., December 21, 1987.
Cramer, D.D.: The Unique Aspects of Fracturing
Western U.S. Coal Beds, paper SPE 21592, JPT,
pp 1126-1133, October 1992.
Cramer, D.D.: Evaluating Well Performance and
Completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically
Fractured Low-Permeability Gas Wells, SPE
84214, October 2003.
Daal, J.A., and Economides, M.J.: Optimization
of hydraulically fractured wells in irregularly
shaped drainage areas, Proc. SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, 2006,
pp. 71-82.
161
Modern Fracturing
Daneshy, A.A.: On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic
Fractures, JPT, 83-93, January 1973.
Deily, F.H., and Owens, T.C.: Stress Around a
Wellbore, paper SPE 2557, October 1969.
Demarchos, A.S., Chomatas, A.S., Economides, M.J.,
Mach, J.M., Wolcott, D.S: Pushing the Limits
in Hydraulic Fracture Design, (2004) Proc. SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, 239-248.
Demarchos, A.S., Economides, M.J., Diyashev, I.,
Svaykin, V.A.: Analysis of the performance of
hydraulic fracturing treatments and quantum
design improvements, (2005) Proc. SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, 271-277.
di Lullo, G. and Rae, P.: A New Acid for True
Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs, paper SPE
37015, October 1996.
Dietrich, J.K.: JD as a performance indicator for
hydraulically fractured wells, (2005) Proc. SPE
Western Regional Meeting, 201-216.
Diyashev, I.R., and Economides, M.J.: A general
approach to well evaluation, (2005) Proc. SPE
- European Formation Damage Conference, 279-
289.
Eberhart-Phillips, D.M.: Investigation of Crustal
Structure and Active Tectonic Processes in the Coast
Ranges, Central California, Ph.D. dissertation,
Stanford U., 1989.
Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir
Stimulation, Schlumberger Educational Services,
1st Edition 1987, 2nd Edition, 1994, 3rd Edition,
1998.
Economides, M.J., Demarchos, A.S., Mach, J.M.,
Rueda, J., and Wolcott, D.S.: Pushing the limits
of hydraulic fracturing in Russia (2004) Proc.
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
2329-2333.
Economides, M.J., Oligney, R.E. and Valk, P.P.:
Unified Fracture Design, Orsa Press, Alvin, Texas,
2002.
El-Banbi, A.H. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Analysis of
Linear Flow in Gas Well Production, paper SPE
39972, March 1998.
Ely, J.W., Arnold III, W.T., and Holditch, S.A.: New
Techniques and Quality Control Find Success in
Enhancing Productivity and Minimizing Proppant
162
Flowback, paper SPE 20708, September 1990.
Fisher, M.K., Heinze, J.R., Harris, C.D., Davidson,
B.M., Wright, C.A. and Dunn, K.P.: Optimizing
Horizontal Completion Techniques in the Barnett
Shale Using Microseismic Fracture Mapping,
paper SPE 90051, September 2004.
Fredrickson, S.E.: Stimulating Carbonate Formations
Using a Closed Fracture Acidizing Technique,
paper SPE 14654, April 1996.
Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R.:
Formation Velocity and Density the Diagnostic
Basis for Stratigraphic Traps, Geophysics (1974),
39, 770-780.
Geertsma, J.: Velocity-Log Interpretation: the Effect
of Rock Bulk Compressibility, SPEJ, December,
1961.
Geerstma, J., and de Klerk, F.A.: Rapid Method of
Predicting Width and Extent of Hydaulically
Induced Fractures, JPT (December 1969), 1571-
81.
Grebe, J.J.: Tools and Aims of Research, Chem. &
Eng. News, December 10, 1943.
Grebe, J.J. and Stosser S.M.: Increasing Crude
Production 20,000,000 Barrels from Established
Fields, World Petroleum (August 1935), 6, 8, 473.
Greenberg, M.L., and Castagna, J.P.: Shear-Wave
Velocity Estimation in Porous Rocks: Theoretical
Formulation, Preliminary Verification and
Applications, Geophysical Prospecting (1992), 40,
195-209.
GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 1, Gas Research
Institute, Chicago, 1988.
GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 2, Gas Research
Institute, Chicago, 1989.
GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 3, Gas Research
Institute, Chicago, 1990.
Griffith, A.A.: The phenomena of rupture and flow in
solids, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. of London (1921), A
221, 163 167.
Han, D.-H., Nur, A., and Morgan, D.: Effects of
Porosity and Clay Content on Wave Velocities in
Sandstones, Geophysics (1986), 51, 2093-2107.
Handin J., Hager, R.V. Jr, Friedman, M., and Feather,
J.N.: Experimental Deformation of Sedimentary
Rocks Under Confining Pressure: Pore Pressure
Tests, Bul. Amer. Asso. Pet. Geol. (1963), 47, 717-
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
755.
Helmy, M.W. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: New Shape
Factors for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure,
paper SPE 39970, March 1998.
Holditch, S.A.: Tight Gas Sands, JPT (2006), 58,
86-93.
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R.: Optimum Fluid
Characteristics for Fracture Extension, Drill. &
Prod. Prac., API, 1957, 261.
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing,
Monograph Series Vol. 2, SPE, Dallas, Texas, USA
(1970).
Jeffrey, R.G.: The Combined Effect of Fluid Lag
and Fracture Toughness on Hydraulic Fracture
Propagation, paper SPE 18957, March 1989.
Johnson, E. and Cleary, M.P.: Implications of Recent
Laboratory Experimental Results for Hydraulic
Fractures, paper SPE 21846, April 1991.
Kachanov, L.M.: Advances in Creep Design, Applied
Science Publishers, London, 1971.
Kalfayan, L.J.: Fracture Acidizing: History, Present
State, and Future, paper SPE 106371, January
2007.
Khristianovitch, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P.: Formation
of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous
Liquid, paper presented at the 4th World Petroleum
Congress, II, 579-586, 1955.
King, G.E.: Acidizing Concepts - Matrix vs. Fracture
Acidizing, paper SPE 15279, JPT, pp 507-508,
May 1986.
Klimentos, T., Harouaka, A., Mtawaa, B., and Saner, S.,
Experimental Determination of the Biot Elastic
Constant: Applications in Formation Evaluation
(Sonic Porosity, Rock Strength, Earth Stresses and
Sanding Predictions), paper SPE 30593, Oct,
1995.
Lacy, L.L.: Dynamic Rock Mechanics Testing for
Optimized Fracture Designs, paper SPE 38716,
October 1997.
Lancaster, D.E., McKetta, S.F., Guidry, F.K. and
Jochen, J.E.: Reservoir Evaluation, Completion
Techniques, and Recent Results From Barnett Shale
Development in the Fort Worth Basin, paper SPE
24884, October 1992.
Le Tirant, P., and Dupuy, M.: Fracture Dimensions
Obtained During Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
of Oil Reservoirs, Rev. Inst. Franais du Ptrole, 44-
108, 1967 (in French).
Leshchyshyn, T.H., Beadall, K.K. Meier, P.E., Hagel,
M.W., and Meyer, B.R.: Using Empirically
Developed Rock Tables to Predict and History
Match Fracture Stimulations, paper SPE 86989,
March 2004.
Lopez-Hernandez, H.D., Valko, P.P., and Pham, T.T.:
Optimum fracture treatment design minimizes
the impact of non-Darcy flow effects, Proc. SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
(2004), 1725-1740.
Manrique, J.F. and Poe, B.D.: Evaluation and
Optimization of Low-Conductivity Fractures,
paper SPE 106317, January 2007.
Martin, A.N.: Crack Tip Plasticity: A Different
Approach to Modeling Fracture Propagation in
Soft Formations, paper SPE 63171 (revised),
October 2000.
Martin, A.N.: Hydraulic Fracturing Manual, BJ Services,
2005.
Martins, J.P. and Harper, T.R.: Mini-Frac Pressure
Decline Analysis for Fractures Evolving From Long
Perforated Intervals and Unaffected by Confining
Strata, paper SPE 13869, March 1985
Mayerhofer, M, Ehlig-Economides, C.A and
Economides, M.J.: Pressure Transient Analysis
of Fracture Calibration Tests, paper SPE 26527,
1993
Mayerhofer M., Stutz, L. Davis, E. and Wolhart,
S.: Optimizing Fracture Stimulation Using
Treatment-Well Tiltmeters and Integrated Fracture
Modeling, SPE Production and Operations, pp
222-229, 2006.
McGowen, J.M., Barree, R.D. and Conway, M.W.:
Incorporating Crossflow and Spurt-Loss Effects
in Filtration Modeling Within a Fully 3D Fracture
Growth Simulator, paper SPE 56597, October
1999.
McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: The Effect of Vertical
Fractures on Well Productivity, Trans., AIME
(1960), 219, 401-403.
Meyer, B.R., and Jacot, R.H.: Pseudosteady-state
analysis of finite-conductivity vertical fractures,
Proc. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition (2005), 2007-2030.
163
Modern Fracturing
Morales, R.H.: Fracturing of High-Permeability
Formations: Mechanical Properties Correlations,
paper SPE 26561, October 1993.
Nguyen, P.D., Weaver, J.D., Dewprashad, B.T., Parker,
M.A. and Terracina, J.M.: Enhancing Fracture
Conductivity Through Surface Modification of
Proppant, paper SPE 39428, February 1998.
Nierode, D.E. and Kruk, K.F.: An Evaluation of Acid
Fluid Loss, Additives, Retarded Acids and Acidized
Fracture Conductivity, paper SPE 4549, October
1973.
Nikurova, L.F., Surtaev, V.N. and Yamilov, R.R.:
Enhancing Well Productivity After Hydraulic
Fracturing in the Priobskoe Oilfield, paper SPE
102194, 2006.
Nimerick, K.H., Hinkel, J.J., England, K.W., Norton,
J.L. and Roy, M.: Design and Evaluation of
Stimulation and Workover Treatments in Coal
Seam Reservoirs, paper SPE 23455, October
1991.
Nolte, K.G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters
from Fracturing Pressure Decline, paper SPE
8341, 1979.
Nolte, K.G., and Smith, M.B.: Interpretation of
Fracturing Pressures, paper SPE 8297, JPT, 1767-
75, September 1981.
Nolte, K.G.: A General Analysis of Fracture Pressure
Decline With Application to Three Models, SPE
12941, SPEFE, 571-583, 1986(a)
Nolte, K.G.: Determination of Proppant and Fluid
Schedules From Fracturing Pressure Decline,
SPEPE, 255-265, July 1986(b).
Nordgren, R.P.: Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic
Fracture, paper SPE 3009, SPEJ, 306-14; Trans.
AIME 253, August 1972.
Obert, L., Windes, S.L., Duvall, W.I.: Standardised
Tests for Determining the Physical Properties of
Mine Rock, U.S. Bur. Mines Rept. Invest., 3891,
1946
Oberwinkler, C., and Economides, M.J.: The
Definitive Identification of Candidate Wells
for Refracturing, Proc. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition (2003), 1385-1401.
Oberwinkler, C., Ruthammer, G., Zangl, G., and
Economides, M.J.: New Tools for Fracture Design
Optimization, Proc. SPE International Formation
164
Damage Control Symposium (2004).
Palmer, I.D. and Veatch, R.W.: Abnormally High
Fracturing Pressures in Step Rate Tests, paper SPE
16902, SPE Prod. Eng., August 1990.
Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R.: Widths of Hydraulic
Fractures, JPT, September 1961, 937-49; Trans.
AIME 222, September 1961.
Pickett, G.R.: Acoustic Character Logs and Their
Applications in Formation Evaluation, JPT, 15,
650-667, 1963.
Plona, T.I. and Cook, J.M.: Effects of Stress Cycles on
Static and Dynamic Youngs Moduli in Castlegate
Sandstone, Rock Mechanics, Daemen & Schultz,
ed., Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 552 6.,
1995.
Poe, B.D. and Manrique, J.F.: Production Performance
Design Criteria for Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE
101722, Proc. SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition (2005), 3687-3700.
Poe, B.D.: Design Criteria for Improved Performance
of Fractured Wells, paper SPE 104015, Proc. 1st
Int Oil Conference and Exhibition in Mexico,
2006.
Pongratz, R., von Gijtenbeek, K., Kontarev, R. and
McDaniel, B.W.: Perforating for Fracturing Best
Practices and Case Histories, paper SPE 105064,
January 2007.
Prats, M.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir
Behavior Incompressible Fluid Case, SPE
Journal, 1, pp 105-118, 1961.
Rae, P, Martin, A.N. and Sinanan, B.: Skin Bypass
Fracs Proof the Size is Not Important, paper
SPE 56473, October 1999.
Raymer, L.L., Hunt, E.R., Gardner, J.S.: An Improved
Sonic Transit Time-to-Porosity Transform,
SPWLA, 21st Ann, Log. Symp., July 1980.
Reynolds, O.: On the Dilatancy of Media Composed
of Rigid Particles in Contact. With Experimental
Illustrations, The London, Edinburgh & Dublin
Phil. Mag. & J. of Sci., LVII, December 1885, 469-
481.
Rickards, A.R., Brannon, H.D., Wood, W.D.
and Stephenson, C.J.: High-Strength, Ultra-
Lightweight Proppant Lends New Dimensions
to Hydraulic Fracturing Applications, paper SPE
84308, October 2003.
 Chapter 4 Hydraulic Fracture Design for Production Enhancement
Rickards, A.R., Lacy, L., Brannon, H.D., Stephenson,
C.J and Bilden, D.: Need Stress Relief? A New
Approach to Reducing Stress Cycling Induced
Proppant Pack Failure, paper SPE 49247,
September 1998.
Ringstad, C., Lofthus, E., Snsteb, E.F., Fjaer, E.,
Zausa, F., and Fuh, G.: Prediction of Rock
Parameters from Micro-Indentation Measurements:
The Effect of Sample Size, paper SPE/ISRM
47313, July, 1998.
Roegiers, J-C.: Rock Mechanics, Ch. 3 of Reservoir
Stimulation, ed. Economides, M.J. and Nolte,
K.G., Schlumberger Educational Services, 1987.
Romero, D.J., Valk, P.P. and Economides, M.J.:
Optimization of The Productivity Index and
the Fracture Geometry of a Stimulated Well with
Fracture Face and Choke Skins, SPE Production
and Facilities, vol 17 pp 57-64, 2003.
Roodhart, L.P., Kamphuis, H. and Davies, D.R.:
Improved Acid Fracturing Treatment Designs
Based on In-Situ Temperature Calculations, paper
SPE 26185, June 1993.
Rozo, R., Paez, J., Mendoza, A., Milne, A. and Soler,
D.: Combining Acid- and Hydraulic-Fracturing
Technologies Is the Key to Successfully Stimulating
the Orito Formation, paper SPE 104610, January,
2007.
Rueda, J.I., Mach, J., and Wolcott, D.: Pushing
fracturing limits to maximize producibjlity
in turbidite formations in Russia, Proc. SPE
International Petroleum Conference in Mexico
(2004), 371-382.
Rueda, J.I., Voronkov, A., and Mach, J.: Optimum
fracture design under transient and pseudosteady
conditions using constant fracture volume
concept, (2005) 67th European Association of
Geoscientists and Engineers, EAGE Conference
and Exhibition, incorporating SPE EUROPE2005
- Extended Abstracts, pp. 1795-1805.
Santarelli, F.J., Marsala, A.F., Brignoli, M., Rossi,
E., and Bona, N.: Formation Evaluation from
Logging on Cuttings, paper SPE 36851, 1996.
Schein, G.W., Carr, P.D., Canan, P.A. and Richey,
R.: Ultra Lightweight Proppants: Their Use and
Application in the Barnett Shale, paper SPE
90838, October 2004.
Shah, S.N. and Lee, Y.N.: Friction Pressures of
Proppant-Laden Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids,
paper SPE 13836, SPEPE, 437-445, November
1986.
Smith, J.E.: Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments,
paper SPE 1286, Dallas, Texas, 1965.
Sneddon, I.N.: The Distribution of Stress in the
Neighbourhood of a Crack in an Elastic Solid,
Proc. Royal Society of London, 187, 229, 1946.
Timonov, A.V., Zagurenko, A.G., Hasanov, M.M.,
Pasynkov, A.G. and Afanasiev, I.S.: System
Approach to Hydraulic Fracturing Optimization
in Rosneft Oilfields, paper SPE 104355, 2006.
Torrey, P.D.: Progress in Squeeze Cementing
Applications and Technique, Oil Weekly, July 29,
1940.
Urmos, J., and Wilkens, R.H.: In-situ Velocities in
Pelagic Carbonates: New Insights from Ocean
Drilling Program Leg 130, J. Geophys. Res., 98,
7903-7920, 1993.
Valk, P.P. and Amini, S.: The Method of Distributed
Volumetric Sources for Calculating the Transient
and Pseudosteady-State Productivity of Complex
Well-Fracture Configurations, paper SPE 106279,
January, 2007.
Valk, P. and Economides, M.J.: A Continuum-
Damage-Mechanics Model of Hydraulic
Fracturing, paper SPE 25304, JPT, 198-205,
March 1993. See also discussions on this paper
contained in papers SPE 26282, 26303, 27734
and 27738.
Valk, P.P. and Economides, M.J.: Heavy Crude
Production from Shallow Formations: Long
Horizontal Wells Versus Horizontal Fractures,
paper SPE 50421, November 1998.
van Dam, D.B, Papanastasiou, P. and de Pater, C.J.:
Impact of Plasticity on Hydraulic Fracture
Propagation and Closure, paper SPE 63172,
October 2000.
van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application
of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in
Reservoirs, 1949, Trans., AIME, 186, 305-324.
van Everdingen, A.F.: The Skin Effect and Its
Impediment to Fluid Flow into a Wellbore, 1953,
Trans., AIME, 198, 171-176.
van Terzaghi, K.: Die Berechnung der
165
Modern Fracturing

Durchlassigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem Verlauf Formations in Water Flood Operations Part II,
der Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungrn, Oil Weekly, March 19, 1945.
Sber. Akad. Wiss, Vienna, 1923, 123, p105 (in
German).
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M. and Kullman, J.: Non-
Darcy and Multiphase Flow in Fractures: Case
Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well
Productivity, paper SPE 54630, May 1999.
Weijers, L., Wright, C., Mayerhofer, M. and Cipolla C.:
Developing Calibrated Fracture Growth Models
for Various Formations and Regions Across the
United States, paper SPE 96080, October 2005.
Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L. and Schechter, R.S.:
Acidizing Fundamentals, SPE Richardson, Texas,
1979.
Wright, C.A., Weijers, L., and Minner, W.A.: Advanced
Stimulation Technology Deployment Program, report
GRI-09/0075, Gas Research Institute, March
1996.
Wright, T.B., Aud, W.W., Cipolla, C., Perry, K.F., and
Cleary, M.P.: Identification and Comparison
of True Net Fracturing Pressures Generated by
Pumping Fluids with Different Rheology into the
Same Formations, paper SPE 26153, June 1993.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., and Gardner, L.W.:
Elastic Wave Velocities in Heterogeneous and
Porous Media, Geophysics, 21, 41-70, 1956.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., and Gardner, G.H.F.:
An Experimental Investigation of Factors
Affecting Elastic Wave Velocities in Porous Media,
Geophysics, 23, 459-493, 1958.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., and Gardner, G.H.F.,
Studies of Elastic Wave Attenuation in Porous
Media, Geophysics, 27, 569-589, 1963.
Yale, D.P., and Jamieson Jr., W.H.: Static and Dynamic
Rock Mechanical Properties in the Hugoton and
Panoma Fields, Kansas, paper SPE 27939, May,
1994.
Yew, C.H. and Liu, G.F.: Fracture Tip and Critical
Stress Intensity Factor of a Hydraulically Induced
Fracture, paper SPE 22875, SPE Prod. & Fac., no
3, 8, 171-177, August 1993.
Yuster, S.T. and Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: Pressure Parting of
Formations in Water Flood Operations Part I,
Oil Weekly, March 12, 1945.
Yuster, S.T. and Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: Pressure Parting of

166
David Ross is an associate director of InTuition Energy Associates Ltd., an organization that provides oil
& gas training in technology developments, challenges and applications. He has a BS degree in petroleum
engineering from the University of Texas. Immediately after graduating, he began his career with BJ Services
Company. During 24 years at BJ Services, Ross gained a broad range of experience in the engineering
disciplines of hydraulic fracturing, well cementing, acidizing, sand control, completion fluids and coiled
tubing services. He worked in a wide range of geographical environments including Alaska, Europe / North
Sea, South America, Southeast Asia, Russia, the Middle East, Canada as well as South & West Texas. Ross
has been active in the SPE and has authored or co-authored numerous technical papers about cement slurry
designs, completion techniques, sandstone acidizing systems, personnel training and QHSE management
systems. He was also a principal co-author of the Formation Damage and Clear Brine Completion Fluids
technical manuals. He has also been named a 2007-2008 SPE Distinguished Lecturer.

George King has worked 36 years with the BP organization since joining Amoco in 1971. He has been
involved with nearly all phases of oil and gas well completions, stimulations, workover processes and
operations applications and has held the title of distinguished advisor since 1991. Current activities include
mentoring, teaching, field reviews, innovation issues, problem well analysis, intervention designs and general
consulting in the area of production engineering. Degrees include a BS inchemistry from Oklahoma State
University, and a BS in chemical engineering and MS in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa.
Technical accomplishments include two patents, 52 technical papers, a book on completions and workovers,
the SPE Production and Operations Award in 2004, the Amoco Chairmans Award for technology from
Amoco in 1997, SPE Distinguished Lecturer in 1985-86, lecturer in the SPE Short Course series in 1999,
and Technical Chairman for the SPE Annual meeting in 1992.
Chapter 5
Well Completions
David Ross, InTuition Energy Associates and
George King, BP
5-1 Wellbore Construction
Optimum gas well completion design combines
continuing reservoir engineering assessment and
knowledge of production rate and characteristics to
achieve the best reservoir access from the most efficient
wellbore design. The design often must allow access
to reservoir sections from compact and often remote
entrance points such as platforms and pad locations.
Multiple flow regimes may exist in a single wellbore.
The efficiency of well operations over the economic
life of the well is affected by the changes in fluid types
and rates, reservoir stresses, pressure support, the
overall well design and operational decisions.
5-1.1 Effects of Uncertainty
in Reservoir Description
A good reservoir description can lead to better well
completion, one that can be fitted to the reservoir and
the changing well characteristics. Uncertainty in data,
both initial and current, may result in serious flaws
in well design and sharp reduction in hydrocarbon
recovery. Often design-sensitive reservoir factors
such as permeability, porosity, saturations, pressure,
barriers, drive systems and flow paths are only fully
known after most of the wells in the field have been
drilled, completed and produced. Thus, often for long
periods there is a requirement for the design to have
flexibility for re-completion to achieve maximum
recovery. Unless the engineer regularly reviews the
available data and updates the flowing model, recovery
opportunity will be wasted. A well or field depletion
plan, supported by surveillance and modeling
exercises, is necessary for achieving the best well
completion. Maximizing the economics of a project
requires that early cost-saving learning be recognized
immediately and the well design be changeable during
the period between field discovery and the drilling of
the final well. If well design or well locations are not
changeable, the value improvements possible from the
learning curve are largely lost.
In many cases after initial drilling and completion,
reservoir barriers and flow paths are finally recognized
and re-drilling, re-completion or unplanned stimulations
are needed to fully and efficiently exploit the reservoir.
For a good initial completion, it is important to collect
and accurately assess the data at the earliest possible
time, and to build flexibility into the design for later
operations. Batch completions, where logging or
production data are not fully considered until the end of
the operation, depend on certainties and understandings
that are not usually available during initial drilling and
completion. Batch completions may save drilling cost,
but they can sharply reduce recovery in the field or
sharply increase re-completion cost later.
5-1.2 Fitting Well Design to the Reservoir Potential
Gas well completion design must fit the needs of the
producing well throughout its lifetime. The life of
a gas well may range from a few years in a deepwater,
high-permeability formation, to 40 to 60 years in an
onshore tight gas reservoir. The physical changes that
a gas well undergoes during its life are remarkable and
often challenge the design limits. A 20,000 ft (6097 m)
HPHT well in a stacked pay in south Louisiana (USA),
for example, went from nearly 16,000 psig (1088 barg)
BHP, at rates of 30 MMscf/D (0.87 MMsm3/d) and very
minor water, to BHP of 4000 psig (272 barg), rate of
< 1 MMscf/D (< 0.028 MMsm3/D), increased water and
sand production, all in a two-year period.
Production of fluids from any reservoir to the
surface is a system approach of managing pressure drops.
Increasing the drawdown pressure from the reservoir to
the sales line is usually the goal. Optimizing this pressure
drop starts with the completion design and continues
every day of production through the economic life of the
well. The flowing system is dynamic and requires constant
optimization. Tightly locking a completion design in
place minimizes the options for optimizing flow and
production enhancement by moving proved undeveloped
reserves to proved developed reserves, and ultimately
reduces recovery. Leaving flexibility in the design allows
gas flow to be optimized from the turbulence restrictions
169
Modern Fracturing
of initial production from a high-pressure, high-rate gas
well to the removal of hydrostatic head and compression
needed in a low-pressure, low-rate gas well.
5-1.3 Well Design
The design of a gas well completion can be divided into
four major parts:
1. Drilling the Pay. The completion begins when the
drill bit penetrates the pay. Every action - pressure
differential; mud, fluid, or cement loss; time of
contact; and fluid loss control operation adds
potential for near-well damage. A good point to
remember is that invariably everything done during
drilling can result in some formation damage.
2. Mechanical Design. A well is a pressure vessel with
often a hundred or more threaded connections,
a remotely placed sealing system (cement), and
a dependence on mechanical devices and fluids
to form barriers for control of pressure and fluid
movement. Putting it simply, a well is designed
from the bottom to the top and from the inside out.
The required size of the bottom-most completion
assembly (usually tubing size or pump size) sets the
required casing size, the drilled-hole size and the
entire upper casing string/bit selection. If the casing
design cannot be run as planned, well production
may be affected because smaller pipe will force a
curtailment of flow through smaller bottomhole
equipment. Well design is a sequence of casing and
tubing strings and mechanical isolation devices
that provide usually two or more barriers when
placed on production. Tubular and joint thread
selections are based on burst, collapse, tension,
completion bending, and other loads and forces.
These conditions change from the initial tubular
running through the complex cycles of cementing,
stimulation and production; and maximum and
minimum critical flow velocity limits. Other
issues include corrosion effects such as CO2, H2S,
increasing high chlorides, and water flow that
changes over the course of the wells life. Numerous
papers have been written on the treatment of these
forces and factors in field applications (Pattillo
and Huong, 1982; Li et al., 2003; and Pattillo
and Kristiansen, 2002.)
170
3. Inflow Performance: The flowing connection of
a reservoir into the well is the source of many of
the problems with high skin values and resultant
production loss from tortuosity, macro- and
micro-barriers, and flow-path connection.
(See Section 2-3 for inflow performance
calculations.) The effect of the damage on the
average permeability of a zone is a function of
level of damage and zone thickness:
(5-1)
where kavg is the average permeability through the
reservoir including effect of the damaged layer
(md), ks is the permeability through the damaged
or stimulated layer (md), k is the permeability
in the undamaged formation, re is the reservoir
drainage radius of the well (ft), rs is the radius of
the damaged or stimulated zone (ft) and rw is the
radius of the wellbore (ft).
To match the flow path to the well, the
completion designer must have accurate knowledge
of how fluids can move in the reservoir. Brute force
corrections of perforating or fracturing alone will
not overcome a poor selection of well placement,
trajectory, deviation, sand control or the decision
to case and cement rather than opting for open-
hole completions. Flow channels through natural
fractures and larger pores exceed the matrix
permeability, usually by two orders of magnitude,
dominating the flow paths that the fluids use
to move through the reservoir. Connecting the
wellbore with these flow paths in a manner that
allows the absolute maximum of flow with
options for zone conformance is the heart of
inflow completion work.
4. Outflow Performance: Flow of liquids from the
wellbore to the surface focuses on managing
pressure drops in the outflow system. The main
points of interest are sand control and perforation
restrictions, management of hydrostatic head of
both liquids and gas, balancing tubular friction and
deliquification needs, backpressures from chokes,
gathering lines, and separators, and pipeline

entrance pressures. Specifically for gas wells, the
major impact areas are turbulent or non-Darcy
effects around the perforations and sand control
completions, removing liquid heads (especially in
low-productivity gas wells), and surface pressure
constraints around entering the pipeline. Each effect
must be weighted against cost and recovery losses.
A complete nodal analysis of the entire system,
updated regularly with production information
and improvements in reservoir understanding, is
critical (see Section 5-4.5).
Wellbore construction, evaluation and
optimization continue through the entire
life of a gas well.
5-1.4 Other Well Equipment
In modern gas wells, the mechanical design is frequently
augmented by downhole temperature and pressure
gauges, remotely actuated valves and other sensors and
control points that allow better diagnostics and constant
flow (Holstein and Berger, 1997; Oberwinkler and
Standner, 2005; Sinha and Al-Qattan, 2004; Baksh,
2005; and Dolle et al., 2005).
Some equipment, like the downhole gauges, are
particularly suited to monitoring and even improving
fracturing treatments. By removing friction and storage
effects from the measurements during a fracturing
job, more accurate analysis of pressure build-ups,
fall-offs and fracture closures is possible. The right
selection of sensors can also contribute information
on clean-up and production flow. Completion
design, at minimum should allow for incorporation
of pressure and temperature sensors. Multiple zones,
depending on thickness and fracture design intent,
may use multiple sets of sensors. In wells with zones
that are commingled, downhole gauges help predict
individual layer flow contribution.
5-1.5 Well Integrity
One of the most important considerations for a
producing well is a risk assessment of the well design and
the operations plans regarding well integrity (Pattillo et
al., 1996; Pattillo and Kristiansen, 2002; Vargo et al.,
2002; and Tewari et al., 2006).
Chapter 5 Well Completions
The ability to maintain the integrity of the pressure
vessel status of the well is a requirement for the
ability and even the legal right to continue operating
the well. Well integrity is one of the most difficult
objectives to achieve because the operating conditions
change and mechanical properties of equipment can
degrade with time and production.
Basic well integrity starts with a proper mechanical
design and a high-quality cement job. Those two elements
are the primary basis for success or failure in well-
containment longevity. The best practices in well design
for integrity include: bringing the cement top to the
surface on the most outer casing; completely cementing
off both fresh water and corrosive water zones; managing
thermal pressure rise in trapped annuli; using special
designs around salt, faults or other high-stress areas; and
selecting well construction materials that will meet the
challenges over the life of the well.
As wells age, the challenges of maintaining well
integrity often sharply increase. In gas wells, entry of
water, corrosion by acid gases, erosion, subsidence,
and potential for leaks increase with age. Each
of these problems can cause loss of isolation in a
well. Progressive erosion, corrosion and subsidence
are serious problems, but their consequences are
measurable with established methods and regular
monitoring. Leaks, however, have broad consequences
for the operator, ranging from pollution to trapped
annular pressure increases that can lead to severe leaks,
explosions and loss of the well. In trapped annular
spaces, low-pressure leaks combined with large
changes in flowing temperature can create pockets of
high pressure that can rupture or collapse even heavy-
wall, new pipe (Fig. 5-1).
Gas liquid closed Gas liquid closed
system (cold) system (hot)
Gas@115F
Gas@45F
Increase in
Liquid Volume
How high is
this pressure ?
Liquid@115F
Liquid@45F
Figure 5-1 Production flow heating of a trapped annular
volume (Courtesy of Dave Andrews, BP)
171
Modern Fracturing
A gas cap over an annular space can offset the
effects of expansion caused by fluid heating if the gas
volume is of sufficient quantity (usually 7 to 12%
of total volume) and if the gas is at a low pressure
at the start of the temperature increase (see Fig. 5-
2). This technique is commonly used in subsea wells
where the annulus cannot be easily drawn down
during production startup. Whether pressure will
rise in a trapped annulus with flowing temperature
increase will depend on whether the expansion of
the liquid can be offset by compression of the gas
volume. If the gas volume is too small or is initially
pressurized, the pressure created when liquid
expands can be much greater.
10,000
Full Temperature, psi
8000
When Heated to
Pressure Rise
6000
4000
2000
0 operators increasing concern and significant remedial
0 50
Percent Gas in Annulus
Figure 5-2 Annular pressure in a trapped annulus
generated as flowing temperature increases. Pressure
Rise in a Trapped 2200 ft Annulus when heated from 45
F (7 C) to 135F (57 C). Initial press is atmospheric.
A gas well integrity plan should incorporate both
understanding of operations and standards of operating
that will protect the isolation potential of the flowing
system from the reservoir through the sales point.
Inspection, standards of design and operation, integrity
surveillance programs and accountability are critical
elements to safe, responsible operations.
5-2 Gas Well Cementing
5-2.1 General Objectives for Gas
Well Cementing Operations
The primary cementing of any well is the most
important operation during its life. Achieving a
hydraulic seal between the productive formation
and casing is of fundamental importance for any
172
hydrocarbon-producing well. This is to ensure the
optimum productivity from producing zones or, in
the case of an injector well, the optimum injectivity
into injection zones. The loss of zonal isolation can
lead to cross-flow of fluids from one formation to
another, or the production of undesirable fluids such
as water that can severely impact the economics
of a well. Furthermore, ineffective zonal isolation
can severely compromise subsequent stimulation
treatments, resulting in insufficient stimulation of
the target producing intervals and ultimately reduced
well productivity. This is especially important for
gas wells because an overwhelming percentage will
require an effective hydraulic fracture stimulation
treatment to maximize the production and reservoir
drainage potential of the well.
Frequently, gas migration through and along
cementing sheaths can lead to sustained annular casing
pressure at the wellhead, a huge problem that continues
to plague the oil and gas industry on a worldwide basis.
Sustained casing pressure due to gas migration is causing
100 workover costs in countries where environmental
regulations are becoming stricter and venting of gas
to the atmosphere has been banned. Furthermore,
contaminating fresh water aquifers with hydrocarbon
fluids resulting from the failure to obtain or loss of
appropriate zonal isolation has created devastating
liabilities for operators around the world.
Therefore, to optimize well productivity and
minimize potential liabilities, there should be no
corners cut when setting out to achieve the ultimate
goal of effective zonal isolation for the life of the well.
In order to achieve this goal, several primary objectives
must be accomplished:
Design a cement slurry that has the
proper characteristics to:
Place the slurry efficiently in the annulus
Prevent gas invasion during and after the
hydration process
Provide the required mechanical parameters
when set, to withstand the induced stresses
that will occur on the cement sheath
throughout the life of the well.
Design a cement pumping program that
will facilitate:
 Chapter 5 Well Completions

Adequate hole and mud conditioning

prior to cementing k = 5.4 x1010 w2 ,
(5-3)
Loss control prior to and during
the cement placement where the slot width, w in inches and k is in md.
Effective mud displacement using washes, Based on these equations it is interesting
spacers centralizers and pipe movement (if to note that a micro-annulus or stress fracture
possible) during the cementing operation with a width as small as 610-5 in. would exhibit
Hydrostatic control at all times during 200 md of permeability.
the pumping operation The significance of gas flow through or along a
Execute the cementing operation as per the permeable cement sheath can be shown in Fig. 5-
slurry design and pumping program. 3 which was generated by using various values of
Equivalent Cement Permeability (k*) and the data
5-2.2 Gas Well Zonal Isolation in Table 5-1 to calculate the corresponding values
of qcem expressed in Mscf/D.
Although obtaining effective zonal isolation is
critical for any well, it is especially critical for gas Table 5-1 Example Data for Gas Flowing Through or
wells. This is due to the relative ease for gas to Along a Cement Sheath
pass through permeable cement or micro-annuli rw = 0.354 ft (8--in. OD)
in comparison to liquids. For example as per rcas = 0.292 ft (7-in. OD)
Economides (1990), the ability for gas to flow pi = 3000 psi
through a cement sheath is: pwf = 1000 psi
m= 0.025 cp
k * (rw 2 rcas 2 )( pi 2 pwf 2 )

qcem = (5-2) Z= 0.95
1424ZT (L) T= 640 R
where qcem is the flow rate through or along a L = 20 ft
cement sheath (Mscf/D), k* is the equivalent cement
permeability (md), rw is the wellbore radius (ft), rcas is
the casing radius (ft), is the gas viscosity at reservoir 1.E+02
conditions (cp), Z is the gas deviation factor, T is
1.E+01
the reservoir temperature (R) and L is the length
q, Mscf/D

of the cement sheath (ft). 1.E+00

Equation 5-2 is simply Darcys linear flow
equation expressed in oilfield units for gas. The 1.E -01

equivalent cement permeability (k*) accounts for the

cement matrix permeability or permeability due to
slot flow through a micro-annulus or radial stress
fracture. In most cases set cement permeability is
quite low unless it has been invaded by gas during
the hydration process after being placed in the
annulus. It is rare that even gas-cut cement would
exhibit permeability values in the 10 to 100 md
range; however, it is entirely possible that the
equivalent cement permeability could reach values
this high if a micro-annulus or radial stress fractures
were present. Equation 5-3, below, expresses slot flow
permeability in oilfield units:
1.E -02
1.E -03
0.00100 0.10000 10.00000
k*, md
Figure 5-3 Gas flow rate through or along a cement
sheath for a range of equivalent cement permeabilities
To quantify the amount of zonal isolation that
exists in a given circumstance, Economides (1990)
presented the Index of Zonal Isolation (IZI) defined
by Eq. 5-4, which expresses the ratio of flow rate into a
well from the intended formation to the potential flow
through the cement sheath:

173
Modern Fracturing
q khL
IZI = = ,
qcem r (5-4)
k * (rw 2 rcas 2 ) ln e + s
rw
where q is the flow rate through the formation (stb/D
for water or oil, Mscf/D for gas), qcem is the flow rate
through or along cement sheath (stb/D for water or
oil, Mscf/D for gas), k is the formation permeability
(md), h is the reservoir thickness (ft) and the remaining
variables are as in Eq. 5-2.
Equation 5-4 is suitable for either gas or liquid flow
because it is simply a ratio of Darcys radial flow equation
using the formation permeability, k, in the numerator and
Darcys linear flow equation using the equivalent cement
permeability, k*, in the denominator. The equation can be
used to ascertain the flow rate through the cement sheath
matrix or micro-annulus for a given k*, or whichever k*
value is expected to achieve a desired flow rate ratio.
5-2.3 Review of Fundamental
Cement Placement Practices
To obtain effective zonal isolation for the life of a well,
steps must be taken to insure that the wellbore is suitable
to be cemented prior to and during the cement placement
operation. It is imperative that the drilling mud in the
hole at the time of cementing be conditioned to optimize
the ability of the preflush and/or spacer trains to displace
it from the annulus completely before cement is placed.
Inefficient mud displacement is a major cause of failing
to achieve adequate zonal isolation (Sauer, 1987).
Although the best practices for achieving high
displacement efficiencies have been known for years it is
not always possible to execute all of these practices due to
overriding circumstances. Unfortunately, very frequently
many of the practices are ignored in an effort to speed
the drilling operation with complete disregard for the
critical need of achieving the zonal isolation required for
the productive life of the well. A detailed discussion of
these practices does not fall within the scope of this book.
However the list of fundamental cement placement
practices, as outlined by Carter et al. (1973), includes:
Proper mud conditioning prior to cementing
Casing centralization
Reciprocation and/or rotation of the casing during
mud circulation and possibly cementing
174
Proper selection of preflushes and spacers that are
compatible with the mud and cement slurries
Proper selection of fluid volumes (contact times)
Use of computer simulation to determine flow
rates for optimum displacement efficiency while
maintaining well control and preventing losses.
5-2.4 Predictive Wellbore Stress Modeling
As discussed in the previous section, effectively placing a
cement slurry across any zone of interest is fundamental to
achieving good zonal isolation. However, even successful
cement placement may not necessarily guarantee that
adequate zonal isolation will be achieved or maintained
throughout the entire life of the well. During the well
construction, completion and production phases
of the life of a well, the cement sheath is subjected to
radial and tangential forces that can be compressive
or tensile in nature. If the subjected forces exceed the
mechanical properties of the cementing material, a loss
of zonal isolation could occur due to debonding of
the cement interfaces or possibly the creation of radial
stress fractures within the cement sheath itself. These
forces are induced by temperature and pressure changes
within the wellbore as a result of drilling, completion,
stimulation and production operations. Forces can
also be induced on the cement sheath by changes in
temperature and pressure in the adjacent formation as a
consequence of pressure depletion, injection operations
and/or far field stress variations.
Recently, a considerable amount of research has
been performed to understand better the forces imposed
on a cement sheath during the life of a well and the
mechanical properties required from the cementing
materials to withstand these forces (Thiercelin et al.,
1998; di Lullo and Rae, 2000; Mueller et al., 2004; and
Gray et al., 2007). As a result of this work, engineering
tools, cementing materials and methodologies have
been developed to allow engineers to design fit-for-
purpose cementing that can indeed provide long-term
zonal isolation if executed correctly.
A predictive analysis of the wellbore stresses that
will occur during the life of a well should be considered
an essential part of any engineered cement design. This
is especially true for gas wells that will be hydraulically
fractured during the completion phase of the well.
 Chapter 5 Well Completions
Cement Stress Calculations Input Data Shading Test 2 Results @ 12015 ft
Low WBP Chg WBP Chg Res P Chg
Sample Case
psi F psi
Well Geometry 6500 6500 0

Hole Dia, Csg O D, I D (in) Radial Radial Tangential Negative

8.500 5.500 4.778
Overlimit Distance Stress Stress is
Additional Parameters in psi psi compression
Casing Cement Formation

Inner Radius, in 2.750 -1771 704

2.389 2.750 4.250
Youngs Modulus, psi 2.910 -1639 571
2.9e + 007 1.8e + 006 4.2e + 006
Poissons Ratio: 3.070 -1527 459
0.27 0.12 0.27
3.230 -1431 363
Comp. Ten Strength, psi: 3.390 -1348 281
3400 495
Overburden Grad, psi/ft: 3.550 -1276 209
1.000
3.710 -1214 146
Time to 50 psi under 12 hrs 3.870 -1158 91
use estimated Tensil Youngs & Poissons in the Calcs 4.030 -1110 43
4.190 -1067 -1
4.250 -1052 -16
Radial Stress Radial/Tangential Stress Field Tangential Stress
-1800 750

600
-1600
Radial Stress, psi

400
-1400

200
-1200

0
4 3.5 3 2.7 3
Dist from Borehole Axis, in Dist from Borehole Axis, in

Figure 5-4 Output screen from analytical predictive stress calculator (Courtesy of BJ Services)

An understanding of the forces that will be induced
on a cement sheath as a result of any anticipated well
operation (e.g., hydraulic fracturing) will allow a cement
design engineer to do one of two things: 1) optimize
the mechanical properties of the cementing material
to withstand the forces or 2) if the first option is not
possible, place restraints on the planned well operations
in order to stay below the maximum forces the cement
material can withstand.
There are two modeling methods currently
available for performing predictive wellbore stress
analysis. The first involves the use of fairly simplistic
analytical calculators that are based on the solution
by Lam for cylinders under pressure. Thiercelin et
al., 1998; di Lullo and Rae, 2000; and Mueller et
al., 2004, have proposed the use of calculations to
approximate the radial and tangential stresses that
will be imposed on a cement sheath subjected to
temperature and/or pressure change within a wellbore
or adjacent formation. These calculations are based
on certain simplifying assumptions such as linear
elasticity, axisymmetric geometries and the initial state
of stress. These can lead to erroneous results if used
outside the scope of their limitations. These analytical
calculations also require accurate values for the
formation, cement and casing mechanical properties
to generate accurate results.
Figure 5-4 shows an example output for one of
these calculations, indicating the radial and tangential
stress profiles for a given wellbore situation. In this
example, the stresses associated with increasing the
internal wellbore pressure by 6,500 psi were calculated.
The radial dimensions of the casing, cement sheath
and formation interface were input in addition to
the mechanical properties for each. In this particular
case the cement analyzed exhibited an unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) of 3,400 psi and a tensile
strength of 495 psi. The tangential and radial stresses
were calculated at various radial distances starting
with the casing/cement interface. Based on the
output, the maximum radial load from this scenario
was compressive and equal to 1,074 psi, considerably
below the UCS of the cement. Unfortunately, the
maximum tangential load was calculated to be 704

175
Modern Fracturing
psi and tensile in nature, which is 204 psi greater
than the tensile strength of the cement. As a result the
calculations predicted a failure at the cement/casing
interface, which can be seen graphically on the polar
and Cartesian tangential stress plots.
More often the modeling approach to stress analysis
incorporates numerical 3-D finite element analysis
models. This type of model permits the use of solids
mechanics theories including elasticity and plasticity.
Although these models can provide more comprehensive
results, they require time, specialized expertise,
experimental data and sizeable amounts of processing
power to run. On the cutting edge of stress analysis,
Gray et al. (2007) have presented a staged finite element
approach, which allows the tracking of stress and strain
development throughout the life of a well.
5-2.5 Cement Slurry Criteria
for Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells
Cement slurry design is a critical component of any
well cementing operation. The type of operation
to be performed (whether primary or remedial)
and the type of casing string to be cemented (in
primary cementing) will dictate the requirements
of the slurry. This section will deal specifically
with the slurry requirements for production
casing strings in gas wells that will subsequently
be hydraulically fractured, which is the majority of
new wells drilled around the world. As mentioned
in Section 5-2.1, a successful slurry design for any
primary cementing operation will:
Place the slurry efficiently in the annulus
Prevent gas invasion during and after hydration
Provide the required mechanical parameters
when set, to withstand the induced stresses that
will occur on the cement sheath throughout the
life of the well.
5-2.5.1 Slurry Criteria for Optimized Placement
The ability to effectively place uncontaminated
cement slurry in the casing/open-hole annulus is the
first requirement for obtaining zonal isolation. This
requirement is fundamental to all primary cementing
operations but especially true for those designed for
176
production strings. A detailed description of slurry
characteristics that aid in efficient placement is outside
the scope of this book. Nonetheless, a quick review of
these parameters is warranted:
Rheology. Slurry rheological properties are an important
design criterion for any primary cementing operation.
These properties define the slurrys mixability and
pumpability in addition to the frictional forces that will
be incurred during pumping. In fact it is essential to
characterize the rheological properties and densities of all
fluids that will be in the wellbore during the placement
operation. This allows calculation of an equivalent
circulating density (ECD), which must be maintained
between the formation pore pressure and fracture
gradient at all times during the placement operation.
The rheological properties of the wellbore fluids will
also dictate the flow regime the fluids will experience
as a function of displacement rate. Understanding flow
regimes and rheological properties provides the basis
for calculating mud displacement efficiency, which
needs to approach 100% in order to achieve adequate
cement placement. Although a design engineer will
have some liberty to tailor the rheological properties of
a slurry, many times the ultimate goals can end up being
compromised due to the need to meet other slurry
criteria such as free water, fluid loss control etc.
Thickening Time. Thickening time is the length of
time a cement slurry remains in a pumpable state under
wellbore temperature and pressure conditions. This time is
affected by many factors including temperature, pressure
and the obvious chemical retardation induced by the use
of cement retarders and other additives. Thickening time
also depends on several mechanical factors, including the
mixing energy the slurry is exposed to during the mixing
and pumping operation, and the dynamic and static fluid
loss the slurry experiences during placement. Simply put,
the thickening time of a slurry should be designed to equal
the time required to mix and displace the slurry based on
the desired pump schedule, plus a safety factor. A safety
factor is needed because the standard API test does not
take into account the dynamic or static fluid loss that
can greatly affect thickening time. The interdependence
between slurry thickening time and anti-gas migration
properties will be discussed later in this section.
 Chapter 5 Well Completions

Fluid Loss Control. The inability to control slurry

dehydration during and after a pumping operation
can greatly compromise effective zonal isolation. The
dynamic fluid loss of cement slurry is affected by various
parameters such as formation permeability, mud filter
cake thickness and permeability, the amount and type of
cement fluid loss additive, and the differential pressure
the slurry is exposed to. In severe cases, slurry dehydration
can form bridges in the annulus that can lead to the
premature termination of a cementing operation. Rapid Set Prevents Gas Migration
During Transition from Liquid to Solid
5-2.5.2 Slurry Criteria for Anti-Gas Migration

Annular gas migration is a potential problem for any well

that requires cementation across a gas-bearing zone. The
causes of gas migration and methods proposed to prevent Folded Chart- Approximately
it have been well documented over the years. The range 37 hours not shown
of methods for preventing gas migration covers a wide
spectrum, and although many have shown promising
results, the reality is that none have been totally successful
on their own. A review of the literature indicates that
most authors concur on the following fundamental
requirements for preventing gas migration: Relatively Thin Slurry Allows
Compliance with the fundamental cement Easy Placement of Slurry
placement practices
Slurries must exhibit zero free water breakout and
minimal particle settling tendencies
Slurries must exhibit API fluid loss control values of
50 cc/30 min or less
Slurries must be designed to minimize cement matrix
volume reduction
Slurries must exhibit low permeability throughout
the liquid, transition and set states.

Although somewhat more controversial, another

methodology for preventing gas migration incorporates
the use of "right-angle set" (RAS) slurries. RAS slurries
as presented by Parcevaux et al. (1990) are slurries that
exhibit no progressive gelation tendencies but set very
rapidly due to hydration kinetics. The RAS phenomenon
can be seen on the standard API thickening time chart
(Fig. 5-5), which demonstrates the ability of a slurry to
go from a relatively low consistency value to over 100
Bc (Bearden units of consistency) in just a few minutes.
Due to the short transition phase from liquid to semi- Figure 5-5 Consistometer chart demonstrating RAS
solid, RAS slurries maintain the ability to transmit full phenomenon

177
Modern Fracturing

hydrostatic pressure up to the start of set. Furthermore, Rogers et al. (2004) pointed out that the
it is believed that the RAS phenomenon differs from the SGS transition time defined by Sabins et al.
rapid gel strength development presented by Sabins et al. (1982) is frequently confused with the transition
(1982) in that a true set occurs involving the deposition time associated with a standard thickening time test,
of mineral hydrates which aid in reducing permeability which measures the dynamic gelation profile. These
and the prevention of gas migration. authors also concluded that although beneficial,
Purvis et al. (1993) observed that the gelation neither RAS characteristics nor short SGS transitions
development profile of a slurry under dynamic conditions times (< 40 minutes) alone will provide a 100%
and static conditions can vary greatly. In other words guarantee that a slurry will be able to prevent gas
although the RAS methodology has merits for preventing migration. Their findings confirmed that designing
gas migration, the gelation profile occurs during a a slurry based on the fundamental requirements
dynamic state and may not occur in the same manner listed above is a good start to providing a fit-for-
while in a static state. The significance of this is that most purpose slurry; however, the only truly valid way to
slurries are designed with thickening times greater than determine if a slurry will provide gas-tight properties
the time required to actually place them. In this situation is to physically test it in a gas flow simulator, such
if the gelation profile of an RAS slurry differed greatly in as the one shown in Figure 5-6
the static state, the benefit of the RAS design would be Although the process of designing a fit-for-
negated. Therefore, the speed at which a slurry develops purpose gas-tight slurry can be somewhat laborious,
static gel strength (SGS) is also a very important property the benefits of doing it correctly far outweigh the cost
for preventing gas and fluid invasion. implications of not doing it correctly.
The transition time as defined by Sabins et al. (1982)
is the time in which a slurry goes from being a fully 5-2.5.3 Slurry Criteria for Long-Term Zonal Isolation
hydraulic fluid to a highly viscous mass that demonstrates
solid properties. Transition time is measured from the The third component of designing a slurry for
time the slurry develops an SGS value equivalent to long-term zonal isolation in a gas well pertains to
100 lbf/100 ft2 and ends when the SGS reaches 500 optimizing the mechanical properties of the set
lbf/100 ft2. It is widely believed that when the slurry cement. To begin, a predictive stress analysis must be
SGS value reaches 100 lbf/ 100 ft2 it is prone to gas performed for the numerous scenarios during the life
or fluid invasion because this is when the hydrostatic of the well (such as a hydraulic fracturing treatment)
pressure transmission begins to be restricted (Sabins and that will subject loads to the cement sheath (see
Sutton, 1986). As the SGS value increases to 500 lbf/100 Section 5-2.4). It is necessary to understand the
ft2, the slurry has generated sufficient gel strength to magnitude and direction of these forces in order to
resist the invasion of fluid or gas. establish the design criteria for the slurry. Although
the principal mechanical design criteria for cement in
Gas Flow Model
the past has been based on unconfined compressive
1000 psi
Oil Pressure strength, there are many other mechanical properties
Hydrostatic
Pressure
Pore Pressure
Filtrate
Piston
Gas Flow

Flowmeter of the cement such as tensile strength, Youngs

High Pressure
Zone
500 psi
Transducer
modulus and Poissons ratio that could be much more
important than compressive strength. In reality, the
Nitrogen
Supply
Cement

majority of the time the maximum stress loads placed

Pore
Pressure
Screen Control Panel
Cement
Slurry
Data Storage
Graphical Display on a cement sheath are tensile in nature rather than
Multi-tasking
Screen
Transducer compressive. Based on this premise it is imperative
300 psi
Low Pressure
Zone
300 psi
Back
Pressure Direct to Excel
that old paradigms such as the harder the cement,
Nitrogen
Supply
Flowmeter
Spreadsheet
the better be phased out for new paradigms that
Filtrate
focus on a more encompassing understanding of the
Figure 5-6 Gas Flow Simulator (from Rogers et al., 2004) resilient properties of cement.

178

During the past decade there has been a substantial
amount of research into cement additives that can enhance
the resiliency of oil and gas well cement to withstand
loads. For example, calcium silicate-based minerals,
polymeric blends and volumetric-equivalent sand
systems have proven to considerably enhance the tensile
and flexural strength and Youngs modulus of slurries
(Heinold et al., 2002; and Mueller, 2003). Furthermore,
unless absolutely required for well control purposes, the
density of a slurry can be reduced from the traditional
densities associated with the API water requirements.
Reduced-density slurries with a proper additive package
can many times satisfy all three of the fundamental slurry
design requirements for placement, anti-gas migration,
and resilient mechanical properties, more easily than
higher-density designs (di Lullo and Rae, 2000).
In conclusion, it is essential to understand the
force loads that a given cement sheath will be exposed
to and to design a slurry accordingly to provide the
mechanical properties under downhole conditions to
withstand the subjected loads.
5-2.6 Fracturing Constraints Required
to Maintain Long-Term Zonal Isolation
Under certain circumstances it may not be possible
to optimize the mechanical properties of the cement
slurry to withstand the forces predicted from a
proposed hydraulic fracturing job. In this scenario a
predictive force analysis should be used to mandate the
maximum pressure and temperature changes allowed
during the treatment to prevent compromising the
cement sheath and zonal isolation.
Typically it will be difficult to reduce the bottomhole
treating pressure associated with a fracturing treatment
by reducing the pump rate because the wellbore pressure
adjacent the perforations will be primarily controlled
by the mechanical rock properties. Nonetheless, the
change in wellbore temperature during the job maybe
the overriding factor associated with the subjected stress
loads. In this scenario it may be required to heat the
fluid at surface prior to the job to minimize the change
in temperature the wellbore will experience. Although
heating the fracturing fluid will add logistical complexities
and operational cost to the treatment, the loss of zonal
isolation would be far more costly.
Chapter 5 Well Completions
5-3 Identifying Gas Pays,
Permeability and Channels
5-3.1 Pay and Water Zone Logging Methods
Logging, whether to locate gas pays, to assess
contribution over the zone, to estimate turbulence
problems, or to identify water entry points for repair,
are all part of a larger surveillance effort necessary to
better define the formation and the flow behavior
(Julian et al., 2007; and Fox et al., 1999). The
surveillance package in a gas well, encompassing
open-hole and cased-hole or production logging,
is integral to a functional depletion plan to
maximize reserve recovery.
Logging to identify gas pays most commonly
defines the presence of gas, porosity, water saturation,
mineralogy and clay identity and presence. Open-
hole logging includes the initial pay identification
and characterization; cased-hole logging usually
focuses on production logging, conformance issues,
missed pay identification or other reserve addition
opportunities. In general, logging determines if
there are commercial quantities of gas, if the zone
is sufficiently permeable to produce the reserves and
if the water saturation is mobile and manageable
during production. The minimum log suite
necessary to answer these questions includes gamma
ray, resistivity/conductivity and multiple porosity
readings. Other logs are frequently used for special
applications and confirmation of findings. Special
plotting and cross-plotting of the log data, when
combined with experience in an area, are powerful
tools in locating and assessing a pay zone.
Gamma ray logs, which measure the natural
resistivity of the zone, help estimate lithology,
correlate depths across a field and specifically identify
clean sands that often have higher permeability than
the rest of the zone. Several different porosity logs
(density, neutron, sonic and magnetic resonance)
are used to generate an estimate of permeability. The
differences in measurements, when cross-plotted
against other data, can frequently be used to identify
a gas-bearing zone. Alone, each has limits, but when
multiple porosity log types are processed, the porosity
estimate is very good. The neutron-density combo
179
Modern Fracturing
log is a standard tool for gas identification. Gas in
the pores causes the density log to read high and the
neutron log to read low. Normally, the density log
tracks just lower than the neutron log; however, when
gas is encountered, the neutron log crosses over. A low
gamma ray signal indicating a clean (low shale content)
formation and resistivity-calculated water saturation
of less than 30 to 50%, depending on formation clay
content, are secondary indicators.
A few of the logs and surveillance control methods
for gas wells and a very basic assessment of the
information they offer are given in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Logging Tools for Open-Hole Sections
Logs or Surveillance
Potential Information Available
Method
Gamma-ray Lithology and correlation
Water saturation,
Resistivity
potential hydrocarbon
Capacitance Fluid type
Neutron, Density Porosity estimation, gas presence
Dipole Shear Sonic Formation strength
Pulsed Neutron Water saturation
Temperature Cement top, inflow, channels
Noise Log Leaks and fluid entry
Cement Bond Log Cement bonding quality
Calipers Hole size and shape
Sweeps w/markers
Swept hole volume
prior to cementing
Channel flow, water
Oxygen Activation
differentiation from hydrocarbons
After the pay is identified, an assessment of
water contact is made using the resistivity log.
Knowledge of how active the water movement may
be and an estimate of the vertical permeability of the
reservoir are valuable in estimating effects of water
drive over time for both gas recovery and water
encroachment into the wellbore. This information
is also required to optimize any fracture stimulation.
Estimates of formation vertical permeability -
which can range from < 1/100 of the horizontal
permeability to equal values - is usually generated
from core studies, micro-logs, depositional
environment and offset fluid movements. The
formation vertical permeability is a dominant control
in horizontal well production but is often inadequately
known over the reservoir.
180
During the well construction phase, logs are also used
to monitor the quality and the top of cement (temperature
and cement bond logs) and to estimate deformation
or other damage in the casing (caliper and ultrasonic
inspection tools). After the pay is producing, logging is
useful to assess how much of the zone is contributing to
flow. Formation permeability often varies widely, even in
a single pay, due to depositional environment variances,
sediment reworking, natural chemical modification
and tectonic effects. The permeability variation, often
two or more orders of magnitude, is a strong influence
on location of flow channels in the rock. Production
logging identifies points of fluid entry (and exit) in the
wellbore. Special constraints of wellbore fluid type, well
deviation, tool conveyance, temperature effects, flow
behavior and flow rate are important considerations
in the application of logging tools. Knowledge about
reservoir pressures and permeabilities can assist in
creating a design that can control cross flows.
Optimizing flow and reserve recovery may require
balancing the gas production rate against water coning
potential or timing of gas recovery against recovery of oil
reserves from a thin oil zone overlain by a large gas cap.
These types of decisions require a surveillance plan, with
regular review, to achieve the reserve recovery goal.
Reservoir boundaries and barriers are rarely
adequately described through seismic or logging
methods. Continuing production surveillance
offers the possibility of more accurately defining
the reservoir and often identifying missed pay and
re-completion opportunities.
5-3.2 Effect of Formation Clays and Micro-porosity
Attention to the mineralogy and the overall formation
clay content and location is needed, particularly
when gas is indicated and high water saturation
makes the pay unattractive.
In a few cases, some clays such as smectite, kaolinite
and illite can create high micro-porosity in the pores,
trapping water that increases the water saturation
reading but does not move. A gas well in the Nile delta,
for instance, indicated pay zone water saturation over
50% but produced near water-free gas. The reason was
extensive clay in a form with space between the clay
platelets that trapped a significant amount of water.

Conversely, an indication of very low water
saturation (< 10%) may be a dry or under-saturated
zone that will adsorb water from any injected fluid,
resulting in a lower relative permeability to gas after
the water contact (Bennion et al., 2000a, 2000b). This
effect is rarely seen and may be the result of either too
little connate water during cementing, or more likely,
the water was flushed out by excessive dry gas flow over
geologic time. Whatever the cause, the effect will be
sharply lower permeability to gas after any operation
that floods the matrix with a liquid. Recovery to
initial state will be extremely slow.
5-3.3 Wellbore Deviation and
Resultant Logging and Flow Problems
With more wells being drilled from pads and platforms,
the effects of fluid movements along deviated wellbores
must be considered. Production of a single-phase
fluid in a horizontal well is rarely an issue, but as
other phases are added, the flow behavior becomes
increasingly complex. In production logging, fluid
density segregation in the wellbore creates zones of
stratified flow and even areas of refluxing liquid that can
make log readings questionable at best and may create
significant flowing backpressures that can sharply affect
production in lower pressure gas wells (Scrimgeor et al.,
1983; and Bamforth et al., 1996).
The multi-phase flow effect was noted first in the field
as engineers recognized that log interpretations in deviated
wells were yielding inconsistent and confusing results. A
series of flow loop tests in inclined test fixtures helped
identify the problem as phase hold-up, where the lighter
fluid segregates to the upper part of the flowing pipe cross-
section, occupying a correspondingly smaller volume of
the flowing cross-section and leaving the higher-density
fluids moving much more slowly along the bottom side.
Several distinct flowing regions were recognized as the
deviation changed from full vertical through the Boycott
settling range of 30o to 60o, to near horizontal flow. Even
changes of as little as 2o from horizontal affected the type
and location of the rapidly moving layer. Beyond 90o, in
the over-horizontal deviations, there is a reversal of the
location of the fast moving layer, with the higher-density
fluids creating a faster flow along the bottom of the pipe
and occupying a smaller portion of the pipe.
Chapter 5 Well Completions
Centralizing the logging tool, restricting flow around
the tool, tool movement while logging and routing all
flow past the measuring surfaces were at least partly
successful in assisting the logging reading. However, in
deviated wells with an un-isolated slotted or perforated
liner, the logging tool will very likely show all fluid entry
at the heel or the last point where the fluid flowing on
the outside of the liner can enter the wellbore. Although
the work was initially done to assist the interpretation of
production logs, the implication for flow, especially in gas
wells, cannot be ignored. Deviated wells have excellent
application benefits in many producing environments,
but the wellbore construction must take into account the
manner in which fluids flow.
5-3.4 Completion Considerations
for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Naturally fractured reservoirs (NFRs) are widespread
and are encountered much more frequently than
one would expect. The percentage of global reserves
contained in NFRs is currently unknown. Nonetheless
the contribution from NFRs is significant and will
probably increase as conventional reservoirs without
natural fracture networks are depleted. Although
typically associated with carbonate formations, natural
fractures are commonly encountered in sandstone and
shale formations as well. Naturally fractured reservoirs
are of increasing importance in North America, where
the exploitation of tight gas sands and more recently gas
shales (see Sections 11-3.2 and 11-5) is on the rise. In
these reservoirs it is not uncommon for the rock matrix
permeability to be in the very low microdarcy or even
nanodarcy range. It is generally accepted that these
tight gas plays would not be commercially viable in the
absence of natural fracture systems.
As pointed out in Section 5-3.1, a variety of electric
logging techniques and cut-off criteria are available for
determining productive pay in conventional reservoirs
that produce via matrix permeability. However, accurately
identifying pay and characterizing reservoirs that contain
naturally occurring fractures caused by external or internal
stresses within the formation is much more complex.
Characterizing a natural fracture system plays
a fundamental role in field development decisions
pertaining to well placement, wellbore azimuth,
181
Modern Fracturing
wellbore construction, completion sizing and
stimulation design. Natural fractures can help or
hinder production. Depending on the degree of
the natural fracturing present, a reservoir could
become very compartmentalized and drain less
acreage than expected. Therefore, it is vital to
identify the presence, type and density of natural
fractures within the reservoir.
Understanding the orientation and magnitude of
present day horizontal stresses and the orientation of the
natural fracture system will facilitate proper planning of
a well designed to optimize the drainage of the reservoir.
Avoiding geohazards is also critical. In the case of
deviated or horizontal well designs, the wellbore azimuth
may be planned so that the wellbore, or subsequently
induced hydraulic fractures, intersect the natural fracture
network for optimum inflow area or, conversely, may
be planned to avoid intersection of natural fractures
that connect undesirably to an aquifer.
There are two categories of methods available
for determining the presence and degree of natural
fractures in a given reservoir: direct observations
and indirect indicators.
Direct observations are typically the least
expensive method and can include close examination
of drill cuttings, analysis of conventional or rotary
sidewall cores and the interpretation of borehole
image logs. Under low magnification, the presence
of mineralization on fracture surfaces observed in
either drill cuttings or cores demonstrates that the
fractures were naturally created and not induced
during the drilling process. Additionally, borehole
image logs provide a full 360o view of the wellbore
and can provide useful qualitative information about
the, position, density, orientation and extent of
natural fractures in the reservoir.
Indirect indicators while drilling include an
increased rate of penetration in conjunction with
mud losses, bit chatter and multi-arm caliper
logs indicating eccentric or out-of-gauge holes.
Substantial mud losses can indicate the presence
of a significant natural fracture network. Indirect
production indicators can also provide insight
into the presence and extent of naturally occurring
fractures. For example, if the actual production
from a zone greatly exceeds the expected production
182
associated with the measured matrix permeability,
the variation is a strong indication that the borehole
is in communication with a natural fracture system
extending deep into the reservoir.
In reality, it may require a combination of
observations and indicators to provide sufficient
evidence to classify a reservoir as naturally fractured.
In general, naturally fractured reservoirs require more
up front study and thought than simpler and more
straightforward conventional reservoirs.
5-3.5 Formation Characterization
for Well Completions
Formation characterization provides rock and fluid
property information for use in predicting reservoir
hydrocarbon volumes and well production rates and,
consequently, the appropriate well construction to
accomplish the task. The identification of problems
that involve damage or the propensity to damage,
such as sand production, scales, paraffin or asphaltene
deposition, etc., is very important.
Measurements come from a variety of tools:
Well logs, which measure resistivity, nuclear,
acoustic, and magnetic formation properties
along the well length
Well tests, which measure formation pressures, obtain
reservoir fluid samples and sometimes measure
fluid flow rates from selected formations.
Mud logs, which provide analyses of rock
and hydrocarbons circulated to the surface
within the drilling mud from the formation
that was drilled
Cores, which provide samples of formation rock
for direct physical measurements.
Well logs are the predominant formation
characterization source, because they provide the
most complete set of information for the lowest cost.
Of particular importance to well completions are
thickness, porosity, lithology and heterogeneity. Well
testing, described in Chapter 3, provides the zone
permeability, average reservoir pressure and skin. It is
the only method described in this section that can look
deep into the formation. For more detailed description
within a presumed zone, production logging delineates

vertical heterogeneity. This is particularly important
for stimulation because it provides answers for the
appropriateness of diversion and staging.
Interpretation of all available well data is essential
for an accurate formation characterization. Well data are
applied using a petrophysical model that describes the
formation rocks and fluids.
Formation rock and fluid properties that are usually
of most interest are:
Zone depth and thickness
Lithology (e.g., sandstone, limestone)
Pore types (e.g., between grains, fractures)
Porosity (percentage of reservoir volume that contains
liquids and gas)
Permeability (how well fluids flow through
rock pores)
Damage, type of damage and potential for it
Pore fluid saturations (percentage of pore volume
occupied by each fluid)
Pore fluid properties (e.g., density, water salinity)
Formation pressure
Formation characterization is often
expanded across an entire field or geologic basin.
This effort requires corelating the formation
and its properties among multiple wells and
interpolating formation properties between
wells, using well data already mentioned and the
following data acquired over time:
Seismic data resulting from the measurement of the
path/time of surface-originating sound waves and
their reflections from formation boundaries
Well performance data including flow rates, formation
pressures and produced fluid properties.
Computers are used at every step of formation
characterization from data acquisition to well
performance history matching, well performance
prediction, hydrocarbon volume determination and
the display of formation characterization results.
5-4 Sizing the Completion
5-4.1 Initial Design Considerations
The first completion design decision on casing the
pay zone is not its size or weight but whether to run
casing at all (Bennett et al., 2000; and Parlar et al.,
Chapter 5 Well Completions
2000). Open-hole completions represent the simplest
type of completions and may have significant benefits
in high-permeability oil reservoirs. Gas reservoirs,
however, significantly benefit from hydraulic
fracturing to reduce the effects of near-wellbore
drilling and completion damage, and from the
reduction of non-Darcy flow effects (see Section 2-4).
Therefore, in most gas reservoirs cased and perforated
completions are still preferred, although the casing
area opened by perforating must be maximized.
Open-hole completions may also present challenges
in formation and water influx control, as well as
being significantly more restricted by near-wellbore
damage from completion fluids.
Open-hole completions have a large area of contact
between the wellbore and the formation. Although
the hydraulic fractures preferred on nearly all gas
will provide orders of magnitude greater contact area
compared with an open hole, some restriction of flow
may be seen due to the small area of the perforations
at the wellbore entry points. Additionally, open-
hole completions avoid formation damage caused
by cementing and damaging convergent flow effects
caused by perforation restrictions. However, cased-
hole wells can achieve open-hole productivity if
sufficient number of perforations of sufficient size
and penetration are used. Although it is difficult
to perforate through formation damage due to the
crushed zone that exists around each perforation
tunnel (Fig. 5-7), it is possible to significantly reduce
the effects of this zone by use of the appropriate
perforating technique (see Section 6-4.3).
Damaged Undamaged
Casing Formation Formation
Cement
Perforation Tunnel
Crushed Zone Around
Perforation
Figure 5-7 The crushed zone surrounding the perforation
tunnel
183
Modern Fracturing
Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 2-5.2 in the
case of high-permeability, high-rate gas wells nothing
can compete with hydraulically fractured completions
for gas wells. This is due to the significant reduction
in the non-Darcy flow effects, which greatly enhances
the production response beyond the benefits of a
negative skin. Fracturing should be considered for all
gas wells. In low-permeability formations, fracturing
improves the flow towards the wellbore, and in higher-
permeability formations, very high-conductivity
fractures can reduce non-Darcy flow effects.
Selecting the actual size of the flowing pathways in
the well is usually done with a nodal analysis package
with the intent of optimizing flow, not only at the start
of production, but also repeated frequently during
wells life if possible. The selection of casing is dictated
by the largest downhole production equipment needed
for an application and the number of casing strings and
liners necessary for pressure and fluid containment to
deliver the casing size to that depth. These strings are
set at the initial completion and generally cannot be
changed, once set, without the expense of drilling and
re-completing the well.
Swab Valve
Flow Cross
Choke
Wing Valves Wing Valves
Upper and Lower
Master Valves
Inner Annulus Access
Outer Annulus Access
Conductor Pipe
Surface or Production
Casing String
Cement
Production Casing
Tubing String
Packer
PAY
ZONE
Perforations
Figure 5-8 Typical wellbore design
184
Casing strings are run to make continued
drilling possible. The drilling fluid density operating
window formed between fracture breakdown
pressure as the upper limit and pore pressure and/or
hole stability (sloughing) control as the lower limit,
will narrow with tectonic, deposition, age, charging,
basin variance and other factors. Basic well design
uses a conductor pipe to keep out loose soil; surface
or protection strings to isolate water or flowing
sediments; and production casing and liners to isolate
zones of productive interest from fluids, pressures or
formations (see Fig. 5-8). In completions that require
hydraulic fracturing, it should be noted that cased,
cemented and perforated production strings provide
the best chance of maintaining zonal isolation and
optimized fracture placement.
Whereas the wells casing design is almost
completely concerned with the loads and forces
of completion and operation, tubing selection
must also optimize the ability to flow fluids to
surface. In order to optimize flow over the life of
the well, the tubing may have to be changed. The
size of the tubing is driven by the expected gas
production rate in conjunction with the ability
to optimize natural lift of any liquids by the
velocity of the expanding gas.
5-4.2 Flow Factors for Tubing Design
The ability of a well to flow is addressed by the inflow
performance relationship, IPR. In an example gas well
IPR (Fig. 5-9), the curve illustrates the relationship
of productivity of the formation at drawdown to
production rate of the well (Brown, 1982) The
IPR curve is essentially a snapshot in time of well
performance potential. As the well depletes in pressure,
the IPR curve shifts to the left, indicating the effect
of pressure removal on the production rate. There is a
wellbore influence impressed on the IPR curve by any
flowing restriction in the near-wellbore area.
Figure 5-10 is an interesting comparison between
cased-hole and open-hole gas production in a high-
permeability gas reservoir. In this data, a new well with
an open-hole completion replaced a cased and perforated
gas well. Although separated by only 20 meters, the
difference in production from the two wells was striking
 Chapter 5 Well Completions

- with an IPR indicated gain of over 30% (although counting the flow area of the perforation tunnel itself.
there could be reasons for this besides the change from The restriction caused by small or insufficient numbers of
cased to open hole). In gas wells, both fluid viscosity perforations presents a challenge. Fracturing is beneficial
and compressibility are pressure dependent. The IPR on almost any gas wells (problems with adjacent
modeling is also complicated by high velocities around water or adjacent depleted formations excepted), but any
the wellbore that produce turbulent flow. Most models limited entry into the casing poses a restriction. Large,
assume Darcy flow (laminar) and may not be accurate open perforations are a necessity in high-rate wells.
for the pressure drops produced by turbulence. The production effects of these limits of perforating
are rarely significant in low-permeability formations
IPR - Natural Lift, Tubing Performance (less than about 100 md) that are hydraulically
fractured, but the effect of the inflow constraints are
Small Tubing
increasingly felt as permeability rises.
Large Tubing
IPR Curve
Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure

5-4.3 Tubing Selection

} Drawdown
Tubing selection is based on both physical forces and
several minimum and maximum sizes that determine
production efficiency:
1. Tension, collapse and burst forces over the
entire cycle of completion, workover and
production operations. This is best done with
a stress analysis program. The design accuracy
is totally dependent on understanding the
Flow Rate
loads and forces and the accuracy of the data
Figure 5-9 Inflow performance relationship (IPR) curve
with overlaid tubing performance curves (TPC) for
used in the calculations.
tubing selection 2. Maximum flow velocity of produced fluids that
will not create fluid-based erosive damage of the
4000
pipe (erosion or erosion-corrosion). If solids are
Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure, psi

3500
produced, an entirely different approach will be
3000
needed; the maximum velocity for solids-laden
2500
fluids is a fraction of the acceptable velocities for
2000
1500
single-phase, low-density fluids.
Open Hole
1000
3. Minimum flow velocity needed to lift liquids in the
Cased & Perf
500 well. The Turner and Coleman equations (Turner
7" TPC
0 et al., 1969; and Coleman et al., 1991) are the basis
0 100 200 300 of design; however, well deviation makes natural
Production, MMscf/d
flow lift much more difficult.
Figure 5-10 Comparison of open-hole and cased/ 4. Minimum flow rate needed to prevent surface
perforated high-permeability gas wells separated by
less than 20 meters
fouling of the pipe.

The major difference in open hole vs. non-fractured 5-4.4 Multi-Phase Flow and Natural Lift
cased-hole completions is in the wellbore-entry
restrictions created by casing the well. For example, Lift in natural flow uses the rise and expansion of
a well with 7 in. casing, perforated with 0.75 in. (1.9 bubbles of free and associated gas to counter the
cm) entrance hole perforations at 12 shots per foot (39 fall of liquids and to push the liquids out of the
spm) has only 2% of the pipe wall area open to flow, not well. This is lift via hindered settling: The rising gas

185
Modern Fracturing
bubbles interfere with the density-induced settling of
the liquids through the gas and, if the interference is
sufficient, liquids will be expelled from the well. In a
vertical well, liquid lift by hindered settling is described
by well-known equations (Turner et al., 1969). For a
deviated well, however, rapid density segregation of gas
to the high side of the pipe will decrease the efficiency
of lift at less than turbulent conditions, making gas lift
calculations much more complicated. Multiple flow
paths, changes of deviation, pipe size and fluid entry
or exit all complicate the design.
The bubble rise velocity is generally proportional
to the inside diameter and roughness of the tube.
When fluid is lifted, the upward velocity of the gas is
often 10 to more than 100 times the upward velocity
of the liquid, creating liquid hold-up. The intent of
tubing selection and optimization is to minimize the
liquid hold-up and the back-pressure it creates on the
formation. The larger the tube (up to several inches in
diameter), the faster the bubbles rise. Because the gas
bubble grows as it rises in a producing well, the friction
is least in the deeper sections of the tubing string and
greatest near the surface. Considering the bubble
behavior, a tubing string of a single diameter would
lift with least efficiency at the bottom of the well and
would have the highest friction (also a back pressure) at
the top. Some wells can benefit from a tapered string - a
tubing string with small ID tubing at the bottom and
larger ID tubing at the top. Difficulties with this type
of string are the larger casing needed at the surface for
clearance of the larger upper-section of the tubing and
the effect of the changes in fluid rates and types over
even a relatively short production period.
The standard approach to a single-diameter tubing
selection involves overlaying the tubing performance
curves for specific well conditions on the IPR curve for
the well, as seen in Fig. 5-9. The part of the TPC curve
to the right of the minimum flowing pressure values are
steady-state flow regimes if the right-hand part of the
curve intersects the IPR curve. Flow rates to the left of
the intersection are unstable and associated with slugging
behavior. When the TPC curve does not intersect the
IPR curve, the well will not flow without energy from
a lift system. As reserves and pressure are depleted in a
formation, the tubing size selected by this method will
eventually become too large to enable liquid lift.
186
5-4.5 Multiphase Flow and
Flow Correlation Options
The ability to predict the pressure drop caused by
frictional and hydrostatic losses from the produced
fluid stream in a well completion is essential.
Numerous factors will significantly affect the total
pressure losses during production; these include
the flow area; flow velocity; gas-to-liquid ratio
(GLR); fluid density, viscosity compressibility and
composition at the bottomhole and surface; flowing
pressures and temperatures; and well deviation.
Analytical equations are available for accurately
calculating the hydrostatic and frictional losses for
single phases of both incompressible and compressible
(gas) fluid flow (Economides et al., 1994).
For multi-phase flow conditions, there are no
analytical solutions for deriving pressure losses. Over the
years a vast amount of research has been done studying
the effects of multiphase flow (oil, gas and water),
resulting in several correlations based on empirical
laboratory and field data. These correlations can be used
to estimate the frictional and hydrostatic losses associated
with a wide variety of multi-phase flow conditions.
Because the experimental set-ups differed - i.e., vertical
vs. horizontal pipes, and the type of flow regimes
studied - some correlations have more appropriate
applications than others. The best known correlations
for calculating multi-phase pressure gradients are those
by Hagedorn and Brown (1965), Brown (1977), Beggs
and Brill (1973) and Brill and Beggs (1978).
Today, computer algorithms (nodal
analysis) are used, and in general they follow the
following procedure:
The well is segmented, starting either from the
bottomhole or tubing head flowing pressures. Within
each interval, the average temperature is either the mean
temperature based on some geothermal gradient or the
log-mean temperature (Bradley, 1987.) The pressure at
the end of the interval is assumed and used with the
starting pressure to determine phase compositions and
to calculate physical properties
The first step in using a multi-phase correlation is
to employ a flow-regime map to identify whether
the flow is bubble, slug, churn or annular. Flow regime
identification as suggested by Duns and Ros (1963)
 Chapter 5 Well Completions

and Taitel et al. (1980) is essential in selecting the most being used, or to investigate the accuracy of the input
appropriate correlation and determining the hold-up data if the correlations being used have been proven
(the extra liquid present in each segment), a variable that effective under similar flow conditions.
is at the heart of all multi-phase correlations.
Then, the pressure gradient is calculated and 5-4.6 Critical Lift Factors
the outlet pressure determined and compared
with the assumed. The process is repeated until a Gas will quickly separate from liquids in any flow rate
convergence tolerance (e.g., 1 psi) is achieved. Then, less than turbulent flow. Loading up of gas wells by
the outlet pressure of the segment becomes the inlet accumulating either static water columns in the bottom
pressure of the next segment and the procedure is of the well or by refluxing water layers in the midst of the
repeated all the way to the top or the bottom of well are both symptoms of gas flow velocity that is too
the pipe. Table 5-3 gives recommended usage for slow to adequately lift the water. A number of studies,
various single- and multiphase flow correlations, starting with that of Turner et al. (1969), and continuing
according to wellbore conditions. with refinements to the present, have proposed methods
of calculating the minimum or critical rate to lift liquids
Table 5-3 Recommended Single- and Multi-Phase in droplet form from vertical wells (Fig. 5-11) (Coleman
Correlations and Calculations et al., 1991; Yamamoto and Christiansin, 1999; Lea
Type of Flow Recommended Method
Single-Phase Incompressible Analytical equations, constant
and Tighe, 1983; Lea and Nickens, 2004; Guo et al.,
Fluid (water or oil above bubble density and constant viscosity 2005; and Lea and Nickens, 2004). There is considerable
point pressure) in each segment
scatter in the predicted critical gas flow rates to achieve
Analytical equations, using
real gas law and pressure- liquid lift and the actual gas flow rates that effectively
Single-Phase Compressible
dependent properties. Trial unload the wells. The entrained drop or hindered
(Gas)
and error convergence is
necessary for each segment settling lift used as the basis of these models is affected
Multi-Phase Flow in Vertical
Bubble Flow: Griffith (1961) by a number of factors, including actual gas velocity over
Correlation
or Slightly Deviated Pipes
All other flow: Original
the entire wellbore from bottom to top, pipe roughness,
(Modified Hagedorn and Brown,
as in Brown, 1977)
Hagedorn and Brown (1965) liquid density, well deviation, gas pressure/density and
Correlation
how steady-state the inflow of each component really is.
Multi-Phase Flow in Highly Beggs and Brill (1973)
Deviated and Horizontal Pipes Correlation Variations in one of more of the conditions can make the
well load up at certain times of operation and unload at
It is fundamentally important that when a others. Although the aforementioned references provide
completion engineer is selecting the proper tubing a starting place for measurement, surveillance is required
size for a completion, he should investigate various to make sure the well unloads.
flow scenarios based on projected flow conditions
3000
throughout the life of the well. Fortunately, nodal 4.5" (3.958" ID)
analysis software can automatically select and 2500 3.5" (2.992" ID)
2.875" (2.441" ID)
switch between multi-phase flow correlations based 2.375" (1.995" ID)
Gas Rate, Mscf/D

2000
2.0675" (1.751" ID)
on calculated velocities, GLRs, wellbore trajectory
1500
and predicted flow regimes. Software such as this
1000
can facilitate performing sensitivity scenarios
with ease, without the need to manually switch 500

between correlations that may or may not be fully 0

0 100 200 300 400 500
understood by the person using them.
Flowing Pressure, psi
Nodal analysis solutions should be frequently
compared with actual well production. Significant
Figure 5-11 Turner unloading rates for water at
differences between the calculated and actual results pressures greater than 1000 psi (after J.F. Lea, personal
can indicate the need to modify the correlations communication with authors)

187
Modern Fracturing

Table 5-4 Common Lift Systems for Deliquifying Gas Wells

Lift System Comments
Beam Lift / Rod Pump Cannot tolerate solids, must vent gas up annulus. 50% efficiency. Removes all liquid head.
Handles large amounts of water, requires instrumentation for optimum lift and long life. Must vent
ESP (electrical submersible pump)
gas up annulus. 40% efficient. Removes most liquid head.
Simple system, wireline valve changes, can tolerate solids and any gas content. Reduces liquid
Gas Lift - continuous
head to about 4 to 5 lb/gal. 18% efficient.
Single-point lift, usually thru CT or down annulus with no packer/punched hole. Mostly for well
Gas Lift - intermittent
kick-off, 12% efficient.
A free-traveling plunger, pushing water above the plunger with gas pressure beneath. Requires
Plungers
wellbore setup but can operate automatically with instrumentation.
A water foamer applied by stick or liquid drop. Works well for small water volumes but requires
Soap (foam)
monitoring and surface break of foam. Unstable with hydrocarbon condensates.
Compression Reduces the back pressure of gas column, increases gas velocity in the string.
A short hang-off string from the tail-pipe to extend end-of-tubing to the liquid level in large casing
Siphon String
below tubing.
A tubing size reducing path such as 1 in CT inside the regular tubing. Usually flows up the
Velocity String
CT/tubing annulus. High friction for flow up the CT.

5-4.7 Liquid Hold-up and Back Pressure 5-4.8 Lift Options for Gas Wells

The effect of liquid loading in a low-pressure flowing
gas well has been seen to curtail production by
as much as 80% and can easily kill the well if not
removed. Liquids may hold a back-pressure on gas-
producing formations in several ways, all of which can
be minimized by well design or redesign.
The first issue is in minimizing liquid hold-up along
the wellbore by selecting the tubulars (or the lift system
in some cases) to operate above the critical lift velocity in
all sections of the well. This can be difficult as the well
becomes more deviated because the minimum velocity
lift equations are for vertical flow and, even then, are only
approximations. Reports of liquid loading in gas wells
operated above the minimum critical rate are common.
Surveillance is required to optimize flow.
The second issue is well path along the horizontal
sections. Wellbores that rise and fall create pockets of
liquids that act as traps, holding back pressures and
contributing to slug development in flowing gas wells.
For any gas well that flows at less than full turbulence
along the wellbore, a single area of liquid collection for
lift system intake is needed. In most cases, the preferential
location for this collection point is at the toe of the
well. This toe location helps prevent slug development
in deviated wells but requires consideration of how to
lift the liquid. Velocity and siphon strings, lift systems,
foaming surfactants and operational adjustments can be
effective if matched to well needs.
Lift systems for gas wells are mostly based around liquid
recovery as the gas flow rate falls below that needed for
liquid lift. In high-gas-content wells, gas lift is usually the
method of choice for larger liquid volumes and solids
production, particularly offshore or where electrical
power is not available to the well site. Any lift system can
be used in a high-gas-content well, but some systems such
as beam-lift and electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) can
become gas locked if the well does not have adequate gas
diffusers around the pump (Lea and Nickens, 2004).
In the lowest-liquid-volume gas wells, plungers are
used to unload small amounts of liquids. Additional lift
methods for these wells include foaming surfactants,
compression, jet pumps, and hybrid systems.
Table 5-4 is a general guide of the lift systems
available for gas wells that require assistance to lift
liquids to surface.
5-5 Completion Design
for Flow Assurance
5-5.1 Completion Design for
the Prevention of Gas Hydrates
Gas hydrates in the production stream of a gas well can
pose a significant threat to flow assurance if measures to
prevent hydrate formation are not adequately addressed
during the completion phase of the well. Gas hydrates are

188

crystals formed with water molecules around a host gas
molecule. The potential for gas hydrate formation exists
anywhere gas is being produced in the presence of water.
However, wells that will be exposed to high pressures and
low temperatures (such as those drilled and completed in
deep water or artic environments) have the highest risk
for hydrate formation. It is therefore critically important
to understand the steady state and transient, temperature
and pressure profiles within the well during production,
shut-in and start up operations.
Based on a known gas composition, a hydrate
equilibrium curve can be generated, which should
become the fundamental tool for a completion or flow
assurance engineer to design a hydrate-free completion
(for example, see Fig. 5-12.). Equilibrium curves show the
thermodynamic stability of hydrates at various pressure
and temperature conditions. If the flow conditions at a
given point in a system fall in the region to the left of
the curve, the system is at risk for hydrate formation.
However, if the operating conditions fall in the region
to the right of the curve, hydrates will be unstable and
therefore unlikely to form. The term subcooling is
often used as a measure for the potential for hydrates
to form and is by definition the temperature difference
between the operating conditions and the equilibrium
curve. As the value for subcooling increases, so does the
potential for hydrate formation.
7000
Stable Hydrate
6000
Region
5000
Pressure, psia
4000 Shut-In
Conditions
@ Wellhead 34 F Subcooling
3000
2000
1000
0
30 40 50 60
Temperature, F
Figure 5-12 Hydrate Equilibrium Curve
There are two methods of preventing gas
hydrate formation. The first is to chemically treat the
production stream with thermodynamic and/or kinetic
inhibitors that hinder the formation of hydrate crystals.
Thermodynamic inhibitors such as methanol, ethanol
Chapter 5 Well Completions
and glycol can prevent the formation of hydrates and
remove hydrates that have already been formed. Large
volumes of these types of inhibitors are often required,
which can lead to logistical difficulties, especially when
required offshore. Low-dose kinetic hydrate inhibitors
(LDHIs) greatly reduce the volume of inhibitor required.
However, they are considerably more expensive and
cannot remove a hydrate plug if one forms. More
recently, the use of hybrid hydrate inhibitors, a synergistic
combination of thermodynamic inhibitors and LDHIs,
is becoming popular. They can greatly reduce the volume
of thermodynamic inhibitors required while providing
superior hydrate prevention and the ability to remove a
hydrate plug (Szymczak et al., 2005).
The second method of hydrate prevention involves
maintaining the flowing well temperature at a high
enough level to prevent the gas from entering the hydrate
formation area of an equilibrium curve. This can be
achieved by installing vacuum-insulated production
tubing or by using specially designed thermal insulating
packer fluids to minimize the heat loss to the annulus or
surrounding environment. Although vacuum-insulated
tubing can be very effective at minimizing heat loss, it
is extremely expensive and steps must be taken to ensure
excessive heat loss will not occur at the connections.
Insulated tubing can also restrict annular clearance and
lead to overly complicated completion string designs.
Due to the expense and other complicating factors
pertaining to the use of vacuum insulated tubing, fit-
for-purpose thermal insulating packer fluids have been
gaining favor. These versatile fluids can be used in any
number of annular spaces including risers and concentric
casing annuli. Commercially available insulating fluids
Hydrate Free are available in both aqueous and oil-base forms, although
Region
increasing environmental regulations and concern about
long-term compatibility with elastomers is limiting the
applications for oil-base fluids. Aqueous-based insulating
70 80 90 fluids developed over the past several years have proven
to reduce heat loss due to conduction and convection by
more than 90% compared to conventional packer fluids.
Extensive research has been performed with these fluids
to better understand the critical relationships between
the fluid viscosity and intrinsic thermal conductivity,
which is essential to properly design the correct fluid
for a given application (Javora et al., 2006a, 2006b; and
Wang et al., 2006a and 2006b).
189
Modern Fracturing
It is important to note that in addition to providing
insulating properties, these fluids must be able to pass all
the other criteria required from a completion fluid such as
an adequate true crystallization temperature (TCT) and
pressure crystallization temperature (PCT), compatibility
with all formation fluids, compatibility with formation
mineralogy, prevention of tubular corrosion including
stress corrosion cracking, and compatibility with control
line fluids.. A full description of all the compatibility
tests required is not within the scope of this text. Instead,
the reader is referred to Javora et al. (2006a and 2006b).
Nonetheless, a full suite of compatibility tests should be
performed to eliminate the potential for catastrophic
completion problems during the life of a well.
5-5.2 Formation Damage in Gas Wells,
Completion Damage and Scales
Damage problems in gas wells may directly or indirectly
relate to one or more factors from the design of the well,
the production of fluids from the reservoir, or both. The
damage may be in the formation, but often the most
severe damage for gas wells is in the perforations or
the tubing with flow path restrictions at choke points
having the greatest effect. Many formation damage and
flow assurance issues have their roots in a completion
design that did not consider how to effectively produce
the well through its life. Many initial drilling and
completion damage mechanisms are substantially the
same as in oil wells: mud and cement filtrate damage,
whole mud losses and poor perforations (Tiffin et
al., 2001; and Sanchez et al., 2004). These initial
damage mechanisms are often bypassed by either deep
perforations or fracturing stimulations. In addition to
simply bypassing existing formation damage, a properly
placed fracturing treatment will reduce the near-wellbore
pressure drop during production (Rae et al., 1999) due
to the associated, bilinear or pseudo-radial flow pattern
as opposed to a radial flow pattern (see Section 4-7.5).
The reduction in near-wellbore pressure drop can in
itself prevent many types of damage such as inorganic
scale, organic deposition and fines migration. In some
cases formation sand control can be achieved. Reducing
or eliminating rate-dependent skin caused by non-Darcy
flow effects in high-permeability, high-rate gas wells is
covered in detail in Sections 2-4 and 2-5.
190
Production damage may comprise one or
more of many factors including the hydrates
covered in Section 5-5.1. Scale development from
connate waters, clay damage from encroaching
waters and water blocking of pores are also common
but are difficult to control in the completion
design, aside from limiting the commingling of
zones with incompatible waters or controlling
injection conformance or water leaks. The type
of damage is often predictable but its effect on
production can vary widely from well to well. For a
damage mechanism to be a problem, it must be in
a form and a location that will create a dominant
restriction to flow. Even significant damage to
the permeability of the walls of a fracture, for
example, is usually not a restriction due to the
enormous area of the fracture wall. However, even
a small amount of damage in a frac-pack or in the
near-wellbore inflow area in an unfractured well or
in the outflow path of the tubing can create a back
pressure that significantly decreases production.
Some damage mechanics can produce skin, but the
well may be restricted by other factors such as tubing
flow limits, facility limits, etc.
5-5.3 Organic Deposits and Condensate Banking
Deposits such as paraffin and asphaltenes, common
to oil wells, are much less common in gas wells
unless there is associated oil or condensate. Dry
asphaltene accumulations in the choke of gas wells
and paraffin deposits stranded by condensate flash-
off are occasionally seen. More frequent forms of
production damage in a gas well are often related
to relative permeability effects, in addition to the
water blocks described earlier. Reservoirs that
are under-saturated with liquids may experience
development of a liquid phase in previously dry
pore space as pressure passes through the dew point.
After the liquid precipitates, there is less room for
the gas to flow and a lower permeability, sometimes
less than 20% of initial when the pores are small
and permeability is low. Fracturing to add effective
wellbore-to-reservoir contact area is one of the few
workable approaches to controlling the condensate
precipitation damage effect.

5-5.4 Effects of H2S and CO2 on Corrosion
Corrosion control is a fundamental responsibility
of a completion or flow assurance engineer. The
knowledge of the fluid composition to be produced
from a given field is of paramount importance and will
dictate the material selection and required corrosion
control program for the wellbore completions,
flowlines and production facilities. The corrosive
nature of a fluid will depend on factors such as
temperature, salinity, pH and of most importance,
the presence of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen
sulfide (H2S). The presence of CO2 and/or H2S in
a wet gas stream can cause catastrophic corrosion
problems if not addressed early in field development
(Figs. 5-13a and 5-13b).
Figure 5-13a CO2 corrosion on the outside of a tubing
string
Figure 5-13b Crevice corrosion at a coupling
Chapter 5 Well Completions
The general corrosion caused by the presence of
CO2 in a wet gas is due to the dissolution of CO2 in the
formation brine, which forms carbonic acid (H2CO3)
with an intrinsic pH value of around 3.5. Although in
comparison to acids used in stimulation treatments the
pH of carbonic acid is quite mild, it can increase the
corrosion rate of carbon steel up to several mm/year
without corrosion control measures.
The presence of H2S in a wet gas will also accelerate
the general corrosion rate of carbon steel and certain
corrosion-resistant alloys (CRAs), but more importantly
the presence of uncontrolled H2S can lead to sulfide
stress corrosion cracking (SCC). SCC is considered one
of the worst forms of corrosion within the industry and
can result in the splitting of tubulars and catastrophic
failures of completion components within short periods
of time. Financial losses within the oil and gas industry
related to unplanned re-completions as a result of SCC
are in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year;
therefore, every effort to prevent the occurrence should
be made (Kermani and Harrop, 1995).
In general two basic types of corrosion prevention
methods are suitable for oil and gas wells. The first
is the use of corrosion inhibitors specially formulated
to protect carbon steel from corrosives. The second
is to replace carbon steel tubulars and components
with CRAs compatible with the anticipated fluid
composition. On occasion a combination of both
has been used: CRA components with carbon steel
components plus an inhibitor program. When
suitable, the use of carbon steel materials and a fit-
for-purpose inhibitor program will provide a more
economic solution for corrosion prevention than
the utilization of extremely costly CRA materials.
Nonetheless, extremely corrosive fluid compositions
or problematic logistical issues may prevent the
frequent or continuous application of inhibitors and
necessitate the use of the expensive CRA materials to
provide the required corrosion control.
It is important to note that presently there are a
large number of corrosion resistant alloys commercially
available within the industry. Chrome 13, Super
Chrome 13 and Chrome Duplex 22 are all commonly
used grades of materials used in the industry today.
Each alloy has characteristics suited for specific fluid
compositions and strength requirements. However,
191
Modern Fracturing
not all materials with the same grade perform in the
same fashion (Stevens et al., 2004). For instance,
Chrome 13 from one manufacturer may have a
slightly different metallurgic composition and yield
strength when compared to Chrome 13 material from
another manufacturer. As a result of the expansive
number of materials entering the market, a vast
amount of corrosion research is occurring within the
service and operator sectors of the industry. In short, a
completion engineer should have a detailed knowledge
of the metallurgic composition, mechanical properties
and corrosion resistance suitability for any material
selected for a given application.
In the end economics will decide the appropriate
corrosion prevention method. Regardless of the method
selected, a comprehensive corrosion-monitoring program
must accompany a corrosion-prevention program to
identify the actual corrosion rates during production
in comparison to what was predicted. Obviously large
variations in the actual corrosion rate as compared to the
predicted rate will dictate the need for an adjustment to
the corrosion prevention program.
5-6 Sand Control for Gas Wells
5-6.1 Why is the Sand Flowing?
The first necessity in design of a completion in a weak
or unconsolidated sand formation is the need to predict
the strength of the formation (Vaziri et al., 2006; and
Nouri et al., 2006). Sand grains can move due to many
forces: coupled drag on the grains by the moving fluid,
relative permeability forces (a related form of drag)
when the fluid phase changes, lubricated shear failure
(bed fluidization) and spalling of the grains due to free
face loads. These are not independent causes and this
list is not exhaustive. Fine particles (defined here as
smaller than 44-micron or 325 mesh) may be released
after solvent or surfactant contact,, with disaggregation,
or with drag from flowing fluids. Independently, some
clays, such as smectite, can disperse fines when the brine
character changes. In at least six phases of operation,
pressures, loads or drag forces strongly influence
formation strength: drilling and completion; clean-up;
initial production at maximum rates; shut-down, start-
up; and production at pressure depletion.
192
Gas well operations to minimize sand movement
focus on preventing high flux rates to control erosion,
and limiting high instantaneous production rate loads
during startup to limit screen or gravel pack invasion by
fines. The fluids in the rock pores are an active support
of the overburden pressures created by the upper strata
(see Section 4-3.2.3). As the fluids are removed and
pressure is drawn down, the formation matrix must
support an increasing amount of the overburden load.
Formations that were stable even at maximum rates
in initial production can fail as pressure enters the
final phase of depletion. Sand control is often added
to a design to offset the loads that will appear only in
the later stages of life. This may be a wise or a foolish
decision, depending on the operators expectancy of
economic well life, the method of well operation, the
ease of well entry to add sand control and the potential
for significant production in late well life.
5-6.2 Is Sand Flow All Bad?
Sand control for gas wells is a critical concern that will
grow in importance as exploration is increasingly driven
into more complex reservoirs such as coals and shales,
and into younger sand reservoirs. The best approach to
sand control, from a production standpoint, is to achieve
the necessary sand control without adding mechanical
obstructions such as gravel and screens. Although effective
in preventing sand movement, gravel and screens create
a near-wellbore pressure drop and a filter that will plug
over time. Production skins in sand control completions
typically range from a low of 0 to 3 for open-hole gravel
packs and frac-packs, to skins of 10 to 15+ for cased-
hole gravel packs with gravel interface outside the casing
(King et al., 2000). In contrast, a completion that can
allow some sand to produce in a formation with a low
but stable matrix strength, can create a cavity completion
with accompanying skin of about 1 (Palmer et al., 2005).
The drawback to creating cavities is the need to manage
sand erosion, collection and disposal. Cavities may also
collapse with time as overburden stresses increase. When
considering sand control for a gas pay, it is worth the effort
to investigate the factors that cause sand movement in the
specific pay and determine if the well can be produced
with a sand management strategy (Balgobin, 2003). The
best candidates for such a strategy are usually on-shore

gas wells with little or no oil residuals and an unconfined
compressive strength range between perhaps 1000 and
1500 psi. The cavity created by such a sand management
strategy is not easy to maintain, and shock loads of sudden
shut-downs and start-ups must be avoided. In any weak
sand completion without active sand control (screen
and/or screen and gravel pack), there will be an incidence
of sand production at any event (shut-in, start-up, choke
change, etc.) that disturbs the flowing equilibrium. The
amount of sand produced at the onset of such an event
will almost always diminish with time if a stable cavity can
be created. If the sand is too weak to maintain a cavity, the
perforation tunnels will collapse or fill with sand and the
resultant skins may be very high.
5-6.3 Establishing and
Monitoringa Sand-Free Rate
The conventional method of predicting a sand-free
rate (e.g., using increasing choke settings until sand
is seen at the surface) is giving way to predictive sand
movement methods that offer better production rates
at less expense. The potential for sand production
changes with time; it is only a constant in the strongest
and the very weakest formations. Where a sand free rate
is needed, varying the choke size can usually establish
a flow rate that is free of sand. However, this may be
A B C D
Figure 5-14 Sand control completions: A) Screen Only, B) External or Open-Hole Gravel Pack, C) Internal or Cased-Hole
Gravel Pack, D) High-Rate Gravel Pack, E) Frac-Pack
Chapter 5 Well Completions
considerably less than that from a well that is operated
with guidance updated by sand flow monitors on or in
the flow lines (Stein et al., 2005).
In general, sand movement prediction in gas
well completion design is used decide if and when
sand control will be needed. However, the gas well
operation strongly affects whether or not sand will be
produced. Effective wellbore design and consistent
operation cannot be separated if the maximum
possible economic recovery is to be achieved. The most
effective sand control for an application will depend
as much upon the way the well will be operated as it
does on formation characteristics.
Accuracy in predicting sand strength and thus the
sand-free rate over the life of the well is difficult. This is
because of the many variables involved with formation
sand movement in a gas well. Sand bonding strength
(specifically, that part of the formation matrix strength
that deals with grain-to-grain bonding) is affected by
cohesion (fluid-grain), grain-to-grain cementation,
moving and non-moving fluid phases in the pores, shut-
down and start-up surges, production drawdown and
peak flow from high-permeability intervals. The accuracy
of predictions of whether and when the sand grains
will move is becoming steadily better, but there is no
totally accurate solution. Sand production monitoring is
required for optimized production operations.
E
193
Modern Fracturing

5-6.4 Sand Control Methods for Gas Wells Table 5-5 Reliability of Sand Control Completions for
Gas Well (after King et al., 2000))
From a formation view, the best sand control for gas Sand
Control Sand Control
producers will depend on the flow paths through the Type of Production Production
Population
reservoir (Fig. 5-14). In a high-permeability, thick, Completion Failures, Failures,
percent of failures/well/yr
blanket sand reservoir with few vertical permeability attempts
barriers, a open-hole gravel pack will probably be the Screen Only,
best completion (Bennett et al., 2000; Claiborne et Cased and
44 18% 0.048
Perforated
al., 2002; and Parlar et al., 2000), particularly when Completion
fracturing is not feasible for other reasons. However, Screen Only,
in a laminated, lower-permeability sand (< 100 to Open Hole 206 13% 0.042
Completion
perhaps about 250 md, depending on damage and Cased Hole
213 5.40% 0.013
kh/), a tip screen-out frac-pack may be favored Gravel Pack
(Norman, 2003; and Mullen et al., 1994) (see Open Hole
388 4.8%* 0.016*
Gravel Pack
Sections 4-7.3.2 and 4-7.4). In smaller hydrocarbon
High Rate
deposits where the cost of a fracture treatment is Gravel Pack
208 2.70% 0.009
uneconomic or the formation character discourages Tip Screenout
845 2.00% 0.005
an open-hole completion, a screen-only completion Frac Pack
or a conventional gravel pack may be preferred. In *Results over the past 100 OHGP show a failure rate of less
than 0.010 failures/well/yr.
general, a screen-only completion should be used in
an open-hole where the formation sand can cave in Reservoir characteristics such as laminations,
around the screen for erosion protection. A cased- deviation, permeability and potential for subsidence
hole gravel pack should be reserved for lower-rate influence the sand control completion, often
completions where the gravel-packed perforations destructively. For longevity, frac-packs, high-rate
(with additional gravel-to-formation sand interface) water packs (at fracturing pressure) and open-hole
will not be a limiting inflow factor. gravel packs show excellent results. Several wells in the
Although horizontal wells are popular for oil database have recorded more than 30 million barrels of
formations and some gas plays, a fracture offers more fluids produced and many billions of cubic feet of gas
formation contact. Single and, in some cases, multiple production (King et al., 2000).
fractures should be considered in combination with
horizontal well designs to maximize reservoir contact 5-6.6 Repairing and Restoring
and minimize the non-Darcy flow effects. See Sections Productivity in Wells hat Flow Sand
2-5.3 and Chapter 10.
Repairing a gas well completion that has flowed sand
5-6.5 Reliability of Sand Control Completions may be very difficult, especially if equipment in the
well has been damaged by erosion. Erosion sharply
The historical reliability for sand control completions reduces the strength of the reservoir, well tubulars,
for gas wells are summarized in Table 5-5 (King et al., wellhead and valves. The causes of sand control
2000). The failures vary with application but several failures in gas wells fall into a few basic categories,
trends can be drawn from the data from the 2000 many of which are related (King et al., 2000;
wells included in the failure database represented by Hamid and Ali, 1997):
the paper. Complex sand control completions, such 1. Screen plugging and hot spot development
as frac-packs and open-hole gravel packs have more 2. Gravel pack plugging by invasion of formation
early-time failures but many fewer later-time failures sand
than the simplest completions of screen-only and 3. Screen erosion from excessive production rate
cased-hole gravel packs. flux loading

194

4. Straight erosion of screens from moving formation
sand or fluidized gravel where voids were not filled
during packing operations or where inadequate
gravel reserve above the top perfs is a problem
5. Mechanical failure from loads during production
(common with some plugging)
6. Subsidence or earth shift (tectonic movements)
The first five involve a breach or plugging-
induced failure of the screen. Repair methods
in these cases are always difficult and rarely
long-lived. In the short term, insert screens
and vent screens are the preferred method. In a
very few cases the lower well may be re-drilled
or the completion may be pulled on very rare
occasions. Historically, many re-completion
attempts last less than two to three years
(King et al., 2000). Sand control failure due to
subsidence is a problem without a good solution
or prevention method. Subsidence forces are so
large that the ability to resist the load is nearly
impossible in the severe instances of subsidence.
Pressure maintenance in the reservoir is a
common prevention, but the success depends on
both elimination of the created void spaces and
movement of the pressure supporting material,
usually water, to the right places without undue
cycling of injected water.
New techniques for repair, involving new resins,
creation of secondary matrix strength, and limited
withdrawal rates are being researched.
References:
Baksh, K.: The Value of Permanent Downhole
Pressure Surveillance in the Amherstia/Parang
Field, Offshore Trinidad, SPE 94805, 2005.
Balgobin, C.J.: Sand Management of Ultra-High-
Rate Gas Wells, SPE 948946, 2003.
Bamforth, S., Beeson, C., Stephenson, K., Whittaker,
C., Brown, G., Catala, G., Rouault, G., Theron, B.,
Conort, G., Lenn, C., and Roscoe, B.: Revitalizing
Production Logging, Oilfield Review, Winter
1996, p44-60.
Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Study of Two-Phase
Chapter 5 Well Completions
Flow in Inclined Pipes, JPT, pp607-617, May
1973.
Bennett, C., Gilchrist, J.M., Pitoni, E., Petit, G.,
Burton, R.C., Hodge, R.M., Troncoso, J., Ali,
S.A., Dickeron, R., Price-Smith, C., and Palar, M.:
Design Methodology for Selection of Horizontal
Open-Hole Sand Control Completions Supported
by Field Case Histories, SPE 65140, 2000.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., and Ma, T.: Formation
Damage Processes Reducing Productivity of Low
Permeability Reservoirs, SPE 60325, 2000a.
Bennion D.B., Thomas, F.B., Imer, D., and Ma, T.:
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs and Formation
Damage-Tricks and Traps, SPE 59753, 2000b.
Bradley, H.B., Ed.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook,
SPE, Richardson, Texas, 1987.
Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes,
University of Tulsa, 1978.
Brown, K.E, Overview of Artificial Lift Systems, SPE
9979, JPT, pp2384-2396, October 1983.
Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,
1, Pennwell Books, Tulsa, OK, 1977.
Carter, L.G., Cook, C. and Snelson, L.: Cementing
Research in Directional Gas Well Completions,
SPE 4313, 1973.
Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G., Norris
III, L.H.: A New Look at Predicting Gas Well
Loading-Up,, Trans. AIME, 291, 329, JPT, March
1991.
Claiborne, E.B., Malone, B.P., Marshall, J.C.: Ceiba
Completion Optimization: A Fast-Track Approach
to Success, SPE 77434, 2002.
di Lullo, G., and Rae, P.: Cements for Long Term
Isolation Design Optimization by Computer
Modelling and Prediction, paper IADC/SPE
62745, 2000.
Dolle, N., Singh, P., Turner, R., Woodward, M.,
and Paino, W.F.: Gas Management, Reservoir
Surveillance, and Smart Wells An Integrated
Solution for the Bugan Field, SPE 96429, 2005.
Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: Vertical Flow of Gas
and Liquid Mixtures in Wells, Proc. Sixth World
Pet. Cong., Frankfurt, 2, Paper 22, 1963.
Economides, M.J.: Ch 1 in Well Cementing, Nelson,
D. Ed., Schlumberger Educational Services,
Houston, 1990
195
Modern Fracturing
Economides, MJ., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Hill,
A.D.: Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1994.
Fox, P.E., Adnyiana, G., and Setiadi, I.: Applications
of Carbon/Oxygen Logging in Indonesian
Reservoirs, SPE 54353, 1999.
Griffith, G.A. and Wallis, G.B.: Two-Phase Slug
Flow, J. Heat Transfer, pp307-320, August 1961.
Guo, B., Ghalambor, A., and Xu, C.: A Systematic
Approach to Predicting Liquid Loading in Gas
Wells, SPE 94091, 2005.
Gray, K.E., Podnos, E., and Becker, E.: Finite
Element Studies of Near-Wellbore Region During
Cementing Operations: Part I, SPE 106998,
2007.
Hagedorn, A.R., and Brown, K.E.: Experimental
Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During
Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter
Vertical Conduits, JPT (April 1965) 475-484.
Hamid, S., and Ali, S.A.: Causes of Sand Control
Screen Failures and Their Remedies, SPE 38190,
1997.
Heinold, T., Dillenbeck, R.L., and Rogers, M.J.: The
Effect of Key Cement Additives on the Mechanical
Properties of Normal Density Oil and Gas Well
Cement Systems, SPE 77867, 2002.
Holstein, E.D., and Berger, A.R.: Measuring the
Quality of a Reservoir Management Program,
JPT, pp 52, January 1997.
Javora, P.H., Berry, S.L., Stevens, R.F., Carpenter, J.F.,
Isaac, D.D., Dalton, F.G., Augsburger, J., Guy-
Caffey, J.K., Tomlin, M., Jones, T.A., Malachosky,
E., Prasek, B.A., Foxenberg, B., Freeman, M.A.,.
Howard, S., Benton, W., Son, A., Eichelberger,
P., and Stark, C.: A New Technical Standard for
Testing of Heavy Brines, SPE 98398, 2006a.
Javora, P.H., Stevens, R., Devine, C., Jeu, S., Simmons,
M., Firmin, G., Poole, G., Franklin, B., and Qu,
Q.: Deepwater Completion Challenges Redefine
Best Practices for Completion and Packer Fluid
Selection, SPE 103209, 2006b.
Julian, J.Y., King G.E., Robertson, D.B., Johns, J.E.,
and Sack, J.K.: Detecting Ultra-Small Leaks With
Ultrasonic Leak Detection Case Histories from
the North Slope, Alaska, SPE 108906, 2007.
Kermani, M.B., and Harrop, D.: The Impact of
196
Corrosion on the Oil and Gas Industry, SPE
29784, 1996.
King, G.E., Wildt, P.J., and OConnell, E.: Sand
Control Completion Reliability and Failure
Rate Comparison With a Multi-Thousand Well
Database, SPE 84262, 2000.
Lea, J.F., and Nickens, H.V.: Solving Gas-Well Liquid-
Loading Problems, SPE 72092, JPT, pp30-36,
April 2004.
Lea, J.F, and Tighe, R.E.: Gas Well Operation with
Liquid Production, SPE 11583, 1983.
Li, X., Mitchum, F.L., Bruno, M., Patillo, P.D., and
Willson, S.M.: Compaction, Subsidence, and
Associated Casing Damage and Well Failure
Assessment for Gulf of Mexico Shelf Matagorda
Island 623 Field, SPESPE 84553, 2003.
Mullen, M.E., Stewart, B.R., and Norman, W.D.:
Soft Rock Frac-Pack Completions in the Gulf of
Mexico, SPESPE 28532, 1994.
Mueller, D.T.: Producing Stress-Resistant High-
Temperature / High-Pressure Cement Formulations
Through Microstructural Optimization, SPESPE
84562, 2003.
Mueller, D.T., GoBoncan, V., Dillenbeck, R.L., and
Heinold, T.: Characterization Casing-Cement-
Formation Interactions Under Stress Conditions:
Impact on Long-Term Zonal Isolation, SPESPE
90450, 2004.
Norman, D.,: The Frac-Pack Completion: Why Has It
Become the Standard Strategy For Sand Control?
SPESPE 101511, SPE Distinguished Lecturer
Presentation, 2003.
Nouri, A., Vaziri, H., Belhaj, H., and Islam, R.: Sand
Production Prediction: A New Set of Criteria
for Modeling Based on Large-Scale Transient
Experiments and Numerical Investigation, SPE
90273, SPE Journal, 11:2, June 2006.
Oberwinkler, C., and Standner, M.: From Real-Time
Data to Production Optimization, SPEPF, p229,
August 2005.
Palmer, I., Vorpahl, D.G., Glenn, J.M., Vaziri, H., and
McLennan, J.: A Recent Gulf of Mexico Cavity
Completion, SPE 86462, SPEDC, 20, September
2005.
Parcevaux, P., Rae, P., and Drecq, P.: Well Cementing,
Schlumberger Educational Services, 1990.

Parlar, M., Bennett, C., Gilchrist, J., Elliott, F.,
Troncoso, J., Price-Smith, C., Brady, M., Tibbles,
R.J., Hoxha, B., and Foxenberg, W.E.: Emerging
Techniques in Gravel Packing High Performance
Completions in High Performance Wells, SPE
64412, 2000.
Pattillo, P.D., and Huong, N.C.: The Effect of Axial
Load on Casing Collapse, JPT, pp159, January
1982.
Pattillo, P.D., and Kristiansen, T.G.: Analysis of
Horizontal Casing Integrity in the Valhall Field,
SPE/ISRM 78204, 2002.
Pattillo, P.D., Kristiansen, T.G., Sund, G.V., and
Kjelstadli, R.M.: Reservoir Compaction and
Seaflow Subsidence at Valhall, SPE 47274, 1996.
Purvis, D.L., Mueller, D.T., Dawson, J.T. and Bray.
W.S.: Thickening Time Test Apparatus Provides
Method of Simulating Actual Shear History of Oil
Well Cements, SPE 26576, 1993.
Rae. P., Martin. A.N. and Sinanan, B.: Skin Bypass
Fracs: Proof that Size is Not Important, SPE
56473, 1999.
Rogers, M.J., Dillenbeck, R.L., and Eid, R.N.:
Transition Time of cement slurries, definitions
and Misconceptions, related to Annular Fluid
Migration, SPE 90829, 2004.
Sabins, F.L., and Sutton, D.L.: The Relationship of
Thickening Time, Gel Strength, and Compressive
Strength of Oilwell Cements, SPEPE, pp143,
March 1986.
Sabins, F.L., Tinsley, J.M., and Sutton, D.L.: Transition
Time of Cement Slurries Between the Fluid and Set
States, SPE 9285, SPE J., pp875-882, December
1982.
Sanchez, E., Audibert-Hayet, A. , and Rousseau, L.:
Influence of Drill-in Fluids Composition on
Formation Damage, SPE Journal (December
2004) p403.
Sauer, C.W.: Mud Displacement During Cementing
State of the Art, SPE 14197, JPT, pp1091-1101,
September 1987.
Scrimgeor, J.A., King, P.A., and Kelman, J.F.: Field
Examples of Production-Logging Problems in
Large Diameter Deviated Wells with BiPhasic Flow
and Their Implications on Reservoir Management,
SPE 11899, 1983.
Chapter 5 Well Completions
Sinha, S.P., and Al-Qattan, R.: A Novel Approach
to Reservoir Surveillance Planning, SPE 88792,
2004.
Stein, M., Chitale, A.A., Asher, G., Vaziri, H., Sun, Y.,
Colbert, J.R., and Gonzalez, F.A.: Integrated Sand
and Erosion Alarming on NaKika, Deepwater Gulf
of Mexico, SPE 95516, 2005.
Stevens, R., Ke, M., Javora, P.H., Qu, Q.: Oilfield
Environment-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking
of CRAs in Completion Brines, SPE 90188,
2004.
Szymczak, S., Sanders, K., Pakulski, M., and Higgins,
T.: Chemical Compromise: A Thermodynamic
and Low-Dose Hydrate-Inhibitor Solution for
Hydrate Control in the Gulf of Mexico, SPE
96418, 2005.
Taitel, Y., Barnea, D. and Dukler, A.E.: Modeling Flow
Pattern Gradients Occurring During Continuous
Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical
Conduits, AIChE J., 26 (6) 345-354, May 1980.
Tewari, R.D., Abd Raub, M.R., Omar, M.I., Fenghan,
B., Moris, M., Jelai, J., Ramachandran, S.,
Fooks, A.L., Peden, J.M., and Montague, E.:
The Importance of Well Construction and Well
Integrity for Reservoir Management A Mature
Field Experience in Sudan, SPE 100813, 2006.
Thiercelin, M.J., Dargaud, B., Baret, J.F., and
Rodriquez, W.J.: Cement Design Based on
Cement Mechanical Response, SPE 52890,
SPEDC, pp 266, December 1998.
Tiffin, D., Stevens, B., Park, E., Elliott, F., and Gilchrist,
J.: Evaluation of a Filter Cake Flowback in Sand
Control Completions, SPE 68933, 2001.
Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E.:
Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate
for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from
Gas Wells, JPT (Nov 1969), Trans. AIME, 246,
1475.
Vargo, R.F., Payne, M., Faul, R., and LeBlanc, J.:
Practical and Successful Prevention of Annular
Pressure Buildup on the Marlin Project, SPE
77473, 2002.
Vaziri, H., Allam, R., Kidd, G., Bennett, C., Grose, T.,
Robinson, P., and Malyn, J.: Sanding: A Rigorous
Examination of the Interplay Between Drawdown,
Depletion, Startup Frequency, and Water Cut,
197
Modern Fracturing

SPE 89895, SPE Prod. Ops., 21, Nov. 2006.

Wang, X., Qu, Q., Stevens, R., and Javora, P.: Factors
Controlling the Proper Design of Effective
Insulation Fluids for Oilfield Applications, SPE
103132, 2006a.
Wang, X., Qu, Q., Javora, P.H., and Pearcy, R.: New
Trend in Oilfield Flow Assurance Management:
A Review of Thermal Insulating Fluids, SPE
103829, 2006b.
Yamamoto, H., Christiansin, R.L.: Enhancing Liquid
Lift From Low Pressure Gas Reservoirs, SPE
55625, 1999.

198
Barry Hlidek is stimulation engineering manager for BJ Services Company Canada in Calgary, responsible
for fracturing and acidizing engineering services, including treatment design and computer simulations.
With more than 19 years of experience in the oil service industry, Hlidek's areas of interest include research
and engineering for fracturing, cementing, acidizing, sand control and coiled tubing services. Initially hired
by the Western Co. as a field engineer, Hlidek spent 11 years as a research scientist in corporate laboratory
technical services, involved in global technical support and chemical product formulation for cementing,
fracturing and acidizing. He holds BSc degrees in chemical and petroleum refining, and mineral economics,
from the Colorado School of Mines. Hlidek is an SPE author and holds two US patents on foaming agents.
At the local level, he is chairman of the SPE Canadian Section and held multiple positions on the board
of directors for the SPE Canadian section, as well as organizational and technical committee positions for
several local SPE technical conferences, including the GTS. On the SPE International level, he is chairman of
the Production and Operations Award Committee and is a member of the Distinguished Lecturer Selection
Committee. Barry is a registered Professional Engineer in Alberta.

Leen Weijers is the Rocky Mountain regional manager for Pinnacle Technologies after eight years of focusing
on development and support of the FracproPT hydraulic fracture growth simulator. He completed his
doctoral research at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands by conducting model experiments
to study hydraulic fracture growth in horizontal and deviated wells. He has been involved in numerous
multi-stage propped fracture stimulation efforts in horizontal wells. He was awarded The Chevron Way
Award for his involvement in stimulating several horizontal wells in the Lost Hills Field, California. Weijers
has authored numerous industry courses and publications, has conducted real-time fracture analysis on
hundreds of treatments, and plays a key role in the calibration of fracture growth models with various
fracture diagnostics, such as Pinnacle's tiltmeter and microseismic fracture mapping technologies.
Chapter 6
Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
Barry Hlidek, BJ Services Company and
Leen Weijers, Pinnacle Technologies
6-1 Introduction
Fracture-to-well connectivity: This is defined
broadly as the physical connection of a wellbore to a
reservoir or formation or, specifically, to a hydraulic
fracture. The latter allows the flow of fluids either
from the fracture to the wellbore, or from the wellbore
to the fracture. The obvious example of general
connectivity is the production of hydrocarbons from
a reservoir to the wellbore for ultimate production
through surface facilities. Flow restrictions will
always exist, and well completions need to be
designed to minimize pressure drops, especially at the
wellbore-to-formation interface. causing severe near-wellbore tortuosity. In addition
Various completion options are available, and
choices depend on well objectives and physical
or mechanical constraints. Completion methods
include conventional cased and cemented wellbores,
uncemented liners, pre-perforated liners, slotted
liners and open-hole producing sections, among
others (see Chapter 5 for a detailed analysis of well
completions). In all cases, a robust connection
to the wellbore is of primary importance. In the
conventional case of a cemented casing (or liner),
perforation size, type, density, orientation and
operational procedures will have a significant impact
on well connectivity. It is not uncommon that
perforation strategies for production or stimulation
(fracturing) conflict with reservoir evaluation
objectives. In order to perform pressure transient
analysis and other flow or pressure build-up test
procedures, it may be desirable to perforate an entire
net pay interval, whereas for fracturing, a limited
perforated interval may be more desirable. Often, a
compromise must be reached.
Historically, a primary loss of well-to-
formation connectivity has been attributed to
near-wellbore formation damage that occurs
during drilling and completion operations.
However, in hydraulically fractured wells, near-
wellbore damage is normally of little consequence because
the propped fracture will bypass this damage, providing
wellbore connectivity from the reservoir farther from
the well. In all propped hydraulic fracturing treatments,
we must bypass near-wellbore damage, or treatment
objectives will likely not meet expectations (see Section
4-7.5 for a discussion on skin-bypass fracturing).
Well inclination, and perforation orientation
and placement will significantly impact fracture
operations. In general, initial fracture propagation
direction is controlled by the local stresses around
the wellbore. At some point, and within a short
distance from the wellbore, formation stresses
will dominate, and the fracture will change direction
to propagate perpendicular to the minimum
principal stress. As discussed in Section 6-4.1, a
large difference between maximum and minimum
horizontal stresses (referred to as a high stress bias)
can result in a rapid change in direction, possibly
to narrow and twisted fracture paths (pinch points),
multiple fractures are possible, or the fracture may
even propagate through a micro-annulus prior to
re-orientation. Any of these possible events will
increase near-wellbore pressure drops and the chance
of a premature screen-out or sand-off. In some cases,
proppant and/or gel slugs early in the treatment have
been shown to be an effective method to minimize
near-wellbore complexity (Cleary et al., 1993).
However, it must be emphasized that even if fracture
execution is facilitated, the presence of misaligned
and badly connected fractures will adversely affect
subsequent well performance.
Control of formation fines and/or proppant
flowback is another important consideration. Solids
flowback can greatly affect production, may require
well intervention, may damage surface production
equipment and may present significant safety and
environmental hazards. A wide variety of solids
control options are available. For some situations,
proper perforation orientation may be adequate to
control solids production; in others, resin-coated
proppants, proppant flow-back control additives or
mechanical screens may be required (see Section 8-7
for a discussion on proppant flowback and Section
201
Modern Fracturing
5-6 for sand control in gas wells). Screens should
be a solution of last resort and, if required, it could
be an indication that the stimulation treatment and
the well construction, including its orientation,
were not designed properly.
In the case of hydraulic fracturing the industry
has taken two paths. The first involves accepting
whichever well geometry is presented and executing
the treatment to work around problems, no matter
how unfavorable or inefficient the completion may
be for both execution and (especially) subsequent
production. Thus, perforation schemes, fluids to
be injected and the sequence of injection stages
(such as proppant slugs, etc.), are determined based
on their ability to facilitate execution. Some have
taken it so far as to consider it an accomplishment
to be able to fracture highly unfavourable well
geometries, such as highly inclined wells with long
perforated intervals, etc. In the face of obvious
problems this will cause to future production, such
thinking should clearly be avoided.
A far more desirable and, indeed, far more
effective approach is to integrate drilling, completion,
perforating and fracturing so that wells are
constructed with all these operations in mind a priori.
The important issues for appropriate fracture-to-well
connectivity are addressed in this chapter.
Far-field reservoir connectivity: Far-field
complexity can also limit reservoir-to-wellbore
connectivity. The reservoir itself may present barriers
to production. Multiple layers or producing lenses
may not have vertical permeability, and alternative
fracture treatment designs may be required to
effectively connect the producing intervals to the
wellbore. Using shale as an example, the reservoir
matrix has microdarcy permeability, and the dominant
production mechanism is through natural fissures
(see Section 11-5). In the case of such ultra low-
permeability fissured reservoirs, although the hydraulic
fracture is largely parallel to well-defined natural
fractures, treatment designs must connect the fissure
system to the wellbore in order to provide maximum
possible inflow area, for efficient production. Finally,
fracture diagnostics (such as microseismic, tiltmeters,
etc.) can be utilized to help provide an understanding
of far-field fracture complexity.
202
6-2 Completion Techniques and Their
Impact on Well Connectivity
In many oilfield applications, a well penetrates
multiple target zones; in some fields, the pay interval
that contains hydrocarbons can be several thousand
feet thick. Without an effective wellbore distribution
strategy, hydraulic fractures will typically grow in
the layers that provide the least resistance, i.e., the
zones in which the fracture initiation pressure is
lowest. Consequently, a stimulation treatment
that would simultaneously target all pay zones in
a thick formation may actually cover only a very
small portion of the interval. Techniques have been
developed to improve fluid diversion (also referred to
as lateral fracture diversion) and vertical penetration
of the fracture over the entire thickness of the
target zone (see Section 9-7).
Until recently, the objective for gas well
stimulation has been to create and extend a simple,
largely planar fracture within a reservoir. However, in
several newly developed reservoirs, such as the Barnett
Shale (see Section 11-2), the emphasis has been on
creating a complex fracture network because this is the
only viable way to achieve economic production from
certain ultra low-permeability (naturally fractured)
formations (Matthews et al., 2007).
6-2.1 Cased-Well Isolation Techniques
Cased and lined wells have a large-diameter pipe placed
and cemented (see Section 5-2), providing significant
advantages over open-hole completions: first by
protecting the up-hole layers from fluids, pressures and
well stability problems;secondly by isolating fresh water
formations;and finally, isolating zones of lost returns or
formations with significantly varied pressure gradients.
In particular, the casing allows the use of mechanical
isolation, and perforations in cased wells are beneficial
for mechanical and chemical diversion (see Section
9-7).This makes cased wells very attractive for most
stimulation and diversion techniques.
Various isolation techniques can be used to
temporarily isolate target zones from each other
and from the rest of the well (Economides and
Nolte, 2000).These isolated zones can be stimulated

separately or simultaneously. The first requirement
for proper isolation is achieving a good cement
bond between perforated intervals (see Section 5-
2).After the wellbore has been constructed, various
types of casing plugs for zonal isolation are available
for conventional bottom-to-top treatment stage
stimulation.Typically, perforations are shot in the
casing, a fracture stimulation treatment is conducted,
and the stimulated zone is isolated from new
perforations that will be treated up-hole. Mechanical
bridge plugs can be run on tubulars or wireline
(Brown et al., 2000). Sand plugs can also be pumped
(sometimes as part of the propped fracture treatment)
to cover a previously stimulated perforated interval.
Bridge plugs are the most reliable and commonly
used method to provide isolation between perforated
zones. Frac baffles are concentric baffle rings that are
run as part of the casing string and placed between
individual target zones (Brown et al., 2000;and
Robert and Rossen, 2000).Isolation is achieved by
dropping balls or running wireline plugs that seat in
the baffle rings. Some of these techniques are limited
to vertical or nearly vertical wells.
There is always an economic trade-off between
the number of fracture treatments and the ability
to achieve effective fluid diversion. In cased wells,
several perforation schemes can help to create good
vertical coverage (Fig. 6-1).
A. Limited entry B. Unrestrictedentry C. Point source
* Initially good * Potentially poor * Sensitive to
* Extreme case * Created at stress contrast
1 frac/perf wellbore * Minimized at wellbore wellbore
Vertical Coverage Multiple Fractures
Figure 6-1 Perforation schemes (from Minner et al., 1996)
In Fig. 6-1, part A illustrates limited entry
perforation distributions that are used to obtain
simultaneous fluid flow through a large number of
perforations, by creating a large frictional pressure drop
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
across these perforations (Elbel and Britt, 2000) (see
Section 9-7.3). This strategy is normally implemented
in thick target zones to ensure stimulation of the entire
gross pay. The high frictional pressure drop (e.g., 400
psi perforation pressure drop) is designed to offset
the stress differences between target zones to enhance
injection into all the perforated target zones (Lagrone
and Rasmussen, 1963). However, a sufficient injection
rate must be available to maintain this high differential
pressure across the perforations, both initially and as
the perforations are eroded by proppant.
Part B illustrates unrestricted entry perforating
using a long interval, somewhat similar to an open-hole
interval. There is little or no initial control over fracture
treatment distribution; differences in breakdown (and
fracture propagation) pressures along the depth of the
well dictate where fracture growth will occur. Ball sealers
are sometimes used in conjunction with unrestricted
entry treatments (see Section 9-7.2). Ball sealers are
small spheres that are added to the fracturing fluid to
seal the perforations that accept the largest quantities
of fluid (Robert and Rossen, 2000). However, their
sealing efficiency is unpredictable because of the erosion
of the hole diameter by injected proppant, potential
cross-flow between perforated intervals, and failure to
seat at low pump rates. Part C illustrates point-source
perforations used to minimize creation of multiple
fractures. Point-source perforation distribution is also
used in deviated wellbores to obtain fluid flow through
D. Multiple point
only a very few perforations in a single section of the
* Initially good
* Minimized at well (Underwood and Kerley, 1998). This tends to
produce very few fractures or only a single significant
fracture. While it does not suffer from adverse fluid
flow distributions and difficult proppant placement,
this method could stimulate only a very small target
zone due to limited height growth as a result of
fracture containment. Point-source perforations
may also pose the risk of limiting or choking
post-frac production or injection.
Part D illustrates multiple point-source/limited entry
perforating, a hybrid strategy that consists of limited
entry implemented in the form of, e.g., three point-
source perforation intervals, allowing vertical coverage
of the formation by fracture height growth, rather than
by fracturing each interval. This strategy would have
the advantages of both limited entry and point-source
203
Modern Fracturing
perforations while initiating fewer fractures at the
wellbore, preventing premature screenouts, achieving
larger fracture dimensions with greater proppant
concentrations per fracture, and covering a larger interval
using a single treatment. While the major advantage of
this technique is to discourage the creation of multiple
fractures, it can also be utilized to isolate and effectively
treat small net pay intervals.
Casing-Conveyed Perforating: Casing-conveyed
perforating technology refers to the utilization of
perforating guns that are attached to the outside of
the casing string prior to running and cementing
(Fig. 6-2). External control lines provide the ability
to sequentially fire the perforating guns for each
stimulation treatment. Internal valves provide
isolation for the previously stimulated zones. As many
as 17 discrete intervals have been treated in a 24 hour
period utilizing the process (Rodgerson et al., 2004).
The advantage of casing conveyed perforating is not
only the ability to rapidly stimulate multiple zones,
but these systems have also been shown to improve
well performance, reduce environmental impacts, and
provide a safer work environment (Krawietz et al.,
2004). See section 9-7.5 for a detailed discussion.
Coiled Tubing Applications: Several hydraulic
fracturing technologies involve the use of coiled tubing
(see Sections 13-1.4 and 13-4.5). One technique
involves pumping the fracture treatments through a
coiled tubing string. For this procedure, perforations
are shot along the entire well first. Then, a bridge-
plug packer assembly run on coiled tubing is used
to place proppant into a selective set of perforations
(Zemlak et al., 1999). The assembly is quickly pulled
up after a fracture treatment, to conduct the fracture
treatment in the next set of perforations up the well.
This technique has the advantages that it isolates
the wellhead and tubulars from treating pressures
and reduces execution time when compared to
Figure 6-2 External casing perforating (from Rodgerson et al., 2005)
204
conventionally staged stimulations, although there
are significant limitations to the slurry injection rates
and pressures due to the relatively small diameter
of the coil. As many as 20 fracture treatments
can be completed during a day.
A second coiled tubing fracture technique involves
running a jetting tool on coiled tubing into an un-
perforated well (Hejl et al., 2006). Perforations are cut
into the casing by first pumping a low-concentration
proppant slurry through the jetting tool. The propped
fracture treatment is then pumped down the casing/
coiled tubing annulus. After the fracture treatment
is completed, the fractured perforation interval is
covered with a sand plug to isolate it from the next
fracture stage performed up the hole. After all of the
fracture treatments are completed, the coiled tubing
string is used to clean out the well. As many as eight
fracture stages have been performed per day.
Shallow wells, (for the purpose of this discussion
about 3000 ft measured depth or less) containing
zones of similar reservoir pressure, are ideally suited
for an alternate zonal isolation technique utilizing
opposing swab cups on the coiled tubing string (or
jointed tubing) to isolate multiple perforated zones.
Utilization of cup tools is normally limited to about
a 20-ft straddle interval. Greater straddle lengths
require very long lubricators above the wellhead, or
deployment under pressure, both of which are time-
consuming and expensive. Utilization depth depends
on casing size and tool configuration. For deeper
applications, in order to move the tool, nitrogen
injection (to reduce hydrostatics) or internal circulation
devices may be required. An additional disadvantage
of the technique is that a downhole tubing check valve
cannot be installed for well control, and in extreme
circumstancesspecifically high pressure kicks
the implementation of shear rams at surface may be
required. The major advantage of this type of tool,
especially on coiled tubing, is the ability to hydraulically
fracture multiple zones in rapid sequence.

