Overview

of

Hydraulic

Fracturing

Design

Current

and

Treatment

TechnologyPart.
by

Ralph

Vestch

Center

in

degree

in engineering

petroleum

He

years,

in

with

Veatch

serves
He

during

Other

Nat/.

from

Amoco

and

was

an

Distinguished
technical

group

the

on

massfve

Series

Comm/ttee

during

9
of

the

017 Recovery

hydraulic
in

He

past

the

Is a director

served

tight.gas

U.S.

was

Louisiana.
for

1980-82,

Veatch

and

Enhanced

Committee

addition,

studying

and
SPE

a PhD

as

Texas,

1984

Lecturer

worked

research

Research

and

Southwestern

Committee

of

In

of

fracturing

Forum

Medal

has
and

U.

Co.

engineering

Veatch

the

Coverage
chairman

the

Production

Mississippi

and

committees.
task

Amoco

Tulsa.

at

Distinguished

Service

Council

of

engineering

includes

program

Petroleum

U.

Technical

SPE

at

in petrolaum

Louisiana,

8PE

fracturing

the

general

service

Jr.,

degrses

stimulation,

on the

section

DeGo/yer

MS

of petroleum

Symposium.

Meeting

of

and

weil-completiori,

Mid-Continent

1978,

BS

science

professor

worked

supervisor

holds

engineer

associate
has

is research

Tulsa.

Veatch

R W.

fracturing

1980,
and

the

various

2 years

Annual

on

U.S.

potential.

re.semoir

Introduction
Hydraulic

fracturing

contribution
enhancing

oil

reserves.

Since

opem.ting

and

practice,

and

25

to

made

economical

increased

Over

the

fmctnring

years

the

sand,

deep

exceed

the

These

smd

f~cture

up
than

to

3 million

prupping

agent.

past

decade

Engl,eers

of

2 to

AIME

aspects,

potential

propagation
of

month)

coverc

agents,

etc.)

less

fractures.

and

our

fiacnrre

directions

from

Other

to date.

ruck
Rut

Part

design

mechanics

2 (to

materials

and

(e.g.,

fracture

some

appear

(fluids,

methods

and
a

low

general

response,

fracturing
field

types

experienced

propagation.

that

plane,

a relatively

and

to prdkting

fractures

vemical

optimization,

reservoir

and

design

promoted

on

in the

situations

fracture

applicable

tight
The

to enhance

constitute

simulation,

aspects

size
for

deeply

(MHF)

1 million

-0039$00.25

in

treatments

fracturing

range

1983

for

verticsl

the

(i.e.,
only

next

propping

to obtain

data

analyzing

fracturing

behavior.
varied

lengths

more

APRIL

materiz?ls

fracturing

and

Petroleum

from

C1OSUC8 stresses

have

now

the

of

capabilities.

hydraulic

Over

to

of

for

have

in opposite

fractures)

economics

MHF

primarily

or

outward

includes

method

the

capabilities.

gore

e.,

tight

date,

treatments.

need

focuses

oriented

percentage

of

of

the

treatment

wellbore-i.

range

fm.cture

typicslly

precise

Of

propagate

types

to high-strength

that

Sodetj

(2)

reservoirs

different

fluid

lS&3

It has

formations

treatments

01 49.2,36/82/0041

sm.

with

for

fracturing

COPy,ight

(1)

To

MHF

cost

of

discussion

been

an

A host

,Many

mini-hydraulic

massive

by

associated

where
of

penetrating

have

process.

reserves

developed.

treatments

shoct,

the

developed

hot.

standard,

controlIed,

by

low-temperature
and

ranges

500-gal

reserves

and

This

from

high

awareness

design
and

in developing

fqrrmtions.

development

been

and

,strong

sll

fractured,

significantly.

formations

Fracturing

treatments

oil

has

difficulties

rule

gas

cconomica!

horizontal

been

been

the

reservoirs

a standard

to 40 % of

technology

have

have

in deep

oil

irr

bbl.

shallow,

are

propparrts

U.S.

