SPE 102227
Water-Fracs: We Do Need Proppant After All
L.K. Britt and M.B. Smith, NSI Technologies; Z. Haddad and P. Lawrence, Devon Energy Co.; S. Chipperfield, Santos
Corp.*; and T. Hellman, BP*
* Now with Apache Corporation
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The key objective of hydraulic fracturing in tight
formation gas reservoirs is the creation of “effective” fracture
length. The creation of effective fracture length requires that
sufficient fracture conductivity be developed to allow effective
fracture fluid cleanup. It is also fairly well understood that
occasionally conventional cross-linked gel fracture
stimulations do not create the desired fracture dimensions. The
potential reasons for the shorter than desired effective fracture
lengths are numerous with the most likely being excessive
fracture height growth and poor fracture fluid cleanup. In the
context of the Cotton Valley Formation bounding beds
necessary to contain a large hydraulic fracture are non-existent
except for the Taylor sand. Studies have been conducted of
fracture fluid clean-up which indicate that fluid clean-up or
more importantly the lack of fluid clean-up is a primary cause
of ineffective or less than desired fracture length. This
ineffective clean-up is believed to result from (1) the effects of
time and temperature on proppant1, (2) gel residue and its
damage to the proppant pack2, (3) viscous fingering through
the proppant pack3, (4) the effects of unbroken gel on proppant
pack permeability4, (5) non-Darcy and multi-phase fluid flow
effects5-7, and (6) capillary pressure8. More recent studies9-15
have shown that for effective cleanup of fracturing fluid and
length, a Dimensionless Fracture Capacity, FCD, in excess of
10 is required to overcome yield power-law effects.
Dimensionless conductivities of this magnitude are not being
generated with many cross-linked gel fracs.
Elimination of polymer by fracture stimulating with treated
water is cheaper and may provide more effective fractures.
However, the use of treated water, results in poorer proppant
transport due to the low fluid viscosity. Though more of the
created fracture would be effective (no polymer damage) less
fracture will likely be created (poor transport). Performance
comparisons of Cotton Valley wells fracture stimulated with
water and cross-linked gel indicate that water fracs in addition
to being cheaper also perform similarly or nearly so to cross-
linked gel fracs (and in some cases better).
This paper details the application of treated water fracs to
the East Texas Cotton Valley Formation and documents an
evaluation of well performance and the cause and effects of
hydraulic fracturing with treated water on productivity.
Through developing an understanding of this well
performance behavior, guidelines and/or success criteria are
developed for the design and execution of successful water
fracs in the Cotton Valley Formation or any tight formation
gas reservoir. These guidelines consider all aspects of the
fracturing process including reservoir, geomechanical, and
design considerations for successful application of treated
water as a fracturing fluid. These guidelines, in conjunction
with an in depth review of the Cotton Valley Formation, were
utilized to develop a modified “hybrid” water frac treatment
that mitigates the associated risks with the use of treated water
while maintaining the water frac treatment cost and clean-up
advantages.
Introduction
Since being “introduced” (or re-introduced) by UPRC in
199716, water fracs have been a topic of wide and increasing
interest both in the ETCV (East Texas Cotton Valley), and in
other formations in North America and throughout the world.
However, it has been a controversial interest, with some
operators ferociously defending the idea, and others equally
adamant that it does not, cannot, and will not work! This
evaluation set out to determine if and why water-frac well
performance is similar to conventional cross-linked gel
performance in the East Texas Cotton Valley. Given this
understanding, the authors anticipated that guidelines could be
developed for candidate selection and application of “water
frac” treatments for the Cotton Valley or any formation for
that matter.
Water fracs are certainly not new as water (and sand) from
the Arkansas River have been pumped in the Hugoton Field
since 1956. Do Arkansas “River Fracs” outperform gel fracs
in the Hugoton Field? From a historical perspective it is hard
to tell but a recent study17 comparing treatment types indicated
that cross-linked borate fracs were better. This evaluation
2 SPE 102227
compared nitrogen foam, slick water, and borate crosslink
fluids with treatments using either 170,000 or 250,000 lb of
12/20 sand. The treatments, and the results are briefly
summarized in Figure 1. It should be noted that the “IP”
results here were obtained by first flowing the wells for
several days of cleanup. The wells were then shut-in for a few
days to allow pressure to stabilize. Each well was then flowed
for 24 hours at a constant WHP of 80 psi, with the plotted
rates being the gas flow rate at the end of that 24-hour flow
period.
Figure 1 – “Modern” Hugoton Water Fracs*
(after Cottrell, et al)
2,500
IP (MCFD)
2,000
1,500
170,000 lb
250,000 lb
170,000 lb
250,000 lb
170,000 lb
1,000
500
Nitrogen Slick
Foam Water
Summary – 170,000 lb Treatments
Nitrogen Foam
100 M-Gal 60Q foam pumped at 75 bpm
Pad Volume was 36% of the Total Job
12/20 Sand Proppant pumped at 1 to 5 PPG
Slick Water
140 M-Gal 20# Slick Water pumped at 100 bpm
Pad Volume was 23% of the Total Job
12/20 Sand Proppant pumped at 0.5 to 2.5 PPG
Borate X-Link Gel (30# HPG)
100 M-Gal 30 ppt HPG, borate X-Link gel at 60 bpm
Pad Volume was 35% of the Total Job
12/20 Sand Proppant pumped at 1 to 5 PPG
Note: For the 250,000 lb treatments, fluid volumes and
pump rates were unchanged. Additional proppant was
pumped just by increasing the maximum PPG used.
The final “answer” for this case is clear. Due to the smaller
fluid volumes, less HHP cost, etc., the 30# crosslink treat-
ments were both cheaper/better than water fracs. However,
several questions might be asked about these results, and why
water fracs worked as well as they did in this environment.
As discussed in subsequent portions of this paper the
Hugoton Field would seem to have several things working
against the successful application of water fracs:
• Fluid Loss – The moderate permeability would
allow water to leak-off quite rapidly. However,
partially offsetting this problem would be the low
pressure (both reservoir pressure & frac pressure)
such that the Δp driving fluid loss is much smaller
than “normal”.
• Formation Thickness – Hugoton (which actually
consists of some seven separate producing
horizons) is quite thick. Thus, there should have
been considerable concern about proppant settling
to the bottom of the fracture and thus, yielding
very poor vertical coverage.
• Moderate Permeability – Presumably a moderate
permeability formation needs a fairly wide
fracture to achieve the desired conductivity, kFw.
Thus, the use of water which would lead to less
fracture width seems counter productive.
Still, despite these “problems”, the water fracs “worked”
nearly as well as the gel fracs!
250,000 lb
Water-fracs have been the completion of choice for
naturally fissured reservoirs18-20 for many years. When
hydraulically fracturing any formation where natural fissure
permeability is a major contributor to total flow from the
reservoir the use of very clean fluids, such as a treated water
(water with a friction reducer) must always be given high
X-Link consideration. The use of more viscous, gelled fluids leads to
Water higher net pressures, making the “opening” of any natural
fissures encountered by the hydraulic fracture more likely.
This “opening” then accelerates the fluid loss of whole gel
into the natural fissures, and the fluid then eventually leaks-off
into the formation depositing a gel filter cake on the face of
the natural fissure. When pumping is stopped, the natural
fissures close, and this filter cake can lead to “0” remaining
natural fissure permeability. Thus, hydraulically fracturing
(using a gel fluid) a natural fissured formation can lead to
serious problems.
In East Texas, however, natural fissures are not a concern.
Therefore, one major question is “What changed”, or were gel
fracs NEVER a good idea for the ETCV? There are many
partial answers to this, but the major effect leading to a change
was probably the need to reduce drilling and completion costs
allowing spacing densification from 160 to 80 and now to 40
acres in some areas, respectively.
As seen in Figure 2, the reduction from 320 acre spacing to
80 acre spacing reduces the optimum fracture ½ length from
over 1,500 feet to a bit less than 750 feet. In fact, for the
smaller spacing, the bulk of the “value” is achieved for a
fracture penetration of only about 500 feet. A good, propped,
clean fracture ½ length of 1,500+ feet may, or may not be
possible. However, it seems unlikely that water could
transport sand that distance. Thus, a gel frac would be the only
option. However, for the smaller well spacing, shorter fracture
lengths become desirable, and the potential for using water
increases. In addition, for fracture lengths on the order of 500
to 1000 feet, the economic optimization results in the figure
SPE 102227 3

also show than only very low proppant concentrations are treatments tend to IP somewhat lower with a flatter production
needed to generate the required kFw. Once again, this seems to decline, and often the production versus time behavior for
favor water frac treatments. wells with the different type stimulations will actually cross
This economic analysis was conducted and presented21 after 1 to 2 years, though more typically, production versus
under a specific gas price scenario. However, the “general” time behavior for the two types of fracs, in a particular area,
statements would be true for ANY reasonable economic just tend to merge. (Note that for the two comparisons in the
situation. That is, the smaller well spacing leads to figure, the top plot is taken from SPE 3861116, while the
shorter desired fracture penetrations, and the shorter fractures
require less conductivity. Figure 3 – ETCV Water Frac Performance, SPE 38611
Clearly, field densification was one major driving factor in
switching to water fracs, with the other major question being –
X-Link Frac
how did they perform. The answer to that is clearly – 1,100,000 lb
comparable.

