A
SPE 36471
Fracture Treatment Design and Evaluation in the Pakenham Field: A Real-Data
Approach
C.A. Wright, SPE, L. Weijers, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies;
Chevron USA; B.A. Whitman, BJ Services
Ccpyr!ght 1996, Scwiety of Petroleum Engmears, Inc
Th!s paper was prepared for presentaoon at the 1SS6 SPE Annual Technrcal Conference and
Exhibmon held m Denver, Colorado, U.S. A 6-9 October 1996.
Thts paper was selected fof presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
mforma!ica conramed in an abstract subnutted by the author(s) Con!ants of tha Pawr, as
presented, have not ban rewewad by the Soctety of Petroleum Eng+news and are subjsct to
correchon by the author(s), The rmatenal, as presanld, does not necessarily reflect any
pos$hon of the S.aaety of Petroleum Engmeera, Its oftvers, or mambas. Papers preserved at
SPE meewtgs are Subpct to publlcaoon leview by Edoorial Contmmees of the Society of
Petroleum Enginaws, Permission 10 cow is restucted to an abstract of not more than 300
words. Illustrabons may not ba copked. The abstract should comtain conspicuous
acknolwdgment 01 nlmre and by mhom the papar was presanted Write L!bfanan, SPE, P.O
S50x833.S3.S,Richardson, TX 75063-383S, U. S. A., fax 01.214-952.9435,
Abstract
This paper describes the results from the Pakenham Field
effort at fracture stimulation engineering which incorporated,
to the greatest extent possible, the results of actual measured
field data. Measured data included: formation closure stress in
payzones and bounding shales; numerous pre-frac diagnostic
injections; measurement of actual perf friction and near-
wellbore fracture tortuosity; reflected bottomhole pressure and
real-time net pressure data on many treatments; post-frac
pressure build-up tests; and (early) post-frac production data.
We feel tha( the large amount of measured da(a allowed us to
increase our confidence in the veracity of the results by greatly
reducing the requirements for unsubstantiated physical
assumptions.
Measurement of the sand-shale closure stress contrast and
the relatively high net fracturing pressures (compared to the
closure stress contrast) revealed that fractures obtained in most
of the treatments were much shorter and less confined than we
originally expected: the fracture half-length was about 200 to
300 ft (instead of about 600 ft), which is consistent with
estimates from post-fracture pressure build-up tests,
Based on these measurements, Chevron’s fracturing
practices in the Pakenham Field could be carefully reviewed to
enhance fracture economics. Supported by the real-data
fracture treatment analysis, several changes in completion,
fracture treatment design and data-collection procedures were
made, such as: ( I ) changing from COz-foam to Borate cross-
Iinked gel; (2) reducing the perforated interval to help
minimize the simultaneous propagation of mul[iplc hydraulic
fractures; and, (3) reducing the pad fluid size, as fluid leakoff
559
6iiila
u’ D
. . .
Societyof PetroleumEngineers
G.A. Germani, SPE, K.H. Maclvor, SPE, M.K. Wilson, SPE,
from the fracture into the formation was relatively low.
This paper should be regarded as only a first step towards
fracture treatment optimization in the Pakenham Field.
Further fracture trealment optimization will continue
throughout the development of the Pakenham Field. Although
it is still too early to quantify production benefits of
implementing these real-data-based treatment changes, modest
cost savings have been realized on tbe newly completed wells.
Introduction
Too often in this industry, the engineering of hydraulic fracture
stimulation begins with making a number of broad, but
unsubstantiated, assumptions about hydraulic fracture growth
in the reservoir in question -- such as confined fracture heighl,
or radial fracture growth, or assuming an in-situ stress profile
and running a favorite 3-D fracture model. After these broad
assumptions regarding hydraulic fracture growth are made, and
a particular simulation model is chosen, the engineer then
embarks on detailed “studies” of the (economic) optimum
designed fracture length; the appropriate completion strategy;
fluid and proppant selection; detailed treatment schedules; and
procedures (if any) for post-treatment evaluation. While
motivated by admirable principles, these “studies” often fall
short of their goals due to grave errors in the unsubstantiated
assumptions that were initially made.
Chevron intended to verify these basic physical
assumptions as early as possible during the development of the
Pakenham Field (West Texas), especially in the Wolfcamp A2
sand, and to a limited extent in the Wolfcamp D sand.
Pakcnham engineers in Midland (from Chevron and their local
service company alliance partner) desired to utilize the Gas
Research Institute’s (GRI’s) Advanced Stimulation
Technology (AST) as the main “tool” to evaluate and enhance
their fracturing practfces. The main concept behind AST is
collecting and utilizing measured (real) hydraulic fracturing
data, AST provides a methodology and an engineering tool to
approximate fracture dimensions and to identify critical
fracture design issues during and after a fracture treatment. A
vast number of authors have reported positive results from
real-data fracture treatment analysis l-i8. In Chevron’s
2 C.A. WRIGHT,L. WEIJERS, GA. GERMANI,K,H. MACIVOR, M.K. WILSON, B.A. WHITMAN SPE 36471

Pakenham Field, there remained significant uncertainty as to

Gamme Ray Closuregradient(psi/ft)
what was the most effective fracture treatment strategy/design.
o
Among these uncertainties were issues such as (1) choice of
fluid system and proppant; (2) appropriateness of pad volume
size and total treatment size; (3) appropriateness of long
perforated intervals; and, (4) minimization of premature
screen-out potential.
This paper discusses the engineering process that was
followed to evaluate the existing fracture treatment practices
and, based on this evaluation, to implement changes to the
completion practices, treatment designs, and data collection
procedures. First, a brief background of the Pakenham Field is I I I / II )
given, followed by a presentation of the results of real-data
fracture treatment analysis and the implemented fracture
treatment changes. Finally, the realized benefits of utilizing
Advanced Stimulation Technology are presented.