6-2.2 Open-Hole Completions
Wells are sometimes completed as an open hole
(without casing) through the geological section
of interest. The open hole may have a length of
1000 ft or significantly more. The main limitations
of open-hole wells are that the well is unsupported
and may collapse, and selective fracture treatments
or remedial work within the open-hole section
are more difficult. Open-hole stimulation is often
made even more difficult by the installation of a
slotted or pre-drilled liner.
Effective zonal isolation for propped
fracturing in open-hole wells is a challenge for
fracturing engineers, but packers for open-hole
wells are available (Freyer and Huse, 2002). The
packers are configured with one large element
that deforms easily to contact the uneven
surface of the drilled hole, but retain sufficient
strength and integrity to withstand the anticipated
temperatures and differential pressures. Open-
hole packers could be successful for matrix
stimulation, but the use of these packers is
generally not recommended for fracture treatments
because, ordinarily, they cannot withstand high
pressure differentials. Fractures typically initiate
along the open-hole section and tend to follow
this open-hole section along and past the packer.
In addition, the fracture could initiate at the
packer face due to the compressive force exerted
by the packer on the borehole wall, or due to
natural formation heterogeneity.
Another isolation option is the use of solid-
body open-hole packers that are run on a
tubing string and generally considered a permanent
installation. In most cases the packers are pre-
set with fracture port windows between packers;
these windows can be individually opened with
balls or darts. Starting at the far end of the open-
hole section, the fracturing windows can be
sequentially opened and then isolated during
the treatment so that all intervals (up to eight
with some systems) can be stimulated in the same
day. The distance between packers and the
location of frac ports is variable and depends only
on completion objectives.
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
6-2.3 Open-Hole and Uncemented
Liner Fracture Treatment Diversion
Obtaining desired zonal coverage during stimulation
treatments using diversion techniques is difficult
in open-hole and uncemented liner completions.
The best method for zonal isolation in uncemented
completions is mechanical isolation (see Sections 9-7.1
and 9-7.2). In this section, we discuss a few techniques
that are sometimes used to improve fracture height
coverage in thick target zones. In general, open-hole
diversion techniques are primarily suited for matrix
treatments and acid fracturing. Typically, fracture
fluid and proppant placement in any given location is
unknown; therefore fracture treatment designs cannot
be optimized (see Section 4-5 and 4-6 for treatment
optimization parameters) and run the risk of being
over-displaced. However, some propped fracture
stimulation treatments, especially in slotted liner
completions, have been successful.
Chemical diversion can be conducted by utilizing
fracturing fluid additives that temporarily seal the
perforations or fractures that accept most fluid flow.
Chemical diversion includes bridging materials such as
rock salt, naphthalene, benzoic acid flakes, wax beads
and foams. Bridging materials are used to bridge casing
slots and/or pre-existing fractures (Brown et al., 2000).
They share many of the limitations of ball sealers and
sand packs in that they are difficult to accurately place
and keep in place. In general, conventional open-hole
diversion techniques do not provide any significant
control over when or where treatment fluids are being
placed. However, wax beads have been used successfully
for water fracturing open-hole wells in naturally
fractured chalk formations (Bell et al., 1993).
When using uncemented liners, completion
techniques may enable at least some degree of selective
fracture treatment isolation or remedial work within
the (e.g., horizontal) target zone, when the liner has
multiple point-source limited entry perforations in the
open-hole (uncemented) section. Liner perforations
are either mechanically installed on the liner before
running in the hole, or conventionally shot after the
liner is in place downhole. An unrestricted slotted
liner does not provide good diversion behind the pipe
into the open-hole annulus.
205
Modern Fracturing
With the point-source perforation strategy, the
hope is that the higher local pressure at each perforation
cluster initiates a fracture system nearby. A lateral of
significant length may be effectively stimulated using
this method (Fisher et al., 2004, 2005; and Van Dyke
et al., 2005). However, the location of the created
fractures is not strongly correlated to the location
of the clusters of perforations. That is, the fracture
network grows where in- situ stress conditions along
the horizontal lateral dictate, and not exactly where
the perforations are shot along the uncemented
liner. Located in central California, the Rose Field is
a pioneering area for using the uncemented slotted
liner concept. Surface tilt mapping showed transverse
fracture growth at the toe and heel of a well, with a
large longitudinal component in the central portion
of the lateral (Minner et al., 2003). Injection rates
of 60 to 75 bbl/min were required to distribute
fluids across the entire lateral.
6-3 Perforating in General
Perforating for production is a widespread procedure
practiced in the petroleum industry. The main
objective is to provide maximum access to the reservoir.
A shot density of four or five shots per foot (SPF),
covering all producing horizons, is recommended.
Studies as early as Muskats (1946), show that well
productivity is essentially independent of perforation
pattern and is determined mainly by perforation
density. Since then other studies (e.g., Karakas
and Tariq, 1988) have quantified the effects of
perforations on well performance by calculating the
resulting mechanical skin effect. One important
conclusion is that, in order to bypass near-wellbore
damage caused by drilling, completion and cementing
operations, the perforation needs to reach undamaged
reservoir rockalthough it is widely recognized
that the perforating process itself will result in some
localized damage. In general, deep penetrating
perforations are only recommended for reservoirs
that are not hydraulically fractured.
Overbalanced perforating can initiate small
fractures near the wellbore, which may assist
subsequent fracture propagation. Overbalanced
and underbalanced perforating are addressed
206
in Section 6-4.3. As discussed in subsequent
sections, deep-penetrating perforations are
unnecessary (and occasionally detrimental) for wells
requiring fracture stimulation.
6-4 Perforating for Fracturing
The primary objectives of perforating for fracturing
are to minimize near-wellbore pressure drop during
production and to allow proppant slurries to enter
the fracture during the treatment with minimal risk
of proppant bridging. Of particular importance is
the pressure drop due to tortuosity, caused by the
misalignment among perforation tunnels and the
fracture initiation and ultimate propagation planes.
This will be discussed later in this section.
In general, the perforation process results in three
primary damage mechanisms: perforation tunnel
blockage due to debris, migration of formation fines
into the perforated region, and a crush zone at the face
of the perforation tunnel, caused by shock waves, that
reduces localized permeability. Perforation damage
is further discussed in Section 6-4.3. Techniques to
remedy perforation damage include pre-fracture acid
washes, underbalanced perforation techniques, extreme
overbalanced perforating and the correct selection of shot
density, charge size and orientation.
Perforating for fracturing should include
considerations of treatment size, proppant concentration,
proppant size and treatment pump rate. In addition, well
and reservoir data are important factors when planning
a perforation program. Deviated and horizontal well
configurations demand alternate perforation schemes for
treatment success. Failure to consider these factors may
lead to excessive formation breakdown pressures and an
unacceptable screen-out frequency.
6-4.1 Oriented Perforations
In vertical and horizontal wells, perforation orientation
has a major impact on fracture-to-well connectivity.
In addition, perforation orientation can be used to
minimize breakdown pressures and maximize near-
wellbore fracture width (Abass et al., 1994). As shown
in laboratory experiments, 180 phasing within 30 of
the maximum horizontal stress generally provides good
 Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity

connectivity with the fracture. 60 phasing will insure that link. So, for a situation where the borehole is aligned
some perforations will be within 15 of the maximum with the stress, non-oriented perforations pose little
horizontal stress plane, but more shots are required and fracture linkage concern.
may not provide focused fracture initiation.
0.2
Figure 6-3 shows a wellbore with a perforation
in the preferred plane and other perforations that are
0.1
outside the preferred plane. If the perforations are not
aligned with the fracture plane that is controlled by

y, m
the far-field stresses, the fracture initiation planes are 0

tilted, which may hamper link-up between fractures.

Eventually, the fractures will abruptly align with the -0.1

maximum stress. The tangential stress varies along the

borehole, but if vertical stress is the maximum local -0.2
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
stress component, the fractures will tend to propagate x, m

along the wellbore. This assumes that the wellbore and Figure 6-4 Fracture growth from perforations positioned
the maximum (vertical) stress are perfectly aligned, 15 from the preferred fracture plane (from van de Ketterij
and de Pater, 1997)
which is usually not the case. At some distance from the
borehole, the vertical stress component is equal to the Figure 6-5 shows the result when the fluid
far-field vertical stress. Fracture interaction simulations pressure is much higher (caused by a dramatic increase
consider the fracture propagation in two dimensions in fluid pumping rate compared to the example in
with the y-stress equal to the vertical stress and a varying Fig. 6-4), equal to the maximum stress. In that case,
x-stress that corresponds with the hoop stress around the it is more difficult for the fractures to link because
wellbore. From 3-D simulations (van de Ketterij and de the pressure inside the fractures dominates the stress
Pater, 1997) it is clear that most of the re-orientation field. A hydraulic fracture only completely follows
occurs in the radial direction. the direction of maximum stress when the fracture
pressure is much smaller than the stress difference.
Variation of tangential stress
T2
along wellbore wall The fracture pressure itself also contributes to the
stress field on the fracture tip. The result is that
Preferred fracture
fractures tend to propagate along a straight path
Fracture
in preferred
H plane at very high fluid pressures (which may be hard to
plane T3
achieve in the field), reducing the chance of link-up.
Perf tunnel Fractures from This could lead to more tortuosity.
perforations
T1 outside the
preferred plane
0.2

0.1
Figure 6-3 A wellbore with a perforation in the preferred
plane and other perforations that outside the preferred
y, m

0
plane (from van de Ketterij and de Pater, 1997)

Figure 6-4 shows the fracture growth path for two -0.1

initial fractures from perforations that are 15 degrees

from the preferred plane. The perforations are spaced -0.2
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
as 2 SPF (0.5 ft apart, 0.15 m), and the initial fracture x, m

is taken as 0.8 in. (0.02 m). Where the borehole is Figure 6-5 Fracture interaction for fractures initiating
from perforations that are 15 degrees from the preferred
perfectly aligned with the vertical stress, the fractures fracture plane with higher fluid pressure compared to Fig.
would quickly reorient towards the borehole axis and 6-4 (from van de Ketterij and de Pater, 1997)

207
Modern Fracturing
Figure 6-6 shows how gun selection in vertical wells
is affected by the horizontal stress bias, or the contrast
between the minimum and maximum horizontal stress.
In areas with high horizontal stress bias, utilizing many
perforations with a small phasing (30, 45 or 60) generally
provides better wellbore-to-fracture communication
than 180 phasing because fracture growth starts only in
a limited number of favorably oriented perforations. If
180 phasing were chosen in this case, high near-wellbore
friction could result from fracture initiation through
micro-annuli if the perforations are not oriented toward
the maximum horizontal stress.
Increasing stress bias
Tmax
Tmin
60 perf phasing
Poor communication Good communication
due to near-wellbore
multiple fractures
180 perf phasing
Potentially poor
Reasonable communication communication due to
with potential problems due fracture initiation
to reduced near-wellbore width from annulus
180 perf phasing
oriented guns
Good communication
Good communication
Figure 6-6 Perforation phasing considerations for areas
with low and high stress bias
It is not common, or easy, to measure the horizontal
stress bias, but it can be achieved by analyzing induced
and natural fractures, as well as borehole breakouts in
caliper or image logs. Also, oriented core can be brought
to surface, where relaxation of the core can be measured
using anelastic strain recovery (ASR) (Teufel, 1983).
There are two disadvantages of perforations with
30, 45 or 60 phasing. First, there is a chance that a more
complex system of fractures may initiate, especially
if the horizontal stress bias is not high. Secondly, a
smaller perforation phasing generally means that the
vertical distance from perforations at the same phasing
increases because perforation companies typically do
not provide guns with shot density in excess of 12
shots per foot (SPF). For smaller guns, the maximum
208
shot density is even smaller. This increase in vertical
distance between perforations of the same phasing
decreases the chances of link-up between fractures
initiating from the perforations.
6-4.2 Deviated and Horizontal Well Perforating
Deviated and horizontal wells present special perforating
challenges. It is not likely that the wellbore and fracture
planes will coincide (Veeken et al., 1989) unless the well
is drilled deliberately along a particular direction after
significant measurements and effort during drilling.
Because perforation orientation is not likely to match
fracture orientation, perforation strategies need to be
evaluated to promote fracture development with low
near-wellbore pressure and adequate connection to the
main fracture. Orientation of the wellbore and associated
perforation location will determine the connection
between the fracture and the wellbore.
Typically, deviated/horizontal wellbores are
not good candidates for hydraulic fracturing
treatments unless they are specifically designed for
fracturing. In order to ensure successful fracturing
treatments, wellbores should be drilled so that they
are perpendicular to, or so that they trace one of the
principal stresses: e.g., vertical (for vertical wells),
or one of the two horizontal stresses (for deviated
wellbores) to accommodate longitudinal or transverse
fractures. Because the exact azimuth of principal
stresses is typically not known very well, correct
wellbore orientation is difficult to achieve.
A common industry practice, especially for wells
drilled from platforms or pads, is to configure the
wellbore as S-shaped so that the wellbore is vertical
throughout the producing interval. Because of the very
definition of principal stresses, vertical wells aligned
with the principal vertical stress, exhibit no shear
stresses. This helps to reduce fracture initiation pressure
and, with correct perforating practices, can reduce
tortuosity substantially, thereby enhancing connectivity.
Although the ideal perforation orientation is 180 and
parallel to the maximum principal stress, the stress
orientation must be known. Fracturing strategies for
horizontal wells are addressed in Chapter 10. For most
deviated wellbores, tactics to reduce tortuosity must be
implemented, as discussed in Section 6-5.

Chen and Economides (1995) presented a
calculation to determine both the initiation plane of
the fracture and the fracturing pressure for arbitrarily
deviated wells. Figure 6-7 shows the geometric
variables and stresses required for the calculation.
If the angles a (the difference in azimuth between
the plane of the wellbore axis and the main fracture
plane) and b (the well deviation from the vertical) are
known, if the three principal stresses are known, and
if the angle q (between the initiating perforation and
some reference point on the circumference of the well),
then the angle g between the well axis and the fracture
plane can be determined. Chen and Economides
(1995) showed that substantial tortuosity and large
fracture initiation pressures should be expected in
highly anisotropic reservoirs.
za
T1
z ya
H r
C
xa
y wellbore radii). Instead of counting a fraction of
T3
T2 x intersected by the main fracture plane:
B rhalo
Figure 6-7 Fracture and deviated wellbore geometry
(from Chen and Economides, 1995)
6-4.2.1 Production Impairment from Inefficient Fracture-
to-Wellbore Contact
Welling (1998) calculated the skin for hydraulically
fractured wells as the sum of the fracture skin and the
skin calculated from the pressure drop through the
perforations connecting the hydraulic fracture to the
well. Welling also assumed that the perforations had
30o phasing and 12 SPF.
The fracture skin was computed as
rw (1 / C fD + 2)
s f = ln
xf
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
and the perforation skin as
2khLgravel
sp = (6-2)
k perf Aperf N perf
where Lgravel is the connection flow length (difference
between drilled radius and screen radius), kperf is the
perforation permeability, Aperf is the perforation cross-
sectional area, and Nperf is the number of perforations
connecting the fracture and the wellbore. Welling
(1998) used the above formulation to back-calculate
that the number of perforations for actual frac-packs
was, on average, about 2.3 SPF, and he attributed
this to the fracture aligning only with perforations
oriented in or very nearly in the fracture plane. By
basing the calculation on SPF, this implicitly assumed
that the fracture plane was aligned with the axis of
the wellbore, but the paper indicates that all wells
under discussion are inclined.
Instead, Ehlig-Economides et al. (2008)
developed a calculation to take into account the
difference between the angle of the wellbore axis
(arbitrarily governed by the drilling trajectory) and
the angle of the main fracture plane (normal to
R the minimum stress direction beyond one to two
the perforations per foot based on the perforation
phasing, this calculation counts the number of
perforations within wellbore segment that is actually
SPF
N perfs = min L, (6-3)
sin min (, )
where L is the drilled wellbore length through the
formation, rhalo is the halo radius, is the difference
in azimuth between the plane of the wellbore axis and
the main fracture plane, and is the well deviation
angle. The connection flow length is assumed to
be the difference between the drilled radius and
the screen radius. Because of the halo effect, all
perforations within the connection flow length are
assumed to connect to the fracture.
Although the work described here is for all
hydraulic fractures, the problem is particularly severe
in high-permeability, loosely consolidated reservoirs.
The halo effect (Upchurch, 2001) mentioned above
(6-1) has been postulated as a configuration in loosely
209
Modern Fracturing
consolidated sandstone reservoirs where proppant is
placed concentrically around the well as well as in the
fracture. Because of the halo effect, Upchurch (2001)
suggested that the flow from the reservoir into the
fracture and into the well is far less cumbersome than
the traditional vision of tortuosity.
Ehlig-Economides et al. (2008) adopted the halo
effect as the best-case scenario. Their approach shows
the skin penalty when the hydraulic fracture does not
align with the wellbore trajectory, a penalty that is
easily avoided by ensuring the wellbore trajectory is
vertical through the productive interval whenever the
maximum stress is vertical.
Figure 6-8 shows a sensitivity study for a range
of SPF values and the worst-case scenario that the
azimuth angle difference between the plane of the
wellbore axis and the main fracture plane is 90o.
Perforation permeability is assumed to be 200,000
md, like that of a high-quality proppant, and the
halo radius is assumed to be 1 ft. For example, for
a well with an inclination of 45o and 6 SPF, the
perforation skin would be 8, whereas for 2 SPF the
skin would be larger than 25. For a fracture skin equal
to 4, the composite skins would be +4 and +21,
respectively. In fact, looking at Fig. 6-8, only at well
inclinations of 15o or less and larger than 4 SPF will
the composite skin be zero or negative.
The skin for any combination of and can
be determined from Fig. 6-8 for the same input
formation geometry and permeability parameters. For
< , read the skin value for the angle . Otherwise,
read the skin value for the angle .
80
1 SPF
70
2 SPF
60 4 SPF
Perforation Skin, sp
6 SPF
50
12 SPF
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deviation Angle, degrees
Figure 6-8 Frac-pack perforation skin, assuming 90o
angle between wellbore and main fracture planes (from
Ehlig-Economides et al., 2008)
210
In many operating companies, production
engineers claim that they must complete a well
regardless of drilled angle because the driller decides
the well deviation and azimuth. To simplify their
task and to cut costs, drillers will typically maintain
one well deviation and azimuth required to reach the
specified reservoir location from the drilling location.
If the platform is near the center of the field, well
azimuths will vary 360o, and only 2 directions will be
aligned with the main fracture plane.
Alternatively, the well could be inclined through the
productive interval by turning the trajectory azimuth
normal to the minimum stress direction through the
productive formation. In some cases this may require
less change in angle than turning the trajectory
downward. The additional stimulation from a vertical
well to an inclined well aligned with the main fracture
plane is quite small, but the skin and, especially, the
screen velocity increase from misalignment of an
inclined well is quite severe.
The most commonly encountered misconception is
to justify inclining the well on the basis that there will
be more contact between the well and the reservoir. This
will be true if the well is gravel-packed, but if the well
is successfully hydraulically fractured with sufficient
fracture conductivity, either the flow through perforations
that are not connected to the hydraulic fracture will be
negligible, or there will be sand production.
To see this, suppose the main fracture plane is
formed at an angle with the wellbore trajectory
and, therefore, with less than all of the perforations
connecting the fracture and the wellbore. When the
well is brought on to production, initial flow may
occur through all of the perforations. As the well
flow rate is increased, when the flow velocity into
perforations connected only by radial flow from the
formation exceeds the flow velocity at which formation
fines become mobile, these perforations will either
become plugged or they will permit fines to flow. In
the former case, soon flow through these perforations
will be negligible, and all flow will occur through the
perforations connecting the fracture to the wellbore.
60 70 80 90 In the latter case, because frac-pack gravel grain size
distribution is not necessarily designed to filter fines,
sand production and subsequent screen erosion may
occur via the perforations that do not connect the

fracture to the wellbore. Meanwhile, linear flow into
a properly designed frac-pack should never exceed the
rate at which fines become mobile.
Therefore, during fracture execution, gravel or
proppant injected through perforations that are not
connecting the main fracture to the wellbore is at best
diverted from propagating or widening the fracture and
reduces the final fracture length and/or conductivity.
At worst, several highly inclined fractures may form
instead of one main fracture, or, as described above,
perforations not connecting the fracture to the wellbore
will enable sand production and/or screen erosion when
the well is put on production.
Without explaining why all their wells were
inclined, Welling (1998) recommended high-rate
water packs over gravel packs for high-permeability
reservoirs, and open-hole gravel pack completions for
highest target well rates. That paper claims to be able
to estimate the number of flowing perforations and the
gravel pack or frac-pack permeability. However, very
likely, the perforations are miscounted in that analysis.
If, instead, well inclination were used to estimate the
number of perforations with Eq. 6-3, the number of
perforations would be smaller, and the estimated gravel
permeability higher. Figure 10 in the Welling (1998)
paper claims that the observed gravel pack permeability
is higher than that of the frac-pack.
In reality, gravel pack should never be recommended
for offshore wells, particularly if they have sub-sea
wellheads. Over time, the gravel pack will accumulate
fines, and, because matrix acidizing may not be an option,
the well rate would have to be cut back to avoid excessive
drawdown across the completion. A properly designed
and executed frac-pack will never accumulate fines.
Instead of working with the driller to design
a well completion that can safely flow at target
production rates, many production engineers monitor
the arbitrarily inclined frac-pack wells to avoid screen
failure. Although this strategy may save wellbores, it
fails to achieve design flow rates and thereby penalizes
the project economics. Well design should be a unified
endeavor, not just a series of avoidable compromises.
When the majority of fractures are properly designed
in vertical wellbores, the average skin for frac packs
will drop below zero, and there will be very few screen
failures, even for very high production rates.
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
6-4.3 Underbalanced vs. Extreme
Overbalanced Perforating
Underbalanced perforating (UB) means that operations
are performed below reservoir pressure. Extreme
overbalanced perforating (EOB) is done at pressures well
above formation breakdown gradient. Both techniques
have applications, depending on specific well/reservoir
parameters and completion objectives.
Underbalanced perforating: UB perforating is
primarily intended to sweep perforation tunnel debris
into the wellbore from the perforation tunnel. In
all types of perforating, three types of perforation
tunnel damage occur. The first is known as the crush
zone caused by crushing and compaction of the
rock matrix near the perforation tunnel. As a result
of crushed sand grains in the matrix, pore throat size
is reduced, resulting in a loss of permeability in that
region. The second damage mechanism is residual
perforating debris, lodged in the perforation tunnel. It
is not expected that this type of residual debris would
impair production, However, it may affect attempts
at subsequent injections, including fracturing,
resulting in higher injection pressures. Lab testing
has indicated that particle debris filling at least 50%
of the perforation tunnel can substantially reduce
injectivity without affecting producibility (Behrmann,
1995). The damage may be aggravated in vertically
downward-oriented perforations. An additional
damage mechanism is the migration of formation
material, including clays, caused by mechanical
disruption of the formation matrix.
Removal of crush zone damage has been studied
by several investigators. The pressure drop required
to remove crush zone damage has been evaluated
in the laboratory using surface outcrop samples
(Behrmann, 1995). Equation 6-4 is an example of
such an empirical relationship using data from Alaska
and North Sea Brent reservoirs:
2
pUB = D p0.3 [90.4 7.86 ln k ] ,
(6-4)
where pUB is optimum underbalance pressure, psi;
Dp is the perforation tunnel diameter, in. and k is
reservoir permeability, md.
211
Modern Fracturing
Removal of particle debris can easily be accomplished
during UB perforating operations. According to
Behrmann and McDonald (1996), few (if any) laboratory
studies are available to confirm and quantify injectivity
impairment caused by particle debris, but the following
factors probably aggravate debris removal:
1. Low underbalance pressure differential.
2. Use of big-hole charges.
3. Weak (brittle or unconsolidated) rock.
4. Downward-oriented vertical perforations.
5. Single-phase oil or gas flow versus two-phase flow.
6. Perforation tunnel diameter larger than entry-
hole diameter, creating a flow restriction in all
but hard rocks.
UB perforating is preferred for both injectors and
producers that are deemed candidates for hydraulic
fracturing treatments, except in weak rock. UB perforating
may be of particular importance if there is reason to
believe that high breakdown or injection pressures may
be encountered. A successful UB perforation cleanout
requires sufficient permeability and reservoir pressure
to successfully surge the perforations. In many depleted
reservoirs, UB perforating may not be feasible because
of insufficient reservoir pressure. For example, using Eq.
6-4, if the reservoir permeability is 100 md and the Dp
is 0.5 in. then the required pUB would be about 2500
psi. But if the permeability is 0.1 md then the required
pUB would be a highly unrealistic 9400 psi. Thus,
for under-pressured or depleted lower-permeability
reservoirs (almost all formations in North America)
UB perforating is not recommended.
Extreme overbalanced perforating: EOB perforating is
intended to promote the formation of micro-fractures
that extend beyond the conventional perforation tunnel.
EOB perforating is accomplished in three ways. The
first procedure involves pressurizing the wellbore before
perforating. The pressure in the wellbore is increased to
a value that exceeds the expected formation breakdown
pressure, and then the perforation guns are fired. A
second technique creates a pressure surge into the
perforations after conventional perforating, normally
pumping nitrogen gas in the tubing through a rupture
disc. Pressure requirements for EOB perforating
vary depending on application. Field experience and
212
laboratory measurements indicate that the pressure at
the perforated interval should be in the range of 1.4 to
2.0 psi/ft (Behrmann and McDonald, 1996). Handren
et al. (1993) state that as a rule of thumb, overbalance
gradients need to be about 0.4 psi/ft greater than the
fracture treatment gradient. In any case, the overpressure
gradient needs to exceed the reservoir breakdown
gradient. A third method involves propellant-assisted
perforating, combining perforation breakdown with
propellant in a single tool and operation (Loman et
al., 1996). The perforating assembly has a propellant
sleeve over a conventional perforating gun assembly.
When the guns are detonated, the propellant sleeve is
ignited, instantly producing a burst of high-pressure
gas. The gas enters the perforations, breaks through
any damage around the perforation tunnel, and creates
micro-fractures near the wellbore.
A number of potential benefits can be achieved
through EOB perforating (Handren et al., 1993). It is
believed that during conventional UB perforating, the
perforation tunnel may become unstable due to a rapid
loss of pressure. Rapid changes in the near-perforation
stress field may result in the rapid closure of near-tunnel
fractures, causing collapse of the tunnel. During the
EOB process the sustained application of high pressure
can serve to stabilize the tunnel walls.
EOB perforating also promotes and extends a
fracture network beyond the perforation tunnel. During
the perforating process, micro-fractures are created
around and at the tip of the perforation tunnel. Debris
generated during perforating will migrate into the
micro-cracks because of the extreme pressure differential,
establishing the main connectivity improvement
provided by the EOB process.
The rapid invasion of fluid into the perforations
during perforating should extend existing micro-
fractures and potentially create additional micro-fractures
extending from the perforation tunnels. With sufficient
velocity, the fluid should erode the micro-fracture face,
which benefits reservoir-to-wellbore connectivity.
Reservoir permeability is expected to have an
effect on the efficiency of UB perforating. Variations in
permeability within the perforated zone can determine
the effectiveness of perforation surging after UB
perforating. Large permeability variances could render
some perforations completely ineffective. On the other

hand, permeability variations should have little impact
on the effectiveness of EOB perforation operations.
Although fluid velocity and pressure drop are the
dominant variables in EOB perforating, fluid choice
can also have an impact on successful perforating. Acids
can be used in acid-soluble formations to etch the walls
of the micro-fractures, thereby enhancing connectivity.
Acid wash or soak treatments can also aid in removing
acid-soluble perforating charge debris. Sand slurries can
be used to etch the fracture faces and aid in perforation
erosion, lowering subsequent fracture treatment
pressures. Other options include the injection of sand
consolidation resins designed to control fines flowback
from unconsolidated reservoirs.
Disadvantages of EOB include operational
considerations regarding safety and tubular/wellhead
capabilities. Perforating under elevated pressure requires
a careful evaluation of pressure limitations (and age) of
surface and downhole equipment, including wellhead,
casing, packers, gun system, isolation tools and lubricators.
Additional pumping equipment, product storage and
logistics add to safety concerns.
Performing a hydraulic fracture treatment after
EOB perforating raises additional concerns. While
enhanced fractures in the preferred fracture plane will be
advantageous to the propped fracturing process and could
aid in primary fracture initiation, enhanced fractures
away from this plane could lead to a much more complex
near wellbore situation. (Ideally, 180 phasing oriented
to the fracture plane is preferred.) Moreover, the EOB
process encourages the development of multiple fractures
(see Fig. 6-9). A multitude of fractures in various spatial
orientations may lead to competing multiple fractures,
which will contribute to lower width, increased fluid
leak-off and an increased possibility of a screenout.
Tmax Tmax
Tmax Tmax
A B
Figure 6-9 Potential fracture orientation from
EOB perforating (A) and from UB perforating (B)
(from Handren et al., 1993)
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
Perforating with Lasers: Since 1997 (Gahan et al.,
2004; and Parker et al., 2003), the Gas Research
Institute (now the Gas Technology Institute or GTI)
and its research partners have been investigating the
application of laser technology for use in both drilling
and perforating (rock removal). High-power laser energy
conveyed via fiber optic cable technology, appears to
be able to perforate wellbores. Laboratory testing has
focused on using concentrated laser energy to remove
rock, with the intention of improving near-perforation
tunnel permeability (Fig. 6-10). Beyond improving
perforation tunnel connectivity to the wellbore, laser
technology has advantages in rapid deployment,
improved wellsite safety, and reduced environmental
impact. However, there are still significant technical
and operational challenges to be overcome before these
systems can be deployed in the field.
Figure 6-10 Small block laser perforation test, showing a
cutaway of a lased perforation tunnel in Berea sandstone
sample (courtesy of Sandia National Laboratories)
6-5 Near-Wellbore Fracture Complexity
Near-wellbore fracture complexity, often referred to
as tortuosity, can be described as a series of width
restrictions in the area of the fracture that connects
the wellbore with the reservoir or a far-field planar
fracture. During a hydraulic fracture treatment, these
restrictions may lead to a pressure drop in the fracture
very close to the well. This near-wellbore friction
results in a difference between the bottomhole
pressure and the pressure in the body of the fracture;
this latter pressure controls fracture dimensions (see
Section 4-2.1.4). When proppant is added to the
fluid, near-wellbore friction may increase dramatically
due to difficulties transporting proppant-laden slurry
213
Modern Fracturing
through the tortuous near-wellbore region; this
may cause proppant bridging. It is likely that many
premature screen-outs are caused by tortuosity, and
not by depletion of the pad or far-field fracture width
restrictions. Fracture complexity and restrictions
in near-wellbore width may also impair the flow of
hydrocarbons during production.
Near-wellbore fracture conductivity is of utmost
importance for hydrocarbon production. Bad
conductivity near the well leads to choked fractures
(Cinco-Ley and Samaniego, 1981). This section
describes near-wellbore complexity and how it can be
quantified and remediated.
6-5.1 Near-Wellbore Complexity
The connection between wellbore and fracture is
generally not a clean, zipper-like connection. Instead,
there is often a rather complex and tortuous fracture
network linking the main body of the fracture with
the wellbore (Palmer and Veatch, 1990; Cleary et al.,
1991 and 1993). Although it is possible to pump
fluid past this near-wellbore area during a fracture
treatment, pumping proppant-laden fluid can be
problematic due to insufficient near-wellbore fracture
width. Near-wellbore fracture tortuosity is the cause
for the majority of premature screen-outs. Near-
wellbore complexity varies widely between fields and
even wells within a field. As a general rule of thumb,
near-wellbore friction pressures of greater than 500 psi
(based on diagnostics described later in this section)
should be interpreted as a cause of concern. Near-
wellbore friction in excess of 1000 psi will probably
require serious remediation, fracture treatment re-
design or alternative completion strategies (e.g. re-
perforating or alternate zonal isolation techniques).
Unfortunately, there is no catch-all universal method
for remediating near-wellbore friction and its impact
on subsequent fracture treatments. It is, however, of
paramount importance to recognize its potential impact
and to be prepared to address the issue.
Figure 6-11 shows an example of a complex near-
wellbore geometry in a laboratory fracture growth
experiment from a modestly deviated well (Weijers et
al., 1994). The test block has been cut into different
slabs to reveal the fracture geometry. Three different
214
principal stresses were applied to the model sample,
and thus far-field fractures would preferentially
grow perpendicular to the minimum principal stress
(sh,min) direction. In the slab closest to the wellbore,
it is clear that starter fractures initiate from every
perforation along the wellbore. Each of these fractures
turns toward the neighboring perforation as the fluid
pressure within the perforation results in a tensile
tangential stress around the perforation. This attracts
the approaching fracture tip and makes it turn towards
the perforation, resulting in a complex network of
fractures. Farther away from the wellbore, however,
several of these starter fractures stop propagating and
some coalesce, making the fracture geometry less
complex further from the wellbore. Below and above
the perforated interval, only the fractures that start at
the upper and lower perforation remain.
y = -0.075 m -0.05 m -0.025 m 0.025 m 0.05 m 0.075 m
0.30 m Tv
Th, max
Th, min
Figure 6-11 Near-wellbore fracture geometry as
observed in a model test (from Weijers et al.,1994)
Summarizing the phenomena of these laboratory
experiments, near-wellbore tortuosity can result from:
gradual or sharp fracture curvature due to fracture
re-orientation from the plane of initiation
toward the preferred fracture plane (plane of
far-field fracture growth);
sharp fracture curvature when the hydraulic fracture
intersects natural or drilling-induced fractures;
multiple hydraulic fractures that compete for
fracture width; and,
fracture growth along the annulus between the
cement and the stiffer casing due to inadequate
cementing. Fractures may initiate into the formation
away from the perforated interval.

High tortuosity during a fracture treatment greatly
increases the risk of a premature screen-out due to
proppant bridging in the tortuous near-wellbore region.
The fracture treatment may be terminated due to
unacceptably high surface pressure before all the proppant
is successfully placed in the fracture. In the worst possible
case, the well may be lost for production. Also, the
maximum proppant concentration that can be pumped
when tortuosity is present may be lower than called for
in the original design of the treatment, resulting in a less
than optimum stimulation of the well.
6-5.2 Diagnosing and Quantifying
Near-Wellbore Complexity (Tortuosity)
Currently, there are no methods to reliably predict
tortuosity, but there are simple diagnostic tests to
measure tortuosity and ineffective perforations before
pumping the propped fracture treatment. Typically,
such tests are quick, inexpensive and require only small
volumes of fluid and proppant.
Although a simple ISIP shut-down will determine
total friction, a step-down test can be done before
the main treatment to quantify and isolate the
presence of perforation friction and near-wellbore
friction (see Section 4-2.1.8).
Before the step-down technique was developed,
all fracture entry friction (bottomhole pressure minus
pressure inside the main fracture body) observed
at treatment shut-ins (ISIPs) was attributed to
perforation friction. This often led to expensive and
unsuccessful (or even counter-productive) ball-outs,
re-perforating, acid spotting and/or increases in pad
volume. However, it is now believed that most of these
premature screen-out problems are actually due to a
complex wellbore-to-fracture connection that causes
high near-wellbore friction (i.e. tortuosity).
The step-down test can be employed as a routine
procedure before a propped fracture treatment to
evaluate potential proppant placement problems. Step-
down tests can be employed to evaluate the potential
risk of a near-wellbore screen-out and to evaluate the
efficacy of remediation measures. Step-down analysis can
also reveal the approximate number of perforations that
are accepting fluid, which can provide essential insight
into perforation breakdown and the possible interval
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
coverage achieved on a limited entry fracture treatment.
Measuring entry friction pressure using a step-down
test helps to make the correct decision for remediating
proppant entry problems (Fig. 6-12).
High entry friction
High perf friction Severe fracture tortuosity
Re-perforate
Use proppant slugs
Initiate with high viscosity fluid
Future wells may have
altered perforation strategy
increase gel loading
Increase rate
such as MORE perfs
Future wells may have altered
Spot acid
completion strategy such as
Perform ball-out FEWER perfs
Figure 6-12 Remedial measures to overcome
high perforation or near-wellbore friction (from
Weijers et al., 2000a)
In the equations below, ptotal frict represents all the
frictional losses during pumping from the surface to the
main body of the fracture, and pnear wellbore represents all
the frictional losses between the mid-perf depth of the
wellbore and the main body of the fracture. Just before
the end of pumping, the terms ptotal frict and pnear wellbore
are equal to the difference between the pumping pressure
and the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) at surface
and downhole, respectively:
p = p pISI , surf
total frict inj
(6-5)
= p pipe friction + p pf + ptort ,
pnear wellbore = piw pISI = p pf + ptort . (6-6)
During shut-in, all frictional components in Eqs. 6-5
and 6-6 are zero. It is therefore relatively easy to calculate
observed net pressure during shut-in, and net pressure
matches therefore often focus on shut-in times. During
pumping, the frictional components in Eqs. 6-5 and
6-6 can all change. However, their general behavior
with flow rate changes is governed by several relatively
simple relationships that can be used to isolate the three
individual frictional components.
Wellbore Friction. Wellbore friction (see Section
4-4.4) depends on the type of fluid and flow path
diameter, but for most fracturing fluids in turbulent
flow it is a function of the flow rate to some
power w (Gas Research Institute, 1995a):
215
Modern Fracturing
p pipe friction = K wellf q with 1.2 < w < 1.8,
w
(6-7)
where Kwellf is a proportionality constant for the
wellbore friction pressure as function of the flow
rate squared. When surface pressure is available, the
estimated wellbore friction (from flow-loop tests or
empirical correlations) should be subtracted from the
total friction to obtain entry friction.
Perforation Friction. (See Section 4-2.1.2) As shown,
perforation friction is simply dissipation of the kinetic
energy that is imparted on the fluid as it flows through
a small orifice at high velocity. Perforation friction,
therefore, is proportional to the flow rate squared times
a proportionality constant Kperf which is determined by
the slurry density, s, perforation diameter, Dp, number
of perforations Nperf, and the discharge coefficient Cd
(Economides and Nolte, 2000) to modify Eq. 4-2:
q
2
p pf = 0.2369s = K q2 ,
(6-8)
C N D2
perf
d perf p
Tortuosity. Near-wellbore fracture tortuosity is the result of
the complex fracture geometry immediately surrounding
the wellbore. In a typical fracture treatment a multitude
of fractures can be initiated from numerous perforations
and micro-cracks. The orientation of these near-wellbore
fractures is dictated by the orientation of the existing
micro-cracks, perforation-induced or otherwise, and
not by the far-field stresses that dictate the orientation
There are two extremes for the behavior of near-
wellbore friction with flow rate. In the upper bound, it
is assumed that fluid flows through two parallel plates
at a fixed distance from each other. For laminar flow
between these plates, Darcys law applies, and thus the
friction over a certain distance through these plates
is directly proportional to the flow rate. In the lower
bound, the width between the parallel plates is directly
proportional to the average pressure that is applied from
the inside of the plates. The pressure required to sustain
a flow rate though the moving plates is proportional to
the flow rate to the power . Therefore:
ptort = K nwb q nwb , with nwb 1. (6-9)
As an average for real-time field use, near-wellbore
friction (tortuosity) can generally be approximated to
be proportional to the square root of the flow rate, and
thus nwb = 0.5 (Gas Research Institute, 1995a).
As shown in Fig. 6-14, the step-down test
results will be distinctly different for cases that are
dominated by either perforation friction or near-
wellbore friction (see Section 4-2.1.8, Fig 4-10 for
an example). For a perforation friction-dominated
regime, the largest changes in entry friction occur at
the high rates, whereas for a near-wellbore friction-
dominated regime the largest changes in entry friction
occur at the low flow rates.
Bottomhole pressure - ISIP

of the main fracture body. As fractures grow away from

Rate, Bottomhole pressure

p1
the wellbore, they eventually re-orient to align themselves p1 Total friction
Perforation friction f(q2)
with the far-field stresses as depicted in Fig. 6-13. p2
p2
q1 p3 Near-wellbore
Narrow pressure q2 p4 p3 friction f(q)
dependen opening High velocity, kinetic q3
p4
energy dissipation q4
Time q4 q3 q2 q1
Rate
Wide far-field fracture
Bottomhole pressure - ISIP
Rate, Bottomhole pressure

p1
p1 Total friction
p2
p2
p3
p3
q1 Near-wellbore
Cased borehole with perforations p4 friction f(q)
q2 p4
q3 Perforation
Figure 6-13 Tortuosity and perforation friction behave very q4 friction f(q2)
differently as a function of flow rate. Tortuosity occurs in a q4 q3 q2 q1
Time
pressure-dependent opening, and therefore is only weakly
Rate
(a power between 0.25 and 1) dependent on flow rate.
Perforation friction is caused by kinetic energy dissipation Figure 6-14 Step-down test results dominated by
after the fluid obtains a high velocity, and is a function of perforation friction (top) and near-wellbore friction
the flow rate squared (from Weijers et al., 2000a) (bottom) (from Weijers et al., 2000a)

216

6-5.3 Minimizing the Effects of Tortuosity
There are three main methods available to minimize the
effect of tortuosity during a fracture treatment:
Perforate a limited interval and use a limited
number of perforations to reduce the number of
simultaneously propagating multiple fractures in the
near-wellbore region (Stadulis, 1995).
Pump proppant slugs to erode the near-wellbore
fracture system and plug off less-conductive
multiple fractures (Cleary et al., 1993, McDaniel
et al., 2001a, 2001b). Determining the correct
proppant slug concentration is an uncertain
process. On one hand, a proppant concentration
that is too low will not plug some of the multiple
hydraulic fractures that are created near the well
(Fig. 6-15, top). On the other hand, pumping a
proppant slug that is too aggressive (Fig. 6-15,
bottom) can plug off all fractures and cause a
screen-out on the slug.
After proppant slug
Before proppant slug Dominant fracture(s)
Not plugging any
multiple hydraulic fractures
Too gentle
Dominant fracture(s)
Just right Plugging off most
multiple hydraulic fractures
Too aggressive
Dominant fracture(s)
Plugging off all multiple
hydraulic fractures
Figure 6-15 Conceptual representation of the effectiveness
of proppant slugs (from Weijers et al., 2002a)
On the left side of Fig. 6-15, a complex
near-wellbore network of multiple hydraulic
fractures is created when the naturally fractured
formation is broken down. This complex network
can be treated with proppant slugs in an attempt
to simplify this network of multiple hydraulic
fractures. On the right side of Fig. 6-15, the top
diagram illustrates the use of a proppant slug
that is too gentle, causing continuous growth
of multiple hydraulic fractures after the slug.
The middle diagram illustrates an appropriate
proppant slug concentration that plugs off some
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
of the multiple hydraulic fractures. The bottom
diagram illustrates a proppant slug that is too
aggressive and screens out all the fractures. The
balance of proppant slug concentration and
volume is difficult to quantify and is often
determined based on field experience.
During fracture initiation, increase the flow rate
to increase the radius of near-wellbore fracture
curvature and increase the fluid pressure in
the near-wellbore region. The injection rate
during initiation may be maximized by using
overbalance perforating (Dees et al., 1993) or
by utilizing water jetting (East et al., 2004).
Also, use high-viscosity fluids (Aud et al., 1994)
during initiation to increase the radius of fracture
curvature and possibly decrease the number of
fractures initiated. This will also increase near-
wellbore fracture width and improve proppant
transport later in the treatment.
Example Illustrating the Use of Proppant Slugs
to Reduce Tortuosity:
Figure 6-16 is a plot of treatment parameters versus
time for a treatment that showed severe near-wellbore
tortuosity in the naturally fractured Desert Creek
formation at about 8,300 ft depth in New Mexico.
A step-down test was performed at the end of the
second diagnostic injection, which showed that
near-wellbore fracture tortuosity was extremely
high (1900 psi) at the designed pump rate, and
perforation friction was very low. This low perforation
friction was expected because of the large number of
perforations. The high tortuosity was probably caused
by the simultaneous propagation of near-wellbore
multiple hydraulic fractures.
The long perforated interval (70 ft, 4 SPF) and
a relatively large pre-frac acid treatment most likely
provided multiple fracture initiation points in this
dolomite formation (which would also have had
significant natural fracturing). To mitigate the near-
wellbore complexity problem, two proppant slugs (25
bbl at 1 and 2 ppg) were pumped very early during the
pad stage. Just before the first proppant slug arrived at
the perforations, one pump had to be taken off-line to
reduce the overall pump rate from 40 to about 32 bpm,
217
Modern Fracturing

20.00 20.00
6000 100.0
Surface pressure
limitation 6000 psi
S/D#1: 1900 psi 1300 psi reduction
16.00 (1st slug) Zero tortuosity at 16.00
4800 tortuosity; small 80.0
perf friction end of pumping

12.00 S/D#2: 300 12.00

3600 psi tortuosity 60.0
Increased max
proppant loading
from 4 to 6 ppg
8.00 8.00
2400 40.0

4.00 4.00
1200 20.0

0.00 0.00
0 0.0
0.0 30.0 60.0 90.0 120.0 150.0
Time (mins)
Proppant loading (ppg) Btm propant loading (ppg)
Casing pressure (psi) Slurry rate (bpm)

Figure 6-16 A propped fracture treatment with severe tortuosity was minimized by pumping two proppant slugs, without
which the treatment would probably have pressured-out during the pad

because the surface pressure was reaching the maximum Mid-field tortuosity (Fig. 6-17) manifests itself as an
pressure limitation of 6000 psi. When the first proppant initial concave pressure decline immediately after a shut-
slug arrived through the perforations, the surface treating in, indicating a choke of fluid flow farther away from
pressure dropped dramatically due to the reduction in the wellbore inside the fracture, possibly at a distance of
near-wellbore friction. This allowed for an increase in between about 10 and 50 ft.
rate back to 40 bpm with surface pressures well below
Well Near-wellbore region
5000 psi. The arrival of a second proppant slug at the Several feet into fracture
perforations reduced tortuosity by another 300 psi. After "Relatively" near-wellbore region
these proppant slugs (but still during the pad), a second Tens of feet into fracture

step-down test confirmed that the proppant slugs had Far field region
Hundreds of feet into fracture
indeed dramatically reduced tortuosity to an acceptable
300 psi at 40 bpm, providing confidence that the propped
fracture treatment could now be pumped successfully.
No Mid-field Tortuosity
Net fracture pressure

Bottomhole Pressure
6-6 Mid- and Far-Field Fracture
Complexity During pumping
End of pumping ISIP
Closure
Tip
In addition to near-wellbore tortuosity, we sometimes Rate
Distance from well Time
observe mid-field tortuosity (Weijers et al., 2002).
Mid-field tortuosity is significantly different from near-
wellbore tortuosity because it represents a choking High Mid-field Tortuosity
effect for fluid flow farther away in the fracture.
Net fracture pressure

Bottomhole Pressure

During pumping
Because near-wellbore friction occurs in the immediate End of pumping Apparent ISIP
vicinity of the wellbore, its effect instantly disappears Stabilized ISIP
when the pumps are shut down. Mid-field tortuosity Closure
Tip Rate
does not instantly disappear upon shut-down and can Distance from well Time
cause pressure equalization between the wellbore and
Figure 6-17 Conceptual picture of mid-field tortuosity
the fracture for tens of seconds or even up to several caused by a pressure choke beyond the near-wellbore
minutes after pump shut-down. area in the fracture (from Weijers et al., 2002)

218

Multiple hydraulic fractures are fractures that
grow simultaneously from a wellbore and penetrate far
into the formation during a fracture treatment. It has
long been known that multiple fractures are almost
always present near the wellbore, due to individual
fracture initiation from many perforations in a cased-
hole perforated completion or from existing (natural
or drilling induced) fractures along an open-hole
interval. However, it was typically assumed that only
one fracture on either side of the wellbore propagated
beyond this near-wellbore area; the other fractures were
assumed to either coalesce in the near-wellbore area or
cease growth due to the stress influence from the other
nearby fractures. Evidence from core-through and
mine-back experiments, however, has indicated that
multiple hydraulic fractures may sometimes continue
to grow beyond the near-wellbore region.
Complex fracture growth during the hydraulic
fracture treatment can therefore sometimes be more
problematic from a proppant placement perspective.
From a perspective of wellbore-to-fracture
connectivity, it can also have major consequences.
The redistribution of proppant from a single (wide)
fracture to several (narrower) multiple fractures
can result in increased damage from polymer
residue, reduced effective fracture width due to
proppant embedment and filter cake residue and
increased sensitivity to pressure losses from non-
Darcy and multiphase flow.
6-6.1 An Introduction to Complex Fracture Growth
Fracture diagnostic observations have shown that many
hydraulic fractures may not be single and planar, aligned
with the wellbore and confined to the target zone. The
recent wealth of direct fracture diagnostic data has shown
that in reality, there can be significant discrepancies
between how fractures are expected (or designed) to
grow and how they actually do grow (Wright et al., 1999;
Warpinski and Branagan, 1989). Observations have
included T-shaped fractures, horizontal fractures, fractures
that grow along multiple planes, fractures that bifurcate
at layer interfaces due to differences in mechanical
properties (Wright et al., 1999), fracture reorientation due
to injection rate and viscosity changes (Weijers, 1999),
fracture re-orientation due to production/injection-
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
induced stress changes (Wright et al., 1994a,1994b, 1995,
2001) and interference from other fractures that remain
open after they are created and thus leave a residual stress
(Griffin et al., 2000), etc. In this chapter, however, we
will limit our discussions to fracture complexities that
arise from the simultaneous propagation of multiple
sub-parallel hydraulic fractures.
Why does growth of multiple fractures occur at all?
From a minimum-energy standpoint, the propagation of
a single fracture would be favorable. This could maybe be
true in a perfect material without any local weaknesses
and when fracture initiation occurs at a single point. As
shown in Figure 6-18, both conditions are violated in
hydraulic fracturing operations.
Fracture initiation
at Most of the
Perforations
Long Perforated Interval
Short
Point Source
Perforated
Interval
Completion-Induced Formation-Induced
Multiple Fractures Multiple Fractures
Figure 6-18 Two main causes for the propagation of
multiple hydraulic fractures: At left, multiple fracture
initiation points from a long perforated interval with
numerous perforations; at right, bifurcation of hydraulic
fractures as they intersect natural fractures (from
Weijers et al., 2000) or as fractures grow through layer
interfaces (Barree, 1998).
A completion generally provides multiple
starting points for hydraulic fractures, as multiple
perforations are shot. Hydraulic fractures tend to
initiate where there is a pre-existing crack from a natural
fracture or a perforation-induced crack, because these
are structurally the weakest points. Hydraulic fractures
thus initiate from several perforations (or existing cracks)
along a wellbore and may then coalesce into a fewer
number of dominant fracture(s) at some distance
away from the wellbore (Weijers et al, 1994, 2000b).
Competing parallel fractures may also contend
to squeeze each other out if they are close to each
219
Modern Fracturing
other, potentially leaving a single dominant fracture if
perpendicular separation is minimal. The initiation of
multiple hydraulic fractures from the wellbore can be
minimized, and the connection of the wellbore to the
fracture maximized, with proper wellbore completion
(e.g., perforating only a short interval, positioning the
well favorably with respect to the preferred fracture
plane and utilizing a high pressurization rate to improve
the coalescence of initial fractures).
Growth of multiple hydraulic fractures is not
only determined by the controllable completion and
stimulation practices. Bifurcation of a hydraulic fracture
may occur wherever it intersects a natural fracture. In
naturally fractured reservoirs (virtually every rock is
naturally fractured to some degree), multiple hydraulic
fractures are potentially initiated and propagated,
often in increasing numbers as more natural fractures
are intersected by the growing hydraulic fractures.
This process is self-reinforcing, as the propagation of
multiple hydraulic fractures tends to elevate the net
fracturing pressure, which in turn makes it easier
to initiate hydraulic fracture propagation at newly
intersected natural fractures.
6-6.2 Evidence of Complex Fracture Growth
In the early 1980s, the first indications for the
simultaneous growth of multiple hydraulic fractures
came from indirect fracture diagnostic techniques, such
as net pressure analysis and pressure transient tests. High
net fracturing pressures were attributed to fracture tip
effects and the competition for fracture width from the
simultaneous propagation of far-field multiple hydraulic
fractures (Shlyapobersky et al., 1988). Pressure transient
tests showed that fractures are sometimes much shorter
and of lower conductivity than initially expected based
on theoretical model predictions.
Multiple far-field hydraulic fractures have been
directly observed in the laboratory (Weijers et al., 1994)
and in the field during several core-through and mine-
back experiments. These fractures contained offsets at
geological discontinuities such as joints, confirming that
multiple fractures can be caused by bifurcation at natural
fracture intersections. Fractures turned as they grew and
developed with en-echelon multiple branches. Recently
developed direct fracture diagnostic techniques, such as
220
tiltmeter fracture mapping, have indicated that fracture
growth behavior may be significantly more complex than
has generally been believed.
6-6.3 Consequences of Complex Fracture Growth
The simultaneous propagation of multiple hydraulic
fractures can have significant consequences for both
propped fracture treatment execution and the obtained
propped fracture geometry, if more than one fracture
receives a significant volume of treatment fluids:
A significantly increased screen-out potential because
individual multiple fracture widths are smaller than
the width of a single fracture.
Shorter, narrower fractures because the fluid
and proppant has to be shared by a number of
multiple hydraulic fractures. The total width of all
fractures added together, however, is larger than for
a single fracture, resulting in higher near-wellbore
proppant concentration. Despite the high proppant
concentration, near-wellbore conductivity will
generally be lower than for a single fracture because
narrower fractures are more prone to the effects of
proppant embedment and polymer residue damage.
Higher net pressures. This can be partly because
fractures open against each other and compete for
fracture width, and partly because of tip effects
caused by the process zone around a fracture
tip (see Section 4-3.4). In coals, these higher
net pressures could potentially damage the rock
permeability surrounding the fracture.
10 1000
Fracture radius Cumulative fracture width
Fracture radius, ft
Fracture width, in
1 100
Individual fracture width
0.1
Minimum width for
12/20 mesh sand 10
Minimum width for
20/40 mesh sand
0.01 1
1 10 100
Number of simultaneous propagating fractures
Figure 6-19 Change in individual fracture width,
cumulative fracture width and fracture radius with
a change in the equivalent number of simultaneous
propagating multiple fractures (from Weijers et al., 2000b)

Figure 6-19 shows an example of the way in which
the simultaneous growth of multiple competing
fractures changes the fracture dimensions of a radial
fracture, using the results from a commercial fracture
growth simulator that incorporates these effects in
a simplified manner. The achievable fracture radius
decreases as the number of equivalent fractures
increases because fluid and proppant has to be
shared by more fractures. The fracture width for
each individual fracture becomes smaller than the
width of a single fracture, but the total width of
all fractures combined increases with an increasing
number of multiple fractures. Production will suffer
in such cases. The smaller individual fracture widths
can (and often do) lead to problems regarding the
placement of proppant in the fracture resulting
in a bridging screen-out.
The minimum fracture widths in Fig. 6-19
were calculated using an admittance criterion
of three proppant grain diameters. In this
example, the fracture will not accept 20/40-mesh
proppant when there are more than 14 equivalent
simultaneously propagating multiple fractures, and it
will not accept 12/20-mesh proppant when there are
more than 6 equivalent simultaneously propagating
multiple fractures. The effect of an increase in
the number of fractures, n, on the predicted net
fracturing pressure, pnet, fracture radius, R, and
fracture width, w, is as follows:
2
pnet ,n = pnet n 3 ,
(6-10)
2
Rn = Rn 9 ,
(6-11)
and
5
wn = wn , 9(6-12)
where pnet,n, Rn and wn represent the actual net pressure,
fracture radius and fracture width (respectively)
experienced with n multiple fractures instead
of the predicted single fracture.
Simultaneous propagation of hydraulic fractures
also results in higher net pressures and higher
surface pressures during the fracture treatment. The
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
cause of this pressure rise depends on the fracture
geometry. For fractures that grow parallel to each
other, the net pressure increases because the fractures
compete for fracture width. Multiple fractures can
also lead to higher net fracturing pressures through
increased fluid leak-off due to increased fracture
area and the resulting rise in slurry proppant
concentrations within the fractures.
The decrease in individual fracture width can
be problematic for wellbore-to-fracture connectivity
because complex fracture growth may result in loss
of effective fracture conductivity and an increased
sensitivity to pressure losses from non-Darcy and
multiphase flow. These effects are predominantly
important if the fracture system is conductivity-
limited (e.g. high-permeability formations). If the
dimensionless fracture conductivity is very high (e.g.
very low-permeability formations), complex fracture
growth may actually be beneficial because it may act
to increase fracture inflow area.
When multiple fracture growth is predominantly
formation-induced, it is very hard to minimize the
simultaneous propagation of multiple hydraulic
fractures. However, numerous techniques (Hainey
et al., 1995) can help to minimize the number of
simultaneous propagating fractures that initiate
at the wellbore during the beginning of a propped
fracture treatment (although the exact impact
of each of the completion changes listed below
may differ from case to case):
Limit the length of the perforated interval.
Utilize a high fracture fluid viscosity during fracture
initiation and the main fracture treatment.
Implement a cautious feeler gauge proppant slug
strategy with multiple proppant slugs to potentially
plug off some of the multiple fractures.
Utilize finer sand for the first part or all of the
propped fracture treatment.
Utilize the highest feasible injection rate to increase
fluid efficiency.
Utilize oriented perforations shot in the direction of
the maximum horizontal stress.
Pick perforated intervals in areas with a good
cement bond and where natural fracture density
is relatively low.
Minimize wellbore deviation whenever possible.
221
Modern Fracturing
References
Abass, H.H., Meadows, D.L., Brumley, J.L., Hedayati,
S., Venditto, J.J.: Oriented Perforations A
Rock Mechanics View, paper SPE 28555, 1994.
Aud, W.W., Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C.L., Harkrider,
J.D., and Hansen, J.T.: The Effect of Viscosity on
Near-Well Tortuosity and Premature Screenouts,
paper SPE 28492, 1994.
Barree, R.D., and Winterfeld, P.H.: Effects of Shear
Planes and Interfacial Slippage on Fracture Growth
and Treating Pressures, paper SPE 48926, 1998.
Behrmann, L.A.: Underbalance Criteria for Minimum
Perforation Damage, paper SPE 30081, 1995.
Behrmann, L.A., and McDonald, B.: Underbalance or
Extreme Overbalance, paper SPE 31083, 1996.
Bell, C.E., Holmes, B.W., and Rickards, A.R.:
Effective Diverting on Horizontal Wells in the
Austin Chalk, paper SPE 26582, 1993.
Brown, J.E., Thrasher, R.W., and Behrmann, L.A.:
Fracturing Operations, Chapter 11 in M.J.
Economides and K.G. Nolte (Eds.) Reservoir
Stimulation Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 2000.
Chen, Z., and Economides, M.J.: Fracturing Pressures
and Near-Well Fracture Geometry of Arbitrarily
Oriented and Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 30531,
1995.
Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient
Pressure Analysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture
Case Versus Damage Fracture Case, paper SPE
10179, 1981.
Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A. and Wright, T.B.:
Experimental and Modelling Evidence for Major
Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field
Procedures, paper SPE 21494, 1991.
Cleary, M.P., Johnson, D.E., Kogsbll, H-H., Owens,
K.A., Perry, K.F., de Pater, C.J., Stachel, A., Schmidt,
H., and M. Tambini: Field Implementation of
Proppant Slugs To Avoid Premature Screen-Out
of Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate Proppant
Concentration, paper SPE 25892, 1993.
Dees, J.M. and Handren, P.J.: A New Method of
Overbalance Perforating and Surging of Resin for
Sand Control, paper SPE 26545, 1993.
East, L.E. Jr., Grieser, W., McDaniel, B.W., Johnson, B.,
222
Jackson, R., and Fisher, K.: Successful Application
of Hydra-jet Hydraulic Fracturing on Horizontal
Wells Completed in a Thick Shale Reservoir,
paper SPE 91435, 2004.
Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G. (Eds.): Reservoir
Stimulation Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 2000.
Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Tosic, S. and Economides
M.J.: Foolproof Completions for High-Rate
Production, paper SPE 111455, 2008.
Elbel, J., and Britt, L.: Fracture Treatment Design,
Chapter 10 in M.J. Economides and K.G. Nolte
(Eds.) Reservoir Stimulation Third Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 2000.
Fisher, M.K., Wright, C.A., Davidson, B.M., Goodwin,
A.K., Fielder, E.O., Buckler, W.S., and Steinsberger,
N.P.: Integrating Fracture-Mapping Technologies
To Improve Stimulations in the Barnett Shale,
paper SPE 77441, 2005.
Fisher, M.K., Heinze, J.R., Harris, C.D., Davidson,
B.M., Wright, C.A., and Dunn, K.P.: Optimizing
Horizontal Completion Techniques in the Barnett
Shale Using Micro-seismic Fracture Mapping,
paper SPE 90051, 2004.
Freyer, R., and Huse, A.: Swelling Packer for Zonal
Isolation in Open Hole Screen Completions,
paper SPE 78312, 2002.
Gabriel, G.A., and Erbstoesser, S.R.: The Design of
Buoyant Ball Sealer Treatments, paper SPE 13085,
1984.
Gahan, B.C., Batarseh, S., Sharma, B. and Gowelly, S.:
Analysis of Efficient High-Power Fiber Lasers for
Well Perforation, paper SPE 90661, 2004.
Gas Research Institute, Technical Description GRI-
95/0257 on Real-Data (Net Pressure) Fracture
Analysis (1995a).
Griffin, L.G., Wright, C.A., Davis, E.J., Wolhart, S.L.,
and Moschovidis, Z.A.: Surface and Downhole
Tiltmeter Mapping: An Effective Tool for
Monitoring Downhole Drill Cuttings Disposal.
paper SPE 63032, 2000.
Hainey, B.W., Weng, X., and Stoisits, R.F.: Mitigation
of Multiple Fractures from Deviated wells. paper
SPE 30482, 1995.
Handren, P.J., Jupp, T.B., and Dees, J.M.: Overbalance
Perforating and Stimulation Method for Wells,

paper SPE 26515, 1993.
Hejl, K.A., Madding, A.M., Morea, M.F., Glatz, C.W.,
Luna, J., Minner, W.A., Singh, T., and Stanley,
R.R.: Extreme Multistage Fracturing Improves
Vertical Coverage and Well Performance in the
Lost Hills Field, paper SPE 101840, 2006.
Karakas, M., and Tariq, S.: Semi-Analytical Production
Models for Perforated Completions, paper SPE
18427, 1988.
Lagrone, K.W., and Rasmussen, J.W.: A New
Development in Completion Methods The
Limited Entry Technique, JPT (July 1963) 15:7,
695702.
Loman, G., Phillips, D.T., and Cicon, H.N.:
Stimulation of Horizontal Wells Using the
Dynamic Gas Pulse Loading Technique, paper
SPE 37097, 1996.
Matthews, L.H., Schein, G. and Malone, M.:
Stimulation of Gas Shales: Theyre All the Same
Right? SPE 106070, 2007.
McDaniel, B.W., McMechan, D.E., and Stegent, N.A.:
Proper Use of Proppant Slugs and Viscous Gel
Slugs Can Improve Proppant Placement During
Hydraulic Fracturing Applications, paper SPE
71661, 2001a.
McDaniel, B.W., Stegent, N.A. and Ellis, R.: How
Proppant Slugs and Viscous Gel Slugs Have
Influenced the Success of Hydraulic Fracturing
Applications, paper SPE 71073, 2001b.
Minner, W.A., Du, J., Ganong, B.L., Lackey, C.B.,
Demetrius, S.L. and Wright, C.A.: Rose Field:
Surface Tilt Mapping Shows Complex Fracture
Growth in 2500 Laterals Completed with
Uncemented Liners, paper SPE 83503, 2003.
Minner, W.A., Wright, C.A. and Dobie, C.A.:
Treatment Diagnostics and Net Pressure Analysis
Assist with Fracture Strategy Evaluation in the
Belridge Diatomite, paper SPE 35696, 1996.
Muskat M., The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through
Porous Media, 1946.
Palmer, I.D., and Veatch, R.W.: Abnormally High
Fracturing Pressures in Step Rate Tests, paper SPE
16902, SPEPE (August 1990).
Parker, R.A., Gahan, B.C., Graves, R.M., Batarseh, S.,
Xu, Z., and Reed, C.B.: Laser Drilling: Effects of
Beam Application Methods on Improving Rock
Chapter 6 Fracture-to-Well Connectivity
Removal, paper SPE 84353, 2003.
Robert, J.A. and Rossen, W.R.: Fluid Placement and
Pumping Strategy, Chapter 19 in M.J. Economides
and K.G. Nolte (Eds.) Reservoir Stimulation Third
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2000.
Rodgerson, J.L., Lopez, H., and Snider, O.: Unique
Multistage Process Allows Pinpoint Treatment of
Hard-to-Reach Pay, paper SPE 90052, 2004.
Rodgerson, J.L., Ruegamer, M.L., and Snider, P.M.:
External Casing Perforating Provides Optimal
Treatment Coverage in Horizontal Pay, paper SPE
97175, 2005.
Shlyapobersky, J., Wong, G.K., and Walhaug, W.W.:
Overpressure Calibrated Design of Hydraulic
Fracture Stimulations, paper SPE 18194, 1988.
Stadulis, J.M.: Development of a Completion Design
to Control Screenouts Caused by Multiple Near-
well Fractures, paper SPE 29549, 1995.
Teufel, L.W.: Determination of In-Situ Stress From
Anelastic Strain Recovery Measurements of
Oriented Core, paper SPE 11649, 1983.
Underwood, P.J., and Kerley, L.A.: Evaluation of
Selective vs. Point-source Perforating for Hydraulic
Fracturing, SPEDC (September 1998) 13:3, 151
1564.
Upchurch, E.R.: Near-Wellbore Halo Effect
Resulting form Tip-Screenout Fracturing: Direct
Measurement and Implication for Sand Control,
SPEDC (March 2001), 16:1, 4347.
Van de Ketterij, R.G. and de Pater, C.J.: Experimental
Study on the Impact of Perforations on Hydraulic
Fracture Tortuosity paper SPE 38149, 1997
Van Dyke, P.E., Weijers, L., Fisher, M.K., and
Robertson-Tait,A.: Evaluation of Oil-industry
Stimulation Practices for Enhanced Geothermal
Systems: Lessons Learned from the Barnett Shale,
Trans. GRC (2005), 29, 189195.
Veeken, C.A.M., Davies, D.R., and Walters, J.V.:
Limited Communication Between Hydraulic
Fracture and (Deviated) Wellbore, paper SPE
18982, 1989.
Warpinski, N.R, and Branagan, P.T.: Altered-Stress
Fracturing, paper SPE 17533, JPT (September
1989), 41:9, 990997.
Weijers, L., De Pater, C.J., Owens, K.A., and Kogsbll,
H.H.: Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures Induced
223
Modern Fracturing

From Horizontal Wellbores, SPEPF, May 1994, Zemlak, W., Lemp, S., and McCollum, R.: Selective
8792. Hydraulic Fracturing of Multiple Perforated
Weijers, L., Wright, C.A., Demetrius, S.L., Wang, Intervals with a Coiled Tubing Conduit: A Case
G., Davis, E.J., Emanuele, M.A., Broussard, J.B., History of the Unique Process, Economic Impact
and Golich, G.M.: Fracture Growth and Re- and Related Production Improvements, paper
orientation in Steam Injection Wells, paper SPE SPE 54474, 1999.
54079, 1999.
Weijers, L., Wright, C.A., Minner, W.A. Molesworth,
G., Huckabee, P., and Roberts, G.: The rate step-
down test: A simple real-time procedure to diagnose
potential hydraulic fracture treatment problems,
paper SPE 62549, 2000a.
Weijers, L., Wright, C.A., Sugiyama, H., Sato, K.,
and Zhigang, L.: Simultaneous Propagation of
Multiple Hydraulic Fractures - Evidence, Impact
and Modeling Implications, paper SPE 64772,
2000b.
Weijers, L., Griffin, L.G., Sugiyama, H., Shimamoto,
T., Takada, S., Chong, K.K., Terracina, J.M.,
and Wright, C.A.: The First Successful Fracture
Treatment Campaign Conducted in Japan:
Stimulation Challenges in a Deep, Naturally
Fractured Volcanic Rock, paper SPE 77678,
2002.
Welling, R.W.F.: Conventional High Rate Well
Completions: Limitations of Frac&Pack, High
Rate Water Pack and Open Hole Gravel Pack
Completions, paper SPE 39475, 1998.
Wright, C.A., and Weijers, L.: Hydraulic Fracture Re-
orientation: Does It Occur? Does It Matter? The
Leading Edge (2001), 20, 11851189.
Wright, C.A., Weijers, L., Davis, E.J., and Mayerhofer,
M.: Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Growth:
Tricky but Not Hopeless, paper SPE 56724,
1999.
Wright, C.A., and Conant, R.A.: Hydraulic Fracture
Re-orientation in Primary and Secondary Recovery
from Low-permeability Reservoirs, paper SPE
30484, 1995.
Wright, C.A., Stewart, D.W., Emanuele, M.A.,
and Wright, W.W.: Re-orientation of Propped
Refracture Treatments in the Lost Hills Field,
paper SPE 27896, 1994a.
Wright, C.A., Conant, R.A., Stewart, D.W., and Byerly,
P.M.: Re-orientation of Propped Refracture
Treatments, paper SPE 28078, 1994b.

224
Dr. D.V. Satyanarayana ("Satya") Gupta is product line research leader for fracturing technology at BJ
Services Company, working out of the Corporate Technology Center in Tomball, Texas. He has over 31 years
of oil field chemical product development and applications experience. Previously, Gupta was laboratory
manager for Fracmaster Ltd. and manager of chemical technology and chief chemical engineer for the
Western Co. He also worked for Pennzoil Technology and Gulf South Research. In his present position, he is
responsible for technology development and applications in the area of fracturing fluids, breakers, additives
and proppants. His main personal research interests are green chemical technologies and unconventional
fracturing fluids. He has chaired over 10 symposia on green corrosion inhibitors and has presented talks on
unconventional fracturing fluids all over the world. He is a member of SPE, NACE, ACS, AIChE and the
Petroleum Society of Canada. He is on the SPE editorial board and was on the editorial board of JCPT from
1995 to 2002. He has published over 40 papers and is an inventor on over 70 international and US patents.
He has a DSc degree in chemical engineering from Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.

Dr. Peter P. Valk is a professor of Petroleum Engineering and holder of the L.F. Peterson Professorship
at Texas A&M University. A native Hungarian, Valk holds BS and MS equivalent degrees in chemical
engineering and technical mathematics from Veszprm University, Hungary. He received his PhD
("Candidate of Sciences") in chemical engineering from the Institute of Catalysis, Novosibirsk, Russia, in
1981. Before joining Texas A&M in 1993, he was an adjunct professor at the Mining University in Leoben,
Austria; worked for the Hungarian Oil Company (MOL); and was a faculty member at Etvs University,
Budapest, Hungary. A Steering Committee member of the 1999 and 2006 Forum Series and previous
member of the Editorial Board of SPE Journal, Valk is an active participant in the SPE. At Texas A&M,
he teaches advanced hydraulic fracturing, well completion and stimulation, petroleum numerical methods
and general engineering courses. His research interests include design and evaluation of hydraulic fracture
stimulation treatments, rheology of fracturing fluids, performance of advanced and stimulated wells and
the underlying numerical methods. He published several dozen research papers in well-known journals.
Chapter 7
Fracturing Fluids and
Formation Damage
D.V. Satyanarayana Gupta, BJ Services and
Peter Valk, Texas A&M University
7-1 Introduction
In 1949, J.B. Clark published a description
of the Hydrafrac process for increasing well
productivity. Included in the requirements of this
innovative process was a listing of the necessary fluid
properties, which were:
(1) sufficient viscosity to create a fracture and
transport the proppant,
(2) compatibility of the fluid with the formation to
minimize formation damage, and
(3) a reduction in fluid viscosity after the proppant is
placed to maximize fracture conductivity.
Other than a recognition that viscosity has a minor
influence on fracture geometry, the basic requirements of
hydraulic fracturing fluids have not changed in the past
60 years. However, many advances in the chemistry and
composition of these fluids have been made to achieve
predictable and reliable performance under increasingly
challenging conditions. Ultimately, the chemical
composition of the hydraulic fracturing fluid dictates
the fluid properties and performance. This chapter
will discuss the common components of hydraulic
fracturing fluids and the interrelationship between
fluid chemistry and fluid performance. In particular,
fracturing fluid formulations suitable for fracturing
natural gas wells will be emphasized.
Due to concerns about formation compatibility
with water, the earliest fracturing fluids were
hydrocarbon-based and utilized napalm to obtain the
required viscosity (Clark, 1949, and Hendrickson et al.,
1956). Napalm comprises a hydrocarbon liquid such
as gasoline or kerosene viscosified with an aluminum
salt of naphthenic and palmitic acid. The flammable
hydrocarbons were subsequently replaced with other
more viscous refined oils and later with gelled crude
oil. Common to early oil-based fracturing fluids was
sensitivity to variations in the components of the base
oil, which affected viscosity development. In general,
the early oil-based fracturing treatments were limited
in size due to the cost of the fluid.
Oil-based fracturing fluids were the mainstay
of the industry until the 1960s, when economic
and safety considerations moved the industry
toward water-based systems.
The development of natural gas as a resource also
necessitated the evaluation of alternative fluids. By 1962,
the use of water-based fracturing fluids surpassed oil-based
fracturing fluids (Hassebroek and Waters, 1964). Initial
concerns of formation compatibility with water-based
fluids (i.e., clay swelling and dispersion) were overcome
by the addition of salts such as potassium chloride,
calcium chloride or ammonium chloride. A second, more
subtle reason that perhaps was not well-understood at the
time was that the main rationale for using hydrocarbon-
base fracturing fluids in water sensitive formations was
not so necessary. Fracture face (leakoff) damage has little
impact in low- to medium-permeability reservoirs.
To obtain the desired viscosity to transport
the proppant, a variety of water-soluble polymers
were developed based on either polysaccharides
(starch, cellulose and guar) or synthetic polymers
(polyacrylamide). Over time, the guar-based
polymers became the dominant products to
viscosify water-based fracturing fluids based on
availability, cost and performance.
Water-based fluids viscosified with guar or guar-
derivatives provided acceptable performance within
a limited temperature range. However, as hydraulic
fracturing was applied in reservoirs with higher
temperatures, thermal thinning of the linear polymer
solutions resulted in increased screen-out frequency. Early
efforts to expand the temperature limit of the linear gels
focused on using ultra-high concentrations of polymer
greater than 100 pounds per 1000 gallons (Alderman,
1970). However, the ultra-high concentration of polymer
caused excessive friction pressure and conductivity
damage, due to the high concentration of polymer
fragments left within the proppant pack. To improve
fluid performance at lower polymer loading, crosslinkers
were developed to increase fluid viscosity and increase
the temperature limit. Delaying the action of crosslinkers
227
Modern Fracturing
improved the friction pressures, and lowering the polymer
load also improved proppant pack permeability. A variety
of compounds were found to effectively crosslink guar-
based polymers under limited conditions of pH and
temperature. Refinement of crosslinker compounds has
resulted in the current family of products that can be
used over a wide pH range as well as extreme temperature
conditions. Better-quality polymers also helped reduce
the polymer loading further.
In addition to single-phase oil-based or water-
based fluids, foams and emulsions have been used
in hydraulic fracturing treatments. The most widely
used foams are composed of common fracturing
fluids containing either carbon dioxide or nitrogen
and a foaming agent (surfactant) (see Section 7-4.4).
Foaming a fracturing fluid improves the rheological
properties of the fluid and provides increased energy
to enhance cleanup and flowback of the fracturing
fluid after the treatment. This has been particularly
useful in under-pressured gas reservoirs.
With the development of more stable fluids, the
impact of gelling agent residue on proppant-pack
permeability has become a greater concern. To promote
controlled degradation of viscosified fluids, breakers
have been developed that can be added to the fracturing
fluid prior to pumping into the well. In recent years, the
development of delayed-release breakers and polymer-
specific enzyme breakers has allowed greater application
of breakers (see Section 7-5.1.6). In addition to new
breakers, the concern with polymer damage to proppant
pack permeability has led to the development of new
viscosifying agents, such as viscoelastic surfactants.
Viscoelastic fluids, because of their elastic properties,
can transport proppant with lower viscosity. In tight
gas applications, fluid leak-off was not a major concern,
which made these viscoelastic fluids very cost-effective.
The relatively low-molecular-weight surfactant molecules
form micelles in water that interact, increasing fluid
viscosity. The viscosity development can be reversed by
exposure to certain salts or hydrocarbons (see Section
7-4.5.1). The stimulation of low-permeability natural
gas wells, where proppant transport is not of primary
importance, can be served properly by low-viscosity, low-
cost fracturing fluids. Very large volumes of these fluids
with small proppant slurry concentrations injected at
high rates can create thin, long fractures.
228
Specialty fluids that include methanol in the
water, 100% methanol, and liquid CO2-based
fluids were all developed for specialty applications,
particularly to stimulate gas wells in formations with
severe water-sensitivity issues (See Sections 7-4.5.3,
7-4.5.4, 7-4.5.5, 7-4.5.6 and 7-4.5.7).
From a simple beginning of pumping small,
batch-mixed sand slurries, hydraulic fracturing has
evolved into a science of creating complex fluids with
customized properties for each well. This chapter
will discuss the current products used to create
fracturing fluids that provide controlled, predictable
viscosity development and desired conductivity for
effective reservoir stimulation.
7-2 Fracturing Fluid Function
The main functions of a fracturing fluid are to create
and extend the fracture, transport proppant through
the mixing and pumping equipment and into the
fracture, and place the proppant at the desired location
in the fracture. Failure to adequately perform any one
of these functions may compromise the stimulation
benefit of the treatment. This section examines the
role of the fracturing fluid in creating the fracture
and transporting the proppant. Typical methods of
evaluating fluids to confirm that they meet these
requirements are also detailed.
7-2.1 Fracture Initiation
To create and extend a fracture, fracturing fluids
transmit hydraulic energy from the surface
pumping equipment to the target reservoir. A low-
viscosity fluid such as a brine or oil can be used
to create a fracture (see Section 4-1). However, in
a formation with natural fractures or reasonable
permeability, most of the fluid may leak off into the
formation, thus giving up the ability of the fluid to
effectively transmit this energy to the formation.
These fluids may also have high frictional pressure
losses, a factor that contributes to the efficiency of
the fluid. Adding friction reducers can minimize
the frictional losses, and increasing viscosity
increases the efficiency of the fluid in transmitting
energy to the fracture.

In tight gas applications, it is also necessary to
be able to create a very long fracture. See Section 4-
7.1 for the appropriate design for low-permeability
reservoirs. Other than controlling leak-off into natural
fractures that may be present, high viscosity is generally
considered unimportant to create these long, thin
fractures. However, there may be other reasons for
relying on viscosity to create and extend a single fracture
(Aud et al., 1994). Cleary et al. (1993) discussed
the types of near-wellbore tortuosity that may exist
and the mechanisms that may control the initiation
characteristics of fractures. Near-wellbore tortuosity
can be generally attributed to two mechanisms or a
combination of the two: Multiple fractures competing
for opening space in the same region; and complexity
of the fracture pathway leading from the wellbore to
the far-field fracture region (see Section 4-2.1.4).
7-2.2 Proppant Transport
An equally important function of fracturing fluids is
the transport of proppant into the fracture. Various
mechanisms can be responsible for the transport of
the proppant: i) when the settling velocity of the
proppant is negligible, the slurry behaves as a perfect
suspension, and the solid moves effectively with the
slurry fluid velocity; ii) when the settling velocity of the
proppant is significant, a proppant bank is created, and
its top is continuously sheared off by the high-velocity
slurry above the bank, so the solid moves towards the
fracture tip with a slower mean velocity (Novotny,
1977). The transition between the two mechanisms
depends mainly on two factors: the apparent viscosity
of the fluid (at the settling conditions) and the density
difference between the proppant material and the
fluid (Aboud and Melo, 2007).
In low-viscosity fluids, proppant is transported by
stationary bed saltation flow, which is characterized
by the deposition of a bed of proppant followed by
saltation flow of the proppant slurry above the proppant
bed. Laboratory evaluations indicate that building
a proppant bank occurs in three consecutive phases.
During the first phase, the bank builds up gradually
as a function of time until an equilibrium height is
reached near the wellbore. The bank stops growing
at this point as a result of the erosion caused by the
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
increased fluid drag forces on the proppant particles.
During the second phase, the bank grows only in
height until it reaches equilibrium height over its full
length. Finally, in the third phase, the bank grows only
in length, and the injected proppant saltates over the
full length of the bank toward the banks front, where it
settles, increasing the length of the bank in the direction
of flow. The analytical relations derived for each of
these phases in bank build-up has been confirmed by
experiments in a transparent model (Schols and Visser,
1974; and Blot and Medlin, 1985).
Water fracs (using slickwater or water with friction
reducers instead of gel to transport proppant) have
been a successful fracturing technique in some tight
gas reservoirs. Proppant placement is an essential factor
that determines the effectiveness of such hydraulic
fracturing treatments. Liu and Sharma (2005)
investigated the impact of fracture width and fluid
rheology on proppant transport, including particle
settling and horizontal transport. Their results show
that the settling velocity drops significantly as fracture
width approaches proppant diameter. They presented
data to show that proppant usually flows at a lower
horizontal velocity than the fluid, particularly in
narrow fractures. The proppant is either retarded or
accelerated depending on the ratio of the proppant size
to the fracture width. It has been found that for a single
particle, when this ratio is small, the proppant travels
faster than the average fluid velocity at that location
because the proppant tends to be confined to the center
of the flow channel where the fluid velocity is higher.
As the proppant size increases, the effect of the fracture
walls becomes more important, and the walls retard the
proppant. The retardation of particle relative to fluid is
greater for larger particles and greater proximity to the
fracture walls due to the hydrodynamic stress exerted
on the sphere by the walls in the narrow gap.
With viscous fracturing fluids, proppant transport
is a much more complex phenomenon. The industry has
considered viscosity a major requirement for proppant
transport and has used rheometers to calculate power
law parameters and require a minimum viscosity at
40, 80, 100 or 170 sec1 shear rate, depending on
previous experience, as a requirement for proppant
transport. Several industry tests have concluded, based
on laboratory proppant transport testing, that borate
229
Modern Fracturing
crosslinked fluids were perfect proppant transport
fluids (Harris, 1988). Several initial proppant transport
tests were done with single particles. It was disclosed
that the static single-particle tests might not reflect
real-life multiple-particle transport under dynamic
conditions. The proppant transport capability of a
crosslinked fracturing fluid is considered to occur due
to entanglements formed in a non-crosslinked polymer
or to crosslink bonds created in a crosslinked gel (Harris
and Heath, 1998). These bonds provide a strong network
structure to the fluid and significantly improve on the
base polymers ability to keep proppant in suspension.
Thus, the network structure formed in a fluid should
be correlated with its particle suspension behavior. The
discrepancy in describing particle suspension with fluid
viscosity either in static or dynamic conditions shows
that the viscosity does not correctly depict the network
structure formed in fracturing fluids.
Borate crosslinked guar exhibits, besides non-
Newtonian behavior, viscoelastic characteristics with
both elastic and viscous components (Constien,
1989). Viscoelasticity, also known as anelasticity,
describes materials that exhibit both viscous and
elastic characteristics when undergoing deformation.
Viscous materials resist shear flow and strain linearly
with time when a stress is applied. Elastic materials
strain instantaneously when stretched and just as
quickly return to their original state when the stress
is removed. Viscoelastic materials have elements of
both of these properties and, as such, exhibit time-
dependent strain. The elastic properties are considered
to better describe the network structure formed in
borate crosslinked fluids and provide an alternative
technique to better describe the suspension properties
of the fracturing fluid (Kramer et al. 1987; and
Knoll and Prudhomme, 1987).
Acharya (1986, 1988) observed that most fracturing
fluids are not just non-Newtonian power law fluids (see
Section 4-4.2.2) but are really viscoelastic in nature
and theorized that the elastic nature of the fluid may
be more important. However, because most fracturing
design models consider fracturing fluids as power law
fluids, the industry has not truly considered the elastic
effects of the fluids. Very few attempts were made to
correlate fluid elasticity with proppant suspension
(Jin and Penny, 1995). Even these authors confined
230
themselves to understanding the settling behavior of
single particles or a single slurry concentration under
mostly static fluid conditions.
Goel and Shah (2001), in a large-scale proppant
evaluation facility, looked into the dynamic settling
behavior of borate crosslinked fluids of various viscosity
and elastic parameters. Based on their testing, they
concluded that crosslinked gels exhibiting satisfactory
proppant transport behavior had dissimilar viscosity
and viscous moduli. All the gels that exhibited good
proppant transport behavior had similar elastic
moduli at low frequencies. Thus, they concluded
that elastic modulus was a better property than
viscosity to correlate the rheological characteristics of
the fluid to proppant transport through a fracture.
The author has made similar observations with
viscoelastic surfactant gel fracturing fluids.
7-3 Fracturing Fluid Rheology
Fluid selection for hydraulic fracturing treatments is
based on a variety of performance criteria that impact
the design, execution and cost of the treatment, as
well as the eventual well productivity. The rheological
properties of the fracturing fluid play a crucial part
because they directly affect the performance of the
fluid with respect to almost all the fluid functions
listed above. Rheological properties can be directly
used to calculate frictional pressure losses in the
wellbore, perforations and fracture. From the
engineering point of view, the frictional pressure losses
can be described using steady-state approximations,
and so the rheological characterization of common
fracturing fluids is performed with a steady-shear
viscometer (see Section 4-4.1.2).
The ultimate goal of a laboratory measurement
series is to provide the steady-state flow behavior
in the form of a shear stress versus shear-rate curve,
or rather to represent the behavior by providing
the parameters of a simple rheological model
representing the same information.
In general, the steady-state rheological model is in
the form:
= f ( ) , (71)
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

where is the shear rate measured in s-1, and
is the shear stress measured in Pa (or lbf/ft2). The
shear rate describes the intensity of the flow that
is, the change of velocity with location. The shear
stress is associated with internal frictional forces
emerging during the flow, and it is the ultimate
cause of frictional pressure loss. If we compare two
fluids in the same flow geometry and at the same
flow rate, the shear rate distribution is essentially the
same, but the shear stress at the perimeter will be
larger for the thicker fluid. Dividing both sides of
Eq. 7-1 by , we obtain:
f ( )
= = a , (72)
where a is the apparent viscosity. Many fluids
manifest a simple linear relationship between
and . Such fluids are called Newtonian and are
described by the simplest rheological constitutive
equation with constant viscosity:
= . (4-92)
As previously discussed, the various mechanisms
creating an internal structure increase the flow
resistance, but at larger shear rates more and
more of this extra resistance is lost. This is why
fracturing fluids are typically shear-thinning. One
of the simplest models describing this behavior
is called the Power Law model:
n
= K ( ) (73)
where n is the flow behavior index (dimensionless)
and K the consistency index. There is a difference
between Eq. 7-3 which is the generalized power
(The field unit for the consistency index is lbfsn /
ft2. To convert the consistency index into SI, where
the unit for viscosity is measured in Pas 1000
times larger than the traditional cp the number
should be multiplied by 47.88. For instance, if the
K =0.1 lbfsn /ft2, its SI value will be K = 4.788 Pasn,
whatever the actual value of n is.)
Another model called Yield-Power Law or Herschel-
Buckley model, reads as:
n
= y + K ( ) (75)
a version of which was presented already in Section 4-
4.2.2 as Eq. 4-96. This attempts to describe the existence
of a minimum stress for flow and contains an additional
parameter, the yield stress, y, in psi. The Yield-Power
Law is quite general. It reduces to the Power Law model
(y = 0) or to the Bingham plastic model and with
n = 1 and y > 0, where it is customary to use plastic
viscosity, p, instead of K to the Newtonian model
(n = 1 and y = 0). Unfortunately, the Herschel-Buckley
model makes the solution of the flow equations difficult;
moreover, actual fracturing fluids seem to follow another
threeparameter rheological model named after Ellis
(Guillot and Dunand, 1985):
2
(0 )
=0 n
, (76)
K ( ) + 0
where 0 is the viscosity at zero shear rate. However,
the actual flow behavior is even more complex and
the description can be improved by increasing the
number of parameters.
100
60F
80F
100F
125F
150F
Viscosity, Pas

law and others that use primed values of K and 10-1

n such as Eq. 4-95 in Section 4-4.2.2. Primed Newtonian
Region
constants assume a specific geometry, and they are
different for pipes or fractures. Power Law
Region
For shear-thinning fluids, the flow behavior
10-2
index is between zero and one. At n =1 the model 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Shear Rate, s
-1
becomes Newtonian. Clearly, for a power law fluid
the apparent viscosity is: Fig. 7-1 Apparent viscosity as a function of shear rate
for a water-based (40 lb/Mgal) HPG polymer solution.
Solid lines correspond to the best fit of Eq. 7-6 (after
n1
a = K ( ) . (74) Guillot and Dunand, 1985)

231
Modern Fracturing
For most engineering calculations, the power
law region is of primary importance, and it is not
surprising that the simplicity and flexibility of the
Power Law model has become the standard way of
characterizing fracturing fluids. It is common to
provide the parameter pair (n and K) as a function
of temperature and time (elapsed from the first
encounter of shear). Commercial fracture design
software packages provide this information from
their built-in fluid databases. In fracture design,
one needs to calculate routinely pressure loss in the
fracture, proppant settling velocity in the fracture,
and pressure loss in the pumping path, and so a
knowledge of n and K is essential.
7-3.1 Pressure Loss Gradient in the Fracture
The flow geometry in the fracture is often idealized
as parallel plate geometry. In such a geometry it is
advantageous to use the average flow velocity (flow
rate divided by cross-sectional area, vavg = q/Ac), to
describe the flow intensity and represent the pressure
loss gradient, p/L, as an expression containing the
rheological parameters and the channel width, w, in
addition to vavg. In almost all calculations, laminar flow
regime is assumed in the fracture.
For less rigorous calculations, one can use an
approximate formula for wall shear rate:
6vavg
w = , (77)
w assumption regarding laminar flow.
Table 7-1. Pressure Loss Gradient for Laminar Flow Between Parallel Plates
Newtonian
p 12vavg
Pressure Drop = = 2n+1
L w2
Equivalent
e =
Newtonian
Viscosity
Fanning
Friction factor
N Re = 2wvavg / e
Equivalent
Reynolds Number N Re = 2wvavg / e
Note: The Fanning friction factor for pipe flow is 16/NRe for laminar flow, as given in Section 4-4.4.2, Eq. 4-102.
232
then substitute it in Eq. 7-4 and use the Hagen-
Poissuelle solution for Newtonian fluid (provided in
the second column of Table 7-1).
More rigorous calculations require the exact
solution of the flow equation for the Power Law case.
A closed-form solution for the pressure loss gradient is
given in the third column of Table 7-1. Also provided
in the table is the equivalent Newtonian viscosity, e,
defined as the viscosity one would use in the Newtonian
Hagen-Poissuelle law to obtain the correct pressure
loss gradient. Notice that the apparent viscosity from
Eq. 7-7 and the more rigorous equivalent Newtonian
viscosity do not coincide (Savins, 1958).
In engineering calculations it is often more
straightforward to compute the pressure loss calculation
using the friction factor and Reynolds number. In terms
of friction factor, the pressure loss is given by:
p = f vavg
2
/ w. (78)
L
A version of Eq. 7-8 was given as Eq. 4-101, Section
4-4.4.2 in field units.
For laminar flow, the relation between Reynolds
number and friction factor is also included in
the table. For a first glance, this is only formally
different from the direct calculation discussed above,
and even it has the drawback of including another
quantity, the density. The use of the Reynolds
number, however, has the definite advantage to
provide an additional way to check the validity of the
Power Law
n
p 1 + 2n
n
K w( n+1) vavg
L n
n
2n1 1 + 2n n 1
e = K w1n vavg
3 n
f = 24 / N Re
=2wvavg / e
N Re
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

In some fracture models, the cross section is a) Low gel loading

approximated by an ellipse with large aspect ratio.

Then the geometry is characterized by the width
at the center, w0, and the corresponding entries in
Table 7-1 take a slightly modified form. For instance,
the equivalent Newtonian viscosity will be given by
(Valk and Economides, 1985): 600
500
Na, 400
n
1 + ( 1) n
n 1 400
= 2
cp
Kw01n vavg
n 1
. (79) 200

e
n
0 300
H, 1/s
50 200

Example 7-1 Viscosity and Pressure Loss Gradient in 100

time, min
100
the Fracture

(Note: The rheological equations in Chapter 7 and Table b) High gel loading

7-1 are given in consistent SI units, as is done in the vast

majority of the fluid flow and rheology literature. To use
them with field units, it is recommended that field units
be converted to SI units first, then used in the equations
and then the results translated back into field units. For
example, velocity in ft/s becomes m/s by multiplying it 600
10
by 0.305; calculated viscosity will be in Pa.s, which can Na, 400
cp 8
be converted to cp by multiplying by 1000, etc.) 200
A typical Borate crosslinked hydroxypropyl- 0 6
w, mm
guar (HPG) gel is considered at a relatively high 50 4
temperature. Table 7-2 shows the measured (n and
time, min 100
K) pairs at a low and a high gel loading, as a function 2

of the shearing time. Figure 7-2 Apparent viscosity as a function of shear rate
and shearing time
Table 7-2, Power Law parameters for a typical
crosslinked HPG at 105 oC In the figure we use a cut at 200 cp, and the
t, min n K n K lower gel loading goes below that value for larger
shearing times. Such visualization can be made even
loading: 0.42 % (35
loading: 0.60 % (50 lb/Mgal) more practical if we use fracture width and calculate
lb/Mgal)
apparent viscosity from Eq. 7-6.
0 0.540 3.92 0.495 6.40
To this end, the injection rate and the fracture
30 0.564 3.26 0.508 5.83 height are necessary. For an injection rate of 20 bpm
60 0.589 2.62 0.520 5.09 (0.053m3/s) and fracture height of 50 ft (15.2 m),
the average velocity will be only a function of the
90 0.607 2.09 0.527 4.49
fracture width (Fig. 7-3).
120 0.625 1.62 0.532 3.77 The apparent viscosities shown in Fig. 7-3 provide
satisfactory information about the conditions that can
In general we know the ranges of shearing provide at least 200 cp viscosity. For instance, for the
time and shear rates the fluid will experience in the lower gel loading at shearing time, t = 60 min and fracture
fracture, and hence we can visualize the apparent width, w = 0.3 in., the calculated apparent viscosity (from
viscosity as in Fig. 7-2. Eqs. 7-4 and 7-7) is a=259 cp.

233
Modern Fracturing

a) Low gel loading a) Low gel loading

600 600
10 10
Na, 400 Na, 400
cp 8 cp 8
200 200
0 6 0 6
w, mm w, mm
50 4 50 4

time, min 100 time, min 100

2 2

b) High gel loading b) High gel loading

600 600
10 10
Na, 400 Na, 400
cp 8 cp 8
200 200
0 6 0 6
w, mm w, mm
50 4 50 4

time, min 100 time, min 100

2 2

Figure 7-3 Apparent viscosity as a function fracture width Fig. 7-4 Apparent viscosity as a function fracture
and shearing time for a fixed injection rate width and shearing time (with doubled injection rate,
40 bpm (0.106 m3/s)

The rigorous calculation for these conditions using
Table 7-1 results in e = 293 cp. The corresponding
pressure loss gradient is 0.962 psi/ft (21.7 kPa/m).
If this pressure loss is calculated through the friction
factor/Reynolds number approach, then NRe = 8.9,
clearly indicating laminar flow.
For comparison, the higher gel loading would
result in a pressure loss gradient of 1.29 psi/ft
(29.1 kPa/m) and the corresponding Reynolds
number is NRe = 6.6.
The final part of this example is the effect of the
injection rate. For instance, if the fluid injection rate
is doubled, the lower gel loading is hardly sufficient
even at low shearing times, i.e., the viscosity is less
than 200 cp (see Fig. 7-4).
7-3.2 Rheology in the Presence of Proppant
Material and its Relation to Settling
When proppant is added to the fracturing fluid, the
rheological behavior of the slurry will change and the
calculated pressure loss gradient will increase. However,
this effect can be often neglected or taken into account
using relatively simple assumptions and correlations.
More complex is the phenomenon of proppant
settling. The starting point for settling calculations is
the Power Law version of Stokes law for the terminal
velocity of a settling sphere:
1/ n
( ) gD n+1
vt =
p f prop
n +1 , (710)
23 K

234

where, in addition to the acceleration due to gravity
and the density difference between proppant and
fluid, the particle diameter plays an important role.
For actual proppant transport several additional
questions should be raised. For instance, can the usual
n and K parameters be used in the shear rate region
representative for the falling particle? Roodhart et
al., (1985) found that a better description of the
settling process would need the Ellis model (Eq. 7-6).
Another issue is that in the settling process, unless the
particle is exactly in the center of the flow channel
the flowrate-induced shear is superimposed on the
one imposed by particle settling. In addition, several
investigators studied the effect of fracture walls, the
interaction of individual proppant particles, etc.
The interested reader is referred to recent reviews by
Brannon et al., (2005) and Clark (2006).
7-3.3 Impact of Fluid Rheology on Fluid Loss
Rheology is one of the main factors responsible for
controlling the loss of fluid into the formation during
the fracturing treatment. However, the apparent
viscosity having the direct influence is not of the
fracturing fluid but of the filtrate penetrating the rock
matrix (Williams, 1970).
7-3.4 Calculation of Pressure Loss in the Wellbore
Using Rheological Parameters and the Virk
Maximum Drag Reduction Asymptote
The Power Law parameters are also used to carry out
engineering calculations for pressure loss gradient
in the wellbore. Because the flow regime in the
wellbore is usually non-laminar, one has to use the
concept of Reynolds number and friction factor
(or should revert to direct empirical correlations
interpolating actual measurements). In general, the
non-laminar flow of thick fracturing fluids can be
considered similar to turbulent flow of Newtonian
fluids with some degree of suppression of the
turbulence. The basic engineering result is due to
Virk (1975), who determined the maximum drag
reduction asymptote (MDRA):
f -1/2 = 19.0 log10 ( N 'Re, w f 1/ 2 ) 32.4. (711)
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
Here, f is the (Fanning) friction factor and should be
used in conjunction with:
p 4
= f ( 12 vavg
2
), (7-12)
L D
where D is the diameter of the pipe (or equivalent
diameter of the flow path) and vavg is the average velocity.
In fact, the base gel itself, and any additional fluid loss
reducing agents are used to approach the MDRA and
thereby reduce the friction factor as much as possible.
In the original work by Virk, the Reynolds number
was relatively easy to calculate because the small quantity
of the added polymer did not change the viscosity of
the base fluid. For high polymer loads, calculating
the Reynolds number is far from trivial. A reasonable
suggestion is to use the wall Reynolds number:
1 + 3n Dvavg
N Re, w = , (713)
4n
e
where
n
e = 2n3 1 + 3n KD1n vavg
n1
. (714)
n
Example 7-2 Calculation of Pressure Loss Gradient
in Tubing
What is the frictional pressure loss gradient, if
40 bpm (0.106 m3/s) of fluid with specific gravity
1, power law parameters n = 0.5 and K= 0.044 lbf.
sn /ft2 (2.1 Pa.sn ) is pumped through a 2.76-in.
(7 cm) inner diameter tubing?
First the intermediate results are calculated: vavg
= 90.35 ft/s (27.54 m/s), = 1000 kg/m3, e = 41.8
cp (0.0418 Pa.s) and NRe,w = 57,600. Then Eq. 7-11
yields the friction factor f = 0.00111. Substituting
into Eq. 712, the pressure loss gradient is obtained
as 24.1 kPa/m (1.06 psi/ft).
For comparison, if the injection rate is reduced
by a factor of two, the pressure loss gradient decreases
to 9.86kPa/m (0.436psi/ft).
7-3.5 Advanced Rheology
Apparent viscosity dependence on shear rate is only
one of the many phenomena related to flow of
fracturing fluids. Viscoelasticity is present to a certain
235
Modern Fracturing

degree in all major fracturing fluid families (not only in

the commercially named VES fluids) and is usually f = 16 , (7-16)
N Re,VE
inferred through dynamic oscillatory measurements
(Prudhomme, 1988). Such measurements are and for non-laminar flow it can be obtained from Eq.
quite reproducible, and the results can be used to 7-11, where again,
characterize the fluid and even to obtain the steady-
1 + 3n
state viscosity dependence on shear. N Re, w = N , (717)
4n Re,VE

7-3.6 Foam Rheology to convert into wall Reynolds number.

Foams are used extensively for various reasons, such as
minimizing water-induced damage in water sensitive
formations, their positive effect on clean-up, favorable
energy transfer in the wellbore, good proppant carrying
capability, etc. Their flow behavior is strongly affected
by foam quality, defined as the in situ ratio of dispersed
gas volume to fluid volume. The gas is N2, CO2 or a
mixture of the two. Typical foam quality in the fracture
is between 0.65 and 0.85. The rheological Eqs.7-3 to 7-
5 are still applicable, but the two or three parameters (n,
K and y) involved are generally considered a function of
quality. Statistical methods are used to provide empirical
correlation for the quality dependence. Influential
works of this type are for instance Reidenbach et al.
(1986) and Sudhakar and Shah (2004).
A departure from the foam quality based
correlations was suggested by Valk et al. (1992),
Winkler et al. (1994), and Enzendorfer et al., (1995).
Their volume-equalized power law model automatically
accounts for quality changes and requires many fewer
parameters : the power law exponent, n, and the
volume-equalized consistency index, KVE (compared
with other models that require quality, etc.) The
advantage of the volume-equalized approach is that in
steady-state isotherm pipe flow, the Reynolds number
remains constant along the pipe and can be calculated
using only liquid properties:
2 3n n
D l vl 2n
N Re,VE = n
,
1 + 3n
KVE (7-15)
n
where l is the liquid density and vl is the superficial
velocity of liquid, defined as liquid flow rate
divided by total cross-sectional area. The resulting
friction factor is also constant along the pipe; for
laminar flow it is given by:
Example 7-3 Calculation of Pressure Loss Gradient
for Foam Flow in Tubing
For simplicity, the calculations of Example
7-2 are used, assuming that the injected fluid
is 70% quality N2 foam.
As previously, volumetric flow rate q = 40
bpm (0.106m3/s), D=2.76in. (7 cm) and
base liquid density is .
For illustration purposes, the volume-equalized
flow behavior index n=0.43 and the consistency
index is KVE = 0.044 lbf.sn /ft2 (2.1 Pa.sn ). In general,
the volume-equalized n and KVE parameters are not
very different from those of the base fluid.
Because somewhere in the pipe the quality is 70%,
at that point the superficial liquid velocity is 30% of
the velocity calculated in Example 7-2; therefore vl =
0.3 (27.54) = 8.26 m/s.
Now the volume-equalized Reynolds number can
be obtained from Eq. 7-15:
23n D nl vl 2n
N Re,VE = n
= 12.1103.
1 + 3n
KVE
n
NRe,VE is then converted into the wall Reynolds
number using Eq. 7-17:
1 + 3n
N Re, w = N = 16.1103.
4n Re,VE
Thus, the flow is laminar and the corresponding
friction factor from Eq. 7-11 is f = 0.00206.
To use Eq. 7-12, the average density of the foam
and the overall foam velocity, v, are needed. For instance,
assuming 3000 psi (20 MPa) and normal temperature,
the gas density will be g = 3.6 lb/ft3 (225 kg/m3) and the
foam density is calculated by:

236
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

102
1 3 3
= = 4.7lb/ft (293 kg/m ).
1 1 175 Nm
0.3 + 0.7 Smaller
f g Particles

N, Pa.s
100
750 Nm
This also means that the overall velocity is
1000/293 folds larger than the superficial liquid
10-2
velocity and hence: 10-1 100 102 104 106
H, s-1

1000
v= vl = 28.2 m/s. Figure 7-5 Effect of particle size on viscosity (from Hill
293 and Carrington, 2006)

Substitution of the friction factor, foam density and The fluid is shear thinning, i.e., viscosity decreases
foam velocity into Eq. 7-12 yields: at higher shear rates. The viscosity tends to be higher
p 4 with smaller particles. The changes in particle size
= f 1
foam vavg , foam are associated with an increase in particle number if
L D 2

all other system variables are kept constant. Smaller

The obtained friction factor can be used for
subsequent calculations at various locations
along the pipe, but the foam density and total
foam velocity should be recalculated because of
the varying pressure.
7-3.7 Effect of Proppant on Rheology
Proppant size, proppant size distribution, and the
volume fraction of proppants present influence
the rheology of slurry. Zeta potential, a measure
particles, therefore, result in an increase in the number
of particle-to-particle interactions and an increase in
resistance to flow. As shear rate increases, this effect
becomes less marked. This suggests that any particle-to-
particle interactions are relatively weak and are broken
down at high shear rates. Figure 7-6 shows a Newtonian
system in the absence of the particles. Adding coarse
particles (large-size proppant) results in an increase in
viscosity, but the system remains Newtonian.
102
28.6% fine talc
(D50 = 5 Nm)

of the charge on particles in the system, also has

N, Pa.s

a marked effect; however, for proppants it is not 100 28.6% coarse talc
(D50 = 19 Nm)
an issue. The relationships between rheology,
especially viscosity, and particle size parameters
0% talc
are explained below.
For slurries, the volume fraction and the maximum 10-2
10-2 100 102
volume fraction can also influence viscosity. Maximum H, s -1

volume fraction (the highest volume of particles that can
be added to a fluid) can be thought of as the amount of
free space the particles have in which to move around. Its
impact on viscosity is discussed below.
1. Particle size. If the total mass of proppant
particles in slurry is kept constant but the particle
size is reduced, then the net effect is an increase in
the number of proppant particles in the system. The
impact on viscosity of such a change, across a range of
shear rates, is shown in Fig. 7-5.
Figure 7-6 The effect of particle size on viscosity for a
Newtonian fluid (from Hill and Carrington, 2006)
Adding finer particles (smaller-size proppant)
results in a further, more significant increase in
viscosity, particularly at low shear rates. Colloidal
repulsion among a relatively large number of particles
gives structure to the fluid, increasing resistance to
flow. As in the previous example, this relatively weak
structure is broken down at high shear rates: The fluid
has become shear-thinning.

237
Modern Fracturing
2. Volume fraction. The effects of volume fraction and
maximum volume fraction on viscosity are described
using the Krieger-Dougherty equation (Hackley and
Ferraris, 2001):
[ ] f s ,max
slurry f
= 1 s . (7-18)
fluid f s ,max
where slurry is the viscosity of the slurry, fluid is the
viscosity of the base fluid, fs is the volume fraction of
proppants in the slurry, fs,max is the maximum volume
fraction of proppants in the slurry and [] is the
intrinsic viscosity of the particles, which is 2.5 for
spherical proppant. Non-spherical particles will have
higher values for []. The value of [] is also affected
by the particle size distribution.
Equation 7-18 indicates that viscosity increases
with increasing volume fraction. As the volume
fraction of solids in the system increases, the particles
become more closely packed, it becomes more
difficult for them to move freely, particle-to-particle
interactions increase, and resistance to flow (viscosity)
increases. As the volume fraction nears the maximum
that the sample can contain, viscosity rises very
steeply. In addition to influencing the absolute value
of viscosity, volume fraction also affects the nature of
the relationship between shear rate and viscosity for
the system, i.e., flow behavior. The parameter fs,max is a
function of particle shape, particle size distribution and
shear rate. Slurries with relatively low volume fraction
tend to behave as Newtonian fluids; i.e., viscosity
is independent of shear rate. As volume fraction is
increased, shear-thinning behavior is observed. This
transition is illustrated in Fig. 7-7.
102
61% Solids
N, Pa.s
100
55% Solids
45% Solids
10-2
10-1 100
H, s
Fig. 7-7 Effect of particle volume fraction on viscosity
(from Hill and Carrington, 2006)
238
In this system, at the lowest volume fraction, the
system is almost Newtonian. As volume fraction increases,
shear-thinning behavior becomes evident. Increasing the
volume fraction results in a higher degree of particle-to-
particle interaction, and the resistance to flow increases.
The forces between particles are, however, broken down
at high shear rates. A further transition in flow behavior
occurs as volume fraction is increased to values above
about 50% of maximum volume fraction. At these solids
loadings, the free movement of particles is significantly
hindered as collisions between particles increase and the
system effectively becomes more congested. As shear rate
is increased, the particles are trying to move more rapidly
and thus the effect becomes more pronounced. Viscosity
therefore increases with shear rate; the system is shear-
thickening at very high shear rates.
3. Particle size distribution. Particle size distribution
influences the way particles pack together. A polydisperse
particle population with broad size distribution will pack
more closely than a monodisperse sample with a narrow
size spread. The effects on viscosity can be explained
with reference to the Crier-Doughty equation (Eq. 7-
18). For a monodisperse sample, the maximum volume
fraction is around 62%. With a polydisperse sample, the
smaller particles can fill the gaps between larger particles
and the maximum volume fraction is greater, more like
74%. Therefore, increasing the particle size distribution
for any given volume fraction of solids will result in
reduced viscosity. This can be viewed as lubrication of the
movement of larger particles by smaller particles. Particle
size distribution can be an especially valuable tool for
manipulating viscosity when the volume fraction of the
system is fixed. Viscosity as a function of fraction of large
or small particles in solution is shown in Fig. 7-8.
Increase All Maximum All
Volume 750 Nm Volume Fraction 175 Nm
Fraction
Viscosity
102 104
0% Increasing amount of 175 Nm 100%
-1
100% Increasing amount of 750 Nm 0%
Figure 7-8 Effect of particle size distribution on viscosity

In this example, a synergistic effect can be
observed when particles of both sizes are present
at a certain concentration. The resulting viscosity
is lower than that achieved using a monodisperse
sample of either sized particles.
Keck et al. (1992), based on field-sized yard tests,
came up with correlations that were valid for linear and
delayed-crosslinked HPG gels for predicting the effect of
proppant on viscosity and friction pressures.
7-3.8 Laboratory Rheology Measurements
In the laboratory, the shear stress and shear rate values
can be obtained with a variety of instruments. These
can be viscometers or rheometers. Most viscometers
operate by rotating a spindle in the sample. Viscosity
is determined by measuring resistance to this
rotational force. Viscometers, in comparison to
rheometers, are usually relatively simple instruments.
Their simplicity of design and operation can
offer advantages for operator ease of use. Spindle
movement in a viscometer is in one direction, which
allows the measurement of viscosity. Rheometers
can apply oscillatory and rapid step changes in stress
and strain, and can therefore determine viscoelastic
properties (providing information on the structural
properties of the sample) as well as flow properties.
Viscometers employ a mechanical bearing that limits
the speed and torque capabilities of the instrument,
whereas rheometers generally use a low-friction air
bearing. The residual friction from the mechanical
bearing can make the measurement of low-viscosity
materials difficult. Some of the latest viscometers use
a variety of measurement geometries, enabling them
to cover broader range of viscosity. Rheometers, while
generally more expensive than viscometers, are more
versatile and have a much wider dynamic range for
control and measurement parameters.
1. Measuring Viscosity: Rheometers function across a
very wide range of shear rates enabling the simulation
of real processes that occur over vastly different time
scales. Shearing occurs whenever fluids flow through
pipes, perforations and fractures. In any of these
configurations, the velocity is zero right at the wall
surface and maximum at the center.
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
2. Dynamic Measurements: Most fracturing fluids
show elastic as well as viscous properties, as explained
before. The measurement of sample viscoelasticity can
provide vital information not given by viscometry
alone. With a rheometer, tiny movements (small
strain oscillations) can be used to measure viscoelastic
properties without destroying the sample structure.
Oscillatory testing generates a mechanical spectrum
for the material, and this provides a unique behavior
fingerprint. Typically, the viscometer can measure in
the range of about 0.1 to 5000 s-1 while a rheometer
extends the measurement range from 10-6 to 105 s-1.
Clark (1979) explained the use of dynamic rheological
evaluations of fracturing fluids in detail.
3. Laboratory Instruments: The first viscometer
commonly used in the industry was a Marsh funnel,
a conical-shaped funnel fitted with a small-bore tube on
the bottom end through which fluid (originally drilling
mud) flows under gravity (Fig. 7-9). A screen over the
top removes large particles that might plug the tube.
Figure 7-9 Marsh funnel
In the test standardized by API for evaluating
water-base and oil-base muds, the funnel viscosity
measurement is the time (in seconds) required for one
quart of mud to flow out of the Marsh funnel into
a graduated mud cup. Funnel viscosity is reported
in seconds (for a quart). Water exits the funnel in
about 26 seconds. This test was one of the earliest
mud measurements for field use. Simple, quick
and foolproof, it still serves as a useful indicator
of change in mud by comparing mud-in and
mud-out sample funnel viscosity.
239
Modern Fracturing
The next simple viscometer used in the industry is
a simple couette viscometer (Fig. 7-10).
Figure 7-10 Fann 35 couette viscometer
Without means of heating it and keeping fluids
from evaporation, it is mainly used as a quality control
tool for base gels. The next-generation instrument
overcame this by having heating chamber with oil
and pressurized test chamber to keep solutions from
evaporating (Fig. 7-11).
Figure 7-11 HTHP viscometers (Fann 50 and Chandler
5500)
240
Gdanski et al., (1991) detailed the use of this
instrument for measuring the rheology of titanate
crosslinked HPG fluids. Even though limited rheology
can be gleaned from measurements from this instrument
at a limited range of shear rates, it cannot evaluate the
effect of shear history of the fluids and the effect of
proppant on the viscosity. Craigie (1983) used a shear
history simulator for pre-conditioning the fluid prior to
testing with Fann 50 instrument. The capillary viscometer
consists of a fluid pump, a series of tubes and an additive
pump for injecting crosslinker. The length of the tubing
and the pump rate can be adjusted to simulate shear
histories in the tubulars during fracturing treatments.
As the fluid exits the tubular simulator, it flows into a
concentric-cylinder viscometer (i.e., Fann 50), where
selected fracture shear history and temperature conditions
are simulated. In this part of the apparatus, the long-term
degradation rates of the crosslinked fracturing fluids are
determined. Figure 7-12 displays a capillary reciprocating
viscometer, where the fluid is reciprocated in a capillary
and the pressure drop is measured and viscosity is
calculated from the pressure drop.
Figure 7-12 Reciprocating capillary viscometer
Kraynik et al. (1984) developed a helical-screw
rheometer (HSR). Lord (1988) and Lord and Shackleford
(1989) described the application of the HSR for
evaluating stimulation fluids. This HSR is a single-screw
extruder composed of a single-flight metering screw with
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

a constant helix and a small, uniform channel depth. This

screw rotates at a constant speed with minimal clearance
inside an outer cylinder. Pressure-drop measurements
across the barrel are made with a closed-discharge valve.
Fluid rheology is determined from the differential
pressure and rotation rate. The HSR can measure
fluids containing particulate because fluid circulation
in the HSR provides a homogeneous sample, which
is an advantage over both conventional rotational and Figure 7-13 Foam flow loop setup

pipe viscometers. Although straightforward shear stress

and shear rate cannot be measured, a semi-empirical
approach extracted power law parameters from the
pressure-drop/rotational speed data.
De Kruijf et al., (1994) described another type of
HSV. This HSV has a helical screw impeller rotating in
a cylindrical glass draught tube mounted coaxially in a
cylindrical vessel. In this apparatus, the screw circulates Figure 7-14 Mixing tank, flow meters and additive pumps
approximately 1300 mL of test fluid around the draught
tube. The HSV measures rotation rate and torque. The
screw and draught tube were modeled as a system of
two coaxial cylinders to allow power-law calculations.
This HSV was reported to effectively measure the
rheological properties of proppant-laden fracturing fluids
because (1) its measuring gap is large in comparison
to the proppant-particle diameter, and (2) the fluid is
continuously circulated so that proppant particles cannot Figure 7-15 Flow tubes of the foam flow loop

settle to the bottom of the rheometer.

Despite these developments, the Fann 50
viscometer and its equivalent rheometers are still
widely used for measuring the rheology of fracturing
fluids. For this reason a method was sought for
measuring rheology when proppant was present in
the sample. Thesing (2000) developed a helical screw
bob that can be used with the Fann 50 to prevent the
settling of proppant in the viscometer cup.
Pipe rheometers or flow loops for measurement
of rheology use the principle of pressure drop across
various diameter pipes to correlate viscosity and power
law parameters. In addition to evaluating conventional
fracturing fluids, these have been useful to evaluate the
rheologies of foams and emulsions in single-pass or
recirculating mode. Figures 7-13 through 7-16 show
the foam flow loop to measure viscosity and foam
textures of foam fracturing fluids. Hutchins and Miller
(2003) described the development of a circulating foam
rheometer for measuring the rheologies of foams. Figure 7-16 View cell for evaluation of foam texture

241
Modern Fracturing
7-4 Types of Fracturing Fluids
As has been described in Sections 7-2 and 7-3, the
fracturing fluid is one of the important components for
a successful hydraulic fracturing treatment. The required
properties and functions of the fracturing fluid, as detailed
previously, can be accomplished by several means. A
variety of conventional and unconventional fluids can be
used for the purpose. These fluids can be water-based,
hydrocarbon- or oil-based, methanol-based or may not
contain any liquids at all.
Why are there so many fluids? How does one select
the right fluid for the right application, for example, gas
wells? This section will answer these questions. To start
with, a variety of different formations with different
base lithologies need to be stimulated. Additional
mineral components will make the compatibility of the
fluids with the formations unique. In addition, there
may be swelling and/or migrating clays, which would
require alternative fluids or additives. The formation
permeability may determine the fluid loss of the fluid
and the resultant efficiency of the fluid to create and
propagate the fracture. The formation could contain
different fluids in situ. Some situations will be dry gas
wells. Some will have condensate with the gas. Some
may have water produced alongside. The salinity of
the water may play a role. All these permutations and
combinations necessitate different fluids.
In a tight gas application, long, thin fractures
are usually required (see Section 4-7-1). In a higher-
permeability formation, the need may be to create a
short, wide fracture, often with frac-pack applications
(see Sections 4-7.3 and 4-7.4). The fluid may
experience different pumping configurations. We may
want to pump the fluid down casing or down tubing
or through the annulus or through coiled tubing. The
shear regime the fluid sees is different in these different
scenarios. These considerations make the selection of
the fluid very critical for optimum stimulation of a
particular well or a formation.
Conventional fracturing fluids include water-based
and polymer-containing fluids; hydrocarbon-based fluids,
energized fluids and foams. Unconventional fracturing
fluids include non-polymer-containing fluids such as
viscoelastic surfactant fluids; methanol-containing fluids
and liquid CO2-based fluids.
242
The most cost-effective solution is to fracture the
formation with the simplest of fluids. Low-viscosity
water or hydrocarbon with the fewest additives would
be the simplest fluids. However, these have very low
proppant transport properties, very little leak-off
control and, if pumped at high rates, will result in
unacceptable friction. Friction can be controlled by
various additives, but if the formation has adverse
saturation effects (see Section 7-6.2) even in tight gas
formations with very little leak off desired stimulation
may not be achieved. Compatibility with clay containing
formations can be controlled by using salts in the
fluids. Depending on pumping conditions, i.e., the
shear regime the fluid would experience, there may be
need for shear-tolerant or shear-recoverable fluids. For
higher-temperature applications, these can be achieved
by the use of organometallic or borate crosslinked
water-based fluids and crosslinked oil-based fluids. If
the gas formations are under-pressured, the fluids can
be energized with N2 or CO2 or foamed with N2 or
CO2 or a combination of the two. The foam fluids also
provide good leak-off control. If compatibility with
water is an issue potentially due to wetting issues, the
use of viscoelastic surfactant fluids can be considered.
They also do not damage the proppant pack and can
also be energized or foamed. If incompatibility is due
to capillary and unloading issues, methanol-containing
fluid can be considered. If the incompatibility is severe,
then crosslinked methanol based fluid or liquid CO2
based fluid may be the answer.
Obviously, these various fluids have different
rheological properties, which need to be considered
before selection can be made. As will be explained later,
polymer loading may not have a bearing on the final
viscosity of the crosslinked fluid (see Section 7-4.1). It
is possible for a higher-loading polymer to yield lower
crosslinked viscosity at temperature than a fluid with
lower loading of polymer.
To pump a fracturing treatment through
coiled tubing, one would use a shear-resistant or a
delayed crosslinking fluid to minimize friction and
provide good crosslinked fluid properties after the
fluid exits the coiled tubing.
To stimulate wells in a coalbed methane formation,
where production is by desorption, the fracture has
to connect as many natural cleats as possible and

produce maximum possible inflow area (see Chapter
11). However, if these natural fractures or cleats were
large, then fluid leak-off and the resultant damage to
the desorbing surface would be an issue.
7-4.1 Water-Based Fluids
The water-based fluids can range from plain water with
a friction reducer to minimize horsepower needed for
pumping to a complex crosslinked polymer fluid with
a variety of additives. Water is relatively inexpensive
and widely available in most areas of the world;
however, the quality of the water sometimes will not
meet the minimum standards required for fracturing
(see Section 9-4.1 for details). Modern fluids can be
pumped in batch-mix or continuous-mix modes (see
Section 9-3 for equipment requirements). Rheological
properties (viscosity, for example) can be adjusted as
desired very easily by adjusting polymer loading and
additive loading even during the job if required either
in stages or continuously.
In under-pressured gas wells, energized fluids are
needed to help fluid recovery. Fluids energized with
CO2 will have low pH because of the solubility of
CO2 and resultant carbonic acid in solution; therefore,
fluids that can be crosslinked and used at low pH
are of interest (see also Section 7-4.3). The polymer
breaks down at low pH due to acid hydrolysis, and
this helps in cleaning up the proppant pack.
In cold weather applications, e.g., Canada, Alaska
and Russia, sometimes it is not possible to heat the
water in winter. Adding methanol can keep the base
fluid from freezing. In certain formations, adding
methanol to the fracturing fluid is necessitated to reduce
adverse capillary effects (see also Section 7-6). However,
un-derivatized guar is not soluble in methanol; it
can tolerate very little methanol even after hydration
(Ely, 1994). Some guar derivatives can be hydrated in
aqueous alcohol solutions, and a special version of HPG
can be hydrated in non-aqueous methanol (see also
Sections 7-4.5.3 and 7-4.5.5).
Guar and guar derivatives also have low
residue, which is an additional benefit in reducing
proppant pack damage. The latest un-derivatized
guar has residue of less than 2%, and the derivatives
have as low as 0.5% residue.
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
7-4.1.1 Low-Viscosity Fluids
The friction-reduced water (slickwater) fracturing
fluid introduced in the late 1950s and 1960s has come
back into vogue, particularly in shale fracturing. It is
possible to create long fractures in shale reservoirs with
a large quantity of water pumped at very high rates
with minimal proppant and create partial proppant
monolayer fractures (see Sections 8-1.3 and 8-1.4).
Without friction reducers, at the high pump rates
employed, friction would be very high.
A partially hydrolyzed acrylamide polymer is
the most common friction-reducing agent used with
water for this purpose. The polyacrylamide polymers
are generally used as oil-external emulsions with
either a built in inverter or an additional inverter that
flips the emulsion and hydrates the polymer, giving
some viscosity and reduction in friction properties.
Because viscosity is not needed for proppant transport
under these turbulent conditions, the fracturing
treatment can be achieved at lower costs than would
be possible to create similar conductive frac lengths
with crosslinked or foamed fluids.
Linear gels are another method of achieving low
viscosity. These use guar or guar derivatives as viscosifying
agents. The guar derivatives include hydroxypropyl
guar (HPG), carboxymethyl guar (CMG) or
carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar (CMHPG).
7-4.1.2 Crosslinked Fluids
Crosslinking is the most cost-effective way of increasing
the viscosity of the fluid. It is an easy method of increasing
the molecular weight of the polymer. Water-based
fluids can be crosslinked at high- or low-pH conditions.
Low-pH crosslinked fluids are particularly suited for
energizing or foaming with CO2. To achieve the same
viscosity at higher reservoir temperatures, one can use
an order of magnitude less polymer by crosslinking than
with linear polymer in aqueous solutions. Historically,
these fluids typically required polymer loading from 40
to 80 pounds per thousand gallons (pptg). However, with
the higher-yielding guars and with better crosslinking
technology, the loadings have dropped to as low as 12
pptg on the low end and as high as 35 pptg on the high
end for most applications.
243
Modern Fracturing

7-4.1.3 Borate Crosslinked Fluids fluids were limited in application to wells below
220 F. The newer high-temperature fluid can be
The most common water-based fluid is borate used to temperatures exceeding 300 F and can be
crosslinked (Fig. 7-17). formulated with high concentrations of KCl for clay
compatibility (Brannon and Ault, 1991; and Wang
CH2OH

et al., 2002). Figure 7-18 shows the new high-yield

CH2OH
guar-based borate fluid that gives similar viscosity at
HO O HO O 200 F at 24 pptg as previous guar-based borate fluid
HO
HO that needed 30 pptg. Figure 7-18 also shows that
O
O
acceptable viscosity for fracturing can be achieved at
HO
HO polymer loading as low as 16 pptg. Conventional guar
CH2
H2C

CH2
O O O O cannot be crosslinked at these low polymer loadings
H
H
O
H
O
H (to understand why, see Section 7-5.1.2).
H H H H H H H H

HO OH O O HO OH
O O 1000

B B 900
30 ppt Polymer A
800 16 ppt Polymer B

Viscosity, cp @ 100 sec-1

O O HO OH O O HO OH 18 ppt Polymer B
700 20 ppt Polymer B
24 ppt Polymer B
H H H H H H H H
600
O H O H O HO H
O O O O 500
CH2 CH2 CH2 400
300
Figure 7-17 Chemical structure of borate crosslinked guar
200
100
Borate fluids are shear-recoverable; i.e., the 0
fluid will shear degrade but will recover its viscosity 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Time, min
when shear is removed. This is possible because
the crosslink mechanism is based on hydrogen Figure 7-18 Viscosity of borate crosslinked fluids with
bonding. In industry testing, it was found that a standard guar and high-yield guar at 200 F
properly designed borate fluid provides nearly perfect
proppant transport because these fluids have very 7-4.1.4 Metallic Ion Crosslinked Fluids
high low- or zero-shear viscosity (Asadi et al., 2002).
Borate crosslink is reversible if the pH drops below Metallic ion (organometallic) crosslinked fluids have
8, and so if there is water production in the well and also been used both at high pH and low pH. Prior
if the produced water has neutral or low pH, borate to 1995, organometallic crosslinkers included the
crosslinked fluids will uncrosslink. The breaker zirconium-based crosslinkers used today (Fig. 7-19)
designed to break the crosslinked gel will break plus aluminum, titanium, chromium and others. Due
the uncrosslinked gel much more efficiently, and to their lack of high-temperature stability, shear stability
the fluid will hence clean up extremely well. Being and environmental unfriendliness, all of them except
high-pH fluids, they are not compatible with CO2 zirconium-based ones have disappeared from the scene.
but can be energized with N2. Prior to the development of carboxylated derivatives
As detailed in the next section, there are of guar (e.g., CMG or CMHPG), the industry used
various ways of delaying the crosslink system with guar and HPG to crosslink with the metal crosslinkers.
borate. Until the development of organoborates CMG or CMHPG proved to be more versatile in
(as opposed to mono-borate salts) and borate ester applications with metallic crosslinked systems and
crosslinkers (where the borate ion is released by the are the common polymers used with them now.
hydrolysis of the borate ester polymer), the borate Originally, metallic crosslinked systems were developed

244
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

for high-temperature applications because mono-
borate (molecules containing one borate ion) fluids
did not function well above 160 F. The zirconium
crosslinked fluids are generally shear-tolerant; however,
if excessive shear is experienced, the gels will shear
degrade and will not shear recover. Typical high-pH
metal crosslinked fluids are either based on CMG
or CMHPG and typically use low polymer loading,
from 15 to 35 pptg. Higher loadings can be used for
temperatures of 350 F and above.
O
Zr
O
Zr
O O
Zr
O
Figure 7-19 Zirconium colloidal structure and possible
crosslink mechanism with guar (after Kramer and
Prudhomme, 1987)
Figure 7-20 shows comparative viscosity of typical high
temperature borate crosslinked with high temperature
zirconium crosslinked fluids.
2000
1800
1600
Viscosity, cp @ 100 sec-1
Low-pH fluids are also usually based on either
CMG or CMHPG. At low pH, guar and HPG degrade
by acid hydrolysis very easily, whereas the carboxylated
polymers are relatively resistant to acid hydrolysis.
The most common crosslinker used is zirconium.
The crosslinkers are typically chelated (reversibly
bonded to a complexing agent) and can be either
water- or alcohol-based. These types of fluids have
been successfully used for temperatures approaching
450 F (Carman, 2007). The carboxylated polymers,
e.g., CMG, typically do not perform very well in the
presence of KCl, and their best performance is limited
to use with KCl substitutes.
O
7-4.1.5 Delayed-Crosslink Systems
Zr
H+
There are a couple of distinct schools of thought
O
on delayed-crosslink fluids. Time or temperature
Zr OH
can delay the crosslink time. The main purpose
of delaying the crosslink time is to minimize the
friction avoid having to pump a highly viscous
O
HOR
fluid because of the resultant high horsepower
requirements. Also, delaying crosslinking through the
high-shear wellbore environment will minimize shear
Zr R=GUAR degradation and loss of fluid viscosity.
With time-delay mechanisms, delay additives
can adjust the crosslink time. However, if the fluid
reaches a temperature between 120 to 140 F, the
fluid will start crosslinking almost immediately even
when designed to crosslink at longer delay times
at room temperature. These types of systems are
typically used in the field with crosslinking designed
to occur when the fluid is two-thirds to three-fourths
of the distance down the tubular.
50 ppt Borate Crosslinked - 325F The temperature-delayed systems are chelated
after Wang, et.al., 2002 so that they will crosslink instantaneously when the
50 ppt Borate Crosslinked - 335F

1400 after Wang, et.al., 2002 fluid reaches a certain temperature. Dual-crosslinked
40 ppt Zirconate Crosslinked - 320F
1200 50 ppt Zirconate Crosslinked - 360F systems are typically used with these types of
1000 crosslinkers, where an initial weak crosslink occurs
800
almost instantaneously at room temperature and
600
the second crosslink occurs at a certain temperature.
400
200
The initial crosslink helps in transporting the
0 proppant through surface equipment and down the
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time, min wellbore tubulars; the second crosslink is used to
Figure 7-20 Viscosity of borate and zirconate crosslinked
transport and suspend the proppant in the fracture at
fluids at high temperatures bottomhole temperature conditions.