Gas Rate (MCFD)

1,500 X-Link Frac
520,000 lb
Figure 2 – Effect of Well Spacing on Optimum Frac XF
1,000 Water Frac
800 82,000 lb
10,000 ft Reservoir w/
640 Acres
0.01 md permeability
600
Net Present Value, m$

500
320 Acres

400
160 Acres
100 200 300 400 500
200
80 Acres
TIME (days)
0 ETCV Field Comparison, Devon energy Corporation
Optimum Fracture

(200)
(Average for 10 Wells)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 1,400

Gel Fracs
Production (MCFD)

Fracture Half Length, feet

1,200 3.2 BCF for 10 Wells
pp
Concentration 1,000
1,000
8 ppg
5 ppg 800
800
Net Present Value, m$

600
400
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(200)
0 500
Fracture Half Length, feet
That is, taken as a whole, post water-frac production is
generally comparable (but different) from post-gel frac
production. It is NOT correct to say that water fracs are better
than gel fracs, though there are certainly comparisons where
that is true. It is also NOT correct to say that gel fracs are
better, though again there are certainly situations where this is
also true. In general, though, it is clear that “water fracs
work”.
However, there do seem to be behavior differences, with
about 70% of the cases reviewed showing the production
behavior seen in Figure 3. That is, gel fracs tended to have
higher initial flow rates, and then a faster, more normal
“fractured well” decline behavior. Wells with water frac
2 ppg
10,000 ft Reservoir w/ 0.01 md permeability
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
600
Water Fracs
400
2.2 BCF for 10 Wells
200
TIME (months post-frac)
3,000 bottom plot was furnished by Devon Energy Corporation. The
bottom plot represents the sum of production from 20 wells –
10 water frac wells, and 10 much larger gel frac wells – all
within a reasonably small area of one of the ETCV fields.)
Another example is shown as Figure 4, a series of
production curves comparing actual water-frac performance to
the anticipated well performance based on an analysis of gel
frac well performance in the Blocker Field (BP)22. This figure
shows reasonable comparison between water-frac and gel frac
performance. Note, however, that some of the water-fracs
were better and some worse than the average gel frac in the
area. Also note that the water-fracs represented in this figure
were 60% cheaper than the cross-linked gel fracs.
One final example23 of this is presented here from SPE
60285 in Figure 5. This discussion of the water fracs here was
an attempt to “normalize” the comparisons of gel versus water
4 SPE 102227

Figure 4: Water-Frac Stimulations in the Blocker Field Figure 5 – ETCV Water Frac Performance, SPE -60285

"Raw" Production

12-month Cum (MMCF)

2500 Blocker Well 1 600 Data
Blocker Well 2
Blocker Well 3
Blocker Well 4 500
2000 Blocker Well 5 Gel Fracs
Blocker Well 6
6 WELL AVERAGE 400
INITIAL PROJECTED AV
AVG. RATE Water Fracs

1500 300
MCFD

200
1000
100

500
Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
0 1 2 3 4
Months on Production
5 6
ETCV Field Comparison, Normalized Production

"Normalized"
Water Fracs

12-month Cum (MMCF)

fracs. That is, all of the comparisons made in earlier papers
were raw production comparisons with no information about
comparative formation quality, producing conditions history,
etc. This paper described a study where production results
were analyzed with consideration given to these variables,
with the results summarized in the figure. There is some
controversy about the “normalization” for flowing tubing
pressure in the “Normalized” results here, primarily
concerning how one accounts for liquid loading. However, in
general the conclusion is the same as with other papers on the
Cotton Valley water-fracs24-25. Water fracs are NOT better
than gel fracs, however they are comparable. Sometimes the
gel fracs are a “bit” better, and sometimes they may be
significantly better (as seen in Area 4), only occasionally are
the water fracs actually “better”. They may be, however,
much cheaper and thus a better economic alternative.
This evaluation yielded results that explain many of the
ETCV observations and leading to some general candidate
selection and water frac design guidelines. These guidelines
have been applied to actual well case histories to evaluate the
well/formation as a candidate for a low viscosity fracturing
treatment, and/or to arrive at a design pump schedule (at least
in terms of desired pump rate, total proppant volume require-
ments, etc.) for treatments throughout the world.
Water as a Fracturing Fluid
Again, from a “historical” perspective water has been used
as a fracturing fluid almost since fracturing was introduced 50
years ago. However, does simple water stack-up against
“modern”, viscous fluid systems?
A quick look at this question is seen in Figure 6. This is a
qualitative fluid selection/comparison chart prepared by NSI
several years ago in consultation with 8 or 10 engineers (from
operators & service companies). It is purely qualitative, and
subjective, but it is interesting and has always had one
surprising result – looking to the “sum” at the far right, one
sees that all fluids add up about the same! This chart was
added to as seen in the figure, with a quick comparison of
600 Production Data
Gel Fracs
500
400
300
200
100
Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
water versus probably the most common, popular current fluid
system, a delayed borate crosslink. While the highs/lows for
the various fluids probably need adjusting now that water is
included in the matrix, it still shows simple water adding up to
a pretty good fluid system.
Cleanliness – Water is clearly a very clean fluid and
should do minimal damage to the proppant pack conductivity.
Thus, water rates a little higher than a borate crosslink system
(which, when used with adequate breaker, is also a reasonably
clean fluid system).
Low Pump Pressure – Water pumps fairly “hard” (unless
significant friction reducer is added, and then it becomes
unclear that it still qualifies as a “water frac” – certainly the in
situ damage from the friction reducer would have to be
considered especially if polyacrylamide is used).
Viscosity – It is difficult to numerically rate viscosity, i.e.,
is high viscosity good, or bad? This was subdivided into three
items, two with numerical “scores”.
Proppant Transport – Clearly, water does a poor job of
suspending proppant, while the crosslink fluid gives
essentially perfect transport.
Stable – It is really not a desirable property for fluids to
enter a fracture with high viscosity, and then to have viscosity
SPE 102227 5