Chevron’s Pakenham Field

Figure 2: Log derived etress profile ve. closure stress
The Pakenham (Wolfcamp) Field is located in Terrell County,
measurements. The Iog-derived stress profile ahowe a cloeure
Texas, approximately 150 miles south of the city of Midland. atresa contraat of mora than 0.2 psilff batwean the shale and the
The field is located on the northwest flank of the Val Verde sand, whereaa diract measurements through fluid injection reveal
Basin and is bounded to the south by the Marathon Thrust belt. that the actuel sand-shale closure atreaa contraat Ie only in the
range between 0.04 to 0.10 psllff.
Figure 1 shows the field location. Monoclinal northeast dip
off the Marathon Thrust belt is the predominant structural
left side of Figure 2 is a gamma ray log that shows the main
feature. Sand and shale deposition occurred in the middle
producing intervals. The A2 sand varies in thickness but
Wolfcampian time in the form of turbidite channels,
averages about 80 ft net. Permeability ranges from 0.001 -0.1
amalgamated channel complexes and layered sheet sands
mD (values derived from permeability-to-air measurements on
interrupted by periods of slumps and debris flows derived from
sidewall cores) and porosity averages 9%. Initial reservoir
an unstable slope. Natural fractures, observed in formation
pressure is slightly overpressured and averages 3800 psi. The
imaging logs, are believed to enhance well productivity.
fieId has been developed down to 80 acre spacing in many
The field was discovered with a well drilled by Amoco in
sections. Recent drilling activity has involved reducing the
1975. Active development of the field did not occur until
spacing to 40 acres in selected areas.
1991. Chevron acquired the 21 square mile Pakenham
A “typical” hydraulic fracturing treatment in the Wolfcamp
(Wolfcamp) Field from Riata Energy in late 1994. Currently
A2 sand prior to Chevron’s acquisition incorporated 50%
there are 70 active wells producing approximately 30 MMscfd.
C02-foam, injection rates of 20 - 25 bpm, “triple entry”
Productive horizons in the Wolfcamp consist of four
pumping (simultaneous pumping down both tubing and two
sands, but the primary target is the A2 sand, which is
casing valves), and 80,000- 120,000 lbs of 20/40 Ottawa sand
encountered at depths of 7600-8000 ft across the field. The ramped to a bottomhole concentration of 6 ppg and then tailing
with 20/40 high strength ceramic proppant. The proppant was

,,?,--’OOO” I \
1 I f
placed using an average of 40,000 gal of foam, including a pad
size of about 35- At)~o of the total clean volume. TypicaIly,
the entire Wolfcamp A2 zone was selectively perforated using
1 Spf.
A “typical” hydraulic fracturing treatment in the Wolfcamp
A2 sand after Chevron’s takeover incorporated 50% COZ-

JEEz foam, injection rates of 25-30 bpm, “triple entry” pumping,

and 250,000 - 300,000 lbs of 20/40 pre-cured resin coated
sand ramped to a bottomhole concentration of 8 ppg. The
proppant was placed using an average of 80,000 gal of foam,
including a pad size of about 35% of the total clean volume.
Typically, the entire Wolfcamp A2 zone was perforated in 1 to
4 blocked intervals using 2 spf at 90° phasing.
Figure 1: Structure mep of Chevron’s Pakenham Fiald. The
contour lines represent the depth to the top of the Wolfcamp A2
sand.

560
SPE 36471 FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN AND EVALUATlON IN THE PAKENHAM FIELD: A REAL-DATA APPROACH
Measurements to (2uentify Fracture Growth
Hydraulic fracture growth is a complex process that is affected
by a great number of factors. To accurately quantify fracture
growth through modeling, it is therefore of the utmost
importance to at least approximately quantify the most
important factors, such as critical fracture growth mechanisms
(multiple fracture growth, near-wellbore tortuosity, etc.), and
key input parametersl’lb’]9 (reservoir properties, fluid
properties, etc.). It is hardly possible to perform
measurements to quantify all of the physical properties that
affect fracture growth. Instead, tests should be concentrated
on measurement of quantities that have the greatest impact on
fracture growth.
In the absence of severe multiple fracture propagation
and/or fracture tortuosity problems, the most important
physical quantities that affect fracture geometry are (l) the
actual net fracturing pressure; (2) the in-situ closure stress
profile; and (3) the fracture opening modulus. The last
quantity, the formation Young’s modulus (which is roughly
four times the fracture opening modulus), is the easiest to
obtain and is best derived from (static) core tests. In the
Pakenham Field, the formation modulus was estimated from
dynamic (sonic dipole log) measurements, which were then
“corrected” to estimate the static modulus. The other two key
physical quantities, actual net fracturing pressure and in-situ
stress profile, are more problematic. The closure stress profile
was measured using separate pump-in / shut-in tests in the
shales and the sands; the net fracturing pressure was estimated
by utilizing real-data (net pressure) fracture treatment analysis.
To validate the modeled fracture geometry predictions, an
independent estimate of the propped fracture length was
attempted by conducting several pressure build-up tests.
However, there was significant uncertainty in the propped
fracture length estimates from the pressure build-up tests,
because (1) there was no independent measure of matrix
permeability, and (2) post-frac build-up data was not collected
long enough to reach pseudo-radial fluid flow.
Rock Properties. The Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
of the reservoir rock were obtained from a sonic dipole log,
which was correlated to the gamma ray log. The dynamic
Young’s modulus of the sandstone was about 8 to 10x 10b psi,
and the dynamic Young’s modulus of the shale was about
6x 10b psi. As the dynamic modulus is usually much higher
than the static modulus, we have estimated a static Young’s
modulus of 5x 10b psi for the sandstone and 4x 10e psi for tbe
shale. Core tests are currently being conducted to obtain more
accurate estimates of the static Young’s modulus. The
Poisson’s ratio was roughly 0.16 for the sandstone and 0.28 for
the shale.
In-Situ Closure Stress Profile. To accurately determine
propped fracture half-lengths and fracture height coverage
(using real-dala fracture analysis), it is important to know the
closure stress profile in the target sand and the surrounding
561
3
formations.
Early Attempts to Quantijj Fracture Height Growth,
Early in 1995, after acquisition of the Pakenham Field,
Chevron engineers began an effort to determine if the
bounding shales were providing a barrier to fracture height
growth in the Wolfcamp A2 sand. The model that Chevron
inherited from the former operator indicated that fracture half-
Iengths of up to 600 ft were attainable with only 120,000 Ibs of
proppant.
The Pakenham 51#5 well, showing excellent contrast
between the sand and shale intervals on the openhole gamma
ray log, was chosen to conduct “stress” testing. Towards this
end a dipole sonic20 was run in the open hole of the 51#5.
This log (shown in Figure 2) indicated a closure stress
gradient of 0.65 psi/ft in the sand, and a closure stress gradient
of up to 0.95 psi/ft in the shales.
A mini-frac was conducted in the 51#5 Wolfcamp A2
using 50% COz-foam to quantify fluid leak-off and investigate
fracture height growth. The perforated interval was extended
beyond the A2 sand by about 20 ft. in to the bounding shales
to encourage fluid entry into these intervals. Due to the need
for “triple entry” pumping to reduce wellbore friction, a dead
string pressure measurement was not feasible. As a result, a
real-time bottomhole pressure tool was run on a casing hanger
below the perforated interval. Tracer and temperature logs
were also employed during the minifrac to investigate fracture
height growth. The post-frac fracture height logs showed only
slight fracture growth into the shales along the wellbore, Note
however, that logging methods only provide a lower limit to
fracture height growth, as the fracture may grow in height
away from the wellbore.
Analysis of the bottomhole minifrac pressure data
indicated that the closure stress in the A2 sand was close to 0.8
psi/ft, far higher than the 0.65 psi/ft derived from the dipole
sonic log. Therefore, the entire closure stress profile
(including the shales) from the dipole sonic log was shifted up
by 0.15 psi/ft to match the minifrac measurement. Early
fracture modeling attempts with two different fracture models,
utilizing this “calibrated” sonic log stress profile, resulted in
fracture half-length estimates of 375 to 5(KI ft for this smaller
110,000 lb, 40,000 gal, foam treatment.
The “calibrated” sonic dipole stress log from well 51#5
was used in correlation with gamma ray logs in the fracture
treatment design for subsequent wells. This reduced the
scatter in the shale stress data to a contrast of about 0.15 to
0.20 psi/ft. Accepting the worst case model of fracture height
growth, which was still relatively well contained using the
sonic log stress profile, Chevron increased treatment sizes
substantially to achieve the desired 500- 600 ft fracture balf-
Iengths. Also, as a result of this initial modeling, Chevron
began conducting pump-in / shut-in tests in the sand interval in
subsequent wells prior to propped fracture treatments to verify
the derived sand closure stress gradients.
After the work on the 51#5 well, Chevron decided to
embark on an even more rigorous effort of collecting and
4 C.A. WRIGHT, L. WEIJERS, G.A, GERMANI, K,H. MACIVOR, M.K. WILSON, B.A. WHITMAN SPE 36471