245
Modern Fracturing

Figure 7-21 Progression of vortex closure in a blender jar with a delayed zirconium crosslinker added to a base gel

Figure 7-21 shows the progression of vortex 600

Fast crosslinker, low-shear mixing (A)
closure in a blender jar by the delayed crosslinker. Slow crosslinker, high-shear mixing (B)

Viscosity, cp at 170 sec-1

500 Fast crosslinker, high-shear mixing (C)
Figure 7-22 shows the early time viscosity build as
400 A
measured on a Fann 50 viscometer of the same fluid.
Figure 7-23 and Figure 7-24 show the effect of shear 300

on a borate crosslinked and zirconium crosslinked 200 B

fluid showing the ability of the instantaneous borate
100 C
crosslinked fluid to shear recover and instantaneous
0
zirconium crosslinked fluid losing viscosity on 0 2 4 6 8
shearing (Cawiezel, et al., 2004; Craigie, 1983). Time, hr at 250 F

Delaying the crosslink can minimize this effect in Figure 7-24 Effect of shear history on the viscosity of
metallic crosslinked systems. zirconium crosslinked fluid in Fann 50 (after Craigie, 1983)

1000
Immediate Crosslink 7-4.1.6 Function of Breakers in Water-Based Fluids
900
Delayed Crosslink
800 More Delayed Crosslink
Viscosity, cp @ 100 sec-1

700
There has been some speculation on the damage
600 caused by the adsorption of friction reducers in shale
500 formations and the partial monolayer proppant pack,
400 and the use of oxidizers and encapsulated oxidizers to
300
minimize the damage has been advanced (Carman and
200
Cawiezel, 2007). Although the friction reducer loading
100
0
used is very low, because of the large fluid volumes used,
0 30 60
Time, mins
90 120 this can be a significant problem, but one that can be
alleviated by using appropriate breakers.
Figure 7-22 Early-time viscosity build of a delayed The guar and guar-derivative polymers can be
zirconium crosslinked fluid in Fann 50 degraded with oxidizing and enzyme breakers, as is
1000 covered in detail in Section 7-5.1.6).
Batch Mix Sample
900 2 minutes at 7500 sec -1
Viscosity, cP @ 100 sec-1

4 minute at 7500 sec-1

800 4 minutes at 2600 sec-1 7-4.1.7 Water-Based Fluids in Gas Wells
700
600
Low-viscosity fluids have been successfully used in
500
400
fracturing shales and other tight gas formations where
300 economics are very important. The borate fluids tend to
200 have excellent fluid loss control and hence are applicable
100 in reservoirs with high fluid leak-off. They can be
0
0 30 60 90 energized or foamed with N2. These fluids have been
Time, min
successfully utilized globally in both oil and gas wells
Figure 7-23 Effect of shear history on the viscosity of and are particularly suited because of high viscosities
borate crosslinked fluid (after Cawiezel et al., 2004) that can be achieved where the wells have high tortuosity

246
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

and near-wellbore fracturing issues (Wright et al., 1993). 7-4.2 Oil-Based Fluids
Being perfect transport fluids, they are also suited for
proppant transport in deviated and horizontal wells. They In recent years, there has been an evolution of
are also used for coalbed fracturing in certain formations; technology for oil-base fracturing fluids. The technology
others react badly to borates (see Chapter 11). The low- has evolved from sodium-carboxylated associative
pH fluids can be energized or foamed with CO2 or N2 polymers to aluminum-carboxylated associative
and are particularly applicable to under-pressured gas polymers to aluminum-phosphate associative polymers
reservoirs and wells with severe clay issues. The fluids (Fig. 7-25). In the last decade, oil-based fluids have
compatible with methanol have been successfully used moved to iron-phosphate ester technology.
in gas wells with sub-irreducible water saturation issues The first oil-based fracturing fluids were prepared
discussed later in this chapter. The ability to adjust the using ingredients such as alkaline metal or aluminum
viscosity of water-based fluids either continuously or in carboxylates. Gelled materials of this type were described
stages may be of special interest in tight gas wells, where as napalm as explained in Section 7-1. These aluminum
high-viscosity fluid can be used in the pad to overcome carboxylate salts were dispersed in refined hydrocarbon
near-wellbore tortuosity issues and the viscosity materials such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene. In
minimized to be able to transport proppant (Ely et al., early years, aluminum carboxylate gellant chemistries
1993). Fracturing of high-temperature wells (over 300 demonstrated a very effective viscosity performance;
F) is restricted to water-based fluids. however, one disadvantage was the inability of aluminum
carboxylates to effectively gel various crude oils. It was
Sodium Carboxylate suspected that some crude oils did not contain the type
Association Polymer and concentration of aliphatic constituents necessary
R R
to form an effective gel. Generally this chemistry was
R
confined to the gelation of refined hydrocarbons due to
O C C C
O O O O O O
their instability in some crude oils.
Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+
The next gel systems were colloid dispersions,
Na+ Na+ Na+
O
based on soaps, which exhibited many preferred fluid
O O O O O O
C C C properties. Soap micelles were used instead of aluminum
R R R carboxylate gels because of their better stability in oils
containing asphaltenes. The micelles were aggregates of
Aluminum Carboxylate surfactant molecules dispersed in a liquid colloid. The
Association Polymer aluminum carboxylate gel fluids also exhibited extreme
R R
friction pressure. Oil gels utilizing soap colloid dispersion
C
O
O
H
O O
C
H
O
O technologies have provided a more consistent gelled
O
Al O Al O Al
oil system (Hendrickson et al., 1957; and Grantham
O O O O O
C C and McLaurine, 1986). Additionally, these fluids
demonstrated better sand transport properties without a
corresponding increase in viscosity.
Aluminum Phosphate
The most important characteristic of soap dispersions
Association
was that viscosity was lost at high shear, which is typical
R R
R
O
R R R of pseudoplastic or shear thinning fluids. Fluids of this
O O O
O P O O P O
type were prepared by delivering organic fatty acid
H H
Al O Al O Al materials in the hydrocarbon. A concentrated solution
O
P
O O O of an alkaline earth hydroxide (e.g., sodium hydroxide) is
P
O
H
O
R H
O O
R then dispersed in the hydrocarbon mixture to neutralize
Figure 7-25 Evolution of oil-based fracturing fluid
the organic acid in situ and cause the saponification
chemistry process. Henrickson et al. (1957) reported that in

247
Modern Fracturing
oil systems, micelles have the polar portions of the
carboxylate molecule buried in a central core, rather
than distributed over the outer surface, as is the case
in aqueous systems. Polar terminations interact, either
by dipole attraction or by specific hydrogen bonding
of certain atoms. Caustic solution also renders different
properties to soap micelle gels. Soap concentration and
type, and hydrocarbon type have dramatic effects on the
rheological performance of the fluid.
Metal salts of alkyl acid orthophosphate esters were
developed as an improvement over soap dispersion
hydrocarbon gel systems (Griffin, 1979; Poklacki,
1977; Caldwell and Sorrell, 1972; Monroe and Rooker,
1970; Flanagan, 1966; and Pianfitti and Janey, 1962).
Aluminum alkyl acid orthophosphate systems proved to
be the most effective system (Canterino, 1972). These
aluminum salts included aluminum isopropoxide and
hydrated aluminum. Alkyl esters are blends of mono-,
di-, and trialkyl esters. The dialkyl ester is the major
component, with monoalkyl and trialkyl esters being
present in lesser amounts in the reaction product.
These systems were applied as gellants for fracturing
fluids by first dispersing the substituted aluminum alkyl
acid orthophosphate ester in hydrocarbon, followed by
the introduction of caustic solution or a strong amine
compound to activate the mixture. Phosphate esters may
be monoesters, diesters, or triesters. The aluminum salts
were later replaced with iron salts (Smith and Persinski,
1995, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c).
The newer systems are very efficient in building
viscosity with lower additive loading. They can be
pumped either as batch-mix system or on the fly. They
build viscosity very rapidly and can tolerate moisture
in the base oils. They are not as sensitive to the additive
concentrations and relative concentrations of the additives
as the earlier aluminum based systems. This makes the
systems very easy to pump operationally.
The gels are broken with slowly dissolving additives
such as calcium oxide, magnesium oxide or carbonates.
Some of these systems are also compatible with select
crudes. However, any asphaltenic materials in the crude
may react with the iron, and the gel will lose stability. In
certain formations in the Western Canadian sedimentary
basin, hydrocarbon based gels with frac oils have been
successfully used to stimulate tight gas formations that
are water sensitive (Gupta and Leshchyshyn, 2005a).
248
7-4.3 Energized fluids
Fluids are energized either with N2or CO2 to minimize
the amount of liquids introduced into the formation
and to enhance recovery of the fluids. Fluids are
typically considered energized if the volume percent
of the energizing medium to the total volume (defined
as quality) is less than 53%; they are considered
as foams if the volume percent is greater (Mitchell,
1969). It is common in the industry to use 25 to 30
volume percent of an energizing medium in fluids.
Also, adding the energizing medium reduces the base
fluid (water or oil) pumped into the well. Energized
fluids are of particular importance in fracturing under-
pressured gas wells. The majority of gas wells fractured
in Western Canada use energized fluids. There are
certain differences between using N2 and CO2 as
energizing media, as explained below.
In most places, N2 is easily available at lower cost
than CO2. N2 is chemically inert and is not miscible
with formation fluids, which is an advantage because no
chemical interference occurs. It is a gas under conditions
of pumping and recovery. Because it has very low density
compared to the fluids it is pumped with, it will easily
separate from the fluid leaking off into the formation.
Thus it is imperative that fluids energized with N2 are
recovered as soon as possible after pumping ceases;
otherwise, the energy for fluid recovery might not
be present. Because N2 is not soluble in the fluids it is
pumped with and will not alter the pH, it can be used to
energize most fluids. As a gas it, N2 undergoes significant
volume change when pressurized, and designing proper
downhole quality may be difficult.
On the other hand, CO2 under pumping
conditions is actually a liquid or a supercritical fluid. As
a supercritical fluid, it is at a temperature and pressure
above its thermodynamic critical point of 88 F and
1070 psi. As a supercritical fluid it has the unique ability
to diffuse through pores like a gas but with the density of
the liquid. CO2 is chemically reactive. It is very soluble
in both water and oil, and in water it creates carbonic
acid, which actually might work as a breaker to hydrolyze
guar and guar derivatives. The liquid or supercritical
CO2 has density close to that of water, and hence the
energized or foamed fluid does not have lower density
than the base fluid, which helps in the hydrostatics. Until

the fluid is recovered by loss of pressure, it remains as a
liquid or supercritical fluid whose density is close to that
of water, and so no density segregation occurs. The fluid
can be shut in for long time periods without losing the
energizing effect. Because it is soluble in fluids, the energy
is stored for longer times. It also has the carbonated cola
effect: As more and more pressure is released, more and
more of the gas will be released from the fluid because the
solubility decreases with lowered pressure. This typically
results in better fluid recovery.
CO2, either as a liquid or gas, is considered non-
damaging to the formation, particularly in a gas well. It
can precipitate asphaltene or paraffin in heavy oil, which
is usually not seen in gas wells.
Because of the reactive nature of CO2, it cannot
be used in all fluids. For example, borate fluids are
not compatible with CO2, nor are certain viscoelastic
fluids. In aqueous solutions, CO2 forms carbonic acid,
which reduces the pH and uncrosslinks the borate
fluid. In viscoelastic fluids neutralized with salts,
CO2 interferes with the salts, and micelle structure
is lost along with viscosity. Also, not all oil gels are
compatible with CO2. Aluminum-phosphate ester
systems are broken with low-pH carbonic acid, which
functions as a breaker for the system.
7-4.4 Foams and Emulsions
There is often a lot of confusion about what
constitutes foams or emulsions. Generally, any fluid
that has two phases and viscosity increase because of
the presence of the second phase can be considered
a foam or emulsion. When the quality exceeds 53
(i.e., 53% by volume is gas), there is bubble-to-
bubble interference, and system viscosity increases
exponentially until about 90 quality, when misting
starts to occur, dramatically reducing viscosity. The
typical foams or emulsions used in the industry
are limited to about 70 to 80 quality to minimize
frictional effects due to the high viscosity. When the
internal phase is a non-liquid, it is considered foam;
when it is a liquid, it is considered an emulsion. By
this definition, all CO2 fluids with greater than 53
quality should be called emulsions. However, when
pumping ceases and the fluid is recovered, it comes
out as foam, so it is common in the industry to call
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
them foams. Foams are stabilized by adding a chemical
foaming agent and a base gel. For economic reasons,
the most common gel used is guar.
In addition to N2 and CO2 foams, binary foams were
introduced to the industry in 1988 (Toney and Mack,
1991). Binary foams contain both N2 and CO2 and are
said to have advantages over either N2 or CO2 foams. The
major advantage is the requirement that the recovered
fluid have a low CO2 content so that the produced gas
can be put in the pipeline much sooner without flaring.
Typically, N2 is lower cost than CO2; however, designing
jobs with two compressible fluidsone potentially
involving phase changemay become complicated.
The high viscosity of the foams helps the fluids have
good fluid loss control. They are compressible and so
have applications in gas wells with natural fractures and
higher permeability. They are also the fluids of choice for
many coalbed methane wells with good interconnected
cleats (see Section 11-4). They are suited for formations
with marginal water compatibility and where better
proppant-regained permeability is required. They
tend to have higher friction than conventional fluids,
particularly delayed cross-linked fluids. They also impose
a limit on the maximum amount of proppant that can be
transported downhole because the proppant is added in
the tub whereas the N2 or CO2 is typically added at the
wellhead. Foam viscosity can be adjusted by changing the
base gel viscosity and the quality of the fluid. Proppant
typically forms part of the internal phase, and so the
amount of N2 or CO2 added during the job needs to be
adjusted as the proppant concentration increases during
the job to maintain constant Mitchell or internal phase
quality (Mitchell, 1969). As mentioned before, the
viscosity of the foam goes up exponentially as the quality
(volume fraction of internal phase) goes up. If the foam
is pumped as a constant surface quality without regard to
the added proppant, as the proppant volume in the fluid
increases, the viscosity will increase exponentially as the
proppant forms part of the internal phase of the foam.
This will result in unacceptable friction, particularly with
higher proppant concentrations.
The only damage to the formation and or the
proppant pack from foams is from the gelling agent,
which can be broken using enzymes or oxidizing
agents. One of the potential problems using foams
is that the recovered fluid can come back as foam,
249
Modern Fracturing
which might be a nuisance to surface equipment. The
use of splittable foamers that lose their ability to
function as foamers has been disclosed to overcome
this problem (Gupta and Hlidek, 2007).
7-4.5 Unconventional Fluids
As the industry moves to tighter and tighter
formations, particularly systems such as shales or
coalbeds where production is controlled by desorption
of the gas rather than matrix flow, fluids that are non-
damaging to the proppant pack and formation are
becoming important. Wells with adverse capillary
effects (see Section 7-6) due to sub-irreducible water
or hydrocarbon saturation also require different fluids
to minimize those effects or mitigate effects caused by
drilling with the wrong fluid. Several unconventional
fluids have been developed and successfully used for
these unconventional formations in the last decade.
These fluids are described in this section.
7-4.5.1 Viscoelastic Surfactant Fluids
Viscoelastic surfactant (VES) gel systems have
been described in the patent literature for friction
reduction and as well treatment fluids (Teot, 1988).
Its use in everyday life has been around for some
time. Its use in fracturing fluids is relatively a new
phenomenon, but the patent literature has exploded
in this area in the last few years.
Principally, these fluids use surfactants in combination
with inorganic salts or other surfactants to create ordered
structures, which result in not only increased viscosity
but also elasticity. These fluids have very high zero-
shear viscosity without undue increase in high-shear
viscosity. Thus, they tend to be shear-degradable fluids.
They also have high elasticity. As explained by Asadi et
al. (2002), zero-shear viscosity has been found to be an
essential parameter in evaluating proppant transport.
Therefore, these fluids can, with lower loading,
transport proppant without the comparable viscosity
requirements of conventional fluids. The technology of
VES systems can be broken down into several categories
based on the structure of the ordered structures or
micelles. They can form worm-like micelles, lamellar
structures or vesicles (Fig. 7-26).
250
Air
Monomer L1-Phase L1-Phase M-Phase G-Phase
Spherical Micelles Cylindrical Micelles Hexagonal LC Lamellar LC
Surfactant Concentration
CMC
Figure 7-26 Artists conception of the formation of
ordered structures with VES surfactants
As the concentration of surfactant increases in
water, micelles start to form. Further increasing the
concentration exceeds the critical micelle concentration
(CMC) for the surfactant in water; these molecules
start interacting with each other. These interactions are
based on ionic forces and can be amplified by adding
electrolytes (salts) or other ionic surfactants. Depending
on the ionic charges and the size and shapes of the
surfactants and these counter ions, ordered structures
start to form, which increases viscosity and elasticity.
The reverse mechanism is true for breaking these
systems. The structures can be disrupted by adding
other surfactants, ionic additives and hydrocarbons
(from the formation or mutual solvents or other
solvents) or can be diluted by additional formation
water. The most common commercial systems use
cationic surfactants with inorganic salts (Teot, 1988)
or with anionic surfactants (Zhang, 2002). Anionic
surfactants with inorganic salts are also common
(di Lullo et al., 2002). Zwitterionic and amphoteric
surfactants in combination with inorganic salts have
been used (Dahanayake et al., 2004).
The common VES fluids have a temperature limit
in the range of 160 to 200 F without foaming. High-
temperature stabilizers have been known to increase the
temperature limit to 250 F.
Not all of these fluids are compatible with
CO2. They have been shown to be economic
replacement for conventional borate fluids for tight
gas applications (Rieb, 2007).
At least with one of these fluids, the flow-back
water from these treatments can be recycled (Gupta
and Tudor, 2005). This particular fluid uses a cationic
surfactant neutralized with an anionic surfactant. The
flow-back water, in gas wells, tends to return some of the

cationic surfactant and most of the anionic surfactant.
The flow-back water is typically collected for 48 hours
into a tank. Initially, the fluid was filtered to remove
any formation fines. Based on experience, it was found
that allowing the fines to settle was sufficient to remove
the fines. After settling, the middle 75% of the flow-
back water was transferred to a frac tank and the rest
of the required water for the fracturing treatment
was made up with fresh water. Using analytical or
viscoelastic measurements, additional surfactants were
used to reconstitute the fluid. Russell (2001) reported
the procedure and well production results from using
the recycled fluid in field study in Canada showing no
effect of recycling on well production.
These VES fluids are operationally very simple
as only one or two additives are added on the fly
without any need for hydration of polymers. They do
not require any biocides because they do not contain
any biopolymers. In fact, some of the cationic
surfactants may have biocidal properties. They do not
require additional flowback surfactants because they
have inherently low surface and interfacial tension.
No additional clay control additives are needed: They
contain either salts or cationic surfactants, which have
properties similar to KCl substitutes. The surfactants
have molecular weights of hundreds as opposed to the
guar polymer with millions.
Viscosity is broken by altering the surfactant
properties, by adding other hydrocarbons or by altering
the salinity or pH. The regain permeability with these
types of systems approaches 100%. Because of the wetting
tendencies of the surfactants in some of the VES systems,
they are useful even in formations with sub-irreducible
water saturation and liquid-trapping issues even though
these fluids are aqueous-based (see Section 7-6).
7-4.5.2 Viscoelastic Surfactant Foams
A natural extension of VES fluid technology is the
VES foams (Zhang et al., 2002). These foams can be
formed with N2 or CO2. As mentioned before, not all
VES systems are compatible with CO2. No additional
foamers are needed with these systems. The foam
viscosity can be adjusted by adjusting foam quality and
the viscosity of the base VES system. They have been
successfully used in gas formations to 250 F (Gupta
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
and Leshchyshyn, 2005b). In formations with potential
to form water blocks, these fluids are particularly suited
because the leak-off fluid still contains the surfactants,
which lower surface tension in the matrix, overcoming
capillary forces and helping in recovery of the fluid.
These fluids have been shown to be suited for fracturing
coalbed methane wells that contain water because
the foams control leak-off into the cleats without the
damage from polymer residue.
7-4.5.3 Emulsion of Carbon Dioxide
with Aqueous Methanol Base Fluid
Certain formations have potential to retain even limited
water used in foams and VES foams of over 70 quality.
These fluids may damage these sensitive formations
because of sub-irreducible water saturation and liquid
trapping (see Section 7-6.2.1). In these formations,
replacing 40% of the water phase used in conventional
CO2 foams (emulsions) with methanol can minimize the
amount of water. Gupta et al. (1997) showed that a 40%
methanol aqueous system yielded the highest viscosity
of aqueous methanol mixtures, has a freeze point close
to 40 C (which is the lowest operating limit for
fracturing equipment in the field) and surface tension
around 30 dynes/cm. These emulsions use surfactants,
which are methanol-compatible foamers, in the place of
conventional foamers. Typical CO2 quality approaches
85, which results in high regained permeability and rapid
clean-up and production results in several Canadian gas
formations (Gupta et al., 2007)
7-4.5.4 Crosslinked Foams
Crosslinked foams can be considered conventional
or unconventional fluids. There have been a variety of
publications on the rheology and application of N2
foamed borate fluids since the early 1980s (Veatch,
1983; Harris, 1988; and Harris and Heath, 1996).
The CO2-foamed metal crosslinked zirconium fluids
were used both with and without foamers (Phillips and
Mack, 1991). Most of these fluids use 70 or 75 quality
CO2 or N2 (or both, when binary fracturing).The
foams were crosslinked to increase the temperature of
application of these fluids or to minimize the amount
of liquids in the formation. In most of these systems,
251
Modern Fracturing
the viscosity increase is realized from the crosslink,
and viscosity dilution occurs at less than 53 quality.
The same principle can be used using a CMHPG-
based fluid containing 40% methanol crosslinked
with zirconium crosslinkers. Performance similar to
40% methanol-containing CO2 emulsion fluid (see
Section 7-4.6.3) described earlier can be achieved
with these crosslinked systems containing only 30
quality CO2 for a more cost-effective system. CO2
energized oil gels prepared with frac oils has been used
in Canadian gas formations very successfully (Gupta
and Leshchyshyn, 2005a).
7-4.5.5 Non-Aqueous Methanol Fluids
In formations with severe liquid (aqueous and
hydrocarbon) trapping problems (see Section 7-6),
non-aqueous methanol fluid may be a solution. Over
the years, several authors have identified the advantages
of alcohol-based fluids (McLeod and Coulter, 1966;
Smith, 1973; Tiner et al., 1974; Thompson et al., 1992;
Jales et al., 1988; and Hernandez, et al., 1994). These
advantages include, but are not limited to, low freezing
point, low surface tension, high water solubility, high
vapor pressure and formation compatibility. Methanol
is also the fluid of choice for formations with irreducible
water and/or hydrocarbon saturation (Bennion et al.,
1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996a, 1996b). Three
concerns with methanol all relate to safety: low flash
point, high vapor density and flame invisibility. With
special precautions, as previous authors have identified
(Thompson et al., 1992; and Hernandez et al., 1994),
methanol can be safely used in the field.
Several approaches to increasing the viscosity
of methanol have been described in the literature
(Thompson et al., 1992; Jales et al., 1988; Boothe and
Martin, 1977; Crema and Alm, 1985; and Gupta et al.,
1997). These range from foaming methanol to gelling
with synthetic polymers (e.g., polyacrylamide and
polyethylene oxide) and modified guar. Attempts were
also made to crosslink the gelled methanol with metal
crosslinkers. However, limitations as described by Ely
(1994) restrict the use of gelled non-aqueous methanol,
including solubility of these polymers in both aqueous
and non-aqueous methanol, ability to crosslink,
breaking the polymer, and temperature limit.
252
The most recent development (Gupta, et al., 1997;
and Mzik, 1993 and 1994) describes a modified guar
dissolved in anhydrous methanol crosslinked with a
borate complexer and broken by an oxidizing breaker.
This system has been successfully used in the field.
In under-pressured wells, it has been energized with
N2. There has been an interest in a CO2-energized
methanol fluid for similar formations with severely
under-pressured wells. Hence a new polymer that is
soluble in non-aqueous methanol and compatible with
carbon dioxide was identified. These non-aqueous base
gels can be crosslinked with borate at pseudo-high pH
(non-aqueous fluids do not have pH) or with zirconium
crosslinker at pseudo-low pH for CO2 compatibility.
The special version of this HPG can hydrate in
100% methanol to give viscosity to the base gel and
is also compatible with CO2 without precipitation
(Gupta et al., 2003) (Fig. 7-27).
Figure 7-27 CO2 compatibility of special highly
derivatized HPG in non-aqueous methanol (left),
compared with regular highly derivatized HPG in non-
aqueous methanol (right), which precipitates when
exposed to CO2 (after Gupta et al., 2003)
These fluids can be completely broken with special
breakers, resulting in very high regained permeability
in the proppant pack and in very sensitive formations.
These fluids should be selectively used in gas
formations with special safety considerations. These
new generation fluids also do not require any water
for hydration or for breaking.

7-4.5.6 Liquid CO2-Based Fluids
Fluids based on liquid CO2 are the real unconventional
fluids. The concept and applications of these fluids
require outside-the-box thinking. These fluids have
been very successfully used in tight gas applications in
Canada and several US formations. Their chemistry and
physics have been extensively published, as summarized
in a paper by Gupta and Bobier (1998) and described
in brief here. The family of these fluids consists of pure
liquid CO2 and a binary fluid consisting of a mixture of
liquid CO2 and N2 to reduce costs.
Conventional fracturing fluids rely on viscoelastic
properties to inhibit leak off from the fracture into the
reservoir. Filter cake deposition from long-chain polymers
or high filtrate viscosity in oil gel systems provides fluid
loss control to establish adequate fracture width. Sufficient
fracture width is required to allow proppant placement in
the fracture. Liquid CO2, has very low viscosity (Gupta
and Bobier, 1998) and thus does not have the viscosity
or filter cake properties to establish fracture widths when
pumped at typical rates (i.e., 20 bpm).
Low-viscosity, low-temperature fluids have
higher leak-off rates than conventional fluids, but this
characteristic has an upper limit that is dependent
on reservoir parameters. The use of a gas or liquefied
gas makes the fluid compressible. The fluid pumped
at high pressures and low temperature volumetrically
expands when the fluid is exposed to lower pressure
and higher temperature of the formation. These fluids
are not in steady state, and thus positive transient effects
occur. This thermal expansion effect inhibits leak-off
near the fracture face and promotes the development
of fracture width. A combination of thermal expansion,
relative permeability effects and possible turbulence
through small reservoir pore throats curtails leak-off of
liquid CO2 from the fracture into the reservoir.
Because these liquid CO2-based fracturing fluids
are compressible by nature, their hydrostatic pressure is
dependent on both temperature and pressure. The density
of liquid CO2 remains relatively constant during high-
pressure fracturing pressures (Gupta and Bobier, 1998).
Adding gaseous nitrogen to make a CO2/N2 mixture
requires the use of computer algorithms to calculate
values. The density and compressibility of nitrogen can be
calculated if both temperature and pressure are known.
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
Proppant transport can be divided into two areas:
(1) to the perforations, and (2) in the fracture. Moving
proppant through surface equipment and wellbore
tubulars is accomplished relatively easily by the high
pump rates typically utilized in liquid CO2 or CO2/
N2 fracturing. The high turbulence caused by the high
Reynolds number (because of the low viscosity and
high velocity of the fluid) is sufficient to adequately
transport the proppant to the perforations. The fluid
density (~ 1.1) also helps transport proppants. Both
the viscosity and density values drop when N2 is
added to liquid CO2 at a 50:50 ratio.
Proppant transport in the fracture for turbulent,
low-viscosity fluids has been explored previously.
Of particular significance is the effect of turbulence
on reducing sand settling rates. Frictional contact
between proppant and fracture walls is increased,
thereby slowing sand settling rates. Uneven, tortuous
fracture walls combined with narrow fracture widths
also serve to hinder proppant from settling within
the fracture. Settari et al. (1986) also described the
transport in the fracture as suspended transport
or bed load transport depending on the ratio of
terminal velocity to horizontal velocity.
Surface operational techniques for fracturing with
liquid CO2 and CO2/N2 can be divided into three areas:
product delivery, slurry blending and high-pressure
pumping. A liquid CO2/N2 fracture treatment is a
liquid CO2 fracture treatment with up to 50% N2 (by
volume) added at the wellhead. The N2 is pumped with
conventional N2 pumping equipment and does not
require any special considerations.
The liquid CO2 is stored in bulk storage units on
location at 300 psi and 30 F. Each unit has a capacity
of 300 bbl of liquid. The liquid CO2 is moved from the
storage unit through the CO2 blender and to the high-
pressure pumpers by gaseous nitrogen. A nitrogen tube
trailer is used to perform this function.
The CO2 blender is a pressure vessel and manifold
system that blends the proppant into a liquid CO2
stream prior to the high-pressure pumps (see Section 13-
1.4, Fig. 13-5). Proppant is loaded into the CO2 blender;
the unit is sealed and then filled with CO2. During the
treatment, proppant is drawn into the liquid CO2 stream
by hydraulically driven augers. CO2 blenders have been
built in 44,000- and 88,000-lb versions.
253
Modern Fracturing
Radioactive densitometers are vital in the
successful operation of a liquid CO2 fracture
treatment. Two densitometers, one on the blender
discharge and one on the high-pressure line, are used
to ensure the treatment design is followed.
Liquid CO2 is pumped with conventional
pumping equipment. Care must be taken to ensure
that the liquid CO2 is kept above the equilibrium
pressure. Specialized techniques for the high-
pressure pumpers reduce the chance of vapor locks
or mechanical failure due to low temperatures. The
wellhead treating temperature of liquid CO2 can be as
low as 15 F. With these low wellhead temperatures,
considerations for the thermal effect on well tubulars
must be addressed prior to the treatment.
Several papers have described the unique nature of
liquid CO2 and liquid CO2/N2 mixtures as fracturing
fluids (Lillies, 1982; Tudor et al., 1994; Mazza, 1997;
and Gupta and Bobier, 1998). In these systems, the
proppant is placed in the formation without causing
damage of any kind, and without adding any other carrier
fluid, viscosifier or other chemicals. As was described
previously, the use of a reservoir friendly substance like
liquid CO2 (and inert N2) offers unique advantages
through the elimination of capillary fluid retention and
clay swelling (Mazza, 1997).
These low-viscosity fluids are not an obvious choice
of fracturing fluid. However, a large number of jobs
have been successfully performed with them (Gupta
and Bobier, 1998). One of the major limitations of this
technology has been their high treatment cost. Although
stimulation treatments using the low-viscosity liquid
CO2 system have been successful, the high rates required
to place these jobs and the associated frictional losses
raised horsepower requirements.
7-4.5.7 Liquid CO2-Based Foam Fluid
Several attempts have been made to increase the
viscosity of CO2-based fluids while trying to maintain
the conductivity and formation compatibility of these
fluids with very little operational success (Bullen et al.,
1987). The liquid CO2-based foam fluid consists of
a foam of N2 gas in liquid CO2 as the external phase
stabilized by a special foamer soluble in liquid or
supercritical CO2 (Gupta, 2003). The main advantage
254
of this fluid is the additional viscosity gained by the
foam over liquid CO2. The use of 75 volume percent
of N2 also makes the fluid very cost-effective and
applicable to project frac applications where multiple
jobs can be performed in a single day. The fluid has
also found niche application in coalbed fracturing in
Canada on dry coalbeds where any water introduced
into the formation damages the cleats.
7-4.6 Acid Fracturing Fluid
Conventionally, acid fracturing has been used for
carbonate formations. Acid fracturing is a simulation
technique in which acid is injected at pressures above
the parting pressure of the formation so that a hydraulic
fracture is created. Usually, a viscous pad fluid is injected
ahead of the acid to initiate the fracture, and then plain
acid, gelled acid, foamed acid, or an emulsion containing
acid is injected. Fracture conductivity is created by the
acid differentially etching the walls of the fracture; i.e.,
the acid reacts non-uniformly with the fracture walls so
that after closure, the fracture props itself open, with the
relatively undissolved regions acting as pillars that leave
more dissolved regions as open channels. Thus acid
fracturing is an alternative to the use of proppants to
create fracture conductivity after closure.
Recently Kalfayan (2007) introduced the concept of
sandstone acid fracturing. Acid fracturing fluids have been
used a means of extending the ability of acid to penetrate
deep into the formation, creating higher-conductivity
fractures. The viscosity increase can be obtained with
surfactants, resulting in viscoelastic systems or with
polyacrylamide polymers as emulsions or microgels
crosslinked with zirconium. These systems can be used
to 300 F and can break in a controlled fashion by using
encapsulated breakers (Boles et al., 1996).
7-5 Fracturing Fluid Additives
7-5.1 Additives for Water-Based Fluids
7-5.1.1 Friction Reducers
The rapid rekindling of interest in non-gelled water as
fracturing fluid or slickwater fracturing, particularly
for shale natural gas reservoirs (see Section 11-

5), has necessitated the use of friction reducers.
Friction reducers not only reduce the friction
and associated horsepower requirement for the
pumping operation, but also protect the equipment
from wear and tear due to the high rates of these
jobs. The most obvious choice of friction reducers
would have been surfactants. However, they do not
function as friction reducers in the highly turbulent
regime of high-injection-rate jobs.
Partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide has been
used as a friction reducer in the oil patch from the
1960s. Non-damaging viscoelastic surfactant based
systems have earned attention, for example by Teot
et al. (1981), who added an organic electrolyte to
associate with the surfactant, and Schwartz and
Smith (2007), who added a low-molecular-weight
polyethylene oxide to a viscoelastic surfactant system
to lower friction in turbulent flow. However, the
lower cost of the polyacrylamide system has won
the battle. Oxidizing breakers can minimize the
perceived damage of these polymers, as shown by
Carman and Cawiezel (2007). The polyacrylamide
may be added as emulsions or microemulsions in a
hydrocarbon carrier or prehydrated and supplied in
brine solutions or as powders. Depending on the
temperature of the carrier water and salt content, they
can hydrate almost instantaneously, especially with
the proper amount of shear.
7-5.1.2 Gelling Agents
To viscosify water, the industry has typically used
natural polymers such as guar, starches and cellulose
derivatives. These natural polymers hydrate or swell
in water to provide the viscosity of the base gel. In
many cases, the base gel provides adequate viscosity
for limited proppant transport and fluid loss control.
These polymers can be crosslinked to enhance the
performance and thermal stability and reduce the
cost by using lower loading of the polymers.
Guar is readily available, cost-effective and can
be easily derivatized and so is the most common
natural polymer used as a gelling agent for fracturing
applications. Guar gum, also called guaran, is
primarily the ground endosperm of the seeds from
Cyamopsis tetragonolobus (L.) Taub. The guar seeds
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
are dehusked, milled and screened to obtain the guar
gum. It is typically produced as a free-flowing, pale
off-white colored, coarse- to fine-ground powder
(Fig. 7-28). Manufacturers define different grades
and qualities of guar gum by the particle size, the
viscosity that is generated with a given concentration,
and the rate at which that viscosity develops. Coarse-
mesh guar gums will typically but not always
develop viscosity more slowly. They may achieve
a reasonably high viscosity but will take longer to
achieve it. On the other hand, they will disperse
better than fine-mesh gums, all conditions being
equal. A finer mesh, like a 200-mesh, requires more
effort to dissolve (Hazen, 2004).
Figure 7-28 Guar pods, seeds, splits and powder
Guar gum (Fig. 7-29) is extracted from the guar
bean. The guar bean is principally grown in India
and Pakistan, with smaller crops grown in the United
States, Australia and Africa. Possessing almost eight
times the water thickening potency as cornstarch, guar
gum is economical because only a very small quantity
is needed for producing sufficient viscosity. In water,
underivatized guar is non-ionic and hydrocolloidal. It
is not affected by ionic strength or pH but will degrade
at pH extremes at elevated temperature. It remains
stable in solution over pH from 5 to 7. Strong acids
cause hydrolysis and loss of viscosity, and alkalis in
strong concentration also tend to reduce viscosity. It
is insoluble in most hydrocarbon solvents. Guar gum
shows high low-shear viscosity, which is important for
proppant transport, but it is strongly shear-thinning.
It is very thixotropic above a concentration of 1%,
but below 0.3% the thixotropy is slight.
255
Modern Fracturing
C 1-6 D-galactosyl
OHOH
H O
H For higher-temperature and low-pH applications,
HO H
H OH
OH
H O H
HO O
H
HO O
O H
HO H crosslinked systems (detailed later in this section);
H
O H
HO H
H
H CMG and CMHPG are used both at high pH and low
H n
backbone poly (C 1-4 D-mannosyl)
Ratio of Mannose to Galactose ~3:2 to 2:1
Figure 7-29 Chemical structure of guar (courtesy of
Rhodia)
Guar is a galactomannan consisting of a (1 4)-
linked -D-mannopyranose backbone with branchpoints
from their 6-positions linked to -D-galactose (i.e., 1
6-linked --D-galactopyranose). There are between 1.5
- 2 mannose residues for every galactose residue. Guar
gum is made up of non-ionic polydisperse rod-shaped
polymers consisting of molecules made up of over
10,000 repeat units. Higher galactose substitution also
increases the stiffness (i.e., decreases the flexibility) but
reduces the overall extensibility and radius of gyration of
the isolated chains (Petkowitz et al., 1998). The galactose
residues prevent strong chain interactions because few
unsubstituted clear areas have the minimum number
(about 6) required for the formation of junction zones.
Of the different possible galactose substitution patterns,
the extremes of block substitution and alternating
substitution give rise to the stiffer, with greater radius of
gyration, and most flexible conformations, respectively
(random substitution being intermediate).
Natural guar contains a significant quantity
of insoluble material or residue. It used to be in the
range of 5 to 10%; however, newer high-yield guar
varieties presently available have residue of less than
2%. This insoluble material does not function as
a viscosifier and can be damaging to the proppant
pack or form filter cake on the fracture face. Several
chemical modifications to guar have been performed to
reduce the insoluble material and increase the stability
of the polymer at high temperatures and low pH to
make it more CO2-compatible for energized systems.
Hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) was the first derivative
256
introduced to the oilfield; however, its use is minimal
in fracturing applications. The cleaner and higher-
yield non-derivatized guar covers the majority of use.
either carboxymethyl guar (CMG) or carboxymethyl
hydroxypropyl guar (CMHPG) are used (Fig. 7-
30.) Typically, guar is used for borate and zirconate
pH with zirconium crosslinkers. HPG can be used to
crosslink with both borate and zirconate crosslinkers.
Prior to the use of CMG or CMHPG, cellulose
derivatives, particularly hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC)
and carboxymethylhydroxyethylcellulose (CMHEC),
were used, especially in low-pH systems.
OX
XO
O
XO
OX
O
OX
*
OX XO
O O
O O
XO *
XO
n
For Guar, X is HX = H or -R - C O O H
For Hydroxypropyl guar, X is H or CH2CH(OH)CH3
For Carboxymethyl guar, X is H or CH2COOH
For Carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar, X is H or
CH2CH(OH)CH3 or CH2COOH
Figure 7-30 Chemical structures of guar derivatives
Since the early 1980s a majority of treatments
performed, particularly in North America, have
been on-the-fly or continuous mix (see Section 9-
4.2). For proper metering, the polymer is typically
slurried in a hydrocarbon solvent such as diesel or
more environmentally friendly mineral oil or even
glycol ethers for offshore use where the product
does not create sheen on the surface of water. These
systems have residence volume to provide adequate
time for nearly complete hydration, which can be
confirmed by realtime measurement of base gel
viscosity. In the near future, on-the-fly systems using
dry powders will become a reality.
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

Another development in the last decade has been
the move toward low- and no-polymer systems. The low-
polymer systems were introduced in systems developed
by Gupta and Franklin (1994). Dawson et.al., (2000)
further developed a theoretical basis for these systems.
Lei and Clark (2004) discussed the concept of C* and
C** and the minimum effective concentration for
crosslinking to occur and the means for measuring it.
When a water-soluble polymer is hydrated in water, the
viscosity of the solution increases with increasing polymer
concentration. This relationship is exponential for most
polymers in their solvents. Earlier work showed the
relationship of viscosity as a function of concentration can
be divided into two regions separated by a concentration
of the polymer called, C* (Economides and Nolte, 1989;
and Gidley et al., 1989). When the polymer is added to
water, the molecule first swells as the solvent penetrates
the polymer molecule, and the polymer molecule will
occupy some random conformation in space. For a
random coil polymer this will be spherical. If a second
polymer molecule is added, the two molecules will
not interact, and their effect on viscosity will be only
hydrodynamic. As more and more molecules are added,
there will be a point when weak interaction starts to
occur, and slope of the viscosity/concentration curve
changes. This can be seen when the log of the specific
Adding more polymer molecules increases the
interaction and minimizes the volume occupied by each
molecule; eventually the molecules run out of space, and
the only way they can occupy space is to interpenetrate.
This point is marked by another slope change and
labeled as C**. Crosslinking cannot occur below C*
because there is not enough polymer-to-polymer
interaction to promote intermolecular crosslinking.
There can be intramolecular crosslinking, but this results
in reducing viscosity, not increasing it. The effectiveness
of crosslinking increases between C* and C**. Between
C* and C** is a critical crosslinking concentration (Ccc),
which is the minimum concentration of polymer needed
for a full three-dimensional structure to develop. The
critical crosslinking concentration represents a lower limit
to the useful crosslinking concentration for fracturing
applications. Table 7-3 details the critical overlap (C*)
and critical crosslinking concentrations for various
polymers. GW-3 listed in their paper is a high-molecular-
weight, high-yield, and cleaner guar than conventional
guar used in the industry. (Note: Concentrations have
been converted into oilfield units.)
Table 7-3 Critical Overlap and Critical Crosslinking
Concentrations for Various Gelling Agents (after Lei and
Clark, 2004)

viscosity is plotted against the log of concentration (Fig. Polymer C*,wt% C*, pptg
Ccc,
Ccc, pptg Crosslinker
wt%
7-31). Specific viscosity is given by:
GW-3 0.051 4.26 0.178 15 Borate
s
= 0 , CMG 0.054 4.51 0.193 16.1 Zr-chelate
sp s (7-21)
CMHPG 0.068 5.68 0.22 18.4 Zr-chelate
where o is the zero-shear viscosity and s is the viscosity Guar 0.078 6.51 0.26 21.7 Borate
of the solvent (water).
HPG 0.093 7.76 0.285 23.8 Borate

C**
The other major development involves the use of
Concentrated
surfactant or viscoelastic gels that contain no polymer at
log Nsp

C* all. This has been discussed in Section 7-4.5.1.

Semi-Dilute
7-5.1.3 Biocide
Dilute

The natural polymers used as gelling agents are a

log C good food source for bacteria. The bacteria degrade
Figure 7-31 Effect of polymer concentration on specific
the polymers, and the viscosity of the gel can be lost
viscosity in a few hours. In addition, certain bacteria can turn

257
Modern Fracturing

reservoir fluids sour. Biocide or bactericide is added

to the water in the tanks to prevent growth of the O
bacteria. Some biocides also inactivate the enzymes
produced by the bacteria. Biocides are regulated by N C
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has
to be registered with state agencies also for use in NH2
the particular state. The most common biocides are
either oxidizing type or cationic in nature.
Glutaraldehyde (Fig. 7-32) is the most common Br Br
and cost-effective biocide available for fracturing
fluids. It is a broad-spectrum biocide that functions Figure 7-33 Chemical structure of DBNPA (2,2-dibromo-
3-nitrilopropionamide)
in the pH range of 7 to 11. Biocides are typically used
to sterilize treatment water before adding the polymer
(i.e., to prevent the creation of a colony of bacteria)
Br
rather than to remove a colony that has already NO2
formedby that time, in most cases, it is almost H H
certainly too late to save the tank of gel.

O O
H H
Figure 7-32 Chemical structure of glutaraldehyde
Glutaraldehyde is highly effective against sulfate
reducing bacteria (SRB). It has excellent bio-film
penetrating properties and is generally compatible with
most fracturing fluid additives. Sometimes, it has an
effect on the function of enzyme breakers. It will react
with amines and has an obnoxious odor.
DBNPA (2,2 dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide) (Fig.
7-33) is the fastest-acting biocide used with fracturing
fluids. Because it is available as a powder, it is typically
available in water-soluble bags that can be dropped
into water tanks. It is a broad-spectrum biocide and
functions at very low concentration. DBNPA has low
environmental impact because it hydrolyzes very quickly
to leave no footprint. It has a very short half-life at high
pH, which may be a drawback.
Bronopol or BNPD (bromonitropropane-1, 3-
diol) (Fig. 7-34) is typically used in conjunction with
isothiazolone (see below). It has low odor, is effective in
a range of pH values. However, it releases formaldehyde
on degradation.
HO HO
Figure 7-34 Chemical structure of BNPD
(bromonitropropane-1, 3-diol)
THPS (tetrakishydroxymethyl phosphonium sulfate)
(Fig. 7-35) is a broad-spectrum biocide with low toxicity.
It is compatible with most non-oxidizing biocides and
surfactants. It is not compatible with oxidizing biocides
and has limited stability at high pH.
+
CH2O
H +
P H
HOH2C CH2O H SO42-
H CH2OH
H H 2
Figure 7-35 Chemical structure of THPS
(tetrakishydroxymethyl phosphonium sulfate)
Isothiazolone (a mixture of 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-
isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one
in approx. 2.7:1 ratio) (Fig. 7-36) is a good broad-
spectrum biocide used at very low levels (0.3 to 2 PPM).
It is a good bio-stat and a slow-acting biocide that can
be combined with quick-kill biocide for combined
quick-kill and sustained activity.

258

O O
N H N
Cl
CH3 CH3
S S
Figure 7-36 Chemical structure of isothiazolone
It is always a good idea to rotate biocides so
that the bacteria do not become resistant to one
type of biocide.
7-5.1.4 Buffers
Buffers are used for various purposes in fracturing fluids.
They are used for proper dispersion of the polymer
particles in water and also in hydration of the polymers.
The crosslinking of the polymer and its stability are
dependent on the pH. The pH is adjusted with buffers.
In the industry, pH adjusters are sometimes mistakenly
called buffers. pH adjusters shift pH of the solution but
do not possess buffering capacity. An acid or alkali can
shift pH, but if the water contains natural buffers, it
may not maintain pH at a constant value. In addition,
the pH drops when the solution is heated if it does
not have sufficient buffer capacity. Buffer solutions are
solutions that resist change in hydrogen ion and the
hydroxide ion concentration (and consequently pH),
upon addition of small amounts of acid or base, or
upon dilution. Buffer solutions consist of a weak acid
and its conjugate base (more common) (e.g., acetic
acid/sodium hydroxide, resulting in acetic acid/sodium
acetate) or a weak base and its conjugate acid (less
common) (e.g., ammonia/hydrochloric acid, resulting
in ammonia and ammonium chloride). Based on
the various combinations possible, different service
companies use different combinations of acids, bases
and salts to arrive at buffers at various pH conditions
with various buffer capacities.
7-5.1.5 Crosslinkers
Crosslinking is the most cost-effective means of
increasing viscosity of fracturing fluids without
increasing the amount of gelling agent used. The
chemical compounds that perform this function
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
are referred to as crosslinking agents or crosslinkers.
Each crosslinking agent has its own strengths and
weaknesses. Each functions at a particular pH range
and temperature and will crosslink a particular type of
polymer. As discussed earlier, guar and hydroxypropyl
guar have hydroxy groups that can be crosslinked,
carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar has both hydroxy
and carboxy groups that can be crosslinked, and
carboxymethyl guar has carboxy groups that can be
crosslinked (see discussion in Section 7-5.1.2).
The most common crosslinking performed on
these polymers are borate crosslinking, which occurs
at high pH, and metal or covalent crosslinking at
low or high pH. Borate crosslinking is by hydrogen
bonding and is shear-tolerant. The borate crosslinked
fluid reheals on application of shear, and properly
designed borate fluid exhibits nearly perfect transport
properties. Because the crosslinking is very pH-
dependent, when used in wells with nearly neutral-pH
water, borate crosslinked fluid cleans up nicely giving
over 90% regained permeability in the proppant pack
when used with enzyme breakers.
The most common borate crosslinked fluids use
a form of mono-borate ion for the crosslinking. The
mono-borate ion (BO3-) can be from borax, boric acid
or similar species. Typically, these species crosslink at
high pH (greater than 9.5) almost instantaneously.
They can be delayed by using a slow-dissolving
buffer (Cawiezel, 1990) or slowly soluble borate
ores (Mondshine, 1986).
Because of the potentially very high viscosity that
can build with these borates, to minimize friction,
it is desired to have delayed systems. Varying a
combination of pH and amount of borate ion can
optimize the fluid. One of the problems of the mono-
borate systems, particularly at higher temperatures, is
optimizing the system. Too much borate ion makes
the fluid experience synerisis, sometimes be referred
to as over-crosslinking. The crosslinked fluid expels
excess water, becomes non-homogeneous and does
not support proppant transport. Too little borate ion
make the gel weak and unstable at high temperatures.
Also, stabilizing the fluid at high temperatures with
mono-borate typically requires higher pH, which
tends to delay the crosslink, or higher buffer capacity,
which affects the performance of enzymes as breakers.
259
Modern Fracturing

The use of organo-borates such as borate esters (Gupta comprehensive examination of the proposed structures
et al., 2006) or polyborates (Dawson, 1992) make of titanium and zirconium alkoxides and aqueous-based
the borate crosslinked systems stable and usable to chelates, including a general discussion of the methods
temperatures in excess of 300 F. employed to manufacture these crosslinkers and factors
During the early days of fracturing, metallic present in Group 4 metal crosslinkers that may affect
crosslinkers meant titanate, aluminum, antimony their crosslinking response with polygalactomannans
or chromium compounds. All had limited high- (guar and their derivatives) (see also Section 7-5.1.2).
temperature stability (>250 F) and shear stability. There is also some discussion of other methods that
Some of the antimony and chromium compounds have been employed to control gelation rate. Finally,
were not considered environmentally friendly. there is some discussion about the effects of polymer
Titanates were typically used from pH 3.5 to 9.5. attributes on fracturing fluid performance, particularly
These metal crosslinked systems did not clean up well as it relates to crosslinker efficacy.
in laboratory tests and hence lost their usefulness.
Using low pH to clean up these fluids seemed like
a good idea. The use of aluminum and titanium for
this purpose looked good. However, the aluminum
systems were very shear-degrading, did not prove to
have good clean-up characteristics and had limited
thermal stability. The use of zirconium crosslinkers
for both high pH and low pH became prevalent and
is the metallic crosslinker used widely today.
Harry et al. (1997) and Moorhouse et al. (1996)
demonstrated that seemingly minor variations in
aqueous-based crosslinker chemistry can produce
significant differences in the rheological responses of
polygalactomannan-based fracturing fluid crosslinked
with these agents. While the work contained some
references to borate crosslinking and the principle
conclusion can be applied to both borate and
zirconium fracturing fluid systems (Fig. 7-37), the
emphasis was on zirconium crosslinked systems.
Not surprisingly, some of the observed differences in
performance could be attributed to variations in the
crosslinker chemistry. Crosslinker differences that
were isolated and evaluated included differences in the
ligand chemistry, the ligand-to-metal ratio, the nature
of the zirconium starting material, etc. (A ligand is
an ion, molecule or a functional group that generally Figure 7-37 Appearance of the base gel, borate
donates or shares one or more of its electrons through crosslinked gel and zirconium crosslinked gel
a coordinate covalent bond with a metallic ion).
Moorhouse et al. (1996) suggested several mechanisms 7-5.1.6 Breakers
by which these phenomena might be explained. The
authors stopped short, however, of making any attempt Breakers are chemicals that literally break the viscosity
to correlate the chemical structure of the crosslinker of the fracturing fluid, reduce the molecular weight of
with its rheological performance. Later, Harry et the polymer and help in cleaning the proppant pack and
al. (1999) advanced their studies to present a more the filter cake on the fracture face. The most common

260
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

types of breakers used with fracturing fluids are oxidizers, particularly polymer-specific enzymes, have been very
enzymes and acids. These products can be used as solids, successful in providing good clean-up of the proppant
slurries of solids in liquids, or liquid solutions. The most pack and filter cake (Brannon and Tjon-Joe-Pin, 1994).
common oxidizers are persulfates such as ammonium, Enzymes are catalysts and so can continue the degradation
sodium or potassium persulfates, peroxides such as process for a long time. They are not consumed in the
calcium, magnesium or organic peroxides or perborates. process like oxidizers are, and since they are catalysts,
All these oxidizers typically produce peroxygen, which very little goes a long way. Because they are very specific,
is a very reactive free radical species that attacks the they do not interact with other additives in the fracturing
polymer and degrades it. The reaction is stoichiometric; fluid or the formation and are very compatible with
i.e., one peroxygen radical reacts with one bond on the resin-coated proppants. With the use of biotechnology
polymer. In fact, the oxidizers are non-specific. They can and ever increasing interest in breakers, the application
attack not only polymer, but any species that is prone range of enzymes with respect to pH, temperature and
to oxidation, including the formation, tubulars and in other conditions is widening constantly.
particular resin-coated proppants. Figure 7-38 shows the difference in residue of
At low temperatures (<120 F), the oxidizer guar gel broken by an enzyme and an oxidizer. The gel
reaction rate is generally too slow, and catalysts or broken with oxidizer shows more residues than the one
accelerators such as amines or transition metal salts are broken by enzyme. Enzyme breakers may cost more on
used to increase the rate of reaction. Until the 1980s, a weight basis; however, as they are catalysts, they have
it was believed that no breaker was needed for high become cost-effective in use concentrations.
temperatures; however, diligent work by several authors
have shown that the clean-up or conductivity of the
proppant pack is better with breakers. Because the
half-life of the oxidizers is short and the reaction rate is
too fast at high temperatures, the use of encapsulation
technology became common in the late 1980s. Products
based on several mechanisms were developed; the chief
among them used osmotic burst effect (Walles et al.,
1988) and diffusion (Gupta and Cooney, 1992). The
use of slowly dissolving peroxides was an alternate
(Mondshine, 1993). The encapsulated or controlled-
release products not only increased the application
temperature of oxidizers, but could also be incorporated
into the filter cake for degradation.
The use of enzymes at low temperatures and nearly
neutral or low-pH conditions has been prevalent since
the 1960s. Gupta et al., (1992) disclosed the first high-
pH enzyme for guar borate system. The advent of
biotechnology resulted in the development of polymer-
specific enzymes, specifically for guar or guar derivatives,
which extended the application temperatures to near
350 F. Combination systems of enzymes with oxidizers
also have been common. The oxidizers not only degrade
the polymer but also reduce the pH of the fluid so the
enzymes become very active. Organic esters, which also
reduced the pH of the fluid, became very common for Figure 7-38 Differences in guar gel broken by an enzyme
use with enzymes (Dawson and Le, 2004). The enzymes, and an oxidizer

261
Modern Fracturing
Thermal effects and dissolved oxygen and other
species, which affect the stability of the fluid, also degrade
polymers. The effect of these natural breakers can be
minimized by the use of gel stabilizers such as oxygen
scavengers (e.g., sodium thiosulfate or methanol) or free
radical scavengers (Pakulski and Gupta, 1994).
7-5.1.7 Clay Stabilizers
As mentioned previously, the use of water-based fluids
became very popular with the addition of salts such as
potassium chloride or ammonium chloride to the fluids
to control clay swelling and make the water-based fluids
more compatible with clay-containing formations.
However, several guar derivatives, particularly
CMHGP and CMG, lose some of their effectiveness
(particularly the ability to prepare fracturing fluids
with very low loading and crosslinked with zirconium
crosslinkers) with these salts. Tetramethyl ammonium
chloride (TMAC) (Himes and Vinson, 1989) and
choline chloride (Hall and Szemenyei, 1992) have
been shown to function as temporary clay protection
agents similar to potassium chloride. However, higher-
molecular-weight amines and cationic polymers are
used for permanent clay stabilization. These materials
are not washed in the presence of fresh water and
also prevent clay migration and related permeability
damage in the near-wellbore area (McLaughlin et al.,
1976). The permanent clay stabilizers are typically used
with temporary clay protecting agents like potassium
chloride or KCl replacements.
7-5.1.8 Surfactants
Surfactants provide several functions when used in
fracturing fluids. They are used to reduce surface tension,
which makes fluid recovery easier after the fracturing
operation. They can also reduce the interfacial tension
between water and formation fluids, thus preventing the
formation of emulsions, etc., which damage permeability.
In gas reservoirs, the use of water-based fluid can create
fluid retention problems (see also Section 7-6). Surfactants
are typically used to reduce the surface tension between
the treating fluid and the gas, emabling recovery of more
fracturing fluid and restoring of relative permeability to
gas (see Section 7-6). When fluid recovery is not good,
262
large quantities of fluid are trapped in the reservoir in
the near-wellbore area, in the area surrounding the
fracture and in the fracture itself. This trapped fluid has
detrimental effect on relative permeability, effective flow
area and effective fracture lengths, and it impairs well
productivity (see Section 7-6 for details).
Surfactants can also be used to change the contact
angle of the leak-off fluid into the pore space, which
changes the wettability of the fluid to the formation
rock, again for easier recovery, especially in tight gas
reservoirs. (Penny et al., 2005). Classes of surfactants,
such as foamers, are used to generate and stabilize foams
for foam fracturing fluids. Certain biocides and clay
control agents can also be surfactants. Surfactants can
also be used to prevent or break emulsions formed with
any liquid hydrocarbons present in the formation.
7-6 Fluid Damage to Fractures and
Sources of Productivity Impairment
Cinco-Ley et al., (1978) and Cinco-Ley and
Samaniego (1981) provided the understanding
of the factors affecting the performance of finite-
conductivity fractures and identified the types of
damage impeding their performance:
1. Reduction of proppant pack permeability. This
kind of damage affects the proppant-pack inside
the fracture and is a manifestation of proppant
crushing and, especially, unbroken fracturing
fluid polymer. These phenomena have particularly
detrimental impacts on the fracture conductivity
and should be avoided or minimized.
The problem with proppant crushing can be
reduced considerably by selecting appropriate-
strength proppants. This is addressed in Chapter 8.
To minimize polymer-related problems, extensive
research has been conducted in the last several years
on breaker technology and the use and delivery of
appropriate chemical agents.
2. Choke damage. This refers to the near-wellbore
damage inside the fracture (Fig. 7-39). It
can be depicted by a skin effect. This kind of
damage results either from fines migration

during production and their accumulation
near the wellbore (within the fracture) or over-
displacement at the end of the treatment (a
disastrous error, if it happens) or inadequate
perforations connected with the fracture.
It is possible to calculate the skin from
the choke-damaged fracture by assuming
steady-state flow in the damaged zone (Cinco-
Ley and Samaniego, 1981):
xs k
s fc =
, (7-22)
w fs k fs
where xs, wfs, kfs are the damaged fracture
length, width and permeability, respectively.
Damage Zone Wellbore
k Mathur et al., (1995) showed that positive skins
w kf kfs
xs xf
Figure 7-39 Vertical fracture with choke damage
3. Fracture Face Damage. This kind of damage,
caused conventionally by fracturing fluid
leak-off, results in permeability impairment
outside the fracture, normal to the fracture
face. Again Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1981)
provided a means to account for this damage
with a skin effect, defined by:
b k
s fs = s 1 , (7-23)
2 x f k s
where bs is the penetration of damage normal to the
fracture face and ks is the damaged permeability
inside this zone (Fig. 7-40).
Damage Zone
Wellbore
ks
kf
xf
Fracture
Figure 7-40 Vertical fracture with fracture face damage
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
4. Combined effects. Mathur et al., (1995) proposed
a means to account for composite damage that can
be quantified by a skin effect expression:
b2 k R (b1 b2 ) k R b1
sd = + ,
2 b1k3 + ( x f b1 ) k2 b1k1 + ( x f b1 ) k R x f
(7-24)
where b1 is the radial damage in ft (equivalent
to rs); b2 is the width of the fracture face damage
in ft; k1, k2 and k3 are the permeabilities in the
radial damage zone, the fracture face outside of
the damage zone and the fracture face inside
the radial damage zone, respectively; and
k is the reservoir permeability.
Figure 7-41 is a schematic diagram of the
Fracture
composite damages accounted for in Eq. 7-24.
are possible from fractured wells if the penetration
and severity of fracture face damage are large. Such
positive skin effect has caused some confusion
in view of the idea that fracturing is supposed
to result in a negative skin effect, bypassing
formation damage. The two concepts are not
inconsistent. What the Mathur et al. (1995) work
suggests is that although fracturing eliminates pre-
treatment radial skin effects, new skins resulting
from the fracture treatment itself can emerge.
They suggest better designs, better selection of
fracturing fluids and better execution.
Radial Damage
Fracture Face Damage
Fracture
rs
xf
Figure 7-41 Fracture with composite damage
bs
wf All of these skins can be accounted for in
fractured well performance by calculating a new
dimensionless PI for the damaged fracture:
1
J = .
D ,damaged 1 (7-25)
+s
J D
263
Modern Fracturing
An example of how fracturing fluid damage
affects production in quite different ways
in low- and high-permeability reservoirs is
provided in Section 7-6.1. Several mechanisms
of damage can be caused or accelerated by
hydraulic fracturing, and these are described,
starting with Section 7-6.2
7-6.1 Example Calculation of Productivity
Impairment from Fracture Damage
Two wells are considered: one in a reservoir with
permeability of 1 md and the second in a reservoir
with 50 md permeability. All other variables are held
constant: net thickness of 50 ft and a fracture length
(tip-to-tip) to height aspect ratio equal to four. In both
wells, 100,000 lbs of ceramic proppant is injected with
in situ proppant pack permeability (with zero polymer
induced-damage) of 220,000 md.
With the Unified Fracture Design (UFD) (see
Section 4-5) for the 1-md reservoir, an undamaged
fracture would lead to an optimum fracture half-length
of about 500 ft and a JD of 0.49. For the 50 md case,
the fracture half length would be about 140 ft with a JD
of 0.3. Assuming a drawdown of 1000 psi and B = 1
(resbbl/stb)cp, the corresponding initial pseudosteady
fractured well production rates would be about 175
and 5300 STB/d, respectively.
First, proppant pack damage is considered. Suppose
that an unsuccessfully broken gel results in a proppant
pack permeability one-tenth of the expected, i.e.,
22,000 md. The JD for the 1-md reservoir (assuming
the same length is executed) would drop to 0.27, a 45%
reduction. For the 50 md case, the JD would be 0.19, a
37% decline. (Note: If the proppant pack permeability
reduction were anticipated and the fractures designed
with that in mind, this would lead to a fracture half-
length of 300 ft and a JD of 0.39 for the 1 md case
and a radial fracture of 50 ft radius and JD of 0.23 in
the 50-md case. The production rates would drop to
140 STB/d (20% decrease) and 4050 STB/d (23%
decrease)). With correct design, the decline percentage
of the high-permeability reservoir is only slightly larger,
but the actual rate reduction is considerable, showing
the importance of controlling proppant pack damage
in high-permeability cases.
264
From Eq. 7-24, three things are important: the
penetration of damage, the severity of damage and the
fracture length. Aggour and Economides (1999) have
studied experimentally and mathematically both the
penetration of fracturing fluid leak-off perpendicular
to the fracture face, and the severity of damage. In low-
permeability reservoirs up to 5 md, even linear gels will
not penetrate, and the leak-off zone would be of the
order of fraction of an inch. Thus, from Eq. 7-24 and
using bs = 0.5 in., and even with k/ks = 10 for xf = 500
ft, then sfs = 0.001. From Eq. 7-25, with undamaged
JD = 0.49 the damaged JD = 0.489, an insignificant
reduction. Fracture face damage in low-permeability
reservoirs has little impact and should not be the over-
riding concern in fluid design.
What would affect fracture performance is clearly
the length. If the length were to be reduced from 500 ft
to, e.g., 150 ft without any damage, the JD would drop
to 0.38, a 22% reduction.
For high-permeability reservoirs the story is entirely
different. The penetration of fracture-face damage can
be as much as 1 ft (Aggour and Economides, 1999), and
linear polymers can penetrate the reservoir itself. Aggour
and Economides found that cross-linked polymers
will not penetrate to 600 md permeability reservoirs.
Even with mostly filtrate invasion, (bs = 1 ft, k/ks = 100
and xf = 140 ft) the sfs = 1, resulting in JD,damage = 0.23,
a very serious 23% reduction from the undamaged
case. This damage would be much more detrimental
with smaller fracture length as is the practice in many
high-permeability applications. A fracture length of 50
ft would result in tripling the fracture face skin affect
and, with smaller undamaged JD in the first place, the
productivity impairment could exceed 50%. Controlling
leak-off and fracture face damage is thus very important
in high-permeability reservoirs.
Hunt et al. (1994) have suggested that the initial
productivity impairment because of fracture face
damage may diminish over time for a suitably designed
treatment. Aggour and Economides (1999) concluded
that damage penetration normal to the fracture face
is more important than the degree of damage. If the
penetration is minimized, even a 99% damage to
reservoir permeability should still result in a negative
skin. This is an important conclusion, suggesting that
even though the performance of high-permeability

fractures is expected to improve with time as cleanup
of the fracture occurs, the appropriate choice and
engineering of fracturing fluid can significantly reduce
or even eliminate the time of initial lost production.
Aggour and Economides (1999) proposed the use of
high polymer loads of cross-linked fracturing fluids
to minimize damage penetration. To complete the
fracturing fluid design, there is a crucial need for
good breakers and filter cake building additives. This
type of fracturing fluid can minimize the spurt loss
and leak-off. Thus, in high-permeability fracturing,
although creating a highly conductive fracture
should be the primary concern, the treatment must
be engineered to prevent fracture face damage, a
potential highly detrimental event.
7-6.2 Formation Damage from Saturation Changes
Adverse saturation in the formation can also contribute
to productivity impairment. Production has been
successfully achieved in formations with matrix
permeability as low as 10-3 md. However, adverse
capillary forces, which result in high in situ saturation
of trapped water or liquid hydrocarbons even in
very low-permeability formations, make economic
production difficult. Low-permeability formations
are typically tolerant of only minimal saturation
damage due to the sensitivity to capillary retention
effects, rock-to-fluid and fluid-to-fluid compatibility
issues. In these wells, the damage from drilling and
completion can be overcome by a properly designed
frac treatment, which can penetrate beyond the zone
of induced invasion and damage.
7-6.2.1 Fluid Retention
The major cause of productivity impairment in gas
wells during drilling, completion and fracturing or
workover operations is fluid retention effects. These
can consist of the permanent retention of water
or hydrocarbon based fluids or the trapping of
hydrocarbon condensate fluids retrograded in the
formation during the production of the gas. Bennion
and his collaborators have labeled this phenomena
as aqueous or hydrocarbon phase trapping
(Bennion et al., 1994, 1995).
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
Capillary forces in the formation are the reason
for fluid retention. Capillary pressure forces are
the difference in pressure between the wetting
(typically water in gas reservoirs) and non-wetting
(gas) phases in the matrix. The imbibition effect
has been observed as a particularly severe problem
in reservoirs where sub-irreducible water saturation
exists. Sub-irreducible water saturation is believed
to have been created by a combination of factors,
including dehydration, desiccation, compaction,
mixed-wettability, significant height above the free
water level in oil reservoirs due to drainage, and
diagenetic effects occurring during geologic time.
Laboratory capillary pressure measurements supply
good approximations of the irreducible water
saturation that would normally be expected, but
actual reservoir water saturation can be substantially
lower, i.e., a sub-irreducible level. The high capillarity
pressure associated with low-permeability microporous
reservoirs is illustrated in Fig. 7-42.
600
0.001 md.
0.01 md.
500
0.1 md
1.0 md.
400
Capillary Pressure, psi
300
200
100
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, fraction
Figure 7-42 Effect of capillarity on water saturation (after
Holditch, 1978)
Measured capillary pressure values for four rocks
with permeability from 0.001 to 1.0 md are presented
to illustrate the greater imbibition effects of water in
265
Modern Fracturing

lower-permeability formations. The capillary pressure where APTi is the Aqueous Phase Trapping Index,
of the 0.001 md core at 40% water saturation is ka is the uncorrected formation air permeability
325 psi greater than that of the 0.01 md core at (md), and Swi is the initial (not irreducible)
initial saturation. This illustrates the higher capillary water saturation (fraction).
pressure available in tighter reservoirs to imbibe and APTi values may range from 0 to 1, but more
trap aqueous liquids due to capillary imbibition. typically vary from 0.3 to 1. Table 7-4 contains
Injecting water-based fracturing fluids into high- guidelines for interpreting APTi values.
capillarity reservoir results in the creation of a zone
of high water saturation in the near-wellbore or near- Table 7-4 APTi Values and Associated Reservoir
fracture face area. The relative permeability curves in Characteristics (after Bennion, 1996).
Fig. 7-43 show how increasing water saturation above APTi Range Reservoir Characteristics
the irreducible water saturation results in a dramatic formation unlikely to exhibit significant
decrease in gas relative permeability. APTi = 1.00 permanent sensitivity to aqueous phase
trapping

100
krw 0.80 < APTi < formation may exhibit sensitivity to aqueous
90 krg 1.00 phase trapping

80 formation will likely exhibit significant

APTi < 0.80
sensitivity to aqueous phase trapping
Relative Permeability, percent

70
Relative permeability
decreases rapidly as Water
60 Saturation increases.
A second diagnostic technique uses the
50 calculation of percent Bulk Volume Water (%BVW).
40 Bulk volume water is the percent of the total volume
(including rock) which is water. By comparing the
30
bulk volume water in a given formation versus
20 water production from various fields, a prediction of
10 water cut can be made in a given field (Davis and
Water
0
Imbibition Wood, 2004). Based on the formations log-derived
0 20 40 60 80 100 average porosity and initial water saturation values,
Water Saturation, Percent Pore Space
BVW can be calculated:
Figure 7-43 Effect of water imbibition on relative
% BWV =100 S w ,
(7-27)
permeability changes (after Keelan, 1975).

Producing gas results in the affected zone where %BVW is the Percent Bulk Volume Water,
reverting to the irreducible water saturation dictated is the porosity of the reservoir, fraction, and Sw
by the capillary effects of the system and not the sub- is the water saturation, fraction. Table 7-5 contains
irreducible saturation existing before. The net effect guidelines for interpretation of % BVW values.
is that the critical producing area of the well retains
the increased water saturation, a lowered relative Table 7-5 Percent BVW and its Effect on Reservoir
permeability to gas and therefore lower productivity. Characteristics (after Davis and Wood, 2004)
Bennion et al. (1996a and 1996b) developed an % BVW Range Reservoir Characteristics
empirical equation as a diagnostic tool to help evaluate formation unlikely to exhibit significant
% BVW 3.5 permanent sensitivity to aqueous phase
a reservoirs sensitivity to aqueous phase trapping. trapping
The equation is based on the average permeability 3.5 % BVW formation may exhibit sensitivity to aqueous
and initial water saturation values: 2.0 phase trapping
formation will likely exhibit significant
% BVW < 2.0
sensitivity to aqueous phase trapping
APTi = 0.25 log ka + 2.2 S wi , (7-26)

266

These are just guidelines, and exceptions abound,
particularly for over-pressured reservoirs where
the capillary imbibition effects can be overcome
in a relatively short time frame (Bennion et al.,
1996a and 1996b). These correlations can be used
to estimate compatibility of the formation to
water-based fracturing fluids.
7-6.2.2 Rock/Fluid Interactions
1. Clays: The low permeability associated with many
gas formations is caused generally by small grain
size or limited intercystalline porosity. Permeability
is also reduced by significant concentrations of clay.
A variety of different types of clays can be present.
Highly fresh water sensitive expandable clays such as
smectite or mixed-layer clays can occur in shallower
formations. When contacted by fresh or low-salinity
water, these clays expand in size due to substitution of
water into the clay lattice (Civan and Knapp, 1987).
Other types of clay, such as kaolinite, are susceptible
to electrostatic deflocculation, where abrupt changes
in salinity and pH can cause the clay to disperse and
migrate to pore throats, where it may bridge, block
and cause reductions in permeability. The fluid lost to
the formation can extend a significant distance from
the fracture face; this type of damage may be sufficient
to partially impair production.
2. Chemical Adsorption: Physical adsorption of high-
molecular-weight polymers or oil-wetting surfactants
can reduce permeability significantly in low-quality
formations or preferentially elevate permeability
to water if free-water saturation is present in the
matrix. In low-permeability reservoirs, the relative
size of the polymer chain, even from a broken fluid,
when adsorbed on the surface of the porous media,
is significant in comparison to the pore throats that
allow gas to flow from the matrix.
3. Fines Migration: Fines tend to move preferentially
in the wetting phase; hence when only gas is
flowing, the migration of particulate in the porous
matrix is minimized. Problems can occur when the
fluid invasion occurs due to relatively high spurt
loss from the fracturing fluids.
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
7-6.2.3 Fluid/Fluid Interactions
Fluid-to-fluid incompatibilities can result in formation
of insoluble scales or precipitates due to adverse
chemical reaction of the invaded fracturing fluid
filtrate with in situ formation water. The potential for
stable emulsion formation also can exist, even with
water-based fluids in gas formations that may contain
an initial irreducible liquid hydrocarbon saturation.
The most common type of problematic emulsion is
the water-internal emulsion in which small droplets
of water are encapsulated in a continuous external oil
phase. These types of emulsions can have very high
viscosity (up to 2 to 4 orders of magnitude above
clean, non-emulsified oil) and hence may result in
the formation of permeability-inhibiting emulsion
block. Poorly designed spent acids are a common
offender in this area. Foamy oil would also fall into
the category of a stabilized emulsion, where the oil
forms the eternal phase and small bubbles of trapped
gas form the internal phase. Usually associated with
high-viscosity heavy oils, these fluids have been
documented to have viscosity substantially higher than
non-foamy fluids (Bennion, et al., 1993b).
7-6.2.4 Wettability Alterations
Many additives to fracturing fluidsparticularly
surfactants, defoamers, corrosion inhibitors and
some biocideshave polar adsorptive tendencies
that may cause them to establish an oil-wetting
condition in the region of the reservoir they invade.
Figure 7-44 illustrates the phenomenon of a near-
wellbore wettability alteration. Water-wet rock,
due to surface frictional drag effects associated
with the motion of the water phase, tends to have
fairly low final relative permeability.
Conversely if a rock is oil-wet, the water can
move easily through the central portion of the pore
system, and effective final relative permeability
and water mobility are often much higher. If a
formation is initially water-wet, transition to an oil-
wet condition is akin to placing a semi-permeable
membrane around the wellbore, which tends to
hold oil back and preferentially let water through.
This may result in an undesirable increase in water-
267
Modern Fracturing

to-hydrocarbon production ratio if mobile water The precipitation of solids such as paraffin,
saturation is present in the matrix (Sharma and hydrates, diamondoids or elemental sulfur generally
Wunderlich, 1985; Ballard and Dawe, 1987; Cuiec, is initiated by reductions in temperature and also
1989; and Sanner and Azar, 1994). are sometimes a function of a reduction in pressure
(Bennion et al., 1995). Placing a hydraulic fracture
Water
Flow into a reservoir often acts to reduce the pressure and
Gas Flow temperature differential between the reservoir and the
wellbore, reducing the tendency for these phenomena
to significantly affect productivity.
Relative Permeability

Relative Permeability
7-7 Fracturing Fluid Selection
Wellbore

Fracturing fluid selection based on laboratory generated

Water Saturation Water Saturation data has been detailed by Devine (2005). A flowchart,
Wettability Altered Unaltered Fig. 7-45, is used to illustrate the overall procedure. The
procedure utilizes mineralogical evaluation using x-ray
Figure 7-44 Effect of near-wellbore wettability alteration diffraction analysis and scanning electron microscopy of
on relative permeability to hydrocarbon (after Bennion et the formation core to understand potential sensitivities
al., 1993a) of the formation material to fracturing fluids. The
mineralogical evaluation is designed to identify the
7-6.3 Formation Damage from Production appropriate fluid system to be tested under flow
conditions with the core. These tests require some time
Damage can occur during normal gas production and may follow immersion testing and/or capillary
operations due to phenomena including physical fines suction time testing. Immersion testing of rock chips and
migration, gas condensate banking, paraffin deposition capillary suction time testing are used to screen fluids.
from wax-rich gas wells, diamondoids and hydrate If sensitivity evaluation is required rapidly, immersion
plugging problems, and elemental sulfur precipitation testing and/or capillary suction time testing provide
from high H2S-containing gas. valuable results. Flow testing of core plugs is the final step
As explained before, fines generally tend to in determining if systems cause minimal damage to the
preferentially migrate in the wetting phase. For gas formation. Plugs must be of adequate size and adequate
wells, this would usually be water, and significant permeability for meaningful flow testing.
problems with fines migration do not occur unless
interstitial shear rate caused by very high gas flow rates Request for
Scanning fluid sensitivity k>
causes mobilization of connate water. Electron of rock 5 md
Microscopy
Condensate drop-out can be a serious issue in gas
formations. Similar to aqueous phase trapping, if a gas No Rush? Yes
Immersion
Testing
well does not contain pre-existing hydrocarbon saturation, Cappillary
X-Ray
sufficient hydrocarbon saturation to build a continuous Adequate Diffraction
Suction Time Adequate
Testing k and size
liquid film to allow the flow of the condensate to the k and size Analysis

wellbore must occur. This is also called hydrocarbon Any k

Any Size
phase trapping. This critical condensate saturation Fluid
and
Type
is dependent on reservoir lithology, wettability, and Sensitivity
Flow
condensate composition and drawdown pressure. Tight Testing
gas systems, due to adverse capillary effects, often tend to
exhibit higher critical condensate saturation and thus are Figure 7-45 General procedures for determining
sensitivity of formation rock to fracturing fluids (from
more susceptible to this mechanism of damage. Devine, 2005).

268

7-7.1 Mineralogical Evaluation
7-7.1.1 X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) Analysis
Quantitative assessment of reservoir rock mineralogy
is normally obtained from analysis of core (sidewall
or conventional) samples or cuttings. The most
commonly applied method for this purpose is x-ray
diffraction (XRD) (Figs. 7-46 and 7-47), based on
diffraction of x-rays by the crystal planes of minerals
(Ruessink and Harville, 1992).
Figure 7-46 X-ray diffraction apparatus
intensity, Counts
Figure 7-47 X-ray diffraction apparatus sample chamber
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
The x-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum
extends from 0.03 nm to 80 nm. XRD measures
the physical structure of a material and is basically
a ruler, with coherent scattering of the x-ray
beam yielding information about the materials
crystal lattice spacing (Klug and Alexander, 1974).
Scattering is related to lattice d-spacing and the angle
of diffraction defined by Braggs Law:
n = 2d sin , (7-28)
where n is an integer, is wavelength of the
radiation, d is lattice spacing (in angstroms), and
is the angle of diffraction.
The capability of XRD to identify and quantify
minerals is strongly dependent on a minerals crystal
structure. Decrease in crystalline size, degree of ordering,
and crystallinity have detrimental effects on the intensity
of the diffracted beam. XRD is a bulk analysis technique
and therefore does not assess mineral morphology and
texture. This is possible in scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) and other microscopic methods.
Rock samples can be analyzed in a variety of
ways. Analysis of the entire sample at one time is
called whole-rock or bulk analysis. Segregation (by
particle size) is a common method of analyzing
minerals that occur preferentially in a specific
particle size range. Techniques such as fluorescence
microscopy can identify very small portions of a
sample. Figure 7-48 shows an XRD scan of mixed-
layer clays in a bulk core sample.
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
x103
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Two-Theta, deg
Figure 7-48 XRD scan of mixed-layer clays in a bulk
core sample
269
Modern Fracturing

The black line is the scan of the air-dried sample from the electron source to the specimen chamber
vs. the red scan, which is the same sample in glycolated and a new secondary electron detection system. The
state. The change in the pattern here shows that the detection system can operate at high chamber pressures
clays present are swelling clays. (up to 1 psi at 25 C) under most gas environments
including water vapor, oxygen, methane, argon, carbon
7-7.1.2 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) dioxide or organic solvent vapors.

During the past three decades, the conventional
high vacuum scanning electron microscope (SEM)
has become an indispensable research tool for many
petrologic endeavors. These devices can provide sub-
micron resolution and a depth of field roughly two
orders magnitude greater than that of an optical
microscope at any given magnification, The applications
of conventional SEM in petroleum technology are
numerous. Characterizing reservoir rocks, understanding
processes that control rock petrophysical properties and
revealing details and complexities of diagenesis beyond
the resolution limits of traditional petrographic methods
are noteworthy using this equipment (Wells, 1974;
Bentelspacher and Van Der Marel, 1968; Pittman and
Thomas, 1978; Callender and Dahl, 1984).
The conventional SEM, however, needs vacuum
of the order of 10-7 psi in the specimen chamber, and
it can be used only to examine dry and electrically
conducting solid samples. Wet or oily samples, or those
that undergo physical or chemical transformation
under the electron beam, cannot be examined unless
dried or specially prepared. However, dried samples
or those subjected to moderate/high vacuum during
coating may lose their original characteristics and
are likely to incorporate artifacts that could affect
interpretation of the images (e.g., collapsed clays,
over estimation of porosity). Because of these
limitations, the conventional SEM images, although
useful, cannot provide unambiguous information
about the rocks under wet conditions.
The environmental scanning electron microscope
(ESEM) allows imaging of fluids and virtually any sample
in its natural wet or dry state, In addition, the microscope
can be used to observe and record in real-time, dynamic
processes such as drying, melting, swelling, dissolution Figure 7-49 SEM of Rotlingen sandstone
and precipitation, and surface chemical reactions at
temperatures up to 1000 C (Mehta, 1991). This was Small chips of selected core are cleaned, using toluene
accomplished by incorporating a differential pumping vapor extraction, dried at 150 F overnight, affixed to a
system that creates a pressure gradient of 10-8 to 1 psi standard aluminum SEM stubs, and coated with gold,

270

using a sputter coater. Samples are then individually
placed in the chamber of the SEM, and vacuum is
applied. The principal objective of this examination is
to observe the distribution of clay minerals and other
authigenic cements in the pore system. Secondarily, the
overall morphology of the pore system, particularly with
regard to pore sizes and the degree of interconnection
of open pores are examined. If required, rock/fluid
interactions may be directly observed with the ESEM.
Figure 7-49 shows the SEM of Rotlingen sandstone, a
framework of grains coated with illite.
7-7.1.3 Immersion Testing
Immersion testing is utilized to screen potential base
fluids for fracturing systems and to qualitatively
determine the effect of various fluids on rock chips,
in a minimal amount of time. Typically, a drilled
core plug is cut into wafers, approximately 0.5 cm
thick. Samples are cleaned by toluene and methanol
extraction prior to testing. The purpose of the
cleaning is to strip any residual fluids from the pore
system, which might prevent rock contact with the
test fluid. Clean, dry wafers are then immersed in
test fluids. If the sample is small, one wafer may
be cut into chips for testing. The test is limited
by sample permeability. Figure 7-50 shows the
results of exposure of core sample to two fracturing
fluids. When there is detrimental interaction of
the fluid with the formation sample, the core starts
disintegrating, as shown on the left. The fluid on the
right is compatible with this formation.
Figure 7-50 Core compatibility testing with fracturing
fluids showing incompatibility (left) and compatibility
(right), in a core from a field in Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
7-7.1.4 Capillary Suction Time Testing
Capillary suction time testing is utilized to determine
the sensitivity of rock samples to potential base
fluids for fracturing systems. The technique provides
numbers for use in comparing fluids. Water sensitivity
and clay swelling control are tested for water-based
fluids. The test gives the time of movement of a
waterfront between two electrodes on a porous paper
(Gale and Baskerville, 1967). The time of movement
of the waterfront is related to the ability of the fluid
to flocculate or disperse clays in the sample. Figure 7-
51 shows a photograph of the unit on the left and the
results of the test with swelling clay like bentonite,
which does not release any water.
Figure 7-51 Capillary suction time apparatus (left) and
results with bentonite (right)
For comparing different samples in the same
fluid, the longer the time of waterfront movement,
the greater the water sensitivity of the sample (the
greater the dispersion). For comparing the same
sample in different fluids, the longer the time of
liquid front movement, the poorer the clay control
by the fluid (the greater the dispersion).
7-7.1.5 Core Flow Analysis
The final elaborate test protocol that can be used
to evaluate the compatibility of a fracturing fluid
with the formation involves evaluating the regain
permeability of the core after exposure to the fluid.
The use of regain permeability to evaluate fluids is
well-established procedure (Klinkenberg, 1941; and
Levine, 1954). Figure 7-52 details the protocol for
evaluating the core for fracturing fluid compatibility.
Residual hydrocarbon and other contaminants are
removed from newly drilled or submitted plugs, using
the solvent vapor extraction technique.
271
 Gas Well
Temperature
Lower? Higher?
220oF
No Low Permeability? Yes No Low Permeability? Yes

Figure 7-53 Fracturing fluid selection chart for gas wells

Under Under
Pressured? pressured?
No Yes No Yes
Water Water Sensitive? Water Sensitive?
Sensitive? Water Sensitive?
No Yes Yes
Yes No
No
Energized Oil Gel;
Borate Crosslinked Oil Energized Crosslinked Methanol Borate Oil Gel or cross
Crosslinked Gel, Methanol linked Methanol
crosslinked; foams Emulsion; Energized Crosslinked
Gel Gel
crosslink Methanol
No Yes
Energized Oil Gel;
Energized Crosslinked
Crosslinked, Methanol Emulsion;
foams Energized cross
Under linked Methanol
Underpressured?
Pressured?
No Yes
No Yes
Water Sensitive?
Water Sensitive? Water Sensitive?
Water Sensitive? Yes
No
No Yes Yes
Yes No Yes VES foams, energized oil
No VES foams,
VES foams, foams, cross VES foams, oil gel, Gel, energized methanol
foams, energized
Modern Fracturing

link water based fluids crosslinked methanol, gel, unconventional fluids

Slick Water, VES VES Fluid, Oil Energized VES Energized VES, crosslinked Fluids
unconventional fluids
Fluid, low polymer Gel, methanol Fluid, Energized Energized cross
Borate crosslinked Gel Borate; CO2 linked Methanol:
energized Zr unconventional
crosslinked fluids

272
 Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage

Full Diameter Core is the core face as opposed to into the core. Effluent
subsampled to provide
1.0" or 1.5" diameter fluids are collected for 36 minutes so that fluid loss
cylindrical core plugs
parameters (wall building coefficient and spurt)
Flow rate and differential
Core plug is ceaned of residual
hydrocarbons, salts and other
pressure are monitored. An
effective permeability to gas
can be calculated. Fracturing fluids are shut-in to
contaminants by solvent vapor
extraction. The sample is vented
at irreducible water saturation
(Kg,Swi) is calculated
break. A post flush of the pad fluid is used after the
and dried to a stable weight
fracturing fluid has broken. All test fluids are injected
Basic Properties are determined: Treatment regime - includes
Dry N2 Permeability (Darcy's Law) preover flushes, leak-off, etc. in a direction opposite to that direction in which the
Helium Porosity (Boyle's Law)
Irreducible water saturation is
initial permeability was established, except the pad
Plug is fully saturated with
brine - Actual or synthetic
re-established.
over-flush that is injected in the production direction
formation brine Laboratory
standard brine, ex. 2% KCl Flow rate and differential
pressure are monitored. An
to simulate the flow of formation fluids from the
effective permeability to gas
Irreducible water saturation at a secondary reducible formation into the well bore.
is established. water saturation
(Kg,Swi) is calculated Final fluids are displaced from the core with
humidified N2 gas. Flow is established in the
Figure 7-52 Core flow testing protocol production direction with humidified N2 gas to
steady state. The regained permeability is established.
In this technique, extraction is continued until Several fluids can be evaluated using the procedure
fluid in contact with cores is colorless. Fluids are further to identify the best suitable fracturing fluid
stripped from the pore system by methanol extraction. compatible with the formation.
After cleaning, plugs are dried at 150 F for 16 hours.
Suction is applied to plug surfaces to remove residual 7-8 Selection of Fracturing Fluids for
fines (generated by trimming plugs) from surface pores. Applications in Gas Wells
Porosity is determined using a dual-cell Boyles law
porosimeter and helium gas pycnometer, and baseline With all the permutations and combinations available for
permeability established relative to dry N2 gas. These fracturing fluids, it is not an easy task to develop a simple
tests are generally at ambient temperature and 250 selection criteria for identifying the right fracturing fluid
psi confining pressure. To better simulate reservoir for a particular reservoir. Holditch et al., (1993), Xiong
conditions, N2 permeability may be determined at and Holditch (1995), and Xiong et al., (1996) tried to
reservoir temperature and a high confining pressure. use expert systems and fuzzy logic to arrive at a selection
process. despite all the efforts, the selection of fracturing
Core flow Procedure Gas Wells: Plugs are seated in fluid for a particular application is still as much an art
rubber sleeves at 1500 psi confining pressure and are as it is science. We have attempted to come up with a
pressure- and flow-saturated with filtered formation simplified chart (Fig. 7-53) that may be used as a first
water. If formation water is not available, laboratory- order approximation in narrowing choices based on the
prepared formation brine is used. This procedure discussion in this chapter for gas wells.
ensures that all test cores used in comparative testing
are at the same (or very similar) initial water-wet state
prior to treatment with the test fluid.
Prior to flow, systems are heated to the reservoir References
temperature. Flow is established in an arbitrary
formation-to-wellbore (production) direction with Aboud, R.S. and Melo, R.C.B.: Past Technologies
humidified N2 gas to steady-state permeability. A gas Emerge Due to Lightweight Proppant Technology:
flow meter is placed in line, ahead of the humidifier. Case Histories Applied on Mature Fields, paper
Cores are then treated with the test fluid. SPE 107184 2007.
If a crosslinked fracturing fluid is tested, a Acharya, A.: Particle Transport in Viscous and
prepad is injected before the main fracturing fluid. Viscoelastic Fracturing Fluids, SPEPE, 104,
Crosslinked fracturing fluids are injected across March 1986.

273
Modern Fracturing
Acharya, A.R.: Viscoelasticity of Crosslinked
Fracturing Fluids and Proppant Transport, SPEPE,
483, November 1988.
Aggour, T.M, and Economides, M.J.: Impact of Fluid
Selection on High Permeability Facturing, paper
SPE 54536, 1999.
Alderman, E.N.: Super Thick Fluids provide New
Answers to Old Fracturing Problems, paper SPE
2852, 1970.
Asadi, M., Conway, M.W., and Barree, R.D.: Zero
Shear Viscosity Determination of Fracturing Fluids:
An Essential Parameter In Proppant Transport
Characterizations, paper SPE 73755, 2002.
Aud, W.W., Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C.L., Harkrider,
J.D., and Hansen, J.T.: The Effect of Viscosity
on Near-Wellbore Tortuosity and Premature
Screenouts, paper SPE 28492, 1994.
Ballard, T.J., and Dawe, R.J.: Wettability Alteration
Induced by Oil Based Drilling Fluids, paper SPE
17160, 1987.
Bennion, D.B., Bietz, R.F., Thomas, F.B., Cimolai,
M.P.: Reduction in the Productivity of Oil and
Gas Reservoirs Due to Aqueous Phase Trapping,
paper CIM 93-24, 1993a.
Bennion, D.B., Chan, M., Sarioglu, G., Courtnage,
D., Wansleeben, J., and Hirata, T.: The In Situ
Formation of Bitumen-water Stable Emulsions in
Porous Media During Thermal Stimulation, paper
CIM 93-46, 1993b.
Bennion, D.B., Cimolai, M.P., Bietz, F.R., Thomas,
F.B.: Reductions in the productivity of oil and gas
reservoirs due to aqueous phase trapping, JCPT
(November 1994).
Bennion, D. B., Thomas, F.B., and Bietz, R.F.:
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs: Problems,
Opportunities and Solutions for Drilling,
Completion, Stimulation and Production, paper
SPE 35577, 1996a.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F., and Bennion,
D.W.: Water and Hydrocarbon Phase Trapping
in porous Media, Diagnosis, Prevention and
Treatment, JCPT, (December 1996b).
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F., and Bennion,
D.W.: Water and hydrocarbon phase trapping
in porous media Diagnosis, Prevention and
Treatment, paper CIM 95-69, 1995.
274
Bentelspacher, H., and Van Der Marel, H.W.: Atlas of
Electron Microscopy of Clay Minerals and Their
Admixtures, Elsevier Publishing Co., 1968.
Blot, M.A., and Medlin, W.L.: Theory of Sand
Transport in Thin Fluids, paper SPE 14468,
1985.
Boles, J.L., Metcalf, A.S., and Dawson, J.: Coated
breaker for crosslinked acid, U.S. Patent No.
5,497,830, 1996.
Boothe, J.E., and Martin, F.D.: Thickened Alcohol
Well Treating Compositions, U.S. Patent No.
4,012,327, 1977.
Brannon, H.D., and Ault, M.G.: New, Delayed Borate-
Crosslinked Fluid Provides Improved Fracture
Conductivity in High-Temperature Applications,
paper SPE 22838, 1991.
Brannon, H.D., and Tjon-Joe-Pin, R.M.:
Biotechnological Breakthrough Improves
Performance of Moderate to High-Temperature
Fracturing Applications, paper SPE 28513, 1994.
Brannon, H., Wood, B., and Wheeler, R.: The Quest
for Improved Proppant Placement: Investigation
of the Effects of Proppant Slurry Component
Properties on Transport, paper SPE 95675 2005.
Bullen, R.S., Mzik, J., Richard, J.P.: Novel compositions
suitable for Treating Deep Wells, U.S. Patent No.
4,701,270, 1987.
Caldwell, J.E., and Sorrell, R.R.: Method of Refining
Esters of Organophosphorus, U.S. Patent No.
3,706,822, 1972.
Callender, C.H., and Dahl, H.M.: Characterization of
Petroleum Sandstone Reservoir Rocks by Scanning
Electron Microscopy, in Scanning Electron
Microscopy, SEM Inc., Chicago, 1984.
Canterino, P.J.: Increasing Viscosity of Normally
Liquid Hydrocarbons and Gels Produced, U.S.
Patent 3658491, 1972.
Carman, P.C., and Cawiezel, K.: Successful Breaker
Optimization for Polyacrylamide Friction Reducers
Used in Slickwater Fracturing, paper SPE 106162,
2007.
Carman, P.C.: Private Communication, 2007.
Cawiezel, K.E.: Non-interfering breaker system
for delayed crosslinked fracturing fluids at low
temperature, U.S. Patent No. 4,969,526, 1990.
Cawiezel, K.E., Wheeler, R.S., and Vaughn, D.R.:

Specific Fluid Requirements for Successful Coiled
Tubing Fracturing Applications, paper SPE
86481, 2004.
Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient
Pressure Analysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture
Case Versus Damage Fracture Case, paper SPE
10179, 1981.
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V., F., and Dominguez-A.,
N.: Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a
Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ, (Aug.
1978) 253-264.
Civan, F., and Knapp, R.M.: Effect of Clay Swelling
and Fines Migration on Formation Permeability,
paper SPE 16235, 1987.
Clark, J.B.: A Hydraulic Process for Increasing the
Productivity of Wells, paper SPE 949001, 1949.
Clark, P.E.: Stimulation Fluid Rheology A New
Approach, paper SPE 8300, 1979.
Clark, P.E.: Transport of Proppant in Hydraulic
Fractures, paper SPE 103167, 2006.
Cleary, M.P., Johnson, D.E., Kogsbll, H.H.,
Owens, K.A., Perry, K.F., de Pater, C.J., Stachel,
A., Schmidt, H., and Tambini, M.: Field
Implementation of Proppant Slugs To Avoid
Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures
With Adequate Proppant Concentration,
paper SPE 25892, 1993.
Constien, V.G.: Fracturing Fluid and Proppant
Characterization, Chapter 5, Reservoir
Stimulation, 1st Ed., Economides, M.J., and
Nolte, K.S., Eds., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1989.
Craigie, L.J.: A New Method for Determining the
Rheology of Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids using
Shear History Simulator, paper SPE 11635,
1983.
Crema, S.C., and Alm, R.R.: Foaming of Anhydrous
Methanol For Well Stimulation, paper SPE
13565, 1985.
Cuiec, L.: Effect of Drilling Fluids on Rock Surface
Properties, paper SPE 15707, 1989.
Dahanayake, M.S., Yang, J., Niu, J.H.Y., Derian, P.J.,
Li, R., and Dino, D.: Viscoelastic surfactant
fluids and related methods of use, U.S. Patent No.
6,831,108, 2004.
Davis, B.J., and Wood, W.D.: Maximizing Economic
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
Return by Minimizing or Preventing Aqueous Phase
Trapping During Completion and Stimulation
Operations, paper SPE 90170, 2004.
Dawson, J.C., Le, H.V., and Kesavan, S.: Polymer
expansion for oil and gas recovery, U.S. Patent
No. 6,017,855, 2000.
Dawson, J.C., Method for improving the high
temperature gel stability of borated galactomannans,
U.S. Patent No. 5,145,590, 1992.
Dawson, J.C., and Le, H.V.: Fracturing using gel with
ester delayed breaking, U.S. Patent No. 6,793,018,
2004.
De Kruijf, A., Davies, D.R., and Fokker, P.A.: Novel
Rheological Equipment for the Characterization
of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 27398,
1994.
Devine, C.S.: Approaches to Fracturing Fluid Selection
Based on Laboratory Generated Data, paper CIM
2005-228, 2005.
di Lullo Arias, G.F., Rae, P., and Ahmad, A.J.K.:
Viscous fluid applicable for treating subterranean
formations, U.S. Patent No. 6,491,099, 2002.
Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.J., Reservoir
Stimulation, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1989.
Ely, J.W., Hargrove, J.S., Wolter, B.C., and Kromer,
J.C.: Pipelining: Viscous Fingering Prop Fracture
Technique Finds Wide Success in Permian and
Delaware Basins, paper SPE 26528, 1993.
Ely, J.W.: Stimulation Engineering Handbook,
PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK, 1994.
Enzendorfer, C., Harris, R.A., Valk, P., Economides,
M.J., Fokker, P.A., and Davies, D.D.: Pipe
viscometry of foams, J. Rheology, 39:2, pp. 345-
358, 1995.
Flanagan, P.W.K.: Preparation of Gelled Liquids,
U.S. Patent 3,243,270, 1966.
Gale R.S., and Baskerville R.C.: Capillary Suction
Method For Determination Of The Filtration
Properties Of A Solid/Liquid Suspension, Chem.
Inc., 9, 355, 1967.
Gdanski, R.D., Harris, P.C., Lord, D.L., Reidenbach,
B., and Shah, S.N.: Analysis of Fann Model 50
for Fracturing Fluid Rheology, paper SPE 21647,
1991.
Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E., and Veatch,
275
Modern Fracturing
R.W. Jr.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing,
SPE Monograph Volume 12, 1989.
Goel, N., and Shah, S.: A Rheological Criterion for
Fracturing Fluids to Transport Proppant during a
Stimulation Treatment, paper SPE 71663, 2001.
Grantham, C.K., and McLaurine, H.C.:
Thixotropy Without Viscosity: A new
Approach to Rheology Control of Oil Muds,
paper SPE 15415, 1986.
Griffin, T.J. Jr.: Method of Fracturing Organic
Liquids, U.S. Patent No. 4,174,283, 1979.
Guillot, D., and Dunand, A.: Rheological
Characterization of Fracturing Fluids by Using
Laser Anemometry, paper SPE 12030, SPE Journal
(February 1985), 39.
Gupta, D.V.S.: Field Application of Unconventional
Foam Technology: Extension of Liquid CO2
Technology, paper SPE 84119, 2003.
Gupta, D.V.S., and Bobier, D.M: The History and
Success of Liquid CO2 and CO2/N2 Fracturing
System, paper SPE 400016, 1998.
Gupta, D.V.S., and Cooney, A.: Encapsulations for
treating subterranean formations and methods
for the use thereof, U.S. Patent No. 5,164,099,
1992.
Gupta, D.V.S., and Franklin, V.L.: Method for
fracturing high temperature subterranean
formations, U.S. Patent No. 5,305,832, 1994.
Gupta, D.V.S., and Hlidek, B.T.: Method and
composition for treating a subterranean formation
with splittable foams, U.S. Patent No. 7,201,227,
2007.
Gupta, D.V.S., and Leshchyshyn, T.T.: CO2 Energized
Hydrocarbon Fracturing Fluid: History & Field
Application in Tight Gas Wells in the Rock Creek
Gas Formation, paper SPE 95061, 2005a.
Gupta, D.V.S., and Leshchyshyn, T.T.: Surfactant Gel
Foam/Emulsion: History and Field Application in
Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, paper SPE
97211, 2005b.
Gupta, D.V.S., and Tudor, E.H.: Method for
fracturing subterranean formations, U.S. Patent
No. 6,875,728, 2005.
Gupta, D.V.S., Hlidek, B.T., Hill, E.S.W., and Dinsa,
H.S.: Fracturing Fluid for Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs: Emulsion of Carbon Dioxide With
276
Aqueous Methanol Base Fluid: Chemistry and
Applications, paper SPE 106304, 2007.
Gupta, D.V.S., Niechwiadowicz, G., and Jerat, A.C.:
CO2 Compatible Non-Aqueous Methanol
Fracturing Fluid, paper SPE 84579, 2003.
Gupta, D.V.S., Pakulski, M., Prasek, B., and Franklin,
V.: High-pH-Tolerant Enzyme Breaker for Oilfield
Applications, paper SPE 23986, 1992.
Gupta, D.V.S., Pierce, R., Litt, N.D., and Jerat, A.C.:
Fracturing fluids containing borate esters as
crosslinking agents and method of using same,
U.S. Patent No. 7,007,757, 2006.
Gupta, D.V.S., Pierce, R.G., and Litt, N.D.: Non-
aqueous Gelled Alcohol Fracturing Fluid, paper
SPE 37229 (1997).
Hackley, V.A., and Ferraris, C.F.: The Use of
Nomenclature in Dispersion Science and
Technology, NIST Recommended Practice Guide,
Special publication 960-3, US Department of
Commerce, 2001.
Hall, B.E., and Szemenyei, C.A.: Fluid additive and
method for treatment of subterranean formations,
U.S. Patent No. 5,089,151, 1992.
Harris, P.C.: Fracturing-Fluid Additives, JPT
(October 1988) 40:10, 1277.
Harris, P.C., and Heath, S.J.: Rheological Properties of
Low-Gel-Loading Borate Fracture Gels, SPEPF,
(November 1998) 230-235.
Harris, P.C., and Heath, S.J.: Rheology of Borate
Crosslinked Foams, SPEPF (May 1996) 113.
Harry, D.N., Putzig, D.E., Moorhouse, R., Del Presco,
T., and Jernakoff, P.: Chemical Structures of Group
4 Metal Crosslinkers for Polygalactomannans,
paper SPE 50731, 1999.
Harry, D.N., Moorhouse, R., and Mathews, L.:
Rheological Responses to Variations in aqueous-
Based Zirconium Crosslinker Chemistry, paper
SPE 37280, 1997.
Hassebroek, W.E., and Waters, A.B.: Advancements
through 15 years of Fracturing, paper SPE 801,
1964.
Hazen, C.: Hydrocolloid Handbook, Food Product
Design (October 2004).
Hendrickson, A.R., Nesbitt, L.E., and Oakes, B.D.:
Soap-Oil Systems for Formation Fracturing,
paper SPE 685, 1956.

Hendrickson, A.R., Nesbitt, L.E., and Oakes, B.D.:
Soap-Oil Systems for Formation Fracturing, The
Petroleum Engineer, May 1957.
Hernandez, J.M., Fernandez, C.T., and Sciana, N.M.:
Methanol as Fracture Fluid in Gas Wells, paper
SPE 27007, 1994.
Hill, A., and Carrington, S.: Understanding the
link between Rheology and Particle Parameters,
American Laboratory News, November/December
2006.
Himes, R.E., and Vinson, E.F.: Stabilizing clayey
formations, U.S. Patent No. 4,828,726, 1989.
Holditch, S.A.: Factors Affecting Water Blocking and
Gas Flow from Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells,
paper SPE 7561, 1978.
Holditch, S.A., Xiong, H., Rueda, J., Rahim, Z.: Using
an Expert System To Select the Optimal Fracturing
Fluid and Treatment Volume, paper SPE 26188,
1993.
Hunt, J.L., Chen, C.C., Soliman, M.Y.: Performance
of Hydraulic Fractures in High Permeability
Formations, paper SPE 28530, 1994.
Jales, W., Grisdale, J., and Hossaini, M.: Fracturing
with Crosslinked Gelled Methanol: A New
Approach to Well Stimulation, paper CIM 88-
39-29, presented at the Petroleum Society CIM
Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, 1988.
Jin, L., and Penny, G.S.: Dimensionless Methods for
the Study of Particle Settling in Non-Newtonian
Fluids, JPT, (March 1995) 223.
Kalfayan, L.J.: Fracture Acidizing: History,
Present State, and Future, paper SPE 106371,
2007.
Keck, R.G., Nehmer, W.L., and Strumolo, G.S.:
A method for Predicting Friction Pressures
and Rheology of Proppant laden Fracturing
Fluids, SPEPE (February, 1992).
Keelan , D.K.: Rock Properties and their effect on Gas
Flow and Recovery, presented at the 22nd Annual
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech
Univeristy, Lubbock, Texas April 17-18, 1975.
Khade, S.D., and Shah, S.N.: New Rheological
Correlations for Guar Foam Fluids, SPEPF (May
2004) 19:2.
Klinkenberg, L.J.: The Permeability of Porous Media
to Liquids and Gases, Drilling and Production
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
Practices, API, 200, 1941.
Klug, H.P., and Alexander, L.E.: X-ray Diffraction
Procedures for Polycrystalline and Amorphous
Materials, John Wiley & Sons, 1974.
Knoll, S.K., and Prudhomme, R.K.: Interpretation
of Dynamic Oscillatory Measurements for
Characterization of Well Completion Fluids,
paper SPE 16283, 1987.
Kramer, J., Prudhomme, R.K., Norman, L.R., and
Sandy, J.M.: Characteristics of Metal-Polymer
Interactions in Fracturing Fluid Systems, paper
SPE 16914, 1987.
Kraynik, A.M., Aubert, J.H., Chapman, R.N., and
Guyre, D.C.: The Helical Screw Rheometer: A
New Concept in Rotational Rheometry, SPE
ANTEC, April 1984.
Lei, C and Clark, P.E.: Crosslinking of Guar and Guar
Derivatives, paper SPE 90840, 2004.
Levine, J.S., Displacement Experiments in a
Consolidated Porous System Trans. AIME, 1954.
Lillies, A.T.: Sand Fracturing with Liquid Carbon
Dioxide, paper CIM 82-33-23, 1982.
Liu, Y., and Sharma, M.M.: Effect of Fracture
Width and Fluid Rheology on Proppant
Settling and Retardation: An Experimental
Study, paper SPE 96208, 2005.
Lord, D.L.: Helical Screw Rheometer: A New Tool for
Stimulation Fluid Evaluation, paper SPE 18213,
1988.
Lord, D.L., and Shackelford, D.: Real-Time Fracturing
Fluid Rheology Measurements With the Helical
Screw Rheometer, paper SPE 19734, 1989.
Mathur, A.K., Ning, X., Marcineau, R.B., Ehlig-
Economides, C.A., and Economides, M.J.:
Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation of Highly
Permeable Formations: The Effect of Critical
Fracture Parameters on Oilwell Production, paper
SPE 30652, 1995.
Mazza, R.L.: Liquid CO2 improves Fracturing, Harts
Oil and Gas World (February 1997), 22.
McLaughlin, H.C., Elphingstone, E.A., and Hall, B.E.:
Aqueous Polymers for Treating Clays in Oil and
Gas, paper SPE 6008, 1976.
McLeod, H.O., and Coulter, A.W.: The Use of Alcohol
in Gas Well Stimulation paper SPE 1033, 1966.
Mehta, S.: Imaging of Wet Specimens in Their
277
Modern Fracturing
Natural State Using Environmental Scanning
Electron Microscope (ESEM): Some Examples of
Importance to Petroleum Technology, paper SPE
22864, 1991.
Mitchell, B.J.: Viscosity of Foam, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Oklahoma, 1969.
Mondshine, T.C.: Crosslinked fracturing fluids,
U.S. Patent No. 4,619,776, 1986.
Mondshine, T.C.: Process for decomposing
polysaccharides in alkaline aqueous systems, U.S.
Patent No. 5,253,711, 1993.
Monroe, R.F., and Rooker, B.E.: Aluminum Salts
of Alkyl Orthophosphates, U.S. Patent No.
3,494,949, 1970.
Moorhouse, R., Harry, D.N., Mathews, L and
Merchant, L.: Inter-relationships between
Polymer/Crosslinker Chemistry and Performance
in Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 39531, 1996.
Mzik, J.: High Viscosity Crosslinked Gelled Alcohol,
Canadian Patent Application No. 2,108,194,
1993.
Mzik, J.: High Viscosity Alcohol Gel For Shallow
Wells, Canadian Patent Application No.
2,119,682, 1994.
Novotny, E.J.: Proppant Transport, paper SPE 6813,
1977.
Pakulski, M.K., and Gupta, D.V.S.: High temperature
gel stabilizer for fracturing fluids, U.S. Patent No.
5,362,408, 1994.
Penny, G.S., Pursley, J.T., and Holcomb, D.: The
Application of Microemulsion Additives in
Drilling and Stimulation Results in Enhanced Gas
Production, paper SPE 94274, 2005.
Petkowicz, C.L.O., Reicher, F., and Mazeau, K.:
Conformational Analysis of Galactomannans:
from Oligomeric Segments to Polymeric Chains,
Carbohydr. Polym. 37, 25-39, 1998.
Phillips, A.M., and Mack, D.J.: Fracturing process
using a viscosity stabilized energizing phase, U.S.
Patent No. 5,002,125, 1991.
Pianfetti, J.A., and Janey, P.L.: Production of Aliphatic
Phosphate Esters, U.S. Patent No. 3,020,303,
1962.
Pittman, E.D., and Thomas, J. B.: Some Applications
of Scanning Electron Microscopy to the study of
Reservoir Rock, paper SPE 7550, 1978.
278
Poklacki, E.S.: Polyamine Salts of Aluminum Alkyl
Orthophosphates, U.S. Patent No. 4,007,128,
1977.
Prudhomme, R.K., Ellis, S., Constien, V.G., and Knoll,
S.: Reproducible Rheological Measurements on
Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 18210,
1988.
Reidenbach, V.G, Harris, P.C., Lee, Y.N., and Lord,
D.L.: Rheological Study of Foam Fracturing
Fluids Using Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide,
SPEPE (January 1986) 31.
Rieb, B.: Private Communication, 2007.
Roodhart, L.P.: Proppant Settling in Non-Newtonian
Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE/DOE 13905, 1985.
Ruessink, B.H., and Harville, D.G.: Quantitative
Analysis of Bulk Mineralogy: The Applicability
and Performance of XRD and FTIR, paper SPE
23828, 1992.
Russell, D.: Recycling of Water & Minimizing Fresh
Water Usage, presented at Shallow Gas Forum,
PTAC, Calgary, Canada, June 2001.
Sanner, D.O., and Azar, J.J.: Alteration of Reservoir
Rock Wettability and its Flow Properties Caused
by Oil Based and Water Based Drilling Muds,
paper SPE 27354, 1994.
Savins, J.G.: Generalized Newtonian (Pseudoplastic)
Flow and Stationary Pipes and Annuli, Trans.,
AIME (1958) 213, 325.
Schols, R.S., and Visser, W.: Proppant Bank Buildup
in a Vertical Fracture Without Fluid Loss, paper
SPE 4834, 1974.
Schwartz, K.N., and Smith, K.W.: Friction reducing
composition and method, U.S. Patent No.
7,205,262, 2007.
Settari, A., Bachman, R.C., Morrison, D.C.: Numerical
Simulation of Liquid CO2 Hydraulic Fracturing,
paper CIM 86-37-67, 1986.
Sharma, M.M., and Wunderlich, R.W.: The Alteration
of Rock Properties Due to Interactions with
Drilling Fluid Components, paper SPE 14302,
1985.
Smith, C.F.: Gas Well Fracturing using Gelled Non-
Aqueous Fluids, paper SPE 4678, 1973.
Smith, K.W., and Persinski, L.J.: Hydrocarbon Gels
useful in Formation Fracturing, U.S. Patent No.
5,471,287, 1995.

Smith, K.W., and Persinski, L.J.: Hydrocarbon Gels
useful in Formation Fracturing, U.S. Patent No.
5,571,315, 1996.
Smith, K.W., and Persinski, L.J.: Hydrocarbon Gels
useful in Formation Fracturing, U.S. Patent No.
5,614,010, 1997a.
Smith, K.W., and Persinski, L.J.: Ferric alkyl
amine citrates and methods of making them,
U.S. Patent No. 5,693,837, 1997c.
Smith, K.W., and Persinski, L.J.: Preparation of
hydrocarbon gels from ferric sources, polycarboxylic
acid compounds, and optional amines, in
combination with phosphate esters, U.S. Patent
No. 5,647,900, 1997c.
Sudhakar D.K., and Shah, S.N.: New Rheological
Correlations for Guar Foam Fluids, SPEPF, (May
2004) 7785.
Teot, A.S., Rose, G.D., and Stevens, G.A., Friction
reduction using a viscoelastic surfactant, U.S.
Patent No. 4,615,825, 1981.
Teot, A.S., Ramaiah, M., and Coffey, M.D.: Aqueous
Wellbore Service Fluids, U.S. Patent No.
4,725,372, 1988.
Thesing, A.: New Device for Rheology Measurements
of Proppant-laden Fluids with the Fann 50
viscometer, paper SPE 58759, 2000.
Thompson, J.E. Sr., McBain, C., Gregory, G., and
Gerbrandt, D.: New Continuous-Mix Process
for Gelling Anhydrous Methanol Minimizes
Technology, JPT (July 1992) 832.
Tiner, R.L., Stahl, E.J., and Malone, W.T.:
Developments in Fluids to Reduce Potential
Damage from Fracturing Treatments, paper SPE
4790, 1974.
Toney, F.L., and Mack, D.J.: The Next Generation of
Foam: A Field Study of Northwestern Oklahoma
Foam Fracturing, paper SPE 21644, 1991.
Tudor, R., Vozniak, C., Banks, M.L., and Peters W.:
Technical Advances of Liquid CO2 fracturing,
paper CIM 94-36, 1994.
Valk, P., and Economides M.J.: Hydraulic Fracture
Mechanics, Wiley, 1985.
Valk, P., and Economides, M.J.: Volume Equalized
Equations for Foamed Polymer Solutions, J.
Rheology, 36, pp. 1033-1055, 1992.
Veatch, R.W. Jr.: Overview of Current Hydraulic
Chapter 7 Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage
Fracturing Design and Treatment Technology,
JPT (April 1983) 35, p853.
Virk, P.S.: Drag Reduction Fundamentals, AIChE J.,
21, 625 (1975).
Walles, W.E., Williamson, T.D., and Tomkinson, D.L.:
Method for treating subterranean formations,
U.S. Patent No. 4,741,401, 1988.
Wang, X., Qu, Q., McCarthy, S., Null, J., Bowen,
K., and Neumann, L.: Successful Applications
of Borate Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids at High
Temperature, paper SPE 73789, 2002.
Wells, O.C.: Scanning Electron Microscopy, McGraw
Hill, 1974.
Williams, B.B.: Fluid Loss from Hydraulically Induced
Fractures, JPT (July 1970) 22:6, 882888.
Winkler W., Valk, P. and Economides, M.J.: Laminar
and Drag Reduced Polymeric Foam Flow, Journal
of Rheology, Vol. 38 (1) pp. 111-127, 1994.
Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C., Perry, K.F., and Cleary,
M.P.: Identification and Comparison of True
Net Fracturing Pressures Generated by Pumping
Fluids with Different Rheology into the Same
Formations, paper SPE 26153, 1993.
Xiong, H., and Holditch, S.A.: An Investigation Into
the Application of Fuzzy Logic to Well Stimulation
Treatment Design, paper SPE 27672, 1995.
Xiong, H., Davidson, B., Saunders, B., and
Holditch, S.A.: A Comprehensive Approach
to Select Fracturing Fluids and Additives
for Fracture Treatments, paper SPE 36603,
1996.
Zhang, K.: Fluids for fracturing subterranean
formations, U.S. Patent No. 6,468,945,
2002.
Zhang, K., Pierce, R., Litt, N.D., and Gupta,
D.V.S.: Foam-fluid for fracturing subterranean
formations, U.S. Patent No. 6,410,489,
2002.
279
Modern Fracturing

280
Dr. C. Mark Pearson is president and CEO of Golden Energy, LLC, and an adjunct professor of petroleum
engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. Pearson has BS and PhD degrees from the Camborne School
of Mines (UK) and graduated from the Advanced Management Program of the Harvard Business School.
He has over 30 years of experience in the oil and gas/energy industries, working in both the E&P and service
sectors. His E&P experience includes 12 years with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), where he held a
variety of technical and management positions in engineering and operations. From 2001 to 2005, he was
president and CEO of NYSE-listed Carbo Ceramics Inc.

Harold D. Brannon is senior advisor for fracturing at BJ Services Company in the Corporate Technology
Center in Tomball, Texas. He has 27 years of industry experience in well completion, stimulation and
remediation technologies and has held positions in several arenas including R&D, product line management,
treatment engineering, technical support, chemical manufacturing, marketing and intellectual property.
Harold has a BS in chemistry from Baylor University. He is an active SPE member, having previously served
on various technical program committees including those for the Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, ATCE
Well Completions, ATCE Well Stimulation (chairman), and the Formation Damage Symposium. He is
currently serving as the Editorial Review Chair for the SPE Production & Operations Journal. Harold also
sits on several API and ISO Standard Practice Committees, has authored and co-authored over 60 technical
publications, and is listed as an inventor on over 35 US patents, issued and pending.
Chapter 8
Proppants and Fracture
Conductivity
Harold D. Brannon, BJ Services and
C. Mark Pearson, Golden Energy LLC
8-1 Introduction
8-1.1 Overview
To successfully enhance well productivity or injectivity,
a created fracture must have permeability (leading to
conductivity) orders of magnitude greater than the
reservoir matrix permeability. When pumping has
ceased and the imparted hydraulic fluid pressure has
dropped below that required to keep the fracture open,
the fracture may close, and in doing so, substantially
eliminate the desired conductive pathway to the
wellbore. Proppants, or propping agents, are placed in
the fracture to maintain the flow path after the treating
pressure is relieved. Ideally, the proppant will provide
flow conductivity large enough to minimize pressure
losses in the fracture during production. In practice,
this may not always be achieved because the selection
of a proppant involves many compromises imposed by
economic and practical considerations.
Thus, the proppant that is pumped as part of a
fracture stimulation treatment is an integral and vital
part of the completion system because it provides the
connection for hydrocarbons to flow between the reservoir
and the producing wellbore. Of equal importance is
optimization of the conductive or effective fracture area,
since stimulated well performance is directly dependent
upon the producibility of hydrocarbons from that area.
The conductive fracture area is defined by the propped
fracture height within the productive zone and the effective
fracture length. This metric is strongly influenced by the
ability to transport or place the proppant in the desired
location. Flow within the propped fracture is concentrated
through a relatively small cross-sectional area. Therefore,
great attention needs to be given to the design of this flow
path in order to optimize the production and recovery
from the reservoir. See Sections 2-5 and 4-5 for fractured
well performance and Section 4-6 for treatment design.
Typically, the engineer has two primary questions to
answer: which proppant? and how much is needed?
This chapter reviews the criteria to answer these two
questions. Although the optimum size of the fracture
(the lateral and vertical extent of contact with the
reservoir) is briefly discussed, the primary focus is on
understanding the effective conductivity of the propped
fracture and the characteristics of different proppant
types. The impacts of different reservoir conditions
on the proppant are reviewed with the laboratory
procedures to measure proppant properties and how
they are used in the fracture treatment design.
8-1.2 The Evolution of Proppants
In the 1940s, the first experimental fracture treatments
in the industry did not use proppant. It quickly became
apparent that an unpropped fracture healed, and a solid
material needed to be injected to facilitate production
from the reservoir and to prevent the fracture walls from
closing (Howard and Fast, 1970). One of the earliest
proppants used in the 1950s was sand dredged from the
Arkansas River. Later, it became evident to engineers that
productivity could be improved by using screened and
processed sand. Monocrystalline sand was used from the
Saint Peter formation near Ottawa, Illinois. Referred to as
white or Ottawa sand, the mined sand consists of grains
that are single quartz crystals that offer superior strength
properties compared to other sands. With the rapid
increase in the number of fracturing treatments, increased
proppant demand warranted additional supplies. In
1958, brown sand quarries were opened in the Hickory
sandstone formation near Brady, Texas. These sands are
polycrystalline, and each grain is composed of multiple
crystals bonded together. The existence of cleavage planes
within each grain results in greater proppant crush and
reduced strength properties. The white Ottawa and
brown Texas sands continue to be the major sources of
frac sand to the industry together with some production
from the Jordan, Ironton, and Galesville sandstones
in Minnesota and Wisconsin (Hoaberg and Koerner-
Moore, 1978; Gidley et al., 1989). In international
markets outside of North America, a number of sand
sources are used locally, including sources in Australia,
Indonesia, Oman, Peoples Republic of China, Poland,
Saudi Arabia, and the UK.
283
Modern Fracturing
Fracturing fluid technology was still in its infancy
in the 1960s. A primary concern was the ability of the
fluid to transport proppant down the fracture away from
the wellbore. Design proppant concentrations were kept
low and typically limited to placing less than lb/ft2 of
proppant in the fracture. Glass beads were utilized with
lighter, deformable materials such as walnut shells and
plastic beads. Engineering work focused on attempting
to maximize conductivity by placing a partial monolayer
of proppant such that flow capacity was obtained from
the voids between proppant grains. Unfortunately, the
theoretical benefits of a partial monolayer were rarely
realized for several reasons:
The proppant settled into a bed at the bottom of the
fracture.
The proppant was brought into grain-to-grain
contact as the fracture closed due to fluid dehydration
after pumping.
Embedment effects were severe in softer formations,
resulting in loss of effective width.
Severe stress was applied to individual proppant
grains because the closure stress over the entire
fracture face had to be supported by only a partial
layer of proppant.
Recognizing these problems, soluble proppant
spacers were also mixed with the proppant material in
a largely unsuccessful attempt to increase conductivity
after they were dissolved by produced hydrocarbons.
Another issue facing the industry was the
exploitation of deep gas reservoirs that required hydraulic
fracturing for successful commercialization. This was
addressed in the mid-1970s when Exxon Production
Research invented the use of ceramic proppants by
sintering pellets of bauxite an alumina-silicate clay
containing over 80% Al2O3 (Cooke et al., 1978). First
commercial production of bauxite proppant occurred in
1979 for the exclusive use of fracturing deep gas wells.
This was followed in 1982 by the introduction of what
is commonly referred to as an Intermediate Strength
Proppant (ISP), which is manufactured from a raw
material with around 70% Al2O3 (Fitzgibbon, 1984).
Both of these products are manufactured from high-
alumina ores. They are first ground to a particle size less
than 15 m and then formed into pellets using water
and binder in a high-intensity mixer. After drying, the
284
pellets are fired in a kiln to produce a strong crystalline
structure. These two products find wide application in
gas wells at greater than 10,000 ft depth.
The many problems associated with brittle failure
of quartz spawned development of an improved sand-
based product. Resin-coated sand (RCS) proppants
were introduced, using a phenolic resin coating to
encapsulate each sand grain. They are primarily used
in applications where regular sand does not quite give
sufficient permeability yet the added cost of a ceramic
proppant is not justified. The resin improves the
properties of the sand by reducing the grain angularity
and the amount of crush by distributing the load
more evenly and encapsulating the fines in the resin
coating (Graham et al., 1975; Johnson and Armbruster,
1984). Pre-cured resin-coated sand proppants are used
in shallow and moderate-depth fracture treatments of
lower producing rate formations and occasionally have
found application in frac-pack treatments.
In 1985, the first lightweight ceramic (LWC)
proppant was introduced, with Al2O3 content around
50% (Lunghofer, 1985). Although it is not as strong as
a bauxite or ISP proppant, it has similar density to sand
with greater sphericity and improved strength. It found
application in shallower formations where production
could be improved by increasing fracture conductivity
beyond that of sand or resin-coated sand proppants.
This product was used for the first extensive high-
permeability, hard-rock formation fracturing programs,
which occurred in Alaska in the late-1980s (Pearson
et al., 1992). Similarly, in the 1990s, LWC proppant
found wide application as fracturing technology
was applied to high-permeability, unconsolidated
formations and is the most widely used proppant for
frac-pack completions.
Today there are over 50 different types of proppant
products coming in a variety of mesh sizes. However,
most can be categorized into one of the following
proppant types:
Natural sand (white mono-crystalline, or brown
multi-crystalline)
Resin-coated sand using a variety of phenolic and
other coatings
Ceramic proppants, ranging from lightweight
ceramics with an Al2O3 of 45-50% to bauxites with
an Al2O3 content in excess of 80%.

8-1.3 Fracture Conductivity
The fracture conductivity defines the conductive
path provided by the proppant material to enhance
deliverability and provide economic benefit when
the well is placed on production. Traditionally this is
measured as the product of proppant permeability and
propped fracture width (kfw). It is typically reported in
millidarcy-feet (md-ft) and is a key design parameter.
Note that the units of permeability are length squared and
fracture width is unit length. Thus, fracture conductivity
can be thought of as the volumetric capacity of the
fracture to transmit reservoir fluids.
The above definition of fracture conductivity is,
in fact, only a measure of the viscous drag effects of
the producing hydrocarbon. Darcy (1856) showed
that the pressure drop through porous media is
proportional to the fluid velocity:
p v
= , (8-1)
L k
where p/L is the pressure drop per length of proppant
pack, is the fluid viscosity, v is the superficial fluid
velocity and k is the permeability.
Equation 8-1 works for laminar flow, i.e., for
Reynolds Number less than 1 as measured in the porous
medium. The Reynolds Number is given by:
k f ,n (2-37)
N Re = , 20/40 Ottawa Sand
where kf,n is the nominal permeability (under Darcy
flow conditions) in m2, is the coefficient of
inertial flow resistance in m-1, v is the fluid velocity
at reservoir conditions in m/s, is the viscosity of
the fluid at reservoir conditions in Pa.s, and is the
density of the flowing fluid in kg/m3. The value of
is obtained from:
b
= (1108) , (2-38)
(k f ,n )a
where a and b are obtained from Cooke (1973). Some
values for are given in Table 2-3.
For kf,n = 220,000 md, a = 1.54 and b = 110,470
(for 20/40 mesh proppant) is equal to 65,400. For
example, at 1000 STB/d oil flow, the reservoir flow rate
would be 1200 resbbl per day (assuming Bo = 1.2 resbbl/
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
STB). Therefore, in a fracture of w = 1 in., h = 100 ft,
with appropriate conversions v = 0.014 m/s (half of the
flow in each wing). Using Eq. 2-37 with = 800 kg/m3
and = 1 cp (10-3 Pa.s) the Reynolds Number is 0.15,
decidedly in the laminar flow regime.
For natural gas flow, this is significantly different.
For 1 MMscf/d and flowing pressure of 1500 psi the
velocity through the fracture would be 0.02 m/s, =
90 kg/m3 and = 0.015 cp (0.015 x 10-3 Pa.s). In this
case, the Reynolds Number is about 1.8, clearly in the
turbulent, non-Darcy regime.
At turbulent rates, the pressure gradients
become proportional to the square of the velocity as
represented by Forcheimers equation (Forcheimer,
1901) (see Section 4-7.2.1):
= v + v 2 .
p (4-116)
L k
Forcheimers equation states that the pressure
gradient is the sum of the viscous forces (v/k) and
the inertial forces (v2). At low velocities, where
inertial forces are small, Forcheimers equation
reduces to Darcys Law.
50
Pressure Drop per foot of frac length, psi/ft
Inertial Forces (Forcheimer Correction)
Viscous Forces (Darcy's Law)
40
Conditions:
50' Fracture Height
2#/ft2 ->0.15" after embedment
30 2000 psi BHFP, 200 F
2000 psi closure stress
20 Reference Permeability =
243 Darcy 55% gel damage
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Well Flow rate, MMscf/d
Figure 8-1 Viscous and non-Darcy pressure drops in a
fractured gas well (after Vincent et al., 1999)
For the fracturing of gas wells it is imperative to
include the inertial flow effects and to define an effective
fracture conductivity. Using the above equations, the
pressure drop per foot of fracture length for a single-
phase fluid can be calculated as a function of velocity
in the fracture or production rate through a given
cross-sectional area of fracture. Figure 8-1 shows the
285
Modern Fracturing

pressure drop through a bi-wing fracture with a 50-ft
fracture height when propped with 2 lb/ft2 of 20/40
Jordan sand with 2000 psi of closure stress on the
proppant. It is apparent that Darcys Law is not valid
for calculation of the pressure drop within the fracture
at even moderate rates below 500 Mscf/d. Examination
of Fig. 8-1 shows that the inertial pressure drops are
much more significant than the viscous losses and that
the beta factor of the proppant is more important to
ultimate productivity in a gas well than the laminar
Figure 8-3 provides an example of the necessity of
defining fracture conductivity under conditions of both
inertial and multiphase flow if they exist in the fracture.
Even with a fairly modest well (1 MMscf/d from a bi-
wing 50-ft fracture height), the inertial flow effects
reduce the effective conductivity of the proppant pack
by approximately 70%. Addition of 10 bbl/d of water
to the 1 MMscf/d causes an incremental reduction of
approximately 25% of the reference conductivity.