rapidly decrease. Thus, a fluid viscosity “stability” criterion
was included. Water does not have any viscosity, and thus is
inherently stable – what it has is what you get.
High/Low – High, or low, viscosity is not inherently good
or bad. In some cases, high viscosity may be desired to insure
height growth when trying to fracture a thick interval. In ano-
ther case, low viscosity may be desirable in order to minimize
net pressure and thus minimize height growth out-of-zone.
Thus, no “score” can be given for viscosity per se, it is strictly
case dependent.
Breaking – Clearly water is a perfect “5” as it is already
broken.
Compatibility – As with viscosity, this category was sub-
divided into three areas:
Formation/Formation Fluid – That is, is the fluid system
compatible with the formation, clay sensitivity, etc. In
addition, is the fracturing fluid compatible with the reservoir
fluid for emulsion, scale precipitation, etc. For this case, both
systems are just water, so they each receive a “3”.
Reservoir Pressure – For under-pressure or depleted
formations, energized fluids such as foams may help with
cleanup. Both water and a crosslink gel are “just water”, so
again both receive a score of “3”.
Natural Fissures – That is, will the fluid do minimal
damage to natural fissure permeability. Clearly, water is a
minimally damaging fluid. In addition, the low net pressure
expected will tend to minimize the magnitude of any natural
fissure fluid loss as discussed previously.
Fluid Loss – Water offers essentially NO fluid loss control
while the cross-link gel offers effective fluid loss control over
a wide range of conditions. Note, however, in tight formation
gas reservoirs where the reservoir quality (or lack thereof)
controls leak-off there is no clear advantage to either fluid
with respect to leak-off.
Cheap – Clearly for a massive fracture treatment this is an
important category, and water is about the most inexpensive
fluid there is.
Again, looking at the “sum”, water is a good fracturing
fluid. It is simply a tool that had been somewhat forgotten
except for “natural fissure cleanliness” applications. For the
ETCV, some areas where water ranks poorly are relatively
unimportant. For example, there is no concern with for-
mation/formation fluid compatibility, nor is there any need for
energized fluids for compatibility with low reservoir pressure.
Finally, with formation permeability to gas on the order of
0.005 to 0.01 md, fluid loss is not a major concern.
Unpropped Conductivity26
With any form of low viscosity fluid fracturing, proppant
settling is a major issue and concern, and as discussed in the
study, failure to achieve sufficient vertical pay coverage with
the propped fracture can seriously reduce productivity and re-
serves. However, extensive lab data27, both in the literature
and conducted as part of this study show that Cotton Valley
rock can sustain some “unpropped conductivity” even when
exposed to minor volumes of guar (i.e., such as might occur if
slick water is used to reduce pumping pressure and thus, allow
higher rates) and to typical values of in situ stress and stress
cycling. The new lab data is described in detail within the
study.
This “unpropped conductivity” is far too small to support
production over any meaningful fracture length, but can be ef-
fective at improving vertical pay coverage where the distance
down to the proppant bed may be only 10, or 20, or 50 feet –
as pictured in Figure 7. If unpropped conductivity can provide
the vertical pay coverage, then it does become possible to
place sand large distances from the well using water.
Anecdotally, it is interesting that the information leading to
the potential for water fracs was probably available since the
early original development of the ETCV by Amoco. It was
just that the economics and well spacing dictated the need for
LONG fractures. Still, all the following information was
available:

Figure 6 – Qualitative Fluid Selection/Comparison Chart

1 - Really Bad to 5 - EXCELLANT !
Qualitative Fluid Selection
Fluid Proppant Low Pump VISCOSITY Break- Compatibility Fluid
System KfW Pressure Prop-Transport Stable High/Low ing Formation/Fluid Reservoir Pres Natural Fracs Loss Cheap
Water** 5 3 1 5 Very Low 5 3 3 5 1 5 36
Delay Borate X-Link (160-280 F) 4 4 4 4 High 5 3 3 3 4 4 38
Linear Gel HPG/Guar (<130-150 F) 4 5 3 3 Low 5 3 3 3 5 34
Linear HEC Gel (< 180 F) 5 5 3 3 Low-Med 4 3 3 1 4 31
Borate X-Link (<180 F) 4 3 4 3 High 5 3 3 4 4 33
Delay Borate X-Link (160-280 F) 4 4 4 4 High 5 3 3 4 4 35
Delay Metallic X-Link (180 to 220 F) 2 4 5 4 High 2 3 3 4 4 31
Delay Metallic X-Link (220 to 280 F) 3 4 5 3 High-Med 3 3 3 4 4 32
Delay Metallic X-Link (280 to 350 F) 3 4 4 2 High-Med 4 3 3 4 4 31
Nitrogen Foam (< 5000 ft) 5 1 4 4 Med 5 5 5 5 (*) 2 36
CO2 Foam (5000-10000 ft) 5 1 4 4 Med 5 5 5 5 (*) 2 36
Poly Emulsion (up to 280 F) 4 2 4 4 Med 4 4 4 5 (*) 3 34
Lease Crude 4 3 2 3 Low-Med 5 5 4 2 3 31
Gelled Oil 2 4 4 4 Med 3 5 4 4 3 33
0
(*) - Good loss control for permeability < 1md (+/-)
(**) - NSI's Opinion Only
6 SPE 102227
Figure 7: Role of Unpropped kfw in Pay Coverage
Fluid Loss – Data was available showing that fluid loss to
water was essentially the same as fluid loss to gel. In fact, at
one point, there was some consideration given to using slick
water for the pad, but with only minimal cost advantages, the
idea was not pursued.
Height Growth – It was recognized that height growth was
a problem in the Upper Cotton Valley, and occasionally in the
Taylor zone, and the use of a low viscosity fluid would have
mitigated this height growth.
Unpropped Conductivity – Multiple attempts were made
to perform pre-frac flow/PBU tests to determine formation
permeability. Almost without exception, with no stimulation
the wells would not flow at sufficient rates to allow any
testing. At that point, small KCl water ballout breakdowns
would be pumped. However, the PBU results would then show
a short, conductive fracture with sufficient fracture length that
radial flow could not be reached within a reasonable time.
Thus, field data was available showing some unpropped
conductivity even for large pressure draw down.
Zone Thickness-Zone thickness is also a major variable in
the success of water fracs. In areas where production is
dominated by a thick (> 100’) Taylor zone, water fracs have
generally under-performed gel fracs. There are several
possible contributors to this.
Vertical Coverage by Fracture – For the very thick Taylor
zones (150 to 200+ feet), natural variations in closure stress
and/or depletion induced differences may easily channel a
water frac into only fracturing some part of the total zone
thickness. In the case of depletion induced stress differences,
this is doubly damaging. The fracture fails to contact the entire
pay with the associated loss of reserves, and what production
is realized is from parts of the pay already being produced.
Flow Velocity – The key to creating/propping long
fractures with water is VELOCITY. For a thick interval, if the
fracture penetrates the entire zone vertically, the resulting
large fracture height (& width) results in relatively low flow
velocity along the fracture and correspondingly short propped
fracture length.
Vertical Coverage by Proppant – A final potential effect is
that achieving sufficient proppant coverage over a thick pay
interval is difficult.
Water Frac Guidelines
The purpose of this evaluation is to investigate the
application of water frac stimulation technology and establish
guidelines or criteria for their successful application. Over the
course of the last few years an extensive review of actual East
Texas Cotton Valley water frac and gel frac stimulation data
as well as laboratory tests, three dimensional (3D) reservoir
simulations, and three dimensional fracture modeling has led
to the development of water frac application guidelines. These
guidelines though established primarily through a review of
Cotton Valley data have been tested via successful application
in other Tight Formation Gas (TFG) basins in North America
and throughout the world. The subsequent sections review and
detail the water frac guidelines developed through this review.
As a result of our review and evaluation of the water-frac
process and field applications, a series of general criteria
and/or guidelines for the successful application of water-fracs
has been developed. Obviously, treated water can be and has
been used as a fracturing fluid in many places and for many
reasons. The purpose of these guidelines, however, is to
outline the criteria necessary for water frac stimulations to
achieve the desired objectives (length and conductivity) for a
given reservoir. In addition, these guidelines presuppose that
the reservoir of interest is a viable target for fracture
stimulation (i.e. permeable hydrocarbon bearing formation
with adequate reserves to warrant rate acceleration and
potential reserve growth). As a result, there are reservoir
quality, geomechanical, and fracture design limitations to the
successful application of water frac technology.
These guidelines include:
1. Horizontal permeability should be less than 0.1
md,
2. Vertical permeability should be greater than or
equal to one tenth of the horizontal permeability,
3. Unpropped (hydraulically created) fracture
conductivity must be greater than 0.01 mdft,
4. The propped height should cover a minimum of
fifty percent of the pay height,
5. Some in-situ stress to contain fracture geometry is
required,
6. Leak-off should be less than 0.002 ft/min1/2,
7. Young’s Modulus should be less than 7.5 x106
psi,
8. Pump Rate required to provide fracture width
three times the proppant diameter without
violating the fourth criteria on fracture
containment,
9. Pad fraction should not exceed fifty percent
(50%) of the total slurry volume,
10. Stimulation design should achieve at least 1,200
gallons per foot of gross pay stimulated and/or
660 pounds of proppant per foot of gross pay
stimulated.
SPE 102227 7

11. At least the lower two thirds of a sand interval
should be perforated,
12. Water fracs must be significantly cheaper than
conventional fracture stimulations, and
13. Near Wellbore Pressure Losses should be
minimal.
Next, each of these criteria will be reviewed and placed
into context of field applicability. These guidelines include
reservoir quality, geomechanical, and fracture design
considerations that must be addressed to successfully place
and produce a water-frac. First, the reservoir quality criteria
conductivity (i.e. FCD = 2) provided the reservoir permeability
is on the order of 0.1 md or less. Conducting water fracs in
reservoirs with permeability in excess of 0.1 md is strongly
discouraged as well performance will suffer due to lack of
fracture conductivity and the increased leak-off and resulting
fluid volume requirements will negate any cost benefits that
have been realized in lower permeability environments.
Figure 8: Basis of Horizontal Permeability Criteria
100000

will be reviewed.