analyzing real-data from numerous hydraulic fracture sand.

treatments in the A2 sand. Chevron began a program with the
Gas Research Institute’s Advanced Stimulation Technology
(AST) Deployment Program. The goal of this program was to
continue Chevron’s efforts at fracture strategy evaluation and
design improvement with a stepped up effort involving real-
data fracture analysis, much of it performed on-site and in real-
time.
Direct Closure Stress Measurement. Careful matching of
the observed net fracturing pressure on the first real-time real-
data fracture treatment analysis in the Pakenham Field (well
Mitchell 6#5) was not possible with the stress profile from the
“calibrated” sonic log. The fracture treatment data could only
be matched if the closure stress contrast between the sand and
the shale was roughly O.I psi/ft, which is lower than the 0.15 to
0.20 psi/ft sand-shale stress contrast previously used in the frac
model.
The closure stress in the Mitchell 6#5 sand interval was
measured using “conventional” pressure decline analysis21”23
and the flow pulse technique24. The closure stress gradient in
the sand was found to be 0.71 psi/ft, and the net pressure
match resulted in an (indirect) estimate of the shale stress
gradient of 0.81 psi/ft. This lower estimated closure stress
contrast between the shales and the sands would lead to
significantly shorter and less confined fractures than was
previously assumed. The question of what was the actual
sand-shale stress contrast would play a significant role in
understanding fracture treatment behavior in the A2 sands, and
therefore a strategy was sought to answer this key question.
As we had two conflicting indirect estimates for the sand-
shale stress contrast (dipole sonic and treatment net pressure
matching), it was decided to make direct measurements by
perforating and pumping fluid into the shales and monitoring
the pressure decline behavior. Prior to the propped fracture
treatments in the Mitchell 5B#6 and 5B#7 wells, 4
perforations were shot within I ft in a thick shale interval
below the target sand, and 20-50 bbl of 2% KC1-water was
injected at a rate of 5 - 10 bpm. This same procedure was
repeated for the shale interval above the target sand. We felt
that the small number of additional perforations in the shale
above would not take excessive fluid and proppant during the
subsequent propped fracture treatment, because ( 1) much more
and larger perforations were shot in the sand interval, and (2)
the closure stress gradient in the shale is higher than in the
The shale stress test showed that even using ISIP pressures
for the shale stress value would not have altered our
conclusions. The directly measured shale stress values
matched very well with the “indirectly” inferred shale stress
from real-data fracture treatment analysis on the Mitchell 6#5
well. The four shale stress tests showed a consistent closure
stress gradient of 0.81 to 0.83 psi/ft, The sand-shale closure
stress contrast determined from the injection tests was
therefore far lower than the value that had been used
previously from the “calibrated” sonic “stress” log. Table 1
provides a summary of the closure stress measurements in the
different wells that were tested.
Stress measurements in the sands were slightly more
difficult as larger fluid volumes and perforated intervals were
employed because the diagnostic injections were also intended
to provide information on fluid leakoff, perforation friction
(breakdown), and near-wellbore fracture tortuosity. Figure 3
shows an example of a “conventional” pressure decline
analysis after a first diagnostic injection, and application of the
flow pulse technique after the second diagnostic injection in
the Wolfcamp A2 sand. Combination of these independent
methods allows accurate determination of the closure pressure
in the sands, in this case around 2700 psi surface pressure
(0.78 psi/ft).
Real-Data Fracture Treatment Analysis. History
matching of observed net fracturing pressure response with a
3-D fracture modelzs provides a link between fracture model
predictions and reality. By forcing a fracture model to explain
observed net pressure using realistic physical mechanisms, the
usefulness of simulator results (propped geometry,
conductivity, etc. ) is greatly increased. We employed a
lumped parameter 3-D fracture mode12b as a tool for real-data
(net pressure) fracture treatment analysis. As the fracture
dimensions are calculated in an approximate way through
lumped parameters, a solution can be found very fast -- faster
than real-time. This calculation-speed is of key importance for
“tailoring” fracture treatment designs on the job, and to react
to treatment events during the treatment.
Diagnostic Injections. Real-data fracture treatment
analysis cannot be done without diagnostic injections to
provide “anchor points”, because real-data analysis without
diagnostic injections is like using a flashlight while being
blindfolded. The net fracturing pressure, which is directly
related to the fracture dimensions, is the pressure in the main

Table 1: Closure atress gradients and net pressure at the end of the treatment for different welle In the Pskenham Field
I Well I Average I Sand I Shale I Stress I Stress I EOJ net Payzone I Est. frac I Length- 1
TVD- gradient gradient contrast contrast pressure thickness height height ratio
(ft) (P silft) (psiIft) (psi/ft) (P si) (psi) (ft) (ft) (-)
1
Mitchell 6#5 7700 0.71 0.81* 0.10 770 1080 60 341 1,49
Mitchell 5B#6 7950 0.78 081 0.03 240 750 70 370 1.16
Mitchell 5B#7 7850 0.74 0.82 0.08 630 1320 46 352 1.54
Mitchell 5A#8 7950 0.70 0.81 * 0,11 870 1130 79 = 369 1.82
* values reported were not measured but estimated based on measurement in wells 5B#6 and 5B#7.

562
SPE 36471 FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN AND EVALUATION IN THE PAKENHAM FIELD: A REAL-DATA APPROACH 5

near-wellbore fracture tortuosity).