4002
permeability (Vincent et al., 1999).
4000
In a gas well, there is typically a liquid phase
Jordan Sand
associated with condensate or water production. Resin Coated Sand
Several researchers have attempted to quantify the 3000 Light Weight Ceramic

Conductivity (md-ft)
effects of multiphase flow in fractures with laboratory

2032
work or by analyzing production data. While they 2000

1354
report differing results regarding the absolute effect
on conductivity, all conclude that the multiphase
1000

646
effects are substantial. The effect of multiphase and

467

246
non-Darcy flow can be reported in several ways. If

152

112
27
the pressure drop across the proppant pack increases 0

ow

Fl ase
ity
ten-fold, this is synonymous with reporting a ten-

ow
tiv

Fl

cy h
ar ltip
uc

cy
fold reduction in effective conductivity. Because Eq.
d

ar

-D u
ow n

on h M
-D
Fl Co

on

it
4-116 does not have a term for multiphase flow, the
ar e

W
N
in c
m ren

ith

N
La fe

W
incremental pressure drop is either accounted for by
Re

increasing the beta factor directly, or by determining Test Conditions:

a pressure drop multiplier referred to as gamma ().
Figure 8-2 shows laboratory data of the impact of
mobile liquid saturation on total pressure drop in
the fracture where gamma () is defined as the ratio
of the actual pressure drop divided by the pressure
drop for single phase flow.
100
Gamma
20/40 Proppants at 2lb/sq ft, 6500 psi, 225F
For a 50 ft. bi-wing frac height and 300 psi BHFP:
Reference Conductivity: 65 MSCFD dry gas
Non-Darcy velocity: 1 MMSCFD dry has
Multiphase: with 10 bwpd
Figure 8-3 Impact of non-Darcy and multiphase flow on
measured fracture conductivity (after Penny and Jin, 1995)
8.2 Conductivity Impact on Fractured
Well Production Potential
A variety of methods are available to analyze formation
and fracture characteristics from production data. It

10 is important to recognize that these techniques can

be used to both predict and evaluate production
performance if the reservoir and fracture characteristics
are specified as shown in Chapters 2 and 4.
1 The productivity improvement as a result of
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Increasing flow of mobile liquid phase
fracturing a well will depend on the initial condition
SVN
liquid  SVN
gas + iquid of the formationi.e. whether it is damaged prior to
the treatment. The primary mechanism that improves
Figure 8-2 Example pressure drop multiplier for
multiphase flow (courtesy of Stim-Lab Inc.) production from a fractured well is the change in flow

286

pattern within the reservoir. In a natural completion
or matrix-acidized well, there is a radial flow pattern.
In flow from a fractured well there is a large portion
of production that will be channeled through the
fracture, particularly in the presence of any near-
wellbore formation damage.
After a fractured gas well is placed on production, a
pressure drawdown moves down the fracture away from
the well. Four different flow periods will result over time:
linear flow in the fracture, bi-linear flow in the fracture
and formation, linear flow in the formation and, finally,
pseudo-radial flow into the fracture. These different flow
patterns are shown schematically in Fig. 8-4.
Well Fracture
Fracture
a calculated from a pressure buildup test. In the case
Fracture Linear Flow c of high-permeability formations, positive skin factors
Formation Linear Flow
Well
Fracture
Fracture
Well
b is controlled by both the capacity of the formation to
d
Bilinear Flow Pseudo-Radial Flow
Figure 8-4 Flow periods for a fractured well (after Cinco
et al., 1978)
Modeling of productivity improvement can take a
variety of forms. If warranted, a fully compositional,
3-D reservoir simulator can be used to investigate the
production benefit from fracturing. Typically, a reservoir
simulator is used for field development planning, but it
is not practical for design of individual well completions.
Analytical solutions to the radial diffusivity equation
are often used to estimate production benefits from
changes in completion practices.
Two approaches are used to calculate production
rates: the steady- or pseudo steady-state condition, and
the transient flow solutions. These solutions are not
alternatives, so much as different techniques applicable
under different flow conditions. The steady- or pseudo
steady-state solution is often more applicable to high-
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
permeability formations that are being frac-packed.
The steady-state solution assumes a constant pressure
boundary, while the pseudo steady-state solution
assumes a closed reservoir with no pressure support
such that after the pressure drawdown has reached the
reservoir boundary, the future rate of change of pressure
is constant for a given production rate. In very low-
permeability formations (e.g. tight gas sands) the well
may not reach pseudo steady-state conditions. In these
cases, the transient solution is used because it considers
the transient response for all time. These issues are
covered extensively in Chapter 2.
8-2.1 How a Propped Fracture
Benefits Well Flow Rate
If a well is damaged, a positive skin factor will be
in the range of +10 to +30 often result from gravel
pack completion practices. The production benefit of
bypassing this damage (s = 0) or from stimulating the
well (s < 0) can be calculated readily using the equations
given in Section 2-3.3. Post-fracture skin factors of 3
to 6 are common in hard rock completions.
The potential productivity benefit of the fracture
deliver fluids to the fracture and the capacity of the
fracture to produce the fluids into the wellbore. Many
slightly different terms are used to define the relative
capacity. The most common term is referred to as the
dimensionless fracture conductivity (CfD) and was
defined in Section 4-5.1 as:
k w
f
C fD =
, (4-108)
kx f
where k is the formation permeability in md, kf is the
fracture permeability in md, w is the propped fracture
width in ft, and xf is the fracture half-length in ft.
Based on the discussion in Section 8-1.3, it
is important to realize that the literature defines
fracture conductivity by the term (kfw). Since kf as
measured under laboratory test conditions is a reference
permeability, this should be restated in terms of effective
fracture permeability including both non-Darcy and
multiphase flow effects (kM).
287
Modern Fracturing

In an ideal completion, fracture length and 1.0

conductivity should be balanced to maximize

f

g xf
production as explained in Section 4-5. A re asin
k f wf Inc
design value of CfD will be determined in order r a  0.25
k ng
k fw
reasi
to provide a physical optimization of fracture 0.1
Inc

performance and an economically engineered balance

Steady-State Folds
between fracture flow capacity and potential reservoir of Increase

deliverability into the fracture. The optimum value

of CfD to physically maximize production for most
0.01
fracturing treatments is 1.6 (for medium- to high- 0.1 0.1 k f wf 10 100
CfD 
permeability formations) but can be larger in lower- kxf

permeability reservoirs as shown explicitly in Section Figure 8-6 Producing rate folds of increase plot (after
4-5. The actual value for each completion will be Prats, 1961)
specific to the relative values of the formation and
effective proppant permeabilities. Figure 8-6 shows that for a low value of CfD
Tannich and Nierode (1986) presented the impacts < 1 the effective wellbore radius (rw) may be
of the relative capacity of the fracture and penetration approximated by:
for gas wells. As shown in Fig. 8-5 the productivity
k w
index ratio is provided as a function of the relative non- rw = 0.25 f . (8-3)
k
Darcy flow conductivity.
And for the case of infinite fracture conductivity (i.e.
10
CfD ), such that there is no significant pressure
9
drop in the fracture, the effective wellbore radius may
8 be approximated by:
7 0.8
rw = 0.5 x f .
(8-4)
Productivity index Ratio

6
0.7
5
The same concept is demonstrated where production
0.5
4 rates are governed by fracture conductivity at
3 0.3 low values of CfD and by reservoir penetration at
2
high values of CfD.
0.1

1
8-2.3 Transient Solutions
0
0.1 1.0 10 100 1000 10000
Models developed for pressure transient analysis can be
Relative capacity-RC = RCF
used to predict the production rate as a function of
Figure 8-5 Productivity increase plot (after Tannich and
time. Three basic models are used to analyze fractured
Nierode, 1986)
wells: the uniform flux, infinite conductivity, and
(the most appropriate) finite conductivity models.
8-2.2 Steady-State Solutions Figures 8-7 and 8-8 show example solutions for the
constant pressure and constant rate cases for the finite
Although not commonly applicable for gas wells, if there conductivity vertical fracture model (Cinco et al., 1978.)
is a case where there is pressure support for the reservoir, Note that the dimensionless fracture conductivity
a steady-state solution is more applicable. Prats (1961) term is defined a little differently:
defined the concept of an equivalent wellbore radius of k w
f f
a fractured well as shown in Fig. 8-6. Cr =
. (8-5)
kX f

288
 Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity

10 a fracture designed for optimal late-time performance

may not be economically optimal, especially when the
1
economic discount factor is high or there is a need to
kh( pi  p wf )
141.3qNB

.2 recoup development costs in a shorter pay-out time.

Cr = 0
1 The consequences are that treatment economics often


2
10-1 Type Curves require obtaining higher values of effective CfD.
qD
1

10 Finite Capacity Vertical

100 Fractures Constant

10-2
10
00 Pressure Case
8-3 Proppants
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1

.000264kt
tD 
GNCx f 2
The two main categories of proppants used today are
naturally occurring sands and man-made ceramic or
Figure 8-7 Constant-pressure, finite-capacity vertical
fracture type curve (after Cinco et al., 1978) bauxite proppants. Sands are used for applications where
10
the closure stress is less than 6,000 psi, most commonly
wk f
occurring at depths of less than 8,000 ft. Man-made
Cr 
Q xf k ceramic proppants are used for deeper fracturing
1
applications in which the closure stress is greater than
kh( pi  pwf )
141.3qN B

0.2
Cr = 6,000 psi. Man-made proppants may also be employed
1
in applications where high proppant pack permeability
pwfD 

10-1 2 Type Curves

10 Finite Capacity Vertical is required for optimum fracture conductivity. The effect
Fractures Constant
100
00 Rate Case of closure stress on the fracture conductivity provided by
10-2 10
10-5 10 -4
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 various proppant types is shown in Fig. 8-9.
.000264kt
tD 
GNCx f 2 Conductivity vs. Closure Stress for
Various 20/40 Proppant Types
Figure 8-8 Constant-rate, finite-capacity vertical fracture 100000
Ottawa sand LW Ceramic
Proppant Pack Conductivity, mD-ft

type curve (after Cinco et al., 1978)

Brady sand ISP
Pre-cured RC Sand Sintered Bauxite
At dimensionless time values above 102, the Cr 10000

= 10 curve approaches the 100 and 1000 cases

displaying infinite conductivity. 1000

An important contribution to the understanding

of fracture optimization was made using the concept 100

of the Proppant Number to determine the optimum

dimensionless conductivity for placement of a fixed 10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
volume of proppant (Economides et al., 1998. Also see Closure Stress, psi
Sections 2-5 and 4-5). In this case, where the fracture
volume is pre-determined, for small Proppant Numbers Figure 8-9 Effect of Closure Stress on Fracture
Conductivity for Various Proppant Types (from
the optimal value of CfD was found to be 1.6 to maximize Predict K, 2007)
production under pseudo-steady state conditions.
Economides et al. recognized that the indicated 8-3.1 Sands
optimal fracture dimensions may not be technically
or economically feasible. In practice, the engineer is Ottawa and Brady sands are by far the predominant
faced with additional costs of greater fluid volumes fracturing sands used in the oil and gas industry. These
and more out-of-zone growth when achieving greater are commonly called brown and white based upon
lateral extent of the fracture. The Proppant Number the sands primary color. However, color is not the
in that case is based on the proppant in the pay. In only difference in these proppants. Depending on
cases of very low-permeability reservoirs, with the well their overall balance of physical properties, sands
operating under transient conditions for a long time, can be subdivided into groups of excellent, good

289
Modern Fracturing
and substandard grades (API RP 56, 1983; and ISO
13503-2, 2006). The premium sands, which come
mainly from the north central United States, are
commonly known as Ottawa sand. Brady sand,
which is classified as a standard grade of sand, meets
or exceeds the industry-accepted specifications for
hydraulic fracturing proppant. These sands are used
widely in fracturing applications throughout the
world. Although less widely distributed, additional
sources of API-quality fracturing sands are located in
England, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
Several other sands from geographical locations
such as Australia, Peoples Republic of China, Poland
and Oman, are available in the marketplace. These
materials most typically fail to meet one or more of the
industry-accepted specifications and thus, are generally
classified as being substandard. Nevertheless, such
sands are being used as proppants in areas where they
have been deemed fit-for-purpose with respect to the
fracture stimulation of a particular reservoir.
8-3.1.1 Ottawa Sands
Most Ottawa sand is mined from geological formations
in the Midwest region of the United States. White,
Jordan, and Northern sands are other names
used to identify Ottawa sand. The sands are mined
primarily from three main sand deposits: the St. Peter,
the Jordan and the Wonewoc. Because the largest
concentration of mining is in the Ottawa District of
northern Illinois, the term Ottawa Sand is commonly
used to describe these sands. An Ottawa sand plant in
northwest Wisconsin is shown in Fig. 8-10.
Figure 8-10 Ottawa sand manufacturing plant in
northwest Wisconsin (courtesy of Badger Mining Co.)
290
Ottawa sands are considered to be the highest-
quality fracturing sands and are the most widely
employed proppants in the industry. They were formed
from quartz grains freed by the erosion of granites in the
Canadian shield. The eroded sand grains accumulated
on the beaches of an ancient Cambrian Sea, where they
were repeatedly washed, sifted, sorted, and resorted by
tides and winds over millions of years, before they were
covered and protected from erosion and contamination.
This repeated washing and sorting yielded deposits that
are particularly suited for use as fracturing sands.
Ottawa sands are monocrystalline (have a single
crystal phase), which results in superior individual grain
strength properties compared to other sands (Fig. 8-
11). They are characterized by high purity, whiteness or
clarity, a high degree of roundness and sphericity, few
fines, and low solubility in acid. Ottawa sand formations
generally yield a higher percentage of smaller mesh sizes,
but are readily available in sizes from 12 to 70 mesh.
Both Ottawa and Brady sands exhibit particle specific
gravities of approximately 2.65.
Figure 8-11 Ottawa sand grains
8-3.1.2 Brady Sands
Brady sand is darker than Ottawa and consequently is
often referred to as brown sand (Fig. 8-12). Brady
sand is generally a less costly proppant and is widely
used, primarily in North America. Brady sand is mined
from the Hickory formation outcrops near Brady,
Texas. These sands are polycrystalline: Each grain is

composed of multiple crystals bound together. Brady
sand is more angular and contains more impurities
(feldspars) than Ottawa sand but is thoroughly
cleaned and processed to yield a high-quality product.
Impurities contribute to the brown color common
to Brady sands. The existence of cleavage planes
within each grain results in greater crush and reduced
strength properties. The Hickory formation contains
a variety of sand grain sizes, which are typically larger
than Ottawa sand proppants. Brady sand is commonly
available in 8/12 to 20/40 mesh sizes.
Figure 8-12 Brady sand grains
8-3.2 Ceramic Proppants
The exploitation of deep gas reservoirs beginning in
the 1970s necessitated the development of fracturing
proppants having greater strength. In response to this
need, Exxon Production Research introduced the
first generation of ceramic proppants, which were
manufactured by sintering pellets of aluminosilicate
clay containing over 80% Al2O3, commonly known
as bauxite. First commercial production of bauxite
proppant occurred in 1979 for the exclusive use of
fracturing deep gas wells. This was followed in 1982
by the introduction of Intermediate Strength Proppant
(ISP), which is manufactured from ore with 70% Al2O3.
Both of these products are manufactured from high-
alumina ores, which are pelletized, dried and fired in a
kiln to produce a strong crystaline structure. Ceramic
proppant products are most suitable for fracturing
applications at greater than 10,000 ft depth.
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
8-3.2.1 Sintered Bauxite
Sintered bauxite was the original ceramic-based high-
strength propping agent (Fig. 8-13). Sintered bauxite
proppants contain corundum, one of the hardest materials
known, and offer the greatest proppant strength available
for deep wells with hostile, high-stress and -temperature
environments. The various commercial sintered bauxite
products have specific gravities of 3.4 or greater. Due to
the manufacturing processes employed to make sintered
bauxite, the particles offer excellent roundness and
sphericity. Because of their relatively high cost, sintered
bauxite proppants are generally limited to wells with very
high closure stresses, typically greater than 10,000 psi.
Due to the high density of sintered bauxite proppants,
smaller grain sizes are typically employed to improve
transport capabilities. Sintered bauxite proppants are
available in sizes ranging from 12 to 70 mesh.
Figure 8-13 Sintered bauxite (courtesy of Sintex
Proppants)
8-3.2.2 Intermediate Strength Ceramic Proppant
Intermediate-strength proppants (ISP) are fused ceramic
proppants which were first introduced in 1982. ISPs
have a specific gravity between 2.9 and 3.3. The variance
in specific gravity is due to the raw material sources
used by the various manufacturers of the proppant.
Intermediate-strength proppants have lower strength
limits than sintered bauxites and are primarily used in
applications having closure stress between 8,000 and
12,000 psi. Like sintered bauxite, intermediate strength
proppants typically exhibit very good roundness and
291
Modern Fracturing
sphericity (Fig. 8-14). Intermediate strength proppants
are commercially available for fracturing applications in
sizes ranging from 16 to 70 mesh.
Figure 8-14 ISP proppant (courtesy of Saint Gobain)
8-3.2.3 Lightweight Ceramic Proppant
Lightweight ceramic (LWC) proppants have a large
mullite component, which is a hard alumina-silicate
material. The first lightweight ceramic proppant was
introduced in 1985. While not quite as strong as bauxite
or ISP proppant, the specific gravity of LWC proppant
is approximately 2.72, thus more similar to sand than
the bauxite and ISP proppants. The manufacturing
process for LWC proppants yields particles with
improved strength, greater sphericity, and more closely
sized sieve distributions, all of which contribute to
provide much higher conductivity than comparably-
sized high-quality sand (Fig. 8-15).
Figure 8-15 LWC proppant (courtesy of Carbo
Ceramics Inc.)
292
For conventional applications, LWC proppants
are targeted for applications with closure stress from
6,000 to 10,000 psi, but they eventually found
application in shallow, low closure stress formations
where production could be improved by increasing
fracture conductivity beyond that provided by sand
or resin-coated sand proppants. More recently,
LWC proppants have found application not only in
applications with stress environments beyond the
capabilities of sand-based proppants, but also in
applications where the highest possible conductivity
is needed, including fracturing high-permeability
formations (i.e. frac pack applications) and wells
exhibiting non-Darcy and/or multiphase flow
characteristics within the proppant pack.
Lightweight ceramic proppants are commercially
available for fracturing applications in sizes ranging
from 12 to 70 mesh.
8-3.3 Resin-Coated Proppants
Problems associated with the brittle failure of sands
led to the development of resin-coated proppants
in which resin coatings are used to encapsulate each
grain, primarily for purposes of improving grain
strength. The resin coating is usually at least partially
cured during the manufacturing process to produce
a non-melting, chemically inert surface film. Both
curable and fully pre-cured resin coatings are available
for most proppant types (sand to bauxite) and are
widely used in fracturing treatments.
The resin improves the proppant properties by
reducing the grain angularity. In addition, it improves
the amount of particle crush by distributing the stress
load over a larger area of the proppant grain, reducing the
point loading. Furthermore, when the proppant grains
are crushed, the resin coating serves to encapsulate the
fines and fragmented crushed portions, preventing the
small particles from migrating and plugging proppant
pack pore throats and flow channels.
Resin-coated proppants typically have higher
conductivity at elevated confining stresses than
uncoated proppant. Pre-cured proppants are those
in which the resin coating is fully cured by the
manufacturer. By contrast, the coatings of curable
proppants are only partially cured when manufactured,
 Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity

with the intent of additional curing occurring after

downhole placement so that the coatings of discrete
proppant particles will bond together.
The primary application of pre-cured resin coated
proppant is to enhance the performance of the core
proppant at higher stress levels. The resin coating
also encapsulates the proppant grains, preventing the
migration of created fines during production. Pre-
cured resin-coatings (Fig. 8-16) have been shown
to be tolerant to formation brines and crude oil at
temperatures exceeding 300 oF.
Figure 8-17 Curable resin-coated proppant (courtesy of
Santrol)

Figure 8-16 Pre-cured resin-coated proppant (courtesy

of Santrol)

Curable resin-coated proppants are typically used

in producing zones that otherwise tend to flow back
proppant during production operations. The curable
coating bonds the proppant grains together after they
have been placed in the formation to form a consolidated
pack, which resists proppant flowback and the associated
problems with productivity loss and damage to surface
equipment. Rather than crush resistance, compressive
or tensile strength of the consolidated proppant pack is
often used as the critical property to describe resin-coated
proppant. Curable resin-coated proppants are typically
pumped at the end of a treatment, often referred to as a
resin-coated tail-in stage (Fig. 8-17). After the treatment,
the well is typically shut in for a time to allow the resin
to bind proppant particles and cure into a consolidated,
permeable pack (Figs. 8-18 and 8-19).
Figures 8-18 and 8-19 Curable resin-coated sand that
has been cured at elevated temperature and stress to
provide grain-to-grain bonding and consolidation of the
proppant pack (courtesy of Santrol (8-18) and Hexion
Oilfield Proppants (8-19))
In recent years, several new types of resin-
coated proppants have been introduced to address
specific application needs beyond the capabilities
of the previous generations. These include curable
proppants providing greater tensile strength for
application in extreme stress environments and to
better mitigate proppant flowback; proppants having

293
Modern Fracturing

improved chemical compatibility with fracturing

fluids; proppants tolerant of extreme temperature
environments; proppants that cure only in the
presence of confining stress to facilitate easier post-
frac wellbore cleanout; and proppants that cure at
very low reservoir temperatures.

8-3.4 Ultra-Lightweight Proppants

The commonly used sand and ceramic proppants

are each employed for their ability to withstand the
respective fracture closure stress environment. As the
relative particle strength of these various proppant Figure 8-20 Ultra-lightweight proppant (prop = 1.25) made
materials increase, so too does the respective particle from resin-impregnated and -coated nut hull (courtesy BJ
density or specific gravity. For example, sand has a Services Company)
specific gravity of 2.65, compared to a specific gravity
of up to 3.65 for sintered bauxite.
The settling rate of proppant in a fracturing fluid
is strongly influenced by the specific gravity of the
proppant. Bauxite, the strongest proppant available,
has the highest settling rate of common proppants,
even in a crosslinked fluid. Proppant settling rate is
typically assessed by comparing single-particle static
settling velocity in a column of water. Using this
metric, it can be determined that for equal-sized 20
mesh particles, bauxite falls at 23.2 ft/min and sand
at 16.6 ft/min. As the specific gravity of the proppant
approaches that of the fluid, a nearly neutrally Figure 8-21 Ultra-lightweight proppant (prop = 2.02) made
buoyant condition is approached and proppant from resin-coated porous ceramic particles (courtesy of
BJ Services Company)
settling velocity nears zero.
A new class of proppants commercially
introduced in 2004 has both low specific gravity and
the requisite mechanical properties to function as
a fracturing proppant at reservoir temperature and
stress conditions (Brannon et al., 2002; Rickards et
al., 2003; Wood et al., 2003). The new materials were
classified as ultra-lightweight proppants and defined
as exhibiting particle densities substantially lower
than sand-based proppants. The first generation of
ultra-lightweight (ULW) proppants, comprised of
resin-impregnated and coated walnut hulls, exhibit
a specific gravity of 1.25, which is less than half
that of sand (2.65). Subsequent development has
yielded additional ultra-lightweight proppants
Figure 8-22 Ultra-lightweight proppant (prop = 1.50)
with specific gravities (prop) of 2.02, 1.50, and made from plastic composite (courtesy of BJ Services
1.054 (Figs. 8-20 through 8-23). Company)

294

Figure 8-23 Ultra-lightweight proppant (prop = 1.50)
made from a thermoplastic nanocomposite (courtesy of
BJ Services Company)
The ultra-lightweight (prop = 1.25) proppant was
shown to provide sufficient strength to be applied in
reservoirs with closure pressures up to 5,000 psi and
BHSTs exceeding 200 F. The lower specific gravity
of the ultra-lightweight (prop =1.25) proppant is also
manifested as a much greater pack volume per unit
of mass (lower bulk density), resulting in one pound
of the proppant occupying an equivalent volume of
greater than that of two pounds of similarly sized sand.
For this reason, comparisons of proppant performance
should always be done on a volume basis.
The proppant transportability provided by the
ultra-lightweight proppants allows for fracturing
fluids of lesser viscosity to be used to accomplish
effective proppant placement. Ultra-lightweight
proppants can be effectively placed using simple
slickwater fluids (Brannon et al., 2005). The prop
= 1.25 proppants have been employed widely with
brine-based slickwater fluids to yield a nearly neutrally
buoyant proppant slurry, efficiently minimizing
proppant settling within the created fracture. The
minimized proppant settling afforded by the ultra-
lightweight proppants enables effective placement of
proppant partial monolayers.
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
Long-standing fracture theory holds that placement
of partial monolayers of proppant offers high fracture
conductivity using a much reduced volume of proppant
than required for conventional multilayer proppant packs
(Darin and Huitt, 1959). Fractures containing proppant
partial monolayers possess similar fracture geometry but
with vacant areas around and between the proppant
particles, thereby increasing the relative conductivity of
the propped fracture. Designs using the ULW proppants
have been quite successfully employed to provide well
performance consistent with production from fractures
containing partial monolayers of proppant.
8-4 Proppant Properties, Testing
Protocols, and Performance
Considerations
8-4.1 Proppant Testing Procedure Standards
The American Petroleum Institutes Recommended
Practices for proppants used in hydraulic fracturing
and gravel packing lapsed (or expired) in the
late 1990s due to API policy that Standards or
Recommended Practice documents must be reviewed,
revised, reaffirmed or withdrawn at least every five
years. In 1998 the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), a network of national standards
institutes of 153 countries, formed a committee
to review and rewrite the APIs Recommended
Practices as ISO Standards. The committee elected
to combine the three API Recommended Practices
for proppant and gravel testing (API RP 56, 58, and
60) into a single standard. The ISO published ISO
13503-2 Measurement of Properties of Proppants
Used in Hydraulic Fracturing and Gravel-Packing
Operations in 2006. (API subsequently adopted
and published the ISO 13503-2 Standard as API
Recommended Practice 19C).
What does this new standard mean for the
industry? Laboratory data reported from these
procedures shall reference these standards, and the
industry shall recognize the procedure in which
this data was obtained. The goal of such efforts is
to have all laboratories producing nearly identical
results for the same proppant.
295
Modern Fracturing
8-4.2 Proppant Sampling
Sampling and splitting of bulk material are critical steps
to insure that any testing is carried out on a representative
sample of the proppant. It is important to have a basic
understanding of segregation when sampling proppant.
Depending on the size, shape, distribution and
mechanisms involved, there is usually a certain amount
of variability involved in sampling due to segregation.
Particles, such as proppants, will naturally find the
path of least resistance when moved or force is applied.
During transfer or movement, particles of differing size
and mass naturally separate or segregate. Fine particles
migrate and usually rest close to the area where they land.
Heavier, coarser particles bounce or roll much farther,
stratifying the material by size. The degree of segregation
or stratification depends on the mechanisms involved in
the proppant transfer. The sampling procedures defined
by ISO 13503-2 were developed to minimize the effects
of segregation of particles by size.
The standard recommends that sampling be done
at the source-of-supply by sweeping the entire delivery
stream rather than trying to sample from a bag, loaded silo
or hopper. For example, during the transfer of proppant
at the well site, it is recommended to sample the proppant
stream every 20,000 pounds of material. The standards do
not recommend sampling from containers after they have
been filled because proppant has a tendency to segregate,
and obtaining a representative sample is impossible.
Figure 8-24 Box-type bulk sampling device (courtesy of
Badger Mining Co.)
296
A box-type bulk sampling device is recommended for
sample collection (Fig. 8-24). The device has dimensions
of 8 6 4 in., with a in. slot, and is to be swept back and
forth through the flowing proppant stream. Alternatively,
samples may be obtained by automatic sampling devices
at the manufacturing plant or distribution center. These
devices conduct an intermittent but regular sweep of
the proppant stream and deflect proppant into a sample
bottle. When it is absolutely necessary to sample a bulk
container such as a bulk bag or truck, a sample probe
should be pushed into the proppant approximately 3 ft
and then opened to obtain the sample.
Once a representative sample has been obtained
the sample must be split to insure accurate testing of
properties such as bulk density, specific gravity, crush
resistance and sieve sizing. Each of these properties can be
affected by variation in the sieve distribution. The sample
should be split to obtain the required sample size for all
the tests that are to be conducted using a sample splitting
device (Fig. 8-25). For example, if it is only necessary to
conduct a sieve analysis, then the sample should be split
to as close to 100 g as possible and adjusted to reach 100
g. If the material is sacked between 50 and 100 pounds,
then the entire sack of material should be reduced using
a sample reducer and then further split using the sample
splitter. These steps help ensure capture of representative
samples so that erroneous results are not obtained by
faulty sampling and splitting procedures.
(See also Section 9-5 for field procedures for proppant
quality control.)
Figure 8-25 Proppant sample splitter (courtesy of Badger
Mining Co.)

8-4.3 Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution
Proppant mesh size has long been recognized
as a key characteristic for describing and
controlling the quality of a propping material. The
proppant size and its distribution directly affect
the permeability of the proppant pack after its
placement in a hydraulic fracturing treatment.
Proppant grain size is characterized by the median
diameter of the discrete grains, and grain size
distribution relates to the breadth of the range
of grain sizes exhibited within a given proppant.
Proppants with larger grain sizes provide a more
permeable pack. However, as grain size increases,
strength decreases. Thus larger grain sizes can be
more difficult to use in deeper wells because of greater
susceptibility to crushing. Figure 8-26 illustrates the
effect of grain size on permeability of higher quality
sand at increasing closure stresses.
Conductivity vs. Stress for Various
Ottawa Sand Proppant Sizes
100000
Conductivity, mD-ft
10000
Proppant Pack
1000
100
10
0 2000 4000
Closure Stress, psi
8/16 12/20 16/30
Figure 8-26 Effect of proppant size on the permeability of
fracturing sands (from Predict K, 2007)
Large proppant also requires a larger fracture width
to enable transport without bridging out during
the treatment. A bridge out condition occurs when
proppant is prevented from being transported further
down the fracture due to the width limitation of the
fracture. This is typically thought to occur when the
maximum proppant particle size is greater than one-
third of the created fracture width (Gidley et al.,
1989). As per Stokes Law, the settling rate of proppant
increases with increasing size, proportionally to the
square of the median diameter,; therefore, the use of
larger proppant sizes has a greater tendency to suffer
from proppant placement difficulties.
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
Fines invasion into the proppant pack can
result in partial plugging and rapid reduction in
permeability. Smaller proppants resist the invasion
of fines, making them more suitable than larger
ones in formations subject to fines production.
Although the relatively smaller proppants offer less
conductivity initially, the average conductivity over
the life of the well will be higher and will more
then offset the initial high productivity provided by
larger proppants, which is often followed by rapid
production decline. This phenomenon is illustrated
in Fig. 8-27 for a LW ceramic proppant, showing that
the larger sizes exhibit higher conductivity at lower
stresses, but at higher stresses, the smaller 20/40
proppant provides greater conductivity.
Conductivity vs. Stress
Various LW Ceramic Proppant Sizes
100000
Conductivity, mD-ft
Proppant Pack
10000
1000
100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Closure Stress, psi
8/12 12/18 16/20 20/40 30/50
Figure 8-27 Effect of LWC proppant size on conductivity
6000 8000 10000 vs stress (from Predict K, 2007)
20/40 30/50 40/70 70/140 8-4.3.1 Proppant Size Testing
The purpose of this procedure is to ensure a consistent
methodology for sieve analysis and to provide a
consistent procedure for sieve evaluation. Sieve testing
for fracturing proppants is required to be carried out
on a Ro-Tap sieve shaker or equivalent (Fig. 8-
28). This equipment differs from sieve stacks used
in soil mechanics or civil engineering applications
in that it incorporates a hammer at the top of the
stack. Often when proppant is analyzed on location,
sieve stacks lacking a hammer mechanism are used,
which result in erroneously coarse distributions. The
repeated hammering action in the Ro-Tap stack during
sieving jars the stack and prevents proppant from
shaking across individual screens. Standard US sieves
are shown in Figs. 8-29 and 8-30.
297
Modern Fracturing
Figure 8-28 Ro-Tap Sieve Shaker with sound enclosure
(courtesy of Badger Mining Co.)
Figure 8-29 Standard US sieve stack (courtesy of Badger
Mining Co.)
Figure 8-30 US sieves (courtesy of Badger Mining Co.)
The new ISO standard requires that the sieve
stack comprise at least seven calibrated screens, that
a 100 g (20 g) split sample be used for testing, and
that the sieve stack be shaken for a minimum of 10
298
minutes. Table 8-1 shows the sieve sizes that should
be employed for testing various proppant sizes. The
new industry standard suggests using the following
limitations on sieve distribution for proppants
suitable for use in hydraulic fracturing:
- at least 90% of the material must fall between the
two mesh sizes
i.e. for 20/40, 90% must past though the 20
mesh and be retained on the 40 mesh
- no more than 10% of the material may be coarser
than the largest mesh size
i.e. for 20/40, < 10% can fall between the 16
mesh and 20 mesh screens
- no more than 0.1% of the material may be coarser
than the next largest mesh size
i.e. for 20/40, no more than 0.1% can
exceed 16 mesh
- no more than 1% of material is permitted to fall
onto the pan
i.e. for 20/40, no more than 1% can be
smaller than 50 mesh.
8-4.4 Proppant Shape
Roundness and sphericity are proppant particle
properties that can affect performance by impacting
the proppant packing. Sphericity is a measure of how
close a proppant particle approaches the shape of a
sphere. Roundness is a measure of the relative sharpness
of corners or of curvature. Their importance depends
somewhat on the stress level at which the proppant is to
be used. Because the surface stresses are more uniform
on well-rounded, spherical particles, they are capable of
carrying higher loadings than a less-rounded particle.
Therefore, at increasing stress levels, a higher degree of
roundness and sphericity is preferred for better load
distribution, fewer crushed fines generated, and higher
proppant pack conductivity.
Grain robustness, or angularity, is a measure of
the relative sharpness of the grain corners, and the
particle sphericity is a measure of how closely the
shape approaches the shape of a sphere. Improved
roundness and sphericity will enable greater
porosity and permeability than a pack comprised
of angular proppant after stress is applied and
grain rotation occurs.
 Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity

8-4.4.1 Proppant Shape Testing 8-4.5 Proppant Bulk Density and

The standard method of determining roundness
and sphericity is the use of the Krumbien and
Sloss chart (Krumbein and Schloss, 1963), as
shown in Fig. 8-31. ISO 13503-2 requires the use
of a microscope to assess roundness and sphericity of
a minimum of 20 particles, and those values to be
averaged. Roundness and sphericity measurements
must be determined separately. The ISO13503-
2 standard suggests that sand proppants have
roundness and sphericity of > 0.7, while ceramic
proppants should be about 0.9.
0.9
0.7
Sphericity
Apparent Specific Gravity
Proppant density has a strong influence on proppant
transport and placement. High-density proppants are
more difficult to suspend in the fracturing fluid and
to transport in the fracture. Placement of relatively
high-density proppants can be achieved by using high-
viscosity fluids, which carry the proppant for the entire
length of the fracture with minimal settling, and/or by
using a higher flow velocity.
The Bulk Density (BD) describes the mass of
proppant that fills a unit volume, including both
the proppant and the void volume. This figure is
used to determine the mass of a proppant needed
to fill a fracture. The Apparent Specific Gravity
(ASG) represents the apparent density of a single
pellet. Although it does include any internal
porosity of the proppant particle, it excludes the
porosity between the grains. Generally, the ASG is

used to estimate proppant settling times, while the

BD is used to estimate transportation volumes and
0.5
actual volume of the fracture. Both properties are
measured without closure stress, so the bulk density
will increase substantially if the proppants crush
0.3
or if pack rearrangement results in loss of porosity.
In addition to being more expensive, stronger
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
conventional proppants are more dense. Table 8-2
Roundness
lists the apparent specific gravity and bulk density of
Figure 8-31 Sphericity and roundness chart (from
Krumbein and Schloss, 1963)
some commonly available proppants.

Table 8-1 Standard Sieve Stack Testing for Various Proppant Sizes (from ISO 13503-2)
(First and second primary sieves in bold)
Typical Proppant
6/12 8/16 12/20 16/20 16/30 20/40 30/50 40/60 40/70 70/140
Designations
Sieve
3350/ 2360/ 1700/ 1180/ 1180/ 850/ 600/
Opening Sizes, 425/ 250 425/ 212 212/ 106
1700 1180 850 850 600 425 300
m
4 6 8 12 12 16 20 30 30 50
6 8 12 16 16 20 30 40 40 70
8 10 14 18 18 25 35 45 45 80
Stack of 10 12 16 20 20 30 40 50 50 100
ASTM
Sieves 12 14 18 25 25 35 45 60 60 120
14 16 20 30 30 40 50 70 70 140
16 20 30 40 40 50 70 100 100 200
Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan

299
Modern Fracturing

Table 8-2 Bulk Density and Apparent Specific Gravity for as invading fines: plugging pore throats within
Common Fracturing Proppants the pack and resulting in conductivity loss.
Apparent The percentage of impurities may also provide
Proppant Bulk Density Specific
Gravity an indication of the proppant strength because
Ottawa Sand 20/40 1.60 2.65 high concentrations of impurities are likely to
Ottawa Sand, 40/70 1.58 2.65 compromise proppant strength. Acid solubility is
Brady Sand, 8/12 1.60 2.65 generally used as an indication of proppant quality
Pre-Cure RC Sand, 20/40 1.59 2.45
in terms of the amount of carbonates, feldspar and
Curable RC Sand, 20/40 1.53 2.55
iron oxides present in the proppant.
LW Ceramic, 20/40 1.57 2.71
ISP, 20/40 1.88 3.27
Very fine particles in proppant can have health
Sintered Bauxite, 20/40 2.00 3.55 and safety implications, such as silicosis caused by
ULWP (prop = 1.25), 14/30 0.84 1.25 long-term inhalation of silicaceous dust. The presence
ULWP (prop = 1.05), 14/40 0.66 1.05 and relative concentrations of such finely divided
materials in a proppant can be determined using a
measurement of the turbidity of a fluid used to wash
Lighter proppants can provide clear benefits a proppant sample. A high turbidity measurement is
due to greater retained fracture widths. Although indicative of either low proppant quality or insufficient
proppant is typically purchased by mass, the benefit washing of the proppant by the supplier.
of a proppant is based on its volume. For example,
100,000 lbs of sand will occupy more volume than 8-4.6.1 Acid Solubility Testing
100,000 lbs of bauxite. Thus, for typical propped
fractures, the density of the proppant will significantly Acid solubility evaluation is used to determine the
impact the fracture width and, for a given proppant suitability of a proppant for use in applications
concentration in the fracture there will be a where proppant may come into contact with
proportionate decrease in propped fracture width for acids. This technique can also be useful to indicate
a higher-density proppant. the amount of soluble materials (i.e. carbonates,
feldspars, iron oxides, clays, etc.) present in the
8-4.5.1 Proppant Bulk Density and proppant. The results of the acid solubility are a
Specific Gravity Testing function of the proppant surface area, since smaller
proppant sizes have more surface area exposed for
Bulk density is measured by pouring the proppant acid reaction and thus will exhibit higher percent
sample through a funnel to fill a calibrated brass solubility than larger particles.
cylinder to a prescribed volume. The proppant The new ISO 13502-2 standard procedure for
added to fill the cylinder is then weighed and that measuring acid solubility is somewhat of a compromise
value divided by the known volume to arrive at of previous API RP procedures for proppant and gravel
the value for bulk density. Measurement of the pack sand. The new standard calls for testing proppant
specific gravity is conducted using a pycnometer, in 12:3 HCl:HF (i.e., 12% by mass of HCl and 3%
wherein a fluid or gas is used to fill the pore volume by mass of HF) over a period of 30 minutes at 150oF.
of a known mass of proppant. The remaining proppant is then separated and dried,
and the weight compared to the original weight prior
8-4.6 Proppant Quality to acid exposure. Sands sized from 6/10 to 30/50 mesh
should have less than 2% solubility.
Grain-size distribution and proppant quality (or In practice, acid solubility should be considered
mineralogical purity) are closely related. A higher when there is expectation of the need for remedial
percentage of smaller grains or impurities can have acid treatments typically used to remove formation
the same effect on proppant pack permeability fines damage or scale. This is one area where natural

300
 Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity

sand has an advantage over synthetic proppants.
Although ceramic proppants are relatively unaffected
by HCl or acetic acids, HCl/HF mud acid has
been shown to attack all proppant types. Ceramic
proppants have been shown to lose more mass and
suffer greater loss of strength than sand proppants
(Cheung, 1985; and Roberts et al., 1990).
It is evident that the test conditions specified in
the procedures are not universally representative of
downhole conditions; higher temperatures and/or
longer exposure durations will increase dissolution
of proppants. On the other hand, the tests are also
conducted on clean proppant samples, whereas in
an actual acid job, it would be expected that a large
volume of scale or formation fines would be present in
the proppant pack. These smaller contaminants with
high ratios of surface area to volume are likely to be
preferentially dissolved compared to the larger proppant
media. In essence, some percentage of the acid would be
expected to spend on the targeted contaminants, either
reducing the acid strength or the duration of contact
with the proppant. Care should be taken designing any
acid treatments, but extra caution will be required if
acidizing a fracture containing ceramic proppant.
8-4.6.2 Turbidity Testing
Turbidity tests measure an optical property of a
suspension that results from the scattering and
absorption of light by the particulate matter suspended
in the wetting fluid. The higher the turbidity number,
the more suspended particles are present. In most
commercial turbidity meters the incident light beam
is normal to the detection path of the detector (the
preferred method of measurement). The measured
percent of transmittance of a wash of the proppant
sample is compared to a calibrated formazin solution
reduced, these same stresses tend to close the fracture.
If the proppant is not strong enough to withstand
the closure stress of the fracture, it will be crushed
and the permeability of the propped fracture will be
drastically reduced. The smaller particles resulting
from crushing the proppant grains can significantly
reduce the permeability of the pack.
The maximum effective stress on a proppant is
commonly calculated using the difference between
the initial fracture gradient (minimum in situ stress)
and bottomhole flowing pressure (See Section 13-
4.1 for the effects of depletion on effective closure
stress). The potential for maximum crushing can
occur initially in the production of a well because the
fracture gradient is the maximum and decreases with
reservoir depletion. Usually, the bottomhole flowing
pressure is held constant and at a low value in order to
maximize the production rate. However, if the well is
initially completed and produced at a high bottomhole
pressure and with nearly constant production rate, the
maximum effective stress on the proppant is less and
can increase with time; however, it should never exceed
the calculated maximum effective stress.
Figure 8-32 shows a generalized comparison of
stress ranges for application of typical 20/40 mesh
proppants. Most typically, sand-based proppants are
used for fracturing formations with closure stresses
less than 6,000 psi. In the range of 5,000 to 10,000
psi, intermediate-strength proppants should be used.
When the closure stress is in excess of 10,000 psi, the
use of high-strength proppants is required.
Proppant Application Ranges
20/40, 2 lb/sqft-Minimum 500-md-ft
Brown Sand
White Sand
Regular RC Sand
Premium RC Sand

curve. The results are expressed in Formazin Turbidity LW Ceramic

RC LW Ceramic
Units, or FTU. Standard procedures for turbidity
ISP
measurement are described in ISO 13503-2. Sintered Bauxite
RC Bauxite
8-4.7 Proppant Strength 0
0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
20

40

60

80

10

12

14

16

18

20

Closure Pressure, psi

When a hydraulic fracture is created, the in situ
stresses must be overcome to open and propagate the Figure 8-32 Proppant application range vs. closure
fracture. Once the hydraulic pressure in the fracture is stress (from Predict K, 2007)

301
Modern Fracturing

8-4.7.1 Proppant Crush and Fines Generation
At failure, most proppants crush to form particulates
of some smaller size (Fig. 8-33). The crushed particles
that are smaller than 100 mesh are generally considered
to be fines. The ability of fines to migrate through
the proppant pack depends on both the particle size
and the pore structure of the pack. In a 20/40-mesh
proppant pack, particles larger than 100 mesh do not
migrate through the pack because they are too large to
travel through the pore throats, and particles as small
as 200-mesh range have only limited mobility. Fines
productionrather than bulk material failureis the
main reason why proppant pack permeability reduces
with effective closure stress. Particles smaller than 200
mesh, however, have been observed in the laboratory
to travel throughout the cell and in practice may be
produced into the wellbore. Table 8-3 provides published
values for fines generated from crushing common sand
proppants (from Stim-Lab Proppant Consortium
reports and supplier publications).
It can be misleading to characterize proppants
and their potential application by using such tests to
estimate the percentage crush under the given stress
conditions at which the proppant will be used. The
crush test procedure identifies all material that falls
through the lower sieve size as crushed material. In the
case of a larger proppant material, the crush values are
higher than for a smaller material. The fallacy of using
the crush testing value as a measure of a proppants
potential application is the implication that all crush
material is equally undesirable. Crush testing should
be seen as a relatively quick test procedure that lends
itself well to quality assurance testing. Conductivity
testing is much more useful than crush testing to
compare the capability of a proppant.
Furthermore, the crush procedure employed
is a single-cycle test, thus relating typically to the
reservoir environment existing for only a very short
period of time after the completion of the well.
Manyif not mostwells experience stress cycling
during production operations, and proppant crush is
known to get progressively worse with repeated cycles.
Multiple crush cycle tests are useful to understand
the impact of stress cycling on fracture conductivity
because this will directly impact production, but they
are rarely run (Vreeburg, et al, 1994).

8-4.7.2 Crush Testing

Crush resistance tests are conducted on proppant

samples to determine the amount of proppant crushed
at a given stress. This test is useful for determining and
comparing the crush resistance of proppants. Standard
tests are conducted on samples that have been sieved
Figure 8-33 Ottawa sand after exposure to 6,000-psi so that all particles tested are within the specified size
closure stress (courtesy of Atlas Resin Proppants) range. The amount of proppant material crushed at each
stress level is quantified. Evaluation of test results should
Table 8-3 Crush Values for Common Proppants provide indications of the stress level where proppant
Proppant Mesh Size Stress, psi % Fines crushing is excessive and the maximum stress to which
12/20 3,000 5.4
Ottawa Sand 20/40 4,000 4.0 the proppant material should be subjected.
20/40 8,000 14.0 The first step of the procedure involves removing
12/20 3,000 15.5 material that is outside the upper and lower sieve ranges.
Brady Sand 20/40 4,000 11.4
20/40 6,000 15.1
Sieve size specifications allow up to 10% of material
LWC 20/40 8,000 6.0 outside the given range (i.e. 20/40). It is important to
ISP 20/40 10,000 6.0 remove this material before the sample is prepared for
Bauxite 20/40 12,500 6.8
testing in order to obtain repeatable results.

302

The standard testing procedures for measuring
proppant crush involve loading a pre-set volume of
proppant into a crush cell that has a floating piston of
2 in. diameter. (Previous standard procedures had not
defined the piston diameter). The loaded cell is then
placed in a hydraulic press to apply a direct load onto
the proppant grains at a controlled rate increase of 2,000
psi/min to the desired stress, after which the full load
is held for two minutes. The sample is then sieved to
determine the quantity of material crushed to a size
that falls below the lower mesh sieve, and the weight
percentage of the crushed material is measured.
8-4.8 Proppant Concentration
Proppant concentration refers to the mass of proppant
per unit area of fracture placed by the treatment. It is
usually expressed in lb/ft2 (or kg/m2) of the fracture.
The flow capacity of proppant packs increases
with fracture width and with increasing numbers
of proppant layers for a given proppant size. Most
standard laboratory testing is conducted between
hard sandstone core samples at a concentration of
2 lb/ft2. Laboratory testing has shown that 0.5 lb/
ft2 of proppant may be lost to embedment in the
fracture face of moderately hard formations (Stim-
Lab, 1997). Higher proppant concentrations within
a proppant pack are directly proportional to increased
fracture width and therefore relatively proportional
to increasing fracture conductivity. However, fracture
conductivity is not directly proportional to proppant
concentration due to wall effects. As shown in Fig.
8-34, from 0.5 lb/ft2 to 2.0 lb/ft2 the impact of
proppant concentration upon fracture conductivity is
fairly linear when tested between hard sandstone core
platens exhibiting minor embedment.
In 1959, Darin and Huitt reported the results of a
study of fracture flow capacity based upon evaluation
of the permeability of propped fractures. They provided
a numerical description of the differences between the
extremes of an open fissure and a packed fracture, in
which the space between the fracture faces is completely
filled with a single or multiple layers of propping
agent. The study demonstrated that there is an areal
proppant concentration below that of a full proppant
monolayer in which the resulting conductivity is
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
much higher than that of a full monolayer. Graphical
depictions of full and partial proppant monolayers
are shown in Figure 8-35.
Conductivity vs. Stress for Various Concentrations
Proppant Pack Conductivity, mD-ft
of 20/40 Ottawa Sand
100000
0.25 lb/sqft
2.0 lb/sqft
10000 0.5 lb/sqft
4.0 lb/sqft
1.0 lb/sqft
1000 6.0 lb/sqft
100
10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Closure Stress, psi
Figure 8-34 Effect on sand concentration on the
conductivity of a packed fracture (from Predict K, 2007)
Figure 8-35 Depictions of a full proppant monolayer and
a partial proppant monolayer (from Edgeman et al., 2004)
Previous studies by van Poolen et al. (1958) had
shown the flow capacity of proppant packs increased
with fracture width or, for a given proppant size, with
increasing numbers of proppant layers. The prediction
of a high degree of fracture conductivity provided by a
partial monolayer of proppant was significant because it
was thought to provide a means to achieve high fracture
conductivity by placing a minimal amount of proppant.
In the case of a full monolayer, the grains are envisioned
to be closely packed (grains touching neighbor grains).
Fractures containing partial proppant monolayers are
envisioned to possess similar geometry but with vacant
area around and between the proppant particles, thereby
increasing the relative conductivity of the propped
fracture. By definition, a proppant monolayer is created
303
Modern Fracturing
when a propped fracture has a width equal to one particle
diameter with no remaining voids into which additional
particles could be placed. The areal concentration
required to create a monolayer with a particular proppant
type and mesh size can be approximated by:
Ca = 5.2 (1 p ,min ) prop D prop , (8-6)
where Ca is the minimum areal concentration
required to obtain a full monolayer (lbm/ft2), prop
the minimum obtainable porosity of proppant pack
(fraction), prop the proppant specific gravity and Dprop
the average proppant diameter (in.).
The relationship of fracture conductivity to
concentration as defined by Darin and Huitt is shown
in Fig. 8-36 for 20/40 mesh sand at low closure stress.
Additional annotation is provided to illustrate the
number of layers associated with the respective proppant
concentration. The predicted fracture conductivity
can be seen to peak near 9,000 md-ft at a proppant
concentration of about 0.1 lb/ft2 which in this case is
approximately one half of a monolayer. A concentration
of over 4.0 lb/ft2 of 20/40 sand is necessary to attain a
similar level of conductivity with a multi-layered pack.
Monolayer
Full
Partial Monolayer
105
104 0.06 lb/ft 2
kfw (md-ft)
103
0.125 lb/ft 2
102
0.01 0.10 1.0
Proppant Concentration,
lbm/ft2 of propped area
Figure 8-36 Fracture conductivity vs. proppant
concentration for 20/40-mesh Ottawa sand at low
temperature and closure stress (from Darin and Huitt, 1959)
Some fracture engineers will design a packed
propped fracture regardless of the permeability of the
reservoir or extent (length) of the created propped
fracture. The practice for conventional proppants has
been to strive for concentrations averaging at least 1
304
lb/ft2. It is therefore disturbing to note from Fig. 8-36
that the minimum conductivity for 20/40 sand occurs
at a proppant concentration of between 0.2 and 1.25
lb/ft2, well overlapping the commonly employed average
concentration ranges used in typical job design.
The prospect of fracturing with proppant partial
monolayers was met with a great deal of initial
excitement, which gradually waned as field attempts
to place partial proppant monolayers resulted almost
universally with disappointment and failure. Suggested
reasons for the difficulties included the inability to obtain
uniform and complete coverage of the fracture with
a partial monolayer, insufficient proppant strength to
support the load, loss of fracture width due to proppant
embedment and, potentially deleterious non-Darcy
flow effects in the relatively narrow propped fracture.
Additionally, contributing to the repeated failures in all
likelihood was severe gel damage from the fluids bulked
up with the dirty polymers of that era.
Recent development of ultra-lightweight proppants,
however, has rekindled interest and efforts to employ
partial proppant monolayers (Brannon et al, 2004). Initial
field success using low concentrations of ultra-lightweight
proppants led to refinements in placement techniques
and further reductions in proppant concentration
(less than 0.1 lb/ft2). The resulting stimulated well
productivities were reported far beyond historical
Multilayer
expectation, ultimately leading to the conclusion that
highly conductive, proppant partial monolayers had been
placed over a much increased propped fractured area.
100000
2000 psi Stress
4000 psi Stress
2 lb/ft 2
6000 psi Stress
10000
Conductivity, mD-ft
10
1000
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
ULWP (Hprop = 1.25) Concentration, lb/ft2
Figure 8-37 Fracture conductivity vs. proppant
concentration for 12/20-mesh ULW proppant (prop
= 1.25) at 100 F and 1,000 psi closure stress (from
Brannon et al., 2004)

Figure 8-37 shows the laboratory measured
conductivity of a 12/20-mesh ultra-lightweight (prop
= 1.25) proppant at concentrations ranging from 0.1
to 1.0 lb/ft2. Note the signature of the curve is very
similar to that predicted by Darin and Huitt and that
a peak conductivity of greater than 100,000 md-ft was
achieved using a proppant concentration of 0.06 lb/ft2.
The substantial open flow areas provided by a partial
monolayer are illustrated in Fig. 8-38.
Figure 8-38 Core slab showing an ultra-lightweight
proppant (prop = 1.054) partial monolayer, 0.02 lb/ft2
(courtesy of Fractech Ltd.)
8-5 Proppant Placement
The objective of hydraulic fracturing is to place proppant
within a created fracture to provide a conductive pathway
for production. The presence of proppant introduces
important considerations in the behavior of fracturing
fluids in creating the hydraulic fracture, including the
effect of proppant on fluid rheology, convection of the
slurry and proppant transport.
8-5.1 Effects on Fluid Rheology
At proppant concentrations greater than about 3 ppga,
the viscosity of proppant-laden slurry is higher than that
of the fracturing fluid alone (Novotny, 1977). Although
the relationship of proppant concentration to slurry
viscosity is well known for Newtonian fluids, it is less
well established for substantially non-Newtonian fluids
like those typically used for fracturing applications.
A relationship for power law fluids was presented by
Nolte (1988) (see also Section 4-4.4.2). The viscosity
ratio, r , can be obtained from:
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
slurry 1
r = = 2.5 n
,
fluid (8-7)
1 f s
f s ,max
where fs is the proppant volume fraction, fs,max is the
maximum fraction of the mobile slurry and n is the
power law exponent.
8-5.2 Convection
Density differences between fluids may result in the
lighter fluid overriding the denser fluid or, a denser
fluid flowing under the lighter fluid. This phenomenon
is known as convection and may be important in
situations such as a high-density slurry stage (higher
proppant concentration) under-riding a previously
pumped stage. Several authors (Barree and Conway,
1994; and Clark and Zhu, 2004) have shown that
convection is generally not of significant concern in
properly designed fracturing treatments. If excess pad
is pumped, convection could occur until the excess
pad leaks off. Convection has an extreme sensitivity
to fracture width, for example in low-modulus rock
that is generally associated with high-permeability
formations. In such cases where the width is large,
the occurrence of convection is more likely. If the
fracture width is not large, as is typical in fractures
in low-permeability gas reservoirs, convection is
much less of a significant concern.
8-5.3 Proppant Transport
Proppant transport is an essential consideration in
treatment design to effectively place proppant in
the pay zone. The transport of proppant in fractures
during a hydraulic fracturing operation and the
suspension of proppant during the fracture and
closure process can significantly impact the propped
area. Poor proppant transport can result in excessive
proppant settling, often into the lower regions of
the created fracture (and potentially below the
productive interval and/or in high-water-saturation
formations), yielding relatively short effective fracture
lengths and insufficient coverage of the total height
of the productive zone. Additionally, proppant pack
damage due to inadequate clean-up of the resultant
propped fracture may cause significant reduction in
305
Modern Fracturing

the conductivity of the propped fracture area. The Law suggests that lighter particles fall or settle more
cumulative effects of these phenomena can result in slowly than heavier particles. Therefore, decreasing
a reduction of overall stimulation efficiency, yielding the specific gravity of the proppant to approach
steeper post-stimulation production declines than may that of the fracturing fluid is, theoretically, the most
be desired. Post-frac production analyses frequently practical method to improve proppant transport in
illustrate that the effective fracture area is less than low-viscosity fluids. It can be surmised from Eq. 8-8
that expected based upon the design, suggesting the that as the specific gravity of the proppant approaches
proppant was not placed effectively throughout the the specific gravity of the fluid, nearly neutral
designed fracture area or the existence of excessive buoyancy is approached and the proppant settling
proppant-pack damage (or that the fracture modeling velocity nears zero (Fig. 8-39).
was inaccurate). Optimizing effective fracture area is
often critical to economic exploitation of reservoir
assets, thus maximizing the propped fracture area is a
key parameter for generating desired stimulated well
performance. Efforts to improve effective fracture
area have historically focused on the proppant
transport capability of the fracturing fluid and the
fracture clean-up attributes.
The effects of convection on proppant transport
were discussed above. Consider a vessel of sand
mixed in water, which is shaken to disperse the
particles and then allowed to stand statically. The
sand will rapidly fall or settle to the bottom of the
vessel. Proppant settling rate is typically assessed by Figure 8-39 Ultra-lightweight proppant (prop = 1.25) in
10.2-ppg brine (from Brannon et al., 2005)
comparing single-particle static settling velocity in a
column of water using Stokes Law. As shown in Eq. Figures 8-40 and 8-41 illustrate proppant
8-8, the terminal velocity, vt, is a function of Dprop, distributions predicted by hydraulic fracture
the median proppant particle diameter, mfluid, the modeling software for comparing sand slurried in
Newtonian viscosity of the fluid, and the difference fresh water to ULW proppant (prop = 1.25) slurried
between the specific gravity of the proppant and the in 10-ppg brine. The benefits of the near-neutral
fluid, prop and fluid, respectively: buoyancy are clearly shown by the greatly increased
D prop
2 propped fracture area.
vt = 1.15103 ( prop fluid ). (8-8)
fluid

Increasing the fluid viscosity and/or decreasing the

proppant diameter have historically been used to
facilitate improved proppant transport. In each case, the
modification to positively impact proppant transport
has a negative effect on fracture conductivity. Increased
viscosity brings a greater likelihood of residual fluid
damage, and reduced proppant diameter directly
reduces proppant pack permeability.
The specific gravity of the proppant, prop , is
the single variable remaining for consideration as
the means to address the proppant transport issues. Figure 8-40 Software model of proppant distribution of
Assuming all other variables to be constant, Stokes sand in fresh water frac (from Edgeman et al., 2004)

306

Figure 8-41 Software model of proppant distribution of
ultra-lightweight (prop = 1.25) proppant in 10-ppg brine
frac (from Edgeman et al., 2004)
The basic equation for single-particle settling has
limited applicability in conventional hydraulic fracturing
because the fluids are typically non-Newtonian and the
proppant particles are concentrated and may be close
to the fracture faces. These phenomena can result in
hindered settling, where the particles can obstruct
each other, and clustered settling, where the particles
cluster and effectively increase the proppant diameter.
Economides et al., (2002) presented a correlation
for the particle velocity vsol in hindered settling in
terms of volume fraction of solids fs:
vsol = v F ( f s ) ,
(8-9)
where
F ( f s ) = (1 f s ) ,
(8-10)
and the exponent ranges from 5.5 to 2 for low and high
values of NRe, respectively. A generalized form of Stokes
law is used for power law fracturing fluids:
1
( ) gD n '+1 n'
prop sol
v =
fluid
,
3n '1
18 K ' (8-11)
where v is the particle settling velocity in a pseudoplastic
fluid, g is gravitational acceleration, Dsol is the solid
particle diameter, n is the geometry dependent power
law exponent and K is the consistency index.
Some high-viscosity, crosslinked fracturing fluids
may exhibit near-perfect transport, negating concern
about proppant settling until after the pumping
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
treatment, if the fracture remains open for extended
periods. Fracturing fluids are typically viscoelastic in
nature, which has the effect of driving the proppant to the
center of the flow channel as a dense sheet surrounded
by clear fluid along the fracture walls. This has the effect
of accelerating particle settling, particularly for lower
proppant concentrations (Biot and Medlin, 1985; Goel
and Shah, 2001; and Clark and Zhu, 2004).
Stokes Law single particle setting rates in 2% KCl
for 20/40 mesh proppants are illustrated in Fig. 8-42.
The calculated static settling velocity of Ottawa sand in
fresh water was 16.6 ft/min compared to 23.2 ft/min for
a sintered bauxite and 4.3 ft/min for an ultra-lightweight
proppant, less than 20% that of the high-density sintered
bauxite with specific gravity of 3.4.
23.2
25
20.0
17.2 16.6
20 15.9
Settling Velocity
t ft/min
15
10
4.3
5 1.4
0
Bauxite Carbolite ULWP (Hprop = 1.25)
ISP Sand ULWP (Hprop = 1.05)
RCS
Figure 8-42 Static single particle proppant settling rates in
water (from Brannon et al., 2005)
Proppant transport studies in slickwater and
linear gel fluids were recently reported by Brannon
et al. (2007). Extensive testing in a large-scale slot
apparatus was conducted to evaluate the relative effects
of various component and treatment parameters on
the proppant transport capability of various slurry
compositions. The acquired data were processed
using the techniques published by Biot and Medlin
(1985) to determine the minimum horizontal slurry
velocities necessary for proppant transport using the
respective slurry compositions.
The minimum horizontal velocity required to
maintain proppant transport, a value called MHVST,
may be defined using the Biot-Medlin process. At
lesser velocities, proppant movement is limited to
sliding or rolling over a settled bed. A Slurry Properties
307
Modern Fracturing

Index, ISP, essentially the basic Stokes law equation, A simple linear fit of Fig. 8-43 leads to Eq. 8-13.
was used to characterize the physical properties of a
given proppant/slurry composition:
MHVST = CTRANS I SP , (8-13)
D prop
2
I SP = ( prop fluid ).
(8-12) where CTRANS , termed the transport coefficient, is
fluid
equal to 0.0117 from the linear curve fit and has the
Slurry Property Indexes and observed minimum units ft.sec-1.cp.mm-2.
horizontal flow velocities required for suspension Conventional proppants such as sand require flow
transport in several proppant slurries are velocities of an order of magnitude greater than those
shown in Table 8-4. required for ultra-lightweight proppants to be maintained
within suspension transport in a fracture. The ability to
Table 8-4 Slurry Factors and Calculated Minimum maintain suspension of ultra-lightweight proppants at
Horizontal Flow Velocity Required for Suspension very low minimum velocities illustrates the real potential
Transport, MHVST for Slot Flow Tests (from Brannon et
al., 2007) that ULW proppant partial monolayers can be placed to
Dprop2 ,
fluid fluid , cp ISP MHVST
provide very large effective propped fracture area.
prop
mm2
2.65 0.4032 8.34 7 119.3 1.400
2.65 0.4032 9.4 7 110.1 1.200
8-6 Fracture Conductivity
2.65 0.4032 10.1 5 104.0 1.188
2.65 2.070 8.34 60 78.56 1.018 The American Petroleum Institute (API) defined
2.65 0.4032 9.4 29 26.57 0.400 laboratory testing procedures to measure the proppant
2.65 0.4032 8.34 60 13.92 0.173 permeability and a reference fracture conductivity, which
1.25 0.4264 8.34 11 11.14 0.143 measures the viscous drag of the fluid upon the proppant.
1.25 0.4264 9.4 7 8.61 0.140 These procedures were recently incorporated in the
1.05 0.5810 8.34 5 6.43 0.102
publication of ISO Standard 13503-5. These procedures
1.25 0.4264 8.34 60 2.04 0.027
will be discussed first. However, they only measure the
1.25 0.4264 9.4 29 2.08 0.020
1.05 0.5810 8.34 29 1.11 0.017
effects of viscous drag on the proppant. As discussed in
Section 8-1.3, it is critical for gas well stimulation to
include the inertial effects of flow in the fracture due to
An empirical model was derived to relate the the relatively high velocity through the proppant pack.
minimum horizontal flow velocity required for suspension Multiphase effects can also be significant due to the
transport of a given slurry composition based upon its interaction of more than one fluid phase.
respective Slurry Properties Index (Fig. 8-43).
8-6.1 API Short-Term Testing Procedure
3.000
Minimum Horizontal Velocity for

2.500 A number of different linear and radial flow testing

Suspension Transport, MHVST

cells were used to measure proppant conductivity prior

2.000
to the mid-1980s (Gidley et al., 1989). In 1989, the
1.500 American Petroleum Institute published Recommended
1.000 Practice 61 for measuring proppant conductivity, which
involved flowing a single-phase liquid (water with 2%
0.500
KCl) through a 7 1 in. linear proppant pack cell
0.000 (Fig. 8-44) at flow rates of 1 to 10 ml/min (API, 1989).
0 50 100 150 200 250
Slurry Properties Index, ISP Measurement of the pressure drop across ports located
adjacent to the middle 5 in. of the proppant pack
Figure 8-43 Minimum horizontal flow velocity for slurry
transport as a function of the Slurry Properties Index, ISP
allows calculation of the permeability at a given stress
(from Brannon et al., 2007) condition according to Darcys Law.

308

Figure 8-44 API fracture conductivity test cell (courtesy of
Carbo Ceramics Inc.)
API RP-61 defines the measurement of what
is referred to as the short-term conductivity for a
proppant. The general procedure for testing is to load
the cell with 2 lbs/ft2 of proppant and then increase the
load in 2000-psi increments, holding each stress level
for 15 minutes, during which distilled water is flowed
at rates from 2.5, 5 and 10 ml/min.
Figure 8-45 API fracture conductivity test cell with two
cells loaded in a crush press, ready for testing (courtesy
of Carbo Ceramics Inc.)
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
8-6.2 ISO Long-Term Testing Procedure
A number of researchers investigated the effects
of longer periods of stress on the proppant. It was
found that the 15-minute steps in the short-term
API test procedure did not give adequate time for
the proppant pack to stabilize under the new loading
conditions. Recently the ISO testing standard 13503-
2 established a new procedure that requires each stress
level to be held for 50 hours.
The test apparatus includes a thermal housing
(Fig. 8-46). Because these tests are run at high
temperature, they must use de-oxygenated, silica-
saturated liquids to replicate conditions in the
reservoir and minimize interaction induced by the test
procedure between the fluids and the test apparatus,
sandstone platens and proppant.
Figure 8-46 Long-term fracture conductivity test
apparatus loaded with three API linear flow cells
(courtesy of Carbo Ceramics Inc.)
In all short- and long-term tests, the flow rates
used are (per the API and ISO procedures) in the
range of 1 to 10 ml/minute. These rates correspond to
a range of 4 to 40 BOPD, or 13 to 130 Mscf/d of gas at
a flowing bottomhole pressure of 1000 psi, produced
from two fracture wings of a 30-ft-high fracture
(Vincent et al., 1999). The superficial velocity of the
water during the test is in the order of 0.2 to 2.0 in.
per minute. In actual fractures, the superficial velocity
can be several feet per second and the interstitial
velocity consequently even higher. These reference
conductivity values when used in fracture design need
to be used with the appropriate adjustments for non-
Darcy and multiphase flow effects.
309
Modern Fracturing

8-6.3 Non-Darcy Flow Testing

1 1
= +X. (8-15)
kF kD
Beta Factor, the inertial flow coefficient, is determined
by flowing more realistic velocities through the API/ The above value of kF can be substituted into equations
ISO conductivity cell after each step in the long- of flow as the effective value of permeability that
term conductivity procedure. The beta factor () is a includes both viscous (Darcy) and inertial (non-
proportionality coefficient that is determined by solving Darcy) flow effects.
Eq. 2-38 (see Chapter 2) to match the observed pressure Cooke (1973) ran laboratory tests with brine, gas
drops. To fully match the expected flow conditions in and oil, and showed that is a function of permeability
the proppant pack, it may be necessary to run tests at and independent of fluid type. Example plots are shown
rates of tens of liters per minute. However, in practice, in Fig. 8-48 for (a) 8/12 mesh, (b) 10/20 mesh and (c)
it is usually only necessary to achieve flow rates around 20/40 mesh sand proppants.
1500 ml/min of brine or 25,000 ml/min of nitrogen
gas in order to ensure fully developed inertial flow and 10-1
A Gas
accurate determination of . Brine
The Forcheimer equation, given as Eq. 4-116, may Oil

Beta, atm s2/gram

10-2
be linearized and rewritten as:
1
Y= +X,
(8-14) 10-3
kD

where Y = p/(L v) and X = (v/) and kD is the

10-4
reference permeability measured under laminar 10 100 1000 10000
(Darcy) flow conditions. A Forcheimer plot of Y vs. X Permeability - Darcies
has a gradient of and an intercept equal to (1/kD), 10-1
B Gas
as shown in Fig. 8-47. Brine
Oil
Beta, atm s2/gram

Gas Flow Data: 2 lb/sq ft 20/40 10-2

Carbo-Lite at 8,000 psi and 250 F
0.07

0.06 10-3
0.05
Y = 1/k

0.04
10-4
0.03 10 100 1000 10000
0.02 Permeability - Darcies

0.01 10 -1

C Gas
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Brine
X = pv/N Oil
Beta, atm s2/gram

10-2
X < 20:ko=144 Darcies B = 0.00065 atm-s /g
2

X > 20:ko=121 Darcies B = 0.00063 atm-s2/g

Figure 8-47 Example Forcheimer plot (courtesy of Stim-

10-3
Lab Inc.)

A Forcheimer permeability (kF) may be defined 10-4
as the equivalent permeability of the proppant 10 100 1000 10000
Permeability - Darcies
incorporating inertial flow effects. From Eq. 8-14 or
Fig. 8-47, the value of Y for a given velocity (flow rate) Figure 8-48 Inertial coefficients for sand proppants with
will be equal to the reciprocal of kF. Thus, various fluids (after Cooke, 1973)

310

The Cooke (1973) relationship is of the form:
= b a, (8-16)
k
where constants a and b describe the experimental
lines from Fig. 8-48. Although the a and b terms
are used in some fracture design software programs,
care needs to be taken because the values will be
impacted by additional proppant crush at a higher
stress and by any fracturing fluid damage that causes
proppant pore throat plugging.
Factors that influence the inertial flow effects for
single-phase flow include:
Initial proppant permeability
Porosity of the proppant
Curvature of streamlines (proppant angularity)
Relative aperture of pore throat to pore space
Proppant size distribution
Heterogeneities
Surface roughness
8-6.4 Multiphase Flow Tests
Multiphase flow testing follows the same procedure as
the single-phase long-term conductivity test augmented
by introduction of the second fluid phase.
Researchers have found it convenient to use a
term gamma (), which for a given flow condition
is defined as the ratio of the actual pressure drop
under multiphase conditions divided by the pressure
drop for single phase flow.
100
Gamma
10
1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
(Xfluid /Xt)
Measured Predicted
Figure 8-49 Gamma vs. Xfluid/Xt for 3-lb/ft2 20/40 Jordan
sand with 2000 psi closure and 100 psi internal pressure
at 75F (after Jin & Penny, 1998)
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
Using the concept above and with X = (v/),
a plot can be made of the ratio of the fluid phase
Xfluid = (fluidvfluid/fluid) to the total Xt = (Xfluid +
Xg) where Xg = (gvg/g). Data can then fit to a
power law model of the form:
b
X fluid
= 0 + a X , (8-17)
t
where 0 is the value for saturated gas in single-
phase flow, and a and b are experimentally derived
parameters. Figure 8-49 shows an example
experimental plot of vs. (Xfluid/Xt) with matched data
for testing a 20/40 mesh sand proppant.
Some models correlate liquid saturation and
velocity in the fracture to actual liquid production
in order to calculate multiphase flow effects.
Unfortunately, many fracture design and production
simulators do not include non-Darcy and multiphase
flow effects. If the production model is only utilizing
Darcys law, the engineer must calculate the total
pressure drop for the expected flow conditions and
then convert the pressure drop into an effective
conductivity or permeability damage factor. The total
pressure drop per unit length = viscous drag + inertial
effects + multiphase effects:
p v
= + v 2 . (8-18)
L
k
The ratio of viscous drag forces to the total pressure
drop allows calculation of an effective fracture
conductivity, (kfw)e , compared to the reference or
nominal conductivity, kfw, where:
(v / k )
(k f w)e = k f w. (8-19)
(v / k + v 2 )
Alternatively, from Eq. 8-15, the multiphase flow
effects will reduce the Forcheimer permeability by a
factor of gamma (). Thus, the equivalent multiphase
permeability (kM) is given by:
kF
kM = , (8-20)
0.1 0.12
or
1 1
= + X . (8-21)
kM k D
311
Modern Fracturing
Where kD is the permeability under Darcy flow
conditions. As an approximation for non-Darcy and
multiphase flow effects, the ratio of single-phase to
total pressure drops calculated above can be applied as
a damage factor to reference long-term conductivity
data that are typically included as lookup tables in
fracture design models, where:
k to initiate cleanup of the broken gel between the
Damage Factor = k = (1 + Xk D ) .
D
(8-22)
M
A variety of other factors can be investigated in the
laboratory using specific test conditions.
8-6.5 Gel Damage
For practical reasons, most conductivity testing follows
the API procedures of using a 2% potassium chloride
(KCl) solution. In order to fully understand the impact
of the fracturing fluid on conductivity it is necessary
to replicate the treatment conditions of placing
proppant within the fracture under the actual reservoir
conditions of pressure and temperature.
Numerous studies have been conducted on
the impact of the gel filter cake and residue on
conductivity (Stim-Lab, 1992, 1997, 2000; and
Brannon and Pulsinelli, 1990a and 1990b). For
example, Fig. 8-50 shows an SEM of a proppant pack
that was tested under simulated treatment conditions
with a fracturing fluid. The left side of the figure
shows gel damage concentrated at the interface with
the sandstone platens. The right side of the figure
shows gel residue within the proppant pack.
Figure 8-50 Fracture fluid damage in the proppant pack
(from Stim-Lab, 1992)
312
It is important to also realize the impact of
different proppant types on the cleanup of fracturing
fluids. Figure 8-51 shows the cleanup effects of the
same borate crosslinked guar fluid with three mesh
distributions of proppant: 20/40 mesh lightweight
ceramic (LWC) and 20/40 and 40/60 mesh Ottawa
Sand. There is a 250% difference in pressure required
narrowly sieved LWC proppant compared to the
more broadly sieved, angular 20/40 mesh sand. As
average proppant diameter and pore throat size are
reduced in going to a 40/60 mesh proppant there is
a similar increase in required differential pressure.
The consequence of this, as shown in Fig. 8-52, is
that although the retained permeability of the LWC
is close to 70% of the undamaged value, it is reduced
to around 50% for the sand proppants.
%p to Initiate Cleanup at 4.0 lb/sqft +
Borate Crosslinked Guar + Breakers at 150F and
2000 psi Closure Stress
0.06
0.05
0.04
%p, psi/5 in.
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
20/40 LWC 20/40 White Sand 40/60 White Sand
Figure 8-51 Retained conductivities of various proppant
packs (courtesy of Stim-Lab Inc.)
Much of the early design of fluid systems
focused on rheology. Volumes of data were gathered
regarding the behavior of fluids as functions of shear,
temperature and time in order to develop fracturing
fluids capable of transporting proppant effectively
within any reservoir. The ability of a fluid to clean
up, or flow back out of the well after fracturing, was
traditionally related to the viscosity of the degraded
fluid. More recently, the secondary concerns of
emulsion creation, precipitation, clay swelling/
migration, polymer concentration and insoluble fluid
residues have been receiving more attention.
 Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity

Laboratory tests that attempt to replicate downhole 8-6.6 Other Factors

conditions and measure proppant conductivity
after damage have provided a better understanding
of the impact of each component within modern
fluid systems. The range of results reported in the
literature has shown that each fracturing fluid should
be evaluated as a complete system. Attempts to draw
general conclusions regarding the efficacy of a specific
crosslinker or breaker may be invalid when other
components of the fluid system change.
Conductivity and % Retained Permeability
vs. Proppant Types at 4.0 lb/sq ft
placed with YF130LG
12000
10000
Conductivity, md-ft
Due to the high cost of long-term conductivity
testing, there are relatively few extensive databases
of tests. Other factors which can be investigated
as warranted include:
Cycling: Operating conditions over the life of the
well will result in cycling the effective stress on the
proppant as a result of shutting in and opening the
well and the resultant changes in flowing pressure in
the fracture. It is possible to investigate this effect by
cycling the applied load to the API conductivity test
cell. Early studies showed progressive loss of fracture
100
90
width and proppant permeability with successive
80 stress cycles. This indicates that damage occurs in
% Retained Permeability

8000
70 both the proppant and the fracture face. Ceramic
60 proppant exhibited better overall resistance to fatigue
6000 50
failure than natural sand, and softer formations
40
4000
30
showed increased sensitivity to repeated stress
20 cycles. The effect of cycling is believed to be more
2000
10 pronounced with lower proppant concentrations
0
20/40 20/40 40/60 20/40 20/40 40/60
0 (Ouabdesselam and Hudson, 1991).
LWC White
Sand
White
Sand
LWC White
Sand
White
Sand
Figure 8-53 shows results of testing a Lightweight
Figure 8-52 Differential pressure to initiate cleanup in the
Ceramic (LWC) and a Resin-Coated Sand (RCS)
proppant pack (from Stim-Lab Inc., 1997) proppant with a 25-cycle test phase between 8000
and 4000 psi to represent the effect of well operations
In the absence of specific gel damage tests relating over the life of the well. In this example the effects
to specific well and reservoir conditions, the practicing are 26% and 35% reductions in conductivity,
engineer has several alternatives for taking into account respectively. Similarly, for a 20/40 mesh sand
the effect of gel damage: proppant cycled between 4000 and 1000 psi there
1. Utilize a database of retained permeability data was a 30% loss in conductivity.
for similar fluid and reservoir conditions.
2. Utilize a design program from a proppant 10,000

testing laboratory which contains correlations

8,000
for calculating gel damage derived from an
Conductivity, md-ft

extensive test program under a variety of well

and Stress, psi

6,000
Ceramic loses 26%,
and reservoir conditions. RCS loses 35% due to 25 cycles
3. Estimate a damage factor to apply to the long- 4,000

term proppant conductivity data typically in

2,000
the order of 30 to 50%.
4. Conduct Pressure Transient Analyses (PTA) or
history matching of production data to estimate 0 100 200 300 400
Hours
the effective fracture conductivity of existing Stress (psi) LWC RCS
wells. The gel damage value can be back-

calculated and used as an estimate for future Figure 8-53 Multiple stress cycle test results for various
jobs with similar fluid systems. proppants (from Stim-Lab Inc., 2000)

313
Modern Fracturing
Long Term Exposure: Limited data are available
on the long-term stress exposure of proppant packs.
One study presented by Cobb and Farrell (1986)
tested a variety of proppants for three months of
continuous loading. Results of testing a high-quality
LWC showed less than a 5% reduction in conductivity
over the period of testing.
Temperature: The effects of elevated temperature
on proppant permeability have proven difficult to
measure consistently in the laboratory. Early literature
reported substantial degradation of all proppant types
at high temperatures, but this was later found to be
an artifact of the test procedure; the KCl fluids were
not fully silica-saturated, and the sandstone cores had
started dissolving during testing. More recent work
confirms that ceramic proppants are virtually unaffected
by high temperatures, which makes intuitive sense
as they are sintered at approximately 2700 F during
manufacturing. Elevated temperatures do appear to
have a detrimental effect on sand substrates and can
affect the properties of resin coatings.
Figure 8-54 Proppant embedment and fines generation
(from Stim-Lab, 1987)
Embedment and Spalling: Embedment of
proppant particles into the faces of the fracture
wall results in a reduction of the width of the
fracture, directly resulting in decreased fracture
conductivity. The photographs shown in Fig. 8-
54 illustrate embedment of proppant particles into
a sandstone surface after 100 hours of exposure to
314
simulated bottomhole stress and temperature. The
circular indentations made by the proppants are
seen surrounded by fine-grained, crushed sandstone
particles. The displacement of crushed fine formation
particles, a process called spalling, may further
reduce conductivity as the particles create fines
damage within the proppant pack.
8-7 Proppant Flowback
8-7.1 Proppant Flowback Control
Proppant flowback after hydraulic fracturing
treatments is a significant concern within the
industry. Net effective stress in the early part of
cleanup after a hydraulic fracturing treatment is
much lower than the closure stress on the well after
it is stabilized for production. Proppant flowback
can occur during that time. Similarly, when a well
is shut-in during a production cycle, the formation
pressure near the wellbore increases, and the fracture
experiences a simultaneous decrease in net closure
stress. Consequently, when production is re-initiated,
opportunity exists for proppant flowback.
Proppant flowback during cleanup and
subsequently over the lifetime of the well can have
detrimental effects to the success of a treatment.
Any significant flowback of proppant can be highly
detrimental because the fracture could close and act
as a choke to production. Also, abrasive damage can
occur to surface and production equipment such as
chokes, valves and separators. These issues can lead to
increased safety concerns, reduced well production and
increased costs. Factors identified as affecting proppant
flowback include formation type, fracture width,
closure stress, proppant size and type, and proppant
concentration. (See also Section 9-10.)
Proppant flowback can be prevented by the
appropriate use of perforating strategies (see Chapter
6), treatment design (see Chapter 4), treatment
execution (see Chapter 9) and well management
(Vreeburg et al., 1994). However, there are many
treatments where these practices are not employed,
for a variety of reasons. The next two sections detail
the main proppant-based techniques available for
preventing proppant flowback.

8-7.2 Curable Resin-Coated Proppant
Curable resin-coated sand was first introduced in 1975
as a means to control proppant flowback by locking the
proppant in place in a conventional hard-rock propped
hydraulic fracture. The curable coating sets with
formation temperature to produce a bond between the
proppant particles. Resin-coated proppants are generally
effective for controlling proppant flowback. However,
many wells treated with resin-coated proppants have,
after time, experienced proppant flowback, suggesting
that the inter-grain bonding of the resin-coated particles
has failed. Figure 8-55 shows intact bonds between resin
coated proppants; Fig. 8-56 shows bonds broken due to
stress cycling fatigue. Bond failure can also occur due to
the chemical effects of the fracturing fluid components
(breakers, buffers, surfactants, crosslinkers, etc.),
proppant size, or the physical effects of stress cycling,
closure stress, shear, and temperature.
Figure 8-55 Bonding between resin-coated sand
particles (courtesy of Santrol)
Figure 8-56 Stress-induced fracture through resin-coated
grain and inter-particle bond (courtesy of Santrol)
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
8-7.3 Proppant Flowback Control Additives
Several on-the-fly additives were introduced in
the late 1990s to control proppant flowback in
applications where resin-coated proppants had proven
ineffective. Among those were tacky resins, fibers
and deformable particulates.
8-7.3.1 Tackifiers
Tacky resins do not fully cure; therefore, the
created inter-grain bonds are less subject to brittle
failure than the cured bonds among resin-coated
proppants (Nguyen, 1998). The tacky resins have
been shown effective in fractures with high closure
stress but less beneficial in applications where high
production rates or multiphase flow are the main
contributors to proppant pack failure.
8-7.3.2 Fibers
Fiber additives have small diameters and large length
relative to the proppant particles, providing for a
span across several proppant particles (Card, 1995).
When the fibers are mixed in a proppant pack,
they create a complex net that serves to impede
proppant particle movement. Fibers have been shown
to be effective for controlling proppant flowback,
and increasing the fiber concentration has been
shown to further improve control. However,
because they reside within the proppant pack
pore space, conductivity damage is directly
proportional to the amount of fiber added.
8-7.3.3 Deformable Particles
Deformable particle proppant flowback control
additives are sized similarly to the proppant and
intermixed within the proppant pack matrix
(Rickards et al., 1998; and Stephenson et al., 1999).
When stress is applied, the proppant particles create
indentations in the surface of the deformable particles
as the softer deformable particles absorb the energy.
The indentations create increased contact surface
area between the particles, providing for increased
resistance to particle movement.
315
Modern Fracturing
Two forms of deformable particles are commercially
available. A substantially spherical deformable particle
is employed for applications with closure stress from
250 psi to 6,000 psi and reservoir temperatures up
to 275 oF. Needle-shaped deformable particles are
used for higher-stress applications (Stephenson et al.,
2002). Photographs of both particles after exposure to
sufficient stress for deformation are shown in Fig. 8-
57. The increased inter-particle contact area can be seen
in the indentations on the surface of the deformable
particle. Laboratory testing indicates that a 3:1 ratio of
proppant particles to substantially spherical deformable
particles is the optimum for controlling proppant
flowback and maintaining proppant permeability. A
ratio of 9:1 has been suggested as optimum for the
higher-strength, needle-shaped deformable particles.
Experience has shown that fracture conductivity
reduction is minimized with the use of deformable
particles for proppant flowback control.
Figure 8-57 Deformable particles after exposure to stress
(from Rickards et al., 1998 and Stephenson et al., 2002).
Increased Flowback Resistance of 20/40 LW Ceramic
with 15% Deformable Proppant at 4000 psi and 250 F
1200 NO FLOWBACK
1000
bpd / Mscf/day
10-ft interval
800
600 1220
400
FLOWBACK 732
200
101 14
0
w/o Deformable Incorporating 15% Deformable
Proppant Additive Proppant Additive
Figure 8-58 Deformable particle effect on proppant
flowback (from Stephenson et al., 1999)
Characterization of flowback of a 20/40 LWC
proppant with and without deformable particles, at
250 oF and 4,000-psi closure is shown in Fig. 8-58.
The LWC proppant was observed to flow back at a
316
simulated production rate of 101 bpd. The rate at failure
was increased to 782 bpd by adding 15% by weight of
deformable particles to the LWC proppant pack.
An ancillary benefit of the use of deformable
particles is the ability to reduce the amount of
proppant crushing experienced with a given proppant.
As shown in Fig. 8-59, 20/40 Ottawa sand exposed to
7,000 psi closure stress exhibits crush in the form of
fines generation in the order of 25%. Adding 15% by
weight deformable particles to the Ottawa sand pack
decreased the amount of fines to 15%. Additional
increase in the deformable particle concentration to
25% by weight decreased the fines to 12%.
Reduced Crushing of 20/40 Ottawa Sand with
Deformable Proppant Additive at 7000 psi Closure
30
25
20
Fines, %
15
10
0
0 5 15 25
Weight of Deformable Proppant Additive, %
Figure 8-59 Increasing concentration of deformable
particles reduces proppant crushing (from Stephenson et
al., 1999)
8-8 Proppant Selection
From all the chemicals and materials, and all the services
provided as a part of the hydraulic fracturing operation,
only one thing will provide benefit to the productivity
improvement of the well: Proppant! Selecting the
correct proppant to use, the amount to place, and the
propped fracture geometry is therefore at the heart of a
successful application of hydraulic fracturing. The only
way to evaluate the solution to these three parameters
is through numerical simulation. However, even with
that, the heterogeneity of the reservoir that is being
stimulated and our overall lack of knowledge about
the properties of the reservoir and bounding layers
may mean that our initial solutions do not result in
selection of the best proppant type, proppant size or
treatment volume/mass to pump. Actual production
results should always be benchmarked against expected

performance; armed with this experience, the engineer
should be prepared to make appropriate design
and proppant selection changes.
Fortunately, as a starting point for the practicing
engineer, a number of fracture design models have
extensive proppant databases built into them.
However, without exception, all of these data are based
on the API/ISO long-term conductivity standards for
Darcy, low-rate, viscous flow conditions. Most of the
models will include opportunities for the engineer
to evaluate non-Darcy, inertial flow effects that are
critical for gas wells. In addition, the engineer can
select a damage factor to be applied to the data in
order to account for the plethora of other issues
which we have described in this chapter.
8-8.1 Productivity Potential
Any proppant evaluation should start with identifying
the production potential from different proppant
types and sizes. This will be conducted as a part of the
stimulation design optimization using the fracture design
model. Typically, greater production benefit will be
obtained with manufactured proppants compared with
natural sand proppants and with larger 16/20 or 12/18
mesh proppants. In this phase of the selection process,
the engineer should seek to understand for a given set
of reservoir conditions what potential benefit is obtained
from different proppant materials and sizes.
Secondly, the above exercise should be conducted
with a range of proppant volumes/masses (see Sections
4-5 and 4-6). A small treatment that is constrained by
fracture half-length penetration may not show much
productivity impact when changing proppant quality
and size. A larger treatment that might be expected to
produce at significantly higher rates could be extremely
sensitive to proppant quality or size.
As discussed in the text of this chapter, it is critical in
gas wells to address the following issues:
Non-Darcy and multiphase flow. If the fracture
design model does not include these effects, the
engineer should use a proppant characterization
model to determine an appropriate reduction for the
API/ISO reference conductivity values incorporated
into the fracture design models as lookup tables.
This can then be manually incorporated into the
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
applied Damage Factor. The engineer should realize
that taking this approach, even for moderate-rate
gas wells, will often result in calculating Damage
Factors in excess of 90% and even in excess of
95% for higher-rate gas wells.
Producing conditions over the life of the well,
including changes in both reservoir and bottomhole
flowing pressures that may occur on account of
production or well work activity.
8-8.2 Flowback Control
The effective control of proppant and formation sand
production over the life of a well is critical to long-
term productivity. From a sand control perspective in
unconsolidated formations, the ideal solution is often
to increase the fracture length until the matrix velocities
are low enough to prevent the movement of formation
fines. However, estimating the energy required to
liberate these fines, and the corresponding fracture
length remains an imprecise science. Additionally, in
prolific wells, it is often difficult to provide enough
conductivity to effectively drain a long fracture
experiencing multiphase and non-Darcy effects.
In cases where fines migration cannot be eliminated,
the size of the proppant should be determined using
the formation size distribution and appropriate sand
control criteria. This provides a bound for the smallest
proppant size to be selected.
Applying resin-coating technology to either sand
or ceramic-based proppants has been used extensively
to control both proppant and formation sand flowback.
Over 70% of all resin-coated proppants are now used
for applications to mitigate or minimize solids flowback.
The resin chemistry is typically formulated for specific
markets in order to provide the grain-to-grain bonding
strength necessary for the pressure and temperature
conditions in a particular reservoir.
8-8.3 Availability
With over a hundred different proppant types and sizes
available to the industry, there is no fracturing market
in which all types and sizes of materials are readily
available. It is therefore necessary for the engineer to
understand what materials are typically available in a
317
Modern Fracturing
region/market and what are the availability and added
costs for other materials that may be considered in the
design/optimization phase. In offshore environments
where frac boats are used, and in some international
markets, there are often limitations on the available
space for proppants both total volume and storage
of different types of proppant. The engineer should be
knowledgeable about what products are being used and
what products can be logistically handled.
8-8.4 The Cost-Value Proposition
Proppant cost will always be a significant component
of the total treatment cost. In a small sand proppant
treatment, the proppant may account for only 10 to
20% of the total treatment cost. In a large treatment
utilizing man-made manufactured proppants, it is
typical for the proppant cost to be in excess of 50% of
the total treatment ticket.
Fracture design models produce a number of
job size optimization plots in order to guide the
engineer toward the correct proppant selection and
schedule. Such plots which should be calculated
for each proppant type and mesh size being
considered include:
Treatment size (proppant mass) vs
fracture half-length
Productivity vs. time for different treatment sizes
Cumulative production (recovery) vs. time for
different treatment sizes
Net Present Value vs. treatment size
Incremental Net Present Value vs. treatment size
Investment efficiency (NPV/Cost) vs. treatment size
The use of such plots, coupled with other
appropriate financial metrics, should guide the engineer
to the correct proppant design.
It should always be remembered that we are using
laboratory data measured at specific conditions and
applying these data to a heterogenous environment in the
reservoir, which we do not completely understand. Many
engineers have discovered significant financial benefit from
changing proppant types and treatment sizes from those
previously used in a particular fields development. We
encourage the practicing engineer to do likewise: to apply
our best understanding of fluid mechanics and laboratory
318
measured proppant data, but be prepared to evaluate/
correlate the treatment performance to expectations and
then, if necessary, to change the proppant type, size and
mass of material pumped in order to further improve
the performance of the hydraulic fracturing process
in future field completions.
References
American Petroleum Institute: Recommended
Practices for Evaluating Short Term Proppant Pack
Conductivity, API RP 61, Oct 1989.
American Petroleum Institute: Recommended Practices
for Measurement of Properties of Proppants Used
in Hydraulic Fracturing and Gravel-Packing
Operations, API RP 19C, 1st edition, 2007.
American Petroleum Institute: Recommended
Practices for Testing High Strength Proppants
Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, API
RP 60, Dec 1995.
American Petroleum Institute: Recommended
Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing
Operations, API RP 58, Dec. 1995.
American Petroleum Institute: Recommended
Practices for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic
Fracturing Operations, API RP 56, Mar 1983.
Barree, R.D. and Conway, M.W.: Experimental and
Numerical Modeling of Convective Proppant
Transport, paper SPE 28564, 1994.
Biot, M.A., and Medlin, W.L.: Theory of Sand
Transport in Thin Fluids paper SPE 14468,
1985.
Brannon, H.D., and Pulsinelli, R.J.: Evaluation of
Breaker Concentrations Required To Improve
the Permeability of Proppant Packs Damaged by
Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 19402,
1990b.
Brannon H.D. and Pulsinelli, R.J.: Breaker
Concentrations Required to Improve the
Permeability of Proppant Packs Damaged by
Concentrated Linear and Borate Crosslinked
Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 20135, 1990a.
Brannon, H.D., Malone M.R., Rickards, A.R.,
Wood, W.D., Edgeman, J.R., and Bryant, J.L.:
Maximizing Fracture Conductivity with Partial

Monolayers: Theoretical Curiosity or Highly
Productive Reality, paper SPE 90698, 2004.
Brannon, H.D., Rickards, A.R., and Stephenson,
C.J.: Lightweight methods for well treating, US
6,364,018 (2002).
Brannon, H.D., Wood, W.D., and Wheeler, R.S.:
A New Correlation for Relating the Physical
Properties of Fracturing Slurries to the Minimum
Flow Velocity Required for Transport, paper SPE
106312, 2007.
Brannon, H.D., Wood W.D., and Wheeler, R.S.:
The Quest for Improved Proppant Transport:
Investigation of the Effects of Proppant Slurry
Component Properties on Transport, paper SPE
95675, 2005.
Card, R.J., Howard, P.R., and Feraud, J-P.: A Novel
Technology to Control Proppant Back Production,
paper SPE 31007, SPEPF (November 1995), 10:4,
271-276.
Cheung, S.: Effect of Acids on Gravels and Proppants,
paper SPE 13842, 1985.
Cinco, L.H., Samaniego, V.F., and Dominquez, A.N.:
Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well With a
Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ (Aug.
1978) 253-264.
Clark, P.E., and Zhu, Q.: Fluid Flow in a Vertical
Fracture from a Point Source, paper SPE 28509,
2004.
Cobb; S.L., and Farrell, J.J.: Evaluation of Long-Term
Proppant Stability, paper SPE 14133, 1986.
Cooke, C.E.: Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in
Multiple Layers, paper SPE 4117, JPT (Sep 1973)
1101-1107; Trans. AIME, 255.
Cooke, C.E. Jr., Hedden, W.A., and Chard, W.C.:
Hydraulic Fracturing Method Using Sintered
Bauxite Proppant Agent, U.S. Patent No.
4,068,718 (1978).
Darcy, H.: Au Filtrage DEau, published in Les
Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon, Paris,
1856.
Darin, S.R., and Huitt, J.L.: Effect of a Partial
Monolayer of Propping Agent on Fracture Flow
Capacity, paper SPE 1291, (1959); Trans., AIME
(1960) 219, 31-37.
Economides, M.J., Oligney, R., and Valko, P.: Unified
Fracture Design, Orsa Press, 2002.
Chapter 8 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
Economides, M.J., Watters, L.T., and Dunn-Norman,
S.: Petroleum Well Construction, John Wiley and
Sons, 1998, p 474.
Edgeman, R., Gertsner, M., Nelson, S., and Malone,
M.: Lightweight Proppant, A New Innovation
in Hydraulic Fracturing, paper presented at the
51st Annual Southwest Petroleum Short Course,
Lubbock, Texas, 2004.
Fitzgibbon, J.J.: Sintered Spherical Pellets Containing
Clay as a Major Component Useful for Gas and
Oil Well Proppants, U.S. Patent No. 4,427,068
(1984).
Forcheimer, P.: Wasserbewegung durch Boden, ZVDI
(1901) 45, 1781.
Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E., and
Veatch, R.W., Jr.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson,
TX (1989) 12, 109-130.
Goel, N., and Shah, S.: A Rheological Criterion for
Fracturing Fluids to transport Proppant During a
Stimulation Treatment, paper SPE 71663, 2001.
Graham, J.W., Muecke, T.W., and Cooke, C.E. Jr.:
Method for Treating Subterranean Formations,
U.S. Patent No. 3,929,191 (1975).
Hoaberg, R.K., and Koerner-Moore, J.: Silica-Sand
Proppants Used in Well Stimulation, paper SME-
80-345, 1978.
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing,
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1970)
59-90.
ISO 13503-2, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries
- Completion Fluids and Materials: Part 2:
Procedures for measuring properties of proppants
used in hydraulic fracturing and gravel packing
operations, 1st edition, 2006.
Krumbein, W.C., and Schloss, L.L.: Stratigraphy and
Sedimentation, 2nd Ed., 1963, W.N. Freemen and
Co., New York.
Jin, L., and G.S. Penny: A Study on Two Phase, Non-
Darcy Gas Flow through Proppant Packs, paper
SPE 49248, 1998.
Johnson, C.K., and Armbruster, D.R.: Particles
Covered with a Cured Infusable Thermoset Film
and Process for Their Production, U.S. Patent No.
4,439,489 (1984).
Lunghofer, E.P.: Hydraulic Fracturing Propping
319
Modern Fracturing

Agent, U.S. Patent No. 4,522,731 (1985). 1999.

Nolte, K.G.: Flow Considerations in Hydraulic Stim-Lab Proppant Consortium Report, 1992.
Fracturing, paper SPE 18537, 1988. Stim-Lab Proppant Consortium Notes, 1997.
Novotny, E.J.: Proppant Transport, paper SPE 6813, Stim-Lab Proppant Consortium Notes, 2000.
1977. Tannich, J.D., and Nierode, D.E.: The Effect of
Nguyen, P.D., Weaver, J.D., and Dewprashad, B.T.: Vertical Fractures on Gas Well Productivity, paper
Surface Modification System for Fracture SPE 15902, 1986.
Conductivity Enhancement, paper SPE 48897, van Poolen, H.K., Tinsley, J.M., and Saunders, C.D.:
1998. Hydraulic Fracturing: Fracture Flow Capacity vs.
Ouabdesselam, M. and Hudson, P.: An Investigation Well Productivity, Trans. AIME (1958) 213, 91-
of the Effect of Cyclic Loading on Fracture 95.
Conductivity, paper SPE 22850, 1991. Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., and Kullman, J.: Non-
Pearson, C.M., Bond, A.J., Eck, M.E., and Lynch, Darcy and Multiphase Flow in Propped Fractures:
K.W.: Optimal Fracture Stimulation of a Case Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well
Moderate Permeability Reservoir - Kuparuk River Productivity, paper SPE 54630, 1999.
Unit, Alaska, SPEPE (August 1992) 259-266. Vreeburg, R.-J., Roodhart, L.P., Davies, D.R., and
Penny, G.S., and Jin, L.: The Development of Penny, G.S.: Proppant Backproduction During
Laboratory Correlations Showing the Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing A New Failure Mechanism
Multiphase Flow, Fluid, and Proppant Selection for Resin-Coated Proppants, paper SPE 27382,
Upon Gas Well Productivity, paper SPE 30494, JPT (October 1994), 46:10, 884-889.
1995. Wood, W.D., Brannon, H.D., Rickards, A.R., and
Prats, M.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Stephenson, C.J: Ultra-Lightweight Proppant
Behavior - Incompressible Fluid Case, SPEJ (June Development Yields Exciting New Opportunities
1961) 105-18; Trans., AIME, 222. in Hydraulic Fracturing Design, paper SPE
Predict K, v.7.0, Stim-Lab, 2007. 84309, 2003.
Rickards, A., Lacy, L., Brannon, H., and Stephenson,
C.: Need Stress Relief ? A New Approach to
Reducing Stress Cycling Induced Proppant Pack
Failure, SPE Paper 49247, 1998.
Rickards, A.R., Brannon, H.D., Wood, W.D.,
and Stephenson, C.J.: High Strength, Ultra-
Lightweight Proppant Lends New Dimensions
to Hydraulic Fracturing Applications, paper SPE
84308, 2003.
Roberts, S.S., Binder, J.S., Lane, R.H.: Strength,
Volume and Weight Loss of Gravels and Proppants
Due to HF-Based Acids, paper SPE 30168,
1990.
Stephenson, C.J., Rickards, A.R., and Brannon, H.D.:
Exceptional Proppant Flowback Control for the
Most Extreme Well Environments: The Shape of
Things to Come, paper SPE 77681, 2002.
Stephenson, C.J., Rickards, A.R., and Brannon, H.D.:
Increased Resistance to Proppant Flowback by
Adding Deformable Particles to Proppant Packs
Tested in the Laboratory, paper SPE 56593,

320
Mark Malone is region technical manager for the Permian Basin at BJ Services Company. Malone has held
various engineering and sales positions during his 20 years in pressure pumping services, working in the
Denver-Julesburg Basin of Colorado, Raton Basin of Northern New Mexico and the Permian Basin of West
Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Malones most recent focus has been on the practical application of new
pumping services technologies. Malone is an active member of the Board of Directors of the Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, an SPE member, author of multiple technical publications and patent holder. He
has a bachelor's degree in agricultural engineering from Texas Tech University.

John W. Ely is a principle in Ely & Associates, Inc., which he started in 1991 with three partners. He has a
bachelor's degree in chemistry from Oklahoma State University. He started his career with Halliburton Co.
in 1965, working as a technician for the analytical group while completing his college work and returning
for many roles from 1973 until 1980. Ely joined Nowsco Services in 1980 as engineering manager. In 1985,
he joined S.A. Holditch & Associates as vice president of stimulation technology. John holds several patents
and has numerous publications, including the Stimulation Engineering Handbook. He is also a contributing
author to the SPE monograph on hydraulic fracturing, writing the chapter on hydraulic fracturing fluids
and fracture fluids selection.
Chapter 9
Execution of Hydraulic
Fracturing Treatments
Mark Malone, BJ Services and
John W. Ely, Ely & Associates
9-1 Introduction
The industry has come a long way in its ability to
properly execute hydraulic fracture treatments. As of
the writing of this chapter hydraulic fracture treatments
have been executed for more than 60 years. The very
first treatments were conducted using low-horsepower
cementing units, and the mixing equipment consisted
of a ground cement mixing tub and human beings
cutting sacks of sand into these tubs as the fluid was
pumped downhole. All personnel and any monitoring
equipment were outside, subjected to whatever the
environment happened to be. It is very fortunate that
the first well to be hydraulically fractured was highly
damaged; otherwise the onset of hydraulic fracturing
would have been delayed considerably.
From these humble beginnings the industry has
progressed to the point where we now have fracturing
pumping units that yield in excess of 3000 hydraulic
horsepower. It should be noted that for many years
fracturing pumps were controlled using a single individual
sitting on the pump. Today we have multiple pumping
units controlled by one individual sitting next to the
supervisor in the control van. Getting the personnel off
of the units is not only a tremendous move in relation
to safety but also allows for much better control of the
fracturing treatment. For the first treatment, the fluids
were mixed in the measuring tanks of the cement unit
using a shovel. We now have computer-controlled blenders
with microprocessor-controlled additive pumps. It is not
uncommon for 8 to 10 additives to be run continuously
on a high-rate fracture treatment with all additives not
only controlled with microprocessors but also monitored
through coriolis meters and the readout of volume and
rate shown in an air-conditioned van.
From the very first fluids, which consisted of
World War II surplus napalm or simply ungelled
hydrocarbons, we now have complex fluids that
allow for reasonable pumping pressures and still
maintain viscosities measured in 1000s of centipoise at
bottomhole temperatures greater than 350 F. Fracture
design engineers have a tremendous number of options
when designing fracture treatments. They can choose
from a very simple "waterfrac" fluid that may be only
water and a friction reducer to an extremely complex
system comprising high-temperature stable guar
derivative, a metal ligand crosslinking agent, a buffering
agent, temperature stabilizer, breakers, surfactants, and
a plethora of additional additives to fit the lithology of
the reservoir that is treated. (See Chapter 7 for more
details about fracturing fluids.)
Although the first proppant used was sand from
a river bed, today there are a vast number of choices
ranging from high-quality sand to resin-coated sand to
ceramics and finally to the high-strength bauxite used
for closure pressures exceeding 10,000 psi. (See Chapter
8 for more details on proppants.)
In addition to all the improvements in pumping
equipment, metering capabilities and monitoring
software, one of the greatest improvements in
execution was the introduction of pre-job diagnostics
on virtually every treatment. These calibration tests
(see Sections 4-2.1.8 and 4-2.1.9) allow the engineers
to know key issues such as number of perforations,
closure gradient, tortuosity and, most importantly,
fluid efficiency. By knowing fluid efficiency pre-job
the pad volume percentage can be adjusted to allow
for complete placement of proppant. By diagnosing
tortuosity or lack thereof the on-site personnel can
take steps to remove near-wellbore problems before
disrupting the placement of proppant.
Obviously we have come a long way in having
tools and technology to execute treatments. The
industry has also progressed tremendously in the area of
quality control, i.e., assuring both themselves and the
customer that the job was pumped as designed. Today
there are very few treatments where the actual fluid
to be pumped is not tested at reservoir conditions of
temperature and shear prior to the treatment. Specific
concentrations of gel breakers, etc., are selected based
on the actual performance of the fluids on the wellsite.
In addition there is a very concerted effort by the service
companies to pump the job as designed, allowing for
better post-job evaluation of performance.
323
Modern Fracturing

9-2 Function of Equipment went different directions in designing this type of

equipment. One service company made a commitment
The fracturing industry has come a long way in relation to utilize gas turbine units. These units were typically
to the pumping and monitoring equipment used for around 1000 HHP and had the advantage of low
hydraulic fracturing. From the time of the first fracturing weight to horsepower. This type of unit was used for
treatment with low-horsepower cementing trucks and more than 25 years before being phased out by more
when sand was added by sack cutters into a ground conventional equipment.
jet mixing tub (as seen in Fig. 9-1). Today, specialized
high-horsepower pumping and blending equipment is
available from a large number of suppliers. We also have
come from supervising fracturing treatments in the open
air with simple pressure and rate gauges to computerized
control vans where virtually every pressure, rate, and
chemical is monitored. In these vans it is typical that all of
the pumping and blending units are controlled, allowing
for a much safer and managed environment. It is quite
common for all of the data monitored in the treating
vans to be transmitted back to both the service company Figure 9-2 A pumping unit rated at 2700 HHP
office and the customers office or to any computer with
Internet access anywhere in the world. The major reason for the demise of the gas turbine
was their cost and the need for very specialized
maintenance. After World War II a very large number
of surplus Allison airplane engines were used for
fracturing equipment. Their use was primarily due to
their very low cost and availability. These units were
used until the surplus was expended.

Figure 9-1 Vintage ground jet mining tub in early

fracturing treatments

9-2.1 High-Pressure Pumping Equipment

As mentioned previously, the earliest pumping units

for hydraulic fracturing were typically cementing units
with less than 500 hydraulic horsepower. In addition to
the low horsepower, those units were typically limited
to pumping at pressure less than 5,000 psi.
Today the most common specialized pumping
unit is rated at 2,000 hydraulic horsepower and
can work at pressures exceeding 15,000 psi. There
are specialized units with horsepower ratings
to 3000 HHP (see Figure 9-2).
For a long time cementing pumps were adequate
for fracturing treatments, but gradually the need for
higher-horsepower, specialized pumping equipment
prevailed, and the various service companies
Figure 9-3 Common fracturing unit from the 1950s
From the mid 1950s to the 1980s, the most common
fracturing unit was a trailer or body load unit with
two 500 HP pumps and twin 500 to 600-BHP drive
engines as seen in Figure 9-3. This type of pumping unit
is still in use today in many areas due to its reliability
and functionality. As the industry was able to design
higher-horsepower pumps there was and continues to be
a movement towards single-trailer-mounted fracturing
trucks with a 2000 to 2500 BHP engine and a single

324

pump with varying size fluid ends, allowing for high-rate
pumping at low pressures and low-rate pumping at high
pressures. Table 9-1 is a typical rate horsepower table for
various fluid end sizes with a 2000 HHP pump.
Table 9-1 Rate/Horsepower Table for 2000 HHP Pump
Fluid End Size Maximum Rate Maximum Pressure
Inches bpm psi
4 12.6 14,147
5 15.6 11,459
5 18.8 9,470
5 20.6 8,664
6 22.4 7,957
During the late 1960s and through the 1980s there
was a great deal of use of intensifier pumps for treating
at pressures between 10,000 and 20,000 psi. Because
a large number of deeper wells were completed with
small tubulars, there were a plethora of jobs requiring
pumping pressures exceeding the ratings of conventional
pumps. In the late 1960s it was not uncommon for a
fairly sizable fleet of conventional pumping equipment
to be literally destroyed trying to pump for long periods
of time at pressures exceeding 12,000 psi. The state-
of-the-art equipment at that time were very functional
if used at 60% of horsepower or pressure rating but
simply could not be used for any substantial period at
maximum pressure or horsepower.
Figure 9-4 Intensifier pump used on a treatment in Texas
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
To be able to conduct these treatments, all service
companies built long-stroke pressure multiplier pumps,
which could pump at very high pressures for long periods
of time (see Fig. 9-4). Movement of the industry to casing
completions and to improvements in conventional
equipment has led to these fleets of intensifiers being
phased out. There is a possibility that as we move to
deeper and higher pressure reservoirs that we may have
to go back to this type of technology.
9-2.2 Blending Equipment
The blending of sand and chemicals in early fracturing
treatments was done typically by batching into tanks or
adding materials manually. The very first blenders were
primarily a suction pump, discharge pump and a tub
where sand and other materials were dumped (see Fig.
9-5). Modern blenders have microprocessor-controlled
additive pumps, radioactive densiometers and precise
dry additive systems (see Fig. 9-6). These units are
typically controlled from the treating van, where the
proppant and all additives are monitored. On larger
treatments, a chemical additive truck or trailer, as
shown in Fig. 9-7 is used. It contains chemical totes
and metering pumps as well as precise flow meters that
are used to feed chemicals to the suction side of the
discharge pump of the blender.
Figure 9-5 Example of an early blender
Figure 9-6 Modern fracture stimulation blender
325
Modern Fracturing

It should be noted that there are typically

check valves, plug valves or both between each
pumping unit and the manifold; there are also
check valves and plug valves isolating the manifold
from the wellhead.

Figure 9-7 Chemical additive unit

While equipment has improved, there also has

been improvement in the addition of powdered
products as slurries or suspensions. The industry
has come full circle in the addition of viscosifying
polymers using suspensions in hydrocarbons, but now Figure 9-8 High-pressure treating line truck to assist in
there is a trend to go back to dry materials and away rigging up
from hydrocarbon-suspending agents.

9-2.3 High-Pressure Treating Lines and Manifolds

In the early days of hydraulic fracturing, there was a large

emphasis on hiring very large and very strong personnel
to be able to rig up the treating lines on a location. Today
every service company has a high-pressure treating line
truck with a crane to assist in rig-up and typically has
an additional crane to assist in the rig-up of the treating
lines to the wellhead (see Fig. 9-8).
The major improvements have come in the area of
properly designed manifold trailers, which greatly assist
the personnel in rig-up (see Fig. 9-9). This manifold
Figure 9-9 Manifold trucks to help minimize lines and
which is parked between two lines of pumps minimizes discharge hoses
the lines to each truck and the number of discharge
hoses to each truck. The blending unit is usually 9-2.4 Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Pumping
connected to the manifold trailer by these discharge
hoses and the low-pressure manifold on the top of The industry was well into the 1960s before
the manifold trailer feeds all pumps. Conversely, the the introduction of pumping nitrogen (N2) or
high-pressure pumps are connected to the lower high- carbon dioxide (CO2). N2 and CO2 were initially
pressure treating lines at the bottom of the manifold, introduced as energizing media to help unload low-
and this manifold is connected to the wellhead via high- pressure wells, but in the late 1970s the use of both
pressure lines. As can be seen from Fig. 9-8 this allows foamed CO2 and N2 foam became commonplace
a minimum amount of treating lines, thus minimizing in the industry. There have been quantum leaps in
the chances for leaks and greatly assisting the personnel both the technologies in using foams and in the
in time and effort to rig up. equipment to pump these systems.

326

Early on, specialty companies furnished N2
pumping equipment and worked with the service
companies on foam fracs and energized treatments.
Today virtually every major service company has its own
N2 pumping equipment. Early N2 pumping equipment
typically consisted of fairly low-rate equipment capable
of pumping only 2200 scf/minute. This required
sometimes 30 to 40 N2 trucks and numerous transports
to conduct even moderate-sized foam frac as shown in
Fig. 9-10. Today there are high rate N2 pumpers (Fig.
9-11) have horsepower and pressure ratings similar to
the high horsepower frac pumps.
Figure 9-10 Early N2 equipment on a moderate-size
treatment
Figure 9-11 Modern N2 pump trucks
At approximately the same time as N2 was
starting to be used as a foam, the use of CO2 as a
foaming agent was introduced. Pumping CO2, while
not requiring specialized pumps like N2, does require
specialized high-pressure suctions on conventional
frac pumps and experienced operators due to the
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
inherent danger for potential solidification of the
CO2 as dry ice. Typically the suppliers of CO2 will
provide storage vessels on location and additionally
(and most importantly) a booster pump to pressurize
the fracturing pumps. Just as the N2 pumps have to
be cooled down to pump the N2 as a liquid, the CO2
must be vented through the pumps such that the
CO2 becomes liquefied and pumpable (see Fig. 9-12).
Once the pumps are cooled down, signified by a large
layer of frost on the fluid ends and iron, the venting
ceases and the CO2 is pumped down hole, mixed in
precise fashion with water or oil-based fluids.
Figure 9-12 CO2 pumps on location
Probably the most significant improvement in
energized foams, particularly in the case of N2, has
been the development of accurate means of measuring
gas flow rate. CO2 can be metered with a conventional
turbine meter, but N2 requires specialized temperature
corrected turbines or, typically, coriolis or target
meters. In the early days of foam fracs, the only means
of measuring rate was by using stroke counters, and
there was little real accuracy to measure downhole
foam quality. By utilizing computer control systems
with an accurate bottomhole pressure, the quality of
foam fracs can be accurately controlled.
9-2.5 Treatment Control Vans and Cabins
Until well into the 1970s the standard practice in
the industry for hydraulic fracturing was to conduct
the treatment with personnel out in the open air.
Typically the treater or the person in charge of the
327
Modern Fracturing
treatment would have a pressure gauge and some sort
of device to measure rate. As the industry progressed
electrical boxes were built with a strip chart with
rate and pressure recorded. In the late 1970s service
companies began to introduce treatment vans (or
cabins), which were typically of a square bread truck
configuration where the treater and engineer would
sit with the company man and one could monitor
pressure, rate and (sometimes) density of the fluid
while it was being recorded on a strip chart.
With the advent of Nolte-Smith plots where
net pressure data were monitored (see Section 4-
1.2.7) the industry introduced computer vans and
cabins that were typically on site in addition to the
treatment vans. With the advent of quality control
(QC) efforts in the early 1980s requiring a great deal
of real-time monitoring of chemical additives, there
is now a single treatment van or cabin where many
variables are monitored and plotted on flat screens.
Such treatment vans have not only made hydraulic
fracturing more comfortable but have allowed for a
much better understanding of what is going on both
downhole and on the surface.
9-3 Equipment Quality Control
For the typical operator the question of quality
control of pumping and blending equipment is a
moot issue. The normal response is that the treating
lines, pumping equipment and blending equipment
are the responsibility of the Service Company and
therefore no real effort should be made in taking
the time to look over and evaluate what is brought
to location. In reality there are a huge number of
reasons why the operator should not only notice
the nature of pumping and blending equipment
but should become knowledgeable in various
aspects of the mechanical operation.
9-3.1 How Much Horsepower
and What is the Pressure Rating?
In boom times in this industry it is not uncommon
for people and equipment to be pushed to their limit.
In some areas much of the pumping equipment never
returns to the yard or maintenance shop until it is
328
non-functional. Many operators request in their bids
that they will require at least 50% standby pumping
equipment. On location they find that there is barely
enough horsepower to do the treatment. Although the
equipment may be rated at a certain horsepower, if
frequent maintenance has not been performed, the actual
deliverable horsepower may be much less.
The competent oil company representative should
sit down with the service company supervisor and ask
not only what horsepower equipment is available but
also find out the pressure rating of the equipment and
the plunger sizes on the pump fluid ends. For instance
if one has 10 pump trucks with small plungers capable
of only pumping 12 bbl per minute (bpm) per pump,
it is impossible to pump a treatment at 150 barrels per
minute regardless of the pressure. Conversely if 20,000
hydraulic horsepower is on location but the trucks have
large fluid ends incapable of pumping at 10,000 psi, a
high-pressure treatment is doomed to failure.
All service companies will supply pressure and rate
curves for their equipment, and a diligent oil company
supervisor should work closely with the service company
supervisor to be sure sufficient operating equipment is
available for the job at hand. It is always a good idea to
have all the available equipment on a treatment on-line
(primed) and pumping. The equipment used everyday
by the service companies has a very long life if pumped
at either 60% of pressure rating or 60% of maximum
horsepower. The vast majority of pumping equipment
in the industry has a very short life if used at maximum
pressure and maximum horsepower. A common analogy
would be running the family car at 120 miles per hour
pulling a heavy trailer. The life of the car would be very
short, as is the case with fracturing equipment.
One should also query the Service Company as to
the pressure rating of the treating lines they are using.
Typically the treating line is rated at 6000, 10,000,
15,000, or in rare cases 20,000 psi. When dealing with a
major service company, this is normally not a problem,
but with small operators it is not uncommon to find
connections and fittings that were made in a machine
shop and have not been properly tested. The pressure
rating is usually shown on the wing of the knock-up
connection. If concerned about the treating line integrity,
always test at 1000 psi above maximum pressure,
assuming the pressure rating of the iron is not exceeded;

after one successful pressure test have the service company
take the pressure back to maximum a second time. This
usually allows the detection of any fatigue or stress cracks
present in the treating iron.
9-3.2 How Many High-Pressure Lines
and Suction Discharge Hoses to Use?
Tables 9-2 and 9-3 show guidelines for the size and
number of high-pressure lines to be used based on the
treating rate. Insufficient suction hoses will result in
starving pumping equipment (cavitation) and can create
a great deal of potentially hazardous vibration.
Exceeding critical velocity on treating iron is much
more dangerous. The erosion caused by pumping at
excessive rates through treating iron can create well
control situations with abrasive material cutting out
swings and chicksans, any place the proppant laden
fluid is turning a corner, or any area of turbulence.
It should be noted that these guidelines do not
hold for fluids without proppant or for pumping
through wellbore tubulars. High pressures from
turbulence will be noted, but excessive erosion is not
normally an issue in straight pipe.
Additionally, one should consider the reverse
situation, where very low rates occur with heavy
proppant concentrations such as seen on low-rate
treatments. Service companies can install smaller
3-in. discharge hoses to create higher velocity and
also not utilize manifold trailers or other areas
where proppant can settle out and potentially
damage a pump by entering the suction side in high
concentrations. Typically these situations occur at
fluid rates less than 5 bpm per pump.
Table 9-2 High-pressure iron recommendations
MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED PUMP RATE THROUGH FIG.
1502 HIGH PRESSURE DISCHARGE LINES
Line Working Pressure Pump Rate (bbls/
(in.)
ID (in.)
(psi) min)
2 1.775 15,000 8
3 2.750 15,000 20
4 3.750 6,000 37
Note: This table does not give set values for the absolute
maximum rates for the treating iron. Exceeding these rates,
utilizing high sand concentrations, yields a short life, with severe
abrasion, for the treating iron. When excessive rates are used
without abrasive materials, high friction pressures result.
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Table 9-3 Suction discharge hose requirements
Type Fluid Type Requirement
1 ea. 20 X 4 per
Thin Fluids
10 bpm
Suction
1 ea. 20 X 4 per
Thick Fluids
5 bpm
All Fluids
1 ea. 20 X 4 per
10 bpm
Discharge
Use 3 hoses if rate
All Fluids
per pump < 5 bpm
9-3.3 Standby Pumping and Blending Equipment
It is always a good idea to have a discussion with the
supervisor for the fracturing company and find out
just how much of the equipment is truly standby.
Always have at least one spare pump or standby
pump on location. All of the pumping equipment
must have a pressure rating compatible with the
maximum pressure anticipated. It is always a good
idea to have all of the pumps on location running
at low rate and horsepower rather than having
some of the pumps idling while other pumps are
pushed to the limit. Having all pumps on line
and moving fluid not only eases the strain on the
equipment, but also eliminates potential problems
with bringing pumps on-line while pumping
high proppant concentrations.
For jobs of any length, it is always a good idea to
have a standby blender. Losing a blender during any
stage of a fracturing treatment can be catastrophic.
The key to the use of a standby blender is that it
is truly on standby, i.e., it can be brought on line
without delay. Service companies can rig the blender
such that one has to simply change valves and switch
monitoring connections without disrupting the
treatment. Another obvious point is that the standby
blender should be rigged so that it is ready to accept
proppant and all fluid additives.
9-3.4 Absolute Essentials for Every Job
Typically, large companies have rules stating that
there must be at least two barriers to restrict flow to
surface, negating a well control situation. One should
always have an isolating valve, a block or a check
valve between every pumping unit and the iron or
manifold. Additionally there should be a check valve
329
Modern Fracturing

installed as near the well as possible. When using a the first step in assuring an effective stimulation. After the
tree saver, the hydraulic valve or valves on the tree fluid has been selected for its specific properties, ensuring
saver can be used as the blocking valve. these properties are present during pumping is key to the
For additional safety and control of the treatment it success of the fracture design.
is always a good idea on high-pressure wells to have both The purpose of a fracturing fluid is to carry proppant
a check and blocking valve isolating each pump. To have into the induced hydraulic fracture as efficiently as
to shut down a frac treatment because of a small leak on possible while limiting the amount of damage associated
one truck can be devastating. with this invasion of the reservoir rock. A given fluids
ability to carry proppant is a function of its rheological
Table 9-4 Wellhead protection tool ratings (courtesy of properties. The objective of quality control (QC) is the
Stinger Wellhead Protection, Inc.) application of these rheological fluid properties and the
Stinger Isolation Tool Pressure Readings ability to reduce the same properties after the treatment.
Max
Mandrel
Rate
Max Tubing or
Comments
Fluid quality control can be summarized as the process
I.D. Size Pressure Casing Size
- BPM of evaluating the materials and equipment needed on
2.125 52 10000
3-4 location to ensure the fracture fluid performs as designed.
-5
Fluid systems should be designed, agreed upon and tested
1 12 15000 2
1.25 18 15000 2
in the laboratory for particular properties including
1.5 26 15000 2 viscosity profiles at bottomhole temperature. On location,
1.687 34 15000 2 High rate the QC process should ensure these same properties
1.75 36 15000 3 exist in the fluid and that the necessary equipment is
1.86 42 15000 3 High rate available for blending, metering and pumping the fluid
2 48 15000 4
system and associated additives.
4 - 5 and
2.5 72 15000
up
2.75 88 15000 5 and up 9-4.1 Quality Control of Water-Based
3 106 15000 5 and up Fracturing Fluids Before Arriving on Location
3.5 142 15000 5 and up
4 188 15000 7 and up The first step in the QC process is to gather samples of
5.063 298 15000 8 and up Stage Frac
all chemicals and water that are to be used in preparing
1.687 34 20000 3
the selected fracture fluid system. Samples from the water
2.25 52 20000 4 and up
source should be obtained and tested to ensure the water
Another very important and critical issue is to quality is acceptable before the water is transported to
establish the maximum rate allowed for the wellhead location. Each fluid system may have acceptable water
isolation tool (for example, see Table 9-4). If you exceed properties that vary from one another. Table 9-5 outlines
this rate the tool becomes a very good cutting device result levels for a standard water analysis, which should
and can sever the tubulars or casing. A common reason be acceptable for most crosslinked fluid systems.
for this is having the wrong mandrel in the tool, i.e.,
having a 2 in. mandrel in a 3 in. tool. Again always Table 9-5 Acceptable levels in water analysis
query the tool operator as to the particular tool to be Acceptable Levels in Water Analysis
utilized on your well site. pH 6-8
Iron <10 ppm
9-4 Quality Control for Oxidizing Agents None

Fracturing Fluids Reducing Agents None

Carbonates < 300 ppm

There are a multitude of fracturing fluids available to the Bicarbonates < 300 ppm

industry today. The selection of the appropriate fluid has Bacteria None
Cleanliness Reasonable
been discussed in Chapter 7, and this selection process is

330
 Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments

Bacteria exist in all fluids, including waters that
have been recently treated with biocides. Bacteria
levels in an acceptable water source should not reduce
base gel viscosity. However, a quick quantitative
analysis for bacteria in a fracturing fluid is often not
practical. A bacterial spectrometer (Keller and Segal,
1971), used to measure bacteria levels, may be present
in some laboratories, but probably will not be available
for field use. Still, the presence of bacteria in a water
sample must be determined.
A quick check for bacteria may be performed by
gelling (adding the polymer to the water and mixing
to ensure polymer distribution) a sample of water with
Water-based fracturing systems can be divided into
two basic fluid systems: linear and crosslinked. Mixing
a polymer into water produces linear fluid systems,
which are also the basic building block of crosslinked
fluids. Fracturing fluid polymers are usually produced
by the use of guar gelling agents or some derivative
thereof, as described in Chapter 7. Fig. 9-13 indicates
the linear relation between fluid viscosity and the
addition of polymer in pounds per 1000 gallons of
water at various temperatures.
48
44
40 35 PPT

Viscosity at 511 sec-1, cp

the polymer to be used for viscosifing the water and 36
32
subsequently measuring the initial base gel viscosity 30 PPT
28
of the gelled fluid sample. The gelled fluid sample is 24 25 PPT
then allowed to stand for some predetermined time 20 23 PPT
interval, usually at ambient temperature. If the sample 16 20 PPT
12
loses viscosity during the test period, then the presence 8
15 PPT

of detrimental levels of bacteria is probable, since 4

most fracturing fluid polymers are organic in nature
and provide an excellent food source for bacteria. The
bacteria present will consume the polymer that has been
added to the water, thereby reducing the viscosity of the
gelled fluid and producing a slight odor of hydrogen
sulfide (H2S). If bacteria are determined to be present
in detrimental levels, then the water must be treated for
bacteria or a new water source located.
After the water source has been tested and is
acceptable, samples of the chemical additives to
be used for the fracture fluid system should be
obtained and the chemicals selected for use should
be isolated. In other words, the chemicals that have
been sampled should be placed aside from other
chemicals in the service company warehouse or
facility and held for the specific treatment. This will
ensure that the exact chemicals that passed the QC
testing are actually used during the job for which the
QC testing has been performed. This is important
to ensure that the performance of the fracture fluid
chemicals is acceptable prior to arrival on location.
Although the practice of isolating chemicals for a
given treatment is not used everywhere, it can serve
to eliminate one variable when troubleshooting fluid
problems on location and is therefore recommended
on jobs of a critical nature.
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Temperature, F
REMARKS:
Fann 35 (R1Spring / B1 Bob) @ 300 rpm.
ADDITIVES: Water & Guar Polymer
WATER SOURCE: Tap Water
Figure 9-13 Linear gel viscosity vs temperature for
various polymer loadings
Crosslinked fluid systems use metallic and non-
metallic crosslinkers in acidic or basic pH environments
to produce an ionic bond between polymer strands.
This bonding of polymer strands can create a fluid with
very high viscosity. The quality control of a crosslinked
fluid system begins with a polymer-enriched base fluid
or linear fluid system. The linear fluid system is tested
to ensure the viscosity is in an acceptable range based
on the amount of polymer added to the water and the
temperature of the water, given that the temperature
affects the viscosity as illustrated in Fig. 9-13.
The viscosity of fluid is indicative of the hydrated
polymer concentration and is fundamental in
the development of the crosslinked fluid system.
Insufficient polymer yields a crosslinked fluid system
that can be unstable at reservoir temperature; too
much polymer may create such high viscosity that
the subsequent crosslinked fluid system becomes

331
Modern Fracturing
difficult to break at low reservoir temperatures.
Excessive polymer loading may also cause excessive
friction pressure, large enough to cause a premature
pressure-out of the treatment when pressure
limitations of the tubulars are met.
The approved water source sample and
fracture fluid additives are then mixed as per the
specifications of the selected fracture fluid system
(provided by the fracturing company) and tested
at simulated downhole conditions. This simulation
can only be performed in a laboratory environment
with the use of specific fluid viscometers. The two
most widely used high-temperature/high-pressure
(HTHP) viscometers in use today are the model
Fann-50 and the Chandler model 5550 HTHP
viscometer (see Fig. 9-14). These viscometers are
used to measure the viscosity of the fluid system in
centipoise under pressure and the bottomhole static
temperature (BHST) of the reservoir.
Figure 9-14 Fann-50 (left) and Chandler 5550 HTHP
viscometers (right)
There are two reasons for the reservoir simulation
of the fluid system: (1) To determine whether the
proposed crosslinked fluid system can generate and
maintain sufficient viscosity to effectively transport
proppant into the reservoir for the duration of
the designed fracture stimulation treatment, and
(2) To determine if the fluid systems viscosity
can be reduced significantly after the fracture
for the effective fluid recovery.
Depending upon the application temperature,
the objective of testing fluids can vary. At BHST
less than approximately 140 F, fluid stability
is relatively straightforward to obtain. In this
332
temperature application range, the rheology testing
is performed to ensure that an adequate fluid break
can be obtained in a reasonable time period upon
completion of the designed fracture treatment pump
time. Almost all fluid systems will eventually break
given enough time exposed to reservoir pressure
and temperature, although shorter break times are
preferred because they reduce the time and cost
necessary to recover the treatment fluids. However,
initial production in low-temperature wells can be
negatively effected if the fluid break is not adequate
and timely (Malone et al., 2000).
In reservoirs with a BHST greater than 140 F,
maintaining adequate fluid viscosity and stability
become the objective. A number of rules of thumb
have been established for crosslink viscosity during
a fracture treatment. As an example, some suggest
that 60% of the original crosslinked viscosity
should be maintained at the end of the pump time
of each stage. However, this is an arbitrary value.
Crosslinked viscosity is not equivalent for every fluid
system, and each fluid systems ultimate viscosity will
vary based on water quality, BHST, pH, chemistry
and a host of other factors. It is not necessary to
require a particular viscosity, but understand that
a practical viscosity range should be expected and
that a complete break of the final stage of the fluid
system should be achievable within 2 to 4 hours after
pumping the fracture treatment.
Figure 9-15 Fann-35 (left) and Ofite Model 900 (right)
viscometers
After the base water has been tested and accepted,
the fluid is gelled to the appropriate base gel viscosity
as measured on a linear viscometer. Usually, a Fann-
35 or Ofite Model 900 fitted with a B1 bob and an R1
rotor is used to measure linear viscosity, in centipoise,
at a rotational speed of 300 rpm or 511 sec-1 shear
rate (see Fig. 9-15). These viscometers can also be
used to measure crosslinked fluid viscosity by placing

a B2 bob (smaller and heavier bob) on the same
number one spring and measuring the dial reading at
100 rpm. When used to measure crosslinked fluids,
the units of measure are not expressed in centipoise;
instead, the dial reading of the viscometer is reported
and related to viscosity changes over time.
(The Fann-35 and Ofite Model 900 viscometers
are used in the field laboratory due to their portable
size and rugged design. HTHP viscometers are usually
used only in the laboratory due to their complexity
and sensitivity in field environments.)
The base gel viscosity should be within a 4 cp
range of the required viscosity, which confirms the
polymer concentration as seen in Fig. 9-13. After the
base gel viscosity has been tested and is maintained for
approximately one hour to ensure no loss of viscosity
(indicative of bacterial presence), then the buffer and
crosslinker are added to the sample to ensure the
system will crosslink and do so in an acceptable time
period (i.e., the time required for the linear gel to
move to a crosslink state after the pH is adjusted and
the crosslink ion is added to the system).
Temperature and pH affect all crosslinkers and
crosslink time. The effects of crosslink time and stability
have been studied by Hodge and Baranet (1987) and
Malochee and Comeaux (2003). Crosslink time can be
somewhat arbitrary depending upon the objective of
the fracture treatment, the rate at which the fracture
treatment is pumped and the tubulars through which
the fracture treatment is pumped.
The number of perforations, their diameter and
shot density should also be considered in order to
estimate the amount of shear at the perforations, which
can be detrimental to the stability of some metallic
crosslinked fluids as described by Baumgartner et
al. (1983) and further by Harris et al. (2005). If a
metallic crosslinked fluid system is to be used and it
is determined that the number of perforations is such
that the fluid will experience excessive shear, then a
crosslink time, calculated to be past the perforations
or outside the pipe, is desired. However, if the treating
rate is low and the ultimate proppant concentration
is designed to be relatively high (in excess of 4 ppg)
or if tortuosity is expected (see Section 4-2.1.4) then
obtaining a full crosslink before the fluid enters the
perforations is recommended.
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Again, no definitive rules exist for crosslink
time and ultimate crosslinked viscosity, as
one must consider the dynamics of the fracture
treatment and the ultimate goal of the treatment,
which should be to place proppant at a reasonable
and designed distance from the wellbore.
The optimum pH range and precise
concentration of crosslinker is determined by placing
the crosslinked fluid in an HTHP viscometer
with the proposed fluid additives (except the
breaker) mixed in the system. This sample without
chemical breaker is referred to as the blank and
is used to optimize the fluid for stability and
ensure the crosslinker and buffer concentrations are
optimal for the desired or maximum crosslinked
fluid viscosity. After the fluid system additives have
been optimized, the breaker is then added to the
fluid system at varied concentrations and the tests
are repeated on the HPHT viscometer to ensure
a controlled fluid break can be achieved when
pumping the designed fracture treatment fluid
volume and a complete break after the treatment.
The HTHP viscosity testing should eventually
yield a fluid break profile that can be used in the
field to provide the fluid technician on location
a series of breaker concentrations from which to
select in the event that the treatment is redesigned
or total treatment pump time changes.
Figure 9-16 is an example of HTHP viscosity
testing which should be generated at the laboratory
with actual source water samples and isolated
chemicals prior to arrival on location.
5000 300
Temperature
Apparent Viscosity at 40 sec-1, cp
4000 240
Temperature, F
3000 180
2000 120
Apparent Viscosity
1000 60
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time, mins
Figure 9-16 Typical HTHP viscometer test results.
333
Modern Fracturing
9-4.2 Fracture Fluid Blending Methods
Before arriving on location it is important to know
whether the fluid system is to be batch mixed or
pumped on the fly. Both of these oilfield terms refer
to the method by which the fracture fluid system
additives are mixed or blended and more specifically
the method by which the base gelling polymer (usually
guar or a guar derivative) is mixed.
A batch-mixed treatment indicates the base
gelling agent is mixed and hydrated in holding tanks
on location before pumping the fluid downhole and
subsequently into the formation with proppant. Batch
mixing is usually performed on smaller treatments or
treatments at high rates because this method allows
for full hydration of the base gel polymer before
pumping. All fluid additives are mixed by circulating
a holding tank (usually a standard 500 bbl frac
tank) with the downhole blender while adding the
required fluid additives. After the tanks are blended
or batch mixed, then only the crosslinker and breaker
are added while pumping the fluid downhole.
When pumped on the fly, additives are being
mixed into the fluid as the job is being pumped into the
wellbore. This can only be done if the fracture treatment
rate is low enough to allow adequate hydration of the
liquid polymer before the fluid is crosslinked. This is
usually performed with the use of a hydration unit
containing a holding tank or hydration tank. The
hydration unit draws fresh water from the frac tanks
and adds liquid polymer to this water. The hydration
tank usually holds approximately 200 bbls of fluid
and allows enough time in the hydration tank for the
polymer to hydrate to form the base gel while moving
through the unit. The hydrated base gel is then pumped
from the hydration unit to the downhole blender, where
the remainder of the fluid system additives are added,
discharged and pumped downhole by high-pressure
frac pumps downstream of the blender.
9-4.3 Quality Control of Water-Based
Fracture Fluids on Location
The laboratory pilot testing of the fracture fluid
system should be reviewed and approved before
stimulation crews arrive on location. In addition,
334
the method by which the fluid system is to be
blended (batch-mixed or on-the-fly) should also be
discussed and a consensus reached by the service and
operating company representatives before arriving
on location. Field QC of any fracture fluid system
is primarily a repetition of the pilot testing that
was performed in the laboratory in preparation
for the fracture treatment except the HTHP
viscosity testing used to design the fluid system.
Fracture fluid design work is performed in the
laboratory; field QC should only be used to verify
fluid and chemical performance.
On location, the fracture treatment proposal
or procedure should be verified to ensure all
parties involved are working from the same written
procedure. Then, an inventory of products should be
taken, including water and proppant.
Sufficient water should be on location to
pump the designed fracture treatment and provide
an adequate volume to flush or displace the final
proppant stage to the top perforation in the wellbore.
There should also be enough excess water in each
frac tank (tank bottoms) to prevent the pumping
equipment from drawing air with the blender
suction pump in the event the water in the tanks
are drawn down too low. Drawing air can cause
high-pressure fracture pumps to cavitate, which
could result in reduced or terminated pumping
of the fracture treatment at an inopportune time.
A general rule for fracture fluid tank bottoms is
40 bbl or 1500 gal per fracture tank (assuming
standard 500 bbl tanks are used). This number
could be more or less depending upon the
designed downhole fracture rate.
After adequate water volume is confirmed,
a sample of water from each frac tank on location
should be taken and tested using the seven-point
water test (see Table 9-5).
Inventory of fracture fluid additives or
products should include some excess above that
of the designed fracture treatment to allow for
nominal chemical pump variation, the possibility
that a faulty or fouled fluid meter or chemical
pump is used during the fracture treatment,
or in case of revised treatment design. This excess
chemical will help to ensure that the chemical

or product inventories are not exhausted before
the end of the job. Most fracturing companies
will usually transport 20% excess of all
chemical inventories to location.
After adequate inventories of water, proppant
and chemical product have been confirmed,
then samples of each product are collected and
a field pilot sample of the fracture fluid system is
mixed. A standard Waring blender or equivalent
commercial blender of approximately 1-liter
capacity can be used to mix the water and gelling
agent to produce a linear gel sample. The linear gel
sample is then checked for proper base viscosity
with a Fann-35 viscometer and subsequently
allowed to stand for one hour or more to ensure the
viscosity of the sample does not decline, which may
indicate the presence of bacteria.
Buffer and crosslinker are then added to the
sample and the physical crosslinking of the fluid is
observed and timed. Buffer should be added first,
pH checked to ensure the buffer is active and the pH
is as per design, and then the crosslinker is added.
When mixing fluid in a Waring-type blender, the
fluid should be mixed at a high enough RPM setting
to create a vortex in the fluid. The crosslink time is
measured as the time from which the crosslinker is
added to the fluid system until the fluid vortex is
closed due to increased fluid viscosity.
Pilot testing of the chemical breaker system is
then performed by adding all fluid additives sampled
on location, including the designed chemical breaker,
and once again crosslinking the fluid sample. This
crosslinked sample containing the designed chemical
breaker at the loadings determined by laboratory pilot
testing is placed in an enclosed Fann-35 rotor, which
is then placed on a Fann-35 viscometer equipped
with B2 bob, which is placed in a heat cup preheated
to BHST (maximum of 190F). Readings are then
observed at 15 to 30 minute intervals and recorded.
These Fann-35 viscometer dial readings should decline
sequentially to confirm a reduced fluid viscosity over
time. Laboratory pre-job tests should have determined
the impact of specific breaker concentrations on the
dial readings over time at BHST; the dial readings in
the field should follow the same trend, indicating the
chemical breaker is functioning as designed.
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
After the breaker tests and breaker concentrations
have been confirmed relative to the laboratory testing,
the fluid is ready to be pumped downhole.
Finally, all chemical additives that are to be
pumped or added on the fly during the fracture
treatment must be identified and the meters for
fluid pumps used to move these chemicals must be
calibrated. This is performed with a stopwatch and
a container of known volume. The pump is set to a
predetermined rate, usually in gallons per minute, and
the time required to pump one gallon of chemical is
observed and the meter then calibrated to indicate the
measured rate. This calibration method is commonly
referred to as a bucket test.
Every chemical that is to be pumped on the fly should
also have an alternative or a back-up pump available in
the event of a failure to the primary pump or primary
pump meter. It is given that the back-up pump should
also be calibrated prior to pumping.
Rate meters should be monitored such that
a chemical rate is displayed in the treatment
control van during the fracture treatment for each
chemical that is pumped during the job on the fly.
These chemical rate displays indicate that each of
the fluid chemical additives is being added at the
correct concentrations, which physical chemical
measurements during the job can confirm.
9-4.4 Quality Control of Other Fluid Systems
Quality control of other fluid systems (such as oil-
based systems, emulsions, gas assists and foams)
are relatively different in process; however, the
goal is ultimately the same, which is to ensure (1)
Applicable laboratory pilot testing is completed before
mobilizing any equipment or product to location;
(2) Sufficient volumes of all water, oil, gases,
proppants and chemical additives are on location
with a minimum of 20% excess; (3) All fluids and
chemical additives are pilot tested for performance on
location; (4) All chemical pumps are calibrated before
pumping downhole and all chemical pumps have a
calibrated back-up pump available; and (5) Fluid
rates of all chemicals pumped on the fly are displayed
in the treatment control van or cabin. See Fig. 9-17
for a quality control checklist.
335
Modern Fracturing

Fracturing QC Checklist

Pre-Job Procedures:
Ensure the proper procedure is used for fluid, stage, proppant and fluid volumes.
Ensure tank straps indicate sufficient fluid volume for treatment.
Ensure manufacturers proppant weight tickets and sieve analysis (if provided) indicate the proper type and
amount of proppant was delivered.
Ensure Sieve Analysis was performed on each type of proppant and that they conform to specs.
Ensure Water QC Tests were performed on each tank and indicate proper fluid quality.
Ensure Gel Test was performed prior to gelling and viscosity was stable at ambient temperature. (If viscosity
declines, the tanks should not be gelled. May indicate bacteria or breaker. Repeat tests with fresh samples of
water to verify results.)
Ensure Gel QC was performed on gelled tanks or Hydration Unit and viscosity is within published viscosity
charts for the polymer loading (ppt).
Ensure Breaker Tests were performed with location chemicals and gelled tank water.
Ensure primary and backup chemical pumps have been calibrated.
Ensure chemicals have been measured (strapped) with hoses loaded prior to pumping.