Fracture Conductivity, mdft

FCD =10
Reservoir Quality Limitations 10000

Upper Bound on Water Frac kfw

There are several reservoir parameters that are of primary 1000 FCD = 2
interest to the application of water-fracs. These include
horizontal permeability, vertical permeability, and propped
fracture height/ sand thickness ratio. These reservoir 100

limitations are primarily the result of the ability/inability to

achieve adequate fracture conductivity horizontally and/or
vertically in the propped and unpropped portion of the water 10

Lower Bound on Water Frac kfw

frac. The first criterion deals with horizontal permeability.
1
Horizontal Permeability Criteria: kh < 0.1 md 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

The application of water-fracs should be limited to
reservoirs that have less than 0.1 md permeability. The
inability of treated water to transport proppant concentrations
in excess of a few pounds per gallon limits the achievable
fracture conductivity and pay coverage. A series of water frac
simulations were conducted for a wide variety of reservoir
conditions. Figure 8 shows a plot of fracture conductivity
versus reservoir permeability derived from these simulations.
Highlighted on this figure are two black diagonal lines that
represent the fracture conductivities required to achieve
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivities, FCD, of 2 and 10,
respectively, for a given permeability. Prats and others have
shown that the optimum fracture assuming steady state flow
has an FCD of 2. Thus, the FCD = 2 line represents a minimum
requirement for water frac success. It should be restated that
the optimum FCD of 2 is based on steady state flow and, thus,
neglects the production benefits of conductivity during
transient flow conditions that can be of significant duration
and economic importance especially in low permeability
reservoirs. In addition to the work of Prats, more recent
studies of fracture fluid cleanup with conventional frac fluids
suggest that an FCD of 10 may be required to achieve a clean
effective fracture. Fracture cleanup considerations may
Permeability, md
Vertical Permeability Criteria: kv = 0.1 kh
In either single layer or multiple layer productive sand
environments the application of water-fracs should be limited
to those reservoirs with vertical permeability on the order of
ten percent of the horizontal permeability. This guideline is
based on the assumption that the water frac design is required
to hydraulically communicate the entire sand body and
achieve at least fifty percent (50%) fracture fill up. The greater
the height of fracture fill up, the less stringent the vertical
permeability requirement becomes (i.e. a water frac with one
hundred percent (100%) fracture fill up requires no vertical
permeability. Figure 9 shows the results of reservoir
simulations that were the basis for the vertical permeability
criteria. Shown is a plot of production (1/q) versus time that
indicates that when the propped fracture extends to at least
fifty percent of the pay height (i.e. 50% fill up) and the
Figure 9: Basis of Vertical Permeability Criteria
1000.00000
100 % Propped Fracture, kfw= 37.5 mdft, kv=kh
100 % Propped Fracture, kfw= 37.5 mdft, kv= 0

provide an additional window of opportunity for the 60 % Propped Fracture, kfw1= 0.00001 mdft, kfw2= 62.5 mdft, kv= 0.1kh

100.00000 60 % Propped Fracture, kfw1= 0.00001 mdft, kfw2= 62.5 mdft, kv= 0.01kh
application of “clean” treated water stimulations. 60 % Propped Fracture, kfw1= 0.00001 mdft, kfw2= 62.5 mdft, kv= 0.001kh
1 / q, 1/mscfpd

Further analysis of Figure 8 shows the upper and lower

When greater than 50% of the
bounds for water frac conductivities derived from the fracture 10.00000 fracture is propped and kv = 0.1kh __
simulations. These simulations were based on the water frac Minimal Production Impact! All F CD = 5.00
satisfying all of the established “success criteria” (i.e.
reservoir quality, geomechanical, and fracture design 1.00000
guidelines). Water frac stimulations can not be expected to 25% Reduction in Well Productivity
compete with conventional gel fracture stimulations when a is Indicated if kv < 0.1 kh!
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity of 2 is not achievable. 0.10000
0 1 10 100 1000 10000
As shown in Figure 8, a water frac can achieve sufficient
Time, days
8 SPE 102227

vertical permeability is at least ten percent of the horizontal fill up is deemed unlikely with water as the transport fluid)
permeability, no production loss is experienced. On the other would be five feet. Thus, most of the U. S. tight formation gas
hand, a twenty five percent productivity loss is experienced if basins would be poor targets for the application of water frac
the vertical permeability is less than ten percent of the technology, including the East Texas Cotton Valley
horizontal permeability even if the fifty percent fill up criteria Formation. Note that laboratory tests of Cotton Valley core
is met. The magnitude of the production loss is established under confining pressure indicated retained unpropped
through a comparison to a propped fracture that fully fracture conductivities of 0.1 md-ft. While gas was able to
penetrates the entire pay interval having the same flow through the core under these conditions water was not.
dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD. As shown in Figure Therefore, the application of water frac technology should be
9, when such a fracture is created (i.e. propped fracture fully further limited to dry gas reservoirs. In addition, the critical
penetrates pay) the production behavior is independent of the nature of this criteria suggests that core from any reservoir
vertical permeability. with potential application should be tested under confining
pressure to estimate the unpropped fracture conductivity.
Unpropped Fracture Conductivity > 0.01 md-ft
Propped Fracture Height to Gross Sand Thickness
The application of water-fracs should be limited to Criteria: Hpf > 0.5 h (50% fill up)
reservoirs where the unpropped fracture conductivity exceeds
0.01 md-ft. It should be recognized that poor water-frac Figure 10 suggests that fracture fill up plays an important
proppant transport has implications on the desired sand role in the successful application of water frac technology. As
thickness. In hydrocarbon bearing sands, the proppant settles a result, the application of water-fracs should be limited to
to the bottom of the fracture potentially mitigating the reservoirs where the propped fracture height covers a
stimulation benefits unless the unpropped hydraulic fracture minimum of fifty percent of the gross pay height. It should be
retains conductivity once the fracture closes. The implication recognized that poor water-frac proppant transport has
of a lack of unpropped conductivity is a loss of reserves in a implications on the desired sand thickness. In thick sands, the
tight formation gas reservoir.
Figure 10 shows the results of reservoir simulations that Figure 11: Basis of H Criteria (Gross Pay vs. Propped xf)
formed the basis of the unpropped fracture conductivity 1000.00000 100 % Propped Fracture, kfw= 37.5 mdft, kv=kh
criteria. Shown is a plot of the minimum unpropped fracture 100 % Propped Fracture, kfw= 37.5 mdft, kv= 0

conductivity required versus sand thickness for proppant fill 60 % Propped Fracture, kfw1 = 0.1 mdft, kfw2 = 166.1 mdft, kv = 0.1 kh
40 % Propped Fracture, kfw1 = 0.1 mdft, kfw2 = 248.9 mdft, kv = 0.1 kh
up percentages of 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent. This plot was 100.00000
20 % Propped Fracture, kfw1 = 0.1 mdft, kfw2 = 187.1 mdft, kv = 0.1 kh
developed for cases with no vertical permeability assuming
1 /q , 1/mscfpd

minimal productivity impairment (i.e. defined as a When greater than 50% of the fracture is
productivity loss of ten percent at ten days and five percent at 10.00000 propped There is Minimal Production Impact!
thirty days as compared to a fully penetrating and propped
fracture with a comparable Dimensionless Fracture
__
Conductivity). As shown, with an unpropped fracture 1.00000
All F CD = 5.00
conductivity of 0.01 md-ft, the maximum allowable sand
thickness without productivity impairment for the proppant fill
up criteria is 6, 10, 16, and 45 feet, respectively. If this 0.10000
0 1 10 100 1000 10000
criterion was extended to an unpropped fracture conductivity Time, days
of 0.001 md-ft, the maximum sand thickness for a water frac
with a designed sixty percent fill up ratio (i.e. eighty percent proppant settles to the bottom of the fracture potentially
Figure 10: Basis of unpropped kfw criteria mitigating the stimulation benefits unless at least fifty percent
fill up is achieved. In thin sand interval applications, poor
10.0000
All FCD = 5.00
proppant transport can result in banking of the proppant,
Minimum Unpropped kfw Required