Tubing Prew. m)
Wm Net Pressure Behavior. Figure 4 shows the net pressure
-=&@.
match and the obtained fracture dimensions for three different
27C0
scenario’s in well Mitchell 6#5 to illustrate the impact of the
-% p
sand-shale stress contrast on both net fracturing pressures and
Y~ created fracture geometry. Case 1 uses a higher sand-shale
2803
I
‘%, s[ress contrast (0.2 psi/ft - as indicated by the dipole sonic
I log), and uses a fracture model that does not incorporate non-
.—.—– . ..+-. –—
la
linear rock elasticity (fracture “tip effects”); case 2 uses a high
-––.....—— -—.— sand-shale stress contrast (0.2 psi/ft), and uses a fracture
\
m model that does incorporate non-linear rock elasticity; case 3
I L I I I 1 uses a lower sand-shale stress contrast (O.1 psi/ft - as measured
m
I from the shale injection tests), and uses a fracture model that
32 48 64 80
T,rne !;,.s) does incorporate non-linear rock elasticity. A net pressure
.
match could only be obtained for the last case, indicating that
significant fracture height growth occurs during the propped
,
fracture treatment.
m .
Table 2 shows a summary of the fracture treatment results.

E%~zz-+;
-y The net pressure during most of the treatments in the
3X. Wolfcamp A2 sand was relatively constant, indicating (hat a
tip screen-out was not initiated during the treatment. The fluid
mm ____+ leakoff coefficient was usually somewhat higher after the

%’
.- 2900psi
Z,m
. \ 2600psI
Tune
[rnlw)
Figure 3: The upper plot shows closure stress determination
from pressure decllne after the first diagnostic injection in well
Mitchell 5B#6, Wolfcamp A2 sand. Apparent fracture closure is
observed atasurface pressure of2700 psi. Thelower plot shows
closure stress determination from pressure behavior at three
different flow pulses (which are overlying each other In this plot).
The fracture closes betwaan the flow pulse at 2900 psi and 2600
psi (surface pressure), confirming fracture closure from the
earlier pressure decline analysls.
body of the fracture minus closure stress (minimum principal
stress). The diagnostic injections are intended to estimate the
net pressure as accurately as possible, through measurement of
the fracture closure stress and the different friction
components (wellbore friction, perforation friction and near-
wellbore friction) during pumping. Also, diagnostic injections
provide an initial leakoff estimate by matching the pressure
decline after pumping, In most cases, diagnostic injections
add only 30 to 60 minutes to a fracture trea!ment (hardly
slowing down multi-stage fracturing operations). In this case,
they added about 2 to 3 hours to these treatments, as leakoff
was relatively slow and we were willing to spend some extra
[ime [o make the measurement of the “anchor points” more
accurately, The injections required a very limited amount
(- 150 bbl) of extra KC1-water, a small price indeed for the
enormous insights that can be gained. As “triple entry”
pumping was not reqtm-ed when pumping KC1-water, we had
“free” access to accurate bottomhole pressure by using the
tubing string for deadstring pressure, allowing straightforward
analysis of the bottom-hole entry friction (perf friction and
propped fracture treatment than after the diagnostic injections
. . the “leakoff multiplier” in Table 2 ranges between 1 and 8,
indicating that pressure-dependent leakoff into natural
fractures -- or some other mechanism to explain increasing
fluid leakoff -- was significant on many of the treatments,
Fracture Dimensions. As a result of the lower sand-shale
closure stress contrast, fracture height growth is much larger
than originally expected and the obtained propped fracture
half-length is much smaller than earlier expected: about 250 ft
(in case 3) instead of 600 f[ (in case l). Table 1 also provides
a summary of the nel pressure at the end of lhe job (EOJ) vs.
the closure stress contrast. Fracture containment requires that
the closure stress contrast be (much) larger than the net
pressure at the end of the job: clearly there was no evidence
for large fracture containment, and fracture growth should be
more radial. The right-hand column in Table I shows the
fracture Iength-height aspect ratio. For a perfectly radial
fracture, the aspect ratio is 1, and a ratio larger than I indicates
the degree of height confinement. There is some degree of
height confinement when the net pressure only slightly exceeds
the sand-shale closure stress contrast (Mitchell 5A#8), but the
aspect ratio never comes anywhere close to 7, the ratio
calculated for case 1 in Figure 4.
Pressure Build-Up Tests. Because of the lingering
uncertainty in the accuracy of the fracture model results, and
the large difference in the fracture length predictions of AST
pressure matching (250 ft) and the previous fracture modeling
with sonic log stress profiles (600 ft), Chevron attempted to
get another independent estimate of fracture length from
pressure build-up testing. Accurate fracture length estimates
from pressure build-up tests require an independent knowledge
of the in-situ formation permeability,

563
6 C.A. WRIGHT, L. WEIJERS, GA. GERMANI, K.H. MACIVOR, M,K. WILSON, B.A. WHITMAN SPE 36471

S5ml Pun. Shale gradiant 0.92 paw Conv. model

Imo

‘“~
,,.. I ?I
=1
000 W,QI
fml two

m..
>Ka
Sam
,m
.----
400 Zam

Cmo ‘O(II
4m
.. .+
—...+-.
+...-.
-,
....-’....+..../....
....{
..
....+...+-.
,,
T---_ +----
,,
r...-.

00 003 :.UI!I!H!I
-“” m..-. . . . . . . . .
0 >0 330 mo
nme(ml
MO Imo 1s0 o . . . . --- -wO.m

h Wmy ml. ppll) FT#m#gg) Shale gradieri 0.92 @Ii

,mo Obmwnd w (@J : 6Mm
S139U Plmw

Im -1 I
mo
1 I I I I I I I I I
,402

em mm
Wm Im

4- 14,

400
BCa

zoo
1
4’
m.w

tom
.-—
—
:1 -——-

-+.---+
-------
. ---f
-——+
+-.
:-u
WI *w Ill II
i’ “

00
0 ).0 m,, m.o 000 ,X@ , EO.O
om
0
*.M.
.-,- *,
””.I””C
l----l----!----!----t--
..”

-L-...
.,.

-.-.’..
. . .

TlmO (mm

II
o
s#nYR.3~m) 0 P1’&c~(J)
Sv.u Prom. Shale
gradienl0.81 PM
,Coo &wa
,
I I I I I I I r- -~1 i ! ! 1 1!! 1
I
1 I I I I I I I
I . . . ..&.. t . ...+...- II

000 40 m
!W3 Iem

ma mm
,m *ZW

400
Ko
Zctim
=1
zoo Io,m
,!m
I
!!!

00 Om “----- .,. .”m- “.

0 0.0 .vD m,o 1230 1640 ~ r.”--- -h.mm
?%: mu)

Figure 4: Net pressure behsvlor and estimated fracture dimensions for three different caaes: (case 1; upper graphs) using large stress
contrast between sand and ahaie (baaed ‘on sonic derived streaa profile) and conventional fracture model; (case 2; middle graphs) using
iarge atress contrast between sand and shale ❑nd diiatant (non-linear elastic rock behsvior) fracture model; (case 3; iower graphs) using
iower stress contrast between sand and shale, a diiatant fracture modei and a smaii number of “equivalent” muitipie hydraulic fractures.