MONITORING PROCEDURES
Ensure the measured viscosity (centipoise) is charted in real-time for all "On the Fly" jobs. (Not calculated
from gel pump rpm).
Ensure all "on the fly" chemicals are charted in gallons per thousand gallons fluid (gpt).
Ensure monitoring van operator will alert the Service Supervisor, Engineer and Fluid Tech immediately if "on
the fly" chemicals vary by more than 10% of plan during the job.
Ensure the proppant will be monitored and charted with a Radioactive Densiometer. (Not calculated from
sand screw rpm).

JOB EXECUTION
Be informed of job status during testing, gelling and pumping.
Ensure the fluid will be sampled and needed adjustments made by Engineer or Fluid Tech.
Ensure chemicals are strapped during the job, to confirm chemicals are on schedule.
Figure 9-17 Quality control checklist

9-5 Quality Control of Propping Agents
Within the industry there are relatively old
recommended practices (RP) for propping
agents published by the American Petroleum
Institute (API). These can be found in API RP-
56 for fracturing sand, RP-58 for gravel pack sand
and RP-60 for artificial proppants. These guidelines
may be obtained by going to the American
Petroleum Institutes website, clicking API Petroleum
Standards and entering RP-56, -58 or -60. These
guidelines have been in place since the 1950s,
and they are beneficial. However, the present
guidelines sieve analysis recommendations are too
broad and do not realistically represent the final
conductivity of the proppant.
Recently, these API RPs have been superceded
by a new standard from the International Standards
Organization, ISO 13505-2 (see Section 8-4). Table 9-
6 shows a comparison of two quarried proppants. Both
of these proppants fit API specifications for sieve, but
one of the proppants has effective permeability and
conductivity 50% higher than the other.
Based on the present API specifications virtually all
of the proppant can be on the smallest screen and yield
very low conductivity but still fulfill the API requirements
concerning sieve analysis. With new quarries coming on
line and with the movement to non-API man-made
proppants, there is a need for new and more precise
guidelines to relate sieve analysis to long-term downhole
conductivity at bottomhole temperature and closure (see
Section 8-7 for more details on conductivity testing).

336
 Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Table 9-6 Comparative API sieve analysis for two quarried proppants

Proppant Type: Northern white = 1; Hickory = 2

Proppant Size: 20/40 = 1, 16/30 = 2

Variation 20/40 FP 20/40 FC 16/30 FP 16/30 FC

Proppant Type 1 1 1 1

Proppant Size 1 1 2 2

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

20 0.2 2.8 13.0 48.0
25 10.4 48.8 51.0 50.4
30 36.4 34.4 31.0 1.2
35 35.8 10.6 0.0 0.0
40 16.8 3.0 5.0 0.0
50 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
pan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total % 100 100 100 100

Mean Phi 0.775 0.534 0.457 0.256

Mean D (mm) 0.584 0.691 0.728 0.837
0.228 0.215 0.221 0.133
Phi84-phi50 (Std Dev)
SG 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65
Porosity (%) 42 42 43 43
Permeability
Calc 241 343 427 637
Actual 241 370 439 599

It is always a very good idea to gather
proppant samples from each compartment or
truck delivering proppant to location. In several
cases in practice, this sampling has found not only
different proppant than what was ordered but
mixed proppant or, more troubling, contaminants
such as grain or cement.
Each proppant sample should be sieved on
location. It is not a good idea to accept sieve
analysis from the supplier because it is very easy
to have samples mixed up, and there is often no
correlation between the sieve analysis from the
supplier and that conducted in the field. In addition
to the requirement for 90% of the proppant to
be between the uppermost and smallest screen,
the API calls for a maximum percentage of
fines in the pan and no more than a certain
percentage above the lowest screen.
A very simple test to look for chemical
contamination is to place the proppant in water
and measure the pH of the water to check for pH
contamination. This simple test has been very beneficial
in catching cement or flyash-contaminated proppant
and should be regularly conducted on every job. These
contaminants are usually acquired from bulk handling
equipment that has not been sufficiently cleaned prior
to handling the proppant or frac sand.
On-site sieving and specific gravity testing are
common, but there is virtually no acid solubility
testing or measurements of fines released although
API has specifications on acid solubility and the
amount of fines after crushing.
Another area that needs to be addressed is the issue
of point stress and strength of particular proppants used
in water fracs. There is a well-based belief that due to
very low concentrations of proppant pumped during
water fracs, there is literally no time where a conventional
multigrain proppant pack exists. Many proppants,
because of their small size, have extremely low
conductivity in a pack mode, and it is felt that they
function as a bridging/diverting material that holds the
fracture open, allowing for large conductivity due to the
existence of open fractures. Darin and Huitt (1960) first
described this phenomenon. Proppant partial monolayers
are described in Section 8-4.8.
It is also important to do sieve analysis on artificial
proppant to be assured that the proper mesh size
was received. There have been numerous occasions

337
Modern Fracturing
when different sizes of proppants - such as a few
bins containing 20/40 and others 16/30 - have been
delivered. This may not result in a permeability issue,
but can be a serious execution issue if the perforations
are small or if the delivered proppant cannot achieve
the designed fracture width.
9-5.1 Quality Control Guideline
for Propping Agents
1. Obtain samples of proppant from every
compartment, container, or truck delivered to
location. If using big bags or super sacks, take
one sample from every 20 bags, ensuring that each
batch number has at least one sample taken from
it. Obtain an aliquot sample by digging down
and catching a sample that does not contain a
lot of dust. Also do not catch samples directly
off the bottom, as this may cause errors due to
segregation of larger particles.
2. Sieve the proppant on site or in a local field
laboratory and make sure that the proppant fits
API guidelines. If samples are out of specification,
catch another sample to confirm it is not a
sampling problem. This procedure should be
done long before the start of the job to eliminate
job delays if replacements are needed.
3. Place samples of the proppant from each
compartment in water and measure for pH
contamination. Proppant transport trucks
often also transport cement and other high-
pH materials that can play havoc with
stability and break characteristics of fracturing
fluids. It is always a good idea to physically
observe the proppant in each compartment
to be sure that mixing of proppants or
contamination has not occurred.
4. If there is a question of the proppant being
contaminated or out of specifications,
always keep at least a gallon container from
each compartment (or from 1 in 20 bags)
for post-job analysis.
Although the above guidelines do not fit the
rigorous stipulations for sample gathering given
by the API, nor do they cover such things as
acid solubility, roundness and sphericity etc.,
338
they can result in vast improvement in propping
agent performance. The above recommendations
are followed by most of the major fracturing
companies and operators.
9-6 Quality Control and
Execution of Acid Fracturing
The process of acid fracturing is much like that of
proppant fracturing (see Section 4-7.8). The difference
is the use of reactive fluid, usually hydrochloric acid
(HCl) in formations that exhibit very high acid
solubility, such as carbonate reservoirs, and also the
absence of a propping agent. Acid fracturing can be
performed with other organic or inorganic acids, but
for the most part acid fracturing is done with HCl in
concentrations from 3% to 28%. To limit discussions
regarding the execution and quality control of acid
fracturing, it will be assumed in this chapter that acid
fracturing would include the use of HCl only.
While the stimulation objective is the same
in acid and proppant fracturing, i.e., to create
a flow channel for hydrocarbons to move from
the reservoir to the wellbore, the mechanism is
different. In acid fracturing, a conductive hydraulic
fracture is created by etching the walls of a created
fracture and essentially removing rock from
the reservoir, thus removing it from the created
hydraulic fracture as spent acid.
The process of acid fracturing is performed by
pumping reactive HCl at pressures exceeding the
fracture gradient of the reservoir, unlike matrix
acidizing where the acid is pumped below fracture
pressure. Reservoir rocks treated by acid fracturing are
normally limestones, chalks, dolomites or dolomitic
limestones (Lund et al., 1973).
The treatments are designed such that the HCl
is pumped into an induced hydraulic fracture at rates
higher than the formation leak-off rate of the treatment
fluid or acid to promote fracture extension. The leak-
off of the treating acid can be controlled by viscosifying
the acid, retarding the reaction rate, pumping a
water-based pad ahead of the acid or placing a
particulate leak-off control substance in the treating
acid in an effort to seal naturally occurring fissures or
high permeability in the reservoir. If the leak-off rate

is substantial, the acid will be at risk of treating only
the existing natural fissures in the reservoir and not
establishing a dominant induced hydraulic fracture
necessary for production enhancement.
The chemistry of the acid system is also modified
in the case of high-temperature reservoirs (> 140 F)
in order to retard the reaction rate of the HCl. This
chemical retardation enables the acid to penetrate
deeper into the reservoir before the acid spends
(reduced reaction rate). Additives that increase the
viscosity of the HCl are also used in highly reactive
reservoirs and pumped in sequential stages with non-
viscosified acids or acids with different reaction rates to
create a differentially etched conductive fracture that
will stay open after the treating pressure is relieved and
the treating fluid removed (see Fig. 9-18).
Figure 9-18 Differentially etched rock (left) and rock
with inadequate etching (right), taken from parallel plate
laboratory tests
There are several factors that affect the penetration
distance or the created effective acid fracture length.
These factors include, but are not limited to leak-
off of the acid into the reservoir, acid injection rate,
temperature, acid concentration, retardation of acid
reaction rate, solubility of the reservoir and rock
type as described by Williams et al. (1979). By
understanding the factors that affect acid penetration
and effective stimulation, one may surmise which
factors are most important to a successful acid
fracture treatment and thus develop focus areas
to promote the treatment.
9-6.1 Quality Control for Acid Fracturing
The first step in the quality control of any acid fracture
treatment is to ensure that the reactive acid system
does not damage the formation. Damage mechanisms
include combining iron with reservoir hydrocarbons
and their associated asphaltenes to create sludge and/
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
or emulsions (Bansbach, 1970; Moore et al., 1965;
and Thomas et al., 1993). Compatibilities should
even be considered in gas condensate wells.
Samples of the reservoir fluids should be
obtained prior to mobilizing acid and pumping
equipment. To ensure acid and reservoir fluid
compatibility, 50 cc of the reservoir fluid sample is
mixed with 50 cc of the proposed acid system and
additives, and then blended with a predetermined
volume of iron (usually on the order of 5000 to
10,000 ppm in a 3:1 ratio of Fe2+:Fe3+). A breakout
of the fluids is observed according to API RP-42 to
confirm the mixed fluids do not form an emulsion or
create an iron-induced sludge (API, 1990). Emulsions
and sludges can create severe and persistent damage
in the reservoir if not considered during the selection
of acid additives. It is important to use fresh crude or
condensate samples for these tests because aging of the
sample (i.e., loss of the light ends) can significantly
affect the results of the testing.
On location, quality assurance involves
confirming the designed fluids and products
and their associated volumes to ensure the
treatment is pumped as designed.
The HCl itself is of first priority, and it should
not be assumed that the HCl is mixed to the correct
concentration. The concentration of the HCl
can be easily determined by obtaining a sample of
the acid after the tanks have been rolled or properly
mixed by the blender on location. This sample is
best caught via a submersible sampler (tank thief )
designed to retrieve the sample from the middle of
the tank. In the absence of a tank thief a sample from
the top of the tank will suffice. Care should be taken
when a sample of any corrosive fluid is obtained,
to ensure the safety of all personnel associated.
The sample from the tank can then be titrated
to obtain the concentration.
Additionally, the specific gravity of the
HCl sample should be measured. The specific
gravity can be used to estimate the concentration of
the HCl in the absence of titration or used to confirm
the titration is correct. It is also recommended
that the volumes of raw acid and mix water
used to create the applicable HCl concentration
is known (see Table 9-7).
339
Modern Fracturing

Table 9-7 Specific Gravity and Mix Ratios for Standard reactions. Laboratory testing at designed reservoir
Oilfield HCl Concentrations temperatures is usually performed well in advance
Per Barrel Per 1000 gal (24 bbls) of the subject treatment or during the research and
Percent Specific
development of the acid system to achieve these viscosities
HCl Acid Gravity Raw Water Raw Acid and desired reactions. On location, simulation of these
Water
Acid per gal per
per gal results is not practical (other than breaker tests), and it
per gal (bbl) gal( bbl)

947 53 is therefore imperative to ensure the chemical additives

2 1.099 39.8 2.2
(22.5) (1.5) are added at the designed volumes, ratios or rates so
927 73 that the desired result is achieved in-situ.
3 1.015 38.6 3.4
(22.1) (1.9)
However, the base viscosity of any gelled acid system
902 98
4 1.021 37.9 4.1 should be measured on location prior to pumping
(21.5) (2.5)

5 1.025 36.8 5.2

887 123 downhole. The base gelled acid viscosity is then compared
(21.1) (2.9)
to the designed base viscosity at the ambient temperature
813 187
7.5 1.037 34.1 7.9
(19.4) (4.6) at the time of measurement to ensure the proper amount
747 253 of acid gellant has been used. The measured viscosity
10 1.050 31.4 10.6
(17.8) (6.2) of the gelled acid system is then compared to a quality
612 388
15 1.075 25.7 16.3
(14.6) (9.4)
control graph of viscosity vs. temperature for the gellant
470 530 used, as shown in Fig. 9-19.
20 1.100 19.7 22.3
(11.2) (12.8) The chemical additives for all HCl systems should be
230 770 separated by (1) those designed to be mixed in the acid
28 1.142 9.6 32.4
(5.5) (18.5)
tanks and (2) those additives designed to be injected with
HCl while pumping downhole or on-the-fly.
If a non-reactive pad fluid is included as part of The volume of all acid additives that are to be mixed
the treatment fluids design, the QC of this fluid is as in the acid tank should be measured prior to pumping
discussed in Section 9-4. them into the tank and then re-measured afterward to
A number of different acid systems are available ensure the proper volume of acid additives are added to
in the industry for use in acid fracturing. Some of each acid tank containing acid.
these systems include emulsified acids, surfactant
25
viscosified acids, gelled acids, cross-linked acids and 24
23
in-situ cross-linked acids. 22
21
An in-situ crosslinked acid is an acid system that will
Viscosity at 511 sec-1, cp

20
19
viscosify or cross-link upon spending to some specific pH 18
17
or pH range. After the acid has spent further and the pH 16
15
is subsequently increased, the acid will lose its enhanced 14
13
12
viscosity and return to a linear viscosity fluid. 11
10
Cross-linked acid systems may depend upon a 9
8
chemical reaction (or chemical breaker) to bring the 7
6
viscosity of the base acid system back to a linear viscosity. 5
If the chemistry of the cross-linked acid system depends
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14

Temperature, F
upon a breaker for viscosity reduction, then breaker tests 15 gpt AG57L in 15% HCl 20 gpt AG57L in 15% HCl
of the cross-linked acid system should be performed on 15 gpt AG57L in 20% HCl 20 gpt AG57L in 20% HCl

location, as is done for any water-based cross-linked fluid REMARKS: ADDITIVES:

R1/B1 rotor/bob configuration with a 15% or 20% HCl,
system discussed in Section 9-4. spring factor of 1. Direct reading (field grade), 1 gpt
The performance of these complex acid systems viscosity @ 300 rpm (511 sec-1). Corrosion Inhibitor
WATER SOURCE: ACID SOURCE:
depends primarily on the volumes of the associated Tap Water Acid Tank.
additives required to produce these designed fluid Figure 9-19 Acid gellant viscosity vs. temperature

340

Volumes of the acid additives that are
designed to be pumped on-the-fly should be
measured prior to starting the job to ensure that
adequate volumes are available before starting
the treatment and then compared to volume
measurements after treatment.
Calibration of the liquid additive pump to
be used for pumping all on-the-fly chemicals
should be performed prior to starting the treatment
as described in Section 9-4. Additionally, real-time
metering of the chemical additives rates should
be displayed in the monitoring van or cabin as
also discussed in Section 9-4.
To aid in the quality control of acid fracturing
fluid systems, quality control check lists have been
included for base acid and several specialized acid
systems (see Tables 9-8, 9-9 and 9-10). acids
It should be noted that HCl in any concentration
is corrosive and harmful to all personnel. Although the
safety aspects of handling corrosive and reactive fluids has
not been discussed, every effort should be made to limit
exposure of all personnel on location to HCl during all
acid treatments. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
should be required by all personnel while on location,
and care should be taken to eliminate all potential fluid
leaks during the treatment. Figure 9-20 is a photograph
of several frac tanks containing acid on a location. Note
the PPE worn by all personnel, the climbing platform
on each tank and the use of a large-diameter suction
manifold to limit the number of hoses and associated
valves for transferring the acid while pumping and
limiting exposure to personnel.
Figure 9-20 Acid tanks on location
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Table 9-8 Quality control on location - conducted on
all acids
Proper Mixing Equipment Used for Blending Gelling
Agents
Proper Amount & Type of Gelling Agent Used for
Design
Viscosity Measured & Corresponds with Proper
Viscosity
No Fish-eyes or Un-hydrated Masses, Precipitated
Chemicals, Inhibitors on Surface of Tanks
Batch Mix Chemical Schedule Report Prepared &
Verified
On-the-Fly Schedules Prepared
On-the-Fly Chemical Pumps & Back-up Pumps
Calibrated
Chemical Inventories: Pre-Job; Post Job; Chemical
Variance Report
Table 9-9 Quality check - Gelled & in-situ cross-linked
Proper Mixing Equipment Used for Blending Gelling
Agents
Proper Amount & Type of Gelling Agent Used for Design
Viscosity Measured & Corresponds with Proper Viscosity
No Fish-eyes or Un-hydrated Masses, Precipitated
Chemicals, Inhibitors on Surface of Tanks
Batch Mix Chemical Schedule Report Prepared &
Verified
On-the-Fly Schedules Prepared
On-the-Fly Chemical Pumps & Back-up Pumps
Calibrated
Chemical Inventories: Pre-Job; Post Job; Chemical
Variance Report
Table 9-10 Quality check Emulsified acids
Proper Mixing Equipment Used for Blending Emulsions
Pilot tests Conducted before Emulsiying to Ensure Proper
Emulsion
Emulsion Stable for Job Time
Viscosity Measured and Corresponds with Documented
Viscosity
Oil External Emulsions Tested for Oil Wet External Phase
No Fisheyes or Unhydrated Masses, Inhibitors on
Surface
Batch Mixing Schedules Prepared
On-the_Fly Schedules Prepared
On-the-Fly Chemical Pumps & Back-up Pumps
Calibrated
Chemical Inventories: Pre-Job; Post Job; Chemical
Variance Report
341
Modern Fracturing
Using the quality control checklists provided in
this chapter and understanding the goals and objectives
of the designed acid fracture treatment should enable
those on location to ensure that a proper and safe acid
fracture treatment is executed.
9-7 Multi-Stage Fracturing and
Isolation Methods
It has been established that hydraulic fracturing
has a high probability of increasing production
when the designed treatment is properly placed in the
target reservoir. While the placement of the treatment is
almost certain to enhance the reservoir productivity for
some duration, the physical placement of the treatment
can be a challenge in wells containing multiple reservoirs
or massive potential pay intervals.
It is not uncommon for a reservoir to comprise
hundreds, and in the case of some horizontally drilled
wells, thousands of feet of prospective producing
reservoir. The placement of the hydraulic fracture
treatment in these instances is often accomplished by
pumping multiple fracture treatments in stages. The
perspective reservoir is divided into discrete sections
and hydraulically fractured in sequential stages to
place the desired treatment in the most productive
intervals and lessen the potential to fracture non-
productive reservoir rock.
While the number of stages that should be
performed and the interval that can be fractured are
sometimes in question and depend on a number of
reservoir and rock characteristics, the ability to fracture
in stages is not in question. Multi-stage fracturing has
become a technically sound and economic method to
stimulate large pay intervals. This section discusses
several methods used to stage treatments.
9-7.1 Diverting Agents
The use of particulate diverting agents during fracturing
has been usually applied in open-hole or uncased
sections. The practice is not often recommended,
the use of diverting agents in an open-hole section
is considered when the section is large enough that
it would not be possible to mechanically isolate a
given section of the open hole. When this scenario
342
is encountered, particulate materials can be used to
bridge the face of the open-hole section or the initially
induced fracture, thus diverting treatment fluids to
another section of the open hole by the subsequent
increase in hydraulic fracture pressure.
This method is not recommended as a completion
method and should be used only when it is not
possible or practical to case an existing open-hole
section for completion. However, if the only method
of completion is open-hole and the reservoir must
be fractured, then the use of granular-type bridging
material for diverting treatment fluids has had some
success (Howard and Fast, 1970).
The most commonly used bridging material is
graded rock salt (NaCl) with water-based fracture
fluids and/or oil-soluble naphthalene (Howard and
Fast, 1970). The diverting material is usually placed
in fluids at high concentrations between stages of
fracturing fluid and proppant. The expectation is
that the diverting material will bridge the initially
induced hydraulic fracture and divert the next
pad fluid and subsequent proppant stages to a
secondary producing interval.
Although increased pressure may be observed
at the surface after the bridging material impacts
the interval, it is not certain in each case that the
pressure increase is necessarily the result of diversion
to another section of the open hole. The resulting
pressure increase could be additional net pressure
associated with the larger particulate material entering
the first induced fracture. The increased pressure
could also be a temporary diversion that occurs
until such time that the abrasive proppant erodes
the bridging material, either at the face of the open-
hole wellbore or some distance from the wellbore in
the induced hydraulic fracture.
9-7.2 Ball Sealers
Ball sealers have been used successfully as a diverting
agent during hydraulic fracturing in cased-hole
applications for many years. When the interval to
be stage-fractured is large enough that multiple
perforations are scattered over a long producing
interval, ball sealers could be considered for diversion
during hydraulic fracturing operations.

Studies have been performed in areas where
large pay sections were completed, comparing wells
with a single fracture treatment and wells stimulated
with the use of ball sealers for diversion. The latter
performed somewhat better when compared
to a similar set of wells where no diversion was
attempted (Baylocq et al, 1999).
The use of ball sealers for stage fracturing is
an economically attractive method of fracture
stimulation when wellbore configuration or
downhole conditions prevent the use of plugs or
mechanical diversion techniques.
Although ball sealers have been used successfully
at times, their wide use as a stage fracturing technique
is not recommended. Ball sealers, like diverting agents,
do not allow the determination of the interval at which
the diversion occurred nor whether the subsequently
fractured interval was the desired one. The use of ball
sealers is thus an unpredictable approach to diversion.
In addition, ball sealers may provide a temporary
diversion that may or may not extend through the entire
treatment. Ball sealers can be eroded due to the erosive
nature of proppants pumped at fracture rates. After
this erosion occurs, the perforation initially plugged
with the ball sealer may once again accept fracturing
fluid. Perforations may also communicate behind
the casing during the fracture treatment, causing a
loss of differential pressure between the reservoir and
the wellbore and allowing the ball sealer to become
unseated and perforation isolation to be lost.
If ball sealers must be used, several guidelines
have been established for their application. The ball
sealer should be larger than the perforation they
are to seal. As an example, if a perforation of 0.38
in. diameter is to be shot, the diversion ball sealer
should be a minimum of 0.5 in. in diameter. The ball
sealer should also be of adequate specific gravity that
it will not float in the selected fracture fluid, and it
should fall to the bottom of the well after fracture
stimulation operations are complete. The ball sealer
should also be sufficiently durable to minimize
deformation during the fracture stimulation, thereby
preventing the ball sealer from partially or completely
entering the perforation and causing a permanent
block of the perforation and potentially restricting
production after the treatment.
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
9-7.3 Limited Entry
Limited entry is a proven and technically sound method
to divert fluids from one segment of an interval to
another. Limited entry is, as the name implies, a method
by which the number of perforations is limited within a
given wellbore interval or between two or more intervals
selected to be fracture stimulated.
In order to treat a specific perforated interval in
a well, the pressure must be increased such that it
exceeds the fracturing pressure of the reservoir to be
stimulated. By limiting the number of perforations in
the wellbore and their diameter, the friction pressure
across the perforations varies with the rate in which
the fracture fluid is being pumped. When the fracture
rate is increased, the perforation friction pressure
also increases, causing a restricted flow or choke
effect at the perforation and subsequently increasing
the differential pressure between the wellbore and
reservoir. This increased differential pressure can cause
additional perforations or intervals to accept fluid or
divert the fluid to another interval.
Limited entry is a term for the practice of
limiting the number of perforations in a completion
interval to promote the development of perforation
friction pressure during a stimulation treatment. This
process has been described by Lagrone and Rasmussen
(1963) and Cramer (1987). The resulting choking
effect creates excess pressure in the casing, allowing the
simultaneous entry of fracturing fluid into multiple
zones with varying in-situ stress.
The discharge coefficient Cd of a perforation can be
defined as the ratio of the ideal rate of discharge, qideal, to
the actual rate of discharge, q:
q
C d =
. (9-1)
qideal
The ideal rate of discharge, qideal , can be derived
from Bernoullis equation, combined with the discharge
coefficient multiplier to give Eq. 4-2:
q 2 s
p
perf = 0.2369 2 4
, (4-2)
N perf D perf Cd2
where pperf is pressure drop across perforations in
psi, q is total flow rate in bbl/min, s is slurry density
in ppg, Nperf is the number of open perforations, and
343
Modern Fracturing
Dperf is the perforation diameter in inches. When a
fluid is entirely in turbulent flow, the effect of fluid
viscosity plays a minimum role, and the pressure drop
is primarily influenced by the degree of jet contraction
while entering the orifice.
Crump and Conway (1988) evaluated the effect of
proppant slurries on perforation erosion. Their studies
indicated that perforation entrances not only became
rounded, but also increased in diameter. The effect of
an increasing Cd during a massive hydraulic fracture
treatment would have a strong influence on the results
of limited entry fracturing. At the same time, increased
proppant concentrations also resulted in an increase in
the friction coefficient, effectively decreasing Cd .
The design of limited entry fracs is often an iterative
process. Initially a number of perforations are selected to
adequately cover the zones of interest. Then, an injection
rate is chosen for the number of perforations selected with
the aim of developing the maximum differential pressure
possible. If the rate exceeds the tubing or casing limitation
or creates insufficient differential pressure, then the rate is
increased or the number of perforations or their diameter
changed in order to develop the maximum differential
pressure possible with the given tubular configuration.
The calculations are then repeated until the maximum
differential pressure possible is achieved with the given
tubulars and zones to be treated.
To ensure the limited entry design is successful when
implemented, it is important to ensure the perforations
are open prior to the fracture stimulation treatment.
One successful technique is to isolate the intervals with
a tubing packer and pump HCl acid at a pressure above
the bottomhole fracture pressure of all intervals selected,
while dropping ball sealers in the treatment. Pumping
through the tubing and under a packer will ensure the
acid is being pumped into the perforations and result
in total coverage of all perforations by ball sealers (ball-
out). A ball-out is indicated by an increased surface
treating pressure to the maximum pressure limit where
pumping must be discontinued.
Limited entry can be designed to distribute a specific
volume of fracture fluid consistently across a selected
interval, or it can be used to hydraulically divide the
fracture fluid evenly between two or more intervals. In
order to accomplish this, the bottomhole fracture pressure
of the intervals must be similar. When a variation of
344
bottomhole fracture pressure between intervals exists, the
number of perforations must be proportioned for each
interval based on the pressure differential.
As an example, the zone with the lowest bottomhole
pressure would receive the fewest perforations. Conversely
a formation with a higher bottomhole fracture pressure
may receive more or larger-diameter perforations to
proportion a specific volume of fluid into this interval.
Limited entry can be used to reduce stimulation
costs relative to stage fracturing. In instances
where dual intervals are to be treated, it may be a
preferred method for treatment.
Limited entry does have limitations. Like
most diversion methods, certain unknowns
during a given treatment can negatively affect
the outcome of the treatment and cause one or
more zones to be under-stimulated.
First, the effects of erosion by propping agents are
difficult to quantify and can contribute greatly to varied
distribution of fracture fluid as the treatment progresses
and the effects increase. The effects can not be measured
while pumping and can only be estimated in the design
of a limited entry completion. Erosional effects cause
diversion to vary as the treatment is pumped.
Second, the differences in fracture gradients among
various reservoir rocks are usually estimated and cannot
be measured until perforations are shot. If estimates of
reservoir properties (fracture gradients) are substantially
different from those encountered while pumping, then
the limited entry design can be grossly inaccurate and the
calculated diversion ineffective.
9-7.4 Multi-Stage Fracturing
with Mechanical Isolation
The objective of multi-stage fracturing (often referred
to as stage fracturing), regardless of the method of
isolation employed, is to limit the interval of reservoir
rock to be treated, thereby allowing placement of the
stimulation more precisely in the zone or zones of interest.
To achieve a more effective stimulation, it is preferable to
stimulate smaller intervals, thus allowing for more precise
placement of stimulation fluids.
Over-simplified pseudo-three-dimensional fracture
simulators sometimes predict extreme fracture height
growth in large (several hundred feet) vertical reservoir

intervals. This has led to perforating these intervals
with multiple perforations, assuming that enough vertical
fracture height will be generated and that the entire pay
section will be covered with one large fracture treatment.
In actuality this technique can create multiple induced
fractures along the thick pay section, each creating
excessive leak-off, depriving the proper growth of a fracture
and even potentially leading to premature screen-outs.
It has long been recognized that a technique is needed
to treat wells where more than one zone is present so that
each zone can be isolated and stimulated individually.
Stage fracturing is the preferred method by which this is
accomplished and has evolved over many years.
The early days of stage fracturing saw the use of plugs
and packers to span or straddle the zone of interest.
Tools were developed with dual packers arranged for
variable spacing, which permitted the treatment of a
producing interval between the two packers. This method
employed the use of tubing and would therefore limit (1)
the number of stages which could be effectively treated
due to the limited number of packers which could be
simultaneously deployed and (2) the rate at which the
stimulation treatments could be pumped due to high
friction associated with pumping fluids through small
tubulars, i.e., 2 in. tubing.
The most prevalent method of stage fracturing
today uses bridge plugs set inside the casing. The
lowest or deepest interval (first stage) in the well is
perforated first. The perforations in this zone may be
pumped into and broken down with acid and tested for
injectivity prior to mobilizing fracture equipment to the
location. On location, the designed fracture treatment
is pumped into this same pre-perforated interval. Upon
completion of the first stage, the treatment is flushed
(displaced from the wellbore into the formation) to
the top perforation with acid and water or gelled
water. Acid is positioned in the flush such that it is
placed or spotted in the wellbore across the next
planned stage of perforations, thus allowing for acid
breakdown of the next perforated interval.
Meanwhile, a wireline lubricator (wellhead device
for the control of wellhead pressure) is installed on the
wellhead. A wireline-conveyed bridge plug is then run in
the wellbore and set just above the first stage perforations
and below the interval selected for the successive second
stage perforations. The wireline bridge plug is then
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
set and pressure tested to verify that it will support the
pressure necessary to fracture the ensuing stage. After the
integrity of the plug is confirmed, a wireline-conveyed
perforating gun is run into the wellbore and the casing
perforated for the second stage interval. This second
stage interval can then be broken down with the acid
previously spotted in the flush of the first stage, and the
interval fracture stimulated.
This process is repeated until all the selected
reservoir intervals within the well are fracture
stimulated. It is not uncommon to complete as many
as six to seven stages using wireline-conveyed bridge
plugs and perforating guns. It should be noted that
the spotting of acid is not always required but should
be considered in the case of formations where high
breakdown pressures are expected.
Many kinds of bridge plugs are available for use
in staged fracturing. Most staged fracturing plugs
are classified by the material with which they are
made. Bridge plugs can be retrievable for reuse after
the fracture stimulation is complete or expendable
(drillable), as shown in Figure 9-21.
Retrievable:
1. Packer-Type BP
2. Wash Cup B
3. Wireline Retrievable BP
Drillable/Millable:
4. Cast Iron BP (CIBP)
5. Wireline Set CIBP
6. Composite BP
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 9-21 Examples of retrievable and expendable
bridge plugs
345
Modern Fracturing
Depending on the formation and its sensitivity to
the fracturing fluids used, a bridge plug can be used
that is removed hours or days after the treatment.
Recent technology has incorporated the use of flow-
through bridge plugs, fitted with ports or flappers
that allow flow in one direction, thus allowing the
simultaneous flow (fluid recovery) of all the staged
fracture intervals after fracturing operations are
complete. These flow-through plugs allow the retrieval
or removal of the bridge plug to be delayed until the
reservoir has been allowed to flow back and a large
percentage of the fracturing fluids are recovered.
Drillable bridge plugs can be made of soft metal alloys
or of composite material, enabling the drilling of the
plug in a matter of minutes.
9-7.5 New Multi-Stage Fracturing Technology
Recently, new techniques in stage fracturing have
been introduced that have allowed the completion of
more stages in less time than previously possible using
wireline-conveyed devices.
One of these new staging technologies is casing-
conveyed perforating which has been applied
successfully since 2001. Casing-conveyed perforating
employs the use of perforating guns attached to the
outside of the casing along with isolation devices
located between each gun. Electric or hydraulic
control lines are attached to the casing and are
extended to the surface during the running of the
casing for completion. The entire assembly, including
multiple perforating guns, isolation devices and
electric or hydraulic lines, is then cemented into the
well along with the casing.
The placement of these perforating guns and
isolation flapper valves requires planning and
coordination on location prior to the running of casing
into the newly drilled well. Zones of interest must be
identified and the guns and isolation devices must be
placed at the precise depths for the stimulation of the
prospective pay zones (see Section 6-2.1).
After the well is prepared for stimulation, the
bottom gun is fired from surface by use of an electric
or hydraulic line. The guns are activated and six jet
shots are detonated, of which three perforate through
the casing and three fire outwardly from the casing to
346
the opposite of the wellbore and into the formation
(see Fig. 9-22). This process allows for the reduction of
near-wellbore tortuosity by aligning the perforations
with the fracture plane during the initiation of the
induced hydraulic fracture.
Cross-Sectional View
Formation
90
Cement
22
Casing
A A
Firing
Cable/Line
Figure 9-22 Casing-conveyed perforating shot direction
(from Rodgerson et al., 2004)
After the first stage interval has been fracture
stimulated, the second stage guns are fired, which
causes a sliding sleeve above the previously fractured
interval to be engaged. The sliding sleeve allows a flapper
valve to close in the casing and isolate the previously
stimulated lower interval. The next stage or interval is
now ready to fracture stimulate. This method is repeated
until each pre-selected interval has been fractured
stimulated. As many as 23 stages have been successfully
stimulated over a 36-hour period with the use of this
method. This advantages of this method are described in
detail by Rodgerson, et al., (2004).
Another recent technique in stage fracturing is
just-in-time perforating (JITP). JITP perforating is
a method of stimulation in which the zones of interest
are fractured with wireline-conveyed perforating guns
in the casing while the fracture treatment is being
pumped; ball-sealers are used to divert to the next
stage prior to perforating the next interval as described
by Lonnes et al. (2005). JIPT allows for treatment
with multiple stages or perforated intervals while
continuously pumping before it becomes necessary
to set mechanical plugs. Like the casing-conveyed
perforating procedure, this method has been successfully
employed to treat multiple (in excess of 20) fracture
stages during continuous operations to reduce the cost
of multi-stage fracture stimulation.

9-7.6 Horizontal Well Multi-Stage Fracturing
When fracturing horizontal wells with multiple treatments
the goal remains to separate discrete intervals within a
wellbore such that these intervals may be more efficiently
stimulated. See Chapter 10 for an analysis of horizontal
well fracturing for production enhancement.
The direction in which a wellbore is drilled controls
whether an induced hydraulic fracture is created
longitudinally along the horizontal lateral or whether
multiple induced fractures can be created transverse
to the drilled lateral (Edgeman and Walser, 2003; and
Soliman, et al., 2006). The planning process for hydraulic
fracturing of a horizontally drilled well must begin before
the well is drilled. See also Section 13-1.4.
The lateral length should be chosen based on the
number of stages that can be practically completed
in a given horizontal wellbore. Many times excessive
horizontal sections (4000 ft or greater) are drilled to
expose more reservoir, when in actuality the entire
horizontally exposed reservoir does not, or cannot,
contribute to the productivity of the well due to the inability
(usually based on economics) to properly stimulate
enough of the horizontal reservoir. As with vertical
wells, horizontal wells are more effectively completed
through hydraulic fracture stimulation.
Staging processes for horizontally drilled laterals
have evolved to optimize the hydraulic fracture
stimulation process but for the most part continue to
include variations of vertical techniques. Some of the
horizontal well technologies include tractors to convey
perforating guns and plugs through a horizontal
wellbore; pump-down guns and plugs; and sliding-sleeve
assemblies, which in some cases require pumping the
fracture treatment through the annulus of the casing or
liner and a tubing string which is subsequently needed
to engage the sleeve assemblies and prepare the well for
the subsequent stage. Most of these methods have merit
but cannot be applied in all situations.
9-8 Pre-Fracture Diagnostics and
Fracture Evaluation Tests
One of the most beneficial practices for hydraulic fracture
stimulation is the running of pre-job Fracture Evaluation
Tests (FETs). These are specialized tests used to determine
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
fracturing fluid efficiency (see Section 4-2.1.5) for
tight gas formations and should not be confused with
conventional minifracs (see Section 4-2.1.9) and step
rate tests (see Sections 4-2.1.7 and 4-2.1.8), which are
together often referred to as calibration tests. In the past,
there was a common belief that a minifrac on a well in
a field could allow the calculation of fluid efficiency and
leakoff coefficient for the entire field. Experience has
shown that sometimes even when moving only a few
acres away, fluid efficiency and leakoff characteristics
can change dramatically. It is now very common in to
conduct a FET just prior to the fracture treatment.
Conventional minifracs, where the actual fluid
to be pumped on the treatment is utilized, are still
run commonly on medium- to high-permeability
wells and in reservoirs lacking the extensive fracturing
history common to most US tight gas formations.
In addition, experience has shown that in many
tight gas formations, because the very low reservoir
permeability (rather than the filter cake) dominates
filtrate invasion, there is no significant difference
between fluid efficiencies and leakoff coefficients
determined using crosslinked gels, linear gels and slick
water (Gas Research Institute (GRI), 1988, 1989-
90 and 1990; Holditch et al., 1988; Robinson et al.,
1991; Robinson et al., 1992; Northrop and Frohne,
1990; Warpinski et al., 1994; and Cleary, 1994).
Consequently, most FETs currently performed in tight
gas formations use non-crosslinked fluids.
Pre-job diagnostics should follow these guidelines:
1. For the data to be valid, there must be a bare
minimum of entrained gas in the fluid in the
wellbore. If the well has been flowing and consists
of primarily gas then the entire wellbore must be
displaced prior to running the FET. This is many
times a fairly expensive process if the well is deep
and 5- in. casing or larger is used. After the hole
has been displaced, and over-displaced at least 10
bbl, a shutdown should occur; the FET should start
until after any fracture created during the wellbore
displacement, has closed
2. If the hole is full and no gas is present the fluid
in the wellbore can be utilized as the FET fluid.
One should confer with the on-site personnel
to be sure no gas is entrained due to flow nor
are any significant increases in pressure noted
347
Modern Fracturing
at the wellhead. Another significant piece
of data is that when pumping is initiated,
pressure starts building up. This is evidence that
the hole is full and little or no gas is present
in the fluid column. If a significant volume is
required to catch pressure, then it is probably
necessary to displace the hole totally and
then wait for closure from the gasified fluid
before initiating the FET.
3. A typical volume for a FET is 200 bbl. This
may be decreased for low-rate treatments down
tubing or increased for high-rate treatments
down casing. One should plan on having a
minimum of 4 to 5 minutes of pump time on
the FET to be able to get past the water hammer
effect and see a definitive closure.
4. Many fracturing companies and operators
recommend performing a step-down test (see
Section 4-2.1.8) at the end of the FET to analyze for
tortuosity. One must do this technique taking into
consideration that if the well is under-pressured or
has high leak-off, the closure pressure may be missed
while doing the step-down. Many disastrous screen-
outs have been caused due to missing closure during
a step-down analysis. Alternatively, a step rate test
can be done as a separate pumping operation after
closure has been seen from the FET.
5. It is the experience of the authors that the best
means of identifying closure pressure for tight gas
formations is to use a combination of a square root
vs. time plot combined with the first derivative. This
will often produce a straight line while the fracture
is open and will progress into a curve when the
fracture has closed. However, this only occurs if the
leakoff rate as the fracture is open is proportional
to the square root of time and everything else is
constant (see Section 4-2.1.5 and Eq. 4-9). The key
to seeing closure on a square root of time plot is
to minimize the pressure range so that deflections
in time are much more easily seen. A deflection in
slope accompanied by a change in the derivative is a
definitive method of seeing the change from linear
to radial flow, i.e., the fracture closing. It is common
to see multiple closures during the pressure fall-off,
but only the first closure should be used to analyze
fluid efficiency and leakoff coefficient.
348
In medium- and high-permeability formations,
where the filter cake dominates, and in formations
where the fluid leakoff is more complex than normal
(e.g., natural fractures or pressure-dependent formation
characteristics), the relationship between pressure and
time is often much more complex.
The engineer has an array of tools available for
analyzing the pressure decline (including t, 4t, log-
log plots, G-function analysis (see Section 4-2.1.9),
Horner plots all with or without various derivative
functions and many more increasingly sophisticated
and elaborate methods) all designed to make closure
pressure (and hence fluid efficiency and leakoff
coefficients) easier to find. What exists for pressure
decline analysis is a toolbox of methods, which should
be applied when appropriate engineers should not
limit themselves to any specific method.
The purpose of the FET is to provide a very
quick and simple approximation for obtaining fluid
efficiency and leakoff coefficients. It is most often
used in tight gas formations that have an extensive
history of hydraulic fracturing (as in the United
States) and for which the response to hydraulic
fracturing operations is reasonably well understood.
These low-permeability formations constitute
approximately two-thirds of all treatments performed
globally (see Section 1-6). (However, for higher-
permeability formations, conventional calibration
tests are still recommended.)
In tight gas formations, methods that involve
time-consuming analysis and testing will defeat the
original purpose of the test. The very simple equation
shown below allows an engineer to quickly insert
volumes pumped, pump-in rate, and leak-off rate
to come up with an approximate fluid efficiency
(Eqs. 9-2 and 9-3) which can be inserted into the
extremely simple Kane equation (Eq. 9-4, Fritcher et
al., 1995) to yield a pad percentage.
V
(9-2)
q = i ,
L
ti + t c
qL
= 1 , and (9-3)
qi
2
Pad Volume % = (1 ) ,
(9-4)

where qL is the average leakoff rate (bbl/min), Vi is the
total fluid volume injected (bbls), ti is the total pumping
time (mins), tc is the closure time (i.e., the time from
pump shut-down to fracture closure) (mins), is the
fluid efficiency (see Section 4-2.1.5) (dimensionless), qi
is the average injection rate (bbls/min) (= Vi /ti) and Pad
Volume % is the percentage of the total slurry (fluid plus
proppant) volume that should be used as pad.
Discussion of Guidelines
There is great controversy in the industry in relation
to how to determine pad volume and which tools
work best. The above guidelines come from literally
thousands of tight gas fracturing treatments, observed
over many years and the relative success achieved by
following these guidelines. The applicability of using
the low-viscosity FETs rather than conventional
minifracs is field-proven.
After obtaining the fluid efficiency from the above-
mentioned guidelines, the engineer has to decide whether
to be conservative or aggressive when selecting the pad
volume. If the well is normal or geo-pressured and there
is a high degree of confidence in the closure pressure,
it is recommended to add 10% to the fluid efficiency
value to compensate for the increased viscosity and wall
building when using crosslinked fluids. Some operators
and consultants add 5% to the fluid efficiency in order to
be less aggressive, while others simply use the measured
fluid efficiency and then pump a larger pad volume.
If the formation is naturally fractured, then the
FET fluid efficiency should be used. Some operators use
modified Kane equations (Eqs. 9-3 to 9-5) and others
have used the Shelly equation to use fluid efficiency
(Cipolla and Wright, 2000; Craig et al., 2000; and
Gottschling and Myers, 2004).
When very low fluid efficiency is measured, this
may be an indication of high permeability, low reservoir
pressure or natural fractures (or a combination of the
three). In such cases, the engineer should consider the
use of a conventional minifrac to more accurately assess
the fluid loss characteristics of the formation.
To compensate for the increased leakoff rate, the
options available are increased pad volume, increased
fluid rate and/or the use of fluid loss additives. In tight
gas formations, for fluid efficiencies between 20 and 30%,
the use of 3% diesel by volume, mixed into a water-based
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
fluid should be considered as a fluid loss additive. For
even lower fluid efficiencies (10 to 20%), a particulate
fluid loss additive (such as starch) should be considered,
although it is important to remember that these measures
must be reversible after the treatment.
Conversely, if high fluid efficiency is measured
(i.e., above 50%), the pad volume can be decreased.
However, for normal and low-pressure reservoirs with
efficiencies above 75%, aborting the treatment due to
extremely low permeability should be considered. For
geo-pressured reservoirs (i.e., reservoirs with pressure
gradients above that of water), it is possible to have high
efficiency with low fluid leakoff because the high reservoir
pressure dominates the leakoff. For normally pressured
reservoirs, fluid efficiency measured on each job is a good
relative comparison of well-to-well permeability. This
relationship does not hold where depletion is present
or in over-pressured environments.
Whenever possible, good bottomhole pressure
data is essential. This is especially important for
conventional minifrac analysis because analyzing
pressure during pumping is an important part of the
process. Although the use of foamed or energized
fluids during minifracs or FETs is rare, this is another
occasion when accurate bottomhole data must be
obtained. Using bottomhole pressure data eliminates
wellbore friction and hydrostatic pressure effects from
the calculations, dramatically increasing the accuracy
of the analysis. The two most common methods of
obtaining bottomhole pressure data are memory
gauges and a live annulus/dead string.
Diagnostics in Soft Rock Environments
In general, soft rock environments tend to have higher
permeability than the formations described above,
and a conventional minifrac is usually recommended.
Generally, these treatments involve the use of a tip
screenout (TSO) (see Section 4-7.3.2) to artificially
increase fracture width, relative to fracture half-
length. Consequently, tight control of the pad volume
percentage is required, in order to generate the TSO at
the required point in the treatment. Typically the pad
volume percentages used in the soft rock reservoirs are
much smaller than conventional hard rock treatments
and most soft rock design engineers do not consider a
job successful unless a screen-out occurs.
349
Modern Fracturing
9-9 Real-Time Pressure Interpretation
Often, during fracture execution, the well does not
respond as the design has anticipated, and the treatment
is modified or re-designed at the well site. Design
modifications made on-site during the treatment are
normally based on the pressure response of the fluid as it
is pumped into the reservoir. With a good understanding
of the treatment objectives, perforation scheme, tubular
configuration, formation reservoir, and fracturing fluid
systems being applied, much can be interpreted from the
treating pressure generated during the hydraulic fracture
treatment. Tools are provided specifically for the analysis
of treating pressure with respect to fluid and proppant.
(See also Section 4-2.2.4)
9-9.1 Nolte-Smith Plot (see also Section 4-2.1.7)
Most fracturing treatments now employ a Nolte-
Smith plot (more commonly referred to as a net
pressure plot). Although net pressure is a worthwhile
tool, it can be misinterpreted and fundamentally
misapplied during hydraulic fracture treatments.
The classic Nolte-Smith (Nolte and Smith,
1981) analysis was designed to interpret net pressure
at a time when two-dimensional models were
widely used for fracture design and most fractures
were assumed to be vertically contained at some
point during their propagation.
Figure 9-23 Nolte-Smith analysis pressure response (see
Section 4-2.1.7)
More recent understanding indicates that fracture
height growth is largely controlled by in-situ rock stress
and other rock mechanical characteristics. In some cases
350
where very large intervals of similar lithology exist, actual
rock mechanical characteristics can vary little. This would
indicate that created vertical fracture height growth may
exceed the lateral fracture extension. In the Nolte-Smith
analysis when presuming a PKN model (see Section 4-
3.3.1) the net pressure interpretation assumes that the
fluid pressure would increase as the fracture propagates.
As the fracture height grows or if there is excessive
leakoff the net pressure will decrease. The interpretation
of fracture growth is explained by Nolte and Smith
(1981), as modes or slopes of net pressure (as seen in
Fig. 9-23). These slopes or slope modes can be used to
interpret fracture geometry and most importantly, the
geometry indicating critical pressure or the pressure
in which screen-out is probable.
Over-reliance on a net pressure plot during every
fracturing situation can lead to ambiguous decisions
while pumping a hydraulic fracture treatment.
Although net pressure can be used to make basic
assumptions during the hydraulic fracture process, it
is important to understand the limitations of a net
pressure plot and instances when other interpretive
analysis should be used.
The calculation of a net pressure plot requires
that the reservoir closure pressure be known. In the
absence of a measured closure pressure, one is often
estimated prior to the hydraulic fracture treatment.
This would affect greatly the log-log net pressure plot
and may make it unreliable during the treatment.
This suggests that the closure pressure should me
measured before the main treatment from either a
minifrac or other calibration test.
Other variables can affect the reliability of a net
pressure plot. One such variable is the use of small
tubulars, which magnify the effect of fluid and
proppant friction. As an example, one can expect
to encounter increased friction while pumping
through 2--in. (or smaller) tubing with 3 ppg or
greater proppant concentration (see Section 4-4.4.2).
Friction associated with the increased proppant
slurry will, in most cases, exceed the hydrostatic
loss of increased density slurry, and an increase in
surface treating pressure can be expected. When
relying exclusively on a net pressure plot, this may
be misinterpreted to be critical pressure and the
treatment terminated prematurely.

The use of a dead string can eliminate this
problem. A dead string is a string of tubing extended
into the casing and left open-ended (without a packer)
during fracturing operations. The fracture fluid and
proppant are pumped via the casing/tubing annulus and
the pressure is monitored at surface on the static tubing
string. This static tubing string allows the accurate
measurement of the actual bottomhole treating pressure
during the treatment. This measured bottomhole
pressure excludes friction effects from the net pressure
calculations while pumping and subsequently allows
for the calculation of a reliable net pressure plot. This
technique can also be applied to a live annulus, where
the fluid is pumped down the tubing and the BHTP is
monitored from the annulus.
Another occasion where net pressure plots may not
be reliable is with the use of foamed or energized fluids
in casing or small tubulars. The use of small tubulars
magnifies friction effects, and foamed or energized
fluid friction effects can vary dramatically during
pumping. When carbon dioxide (CO2) is used, it is
cooled and pumped as a liquid, which is heated due to
friction and increasing bottomhole temperature while
pumping. Depending upon the variation in reservoir
temperature, pressure and friction, the CO2 density
can vary during pumping and could undergo a phase
change, causing changes in friction and affecting the
calculation of net pressure. When nitrogen is used, it
is heated to a gas and pumped in fracturing fluids as a
compressible gas. As such, it can exhibit unpredictable
friction behavior that could negatively affect the
reliability of a calculated net pressure.
The analysis of fracture pressure and the use of net
pressure during fracturing can be used to estimate fracture
geometry and can describe the effect of fracture height
growth and fracture propagation. These interpretations of
fracture pressure analysis can be further used to optimize
the design of subsequent treatments (Nolte, 1988 and
1991). In some cases where large infield stimulation
programs are performed, net pressure charts can be
used to compare well treatments relative to one another
and certain fracture geometries implied based on these
comparisons coupled with other reservoir analysis tools.
In summary, net pressure plots should be used with
a measured closure pressure obtained from an injection
test. Net pressure plots should not be relied upon when
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
pumping via small tubulars and/or with foamed or
energized fluids. A net pressure plot is most accurate
and reliable when used with a dead string to measure
real time bottomhole pressure.
9-9.2 Surface Treating Pressure as a Tool
It is often necessary to rely on surface treating pressure
(STP), pinj , to interpret what is occurring in the
formation during fracturing operations. In order to rely
on pinj during the treatment it is necessary to understand
the relationship between the surface treating pressure
and fracturing pressure, pfr , downhole. Eq. 9-5 shows
the relationship, assuming zero tortuosity:
pinj = p f phead + p pipe friction + p perf ,
(9-5)
where pf is the bottomhole fracturing pressure
(i.e. fluid pressure inside the fracture), phead is the
hydrostatic pressure of the fluid or slurry in the
wellbore, ppipe friction is the friction pressure of the fluid
or slurry in the wellbore and pperf is the pressure loss
due to perforation friction (see Eq. 4-2).
Pressure/Rate/Density
6000 60
50
5000
Rate & Density
4000 40
Pressure
3000 30
2000 20
1000 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 21 26 34 41 46 56 61 66
Time
Figure 9-24 Pressure, rate and density on a treating chart
with declining surface treating pressure
By understanding these contributing variables,
one can use a process of elimination to surmise what
is happening when pressure changes occur at surface
while pumping. The most common change in STP
occurs when the density of the fluid changes while
adding proppants to the slurry. Adding greater proppant
concentrations throughout the treatment creates an
increase in the hydrostatic head and subsequently causes
a decline in STP throughout the treatment. Fig. 9-24
displays a treating chart with declining STP associated
351
Modern Fracturing
with increasing hydrostatic head throughout the
treatment. This fracture treatment chart is a standard
rate-pressure-density chart commonly displayed during
fracturing operations. This chart is recommended for
real-time use as it includes historical trends for pressure,
rate and density. The decrease in STP due to hydrostatic
head will only change when the effects of friction are
greater than the decrease in hydrostatic head or the net
pressure in the formation is increased such that it is
greater than the decrease in hydrostatic head.
An increase in net pressure can be the result of a
change in fracture fluid leak-off into the formation and
proppant dropping out the slurry. Screen-outs due to
excessive leak-off (sometimes deliberate in the case of
gravel packing of soft rock frac packs) normally take time
to occur and are referred to as a tip screen-out (TSO).
This term describes the leading edge of the fracture fluid
or the tip of the induced fracture. It is at this point that
hydraulic fractures are initiated on a micro scale. When
fracture fluid at the tip of the fracture is lost such that
only sand-laden fluid remains, a tip screen-out ultimately
follows. For high-permeability fracturing, a TSO is a
designed occurrence (see Section 4-7.3).
Involuntary TSOs can be overcome if recognized
early, by increasing fracture rate (the rate at which
the fracture fluid is being pumped) in an effort to
equal or exceed the leak-off rate during the treatment.
This is usually an estimated increase governed by
the STP and how near the STP is to the maximum
allowable STP or the pressure necessary to stay
below completion or wellhead limitations. Increases
in fracture rates are usually on the order of 5 bpm
increments. When increasing the fracture rate, it is
important to carefully study the STP for a minimum
of one-half the pipe volume. This allows one to see
the effects of increased friction caused by the increase
in injection rate. After a rate change, the STP pressure
should be observed for a sufficient time to enable the
effects of friction to be noted. If the resulting STP
continues to increase at the same rate as prior to the
rate change, then a second fracture rate increase should
be considered. If, however, a change or stabilizing
(flattening) of the slope of the STP is observed, this
is an indication that the rate of fracture fluid leak-
off has slowed or the increased fracture rate is now
greater than the rate of leak-off. Screen-out due to
352
leak-off in low-permeability (< 0.5 md) reservoirs is
rare and is usually only of concern in reservoirs with
natural fractures or high permeability.
There are also pressure increases associated with the
interference from far-field fracture(s) that have been
executed earlier. The execution of multiple fractures
can cause large increases in STP followed by premature
screen-out of the treatment. In-situ stresses, reservoir rock
discontinuities and mechanical properties or variablilites
of the reservoir rock determine the pressure created
within the fracture. Pressure drops or variances within the
fracture can be significant (Cramer, 1996). The creation
of multiple fractures near the wellbore can contribute
significantly to pressure increases while pumping in the
initial stages of the fracture treatment.
This phenomenon, known as tortuosity, acquires
its name from the tortuous path the fracture fluids
must follow through multiple and twisting fractures
from the near-wellbore region into a dominant induced
hydraulic fracture (see Section 4-2.1.4). In some cases
a single dominant fracture may not exist, and multiple
fractures created with tortuosity may not be sufficiently
significant to place proppant. When unusually high
STP is encountered, terminating the treatment prior to
pumping proppant and obtaining an ISDP (instantaneous
shutdown pressure, similar to the instantaneous shut-in
pressure, ISIP, obtained in deliberate tests downhole for
this purpose) can be useful in identifying tortuosity. This
ISDP can be used to calculate a fracture gradient and
bottomhole fracture pressure. Additionally, the number
of perforations that are open (receiving fluid) can be
calculated and the induced pipe friction and hydrostatic
head pressure can be confirmed.
After the variables from Eq. 9-6 have been defined,
any unaccounted additional pressure can be interpreted as
tortuosity or net pressure caused by multiple fractures in
the near-wellbore region or far-field fracture. If tortuosity
is suspected or likely to occur in a given reservoir, it is
prudent to obtain additional information about the
reservoir through calibration tests (see Sections 4-2.1.8
and 4-2.1.9). If the calibration test analysis indicates that
near-wellbore tortuosity is a potential problem, this can
at times be remedied by pumping short stages of low
concentrations of proppant (proppant slugs) in the pad
fluid. This may screen off some of the smaller multiple
fractures and establish one predominant fracture with

a fracture width sufficient to accept greater proppant
concentrations (see Fig. 9-25). The use of proppant slugs
and viscous gel plugs (short stages of high concentrations
of polymer-laden fluids) to control near-wellbore
tortuosity has been used for many years and its success is
well documented (Cleary et al., 1993; Aud et al., 1994;
and McDaniel et al., 2001).
Before Proppant Plug
Dominant Fracture(s)
Plugging of
After Proppant Plug Multiple
Hydraulic
Fractures
Figure 9-25 Creating and controlling multiple near-wellbore
fractures with the use of proppant slugs (after Weijers et al.,
2002)
By far the most effective, although far more involved,
way to control near-well fracture tortuosity is to drill wells
that enter the formation vertically and perforate them
with oriented perforating guns that create a path that
would trace the expected fracture plane. This approach
is indicated in a proper reservoir exploitation strategy
that assumes all wells will be hydraulically fractured.
Any occurrence of tortuosity will always be problematic
during both treatment execution and - especially
- during the subsequent production. Production
problems from tortuous fracture paths are particularly
severe in higher-permeability reservoirs.
9-9.3 The Effects of Perforations
on Surface Treating Pressure
The first step in fracture stimulation design should be
the selection of the perforation scheme. The success
of hydraulic fracture stimulation starts with the
placement and design of the perforations. Hydraulic
fracture stimulation, when unsuccessful, can usually
be traced back to the perforation design. Perforating
for hydraulic fracturing has been discussed in detail
in Chapter 6. However the point is that hydraulic
fracturing is most successful when the zone of interest
is perforated such that the fracture treatment is
pumped where needed to access the reservoir.
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Understanding the perforation scheme during
pumping will also help one interpret the pressure
responses observed during a given treatment. Two
examples can be used to show how understanding
the perforation design can effect real-time
decisions during the treatment.
The first example is the case of limited entry,
where the differential pressure from perforation
restriction is high and the loss of perforations
during pumping equates to large increases in STP.
In the case of limited entry it would be prudent
(when possible) to shut down pumping during the
pad fluid and calculate the number of perforations
open by rearranging Eq. 4-2:
q 2
N perf = 0.2369
s
(9-6)
p perf D perf Cd2
4
Losing perforations while pumping or actually
initiating the job with a lesser number of perforations
than designed can negatively affect stimulation,
resulting in treating the prospective pay or selected
pay intervals with less than the designed treatment.
Observing and understanding the STP while
pumping can identify this limitation, if tortuosity
is negligible. For limited entry treatments, if one
knows the number of perforations open compared
with number designed, it is possible to adjust the
treating rate during the treatment to maintain the
calculated perforation differential pressure required
to achieve the limited entry plan.
Another example of perforations affecting,
or in this case, not affecting STP while pumping
would be in the case a confined and homogeneous
formation where the perforations are shot densely
(4 shots per foot or greater). In this instance,
pumping usually generates little perforation
restriction pressure. Understanding how little
perforation restriction pressure is generated and
that communication between perforations is likely,
it follows that any abrupt changes in STP most
likely are not the result of perforation restriction
pressure but rather can be interpreted as a fluid
friction or formation response.
When treating large gross reservoir intervals,
increases in STP may be associated with fracture fluid
leak-off due to the large amount of reservoir rock
353
Modern Fracturing
exposed to the fracture fluid. Inversely, decreases in
STP may indicate extensive fracture height growth.
In circumstances where a small confined reservoir
interval is perforated, increases in STP are not likely
to be associated with fracture fluid leak-off, and
unrestricted height growth is not likely. Increases in
STP may not be affected by pumping rate increases
and therefore may be associated with inadequate
fracture width development, or the reservoir may be
screening out or ballooning, meaning the induced
fracture cannot accept additional fluid volume
and a screen-out may result.
Perforations, how they are placed and the size of
the selected reservoir interval to be fractured should be
reviewed and their impact on the fracture treatment
studied prior to pumping the treatment as this aids in
understanding STP responses while fracturing.
9-9.4 The Effects of Pipe Friction
on Surface Treating Pressure
In order to determine if a change in the STP is caused
by pipe friction, one must be cognizant of the variables
that effect pipe friction: rate, slurry composition
and proppant concentration. Rate changes during a
hydraulic fracture treatment are common place and
necessary. It should be understood that small changes
in pumping rate can have a dramatic effect on pipe
and perforation friction and that pipe friction changes
are not always immediate. Fig. 9-26 is an example
of a hydraulic fracture treatment in which STP is
increasing throughout the job. This type of increase
can have multiple causes; a process of elimination can
help to determine the fundamental cause.
Pressure/Rate/Density
6000
5000
4000
Pressure
3000
2000
1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 21 26 34 41 46
Time
Figure 9-26 Surface treating pressure increase
throughout a fracture treatment
354
Early in the fracture treatment, a logical response
to this type of pressure would be a rate increase to
determine whether this pressure increase is associated
with reservoir conditions. The goal of the rate increase
would be to affect the dynamic conditions of the
reservoir by overcoming the rate of fluid leak-off into
the formation or to potentially increase the width of
the created fracture. If the STP increase were associated
with one of these parameters, then an increase in
pumping rate would either decrease the slope of the
STP increase or eliminate it entirety.
Although the effects of rate changes on STP are seen
immediately, other adjustments made at the surface are
not. Changes in fluid properties while pumping will
have gradual or delayed effects on STP. The full effect
of a change in fluid viscosity will not be completely
realized until the new fluid properties (i.e., viscosity
increases or decreases) have almost filled the treating
tubulars. As an example, it is common in fracturing
low-permeability reservoirs to reduce fracture fluid
viscosity in subsequent proppant stages after a hydraulic
fracture has been established and it is believed that
adequate fracture width has been established to accept
greater concentrations of proppant. This decrease in
fluid viscosity will reduce STP slightly, but the effect
will not be seen until the lower-viscosity fluid fills the
treating tubulars. This decrease may also be masked
by changes in increased hydrostatic head caused
by raising slurry density (i.e., increasing proppant
concentration). However, if fluid viscosity is increased
(by design or otherwise) the converse would be true.
The STP would gradually increase as the higher-
viscosity fluid begins to fill the treating tubulars, and
it might even be significant enough to overcome the
effects of an increased hydrostatic head associated with
the increase in subsequent proppant concentrations.
60
Thus, even small changes in fluid properties, rate
50
adjustments and proppant concentration may
Rate & Density
40 have significant effects on STP.
30 Friction changes during a hydraulic fracture
20 treatment are the most misinterpreted and sometimes
misunderstood pressure events during a fracture
10
treatment. Misinterpretation of friction changes can
56 61 66 lead to ambiguous decisions or even the premature
termination of the treatment. It would be prudent
to carry a fluid friction handbook on location

while supervising a hydraulic fracture treatment.
Information on the friction properties of fracturing
fluids for various sizes of treating tubulars at various
treating rates has been documented and published.
Verified on location and in real time, fluid friction
properties may allow quick calculations or estimations
to determine the causes of STP changes.
In summary, determining the cause of STP changes
involves understanding the variables that effect STP.
In addition it is important to also understand the
reservoir. Knowledge of these interrelationships allows
interpretation of STP changes while pumping. It
should be noted, however, that hydraulic fracturing is
a dynamic process and decisions must be made as the
treatment proceeds. One may not have time to consider
the definitive cause of a particular STP change, so
it is useful to understand that certain changes could
be detrimental to the objective of the treatment and
that, when encountered, some type of preplanned
response should be implemented.
The pumping rate is the most valuable tool available
to the supervising engineer, and it should be used
advantageously whenever possible. In some instances,
increasing pumping rate is not logical. Examples would
be when the perforation design used is limited entry
and changes in pumping rate could negatively affect the
designed fluid distribution or when a treatment must
studiously avoid zones known to be wet (containing
formation water). Outside of these circumstances
pumping rate increases can be used to affect reservoir
conditions and increase the probability of completing
the designed hydraulic fracture treatment. In many
cases during the process of hydraulic fracturing it may
be safe to say, Rate is your friend.
9-10 Fracturing Fluid
Recovery (Flowback)
One of the most discussed and controversial issues
in hydraulic fracturing is the flowback of fracturing
fluids. Many papers have been written and many
opinions have been formed. Often, these seem to
indicate contradictory practices (Penny et al., 1993;
Ely et al., 1990a; Sherman and Holditch, 1991; Ely,
1994; Ely et al., 1995; Pope et al., 1995; Canon et
al., 2000; and Cramer, 2000).
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
In general, it is best to flow the well back as soon as
practical after the treatment, and flowing back should be
thought of as an integral part of the treatment. However,
it is also common practice to leave wells shut in for
several days before recovering the fluids (such as when
fracturing multiple intervals), and modern fracturing
fluid systems do not appear to produce any significant
damage to many formations. As with many issues
in hydraulic fracturing, the effects of extended shut-
in periods seem to be formation-specific; as such, the
engineer should be prepared to be flexible. It also seems
likely that practices that work well in low-permeability
gas formations may not be applicable to high-
permeability formations and vice versa. The discussion
below investigates three of the major preconceptions
regarding post-treatment flowback.
1. Is there a correlation between load recovery and
well performance?
There is very little correlation between load
recovery and well performance, especially in
tight gas reservoirs, in which sometimes the best
performing wells are those which produce the
smallest percentage of load before producing
hydrocarbons. The literature (see above references)
is full of contradictory case histories. In the case
of low-permeability reservoirs, good wells or wells
with good permeability and flow capacity may often
start making significant hydrocarbons after very
little production of the fracturing fluid. It seems
counter-intuitive that in many formations low fluid
recovery equates to superior well performance;
however, it is the authors experience that this is
often the case in tight gas formations.
Fracturing companies have expended a great deal
of research and effort to create complex surfactants
that help remove load water. Intuitively, these would
be valuable products to help increase production,
but that has not always proven to be the case.
There is wide belief that improved fluid recovery
will aid in improved production, but in reality
there has not been a direct correlation between
load recovery and hydrocarbon production, as the
percentage of load recovery varies dramatically
from reservoir to reservoir and is a function of
many different reservoir parameters. Although the
affects of fluid recovery cannot be directly tied to
355
Modern Fracturing
productivity, it stands to reason that in the case of
low-permeability natural gas wells, recovering more
fracture fluid load in the early life of a producing
gas well would reduce the severity of liquid loading
later in the life of the well.
Obviously for low-pressure wells there may be
benefit in products which are non-absorbing and
allow for foaming and production of load to keep
the well from dying. However, non-absorbing
products can create foams/emulsions in reservoir
pore throats and fractures. Any type of product
such as this should be only used with caution;
formation-specific testing (ideally with core
samples) is recommended.
An interesting trend that has gone on for
some time, particularly in water fracs and in
some conventional crosslink gel jobs, is to totally
eliminate surfactants from the fluid system. This
trend started out with cost savings in mind and
progressed to purposely not running the products
to eliminate damage to reservoirs. The vast
majority of surfactants used do indeed reduce
surface tension, but there is evidence to suggest
that in some low-permeability formations, they
may plate out very quickly, leaving fluid with
high surface tension in hairline fractures and tiny
pore throats. Literally thousands of water fracs
have been conducted without any surfactants
using the rationale that the surfactants allow
penetration of the fluid into fractures and tiny
pore throats where it would have not penetrated
without the surfactant. Again, formation-specific
testing with core is recommended to determine if
surfactants are beneficial, as well as what type and
loading should be used. Obviously one should
consider the use of non-emulsifiers where liquid
hydrocarbons exist in the formation and potential
emulsion problems can occur.
There is also a strong feeling that fractures
should be allowed to close before initiating
flowback, to prevent proppant from flowing back
out of the fracture and into the well. This may be a
moot point in medium- to high-permeability gas
formations because fracture closure may only take
a minute or less. However, in low-permeability
gas formations, there is more flexibility.
356
Experience with forced closure has disproved
this assertion in many US tight gas formations.
Thousands of wells have been flowed back within
seconds of treatment shutdown, and studies have
shown that not only do the wells have significantly
better near-wellbore conductivity due to hindered
settling of the proppant, but the wells also produce
significantly less proppant in the long term (Ely,
1996). The term forced closure was coined in
1986 to describe a process to speed up closure
on the proppant, in order to minimize near-
wellbore proppant settling and to negate smearing
of proppant due to ongoing fracture growth after
shutdown. In the early days of implementation of
the procedure, very low rates (0.25 bpm or lower)
were used. As the process became better known,
rates were increased dramatically to 2 to 3 bpm for
tubing completions and 3 to 5 bpm with casing-
only wells. The flowback rates were increased
gradually because of fear of producing proppant.
What has been learned is that the original
purpose of the forced closure process (i.e., to speed
up closure) was perhaps the least important benefit.
By close observation of fluid flow it was noted that
the process - combined with efficient fracturing-
oriented perforating techniques (see Chapter 6)
- created a means to bridge the proppant at the
interior of the perforations and thereby assure
high conductivity at the wellbore. Thus, a better
term for this process would perhaps be reverse
gravel packing. In addition, the process exploits
the supercharge effect from the fracture treatment
rather than watching the pressure bleed off prior
to opening the well. By utilizing forced closure,
slightly under-pressured wells can be treated
without the need for N2 or CO2.
There has been much confusion about the
necessary time to open the well. For the process
to work properly, the well should be flowed back
as soon as possible, although most fracturing
companies prefer to rig down from the wellhead
before doing this for safety and operational
reasons. The well should not be left for too long, as
significant delays will allow substantial proppant
settling, so the reverse gravel packing process will
not work. Proppant production may ensue, due to

open fractures connecting with the perforations.
For the process to work optimally, short perforated
sections (which allow for better bridging of the
proppant) are preferred. Additionally, perfect
proppant transport fluids are very beneficial,
preventing rapid settling of the proppant. A
common mistake with fracturing treatments in
tight gas formations is over-breaking the fluid in
the near wellbore, causing near-wellbore proppant
settling and failure of the process.
If physically possible when the well is opened,
it is recommended that the well never be choked
back or shut in until hydrocarbons are being
produced, and then the well should be treated as
a normal gas producer. The worst mistake made
with forced closure flowback is to pinch back
flow in hopes of increasing pressure. During the
early stages of flowback, there is a fluid column,
and the well should be allowed to flow at 2- to
5-bpm rates until hydrocarbons are produced.
There is no danger of proppant crushing with a
full column of fluid in the well.
Forced closure is extremely beneficial when
using energized fluids. Obviously additional care
should be taken in anchoring iron and assuring that
safe flowback procedures are followed. Not utilizing
immediate flowback when utilizing energized fluids
is a serious mistake and in many occasions negates
the benefit of the CO2 and N2.
2. Should forced closure be used on every well?
One of the worst reasons to skip forced closure
is to allow a history match of falloff pressures
after a treatment. Jeopardizing the success of the
treatment to gather data is a misplaced priority.
In addition, if a flowmeter is placed on the
flowback line and the flowback rate and volume
recorded, modern fracture simulators can take
the flowback into account when determining
fluid efficiency and leakoff coefficients.
There are, however, several situations where
forced closure is not applicable or should be avoided.
The most obvious one is where the well goes on a
vacuum. A second is where the operator is doing
multiple stages and cannot afford to spend the time
flowing back the well, with large numbers of people
and very expensive equipment on location.
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Ideally, in tight gas formations, a great deal of
care is taken to minimize pad, thereby speeding
up closure time and also not drastically increasing
the breaker when using crosslinked gels in the last
stage of the treatment. However, it is important,
especially for medium- and high-permeability gas
formations, that sufficient pad volume be used
to maintain the optimum relationship between
effective fracture length and effective average
propped width (see Section 4-5).
It is also felt that forced closure is not
essential in tight gas water fracs or slickwater
treatments, where very rapid settling occurs
and the mechanism of fracture conductivity
is not from a conventional proppant pack
(see Section 8-4). Many wells performed well
without forced closure because of fluids banking
in the near-wellbore area. The real danger of
over-flushing and proppant smearing occurs
when the fluids are perfect proppant transport
fluids and there is the real possibility of loss of
near-wellbore conductivity.
3. Is leaving fluids in a formation for significant
periods of time detrimental to production?
Experience has shown that with properly
treated fluids, no damage is done to the
reservoir by leaving fluids in the formation.
However, fracture fluid damage can be a
function of reservoir permeability and other
reservoir parameters. For very low reservoir
permeability, the fracture face damage is not
that important (see Sections 7-6 and 7-6.1).
But, in general it is agreed that fluids should be
recovered as soon as possible.
There has been and continues to be confusion
about regained permeability damage caused by
water-based fluids and damage caused by gel
residue (see Section 7-6). Any so-called regained
permeability damage is inconsequential when
comparing the relative conductivity of the
propped fracture to that of the fracture face, for
low-permeability gas reservoirs. Field experience
has shown that when modern breaker systems are
used correctly, there is no real loss of production
due to gel residue. The authors feel that success
of the guar-based fluids is partially based
357
Modern Fracturing
upon its inherent enhanced fluid loss control,
which helps to negate the damaging filter cake
created with less efficient fluids.
In summary,
1. In tight gas formations, shutting in wells to
allow closure can be very detrimental to ultimate
production due to proppant settling in non-
crosslinked fluids. Additionally, one loses the
inherent supercharge from the treatment. The term
supercharge is used to describe the build-up of
energy in the formation adjacent to the fracture, in
the form of compressed minerals, liquids and gases.
This stored energy can be used to recover substantial
volumes of fluids even in under-pressured
reservoirs if the well is flowed back immediately
after the treatment. In medium- and high-
permeability formations, where crosslinked fluids
are routinely used and proppant concentrations
within the fracture are considerably higher, wells
should be shut in for enough time to allow the
fracturing fluid to break, then flowed back.
2. Avoid using excessive amounts of breaker in the
later stages of tight gas treatments, for fear of
flowing back proppant due to lack of fluid viscosity.
Excessive amounts of breaker can cause severe near-
wellbore damage due to settling of proppant at the
wellbore. It has been a rule used in the forced closure
process that if we dont see some viscosified fluid
in the early flowback, we probably ran too much
breaker. One of the surprising things noted on
early forced closure treatments was that significant
amounts of gel were produced without producing
sand from the formation.
3. After significant quantities of gas are observed when
flowing back a tight gas treatment, the procedure
should then revert back to the normal flowback
procedures for oil and gas wells.
References
API RP-42: Laboratory Evaluations of Surface Active
Agents for Well Stimulation, RP-42 Second
Edition, January 1977, Reaffirmed February
1990.
358
Aud, W.W., Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C.L., and Harkrider,
J.D.: The Effects of Viscosity on Near-Well Bore
Tortuosity and Premature Screen-outs, paper SPE
28492, 1994.
Bansbach, P.L.: The How and Why of Emulsions, The
Oil & Gas Journal, September, 1970.
Baumgartner, S.A., Parker, C.D., Williams, D.A., and
Woodroof Jr., R.A.: High Efficiency Fluids for
High Temperature Reservoirs, paper SPE 11566,
1983.
Baylocq, P., Fery, J.J., Para, L., and Derbez, E.: Ball
Sealer Diversion When Fracturing Long and
Multiple Triassic Sand Intervals on Alwyn Field,
North Sea, paper SPE 54740, 1999.
Canon, J.M., Romero, D.J., Pham, T.T., Valko, P.P.:
Avoiding Proppant Flowback in Tight-Gas
Completions with Improved Fracture Design,
paper SPE 84310, 2000.
Cipolla, C.L., and Wright, C.A.: State of the Art in
Hydraulic Fracturing Diagnostics, paper SPE
64434-MS, 2000.
Cleary M.P., Johnson, D.E., Kogsbll, H-H., Owens,
K.A., Perry, K.F., de Pater, C.J., Stachel, A., Schmidt,
H. and Tambini, M.: Field Implementation of
Proppant Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out
of Hydraulic Fractures with Adequate Proppant
Concentration, paper SPE 25892, April 1993.
Cleary, M.P.: Discussion of Comparison Study of
Hydraulic Fracturing Models Test Case: GRI
Staged Field Experiment No.3, paper SPE 28158,
SPEPF, p. 17, February 1994.
Craig, D., Odegard, C.E., Pearson, W.C., and Schroeder,
J.E.: Case History: Observations from Diagnostic
Injection Tests in Multiple Pay Sands of the Mamm
Creek Field, Piceance Basin, Colorado, paper SPE
60321, 2000.
Cramer, D.D.: Rewards & Pitfalls of Using Treating
Pressure Analysis for Evaluating Fracture Design,
paper SPE 36772, 1996.
Cramer, D.D.: The Application of Limited-Entry
Techniques in Massive Hydraulic Fracturing
Treatments, paper SPE 16189, 1987.
Cramer, D.D.: Evaluating Well Performance and
Completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically
Fractured Low-Permeability Gas Wells, paper SPE
84214, 2000.

Crump, J., and Conway, M.: Effects of Perforation-
Entry Friction on Bottomhole Treating Analysis,
paper SPE 15474, 1988.
Darin, S.R. and Huitt, J.L.: Effect of a Partial
Monolayer of Propping Agent on Fracture Flow
Capacity. Trans., AIME (1960) 219, 31-37.
Edgeman, J.R., and Walser, D.W.: Comparison of Two
Low-Permeability Horizontal Devonian Projects in
the Permian Basin with Competing Completion
Techniques, paper SPE 84392, 2003.
Ely, J.W.: Stimulation Engineering Handbook, Pennwell
Publishing Co., 1994.
Ely, J.W.: Experience Proves Forced Closure Works,
World Oil, 1996.
Ely, J.W., Arnold, W.T., and Holditch, S.A.: New
Techniques and Quality Control Find Success in
Enhancing Productivity and Minimizing Proppant
Flowback, paper SPE 20708, 1990a.
Ely, J.W., Wolters, B.C., and Holditch, S.A.: Improved
Job Execution and Stimulation Using Intense
Quality Control, 37th Annual Southwestern
Petroleum Shortcourse, Lubbock, TX., 1990b.
Ely, J.W., Brown, T.D. and Reed, S.D: Optimization
of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments in the Williams
Fork Formation of the Mesaverde Group. SPE
29551, 1995
Fritcher, E., Byrd, A., and Stegent, N.: Optimized
Frac Pad and Gel Improve Well Productivity, Oil
& Gas Journal, March 20, 1995.
Gottschling, J., and Myers, R.: Pre-Frac Treatment
Analysis in the Hunterville Chert and Orinkany
Sandstone, paper SPE 91419, 2004.
GRI Stage Field Experiment No.1, Gas Research
Institute, 1988.
GRI Stage Field Experiment No.2, Gas Research
Institute, 1989-90.
GRI Stage Field Experiment No.3, Gas Research
Institute, 1990.
Harris, P.C., Morgan, R.G., and Heath, S.J.:
Measurement of Proppant Transport of Frac
Fluids, paper SPE 95287, 2005.
Hodge, R.M., and Baranet, S.E.: Evaluation of Field
Methods to Determine Crosslink times of Frac
Fluids, paper SPE 16249, 1987.
Holditch, S.A., Robinson, B.M., Whitehead, W.S. and
Ely, J.W.: The GRI Staged Field Experiment,
Chapter 9 Execution of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
paper SPE 16429, SPEFE, p. 519, September
1988.
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing,
SPE Monograph Vol. 2, 1970.
LaGrone, K., and Rasmussen, J.: A New Development
in Completion Methods-The Limited Entry
Technique, JPT, July, 1963, 693-702.
Lonnes, S.B., Nygaard, K.J., Sorem, W.A., Hall, T.J., and
Tolman, R.C.;: Advanced Multizone Stimulation
Technology, paper SPE 95778, 2005.
Lund, Kasper, Folger, H.S., and McCune, C.C.:
Acidization I: The Dissolution of Dolomite in
Hydrochloric Acid, Chemical Engineer Science
(1973) 28, 681-700.
Malochee, S., and Comeaux, B.: Case Study: Analyzing
Bottomhole Temperature Gauge Data in Gulf of
Mexico Frac Packs to Optimize Fracture Fluid
Crosslink, Stability and Break Times, paper SPE
84215, 2003.
Malone, M.R., Nelson, S.G., and Jackson, R.: Enzyme
Breaker Technology Increases Production,
Grayburg-Jackson Field Southeast New Mexico: A
Case History, paper SPE 59709, 2000.
McDaniel, B.W., McMechan, D.E., and Stegent, N.A.:
Propper Use of Proppant Slugs and Viscous Gel
Plugs Can Improve Proppant Placement During
Hydraulic Fracturing Applications, paper SPE
71661, 2001
Moore, E.W., Crowe, C.W., and Hendrickson, A.R.:
Formation, Effect and Prevention of Asphaltene
Sludges During Stimulation Treatments, paper
SPE 1163, 1965
Nolte, K.G.: Application of Fracture Design Based on
Pressure Analysis, paper SPE 13393, SPE Prod.
Eng., 1988.
Nolte, K.G.: Fracturing-Pressure Analysis Nonideal
Behavior, paper SPE 20704, JPT, 1991.
Nolte, K.G., and Smith, M.B.: Interpretation of
Fracturing Pressures, paper SPE 8297, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, 1981.
Northrop, D.A. and Frohne, K-H.: The Multiwell
Experiment A Field Laboratory in Tight-Gas
Sandstone Reservoirs, paper SPE 18286, JPT, p.
772, June 1990.
Penny, G.S., Soliman, M.Y. and Briscoe, J.E.:
Enhanced Load Water-Recovery Technique
359
Modern Fracturing

Improves Stimulation Result, paper SPE 12149,

1983.
Pope, D., Britt, L., Constien, V., Anderson, A., and
Leung, L.: Field Study of Guar Removal from
Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE 31094, 1995.
Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A., and Peterson, R.E.:
The GRIs Second Staged Field Experiment: A
Study of Hydraulic Fracturing, paper SPE 21495,
1991.
Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A., Whitehead, W.S. and
Peterson, R.E.: Hydraulic Fracturing Research in
East Texas: Third GRI Staged Field Experiment,
paper SPE 22878, JPT, p. 78, January 1992.
Rodgerson, J.L., Lopez, E., and Snider, P.: Unique
Multi-stage Process allows Pinpoint Treatment of
Hard-to-Reach Pay, paper SPE 90052, 2004.
Soliman. M.Y., Pongratz, R., Rylance, M., and
Prather, D.: Fracture Treatment Optimization
for Horizontal Well Completions, paper SPE
102616, 2006.
Sherman, J.B., and Holditch, S.A.: Effect of Injected
Fracture Fluids and Operating Procedures on
Ultimate Gas Recovery, paper SPE 21496, 1991.
Thomas, D.C., Becker, H.L., and Del Real Soria, R.A.:
Controlling Asphaltene Deposition in Oil Wells,
paper SPE 25483, 1993.
Warpinski, N.R., Moschovidis, Z.A., Parker, C.D., and
Abou-Sayed, I.S.: Comparison Study of Hydraulic
Fracturing Models Test Case: GRI Staged Field
Experiment No.3, paper SPE 25890, SPEPF, p. 7,
February 1994.
Weijers, L., Griffin, L.G., Sugiyama, H., Shimamoto,
T., Takada, S., Chong, K.K., Terracina, J.M.,
and Wright, C.A.: The First Successful Fracture
Treatment Campaign Conducted in Japan:
Stimulation Challenges in a Deep, Naturally
Fractured Volcanic Rock, paper SPE 77678,
2002.
Williams, B.B, Gidley, J.L., and Schechter, R.S.:
Acidizing Fundamentals, Society of Petroleum
Engineers AIME, 1979.

360
Michael J. Economides is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, and the
managing partner of a petroleum engineering and petroleum strategy consulting firm. His interests include
petroleum production and petroleum management with a particular emphasis on natural gas, natural gas
transportation, LNG, CNG and processing; advances in process design of very complex operations, and
economics and geopolitics. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune. Previously he was the
Samuel R. Noble Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University and served as chief scientist
of the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI). Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M University,
Economides was director of the Institute of Drilling and Production at the Leoben Mining University
in Austria. Before that, he worked in a variety of senior technical and managerial positions with a major
petroleum services company. Publications include authoring or co-authoring 14 professional textbooks and
books, including The Color Of Oil, and more than 200 journal papers and articles. Economides does a wide
range of industrial consulting, including major retainers by national oil companies at the country level and
by Fortune 500 companies. He has had professional activities in over 70 countries.

Steve Baumgartner is the region technical manager for BJ Services Company in Houston, managing an
engineering staff that provides technical support for oil and gas operators in the application of pressure
pumping services, primarily cementing and stimulation. He has held positions around the world in well
stimulation research and development, operations and technical sales throughout his 27-year career with BJ
Services. He has a BS in chemical engineering from Grove City College. Baumgartner is an active member
of the American Association of Drilling Engineers, American Chemical Society, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, American Petroleum Institute, International Association of Drilling Contractors,
Intervention and Coiled Tubing Association and the SPE. He has co-authored SPE technical papers,
industry technical publications and internal technical publications on well stimulation chemistry and well
stimulation treatment design, execution and evaluation. He has prepared and presented numerous well
stimulation seminars, workshops and schools and served on the Well Completions, Production Operations,
Reservoir Monitoring, and the Production Monitoring and Control program committees for the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Baumgartner is also a past chairman of the SPE Gulf Coast
Section Westside Study Group committee.
Chapter 10 laminated reservoirs, horizontal wells may have difficulty
competing with vertical wells and, certainly, they
Fracturing Horizontal Wells would not be attractive compared to fractured vertical
Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and wells (Economides et al., 1994).
Steve Baumgartner, BJ Services Diyashev and Economides (2006) presented
field case studies of more than 1000 wells in Siberia
and concluded that reservoirs whose permeability
10-1 Introduction is more than 10 md are attractive candidates for
undamaged horizontal wells and lower-permeability
Starting in the 1980s and, eventually, widely introduced reservoirs would perform far better with vertical wells
in the early 1990s, horizontal wells have proliferated and with fractures. The problem is that an undamaged
have become essential in oil and gas production. horizontal well is difficult to achieve in the field. They
We have already presented in Chapter 2 (Section 2- did not present fractured horizontal wells.
3.4) the inflow equations for non-fractured horizontal What are the unique issues associated with horizontal
well production. For, example, for steady state: wells for the two main themes of this book? First is
k H h( pe2 pwf2
) the performance of horizontal wells in gas reservoirs.
q= , (2-25) Second is the performance of hydraulically fractured

I ani h I ani h

1424ZT Aa + + Dq
ln horizontal wells and, in particular, transversely fractured
L rw ( I ani + 1)
wells with multiple treatments.
where One of the important problems in non-fractured
a + a 2 ( L / 2) 2 horizontal well performance is the vertical permeability

Aa = ln , of the reservoir. This becomes neutralized when the well
L/2
is hydraulically fractured. Even laminated reservoirs with
where kH is the horizontal permeability, h is the very poor vertical communication produce similarly to
reservoir thickness, and Z are the viscosity and reservoirs with much better vertical permeability if the
gas deviation factor, respectively, T is the reservoir horizontal permeabilities are similar. Thus, fracturing
temperature and Iani is a measurement of vertical-to- is the only way to remedy a situation that would
horizontal permeability anisotropy given by: recommend against the drilling of horizontal wells in
many reservoirs (Villegas et al., 1996).
k
I ani = H .
(2-27) Longitudinally fractured horizontal wells have
kV
been shown to perform very similarly to fractured
In Eq. 2-25, a is the large half-axis of the drainage vertical wells, and they do not warrant any special
ellipsoid formed by a horizontal well of length L. The consideration in this chapter (other than completion
expression for this ellipsoid is: issues, Villegas et al., 1996). This is not to say that
4 0.5
0.5
longitudinal fractures in horizontal wells should be
L
reH

a
= 0.5 + 0.25 + (2-28) dismissed. A long horizontal well drilled into the
2 L / 2
direction of maximum horizontal stress, if fractured,
L will be connected with longitudinal fractures. Done
for < 0.9reH ,
2 in stages, the executed fractures will approximate a
It is already established in many papers and books that hypothetical fracture that would be executed in a
horizontal wells are particularly attractive compared to single vertical well treatment but with a composite
vertical wells in reservoirs with good vertical permeability, length tip-to-tip, equal to the fractured horizontal
such as carbonates, and not as attractive in reservoirs with well length (Villegas et al., 1996).
bad vertical communication such as laminated structures. In horizontal wells, whether the hydraulic fracture
The thicker the formation, the more demanding is longitudinal or transverse depends on the a priori
this requirement becomes. In thick sandstones or knowledge of fracture azimuth and therefore the

363
Modern Fracturing

orientation of maximum and minimum stresses. Thus,
it is the well that must be drilled appropriately to accept
one or the other configuration. If the expected fracture
azimuth is not known with certainty then it should
be presumed that the fracture will not be perfectly
longitudinal and, at least for connectivity, the fracture
should be considered as transverse and all precautions
to avoid tortuosity and multiple fracture initiation
should be taken as described by Abbas et al. (1993) and
Brown and Economides (1992.) In general any well to
fracture misalignment of more than 17 degrees may
result in transverse type configuration (Behrmann and
Nolte, 1998.) The important perforation considerations
for both longitudinal and transverse fracturing are
described in Section 10-5.2
To establish an understanding of the important
reservoir issues for horizontal wells, an exercise is
done with the results shown in Table 10-1 for three
permeability anisotropies and three thicknesses. In
all cases, common characteristics are: kh = 1 md, g =
0.65, L = 2000 ft (horizontal well length), re = 1490
ft, rw = 0.328 ft, pe = 4614 psi and pwf = 1500 psi. It is
clear from this example that for small thicknesses (e.g.,
25 ft.) vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy is
not critical, and horizontal wells are far more attractive
than vertical wells. In a very thick formation (e.g., 300
ft) permeability anisotropy is crucial to the point that a
horizontal well in a highly unfavorable setting such as Iani
= 10 will under-perform a vertical well.
There are two ways to circumvent the problem
of thick reservoirs with poor vertical permeability.
One is to drill stacked multilateral wells, de-facto
partitioning the reservoir vertically. For example,
if three horizontal laterals were to be drilled
in the thick reservoir (i.e., effectively creating
vertical no-flow boundaries and creating three
Of unique interest in this chapter is the fracturing
of horizontal wells transversely with multiple fracture
treatments, properly spaced -- but all options are
subject to production engineering economics. The
selected configuration depends first on the physical
performance and then on the economic optimization,
e.g., maximizing the net present value (NPV). It must
be emphasized here that economic decisions are very
local and dependent on costs, logistics and, especially,
the frequency of operations. Individual costs per
fracturing treatment greatly depend on the number of
treatments over which costs are divided. In fracturing
horizontal wells this is particularly true.
Section 2-5.1 describes the sizing procedure
for hydraulic fractures using the Unified Fracture
Design approach, and Section 2-5.2 shows the
necessary adjustments in the nominal proppant pack
permeability because of turbulence effects. Section
4-5 presents the design procedure using the UFD
approach. Turbulence effects are also addressed in
Section 8-9. One of the clear conclusions is that
for natural gas wells hydraulic fracturing has a
double benefit: stimulation as for oil wells but also,
and very importantly, the reduction of turbulence
effects, which in higher-permeability gas wells
often dominate the production rate. Section 2-5.3
shows the effects of the choke skin, a configuration
effect that adds further flow impediments and an
enhancement to turbulence effects.
Table 10-1 Steady-State Gas Rates from Non-Fractured
Horizontal Wells (where qv = production from fractured
vertical well)
kv = 0.01 kv = 0.1 kv = 1
h = 25 ft qv
(Iani = 10) (Iani = 3.3) (Iani = 1)
Production,
3.4 17.6 22.7 25.0
MMscf/d

drainage zones), the production would be three

times that of the 100 ft-thick structure: 3 29.9
kv = 0.01 kv = 0.1 kv = 1
= 89.7 MMscf/d, a considerable improvement h = 100 ft qv
(Iani = 10) (Iani = 3.3) (Iani = 1)
over the single horizontal well. Production,
13.6 29.9 58.4 84.9
MMscf/d
The second way is to fracture the well longitudinally.
As mentioned earlier, Villegas et al. (1996) have shown
that vertical permeability anisotropy plays little role in kv = 0.01 kv = 0.1 kv = 1
h = 300 ft qv
the production from hydraulically fractured horizontal (Iani = 10) (Iani = 3.3) (Iani = 1)
wells, as long as the fracture is fully penetrating Production,
40.8 31.4 83.5 173.9
MMscf/d
the thick structure vertically.

364
 Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells

However, although fracturing generally reduces The Proppant Number of Eq. 2-32:
turbulence effects in gas wells, fracturing horizontal
wells transversely can actually induce new turbulence 4k f x f w 4k f x f whp
N prop = I x2C fD = =
effects that reduce the benefits of the fracture kxe2 kxe2 hp
stimulation. To further understand these issues the 2k f V p
next section in this chapter performs a series of = , (2-32)
kVr
calculations and examples taking into consideration
the effect of changing the shape and size of must be adjusted first by:
drainage, an important issue when fractures become
4k f whx f x f xe xe
tightly spaced as would be the case in fracturing N prop = = I x2C fD , (10-1)
kxe ye h x f xe ye
horizontal wells transversely.
where xe and ye are the dimensions of the drainage area,
10-2 Production from Transversely parallel and perpendicular to the fracture.
Fractured Gas Horizontal Wells
Table 10-2 Shape factors for equivalent Proppant
Transversely fracturing horizontal wells with multiple Numbers in irregular drainage areas (Daal and
treatments would result in a configuration as Economides, 2006)
shown in Fig. 10-1. Chapter 2 introduced the basic ye/xe CA

characteristics of flow from transverse fractures. Here, 0.1 0.025

a more appropriate focus is given for the effects of 0.2 2.36

0.25 5.38
multiple fractures dividing a given drainage area.
0.3 9
The first important issue is to recognize that multiple
0.4 16.17
fracturing treatments will no longer drain regular
0.5 21.84
drainage areas but quite irregular ones.
0.6 25.8
Tmin Tmax 0.7 28.36
0.8 29.89
0.9 30.66
1 30.88

In the tradition of shape factors, a comparison

of solutions between square and rectangular
rw drainage areas was obtained by Daal and
Economides (2006). This allows for calculating the
w JD of a rectangle in a comparable square drainage
area with the use of an equivalent Proppant
Number. The equivalent Proppant Number for
Figure 10-1 Multiple fractures penetrating a horizontal
Nprop < 0.1 is then defined as:
well transversely

1
if N prop 0.1
0.990 0.5 ln N prop
J D max ( N prop ) = (2-33)
6 0.423 0.311N prop 0.089( N prop ) 2
exp 2

if N prop > 0.1
1 + 0.667 N prop + 0.015( N prop )

365
Modern Fracturing

CA Table 10-3 F-function Constants

N prop ,e = N prop , (10-2)
30.88 ye/xe= 1 0.7 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.1

a 17.2 17.4 21.4 38.3 35 30.6

where CA is the Dietz shape factor (as given in Table 10-
b 54.4 55.5 54.3 46 59 89.6
2). The calculated Nprop,e can then be used to determine
c 52.5 53.3 56.3 71.1 70 70.2
the expected maximum dimensionless productivity index
d 16.9 16.9 16.9 15.84 16.3 17.8
from (see Eq. 2-33 at the bottom of the page).
The optimum CfD for Nprop < 0.1 is equal to 1.6.
For Proppant Numbers larger than 0.1, Table 10-4 F-function Prime Constants
Daal and Economides (2006) presented a semi- For All Shapes
analytical correlation: a 10
b 36
100 yeD C fD ,0.1
C fD,opt = ( N p 0.1) + C fD ,0.1 , (10-3) c 33
100

where 10-2.1 A Calculation for Transversely

ye Fractured Gas Horizontal Wells
yeD = , (10-4)
xe
To demonstrate the potential (and the pitfalls) of
and CfD,0.1 is the optimum dimensionless conductivity fracturing horizontal wells, a calculation is done,
at Nprop = 0.1 given by: using the concepts introduced in Chapter 2 and in
this chapter. Marongiu-Porcu (2007) performed a
1.6 If 1 yeD > 0.25 similar study on the subject.

C fD ,0.1 = (10-5) First, Tables 10-5 and 10-6 summarize

4.5yeD + 0.25 If 0.1 yeD 0.25. the important input variables for this
analysis. In Table 10-6 the reasonable variation of
Equation 2-33 is not applicable when the reservoir Youngs modulus with permeability is important as
aspect ratio changes from xe = ye to xe > ye, and a new will be demonstrated with the results.
function describing the optimum values has been The first calculations for comparison purposes with
introduced. Because JD,max depends on the CfD,opt, then the subsequent results are shown in Fig. 10-2. These are
(Daal and Economides, 2006): the folds of increase between fractured and non-fractured
vertical wells. Included in Fig. 10-2, in addition to the
1
J D ,max = , (10-6) gas well, are the folds of increase for an oil well. As is
0.63 0.5 ln( N p ) + Fopt
well known, as reservoir permeability increases, the
where folds of production increase over a non-fractured well
9.33 y 2 3. y .7 will decline. For example at 0.1 md permeability, the
eD eD
folds of increase may be over 10, whereas at 100 md, the
10 yeD
folds of increase may be closer to 2. (Note: This should
Fopt =
not confuse the issue of the desirability of fracturing.
a + buopt + cuopt2
+ duopt 3

2
If N p 0.1, (10-7) At a very high reservoir permeability, doubling the
a '+ b ' uopt + c ' uopt production would make practically any fracturing
and treatment very economically attractive.)
However, the most important point in Fig. 10-2 is
uopt = ln(C fD ,opt ), (10-8) the shape of the curve of the folds of increase for the gas
reservoirs. At low permeabilities, the gas trends are similar
and the constants for the F-function for Nprop 0.1 are to those in oil: Folds decline as permeability increases). But
presented in Tables 10-3 and 10-4. as permeability increases, the trends diverge: A fractured

366
 Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells

gas well performs far better than a non-fractured high- Table 10-5 Common Input Data
permeability well because of the considerable reduction in for Calculation Case Studies
turbulence effects that adversely affect well performance INPUT DATA

and dominate radial flow. The obvious conclusions are Mass of Proppant, lbs 200,000

twofold. First, although fracturing is very attractive in oil Specific Gravity of Proppant 2.65

wells, its attractiveness may decline somewhat in higher Porosity of Proppant Pack 0.38
Proppant Pack Permeability, md 150,000
permeabilities (with non-fractured horizontal wells
Reservoir Thickness, ft 50
becoming a reasonable option). Second, in gas wells,
Fracture Height, ft 100
fracturing becomes imperative at any permeability. This
Drainage Area, acres 320
is a central theme of this book.
Well Radius, ft 0.4
16
14 GAS WELL ADDITIONAL INPUT DATA
FOI of JD (Frac/No-Frac)

12 Vertical Gas Well Reservoir Pressure, psi 4,000

10 Vertical Oil Well Bottom-Hole Flowing Pressure, psi 1,500
8 Reservoir Temperature, F 120
6 Gas Viscosity, cp 0.015
4 Gas Deviation Factor, Z 0.910
2
Gas Specific Gravity, g 0.71
0
0 0.1 1 10 100 Cookes Constant, a 1.54
Reservoir Permeability k, md Cookes Constant, b 110,470

Figure 10-2 Example calculation: folds of increase

JOB PLACEMENT INPUT DATA
between fractured and unfractured vertical wells. Fracture
width is as wide as determined from the optimum values Injection Rate, bpm 30
of JD and CfD (kp = 150,000 md) Rheology K, lbf/ft2. secn 0.018
Rheology n 0.45
There is a practical problem with the theoretical Youngs Modulus, psi 2 x 106 - 6 x 105
results of Fig. 10-2. Using the UFD design approach, Poisson Ratio 0.38
the fractures are allowed to become as wide as Leakoff Coefficient, ft/min0.5 0.004
dictated by the physical optimization. For natural gas,
following the procedure outlined in Section 2-5.2, as
Table 10-6 Permeability and Youngs Modulus Variation
the effective permeability of the proppant decreases
k, md E, psi
with increasing rate, the width of the fracture must
0.05 2 x 106
grow to highly unrealistic values.
0.1 2 x 106

16 1 2 x 106
Vertical Oil Well ADJUSTED
14 5 1 x 106
FOI of JD (Frac/No-Frac)

Vertical Oil Well not adusted

12 Vertical Oil Gas ADJUSTED 10 1 x 106
10 Vertical Oil Gas not adusted
30 7 x 105
8
50 7 x 105
6
4 100 6 x 105
2
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
If a maximum net-pressure constraint is imposed
Reservoir Permeability
(e.g., 1000 psi) then the results of Fig. 10-3 are obtained,
Figure 10-3 Example calculating folds of increase, net showing that in high-permeability gas reservoirs the
pressure constraint. Fracture width is now constrained
potential folds of increase will be significantly reduced.
in order to fulfill the condition of net pressure less than
1,000 psi (kp = 150,000 md) How can this be remedied?

367
Modern Fracturing

Looking at Eq. 2-35 it is clear that the indicated
width of a fracture can be reduced significantly if the
proppant pack permeability is increased:
0.5
0.5 be concluded from Eq. 2-39 that by increasing
k f Vf
x fopt = and wopt =
C fD ,opt kh
This can be done with the use of high-quality
proppants. The reduced width also reduces the net
pressure, so much larger treatments can be executed.
Fig. 10-4 shows the shift in folds of increase
possible by using a much better quality proppant
with pack permeability of 500,000 md. It must be
emphasized again that for gas wells, the effective
permeability will be significantly lower because of
the turbulence effects inside the fracture (Section
2-5.2.) See also Chapter 8.
16
14
FOI of JD (Frac/No-Frac)
C fD ,opt kV f
(2-35)
k f h
Vertical Oil Well ADJUSTED
Vertical Oil Well not adusted
Vertical Oil Gas ADJUSTED
The choke effects will be a lot less pronounced
in lower-permeability reservoirs and much more
severe in high-permeability cases. Clearly, it can
the proppant-pack permeability and fracture
width, the choke effects will be reduced.
For gas wells the problem will be exacerbated
because of enhanced turbulence effects. So, it should
be expected that the gains from fracturing, presented
earlier for vertical wells, especially for high-permeability
reservoirs, will be diminished considerably in
fracturing horizontal wells transversely.
For gas wells, the converging flow velocity inside the
fracture would be the volumetric flow rate divided by the
cross-sectional area of flow, 2rww:
q
v=
(10-9)
2rw w
Eq. 10-9 provides for much larger velocity than would

12
Vertical Oil Gas not adusted be the case for flow in a vertical well fully connected
10 to a fracture, where the cross-sectional area of flow
8 would be 2whf (two wings). So, although the procedure
6 in Section 2-5.2 is repeated, now the turbulence effect
4 adjustment will be far more severe.
2 The second adjustment in the performance of
0 these fractures is the effect of boundaries by spacing
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
them near each other. This can be handled by following
Reservoir Permeability k, md
the procedure outlined in this chapter. In general, for
Figure 10-4 Example calculation with high-quality low-permeability reservoirs, huge increases in the
proppant. Fracture width is now constrained in order to
productivity index will be observed compared with
fulfill the condition of net pressure less than 1,000 psi (kp
= 150,000 md) vertical well fractures. This is because the boundaries
are brought closer by partitioning an original drainage
How would the production enhancement from area, enhancing the effects of drainage. (Note: this
fracturing horizontal wells transversely behave? How means that recovery will be accelerated with very
would it compare with vertical well fracturing? large early-time production rates but declining a lot
First, for each individual fracture the productivity more rapidly compared to vertical wells.)
index will be reduced as suggested by Eqs. 2-39 and 2- Fig. 10-5 shows the performance of transversely
40, providing for the choke skin effect from converging fractured horizontal oil wells for comparison to the gas
radial flow inside the fracture: case, presented below. The results for oil show that at low
reservoir permeabilities (e.g., 0.1 md), where the choke
kh h
sc = ln . (2-39) effects would be minimized, 10 transverse fractures,
k f w 2rw 2
tightly spaced, would deliver a composite JD equivalent
and to more than 25 fractured vertical wells. For very large
reservoir permeabilities (e.g., 100 md), 10 transverse
1
J DTH = (2-40) fractures would still result in the very attractive composite
1
equivalent of more than 5 vertical well fractures. These
J + sc

DV

368
 Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells

results would be improved further if better-quality a net pressure constraint. Although for low reservoir
proppants are used because that would further reduce the permeabilities the results may be tolerable, they are
choke effects (see Chapter 8). totally unacceptable in higher peremabilities. Even at
The situation changes dramatically for gas wells. 1 md, five transverse fractures would lead to folds of
Turbulence begins to play a dominant role even at increase of slightly 1.5 times larger than that of a single
small permeabilities and becomes devastating at high vertical well fracture. Using better-quality proppants will
permeabilities. Thus, the enormous benefits from increase this value somewhat but not enough to make it
fracturing vertical wells, compared to non-fractured attractive, considering that vertical wells fractured with
wells, now become reversed. higher-quality proppants will also perform a lot better.
Clearly the attractiveness of fracturing horizontal
wells transversely in gas reservoirs would be
JD Multi-Frac / JD Fracced Vertical Well

27
sandwiched between the physical limit imposed by
24 1 Fracture
21 2 Fracture enhanced turbulence effects (likely for any well above
4 Fracture
18
5 Fracture
1 md) and by economic considerations for the lower
15
12
10 Fracture end of permeability values. Economic calculations are
9 in order but it is apparent that fracturing horizontal
6
3
wells transversely in gas reservoirs even in areas with
0.1 very low drilling and stimulation costs such as North
0.1 1 10 100
America would be difficult to justify in reservoirs of
Reservoir Permeability k, md
moderate or high permeabilities (e.g., k > 1 md). For
Figure 10-5 Transversely fractured horizontal oil well: lower permeabilities the procedure can be attractive,
folds of increase over fractured vertical wells. Theorectical but incremental drilling and stimulation costs must
cases, fracture width is a s wide as determined from the be reduced dramatically and become commoditized.
optimum values of JD and CfD (kp = 150,000 md)
Otherwise fracturing vertical wells is indicated.
JD Multi-Frac / JD Fracced Vertical Well

5 10-3 Open-Hole
4 Horizontal Well Completions
1 Fracture
3
Open-hole completions are utilized in competent,
2
2 Fractures stable formations. Because horizontal wells often span
3 Fractures
considerable lengths, rock mechanical properties of
1 4 Fractures
5 Fractures
the reservoir must be fully understood for efficient and
0 effective open-hole completions. The primary collapsing
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
stress in a horizontal well is the vertical overburden
Reservoir Permeability k, md
Solid Lines=Adjusted Dashed Lines=Unadjusted
component. Horizontal stresses reduce the potential
risk of vertical collapse. Wellbore instability problems are
Figure 10-6 Transversely fractured horizontal gas well:
folds of increase over fractured vertical wells
not normally encountered in low-permeability reservoirs
because the rocks are generally quite competent and
consolidated; these reservoirs are candidates for open-
Fig. 10-6 shows the resulting folds of composite hole completions (McDaniel et al., 2002).
JD, (i.e., the sum of the individual values) for multiple So, open-hole or barefoot completions are effective
fractures in horizontal wells in comparison to fractured in formations with low risk of wellbore collapse or sand
vertical wells. The dashed curves are for the cases where production, for example in dolomites, hard sandstones
the fracture width is allowed to increase to its theoretical or limestones and shale-free siltstones. An open-hole
value without regard to execution considerations such as completion involves running casing to the producing
net pressure. The solid curves represent the results with horizontal interval and leaving the end of the casing

369
Modern Fracturing
open. Barefoot completions are generally applied only
in formations with unconfined compressive strength
larger than 10,000 psi (Erwin and Ogbe, 2005).
For such completions it should be expected that for
long-term performance as the reservoir depletes, the
wellbore must remain open and solids-free. Fig. 10-7
shows an open-hole completion.
Figure 10-7 Open-hole completion
Figure 10-8 Open-hole completion with pre-perforated or
slotted liner
For less stable formations, an open-hole completion
with a slotted liner run into the horizontal section
helps prevent formation collapse near the wellbore,
especially as the reservoir pressure depletes during
production. A disadvantage of the slotted liner
completion is the difficulty to effectively isolate and
stimulate zones or sections in the wellbore (Navarro,
1996), as illustrated in Fig. 10-8.
An open-hole completion with perforated pipe
provides the most wellbore stability. Limited-entry
design is required to design the number and size of
perforations to effectively initiate and place multiple
hydraulic fractures in a single treatment (Austin et al.,
1988), as illustrated in Fig. 10-9.
370
1000 to 5000 ft interval
Figure 10-9 Open-hole completion with perforated pipe
10-3.1 Perforating
Although it took some time in the early days of
horizontal wells to accept the practice, the creation
of perforations with a jetting tool results in very
effective flow paths from the open hole into the
formation. The entire concept of creating perforations
in an open hole was at first difficult to accept
but it became a relatively common and effective
practice. The perforations essentially bypass the
damaged zone around the wellbore. A small jetting
tool is placed on the end of tubing or coiled tubing
and it is used to create small cavities or tunnels in
the formation. After each cavity is created, additional
fluid is pumped through the annulus to increase the
pressure in the cavity and initiate a small hydraulic
fracture. Jetted perforation tunnels have less damage
than conventional shape-charge perforations. Jetted
perforations have small near-wellbore pressure
loss and tend to initiate simple hydraulic fractures
(McDaniel and Willet, 2002). Perforations can
be located almost anywhere in the open-hole
horizontal completion for effective stimulation
and optimum well performance.
10-3.2 Zonal Isolation
Another issue that took some time to be recognized
is that horizontal wells frequently need zonal
isolation because, in spite of the old conventional
wisdom, reservoirs are not necessarily homogeneous
along the horizontal well path. Zonal isolation in
open hole completions, although at times difficult,
can be achieved with the installation of formation

packers at strategic locations along the slotted liner
or perforated pipe in the wellbore, as illustrated in
Fig. 10-10. Horizontal well completion testing with
formation packers often shows that they do not
private complete isolation and they do not prevent
flow in the annulus formed between the pipe and
the reservoir. Formation packers should be utilized
for zonal isolation or reservoir segmentation. The
formation packer needs to be energized to the
anticipated differential pressure or constructed to
maintain the ability to seal as it is energized by the
differential pressure (Henriksen et al., 2005).
Inflatable packer
Figure 10-10 Open-hole completion with external casing
packers (Austin et al., 1988)
Zonal isolation in open-hole completions can
also be achieved with a series of mechanical open-
hole packers deployed on a production liner with
fracturing ports located between the packers to permit
stimulation of each interval discretely. The liner does
not need to be cemented in place and eliminates the
requirement to perforate, fracture, isolate, perforate,
etc. in a cemented horizontal wellbore. The liner
located in the open-hole section allows access to the
entire horizontal wellbore rather than encountering
problems associated with a barefoot completion. The
mechanical packers provide mechanical diversion
and isolation at high differential pressures. All of the
Stage 12
Stage 11
Stage 10
Stage 9
Stage 8
Figure 10-11 Open-hole completion with mechanical diversion (from Seale et al., 2006)
Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells
stimulation treatments along the horizontal wellbore
can be pumped in a single continuous operation,
which minimizes associated risks and allows optimum
efficiency for personnel and equipment (Seale et
al., 2006a). See Fig. 10-11. For such completions
to work, the rock must be competent and wellbore
ovality must be minimal.
10-4 Open-Hole Fracturing
Transverse fractures will be initiated and created
when the horizontal wellbore is oriented
perpendicular to the fracture plane (within 15-
degree tolerance). Longitudinal fractures will be
initiated and created when the horizontal wellbore
is oriented parallel to the fracture plane (within
less than 15 degrees) (McDaniel and Willet, 2002).
Transverse hydraulic fractures offer the greatest
potential to contact and drain a large section of the
reservoir. Longitudinal hydraulic fractures may allow
the pumping of higher proppant concentrations
with a lower risk of screenout.
Figure 10-12 shows properly spaced transverse
hydraulic fractures; Fig. 10-13 shows improperly
spaced transverse fractures. Similarly, Fig. 10-14 shows
appropriately placed longitudinal fractures, and Fig.
10-15 shows haphazardly fractured horizontal well in
the longitudinal direction.
Figure 10-12 Ideal transverse hydraulic fractures
Stage 7
Stage 6
Stage 5
Stage 4
Stage 3
Stage 2
Stage 1
371
Modern Fracturing
Figure 10-13 Non-ideal transverse hydraulic fractures
Figure 10-14 Ideal longitudinal hydraulic fractures
Figure 10-15 Non-ideal longitudinal hydraulic fractures
10-4.1 Acid Fracturing Execution
Carbonate reservoirs are often acid-fractured (see
Sections 4-7.8 and 9-3). The fracture geometry created
by acid fracturing depends on the acid volume and
the injection rate. But live acid must be transported
as far away from the wellbore as possible to dissolve
and etch the carbonate in order to create conductive
fractures. Pumping (bullheading) acid into an open-
hole horizontal well will likely stimulate only the heel
portion of the well. An alternate method to improve
stimulation effectiveness is to run tubing from the
surface to the end of the lateral. Acid is pumped
at maximum rates and pressures down the annulus
with one set of fracturing equipment and down the
tubing with a second set of fracturing equipment.
372
Post-treatment temperature and tracer logs indicate
that the heel and toe of the lateral are stimulated
with minimal or no stimulation in the middle
section of the well. Additional attempts to increase
acid coverage in the open-hole horizontal wellbore
may involve the use of an uncemented tubing string
with limited-entry perforated sections. After the
treatment the tubing string is pulled from the lateral
and the well is produced as an open-hole completion.
Acid coverage throughout the lateral section is thus
improved (Willett et al., 2002)
10-4.2 Proppant Fracturing Execution
Obviously, one of the important considerations
is to place fracturing treatments appropriately
spaced and positioned along a horizontal well.
One method for selectively placing propped
hydraulic fractures is to use coiled tubing to
create perforations in the wellbore and initiate the
fracture by pumping fluid through a jetting tool.
Conventional coiled tubing strings (1.5 to 2 in. OD)
are used for the perforating process, but they are
pumping-rate-limited for many hydraulic fracturing
applications. The hydraulic fracture treatment is
therefore pumped down the coiled tubing/casing
annulus to eliminate pump rate and treatment
size restrictions. Packers or bridge plugs are
not required to provide zonal isolation.
The creation of the perforation tunnels takes
about 5 to 15 minutes depending on the perforation
design criteria. After the perforation tunnels are
created, the annulus is closed and pressure is allowed
to build up to initiate a fracture through the jetting
tool. Once the fracture is initiated the fracture
treatment is pumped down the coiled tubing/casing
annulus. At the end of the treatment, a screenout can
be induced or a high-concentration proppant plug
placed to provide isolation for the next treatment.
A common method is to underflush the treatment
and leave the perforation tunnel and wellbore full
with a high concentration of proppant.
The only limitation on this technique is that
the casing above the treatments cannot have any
perforations or mechanical integrity problems.
East et al. (2005) have developed a technique that

uses jetting first at the desired point, etching the
formation, and thus facilitating the execution of
each fracture without the problems and tortuosity of
normal fracture initiation. With appropriate zonal
isolation a large number of transverse fractures can be
placed in open-hole horizontal wells.
Another method for selective placement of
propped hydraulic fractures is the use of a mechanical
open-hole packer system. The system can withstand
the high differential pressures associated with
hydraulic fracturing and contains fracturing ports
between the packers. The packer is designed to sustain
differential pressures of 10,000 psi and temperatures
of 425 oF, and to set in holes enlarged up to 50
percent for their nominal size. The fracturing ports
are designed to provide a greater inflow area than the
cross-section of the liner, avoiding a pressure drop
through the completion. A series of packers and
fracturing ports are run in the open hole on a liner
and set. The fracturing ports are opened with a ball
dropped from the surface and pumped down in the
flush fluid of the previous treatment. The ball lands
in a specific seat to open the next fracturing port and
provide isolation of previous treatments. Depending
on the open-hole diameter and liner size, up to 18
treatments can be pumped in a single horizontal
wellbore. The fracture treatments can be pumped in
succession. After all the zones are stimulated, coiled
tubing is used to drill out the balls and fracturing
port ball seats (Seale et al., 2006b).
A case history illustrates the efficiencies of the
mechanical open-hole packer system. Four offset wells
were drilled and completed with approximately the
same horizontal length. Two wells completed with a
cemented liner, perforated, stimulated and fixed with
drillable bridge plugs for zonal isolation averaged 14
days to pump five stages. Two wells completed with
the mechanical open-hole packer system averaged
13 hours to pump six stages. A total of 13 days were
saved in well completion time, with no additional
cost for coiled tubing or wellbore interventions to
perforate or set and then drill out plugs. In addition
to the time and cost savings for the completions,
the wells completed with the open-hole mechanical
packer system had higher initial production than the
cemented-liner wells (Seale et al., 2006b).
Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells
10-4.3 Cleanup
The first step after proppant fracture stimulation of an
open-hole horizontal well is to clean out all the proppant
left in the wellbore with coiled tubing and nitrogen, as
the fluid velocities generated by natural flowback will not
be sufficient to entrain and carry any proppant left in
the wellbore. After the proppant is cleaned out, the well
should flow back the fracturing fluid. If the well will not
flow enough to unload the broken fracturing fluid, then
nitrogen can be used to artificially lift the well as long
as required. Cleaning the fracture after each perforated
interval is stimulated is important; leaving fracturing
fluid in the proppant pack may have a detrimental effect
on well production (Demarchos et al., 2006). This issue
is covered extensively in Chapters 4 and 9. However, it is
common practice to stimulate all intervals before flowing
back. Therefore, it is important to be able to complete
fracturing operations in as short a time as possible.
10-5 Cased-Hole Completions
10-5.1 Cementing Horizontal Wells
Cementing a well is a reliable method for controlling
fracture placement in horizontal wells. Conventional
cement slurry formulations can have a negative
impact on a completion. Such slurry systems have a
low solubility in acid, which can cause difficulty in
perforation breakdown, inhibit fracture initiation
and cause excessive near-wellbore friction effects
during stimulation and production.
Compared with an open-hole completion, a
horizontal well cased and cemented through the
horizontal producing section of the well is generally
more desirable and less prone to failures for effective
hydraulic fracturing. Of course, such a completion is
more expensive, and it poses certain challenges on its
own. A cased and cemented horizontal section allows
fracture initiation points to be controlled in order to
place multiple hydraulic fractures (Austin et al., 1988).
The use of designated fracture initiation points along
the horizontal section allows the appropriate spacing of
either acid or proppant fracturing treatments. Figure
10-16 shows a cemented liner completion; Fig. 10-17
shows a cemented casing completion.
373
Modern Fracturing
Figure 10-16 Cemented liner completion
Figure 10-17 Cemented casing completion
An acid-soluble cement system may be used to
cement the liner or casing. Such system rapidly dissolves
when contacted by acid. The enlarged annular space
created allows acid to contact the formation adjacent
to the perforations with minimal loss of energy and
effective zonal isolation of each perforated interval.
The acid-soluble cement system can be formulated
to achieve the proper density, fluid loss control,
compressive strength and free-water requirements for
horizontal cementing. Gas migration can be controlled
with unique cement additives or by foaming the acid-
soluble cement (Willett et al., 2002).
Acid-soluble cement slurry densities can range
from 13 to 15.8 lb/gal and can be formulated
at lower densities with foam or extenders. The
removal of the acid-soluble cement adjacent to the
perforations creates an enlarged area in the annulus
while providing zonal isolation along the wellbore.
The dissolved acid-soluble cement around the
casing at the perforations minimizes tortuosity
and fracture entry pressure effects. Skin effects,
reduced near-wellbore conductivity and perforation
problems encountered with conventional
cements are eliminated.
Cement slurries are usually batch mixed and the
densities are measured with pressurized mud scales
before pumping. The slurry follows a weighted spacer
374
which aids mud displacement and hole cleaning.
Slurry volumes are calculated to circulate cement to
the top of the liner plus 200 feet. After the cement
is displaced and the liner wiper plug lands, the liner
hanger packer is set and excess cement is circulated
out of the wellbore (see Section 5-2).
10-5.2 Perforating Cemented Completions
Perforating for hydraulic fracturing is different
from perforating for production, and perforating for
hydraulic fracturing in horizontal wells varies from the
perforating of vertical well for fracturing (see Chapter
6). Gun size, perforation phasing, shot density, charge
type (entry hole and penetration), perforated interval
length, pressure conditions and fracture-to-wellbore
orientation are things to consider.
The perforated interval length can affect
the success of hydraulic fracturing in transverse
and longitudinal laterals.
Although for production considerations
there are distinct applications for longitudinal
vs. transverse configurations (see Section 10-7),
a perforated interval that is too long may lead to
the initiation and growth of multiple fractures
near the wellbore. Multiple fractures can increase
bottomhole treating pressures and near-wellbore
friction effects and will decrease fracture width
and fluid efficiency. Limiting the perforated
interval length for both longitudinal and transverse
configurations is always advisable.
For longitudinal fracturing, re-perforating the
well after the fracture treatment is advisable. For
transverse fracturing, a limited set of perforations
extending up to four times the wellbore diameter or
less (usually 1 to 3 ft) reduces or eliminates multiple
near-wellbore fractures and especially the tortuosity
associated with longitudinal fracture initiation
followed by transverse propagation.
For longitudinal fracturing, oriented perforating
guns with 180-degree phasing, creating perforations
that point up and down, are indicated. In certain cases,
0-degree phasing is very desirable. To avoid penetrating
into a water zone, a well drilled in the bottom of the
reservoir can be perforated with 0 degree phasing,
with the perforations pointed up. This forces the

fracture to migrate upward, reducing the flow of water
from the bottom. Abass et al. (1993) even suggested
drilling horizontal wells in competent but non-
producing formations, overlaying or underlying weak
but producing formations, and then perforating and
fracturing, thus producing through the fracture with
the well never entering the formation.
If phased perforations are executed, deep-
penetrating perforations are not required because the
fracture initiation point is at the cement/formation
interface and not along the perforation tunnel.
Perforation phasing affects hydraulic fracturing. If the
perforations are within 30 degrees of the preferred
fracture direction, near-wellbore tortuosity can be
minimized. Perforation phasing of 60 degrees or less is
preferred (Brown and Economides, 1992).
For horizontal well perforating, a typical procedure
would involve first a liner cleanout trip where the
liner, casing and tubing are pickled with a solvent and
hydrochloric acid. Acetic acid is then spotted in the
lateral, and tubing-conveyed perforating guns are picked
up and run in the well. Pumping equipment activates
the pressure-actuated tubing-conveyed perforating guns.
More acetic acid is then pumped into the formation and
breaks down each perforation interval.
Traditional explosive charge guns require 3 to 5
ft to place the number of perforations for the fracture
treatment. This length of perforated interval may
contribute to tortuosity or multiple fracture initiations.
Tortuosity may require extra fracturing pressure that may
not be available due to pressure limitations of the casing
or liner, and the fracture may not initiate. In addition, a
tortuous path near the wellbore may detrimentally affect
production. This is explained in Chapter 6.
Single-trip, multiple-zone, tubing-conveyed
perforating can be used to achieve high-quality
perforations. For example, in a lateral 3,600 ft long, up
to 12 zones can be shot on a single trip. Point-source
cluster perforating is designed to achieve a limited-entry
fluid distribution for an equal volume of treatment
fluid in each perforated zone. Fewer perforations are
shot in the clusters near the heel of the lateral (highest
perforation pressure drop) and more perforations
are added to the clusters approaching the toe (lowest
perforation pressure drop). The primary application is
acid fracturing (Willett et al., 2002).
Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells
Multiple-trip, multiple-zone, tubing-conveyed
perforating may be used in a perforate/stimulate/
isolate operation. The first zone is perforated with
tubing-conveyed guns with tractor and stimulated. A
bridge plug is run and set with tractor. The second
zone is perforated and the process is repeated until all
the zones in the lateral are stimulated. The fracturing
operation may be conducted continuously until
complete or scheduled for one or two zones per day
due to operator or wellsite restrictions.
External casing perforating may also be
used in horizontal wells. The perforating and zonal
isolation systems are attached to the outside of the casing
(see Section 9-7.5). The external casing perforating
system is cemented in place with conventional
cementing techniques. The perforating modules are
selectively fired to perforate and allow the zone to be
stimulated (Rodgerson et al., 2005). See Fig. 10-18. One
disadvantage of the system is a limit of cased wellbore
diameter, as the external casing perforating gun system
maximum casing diameter is 3.5 inches.
As with open-hole completions, creating
perforations in cemented completions with an abrasive
jetting tool leads to large, clean holes within a very
short interval. An abrasive jetting tool can be used to
create six deep, penetrating holes on top of the liner or
casing and six deep holes on the bottom in less than one
foot. Another tool allows the creation of a radial slot in
the casing, which might appear to be an ideal option
if not for the potential danger of cutting the casing
entirely and shifting it. Both tools perform well in field
applications; the important issue is minimizing the
open interval. This prevents the formation of a tortuous
path of longitudinally initiated fracture, turning into
transverse (Demarchos et al., 2006).
Coiled tubing provides a method to deploy
a bottomhole jetting assembly. The bottom hole
assembly is moved to the first zone to be stimulated.
Pumping down the coiled tubing string, as outlined
in Section 10-3.1 creates the perforations.
10-5.3 Zonal Isolation in Cased Completions
To isolate a zone for treatment, drillable composite bridge
plugs are conveyed with coiled tubing and set electrically
or hydraulically. A hydraulically set bridge plug is the
375
Modern Fracturing
faster method. As soon as pumping stops and the well is
under control, coiled tubing can be rigged up to run the
bridge plug to depth and set it. The advantage of setting
the bridge plug electrically is that the use of electric line
coiled tubing allows a plug to be set on depth with a collar
locator for more accuracy. (Demarchos et al., 2006).
In the external casing perforating system, flapper
valves provide zonal isolation. The flapper valves are
protected from stimulation fluids during fracturing
operations by a sliding sleeve. At the end of the first
treatment, the second perforation module is fired and
the process allows the sliding sleeve to open and a
ceramic flapper valve closes to isolate the first zone.
The second zone can be immediately fractured. The
process of perforating, isolating and fracturing each
zone individually can continue with less than 15
minutes between treatments until all the zones are
stimulated (Rodgerson et al., 2005).
Another method of isolation is used in
some applications where coiled tubing deploys
a jetting tool to cut perforations. In these cases,
the fracture treatment is pumped down the casing/
coiled tubing annulus. A final proppant stage
of non-crosslinked fluid with high proppant
concentration is pumped to induce a near-wellbore
proppant pack that acts as a diversion for the next
treatment (see Section 13-1.4).
Limited entry fracturing uses perforation friction
pressure to control the stimulation fluid distribution into
each perforated interval (see Section 9-7.3). Limited entry
fracturing has been successfully used in vertical wells. In
horizontal wells, limited entry fracturing incorporates
fluid friction pressure loss along the long lateral, little or
no change in hydrostatic pressure and perforation erosion
effects caused by proppant laden fluid. Pipe friction
pressure in long horizontal wells may limit the maximum
pumping rate. Perforation erosion effects, which may
only have a minor effect on fluid distribution in vertical
wells, may significantly affect the fluid distribution in a
horizontal stimulation treatment.
Figure 10-18 External casing perforating (from Rodgerson et al., 2005)
376
The pressure differential across the perforations
is highest in the heel section and decreases to the
lowest in the toe section. The heel sections are the
first to encounter the proppant laden fluid and the
erosion effects will enlarge the perforations in the heel
sections more rapidly than the toe sections. More
treatment fluid will be placed in the heel section and
less in the toe section. Allowances can be made for the
erosion effects by reducing the number of perforations
in the heel section and/or increasing the number of
perforations in the toe section.
10-6 Fracturing of Cased-Hole
Completions
10-6.1 Acid Fracture Execution
As in open-hole fracturing, live acid must be
transported as far away from the wellbore as possible
to dissolve and etch the carbonate in order to create
conductive fractures. But in cased holes, such
treatments are a lot easier to accomplish than in open
holes. The perforating methods discussed in Section
10-3.1 and the zonal isolation techniques discussed in
Section 10-3.2 can be applied to stimulate multiple
zones in a cased-hole horizontal completion.
In addition, diversion techniques can be far
more easily applied to acid fracturing, than to
proppant fracturing (see Section 4-7.8.3). Therefore,
it is feasible to pump an acid fracture treatment
into a wellbore containing several open perforated
intervals. Effectively applied diversion practices,
generally consisting of a combination of ball
sealers and viscosity-contrast techniques, allow the
fracturing fluid to be efficiently diverted away from
the weakest interval to the next weakest interval.
If several diversion stages are employed alternately
with several acid fracture stages, it is possible to
place acid fracture treatments effectively over
several perforated intervals.
 Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells

10-6.2 Proppant Fracturing Execution
One method for selective placement of propped hydraulic
fractures is to perforate, stimulate and isolate a zone, clean
up the zone and perform a well test. The length of time
required to perform this method in a multi-fractured
horizontal well may not be economical.
An alternate method is to minimize the total
completion time by performing the perforate,
stimulate and isolate cycle as quickly as possible.
Perforating and zonal isolation methods outlined in
Sections 10-5.2 and 10-5.3 are applicable. Cleanup of
all the stimulated zones is performed at the same time
after all zones are stimulated.
A case history describes successful stimulation of a
tight gas sand formation. A 2500 ft horizontal lateral
was drilled and an external casing perforating with zonal
isolation system cemented in place. The total vertical
depth of the well was 10,600 ft and the measured depth
ranged from 1,500 to 4,000 ft. The bottomhole static
temperature was 145 oF. Table 10-7 contains a summary
of these fracture treatments.
Five days were required to stimulate three
zones completed with the perforate, stimulate
and isolate system. The external casing perforating system
allowed from six to 13 zones to be completed in one
day of continuous operation. Treatment design called
for placing 200 lbs of proppant and pumping 1000 gal
of fluid per foot of lateral length. In Well A, individual
chemical tracers were run in each frac stage. Figure 10-
19 shows that after six to eight hours of flowback, each
of the six fractured zones was flowing. The initial and
long-term production from both completion methods
was comparable (Rodgerson et al., 2005).
1200
Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 5
1000
Stage 2 Stage 4 Stage 6

was 13,200 ft. The bottomhole static temperature was

Tracer Concentration, ppb

800
280 oF. Each proppant fracture stage was initiated with
a 3 ft perforation module. A total of eight stages were 600

completed in 9 hours. The average pump rate for each

treatment was 40 bbl/min with an average surface 400

treating pressure of 8000 psi, and a total of 1.3 million

200
lbs of proppant placed. Fracture gradients measured in
the eight stages ranged from 0.95 to 0.97 psi/ft. Eight 0
hours after completion, the well was flowing gas to
0.58

1.25

2.42

4.52

8.50

15.50

29.50

45.50

73.50

136.50

196.50

311.50

436.50

502.50
sales and recovered 50 percent of the fracturing fluid
in 5 days. One coiled tubing intervention removed the Elapsed Flowback Time, hr

isolation valves. The initial and long-term production

Figure 10-19 Well A chemical tracer response (from
of the horizontal well is significantly greater than offset Rodgerson et al., 2005)
fractured vertical wells (Rodgerson et al., 2005).