20 % Fillup limited extension, and increasing treating pressures as the

1.0000 ETCV 40 % Fillup proppant packs back to the wellbore (i.e. premature screen-
Lab kfw
60 % Fillup out).
0.1000 Figure 11 shows the results of reservoir simulations that
80 % Fillup formed the basis of the propped fracture height to gross sand
0.0100
thickness (i.e. 50% fill up) criteria. Shown is a plot of
Assuming kv = 0 and maximum unpropped kfw = 0.01 mdft:
production (1/q) versus time that indicates that when the
20 % Fillup, maximum sand thickness is 6 feet
40 % Fillup, maximum sand thickness is 10 feet
propped fracture extends to at least fifty percent of the gross
0.0010
60 % Fillup, maximum sand thickness is 16 feet
80 % Fillup, maximum sand thickness is 45 feet
pay height (i.e. 50% fill up) and the vertical permeability is at
least ten percent of the horizontal permeability, no production
0.0001
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
loss as compared to a fully penetrating propped fracture is
Sand Thickness, feet experienced. Further investigation of Figure 11 shows that a
significant production penalty occurs if the propped fracture
SPE 102227 9

does not achieve fifty percent of the gross pay height. As
shown, a twenty five percent loss in productivity is
experienced if the fracture penetrates only twenty percent of
the gross pay thickness. In addition, the productivity loss
occurs early in the productive life of the well when the
greatest detrimental impact to net present value is realized.
Also, note there is little difference between a fracture that
penetrates twenty or forty percent of the gross pay height.
Both experience similar productivity losses. One final point
regarding this propped fracture height to gross sand thickness
criteria is that the greater the interval thickness, the greater the
volume of proppant required to achieve a fifty percent (50%)
fill up and the smaller the cost advantage over conventional
crosslinked polymer fracture stimulations.
Further analysis of Figure 11 indicates that the maximum
sand thickness target for the successful application of water
frac technology in the East Texas Cotton Valley Formation
(i.e. defined by no detrimental production impact as compared
to a fully propped fracture) using the fifty percent fill up
criteria is forty feet. Interestingly, water frac technology has
been successfully applied to the Taylor Formation (i.e. lowest
Cotton Valley sand) in the Carthage Field where the Taylor
sand is less than fifty feet thick and with more limited success
in the Woodlawn Field where it is in excess of one hundred
feet thick.
These reservoir criteria should be strictly adhered to for the
successful application of water fracs in other basins because
failing to meet any or all of these reservoir guidelines results
in severe early life productivity losses that detrimentally
impact well economics. It should be noted that in the
development of these guidelines, it was never found that water
frac productivity and/or recovery could be in excess of a fully
penetrating propped fracture. That is, water fracs do not and
have not outperformed conventional gel fracs in areas where
they have been successfully applied. They have performed as
well as conventional gel fracs at lower treatment costs. As a
result, if significant stimulation cost reductions are not
achievable in the reservoir with water frac application
potential then the application of water fracs should be
vigorously challenged.
Figure 12 a & b: Final Water Frac Profile as a Function In-Situ Stress Contrast
Geomechanical Limitations
There are numerous geomechanical parameters that are of
interest to the application of water-fracs. These include
fracture geometry, leak-off, and Young’s Modulus. These
geomechanical limitations are primarily the result of the
ability/inability to achieve the objective propped fracture
dimensions (fracture fill up, fracture length, and fracture
conductivity).
Fracture Geometry: Some Fracture Containment (In-
Situ Stress Contrast >> 0 psi)
The application of water-fracs should be limited to
reservoirs where there is an in-situ stress contrast between the
sand and bounding beds such that some fracture containment
is anticipated. The primary failure mechanism for water fracs
is poor proppant transport. Any proppant pumped in treated
water begins settling to the bottom of the fracture as soon as it
enters the perforations (if it waits that long). If no in-situ stress
contrast exists between the pay sand and surrounding barriers,
“radial” fracture propagation will occur and the proppant will
settle to the bottom of the fracture (likely below the perforated
interval). This is the description of a “failed” water frac
stimulation. Although stress contrast is an important criterion,
complete fracture containment is not necessary for successful
application of water fracs. An ideal case for the application of
water-fracs, for example, is where “marginal confinement”
exists. Marginal confinement is defined as sufficient in-situ
stress contrast to contain a fracture propagated with treated
water while insufficient to contain a fracture pumped with a
conventional viscous fracturing fluid. In this application, post
water frac production may actually out perform conventional
fracturing fluids. Figure 12 a-d show the results of “fully 3D”
fracture simulations investigating the effect of in-situ stress
contrast on successful water frac applications. This series of
figures shows the final fracture profile (i.e. proppant
distribution in pounds per square feet) as a function of depth
for in-situ sand/shale stress contrasts of 0, 250, 500, and 1,000
psi, respectively. These figures highlight the dramatic impact

(a) No In-Situ Stress Contrast (Hpf = 0%) (b) 250 psi In-Situ Stress Contrast (Hpf = 35%)

Stress (psi) PSF 132.95 min Stress (psi) PSF 95.91 min
TVD
9600 TVD
0.000 0.000
9700 0.072
0.064
9700
0.128 0.145
Shale
Shale

0.193 9800 0.217

9800 0.289
0.257
psf
psf

0.321 0.362
9900
9900 0.385 0.434
0.449 0.506
10000 0.513 10000 0.579
0.578 0.651
Shale
Shale

10100 0.642 10100 0.723

0.393 m/sec 0.393 m/sec
10200
7200 7600 8000 100 200 300 400 500 600 7170 7610 211 422 633 844 1055 1266
Fracture Penetration(ft) Fracture Penetration(ft)
10 SPE 102227

Figure 12 c & d: Final Water Frac Profile as a Function In-Situ Stress Contrast

(c) 500 psi In-Situ Stress Contrast (Hpf = 40%) (d) 1,000 psi In-Situ Stress Contrast (Hpf = 65%)

Stress (psi) PSF 67.34 min Stress (psi) 40.73 min

0.000 0.000
TVD 0.076 TVD 0.082
Shale

Shale
9900 0.153 9975 0.165
0.229 0.247
0.306 0.329

psf

psf
0.382 0.412
10000 10000
0.458 0.494

Pay
0.535 0.576
0.611 0.659
Shale

10100 0.688 10025 0.741

0.764 0.823

Shale
0.393 m/sec 0.393 m/sec

7170 7610 1103 2206 3309 6975 7525 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Fracture Penetration(ft) Fracture Penetration(ft)

of in-situ stress contrast on the ability to successfully place
and produce a water frac. Figure 12a shows that having “some
fracture containment” is important as all of the proppant, in
this radial fracture, settled below the pay interval. While
Figures 12b and 12c achieved some level of fracture fill up
(i.e. 35 and 40%, respectively), only the 1,000 psi in-situ stress
contrast case shown in Figure 12d achieved in excess of fifty
percent fill up as required based on reservoir considerations.
Interestingly, this happens to be the in-situ stress contrast
measured in the Upper and Taylor sands of the Cotton Valley
Formation in East Texas.
Leak-off Limitations: kh < 0.1 md or
ft/min1/2)
The application of water-fracs should be limited to
reservoirs with low leak-off (i.e. low permeability reservoirs).
In higher permeability high leak-off applications the inability
to create sufficient fracture conductivity for optimal
Figure 13: Basis of Leak-Off Guideline
0.1
High Leak-Off:
kr =0.5 k
Leak-Off Coefficient, ft/min^0.5
productivity is critical. In addition, high leak-off applications
further limit the ability to create fracture width and length
necessary for proppant placement. In low permeability
applications (i.e. less than 0.05 md), the leak-off with treated
water has been found to be similar to the leak-off with
conventional crosslinked polymer fluids. For example, a leak-
off coefficient with treated water has been measured as low as
0.00025 ft/min1/2 in one North American Tight Formation Gas
(TFG) reservoir. Though this guideline should not be
considered a strict criterion for the successful application of
water fracs, leak-off coefficient is an extremely important
design criterion and therefore, must always be considered.
(Ct < 0.0050
Young’s Modulus: Width limit << E <<Height growth
The application of water-fracs should be limited to
formations with Young’s Modulus less than 7.5 x106 psi.
Young’s Modulus is an important geomechanical
consideration to the extent that it impacts net treating pressure,
fracture width, and potential fracture height growth. The
impact of Modulus is nearly direct and can somewhat be offset
by increased pump rate although with potentially deleterious
effects on net treating pressure and fracture geometry.