Several unsuccessful attempts were made to pre-flow wells Post-frac pressure build-up tests were performed in six
prior to stimulation in order to estimate formation welis. However, pseudo-radial flow was not definitively
permeability, A nitrogen slug test was performed in one well, observable, even in the case of a 6-month drawdown and a 3-
but the results were questionable because water had remained week shut-in period. Uncertainty in the formation
across the perforated interval prior to nitrogen injection. permeability, combined with the relatively short duration of
the post-frac build-up tests, prevent accurate estimation of the
apparent fracture haif-length. However, by varying the
Woifcamp A2 permeability between 0.1 and 0,01 mD, matches

564
SPE ,36471 FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN AND EVALUATION IN THE PAKENHAM FIELD: A REAL-DATA APPROACH 7

ible 2: Summary of fracture treatment results I the Pakenham Field

Well Mitchell 6#5 Mitchell 5B#6 Mitchell 5B#7 Mitchell 5A#8 Mitchell 11#6
Formation Wolfcamp A2 Wolfcamp A2 Wolfcamp A2 Wolfcarnp A2 Wolfcamp D
Fluid type 50% COZ foam 50% C02 foam 1O% C02 foam Cross-link gel Cross-link gel
CMHPG-polym. CMHPG-polym. CMHPG-polym. Guar Borate Guar Borate

Gross perf interval (ft) 9816-9831

9840-9860
9864-9867
Total number of Perforations 144
Perforation diameter (in.) 0.38 I 0.43 I 0.43 I 0.43 0.38
Average slurry rate (bpm) 30 30 30 35 35
Clean slurry volume (bbl) 1956 1852 2078 1050 1289
Pad fraction (% of clean slurry vol.) 25 29 34 ‘4) 23 34
Total proppant (Ibs) 299,000 342,000 290,000 230,000 175,000
Sand closure stress gradient (psi/ft) 0.71 0.78 0.74 0.70 0.82
Shale closure stress gradient (psi/ft) 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.81 0.92
Fracture slurrv efficiency (%) ‘2) 38 I 43 I 59 I 73 63
Net pressure (psi) ‘2) 1080 I 750 I 960 I 1130 3900
Number of multiple fractures ‘z] 1 1 I 2 I 10
Leakoff multiplier ‘2) 3 I 8 4 I
r
1 3
Propped half-length (ft) ‘1) 255 ‘3) 214 (S) 271 338 119
Propped height (ft) “) .34, (3) 370 cl) 352 369 229
Average prop concentration (PSF) ‘i) 2.2 , 2.7 , I .2 1.1 1
0.4
&: (1) Values reported for each indivi~ Ial fracture.
(2) Values reported at the end of pumping
(3) Propped fracture height and length reported for the main fractures may be significantly smaller if downward proppant
transport is faster than estimated.
(4) Pad includes two proppant slugs.
of the observed pressure build-up response indicated fracture overview of the most important treatment changes that have
half-lengths rang_ing from about ’50 to 400 ft in most of the been implemented.
cases, Although these fracture half-length estimates are very
rough, they appeared to support that propped fracture half- Altered Fluid Selection. Downward proppant transport
Iengths are not on the order of 600 ft, which was earlier (mainly proppant convection) *’za is a major concern when
expected, but that they are likely to be closer to the 250 ft that using two-phase fluids as a proppant carrier in the fracture.
was estimated from the net pressure analysis. Prior to implementation of AST, 50% C02 was used to place
Chevron is continuing efforts to get an independent proppant in the fracture. The major reason for using the foam
reservoir permeability measurement. Recently a small 6,000 was that it would aid with cleaning up the formation after the
lb propped mini-fracture treatment was conducted to stimulate treatment, since it was believed that the formation was water-
a well enough to flow, but with a fracture half-length short sensitive. Core data, however, has shown that the clay content
enough to allow observation of the pseudo-radial flow regime of the sands is relatively low and therefore water-sensitivity is
within a reasonable time frame. Results of this test are less of a concern.
pending. However, since the fracture treatments in the Pakenham
Field appear to be poorly contained within the sand intervals,
downward proppant convection may result in placing large
Wolfcamp A2 Fracture Treatment Optimization quantities of the proppant below the targeted Wolfcamp A2
Numerous fracture treatment design changes were sand. The only reliable way to minimize downward proppant
implemented on many fracture treatments in the Pakenham convection is to minimize the amount of fluid (particularly pad
Field, most of them supported by AST analysis. Several issues fluid) that is used to place proppant into the formation, and to
in the following list need to be investigated in more detail, but use fluids with robust proppant carrying characteristics in the
preliminary results are listed below. Figure 5 shows an fracture,

565
8 C.A. WRIGHT, L. WEIJERS, G.A. GERMANI, K.H. MACIVOR, M.K. WILSON, B.A. WHITMAN SPE 36471

Reduced Pad Volume / Increased Proppant Loading. Pad

. Shl Pw CUIC (pm)
grn Slgp!a @m)
volumes were relatively large originally to prevent screen-outs.
o
tam :
Km !3
WQ2
) WJ.o
lm o
In the process of decreasing pad size some screen-outs
I (
occurred, and it is not known whether these were tip screen-
out or near-wellbore screen-outs. A near-wellbore screen-out
should not be prevented by increasing the pad fluid size. The
.* m,.
large pad size has negative side-effects: downward proppant
830
MO
4803
transport becomes more severe, as it takes more time for the
20 m
fracture to close after pumping has stopped; treatment cost is
40,
Ixll
%8 increased; and clean-up time is increased. Therefore, the pad
size was reduced from roughly 40~0 to about 20% of the total
~: clean slurry volume.
The net pressure behavior of the fracture treatments in the
mm
00
00 Wolfcamp A2 sand do not show a steep net pressure increase
“ 00

n nli$.(rrw-s) I towards the end of the treatment, indicating that tip screen-out
II has not yet begun. To ensure better proppant placement, pad
volumes will be further decreased step by step in the future,
50C0

especially now that fluids with a higher frac fluid efficiency

are being used. Further pad size reduction has to be done
40 m
am incrementally in order to avoid extremely high net pressures,
If pad sizes are reduced too drastically extremely high net
mm
4K.I
pressures, due to severe packing off of the fracture (early tip
screen-out), will induce a far higher closure stress in the
2UOI vicinity of the fracture, This large increase in local stress can
result in closure of conductive natural fractures in the vicinity
of the propped fracture, reducing gas flowrates29.