Table 10-7 External Casing Perforating System Well 10-7 Rationale and Conditions
Summary (from Rodgerson et al., 2005)
of Fracturing Horizontal Wells
Well A Well B Well C Well D
Number of Modules
in Gas Formation
6 13 13 10
/ Frac Stages
Lateral Length 1,543 ft 2,822 ft 4,160 ft 2,500 ft
True Vertical Depth 4,450 ft 4,150 ft 4,400 ft 4,250 ft The first issue is whether a horizontal well makes
Measured Depth 6,200 ft 7,800 ft 8,400 ft 7,000 ft any sense or not. Starting with the basic premise of
this book that all wells in natural gas reservoirs of
A second case history describes shale gas formation any permeability should be hydraulically fractured,
has been successfully completed with the perforate, then the work by Diyashev and Economides
stimulate and isolate system and the external casing (2006) is relevant. They found that for reservoirs
perforating system. Laterals in the four offset wells with permeability larger than 10 md, properly

377
Modern Fracturing

designed and undamaged horizontal wells would leading to unacceptable reduction in the rate
perform better than vertical wells with fractures. per fracture. This was discussed extensively
The problem is that an undamaged horizontal well is in Section 10-2.
difficult to achieve in the field. The last point leads to a sandwich between the
Bypassing damage is one of the important attributes economic and the physical. In general, transversely
of fracturing, and horizontal wells with fractures fractured horizontal wells in gas reservoirs have a
would benefit from this. For gas wells, reducing very narrow band of attractive reservoir permeability,
turbulence is of paramount concern, and fractures e.g., 0.1 md < k < 0.5 md.
are the most effective way to accomplish this.
Furthermore, stimulation would provide additional This discussion is summarized in Table 10-8
incentives, and all these benefits are available in
fractured horizontal wells. Table 10-8 Suitable Options for Fracturing Gas Wells
Although for horizontal oil wells there is Permeability
Best Technical Solution Comments
Range, md
clear delineation between longitudinal (for Horizontal Wellbore,
>5 In all cases
higher permeability) and multiple transverse Longitudinal Fractures
fractures (for lower permeability, see Brown Dependent upon
Horizontal Wellbore,
project economics and
and Economides, 1992), the delineation for gas Longitudinal Fractures
the relative costs of
0.5 to 5 OR
wells is not that clear. vertical and horizontal
Vertical Well with
wellbores and zonal
Longitudinal fracturing of horizontal gas wells will Fracture
isolation techniques
benefit any reservoir above 5 md. The performance of Above 0.5 md, the
choked connection
such wells would be as described by Villegas et al. (1998) between the fracture
0.1 to 0.5 Horizontal Wellbore,
and discussed in Section 10-1. Reducing turbulence is Transverse Fractures
and the wellbore
makes transverse
perhaps more important than the stimulation itself, as fractures relatively
expounded upon in Chapter 2 of this book. inefficient
Dependent upon
For transverse fracturing in gas reservoirs, Horizontal Wellbore,
project economics and
Transverse Fractures
the situation is more complex. Although for < 0.1 md OR
the relative costs of
vertical and horizontal
vertical wells in low-permeability (e.g., k < 0.1 Vertical Well with
wellbores and zonal
Fracture
md) formations, fracturing is the only way to isolation techniques
monetize them, multiple transverse fractures in
horizontal wells will provide major incremental
benefits over vertically fractured wells.
There are two reasons: 1) the choke effects (Section References
2-5.3) caused by the inefficient contact between
the well and transverse fractures in such low- Abass H.H., Wilson, J.M., Venditto, J.J. and Voss,
permeability reservoirs is not significant; and 2) R.E.: Stimulating Weak Formations Using
interference among multiple fractures is minimal. New Hydraulic Fracturing and Sand Control
However, these incremental benefits are subject Approaches, paper SPE 25494, 1993.
to economic considerations. Are they attractive Austin, C.E., Rose, R.E., and Schuh, F.J.: Simultaneous
compared to incremental costs of drilling horizontal Multiple Entry Hydraulic Fracture Treatments of
wells, multiple fracturing and zonal isolation? In Horizontally Drilled Wells, paper SPE 18263,
established areas such as the United States the 1988.
answer is yes; elsewhere it is not so clear. Bartholomew, P., Portman, L., Frost, R., Nunn. P.,
As reservoir permeability increases (e.g., k > Vause, P., Edmondson, D., Andrich, L. and
0.5 md) the choke formed by the inherently LaGrange, T.: Near a Kilometer of Perforating
inefficient contact between a transverse fracture Guns, in a 7-km, Extended Reach WellCoiled
and the wellbore adds additional turbulence, Tubing Shows its Mettle in New Zealand, paper

378
 Chapter 10 Fracturing Horizontal Wells

SPE 101065, 2006. External Casing Perforating Provides Optimal

Behrmann, L.A. and Nolte, K.G.: Perforating Treatment Coverage in Horizontal Pay, paper SPE
Requirements for Fracture Stimulations, paper 97175, 2005.
SPE 39453, 1998. Seale, R., Donaldson, J., and Athans, J.: Multistage
Brown, J.E. and Economides, M.J.: An Analysis of Fracturing System: Improving Operational
Horizontally Fractured Horizontal Wells, paper Efficiency and Production, paper SPE 104557,
SPE 24322, 1992. 2006a.
Daal, J.A., and Economides, M. J.: Optimization of Seale, R., Themig, D., and Athans, J.: Effective
Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Irregularly Shaped Stimulation of Horizontal Wells A New
Drainage Areas, paper SPE 98047, 2006. Completion Method, paper SPE 106357, 2006b.
Demarchos, A.S., Porcu, M.M., and Economides, M.J.: Villegas, M.E., Wattenbarger, R.A., Valk, P., and
Transversely Multi-Fractured Horizontal Wells: A Economides, M.J.: Performance of Longitudinally
Recipe for Success, paper SPE 102262, 2006. Fractured Horizontal Wells in High-Permeability
Diyashev, I., and Economides, M.J.: A General Anisotropic Formations, paper SPE 36453,
Approach to Well Evaluation, SPEPO (August 1996.
2006) 394-401. Willett, R.M., Borgen, K.L., and McDaniel, B.W.:
East, L., Rosato, J., Farabee, M., and McDaniel, Effective Stimulation Proved to be the Key
B.W.: Packerless Multistage Fracture-Stimulation to Economic Horizontal Completions in Low
Method Using CT Perforating and Annular Path Permeability Carbonate Reservoir, paper SPE
Pumping, paper SPE 96732, 2005. 76725, 2002.
Economides, M.J., Hill A.D., and Ehlig-Economides,
C.A..: Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice
Hall, NY, 1994.
Erwin, M.D., and Ogbe, D.O.: Predicting Openhole
Horizontal Completion Success on the North
Slope of Alaska, paper SPE 97121, 2005.
Henriksen, K.H., Augustine, J., and Woods, E.:
Integration of New Open Hole Zonal Isolation
Technology Contributes to Improved Reserve
Recovery and Revision in Industry Best Practices,
paper SPE 97614, 2005.
Marongiu-Porcu, M.: Physical and Economic
Optimization of Hydraulic Fracturing, MS
Thesis, University of Houston, 2007.
McDaniel, B.W., and Willet, R.M.: Stimulation
Techniques for Low-Permeability Reservoirs
with Horizontal Completions that Do Not Have
Cemented Casing, paper SPE 75688, 2002.
McDaniel, B.W., East, L., and Hazzard, V.: Overview
of Stimulation Technology for Horizontal
Completions without Cemented Casing in the
Lateral, paper SPE 77825, 2002.
Navarro, J.B.: Slotted-Liner Completions Used in
the first Horizontal Wells in Mexico, paper SPE
37110, 1996.
Rodgerson, J.R., Ruegamer, M.L., and Snider, P.M.:

379
Modern Fracturing

380
Gary Schein is the region technical manager for BJ Services Company in Dallas and is been responsible for
the treatment design and completions engineering for the East Region including northern and eastern Texas,
northern Louisiana and Mississippi. Schein has a bachelor's degree from Northern Arizona University. He
has worked in well completions and stimulation for over 29 years and has worked in several other areas
including R&D, technical support, marketing and field engineering positions. Most of his focus has been
on improving production from unconventional reservoirs such as shale gas and tight gas sands. He was a
2004-2005 SPE Distinguished Lecturer and has served on SPE technical paper selection committee for well
completions. He has also authored several SPE papers on well stimulation and completion.

David Mack is a senior staff completion engineer with Marathon Oil Company in Houston. He has a
petroleum engineering degree from Colorado School of Mines. For 27 years he held various research and
operational positions with pressure pumping companies in northern Texas, the Rocky Mountains, and the
Mid-Continent and Appalachian Basins. The past four years, he has worked with Marathon in the Reservoir
and Well Performance Group. He has authored some 20 SPE papers and trade journal articles and has served
on regional and national SPE technical conference committees and section leadership teams. He is listed as
inventor on four US patents.
Chapter 11
Unconventional Gas
Gary W. Schein, BJ Services and
David J. Mack, Marathon Oil Company
11-1 Introduction
Unconventional gas reservoirs offer unique sets of
challenges that are not commonly found in traditional
reservoirs. The term unconventional gas typically refers
to six types of reservoirs. These include tight gas sands,
geo-pressured zones, deep gas, methane hydrates, coalbed
methane, and shale gas. The most common reference to
unconventional gas production is associated with tight
gas, coalbed methane and shale gas. These reservoirs have
provided the most interest over the past 10 to 20 years. The
volatility of natural gas prices prevented the economical
commercialization of much of these gas reservoirs
for many years. The emergence of new technology,
government regulation/deregulation, increasing stability
of natural gas prices, and the demand for cleaner-burning
fuels provided the opportunity for energy companies to
capitalize on producing and replenishing reserves.
Before we go any further, it is important to provide
a brief description of each of these types of reservoirs to
better gain an understanding of the primary focus of this
unconventional gas chapter. Because the production
of unconventional gas resources is appropriate for a
mature and yet technologically developed petroleum
environment, such as the United States, this chapter is
intended to describe the completion and stimulation
of these resources and to serve as a technology
transfer for other places in the world where operators
are contemplating the exploitation of their own
unconventional gas resources.
11-2 Description of
Unconventional Reservoirs
Tight Gas
Tight gas sands typically refer to gas reservoirs where
the permeability of the rock is less than 1 md. Most
reservoirs considered to be tight gas are sandstone or
limestone formations in which the gas is trapped within
the porosity and cannot be connected to the wellbore
through natural permeability. Wells drilled in tight
gas reservoirs require large stimulation treatments to
gain commercial production, as described in previous
chapters. The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) estimated that over 21 percent of the natural
gas reserves in the United States are from tight gas
reservoirs (NaturalGas.org, 2000).
Geo-Pressured Zones
Geo-pressured zones are typically found in the US
Gulf Coast Region and were formed as a result of
compaction of silt and clays, causing the natural gas to
be forced under high pressure into bounding sandstone/
siltstones. These geo-pressured zones are found well
below 10,000 ft to the extreme depths of greater than
30,000 ft. Because of the extreme conditions, the
production of gas from these reservoirs is extremely
costly. However as a result of deepwater technology
development, the commercial production of gas from
geo-pressured zones is not far away.
Deep Gas
The NGSA defines deep gas as reserves found at depths
greater than 15,000 ft (NaturalGas.org, 2000). At one
time, deep gas was considered uneconomical because
drilling to depths in excess of 15,000 ft were difficult, at
best, using conventional drilling techniques. With the
improvements in drilling technology and geoscience
methods to find these reservoirs, deep gas is now
becoming more conventional and is often associated with
other tight gas sands. These deep reservoirs have been
located in the Gulf of Mexico, Permian basin region of
West Texas, southern Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Rocky Mountains and Western Oklahoma in the USA.
Deep gas reservoirs have also been identified of the coast
of Nova Scotia as well as areas within the Middle East,
South China Sea and Siberia. As technology continues
to improve, these deep gas reservoirs will account for
significant reserve replacement.
Natural Gas Hydrates
There has recently been much discussion concerning
hydrates. The NSGA refers to hydrates as formations
that are essentially frozen water and natural gas crystals
found beneath the permafrost and under the ocean floor.
383
Modern Fracturing

Hydrates can be found in the Arctic coastal regions of
both the USA and Canada, along the East Coast of the
USA, Gulf of Mexico, offshore Oregon, and Gulf of
Mexico (Yougquist and Duncan, 1993). Some suggest
that gas hydrates may contain many times more fossil
energy than is found in conventional oil, gas, and coal
deposits (Kvenvolden, 1993). The potential hazards
and environmental concerns relating to production of
this type have prohibited any significant attempts at
producing this resource. Although natural gas hydrates
are considered unconventional gas, they will not be
discussed in this chapter because they have not provided
significant impact on natural gas production.
Coalbed Methane
Coalbed methane (CBM) is produced from gas that was
trapped within the coal and was formed under similar
circumstance as conventional oil and gas. Traditionally,
coalbed methane presented a safety concern and created
problems with mining and producing coal. With the
economic environment and issues associated with venting
methane to the atmosphere, CBM has become a viable
and profitable resource. The EIA estimated in 2000 that
recoverable reserves of greater than 60 Tcf exist within
the lower 48 states of the US. There are significantly more
reserves in Canada, India, Russia, China and Australia as
well. Figure 11-1 shows the extent of many of the worlds
coalbed methane resources from Scott, 2004. Additional
data can be found at www.eia.doe.gov (2007). The CBM
reservoir and production mechanism will be further
described later in this chapter.
Shale Gas
As a result of increasing natural gas prices and the
increasing need to replace reserves, production from
shale reservoirs has gained significant interest in the
recent years. Although it seems as though this is a
recent activity, the earliest gas production from shale
dates back to approximately 1821, when it was used to
light street lamps in Baltimore, Maryland (NaturalGas.
org, 2000). Shale reservoirs are best described as fine-
grained sedimentary rock inter-bedded with siliceous
and carbonaceous material. The properties of the
shale result in its ability to be easily cracked both
vertically and well as laterally. The Devonian Shale
in the Appalachian region provided initial substantial
production. After significant production from this area,
shale reservoirs were discovered in Michigan (Antrim
Shale), Illinois (New Albany Shale), the San Juan Basin
of Colorado and New Mexico (Lewis and Mancos

Arctic Ocean Arctic Ocean

16,116

4,000 269
200 161

2,060 4,383
Western
Atlantic Europe 2,546

Pacific
Former
951
Soviet Union
508 55 0
275
27

North Africa Middle

America East
Ocean Indian
Ocean

3,360

248
32
Ocean
15

524 646 South

America
Natural Gas Proven Reserves (Tcf)
Asia Coal-Bed Methane Resources (Min-Max, Tcf)
Pacific Source: BP Statisical Review (year-end 2005), and Andrew R. Scott.

Figure 11-1 Worldwide coalbed methane resources (after www.eia.doe.gov, 2007)

384

Shale), and of course the prolific Barnett Shale of the
Ft. Worth Basin of North Texas. Additional aspects of
production for these and other shale reservoirs will be
further discussed in this chapter.
11-3 Production Mechanisms
11-3.1 CBM (Coalbed Methane)
In conventional gas reservoirs, the gas is stored within
the rock matrix pore space and/or naturally occurring
fracture networks (secondary porosity). The gas is then
produced through the permeability connecting the pore
space and existing natural fracture networks.
Such is not the case for a CBM reservoir, which
is naturally fractured, low-pressured and normally
water-saturated (Seidle and Aril, 1990). Here the
gas is stored as free gas in the natural fracture cleat
system (secondary porosity) and in the surface matrix
of the coal by adsorption. (See Section 11-4.2 for a
discussion of the cleat system.) Adsorption typically
accounts for more than 99% of the gas-in-place in a
CBM reservoir. (Roadifer et al., 2003). operations and considerations.
Production from a CBM reservoir is therefore
almost exclusively from the desorption of gas from
the coal matrix by depressurizing the coals (Holditch,
1993). Because most CBM reservoirs are 100% water-
saturated in the cleat system, the water must be removed
in order to achieve any appreciable gas production
(Seidle, 1993). The process is termed dewatering.
Dewatering reduces the hydrostatic pressure,
allowing the gas to desorb from the coal matrix. In
conjunction, the water saturation is reduced, thus
increasing the relative permeability to gas, permitting
the desorbed gas to flow through the cleat network to
the wellbore. (McGinnis et al., 1982).
Desorption of the gas from the coal matrix changes
the fluid mobility in the cleat network. This creates
another production feature unique to CBM reservoirs:
an initial increase in the gas production rate (negative
decline rate) (Roadifer et al., 2003). A conventional
gas reservoir typically has peak production rates at the
beginning of the production cycle followed by a rate
decline. Unlike a conventional reservoir, a CBM reservoir
will display an increasing rate as the coal is dewatered, gas
desorbs from the coal matrix and gas mobility increases
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
in the cleat network (Fig. 11-2). The dewatering period
the time from initial production to peak production
can be anywhere from weeks to years.
Peak Gas Rate
Gas Rate
Time to Peak Gas Rate
Time
Figure 11-2 Typical CBM production profile (from Roadifer
et al., 2003)
Numerous methods are employed to dewater a
CBM reservoir. Methods include hydraulic gas pump,
plunger lift, rod pump, progressive cavity pump and
others. Simpson et al. (2000) and Bassett (2006)
provide excellent overviews of dewatering methods,
11-3.2 Shale Gas Reservoirs
Shale gas is stored as natural gas in the reservoir in
three ways:
1. Free gas. This is gas that occupies the pore space/
matrix of the rock, and it is similar to more
conventional as well as other non-conventional
reservoirs such as tight gas sands.
2. Adsorbed gas. This is gas attached to the organic
matter within the shale. Because shale reservoirs are
fine-grained mixtures of clays, silica material and
sometimes carbonate material with an extremely
low permeability rock matrix, the organic-rich
nature of shale reflects the potential for adsorbed
gas. The adsorbed gas is directly related to the
degree of thermal maturity of the shale system and
is typically determined as a measure of vitrinite
reflectance (VRo). Because vitronite (kerogen)
changes both predictably and consistently upon
heating, the relative reflectance can be measured
utilizing a microscopic spectrophotometer. VRo
is a method to identify the temperature history of
385
Modern Fracturing

sedimentary rocks. It is generally accepted that the TOC is measured in the laboratory using a
use of this measure can indicate the maturity of the process called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is a form of
hydrocarbon source. It is also generally accepted that incineration that chemically decomposes organic
the onset of oil generation in low-maturity shale will materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. A core or
range from 0.5 < 1.0 % VRo. Although oil generation formation sample must be obtained to perform this
will usually terminate with reflectance ranging from measurement. In general, the TOC content measures
0.85 - 1.1 %, a VRo in the 1.0 - 1.4 % ratio will the amount of rock material that is available that
typically result in higher thermal maturity and will can convert to hydrocarbons. The higher the TOC
reflect higher gas flow rates (Jarvie, 2006). content, generally, the better. Lower TOC contents
3. Gas from Natural Fracture Systems. Because in can also be offset by a number of other factors such
shale reservoirs the rock matrix can be of extremely as VRo, presence of natural fractures, thickness of
low permeability (< 0.001 md), the existence and interval, porosity, water saturation, etc.
presence of natural fractures become a major factor
in the commercialization of the current major 11-3.3 Shale Gas Reserves
producing shale reservoirs such as the Devonian,
Lewis, and Barnett shales. The gas shale production that has occurred over a
A significant factor in analyzing a shale reservoir period of 15 years in the United States was the result of
is to determine if a natural fracture system exists government incentives and tax credit. However when the
and how it was created. A common misconception tax credit expired in 1992 many operators that had found
is that if natural fractures are found, they are success continued to expand drilling and completion
open and can produce without stimulation. These programs targeting gas shale reservoirs, indicating that
fractures typically occurred because of tectonic the financial incentives provided by the government have
stresses and are a result of the combination of been successful. Outside the USA, where conventional gas
silt/clay, siliceous content and carbonate content. reserves are more abundant (see Chapter 1), production
Many times if natural fractures are present, they are from gas shales is not significant.
small healed fractures that are not inter-connected There have been many attempts to accurately
or well-connected to the wellbore. estimate the reserves from these unconventional gas
An additional measure of the quality of shales; however, with the ever-expanding exploration of
these organic-rich shale reservoirs is to determine new gas shale plays the reserve estimates will certainly
the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content. continue to rise. This will be a direct result of product
Table 11-1 Comparison of Producing Shale Basins in the U.S. (From Faraj, 2004 and Pickering Energy Partners, 2005)
Barnett Ohio Antrim New Albany Lewis Fayetteville
Depth, ft 6,500-8,500 2,000-5,000 600-2,200 500-2,000 3,000-6,000 1,500-6,500
Gross Thickness, ft 150-700 300-1,000 160 180 500-1,900 50-325
Net Thickness, ft 100-600 30-100 70-120 50-100 200-300 20-200
Bottomhole Temp, F 200 100 75 80-105 130-170
TOC, % 4.5 0.0-4.7 1-20 1-25 0.45-2.5 4.0-9.5
Total Porosity, % 4-5 4.7 9 10-14 3.0-5.5 2-8
Gas Filled Porosity, % 2.5 2 4 5 1-3.5
Water Filled Porosity, % 1.9 2.5-3.0 4 4-8 1-2
Flow Capacity - kh, md-ft 0.01-2 0.15-50 1-5,000 6-400
Gas Content, scf/ton 300-350 60-100 40-100 40-80 15-40 60-220
Adsorbed Gas, % 25 50 70 40-60 60-85 50-70
Reservoir Pressure, psi 3,000-4,000 500-2,000 400 300-600 1,000-1,500 600-2,000
Pressure Gradient, psi/ft 0.43 0.15-0.40 0.35 0.43 0.20-0.25
Water Production, Bwpd 0 5-500 5-500 0
Well Spacing, Acres 40-160 40-160 40-160 80 80-320
Recovery Factors, % 10-20 10-20 20-60 10-20 5-15
Gas-In-Place, Bcf/sq. mile 50-150 6-15 6-15 7-10 8-50 25-60
Reserves, MMcf 500-4,000 150-600 200-1,200 150-600 600-2,000

386
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

pricing and new technology to unlock these reservoirs.
Recent estimates have placed recoverable reserves from
the current gas shale plays in the United States at
approximately 60 Tcf of gas. (NaturalGas.org, 2000).
To put this in perspective, the Gas Technology Institute
(GTI) and Pickering Energy Partners, Inc reported
estimated production in 2005 from the Barnett shale of
450 Bcf per year, which is approximately 58% of shale gas
production. The Appalachia/Ohio shale and the Antrim
shale accounted for approximately 18-21% each. The
Coals are heterogeneous and anisotropic porous
media. They are characterized by three distinct porosity
systems: macropores, micropores and nanopores (Fig.
11-3). Macropores are the natural fractures or cleats
common in coals. They contain free gas and water and
serve as the main conduit to the wellbore. Micropores
and nanopores are the coal matrix itself and contain
the vast majority of the gas.
20
18

Sorption, Vc (m3 gas/ m3 coal)

Lewis Shale of the San Juan Basin was much smaller at 16
14
+/- 3% of 2005 production. (Hayden and Pursell, 2005). 12
Table 1 provides a comparison of current producing gas 10
8
shale basins in the U.S. This demonstrates the variability 6
4
that is seen in productive shales and provides insight as

atmos atmos
below above
2
to the unique nature of these reservoirs. 0
2
4
11-4 CBM Reservoirs 0

2
4
6
8
0

0
atmos 0.
0.
0.
0.
1.

2.

3.

4.
Absolute Pressure, MPa

11-4.1 Coalbed Description Figure 11-4 Sorption isotherm at 33.5 C, gas mixture of
95% methane and 5% CO2 (from Gray, 1987)
Coal is a sedimentary rock that contains more than 50
weight percent and 70 volume percent organic material, Well Well Well
A Permeability B C
predominantly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, along with Facies Change

inherent moisture. Hydrocarbon production from coal

is generally termed methane. However, the produced Channel
Sandstone Belt
gas is typically a mixture of methane with some ethane
Coal
and traces of propane, butane and heavier hydrocarbons Pinch
Out
along with nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Fault
Offset

Figure 11-5 Coalbed reservoir geometry (from

Nelson, 1999)

CBM reservoirs are different from conventional

Figure 11-3 Schematic of coal structure showing a dual-
porosity system (plan view) (from King et al., 1986)
gas reservoirs in three distinct characteristics (Gray,
1987). First, coal is both the reservoir and the source
rock. Second, gas is stored by adsorption in the coal
matrix instead of by compression in pore spaces as in
conventional sandstone or carbonate reservoirs. The
CBM pressure-volume relationship is defined by the
desorption (adsorption) isotherm, in place of the real gas
law. And third, the cleats are typically filled with water.
If the gas content in the coal matrix is below equilibrium

387
Modern Fracturing
or the reservoir pressure is above a critical pressure (below
which the gas will start to desorb), it will be necessary
to produce the water, known as de-watering, to reduce
the pressure below the equilibrium pressure allowing the
gas to desorb. Figure 11-4 is a typical sorption isotherm.
It shows the amount of gas that will be sorbed into the
coal matrix as a function of pressure change at a constant
temperature. Data for these curves are obtained directly
from a volumetric standpoint.
A CBM reservoir typically contains multiple
coal layers or seams and can be complex in
nature with many types of common geological
heterogeneities (Fig. 11-5)
11-4.2 CBM Fractured Systems
Production of gas from a coal seam is primarily
through the natural fracture or cleat system. The cleats
are well-defined and almost uniformly distributed.
There are two subdivisions in the cleat system. The
face cleat is continuous throughout the reservoir and
generally normal to the bedding plane. The butt cleat is
discontinuous and terminates at the intersection with
the face cleat. Figure 11-3 is a schematic of the system.
Figure 11-6 depicts two coals, showing the general
orthogonal nature of the cleats.
Figure 11-6 Gibson coal (left) and Anderson coal (right),
both 2.0 in. (5.08 cm) in diameter (from Robertson, 2005)
These cleats provide the primary permeability
of a coal and are the most important parameter for
commercial CBM production. The face and butt
cleats are usually subvertical. As a result, changes in
cleat permeability are dependant on the horizontal
stresses acting across the cleats.
As the reservoir pressure is depleted through
dewatering and primary production, two distinct and
opposing effects occur related to cleat permeability
388
(Gray, 1987). One is reservoir compaction, which will
increase the effective horizontal stress and subsequently
decrease cleat permeability. The other is desorption of gas
(primarily methane) from the coal matrix, causing the
coal matrix to shrink, which reduces the horizontal stress
and allows cleat permeability to increase.
Irving Langmuir (1881-1957), who was awarded
the 1932 Nobel Prize in chemistry (the first ever
industrial chemist to receive the recognition) and is
considered the father of surface chemistry, developed
a remarkably simple expression relating the mass of
gas adsorbed on a surface:
p
Ga = ,
1+ p (11-1)
where Ga is the mass (or standard volume) of gas
adsorbed, p is the pressure and is a constant,
experimentally determined (Langmuir, 1960). The
constant is the Langmuir adsorption constant,
which increases with the strength of adsorption
between a solid and a gas, and decreases with
temperature. For a given temperature the relationship
between Ga and p becomes a Langmuir isotherm.
Variants of Eq. 11-1 appear in a great number of
publications, including some that have different
constants for different components, etc.
Carbon dioxide is frequently injected for enhanced
recovery/CO2 sequestration. The CO2 adsorbs on the
coal because it has a greater adsorption capacity than
methane, causing the coal matrix to swell. The swelling
will in turn cause an increase in the effective horizontal
stress and a decrease in the cleat permeability. The
reduction in permeability is estimated to be as much
as two orders of magnitude at the Allison pilot in the
San Juan Basin (Pekot and Reeves, 2003). It should
be noted here that changes in cleat permeability and
fracture width are directly related.
Permeability Determination
Determining the permeability and cleat width has
been an evolving study. Based on the orthogonality of
the cleats, Palmer and Mansoori (1998) used a cubic
relationship between permeability and porosity to
evaluate changes in permeability:
k 3
= 3. (11-2)
ko o
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

The relationship between and o is described by:
1 K p p constant (Langmuir, 1960) (psi-1).
o = ( pr po )1 l r o ,
M M pr + P po + P Robertson and Christiansen (2006) based their
(11-3)
where k is the current formation permeability (md), ko is
the original formation permeability (md), is the current
formation porosity (fraction), o is the original formation
porosity (fraction), M is the constrained axial modulus
(psi) (see Eq. 11-4), pr is the current reservoir pressure
(psi), po is the original reservoir prerssure (psi), K is the
bulk modulus (psi), P is the matrix-shrinkage Langmuir
curve-fitting parameter (psi) and l is the maximum
matrix shrinkage strain (dimensionless) at V = VL (where
V is the gas content in scf/ft3 and VL is the Langmuir
volume (the gas volume at infinite pressure) (scf/ft3)).
The constrained axial modulus, M, is related to
the Youngs modulus and the Poissons ratio (Palmer
and Mansoori, 1998):
1
M
= E . (11-4)
(1 + )(1 2 )
Mavor and Gunter (2004) subsequently extended
this equation to include enhanced CBM (ECBM)
recovery and CO2 storage.
Shi and Durucan (2005) developed a dynamic
permeability model based on the model presented by
Seidle et al. (1992):
k = ko e
3c ( )
frac o
, (11-5)
matrix volume resulting from the desorbing or
adsorbing of gas) (ft3/scf ), and b is the Langmuir
work on the cubic nature of the cleat system as a
function of cleat or fracture width, w, and the spacing
between the cleats or fractures, a, where w and a are
consistent units and k is millidarcies:
w3
k= . (11-7)
12a
However, Robertson and Christiansen (2006) cite
three factors that influence changes in the cleat
width as different stresses are applied to the coal:
pore volume compressibility, matrix compressibility
governed by mechanical elastic moduli and sorption-
induced strain. They derived equations to describe
all three factors and present a relationship between
permeability and initial permeability:
1e( p po )
3 12 max
pL + pr
3co ( pr po ) ln
k
+
o E
pL + po pL + po
(11-8)
= e
,
ko
where co is the original formation compressibility (psi),
is the rate of change in cleat or fracture compressibility
(dimensionless), pr is current pore pressure (psi), po is
original pore pressure (psi), pL is the Langmuir pressure
(the pressure at which sorption induced strain equals
half of the maximum (Langmuir) volume) (psi) and
max is the linear strain at infinite pore pressure on an
unconstrained sample (dimensionless).
1.2

where cfrac is fracture compressibility (psi-1), is the

Permeability ratio, k/k0

0.8
current formation hydrostatic stress (psi) and o is the
original formation hydrostatic stress (psi).
Their model defines the change in horizontal stress
0.4
as:
v E V bp bpo Shi-Durucan model
o = ( pr po ) + s L r , Palmer-Mansoori model
1 v 3(1 v) bpr + 1 bpo + 1 Robertson-Christiansen model
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
(11-6)
Average pore pressure, psia

where is the Poissons ratio (dimensionless), Figure 11-7 Model comparison of permeability changes
E is the Youngs modulus (psi), s is the matrix for nitrogen flowing through an average coal core
as pore pressure is lowered (from Robertson and
shrinkage/swelling coefficient (the change in Christiansen, 2006)

389
Modern Fracturing
Figures 11-7 and 11-8 compare the three
models as presented by Robertson and Christiansen
(2006), concluding that the effect of sorption-
induced strain on permeability is exaggerated in
the other two models.
5
Shi-Durucan model
Palmer-Mansoori model
4 Robertson-Christiansen model
Permeability ratio, k/k0
3
2
1
0
0 200 400 600 800
Average pore pressure, psia
Figure 11-8 Model comparison of permeability changes
for methane flowing through an average coal core
as pore pressure is lowered (from Robertson and
Christiansen, 2006)
11-4.3 Adsorption/Desorption
Adsorption is the collecting and holding of gas on
the surface of a solid. Conversely, desorption is the
release of gas from the surface of a solid. Coals can
adsorb a large quantity of gas due to their typically
very large internal surface area, which can range from
30 to 300 m2/gm (Berkowitz, 1985). Other factors
and properties of coal will affect adsorption; however,
surface area is by far the largest factor.
Considerable work has been done regarding
adsorption and desorption of gas mixtures as it relates to
coal mine safety. (Joubert et al, 1973; Ruppel et al, 1974;
Greaves, 1993; Yang and Saunders, 1985; Chaback et al,
1996 and De Gance et al , 1993)
As pointed out by Wei et al. (2005), the gas
adsorption rate is controlled by the adsorption process
and the diffusion process. Adsorption is a characteristic
of the particular coal and diffusion is that of the gas
through the coal matrix.
Several techniques have been suggested to describe
gas adsorption. Ruthven (1984), and Yang (1987),
use an extended Langmuir isotherm. Arri et al. (1992)
suggested this technique could provide a reasonable fit
390
to experimental binary and ternary data. However, a
study by Clarkson (2003), showed that the variation
of the CO2 separation factor. With changes in pressure
resulted in less than desirable adsorption predictions
with the extended Langmuir equation.
Thermodynamic considerations were used to develop
both the ideal and real adsorption solutions, with both
using the real gas equation of state (Manik et al., 2002;
Stevenson, 1997; and Hall et al., 1994). Stevenson
compared these models to the measured adsorption of a
ternary gas (methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen). He
found that the ideal adsorption solution gives acceptable
predictions in many coalbed reservoir conditions,
while neither model produces acceptable predictions
at high pressure conditions.
Clarkson and Bustin (1999) further compared
1000 1200 the ideal adsorption solution using the Dubinin-
Radushkevich, Rubinin-Astakhov and Langmuir
isotherms and the extended Langmuir equations
with experimental binary gas data (methane and
carbon dioxide) They found that the ideal adsorption
solution using the Dubinin-Astakhov isotherm
was the most accurate. However, Hall et al. (1994)
showed that the ideal adsorption solution with the
Langmuir isotherm and the extended Langmuir
equations yielded a better match to component data
than the other two methods.
The diffusion process component of the gas
adsorption rate was originally described as a one-
step process through the development of pseudo-
steady state and unsteady state relationships. A
good review of these models is presented by King
and Ertekin (1989a and 1989b).
However it has been observed that diffusion
through the coal matrix may be better described by
a bidisperse diffusion model (Siemons et al., 2003;
Mazunder et al., 2003; Ruckenstein et al., 1971; Cui
et al., 2004; Shi and Durucan, 2003a and 2003b).
This type of model uses a two-step approach to gas
diffusion in a coal matrix. There is surface diffusion in
the microporous system of the coal matrix and pore
diffusion in the mesopore and/or macropore system.
The gas adsorption takes place in the micropores
while the mesopores and macropores are the storage
areas for free gas and provide the highly tortuous path
to the micropores and the cleat system.

The models use different controlling mechanisms
for gas diffusion in the micropores and macropores.
The surface diffusion and pore diffusion sorption rates
are thus influenced by the respective model. Wei et
al. (2005) provide a comparison of the six referenced
models in Table 1 of their paper.
There is still work to be done with regard to the
bi-disperse, surface diffusion in micropores and pore
diffusion in macropores, pore diffusion model. Wei et
al. (2005) list the areas as:
1. an improved numerical representation of the
multi-scale structure;
2. concentration-dependant diffusivity;
3. the counter-diffusion effect observed during
primary and secondary methane production; and
4. the effect of water on gas diffusion.
Desorption of gas from the coal matrix is described
in a theory presented by Zhu et al. (2002a). They
extended the convective and adsorptive exchange process
from a chromatography point of view to include both
adsorption and desorption. The theory also incorporates
gas properties as described by Peng and Robinson
(1976) and multiphase fluid flow in porous media
as presented by Dindoruk (1992).
Gas desorption pressure and gas content have
typically been determined using the industry-
accepted practice of retrieving a core sample under
pressure, then desorbing the gas from the coal sample
and relating the resultant gas content to critical
desorption pressure and thus partial pressure via an
adsorption isotherm (see Fig. 11-9). This procedure is
very time-consuming and expensive.
Methane Storage Capacity, scf/ton
500
400
300
200
Critical
Desorption
100
Pressure
0
0 500 1000
Pressure, psia
Figure 11-9 Standard technique for deriving critical
desorption pressure from gas content and adsorption
isotherm data (from Lamarre, 2007)
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
Lamarre (2007) developed a new procedure to
determine the critical desorption pressure and gas content
downhole. This procedure uses a Raman spectroscopy-
based sensor capable of measuring trace amounts of
solution gas. The solution gas quantity is then related to
the partial pressure of methane via a solubility relationship
such as Henrys law, the relationship between gas
partial pressure and the concentration of gas in
water at constant conditions.
11-4.4 Stimulation Techniques
Most CBM wells must be stimulated in order to be
commercially viable. The types of completions can be
broken down into two general categories: open-hole
cavity and hydraulic fracturing.
A CBM well that is over-pressured with high coal
permeability appears to be a candidate for an open-
hole cavity completion. Here the wellbore is drilled
through the coal with casing set at the top of the
seam. The coal itself may be under-reamed. As the
well is allowed to produce, the coal tends to slough
into the wellbore for some period of time. Eventually
the sloughing will cease.
Palmer (1992) points out that this process is similar
to sand flowback in unconsolidated formations, except
here the effect has a positive result. Unlike that in an
unconsolidated sand completion, production from a
coal seam is improved. This is due to the removal of
damage to the wellbore from drilling fluids, coal fines
and/or relative permeability effects, i.e., a positive
skin. In areas where sloughing will occur, it typically
occurs naturally and has been shown to be the most
productive of all completion strategies.
Radii of 2 to 5 ft are typically estimated from the
volume of coal fines recovered at the surface (Jones
Total Reservoir
Pressure
et al., 1984; and Logan et al., 1986). A collaborative
study (Mavor, 1991) used a sonar logging tool to
Desorbed map a cavitated wellbore. The team found an average
Gas
Content radius of 4.6 ft (Fig. 11-10).
In areas where sloughing will occur, it is typical that it is
1500 2000
naturally occurring and shows to be the most productive of
all completion strategies. Two coal-sloughing techniques
have been used in cased-hole completions. The cold
CO2 huff-n-puff technique (Puri et al., 1991a) uses
thermal contraction and/or the swelling and shrinking
391
Modern Fracturing
of the coal caused by the adsorption and desorption of
CO2 to induce failure of the coal. The other technique
is foamed water clean-outs (Kutas, 1990). Here, low-
rate injection of nitrogen-foamed water pressurizes the
coal. The well is then rapidly opened to the atmosphere,
causing the coal to fail.
Gamma Ray I #2
0.0 GAPI 200 -8.0
3149
3150
3160
Depth, ft
3170
3160
3190
3200
Density
1.0 gm/cc 3.0
Figure 11-10 Cavity dimensions inferred from sonar log in
the San Juan Basin, with coal density < 1.7 g/cc shaded in
the center track (from Palmer, 1992)
Most CBM wells are completed through casing
with perforations, although some operators, particularly
in shallow CBM areas, complete their wells open-hole.
Several techniques are used for zonal isolation, such
as bridge plugs and sand plugs. Which techniques are
implemented depend on operator preference; no one
technique has technical superiority over another.
As in a conventional sandstone completion, coals
are affected by the composition of the fracturing fluid.
Puri et al. (1991b) demonstrated that adsorption of
water into the coal matrix swells the matrix, thus
reducing the permeability of the cleats. They showed
that this reduction can be as much as 5- to 10-fold.
They also showed the cleat permeability is further
reduced by whole gel that has leaked off into the cleats.
The mechanisms of gel damage were explained by
Conway (1992). This led many operators to use water
fracturing (Palmer et al., 1989), no-polymer foams or
linear polymers such as hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC)
as the treating fluid (Spafford, 1991).
392
Water fracs, both with and without friction reducer,
are less damaging to the cleat permeability, although
friction reducer will have some negative effect on the
proppant pack permeability. This fluid has very low
viscosity and poor proppant carrying capabilities and may
not be able to prop all the coal seam that is hydraulically
fractured. However, it is still shown to be an effective
Cavity Radius treating fluid in certain areas (Palmer et al., 1991).
Feet 8.0
Penny and Conway (1996) extensively studied the
damage mechanisms of polymers and surfactants on
coals. One of their conclusions was that all foaming
agents reduce the relative permeability of the cleat
to gas. Their study did reveal a foaming agent that
minimized the relative permeability reduction.
Myers, Mack et al. (1999) presented laboratory
and field data that showed this foaming agent to be
beneficial in a CBM reservoir.
Viscoelastic technology increases the carrier fluid
viscosity and the proppant-carrying capability of a
water-based fluid. Unlike conventional polymer systems,
a viscoelastic fluid is solids-free. A laboratory study by
Olsen et al. (2003) reports the regained permeability of
the viscoelastic fluid in a coal-packed conductivity cell
was 230% greater than that of a borate crosslinked fluid
and a linear gel fluid. Chen et al. (2006) performed
additional laboratory tests and found that even with the
addition of surface tension-reducing surfactants, polymer-
based fluid does not achieve regained permeability to the
level of the viscoelastic fluid. Field application through a
re-fracturing program using viscoelastic-based nitrogen
foam fluid produced an estimated ultimate total reserves
(EUTR) improvement of 25-30% as compared to the
initial completions that used a conventional polymer-
based fluid system (Fredd et al., 2004).
Proppant pack conductivity reduction caused by
formation fines is a concern in all hydraulically fractured
reservoirs. A major source of CBM fines comes from
the much harder proppant being pressed against the
relatively soft coal cleat face. These fines would tend
to accumulate in the proppant pack, reducing its
conductivity and hence the well productivity. The
introduction of a surface modification agent (SMA)
has been shown to improve the productivity of a
CBM well (Lehman et al., 2003). The SMA coats the
proppant and filters the coal fines, preventing their
intrusion into the proppant pack.

Most CBM wells are propped with natural frac
sand. Due to the softness of the coal, proppant
embedment into cleat faces can be significant. It
is not unlikely that one or more proppant grains
would be embedded into the coal surface on each
side of the cleat. To minimize this negative effect
on the proppant pack conductivity, two approaches
are often taken. One is to place as many proppant
grain layers as possible into the cleat. This provides
sacrificial grains for embedment, leaving additional
grain to keep the cleat open. This is typically achieved
by adding very high-concentration proppant
slurries, 10 ppg or even higher.
A second technique is to use as large a proppant
grain diameter as is practical. The larger grain diameter
will distribute the cleat closing stress over a larger
surface area, thus reducing the depth of embedment
of a proppant grain. Many CBM well are treated
using 12/20 mesh sand. The use of large-diameter,
deformable proppant would further enhance the
stress distribution effect by creating an even larger
surface area for stress distribution.
Figure 11-11 Optimized IVCF fracture geometry:
high fluid leakoff in the coals will assure proppant
connectivity to coals (from Olsen et al., 2003)
In many basins, a low-stress sandstone or siltstone
is adjacent to a coal seam or is sandwiched between
coal seams. This clastic layer provides an efficient
means of propagating the hydraulic fracture away
from the wellbore while intersecting the adjacent coal
(Fig. 11-11). The technique, called Indirect Vertical
Fracture Connectivity (IVFC), was proposed for
CBM applications by Olsen, Brenize and Frenzel
(2003). They cite two reasons for the viability of this
technique. The vertical permeability of coal is most
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
often greater the horizontal permeability, thus the
indirect fracture only needs to penetrate the coal to
effectively drain it. The high leak-off caused by the
cleat permeability will tend to draw the proppant
into the cleat, creating a highly conductive path.
Also, the low fracturing gradient of the clastic rocks
will ensure an elastically coupled intersection into
the coal. Successful applications of IVFC have been
performed in the US in Utah, the central Rocky
Mountains and the San Juan Basin.
Guidelines for IVFC applications are provided by
Olsen et al (2007):
1. In general, thick, high-fracture-pressure coal
seams have inefficient complex fractures and are
probably not good candidates.
2. An understanding of the mechanical
properties of the formations and the stress
profile is required. A clastic layer with a low
Poissons ratio and a high Youngs modulus
is the most efficient for the development of
induced hydraulic fractures.
3. Areas that have high tectonic compression
or have highly laminated coals are
not good candidates.
4. Avoid excessive fracturing fluid leak-off. Besides
robbing fracture energy and increasing the
possibility of premature screenout, excessive
leak-off will substantially increase the minimum
horizontal stress to a point where it is nearly
equal to the vertical stress or the maximum
horizontal stress. Inefficient complex fracturing
will most likely be the result.
11-4.5 Alternate Completions
and Enhanced Production Techniques
Initial completions in CBM were in vertical
wellbores. However, it was soon realized that CBM
reservoirs exhibit the three characteristics that
make horizontal completions effective: They are
relatively thin, naturally fractured and known to have
anisotropic permeability.
The US Bureau of Mines (Duel and Cervik,
1977; Prosser et al., 1981) originally considered
directionally drilled coal wells for degasification
before the mining of the coal seam.
393
Modern Fracturing

A simulation study by Delmbacher et al. (1992)
compared vertical CBM wells to wells drilled
horizontally in an azimuth perpendicular to the
maximum permeability (i.e., the face cleats). It
showed that horizontals can provide significantly
higher gas production rates. In addition, peak gas
flow rate is generally attained sooner as the coal is
dewatered more efficiently.
Before it is decided to exploit a coal reservoir
with horizontal wellbores, there are other conditions
to be considered (Osisanya and Schaffitzel, 1996).
Several core samples should be tested to determine
maximum and minimum stress directions
and the strength and friability of the coal.
These will determine the well azimuth (normal to
the maximum stress) and if the coal is stable
enough to support a long lateral section. The
core samples should also be tested to determine
the appropriate type and weight of drilling
fluid to minimize the pressure leak-off into the
coal; however, a breaker should be incorporated
to remove the filter cake after drilling has been
completed (Baltoiu et al., 2006).
Osisanya and Schaffitzel (1996) also suggested
implementing a medium-radius build, with the curve
section built before the coal is entered. This is due to
the general weakness of the coal.
Table 11-2 Likely Minimum Unconfined Compressive
Strength of Coals Based on Rank (from Palmer et al.,
2005)
Coal Rank Likely min UCS (psi)
(decreasing VM-daf% Based on literature
order) data
Anthracite Less than 14 1780
Coal strength expressed as its unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) is related to the coal rank, which is
based on the percentage of volatile matter (VM)
in the particular coal (Bell and Jones, 1989; and
Jones et al., 1988). Table 11-2 summarizes the likely
minimum UCS for each coal rank.
Drilling, stimulation and production
guidelines with regard to coal stability have been
suggested (Palmer et al., 2005; Moschovidis et
al., 2005). They include:
1. Wellbore stability during drilling depends
on the in situ stresses, coal strength
and wellbore deviation.
2. Well stability models should be adapted for coals
and used in drilling design.
3. Wellbore stability generally decreases with depth,
but individual cases should be studied.
4. The acceptable mud weight window will decrease
with reservoir depletion.
5. Frac gradient greater than 1.0 psi/
ft is not necessarily indicative of a
horizontal fracture as the fracture itself can
increase the vertical stress.
6. The extent of the failure zone from a hydraulic
fracture is dependant on coal strength and fracture
pressure and can extend 50 ft or more.
7. Shear failure extending from the fracture
face may also create:
Microseismic emissions
Coal dilatancy and permeability increase
(production enhancement)
Fines creation or movement (production
detriment)

LV 14 to 22 490 8. As depth increases, the stability during production

MV 22 to 31 497 of an open-hole lateral decreases.
HVA 31 to 39 1050
9. Sanding methodology can be applied to stability
predictions of open-hole lateral coal wells.
HVB 39 to 42 4800

HVC 42 to 55 5930 In addition to single horizontal wells, multiple

Lignite Greater than 55 9400
VM-daf% = percent volatile material - dry, ash free
Wellbore stability knowledge is important because
it will impact the economics of drilling, hydraulic
fracturing and producing a horizontal CBM well.
laterals perpendicular to the maximum stress
can be beneficial in exploiting a CBM reservoir.
A simulation study by Maricic et al. (2005)
investigated options with as many as four laterals
from a single vertical wellbore and a pinnate
fishbone pattern (Fig. 11-12).

394

Single Lateral Dual Lateral
Trilateral Quadlateral
Pinnate
Figure 11-12 Potential lateral configurations (from
Maricic et al., 2005)
Parameters included in this study included
number of laterals, total lateral length drilled
and the spacing between laterals. From the study,
the authors concluded that:
Production, recovery and economics are all improved
with horizontal and multilateral completions as
compared to a vertical completion.
Longer horizontal lengths increase the recovery
of a CBM reservoir; however, the associated
drilling costs negate any economic advantage
beyond a certain length.
For their set of parameters, a well with four laterals
from a single vertical wellbore (a quadlateral) with
lateral spacing of 680 ft and total horizontal length
of 3100 ft yielded the best economics.
Many successful horizontal projects have been
executed. One such project targeted the thin (as
narrow as 4 ft) Hartshorne Coal in the Arkoma Basin
of Oklahoma, where production increases of five- to
six-fold as compared to vertical completions were
experienced (Mutalik and Magness, 2006).
Successful side-track CBM drilling has been
achieved in the San Juan Basin (Noynaert et al., 2007)
and a horizontal project in southern Illinois was planned
(Rodvelt and Oestreich, 2005).
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
Enhanced recovery from a CBM reservoir (ECBM)
is an important aspect of this resource exploitation.
One ECBM technique is the injection of nitrogen,
which reduces the partial pressure of methane with
little sequestration of the nitrogen. Depending on the
coal, about one volume of methane will be desorbed for
every one-half to one volume of nitrogen adsorbed. A
pilot project in the San Juan Basin reported a methane
production increase of several fold; however, nitrogen
breakthrough was very rapid, necessitating the extra
production process of nitrogen removal (FETC, BP-
Amoco and IEA GHG Programme., 1999).
As discussed in Section 11-4.3, carbon dioxide
readily adsorbs to the coal matrix, forcing methane
to desorb at a faster rate than pressure depletion,
making it available for production as free gas.
Coal will desorb about one volume of methane
for every two to threes volumes of CO2 adsorbed,
depending on the coal itself.
The first successful CO2-enhanced recovery project
was undertaken in the northern New Mexico portion
of the San Juan Basin, where gas production was
increased as much as 150% over convention pressure-
depletion (Stevens et al., 1998). This CBM reservoir did
exhibit the key criteria for a potentially successful CO2
injection project: laterally continuous and permeable
coal seams, concentrated seam geometry, and minimal
faulting and compartmentalization.
There are two main sources of CO2 for injection:
extraction from underground reservoirs and capture
from industrial flue gas. Although the former is typically
the least expensive, the latter has the added benefit of
preventing the addition of this greenhouse gas into the
Earths atmosphere as the CO2 would be sequestered
in the coal matrix (Wong et al., 2000). However, the
economics of capturing CO2 from flue gas must be in
place to take advantage of this process (Espie, 2005;
Sengul, 2006; and Imbus et al., 2006). The potential for
CO2-ECBM/sequestration in the United States is 150
Tcf incremental methane production and 90 Gt (giga-
tonnes) of CO2 sequestered (Reeves, 2002-2003).
Laboratory studies and simulations have been
performed to investigate the potential for injecting
a binary gas, CO2 and N2 (Tang et al., 2005; Zhu
et al., 2002b; and Jahediesfanjani and Civan,
2006). It was found that:
395
Modern Fracturing
CO2 tends to move in a more piston-like manner
with high efficiency.
N2 is more dispersed and will break through
more rapidly.
A binary system high in N2 percentage yields a
higher initial methane production rate.
A CO2-rich system is more efficient and
longer lasting.
Water content in the coal reduces CO2 and N2
adsorption rates.
A higher ratio of N2 to CO2 is required in wet
coals to enhance methane production.
A simulation using an extensive characterization
of the low-rank Wilcox Coal of East Texas looked
at the overall economics of CO2 sequestration,
methane gas production and the effects of binary
gas mixtures (Reeves, 2002-2003). The study
concluded that the Wilcox coals could sequester
a large quantity of industrial CO2; however, the
economics were unfavorable. The best economic
scenario was at an N2-to-CO2 injection ratio of nearly
7:1, however, this ratio significantly decreased the
CO2 sequestration volume.
Additional information on CO2 sequestration
can be found at the Coal-Seq Consortium
website, www.coal-seq.com.
Microbially enhanced hydrocarbon recovery
has experienced a degree of success. A current study
suggests that the inclusion of nitrogen-fixing, carbon
dioxide-fixing and methane-eliminating bacteria into
a binary CO2/N2 gas injection could increase methane
production by 8 to 10% (Jadhav, 2007).
One area of CBM well completions that has
commonly been overlooked is the perforations
through the casing and cement into the coal. The
perforation tunnels provide the connection between
the cleat system/ hydraulic fracture and the wellbore.
Conventionally, correlations used for relatively
weak, low-density sandstone were applied to CBM
perforations. Snider et al. (2006) demonstrated
that the penetration and diameter of perforations
from shaped charges were considerably less than
predicted by the models. They also stated that a visual
inspection of damaged perforation tunnels in the coal
suggest the communication to the wellbore would
396
be impaired. Among their recommendations was to
test charges with coal targets and the development of
better penetration models for various coal types, such
as bituminous and anthracite.
11-4.6 Fracture Modeling of CBM Wells
Fracturing fluid options and additives are discussed
in Section 11-4.4. This section will look at fracturing
treatment design and modeling.
Many CBM reservoirs comprised several
narrow coal seams found at various depths in a
wellbore. Individual fracturing treatments on each
seam can be very time-consuming, inefficient and
more costly than one large job covering all or
groups of seams. A limited entry technique can
be employed to fracture stimulate multiple seams
during a single treatment (see Section 9-7.3).
Limited entry is the practice of limiting the number
of perforations in each zone to be treated such
that excess pressure is created in the casing, forcing
the treating fluid to simultaneously enter multiple
zones with variable in-situ stresses.
Successful limited entry programs have been
achieved in the US San Juan Basin (Bazan et al., 2002;
and Bazan and Larkin, 2002). For these treatments the
authors determined the total number of perforations
required from:
q 2
n perf =
s
4
, (11-9)
0.323Cd ( Dc D p ) p pf
and
55
Dc =
, (11-10)
y
where Nperf is the number of perforations, q is the total
flow rate (bpm), s is the slurry density (lbm/gal), Cd is
the perforation discharge coefficient (see below), Dp is
the perforation diameter (inches), ppf is the perforation
friction (psi) (see Section 4-2.1.2) and y is the yield
strength of the pipe metal in 103 psi (such that, for
example, for P-110 pipe, y = 110 kpsi).
Crump and Conway (1986) suggested a value for
Cd of 0.6 for non-abrasive fluids ranging up to 0.9 for
proppant-laden fluids. For the US San Juan project, a
value of 0.8 was found to be appropriate.

In order to achieve limited entry it is generally
felt that a minimum pressure drop across the
perforations, ppf, should be 400 psi. With this in
mind, typical limited entry designs employ pressure
drops in the range of 600 to 1000 psi.
Although designing based on perforation pressure
drop alone has been successful in the US San Juan
Basin, Barba et al. (1999) warn that areas such as the
US Black Warrior Basin, where mechanical properties
and in situ stresses vary significantly between seams, will
require additional consideration. For limited entry to be
successful under these conditions it will be necessary to
rigorously calculate the number of perforations to shoot
in each seam such that the treating pressure in the casing
is the same at all perforation locations, allowing for the
effects of hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore.
The hydraulic fractures created in a coal are very
complex because they tend to follow the face and butt
cleats. Even with this complexity, 3-D fracture models
can be used for treatment design, keeping in mind that
the modeling is representative of the treating pressure
response but may not fully represent the complex
fracture geometry. However, care must be taken to
analyze minifrac and post-treatment pressures to better
define in situ coal properties, in particular pressure-
dependent leak-off (PDL). PDL will occur when the
treating pressure within the main fracture increases to a
level where the butt cleats open; robbing fracturing fluid
and possibly proppant from the main fracture.
1000
900
800
Pressure Derivatives
700
600 pfo= Fissure opening pressure
500
400
300
dp/dG
200
100 Gdp/dG
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Figure 11-13 Derivative plot for pressure-dependent
leakoff (from Barree, 1998)
The pressure at which the butt cleats will open can
be determined by analyzing the pressure decline after
a pre-frac injection test using the Nolte dimensionless
time function, G (Castillo, 1987; and Barree, 1998),
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
which relates shut-in time to total pumping time (see
Section 4-2.1.9 for a detailed explanation of G-Function
analysis). A plot of the superposition function Gdp/dG
versus G will yield a characteristic hump indicative of
pressure-dependent leak-off (Fig. 11-13). The pressure at
which the superposition curve returns to linearity is the
fissure- or cleat-opening pressure.
Application of this technique is discussed by
Bazan et al (2002) and Ramurthy and Lyons (2007)
using commercially available lumped 3-D or fully
functional, grid-oriented models.
Knowledge of PDL along with the geomechanical
properties of the coal (Rahman and Khaksar, 2007)
can provide for a successful application of an effective
CBM fracturing treatment.
CBM fracturing treatment design must also be
coupled with the economic impact of the treatment.
Having the fracture design simulator linked to a
production forecasting model is most beneficial.
Although a larger treatment may yield greater
production potential, the cost of the treatment
and associated cleanup, disposal, etc., charges may
actually reduce the overall economic benefit. Analysis
of the net present value, NPV, in association with
fracture treatment design has proven to provide for
the making of sound business decisions (Bazan et al.,
2002; and Valencia et al., 2005).
11-4.7 Fracturing Treatment
Evaluation of CBM Wells
4700
4600 The Evaluation and refinement of CBM hydraulic
Bottom Hole Pressure, psi
4500 fracturing treatments should be a continuous process
4400 in field exploitation. The analysis of post-frac pressure
4300
decline data has been discussed in the previous section.
Such an analysis was performed in the Scotia Field in
4200
eastern Australia (Johnson et al., 2002). Through this
4100
analysis Johnson et al. were able to determine bottom
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
4000 hole treating pressure trends and delineate better areas
of productivity. The end result was a more predictive
model to be used to develop the field.
In addition to pressure history matching, wellbore
tiltmeters have been employed to map fracture height
growth (Stutz et al., 2002); (Mayerhofer et al., 2003);
(Wolhart et al., 2004). In these studies the fracture-
induced tilt signals are monitored and mapped providing
397
Modern Fracturing
fracture width and growth history. This information
is then used to further calibrate the fracture treatment
design model and optimize future fracturing treatments.
In a 16 well pilot program in Wyoming, the authors
report a first year savings of $1,300,000 through this
optimization process (Mayerhofer et al., 2003).
There are times when hydraulic fracturing of a coal
seam does not produce favourable results. An eastern
Australia CBM reservoir contains seams of high and low
permeability. Various hydraulic fracturing treatments
and open-hole completions were tested and production
trends closely monitored. Through this intense study
it was determined that the high permeability seams
are best completed open-hole with the potential
implementation of short radius horizontals. It was
also observed that the potential exists to optimize the
hydraulic fracturing of cased-hole low permeability
seams (Johnson et al., 2006).
11-4.8 Estimation of Reserves and
Production Data Analysis
In some respects, CBM reservoirs are similar to
conventional oil and gas reservoirs in that it is important
for engineers to generate production forecasts, evaluate
in-place reserves, provide information to design field
facilities and optimize reservoir development. This task
is more difficult for CBM wells than for conventional
wells due to the more complex nature of the gas storage
and flow mechanisms in a coal.
Malone et al. (1987) were among the first to
perform gas-in-place analysis. One technique used for
CBM production forecasting and reserves estimates
was decline curve analysis (Richardson et al., 1991;
and Hanby, 1991). This, however, requires the
establishment of a sustained production decline trend.
Dewatering of the coal can result in two years or more
before the establishment of the appropriate decline rate.
It has also been shown that the decline rate can vary
significantly between wells in a field (Hanby, 1991).
These factors tend to make decline curve analysis
generally unsuitable for CBM forecasting.
Reservoir simulators were adapted for CBM
analysis. These tools correctly account for gas desorption,
gas diffusion, relative permeability effects, operating
procedures and well-to-well interference simultaneously
398
(Zuber and Semmelbeck, 1990; and Sawyer et al, 1987). As
can be expected, the quality of the data used in a simulator
is critical. Zuber and Olszewski (1992) categorized
the effects of the various measured CBM properties
on production forecasting. They found that adsorbed
gas content, desorption isotherms (more precisely
the Langmuir volume) and the initial water saturation
had significant impact on well production forecasts.
Parameters with a moderate degree of significance
are permeability, net pay thickness and porosity.
And parameters that are relatively insignificant are
ash content, desorption time and initial reservoir
pressure. They also reported that errors associated
with determining adsorbed gas content, permeability,
porosity, desorption isotherm and initial water saturation
were most significant in forecasting production for
years 1 to 4. Beyond 4 years, errors in these parameters
become less significant.
An estimate of the gas-in-place can be made
with the knowledge of four physical reservoir
parameters (Nelson, 1999): reservoir or well
drainage area, gross reservoir rock thickness,
average reservoir rock density and average in
situ gas content. With these four parameters,
gas-in-place is determined from:
Gi =1359.7 AhGc ,
(11-11)
where Gi is the initial gas in place (scf), A is the reservoir
area (acres), h is the average reservoir net height (ft) and
Gc is the average in situ gas content (scf/ton).
Nelson (1999) points out that errors in
determining these reservoir properties will compromise
the accuracy of the calculation. Six major sources of
error were identified:
Assumption that there is lateral continuity
of the reservoir thickness when determining
reservoir volume.
Determining reservoir thickness with a maximum
log density value that is too low.
Using rule-of-thumb coal density values to
determine in situ reservoir rock density.
Using ambient temperature conditions to
determine the gas desorption data used in
calculating in situ gas content.
Using drill cuttings to obtain gas desorption data.

Assuming residual gas volume is negligible in
determining in situ gas content.
Table 11-3 provides an analysis protocol to avoid
or minimize common errors in determining coalbed
reservoir properties used to calculate gas-in-place.
Conventional gas well and reservoir
analysis utilizes the mass balance equation
with a p/Z vs. cumulative production plot (Lee
and Wattenbarger, 1996):
p pi p Z
= i Gp , (11-12)
Z Zi Z i Gi
where Z is the gas correction factor, pi is the initial
reservoir pressure, Zi is the gas correction factor
at initial reservoir conditions, Gi is the original
gas in place (OGIP) and Gp is the cumulative gas
production from the reservoir. A plot of cumulative
gas production vs. p/Z is a straight line with intercept
equal to the OGIP. The initial reservoir pressure can
be determined with a simple calculation.
Table 11-3 Gas-In-Place Analysis Protocol (from
Nelson, 1999)
Perform gas desorption measurements at reservoir
1.
temperature on conventional core samples.
Estimate the total gas content of each sample using the
2.
Direct Method lost gas content procedure.
Relate the total gas content of multiple samples to sample
3.
composition.
4. Relate the sample composition to density.
Determine the in-situ moisture content from laboratory
5.
moisture content measurements.
Estimate the gross thickness and average in-situ density
6.
from open-hole density log data.
Compute the in-situ gas content at the average reservoir
7.
density and moisture content.
8. Compute the gas-in-place volume.
King (1990) adapted this form of the material
balance equation to CBM usage with the introduction
of a Z* variable, which considers adsorbed and free gas
as well as connate and influx water. However, when
this method was applied to actual coal wells, less than
desirable results were observed.
This led to additional work by Seidle (1999),
who redefined the Z* term. He did this by making
several simplifying assumptions: water and formation
compressibilities were neglected, water formation
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
volume factor was set at 1.0 resbbl/stb, water influx
was neglected and water saturation remains constant
over time. Although constant water saturation is not
totally accurate, changes occur over a matter of years,
and the saturation change from initial to abandonment
conditions is often minimal. It is therefore necessary
to select a water saturation to be used throughout
all calculations. Seidle suggests that the initial water
saturation be used for CBM wells with free gas.
Z* is now defined as:
Z = ,
ZTpSCVmpc (1 a )bb)
1 c f ( pi p ) (1 S w ) +
Z SCTSC (1 + bp ) i
(11-13)
where cf is the formation compressibility (psi-1), Sw is
the water saturation (fraction), T is temperature (R),
Vmpc is the pure coal Langmuir volume (constant, scf/
ton), a is the mass fraction of ash (fraction), b is bulk
coalbed density gm/cc, pSC is the pressure at standard
conditions (usually 14.7 psi), TSC is the temperature at
standard conditions (usually 519.67 R or 60 F), ZSC
is the gas deviation factor under standard conditions
(dimensionless). b is the Langmuir pressure (constant,
psi 1) and i is the initial porosity (fraction).
The material balance equation now becomes:
p pi pi
= G p . (11-14)
Z
Zi
Z i Gi
For a volumetric coal deposit, a plot of cumulative
production vs. p/Z* will be a straight line with
an intercept of OGIP. The initial reservoir
pressure is then calculated.
A generalized form of the material balance equation
is offered by Ahmed et al. (2006) as:
G p = Gi + GF Ga GR ,
(11-15)
where Gp is the cumulative gas produced, Gi is gas
originally adsorbed (assumed equal to OGIP), GF is
original free gas, Ga is gas currently adsorbed and GR is
remaining free gas. The four variables to the right of Eq.
11-15 are determined from:
Gi =1359.7 AhGc , (11-11)
399
Modern Fracturing

The modified dimensionless time is defined by

GF = 7758 Ah (1 S w ) Egi , (11-16) Delmbacher et al. (1992):

0.00634k
and, tD =
t , (11-21)
(g ct )i rw
2 ma

5.615Z T p pi

Egi = SC SC i
= 198.6 scf / bbl, (11-17) where g is the gas viscosity (cp) and ct is the total
pSC TZ i TZ i
reservoir compressibility (psi-1) both at initial reservoir
where pSC is the pressure at standard conditions (psi). conditions rw is the effective wellbore radius (ft) and
tma is the material balance pseudo-time:
Ga =1359.7 Ah BV p ,
(11-18)
(g ct )i t q dt
tma =

q 0
,
g ct
(11-22)
and
where and are the average gas viscosity (cp) and total
GR = 7758 Ah reservoir compressibility (psi-1) respectively, averaged
BwWP over the producing life of the reservoir until time = t.
+ (1 S wi ) ( pi pr )(c f + cw S wi )
7758 Ah The authors (Pinzon and Patterson, 2004; and
Eg ,
1 ( pi pr ) c f Delmbacher et al., 1992) also caution that flowing

material balance and type curves should be used in
(11-19) conjunction with other reservoir simulation methods.

where Bw is water formation volume factor (bbl/ 11-5 Shale Gas

stb), WP is cumulative water production (stb), Swi
is initial water saturation (fraction), cw, is the water
compressibility (psi-1), Vp is the total gas absorbed at
current reservoir pressure pr (scf/ton), and:
p
Eg =198.6 r scf / bbl. (11-20)
TZ
Substituting Eqs. 11-11, -16, -17, -18, -19 and
-20 into Eq. 11-15 and rearranging, Ahmed et
al. (2006) presented an equation in the form of
y = mx + b. The slope and intercept are used to
calculate original gas-in-place. They further extend
the calculations to determine the average reservoir
pressure and future production. A 13-step analytical
technique is presented for the prediction of CBM
reservoir production forecasting.
Type curves have also been presented to analyze
CBM production and production forecasting. (Aminiam
et al., 2004 and 2005; Mohaghegh and Ertekin, 1991;
and Pinzon and Patterson, 2004). Clarkson et al. (2003)
pointed out that these and other type curves can be used
for single-phase coal gas production analysis if CBM
storage mechanisms, i.e., adsorption, are accounted for
by substituting material balance pseudo-time for time in
the dimensionless time equation.
11-5.1 Shale Description
Each of the gas shale systems are unique in their own right
and have variability within a producing area. Therefore
careful planning and execution of a proper development
plan is required to obtain optimum and commercial
production. The success of the Barnett Shale of the Ft.
Worth Basin has received the most attention, and its
explosive growth has made it one of the most prolific gas
shale plays in the United States (Mathews et al., 2007).
Figure 11-14 shows an overview of the gas shale
basins and plays across the continental United States.
A common mistake in developing and attempting
completions in many of these shale reservoirs is to
treat the properties of one like that of another. One
of the many lessons learned is that not only will shales
vary from basin to basin but also they will vary within
the same field. The productivity of a shale reservoir
will have significant differences in hydrocarbon
content, fracture barriers, mineralogy and structural
environment. Variations in these four parameters
across and within each producing basin greatly impacts
not only the well plan but also specific engineered
designs required to optimize productivity.

400
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

Gammon Excello/Mulky
Niobrara
Bakken
New Albay
Antrim

Green
River

Monterey
Devonian/Ohio

McClure
Cane
Creek Floyd and
Lewis and Conasauga
Palo Duro
Mancos
Barnett and Caney and
Woodford Woodford
Barnett
Woodford
Fayetteville

Figure 11-14 Gas shale basins of the USA (from Brown, 2006b)

As was discussed earlier in this chapter, these shale
reservoirs consist of fine-grained sedimentary rock
inter-bedded with siliceous material and carbonaceous
material. Although some of these reservoirs could
produce relatively low volumes of gas naturally, most
require some form of well stimulation.
A more detailed shale description will be discussed
later in this chapter where individual US basins are
discussed with factors that effect stimulation designs
and production in each one.
11-5.2 Thermogenic and Biogenic Systems
Two types of productive shale gas systems must
be understood in developing unconventional
plays of this type.
The Antrim Shale is characterized by a low victrinite
reflectance (VRo) of between 0.5 and 0.75%; however,
the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content can be as high
as 20% (Jarvie, 2006) Wells producing from the Antrim
Shale will have relatively low production rates, e.g., 135
Mscf/d; however, they will produce for a long time, such
as 20 years. In many cases large quantities of water are
produced with the gas. Geochemical analysis has indicated
that the water is usually fairly fresh. Although natural
fractures exist because of the low bottomhole pressure of
this shallow 500 to 2,500 ft formation, the contribution
from these fractures may not be relevant. Much of this
early-generation system appears to be somewhat sensitive
to water, and therefore water is minimized in the drilling
and completion process. Gas production is closely tied to
de-watering the system to gain economic production.

Biogenic Systems Thermogenic Systems

Relatively few biogenic gas systems are currently The majority of producing shale gas reservoirs in the US
producing economical gas within the United States. are thermogenic systems. They are characterized by a much
The Antrim Shale in Michigan is one of those systems. higher victrinite reflectance (VRo) of between 1.0 and

401
Modern Fracturing
1.8%; however the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content
can range from 2.5 to 4.5% (Jarvie, 2006). Thermogenic
gas occurs as a result of a primary thermal cracking of the
organic matter into a gaseous phase. Secondary thermal
cracking of remaining liquids also occurs. For this reason
production systems are variable. For example, sometimes
within a field an area with lower maturity may produce
more liquid hydrocarbons. Thermal maturity of the
system is one factor in determining productivity, but
gross reservoir interval is also important. The overall
shale interval can range from a few hundred feet to
over 1000 ft in overall thickness. Wells completed in
these intervals tend to be characterized by significant
and economical production rates. Production examples
will be discussed later in this chapter. Unless fracture
barriers are absent, the gas produced in a thermogenic
environment will be relatively dry.
Systems of this type include many of the prolific
shale reservoirs currently being produced in the US.
These include the Barnett of the Ft. Worth Basin, Barnett
and Woodford of the Delaware Basin, Fayetteville Shale
in Arkansas, Woodford and Caney Shale of the Arkoma
Basin, and others such as the Floyd and Conasauga
Shale in the Black Warrior Basin. A common element
of these systems is their location along the Ouachita
Fold Belt that runs from far West Texas to Western
Alabama. The location of these shales is important not
only in understanding the production system but also
in developing a plan for completion. Proper completion
planning can be critical as these reserves continue to be
developed in urban areas (Fig. 11-15).
Figure 11-15 Fracturing treatment performed in the urban
environment within the Fort Worth, Texas, city limits
402
The following sections will look at these shale
reservoirs individually because their variability and
completion methods cannot be considered as a whole.
11-5.3 Ft. Worth Basin Barnett Shale
The Barnett Shale of North Texas is a Mississippian-
age marine shelf deposit that exhibits variations in
mineralogical and geochemical properties. It is described
as black, organically rich, fine-grained shale. (Lancaster,
1992) It ranges from 3500 ft deep and 150 ft thick to
the South and West in Erath County to over 8000 ft
deep and 1000 ft thick to the North in Denton County.
The Barnett has provided excellent data resources to
define the favorable geochemical attributes for gas-
productive shale as well as the transition area into oil-
productive shale reservoirs that are not as thermally
mature. (Mathews et al., 2007).
Early field development focused on an area that
was very easily developed, in that the shale was thick
and well-bounded by hard, dense limestone, both above
and below, and the structural setting was relatively calm
with very minor faults, if any, and no karsts. After its
productive capability was firmly established and the
limits of the core area were developed with vertical
wellbores, exploration reached into the more challenging
environments where fracture boundaries were weak,
and where faults and karsts communicated with a wet
Ellenberger (Dolomite) below. With proven economic
success in these challenging environments, horizontal
completions have now become the standard throughout
the basin (see also Section 12-4.3).
The Barnett Shale is best described as naturally
fractured shale located in the Fort Worth Basin of North
Texas (Lancaster, 1992). The drilling and completion
practices have seen significant changes since one of the
first productive vertical Barnett Shale well, C.W. Slay
#1, was drilled and completed in 1981. Because this
is described as shale, it was considered to be water-
sensitive, and early fracture treatments comprised
a large volume of nitrogen as the only stimulation
fluid. Limited production response led to subsequent
treatments using CO2-foamed fluids; however, because
the matrix permeability is so low, it was felt that large-
volume treatments would be required to extend long
fracture lengths into the reservoir.
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

Table 11-4 Barnett Shale Mineralogy

Barnett Shale
Formation Components Minerals 7165- 7265- 7365- 7465- 7535- 7565- 7595- 7635-
7175 7275 7375 7475 7545 7575 7685 7645
Quartz (Si02) 32 29 42 38 41 34 33 29

Framework Grains Plagioclase Feldspar 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

Potassium Feldspar 2 1 trace trace trace trace trace trace

Calcite (CaCO3) 14 9 11 9 7 4 10 15
Carbonates
Fe-Dolomite
5 24 2 4 4 4 3 4
({Ca,Fe}{CO3}2)
Sulfide Pyrite (FeS2) 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 6
Apatite (Ca5{PO4}3{F, Cl,
Phosphate 1 trace 1 1 trace 1 1 1
OH})
Illite + Mica 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3
Kaolinite 2 trace trace -- -- -- --
Clays
Mixed-Layer Illite80/
37 29 35 39 39 47 43 39
Smectite20
Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Stimulation methods used to obtain and optimize
production from the Barnett Shale have evolved
over time. Conventional crosslinked fluids were used
throughout the later 1980s through 1996. These initial
fracturing treatments were developed using state-of-the-
art technology available at that time. These common
stimulation techniques were also used to develop tight
gas sands. These initial Massive Hydraulic Fracture
(MHF) treatments consisted of titanium- and zirconium-
based crosslinkers with HPG and CMHPG and used
approximately 750,000 gallons of fracturing fluid, often
including nitrogen to assist in fluid clean up (see Chapter
7 for a more detailed description of fracturing fluid
systems). The proppant placed ranged from 500,000 to
1.5 million lbs of 20/40 mesh white or northern type
sand (see Chapter 8 for a more detailed description of
proppant systems). Continued frac fluid improvements
allowed the use of lower-polymer borate crosslinked
fluids with tapered gel loadings from 25 lbs down to as
low as 17 lbs of polymer per 1000 gallons of fluid.
As a result of increasing success using slickwater
fracturing in the Cotton Valley Sand in East Texas
through 1997, several operators began experimenting
with this technique in other tight gas sand reservoirs
such as the Barnett Shale (Walker et al., 1996). Many
early treatment successes were met with difficulty in
placing high concentrations of proppant, therefore
limiting the proppant concentrations from 0.05 to 0.5
ppg average. The fluid volumes currently for a typical
treatment on a vertical well have been approximately
2,000 to 2,400 gallons per foot of gross interval. An
important factor in the success of using a slickwater
fracturing technique is that the volume of fluid pumped
has significant impact on well performance.
Several factors become evident in understanding
why large-volume slickwater fracturing has been
successful in a shale reservoir containing various mixtures
of clay, silicate, carbonate minerals, etc. A typical core
analysis of the Barnett is shown in Table 11-4, which
is representative of this shale formation throughout
the trend. (BJ Services, 2006-07). Typically the shale
consists of approximate 30 to 39% clays, 29 to 38%
quartz, and 25 to 30% other minerals such as calcite,
dolomite, feldspars and pyrites. The very nature of this
type of mineralogy causes the Barnett Shale to be very
brittle and therefore easily hydraulically fractured. Core
analysis and improved logging techniques have also
shown the presence of natural fractures, although these
fractures are essentially closed and they can also be filled
with secondary deposits such as halite and calcite. The
production of hydrocarbons from these intervals tends
to be primarily dependent upon not only the fracture
extension but also on interconnecting and re-opening the
natural fractures that do exist. These fractures can occur
in fracture swarms and are considered to be very complex.
Much of the success in the Barnett Shale is related to rock
quality in terms of permeability, porosity, gross interval,
and the existence of this natural fracture network.

403
Modern Fracturing
Because of these factors and, in particular, the presence
of natural fractures, a hydraulic fracture created in the
Barnett Shale cannot be considered a typical two-wing
planer fracture. Description of a Barnett Shale fracture
treatment is considered to be more complex, and through
the evidence of fracture-mapping technologies, a fracture
fairway has been shown with multiple orientations
(Fisher et al, 2002). Figure 11-16 shows an example of
the type of fracture network associated with stimulation
of the Barnett Shale, where fracture mapping is used to
monitor microseismic events during the stimulation. In
this example, a vertical well is fractured with as many as
five offset wells being affected by the treatment.
1500
1000
500
0 has changed the boundaries and limits of the vertical
South-North, ft
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
West-East, ft
Figure 11-16 Fracture network fairway from
microseismic evaluation of a vertically fractured well (from
Fisher et al., 2002).
Large surface areas are being contacted through
hydraulic and interconnected fractures that will ultimately
contribute to production (Fisher et al, 2002). Initially
almost all fracture treatments in the Barnett Shale once
used 20/40 mesh white or northern sand. However,
because of the complex nature of the fracture system,
there were limits to how much proppant could be placed.
The average proppant concentration was kept very low
and rarely exceeded 0.3 ppg until the final stage, where
proppant concentration was increased or ramped up to
1 and 2 ppg. In 2000, trial treatments were performed
utilizing small 40/70 mesh proppant in the early stages
of the job, with the idea being that although the material
will have less conductivity, two benefits might be
404
obtained. First, it will enable placing a higher proppant
concentration and therefore larger volume of proppant
in this naturally fractured reservoir. Second, the smaller
particle size 40/70 mesh material could be suspended
better in slickwater and would have a settling velocity
less than the 20/40 mesh particles (Schein et al., 1994).
Most of the treatments using the 40/70 mesh sand also
utilized 20/40 mesh sand as a tail-in proppant to ensure
improved conductivity near the wellbore.
After thousands of jobs, the smaller-mesh proppant
have proven to not only provide the opportunity to
place more proppant, but result in improved fluid
recovery and higher production rates. More recently
with the expansion of the Barnett Shale play to counties
outside of what is considered the Newark East core
area (Denton, Wise, and Tarrant counties) 100-mesh
sand has been used with good result.
Most recently the application of horizontal drilling
wells. The first horizontal well was drilled in the Barnett
Shale in 1992 and was completed with results not much
better than the vertical wells. Ten years later, improved
drilling techniques along with better understanding of
optimum wellbore azimuth and completions has led to the
significant expansion of drilling successful wells outside
the core area. The horizontal wells have lateral lengths
ranging from 1800 to 4000 ft and are typically drilled in
2500 3000 a 120 to 140 degree or 300 to 320 degree azimuth. This
is generally transverse to the induced fractures; therefore,
during fracture stimulation, multiple treatments allow
for maximum exposure to the reservoir.
11-5.3.1 Barnett Shale Slickwater
Treatment Design Considerations
The primary considerations in the Barnett Shale are to
contact as much interval as possible to maximize the
area of the conductive flow path to the wellbore, and
to maintain the fracture treatment within the interval.
This is particularly important outside the core area
such as Johnson, Hood, Erath, Parker, Hill, and Bosque
counties. The use of horizontal drilling and slickwater
fracturing has allowed expansion of activity with
excellent results where the wet Ellenberger underlies
the Barnett Shale directly without the presence of the
dense Viola Lime as a barrier.

Initially in these long cemented laterals, wells
were completed using multi-stage, (80 to 180 BPM)
treatments. It is now more common to perform five
to seven stages per well at lower rates (50 to 80 BPM)
depending upon the area and potential for fracture
containment. Table 11-5 shows an example of a
typical fracture in the Barnett Shale in an area where
the Viola Lime is present and potential for fracturing
into water is minimal. Table 11-6 is an example of a
fracture in an area where the potential to fracture into
water is high. In this case the treatment consists of
predominantly 100-mesh sand.
A more recent trend in the Barnett Shale has been
to use a simultaneous fracture technique of offset wells
drilled parallel to one another (Figs. 11-17, -18a and -
18b). In the figures, two wells are seen on the same
location; their horizontal wellbores are parallel.
Figure 11-17 Simultaneous fracturing treatment
performed in Barnett Shale
Figures 11-18a and 11-18b Fracturing equipment
rigged up to the two wellheads for simultaneous fracture
treatments
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
Because of the complex fracture network, there
is a significant amount of communication between
wellbores and offset wells thousands of feet away
(Fisher et al., 2002). The theory of simultaneous
fracture treatments is to minimize the communication
and subsequent killing of offset wellbores. Wells that
have undergone such treatments have significantly
outperformed their offsets; however, one must also
consider reservoir quality and completion methods
as well. Figure 11-19 represents production offsets of
two pairs of wells fractured individually and two pairs
of wells fractured simultaneously. In this example
the fluid and proppant volume are very similar. The
azimuth and overall lateral length of all four of these
wells were almost identical. Significant production
improvement using the simultaneous fracture
technique is evident based on these factors.
1,000,000
Simo Pair Wells
Mscf/ Month
100,000
Single Pair Wells
~120,000 Bbls slick water & 1.6 x 106 lbm sand per well
10,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Months
Figure 11-19 Simultaneous vs. single fracture stimulation
in pairs of wells
1,000,000
Simo Pair Wells
Mscf/ Month
100,000
Single Pair Wells
Lateral lengths for each well pair 1800-2400 ft.
10,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Months
Figure 11-20 Simultaneous vs. single fracture stimulation
with different proppant volumes
An additional example of the simultaneous fracture
technique and the significance of fluid and proppant
volume are noted in Fig. 11-20. This compares two
405
Modern Fracturing

Table 11-5 Cemented Liner, Four- to Five-Stage Treatment in the Core Area
Procedure
Fluid Proppant
Stage Volume Conc. Cum
Type Type Stage (lbs)
(gal) (ppa) (lbs)
1 Slick Water 30,000 Diagnostics
2 Slick Water 90,000 Pad
3 Slick Water 20,000 0.20 100% Sand, White, 40/70 4000 4000
4 Slick Water 90,000 Pad 4000
5 Slick Water 15,000 0.20 100% Sand, White, 40/70 3000 7000
6 Slick Water 90,000 7000
7 Slick Water 70,000 0.25 100% Sand, White, 40/70 17,500 24,500
8 Slick Water 70,000 0.30 100% Sand, White, 40/70 21,000 45,500
9 Slick Water 70,000 0.35 100% Sand, White, 40/70 24,500 70,000
10 Slick Water 70,000 0.40 100% Sand, White, 40/70 28,000 98,000
11 Slick Water 70,000 0.45 100% Sand, White, 40/70 31,500 129,500
12 Slick Water 70,000 0.50 100% Sand, White, 40/70 35,000 164v,500
13 Slick Water 70,000 0.55 100% Sand, White, 40/70 38,500 203,000
14 Slick Water 60,000 0.60 100% Sand, White, 40/70 36,000 239,000
15 Slick Water 20,000 0.65 100% Sand, White, 40/70 13,000 252,000
16 Slick Water 70,000 0.30 100% Sand, White, 20/40 21,000 273,000
17 Slick Water 80,000 0.35 100% Sand, White, 20/40 28,000 301,000
18 Slick Water 90,000 0.40 100% Sand, White, 20/40 36,000 337,000
19 Slick Water 80,000 0.45 100% Sand, White, 20/40 36,000 373,000
20 Slick Water 15,000 0.50 100% Sand, White, 20/40 7500 380,500
21 Slick Water 7000 0.75 100% Sand, White, 20/40 5250 385,750
22 Slick Water 7000 1.00 100% Sand, White, 20/40 7000 392,750
23 Slick Water 7000 1.25 100% Sand, White, 20/40 8750 401,500
24 Slick Water 9366 Flush
Total 1,270,366 401,500

simultaneously fractured wells with two individually
fractured wells in which the lateral length for the
simultaneously fractured wells is approximately 20%
shorter than the second set of wells. All the wells used
similar fluid volume; however the simultaneously
fractured wells were completed using 25% more
proppant and were fractured simultaneously to maximize
the contact of the shale to the wellbore.
Successful completions in the Barnett can also
be characterized by several factors observed during
and upon the initial flowback of the well. The initial
fracture gradients will typically be less than 0.75 psi/
ft; higher fracture gradients have been observed and
may be an indication of the lack of the natural fracture
network needed for good production. In addition, the
initial load recovery of treatment fluid on economically
productive wells is usually less than 55%. Higher initial
fluid recoveries may be a strong indication of the fracture
treatment being pumped out of zone and contacting
the lower wet Ellenberger formation. Experience has
taught that observed net pressure increases during the
fracture treatment gives an indication that the treatment
is contacting additional reservoir through its complex
geology. A final key to success with regard to treatment
design in the Barnett has been to optimize both fluid
and proppant volumes in order to achieve the maximum
contact of the reservoir to the wellbore.
11-5.4 Barnett and Woodford
Gas Shale, Delaware Basin
The Barnett and Woodford shale formations located
within the Delaware basin of West Texas are, for the
most part, in Culberson, Reeves and Pecos Counties.

406
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

Table 11-6 Six- to Seven-Stage Treatment in the Non-Core Area

Stage Description Volume Fluid Proppant Concentration
1 Load Hole 500 Water Frac
2 Acid 2500 15% HCl
3 Spacer 10,000 Water Frac
4 Acid 2500 15% HCl
5 Pad/Stepdown 40,000 Water Frac
6 5000 Water Frac 0.10 ppg White 100 Mesh
7 Pad 30,000 Water Frac
8 5000 Water Frac 0.10 ppg White 100 Mesh
9 Pad 30,000 Water Frac
10 6000 Water Frac 0.10 ppg White 100 Mesh
11 9000 Water Frac 0.20 ppg White 100 Mesh
12 12,000 Water Frac 0.30 ppg White 100 Mesh
13 5000 Water Frac 0.50 ppg White 100 Mesh
14 14,000 Water Frac 0.40 ppg White 100 Mesh
15 17,000 Water Frac 0.50 ppg White 100 Mesh
16 28,000 Water Frac 0.60 ppg White 100 Mesh
17 10,000 Water Frac 0.80 ppg White 100 Mesh
18 39,000 Water Frac 0.70 ppg White 100 Mesh
19 55,000 Water Frac 0.80 ppg White 100 Mesh
20 72,000 Water Frac 0.90 ppg White 100 Mesh
21 80,000 Water Frac 1.00 ppg White 100 Mesh
22 12,000 Water Frac 0.40 ppg White 40/70
23 12,000 Water Frac 0.50 ppg White 40/70
24 5000 Water Frac 0.80 ppg White 40/70
25 17,000 Water Frac 0.60 ppg White 40/70
26 22,000 Water Frac 0.70 ppg White 40/70
27 25,000 Water Frac 0.80 ppg White 40/70
28 22,000 Water Frac 0.90 ppg White 40/70
29 9000 Water Frac 1.00 ppg White 40/70
30 Flush 9000 Water Frac
Total 605,500 353700

The Woodford was deposited initially in the late
Devonian period. The geochemical properties of
both shales are very comparable to one another based
on the data currently available, particularly in TOC
values. However thermal maturity appears to vary
considerably over this expansive area of West Texas.
The Barnett Shale in this area varies from 7,400
to over 17,000 ft deep. The earliest completions,
located in the shallower area of the field, did not
produce economic hydrocarbons, which is believed
to be a result of the immature nature of the shale
in this area because the wells had indications of
being low-productivity oil wells.
Shale thickness ranges for both Barnett and
Woodford formations vary from less than 100 to
over 600 ft. The Devonian limestone lies beneath the
Woodford and behaves very similar to the Ellenberger
of North Texas, in that it contains water, and if fracture
treatments extend into this water-bearing interval, they
can result in operational and economic failure. Early
indications are that the West Texas version of the Barnett
appears to have significant gas content; however, the
production mechanism particularly as it relates to
rock mechanics appears to be significantly different
from the North Texas Barnett.
Shale is a complex mixture of clays, silicates,
carbonates and detrital materials, and most shales
follow this mixture of mineralogy with various
degrees and percentages that may be an indication
of how the shale might fracture (Simons, 1963).
Comparing the mineralogy reports of several North
Texas shale cores with that of the US Permian Basin
Shale (Barnett and Woodford) indicates that almost
all the base components are similar, with relatively
small differences in the percentages of silicates
present (usually 20 to 40% and clays ranging from

407
Modern Fracturing

Table 11-7 Mineralogy of the Permian Basin Shale

Mineralogival Analysis of West Texas Shales
a b c d e
Mineral Phases Barnett Shale Miss. Woodford
12,250 12,340 12,430 12,570 12,650
Quartz (SiO)2 41 27 33 42 37
Plagioclase Feldspar 3 4 4 6 4
Potassium Feldspar ~ ~ ~ trace ~
Fe-Dolomite ([Ca,Fe][CO3]2) 3 4 5 14 4
Siderite (FeCO3) ~ trace trace ~ ~
Apatite [(Ca5(PO4,CO3)3(F,OH,Cl)] 1 1 1 trace trace
Pyrite (FeS2) 3 4 4 2 4
Chlorite 2 2 1 trace 2
Mixed-Layer Illite>90/Smectite<10 46 57 51 35 49
TOTALS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

25 to 45%). The clays are comprised mostly of
mixed-layer illite/smectite with varied percentages of
kaolinite, illite and mica. Some percentage of sulfides
(usually in the form of pyrite) and phosphates are
generally present in both shale reservoirs. The most
significant mineralogical difference noted is the
complete absence of carbonate material in the Permian
Basin shale. It was noted previously that the North
Texas Barnett Shale can be generally categorized as
being approximately 1/3 clay, 1/3 silicate and 1/3
carbonates, while the shale in West Texas is more on
the order 50:50 quartz and clay (BJ Services, 2006-
06). Table 11-7 represents a typical mineralogy core
report from a West Texas Shale (note the absence
of carbonate minerals relative to the North Texas
Barnett shale from Table 11-4).
Carbonate material is typically found in the rock
pore matrix or occurred as a secondary deposition
within the natural fractures. These carbonates are
usually present in the form of Calcite (CaCO3) and
can also appear in less abundance (< 5%) as iron-rich
Fe-Dolomite ((Ca, Fe) (CO3)). Carbonates are known
to be relatively brittle and less elastic compared to
clays and, to some degree, quartz. The absence of
carbonates in the Permian Basin Shale may indicate
a more elastic and less brittle reservoir rock that does
not fracture as readily and perhaps as efficiently as
silica-rich and carbonate-bearing shale. The absence of
carbonates may also lend itself to rock face softening
in the presence of some fluids.
The location of carbonate minerals in the shale
may also indicate a presence of natural fractures in
the reservoir rock or, in the case of the Permian Basin
Shale, their absence. The carbonate-bearing natural
fractures present in the North Texas Barnett Shale
can make a significant contribution to the total area
exposed to an induced hydraulic fracture. This is one
of the reasons it is theorized that slickwater fracturing
works so well in the North Texas Barnett. In contrast,
the absence of carbonate material of any significance
in the Woodford and Barnett in West Texas could
indicate a lack of natural fracturing in the reservoir
rock or perhaps natural fractures that do not fracture
as efficiently, meaning a softer clay-lined fracture
more prone to embedment, fracture face softening or
healing without adequate propping.
These shales tend to exhibit higher fracture
gradients as compared to North Texas shale, typically
greater than 0.8 psi/ft. An additional factor to these
higher fracture gradients is evidence of higher fracture
initiation pressures as well as difficulty in obtaining
reasonable injection pressure. These high surface
treating pressures are often associated with near wellbore
tortuosity many times caused be several smaller multiple
fractures.(Suarez-Rivera, 2006).
This might also indicate that hydraulic fractures
created in this type of shale will be more conventional
in nature and that fracture treatments, instead of
creating a broad network, result in the traditional
two-wing, vertical geometry.

408

11-5.5 Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas
The eastern side of the Arkoma basin is home to the
recent surge in drilling in the Fayetteville Shale, which
lies between 2000 and 6000 ft deep and ranges from
75 to over 300 ft in thickness. Both the depth and
thickness increase from the west to the east portion of
the basin. The geology is complex with a multitude of
fractures and faults related to the Ouachita Thrust Belt.
The Fayetteville Shale is Late Mississippian Chesterian
in age and described as black, fissile, concretionary,
clay shale with dark gray, fine-grained limestone inter-
bedded within the shale package. The geochemistry of
the Fayetteville is higher in thermal maturity relative to
the North Texas Barnett and has been confirmed with
dry gas production in Faulkner, Cleburne, Van Buren,
Conway, White, Pope and Franklin counties.
Horizontal wells have been tested, but lateral
lengths have been limited due to the small size of the
fault blocks drilled to date. The Fayetteville play is still
early in the technological evolution for maximizing
reserve recovery as well as defining the limits of
TOC and thermal maturity for commercial deposits.
TOCcontent has been reported to range between 4
and 9.5% (Brown, 2006a). This compares favourably
to the well developed Barnett Shale, with an average
TOC content of approximately 4.5%. The higher TOC
content is favourable to the Fayetteville Shale, as its
overall thickness is smaller than what is seen in the
more developed areas of the Barnett Shale.
It appears the most productive portion of the
Fayetteville Shale is where the interval contains a
higher percentage of chert and siliceous material
inter-bedded within the shale (Brown, 2006b).
The upper Fayetteville Shale contains much
higher concentrations of mica/illite, which would
indicate a section of extremely low permeability,
porosity and lack of natural fractures.
The first development of the Fayetteville shale
occurred in early 2004, with a few vertical wells to
test further potential. The Fayetteville was found to
have mechanical and physical rock properties similar
to the Barnett Shale (Southwestern Energy, 2004).
The reservoir pressure, however, trended toward being
more normal to somewhat underpressured, whereas
the Barnett Shale is considered to be somewhat geo-
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
pressured. This led to initial completions utilizing
nitrogen foam fractures. These wells produced gas
at commercial and economic rates sufficient to
warrant the drilling and completion of additional
wells through 2004. As a result of the success in
these vertical wells and the industry success in the
Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin, the Fayetteville
Shale play has developed and evolved much more
rapidly (Mathews et al., 2007).
In 2005, more vertical wells were completed with
good results, leading to the initial drilling and testing
of horizontal wells. The lateral lengths of many of the
early drilled wells were in the 1,800 to 2,300 ft range
(Williams, 2006). These wells were completed with
multi-stage fracture treatments using nitrogen foam.
The completions consisted of three to four stages
averaging 150,000 to 200,000 lbs of proppant and
200,000 to 300,000 gallons of total foamed fluid per
stage. The horizontal wells initial production proved to
be substantially better than the vertical wells by several
folds. Although these horizontal wells continued to be
successful there was concern about decline rates and
costs associated with foam frac treatments.
The next step in evolution of completions in
these horizontal wells was the evaluation of methods
to reduce cost, improve production and flatten
decline rates. More recently, slickwater fracturing
technology and crosslinked fluid treatments have been
attempted. Treatments have been four to five stages
using approximately 450,000 gallons of slickwater
and 200,000 lbs of proppant and 250,000 gallons of
crosslinked fluid and 200,000 lbs of proppant.
11-5.5.1 Treatment Design
Considerations Fayettville Shale
The initial results of incorporating changes in the
stimulations and increasing the density of fractures along
the horizontal lateral has resulted in not only shallower
declines but also improved production. One must
remember that in order to fully develop shale reservoirs,
a primary goal should be to maximize the amount or
volume of rock exposed to the wellbore.
To compare the nitrogen foam and slickwater
stimulation techniques used in the Fayetteville Shale,
a production comparison of two offset wells located
409
Modern Fracturing
in Van Buren County, Arkansas that have very similar
lateral lengths and completion intervals, is included
(Fig. 11-21). Two offsetting Fayetteville Shale wells were
stimulated: one using nitrogen foam and the other using
a large volume of slickwater. The foam-fractured well was
stimulated with about 1.2 million gallons of nitrogen
foam and 750,000 lbs of proppant. The slickwater
treatment used about 2.8 million gallons of slickwater
and 940,000 lbs of proppant. The wells were completed
in the same month, with cumulative production for
the foam-fractured well at around 200,000 Mscf
of gas and the slickwater-fractured well at 340,000
Mscf of gas. Although the reason for this difference
can be partly attributed to the volume of proppant
placed, a more important factor is that the volume of
fluid should create opportunity for more shale to be
fractured and exposed to the wellbore. The trend for the
area is to perform more slickwater and crosslinked gel
treatments based on the well performance improvements
(Southwestern Energy, October 2006).
100000
Slickwater
Mscf/ Month
N2 Foam
10000
Slickwater 4 Stages 940 klbm Prop
N2 Foam 4 Stages-750 klbm Prop
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Months
Figure 11-21 Production after a nitrogen foam frac vs.
slickwater frac in the Fayetteville Shale
This rapidly growing Fayetteville Shale area is
continuing to be defined as far as its extent and has
become an extremely large logistical project because of
the activity planned.
11-5.6 Woodford/Caney Shale, Arkoma Basin
On the western side of the Arkoma basin are two shale
reservoirs that, like the Barnett or Fayetteville shales,
are not new discoveries but have been known for quite
some time. The Woodford and Caney shales have been
productive in non-specific areas with inconsistent
success. Woodford and Caney wells are generally 6,000
to over 11,000 ft deep and pay ranges from 50 to over
410
300 ft thick. Much like the Fayetteville to the east,
the geology is complex with the potential to contain
fractures and faults related to the Ouachita Thrust Belt.
The Woodford and Caney shales are Lower Mississippian
Upper Devonian in age and described as black, fissile,
concretionary, clay shale with dark-grey, fine-grained
limestone inter-bedded within the shale package. The
geochemistry of the Woodford and Caney, like the
Fayetteville, is higher in thermal maturity relative to
the North Texas Barnett.
The current area of significant activity is centered
on the southeastern portion of Oklahoma in Coal,
Hughes, and Pittsburgh counties. A recent gross
production from the Woodford Shale has been reported
to approach 100 MMscf/d. The initial completions in
these shale reservoirs involved drilling vertical wells,
where the primary target zones included the Wapanuka,
Caney, Cromwell, Hunton, and Woodford. In over 100
wells drilled, intervals were completed individually and
commingled for production.
Operators found the Woodford Shale contributed
significant production to the wells and began
exploitation of the Woodford alone. Given the success
of the Barnett Shale to the south and implementation
of new drilling and completion techniques, horizontal
wells have been drilled and tested with excellent
successes. This Woodford/Caney play is early in the
technological evolution for maximizing reserve recovery
as well as defining the boundary limits. Although these
shale intervals may be thin in areas, the TOC (Total
Organic Carbon) content can be in the 6 to 8% range
as compared to the 4.5% that was previously discussed
in the Barnett (Haines, 2006).
An important factor to note is that the
composition of the Woodford and Caney shales
have some marked differences. The Woodford more
resembles the Barnett, with siliceous material inter-
bedded within the shale, whereas the Caney Shale
contains higher concentrations of clay minerals. This
higher clay content is indicative of a reservoir that
will not respond well to stimulation treatments, as
the West Texas shales have shown.
The Woodford however has provided renewed
interest with the implementation of drilling horizontal
wells and multiple-stage fracture stimulations along the
lateral. The lateral sections have ranged from 2,000 to
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

Table 11-8 Typical Pump Schedule in the Woodford Shale

Stage Volume Fluid Proppant Concentration Proppant
1 2500 Slick Water
2 2500 15% HCl
3 2500 Slick Water
4 2500 15% HCl
5 80,000 Slick Water
6 5000 Slick Water 0.50 ppg 100 Mesh Sand
7 9500 Slick Water
8 2500 Slick Water 1.00 ppg 100 Mesh Sand
9 15,000 Slick Water
10 9500 Slick Water 0.10 ppg White 30/50
11 9500 Slick Water
12 9500 Slick Water 0.20 ppg White 30/50
13 9500 Slick Water
14 9500 Slick Water 0.40 ppg White 30/50
15 9500 Slick Water
16 9500 Slick Water 0.60 ppg White 30/50
17 9500 Slick Water
18 9500 Slick Water 0.80 ppg White 30/50
19 9500 Slick Water
20 9500 Slick Water 1.00 ppg White 30/50
21 9500 Slick Water
22 9500 Slick Water 1.00 ppg White 30/50
23 9500 Slick Water
24 9500 Slick Water 1.00 ppg White 30/50
25 9500 Slick Water
26 9500 Slick Water 1.25 ppg White 30/50
27 9500 Slick Water
28 9500 Slick Water 1.25 ppg White 30/50
29 9500 Slick Water
30 9500 Slick Water 1.50 ppg White 30/50
31 9500 Slick Water
32 9500 Slick Water 1.50 ppg White 30/50
33 9500 Slick Water
34 9500 Slick Water 1.50 ppg White 30/50
35 9500 Slick Water
36 9500 Slick Water 1.75 ppg White 30/50
37 9500 Slick Water
38 9500 Slick Water 1.75 ppg White 30/50
39 9500 Slick Water
40 9500 Slick Water 2.00 ppg White 30/50
41 9500 Slick Water
42 9500 Slick Water 2.00 ppg White 30/50
43 10,500 Slick Water
Total 446,000 191,200 pounds

over 3,500 ft, with initial production rates reported as
high as 10 MMscf/d (Newfield Exploration Company
Press Release, November 2006).
Using the information learned from the Barnett
Shale, slickwater fracturing became the most viable
and economical stimulation method for these shales.
The early stimulation attempts experienced difficulty
with continuously placing proppant into the reservoir.
Although the proppant size was reduced, additional
problems were encountered: either fracture width
was not sufficient near the wellbore or significant
proppant fallout in the fracture caused premature
screen-out. Therefore, pad sweeps were introduced
to the design, which allowed the proppant bridge or

411
Modern Fracturing
settled prop to be washed away from the near-wellbore
area. Including pad stages between proppant stages
also allows injection of an increased volume of fluid
into the well. Increased fluid volume allows more
opportunity to maximize zonal coverage. A typical
treatment might consist of 500,000 to 700,000
gallons of fluid and about 200,000 lbs of 30/50
or 40/70 northern frac sand per stage. Table 11-8
shows an example of a pump schedule containing the
proppant stages and pad sweeps as an example. The
trend has been to increase the density or number or
frac stages in horizontal wells.
Both the Woodford and Caney shales, although
well-known potential producers, are in their infancy
as far as the development, particularly with the
application of horizontal well technology and continued
improvements in stimulation techniques.
11-5.7 Floyd Shale/Conasauga Shale,
Black Warrior Basin (Alabama)
On the western side of Alabama in and around the
Black Warrior Basin is a shale reservoir that has
recently received much interest as another Barnett
- the Floyd and Conasauga shales. The Floyd Shale
has had significant leasing activity but very few wells
completed by the time of this writing. This interval
occurs at depths from 4,000 to over 6,800 ft deep
and ranges between 50 ft and over 200 ft thick. The
Conasauga Shale is thicker and occurs at depths of
approximately 8,000 ft. These shale reservoirs have
been compared to both the Barnett Shale in North
Texas and the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas. The
rock is best described as a mixture of fine-grain clays,
silicates, plagioclase feldspars and other detrital
materials. The intergranular porosity is poor with
most of the microporosity associated with the clays.
There is little evidence of any natural fracturing.
When compared to other productive shale reservoirs,
the Floyd Shale lacks significant amounts of inter-
bedded siliceous or calcareous material (Mathews et
al., 2007). Based on the history of productive shales,
this combination of material and the lack of natural
fractures would indicate a rock that is more elastic
and less brittle. In general, the Floyd Shale cores
examined to date have quartz content in the 28 to
412
32% range and illite/smectite clays comprising 45
to 55% of the matrix. The remainder of the rock
consists of various amounts of minerals such as
siderite, pyrite, mica/illite, and significant quantities
of chlorite. The mineralogy of this rock is somewhat
variable and could change as different areas of the
Floyd Shale are explored. This formation is in the
earliest stages of development, with operators drilling
a few wells to sample the potential.
The Conasauga Shale, by comparison, has a higher
thermal maturity and appears to be more similar to
the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas.
Completion attempts have mimicked both
the Fayetteville Shales large-volume nitrogen
foam fracture treatments and the Barnett Shales
large-volume slickwater fracture treatments. In
addition there has been some use of and continued
interest in CO2 foam fluids as well as 100%
CO2 fracture treatments.
Several horizontal wells have also been drilled
and completed using nitrogen foam fluids as well
as slickwater. By the time of this writing there has
not been a commercial or economical completion
reported; however, it is important to consider
that this interval is on the eastern edge of the
Mississippi Embayment, and higher-potential shale
sections may yet be discovered.
11-5.8 Mancos and Lewis Shales
The Mancos and Lewis shales are located within
the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico
and southwestern Colorado. The San Juan Basin is
one of the more prolific producers of natural gas
in the Rocky Mountain Region. This area has been
known for its prolific coalbed methane production
and production from several tight gas sands. This
is a relatively thick shale ranging from 1000 to over
1500 ft. This helps compensate for a lower average
TOC content of 0.45 to 2.5% when compared to
other shale reservoirs. The shale section consists of
layers of shale, siltstone and sands, which can effect
the completion. The rock matrix is much like that
of other shale sections with porosity of less than 2%
and permeability as low as 0.0001 md. The reservoir
is typically separated into four sections: Ute, Navajo

City, First Bench of Otero and Second Bench of
Otero. (PTTC, 2001) The majority of interest in this
shale is associated with the Navajo City and Otero
benches because most of the natural fractures tend to
be located within these sections. These sections also
have more silica- and quartz-rich material and are
therefore more prone to fracturing.
Because the reservoir pressure is low (1,000 to
1,500 psi), this reservoir is typically fracture stimulated
using nitrogen foam fluids. The economics of this
reservoir work well because most of the Mancos and
Lewis shale completions are commingled with other
tight gas intervals such as the Mesa Verde and Dakota
(Shirley, 2001). However, it is difficult to evaluate the
incremental production from the shale. It has been
estimated that the average production is in the range
of 100 to 300 Mscf/d per well.
11-6 Shale Treatment
Design and Evaluation
11-6.1 Stimulation and Treatment
Design for Shale Reservoirs
Essentially all shale reservoirs require hydraulic
fracturing to be economically viable. In reviewing the
US shale reservoirs described above, it can be seen that
a variety of hydraulic fracturing techniques have been
utilized. In order to determine the best stimulation
method, all aspects of the reservoir must be evaluated.
Prior to the design of a fracturing treatment, several
steps should be taken not only to quantify the reservoir
properties but also to qualify the potential of the shale
to be productive and, more importantly, economic
to produce. This should initially include some form
of reservoir evaluation/assessment. A geophysical
evaluation of the reservoir using 3-D and 4-D seismic
has become extremely important to properly identify
the extent and potential of these unconventional
shale intervals. Other steps prior to developing
a completion plan must include well testing and
an understanding of the reservoir size. Significant
information has been obtained though core analysis
and well logs. Core analysis is used to evaluate the
stimulation potential success and challenges and to
determine shale properties such as:
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
Mineralogy Evaluate the mineral content of the
rock to help determine fluid sensitivity, anisotropy
and potential for clay/fines mobilization
Water saturation To determine potential for
water production and fluid clean-up issues
Permeability Both vertical and horizontal
Porosity
Natural fractures
Rock mechanics Determine elastic properties,
embedment potential, and the stress contrast for
zonal isolation and or horizontal drilling potential
Fracture identification logs have been important
in showing the existence of natural fractures as well
as helping determine the orientation of natural and
induced fracture direction. Most shale reservoirs
depend upon some level of microfractures or natural
fractures for enhanced production.
Because the general mineralogical properties of
shale reservoirs consist primarily of clay minerals
such as smectite, a perceived fluid sensitivity
led operators to minimize the fluid placed in these
reservoirs. In addition, the early development of shale
reservoirs occurred in the Michigan Basins Antrim
Shale and the Devonian shale section in the North
East with bottomhole pressures of less than 1000
psi, which roused concerns not about fluid clean
up, leading to treatment designs using N2 or CO2-
based foam fluids. Increasing natural gas price and
government tax credits resulted only in increased
activity in many shale plays throughout the country
but also experimentation with new stimulation and
completion technology. Operators began to spend
time to better evaluate these unconventional shale
reservoirs and better understand the mechanisms that
effect production and completion.
Although slickwater fracturing has been used in
gas reservoirs for over 30 years, experimentation in
unconventional reservoirs didnt start until Mayerhofer
et al. (1997) presented a new understanding of
fracturing tight gas sands. In this case the success
of large-volume conventional fracture treatments in
the Barnett Shale and an effort to reduce completion
costs led to the use of large slickwater treatments.
Of course, the reason behind the slickwater success
is that that in these very low-permeability reservoirs,
413
Modern Fracturing
very long fractures are indicated, with width as a
secondary priority. Thus, very large volumes can be
injected, extending the length greatly without the
need for large propped widths.
The subsequent success of large-volume slickwater
treatments in the Barnett Shale has made this type of
job the treatment of choice. Although there is a broad
variation in the design of a slickwater treatment, the
common goal is to establish a conductive fracture
that exposes as much reservoir as possible to the
wellbore. The success of slickwater fractures in
unconventional gas reservoirs is based on several
factors (Schein, 2004-2005):
In very low-permeability reservoirs, the length of
the fracture is by far the most important feature
of the fracture. Width is far less important (see
Sections 4-5.3 and 4-7.1).
Fractures create rough surfaces, and some
residual conductivity may exist in these
fractures after closure.
Natural fractures contribute to production.
Tight, low-pressure reservoirs that exhibit clean-
up problems with conventional gels.
The failure mechanism in the rock where
the potential for shear slippage or formation
deformation may occur
Slickwater fracture treatments may provide
for increased fracture extension and potential
height containment.
It is important to note that for slickwater
fracturing to be successful a reservoir
should exhibit a number of characteristics
that enable low-proppant-concentration fractures
to produce gas. There is confusion sometimes
when talking or writing about these fractures. The
conductivity of these fractures is actually not
low if you speak of dimensionless conductivity,
which is the ratio of fracture permeability times
fracture width, divided by reservoir permeability
and fracture length. The slickwater treatments
typically result in long fractures with little propped
width. Consider the following as reservoir screening
criteria for slickwater fracture treatments; wells with
the following characteristics will tend to be more
successful(Schein, 2004-2005):
414
Relatively Dry Gas-Saturated Rock. With high in
situ water saturation, fluids could block formation
pore throats and adversely effect conductivity of
these low-conductivity reservoirs.
Very Low Permeability. These reservoirs
require large surface-area fractures and fracture
extension with low leak-off.
Natural Fracture System. Reservoirs with
microfractures or other natural fractures will
contribute production.
Formation Barriers. Some level of barrier above
and below the zone offers the possibility of keeping
the frac in zone and achieving frac containment
(see Section 4-3.3.3 for a discussion on barriers
to fracture height growth).
Low Formation Sensitivity to Water. Assessing
formation sensitivity to large volumes of
water may require core flow testing and
mineralogical analysis to confirm.
New Economic Considerations. Wells in which
massive and large-volume fracture treatments
were volumetrically successful but economically
marginal. (This is caused by a number of factors
including product price, depletion and poor
reservoir quality, among a few.)
Non-Depleted Reservoir Pressure. Wells must still
have sufficient reservoir pressure to assist in flow back
and clean-up of the fracturing fluids.
Low Water Saturation. Too much water can tend to
over-saturate the reservoir, leading to poor fluid
recovery and poor production response.
With the fracture mechanism of most shale reservoirs
and the above criteria, it becomes evident why large-
volume slickwater treatments are tending to become the
preferred method of fracturing for most shale gas plays.
The differentiating factor with regard to choosing the
correct fracturing fluid tends to be the reservoir pressure.
Low-pressure (< 1,000 psi) reservoirs tend to be in a
more relaxed stress environment and may not clean
up well with large volumes of fluids. These reservoirs
such as the Antrim, Devonian, and Conasauga are
being fractured with N2 and CO2-based foam systems.
More normally or over-pressured reservoirs have
shown the best success utilizing large volumes of water
with low concentrations of proppant.
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

An excellent example of the evolution of fracturing
fluid and treatment type can be seen in the production
life of the discovery well in the Barnett Shale: the C.
W. Slay #1 well drilled in 1981 (Fig. 11-22). Because
of the concern with fluid sensitivity, the initial
stimulation consisted of about 1.5 MMscf of nitrogen
without proppant. Although the well responded with
gas production, the flow rate was not economically
sufficient. The well was re-fractured approximately
a year later with 132,000 gallons of CO2 foam fluid
and approximately 188,000 lbs of 20/40 white sand.
Production doubled, and this well continued to
produce at marginally economic rates for the next 19
years. Based on the success of slickwater fracturing in
other Barnett Shale wells, the well was re-fractured
again in mid-2000 using about 31,000 bbls of
slickwater and 95,000 lbs of 20/40 white sand. After
almost 20 years of production, the well responded
with production rates peaking at 1.475 MMscf/d
and has had cumulative production of about 1.25 Bcf
since the re-fracture with slickwater (see Section 13-5
for more discussions on re-fracturing).
Gas Production, Mscf/ Month
minimize horsepower requirements. With this large
volume of fluid one should also consider the use of
a bactericide, scale inhibitor, and iron scavenger. In
addition, surfactants have been used with varying
degrees of success. Microemulsion surfactant
technology has provided measurable success in
several areas of the Barnett Shale.
Proppant type and size have continued to trend
toward the use of smaller-mesh proppants. As
discussed previously, the proppant initially used in
fracturing shale was typically 20/40 mesh white sand.
Seeing the increased need to place more proppant,
proppant bridging and premature screenout became
concerns, particularly since water was being used as
the primary transport mechanism. Therefore 40/70
mesh proppant became available and provided several
benefits. Although its conductivity is approximately
one-half that of 20/40 mesh proppant, the 40/70
proppant average particle size diameter is also
approximately one half that of 20/40 mesh. As a result
3 to 4 times the volume of 40/70 proppant can be
pumped, resulting in even longer propped fractures. In
addition, in several areas ultra-lightweight proppants
(ULWPs) in 20/40 and 45/65 mesh sizes are used to

132,000 gals CO2 Foam

& 188,000 lbm Ottawa increase proppant-carrying capacity (see Section 8-
10000 31,000 Bbls Slick Water 3.4). Table 11-9 shows the settling velocity of various
95,000 lbm 20/40 Ottawa
size and specific gravity proppants in slickwater, and
Figures 11-23 and 11-24 compare conductivity of
ULWPs with natural sands.