δp = 5,000 psi
μf = 0.4 cp
Equation 1 shows a simplified equation for net treating
pi = 1,000 psi pressure (at the wellbore) for a contained height fracture,
0.01

East Texas Cotton

Valley Conditions Table I: Basis of Young’s Modulus Guideline
Low Leak-Off:
E, Ps, Gross Hprop, Fill Avg xf,
0.001 kr =0.1 k
δp = 1,000 psi
x106 psi psi Hf, ft ft Up, w, ft
μf = 0.8 cp % in
pi = 10,000 psi
1.0 241 26 14.5 58.0 0.09 1346
0.0001
2.5 461 27 15.0 60.0 0.07 1444
0.01 0.1 1 10 5.0 695 41 16.0 64.0 0.05 1260
Reservoir Permeability, md 7.5 846 67 16.2 64.8 0.04 1238
10.0 909 113 9.5 38.0 0.04 845
SPE 102227 11

where Pump Rate Limitations: Width limit << BPM

<<Height growth<< % Fill Up
1/ 4
⎧⎪ E 4 ⎛ μ Q x f ⎞ K Ic−app
4
⎫⎪
pnet ∝ ⎨ 4 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎬ ………………(1) The application of water-fracs should be limited to pump
⎪⎩ H ⎝ E ⎠ H2 ⎪⎭ rates in excess of 20 BPM and less than the lower of the pump
rates required to (1) overcome in-situ stress contrasts resulting
in radial fracture geometry or (2) achieve fifty percent (50%)
the first term represents the viscous pressure drop of a
fill up. The lower rate restriction results from the limited
Newtonian fluid flowing along a narrow fracture and the
ability of treated water to initiate and propagate a fracture of
second term represents the “tip extension pressure” assuming
sufficient width to transport and place proppant while the
the fracture has a one-half penny shaped tip with a radius of
upper rate limit is due to fracture geometry considerations or
H/2. Normally this second term can be ignored for
in the event of fracture containment, fracture fill up
conventional fracturing in “hard” rock with a Young’s
considerations (i.e. must achieve at least fifty percent fill up).
Modulus in excess of 1 x 106 psi, however, water fracs aren’t
To establish a pump rate design criteria for water frac
“conventional fracturing” and the low fluid viscosity results in
stimulations a series of “fully 3D” fracture simulations were
the tip effects being a potentially significant contributor to the
conducted assuming perfect or nearly perfect fracture
total net treating pressure developed during a water frac.
confinement (i.e. >>> in-situ stress contrast) for various pay
Further inspection of equation 1 shows the effect of Young’s
thicknesses (i.e. gross fracture height equals the sand
Modulus on net treating pressure is nearly direct. As a result,
thickness). Figure 14 shows the resulting plot of propped
increasing Young’s Modulus reduces fracture width and
fracture height (% fill up) versus pump rate for sand
conductivity (reference Figure 8) while at the same time
thicknesses ranging from 10 to 100 feet. Highlighted on this
increases net treating pressure and the potential for
plot are the data and best-fit equations for the 10, 20, and 50-
uncontrolled fracture height growth (reference Figure 12).
100 foot sand thicknesses. As shown, extremely good
Since Modulus directly impacts the water frac process the best
correlations were established by this analysis for all heights
method to highlight its impact is through a series of “fully 3D”
investigated. For example, the worst correlation coefficient,
fracture simulations. First, let’s reference as our point of
R2, determined in this analysis was 0.9576 (10 foot case).
origin, Figure 12d. This case consists of an in-situ stress
Further analysis of this data using the fifty percent fill up
contrast of 1,000 psi, a Young’s Modulus of 5 x 106 psi, and a
criteria indicates that the maximum allowable pump rate and
leak-off coefficient of 0.0012 ft/min1/2. The water frac results
achieve fifty percent fill up can be estimated from equation 2.
of this simulation gave a final net treating pressure of 695 psi,
a gross fracture height of 41 feet, propped fracture height of
16 feet (65% of pay height), and an average fracture width of Qmax ≤ [ 1.2619 ∗ H net + 42.626 ] ……………………(2)
0.05 inches. Using the fracture simulator, Young’s Modulus
was varied and a series of simulations conducted. The results The correlation coefficient of this equation was 0.9406. It
of these simulations are summarized in Table 1. As shown, the should be recognize that the use of equation 2 establishes one
final net treating pressure, Ps, is nearly directly related to estimate of the maximum allowable pump rate based solely on
Modulus. The larger the Modulus the higher the net treating proppant fill up considerations. This rate estimate should be
pressure and the larger the gross fracture height. The effect of tested through fracture simulation to ensure that the fracture
Modulus on fracture width is also significant although as the geometry guideline is satisfied. The lower of the rates
Modulus increases the width gets smaller. Of more importance determined from either equation 2 or the fracture geometry
to this analysis is the effect of Modulus on fracture half-length calculations becomes the upper bound on pump rate for
and propped fracture height. As shown, fracture half length successful implementation of water fracs.
generally declined with increasing Modulus although the
average fracture volume stayed fairly consistent. The propped Figure 14: Basis of Pump Rate Criteria
fracture height met the fifty percent fill up criteria for all of
the simulations except for a Young’s Modulus in excess of 7.5 120.0

x 106 psi.
100.0
Propped Height, % Fill Up

Fracture Design Limitations 80.0

-0.2846
y = 187.39x
2
R = 0.9886
There are several fracture design limitations of interest to 60.0

the application of water-fracs. These include pump rate, pad >50'

-0.3704
y = 238.54x
20'
fraction, fluid and proppant volume requirements, completion 40.0
2
R = 0.9769

10'
interval, treatment cost, and Near Wellbore Pressure Loss -0.3877
y = 230.31x
2
R = 0.9576
20.0
(NWBPL). These design criteria are primarily the result of the
ability/inability to achieve sufficient fracture width to
0.0
transport and place proppant to achieve the objective fracture 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