Proppant Selection. A pre-cured resin coated sand, 20/40

Time (mhn)
Figure 5: Typical fracture treatment before and after
implementation of AST. The following changea were
implemented: (a) breakdown using gel instead of Nz; (b)
performing diagnostic injections to obtain fracture closure
stress, friction components and initial leakoff behavior - pump
proppant slug If high tortuosity is measured during stepdown
test; (c) pad size reduction from an average of 40% to 20%; (d)
measurement of bottomhole presaura using a dead string when
feasible; (e) Increase In maximum proppant concentration; (f)
monitoring of pressure decllna aftar shut-in; (g) pumping cross-
Ilnked gel treatments without foam.
Cross-linked gel fluids provide better proppant transport
than foams, and will therefore be better able to place proppant
along most of the created hydraulic height of the fracture. On
recent treatments, a borate cross-linked gel has been tested.
Early production response appears to confirm that use of
cross-linked gel does not lead to major clay swelling (perm
blocking) problems.
Table 2 shows that the frac fluid efficiency, at least on
these treatments, increases from about to more than 60%
when cross-linked gel is used instead of foam. This will allow
further reduction in total pumped fluid volume, and thereby
should further reduce clean-up time. At this point the jury is
still out on whether fracturing with cross-linked gel provides
superior performance to foams. Further testing is required to
answer this critical question,
003
0 mesh size, was used on all of the treatments reported here. At
the maximum possible effective stress of about 6000 psi
(assuming zero reservoir pressure) in the Wolfcamp A2 sand,
the proppant pack permeability is about 90 Darcy. For the
fracture lengths and widths created this still yields a
dimensionless fracture conductivity that is much higher than
necessary for apparent infinite conductivity. Therefore, a
lower-cost lower-quality proppant (20/40 Ottawa sand) is now
being used in the Wolfcamp A2 sand.
Further work needs to be done to investigate proppant cost
vs. proppant quality, and its effect on well productivity.
Altered Perforation / Frac Initiation Strategy. To minimize
both the potential for near-wellbore fracture tortuosity and the
simultaneous propagation of multiple hydraulic fractures, the
gross perforated interval was shrunk from more than 40 ft to
about 20 ft. Stepdown tests during the treatment in well
Mitchell 6#5 and 5B#6 revealed that near-wellbore fracture
tortuosity was somewhat reduced by making this change
40~0
towards a “point source” perforated interval. This type of
change may prove to be far more significant in environments
like the Wolfcamp D discussed below.
Stepdown Tests and Acid Slugs. Stepdown tests were
utilized to quantify near-wellbore tortuosity. For the A2 sand
treatments that were investigated, tortuosity was always below
300 psi at the designed pump rate, and therefore not a major

566
SPE.36471 FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN AND EVALUATION IN THE PAKENHAM FIELD: A REAL-DATA APPROACH 9

concern. In the Wolfcamp Dsanddiscussed below there wasa

much bigger concern. The step-down tests also indicated
!!wo 0
Meadd Btmh(@I ❑ Slullv
Flowate
,@ o
when there was insufficient breakdown of the perforations, in
which cases acid slugs were used to remediate the problem.
l,wl mo
Pressure drop (psi)

Wolfcamp D Fracture Treatment Optimization ,O,m ?00

I 218 I
In the Wolfcamp D sand below the Wolfcamp A2 the initial \
two fracture treatments screened out. Different fracture ,m — 400

treatment behavior was expected in the D sand, as it is steeply

dipping and structurally more complex. The upper part of 32.0
59X Zno
Figure 6 is an example of one fracture treatment in the I

Wolfcamp D sand that screened-out early during the treatment

after only 40,000 Ibs out of the designed 175,000 lbs of ~.03 M@ MM 65 w sem 00
T,me (mIns)
proppant had been placed in the fracture. We believe that the
premature screen-outs in the D sand were due to a combination !m

of severe near-wellbore fracture tortuosity and the

simultaneous propagation of a large number of hydraulic
ScO
—Mwasured entry — d
mmisured entry
fractures, caused by a combination of the steeply dipping beds fnctlon [PSI) mctlon (psi)
Y
and the long perforated intervals that were employed. In fact
Km
matching high net fracturing pressures (over
of Ihe extremely
3500 psi at the end of the treatment) observed in the Mitchell A ~

11#6 well required roughly 10 “equivalent” interfering 403 E-

Estlmated near.
wellimre lnctlon (psi)
1. & / ~
/4”

KOo .
,! ;$;~l%%?% 0 L%f?P%wfi$lnl ,.. /
Y-_%matOd perforahon —
ffiction (PM)
,.mo I o
,a.m I I 1 Al I Km
e “

om Mm lecn 40 m
II
24 m 32m
!0,
m,
~
mo
an.
P“mcmg Flu. (Rml)

Sxa X“ I I I Figure 7: Measurement of perforation frlctlon and near-wellbore

friction by utilizing a stepdown tast. Tha top graph shows tha
different steps end the points that were used for the analysis. The
bottom graph shows the different friction components va. flow
rate.

1- 1—.—. I k I (competing for frac width) multiple hydraulic fractures.

mo
Zno
2-20 To recognize potential screen-out problems, stepdown
200
m
testssb were performed during the diagnostic injections.
.—
00
— . .
Figure 7 shows the results of a stepdown test. The utilized
00
0 003 !.cm 32ca
The (mom)
.03 “m ::
fracture analysis system features a real-time stepdown analysis
capability, in which friction components can be analyzed using
a dual curve fitting procedure. This capability uses the
%%%w!w.(0s4) ❑ Slln-y Rate(@n)
,, 1 1 ,m . difference in frictional pressure behavior with flow rate:
perforation friction is a function of the square of the flow rate;
CnO near-wellbore friction is approximately a function of the
square-root of the flow rate. This difference in behavior
makes it possible to individually measure near-wellbore
w.
fracture tortuosity and perforation friction during the fracture
treatment. If near-wellbore fracture tortuosity is high, for
400
example higher than 500 psi at the designed rate, it can be
minimized by using proppant slugs }o’~z(-50 bbl injections with
mo 1-5 ppg). Figure 8 shows an example of two proppant slugs,
that were pumped prior to the refracture treatment in well
0
00 Mitchell 11#6. After these slugs (and usc of a different frac
00 2!0 M o ,mo !25
T?re (mms) initiation procedure) the treatment could be placed as
Fi9ure6: The upper picture shows the neer-wellbore screen-out designed.
in-well 11-6. The formation was refractured successfully after In the Wolfcamp D formation, use of low strength sand
implementation of proppant slugs.

567
10 C.A. WRIGHT, L. WEIJERS, G.A. GERMANI, K.H. MACIVOR, M.K. WILSON, B.A. WHITMAN SPE 36471

which derives from changing to Ottawa sand.