1.5 MMscf N2 frac Table 11-9 Settling Velocity of Various Proppants in

100 Slickwater
1
16
31
46
61
76
91

6
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
10
12
13
15
16
18
19
21
22
24
25
27

Specific Settling Velocity

Months 20/40 Proppant
Gravity ft/minute
Figure 11-22 Stimulation and production evolution in Bauxite 3.65 23.2
the Barnett Shale discovery well, CW Slay #1 White Sand 2.65 16.6
The transition to slickwater fracturing treatments Resin Coated
2.55 15.9
Sand
in new shale play areas has occurred much more quickly
ULWP (prop = 125) 1.25 4.3
in recent years. This is a result of the relatively lower
cost of slickwater as a fracturing fluid and the ability
Specific Settling Velocity
to pump a large volume of fluid to contact/connect a 40/70 Proppant
Gravity ft/minute
large surface area of shale with the wellbore. Bauxite 3.65 6.0
The large volume of fluid being pumped and White Sand 2.65 4.4
the high rates necessary to create and extend a Resin Coated
2.55 4.2
Sand
fracture into the shale require several key additives
45/65 ULWP
to the fluid. Obviously, the use of friction reducer (prop = 125)
1.25 1.2
is needed to achieve the higher pump rates and

415
Modern Fracturing

5000
11-6.2 Fracture Modeling
4500
4000 Utilizing conventional fracture models proves to be
3500 a challenge when considering the complexity and
Conductivity md. ft

3000 variation in how shale reservoirs fracture. The original

20/40 ULW-125
2500 pseudo-3-D fracture models were developed to model
2000 conventional gelled or crosslinked fracture fluids,
1500 assuming typical two-wing fracture growth (see Section
1000
4-3.3.2). The hydraulic fracturing of shale reservoirs
500
20/40 White Sand and the use of slickwater in unconventional reservoirs
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
has radically changed how frac models can and should
Stress, psi
be used: Due to the complex nature of frac growth
20/40 ULWP (Hprop = 125) 20/40 White Sand
and broad extension of the fracture network in this
environment, the use of a two-wing fracture model
Figure 11-23 Conductivity comparison of ultra- is not realistic. There are, however, a few deep, high-
lightweight proppants with 20/40 sand
temperature, high-pressure (HTHP) shale reservoirs in
1000
45/65 ULW Conductivity
the early stages of exploitation, where the shale appears
to be more elastic in nature. In these cases, the hydraulic
fracture may be prone to more conventional bi-wing
Conductivity md. ft

100
40/70 White Sand fractures. Before using a fracture model, its important
45/65 ULW Permeability to understand the fracture geometry and the potential
for complex fracture systems.
10

1
0 1000 2000
Stress, psi
Conductivity, ULWP
Conductivity, White Sand
Figure 11-24 Conductivity comparison of 45/65 ultra-
lightweight proppant (prop = 1.25) with 40/70 mesh
white sand
Most recently the concept of smaller-mesh proppant
has extended to the use of 100 mesh sand as the primary
proppant. The small mesh size allows the proppant to be
more easily carried in the fracturing fluid and can also
enable placement in small fracture systems. One might
be concerned that 100 mesh proppant might act as a
sealant because 100 mesh sand has been used for years in
conventional fracturing as a fluid loss additive. However,
in slickwater fracturing, with the low concentration of
proppant being placed in the fracture system, fracture
conductivity may be a result of simply holding open
a fracture, thus allowing maximum conductivity.
Additional experiential evaluation is needed to evaluate
long-term production issues that may exist.
11-6.3 Summary
3000 4000 5000 6000 It is evident that shale reservoirs are much more
complex than most other tight gas reservoirs being
40/70 Permeability, White Sand
produced today, with the possible exception of coalbed
Permeability, ULWP
methane. Although the Barnett Shale has only been
actively produced since the late 1980s it has become
the model for other shale reservoirs throughout the
world. Unconventional thinking and applications
of a diverse number of technologies have created a
frenzy of activity over the past ten years. Not every
shale is just like the Barnett Shale; however, many of
the tools used to evaluate shale reservoirs have been
developed in this time frame.
Several technological advancements have provided
a better understanding of how to complete and
produce these complex formations. The application
of horizontal drilling has had a significant impact on
production and potential reserve recovery. Fracture
stimulation technology and application improvements
have and will continue to impact decisions about
what treatment method will provide optimum
economic production from shale reservoirs. Whether

416

the best method is slickwater, foam, crosslinked fluid
or some form of hybrid stimulation treatment, each
case must be evaluated individually because one
size does not and will not fit all.
The ultimate goal of gas shale completions is to expose
and interconnect the maximum surface area of shale to
the wellbore. Drainage penetration into the matrix of
the shale is measured in inches due to the extremely low
permeability. Therefore, economical completions must
connect vast quantities of rock surface through fractures
to generate sufficient production volumes. Due to limits
on bottomhole treating pressure, rate and fluid volume,
knowledge of the bounding rock layers is required to
design optimal completions.
In the case of proximity to water-bearing zones,
horizontal wellbores have been utilized to minimize
height growth and improve aerial fracture complexity
and thereby expose the maximum rock area within
the gas shale. With better understanding of fracture
complexity generated from horizontal wellbores,
infill drilling in well-bounded areas (e.g., Barnett
Shale Newark East core area) has intensified due
to the improved production rates achieved with
tighter spacing. Variations in horizontal completion
technology abound as engineers experiment with
perforation cluster design, stage length, pump rate,
fluid type and volume, proppant type and proppant
concentration, seeking to find the optimum
combination for the geologic environment of each
area. The Newark East field has demonstrated how
the optimum treatment design can vary significantly
among wells within a field.
Micro-seismic fracture mapping now provides
valuable information concerning the best direction for
a horizontal well or the extent and zonal coverage of a
stimulation treatment. The use of 3-D and 4-D seismic
information has significantly improved the potential for
success. Thorough understanding of the shale reservoir
(depth, thickness, thermal maturity, lateral extent,
porosity, interbedded permeability, natural fracturing,
and mineralogy) is key to any successful completion.
The extent of natural fracturing, as discussed in this
chapter, is one of the significant factors in identifying
the most productive intervals and best wells; however,
these fractures may extend (or be extended through
stimulation) into water-bearing or non-productive
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
zones. Lastly it is important to evaluate the mineralogy
of the shale itself. Silica-rich shales containing calcite-
filled natural fractures are easily stimulated and have
proven to be the best producers. By contrast, the
more clay-rich shales that lack interbedded silica
and have zero or low volumes of carbonate materials
have been the most challenging not only to fracture
but also to produce commercially.
Additional unconventional thinking and
applications will be required to develop many of these
gas shale plays in the future.
Outside of the USA, very few shale gas reservoirs
have been fractured. Instead, the work performed has
been in the nature of exploration and appraisal, rather
than development. This is largely due to the relative size,
immaturity and productivity of gas reservoirs outside
of North America. Put simply, the gas industry outside
of the US is not yet short enough of conventional
gas to turn en masse to shale gas. Additionally, the
massive fracturing infrastructure required to complete
shale gas wells effectively only exists in a few isolated
locations outside of North America. However, many
countries do not have their own independent sources
of gas, and the governments of these countries are
continuously looking for secure sources of energy that
they can control. Consequently, it is only a matter of
time before the world starts to look at the technologies
and techniques developed in places like the Barnett
and Fayetteville shales by the pioneering independent
operators of the US gas industry.
References
Ahmed, T., Centilmen, A., and Roux, B.: A Generalized
Material Balance Equation for Coalbed Methane
Reservoirs, paper SPE 102638, 2006.
Aminian, K., Ameri, S., Bhavsar, A., and
Lakshminarayanan, S.: Type Curves for
Production Prediction and Evaluation of Coalbed
Methane Reservoirs, paper SPE 97957, 2005.
Aminiam, K., Ameri, S., Bhavsar, A., Sanchez, M., and
Garcia, A.: Type Curves for Coalbed Methane
Production Prediction, paper SPE 91482, 2004.
Arri, L.E., Yee, D., Morgam, W.D., and Jeansonmne,
M.W.: Modeling Coalbed Methane Production
417
Modern Fracturing
with Binary Gas Sorption, paper SPE
24363,1992.
Baltoiu, L.V., Warren, B.K., and Natras, T.A.: State
of the Art in Coalbed Methane Drilling Fluids,
paper SPE/IADC 101231, 2006.
Barba, R.E., Dein, C.W., and Woodruff, R.A.:
Application and Evaluation of Advanced
Completion Optimization Technology in the Black
Warrior Basin, paper SPE 36673, 1999.
Bassett, L.: Guidelines to Successful Dewatering of
CBM Wells, paper SPE 104290, 2006.
Barree, R.D.: Application of Pre-Frac Injection/Falloff
Tests in Fissured Reservoirs Field Examples,
paper SPE 39932, 1998.
Bazan, L.W., and Larkin, S.D.: Limited Entry
Techniques Prove Successful in Simultaneously
Stimulating the Fruitland Coal and Pictured Cliffs
Formations in the San Juan Basin, paper SPE
74353, 2002.
Bazan, L.W., Larkin, S.D., Jacot, R.H., and Meyer,
B.R.: Modeling of Simultaneous Proppant
Fracture treatments in the Fruitland Coal and
Pictured Cliffs Formations in the San Juan Basin,
paper SPE 78694, 2002.
Bell, G.J. and Jones, A.H.: Variation of Mechanical
Strength with Rank of Gassy Coals, Proc. 1989
Coalbed Methane Symp., paper No. 8924,
Tuscaloosa, AL, April 1989.
Berkowitz, N.: Coal Science and Technology 7-The
Chemistry of Coal, Elsevier Science (1985) Table
3.16, p.88.
BJ Services Company, Tomball Technology Center,
Goemechanics & Petrologic Laboratories, Various
shale core reports, 2004 to 2006.
Brown, D.: Barnett May Have Arkansas Cousin,
AAPG Explorer (February 2006a) 8.
Brown, D.: Shales Require Creative Approaches,
AAPG Explorer, (November, 2006b) 6.
Castillo, J.L.: Modified Fracture Pressure Decline
Analysis Including Pressure-Dependant Leakoff,
paper SPE 16417, 1987.
Chaback, J.J., Morgam, W.D., and Yee, D.: Sorption
of Nitrogen, Methane, Carbon-Dioxide and
Their Mixtures on Bituminous Coals at In-Situ
Conditions, Fluid Phase Equalibria (March,
1996) 289.
418
Chen, Z., Khaja, N., Valencia, K.L., and Rahman, S.S.:
Formation Damage Induced by fracture fluids in
Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, paper SPE 101127,
2006.
Clarkson, C.R.: Application of a New Multi-
Component Gas Adsorption Model to Coal Gas
Adsorption Systems, SPE Journal, 8 (3), 236-250
(2003).
Clarkson, C.R., and Bustin, R.M.: The Effect of Pore
Structure and Gas Pressure Upon the Transport
Properties of Coal: A Laboratory and Modeling
Study 2. Adsorption Rate Modeling, Fuel, 78,
1345-1362 (1999).
Conway, M.W.: A Chemical Model for Coal-Fluid
Interactions, paper presented at the 1992
International Gas Research Conference, Orlando,
Fla.
Coulter, G.R., Benton, E.G., Thomson, C.L.:Water
Fracs and Sand Quantity: A Barnett Shale
Example, paper SPE 90891, 2004.
Crump, J.B. and Conway, M.W.: Effects of Perforation
Entry Friction on Bottomhole Treating Analysis,
paper SPE 15474, 1986.
Cui, X., Bustin, R.M., and Dipple, G.: Selective
Transport of CO2 CH4 and N2 in Coals: Insights
from Modeling of Experimental Gas Adsorption
Data, Fuel, 83 (3), 293-303, (2004).
DeGance, A.E., Morgan, W.D., and Yee, D.: High-
Pressure Adsorption of Methane, Nitrogen and
Carbon-Dioxide on Coal Substrates, Fluid Phase
Equalibria (February, 1993) 215.
Delmbacher, F.X., Economides, M.J., Helnemann,
Z.E., and Brown, J.E.: Comparison of Methane
Production From Coalbed Using Vertical or
Horizontal Fractured Wells, JPT (August 1992),
930-935.
Dindoruk, B.: Analytical Theory of Multiphase,
Multicomponent Flow in Porous Media, Ph.D.
dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif.
(1992).
Duel, M. and Cervik, J.: Methane Drainage in the
Pittsburgh Coal, Proc. 17th Intl. Conf. of Mining
Safety Res., Varna, Bulgaria, October 1977, pp9-
15
Espie, A.A.: CO2 Capture and Storage: Contributing
to Sustainable World Growth, paper IPTC 10936,

2005.
Faraj, B., H. Willims, G. Addison, and B. McKinstry,
2004, Gas potential of selected shale formations
in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin:
Houston, Hart Publications, Gas TIPS, v. 10, no.
1, p. 21-25
FETC, BP-Amoco and IEA GHG Programme, CO2
Capture and Geologic Sequestration: Progress
Through Partnership Workshop Summary
Report, Houston, Texas, 29-30 September, 1999,
p. A128.
Fisher, M.K., Wright, C.A., Davidson, B.M., Goodwin,
A.K., Fielder, E.O., Buckler, W.S., and Steinsberger,
N.P.: Integrating Fracture Mapping Technologies
to Optimize Stimulations, paper SPE 77441,
2002.
Fredd, C.N., Olsen, T.N., Brenize, G., Quintero, B.W.,
Bui, T., Glenn, S., and Boney, C.L.: Polymer-Free
Fracturing Fluid Exhibits Improved Cleanup for
Unconventional Natural Gas Well Applications,
paper SPE 91433, 2004.
Gray, I.: Reservoir Engineering in Coal Seams: Part 1
The Physical Process of Gas Storage and Movement
in Coal Seams, SPERE (February, 1987) 28.
Greaves, K.H. et al.: Multi-Component Gas
Adsorption-Desorption Behavior of Coal, Proc.
1993 Intl Coalbed Methane Symp., Birmingham,
AL.
Haines, Leslie: Activity Builds In Woodford Shale,
Shale Gas Supplement to Oil and Gas Investor,
(January 2006) 17.
Hall, F.E., Zhou, C., Gasem, K.A.M., Robinson,
R.L., and Yee, D.: Adsorption of Pure Methane,
Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide and Their Binary
Mixtures on Wet Fruitland Coal, paper SPE
29194, 1994.
Hayden, J. and Pursell, D., Pickering Energy Partners:
The Barnett Shale: Visitors Guide to the Hottest
Gas Play in the U.S., October, 2005
Hanby, K.P.: The Use of Production Profile for
Coalbed Methane Valuations, Proc. 1991
Coalbed Methane Symp., University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL, 443-452.
Holditch, S.A.: Completion Methods in Coal-Seam
Reservoirs, JPT (March 1993), p.270.
Imbus, S., Orr, F.M., Kuuskraa, V.A., Kheshgi, H.,
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
Bennaceur, K., Gupta, N., Rigg, A., Hovorka,
S., Myer, L., and Benson, S.: Critical Issues on
CO2 Capture and Storage: Findings of the SPE
Advanced Technology Workshop (ATW) on
Carbon Sequestration, paper SPE 102698, 2006.
Jadhav, M.V.: Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery
Using Microorganisms, paper SPE 105117,
2007.
Jahediesfanjani, H., and Civan, F.: Effect of Resident
Water on Enhanced Coal Gas Recovery by
Simultaneous CO2/N2 Injection, paper SPE
102634, 2006.
Jarvie, D.M.:Exploring for and Producing Shale
Gas:Application of Detailed Geochemical Data
in Ascertaining Prospectivity and Producibility,
WTGS Fall Symposium, 2006
Johnson, R.L., Flottman, T., and Campagna,
D.J.: Improving Results of Coalbed Methane
Development Strategies by Integrating
Geomechanical and Hydraulic Fracturing
Technologies, paper SPE 77824, 2002
Johnson, R.L., Scott, S., and Herrington, M.: Changes
in Completion Strategy Unlocks Massive Jurassic
Coalbed Methane Resource Base in the Surat
Basin, Australia, paper SPE 101109 presented at
the 2006 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, 11-13 September.
Jones, A.H., Ahmed, U., Bush, D.D., Holland, M.T.,
Kelkar, S.M., Rakop, K.C., Bowman, K.C., and
Bell, G.J.: Methane Production Characteristics
for a Deeply Buried Coalbed Reservoir in the San
Juan Basin, paper SPE/DOE/GRI 12876, Proc.
Unconv. Gas Recov. Symp., p.417, Pittsburgh, Pa.,
May 1984.
Jones, A.H. et al: A Review of the Physical and
Mechanical Properties of Coal with Implications
for Coalbed Methane Well Completions and
Production, in Geology and Coalbed Methane
Resources of Northern San Juan Basin (ed. J.E.
Fosset), Colorado and New Mexico Rocky Mtn.
Assoc. of Geologists, Denver, 1988.
Joubert, J.I., Grein, C.T., and Bienstock, D.: Sorption
of Methane in Moist Coal, Fuel, (July, 1973)
181.
King, G.R., and Ertekin, T.: A Survey of Mathematical
Models Related to Methane Production from Coal
419
Modern Fracturing
Seams, Part 1: Empirical and Equilibrium Sorption
Models, 1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, (1989a).
King, G.R., and Ertekin, T.: A Survey of Mathematical
Models Related to Methane Production from Coal
Seams, Part 2: Non-equilibrium Sorption Model,
1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium. University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, (1989b).
King, G.R., Ertekin, T., and Schwerer, F.C.: Numerical
Simulation of the Transient Behavior of Coal Seam
Degasification Wells, SPEFE (April, 1986) 165;
Trans., AIME, 281.
King, G.R.: Material Balance Techniques for Coal
Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs, paper
SPE 20730, 1990.
Kutas, G.M.: Remedial Treatment for Coal Degas
Wells, U.S. Patent No. 4,913,237, April 3, 1990.
Kvenvolden, K.A.: A Primer on Gas Hydrates: The
Future of Energy Gases, U.S. Geol. Survey Prof.
Paper 1570, p.279-280, 1993.
Lamarre, R.A.: Downhole Geochemical Analysis of
Critical Desorption Pressure and Gas Content for
Carbonaceous Reservoirs, paper SPE 111091,
2007.
Lancaster, D.E., McEtta, S.F., Hill R.E., Guidry,
F.K., and Jochen, J.E.: Reservoir Evaluation,
Completion Techniques, and Recent Results from
Barnett Shale Development in the Fort Worth
Basin, paper SPE 24884, 1992.
Langmuir, I.: The Collected Works of Irving Langmuir
(Surface Phenomena), 9, Pergamon Press, New
York, 1960.
Lee, J., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir
Engineering, SPE, 1996.
Lehman, L.V., Shelly, B., Crumrine, T., Gusdorf,
M., and Tiffin, J.: Conductivity Enhancement:
Long-Term Results from the Use of Conductivity
Enhancement material, paper SPE 82241, 2003.
Logan, T.L., Seccombe, J.C., and Jones, A.H.:
Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation and Openhole
Testing of a Deeply Buried Coal Seam in the
Piceance Basin, Colorado, paper SPE 15251,
Proc. Unconv. Gas Tech. Symp., p.501, Louisville,
Ky., May 1986.
Malone, P.G., Briscoe, F.H., Camp, B.S., and Boyer,
C.M., II: Method of Calculating Coalbed
420
Methane Reserves with Insight into the Advantages
and Disadvantages of Each Method, paper 8716,
Proc. 1987 Coalbed Methane Symp., University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, 73-79.
Manik, J., Ertekin, T., and Kohler, T.E.: Development
and Validation of a Compositional Coalbed
Simulator, JCPT, 41, No. 4, (2002).
Maricic, N., Mahaghegh, S.D., and Artun, E.: A
Parametric Study on the Benefits of Drilling
Horizontal and Multilateral Wells in Coalbed
Methane Reservoirs, paper SPE 96018, 2005.
Mathews, H.L., Schein, G., and Malone, M.:
Stimulation of Gas Shales, Theyre all the same...
Right? paper SPE 106070, 2007.
Mavor, M.J.: Western Cretaceous Coal Seam Project,
July 1991 Progress Report, Letter to R.A. McBane,
Gas Research Institute, August 8, 1991.
Mavor, M.J., and Gunter, W.D.: Secondary Porosity
and Permeability in Coal vs. Gas Composition and
Pressure, paper SPE 90255, 2004.
Mazunder, S., Hemert, P.V., Bruining, J., and Wolf,
K.H.A.A.: A Preliminary Numerical Model of
CO2 Sequestration in Coal for Improved Coalbed
Methane Production, unpublished, (2003).
Mayerhofer, M.J., Richardson, M.F., Walker Jr., R.N.,
Meehan, D.N., Oehler, M.W., and Browning Jr.,
R.R.: Proppants? We Dont Need No Proppants,
paper SPE 38611, 1997.
Mayerhofer, M., Stutz, L., Davis, E., and Wolhart,
S.: Optimizing Fracture Stimulation in a New
Coalbed Methane Reservoir in Wyoming Using
Tiltmeters and Integrated Fracture Modeling,
paper SPE 84490, 2003
McGinnis, N., Scheppan, J., Popovich, G., and
Rightmire, C.: Systems for Dewatering
Unconventional Gas Wells, International Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference paper IEEE
829179, 1982.
Mohaghegh, S., and Ertekin, T.: Type-Curve Solution
for Coal Seam Degasification Wells Producing
Under Two-Phase Conditions, paper SPE 22673,
1991.
Moschovidis, Z.A., Cameron, J.R., and Palmer, I.D.:
Methodology and Examples of Wellbore Stability
in Coalbed Methane Wells, paper 517, Intl.
Coalbed Methane Symp., Tuscaloosa, AL, 2005.

Mutalik, P.N., and Magness, W.D.: Production Data
Analysis of Horizontal CBM Wells in Arkoma
Basin, paper SPE 103206, 2006.
Myers, R.R., Mack, D.J., Awny, J.A., and Creech,
G.: Field Application of an Alternative Foaming
Agent for Coalbed Methane in the Nora Field in
Southwestern Virginia, paper SPE 57445, 1999.
NaturalGas.org, Overview Unconventional Natural
Gas Resources, 2000
Nelson, C.R.: Effects of Coalbed Reservoir Property
Analysis on Gas-In-Place Estimates, paper SPE
57443, 1999.
Newfield Exploration Company, Press Release
(November 2006).
Noynaert, S., Pumphrey, D., Pink, T., Eiden, T.,
Hartensteiner, F., and Nelson, C.: Drilling for
Coalbed Methane in the San Juan Basin with
Coiled Tubing: Results, Learnings and a World
First, paper SPE/IADC 105874, 2007.
Olsen, T.N., Brenize, G., and Frenzel, T.: Improvement
Process for Coalbed Natural Gas Completion and
Stimulation, paper SPE 84122, 2003.
Olsen, T.N., Bratton, T.R., Donald, A., Koepsell, R.,
and Tanner, K.: Application of Indirect Fracturing
for Efficient Stimulation of Coalbed Methane,
paper SPE 107985, 2007.
Osisanya, S.O. and Schaffitzel, R.F.: A Review of
Horizontal Drilling and Completion Techniques
for Recovery of Coalbed Methane, paper SPE
37131, 1996.
Palmer, I., and Mansoori, J.: How Permeability
Depends on Stress and Pore Pressure in Coalbeds:
A New Model, SPEREE (December, 1998) 539.
Palmer, I., Moschovidis, Z., and Cameron, J.: Coal
Failure and Consequences for Coalbed Methane
Wells, paper SPE 96872, 2005.
Palmer, I.D.: Review of Coalbed Methane Well
Stimulation, paper SPE 22395, 1992.
Palmer, I.D., Davids, M.W., and Jeu, S.J.: Analysis
of Unconventional Behavior Observed During
Coalbed Fracturing Treatments, paper SPE 8993,
1989.
Palmer, I.D., Fryar, R.T., Tumino, K.A., and Puri, R.:
Comparison Between Gel-Fracture and Water-
fracture Stimulations in the Black Warrior Basin,
Proc. 1991 Coalbed Methane Symp., p.233,
Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Pekot, L.J., and Reeves, S.R.: Modeling the Effects
of Matrix Shrinkage and Differential Swelling
on Coalbed Methane Recovery and Carbon
Sequestration, paper 0328, Proc. 2003 Coalbed
Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Penny, G.S., and Conway, M.W.: Coordinated Studies
in Support of Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed
Methane, Gas Research Institute publication 95-
0283, February, 1996.
Peng, D.Y., and Robinson, D.B.: A New Two-Constant
Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. (1976),
15, 59.
Pinzon, C.L., and Patterson, J.: Production Analysis
of Coalbed Wells Using Analytical Transient
Solutions, paper SPE 91447, 2004.
Prosser, L.J., Finfinger, G.L., and Cervik, J.: Methane
Drainage Study Using Underground Pipeline,
Marianna Mine 58, US Bureau of Mines RI
#8577, 1981.
PTTC Workshop: The Lewis Shale, San Juan Basin:
Approaches to Rocky Mountain Tight Shale Gas
Plays PTTCs Southwest Region, 2001
Puri, R., Yee, D., Buxton, T.S., and Mahajan, O.:
Method of Increasing the Permeability of a Coal
Seam, U.S. Patent No. 5,014,078, May 14,
1991a.
Puri, R., King, G.E., and Palmer, I.: Damage to Coal
Permeability During Hydraulic Fracturing, paper
SPE 21813, 1991b.
Rahman, K., and Khaksar, A.: Implications of
Geomechanical Analysis on the Success of
Hydraulic Fracturing: Lessons Learned from an
Australian Coalbed Methane Gas Field, paper
SPE 106276, 2007.
Ramurthy, M., and Lyons, B.: Lessons Learned from
Modeling Hydraulic Fracture Treatments in Coals
Using a Fully Functional Three-Dimensional
Fracture Model in a San Juan Basin Project, paper
SPE 107972, 2007.
Reeves, S.: Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery,
paper SPE 101466, SPE Distinguished Lecture
Series, 2002-2003.
Richardson, J.S., Sparks, D.P., and Burkett, W.C.: The
TEAM Project Reserve Analysis: A Comprehensive
Evaluation to Predict Ultimate Recovery of Coalbed
421
Modern Fracturing
Methane, Proc. 1991 Coalbed Methane Symp.,
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, 293-306.
Roadifer, R.D., Moore, T.R., Raterman, K.T., Farnan,
R.A., and Crabtree, B.J.: Coalbed Methane
Parametric Study: Whats Really Important to
Production and When? paper SPE 84425, 2003.
Robertson, E.P.: Measurement and Modeling of
Sorption-Induced Strain and Permeability Changes
in Coal, Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado School of
Mines, Golden, Colorado (2005).
Robertson, E.P., and Christiansen, R.L.: A Permeability
Model for Coal and Other Fractured, Sorptive-
Elastic Media, paper SPE 104380, 2006.
Rodvelt, G.D., and Oestreich, R.G.: Case History:
First Commercial Illinois Coalbed Methane Project
Commences Through a Structured Resource
Evaluation Plan, paper SPE 97720, 2005.
Ruppel, T.C., Grein, C.T., and Bienstock, D.:
Adsorption of Methane on Dry Coal at Elevated
Pressure, Fuel, (July, 1974) 152.
Ruckenstein, E., Voidyanthan, A.S., and Youngquist,
G.R.: Sorption by Solid Bidisperse Pore Structure,
Chem. Eng. Sci., 26, 1305-1318, (1971).
Ruthven, D.M.: Principles of Adsorption ans
Adsorption Processes, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York (1984).
Sawyer, W.K., M.D. Zuber, V.A. Kuuskraa and D.M.
Horner: Using Reservoir Simulation and Field
Data to Define Mechanisms Controlling Coalbed
Methane Well Production, paper no. 8763,
1987.
Schein, G.W., Carr, P.D., Canan, P.A., and Richey,
R.: Ultra Lightweight Proppants: Their Use and
Application in the Barnett Shale, paper SPE
90838, 2004.
Schein, G.W.: The Application and Tehnology of
Slickwater Fracturing, SPE Distinguished Lecture
Series, 2004-2005.
Scott, R.A.: Preliminary Assessment of Worldwide
Coalbed Methane Resources, Proc. AAPG Annual
Meeting, 2004.
Seidle, J.P.: A Modified P/Z Method for Coal Wells,
paper SPE 55605, 1999.
Seidle, J.P.: Long-Term Gas Deliverability of a
Dewatered Coal, JPT, (June 1993) p.564.
Seidle, J.P., and Aril, L.E.: Use of Conventional
422
Reservoir Models for Coalbed Methane
Simulation, paper SPE 21599, 1990.
Seidle, J.P., Jeansonne, M.W., and Erickson, D.J.:
Application of Matchstick Geometry to Stress
Dependant Permeability in Coals, paper SPE
24361, 1992.
Sengul, M.: CO2 Sequestration A Safe Transition
Technology, paper SPE 98617, 2006.
Shi, J.-Q., and Durucan, S.: A Bidisperse Pore
Diffusion Model for Methane Displacement
Desorption in Coal by CO2 Injection, Fuel, 82
(10), 1219-1229, (2003a).
Shi, J.-Q., and Durucan, S.: A Model for Changes
in Coalbed Permeability During Primary and
Enhanced Methane Recovery, SPEREE (August,
2005) 291.
Shi, J.-Q., and Durucan, S.: Gas Storage and Flow
in Coalbed Reservoirs: Implementation of a
Bidisperse Pore Model for Gas Diffusion in Coal
Matrix, paper SPE 84342, 2003b.
Shirley,K.: Lewis Not Overlooked Anymore, AAPG
Explorer (March 2001)
Siemons, N., Busch, A., Bruining, H., and Kroos,
B.: Assessing the Kinetics and Capacity of Gas
Adsorption in Coals by a Combined Adsorption/
Diffusion Method, paper SPE 84340, 2003.
Simpson, D.A., Lea, J.F., and Cox, J.C.: Coal Bed
Methane Production, paper SPE 80900, 2000.
Simons, L.H.:Elastic Properties of Shales, Drilling
and Rock Mechanics Symposium, paper 496-MS,
1963
Snider, P.M., Walton, I.C., Skinner, T.K., Atwood,
D.C., Grove, B.M., and Graham, C.: First
Laboratory Perforating Tests in Coal Show Lower-
Than-Expected Penetration, paper SPE 102309,
2006.
Southwestern Energy, Press Release (August 2004).
Southwestern Energy, Operational Update (October
2006).
Spafford, S.: Rock Creek Methane From Multiple
Coal Seams Completion Project, 1991 Annual
Report, presented at the Gas Research Institute.
Stevens, S.H., Spector, D., and Riemer, P.: Enhanced
Coalbed Methane Recovery Using CO2 Injection:
Worldwide Resource and CO2 Sequestration
Potential, paper SPE 48881, 1998.
 Chapter 11 Unconventional Gas

Stevenson, M.D.: Multi-component Gas Adsorption Butterworth Publishers, Johannesburg, South

on Coal at In-Situ Conditions, Petroleum Africa (1987).
Engineering, University of New South Wales, Yang, R.T. and Saunders, J.T.: Adsorption of Gases
Sydney (1997). on Coal and Heat-Treated Coals at Elevated-
Stutz, H.L., Victor, D.J., Fisher, M.K., Griffin, L.G., Temperature and Pressure. 1. Adsorption from
and Weijers, L.: Calibrating Coal Bed Methane Hydrogen and Methane as Single Gases, Fuel
Fracturing Geometry in the Helper Utah Field (1985) 64, No. 5, 616.
Using Treatment Well Tiltmeters, paper SPE Zhu, J., Jessen, K., Kovscek, A.R., and Orr, F.M.:
77443, 2002 Analytical Theory of Coalbed Methane Recovery
Suarez-Rivera, R., Green, S.J., McLennan, J., and Bai, by Gas Injection, paper SPE/DOE 87336,
M.: Effect of Layered Heterogeneity on Fracture 2002a.
Initiation in Tight Gas Shales, paper SPE 103327, Zhu, J., Jessen, K., Kovscek, A.R., and Orr, Jr., F.M.:
2006. Recovery of Coalbed Methane by Gas Injection,
Tang, G.-Q., Jessen, K., and Kovscek, A.R.: Laboratory paper SPE 75255, 2002b.
and Simulation Investigation of Enhanced Coalbed Zuber, M.D., and Semmelbeck, M.E.: Simulators
Methane Recovery by Gas Injection, paper SPE Analyze Coalbed Methane, The American Oil and
95947, 2005. Gas Reporter (September, 1990), 40-44.
Valencia, K.J., Chen, Z., Hodge, M.O., and Rahman, Zuber, M.D., and Olszewski, A.J.: The Impact of
S.S.: Optimizing Stimulation of Coalbed Methane Errors in Measurements of Coalbed Methane
Reservoirs Using an Integrated Fracture Modeling Reservoir Properties on Well Production Forecasts,
Approach, paper SPE 93245, 2005. paper SPE 24908, 1992.
Walker, R.N. Jr., Hunter, J.L., Brake, A.C., Fagin, P.A.,
and Steinsberger, N.P.: Proppants, We still Dont
Need No Proppants A Perspective of Several
Operators, paper SPE 49106, 1998.
Wei, X.R., Wang, G.X., and Massarotto, P.: A Review
on Recent Advances in the Numerical Simulation
for Coalbed Methane Recovery Process, paper
SPE 93101, 2005.
Williams, Peggy: New Shale-Gas Play Unfolding,
Shale Gas, a supplement to Oil and Gas Investor,
(January 2006) 18.
Wolhart, S.L., Stutz, H.L., and Mayerhofer, M.:
Applying Advanced Fracture Diagnostics to
Optimize Fracture Stimulation in Coalbed
Methane Reservoirs: Case History of Two Field in
the Rocky Mountains, paper SPE 91376, 2004
Wong, S., Gunter, W.D., and Mavor, M.J.: Economics
of CO2 Sequestration in Coalbed Methane
Reservoirs, paper SPE 59785, 2000.
www.eia.doe.gov, 2007
Youngquist, W., and Duncan, R.C.: North American
Natural Gas: Data Show Supply Problems, Natural
Resources Research, 12:4 (December 1993), p229-
240.
Yang, R.T.: Gas Separation by Adsorption Processes,

423
Modern Fracturing

424
Michael J. Economides is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, and the
managing partner of a petroleum engineering and petroleum strategy consulting firm. His interests include
petroleum production and petroleum management with a particular emphasis on natural gas, natural gas
transportation, LNG, CNG and processing; advances in process design of very complex operations, and
economics and geopolitics. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune. Previously he was the
Samuel R. Noble Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University and served as chief scientist
of the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI). Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M University,
Economides was director of the Institute of Drilling and Production at the Leoben Mining University
in Austria. Before that, he worked in a variety of senior technical and managerial positions with a major
petroleum services company. Publications include authoring or co-authoring 14 professional textbooks and
books, including The Color Of Oil, and more than 200 journal papers and articles. Economides does a
wide range of industrial consulting, including major retainers by national oil companies at the country level
and by Fortune 500 companies. He has had professional activities in over 70 countries. .

Randy LaFollette is the manager of geoscience technology for BJ Services Company in the Corporate
Technology Center in Tomball, Texas. LaFollette has a BS in geological science from Lehigh University. He
has 30 years of experience in the oil industry including field, region and research positions. His previous
employers have included the Western Co. and Reservoirs Inc. He is active in SPE, aiding with Advanced
Technology Workshop organization and presenting at some ATWs. Current job responsibilities include
coordinating laboratory and applied support projects; structuring and implementing geospatial studies
of stimulation effectiveness, linking reservoir quality and treatments performed to production results;
providing stimulation and remedial treatment recommendations; training personnel; and consulting with
operators and BJ field/region personnel on technical support matters.

Dr. Don Wolcott is president of E&P for Aurora Oil & Gas Co, an independent production company
headquartered in Moscow. Before working for Aurora, Wolcott worked for various companies including
YUKOS Oil Co., ARCO Oil & Gas Co., and Schlumberger Inc. While working at YUKOS, Wolcott played
a pivotal role in its becoming the top oil producing company in Russia, the lowest-cost producer and one
of the top reserve companies in the world. Wolcott has a PhD in petroleum engineering from the Colorado
School of Mines, and BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from the University of Wyoming.

Andronikos Demarchos is a senior engineer on the stimulation and completions team with the Hess
Corporation. Previously, he worked for eight years with Economides Consultants on projects around the
world, primarily in hydraulic fracture design, analysis and optimization, and for three years as a production/
operations engineer with Union Pacific Resources. He has authored several professional papers. Demarchos
holds an MS in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M University and a BS in electrical engineering from
the University of Houston.
Chapter 12
Fracturing for
Reservoir Development
Michael J. Economides, University of Houston,
Randy F. LaFollette, BJ Services
Don Wolcott, Aurora Oil & Gas
and Andronikos Demarchos, Hess
12-1 Introduction
Clearly hydraulic fracturing has been established
already as perhaps the most compelling and attractive
single well production and injection enhancement
technique. As such, it should be difficult to decide
against hydraulic fracturing in a well. However a
number of formation evaluation considerations
such as the location and distance of water and
hydrocarbon contacts, layering, barriers and others
must be accounted for and may, in fact, limit
achievable production results.
Even more interesting are reservoir engineering
issues, such as the deployment of fractured wells for
reservoir exploitation strategies. What is the impact of
fractured wells in reservoir depletion and oil and gas
recovery? How do they compare with unfractured wells?
There have been a number of recent important papers
that address the issue of fracturing, optimizing the
treatments and maximizing their impact on production
enhancement (Romero et al., 2003; Economides et
al., 2004; Demarchos et al., 2004; Rueda et al., 2004;
Demarchos et al., 2005; Rueda et al., 2005; Sabaev et al.,
2006; Vakhitova, 2006; and Baranov et al., 2007).
This chapter will focus on well positioning,
configuration and spacing. How should fractured
wells be configured? Given a certain drainage area
for the reservoir, how should it be divided among
fractured wells? Unquestionably, it should not be the
same as for unfractured wells with radial flow.
Fracturing increases well potential and, in some
cases, recovery when compared to an unfractured well.
The orientation of a fractured well in relation to other
wells plays a significant role in optimizing rate and
recovery. When a well is hydraulically fractured, there
will be an introduction of linear formation flow, where
otherwise there would be radial flow. The duration of
linear formation flow will increase as the stimulation
level increases. At the limit, only linear flow is seen
for a fully penetrating fracture in pseudosteady-state
well drainage, with adequate fracture conductivity.
The well will have no radial flow period. In
short, as the level of stimulation increases, so does
the duration and magnitude of linear flow with a
corresponding decrease in radial flow.
Because well stimulation increases the length and
duration of linear flow, optimal well placement during
development planning should look to accommodate
and enhance linear flow. The optimization criteria for a
given development project is to deliver the maximum
production and recovery with the minimum number of
wells. With longer fractures providing linear flow, the
optimization of rate and recovery leads the development
to rectangular drainage shapes. There is an optimal
aspect ratio for the rectangular drainage shape, which is
introduced later in this chapter.
The shape of fractures forces the creation of
elongated drainage areas, and the question arises
regarding well spacing and, again, positioning.
Obviously, knowledge of the would-be fracture
azimuth is quite important and, indeed, crucial,
in infield drilling for production and planning
the positioning of wells.
Important exercises in any reservoir strategy are
the evaluation of past performance and past jobs,
the identification of gaps and the remediation of
problems. A new, powerful approach is the use of data
mining. Data mining is not new as an approach to
identify patterns from large numbers of influencing
variables; only the types of questions it can answer
have changed. In the 1960s, computing power was
scarce and expensive; thus, data mining answered
questions such as what was the total production by a
field for the last three years? In the 1980s the question
had evolved to what was the total production in the
southeast area of the field in the second quarter of
1983? In the 1990s, the question was what is the
total production in the south east section of the field
in the second quarter with water-cut above 50% and
drilled to the depth of well #15? Today with vast
computer power, geographical information systems
(GIS), and artificial neural networks, data mining can
427
Modern Fracturing

answer more complex questions such as, why is the
water cut in well 15 above 15%? Or, more relevant
to fracturing, what factors contribute to successful
fracturing treatments in a formation, a field or a
section of the field? or What went wrong, what went
right and what things could be improved?
12-2 Impact of Fracturing on
Reservoir- or Drainage-Wide
Production
In Chapter 2 of this book the performance of a
hydraulically fractured well was introduced through the
use of the dimensionless productivity index, JD. Also, the
concept of the Unified Fracture Design was presented
as a means to physically optimize well performance
(Economides et al., 2002a and 2002b). The design
procedure was expounded upon in Sections 4-5 and
4-6 using the Proppant Number as the catalyst in
defining both the maximum potential JD and the
optimum fracture conductivity, CfD,opt , whose value leads
to the desired fracture dimensions.
The maximum JD was presented in Chapter 2 both
in graphical form and with convenient correlations:
where Nprop is defined as in Eq. 2-32, Section 2-5. (See
Equation 2-33 bottom of page).
Similarly, correlations were presented for
the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity
for the entire range of Proppant Numbers: (See
Equation 2-34 bottom of page).
The drainage area and drainage shape are of major
importance in fractured well performance. The UFD
design procedure is based on pseudosteady state, and
the equations above are for such flow and also for
wells depleting square drainage areas.
The orientation of a fracture in a well in relation
to those of other fractured wells plays a significant
role in optimizing rate and recovery. When a well
is stimulated, there will be an introduction of linear
formation flow, where otherwise there would be radial
flow for an un-stimulated well. The duration of linear
formation flow will increase as the stimulation level
increases. At the limit, only formation linear flow is seen
for a fully penetrating fracture (i.e., one whose length,
tip-to-tip, extends to the drainage boundaries) with
adequate fracture conductivity under pseudosteady
state (closed boundaries). In such a case, the well will
have no radial flow. This was shown in Chapter 2: The
theoretical limit of JD in a fully penetrating fracture
and fully developed linear flow in a closed square is
6/. In summary, as the level of stimulation increases
so does the duration and magnitude of linear flow
with a corresponding decrease in radial flow.
The shape of a hydraulic fracture lends itself
to rectangular drainage area in a fully developed
reservoir exploitation strategy. The first important
issue is to recognize that multiple fracturing
treatments will no longer drain square drainage
areas, but elongated ones, whose aspect ratio depends
on the number of infield wells.
The Proppant Number of Eq. 2-32:
2
4k f x f w 4k f x f whp 2k f V p
N prop = I x C fD =
= = (2-32)
kxe2 kxe2 hp kVr
must be adjusted first by
4k f whx f x f xe xe
N prop = = I x2C fD , (10-1)
kxe ye h x f xe ye
where xe and ye are the dimensions of the drainage,
parallel and perpendicular to the fracture.

1
if N prop 0.1
0.990 0.5 ln N prop
J D max ( N prop ) = (2-33)
6 0.423 0.311N prop 0.089( N prop ) 2
exp 2

if N prop > 0.1
1 + 0 . 667 N prop + 0. 015( N prop )

1.6 if N prop < 0.1



0.583 + 1.48 ln N prop

C fD ,opt ( N prop ) 1.6 + exp
=
1 + 0.1142 ln N

if 0.1 N prop 10 (2-34)

prop



N prop

if Nprop >10

428
 Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development

Daal and Economides (2006) showed that for larger Proppant Numbers (i.e., as the treatments
small Proppant Numbers (Nprop < 0.1) an equivalent increase and their lengths increase). In these cases,
Proppant Number can be defined: an elongated drainage aspect ratio becomes quite
CA
attractive exactly because of the evolution of the
N prop ,e = N prop 30.88 , (10-2) far more desirable linear flow in the drainage. As
the treatments become larger, a square drainage
where CA is the Dietz shape factor (as given in Fig. shape is no longer desirable.
10-2) and the calculated Nprop,e can then be used
with the normal correlations for both maximum 12-2.1 Example Application of Infield
JD and optimum CfD. For Proppant Numbers Drilling and Fracturing of Gas Wells
larger than 0.1, Daal and Economides (2006)
presented a semi-analytical correlation, which Start with a large drainage area of 320 acres in a
is also shown in Section 10-2. reservoir where k = 1 md, with all other important
The benefit is an overall increase in well potential reservoir and fracture treatment data shown in Table
per unit area, with fewer wellbores. The total JD would 12-1. The sizing of the fracture follows the iterative
be the sum of individual JDs. procedure outlined in Sections 4-5 and 4-6, with the
proppant pack permeability reduced because of the
10
y e = xe 2ye = xe non-Darcy flow in the fracture (see Section 8-6). Table
4ye = xe 5ye = xe
10ye = xe 12-2 presents the results, first for one well drilled in
the entire drainage and fractured. The maximum JD for
one well is 0.393, leading to an initial pseudosteady-
state production rate of 15 MMscf/d.
JD, max

1
Table 12-1 Reservoir and Treatment Data for Single,
Two and Four Fractured Wells in a Given Drainage

INPUT DATA

Mass of proppant, lbs 200,000

0.1 Specific Gravity of proppant 2.65
0.1 1 10 100
Np Porosity of proppant Pack 0.38
Proppant Pack Permeability, md 150,000
Figure 12-1 Maximum JD as a function of the Proppant
Formation Permeability, md 1
Number and Drainage Aspect Ratio (xe is the drainage
side parallel to the fracture and ye is the drainage side Reservoir thickness, ft 50
perpendicular to the fracture) Total Drainage Area, acres 320
Well raidus, ft 0.4
Reservoir Pressure, psi 3,300
Figure 12-1 presents JD,max vs. Nprop for Bottom-Hole Flowing Pressure, psi 1,500
several aspect ratios of the drainage areas (Daal Gas Specific Gravity 0.71
and Economides, 2006). This graph allows
an interesting look at the behavior of fracture Table 12-2 Examples of Single, Two and Four Fractured
penetration vs. drainage aspect ratio. At small Wells in a Given Drainage
Proppant Numbers (i.e., small treatments relative Number
Total Rate q,
Total
of JD,max Rate q, ye/xe Nprop CfD,opt xf , ft
to the drainage area and, thus, small penetrations fractures
JD,max MMscf/d
MMscf/d
relative to the drainage dimensions) the
productivity index is reduced as the drainage becomes 1 0.393 0.393 15,058 15,058 1 0.0440 1.600 310

elongated because on either side of the fracture it

2 0.418 0.836 16,028 32,057 0.5 0.0847 1.600 304
becomes increasingly difficult to drain the reservoir.
Square drainage is the best for production in 4 0.375 1.499 14,356 57,425 0.25 0.1737 1.392 330
such cases. But an inverse behavior happens at

429
Modern Fracturing
Cutting the drainage in half (160 acres,
aspect ratio 2:1), means that now the two wells are
fractured in two adjoining and parallel drainage
areas, leading to individual well JDs equal to
0.418 for a composite of 0.836 and a total initial
pseudosteady-state production rate of 32 MMscf/d.
Finally, four wells, splitting the total drainage area in
four parallel quarters (80 acres, aspect ratio 4:1) lead
to composite initial pseudosteady-state production
rate equal to 57.4 MMscf/d. (Note: In this
example the fractures are, of course, parallel to
each other. Simply the total drainage is split from
top to bottom, creating first a 1:1, then two 2:1
and then four 4:1 drainages. In all cases the total
area remains the same: 320 acres.)
There are two important points that need to be
made here. First, as will be shown in Section 12-3,
the goal of infield drilling is to accelerate recovery,
and the four-well configuration will lead to a much
faster rate of production decline than the two-
well or single-well option. Second, a more subtle
observation is necessary. Table 12-2 shows a superficial
abnormality. The individual JD of two fractures goes
up compared with that of one fracture, and then
the JD of each of four fractures goes down. This is
not an error. The relationship between the distances
of the parallel and perpendicular boundaries vis a
vis the fracture length and the ultimate evolution
of full linear flow are complex. The issue was
addressed in detail in Daal and Economides
(2006) and is shown in Fig. 12-1.
12-2.2 Transient Flow of Fractured Gas Wells
Before pseudo-steady conditions ensue, the well flow
rate is under transient conditions. Chapter 3 of this
book presents all important flow regimes, including
bi-linear, linear and pseudo-radial. They are important
not only in well-test analysis but also for forecasting
well performance until boundary-dominated flow
emerges. The onset of pseudosteady state can be
forecast through numerical simulation, but there are
also good analytical approximations, one of which is
from Economides et al., 1994:
ct re 2
t
pss =1200 , (12-1)
k
430
where, tpss is the time until pseudosteady-state in
hours. Equation 12-1 is for a non-fractured well
in the center of a square drainage area and should
represent the upper limit of time to pseudosteady
state. Fractured wells will enter pseudosteady state
more quickly than unfractured wells, especially if the
drainage shape is not square but instead rectangular,
with the boundaries parallel to the fracture coming
ever closer because of infield drilling.
Using the variables for the study in Section
12-2.1 and porosity equal to 20%, a drainage area
of 320 acres (re = 2100 ft) and a permeability of 1
md, the time to pseudosteady state would be a
maximum of 230 days. Halving the drainage area
would result in roughly halving the time and, for
the four fractured wells, halving the time again to
less than 2 months. Forecast of well performance
beyond that point would then be done under
pseudosteady-state conditions.
These times would increase by a factor of 10 if the
reservoir permeability is reduced by a factor of 10 to
0.1 md, as can be surmised by Eq. 12-1.
Production Rate Under Transient Conditions
30
Transient Production Rate, MMscf/d
25
20
15
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, months
Figure 12-2 Transient rate decline for a single fractured
well in the example in Section 12-2
Figure 12-2 shows transient production rates for
the single fractured well in the example presented
in Section 12-2.1, showing a large rate decline from
an average of 26 MMscf/d in the first month to 15
MMscf/d during the eighth month, coinciding with
the onset of pseudosteady state. This results in the
production of about 4 Bcf of gas.
Using A = 320 acres, h = 50 ft, and Sw = 0.2 at
the initial reservoir pressure of 4000 psi and Z = 0.85,
the initial formation volume factor, Bg is 0.00349 (see

Section 2-3.3, Eq. 2-18) resulting in an initial gas-in-
place of about 32 Bcf. At the end of transient conditions
about 12.5% of original gas is produced, resulting in a
pressure decline to about 3300 psi.
In the next section, we will present a more
appropriate material balance-based forecast under
pseudosteady-state conditions.
12-3 Forecasting Natural Gas
Well Performance and Recovery
In Chapter 2, the natural gas material balance
equation was given as:
Bgi
G p = Gi G = Gi Gi , (2-48)
Bg
where Bgi and Bg are the corresponding formation
volume factors. Substitution of those expressions
results in:
p / Z
G p = Gi 1
. (2-49)
pi / Z i Figure 12-3 Drainage configurations for drainage and
With Eq. 2-49, for any new average reservoir pressure
the corresponding cumulative recovery, Gp, can be
readily calculated.
12-3.1 A Case Study for Reservoir Recovery
Using Unfractured and Fractured Wells
A case study is presented below using the expected
productions from the reservoir described in Table 12-1
and the configurations shown in Fig. 12-3, representing
respectively, one and four unfractured wells and one
and four fractured wells, partitioning the drainage
accordingly. Total initial gas-in-place is given by
Ah(1 S w )
Gi = ,
(12-2)
Bgi
and with A = 320 acres (43,560 ft2), h = 50 ft, =
20%, Sw = 0.2 and Bgi = 0.00349 resft3/scf (at
4,000 psi, calculated from property correlations
presented in Chapter 2), then the initial gas-in-place
from Eq. 12-2, Gi = 32 Bcf.
An abandonment pressure of 1700 psi is
assumed in this case study. The values of the gas
deviation factor, Z, at 4000 psi and 1700 psi are
Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development
0.85 and 0.78, respectively and from Eq. 2-
49, Gp = 17.15 Bcf, leading to a recovery of
about 54% at abandonment.
For each of the draining configurations in Fig.
12-3 there will be two periods: a transient stage and a
pseudosteady-state stage.
recovery case study
Figure 12-4 is a forecast of total production
rates for the four configurations showing the very
large early-time production from the four fractured
wells. Eventually, as should be expected, the rates
may flip-flop, but the true impact is shown in Fig.
12-5, where the cumulative recoveries are shown.
Fractured wells provide production enhancement
plus accelerated recovery, providing a huge boost to
project economics and net present value. In this case
study, the time to ultimate recovery from the four
fractured wells will be about 2.4 years, whereas the
same recovery would take more than 30 years from
a single unfractured well. (For the four unfractured
wells, the time would be 7 years and for the single
fractured well would be about 10 years.)
Tables 12-3 and 12-4 contain the actual rates
and cumulative recoveries for the four fractured
and unfractured well configurations, respectively.
The results on these tables show the enormous
impact of fractured wells on accelerated production.
For example, after about three months, the four
fractured wells would deliver about 45 MMscf/d
whereas the four unfractured wells would produce
431
Modern Fracturing

about 20 MMscf/d. The four fractured wells would Table 12-4 Production Rate and Cumulative
decline to this rate about six months later (nine Production Forecast for Four Unfractured Wells in a
Quartered Squared Reservoir
months from the start.)
P, Gp, Gp, q, t, t,
psi Bscf Bscf MMscf days days
80
4000 0 0 26.75 0 0
70 1 Fractured Well
4 Fractured Wells 3900 0.43 0.43 25.28 17 17
60 1 Unfractured Well
4 Unfractured Wells
Transient to PSS 3700 * 1.68 1.27 22.42 72 55
q, MMscf/d

50
Transient to PSS
40 Transient to PSS 3500 2.61 0.91 20.36 116 44
Transient to PSS
30 3300 3.59 0.98 18.33 169 53
20 3100 4.97 1.38 16.18 250 81
10
3000 5.84 0.87 15.10 308 58
0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460 1,825 2,190 2,555 2,920 3,285 2800 7.26 1.42 12.98 414 106
Time, d
2600 8.72 1.46 10.90 544 130
Figure 12-4 Production rate forecast for drainage in case 2400 10.51 1.79 8.79 736 192
study
2200 12.30 1.79 6.70 985 249
2000 14.08 1.78 4.70 1332 347
18 1800 16.08 2.00 2.73 1957 625
15 1700 17.15 1.07 1.78 2560 603
12 *End of the transient period
Gp , Bscf

1 Fractured Well
9 4 Fractured Wells
1 Unfractured Well
4 Unfractured Wells
6 Transient to PSS
Transient to PSS
12-3.2 Field Development Strategy
3 Transient to PSS
Transient to PSS
0 Sabaev et al. (2006) have shown that a given Nprop has
0
0
60
90
20
50
80
10
40
70
00
30
60
90

0
0

an optimum drainage aspect ratio that can provide

73

,22
,95
1,4
2,1
2,9
3,6
4,3
5,1
5,8
6,5
7,3
8,0
8,7
9,4
10
10

time, d
the largest cumulative JD for a given development
Figure 12-5 Cumulative recovery forecast for drainage in area. In the same logic, for any given well drainage
case study
aspect ratio and Nprop , there is an optimal CfD and
Table 12-3 Production Rate and Cumulative Production
and a penetration ratio, Ix , at which JD is maximized.
Forecast for Four Fractured Wells in a Sliced, This means that that for the same proppant volume,
Squared Reservoir Vf, a rectangular drainage area gives a higher JD
P, Gp, Gp, q, t, t, than a square drainage area.
psi Bscf Bscf MMscf days days
As shown in Chapter 2 the JD limit for a well in
4000 0 0 76.44 0 0
a square drainage shape is 6/. Sabaev et al. (2006)
3800 0.87 0.87 70.09 12 12
3600 2.14 1.27 63.33 32 20
showed that the maximum JD in a rectangular drainage
3400 3.10 0.96 57.14 48 16
area under linear flow is approximated by:
3200 4.45 1.35 50.62 74 26

6 ye
3050 * 5.40 0.95 45.92 95 21
J Dmax = . (12-3)
xe
3000 5.84 0.44 44.30 105 10
2800 7.26 1.42 37.92 141 36 Because rectangular geometry provides larger
2600 8.72 1.46 31.75 185 44 JD, it is obvious to consider this geometry
2400 10.51 1.79 25.49 252 67 for field development. Sabaev et al. (2006)
2200 12.30 1.79 19.37 338 86 presented type curves showing the maximum
2000 14.08 1.78 13.53 458 120 possible JD and optimum CfD for a given
1800 16.08 2.00 7.83 676 218 rectangular aspect ratio (rectangle length to
1700 17.15 1.07 5.11 886 210 width ratio Ar=ye/xe). They further provided a
*End of the transient period methodology to determine the optimum aspect

432
 Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development

6
Np=1000
3 500 1
Xf Xf JD, max=3*6/Q=5.73
ye 1 0.9
5 100
xe
Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD

50 0.8
2x f
4 Ix 
xe

Penetration Ratio, Ix
kf w 0.7
3
CfD  20
kx f

N prop  I x2* Cf D * Ar 10 0.6

2

5 0.5

3 0.4
1 0.3
1
0.5 0.2
0 0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

Figure 12-6 Pseudosteady-state fracture performance type curve (Ar = 3) (courtesy of Yukos)

ratio for a given set of reservoir conditions. They
constructed type curves for various aspect ratios of
2, 3, 5, and 10. The type curve for aspect ratio
of 3 is shown in Fig. 12-6.
Ar= 1
Figure 12-7 Different development strategies for a given
reservoir area
Using rectangular-shaped patterns with aspect
ratio greater than one, in field development provides
proportionally larger potential for a given JD. Due to
the larger well cumulative JD, for the same Nprop, a
larger well spacing can be used. Larger well spacing
leads to a decrease in the total number of wells in
the field development and will further improve
investment efficiency. For the same development area
the Ar = 3 development has a higher cumulative JD
with fewer wells as shown by comparing Fig. 12-7 a
and c. The development with Ar = 2 is not as clear a
benefit, requiring economic justification because the
cumulative JD is less by 30%, but the development
requires half as many wells (Fig. 12-7 b).
Ar= 2 Ar= 3 Sabaev et al. (2006) presented a correlation
relating the drainage aspect ratio and the
required Nprop to maximize the drainage JD (see
Fig. 12-8). For each value of Nprop in Fig. 12-8
the curve cutting through the family of curves
represents both the maximum JD and the optimum
fracture conductivity.
The Proppant Number for rectangular drainage
shapes is defined by:
2
N
prop = C I
fD x rA . (12-4)
From Fig. 12-8 for an aspect ratio of 3 it is clear
that the required Proppant Number should be
about 10. The question is whether such Proppant
Number can be placed, which goes back to
the concept of pushing the limits. For low-
permeability reservoirs, such Proppant Numbers are
not only desirable but also feasible.

433
Modern Fracturing
6
Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD
5
4
3
2
1
0.5
0.1
0
0 1 2 3
Figure 12-8 Optimum aspect ratio for pseudosteady-state production (from Sabaev et al., 2006)
12-4 Impact of Fracture
Azimuth on Well Planning
Hydraulic fractures generally have a well-
defined orientation (vertical, comprising the
overwhelming fraction of fractures in petroleum
formations vs. horizontal) and azimuth. What
controls these features of the fracture is the
state of stress (see Section 4-3.2).
In any geologic structure there are three identifiable
principal stresses: one vertical and two horizontal. The
latter are distinguished as the minimum and maximum
horizontal stress. A fracture will propagate toward
the path of least resistance, i.e., perpendicular to the
minimum stress. Because in the case of the vast majority
of oil and gas formations the smallest of the three stresses
is one of the two horizontal stresses, a hydraulic fracture
is typically vertical. In shallow formations, a horizontal
fracture may be created, but this should be considered
the exception. There are also some aberrant formations
where horizontal fractures may be created at depth,
or a T-shaped fracture may appear. A comprehensive
discussion on these subjects can be found in Chapter 3
of Economides and Nolte (2000). Complex hydraulic
fractures, such as those documented in the Barnett
Shale, are yet another fracture type.
434
Nprop=100
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Aspect Ratio, Ar
Of considerable interest in reservoir exploitation
strategy are the fracture azimuth (because of the drainage
patterns), the positioning of wells and, especially, the
partitioning of a given drainage either by the drilling of
infield wells in ever-closer well spacing or the fracturing
of horizontal wells with multiple treatments. The
performance of fractures in relation to their drainage
size and shape was covered in Chapter 2.
There are three issues related to stress and stress
magnitude that a fracturing engineer must be aware of,
especially in dealing with exploiting a field:
What are the magnitudes of the stresses in both the
target and neighboring layers?
What is the extent of stress anisotropy?
What are the orientations of the stresses, and
consequently what would the direction and
azimuth of the fracture be?
The answer to the first question is important for
a number of reasons. First, the fracture geometry,
such as the width, greatly depends on the value of
the minimum stress. Also, the net pressure during
fracturing and the fracture geometry are strongly
dependent on these values. This subject has been
covered extensively in Chapter 4, including the
techniques for measuring minimum stress.

The second and third questions are what control
the fracture orientation and azimuth. The extent of
stress anisotropy (i.e., how much smaller the minimum
stress is compared to the intermediate stress) is critical
in avoiding complex fracture geometry such as T-shaped
fractures. In fracturing, stress anisotropy is a desirable
thing. When the stresses approach each other, significant
complications can arise in fracture propagation. Thus,
measuring the stresses and especially stress anisotropy is
important and will be covered below.
12-4.1 Determination of Fracture Azimuth
Assuming that the vertical stress can be readily
calculated (see Eqs. 4-47 and 4-48, Section 4-3.2)
and that the fracture is expected to be vertical, to
determine definitively the fracture azimuth, one of
the first steps is to obtain the value of the minimum
stress, at times known as the closure pressure.
Techniques such as the pump-in/flowback test
(Nolte, 1979) or the step-rate test have been devised
to obtain the value of the closure pressure, which for
a single-layer formation is the value of the minimum
horizontal stress. Some attempts have been also made
to estimate the value of the maximum horizontal stress
from the fracture initiation (breakdown) pressure,
but these attempts have been hampered because the
breakdown pressure depends on the elastic response
of the formation and fluid leakoff into the formation
before fracturing, and is also heavily influenced
by the geometry and orientation of the wellbore
(Detournay and Cheng, 1992).
Still, knowledge of these two values does not
provide their azimuth.
The most obvious techniques for determining this
involve geological mapping. Large natural fractures
and faults generally would be parallel to hydraulic
fractures except in those circumstances where stresses
have rotated from the time of creation of the faults
and natural fractures to present day. Formation micro-
resistivity logs can provide the orientation of natural
fractures, another indicator of fracture azimuth. An
oriented multi-arm caliper log, providing wellbore
eccentricity, may also provide indications of stress
orientation: The smaller axis of the wellbore ellipse
will be parallel to the maximum stress.
Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development
More sophisticated techniques involve analysis
of oriented cores. These techniques include Anelastic
Strain Recovery, ASR (Teufel, 1983) and Differential
Strain Curve Analysis, DSCA (Siegfried and Simmons,
1978; and Strickland and Ren, 1980). Both of these
techniques provide the orientation of the stresses
(minimum, maximum and intermediate) and their
relative magnitudes. They provide a definitive verdict
on fracture azimuth. For a detailed description of all
techniques, see Economides and Nolte (2000).
12-4.2 Considerations Regarding Directional
Permeability in the Reservoir
The state of stress in a reservoir, in addition to
the impact that it has on hydraulic fracture direction
(vertical vs. horizontal) and azimuth, also greatly
affects reservoir permeability. Stress anisotropy
breeds permeability anisotropy, especially when
permeability is dominated by natural fissures or
fractures (Buchsteiner et al., 1993).
In-situ stresses, being compressive in nature, tend
to reduce the width of natural fissures. Therefore,
fissures perpendicular to the maximum horizontal
stress are likely to be significantly narrower than fissures
perpendicular to the minimum stress. This would suggest
that the permeability in the direction of maximum stress
would be larger than the permeability in the direction
of minimum (horizontal) stress. The larger the stress
anisotropy, the more heterogeneous the distribution of
natural fissures will be. Coalescing and jointed fissures
form natural fractures, whose width is further enhanced
by being normal to the maximum stress. The width of
these natural fractures is greater if stress anisotropy is
more pronounced (Elkins and Skov, 1960; Finley and
Lorenz, 1989; and Lorenz et al., 1986).
Actual measurement of permeability anisotropy in
the field is a cumbersome and costly process involving
multi-well interference testing (see Earlougher, 1977).
A far more convenient technique has evolved since the
introduction of horizontal wells. Well testing of single
horizontal wells and the identification of early-time
radial, middle-time linear and late-time pseudoradial
flow regimes allows for the calculation of all three
principal permeabilities two horizontal and the
vertical (see Economides et al., 1994).
435
Modern Fracturing
There are some direct implications for hydraulic
fracturing from this notion. First, vertical hydraulic
fractures, normal to the minimum horizontal stress
are also normal to the lowest horizontal permeability
in the reservoir. Second, the frequently repeated
statement that hydraulic fractures are executed in hopes
of intersecting natural fractures is almost always false.
Pronounced and conductive natural fractures are certain
to be parallel to a hydraulic fracture. Of course, in a
naturally fissured reservoir, even if there is a preferred
orientation, the fissures are in every direction, and
during execution large leakoff is likely to be evident.
But during production, permeability anisotropy
would be felt, and it would be adverse compared to
expectations based on radial permeability.
In an areally anisotropic reservoir with directional
permeabilities kx and ky , the geometric average
permeability would be equal to (kx ky) which is the
permeability that controls radial flow and the one
that would be obtained form a traditional well test
such as pressure buildup test. Two wells with radial
permeability of, e.g., 10 md would produce the same
under radial conditions, but one could be in a perfectly
isotropic reservoir where the two permeabilities
are both 10 md while the other could mask severe
anisotropy with, e.g., kx = 100 md and ky = 1 md.
Such severe permeability anisotropy is possible in
carbonate reservoirs, but even in sandstone reservoirs
permeability anisotropy of 3:1 and greater can be
encountered (Buchsteiner et al., 1993.)
When wells are hydraulically fractured in the two
reservoirs in the example above, the performance will
not be the same, and certainly not the performance
that can be forecast based on radial permeability.
Nolte and Economides (1991) have shown that
the apparent (effective) length will be related
to the actual length by:
ky
4
x f ,eff = x f
, (12-5)
kx
where kx is the permeability along the fracture and
larger than ky which is the permeability perpendicular
to the fracture. Permeability anisotropy is one of
the reasons why in post-treatment well tests, the
obtained fracture half-length is invariably smaller
than the one placed. Permeability anisotropy of e.g.,
436
10:1 would result in a well-test-derived apparent
length that would be less than one-third of the
real length. Knowledge of permeability anisotropy
can reconcile this disparity.
Walsh (1981) presented a model for the relationship
between initial (kfi) and some later value of fissure
permeability (kf) and the effective stress, :
3
kf 2h ' 1 b( ' *)
= 1 ln , (12-6)
k fi * 1 + b( ' *)
where, is the fissure half-aperture, h is the root-mean-
square value of asperity (fissure) height distribution, b is
an experimentally determined constant and * is some
reference, initial stress for the experiments.
Based on experimental results, Walsh (1981)
suggests that the second (linear) term in his model
can be neglected except for very high effective
stresses. This is in agreement with the Jones and
Owens (1980) experimental relationship between
permeability and effective stress for naturally
fractured carbonate samples:
3
k
f = [ A + B ln '] , (12-7)
where A and B are experimentally determined
constants.
Comparison of the simplified Eq. 12-6 and 12-7
shows that
*
A = B ln ,
(12-8)
and the model can be modified to
3
*
k f = B ln . (12-9)
'
This modified model has been used by
Buchsteiner et al. (1993) with * denoted as
the closure quality of the fractures/fissures. The
relationship between permeability and effective
stress (and thus stress-sensitivity) is determined
by *. Closure quality is affected by the type of
porosity, degree of mineralization, or tortuosity
and shape of the flow path.
In an anisotropic distribution of orthogonal
fractures/fissures, Eq. 12-9 can be written for the
geometric average:

* *y 2
3
k = Bx By ln
x ln
p . (12-10)
p
r
y r x
Equation 12-10 (where is the Biot poroelastic
constant) suggests that reservoir permeability will
decline with decreasing pressure, but it may also decline
heterogeneously if the closure qualities in the two
directions are different. Buchsteiner et al. (1993) suggested
that permeability anisotropy may change direction with
time, with maximum switching with minimum. They
proposed experimental determination of the constants Bx
and By, the directional closure qualities, in reservoirs (such
as carbonate rocks) susceptible to such phenomena.
12-4.3 Barnett Shale Case Study
The Barnett Shale in the Fort Worth Basin of Texas
is an enormous gas shale reservoir (see Section 11-5.3).
As of 2003, the USGS National Assessment of Oil
and Gas indicated that the Greater Newark East Frac-
Barrier Continuous Barnett Shale Gas and Extended
Continuous Barnett Shale Gas Assessment Units together
encompassed 4.1 million acres of land with mean
undiscovered continuous oil and gas reserves estimated
at 26.2 Tcf gas. It is a formation with a long history of
experimentation, success and failure. From drilling the
first well in the formation in 1981, through April 5,
2007, over 6,500 vertical, deviated or horizontal Barnett
tests or producers have been drilled. Over 6,000 are listed
as active wells (Fig. 12-9) in the IHS Energy US Well
Database. During that time, vertical wells predominated
for 20 years or more, and were then supplanted by
horizontal well drilling technology (Fig. 12-10).
Studying public data pertaining to the North Texas
Barnett play indicates there is no simple recipe for success
in the Barnett. There are different reasons for Barnett
successes and failures in different parts of the formation.
Technologies used successfully in one area may fail
miserably in another. Barnett successes and failures
result from the intersection of reservoir quality, well
architecture, geohazards, completion, and stimulation
processes. Reservoir quality and geohazards vary according
to geographic position (Fig. 12-11). Examination of
Fig. 12-11 shows gross stratigraphic changes occurring
regionally from southwest to northeast.
Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development
White at the base of the section represents wet,
porous and permeable Ellenberger Dolomite. The
grey interval is the Barnett Shale, separated from
the Ellenberger by the Viola Limestone (lower blue
limestone) only to the northeast. Note also that the
Barnett increases in depth and thickens to the northeast
and is also divided into Lower and Upper intervals in that
direction by the Forrestburg Limestone (middle blue).
On this section, the Barnett is overlain throughout by
the Marble Falls Limestone (upper blue). The Marble
Falls, however, is lost as a thick limestone upper frac
barrier when moving from the core area of Denton,
Wise, and Tarrant Counties to the southeast.
Figure 12-9 Barnett Shale play well locations as of April
5, 2007
Barnett production patterns analyzed using GIS
(Geographical Information Systems) methods show
clear evidence of sweet and not-so-sweet spots (Fig.
12-12). The illustration shows the best and worst 10%
of Barnett vertical wells based on normalized 6 month
cumulative production. The color scale represents log10
of normalized 6-month cumulative gas production with
best producers in red and becoming progressively poorer
through purple. Note the generally good geographical
separation from most to least production, indicating
reservoir quality drivers. The purple dashed line indicates
the approximate Viola frac barrier pinch-out. Viola is
absent southwest of the line. The implication is clear:
The best vertical wells have Barnett overlying Viola
limestone, generally preventing fracs from contacting wet
Ellenberger dolomite below.
437
438
-7500
-7400
-7300
-7200
-7100
-7000
-6900
-6800
-6700
-6600
-6500
-6400
-6300
-6200
-6100
-6000
-5900
-5800
-5700
-5600
-5500
-5400
-5300
-5200
-5100
-5000
-4900
-4800
-4700
-4600
-4500
-4400
-4300
-4200
-4100
-4000
-3900
-3800
-3700
-3600
-3500
-3400
-3300
-3200
-3100
-3000
-2900
-2800
-2700
-2600
-2500
Depth
Subsea

201ELBG
403MBFLM
8800 8700 8600 8500 8400 8300 8200 8100 8000 7900 7800 7700 7600 7500 7400 7300 7200 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 6500 6400 6300 6200 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300
354BRNT 4200 4100 4000 3900
Modern Fracturing

E RATH

8600 8500 8400 8300 8200 8100 8000 7900 7800 7700 7600 7500 7400 7300 7200 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 6500 6400 6300 6200 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 3700
E RATH

8400 8300 8200 8100 8000 7900 7800 7700 7600 7500 7400 7300 7200 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 6500 6400 6300 6200 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500
PARKE R

8100 8000 7900 7800 7700 7600 7500 7400 7300 7200 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 6500 6400 6300 6200 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500 3400 3300
WIS E

Figure 12-11 Southwest-to-northeast cross-section across the Barnett Shale play

8400 8300 8200 8100 8000 7900 7800 7700 7600 7500 7400 7300 7200 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 6500 6400 6300 6200 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500
WIS E

8200 8100 8000 7900 7800 7700 7600 7500 7400 7300 7200 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 6500 6400 6300 6200 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500 3400
WIS E

201ELBG
354BRNT
403MBFLM
Depth

-7500
202VIOL -7400
-7300
-7200
-7100
-7000
-6900
-6800
-6700
-6600
-6500
-6400
-6300
-6200
-6100
-6000
-5900
-5800
-5700
-5600
-5500
-5400
-5300
-5200
-5100
-5000
-4900
-4800
-4700
-4600
-4500
-4400
-4300
-4200
-4100
-4000
-3900
-3800
-3700
-3600
-3500
-3400
-3300
-3200
-3100
-3000
-2900
-2800
-2700
-2600
-2500
Subsea
 Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development

BARNETT 0407 UPDATE

5935 Samples for 6585 Wells
1000000

900000
6 Month Cumulative Gas Production, Mscf

800000

700000
3
600000

500000

400000
2
300000

200000

100000

0
81

83

86

/1 89

/1 91

/0 94

/0 97

/2 00

/2 02

/3 05

07
19

19

19

19

19

06 19

03 19

11 20

08 20

06 20

20
1/

8/

4/

0/

5/

0/

6/

2/

7/

3/

0/
/0

/2

/2

/2
01

09

06

03

12

09

Completion Date

Figure 12-10 Barnett Shale well completion timeline

(white = vertical wells, yellow = deviated wells, blue =
horizontal wells) Figure 12-13 Log of oil-to-gas ratio in Barnett Shale
vertical wells

Well architecture can be the difference between

completing a better or poorer Barnett well (Figs.
12-14 and 12-15). When Figs. 12-14 and 12-15 are
compared, the map clearly shows that hydraulically
fractured horizontal well technology radically extended
operators potential to make good wells, even in the
absence of the Viola frac barrier.

Figure 12-12 Best and worst 10% of Barnett vertical wells

based on normalized 6 month cumulative production

Hydrocarbon liquids and water have negative

effects on Barnett production (Fig. 12-13). The
trend for the Barnett to be oilier to the north and
west is well documented and is a function of thermal
maturity. Liquids in narrow pore throats reduce
relative permeability to gas and result in decreased gas Figure 12-14 Log of 6-month normalized
rate to the north and west. cumulative gas production for vertical Barnett wells

439
Modern Fracturing

are located within the central part of the area, away from
the major faults. They were fracture stimulated mainly
with 30,000 to 40,000 bbls of slickwater and 60,000 to
226,000 lbs of proppant. Average proppant quantity was
161,000 lbs. By comparison, the poorest 5% of wells
(Fig. 12-18) were fractured using approximately 9,000 to
44,000 bbls of slickwater, averaging 27,000 bbls. These
treatments carried 40,000 to 600,000 lbs of proppant,
averaging 210,000 lbs. Treatment ranges are generally
similar, although more proppant on average was pumped
into the poorer wells. The conclusion is that pumping
larger treatments into wells in an area of poorer reservoir
quality may not be helpful.

Fracture Structures
1500

1000
Figure 12-15 Log of 6-month normalized cumulative gas
production for horizontal Barnett wells 500

0 Observation
Different well completion/stimulation types Well
South - North, ft

have been attempted throughout the history of the --500

Barnett play (see Section 11-5.3.1). Over time, two
--1000
technologies have been critical to Barnett success;
slickwater fracturing and horizontal drilling. Early --1500

attempts at nitrogen fracs and foam fracs produced poor --2000

production results. Massive cross-linked, gelled water
--2500
fracs produced more gas than did nitrogen or foam
fracs, but they were expensive. Slickwater fracs yielded --3000
- 1000 --500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
essentially the same production results as cross-linked,
West-East, ft
West-
gelled water, but at significantly reduced cost. Proppants
have evolved from 20/40 mesh standard to 40/70 and Figure 12-16 Complex hydraulic fracturing in a
Barnett Shale well is evident from microseismic frac
100 mesh sizes, trading conductivity for increased monitoring, (Courtesy of Pinnacle Technologies, from
proppant transport and fracture surface area. Fisher et al., 2002).
In addition to the technology factors discussed
above, the Barnett is also a reservoir in which complex
hydraulic fracturing is critical to success (Fig. 12-16.)
Complex hydraulic fractures are beyond the current
capabilities of industry hydraulic fracture modeling,
and knowledge of the geometry and extent of these
fracture networks is derived almost entirely from
microseismic monitoring. Optimum job sizing is chiefly
accomplished through trial and error in different parts
of the play and is area specific.
Review of a specific part of the Barnett play immediately
north of the Mineral Wells fault (Fig. 12-17) shows that
Figure 12-17 In the Alligator Head area north of
within that geographic area, the best 5% of Barnett wells the Mineral Wells fault, the best 5% of wells fall
geographically within the red shaded area

440

Figure 12-18 The poorest 5% of wells in the Alligator
Head area fall mostly outside the best wells area, closer
to the bounding faults
Even with over 6,500 Barnett wells drilled, the
contribution of natural fractures to Barnett production
is controversial, as natural fractures reported from core
are mainly healed. What is critical is that the calcite-
cemented natural fractures comprise closely spaced planes
of weakness within the formation that break during the
hydraulic fracturing process. Whether open or healed, it
is generally agreed that the principal natural fracture trend
in the core area of the Barnett is WNW, approximately
296 degrees. Present-day h,max is approximately 40 to 45
degrees, as shown in Fig. 12-16. Thus, present-day h,max
is approximately perpendicular to the principal natural
fracture direction. The best core area horizontal wells are
drilled on an azimuth in the range of 300 to 320 degrees
or its mirror image, nearly parallel to the natural fractures,
and the main induced fracture fairway is transverse with
respect to the wellbore. The optimum direction in which
to drill a horizontal well is not constant throughout
the Barnett productive area.
12-5 Data Mining Techniques
12-5.1 Purpose of Data Mining
The purpose of data mining is to cost-effectively
generate useful knowledge from large data sets. The
process of data mining is a process of discovering
previously unknown qualitative or quantitative
association rules among data items (Thearling, 2007). It
is desirable that the knowledge generated be predictive,
so that it may be used going forward.
Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development
Methods of computer mining large data sets were
originally developed for the retail industry when a
team of researchers at the IBM Almaden Research
Center developed a computer algorithm to efficiently
find rules relating sales of individual retail items
purchased together (Agarwal, 1993). Discovering
these previously unknown rules then allowed retailers
to maximize profit through such means as timing of
sales and item positioning on shelves. Since that time,
data mining has been advanced significantly, with
commercial database and software vendors developing
a number of different tools and methodologies
with which to mine digital data.
Data mining for the purpose of gas well enhancement
is a natural evolution from the formation studies that
have been performed in the well service industry for many
years. Data sets have been computerized and have grown
ever larger, but the goal has remained the same: identify
the fracturing fluids, proppants, additives and techniques
that yield the most incremental gas for the least cost in a
particular formation and field area.
12-5.2 Data Sources
Data are defined as numerical or other information
represented in a form suitable for processing by
computer (American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Ed., 2000. online). Data types
include numbers, dates and text capable of being stored
and processed. In the context of gas well enhancement,
data may be categorized as pertaining to reservoir quality,
drilling, completion, stimulation, operations, workover
processes and production results. Production results
begin with reservoir quality and are impacted positively
or negatively by drilling, casing and cementing, well
completion and stimulation, operational practices, and
work-over processes. Gas-in-place,
Ah(1 S w )
Gi = ,
(12-2)
Bgi
and the gas well producing rate,
kh( pe2 pwf
2
)
q , (12-11)
[ ln(r r ) + s ]
e w
define reservoir quality in an engineering sense.
441
Modern Fracturing
Some of these data items are easily measurable, low-
cost, hard parameters while others are difficult or costly
to measure. Other data items not included in the above
equations, but with strong potential to affect production
results, are easily measurable, soft parameters, such
as clay type, occurrence and abundance. Although
these data are easily measurable, they are frequently
not available because taking core is expensive. In gas
reservoir development, major reservoir quality data items
(in particular permeability and drainage radius) are
frequently unknown because measurement is costly.
Resource ownership patterns and stimulation work being
split among multiple service companies also limit the
amount of data available for analysis.
Data sources globally are mixed with respect to the
data items available, largely due to resource ownership.
Data in the USA and Canada are available from
both public and proprietary sources. Government-
mandated well and production records are available
through government agencies such as state oil and gas
commissions, and typically are also compiled into master
databases by commercial vendors. One such database in
the USA contains thousands of data items from over 3
million wells. Additionally, proprietary data is held by
individual operators and service companies. In particular,
most pumping service companies maintain electronic
databases of their well treatment reports and do not
have access to other service company data, for obvious
reasons. Operators maintain varying levels of databases,
from enterprise-level Oracle or SAP databases to project-
specific spreadsheets on a particular PCs hard drive.
Throughout much of the rest of the world, oil
and gas resources are owned by governments. Data
collection, storage and availability are highly variable
from one country to another. In many cases, this leads
to data collection at the field level, not well-by-well. It
seems obvious that well production must be measured
on the formation or zone level, well-by-well, in order to
be useful. Lack of well-by-well allocated production data
does not permit useful data mining.
12-5.3 Data Preparation
After sourcing key reservoir quality, stimulation
and production data, the data must be prepared for
entry into the project database, unless the user is
442
already operating in an existing database environment
complete with data mining tools. When beginning a
project, it is good practice to review the input data
file types and formats that the project database and
the software application are designed to accept and
will read correctly. Attempting to input a date field in
mm/dd/yyyy format when the application is designed
to read dd/mm/yy is easily preventable. Particular
care must be taken to remove all commas from data
spreadsheets prior to converting to csv files required
for input into some software applications.
Data preparation includes quality checking and
formatting. Some of this work may be done automatically,
for example using a logical computation to identify
and delete azimuth values from horizontal wells with
indicated azimuth outside the range of 0 to 360 degrees.
Alternately, the user may elect to identify wells with out-
of-range data and then undertake manual repairs. Data
preparation may include reconciling multiple sources
of data. For example, cross-plotting the public data for
pounds of proppant pumped for a series of fracs against
the same data item from the operator or service company
dataset will readily identify off-trend, mismatched
proppant quantities. Certain data mining tools may
require normalization of data to within a specific range,
e.g., 0 to 1 for input into artificial neural networks.
Suspect data may be deleted from the database,
either automatically, or based on the expert judgment
of the user. Another method of handling suspect data in
some software applications uses a quality field where
questionable data are identified, e.g., by a question
mark or other identifier. Good software should allow
the operator the choice of whether to include any
particular data item that has been marked as being
of questionable quality in any logical, computational,
map, or well selection operation.
12-5.4 Selected Data Mining Tools
Although data mining is frequently defined as an
automated or machine-learning process, much human
thought is still required for a successful outcome.
Many different tools, having greater or lesser degrees
of automation, may be used to find solutions to the
issues surrounding gas well enhancement processes.
Pragmatically, any computer method that aids in

deconvolution of the contributions of reservoir
quality and drilling/completion/stimulation/
operational processes to production results should
be considered as data mining tools or techniques.
Artificial neural networks and their subset, Self
Organizing Maps, decision trees, genetic algorithms,
nearest-neighbor methods, rule induction, fuzzy
logic, geographical information systems (GIS), and
the more standard statistical tools, i.e., histograms,
linear and multiple linear regressions, etc., may all be
used in knowledge discovery.
12-5.5 Data Mining Case History
A South Texas operator was performing hydraulic
fracture treatments on gas wells using an inexpensive,
angular, lower-permeability proppant. The operator
had performed approximately 100 fracture treatments
before switching to a higher-permeability, more
spherical and more expensive proppant. After about
100 treatments using the better proppant, the operator
noticed that production from these wells was much
worse than production from wells fractured with
the cheaper, lower-quality proppant. In some cases,
production was less than half.
350,000
300,000
250,000
Stimulation Cost, $
200,000
150,000
Economy proppant
100,000
Premium proppant
50,000
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
Total Proppant Mass, lb
Figure 12-19 Stimulation cost vs. proppant mass
with bubble size representing cumulative production
after 90 days
Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development
Figure 12-19 shows the stimulation cost vs. total
proppant mass for the two proppants. Bubble size
represents cumulative production for each well after 90
days. Two very clear trends appear. First, as expected,
the stimulation cost is much higher for the premium
proppant than for the economy proppant. The second
and more important trend is that fracture treatments are
much more effective using economy proppant than using
premium, higher-quality proppant with higher proppant
pack permeability. This is contrary to what was promised
and expected. Why did it happen?
Figure 12-20 shows the 90-day cumulative
production vs. total proppant mass. The economy
proppant shows two trends. For both of these trends,
cumulative production increases with increasing
proppant mass. The premium proppant does not
show conclusive trends. In fact, some of the worst
cumulative production is from wells stimulated with
high volumes of premium proppant.
400,000
Economy Proppant
Premium Proppant
300,000
Cum Prod after 90 days, Mscf
200,000
100,000
0
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Total Proppant Mass, lb
Figure 12-20 Cumulative production after 90 days vs.
total proppant mass
Figure 12-21 shows the stimulation cost vs.
500,000 cumulative production after 90 days. Quadrant 1
represents high stimulation costs with low cumulative
production, and all data points in this quadrant
represent wells stimulated with the premium
proppant. Quadrant 2 shows high stimulation
443
Modern Fracturing

cost and high cumulative production. Quadrant Figure 12-22 shows the average fracture
4 shows low stimulation cost and low production. conductivity vs. the cumulative production. These
Quadrant 3 is the best performer, showing low are tight gas reservoirs, and high conductivity
stimulation cost and high cumulative production. is not important. In fact, the results show that
Only two wells stimulated with premium most of the wells with high fracture conductivity
proppant fall into this category. have low cumulative production.
Figure 12-23 shows the fracture length vs.
350,000
cumulative production. This is a tight gas reservoir
1 2 and higher production is expected for longer fracture
lengths. This is not the case for many of the wells
300,000
treated with the premium proppant, but it is the
case for the majority of the wells treated with
the lesser-quality proppant.
Stimulation Cost, $

250,000

2400
Economy Proppant
4 3 Premium Proppant
200,000
2200

150,000
2000
Fracture Length, ft

100,000
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1800

Cum Prod after 90 days, Mscf

1600
Figure 12-21 Stimulation cost vs. 90-day cumulative
production

1400 1400

1200
1200 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Average Fracture Conductivity, md.ft

Cum Prod after 90 days, Mscf

Figure 12-23 Fracture half-length vs. 90-day cumulative

1000 production

Figures 12-19 through 12-23 represent a

typical analysis performed by many companies. The
800
highest number of variables that can be represented
using such an analysis is three. Typically, a plot
will have an x-axis, a y-axis and bubble size. This
600
is the Data Mining of yesterday.
Figure 12-24 represents Data Mining today. It
Economy Proppant
Premium Proppant was produced using a method called Self-Organizing
400
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Maps (SOM), first introduced by Kohonen in 1997.
Cum Prod after 90 days, Mscf SOM is a form of neural networks. It organizes data
according to similarities and displays the results in
Figure 12-22 Average fracture conductivity vs. 90-day
cumulative production
a map as shown in Fig. 24. The small black circle

444

in the top left corner of the proppant type num
square represents the proppant type for well A. The
remaining wells are arranged around well A according
to their similarities to well A and to each other, based
on all the variables used for the analysis. The small
circle in the top left corner of each of the remaining
squares represents the corresponding value for well
A. The color gradation represents the magnitude
of the variable for each well, and the scale for each
square is shown in the bottom.
For example, in the proppant type num square,
well A is dark blue, which means the proppant used
for the treatment in well A was of type 4. In the
formation num, the color for well A is red, meaning
that well A was completed in formation 6. The five
squares on the left represent the input variables.
What the analyst wants to see is whether there is
any relationship among these five variables. The two
squares on the right are the outputs. These are the
variables that measure success.
Although there is no limit on the number of input
variables, the level of difficulty in interpreting the
results increases with the number of outputs. For the
purpose of this chapter, the selected inputs are proppant
type, formation number or name, proppant mass,
estimated ultimate recovery and estimated net pay. The
two outputs selected are cumulative production after
90 days and stimulation cost. (More analyses were
performed but are not shown here.)
In interpreting the results of Data Mining, as
shown in Fig. 12-24, there can be many conclusions.
The circled area in Fig. 12-25 represents the most
successful fracture treatments based on cumulative
production after 90 days. This same area in proppant
type shows that all successful fracture treatments were
made with the economy proppant, in the formation
shows that all successful treatments were performed in
formation 6, the wells have good estimated ultimate
recovery, good net pay, were performed with moderate-
to high-proppant-mass and had moderate treatment
costs. In other words, good reservoir quality, stimulated
appropriately will give good production.
The selected area in Fig. 12-26 shows fair
treatments with low cost and poor to fair cumulative
production. The wells here are from all formations in
the study, all stimulated using the economy proppant,
Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development
in poor to fair net pay, with poor ultimate recovery
and stimulated with low volumes of proppant mass.
Poor candidates combined with less-than-optimum
stimulation yielded poor results.
The selected area in Fig. 12-27 shows expensive
treatments with poor results. All wells in this area
were stimulated with premium proppant. They
are from all formations, show good net pay but
poor ultimate recovery and low- to mid-range
proppant mass. This group represents expensive
treatments that yielded poor results.
The results from Data Mining are combined
with Unified Fracture Design and sample results are
shown in Table 12-5. The first column shows what
a typical design should have been for the premium
proppant, utilizing UFD in this 0.01 md reservoir
with net height of about 200ft. Pumping 300,000
lbs of premium proppant, the optimum fracture half-
length should be 1000 ft (fracture height about 450
ft) and the job should take about 490 minutes to
execute. This would result in an 11-fold PI increase.
That is, the well would perform 11 times better than
an undamaged, unstimulated well.
Table 12-5 Sample Results with Unified
Fracture Design
Economy Premium
Premium
Proppant
Proppant Proppant
Design Execution
Proppant Permeablility 200,000 10,000 200,000
Proppant Mass, lbs 300,000 300,000 300,000
Folds of PI increase 11 7.2 6
Fracture Half Length 1000 890 464
Pumping Time 490 359 93
If the treatments were performed with the
economy proppant, then the folds of PI increase
would have been 7.2, as it is shown in the second
column. The last column shows the typical treatment
utilizing the premium proppant as it was actually
executed. Because the premium, manufactured
proppant had good sphericity, it was easy to pump
and easy to place without screenout. These treatments
were pumped very fast, in about 90 minutes, resulting
in facture half-lengths of less than 500 ft, less then
one-half of the optimum. The resulting folds of PI
increase of these treatments is around 6, less than
445
Modern Fracturing

Figure 12-24 Self-Organizing Maps set up some parameters for Data Mining analysis

that of the ideal designed treatments using the

economy proppant, and about one-half of that of
the ideal design using the premium proppant. Under
these circumstances, a proper design with a lesser
proppant and utilizing UFD outperformed a poor
design using the best proppants.

446
 Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development

Figure 12-25 Most successful treatments, based on 90-day cumulative production

447
Modern Fracturing

Figure 12-26 Fair treatments with low cost and low to fair 90-day cumulative production

448
 Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development

Figure 12-27 Expensive treatments with poor results

449
Modern Fracturing
REFERENCES
Agarwal, R., Imielinski, T., and Swami, A.: Mining
Association Rules Between Sets of Items in Large
Databases, Proc. of Very Large Data Bases, pp.
207-216, 1993.
Baranov, D., Kontarev, R., Senchenko, D., Faizullin,
I., Gayfullin, A., Ivshin, A., and Kazykhanova,
N.: Fracture Treatments of Horizontal Wells on
Western Siberia Oil FieldMaximizing Long-
Term Production, paper SPE 107845, 2007.
Buchsteiner, H., Warpinski, N.R., and Economides,
M.J.: Stress Induced Permeability Reduction in
Fissured Reservoirs, paper SPE 26513, 1993.
Daal, J.A., and Economides, M.J.: Optimization of
Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Irregularly Shaped
Drainage Areas, paper SPE 98047, 2006.
Demarchos, A.S., Chomatas, A.S., Economides, M.J.,
Mach, J.M., and Wolcott, D.S: Pushing the
Limits in Hydraulic Fracture Design, paper SPE
86483, 2004.
Demarchos, A.S., Economides, M.J., Diyashev, I.,
Svaykin, V.A.: Analysis of the Performance of
Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments and Quantum
Design Improvements, paper SPE 94643, 2005.
Detournay, E. and Cheng, A.: Influence of
Pressurization Rate on the Magnitude of the
Breakdown Pressure, Proc., 33rd Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
(1992), 325333.
Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas,
1977.
Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides,
C.A..: Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice
Hall, NY, 1994.
Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir
Stimulation, Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons
Ltd., 2000.
Economides, M. J., Oligney, R.E. and Valk, P.P.:
Unified Fracture Design, Orsa Press, Houston,
2002a.
Economides, M.J., Oligney R.E. and Valk, P.P.:
Applying unified fracture design to natural gas
wells, World Oil, (Oct. 2002b), 52-62.
Economides, M.J., Demarchos, A.S., Mach, J.M.,
450
Rueda, J., and Wolcott, D.S.: Pushing the limits
of hydraulic fracturing in Russia, paper SPE
90357, 2004.
Elkins, L.F. and Skov, A.M.: Determination of
Fracture Orientation from Pressure Interference,
Trans. AIME, 219 (1960) 301-304.
Finley, S.J. and Lorenz, J.C.: Characterization and
Significance of Natural Fractures in Mesaverde
Reservoirs at the Multiwell Experiment Site, paper
SPE 19007, 1989.
Fisher, M.K., Wright, C.A., Davidson, B.M., Goodwin,
A.K., Fielder, E.O., Buckler, W.S. and Steinsberger,
N.P.: Integrating Fracture Mapping Technologies
to Optimize Stimulations in the Barnett Shale,
Paper SPE 77441, 2002.
Jones, F.O. and Owens, W.W.: A Laboratory Study
of Low Permeability Gas Sands, paper SPE 7551,
1980.
Lorenz, J.C., Branagan, P., Warpinski, N.R., and Sattler,
A.R.: Fracture Characteristics and Reservoir
Behavior of Stress-Sensitive Fracture Systems in
Flat-Lying Lenticular Formations, paper SPE
15244, 1986.
Kohonen, T.: Self Organizing Maps, Springer,
Heidelberg 1997.
Marongiu-Porcu, M.: Physical and Economic
Optimization of Hydraulic Fracturing, MS
Thesis, University of Houston, 2007.
Nolte, K.G,: Determination of Fracture Parameters
from Fracturing Pressure Decline, Paper SPE
8341, 1979.
Nolte, K.G. and Economides, M.J.: Fracture Design
and Validation with Uncertainty and Model
Limitations, JPT (Sept. 1991), 1147-1155.
Romero, D. J., Valk, P. P. and Economides M. J.:
The Optimization of the Productivity Index and
the Fracture geometry of a Stimulated Well with
Fracture Face and Choke Skins, Paper SPE 73758,
2002.
Rueda, J.I., Mach, J., and Wolcott, D.: Pushing
Fracturing Limits to Maximize Producibility in
Turbidite Formations in Russia, Paper SPE 91760,
2004.
Rueda, J.I., Voronkov, A., and Mach, J.: Optimum
Fracture Design under Transient and Pseudosteady
Conditions using Constant Fracture Volume
 Chapter 12 Fracturing for Reservoir Development

Concept, (2005) 67th European Association of

Geoscientists and Engineers, EAGE Conference
and Exhibition, incorporating SPE EUROPE
2005 - Extended Abstracts, pp. 1795-1805.
Sabaev, V.V., Wolcott, D.S., Mach, J.M., Antipina, D.V.,
Haidar, A.M., and Sviyazova, O.O.: Vertically
Fractured Well Performance in Rectangular
Drainage Area, paper SPE 101048, 2006.
Siegfried, R. and Simmons, G.: Characterization of
Oriented Cracks with Differential Strain Analysis,
Journal of Geophysical Research (February 1978)
83, No. B3, 12691278.
Strickland, F.G. and Ren, N.-K.: Predicting the In-
Situ Stress for Deep Wells Using Differential Strain
Curve Analysis, paper SPE 8954, Proc., SPE/DOE
Symposium on Unconventional Gas Recovery,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (1980), 251258.
Teufel, L.W.: Determination of In-Situ Stress From
Anelastic Strain Recovery Measurements of
Oriented Core, Paper SPE 12304, 1983.
Thearling, K.: An Introduction to Data Mining,
white paper, p.4, 2007.
Vakhitova, A.: Analysis of Hydrofracturing Efficiency,
paper SPE 102064, 2006.
Walsh, J.B.: Effect of Pore Pressure and Confining
Pressure on Fracture Permeability, Int. J. of Rock
Mechanics, Min. Sci. & Geoph. Abstracts, 1981.

451
Modern Fracturing

452
Tony Martin is business development manager for international stimulation at BJ Services Company.
Since graduating from Imperial College, London, with an honors degree in mechanical engineering and a
master's degree in petroleum engineering, Martin has spent 17 years in the oil industry and has completed
engineering assignments around the world. Martin's primary interest has been hydraulic fracturing and
stimulation, and he has been involved in production enhancement projects in more than 25 countries.
He teaches fracturing, acidizing and sand control both in-house and externally. A constant theme in this
teaching is the need to de-mystify the world of hydraulic fracturing, in an attempt to make the process
more accessible and less intimidating. He is the author or co-author of numerous SPE papers and has
served on the technical committees for several SPE events. He is also the author of BJ Services Hydraulic
Fracturing Manual.

Martin Rylance is a senior petroleum engineer and engineering adviser with BP Exploration Co. Ltd. He
has been with BP Exploration, their partners and joint ventures (SOHIO, Maxus, TNK-BP) for more
than 20 years since graduating with a BSc (honors) in pure mathematics. During his time with BP, his
positions have included head of fracturing and stimulation for BP Worldwide, Interventions Team leader
with BPX in Colombia, chief engineer with TNK-BP in Moscow, and more recently, project manager
with VICO in Jakarta. Rylance has been involved in all aspects of pumping operations and has worked
in most of the major known tectonic basins in the oil & gas industry. In recent years he has specialized
in fracturing in tectonic regimes, HP/HT environments and mature field re-development. He has been
responsible for implementing many campaigns and more than 5,000 frac and other stimulation treatments
around the world. He has numerous papers and publications with the SPE, AIME and various numerical
and geological societies, and a number of patents. An active member of the SPE, he is also a fellow of the
Institute of Mathematics in London.
Chapter 13
Technologies for
Mature Assets
Tony Martin, BJ Services and
Martin Frac-Pup Rylance, BP Exploration
13-1 Introduction
We usually find oil in new places with old ideas.
Sometimes we find oil in an old place with a new
idea, but we seldom find much oil in an old place
with an old idea. Several times in the past we thought
we were running out of oil, whereas actually we were
only running out of ideas.
Parke A. Dickey, 1958
It was not very long ago, in fact as late as 1990,
that many engineers in the petroleum industry
still considered hydraulic fracturing as applicable
exclusively within the realms of low- to very low-
permeability reservoirs. While it is still absolutely true
that hydraulic fracturing remains the only technique
that can render low-permeability formations economic,
some unfortunately, continue to believe that this is its
exclusive application and remain unaware of major
new developments over the last two decades that make
fracturing compelling for absolutely any reservoir. For
others, fracturing has been the action of last resort: If
everything else fails, lets try fracturing.
There have been two major reasons for occasional
reluctance to consider this technique. The first of
these is the effective cost of fracturing, especially
when performed on an ad hoc basis, one job at a time,
assigning all of the mobilization and set-up costs to
a single treatment, a situation that is clearly both
undesirable and untenable. The second of these is an
unreasonable phobia that fracturing generally increases
water production, a problem that is quite manageable
and indeed a situation that for an industry accustomed
to produced water management should be part of the
normal way of doing business.
All too often, in areas where fracturing has not been
employed in the past, if tried for the first time, it would
generally be on a very bad and/or an underperforming
well. One of the editors of this book recalls that on
at least one occasion, the production manager of a
company, after having been pressured by upper
management to acquiesce to fracturing, provided a
candidate well for the treatment; only to find out that
the well was some 25 years old and already producing
at a 99% water-cut. The logic was that if fracturing
is such a good approach to production enhancement,
it should be capable of also turning water into oil?
Another frequently encountered problem is to judge
and assess the appropriateness of fracturing, based
on the results from just a single well. Fracturing
is complex, many things can happen, numerous
situations can arise and any negative results may affect
adversely the potential for future deployment of this
widely established well completion and stimulation
operation in a particular petroleum province.
The evolution of the tip screenout (TSO)
technique in the late 1980s (see Section 4-7.3) and
its subsequent application has essentially rendered
every well a potential candidate. Consider this: It
would take more than 400 gas wells within a 0.01 md
permeability reservoir, with massive hydraulic fracture
treatments, to equal the incremental performance
of just one correctly designed and successfully
fractured well in a 10 md reservoir.
It is therefore clearly not too late to start
fracturing in many mature areas where fracturing has
not yet been attempted (or where fracturing has not
yet been implemented correctly).
The previous chapters of this book have outlined
the majority of the important building blocks,
technologies and subjects for consideration in order
to deliver successful gas fracturing operations. This
chapter discusses the appropriate implementation of
this knowledge in an integrated and multi-disciplinary
approach to fracture execution, with particular
emphasis on fracturing application to mature assets, re-
fracturing operations and as a remedial technique for
poorly performing conventional completions.
13-1.1 Definition of a Mature Asset
How do we define a mature asset? What parameters
determine if an asset or field fall within this
category? A number of definitions can be applied at
455
Modern Fracturing
various periods during the life of a field, and these
apply equally to oil and gas, see Babadagli (2005),
and Fig 13-1. One simplistic definition, from the
Oxford English Dictionary (1989), defines mature
as an entity having achieved maximum growth
and development by natural means. For a group
of operating wells, to which fracturing may
be targeted, this definition would appear to
be reasonable for our purposes.
? ?
Production
?
? (Conv, HAW,)
?
When is a field called mature?
Time
Figure 13-1 Various points at which a field may be
referred to as mature (from Babadagli, 2005)
Typically then, mature assets will have
undergone initial periods of discovery, delineation
and development. Through this phase they would
have grown into a period where a production
plateau and/or maximum delivery rate might
have been achieved, the upper constraint of which
is driven by a limited throughput or choke in
some part of the production delivery system. After
a period of plateau production, the field/asset is
likely to enter an extensive and longer-term decline
phase, during which time the standard suite of
intervention operations may not be able return the
deliverability to the previous plateau rates.
This means that some of the common
characteristics that will be shared by mature assets
can typically include pressure depletion, presence
of various scales, increasing produced water
issues and mechanical integrity problems, to name
but a few. Some of these assets may originally
have been classified as oil fields or gas-cycling
schemes, but increasing gas-oil ratio (GOR) and
efficient sweep may have resulted in their effective
conversion to gas fields.
456
13-1.2 Minimum Cost & Maximum Value
There are various ways in which a mature field may be
re-developed (see Fig. 13-2), and full consideration
of these techniques should form the basis of a
selection process which maximizes the overall value of
their re-development.
Mature Field
Re-Development
-
Fracture Re-Fracture
Infill Drilling or
Existing Wells Fracced Wells
Side-Tracking
(Chap. 13.) (Sec. 13.5)
New New Well
Completion Fracture
(Chap. 12).
Figure 13-2 Options available for mature field re-
development
During the initial development phase the wells may
have been completed with hydraulic fracture treatments
as part of their initial completion; re-fracturing will be
discussed in some detail within Section 13-5. However,
if the development is not within conventional hydraulic
fracturing regions such as the US and Canada, then
it is more likely that the wells would not have been
originally completed with hydraulic fracturing as
the primary completion technique, and this can
present a number of significant issues in terms of
any potential remedial implementation.
Reviewing the literature, it would appear
that there are a number of golden rules or
common themes related to performing remedial
hydraulic fracturing operations on mature fields.
These rules should be considered in order to
ensure the maximum economic efficiency from
campaigns within mature gas fields:
Golden Rules of Efficient Remedial Fracturing
and/or Re-Fracturing:
Rule 1: The old adage that the better and more
productive wells are generally the better
fracturing candidates holds true for
both mature field re-development and
re-fracturing operations.

Rule 2: Ensure that any planned pilot remedial program
has sufficient critical mass (volume/number
of wells/treatments) to ensure that a learning
curve can be followed; one-off treatments
are not generally successful.
Rule 3: Candidate selection should take into
account all aspects that contribute to the
overall remedial economics. Considering all
of the contributory factors will minimize
the associated risks.
Rule 4: Do not underestimate the potential impact
of mechanical integrity issues within
existing wellbores during a remedial
campaign. Uncertainty and costs associated
with unexpected/unplanned workover
operations can dominate and devastate
treatment economics.
Rule 5: Pre-plan an appropriate Exit Strategy from a
campaign. Treatments should be performed
on a ranked table of candidates, results
monitored carefully and the campaign halted
at an appropriate juncture.
Rule 6: Successful fracturing may show that existing
well completions, such as the sizing of
production tubing, may be limiting incremental
production. In an integrated approach not just
the stimulation but also the well design should
be constantly re-evaluated.
Finally, it should be apparent that the optimum
choice for a given field may not consist of a single re-
development technique. Variable off-take, reservoir
heterogeneity, improved reservoir understanding and
many other factors may result in a combination of
approaches and techniques providing the most efficient
and economic means of re-development.
13-1.3 Motivation for Fracturing
There are numerous reasons why hydraulic fracturing
of existing wells may be considered a preferred
remedial technique for mature and declining fields:
costs associated with an infill drilling program, well-
spacing/drainage issues, etc. (Fig. 13-3). However,
we can readily classify most of these reasons into a
number of broad categories.
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
Frac Phobia or Lack of Knowledge of Fracturing:
This is a sweeping and recurring theme throughout
the petroleum producing world. Hopefully, a
textbook such as this will help to remedy the
situation. Non-fractured wells, ambling along, result
in huge amounts of unrealized revenues.
Ineffective Initial Completion: Many wells fall into
this category, for example, if not all of the potential
pay was completed or the drilling, cementing and
completion fluids were incompatible with the
formation leading to damaged or sub-standard
wells. For such wells, where the initial conventional
completion approach has resulted in under-delivery,
hydraulic fracturing can be utilized to improve and
stimulate that delivery significantly.
Figure 13-3 Numerous reasons to consider hydraulic
fracturing
Progressive Deterioration Damage Effects:
Many forms of damage can result in progressive
deterioration of the well and an overall reduced
performance with time. These include scale
deposition, condensate banking, fines migration
and induced damage from interventions. These
appear in wells whose performance does not
match the expected reservoir behavior; hydraulic
fracturing can overcome some or all of the effects
of these damage mechanisms. However, alternative
techniques must be considered, as well as treatments
that combine hydraulic fracturing with other
457
Modern Fracturing
remedial approaches (such as including a relative
permeability modifier or scale inhibitor into the
fracturing fluid or proppant coating).
Reservoir Properties: Changes in reservoir
properties are generally driven by a reduction in
pore pressure, both near the wellbore and in the
far-field. For example, a reduction in pore pressure
will create a change in stresses, leading to changes
in potential fracture geometry (manifested as
additional confinement, fracture re-orientation,
etc.) Other effects such as condensate banking, as
already noted, can result in enhanced impact of the
relative permeability relationship for the reservoir, a
factor that may not have been originally considered
or well understood during the original field
development assessment. In these wells, reservoir
maturity enhances the opportunity for fractuirng to
deliver significant improvements.
Technology Advances: Since its inception in
the 1950s, hydraulic fracturing has proven to be a
particularly innovative technique in every aspect of
its application and execution, as reported by Veatch
(2007). Technology improvements, new solutions
and direct and flexible response(s) to emerging issues
have all continued to ensure the generalized and
expanding application of this approach. Many of the
more recent and effective technologies will be further
discussed within the next Section.
System Pressures: There are also many reasons
why improving part of the flow system can be a valid
reason for implementing hydraulic fracturing within
a mature field. Of these reasons, many are related to
the reservoir fluids (e.g., scale deposition, condensate
dew-point, coning effects, etc.) and others to the rock
mechanics of the formation (e.g., pressure-dependent
permeability, sand production, etc.) Advantages can
also be achieved by reducing the pressure values within
the completion itself and improving surface gathering
system efficiency. All of these improvements exploit
a hydraulic fracture treatments ability to improve a
wells underlying productivity index (PI) such that the
additional rate or pressure can be utilized to improve
overall system performance and efficiency.
Therefore, regardless of the particular
reason(s) for considering hydraulic fracturing
operations for potential application to a mature
458
and declining field, the fundamental starting
point should be the existing reservoir, completion
and system performance.
13-1.4 New Technologies/Approaches
A number of recently deployed technologies have
radically affected the suite of options available to
perform fracturing operations. In addition, a number
of these technologies are particularly suited to mature
asset application because they often make the operations
simpler, cheaper and/or quicker.
Ultra-Lightweight Proppant (ULWP): As discussed
in more detail in Section 8-3.4, ULWPs are designed to
have neutral density within a fracturing fluid (Rickards
et al., 2003). This means that the proppant particles will
remain suspended in the fluid without the requirement
for significant fluid viscosity, resulting in two major
advantages. The principal benefit is that the proppant
can be readily and efficiently placed using a simple brine-
based fluid system. Clearly this will significantly reduce
the operational complexity and treatment costs, while
maintaining the ability of the proppant to stay suspended
in the fracturing fluid in the fracture. The secondary
benefit is that the ULWP can be pre-mixed into the
brine and held in tanks on the location until it needs to
be pumped. This pre-mixing approach eliminates the
need for complex blending, proportioning and metering
systems on location, as demanded by conventional
proppant systems. This approach will also mean that the
concentration of the ULWP can be precisely controlled
in a pre-mix situation, thereby avoiding unplanned/
undesirable events during pumping.
The combination of these two benefits dramatically
simplifies surface operational complexity, eliminating
the blender and proppant-handling equipment in favor
of mixing tanks and a booster pump. This simplification
is particularly applicable to mature assets, where cost
and complexity can have an exaggerated effect on the
operational economics. In addition, ULWPs have been
used extensively with slickwater fracturing systems in
tight and unconventional gas reservoirs (Schein et al.,
2004; and Posey and Strickland, 2005), where the fluid
systems are kept as simple as possible in order to reduce
the costs, minimize formation damage and maximize
fluid recovery (see also Chapter 11).

Proppant Partial Monolayer: Early work by Darin
and Huitt (1959) investigated the effects of variation in
areal proppant concentration on fracture conductivity
(see Section 8-4.8 for more details). At unusually low
areal proppant concentrations (0.09 lbs/ft2 of 20/40
fracturing sand), they were able to show that a fracture
would provide similar conductivity, at low stresses, to a
fracture propped with 4.0 lbs/ft2 of frac sand. It was
appreciated that this technique would not be suitable
for every well, as the partial monolayer approach
means that each individual proppant grain experiences
a significantly higher stress level. In addition, medium-
to high-permeability wells require an areal proppant
concentration in excess of 4.0 lbs/ft2. However, for
shallow and lower-permeability environments, this
technique was considered appropriate.
However, at the time when Darin and Huitt
published their work, fracturing technology was not
quite capable of delivering this laboratory effect in
a field environment, and the approach was largely
ignored for upwards of 40 years. More recent advances
however, in both metering and control technology, as
well as the introduction of reliable ULWP systems
(see text above), have made the application of this
approach a practical consideration (Aboud and Melo,
2007). Chambers and Meise (2005) measured similar
performance in monolayer fractured wells, as that
predicted by Darin and Huitts original work. Clearly,
placing approximately 0.09 lbs/ft2 of proppant
instead of 4.0 lbs/ft2 will result in substantially
reduced proppant volumes and hence costs per
treatment, making these techniques an ideal solution
for a mature reservoir environment.
Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing: During
recent years fracturing through coiled tubing (see
Section 9-5) has become a well-established method
of developing and re-stimulating the shallow, multi-
zone gas reservoirs of southern Alberta and additional
areas of Canada and the USA (Spady et al., 1999;
McConkey and Stromquist, 2000; and Rodvelt et al.,
2001). This technology is usually applied to mono-
bores or wells that have not yet been completed,
after all of the proposed intervals have been initially
perforated. The treatments are generally performed
down large-diameter coiled tubing (usually 2 or
2 in. OD) with an isolation packer system. The
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
packer system is then used to isolate individual
treatment intervals, upon each of which a fracture
treatment is then performed down the coiled tubing.
During the pumping operations the coiled tubing
is static, allowing maximum injection pressures
considerably higher than the limit for conventional
coiled tubing operations, where the tubing is being
continuously plastically deformed. The advantages of
using coiled tubing are that multiple intervals can be
rapidly treated (in excess of 20 in a single day) and
that the coiled tubing can then be used to circulate
proppant from the wellbore and even gas-lift the well
back into production. This technique has also been
successfully applied in coalbed methane formations
and to selectively stimulate specific intervals in a
multi-interval wellbore (Zemlak et al., 1999; and
Gilbert and Greenstreet, 2005). In the case of mature
reservoirs with multiple intervals, this application is
most readily applicable where multiple by-passed or
unstimulated pay zones may exist.
Fracturing through coiled tubing has not been
widely applied outside the Canadian operations
and selected areas of the USA. This is because in
order for the technique to be most cost-effective, the
additional expense of using coiled tubing has to be
competitive with the charges associated with the use
of a conventional workover rig. This has limited the
application of coiled tubing fracturing technology
to those areas with numerous shallow intervals and
relatively high conventional workover costs.
Open-Hole Horizontal Wells: Until quite recently,
the potential of fracturing open-hole horizontal wells
was fairly limited and effectively considered to be the
worst-case scenario in terms of wellbore remediation.
Such wells were extremely difficult to fracture with
proppant due to issues related to control of fracture
azimuth, prevention of initiation and development of
multiple fractures and a strong tendency for early screen-
out. Furthermore, the situation was often exacerbated
and over-complicated by the tendency to drop slotted
liners in open-hole environments.
More recently an innovative technique has
been successfully developed and applied to placing
fractures under these conditions (Surjaatmadja et al.,
1998; and Love et al., 2001), utilizing a specialized
jetting tool positioned on the end of coiled tubing
459
Modern Fracturing
(or jointed pipe). The technique takes advantage of
Bernoullis stagnation pressure effect, whereby the
act of instantaneously arresting a high-velocity fluid
causes a significant increase in pressure.
Annular fluid is
sucked into the
cavity by the jet
Location of the
Hydraulic Fracture
Highest Pressure
continues to extend
Low
Pressure Chart
Figure 13-4 Generating a hydraulic fracture with the
fluid-jetting approach
In order to achieve this, the jetting tool, which is
specially assembled for each application, is positioned
adjacent to the interval that is to be fractured.
Clean fluid is then pumped down the annulus at
just below the estimated fracturing pressure. At the
same time, fluid is also pumped down the tubing or
coiled-tubing at a rate sufficient to generate 4,000 to
5,000 psi differential pressure across the jetting tool.
In the wellbore, the Bernoulli effect will cause the
high-velocity fluids pumped through the jetting tool
to create a very localized region of higher pressure,
which is sufficient to fracture the formation (Fig.
13-4). The pad and proppant-laden fluids are then
pumped through the tubing or coiled tubing, with
clean fluids only pumped down the annulus, at a rate
sufficient to maintain a constant annulus pressure.
Some variations in this technique also pump low
proppant concentrations down the annulus. Most of
the fluid pumped down the annulus leaks off into the
formation before reaching the fracture. However, it
is estimated that sufficient annulus fluid enters the
fracture to dilute the treatment by 20 to 30%, and
this must be allowed for in the job design.
Although this technique is undoubtedly
a significant advance in deploying fracturing
technology, the most valuable application is realized
when performing remedial operations within existing
horizontal wellbores. In addition, practical experience
460
has shown that for effective operational execution, the
preferred fracture azimuth should be within 30 of
the perpendicular of the wellbore. Finally, it should
also be remembered that when operators decide to
remedially fracture a horizontal wellbore, it is because
the well has failed to meet its original production
expectations i.e. It is already an underperforming
well. Of course, had the operator planned to fracture
the horizontal well from inception, the well would have
been designed and completed in order to facilitate the
deployment of fracture(s) in an optimum, efficient
and economic fashion (see Chapter 10).
Unconventional Fracturing Fluids: Tremendous
High advances have been made in recent years in the area
of unconventional fracturing fluids (see Section
7-4.6). Many of these fluids do not rely on the
use of polymers or metallic cross-linkers, and in a
number of cases these fluids are significantly easier
to manage than conventional fluid systems. Other
fluid options offer considerable advantages in areas
such as formation compatibility and fluid clean-
up. Unconventional fracturing fluid technology has
made a major impact on fracturing mature reservoirs
via two fundamentally distinct approaches, and
these are the use of CO2 fracturing systems and
viscoelastic surfactant systems.
CO2 Fracturing Systems: Carbon dioxide (CO2) has
been used in hydraulic fracturing for many years as a
partial-phase component, usually to provide a foamed or
energized phase to conventional fluid systems (Crawford
et al., 1963; Hurst, 1972; and Black and Langsford,
1982). CO2 is particularly suited to this application, as
it can be pumped in a liquid state by conventional high-
pressure pumping equipment. However, two relatively
recent applications of CO2 fracturing technology have
significantly advanced the application in low-pressure,
fluid-sensitive and mature reservoir environments (see
Section 7-4.5). The first of these applications is the
employment of a CO2 methanol system, eliminating
the use of water entirely (Gupta et al., 2003). Proppant
is slurried directly into the methanol base and mixed
with the CO2 at very high pressures before being
pumped down the wellbore. Within the formation, the
CO2 turns to gas and the methanol should vaporize,
leaving little or no fluid residue and no affects from
increased water or hydrocarbon saturation.

Another innovative application of CO2
for fracturing is the use of a 100% CO2 system
as reported by Lillies and King (1982). With
this method, proppant is mixed directly into a
liquid CO2 base using a special high-pressure
refrigerated blending system that looks and
operates like a bulk CO2 tank with a sand auger
running along the bottom (Fig. 13-5). Before
the treatment, proppant is loaded into the CO2
blender and liquid CO2 is then used to cool the
proppant down (which must be entirely dry, or it
will freeze solid). Once the proppant is at the correct
temperature and pressure for liquid CO2 fracturing,
the auger can then be used to add the proppant at
controlled rates to a stream of liquid CO2. Although
treatments are small (each CO2 blender holds
approx. 30,000 lb only), this technique represents
the ultimate in non-damaging, zero residue,
easy-to-recover fracturing fluids.
Pre-Cooled
Proppant
Liquid Liquid CO2
CO2 In Slurry
Figure 13-5 Schematic Diagram of the CO2 Blender
Viscoelastic Surfactant Systems: The second
unconventional fracturing fluid technology, applied
to mature reservoirs, is that of viscoelastic surfactant
(VES) fluid systems (see Section 7-4.6.1). There are
two derivatives of this system available, the early
surfactant-brine systems (Nehmer, 1988; and Brown et
al., 1996) and the more recent dual-surfactant blended
systems (Gupta et al., 2005). Both approaches utilize
surfactant technology to generate a long, worm-
like micellar structure within a base water or brine,
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
which then imparts viscosity to the system. The
systems are extremely shear-thinning (which gives
them a low friction pressure), easy to break and non-
damaging. They have three additional properties that
make them especially suitable for mature reservoir
operations. First, as they break back to essentially
water viscosity, they are easy to recover from the
formation; therefore, they are easy to deploy and
apply. Second, the dual-surfactant system incorporates
surfactant chemistries that act as biocides, low
surface-tension modifiers, clay-stabilizers and non-
emulsifiers: just add the two surfactants on the fly,
and the system is complete. Finally, some of these
systems can be recovered, recycled and re-utilized on
additional treatments, with obvious potential cost-
saving benefits. The VES systems, however, do have
two distinct disadvantages: higher costs and lack of
high-temperature stability (approximate temperature
limits are 240 F for the surfactant-brine systems and
180 F for the dual-surfactant systems).
Understanding Aqueous Phase Trapping: It
is possible -- and necessary -- to assess whether
a formation is likely to be sensitive to aqueous
phase trapping phenomenon (also known
as water blocking) that could be caused by
introducing an additional interstitial water phase
via the fracturing fluid system.
Due to the work of Bennion and colleagues
(1994, 1996, 2002), it is now possible to predict
and potentially mitigate the effects of aqueous phase
trapping effects within gas reservoirs (see Section
7-6.2). Bennion et al. introduced the concept of
an Aqueous Phase Trapping Index (APTi) and
percentage Bulk Water Volume (%BWV), which
are calculated as follows:
APTi = 0.25[ log10 ka ] + 2.2 S wi , and (13-1)
%BWV = S w 100, (13-2)
where ka is the uncorrected absolute permeability to
air (md), Swi is the initial water saturation (fraction),
Sw is the current water saturation (fraction) and is
the porosity (fraction). Bennion et al. defined the
following criteria based upon these indices:
461
Modern Fracturing
Aqueous Phase Trapping Index for a formation:
APTi 1.0 Unlikely to exhibit
significant permanent
sensitivity to APT
0.8 < APTi < 1.0 May exhibit
sensitivity to APT
APTi 0.8 Likely to exhibit significant Volume Scope of Work: As noted above, the volume
sensitivity to APT
Percent Bulk Water Volume for a formation:
%BWV 3.5 Unlikely to exhibit
significant permanent
sensitivity to APT
2.0 < %BWV < 3.5 May exhibit
sensitivity to APT
%BWV 2.0 Likely to exhibit significant project will be in direct competition for access to limited
sensitivity to APT
Employing and evaluating these correlations can assist
with the decision about to whether to utilize a non-
aqueous base for the fracturing fluid.
13-1.5 Reducing Treatment Costs
When employing hydraulic fracturing technology
to re-develop a mature asset, it is often critical to the
well or campaign economics to extract maximum cost
efficiency from fracture treatments and associated
operations (pre-fracture preparation, post-fracture
restoration to production, etc.) at the earliest possible
opportunity. To achieve this within a reasonable
time-frame, it is generally desirable for the operating
company and the service provider(s) to work together
closely to develop a efficient approach. A number of
specific considerations can help deliver and maximize
this, including the following:
Pilot Program: A suite of pilot treatments are
sometimes required in order to sufficiently demonstrate
the true potential for full-scale program implementation.
In order for this approach to have any reasonable
chance of success, the volume scope (learning-curve
potential) and quality of the candidates (best producers
often make best candidates) require particularly careful
attention and consideration.
462
Contract Duration: Whenever possible, core
fracturing contracts should be tendered and awarded for
the longest duration reasonably possible. Consideration
of equipment, personnel and material logistics have
shown that short-term contracts are often dominated
by complex set-up costs and cannot truly demonstrate
and deliver baseline economics.
scope of work is important (for a pilot-program) to
maximize learning-curve delivery. Under a longer-
term contract award, a reasonably accurate (P50) scope
will allow both parties to apply appropriate resource
and maximize their overall economics. For example, if
a tender specifies between 10 (P90) and 100 (P10)
treatments, a service provider will often plan on
pricing and support for the P90 case (10 operations)
and consider anything else upside. Often a potential
resources (people, equipment, technology, etc.) within
both the operator and the service provider companies;
a demonstrably realistic and large scope will play a role
in deciding allocation of such resources.
Technical Scope of Work: If a pilot program has been
performed or earlier applications already demonstrated
appropriate solutions, then this should allow a reasonably
tight technical scope of work to be defined. Uncertainty
about technology (e.g., fluid chemistry and additives,
treating pressures and rates (HHP requirements), etc.)
generally translates into higher costs for the operator
caused by larger inventory (among other issues) for
the service providers. This may not be such a large
problem within Canada and the USA; however, in
overseas and remote locations inventory costs must
be recovered within the limited number of treatment
opportunities, hence reduced inventory translates into
a better contract for all parties.
Equipment Requirements: A fracturing contract
tender should be practical when specifying the necessary
equipment for a new contract. Clearly, brand-new
state-of-the-art equipment will generally command
brand-new state-of-the-art pricing. However, a 7-year-
old fracturing pump is just as capable of delivering a
treatment as a brand-new one, if it has been reasonably
well-maintained. For small treatments (typically 1 to 3
tanks), the use of hydration units simply adds complexity
and cost to the rig-up and is only really applicable under

exceptional HSE circumstances. In addition, a well-
written contract will readily allow the introduction
of new technology (or removal of redundant items),
especially when it would benefit all parties.
Material Efficiency: The efficient deployment
of fracturing fluids and proppants can also have a
significant effect on treatment and project economics.
As discussed in Section 4-5, fracture treatments should
be designed for optimum CfD, based upon formation
characteristics. In order to obtain the optimum
CfD, which implies the most efficient use of fluids
and especially proppants, an accurate knowledge of
formation permeability is essential. In a mature asset,
it is usually possible to analyze well production history
in order to obtain a reasonably reliable estimate of k.
This approach, combined with a prediction of post-
treatment production conditions (allowing an accurate
estimate of proppant permeability requirements, kf,
under actual in situ conditions) will allow the maximum
efficiency of treatment design.
In terms of direct inventory control, it is
considered normal practice for the service provider to
carry the necessary material to deliver the campaign.
However, in some situations, such as a remote area or
where multiple service providers are utilized, it is not
unusual for the operator to take control of and accept
the risk of such inventory control. This is especially
true of proppant material, and such an approach can
occasionally provide benefits to all.
Personnel Requirements: Personnel requirements
should be clearly defined. Although whenever possible
local structure and content are desirable, this is not
always possible or practical from the standpoint of success
through experience. Before tendering, the operator
should be clear on the resource and skill-sets that they
can provide, and ensure that the remaining positions
will be provided by the service provider. In addition,
both parties should ensure commitment to a project,
with personnel, through all phases of contracting and
execution. The oft-applied policy of utilizing contract-
setup engineers for tendering and contracting phases,
only to have these people to promptly disappear at
execution time, should be discouraged, as this will result
in a lack of continuity and a loss of faith and belief in
the project as a whole. In practice, neither operating nor
service companies keep experienced fracturing personnel
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
in limbo, awaiting new contract implementation. In
the majority of circumstances, experienced personnel
will have to be transferred from existing projects an
approach more easily justifiable for long-term contracts
comprising a significant scope of work.
Contractual Structure: There are numerous ways and
means in which to set up a contract and remuneration
structure for hydraulic fracturing operations, but Kugler
et al. (2004) and McIninch et al. (2002) note that the
structure and management of these contracts (in mature
field environments) is playing an increasingly important
role in the levels of success subsequently achieved.
1. Responsibilities. It is important that a contract
reflects the responsibilities and skill-sets that
both the operator and service provider bring to
the project. For example, it is inappropriate for a
service provider to be held accountable for areas
outside their direct control, e.g. height growth,
water encroachment, etc. Conversely, it is essential
that they are held directly accountable for providing
a reasonable service quality in terms of pumping
service, actual proppant schedule, additive rate,
etc., compared to a reasonable, pre-defined and
agreed set of acceptable tolerances.
2. Project Management. One of the fundamental
building blocks to implementing an efficient
and economic mature field re-development
(Burnstad et al., 2004; and Kiburz and Sullivan,
1995) is to establish an effective, decisive and
authoritative project management team at the
earliest possible opportunity. Preferably, this team
should be set up during the contracting phase and
should be empowered to implement whatever
is necessary in order to ensure the programs
success. Led by either the operator (historically
the more usual approach) or the contractor
(more recently), but including representation
from all parties, the roles of the team are wide-
ranging. These roles can include management
and organization of numerous topics, such as
contractual issues, technical issues, operational
QA/QC issues, reporting and tracking,
logistical planning, accounting/invoicing issues,
conflict resolution, HSE assurance and relations
with third parties (e.g., local government
agencies, national partners, etc.).
463
Modern Fracturing
3. Risk and Reward (gain-share). This is not a
fundamentally new approach to contracting,
(Comrie and Olsen, 1997), but it is undergoing
a resurgence of interest and finding increased
application with particular emphasis on the re-
development of mature oil and gas fields. With
this approach, each party can reasonably calculate
potential minimum/maximum exposures and
minimum/maximum margins. For the operator,
this allows an opportunity to consider candidates
that would potentially fail an internal NPV or
ROI hurdle and, if successful, receive a portion of
otherwise potentially un-recovered reserves. For
the service provider, this approach could create the
necessary volume scope to ensure an economically
efficient campaign and also to demonstrate faith
in their own technology by assuming part of the
risk associated with field deployment.
Critical to the success of such an approach
is ensuring that all of the operator(s) partners
(both private and public) are engaged and agree
with the decision-making process as the gain-
share approach and scales are determined. It
should also be remembered that risk should be
commensurate with reward.
4. Volume Discounting. Should significant
uncertainty exist with the potential scope
(and the breadth of values for P10/P50/P90
cover a significant range) then the application
of a volume discount approach can assist both
parties. The contract generally reads with the
higher pricing as noted with the example under
Volume Scope of Work; however should
upside exceed original scope, additional discount
factors are applied on annual or quarterly
invoicing to reflect the additional volumes.
This approach ensures that the service provider
recovers the small scope volume at the higher
cost; however, the upside scope is recovered by
the operator via a discount.
5. Service Alliances. Where multiple product
and service lines are going to be employed
within a development or re-development,
creating Alliances is a common approach
considered (Gazi et al., 1995; and Farrell
and McDermott, 1995).
464
Whatever the final scheme implemented for the
contract structure, the considerations and choices
undertaken during the early planning phase will
potentially have a tremendous effect on the chances of
fracturing program success.
13-2 Candidate Selection
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is
dressed in overalls and looks like work.
Thomas Edison
Smith (2006) best describes hydraulic fracturing
as THE Multi-Disciplinary Technology, and if
any single issue within fracturing most accurately
epitomizes this, it would be the complex and multi-
faceted subject area of candidate selection. Successful
candidate selection for hydraulic fracturing purposes
requires the consideration of all of the opportunities
available on three distinct scales, which
we will define as follows:
Regionalized (Macro): This we will define as
encompassing the generalization of areal well
performance, reservoir structure/variation (as
understood), and any potential faulting, geological and
other larger-scale issues which will potentially affect a
candidates potential productivity.
Neighborhood (Meso): This we will simply define
as being related to wells within the immediate vicinity
(i.e. immediate offsets within the drainage-block/
drilling pattern) and wells that are concurrent and
directly laterally correlated.
Localized (Micro): This we will very simply
define as being both native and related to the
immediate wellbore under consideration, over
the vertical distribution and within the radius of
influence of the wellbore.
13-2.1 Regional Considerations
The first level of consideration should be those issues
that can affect potential candidate performance and
candidate selection, on a regional basis:
1. Reservoir Heterogeneity: As noted by Meehan
et al., (1988), most reservoirs demonstrate
some level of heterogeneity in a vertical

and an areal sense. The well-level detail
will be taken into account when considering
localized behavior, but considering changes
in reservoir quality with regard to regional
behavior ensures that any potential trends are
reasonably well understood.
2. Reservoir Continuity: Numerous mechanisms,
on a macroscopic scale, can significantly affect
fracture efficiency: discontinuities, fault blocks,
imbricated formations, fractured crestal areas,
compressed flanks, varying drive mechanisms,
varying water contacts/perched water, stress
rotations, tectonics, fault environment thrust/
reverse/uplift, etc. It is important to have a
thorough knowledge of any regional variations
in the formation geology.
3. Geographic Information Systems (GIS): One
useful way, quickly gaining acceptance, to
represent and examine large amounts of areally
distributed information is the application of GIS
systems. The geographical perspective can be
extremely insightful in terms of understanding
reservoir and well performance.
4. Gathering and Production (GAP): It is important
to consider the pipeline, gathering and satellite
processing capability to produce a candidate
within a region, if a candidate is successfully
fracture stimulated. It is possible to discover that
due to a mechanical constraint, a well cannot
be initially flowed at full potential in one part
of a field compared to another. Ideally, a nodal
analysis model will provide guidelines about the
existence of any such regional limitations, and
the regional Mscf/d-value variation of a dollar
spent will be well understood.
Often, an assessment at this first primary level
can either remove one or more entire sections of a
development from further consideration, or (more
likely) rank areas of the field so that better regions/
areas will weigh higher under final consideration.
A structured database should be constructed, post-
assessment, that contains such weighting information
to be utilized with a risk-analysis or ranking
model after the full suite of candidate selection
criteria have been considered.
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
13-2.2 Neighborhood Considerations
The next level of consideration is an assessment of the
quality of the neighborhood and an examination
of offset well behavior - in other words, looking for
poor producers in good parts of the field, or wells
that are bad producers but not fracture candidates.
Rather than generating volumes of data about each
well, this level should consider just a few important
bulk properties and values, such as:
1. Offset Well Performance: These are the classical
color-contoured or bubble map and spot-pattern
variables we are accustomed to considering,
based on such parameters as production rate,
cumulative production, net pay, reservoir
pressure, productivity indices (normalized),
porosity, permeability, produced liquids, etc.
(see Chapter 12 for examples).
Judicious collection and review of this data
can yield significant insight into the quality
of the location of the potential candidate
well and potentially identify massively
underperforming wells based on consideration
of the offsets alone. This data should be visually
reviewed as well as recorded, in an appropriate
format, into a structured database for the
neighborhood-level information.
2. Drainage Shape and Area: Visual inspection of the
bubble maps created when examining offset well
performance now need to be considered with
respect to preferred fracture direction and the
drainage shape associated with the offset wells.
Cipolla et al. (2005) and Meehan et al. (1988)
provide excellent examples of the importance of
well location choice for infill and/or selection as
a fracturing candidate. This approach provides
insight into poor locations for fracture stimulations
and infill wells; conversely, it also provides insight
into harvest opportunities to recover additional
reserves where un-drained areas exist within existing
drainage patterns. As noted in Section 13-5.3, the
industry is beginning to pay significantly more
attention to the importance of areal drainage.
If the preferred fracture direction is not well
known, then there are numerous methods of
obtaining a reasonable determination of its value
465
Modern Fracturing
(Meehan et al., 1988). Occasionally, simply studying
trajectories of wells drilled on natural-walk (i.e.
without any directional BHA) may indicate the
minimum stress directional trend.
3. Areal Connectivity: These maps may also indicate the
magnitude of areal connectivity that exists among
immediate offset wells. Good connectivity across
the neighborhood should be reflected in offset
behaviors and pore pressure distribution. Poor
connectivity, of course, would be demonstrated as
steep value contouring and/or a complete division
or isolation trend between two or more types of
well response(s) on the plot.
4. Publicly Available Data: Data recovery should
include the immediately operated wells as
well as competitor wells (which may also be
offsets) if available.
All of the neighborhood data available from offsets
for each potential candidate should be recorded and
available within a structured database. In addition,
for each well/entry a simple connectivity map to
offsets should also be available, potentially via GIS,
for later manipulation.
13-2.3 Localized Considerations
For the purposes of candidate selection, we should
finally determine the localized and singular behavior
of the candidate under consideration; not surprisingly,
this is the level at which most information generally
exists. As noted in Section 13-1.3, the starting point
for an individual well candidate selection should be the
performance of a well compared with a zero skin/100%
flow-efficiency condition, given assumed/estimated
reservoir parameters at that location.
From the familiar equations, as defined in Chapter
2, we can appreciate that there are a number of formation
and reservoir parameters with which we must be familiar
and comfortable if we are going to be able to accurately
predict pre- and post-fracture well behavior:
1. Reservoir Characteristics: The utilisation of log-
derived permeability, from porosity estimations,
forms one of the cornerstones of accurately
estimating a wells potential deliverability (Barba
and Shook, 2004). It is therefore imperative when
466
performing a candidate-selection process that there
is confidence in the model(s) utilized to make
these estimations. If this is not the case, then an
alternative approach should be taken when making
any comparative assessments or ranking.
The definition and relative distribution of the
pay (bypassed or existing), gross and net sands,
and an early assessment of the potential fracture
geometry should also be assessed at this level.
2. Pressure Transient Analysis: The localized reservoir
parameters can be calculated by performing pressure
transient analysis (PTA) as described in Chapter 3.
However, obtaining this data may be complicated
by multi-zone/multi-layer commingling issues
(especially in mature environments) and it is often
expensive data to recover (in terms of direct costs
and deferred production).
When available, PTA can provide valuable
information regarding in situ reservoir properties
such as average reservoir pressure, p*, reservoir
permeability, k, reservoir level effects (e.g. faults,
fractures, etc.) and the magnitude of skin-damage,
s, around a well (either induced during the initial
drilling and completion phases or accumulated
during, and related to, the extensive production
history of the well).
Whenever reasonably possible, pressure
transient data should be obtained and analyzed,
in order to provide the most accurate assessment
of local conditions.
3. Production History Matching: The analysis of
production decline data and material balance
approaches have been used for some time, in
a variety of forms (see Chapter 3), in order
to determine recoverable reserves numbers.
However, these approaches often suffer from a
number of fundamental limitations; therefore,
during the last thirty years, type-curve analysis,
using methods established by Carter (1985) and
Palacio and Blasingame (1993) have enjoyed
a more widespread application in gas wells, as
noted by Agarwal et al. (1998).
Agarwal et al. (1998) also confirmed the findings
of Palacio and Blasingame (1993) that the constant
rate and constant BHFP solutions for gas systems
could be converted to an equivalent constant rate

solution for liquids. Having demonstrated this, they
then went on to show that classical constant-rate
liquid solutions for PTA can then be applied to gas
well conditions and described the three principal
curve types they considered:
Rate-Time Production-Decline Type
Curves: These curves have application to the
estimation of GIP (gas in place), reservoir
permeability and skin factor.
Rate-Cumulative Production-Decline Type
Curves: These curves have application in the
estimation of GIP, ensuring GIP accuracy
and flow-period identification (transient
and pseudo-steady state).
Cumulative-Time Production-Decline Type
Curves: These curves are useful when cumulative
production data provides a smoother data set than
rate production data and can be utilized to calculate
reservoir parameters and reserves data.
4. Mechanical Integrity: This may seem an obvious
consideration when selecting candidates for
hydraulic fracturing, however either poor initial
or loss of mechanical integrity with time, has often
obscured or over-complicated the upside potential
of fracture campaigns (Solares, 2001; and Rylance
et al., 2007). The fracturing industry is littered
with the corpses of treatments that have failed due
to poor mechanical integrity, not always because
the integrity was not considered, but more often
because the magnitude of the effect of losing
integrity was considerably underestimated.
There are a number of reasons why mechanical
integrity should be of such concern, and many
of these are discussed in Chapter 5, including
the importance of tubing-stress analysis and
primary cementing isolation. For example,
during recent years there has been a growing
trend to complete wells with much simpler
monobore-style completions with casing/
tubing cemented back to surface. Although
this reduces the time, cost and complexity of a
well, it generally removes the ability to deploy
a fracturing string and hence exposes the entire
completion to fracturing screen-out pressures.
This is manageable, of course, (Macfarlane and
Mackey, 1998) by careful consideration of the
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
pipe-weight/grade/connection requirements for
fracturing. However, the costs associated with
upgrading the integrity from surface to TD
for the particular case of fracturing can often
offset the savings associated with a monobore
approach; therefore, it is often disregarded or
overlooked. In addition, because many wells
are not immediately considered as fracture
candidates (as per the subject matter of this
Chapter) and therefore are not appropriately
designed, limited mechanical integrity can play
a very important role in defining the potential
future fracability of a candidate.
All of the data available for each potential
candidate, from a localized perspective, should be
recorded into the structured database. In addition,
for each of these parameters, upper and lower
bounds should be selected if appropriate, and a data-
accuracy measure calculated.
13-2.4 Risk Ranking and Data Manipulation
The principal objective, after having completed
the exercise above, would be to have access to a
structured candidate database(s) with two distinct
sets of entries: performance-related candidate data
and risk-related candidate data. Once these two
integrated data sets are available, the process of
candidate selection may begin.
1. Risk Ranking: Prior to performing any candidate
ranking exercise, it is important to determine the
risk valued-drivers to the project.
Each application may have any number of
drivers, each of which will have a relative level
of importance, depending upon the particular
circumstances. For example, drivers might
include pre-fracture production rate (i.e., risked
production), post-fracture production rate,
increased reserves, $/Mscf, ROI, NPV, mechanical
complexity, CAPEX limitations, delivery-time,
etc. The relative importance of a number of these
factors must be appreciated prior to performing a
candidate selection process, as they will provide
the individual skins for the ranking mechanism
during the candidate selection process.
467
Modern Fracturing
2. Data Manipulation: As discussed in Section
12-5, in many cases, the oil and gas industry
will have a strong tendency to manipulate
these databases (or more likely spreadsheets),
with conventional tools that will be limited
to and constrained by the experience and pre-
conceived notions/expectations of the person
who is performing the assessment.
As a simple first-pass approach to a fracturing
candidate selection exercise, this is not an
unreasonable approach. However the availability
of more modern methods offers the opportunity
to examine the data, and their relationships,
in other ways and to maximize the concealed
potential. There are a number of different
emerging artificial intelligence approaches that
have been applied in this way in recent years
(Mohaghegh et al., 2000) to the manipulation of
typical fracturing data sets. These approaches are
quite varied in their requirements and their upside
potential (Oberwinkler et al., 2004, and Stundner
and Oberwinkler, 2004), and include approaches
such as fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic
algorithms, self-questioning matrices, pattern
recognition, self-organizing maps, etc.
It should be acknowledged that these
applications need to be applied with caution,
as there are a number of preparatory steps
that can affect the quality of the outcome
and their usefulness, such as:
Inadvertent/subliminal filtering of the data prior
to database entry (i.e. pre-determined conceptions
related to what are or are not the important
variables to be considered, thereby circumventing
a neutral data gathering process).
Poor-quality, spurious, inaccurate or wholesale
absence of data will also render a number of
these approaches potentially ineffective. Like all
calculations, the dictate that garbage-in = garbage-
out should not be overlooked.
However, it has been increasingly reported that using
these methods with other selection techniques, such as
type-curve analysis and economic risk-ranking, provides
yet another level of confidence and a robust tracking
method for the candidate selection process.
468
13-2.5 Case Histories and Results
Silver bullets are for Hammer Horror Films and not
fracture candidate selection. With fracture candidate
selection there is no one-size-fits-all approach as a
process and certainly no single consideration that
provides the 100% solution. This is just as true with
candidate selection for re-fracturing (see Section 13-
5.2) as it is for initial fracturing.
However, not all is doom and gloom. Clearly from
the previous chapters of this book we can see that
there are a variety of different approaches to choose
from or apply and it is the selection or combination of
approaches which will provide the particular solution in
each case. We will now consider a number of different
cases, where appropriate but increasingly complex,
solutions have been applied.
1. Candidate selection with no or limited available data:
An extreme situation, where there are numerous
unknowns and an effective candidate selection
method is extremely difficult to achieve. However,
Utegalyev et al. (2006) demonstrated that by using a
multi-disciplinary team, creating and implementing
a learning culture, and concentrating on variables
that could be directly affected (e.g,. the operational
aspects of the process), they were able to perform a
highly successful stimulation campaign.
2. Candidate selection using mixed conventional/
advanced approach: Grieser et al. (2006) describe a
case whereby a conventional approach, including
cross-plots, bar-charts, cumulative frequency
plots, etc., did not determine any definitive
trends or correlations. They then proceeded to
perform a more detailed data-mining exercise
and applied the Self-Organizing Map approach
(see Section 12-5.5). The results were clear, with
definitive trends, which could then be applied to
improve the future program.
3. Candidate selection using advanced approaches:
Although performed in order to primarily
identify re-fracturing candidate potential, the
work reported by Oberwinkler and Economides
(2003) is an excellent demonstration of the
measure of application that can be achieved
with the artificial intelligence approaches
when quality data is available.