dimensions (fracture length and fracture conductivity). Pump Rate, BPM

12 SPE 102227

Further investigation of Figure 14 establishes the minimum
pump rate criteria. As shown, nearly one hundred percent fill
up is achieved at the lower pump rates (i.e. less than 20 BPM).
Analysis of the fracture simulations for rates less than 20 BPM
show that the proppant starts to bridge and treating pressure
begins to rise as the proppant begins to pack back to the
wellbore. As a result, 20 BPM becomes a practical pump rate
limit on the water frac process. Interestingly, as long as the
vertical permeability is at least ten percent of the horizontal
permeability there is no real benefit associated with fully
penetrating and propping the pay. As a result, there is no
reason to push the treatment execution envelope and risk a
screen-out by pumping water fracs at low pump rates to
achieve fill up.
Pad Fraction Criteria: 10%> Pf < 50% of the treatment
volume
The pad fraction utilized in a water frac should typically be
ten to twenty percent of the treatment and never larger than
fifty percent of the treatment volume. In conventional
crosslinked polymer stimulations (i.e. perfect transport) the
pad has two distinct yet important functions. These are to (1)
Create sufficient width and propagate the fracture and (2) act
as sacrificial fluid for leak-off such that when the pumps are
shut down the last drop of pad fluid has just leaked off. In
water frac stimulation designs, the first pad objective is
extremely important since development of fracture width is
difficult with treated water (i.e. any low viscosity fluid). The
second objective of the pad is significantly less important in
water fracs, however. This is because treated water is not a
perfect transport fluid and as the slurry is pumped down the
fracture, proppant is settling, and additional treated water
becomes available for leak-off considerations (i.e. pad fluid
constantly being replenished as proppant settles out of slurry).
To establish a pad fraction design criteria for water frac
stimulations a series of fracture simulations were conducted
assuming perfect or nearly perfect fracture confinement (i.e.
>>> in-situ stress contrast) for various pay thicknesses (i.e.
gross fracture height equals the sand thickness). Figure 15
shows the resulting plot of propped fracture height (% fill up)
versus pump rate for pad fractions ranging from ten (10%) to
seventy five percent (75%). Highlighted on this plot are the
Figure 15: Basis of the Pad Fraction Criteria
120.0
data and best-fit equations for pad fractions of 20 and 75
percent, respectively. As shown, extremely good correlations
were developed (i.e. correlation coefficients in excess of 0.95).
Analysis of this plot shows that for any acceptable pump rate
(i.e. pump rates in excess of 20 BPM) the 75% pad fraction
case fails to meet the fifty percent fill up criteria. In addition,
the 20 % pad fraction case achieves fifty percent fill up for all
practical pump rates (i.e. less than 100 BPM). Note that the
10% pad fraction dataset followed the 20% dataset fairly well
especially at pump rates in excess of 30 BPM. At rates less
than 30 BPM some proppant bridging was occurring resulting
in increasing pressures and proppant packing back to the
wellbore. As a result of these simulation outcomes, a
minimum pad fraction of 20 % is recommended unless
rigorous design simulations indicate significant benefits from
further pad reduction. A twenty percent pad fraction is a
reasonable lower limit on design even though a pad fraction of
only 8% has been successfully placed in a North American
Tight Formation Gas reservoir. In the East Texas Cotton
Valley Formation, the typical water frac pad fraction is fifty
percent of the treatment primarily due to pumping charge
considerations, however.
Water Frac Design Criteria: Fluid Volume>1,200
gals/ft and Prop Volume >660 lbs/ft
The next water frac treatment design guideline has to do
with the amount of treated water and proppant to be pumped
and placed in a water frac stimulation. Once again, a series of
“fully 3D” fracture simulations were conducted assuming
perfect or nearly perfect fracture confinement (i.e. >>> in-situ
stress contrast) for various fluid volumes per foot of pay. For
these simulations, a typical East Texas design utilizing a pad
fraction of fifty percent, and a 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 ppg stages
with 15, 15, 15, and 5% of the remaining fluid volume,
respectively. Figure 16 shows the resulting plot of propped
fracture height (% fill up) versus pump rate for fluid volumes
of 400 to 2,000 gallons per foot of pay. Given the stated
design assumption, this figure represents simulations of 220 to
1,100 pounds of proppant per foot of pay. Analysis of this plot
shows that for any acceptable pump rate (i.e. pump rates in
excess of 20 BPM) the 1,200 gallons per foot of pay (660
Figure 16: Basis of the Fluid/Proppant Volume Criteria
120
Water Frac Design:
% ppg
100 50.0 0.0
Propped Height, % Fill Up