Long-term quantification of an altered production response
I
,,, is not (yet) possible, because only early commingled
I I . Pressure d
production data is available in the Pakenham Field. Also,
,,CO I /’ decrease after ,*m
w proppant slug – SO well-to-well productivity differs significantly and only a
N’
limited number of wells have been treated using AST.
,2W ,2 m The cost of implementing real-data fracture treatment
. m.
If +<
analysis has clearly paid out. We plan to continue diagnostic
am injections and real-time net pressure fracture treatment
70)0
analysis on future treatments in this field as the costs are
modest and we believe there will be continued economic
*W
7W
benefits. Fracture treatment optimization, through feed back
from real-data fracture treatment analysis, will continue in the
003
7CW mm .03 42 m .!0 !OM
Pakenham Field.
?Re(mIns)
Figure 8: Two proppant slugs were performed prior to the
propped fracture treatment to mlnimlze near-wellbore fracture
tortuoslty. The propped fracture treatment could be pumped Conclusions
successfully after removal of the near-wellbore fracture In-situ closure stress cannot be determined using a dipole
tortuosity. sonic log alone. This data should be calibrated using
may lead to insufficient fracture conductivity, as the maximum direct measurements of the in-situ closure stress using
effective stress can be up to about 8000 psi, and the individual moderate volume (-40- 100 bbl) injections in both the
fractures are much narrower due to the simultaneous growth of payzone and bounding intervals;
a large number of multiple hydraulic fractures. The average The closure stress in the sands ranged between 0.69 and
proppant concentration per individual fracture is only about 0.78 psi/ft. The closure stress in the shale ranged between
0.4 psf, indicating a proppant pack of only a little bit more 0.81 and 0.83 psi/ft;
than a proppant monolayer. Recent studiesJ3’34 have shown In light of the smaller stress contrast between the
that proppant damage increases dramatically for thin layers of Wolfcamp A2 sand and the surrounding shales that was
proppant, most likely resulting in poor fracture conductivity directly measured, the modeled fracture height growth
from this treatment, Therefore, a higher strength ceramic appears greater than previously predicted. The propped
proppant was used for the Wolfcamp D interval, fracture half-lengths appear to be shorter (200-300 ft) than
Fracture initiation procedures were altered for the we originally expected (500-600 ft) for our roughly 300k
refracture treatment in the Wolfcamp Din well Mitchell 11#6 lb fracture treatments;
by loading the wellbore with 40 ppt linear gel prior to Integrating all data sources, such as closure stress
pressurization. Prior to this, the procedure was to initiate measurements, net pressure measurements, and any post-
fractures by pressurizing the “dry” nitrogen fdled wellbore. fracture well tests aid in bounding estimated fracture
Fracture initiation with the higher viscosity linear gel results in dimensions;
a better near-wellbore fracture geometry, as starter fractures Treatment costs have been reduced by roughly $30,000
from different perforations are more likely to “zip-up’’sS. per fracture treatment by: (1) using non-energized cross-
linked Borate gel instead of the C02-foam Zirconate
st)~.

system; (2) using 20/40 Ottawa sand instead of pre-cured

Benefits of Implementing Advanced Stimulation
Technology
Treatment costs in the Pakenham (Wolfcamp) Field have been
reduced by implementing the following major changes in
fracture treatment design:
● Using non-energized cross-linked Borate gel instead of
the 50% COz--foam Zirconate system;
● Using 20/40 Ottawa sand instead of pre-cured 20/40 resin
coated sand;
● Reducing the pad size from 35-4070 to 20-25% of the
clean fluid volume.
Many of these design changes were under consideration
prior to utilizing AST, but the real-data analysis provided
valuable support. Total reductions in stimulation cost at
Pakenham have approached $30,000 per treatment, most of
20/40 resin coated sand; and, (3) reducing the pad size
from 35-40% to 20-25% of the clean fluid volume;
Irr utilizing stepdown tests to diagnose near-wellbore
friction, it was determined that tortuosity was not a major
concern in the majority of the wells completed in the
Wolfcamp A2 sands. In the few wells where entry friction
appeared high (incomplete perf breakdown), smaIl acid
slugs were pumped to remediate the problem;
In the Wolfcamp D sands, where net pressures were
observed to be high and previous fracturing attempts had
screened-out, a successful re-fracture treatment was
accomplished by initiating the job using linear gel, using
non-energized Borate instead of 50’ZOC02-foam and by
pumping proppant slugs in the pad volume;
Long-term quantification of an altered production