13-3 Fracture Design in Mature Fields
Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, The Life of Reason,
Volume 1, 1905
There are a wide variety of treatment options
available for mature reservoirs in fact just as
many as there are for treating new reservoirs. All of
the conventional choices are at the users disposal;
however, a number of key issues often make mature
field fracturing an effective proposition.
Primarily, there is often significantly much
more information and history available regarding
a mature asset by its very definition than there is
about a potential new development. This data can
be comprehensive and include much insight into
permeability and pressure variation and distribution,
rock mechanical properties and the tendency of
reservoir fluids to produce/promote organic and
inorganic scale deposition when contacted by foreign
fluids, among other things. All of this information
can be used to make fracturing treatments much
more effective. However, more than anything else,
an improved knowledge of reservoir permeability
and variation can dramatically improve the results
and efficiency obtained from fracturing operations,
allowing each fracture to be designed to produce the
optimum CfD (see Section 4-5).
Potentially, there may also be an available wealth
of information from previous hydraulic fracturing
operations within the field. Important parameters
such as in situ stress magnitude and variation, leak-
off behavior and rock-mechanical properties may
already have been recorded from treatments in offset
wells. At the very least, archives from such disciplines
as drilling can be examined to provide potential
bounding information such as leak-off tests (LOTs)
and formation integrity tests (FITs), etc.
The ability to efficiently select individual wellbores
and candidates for zonal fracturing will also be much
improved, as once again, significantly more data is
available to assist with the selection process. Wells (or
blocks of the field) with lower reservoir pressure, higher
water cuts and/or a history of fines or scale production
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
can be given lower priority; conversely, wells with higher
or stable pressures, lower water cuts and/or higher skin
factors can be given higher priority.
Finally, reservoir engineers will often have a significant
period of production history data with which to fine tune
the reservoir simulation model and understanding. This
will allow for the potential identification of by-passed
reserves and allow the wells to be ranked according to
remaining recoverable reserves. Obviously, the wells
with the greatest remaining reserves are better candidates
for production if these reserves can be accessed by
fracturing. For instance, a well with significant reserves
located in a direction perpendicular to the fracture
azimuth will not see greatly improved access to these
reserves from a fracture treatment. Such a situation
may require an infill well to be drilled. Conversely, an
accurate knowledge of the fracture azimuth can help
refine candidate selection and treatment design because
knowledge of the optimum dimensionless fracture half-
length (xf/re) is a crucial design parameter.
Perforations and Workovers: Mature wellbores
will potentially have multiple perforated intervals
and completions in place; often, these will have a far
more significant effect on a treatment design than any
formation characteristics. Usually, the well will require
workover and re-perforating as part of the preparation,
and this is discussed in more detail in Section 13-4.5. This
preparatory work will provide an opportunity to achieve
significant flexibility and optimization because now the
treatments can target specific intervals. In addition, re-
perforating presents the potential to manage and control
the point of fracture initiation (see Section 6-2.1).
Fracture Treatment Design: In general, the same
rules and procedures should be followed for mature
field fracture design as for any development (see
Section 4-5). However, there are some specific points
that will need to be considered:
1. In many formations it is very important to
consider the potential movement of the gas/water
contact(s). Open-hole wireline logs indicating
these will probably have been run and processed
for original fluid contacts when the well was first
drilled. It is not uncommon, in a depleted gas
reservoir, for the GWC to have migrated upward,
and it may be worthwhile to consider performing
some form of surveillance in order to re-determine
469
Modern Fracturing
the location of these contact(s) before even selecting
fracturing as a potential re-development method.
Ideally, fracture treatments in gas reservoirs should
be designed to avoid penetrating any rock with
significant water saturation. Although there
are techniques available to help mitigate water
production if this occurs, these approaches will
only potentially reduce the water production levels
and not eliminate the problem entirely (Borodin,
et al., 2006, and Pietrak et al., 2005).
2. Ensure that the positive and negative aspects
of pressure depletion have been thoroughly
considered for each candidate. This is discussed in
further detail within Section 13-4.
3. Consider the potential economics of limiting
the fracturing operations to merely skin by-pass
fracturing treatments (see Section 4-7.5). Mature
reservoir intervals can often have quite high skin
factors associated with them; an assessment of
these skins may show that these zones can be
effectively stimulated with relatively small fracture
treatments (Rae et al., 1999).
4. As with water contacts, be aware of the potential
effect that the onset of water production may
have on the overall economics. Excessive water
production can result in numerous negative
effects, including: (a) A decrease in the effective
proppant pack permeability (Vincent et al., 1999),
(b) Formation deconsolidation and failure, (c)
Formation and deposition of inorganic scales, (d)
Excessive proppant back-production and (e) A
major effect on the vertical lift performance of the
completion and/or surface gathering system.
5. Wherever possible, fracture treatments should be
designed to provide the maximum areal recovery
from the field. This will be achieved by taking
consideration of (a) The effects of the dominant
fracture azimuth, (b) The placement of longer
fractures where wells have greater separation and
vice versa and (c) Ensuring that un-depleted areas
of the field receive appropriate attention.
6. It is also worth considering, when finalizing the
fracture design, that this may be the last significant
intervention within this well. This is especially true
of remote or offshore locations, where preparation,
mobilization and logistics dominate the economics.
470
In these cases, when creating the fracture design,
any uncertainty related to design half-length
and volumes of proppant should err on the side
of caution. In brief, it is worthwhile to slightly
over-design the frac half-length and proppant
volumes in order to compensate for any potential
underestimation of requirements.
13-4 Depletion Considerations
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the
attribute of the strong.
Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, Indian Political
Leader (1869 1948)
Probably the single most important consideration
when fracturing in a mature environment will be
the reduction in pore pressure that has taken place
since the onset of production, and the influence
that this will have on any subsequent operations.
The following sections consider some important
factors this reduction will affect.
13-4.1 Pore-Pressure Considerations
Changes in Closure-Stress: Hubbert and Willis
(1957) demonstrated that fracture pressure gradient
was a function of overburden stress gradient, pore
pressure and stress ratio, accepting a number of
generalized simplifications. They proposed that the
in situ horizontal stress is generated solely by the
uniaxial vertical strain (assuming no tectonic input),
and that the horizontal stress can be expressed as a
function of the overburden by:
c = (v pr ) + pr , (13-3)
(1 )
where c is closure stress, is Poisson's ratio, v
is vertical stress, is Biot's poroelastic constant
and po is wellbore pressure. As the pore pressure
decreases from an initial state, the closure stress
will drop proportionately. Differentiating Eq. 13-
3 with respect to the pore pressure (and assuming a
Biots constant of 1) gives the following:
c (13-4)
= 1 .
pr (1 )

For a Poissons ratio of 0.25, this will mean that a 1
psi reduction in pore pressure will reduce the localized
closure stress by 2/3 psi. This localized reduction in
pore pressure and closure stress can have a dramatic
influence on fracture geometry and efficiency.
One of the most important aspects of a change
in the closure stress profile is the manner in which
this change will affect the growth, geometry and
therefore deliverability of a hydraulic fracture
treatment. In situations where fracturing attempts,
early in field life, resulted in a lack of confinement
and poor fracture aspect ratio, a reduction in pore
pressure (and hence closure stress) can result in
improved fracture geometry based on the change
in the stress profile and potentially improved
contrasts with any shale-barriers.
When considering the impact of pore-pressure
depletion on fracture geometry, it may be worthwhile
constructing a simple graphic (similar to the one provided
in Figure 13-6), based on the available knowledge of
the formation stresses, pore-pressure depletion and
previous formation fracturing experience.
2500
Stress Contrast, psi and
Fracture Half-Length, ft
2000
1500
1000
500
0 4500
0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20
Pore-Pressure Reduction with Production, psi/ft
Closure Stress in sand
Sand-Shale Stress Contrast
Upper Bound Half-Length Potential
Lower Bound Half-Length Potential
Figure 13-6 Example of the impact of pore-pressure
reduction on stress, stress-contrast and achievable
fracture half-length xf potential.
As in Section 13-4.1, assuming a Poisson ratio
of 0.25 then we can assume that for every 1 psi
reduction in reservoir pore-pressure, that we have 2/3
psi reduction in stress within the main sand body.
We can also assume that the shale (pore-pressure)
does not reduce equally or that any reduction in
pore-pressure (and hence stress) is offset by an
increase due to the hanging wall effect as applied
by von Winterfeld et al., (2005).
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
As the pore-pressure reduces, the in-situ stress in the
sand reduces which will increase the equivalent stress
barrier between the shale and sand. This increase in the
stress barrier results in a more readily achievable fracture
half-length (for the same fluid efficiency or fluid-volume).
This half-length xf should then be modelled for a range of
barrier magnitudes to generate an equivalent frac Half-
Length Graph, the shape of the xf vs. pore-pressure decline
graph (i.e. straight line, curve-up or curve to asymptotic)
will be determined by the actual sand-thickness, initial
barrier value, leak-off parameters etc.
Once this simple graphic has been generated
it may then be utilised to help maximise the
efficiency, timing and selection of the proposed
fracture/re-fracture candidates.
Conversely, any uneven depletion within a laminated
sand-body may result in preferential proppant placement
across the depleted sands at the expense of reserves
recovery within higher pore-pressure regions.
In mature fields, it is therefore always important
to consider how such a pore-pressure reduction
will affect fracture geometry. This is particularly
true if earlier attempts at hydraulic fracturing were
7000
unsuccessful due largely to lack of confinement and
6500 hence poor fracture aspect ratios.
Closure Stress, psi
6000
Asymmetric Fracture Growth/Fracture Reorientation:
The previous section briefly considered the effects of
5500
pore-pressure reduction within a single payzone regarding
5000 fracture confinement (i.e. one-dimensional consideration)
or if preferential depletion is present say between two-
distinct pay-zones (then this could be considered as two-
dimensional). However, such depletion also has an areal
or three-dimensional component as described in several
case studies, such as those reported by Mukherjee et al.
(1995) and Cipolla et al. (2005).
To a certain extent, the fracturing community has
largely overlooked or disregarded this areal effect, due
mostly to a lack of diagnostic evidence. However, more
recently, fracture re-orientation and asymmetric fracture
growth have been more easily demonstrable through the
increased gathering of micro-seismic and tilt-meter data
(Cipolla and Wight, 2002). The gathering of this data has
been largely driven by the increased activity within the
sphere of unconventional gas (described within Chapter
11) and re-fracturing operations (which will be described
further within Section 13-5.4).
471
Modern Fracturing
Stress Dependent Permeability: An additional
consideration when planning fracturing operations
in mature fields is the potential for formation
deliverability to have actually reduced over time due
to a pressure-dependent permeability effect (Vairogs
et al., 1971). A significant amount of work has been
performed in this area over the years, a large part of
which has indicated a bias to a more pronounced effect
in lower-permeability environments and reservoirs
with distinct natural fracturing.
13-4.2 Fracturing Fluid Selection
The selection of fracturing fluids for gas-reservoirs is dealt
with extensively in Chapter 7 of this book. However, some
aspects specific to fracturing mature and low-pressure gas
reservoirs will be discussed here in more detail.
The success of hydraulic fracturing treatments within
low-pressure reservoirs can be heavily influenced by the
efficiency of recovering the fracturing fluid after the
treatment. This recovery consists of two distinct phases:
The first is the process of returning broken fracturing fluid
and gel residue out of the formation and proppant pack
and into the wellbore; the second consists of returning
this fluid back to the surface, where it can be disposed of,
and this subject will be dealt with in Section 13-4.4.
The principal additional consideration to enable rapid
and efficient fluid recovery from depleted formations,
over and above normally pressured formations, is that the
return fluid must have the maximum possible mobility
ratio. This equates to ensuring that the minimum possible
energy is expended to ensure efficient fluid recovery.
Consequently, the guidelines for fracturing fluids for
depleted formations are very similar to those for very
low-permeability formations:
1. Minimization of broken-fluid viscosity: Clearly,
the more viscous the broken fracturing fluid and
filtrate, the more energy required to initiate flow
within the fracture and the formation. Minimizing
broken fracturing fluid viscosity can be achieved by
a variety of approaches, such as reducing polymer
loading, eliminating cross-linked/complex polymers
altogether (e.g. using slickwater treatments or
viscoelastic surfactant systems) and using efficient
and multiple breaker mechanisms, such as polymer-
specific enzymes (Ely et al., 2003).
472
2. Minimization of broken-fluid surface tension:
This is generally achieved with a specially
designed surfactant system. These systems are
usually blended from several surfactant-based
chemicals and can consequently be optimized
for other purposes as well, such as promoting
desirable wettability characteristics, preventing
the formation of emulsions and controlling clay
instability. Adding methanol can also reduce the
broken-fluid surface tension.
3. Minimization of fracture fluid leak-off: Improved
overall fluid efficiency will of course reduce the
total volume of treatment fluid to be returned.
In addition, an efficient filter-cake deposition
will ensure that the majority of this leaked-off
fluid is actually fracturing fluid filtrate. This is
an extremely desirable outcome because whole
gel loss to the formation should be minimized if
possible (for numerous reasons), especially in a
low-permeability environment.
4. Minimization of base water volume: This can
be readily achieved by replacing some or all of
the base water with methanol, which has little
or no interaction with most reservoirs and
hence is relatively easily recovered, often in the
form of a vapor. Another way to minimize the
water content is to replace part of the aqueous
phase with CO2 or N2 (or both). The use of a
foamed fracturing fluid (generally accepted
to be effective above 60% by volume of the
gaseous phase at downhole conditions) can have
several advantages for low-pressure reservoirs.
These advantages include:
Dramatically reduced fluid leak-off, and hence a
reduction in the overall fluid volume required to
place the same amount of proppant
Reduced water percentage within the foamed
slurry (e.g. 100 bbl of downhole volume will
contain only 30 to 40 bbl of water-based
fluids in quality foams)
Potentially improved proppant transport
capability (leading to a reduction in the overall
required polymer loadings)
Easier fluid recovery because the energy stored
within the gaseous phase provides a boost to the
localized pore pressure
 Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets

However, using foam does also have potential declines in reservoir pressure during the life-of-
disadvantages, including: field; consequently, there is always the possibility
Increased surface treating pressure caused by of an initial increase in the effective stress on the
increased overall wellbore friction loss and a loss of proppant as the field undergoes depletion (McLennan
hydrostatic head and Roegiers, 1982).
Increased overall treatment costs, a factor that can
8,000
be critical in the relatively sensitive economics
7,000
associated with mature developments
6,000
Increased overall treatment complexity
5,000

Pressure, psi
4,000
5. Elimination of aqueous phase: A number of 3,000
operators have successfully fractured low-pressure 2,000
gas formations using water-free fracturing systems 1,000
based on methanol, oil (such as condensate, 0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67
diesel, kerosene or frac oil) and even 100%
Elapsed Time, Months
CO2 (e.g. Craft, et al., 1992; Hernandez et al.,
1994; Mazza, 2001; Gupta, 2003; and Cramer Pore-Pressure Decline
Drawdown Case A
et al., 1991). Such fluid systems can be extremely Effective Stress Case A
Drawdown Case B
formation-friendly and very easy to recover, and Effective Stress Case B
Drawdown Case C
consequently are becoming increasingly popular. Effective Stress Case C
Drawdown Case D
Effective Stress Case D
However, there are generally significant cost
and availability issues to be overcome, as well
as safety issues related to pumping flammable Figure 13-7 Change in effective stress on proppant with
pore-pressure decline and drawdown
and low-flash-point fluids. In addition to
this, oil-based fracturing fluids should not be This is more easily explained with reference to
utilized in gas formations containing residual Fig. 13-7, which demonstrates the effective stress on
oil saturation (i.e. wet gas reservoirs) proppant for a range of drawdowns - in a formation at
because the increase in liquid hydrocarbon 10,000 ft with an initial stress gradient of 0.70 psi/ft
saturation level can lead to oil-wetting and and a pore-pressure gradient of 0.43 psi/ft, undergoing
hydrocarbon phase trapping. depletion over four years (with a minimum bottomhole
flowing pressure of 150 psi). As in the discussion within
13-4.3 Proppant Selection Section 13-4.1, we have assumed here a Biots constant
of 1 and a Poissons ratio of 0.25.
Chapter 8 deals extensively with proppant selection Conversely, when the drawdown is limited by
and provides detailed criteria for selecting proppants. the available pr and subsequently begins to decline
However, once again in mature reservoirs, there are some (see Fig. 13-6), the effective stress will also begin to
specific details that will need to be considered. decrease. Pathak et al., (2004) described the effects
Change in Effective Stress: As discussed in Section on the giant Indonesian Arun gas field as reservoir
4-3.2, a decline in reservoir pressure can significantly pressure declined from an initial pressure of over
affect the effective stress experienced by the proppant 7,000 psi in 1971 to just below 700 psi. This reduction
under producing conditions. During decline, produced such a massive change in formation stresses
while the drawdown (pr po) remains unchanged, that the field experienced numerous wellbore failures.
the effective stress on the proppant will gradually Obviously, this is an extreme example; however, it
increase until the drawdown drops due to the limited does demonstrate that the expected reservoir depletion
available bottomhole pressure. In gas reservoirs, it should be a crucial consideration in proppant selection
is possible for a formation to experience very large for life-of-field fracture behavior.

473
Modern Fracturing
Although a decrease in effective stress might
appear as though it would benefit proppant
permeability, this is not necessarily always the case.
To start with, the reduction in proppant permeability
caused by high initial effective stress is primarily due
to fines generated within the proppant pack (due to
large localized contact stresses between individual
proppant grains). These fines will not disappear as
the effective stress drops, and so the proppant will
not regain significant permeability. In addition, as the
effective stress drops, so does the stable-arch force
holding the proppant grains together; this can lead
to severe and abrupt proppant flow-back problems,
especially if a liquid phase is also present.
It is worth noting that the potential worst-case
scenario can often arise immediately after fracture
stimulation, during the clean-out and flow-back stage
(see Section 13-4.4). It is not uncommon to see wells
being blown dry during this phase because of poor
inflow. This is an extremely undesirable situation
because if the BHFP is zero, then the effective stress
on the proppant is at a maximum (near the wellbore).
Low-pressure, low-permeability formations must
be treated with patience and care during the clean-
out phase, in order to ensure that the near-wellbore
proppant pack is not permanently damaged.
Increasing Liquid Production: As demonstrated by
Vincent et al. (1999), multiphase flow can have just
as significant an effect within a proppant pack as it
can within a formation. Propped hydraulic fractures
placed initially within dry gas reservoirs can often
lose the majority of their effective conductivity due
to retrograde condensation as the reservoir pressure
declines, or due to water production as the reduced
reservoir pressure alters the gas-water contact
or both. Proppant material should therefore
be selected (and the fractures designed) with this
in mind, so that a fracture can remain effective
throughout the life-of-field.
Increasing liquid production will also have
other profound effects on the proppant pack. For
example, higher liquid production will increase
drag forces within the proppant pack, increasing
the potential for proppant flowback (see Section
8-10). In addition, increased liquids production,
coupled with depleted reservoir pressure (and also,
474
possibly, reduced temperature) can result in the
subsequent deposition of inorganic scales from
formation water and in some very isolated instances
organic scales from condensates.
Decreasing Drawdown: As the reservoir pressure
declines through maturity, the drawdown and
productivity will also follow an eventual declining
trend. This reduction in drawdown and productivity
will mean that the velocity profile of the gas within
the fracture will diminish, and various material(s)
that may have previously been produced efficiently
through the proppant pack (such as liquids and
fines) may begin to build up and cause a reduction in
proppant pack conductivity.
Proppant Selection for Declining Pore Pressure: All of
the factors noted above mean that the proppant pack
must be designed for the conductivity and strength
that will be faced during the life of field. The peak
requirements of the proppant pack can often be in
excess of the original static needs for efficient initial
production of the reservoir. This is supported by the
numerous re-fracture case histories (e.g., Bakhtar et al.,
1985; and Mukherjee et al., 2000) that have exhibited
significant benefits simply from utilizing improved
proppant systems. In short, when selecting proppant
material for fracturing, the transient production
conditions of the reservoir should be considered - not
just the initial production state.
13-4.4 Cleanout and Flowback
With any fracturing operation, the wellbore cleanout and
fluid recovery phase is an essential part of the fracturing
process. Indeed, the cleanout should be considered
as vital as pumping the pad or including the breaker.
Fracturing operations should not be commenced unless
the facilities and capabilities are in place to flow the well
back with immediate effect. Moreover, the equipment
and personnel required for the flow back of the well
should be rigged up and ready to perform prior to
fracturing execution because a premature screen-out
may require rapid recovery of wellbore fluids.
In order for a propped fracture to be present, a
new volume has to be created within the formation or
formations to provide the additional capacity for the
fracturing fluid and proppant that will be pumped within

the interval. This volume is created by compressing the
rocks, fluids and gases within the formation immediately
adjacent to the fracture face. This region of compressed
formation represents significant accumulated energy
that can be used to recover the fracturing fluids and
additives. However, this energy will rapidly disperse
after shutdown, and it is therefore important to make
maximum use of this energy by flowing back as soon as
possible after the treatment.
In depleted reservoirs cleanout of the wellbore
and recovery of the fracturing fluid becomes even
more important because there is less inherent energy
available to recover the fluid. In general, the following
practices should be observed:
Immediate Flowback (Pre-Closure): There are certain
situations, such as very low-permeability formations
(where there is significant elapsed time to fracture
closure) or adverse fracture geometry situations (where
there is potential for proppant convection away from
the pay zone and wellbore), when consideration should
be given to immediate flowback or forced closure, as
defined by Ely et al. (1990). However, it is generally
accepted that forced closure will lead to reduced
fracture width, and therefore a reduced conductivity,
immediately at the wellbore and that consequently
this approach has a limited range of application and
should be considered carefully.
Immediate Flowback (Post-Closure): Turn the
well around and begin the flowback process as soon
as possible after the treatment has been shut down
(but after fracture closure has been confirmed/noted).
Design the fluids to break quickly, and take fluid
samples during the treatment for breaker testing.
As soon as the last proppant-carrying stage has
broken (and the fracture has closed on the proppant
pack), the flowback can begin. This can be assisted
by ramping up the breaker toward the end of
the treatment, providing a faster break in the later
fluid stages than in the earlier ones. Note that it is
desirable to have the fracture close prior to the fluid
stage breaking, in order to avoid excessive proppant
settling away from the wellbore interface.
Continuous Flowback: After the fracturing fluids
have begun producing back toward the wellbore, it is
very important to keep the fluids moving and not to
halt the process until the well is fully cleaned up. Each
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
time a well is shut in during fracturing fluid recovery,
it can become increasingly difficult to initiate fluid
recovery. This is particularly true if gas is also being
recovered with the fracturing fluid, as the multi-phase
flow effects within the formation will tend to decrease
the effective permeability to both phases.
It should also be noted that additives incorporated
within fracturing fluids to prevent formation damage
such as non-emulsifiers, clay stabilizers and low
surface-tension additives will have a limited life
and are in general designed for a few hours exposure
to formation conditions, rather than days or weeks.
The longer the fracturing fluids are left within the
formation, the less effective these additives will
be and the greater the potential for permanent
formation or fracture damage.
Managed Flowback: The well should be flowed
back as rapidly as can practically and safely be
achieved, with the available surface equipment and
drawdown. Application of a maximum drawdown
ensures the most efficient use of the stored energy
within the formation. However, too much draw-down
can create other issues (e.g. liquid loading or proppant
crushing); therefore, a reasonable compromise must
be reached that allows the maximum continuous
drawdown, achieving the maximum flow-rate while
minimizing proppant pack damage. Generally, the
most common practice appears to be setting the
choke to produce at a high flow rate while being
prepared to adjust the choke size to maintain the rate
as the producing conditions vary.
Another important aspect of flowback is the
prevention of early gas breakthrough within the
proppant pack or at the wellbore, as ideally the
fracturing fluid would be produced first, followed
by the gas. Although early gas production can be
somewhat helpful in keeping the well flowing, it can
also result in a permeability reduction due to multi-
phase flow effects and the by-passing of fracturing fluid.
Sherman and Holditch (1991) have demonstrated that
cumulative fracturing fluid recovery was significantly
affected by early gas breakthrough and that wells with
lower fluid recovery ultimately produced less gas.
Continuous, uninterrupted and managed flowback
conditions will help promote maximum fluid recovery
and minimize early gas breakthrough.
475
Modern Fracturing
In general, this means that the choke should be
adjusted continuously to maximize the fluid flow rate.
When the well is flowing 100% liquids, the choke can
usually be opened further to increase the liquid rate.
However, after gas starts breaking through, opening the
choke further will often result in an increased gas cut and
reduced liquid rate. In such a situation it may be more
beneficial to actually reduce the choke size.
Uniform Flowback: As with any fractured well,
any sudden large changes in the drawdown should
be avoided; this is especially true during post-fracture
clean out and flow-back. Vreeburg et al. (1994)
demonstrated that stress cycling of proppant packs
could lead to aggravated proppant flowback. Sudden
changes in drawdown, such as when rapidly opening
or closing a tree valve, can produce sudden changes in
pore pressure, effective stress and drag forces within the
formation around the fracture. Therefore, whenever
possible, choke sizes should be staged slowly up or
down as required, in order to minimize the overall
effects on the proppant pack.
Volume of Flowback: As discussed in Section 13-3.1,
designing the treatment with the minimum necessary
fluid volume is essential for treating low pore-pressure
formations. The less fluid that is pumped into the
formation, the easier it is to recover.
Coiled Tubing Flowback: Coiled tubing is often
used for nitrogen-assisting gas wells back to production
after a fracture treatment. The coiled tubing is run to an
optimally calculated depth, and a gas (typically nitrogen)
is pumped into the wellbore, reducing the hydrostatic
head. Coiled tubing can also be used to clean out the
wellbore sump/rat-hole and remove excessive proppant
from a wellbore (e.g. after a premature screen-out) or from
sand plugs used to isolate multiple intervals. Therefore it
is generally common practice, in many areas, for a coiled
tubing unit to follow a frac spread around a field, cleaning
up wells and returning them to production.
13-4.5 Mechanical Deployment
As noted in Section 13-1.4 coiled tubing has been
used for a number of years now to successfully fracture
the shallow gas wells of southern Alberta as well as
the Appalachians; in addition this approach has been
extensively applied to coalbed methane recovery
476
(Spady et al., 1999; McConkey and Stromquist,
2000; and Rodvelt et al., 2001). Gavin (2000)
described the process and benefits of using coiled
tubing to fracture shallow gas zones, and Cawiezel et
al. (2004) described the fracturing fluid requirements
for successful coiled tubing fracturing.
Coiled Tubing Fracturing: Recently, there have
been a number of tremendous advances in coiled
tubing fracturing technology (see Section 9-5),
in addition to the open-hole fracturing technique
described in Section 13-1.4. These techniques, which
are mainly designed for cased and cemented wellbores,
can be classified into four main groups:
1. Isolation Packer, Pump down CT: This is the
conventional coiled tubing fracturing technique
that has been used with so much success in
southern Alberta and numerous parts of the USA
(Spady et al., 1999; McConkey and Stromquist,
2000; and Rodvelt et al., 2001). This technique is
described in detail in Section 13-1.4.
2. No Packer, Sand Jet, Pump down Annulus: With
this technique, a small-diameter coiled tubing
string (typically 1 or 1 in. OD) is used with
a sand jetting tool because initially, the well is
not perforated. The sand jet is used to cut a set
of perforations or slots in the lowermost interval.
After this has been completed, the treatment is
then performed through the CT-wellbore annulus,
allowing the coiled tubing string to be used as a
dead leg in order to monitor a live BHTP. After
the treatment is flushed, a sand plug is set over
the holes/slots, and the jetting tool is moved up to
the next interval. The process can be repeated as
many times as necessary, moving up the wellbore,
although the nozzles on the jetting tool have to
be replaced (typically) every 5 or 6 intervals. After
all of the intervals have been treated, the coiled
tubing is then used to circulate the sand plugs
and excess proppant from the wellbore. If a post-
treatment workover is necessary (for example, in
order to complete the well with tubing), drillable
or inflatable bridge plugs can be set above the
top interval in order to provide a temporary
isolation. Fig, 13-8 shows a typical hole cut
with the sand jet system and Fig, 13-9 shows a
typical nozzle after four intervals.

Figure 13-8 Typical hole cut by a sand jetting tool (3
bpm, 15 seconds). Photo courtesy of BJ Services, 2007.
Figure 13-9 Typical sand jetting nozzle after cutting four
intervals. Photo courtesy of BJ Services, 2007.
3. Packer, Sand Jet, Pump down Annulus: With this
technique, perforations or slots are cut with a sand
jet as described above. However, with this particular
approach, a packer is deployed on the coiled tubing
below the sand jetting tool (Tolman, et al., 2006).
The first (and lowermost) interval is then treated as
before. After the holes have been cut for the second
interval, the packer is then set below the second set
of holes and the treatment is pumped through the
CT-wellbore annulus. After finishing the treatment,
the annulus is then circulated to clear it of proppant,
the packer is unseated, the BHA is moved up to the
next interval and the entire process is repeated as
many times as necessary.
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
4. Packer, Selective Perforating, Pump down Annulus:
This technique is very similar to the one
above, but instead of using a sand-jetting tool
positioned above the packer, selective perforating
guns are run below the packer (Tolman et al.,
2006). These guns are usually controlled via an
electric line contained within the coiled tubing;
at the required depth a controlled number of
the perforating charges can be fired. The coiled
tubing is then lowered so that the packer can
be set below the perforations and the treatment
performed through the CT-wellbore annulus.
The fundamental difference from the technique
described in the previous approach is that there
is a practical limit as to how many intervals can
be effectively perforated in a single run.
Multi-Zone Intervals: Coiled tubing fracturing
offers numerous advantages, not the least of which
is the speed at which multiple intervals can be
treated (20+ in a single day). However, its use is only
economically justifiable in areas where a) The wells are
reasonably shallow (usually less than approximately
5,000 ft); b) Operations are very time critical; and c)
Workover rigs are expensive or not readily available.
In many areas, these conditions are not met; for
instance, outside of North America it is usual to have
the fracturing equipment on contract, rather than
on call-out, and so the operator is not paying for the
crew and equipment on an hourly basis.
In the majority of situations, a mature field
re-development involving hydraulic fracturing
will require some kind of well intervention (see
Chapter 5 as well). Potential reasons for this will
include the removal of a fragile completion that
cannot withstand the tubing forces associated with
fracturing, removal or isolation of sub-surface
control valves, removal of downhole pumps, fishing
of debris, wellbore cleanout, re-perforating and the
isolation of multiple intervals. Therefore, availability
of a cheap form of well intervention is usually a
pre-requisite for this kind of project.
Consequently, the use of a workover rig is generally
an integral part of fracturing operations for mature field
re-developments and it is not uncommon to have two
or even three workover rigs per frac spread. In such a
477
Modern Fracturing
case, one rig might be preparing a well for fracturing
operations, one potentially on location during
fracturing and/or one performing post-treatment work
such as clean out and re-completion.
Treating wells completed with a single interval
is relatively operationally straightforward, if the
completion possesses the necessary integrity and the
wellbore is free of debris, fish and scale. This kind
of well can be easily treated without a workover
intervention. However, these wells are generally
rare. Usually, wells are completed with multiple
perforated intervals and will require some kind of
completion-related intervention.
If coiled tubing isolation methods are not
economically viable, then the best approach for
isolating multiple intervals is to use a dedicated string of
tubing (referred to as the frac string) and a retrievable
squeeze packer. The packer can be set above the interval
to be treated and provide the necessary isolation from
the intervals immediately above the zone of interest.
Isolation below the zone can be provided by one of
several reliable and proven methods such as cement
plugs, sand fills and bridge plugs (retrievable packer-
type, drillable/millable and inflatable).
However, care must be taken with this approach
if the upper packer is positioned between sets of
perforations, with perforations open to the annulus
above the packer. First, it will be very difficult to
maintain pressure on the annulus in order to provide
additional downwards force on the packer. In such
circumstances, it is not uncommon to run several drill
collars or joints of drill-pipe above the packer (Rylance
et al., 2007) in order to provide sufficient weight on
the packer. Careful calculation of packer hydraulics
must be made; otherwise, a screenout could cause the
packer and tubing to move out of the well. The second
consideration is the potential for communication
while fracturing, between the lower and upper sets of
perforations. This can this result in the equalization of
pressures across the packer (causing the hydraulic hold-
downs to become ineffective); in addition, proppant
could be placed into the annulus above the packer,
making it very difficult to recover the packer/string
from the well. Therefore, this technique should only
be used when the well has a good cement bond and
sufficient separation between the intervals.
478
Re-perforating for Fracturing: Perforations provide a
vital connection between the wellbore and the fracture
and are extremely important in terms of fracture behavior
(see Sections 6-1 and 6-2) both during placement
and when on production. Only a limited number of
factors can be 100% directly controlled during a typical
fracture treatment; of these, the choice and manner of
perforating probably has the largest single influence on
the success of treatment placement. Unfortunately of
course, unless the well is an infill and has been newly
drilled; it is unlikely that in a re-development there will
be an opportunity to significantly change the location
and distribution of the existing perforated interval(s). In
the case of mature assets, most of the wells to be fractured
will already have been perforated (multiple times) across
existing zones; however, some opportunity may exist
to optimize fracture initiation if significant amounts of
by-passed pay have been identified.
In many cases, it is often necessary to re-perforate
formations prior to re-fracturing operations (Olsen,
1991, and Lisigurski and Rowe, 2006). In both of these
examples, it was found that existing intervals had to be
re-perforated in order to prevent/reduce the onset of a
premature screenout. This suggests that the existing
perforations were either partially blocked, completely
blocked or that original perforation design (e.g. entry-hole
diameter) was not appropriate for the size of proppant
material being pumped. The presence of blocked
perforations is not uncommon, as phenomena such as
inorganic scales, asphaltenes, waxes, fines, perforating
debris and solids from injected or workover fluids can
often easily accumulate in the tunnels.
Poor-quality perforations/perforation friction
is difficult to distinguish from tortuosity based
solely on a simple single-rate pump in test because
both will manifest as a sharp drop in BHTP as soon
as the pumps are shut down. In order to accurately
allocate the pressure-drop to the appropriate root-
cause, it is generally necessary to perform a step-
down test (preferably with access to BHTP), as
detailed in Section 4-2.1.8. After this step-down
test has been completed, it is possible to use Eq.
4-2 to quickly estimate either the number of open
perforations (assuming a value for the entry-hole
diameter) or a value for the average entry-hole diameter
(assuming the number of open perforations).

Alternatively, it is often possible to input the step-
down test data directly into one of the commercially
available fracture models, where the same analysis can
be quickly and easily performed.
Re-perforating can provide several benefits,
including:
1. A relatively clean connection between the
wellbore and the formation, which will almost
certainly be cleaner than the connection
provided by the old, used perforations by
taking advantage of any improvements in
perforating charge technology.
2. An opportunity to employ the recommended
principles for perforating for fracturing, as
detailed in Section 6-2, in order to minimize
the potential for tortuosity and the possibility
of a premature screenout.
3. The ability to initiate a fracture without viscous
gel collecting the accumulated detritus found
in the existing perforations and injecting it
back into the formation and fracture tip with
potentially disastrous results.
4. The ability to perforate a limited interval or
number of intervals and target specific sections
of pay, as the fracture will almost certainly
propagate away from the new perforations
even if these are in the middle of a long
section of existing perforations.
The only real downside to re-perforating is the
cost and additional operational complexity.
13-5 Re-Fracturing Operations
Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.
William Shakespeare, Henry V, act 3, sc. 1.
Given that a formation was suitable to be developed
with a hydraulic fracture treatment during the initial
completion phase, there is always the possibility that
it will become a re-fracture candidate at a later date.
Re-fracturing operations continue to be a staple
approach/consideration when enhancing production
from existing fields (Wolhart, 2004). In the same way
that we categorized reasons for fracturing in mature
fields (see Fig. 13-3), the potential for considering re-
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
fracturing can be covered by the same broad groupings.
However, in the case of re-fracturing there are some
additional considerations, which are specifically related
to the original fracturing operations.
Ineffective Initial Completion: Potential reasons
for poor initial fracture performance are numerous,
including inadequate or inappropriate design, poor
on-site quality control, inappropriate original fluid/
proppant choice(s), poor treatment fluid recovery and
the occurrence of insurmountable mechanical issues
during placement. Whatever the reasons may be,
any fracture that is not optimum with respect to the
formation requirements potentially presents itself as a
candidate for re-fracture consideration.
Transient Damage Effects: As noted in Section 13-
1.3, transient damage effects can reduce the reservoir
performance with time; this is also true of producing
hydraulic fractures. Scales and fines can invade and
block the existing proppant pack and reduce the
effective fracture conductivity, or long-term continuous
proppant flowback may eventually negate the fracture
potential. Alternatively, perhaps a well has had a
workover performed and the kill fluids and fluid-loss
additives may have permanently damaged the near-
wellbore fracture conductivity. Once again, any fracture
whose in situ properties have degraded to the point that
it has become the choke between the formation and the
wellbore is a potential re-fracture candidate.
Transient Reservoir Properties: A reduction in pore
pressure will create a change in stresses leading to
increased effective stress on the proppant pack; it is quite
feasible that the proppant pack may deteriorate under
these conditions as proppant crushes and conductivity
reduces. Another example would be in a condensate-
banking environment, where it is possible/probable
that the original fracture treatment was not adequately
designed to cope with the unusual flow conditions and
fracture requirements to cope with two-phase flow. Under
these conditions, the initial fracture (although potentially
being optimal), does not provide an efficient solution for
late-life field/well behavior; re-fracturing may therefore
provide additional potential in these cases also.
Technology Advances: During the past 50 years
fracture understanding and application has been
undergoing constant development, as recently
reported by Veatch (2007). A natural byproduct
479
Modern Fracturing
of this will mean that significant incremental
improvements have been made in all aspects of
fracture execution, providing significant potential for
efficient re-fracturing.
13-5.1 Re-Fracturing Case Histories
A good starting point, when considering a potential
re-fracturing campaign, is to study the wide and
varied experience(s) of others. Investigations of trends,
successes and failures of re-fracs (Conway et al., 1985,
and Elbel and Mack, 1993) and the GRI funded
studies (ARI, 1996) provide some critical insight
into the most important areas of consideration. More
recently the work reported by Ely et al. (2000) and
Reeves et al. (1999) presents effective application of
the historical lessons learned.
A recurring sentiment from these references is
that no one categorization will generate an effective
re-fracturing candidate list; no silver-bullet exists.
Rather, the most successful means of selecting and
ranking candidates for a re-fracturing campaign are
multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary. These selection
processes/considerations include:
Fracture Design and Fluids/Proppants: There are
two distinct and independent areas of consideration
for fracturing design and fluid and proppant
utilization: initial treatment choices and re-
stimulation treatment choices.
Initial Fracture Treatment: A number of papers
refer to the various problems with initial fracture design
and the material choices for these treatments (Parrot
and Long, 1979; Hunter, 1986; Pospisil et al., 1992;
and Sencenbaugh et al., 2001). These papers refer to a
multitude of problems arising from the initial treatments,
such as ineffective formation coverage, use of excessive
gel concentrations and inappropriate proppant choices
for life-of-field reservoir conditions.
Re-Fracturing Treatment: As well as remediating poor
initial fracture placement, re-fracturing will always hold
significant potential because of continuous technological
advancements and improved understanding/
interpretation. An example of careful consideration and
identification of actual fluid and proppant requirements
is presented by Shaefer (2006).
480
Re-Fracture Productivity: There are many case history
examples in the literature assessing the results of re-
fracture programs in order to evaluate their overall
economic success. The majority of these studies
demonstrate success, as reported by Wolhart (2004),
yet re-fracturing appears to have a poor reputation with
most operators in terms of its efficiency.
Of course, an immediate assessment of re-
fracture benefits is often made by directly comparing
initial and post-treatment productivity. However,
there may be any number of drivers for considering
re-fracturing, (as well as improving the recoverable
reserves, there is establishing or sustaining stable
flow, improving wellbore de-watering capability,
improving gathering and compression efficiency,
etc.), and it is important that these form part of
any post-treatment assessment.
Re-Fracturing Overall Economics: The make-
or-break measure of any re-fracturing campaign
will be the overall economics the program presents
upon completion (or shut-down).
Some obvious considerations (Pospisil et al., 1992,
and Sencenbaugh et al., 2001) will be major drivers in
the overall viability of these programs, e.g. post-fracture
production and decline rates, gas prices, working
interest, availability of tax credits, etc. Some of these
are not within the influence of the operator; however,
all should be considered. Of greater concern are those
areas that seem to be consistently under-estimated
in their potential to de-rail an efficient re-fracturing
program (e.g. workover/wellbore integrity, management
appreciation/understanding of what risk actually
means, surface gathering system impact, program
planning/ranking, exit strategy, etc.)
Any planned re-fracturing program should be
based upon a risk-ranked table of candidates and
opportunities, where the operator has weighted
the issues which have the greatest impact for that
particular campaign. The program should then be
executed and the table continuously updated on the
fly as operations proceed, lessons are learned and
additional data are gathered. There are numerous
ways that this can be achieved, one of the more
efficient being the tracking system promoted by
Martins et al. (1995). Upon eventual departure from

an agreed set of successful metrics, the program
should then be halted (permanently or temporarily)
until the candidate table and agreed metrics
are updated and reviewed.
13-5.2 Candidate Selection for Re-Fracturing
Candidate selection for re-fracturing is just as reliant
on input data quality and availability as is candidate
selection for an initial fracturing treatment (as noted
in Section 13.2) with, of course, the caveat of the
added complication of a highly complex and multi-
variate fracturing operation having already been
performed on the well.
Conway et al. (1985) determined that candidate
consideration for potential re-fracturing operations could
be readily broken up into four simpler stages:
1. Estimation of the Remaining Reserves: This can be
achieved in a variety of ways, from straightforward
material-balance approaches through complex
reservoir and gridded simulations. However,
as noted in Section 13-2.3, the use of type-
curves such as those presented by Agarwal
et al. (1988) appears to be the most popular
and accurate current approach.
2. Assessment of Fracture Quality/Parameters: When
performing candidate selection for potential
re-fracturing, it is most important to be able
to differentiate between a good well (original
candidate) with a bad fracture and a bad well
(initial candidate). The Agarwal-Gardner type-
curve approach, as noted above, will also provide
an assessment of the fracture parameters, as will
the approach of Reciprocal of Productivity
Indices or RPI approach as referred to by Shaefer
and Lytle (2001), and Cramer (2003).
3. Evaluate Fracturing Parameters/Success: There have
been numerous reported cases of fracture data-set
manipulation (Parrot and Long, 1979; Hunter,
1986; Reese et al., 1994; and Oberwinkler and
Economides, 2003) aimed at determining either
poorly fracture stimulated wells or common
factors to success. In order for this approach
to be an efficient process that provides realistic
results, the quality and availability of the data
input must be carefully managed.
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
4. Evaluate Economics based on Drivers and Costs:
Clear understanding of the economics is
essential for a re-fracturing campaign. All of
the drivers and goals should be assessed before
the program begins. Even more importantly,
as the re-fracture program develops, the
measured results must be quickly compared to
expectation, and the economics for the program
must be adjusted as the ranked candidate list
wells are stimulated. One of the recurring
faults during re-fracturing campaigns is that
they fail to learn from the present campaign
rapidly enough to affect the economics or
magnitude of the scope of work.
Artificial Intelligence in Candidate
Selection: Within Section 13-2.4, the role of
Artificial Intelligence techniques in candidate
selection was briefly discussed (e.g. fuzzy-logic,
neural-networks, genetic algorithms, self-
questioning matrices, etc.) In the case of re-
fracturing candidate selection, these approaches
would appear to be even more appropriate and
effective. This should come as no surprise, given
that the comprehensive structured data/database
that should be available from the initial fracture
treatments greatly increases the quantity,
quality and relationships for the artificial
intelligence methods to consider.
Mohaghegh et al. (2000) provide an excellent
introduction to the general application of a number
of these new approaches, to this particular subject
matter, and this is expanded upon further by the
work presented by Oberwinkler and Economides
(2003). Finally, Moore and Ramakrishnan
(2006) outlined the overall procedure and
reinforced the well-reported understanding
that a candidate selection process for re-
fracturing should be tailored to an individual
field case and not generalized.
13-5.3 Re-Fracture Re-Orientation
As noted by Elbel and Mack (1993), there are
two principal reasons for a secondary fracture
treatment to re-orient:
481
Modern Fracturing
Proppant Induced: Creating a hydraulic fracture
will induce stresses within a formation perpendicular
to the minimum principal stress direction. The
magnitude of this induced stress will be equal
to the additional net pressure on the proppant
pack at closure but will decrease rapidly with
distance from the fracture face.
Note: This effect can cause a potential re-orientation
of the re-fracturing treatment if the magnitude
of the newly induced stress is sufficient to
overcome the relative difference between the
two original horizontal stresses.
Production Induced: During post-fracture
production, tensile stresses are induced both parallel
and perpendicular to the fracture face, offset by
induced compressive stresses further afield. The tensile
stresses induced on a plane perpendicular to the
fracture plane are initially of greater magnitude than
those parallel to the fracture plane. With continuing
production at a constant BHFP, the location of the
induced compressive stresses moves away from the
wellbore, perpendicular to the fracture face. In turn,
as the compressive region retreats, the magnitude of
the tensile stresses reduce proportionately.
Note: This effect can cause a potential re-orientation
of the re-fracturing treatment if the difference
between the pore pressure-induced stresses is
greater than the difference between the two
original horizontal stresses.
Note: The transient nature of the location/magnitude
of these induced stresses will mean that there is
an optimum timing to the secondary fracture
treatment, in order to achieve maximum
secondary fracture penetration (Elbel
and Mack, 1993).
The second concept can be more readily understood
with reference to Fig. 13-10, which is taken directly
from Siebrits et al. (1998). The figure shows a horizontal
cross-section through a vertical well containing an initial
fracture of half-length xf; continued production (post-
frac) will result in a localized pore pressure change with
an elliptical distribution. As noted, this pressure depletion
will result in the horizontal stress component (parallel
to the initial fracture) declining more quickly than the
482
orthogonal stress. If this stress reduction exceeds the
initial horizontal stress difference, then the direction of
the minimum horizontal stress will become the direction
of the maximum, and vice versa.
Isotropic
Stress Point
Reversal
Region
x f
x f
Initial Fracture
xf
Isotropic
Point
Re-Fracture
Figure 13-10 Re-fracture reorientation concept (Siebrits
et al., 1998)
In this case, the re-fracture treatment will now
propagate orthogonally to the original fracture and
grow to a half-length of xf at which point it will reach
the isotropic (or balance) point. Once past this point
the re-fracture treatment will begin to re-orient itself
back to the far-field stress regime over the remaining
half-length, xf. The distance to the isotropic point will
be a function of the initial horizontal stress contrast,
the initial fracture penetration, the production
transient and the reservoir permeability.
Clearly, there is the possibility of significant
post-fracture production potential with re-fracturing
treatments, when the additional opportunity
exists that the re-fracture might include a certain
measure of fracture reorientation. There have been
numerous case studies of reorientation impact,
effects and the principal and defining
parameters. A number of the most important
considerations have been listed here:
1. Horizontal Permeability Anisotropy: In the
presence of a distinct horizontal permeability
anisotropy or secondary permeability such
as natural fracturing, the reorientation of a
re-fracture treatment presents the distinct

possibility of a dramatic post-fracture production
improvement if the original fracture treatment
was created in an unfavorable direction to such
anisotropy (Wright and Conant, 1995).
2. Angle of Re-fracture Reorientation: The outline
theory presented and expanded upon by
Siebrits et al. (1998) and Siebrits et al. (2000)
discusses the symmetric situation when the re-
fracture treatment is created orthogonally to
the original fracture. In reality, uneven areal
depletion, off-balance fracture growth and the
potential creation of shear-failure planes (Li et
al., 2006) can result in a substantial variation of
the re-fracture angle with respect to the original
treatment (Wright et al., 1994a, 1994b).
3. Drainage Shape, Drainage Area and Depletion:
It can be seen from the discussion(s) above and
Section 13-3 that the relationships between
the well spacing, drainage shape, drainage
area, reservoir permeability (magnitude and
directionality), original fracture geometry
and depletion stream lines are complex and
interrelated in terms of potential re-fracture
reorientation behavior (Cipolla et al., 2005).
It is well understood, however, that maximum
re-fracture reorientation impact, is achieved
when the effective drainage area is significantly
widened as a result of the treatment (i.e.
the aspect ratio is reduced).
4. Timing of the Secondary Fracture: The transient
nature of the re-fracture reorientation mechanism
also means that there is an optimum timing
associated with the secondary fracture treatment
execution. The timing of the re-fracture
treatment can be crucial in achieving a reasonable
economic return (from reorientation behavior
alone); a simulation is necessary to ensure that
the opportunity for effective re-fracturing (for
reorientation effect) still exists.
5. Off-balance Fracture Geometries: As noted earlier
in Section 13-3, and by Mukherjee et al. (1995),
off-balance/asymmetric fracture growth can also
be associated with pore-pressure depletion and
therefore re-fracture candidates. The potential for
asymmetric fracture growth is an added level of
complication to the reorientation effect.
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
There are a number of reasons why re-fracture
stimulation(s) are or can be highly successful and
economical ventures. Re-fracturing for fracture
reorientation is one of these and is quickly becoming
a growing application. However, the complexity
of efficiently choosing re-fracture candidates,
where the principal or lone driver is re-orientation,
should not be underestimated; this is candidate
selection in multiple dimensions, with offsets,
production histories and transient behavior playing
an increasingly intricate role.
13-5.4 Improved Treatment Design
The last 20 years or so have seen unprecedented
advances in fracture treatment design, described in detail
in Sections 4-5 and 13-3 (and, of course, throughout
this book); patently, re-fracturing operations will equally
benefit from this process of continual innovation.
With the benefits of hindsight, post-fracture behavior
and associated data, it is often possible to review older
treatments and readily find errors or inefficiencies in the
original treatment design or approach. Furthermore, the
interval between an initial treatment and a re-fracture
operation does not have to be very great or require a
massive technological leap. One of the primary factors
that has contributed to the continued popularity of
hydraulic fracturing is just how robust and forgiving this
technology can be. Many fracture treatments continue
to be poorly designed; however, there is sufficient
production benefit (from even a poorly designed frac)
for the approach to be economic. This commonplace
lack of fracture optimization, although detrimental to
initial post-fracture performance, is the very focus of a re-
fracture treatment philosophy. Consequently, one of the
prerequisites that an engineer will attempt to quantify
when considering a re-fracture treatment is the quality
and optimality of the original fracture treatment design
(Elbel and Mack, 1993; and Reeves et al., 1999).
Theoretically, it should be considerably more
straightforward to design a re-fracture treatment than
an initial treatment, given the data garnered during the
original fracture treatment and potentially significant
production and reservoir history available from the well
and field. Most important of all available additional
data will be the improved understanding of the average
483
Modern Fracturing
reservoir permeability, which is essential to efficiently
determine the optimum CfD for the fracture (see
Section 4-5.2). If such data is not readily available, it is
recommended that either a flow and shut-in pressure
transient test be performed (see Sections 3-6 and 3-14)
or that production data be used to perform a rate-time
reciprocal productivity index analysis (see Section 3-7.3)
to determine k (Shaefer, 2006).
In addition, because the producing conditions will
also be well-recorded and -understood, it should be
possible to obtain a much more accurate knowledge
of the effective proppant permeability requirements
(see Sections 7-6 and 8-6), significantly improving the
accuracy of the optimum fracture dimensions.
In the case of a well with multiple intervals, an
economic decision must be made between treating each
zone individually or attempting a limited-entry type re-
fracture treatment over a number of these at one time. It
may also be better to isolate sections of long perforated
intervals, rather than trying to treat the entire section.
Certainly, an appropriate selection of these strategies will
allow re-fractures to be placed deterministically along the
wellbore, targeting reserves, productivity and previously
unstimulated pay rather than at the stochastic fracture
locations produced by the previous methods.
When designing a re-fracture treatment, the two
distinct re-fracture situations (re-opening an existing
fracture and fracture reorientation) should be considered
as separate and particular cases. In order to differentiate
between these two classes of re-frac, it is highly
recommended to perform a short pumping test consisting
of 3 to 4 wellbore volumes of slickwater pumped above
the fracture pressure. After pump-in, the pressure decline
should be monitored closely; a brief analysis of pISI and
pc will quickly reveal if the initial fracture has been re-
opened (similar pressure response to the initial frac) or
if fracture re-orientation has taken place (significantly
different pressure response).
Re-Opening an Existing Fracture: If the initial fracture
is simply being re-opened, then the most important
question is whether or not this well is a good candidate
for re-fracturing where the production enhancement
opportunity is simply related to the ability to improve
on the previous treatment design. A close examination
of the original fracture treatment must be made, and
if there is no significant upside, then this well may
484
not be a suitable re-fracture candidate. However, if
suitable improvements in the treatment design can be
made (improved proppant, fluid system and/or fracture
geometry), then the treatment may well be successful
if sufficient recoverable reserves remain to justify the
expense of the re-fracture stimulation.
With this type of treatment, it is highly recommended
to flush the existing proppant away from the wellbore,
and then subsequently perform a minifrac to evaluate
tortuosity and fluid leak-off (see Sections 4-2.1.5 and
4-2.1.6, respectively). Furthermore, in those particular
cases where the initial treatment had experienced a
premature screenout, Sauer et al. (2003) recommend
using acid soaks to remove polymer residues, caustic soda
soaks to break up resin-coated proppant packs (separated
by suitable spacers, of course) and a series of injection
tests and proppant slugs to ensure the near-wellbore
region is free of proppant. After all reasonable steps have
been taken to clean the near-wellbore region and flush
the proppant deep into the formation, the re-fracture
treatment can be designed based on the data generated
by the injectivity testing, in exactly the same fashion as if
the original fracture did not exist.
Fracture Re-Orientation Case: In the case of opening
a new fracture, the accepted practice in the industry
is to design the re-fracture treatment as if the original
fracture were not there. If the recommended diagnostic
injection test has been performed (see above), then this
data should be used as the basis for the design, together
with any data gained during the producing life of the
well. In the absence of additional data, the design should
be based on successful offset treatments, the initial
treatment (if it was successful) and any improvements
in treatment design (fluids, proppant and/or fracture
geometry) that can be made.
References:
Aboud, R.S., and Melo, R.C.B.: Past Technologies
Emerge Due to Lightweight Proppant Technology:
Case Histories Applied on Mature Fields, paper
SPE 107184, 2007.
Advanced Resources International Inc., Assessment
of Technology Barriers and Potential Benefits of

Restimulation R&D for Natural Gas Wells, Final
Report to Gas Research Institute, GRI-96/0267,
1996.
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W., and
Fussell, D.D.: Analyzing Well Production Data
Using Combined-Type-Curve and Decline-Curve
Analysis Concepts, paper SPE 49222, 1998.
Babadagli, T.: Mature Field Development - A Review,
paper SPE 93884, 2005.
Bakhtar, K., Barton, N.R., Rakop, K., and Jones, A.H.:
Modeling Fracture Permeability Around a Well
During Depletion, paper SPE 13671, 1985.
Barba, R.E., and Shook, R.A.: Post Frac Evaluation
of Multi Zone Fracture Treatments Using the
Completion Efficiency Concept, paper SPE
90483, 2004.
Bennion, D.B., Bietz, R.F., Thomas, F.B., and Cimolai,
M.P.: Reductions in the Productivity of Oil and
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs due to Aqueous
Phase Trapping, J. Can. Pet Tech. 94-09-05,
November 1994.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F., and Bennion,
D.W.: Water and Hydrocarbon Phase Trapping
in Porous Media Diagnosis, Prevention and
Treatment, J. Can. Pet Tech. 96-12-02, December
1996.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Ma, T., and Schulmeister,
B.: Gas Productivity Reductions due to Water-
Based Phase Trapping Effects in Low Permeability
Gas Reservoirs, The Pet. Soc. 2002-064, June
2002.
Black, H.N., and Langsford, R.W.: Energized
Fracturing with 50% CO2 for Improved
Hydrocarbon Recovery, paper SPE 9705, JPT,
135-140, January 1982.
Borodin, E.G., Vakhroushev, P.E., Stolyarov, S.M.,
and Kalfayan, L.J.: Applications of Relatively
Permeability Modifiers To Control Water Cut
Following Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Siberia
Oilfields-Russian Case History Study, paper SPE
102679, 2006.
Brown, J.E., King, L.R., Nelson, E.B., and Ali, S.A.:
Use of a Viscoelastic Carrier Fluid in Frac-Pack
Applications, paper SPE 31114, 1996.
Burnstad, R.G., Martin, A.N., Stemberger, D.J.,
and Purwanto, P.: A Case Study of a Mature
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
Field Development using Propped Hydraulic
Fracturing, paper SPE 88604, 2004.
Carter, R.D.: Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear
Gas Flow Systems: Constant Terminal Pressure
Case, paper SPE 12917, 1985.
Cawiezel, K.E., Wheeler, R.S., and Vaughan, D.R.:
Specific Fluid Requirements for Successful Coiled
Tubing Fracturing Applications, paper SPE
86481, 2004.
Chambers, R. and Meise, K.: Comparison of Fracture
Geometries Utilizing Ultra-lightweight Proppants
Provide Evidence that Partial Monolayers Can
Be Created: A Case History, paper SPE 96818,
2005.
Cikes, M.: Long-Term Hydraulic-Fracture
Conductivities Under Extreme Conditions, paper
SPE 36878, 1996.
Cipolla, C., Peterman, F., Creegan, T., McCarley, D.,
and Nevels, H.: Effect of Well Placement on
Production and Frac Design in a Mature Tight Gas
Field, paper SPE 95337, 2005.
Cipolla, C.L., and Wight, C.A.: Diagnostic Techniques
to Understand Hydraulic Fracturing: What? Why?
And How? paper SPE 59735, 2002.
Comrie, P., and Olsen, T.: A Risk Sharing Alliance
Breathes New Life into a Mature North Sea Field,
SPE Paper 3822, 1997.
Conway, M.W., McMechan, D.E., McGowen, J.M.,
Brown, D., Chisholm, P.T., and Venditto, J.J.:
Expanding Recoverable Reserves Through Re-
Fracturing, paper SPE 14376, 1985.
Craft, J.R., Waddell, S.P., and McFatridge, D.G.:
CO2-Foam Fracturing with Methanol Successfully
Stimulates Canyon Gas Sands, paper SPE 20119,
1992.
Cramer, D.D.: Evaluating Well Performance and
completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically Fractured
Low-Permeability Gas Wells, paper SPE 84214,
2003.
Cramer, D.D., Dawson, J., Ouabdesselam, M.: An
Improved Gelled Oil System for High-Temperature
Fracturing Applications, paper SPE 21859, 1991.
Crawford, H.R., Niell, G.H., Bucy, B.J., and Crawford,
P.B.: Carbon Dioxide a Multipurpose Additive
for Effective Well Stimulation, paper SPE 571,
JPT, 237-242, 1963.
485
Modern Fracturing
Darin, S.R., and Huitt, J.L.: Effect of a Partial
Monolayer of Propping Agent on Fracture Flow
Capacity, AIME Petroleum Transactions 1291-G,
1959.
Elbel, J.L., and Mack, M.G.: Refracturing:
Observations and Theories, paper SPE 25464,
1993.
Ely, J.W., Arnold III, W.T., and Holditch, S.A.: New
Techniques and Quality Control Find Success in
Enhancing Productivity and Minimizing Proppant
Flowback, paper SPE 20708, 1990.
Ely, J.W., Tiner, R., Rothenberg, M., Krupa, A.,
McDougal, F., Conway, M., and Reeves, S.:
Restimulation Program Finds Success In
Enhancing Recoverable Reserv, paper SPE 63241,
2000.
Ely, J.W., Martin, M.A., Duenas, J.J., and Trythall,
J.R.: Enhanced Fracture Stimulation in the Deep
Morrow Sandstone in Western Oklahoma, paper
SPE 80932, 2003.
Farrell, S., and McDermott, J.R.: An International
Perspective on Risk/Reward Contracting:
Comparison of U.S., Middle-East and U.K.
Alliances, paper SPE 30376, 1995.
Gavin, W.G.: Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing
Recent Developments and Case Histories, paper
SPE 60690, 2000.
Gazi, N.H., Hottman, W.E., Logan, J.L., and Verrett,
L.C.: Alliances and Partnering: A New Relationship
Between Oil/Gas Producing Companies and
Service Companies, paper SPE 29793, 1995.
Gilbert, J., and Greenstreet, C.: Applications of
Pinpoint Fracturing in the Cooper Basin, Australia,
paper SPE 97004, 2005.
Grieser, B., Shelley, B., Johnson, B.J., Fielder, E.O.,
Heinze, J.R., and Werline, J.R.: Data Analysis of
Barnett Shale Completions, paper SPE 100674,
2006.
Gupta, D.V.S., Miechwiadowicz, G., and Jerat, A.C.:
CO2 Compatible Non-Aqueous Methanol
Fracturing Fluid, paper SPE 84579, 2003.
Gupta, D.V.S.: Field Application of Unconventional
Foam Technology: Extension of Liquid CO2
Technology, paper SPE 84119, 2003.
Gupta, D.V.S., Leshchyshyn, T.T., and Hlidek, B.T.:
Surfactant Gel Foam/Emulsions: History and
486
Field Applications in the Western Canadian
Sedimentary Basin, paper SPE 97211, 2005.
Hernandez, J.M., Fernandez, C.T., and Scianca, N.M.:
Methanol as Fracture Fluid in Gas Wells, paper
SPE 27007, 1994.
Hubbert, K.M., and Willis, D.G.: Mechanics of
Hydraulic Fracturing, Trans., AIME, 1957, paper
SPE 686.
Hunter, J.C.: A Case History of Refracs in the Oak
Hill (Cotton Valley) Field, paper SPE 14655,
1986.
Hurst, R.E.: Gas Frac A New Stimulation Technique
Using Liquid Gases, paper SPE 3837, 1972.
Kiburz, D.E., and Sullivan, S.C.: A Methodology to
Optimize Fracturing Treatments in a Tight-Gas
Field of Northwest Louisiana, paper SPE 25994,
1995.
Kugler, R.L., Stefanescu, D., Louboutin, M., and
Wegemer, K.: Rehabilitation of Mature Gas
Fields in Romania: Success Through Integration of
Management Processes and New Technology, Acta
Montanistica Slovaca, Volume 9, Issue 3, 2004.
Li, P., Song, Z., and Wu. Z.: Study on Reorientation
of Refracturing in Ordos Basin A Case Study:
Chang 6 Formation, Yanchang Group, Triassic
System in Wangyao Section of Ansai Oil Field,
paper SPE 104260, 2006.
Lillies, A.T., and King, S.R.: Sand Fracturing With
Liquid Carbon Dioxide, paper SPE 11341,
1982.
Lisigurski, O., and Rowe, G.C.: Practical Steps to
Increase Production and Reserves in Mature Gas
Fields: Hugoton and Panoma, Texas County,
Oklahoma, U.S.A., paper SPE 102259, 2006.
Love, T.G., McCarty, R.A., Surjaatmadja, J.B.,
Chambers, R.W., and Grundmann, S.R.:
Selectively Placing Many Fractures in Openhole
Horizontal Wells Improves Production, paper
SPE 74331, SPEPF, 219-224, November 2001.
Macfarlane, M.S., and Mackey, P.A.: Monobores
Making a Difference to the Life Cycle Cost of a
Development, paper SPE 50046, 1998.
Martins, J.P., MacDonald, J.M., Stewart, C.G., and
Phillips, C.J.: The Management and Optimization
of a Major Wellwork Program at Prudhoe Bay,
paper SPE 30649, 1995.

Mazza, R.L.: Liquid-Free CO2/Sand Stimulations:
An Overlooked Technology - Production Update,
paper SPE 72383, 2001.
Meehan, D.N., Horne, R.N., and Aziz, K.: Effects
of Reservoir Heterogeneity and Fracture Azimuth
on Optimization of Fracture Length and Well
Spacing, paper SPE 17606, 1988.
McConkey, S., and Stromquist, M.: Integration of
Conventional Fracturing, Coiled Tubing and
Retrievable Tool Technology, paper SPE 60709,
2000.
McIninch, B., McIntyre, A., Gulrajani, S., and Norris,
M.: New Relationship Between Oil Company
and Service Company Rejuvenates a Mature North
Sea Gas Field, paper SPE 78327, 2002.
McLennan, J.D., and Roegiers, J-C.: How
Instantaneous are Instantaneous Shut-In Pressures,
paper SPE 11064, 1982.
Mohaghegh, S., Reeves, S., and Hill, D.: Development
of an Intelligent Systems Approach for Restimulation
Candidate Selection, paper SPE 59767, 2000.
Moore, L.P., and Ramakrishnan, H.: Restimulation:
Candidate Selection Methodologies and Treatment
Optimization, paper SPE 102681, 2006.
Mukherjee, H., Poe, B., Heidt, H., Watson, T., and
Barree, R.D.: Effect of Pressure Depletion on
Fracture Geometry Evolution and Production
Performance, paper SPE 30481, 1995.
Mukherjee, H., Poe B.D., Jr., Heidt, J.H, Watson, T,B.,
and Barree, R.D.: Effect of Pressure Depletion
on Fracture-Geometry Evolution and Production
Performance, paper SPE 65064, SPEPF, 15, 3,
pp144 150, August 2000.
Nehmer, W.L.: Viscoelastic Gravel Pack Carrier Fluid,
paper SPE 17168, 1988.
Oberwinkler, C., and Economides, M.J.: The
Definitive Identification of Candidates Wells for
Refracturing, paper SPE 84211, 2003.
Oberwinkler, C., Rythammer, G., Zabgl, G., and
Economides, M.J.: New Tools for Fracture Design
optimization, paper SPE 86467, 2004.
Olsen, K.E.: A Case Study of Hydraulically Refractured
Wells in the Devonian Formation, Crane County,
Texas, paper SPE 22834, 1991.
Oxford English Dictionary, (OED), 20 Volume, Second
Edition, 1989.
Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets
Palacio, J.C., and Blasingame T.A.: Decline-Curve
Analysis Using Type-Curves Analysis of Gas Well
Production Data, paper SPE 25909, 1993.
Pathak, P., Fidra, Y., Avida, H., Kahar, Z., Agnew, M.,
and Hidayat, D.: The Arun Gas Field in Indonesia:
Resource Management of a Mature Field, paper
SPE 87042, 2004.
Parrot, D.I., and Long, M.G.: A Case History of
Massive Hydraulic Refracturing in the Tight
Muddy J Formation, paper SPE 7936, 1979.
Pietrak, M.J., Stanley, F.O., Weber, B.J., and Fontenot,
J.S.: Relative Permeability Modifier Treatments
on Gulf of Mexico Frac-packed and Gravel-packed
Oil and Gas Wells, paper SPE 96945, 2005.
Pospisil, G., Lynch, K.W., Pearson, C.M., and
Rugen, J.A.: Results of a Large-Scale Refracture
Stimulation Program, Kuparuk River Unit, Alaska,
paper SPE 24857, 1992.
Posey, D., and Strickland, B.: The Effect of Using
a Lightweight Proppant in Treatment of a Low
Permeability Dry Gas Reservoir: A Case Study,
paper SPE 97998, 2005.
Rae, P., Martin, A.N., and Sinanan, B.: Skin Bypass
Fracs: Proof that Size is not Important, paper SPE
56473, 1999.
Reese, J.L., Britt, L.K., and Jones, J.R.: Selecting
Economic Refracturing Candidates, paper SPE
28490, 1994.
Reeves, S., Hill, D., Hopkins, C., Conway, M.,
Tiner, R., and Mohaghegh, S.: Restimulation
Technology for Tight Gas Sand Wells, paper SPE
56482, 1999.
Rickards, A.R., Brannon, H.D., Wood, W.D.,
and Stephenson, C.J.: High Strength, Ultra-
Lightweight Proppant Lends New Dimensions
to Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, paper SPE
84308, 2003.
Rodvelt, G., Toothman, R., Willis, S., and Mullins,
D.: Multiseam Coal Stimulation Using Coiled
Tubing Fracturing and a Unique Bottomhole
Packer Assembly, paper SPE 72380, 2001.
Rylance, M., Doig, T.W., Hoff Jr., R., and Knopp,
S.: Remedial Frac Operations in Deep Tectonic
Wells: Mechanical and Operationsl Issues, paper
SPE 105205, 2007.
Sauer, P.W., Burns, R.A., Skees, J.L., Aud., W.W., Gentry,
487
Modern Fracturing
B., and Wing, C.: Re-Fracturing: Evaluation,
Design, and Implementation of a Chester Oil Well
In SW Kansa, paper SPE 80916, 2003.
Sencenbaugh, R.N., Lytle, D.M., Birmingham, T.J.,
Simmons, J.C., and Shaefer, M.T.: Restimulating
Tight Gas Sand: Case Study of the Codell
Formation, paper SPE 71045, 2001.
Schein, G.W., Carr, P.D., Canan, P.A., and Richey,
R.: Ultra Lightweight Proppants: Their Use and
Application in the Barnett Shale, paper SPE
90838, 2004.
Shaefer, M.T., and Lytle, D.M.: Fracturing Fluid
Evolution Plays a Major Role in Codell Refracturing
Success, paper SPE 71044, 2001.
Shaefer, M.: Awakening an Old Field A Case Study
of a Refracturing Program in the Greater Green
River Basin, paper SPE 101026, 2006.
Sherman, J.B., and Holditch, S.A.: Effect of Injected
Fracture Fluids and Operating Procedures on
Ultimate Gas Recovery, paper SPE 21496, 1991.
Siebrits, E., Elbel, J.L., Hoover, R.S., Diyashev, I.R.,
Griffin, L.G., Demetrius, S.L., Wright, C.A.,
Davidson, B.M., Steinsberger, N.P., and Hill,
D.G.: Refracture Reorientation Enhances Gas
Production in Barnett Shale Tight Gas Wells,
paper SPE 63030, 2000.
Siebrits, E., Elbel, J.L., Detournay, E., Detournay-
Piette, C., Christianson, M., Robinson, B.M., and
Diyashev, I.R.: Parameters Affecting Azimuth and
Length of a Secondary Fracture During a Refracture
Treatment, paper SPE 48928, 1998.
Smith, M.B.: Hydraulic Fracturing: THE
Multidisciplinary Technology, SPE Distinguished
Lecturer Presentation 108827, 2006.
Solares, R.: Efficient Technology Application to
Optimize Deep Gas Well Completions in the
Khuff and Jauf Formations Requiring Hydraulic
Fracturing in Saudi Arabia, paper SPE 68206,
2001.
Spady, D.W., Udick, T.H., and Zemlak, W.M.:
Enhancing Production in Multizone Wells
Utilizing Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing,
paper SPE 57435, 1999.
Stundner, M., and Oberwinkler, C.: Self-Organising
Maps for Lithofacies Identification and Permeability
Prediction, paper SPE 90720, 2004.
488
Surjaatmadja, J.B., Grundmann, S.R., McDaniel,
B., Deeg, W.F.J., Brumley, J.L., and Swor, L.C.:
Hydrajet Fracturing: An Effective Method for
Placing Many Fractures in Openhole Horizontal
Wells, paper SPE 48856, 1998.
Tolman, R.C., Carlson, L.O., Kinison, D.A., Nygaard,
K.J., Gloss, G.S., Sorem, W.A., and Shafer, L.L.:
Method and apparatus for stimulation of multiple
formation intervals, US patent No. 7,059, 407,
issued June 2006.
Utegalyev S.A., Duzbayev, S.K., Kulbatyrov, S.V.,
and Nadezhdin, S.V.: Optimized Stimulation
Solutions for a Mature Field in Kazakhstan, paper
SPE 98055, 2006.
Vairogs, J., Hearn, C.L., Dareing, D.W., and Rhoades,
V.W.: Effect of Rock-Stress on gas Production
From Low-Permeability Reservoirs, paper SPE
3001, 1971.
Veatch, R.W.: A Historical Perspective of Hydraulic
Fracturing, SPE HFTC Keynote Speech, 2007.
Vincent, M.C.: Proving It A Review of 80 Published
Field Studies Demonstrating the Importance
of Increased Fracture Conductivity, paper SPE
77675, 2002.
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., and Kullman, J.:
Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow in Fractures:
Case Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well
Productivity, paper SPE 54630, 1999.
Von Winterfeld, C., Babajan, S., Amer. A. and
Marsden, J.A.: Geomechanics Analysis of the
Crestal Region of an Omani Gas Field, Paper
IPTC 10231, 2005.
Vreeburg, R-J., Roodhart, L.P., Davies, D.R., and
Penny, G.S.: Proppant Backproduction During
Hydraulic Fracturing: A New Failure Mechanism
For Resin-Coated Proppants, paper SPE 27382,
1994.
Wolhart, T: Hydraulic Fracturing Re-Stimulation,
Distinguished Lecturer, SPE Presentation 101458,
2004.
Wright, C.A., and Conant, R.A.: Hydraulic Fracture
Reorientation in Primary and Secondary Recovery
from Low-Permeability Reservoirs, paper SPE
30484, 1995.
Wright, C.A., Conant, R.A., Stewart, D.A., and
Byerly, P.M.: Reorientation of Propped Refracture
 Chapter 13 Technologies for Mature Assets

Treatments, paper SPE 28078, 1994a.

Wright, C.A., Stewart, D.W., Emanuele, M.A.,
and Wright, W.W.: Reorientation of Propped
Refracture Treatments in the Lost Hills Field,
paper SPE 27896, 1994b.
Zemlak, W., Lemp, S., and McCollum, R.: Selective
Hydraulic Fracturing of Multiple Perforated
Intervals with a Coiled Tubing Conduit: A Case
History of the Unique Process, Economic Impact
and Related Production Improvements, paper
SPE 54474, 1999.

489
Modern Fracturing

490
NOMENCLATURE

a large half-axis of the drainage ellipsoid formed by a horizontal well

a variable used in Nolte G function analysis to describe how constant the fracturing fluid viscosity
remains
a characteristic fracture length
a spacing between cleats or fractures
a mass fraction of ash in coal
A area
Aa horizontal wellbore drainage area shape factor
Ac cross-sectional area
Ac contact area
Af area of fracture face (includes both sides of fracture)
Aperf perforation cross-sectional area
Ar aspect ratio
APTi aqueous phase trapping index
b channel width
b Langmuir constant
b1 fractured well radial damage in (equivalent to rs)
b2 width of fracture face damage
bpss y-axis intercept of material balance time plot
bs penetration of damage normal to the fracture face
B formation volume factor
B directional closure quality
Bg formation volume factor for gas
Bgi formation volume factor for gas at initial reservoir conditions
Bo formation volume factor for oil
Bw formation volume factor for water
Bx directional closure quality in the x-direction
By directional closure quality in the y-direction
BWV bulk water volume, percent
c compressibility
c proppant concentration, mass per unit volume of slurry
cadded proppant concentration, as added to clean fluid (i.e. pounds of proppant added)
cf compressibility of formation (rock matrix)
cfrac fracture compressibility
cg gas compressibility
co original formation compressibility
ct total (overall) formation compressibility
ct average total (overall) formation compressibility
cw compressibility of wellbore contents
cw compressibility of formation water
C wellbore storage coefficient
C Kachanov parameter

491
Modern Fracturing

Ca proppant concentration required to produce monolayer

CA Dietz shape factor
Cc compressibility-controlled leakoff coefficient
Ccc critical crosslinking concentration
Cd discharge coefficient
Cf fracture conductivity
CfD dimensionless fracture conductivity
CfD 0.1 optimum dimensionless conductivity at Nprop = 0.1
CfD,opt optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity
CL leakoff coefficient
CTRANS transport coefficient
Cr dimensionless fracture conductivity (for Cinco-Ley, et al., 1978) (= CfD /)
Cv viscosity-controlled leakoff coefficient
Cw wall building-controlled leakoff coefficient (the wall-building coefficient)
C* minimum concentration of polymer in water at which intermolecular interaction occurs
C** minimum concentration of polymer in water at which molecular interpenetration occurs
d distance
d minimum dimension of elliptical fracture
d diameter of fracture tip
d lattice spacing
D diameter
D turbulence coefficient
Dc pipe grade perforation diameter correction factor
Dp perforation diameter
Dprop average proppant grain diameter
Dsol solid particle diameter
Dtbg tubing diameter
e natural exponent
e slope of Nolte-Smith analysis plot
E Youngs modulus, modulus of elasticity
E plane strain Youngs modulus
Edyn dynamic Youngs modulus
Eg gas expansion factor
Egi gas expansion factor at initial reservoir conditions
Et Youngs modulus of damaged zone
f Fanning friction factor
fs volume fraction of proppants in a slurry
fs,max maximum volume fraction of proppants in a slurry
F force
Fopt optimum F-function for fractured horizontal wellbore, as defined by Equation 10-7
FL Nolte linear after-closure leak-off function
FR Nolte radial after-closure leak-off function
g intermediate function used in Nolte G function analysis
g acceleration due to gravity

492
gf frac gradient
gob overburden stress gradient
G Nolte G function
G total gas volume currently in place in the reservoir
G shear modulus
G elastic energy release rate
G1c critical energy release rate, failure mode 1
Ga total volume of gas adsorbed in the formation (usually coal)
Gc Nolte G function at fracture closure
Gc average in-situ gas content for coalbed methane reservoirs
Gdyn dynamic shear modulus
GF total original free gas (i.e. in cleats in coalbed methane reservoir) in place
Gi total gas volume initially in place in the reservoir
Gp total gas volume produced from the reservoir
GR total remaining free gas (i.e. in cleats in coalbed methane reservoir) in place
h height
h net height
h depth of embedment
h average reservoir net height
hf fracture height
hn height of nth zone
hp fracture height in pay
H total vertical depth (TVD)
Iani vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy
ISP slurry properties index
Ix penetration ratio
J productivity index (PI)
JD dimensionless productivity index
JDdamaged damaged well dimensionless productivity index
JDmax maximum dimensionless productivity index
JDTH dimensionless productivity index for transversely fractured horizontal well
JDTH1 dimensionless productivity index for one transverse fracture in a horizontal well
JDTHt total dimensionless productivity index for transversely fractured horizontal well (= n JDTH1)
JDV dimensionless productivity index for fractured vertical well
Jratio productivity index ratio
Jo original unfractured (s = 0) productivity index
k permeability, single-phase permeability
k reservoir permeability
k1 permeability of the radial damage zone for fractured well
k2 permeability of the fracture face outside of the damage zone
k3 permeability of fracture face inside the radial damage zone
ka uncorrected average permeability to air
kavg average permeability of the reservoir including skin effects
kD reference permeability measured under Darcy flow conditions

493
Modern Fracturing

ke effective permeability under non-Darcy flow conditions

keq equivalent permeability
kf in-situ proppant pack permeability, fissure permeability
kf, e equivalent (i.e. under turbulent flow) proppant pack permeability
kfi initial fracture or fissure permeability
kf, n nominal (i.e. under Darcy flow) proppant pack permeability
kfs damaged fracture permeability
kF equivalent permeability of proppant incorporating inertial flow effects (Forcheimer
permeability)
kg permeability to gas
kg,Swi permeability to gas at secondary irreducible water saturation
kH horizontal permeability
kM effective permeability of proppant pack under multiphase flow conditions
ko original formation permeability
kperf perforation permeability
ks permeability of the damaged or stimulated formation around the wellbore or fracture
kV vertical permeability
kx permeability in the x-direction
ky permeability in the y-direction
kz permeability in the z-direction
k* equivalent cement permeability
K bulk modulus
K consistency index
K power law fluid consistency index
K Herschel-Buckley fluid consistency index
K1 stress intensity factor, failure mode 1
K1c critical stress intensity factor, failure mode 1 (fracture toughness)
K1ceff effective fracture toughness
K1clag fracture toughness produced by fluid lag effect
Knwb proportionality constant used for calculating near wellbore friction pressure
Kdry dynamic bulk modulus under drained conditions
Kdyn dynamic bulk modulus
Kperf proportionality constant used for calculating perforation friction pressure
KVE volume-equalized consistency index
Ks average dynamic bulk modulus of materials composing rock,
Kwellf proportionality constant for calculating wellbore friction pressure
average distance between microcracks
L length of horizontal wellbore
L length of pipe
Lgravel the difference between drilled radius and screen radius
m mass
m slope or gradient
m1wing mass of proppant contained in one fracture wing
m
slope term for closed chamber test pseudo-pressure plot

494
m
cpr slope term for specialised production analysis plot
m
cpl slope term for specialised plot for identifying the end of linear flow in production analysis
mbf bilinear flow gradient
mlf linear flow gradient
mL slope of the linear flow after closure analysis plot
mR slope of the radial flow after closure analysis plot
ms slope of material balance time plot
m(p) gas pseudo-pressure function
M molecular weight
M constrained axial modulus
n number, number of fractures
n flow behaviour index
n fracturing fluid power law exponent
n Herschel-Buckley exponent
Nperf number of perforations
Nprop proppant number
Nprop,e equivalent proppant number
NRe Reynolds number
NRe Reynolds number for power law fluid
NRe,VE volume equalized Reynolds number
NRe,w wall Reynolds number
NRe,w wall Reynolds number for power law fluid
p pressure
p average reservoir pressure
p1hour bottomhole wellbore pressure 1 hour after shut-in
pavg average pressure
pc closure pressure
pD dimensionless pressure
pe constant outer reservoir pressure
pext extension pressure, fracture extension pressure
pf pressure in fracturing fluid (usually inside main body of fracture)
phead pressure due to hydrostatic head
pi initial pressure, reservoir pressure
pif breakdown pressure
pif,lower lower boundary for breakdown pressure
pif,upper upper boundary for breakdown pressure
pinj wellhead injection pressure
pISI instantaneous shut-in pressure (bottomhole)
pISI,surf instantaneous shut-in pressure (surface)
piw bottomhole injection pressure
pL the pressure at which sorption induced strain equals half of the maximum volume (0.5 VL) (the
Langmuir pressure)
pm Nolte G function analysis match pressure
pnet net pressure

495
Modern Fracturing

pnet,n actual net pressure, caused by n multiple fractures

po reference pressure, original pressure
pob overburden pressure
ppc pseudocritical pressure
ppc1 pseudocritical pressure for whole mixture
ppc* corrected pseudocritical pressure
ppipe friction friction pressure of fluid in tubing or pipe
ppr pseudo-reduced pressure
pr pore pressure
pR pressure at radius R from wellbore
pSC pressure at standard conditions (usually 14.7 psi or 101.353 kPa)
ptip net pressure is the non-wetted part of the fracture tip
ptf flowing (producing) wellhead pressure
pw bottomhole wellbore pressure
pwo initial (original) bottomhole wellbore pressure
pwf bottomhole flowing wellbore pressure
pz process zone pressure
p* average reservoir pressure extrapolated from Horner plot
P matrix-shrinkage Langmuir curve-fitting parameter
q gas flow rate
q liquid flow rate
qcem flow rate through or along a cement sheath
qf gas flow rate after fracture treatment
qi average injection rate
qi,1wing average injection rate into one fracture wing (usually = qi)
qideal gas flow rate from laminar flow, open hole vertical gas well
qideal ideal gas flow rate through an orifice (i.e. Cd = 1)
qDd normalized material balance gas flow rate
qDdi integrated normalized material balance gas flow rate
qDdid derivative of the integrated normalized material balance gas flow rate
qL fluid leakoff rate
qn gas flow rate during nth flow period
qo gas flow rate before fracture treatment
qref initial calculated gas flow rate for closed chamber test
qSC gas flow rate at standard conditions (usually 14.7 psi and 519.67 R)
qTH gas flow rate from transversely-fractured, horizontal well
qv gas flow rate from fractured vertical well
r radius
r radius of indentation
rcsg external radius of casing
re reservoir radial extent
reH equivalent radial flow drainage radius for horizontal wellbore
rhalo radius of halo effect
rp storage ratio

496
rp radius of zone of plastic deformation at fracture tip
rp ratio of fracture area in permeable formation (i.e. net pay) to total fracture area
rs radius of the damaged or stimulated zone around the wellbore
rw wellbore radius
rw effective wellbore radius
R radius
R distance from point of fracture initiation
R universal gas constant
Rf fracture radius for radial fracture model
Rn actual fracture radius, caused by n multiple fractures
s skin effect, skin factor
s rate-dependent skin effect
s apparent skin
sc choke skin factor
sd fractured well composite damage skin effect
sf skin effect after fracture treatment
sfc choked fracture skin effect
sf,opt optimum skin effect after fracture treatment
so skin effect before fracture treatment
sp skin effect due to perforations
Scc critical condensate saturation
Sp spurt loss coefficient
SRE rock embedment strength
SUC ultimate strength under uniaxial compression
SUT ultimate strength under uniaxial tension
Sw water saturation
Swi initial water saturation
t time
t reciprocal of pseudocritical temperature
t effective time
ta pseudo-time
tasuper superposition time
tc closure time
tD dimensionless time
tDA dimensionless time for bounded flow for reservoir of drainage area A
tel time at the end of linear flow
ter time at the end of radial flow
texp time at which a specific point on the fracture face was exposed to fluid leakoff
ti time to end of injection (pumping time)
tm material balance time
tma material balance time pseudo-time
tmDd normalized material balance pseudo-time
tp longitudinal (compression) wave transit time
tpa pseudo-time at shut in

497
Modern Fracturing

tpad pad fluid pumping time

tpss time at which pseudosteady state flow occurs.
ts transverse (shear) wave transit time
T temperature
T absolute temperature
Tpc pseudocritical temperature
Tpc* corrected pseudocritical temperature
Tpc1 pseudocritical temperature for whole mixture
Tpr pseudo-reduced temperature
TSC temperature at standard conditions (usually 519.67 R or 288.706 K)
Ttf flowing (producing) wellhead temperature
TOC total organic carbon
u velocity
u fracture propagation rate
uL velocity of leakoff fluid perpendicular to fracture face
uopt natural logarithm of CfD,opt
up longitudinal (compression) wave velocity
us transverse (shear) wave velocity
U elastic energy
v velocity
v particle settling velocity in pseudoplastic fluid
vavg average velocity
vavg foam average velocity of multiphase flow in foam
vg gas velocity
vl superficial velocity of liquid phase in foam
vsol hindered settling particle velocity
vt Stokes law terminal velocity
V volume
Vc sorption of gas (usually in coal)
Vf volume of one propped wing (= Vp/2)
Vi injection volume
Vi,1wing injection volume into one fracture wing (usually = Vi)
VL volume of fluid lost due to fluid leakoff
VL gas volume at infinite pressure for coalbed methane (the Langmuir volume)
VL,C total fluid loss volume due to filtration-based fluid loss
Vmpc pure coal Langmuir volume
Vp proppant bulk volume in the pay
VP total gas adsorbed per unit mass in reservoir rock, at current reservoir pressure, pr
Vr reservoir drainage volume
Vs volume of fluid lost due to spurt loss
Vw wellbore volume
VRo vitrinite reflectance
w width, fracture width
w0 width at the center of the fracture

498
wave average propped fracture width
wetch acid fracture average etched width
wf propped fracture width
wfs damaged propped fracture width
wmax maximum created fracture width
wn actual fracture width, caused by n multiple fractures
wopt optimum fracture width
Wp cumulative water production
x linear distance
xe well drainage dimension
xe channel half-length in short direction
xf fracture half length
xf distance from wellbore of isotropic point
xf half length of fracture re-oriented by depletion-based stress reversal
xf,eff apparent (effective) fracture half length
xfs damaged fracture half length
xfD dimensionless fracture half length
xfnew equivalent fracture half length in homogenous space
xfopt optimum fracture half length
X ratio of dimensionless productivity indexes for transversely fractured horizontal well to fractured
vertical well
X specific velocity (= v/)
Xe distances in the x-direction from the well to the boundary in anisotropic space
Xfluid specific velocity of fluid
Xg specific velocity of gas
Xnew distance corresponding to Xe in homogenous space
Xt total (overall) specific velocity of multiphase flow
y linear distance
y mole fraction
ye well drainage dimension
ye channel half-length in long direction
yeD dimensionless well drainage in the y-direction
Ye distances in the y-direction from the well to the boundary in anisotropic space
Ynew distance corresponding to Ye in homogenous space
z linear distance
ze well drainage dimension
Z gas deviation factor
Zi gas deviation factor at initial reservoir conditions
ZSC gas deviation factor at standard conditions
Z* gas deviation factor modified for coalbed methane reservoirs as per King (1990)
Zi* Z* at initial reservoir conditions

499
Modern Fracturing

SYMBOLS
variable used in Nolte G function analysis
Biot-Willis poroelastic constant
the difference in azimuth between the plane of the wellbore axis and the main fracture plane
Langmuir adsorption constant
rate of change of cleat or fracture compressibility
1 conversion constant for units (= 1 for coherent system, such as SI)
s the change in matrix volume resulting from the desorption or adsorption of gas (the matrix
shrinkage/swelling coefficient)
non-Darcy flow rate coefficient
geometry factor used in linear elastic fracture mechanics
well deviation from the vertical
exponent used in calculating particle hindered settling velocity
g effective non-Darcy coefficient to gas
nwb exponent used for calculating near wellbore friction
s geometry factor used in Nolte G function analysis
w exponent used for calculating pipe friction
specific gravity
shear strain
fluid shear rate
pressure drop multiplier for multiphase flow in a proppant pack
0 pressure drop multiplier for multiphase flow in a proppant pack for saturated gas in single phase
flow
acid specific gravity of acid
fluid specific gravity of fluid
g specific gravity of gas, relative to air
hc specific gravity of gas, relative to air, for gas containing nitrogen, CO2 and/or H2S
prop specific gravity of proppant grains
w wall shear rate
non-Darcy correction factor for permeability
time step for derivative calculation
K1c change in fracture toughness
L length of cement sheath
m(p) gas pseudo-pressure function difference
m(p) gas pseudo-pressure function difference for fractured well pressure build-up
m(p)im impulse derivative of Kuchuk
m(p)q gas pseudo-pressure function difference for fractured well pressure build-up after flow rate q
p pressure differential
pfriction ratio of fluid friction pressures with and without solids
pnear wellbore total pressure loss due to near-wellbore effects
ppf perforation friction pressure loss
ptort pressure loss due to tortuosity
ptotal friction total friction pressure losses during pumping (including near wellbore effects)

500
pUB optimum underbalanced perforating pressure differential
pwf flowing wellbore pressure difference (drawdown)
ta pseudo-time since shut-in
tae equivalent time
tD dimensionless time
Wichert and Aziz correction factor
strain
h horizontal strain
h, min minimum horizontal strain
h, max maximum horizontal strain
l the maximum matrix shrinkage strain for coal formations (at V = VL, the Langmuir volume)
max linear strain at infinite pore pressure on an unconstrained sample (usually coal)
x, y, z strain in the x-, y- and z-directions, respectively
diffusivity coefficient
efficiency, fluid efficiency
prop proppant placement efficiency
angle
angle between the initiating perforation and some reference point on the circumference of the
well
opening time distribution factor (UFD analysis)
wavelength
viscosity
[] intrinsic viscosity of particles in slurry
0 viscosity at zero shear rate
a apparent viscosity
e equivalent Newtonian viscosity
f fracturing fluid apparent viscosity
fluid viscosity of the slurry base fluid
g gas viscosity
g average gas viscosity
p plastic viscosity
r ratio of apparent viscosities of slurry and clean fluid
s viscosity of solvent
slurry overall viscosity of slurry
sp specific viscosity
Poissons ratio
dyn dynamic Poissons ratio
density
b bulk density
f fluid density
foam foam density
g gas density
l density of liquid phase in foam

501
Modern Fracturing

n density of nth zone

p proppant absolute density
r ratio of the densities of slurry and clean fluid
s slurry density
stress, hydrostatic stress
effective stress
1, 2, 3 mutually-perpendicular principal stresses (such that 1 > 2 > 3)
c critical stress
h in-situ stress, horizontal stress
h, max maximum horizontal stress
h, min minimum horizontal stress
o original hydrostatic stress
r radial stress
t tangential stress
T tensile strength of rock
v vertical or overburden stress
x,y,z stress in the x-, y- and z-directions, respectively
xx,yy,zz principal stress in the x-, y- and z-directions, respectively
y yield stress
* reference stress at laboratory test conditions
x* reference stress at laboratory test conditions in the x-direction
y* reference stress at laboratory test conditions in the y-direction
shear stress
fluid shear stress
o threshold shear stress for Herschel-Buckley fluid
xy,xz,yx,yz,zx,zy shear stresses acting on the x-y, x-z, y-x, y-z, z-x and z-y planes respectively
y yield shear stress for fluids
yp yield point for Bingham plastic fluids
porosity
o original formation porosity
p proppant pack porosity
p,min minimum proppant pack porosity
angle of internal friction
factor used in after closure analysis (= 16/2)
storativity coefficient
length of non-wetted zone

502
INDEX
A system: 385, 388-90, 396
Acid
fracturing: 159-60, 205, 254, 338-40, 372, 375-6
solubility: 300, 337-8
system: 159, 339-40
Adsorption: 246, 385, 387, 390-2, 400, 419, 422-3
Anisotropic reservoir: 152-3, 436
Aqueous phase trapping: 266, 268, 274, 485
Areal proppant concentration: 148-50, 303, 459
Arps decline analysis: 70-2, 75, 87
B Completion design: 169, 171, 188, 190, 193, 223
Bacteria: 257-9, 330-1, 335
Ball sealers: 160, 203, 205, 342-4, 376
Barnett Shale: 158, 162-3, 165, 202, 222-3, 387,
400-20, 422, 434, 437-41, 450, 486, 488
Bauxite: 284, 291-2, 294, 300, 302, 415
Borate: 229-30, 242, 244-6, 252, 256-7, 259-60, 272,
276, 279, 312, 318, 392
fluids: 244, 246, 249
ion: 244-5, 259
Bounded flow: 45, 49, 52, 70-1, 73-6
Bourdet: 50, 55, 87-8
Brady sand: 290-1, 300, 302
Breakdown pressure: 79, 93, 123-4, 435, 450
Brittle fracture: 117, 127-9
Bulk density: 132-3, 136, 296, 299, 300
C Data mining: 427, 441-2, 444-5
Candidate selection: 457, 464, 466-9, 481, 483
Carbon dioxide: 35, 170, 191, 236, 242-4, 247-53, 272,
276, 326-7, 356-7, 387-8, 395-6, 418-9, 460-1,
472-3, 485-6
sequestration: 396, 420, 422-3
Cased wells: 202-3
Casing: 41, 157, 170-2, 174-5, 180, 183-5, 192, 197,
202-5, 213, 330, 343, 345-7, 351, 374-6, 396-7
CBM
fracturing: 158-9
reservoirs: 384-398, 417-8, 420, 423
wells: 391-3, 396-9, 418
Cement sheath: 172-6, 178-9
Ceramic proppant: 264, 284, 291-2, 294, 297, 299,
301, 313, 314
Cleat: 388-9, 392-3
permeability: 388, 392-3
Closure pressure: 81-2, 97-9, 106-7, 109, 145, 148,
154, 160, 284, 286, 289, 291-2, 297, 299, 301-4,
314-6, 301, 348-50, 435, 471
Coal: 3, 10, 134, 159, 384-5, 387-98, 410, 418-23
matrix: 385, 387-8, 390-1, 395, 422
Coalbed methane: 3, 9, 19, 154, 383-5, 416, 419,
421-3
Coiled tubing: 204, 242, 370, 372-3, 375-6, 378, 421,
459-60, 476-7, 486-8
fracturing: 476-7, 487
Complex fracture growth: 37, 219-21, 223
Contaminants: 35, 271, 273, 301, 337
Convection: 110, 189, 305-6
Cooke correlation: 26-7, 36, 284-5, 310-1, 319
Critical pressure: 350, 388
Crosslinked fluids: 230, 240, 243-246, 273-5, 278-9,
294, 307, 318, 331, 333, 349, 358, 392, 403, 409,
417
system: 331-3
Crosslinker: 160, 260, 313, 333-5
Crosslinking: 228, 244-6, 252, 256, 259, 333
time: 245, 333, 335
Cumulative production: 34, 318, 399, 410, 415, 437,
439, 443-5, 447-8, 465
D
Deformable
particles: 110, 315-6, 320
proppant: 316, 393
Deformation: 116-7, 121, 132, 137, 230, 316, 343
Derivative plot: 49, 51-2, 54, 56-8, 60-1, 63, 65, 68-9,
71-2, 76, 79, 80, 82-6, 107, 397
Desorption: 242, 250, 385, 387-8, 390-2
desorption pressure, critical: 391, 420
Deviated wells: 16, 181, 188, 197, 200, 203, 208, 209,
222, 439
Differential pressure: 177, 241, 273, 313, 343-4, 353,
371, 460
Dimensionless
fracture conductivity: 25-6, 47, 102, 142-4, 160, 221,
287, 433
503
Modern Fracturing

pressure: 21, 43 rate: 114, 156

productivity index: 26, 29, 30, 32, 142-4, 151-3, 428, loss control: 176-7, 253, 255, 374
433-4 pressure: 98, 105, 114, 146, 207, 217, 350-1
time: 21, 43, 151-3 properties: 113, 183, 227, 354
Dominant fracture: 217, 219, 353 recovery: 15, 110, 243, 248, 262, 346, 355, 472, 475
Drawdown: 24, 26, 29, 49, 52, 54, 64-6, 78, 156, 184-5, rheology: 145, 229, 235, 241, 277, 305
197, 264, 473-6 system: 102, 109-10, 268, 312-3, 330, 332-5, 356,
458, 461, 473, 484
E velocity: 27, 140, 213, 229, 285
Effective viscosity: 127, 185, 189, 227, 230, 245, 306, 331, 344,
Fracture area: 283, 306 354, 358
length: 144, 151, 154-5, 283, 357 Fluids: 19, 97-8, 138-41, 169-70, 172, 176, 183-4,
proppant pack permeability: 26, 147, 470 189-90, 192, 201-2, 227-8, 242-54, 270-3, 323,
stress: 301, 313-4, 436, 473-4, 476 357-8, 475
wellbore radius: 47-8, 288 Foam fracturing fluids: 241, 262, 278
Elastic deformation: 117, 121, 128 Forced closure: 356-7, 475
Energized fluids: 242-3, 248, 349, 351, 357 Forecast of performance: 8, 9, 16, 34-5, 71, 76, 79,
Enzymes: 249, 258-9, 261, 472 430-1, 436
Equivalent Formation
cement permeability: 173-4 boundaries: 125, 183
newtonian viscosity: 232-3 characterization: 182-3
proppant number: 160, 365 compatibility: 227, 252, 254, 460
wellbore radius: 150-1, 288 damage: 134, 168, 170, 183, 190, 197, 227, 229, 231,
Excess pressure: 59, 97, 343, 396 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 265, 267-9
evaluation: 163-5
F fluids: 79, 135, 190, 248, 262, 273
Fann viscometer: 240-1, 246, 279, 331 permeability: 30-2, 90, 94, 101, 114, 145, 147-8, 154,
Fetkovich: 70-2, 88 156, 174, 177, 180, 242, 275, 287, 429
plot: 70-5, 80-1 rock: 156, 182-3, 262, 268
Finite conductivity fracture: 47, 51, 58, 65-6, 68-9, 71 stresses: 201, 471, 473
Flow rate: 34, 42, 45, 50-1, 93-4, 140, 173-4, 180, 185, water: 250, 273, 355, 474
187, 193, 210, 215-7, 231-2, 273, 285 Formations: 33, 93, 100-1, 113-5, 123-4, 126-7, 154,
Flowback: 162, 228, 316, 355, 357, 377, 474-6 166, 202, 242-3, 247-9, 251-3, 348-9, 355,
Flowing pressure: 152, 185, 186, 187, 285, 301, 313, 369-70, 445
317, 367, 429, 473 Forward simulation: 57-8, 62-5
Fluid Fracture
additives: 329, 333-5 acidizing: 159-60, 163, 277
efficiency: 82, 102, 109, 147, 221, 323, 347-9, 357, area: 102, 107, 109, 160-1
374, 471-2 azimuth: 15, 363, 434-5, 459, 469, 487
entry: 180-1, 186 calibration tests: 89, 90, 163
flow: 20, 29, 88-9, 93, 101, 140, 165, 186, 203, 205, characteristics: 115, 286, 450
233, 319, 356 closure: 83-5, 106-8, 349, 356, 475
friction: 96, 108, 141, 353 conductivity: 47-8, 65, 80, 148, 154-7, 159, 254, 262,
invasion: 124, 178, 267 283, 285, 287-9, 291, 293, 295, 301-9, 319-20
lag: 10, 130-1, 163 design: 30, 36, 103, 144-5, 148, 232, 309, 311, 330,
leakoff: 101, 106-9, 114, 154, 348, 435 350, 359, 450, 469-70, 480

504
 models: 312, 317-8
extension pressure: 97, 104
flow capacity: 288, 303, 319-20, 359, 486
fluid: 205, 277, 330, 334, 343-4, 351-2, 354, 486
leak-off: 352-4, 472
system: 331, 334-5
fluids: 352, 360, 418, 488
geometry: 26, 37, 41, 45, 82, 87, 97-8, 101, 103-9,
111-2, 115, 125, 221-2, 434, 471, 484
gradient: 122, 124, 176, 301, 338, 344, 352, 377
growth: 98, 203, 207-8, 214, 222, 224, 350, 356
half-length: 41, 43, 47, 63-4, 75-6, 79, 81, 87, 129,
160, 264, 287, 318, 349, 444, 471
height: 25, 68-9, 114-5, 125-6, 129, 143, 146-9, 233,
285, 350, 367, 445
containment: 79, 126-7
growth: 126-7, 203, 350-1, 354, 414
initiation: 100, 111, 126-7, 206-8, 217, 219, 221, 228,
423, 435, 469, 478
length: 41, 49, 63, 68, 74, 77, 79, 104, 109, 125, 130,
146, 149, 156, 264, 285, 288, 317, 444
models: 98, 113, 114, 115, 125, 233, 397, 416
network: 206, 212, 404, 416
orientation: 121-3, 435, 450
plane: 118, 207, 209, 213, 346, 371, 482
pressure: 89, 164, 207, 338, 351, 394, 484
propagation: 15, 98, 103, 114, 123, 126, 127-9, 146,
149, 203, 206-7, 350, 351, 435
radius: 109, 125, 220-1
rate: 343, 352
reorientation: 219, 482-4
simulators: 64, 99, 104, 112-5, 119, 127, 141-2, 147,
150, 154
skin: 150, 209-10
stimulation: 94, 156, 161, 180, 206, 290, 343, 345,
365, 404, 423, 474
treatment: 32, 45, 203, 283, 344
tip: 79, 94, 96, 98, 110-1, 114, 126, 128-31, 154, 156,
166, 207, 220, 229, 479
toughness: 98, 106, 113-4, 126-7, 129-31, 147, 163
treatment: 3, 45, 79-81, 104, 112, 204, 214-5, 217,
219, 221, 253, 332-5, 346-7, 352-4, 374-6, 406
design: 222, 283, 397, 469, 483
volume: 98, 114, 156, 289
walls: 229, 235, 253-4, 283, 307
width: 27, 47, 98, 100, 118, 127, 129-30, 154, 156-7,
220-1, 229, 233, 303-5, 313-4, 367-9, 388-9
Fracture-to-well connectivity: 201-3, 205-7, 209, 211,
213, 215, 217, 219, 221, 223
Fracture toughness, apparent: 111, 127
Fractured
gas wells: 25, 29, 30, 68, 176, 277, 285, 287, 365-6,
430
horizontal wells: 29-32, 369
low-permeability gas wells: 161, 358, 485
reservoirs: 87, 181-2, 220, 392
vertical wells: 27-8, 40, 43, 45, 47, 51, 61, 67, 76,
78, 81, 87, 161-2, 363, 368-9, 377, 378-9, 406,
427-32
Fracturing: 2, 3, 13-6, 92-4, 116-8, 153-4, 157-9, 200-3,
275-8, 284-7, 363-9, 373-9, 413-5, 427-9, 433-5,
454-7, 477-9
applications: 102, 255-7, 289-92, 305
companies: 335, 348, 355-6
equipment: 111, 251, 324, 328, 372, 405, 477
fluids: 96-7, 101-2, 110, 113-4, 126, 130, 226-33,
235, 239, 241-3, 247-51, 253-5, 257-9, 261-3,
267-9, 271, 273-9, 294-5, 312, 330, 475
fluid, base: 235-6, 243, 248
additives: 205, 254, 258
pressure: 97
selection: 268, 275, 472
systems: 277, 350, 403
pressure: 89, 159, 164, 194, 209, 343, 351, 450
pressures: 89, 94, 164, 222, 359
process: 14, 96, 111-2, 278, 474
pumps: 111-2, 323, 327
treatment: 142, 179, 235, 242-3, 251, 323-4, 329,
364, 366, 402, 413
Friction
factor: 33, 141, 232, 235-7
pressure: 99, 140-1, 343, 351
G
Gas
formations: 242, 251-2, 267-8, 434, 473
migration: 172, 177-8, 374
reservoirs: 14-5, 37, 42, 154, 183, 262, 265, 274, 363,
366, 369, 378, 383, 398, 413, 417
Geo-pressured zones: 383
Gravel pack: 193-4, 211
505
Modern Fracturing

Gravity: 60, 68, 121, 145, 148, 152, 235, 239, 291-2,
294, 299, 300, 306-7, 339-40, 367, 415, 429
Guar: 227, 243-6, 249, 255-7, 259-61, 277, 334
H 162, 211, 287, 427-8
Hard formations: 123, 303
High-permeability: 27, 58, 67-8, 184, 190, 194, 209,
264, 284
formations: 25, 94, 111, 155, 164, 221, 287-8, 305,
348, 355, 358
fracturing: 94-5, 155, 265, 352
gas formations: 111, 356-7
reservoirs: 71, 109, 211, 264, 368
wells: 57-8, 155, 347, 459
High-pressure: 170, 326, 334, 416
High-rate gas wells: 67, 155, 190
Horizontal
stress: 97, 100, 122, 153, 206, 208, 221, 363, 388-9,
393, 434-6, 470, 482
wellbore: 224, 347, 371-2, 378, 394, 405, 417 460
wells: 3, 36-7, 47, 94, 135, 200, 208, 222-3, 347,
363-71, 373-9, 409-10, 412, 434-5, 441-2, 459
Horner plot: 46, 52, 54, 56, 62, 83-4
Horsepower: 95, 243, 324-5, 327-9
Hydrate formation: 15, 188-9
Hydrates: 189-90, 243, 268, 383
I 421-3
Index of anisotropy: 364
Infinite-conductivity fracture: 47, 58, 62-3, 79
Initial
reservoir pressure: 62, 64, 398-9, 430
water saturation: 398-400, 461
Intermediate-strength proppants: 284, 291, 292, 301
IPR: 33-4, 184-5
curve: 184-6
Irreducible water saturation: 265-6, 273
J 373
Jetting tool: 204, 372, 376, 460, 476
fracturing: 344, 376
Linear
elastic fracture mechanics: 127-9
flow: 47-50, 53, 56, 62, 69, 71, 74-7, 80-5, 107, 155,
formation flow: 427-8
Liner: 181, 201, 205, 347, 371, 373-5
LNG: 2, 4, 5, 10-3, 16, 18, 362, 426
Longitudinal fractures: 363, 371, 374, 378
Low-permeability: 31-2, 57, 59, 61-3, 65, 68-9, 228,
352, 356, 359, 378
formations: 93-4, 110, 153, 184-5, 265, 348, 356,
455, 474
gas reservoirs: 59, 161, 195, 274, 276, 305, 357, 485
reservoirs: 25, 57, 88, 94, 109, 224, 229, 264, 267,
355, 368-9, 379, 488
wells: 59, 61-2
Low-pressure reservoirs: 349, 414, 472
LWC proppants: 284, 292, 316
M
Manifold: 326, 329
Mesh: 192, 255, 290-2, 298, 300, 302, 310, 403-4, 407,
415, 440
proppant: 285, 312, 404, 415-6
sand: 220, 304, 312, 393, 404, 411, 416
Methane: 16, 19, 270, 387-8, 390-1, 395, 418-9,
production: 395-6, 418-20, 422
Micro-fractures: 131, 212-3, 413-4
Mid-field tortuosity: 218
Minimum stress: 231, 434-5
Multi-rate test: 51, 67
Multi-stage fracturing: 342, 344, 347
Multiple
fractures: 100, 116, 194, 201, 203-4, 208, 213, 217,
219-22, 229, 352, 365, 369, 374, 378, 459
hydraulic fractures: 214, 217, 219-21, 224, 353, 370,
transverse fractures: 152, 378

K N
Katz: 23, 36-7 Natural fracture: 77, 158, 170, 181-2, 208, 219-20,
228-9, 243, 249, 348-9, 386-8, 403-4, 408-9,
L 412-4, 435-6, 441
Limited entry: 185, 203, 343-4, 353, 355, 396-7 system: 181-2, 386, 414

506
Near-wellbore: 104, 159, 208, 215-7, 266 tunnel: 24, 100, 183, 185, 206, 211-2, 372, 375
area: 20, 30, 106, 110, 184, 196, 214, 217-9, 262, 352, Permeability
357, 412, 484 anisotropy: 24, 76, 80, 152, 364, 435-6
complexity: 201, 214 range: 24, 32-3, 74, 156
damage: 143, 183, 262, 358 ratio: 143-4, 389-90
fracture tortuosity: 201, 214, 217-8, 229, 274, 346, PKN fracture geometry: 103, 125
352, 375 Plastic deformation: 111, 120, 124, 128-9, 131, 134
friction: 97-8, 106-7, 213-6, 218 Polymers: 227, 235, 242-3, 247, 252, 255-61, 331, 334,
pressure: 190, 192, 201, 206 392, 403, 460
Net pressure: 97-9, 103, 107, 110, 112-5, 126, 130, Pore pressure: 97, 122, 178, 184, 389-90, 421, 451,
147, 156, 221-2, 342, 350-2, 367-9, 434, 482 458, 470-1, 473, 476, 479
plot: 115, 350-1 depletion: 471, 483
Newtonian fluid: 103, 138-40, 232, 235, 237, 238, Power law fluids: 103, 139-40, 147, 230, 231, 305
305 Pressure
Non-newtonian fluids: 138, 277, 305 analysis: 87-8, 358-9
buildup test: 89, 287, 436
O depletion: 174, 192, 395, 456, 470, 482, 487
Oil-based drawdown: 89, 143, 287
fluids: 227, 247, 327, 473 gradient: 19, 20, 187, 270, 285, 386
Open hole: 24, 25, 30, 179, 183, 185, 194, 201, 205, loss: 41, 97, 232, 235
342, 369-370, 372-3, 394, 459 match: 106-7, 112-4, 115-6
completion: 184, 369-73 response: 46, 69, 81, 103, 105, 107, 112-3, 127, 142,
Optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity: 25-6, 350, 484
428 support: 169, 287-8
Ottawa sand: 69, 283, 285, 290-1, 300, 302-3, 307, transients: 41, 89, 154
316 Pressure-dependent leak-off: 82-4, 397
Oxidizers: 246, 261 Proppant
bulk density: 299, 300
P concentration: 95-6, 106, 115, 141, 145, 147-9, 154,
Packer: 184, 205, 213, 344, 345, 351, 371-3, 476-8 156, 206, 217, 249, 303-5, 314, 354, 404, 417
Pad fluid: 127, 273, 352-3 crush: 302, 311
Particles: 164, 192, 237-9, 291-2, 296, 299, 300, 302, distribution: 147, 306-7
304, 306-7, 314-6, 319 embedment: 134, 219-20, 304, 314, 393
Perforations: 15, 24-5, 97, 99-101, 105, 106-7, 111, flowback: 110, 201, 293, 314-6, 320, 474
127, 149, 183-5, 202-212, 209, 215-9, 222, 333, grains: 155, 284, 292-3, 301, 303, 393, 474
343-6, 352-4, 370, 374-6, 396-7, 418, 476-8 laden fluid: 329, 376
damage: 206, 222 mass: 32, 318, 443, 445
design: 353, 355 material: 145, 152, 229, 234, 284-5, 302, 463, 474,
friction: 96, 98-9, 215-7, 354 478
pressure: 97, 343, 376 number: 26, 29, 68-9, 111, 142, 144-5, 148-9, 289,
length: 25 365-6, 428-9, 433
orientation: 201, 206, 208 pack: 41, 79, 109-10, 152, 242-3, 249-50, 259-61,
phasing: 25, 100, 209, 374-5 286, 292-3, 297, 301-3, 308-10, 312-5, 392,
restriction pressure: 353 474-6, 479
schemes: 202-3, 206 conductivity: 68, 87, 289, 297, 303, 393, 474
skin: 209-10 damage: 264, 305

507
Modern Fracturing

permeability: 25-6, 30-2, 228, 262, 264, 300, 302, Relative permeability: 20, 158, 262, 266, 268, 385,
306, 367-8, 392, 429 392, 439
particles: 229, 235, 237, 241, 293, 295, 303, 307, Reservoir
314-6, 458 conditions: 27, 283, 285, 313, 317, 323, 354-5, 433
permeability: 25, 94, 111, 155-6, 285, 308, 313-4, development: 398, 427, 429, 431, 433, 435, 437, 439,
474 441, 443, 445, 447, 449, 451
placement efficiency: 145, 147-9 fluids: 135, 155, 339, 458, 469
quality: 300, 317 permeability: 24-5, 30-1, 41, 69, 144, 212, 263-4, 357,
sample: 300-1, 337 366-9, 378, 414, 430, 435, 466-7, 469, 482-4
schedule: 146-9 pressure: 19-21, 33, 35, 57, 61, 89, 90, 106, 123-4,
selection: 124, 316, 320, 473-4 159, 204, 211-2, 332, 367, 388, 413-4, 473-4
settling: 234, 277-8, 307, 356, 358 pressure, average: 33, 72, 151, 182, 400, 466
size: 206, 229, 237, 297, 314-6, 337, 411 properties: 41-2, 48-9, 57, 60, 62-3, 68-9, 72, 75-6,
slugs: 106, 161, 202, 215, 217-8, 222-3, 275, 352-3, 79, 82, 135, 160, 344, 398, 413, 458
358-9, 484 quality: 405, 437, 440-1, 443, 465
stages: 95, 342, 354, 412 rock: 98, 278, 330, 344, 352-3, 408
transport: 109-10, 146, 217, 228-30, 243, 247, 253, stimulation: 88, 93-4, 162, 222-3, 275, 450
255, 274, 278, 299, 305-7, 320, 359 Reservoirs: 3, 9, 13, 16, 19, 31-2, 90, 181, 352, 363,
capability: 230, 306-7 369-70, 383, 387, 413-4, 436-7, 472
types: 41, 283-4, 289, 292, 301, 312-4, 317, 318, 337, Resin-coated proppants: 110, 201, 261, 292-3, 315,
415, 417, 445 317, 320, 488
volume: 145, 147, 154, 249, 405-6, 432, 470 Retained permeability: 145, 148, 152, 312-3
Proppants: 3, 31, 36, 109, 132, 237-8, 283-7, 289-99, Reynolds number: 20, 26, 29, 33, 232, 235-6, 285
301-3, 313-5, 317-20, 335-8, 420, 423, 440-1, Rock types: 135-6
463 Roundness: 290, 298-9, 338
Pseudo-pressure: 36, 42-5
Pseudosteady state: 53, 428, 430 S
Pumping San juan basin: 384, 387-8, 392-3, 395-7, 412, 418-9,
fluids: 166, 279, 345 421
rate: 102, 354-5 Sand: 32, 44, 192-3, 196, 283-4, 289-90, 292, 294,
Pumps: 15, 95, 97, 104, 106, 111, 218, 325-7, 329, 300-1, 304, 306-8, 317-8, 323-5, 406, 415-6,
478 471
P-wave: 136-7 jet: 476-7
proppants: 299, 301, 310, 312
R Sand-based proppants: 292, 294, 301
Radial Sand control completions: 171, 192-4, 197
flow: 23, 28, 44-53, 56-8, 60-71, 73-4, 78-85, 210, Sand-free rate: 193
308, 348, 367, 427-8, 436 Sandstone: 132, 136-7, 181, 183, 383
permeability: 436 Scanning electron microscopy: 268-70, 274, 278-9
Radius: 124-5, 130, 134, 170, 217, 367, 464 Shale reservoirs: 243, 384-6, 400-2, 408-10, 412-4,
Re-fracturing: 164, 415, 456, 468, 479-81, 482-5, 416
486-8 Shear
campaign: 480-1 rate: 137-40, 229, 231, 233, 235, 237-8, 241
operations: 455-6, 471, 478-9, 483 rates: 139, 233, 237, 239-40
treatment: 480, 482-4 stress: 118-9, 137-9, 230-1, 239, 241
Shearing time: 233-4

508
Sieve analysis: 296-7, 336-7 U
Sintered bauxite proppants: 291 Ultra-lightweight proppant: 164, 294-5, 300, 304-8,
Skin effect: 24, 47-8, 89, 90, 165, 262-3 320, 415-6, 458, 485, 487
Slickwater: 158, 229, 243, 272, 307, 347, 404, 406, Unconsolidated formations: 118, 146, 156, 284, 317,
409-10, 411, 412, 415-7, 440, 484 391
fracturing: 254, 274, 403-4, 411, 413-6, 422, 440 Unconventional
Slurry: 95, 145, 157, 172, 176-9, 229, 234, 237-8, 253, fluids: 242, 250-1, 272
261, 305, 326, 351-2, 374 fracturing fluids: 226, 242, 460
rate: 96, 99, 104-7, 148, 218 Under-pressured wells: 252, 356
Soft formations: 79, 95, 123, 134, 159, 163 Unified fracture design: 25, 67, 88, 111, 142, 160, 162,
Sphericity: 290-2, 298-9, 338 264, 319, 428, 445, 450
Stage fracturing: 343-6 Unified fracture design, applications: 36, 88, 450
Staged field experiment: 162, 358, 360
Step-down test: 98, 105, 215, 217-8, 224, 348, 478 V
Step rate tests: 104, 164, 223, 347 VES foams: 251, 272
Step-up test: 104-5 Viscoelastic fluids: 228, 242, 249, 250, 275, 392
Stress: 93-5, 100-1, 113-4, 116-23, 126-9, 131-4, 150, Viscometers: 138, 239, 332-3
156-7, 175-6, 181, 207, 209, 230-1, 297-8, 301, Viscosity: 21, 42, 93, 102, 107, 109, 118, 124,
303, 313, 315-6, 389, 434-5, 458, 471-2 137-9, 227, 229-35, 237-40, 243-55, 257, 331-3,
anisotropy: 434-5 339-41
far-field: 100, 207, 216 Viscosity, apparent: 139-40, 229, 231-5, 333
regime: 77, 122-4
Subsidence: 171, 195-6 W
Supercritical fluid: 248-9 Water-based fracturing fluids: 227-8, 243, 246-7, 254,
Superposition plot: 57-8, 63 262, 266-7, 271, 330, 357, 472
S-wave velocities: 136-7 Wellbore
construction: 169, 171, 181-2
T friction: 96, 159, 215, 349
Tight gas pressure: 59, 95, 124, 175, 179
formations: 153-4, 242, 246, 248, 347-9, 355-8 radius: 43-4, 173
wells: 41, 87, 90, 152, 155, 247, 276 stability: 370, 394, 420
Tortuosity: 96-102, 105-7, 110, 170, 206-8, 210, storage: 44, 47, 50, 52-3, 59, 60, 67-9, 89, 90
213-8, 222, 323, 333, 348, 352-3, 358, 364, coefficient: 44, 58, 68
373-5, 478-9 trajectory: 187, 210
Transport proppant: 228-9, 247, 250, 276, 284, 319, volume: 59, 116
332 White sand: 301, 312-3, 415-6
Transverse fractures: 28, 30, 32, 152-3, 208, 365,
368-9, 371, 373, 378 Z
Treating pressure: 96-8, 104, 107, 124, 179, 218, 283, Zirconium: 245-6, 254, 260
339, 344, 350-1, 353-4, 377, 397, 417, 473 Zonal isolation: 172-4, 179, 203, 205, 370-6, 378, 392,
Treatment schedule: 112, 115-6, 142 413
TSO: 25, 146, 148, 156, 349, 352, 455
Turbulence effects: 22-5, 27-9, 31-2, 111, 155, 364-5,
367-8

509