15.0 0.5
100.0 15.0 1.0
Propped Height, % Fill Up

80 15.0 1.5
5.0 2.0
80.0 2,000 gals/ft
-0.332
y = 230.08x
2
60
R = 0.9527
Per Foot of Pay: 1,600 gals/ft
60.0
Fluid Prop
Pf = 20% 1,200 gals/ft
40 (gals) (lbs)
40.0 Pf = 75% 400 220 800 gals/ft
-0.2971
y = 157.94x
800 440
2
R = 0.996 20 1,200 660
400 gals/ft
20.0 1,600 880
2,000 1,100
0
0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Pump Rate, BPM
Pump Rate, BPM
SPE 102227
pounds of proppant per foot of pay) case meets the fifty
percent fill up criteria for all practical pump rates (i.e. less
than 100 BPM). Also note that the 400 gallons per foot and
800 gallons per foot cases (i.e. 220 pounds per foot and 440
pounds per foot) fail to meet the fifty percent fill up criteria
for nearly any acceptable rate (greater than 20 BPM). One
final note regarding the water frac designs used in this series
of simulations, they are based on the initial East Texas Cotton
Valley water fracs. After all, it was these treatments that had
established the target objective (i.e. treated water designs were
successfully executed, proppant placed, and production
comparable to conventional crosslinked polymer stimulations
established at reduced costs). Concentrations well in excess of
2 ppg have now been pumped with treated water throughout
North America. In addition, hybrid water frac designs (i.e.
combination of treated water in the pad and the low proppant
concentration stages and linear gel used to transport the higher
proppant concentration stages) with concentrations up to 6 ppg
have been successfully placed. Next, guidelines for
completion and perforating will be established.
Completion Criteria: Do Not Only Complete the Top of
the Pay
The next guideline to be developed is one based on the
optimum completion interval. In hydraulic fracturing in tight
formation gas reservoirs with conventional polymer based
fracturing fluids the completion interval, though important, is
less critical to the overall stimulation since the resulting
propped fractures are designed to fully penetrate the reservoir
Figure 17: Basis of the Completion Placement Guidelines
120.0
All Other Completion Scenarios:
All Pay Perforated,
100.0 Middle Third Perforated, or
Propped Height, % Fill Up
Bottom Third Perforated Resulted
In Excess of 50% Fill Up < 100 BPM!
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0 Top Third of
Pay Perforated
0.0
0 20 40 60 80
Pump Rate, BPM
and fully penetrating propped fractures tend to mitigate any
partial penetration effects (i.e. pseudo skins). Completion
designs for water fracs are critical, however, since treated
water is a poor transport fluid and achieving a fully
penetrating propped fracture is problematic at best (i.e. happy
to achieve fifty percent fill up). As a result, the placement of
the completion interval for optimal water frac stimulation was
investigated. To establish optimum completion design criteria
for water frac stimulations a series of fracture simulations
were conducted assuming perfect or nearly perfect fracture
confinement (i.e. >>> in-situ stress contrast) for completion
scenarios (i.e. top third of pay perforated, middle third of pay
13
perforated, bottom third of pay perforated, and/or all of the
pay perforated). Figure 17 shows the resulting plot of propped
fracture height (% fill up) versus pump rate for the various
completion practices. As shown, for all completion scenarios
except where only the top third of the pay was perforated, at
least fifty percent fill up was achieved for all practical rates
less than 100 BPM. In addition, an extremely good correlation
of the completion data (i.e. correlation coefficient nearly 0.95)
was computed. Further analysis of this plot shows that if the
top third of the pay interval is completed the water frac
stimulation fails to achieve fifty percent fill up, regardless of
the pump rate. This guideline is easy to recognize given
fracture geometry (i.e. little in-situ stress contrast)
considerations as previously identified and shown in Figure
12. However, these simulations considered near perfect
containment and the fact that the fifty percent fill up criteria
could not be achieved is significant. As a result of these
simulations, it is suggested that perforations be included in the
bottom third of the pay interval to ensure that perforations are
in communication with the fracture once the proppant settles
out.
Water Frac Must Be Significantly Cheaper than Gel
Frac: $WF<<< $GF
As mentioned previously, it has not been found anywhere
that water fracs out perform gel fracs. That is, water fracs do
not and have not made better wells than conventional gel fracs
even in areas like the East Texas Cotton Valley where they
have been successfully applied. They have performed as well
as conventional gel fracs at lower treatment costs. As a result,
if significant stimulation cost reductions are not achievable in
the reservoir of interest via application of water fracs, their
potential application should be vigorously challenged. On the
other hand, if the treated water fracture stimulations can be
performed for significantly less money than conventional gel
fracs, adherence to these guidelines can improve the chance of
success, where by, an economic success can be achieved.
-0.2957
y = 188.6x
2
Fracture Wellbore Communication: NWBPL < 500 psi
R = 0.9464
The use of treated water as a fracturing fluid should be
limited to areas that are not prone to near wellbore pressure
loss due to poor communication between the fracture and the
wellbore. Thus, the application of water-fracs should be
100 120
limited to areas with reasonable horizontal and vertical
stresses, where good perforating practices are utilized, and
where no near wellbore pressure losses have been noted. This
guideline is a very subjective one, in that, it is difficult if not
impossible to identify near wellbore pressure losses from
surface data and nearly every step down test conducted with
treated water with or without bottomhole pressure has
indicated a unit slope on a plot of friction pressure versus
slurry rate. Figure 18 shows a plot of frictional pressure drop
versus pump rate from a step down test conducted with treated
water. As shown, a best-fit line through this data has a slope of
1.2 psi per BPM. This nearly unit slope is representative (after
Warpinski) of a fracture that is narrower than the perforations.
This is not a surprising result since low viscosity treated water
14
was being injected through the perforations during the step
down test. An additional problem with the occurrence of Near
Wellbore Pressure Losses during a water frac stimulation is
Figure 18: Step Down Test with Treated Water
500
200
Friction (psi)
100
50
20
2.0 5.0 10
Slurry_Rate (BPM)
Slope 1.214
Conclusions
1. Water Frac production is not better than cross-linked
gel fracs but it is similar with significantly less
treatment costs.
2. We Do Need Some Proppant but in general it doesn’t
take as much with a clean fluid like water to achieve
the productivity results.
3. In general, success of the ETCV water fracs, and the
production behavior differences from gel fracs, are
predictable from normal hydraulic fracture design
considerations when the effects of unpropped fracture
conductivity are included.
4. The ability of Cotton Valley rock to maintain some
(though very low) “unpropped conductivity” is one
key to the success, and one key to identifying other
potential formations as candidates for water fracs. To
some extent, this overcomes the limitations of water
fracs to provide full vertical coverage of the fractured
formations.
5. Guidelines have been developed to identify water-
frac candidates and design water-frac treatments.
6. Hybrid treated water fracs are viable and can mitigate
many of the risks associated with treated water fracs.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all of the consortium members
for their insight and support. In addition, NSI Technologies,
Inc. wishes to thank Dr. Mohan Kelkar and Tulsa University
for supporting our Rock Mechanics Laboratory partnership.
Nomenclature
bf = fracture width (ft)
FCD = Dimensionless fracture conductivity
h = formation/fracture height (ft)
k = formation permeability (md)
kf = fracture permeability (md)
SPE 102227
kfbf = fracture conductivity (md-ft)
q = total well flow rate (bopd or Mscfd)
QD = Dimensionless non-Darcy flow parameter
M = Gas Molecular weight
xf = fracture half-length (ft)
References
1. Soliman, M. Y. and Hunt, J. L.: "Effect of Fracturing
Fluid and its Cleanup on Well Performance", paper SPE
14514 presented at the 1985 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia Nov. 6-8.
2. Samuelson, M. L., and Constein, V. G.: "Effects of High
Temperature on Polymer Degradation and Cleanup,"
paper SPE 36495 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 6-9.
3. Pope, D. S., Leung, L. K-W., Gulbis, J., Constein, V. G.:
"Effects of Viscous Fingering on Fracture Conductivity",
20 50 paper SPE 28511 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept.
25-28.
4. Voneiff, G. W., Robinson, B. M.,and Holditch, S. A.:
"The Effects of Unbroken Fracture Fluid on Gas Well
Performance", paper SPE 26664 presented at the 1993
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Oct. 3-6.
5. Penny, G. S. and Jin, L.: "The Use of Inertial Force and
Low Shear Viscosity to Predict Cleanup of Fracturing
Fluids within Proppant Packs", paper SPE 31096
presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Feb. 14-15.
6. Holditch, S. A. and Morse, R. A.: “The Effects of Non-
Darcy Flow on the Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured
Gas Wells”, JPT (Oct. 1976), 1169-1179.
7. Smith, M. B., Bale, A., Britt, L. K., Cunningham, L. E.,
Jones, J. R., Klein, H. H., and Wiley, R. P.: “An
Investigation of Non-Darcy Flow Effects on Hydraulic
Fractured Oil and Gas Well Performance,” paper SPE
90864 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Septt. 26-29.
8. Holditch, S. A.: “Factors Affecting Water Blocking and
Gas Flow from Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells”, JPT
(Dec. 1979), 1515-1524.
9. Pope, D. S., Britt, L. K., Constein, V. G., Anderson, A.,
and Leung, L. K-W.: "Field Study of Guar Removal from
Hydraulic Fractures", paper SPE 31094 presented at the
1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Feb. 14-15.
10. Willberg, D. M., Card, R. J., Britt, L. K., Samuel, M. M.,
England, K. E., Cawiezel, K. E., and Krus, H.:
“Determination of the Effect of Formation Water on
Fracture Fluid Cleanup Through Field Testing in the East
Texas Cotton Valley, paper SPE 38620 presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
11. May, E. A., Britt, L. K., and Nolte, K. G.:”The Effect of
Yield Stress on Fracture Fluid Cleanup,” paper SPE
38619 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
SPE 102227
12. Neghaban, S., Britt, L. K., Phenicie, T. H., and Nolte,
K.G.: “The Effect of Yield Stress on Fracture Fluid
Clean-up; Inclusion of Gravity Effects,” paper SPE 49038
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
13. Penny, G. S., and Jin, L.: "Report on the Investigation of
the Effects of Fracturing Fluids Upon the Conductivity of
Proppants, Proppant Flowback and Leakoff", 1995
Annual Report to the Members of the Proppant
Consortium, STIM-LAB, Inc., Duncan (February 1996).
14. Penny, G. S., and Jin, L.: "Report on the Investigation of
the Effects of Fracturing Fluids Upon the Conductivity of
Proppants, Proppant Flowback and Leakoff", Preliminary
1996 Annual Report to the Members of the Proppant
Consortium, STIM-LAB, Inc., Duncan (May 1996).
15. Shah, S. N., Lord, D. L., and Tan, H. C.: "Recent
Advances in the Fluid Mechanics and Rheology of
Fracturing Fluids", paper SPE 22391 presented at the
1992 SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering, Beijing, March 24-27.
16. Mayerhofer, M.J., Richardson, M.F., Walker, R.N., and
Meehan, D.N., Oehler, M.W., and Browning,
R.R.:”Proppants? We Don’t Need No Stinking
Proppants,” paper SPE 38611 presented at the 1997 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
17. Cottrell, T. L., Spronz, W. D., & Weeks, W. C., III,
“Hugoton Infill Program Uses Optimum Stimulation
Technique,” Oil & Gas J., July 11, 1988.
18. Warpinski, N.R.:”Hydraulic Fracturing in Tight Fissured
Media,” NMT 890020, presented at the Centennial
Symposium of Petroleum Technology into the Second
Century at New Mexico Tech., Socorro, NM, Oct. 1989.
19. 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,” SPE
23415, presented at the 1991 Coalbed Methane
Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL, May, 1991.
15
20. Britt, L.K., Hager, C.J., and Thompson, J.W.:”Hydraulic
Fracturing in a Naturally Fractured reservoir,” paper
SPE28717, presented at the SPE International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in Veracruz
Mexico, Oct. 10-13, 1994.
21. Britt, L. K, et al, “Fracture Optimization and Design Via
Integration of Hydraulic Fracture Imaging and Fracture
Modeling: East Texas Cotton Valley,” SPE 67205, SPE
Productions & Operations symposium, Oklahoma City,
march 24-27, 2001.
22. Walker, R.N., Hunter, J.L., Brake, a.C., Fagin, P.A., and
Steinsberger, N.:”Proppants, We Still Don’t Need No
Proppants-A Perspective of Several Operators,” paper
SPE 49106 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA,
Sept. 27-30.
23. “Comprehensive Evaluation of Fractured Gas Wells
Utilizing Production Data”, SPE 60285, K. W. England,
et al, 2000.
24. Mayerhofer, M.J. and Mehan, N.D.:”Water-Fracs-Results
from 50 Cotton Valley Wells,” paper SPE 49104
presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 27-30.
25. Mayerhofer, M.J., Walker, R.N., Urbancic, T., and
Rutledge, J.T.:”East Texas Hydraulic Fracture Imaging
Project: Measuring Hydraulic Fracture growth of
conventional Sandfracs and Waterfracs,” paper SPE
63034 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, texas, Oct. 1-4.
26. Analysis of Fractured Wells, Bennett, C.O., PhD Thesis,
University of Tulsa, 1982.
27. Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England,
K.W.:”Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture
Conductivity Demonstrates the Benefits of Using
Proppants,” paper SPE 60326 presented at the 2000 SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium held in Denver, CO, March 12-15.