568
SPE.36471 FRACTURE TREATMENT DESIGN AND EVALUATION IN THE PAKENHAM FIELD: A REAL-DATA APPROACH 11

response from implemented frac design changes is not yet
available, because only early production data is available.
It remains difficult to ascertain whether reservoir quality
or stimulation effectiveness is the primary driver of well
productivity.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Chevron USA and BJ Services for allowing
the publication of the enclosed treatment data. The authors
would also like to thank the Gas Research Institute (GRI) for
sponsoring the development of Advanced Stimulation
Technology, including the FRACPROS system, over the last
decade, and for providing Chevron the opportunity to
participate in the AST deployment program.
References
1 Cipolla, C.L., Meehan, D.N., and Stevens, P. L.: “Hydraulic
Fracture Performance in the Moxa Arch Frontier Formation,”
SPE paper 25918 presented at the 1993 Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
April 12-14.
2. Cleary, M. P., Wright, C. A., and Wright, T. B.: “Experimental
and Modeling Evidence for Major Changes in Hydraulic
Fracturing Design and Field Procedures,” SPE paper 21494
presented at the 1990 Gas technology Symposium, Houston,
Jan. 23-25.
3. Cleary. M. P.: ‘The Engineering of Hydraulic Fractures - State
of the Art and Technology of the Future,” .JPT (Jan. 1988) 13-
21,
4. Johnson, DE., Wright, C. A., Stachel, A., Schmidt, H., and
Cleary, M. P.: “On-Site Real-Time Analysis Allows Optimal
Propped Fracture Stimulation of a Complex Gas Reservoir,”
SPEpaper 25414 presented at the 1993 Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 21-23.
5, Mart inez, AD,, Wright, C. A., and Wright, T. B.: “Field
Application of Real-T] me Hydraulic Fracturing Analysis,'' SPE
paper 25916 presented at the 1993 Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
April 12-14.
6. Wright, C. A,, Tanigawa, J.J., Shixin, M., and Zhigang, L.:
“Enhanced Hydraulic Fracture Technology for a Coal Seam
Reservoir in Central China,” paper SPE 29989 presented at the
19951nternational Oiland Gas Exhibition, Beijing, Nov. 14-17.
7. Wright, C. A., Tanigawa, J.J., Hyodo, M., and Takasugi, S.:
“Real-Time and Post-Frac 3-D Analysis of Hydraulic Fracture
Trea[men[s in Geothermal Reservoirs,” presented at the 1994
Stanford Geothermal Conference, Stanford University, Palo
Alto, Jan.
8. Gas Research Institute Annual Report GR1-96/0075 on
“Advanced Stimulation Technology Deployment Program”
(1996).
9, Stadulis, J.M,: “Development of a Completion Design to
Control Screenout Caused by Multiple Near-Wellbore
Fractures,” SPE paper 29549 presented at the 1995 Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium
and Exhibition, Denver, March 19-22.
I o. Weijers, L., De Pater, C.J., Owens, K.A. and Kogsb@ll, H,H.:
“Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures Induced From Horizontal
Wellbores,’’ SPEPF (May 1994)87-92,
11. De Pater, C.J., Hagoort, J.J,, Abou-Sayed, 1.S., and Donders,
R,S,: “Propped Fracture Stimulation in Deviated North Sea
Wells,” SPE paper 26794 presented at the 1993 Offshore
European Conference, Aberdeen, September 7-10,
12. Martinez, AD,, and Ruffin, B, D.: “Fontelle Field Hydraulic
Fracturing Stimulation of the Frontier Formation: Case
History,” SPE paper 29187 presented at the 1994 Eastern
Regional Conference, Charleston, WV, November 8-10.
13. Aud, W. W., Brady, C. L., Rainbolt, M.F., and Perry, K.F.:
“Applied Hydraulic Fracture Modeling Improves Results,
Cleveland Sand, Orchiltree County, Texas,” paper SPE 27927
presented atthe 1994 Mid Continent Gas Symposium, Amarillo,
TX, May 22-24.
14, Cipolla, C. L.: “Hydraulic Fracture Technology in the Ozona
Canyon and Penn Sands,” SPE paper 35196 presented at the
1996 Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conference, Midland,
TX, March 27-29.
15. Cipolla, C. L,, Diabin LIU and Kyte, D.G.: “Practical Application
of h--Situ Stress Profiles,” SPE paper 28607 presented at the
1994 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, September 25-28.
16. Abou-Sayed, I.S,, Schueler, S. K., Ehd, E., and Hendriks, W.P.:
“Multiple Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation in a Deep, Horizontal
Tight-Gas Well,” JPT (February 1996) 163-168.
17, Baumgartner, W.E. L., Shlyapobersky, J., Abou-Sayed, I.S., and
Jacquier, R.C.: “Fracture Stimulations of a Horizontal Well in a
Deep, Tight Gas Reservoir: A Case History from Offshore the
Netherlands,’’ SPEpaper 26795 presented al the 19930 ffshore
European Conference, Aberdeen, September 7-10.
18. Minner, WA., Wright, C. A., and Dobie, CA.: “Treatment
Diagnostics and Net Pressure Analysis Assist with Fracture
Strategy Evaluation in the Belridge Diatomites,” paper SPE
35696 presented at the 1996 Western Regional Meeting,
Achorage, May 22-24.
19. Whitehead, W. S., Hunt, E. R., Finlet, R.J., and Holditch, S.A.:
“In-Situ Stresses: A Comparison Between Log-Derived Values
inthe Travis Peak Formation of East Texas,’’ paper SPE 15209
presented at the 1986 Unconventional Gas Technology
Symposium, Louisville, KY, May 18-21,
20. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., and Wilmer, R.: “in-Situ
Stress Measurements at DOE’s Multiwell Experiment Site,
Mesa Verde Group, Rifle, Colorado,” paper SPE 12142
presented at the 1983 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, Oct.
21, Nohe, KG,, and Smith, M. B.: “Interpretation of Fracturing
Pressures,’’ ~PT(Sept. 1981)2763-2775.
22. Nolte, K.G: “FracturedesignConsiderationsB asedonPressure
Analysis,’’ SPEPE(Feb, 1988)22-30.
23. Nolte, KG: “Determination of Fracture Parameters from
Fracturing Pressure Decline,” paper SPE 8341 presented at the
1979 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26,
24. Wright, C. A., Weijers, L., Minner, WA., and Snow, D.M.:
“Robust Technique for Real-Time Closure Stress
Determination,” SPEPF (August 1996).
25. Gas Research Institute Technical Description GRI-95/0257 on
“Real-Data (Net Pressure) Fracture Analysis’” ( 1995).
26. Crockett, A.R., Okusu, N.M. and Cleary, M. P.: “A Complete
Integrated Model for Design and R;al-Time Analysi; of
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations,” SPE paper 15069 presented

569
12 C.A. WRIGHT, L. WEIJERS, G.A. GERMANI, K.H. MACIVOR, M.K. WILSON, B.A. WHITMAN SPE 36471

at the 1986 California Regional Meeting, Oakland, April 2-4 Concentration,” paper SPE 25892 presented at the 1993 Rocky
27, Cleary, M.P. and A. Fonseca Jr,: “Proppant Convection and Mountain Regional/bw Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Encapsulation in Hydraulic Fracturing: Practical Implications of Denver, April 12-14.
Computer and Laboratory Simulations,” SPE paper 24825 33. Penny, G.S.: “An Evaluation of the Effects of Environmental
presented at the 1992 Annual Technical Conference and Conditions and Fracturing Ffuids upon Long-term Conductivity
Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7. of Proppants,” paper SPE 16900 presented at the 1987 Annual
28, Barree, R.D., and M.W. Conway: “Experimental and Numerical Technical Conference, Dallas, Sept. 27-30,
Modeling of Convective Proppant Transport,” JF’T (March 34. StimLab Consortium Reports 1989-1995.
1995) 216-222. 35. Weijers, L, and De Pater, C.J.: “Interaction and Link-up of
29. Cramer, D.D.: ‘The Evolution of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Hydraulic Starter Fractures Close to a Perforated Wellbore,”
Almond Formation,” paper SPE 30480 presented at the 1995 paper SPE 28077 presented at the 1994 SPWISRM Eurock
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22- Conference, DeIft, Aug. 29-31.
25.
30, Gas Research Institute Technical Description GR1-95/0258 on
“Multiple Hydraulic Fractures” ( 1995). S1 Metric Conversion Factors
31. Gas Research Institute Technical Description GRI-95/0257 on
in x 2.54* E-03 = m
“Near-Wellbore Fracture Tortuosi[y” ( 1995).
32. Cleary. M. P., D.E. Johnson, H.H, Kogsb@ll, K.A. Owens, K.F. ft X 3.048* E-01 = m
Perry, C.J. de Pater, A. Stachel, H. Schmidt, M. Tambini: “Field bbl x 1.589872 E-01 = ml
Implementation of Proppant Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen- psi x 6.894759 E-02 = bar
out of Hydraulic Fractures with Adequate Proppant ● Conversion factor is exact.

570