increased

fluids

that

from

total

Americas

fmm

35

a significant

low-permeability)
pruved

irrdushy

800,000

played

for

rscovemble

the

hydraulically

y producible

has

ranging

silica

are

8 billion

fracturing

than

method

and
to

into

1 About

of

Nofi

additional

use

30%

rates

more

wells

as

introduced
evolved

performed.
drilled

have

a significant
industry

producing
was

it has

abont

those

gas

then

been

currently

made

petroleum

Fracturing

1949.

have

has

to the

gal
Ibm

MHF

Fracture
of
of

design

judgment
fmcturing

determine
of
of

trsatmerrts

still

experience
in-situ

widths,

etc.),

and

fracture

highly

developed.

in-situ

rock

significantly

a considerable
After

and

fractnre

heights,

azimuths,

involves

engineering.

properties
affect

In

more

research,

shapes,

our

about

condrrctivities

and
fracture

our
stress

30

years

abilities

to

dimensions

symmetry

addkion,

amount

than

(lengths,

the
a~

wellbore,
still

abilities
fields,

propagation,

not

to measure
which
are

not
677

/>

PQfi

2
Frao.

1/2

1000s

%%

b.

Lmmth
Feet

+%_

. . . .

%!

..0001

MD
Micro

lFracture

stimulation

design

the

total

concept

for

Fig.

pdected.

designs

lacking.

However,

our

and

abilities

economics

to optimize

arc

fracturing

length.

sometimes

technology

is advancing

Stimulation
of

Economics

fracture

three

basic

oil

and/or

gas

prodncing

fYom

various
for

determine

the

achieve
The

the

tbkd

IdealIy,

major

for

various

be

developed

be

seen

in the

estimate

as

for
upper

reaches

relationship

cost

is depicted
seen,

increasing
The

find

curve
the

cost

is to

right

to achieve
generated

lW.
100.000

different

formation

tbrce

larger,

of

exhbks

of

Fig.

some

longer
by

the

data

conductivity)
example

Fig.

fractnres

production

total

optimal

1. As

GenersJ
Many

for

costs

3,500

can

md):

tO 4,500

a large
of

the

total

fi..

well

portion

cost
in

500,000

approach

for

relative

is given
of

But

O.0001

important

comprise

treatments

red).

1.0

gaI

half

in

Fig.

3.

or

the

total

well

are

somewhat

fracturing).

net

exceeds
the

Treatment
factors

of

can

limited

in

our

current

revenue

and

abfity

of
(2)

materiak,

snd

the

the

materials.

Some
control

success
with

(e.g.,

fluids,

has

OF

for
for

been

diverting-type

JOURNAL

volumes

rates

schedule

and

selecting

appropriate

at which

and

pumping
injecting

achieved
additives

PETROLEUM

cost

how

in subsurface
to

materials
the

injection

growth

where

limited

(3). the

addkional

we

propagate

materials,

(4)

effectiveness

essence,

to controI

are

types

the
In

will

effofis

proppants),

Considerations

influence

treatment.

ultimately

aPPmPriate
As

Design

can

a fracturing

fractwcs

net
cost.

point

from

seen,

2 shows

(k=

as

of

adeqnate

Fig.

ft for

(k>

basins

an

that

1,000

example

tight-gas

(includlng

of

with

minus
1, the

be

can
An

can

to tip)

than

a pementage

fracturing

cost

Our
~venne

side

can

as

U.S.

cases.

is pafiictdarly

which

cost

nujor

all

as long

design

hut
typicaJ

2,

here

formations

cost.

need

frnctnms

reservoirs

half-lengths

govern

not

Some

wellbore

Iow-permeability

economic

do

in Fig.

for

are. less

treatment

and

exists

well

but

illustrated

typically

usually

not

arc

permeability

the

that
reservoirs

s It is presumed

conventional

Optimal

propeties

penetrating

requirements

require

achieving

fracture

conductivities.

(i.e.,

total

tht?se

accelerate

investigate

be.

various

An

portion

can

Low-permeability

deeply

conductivity

fracture

the

conductivities

ElkIns.

treatments,

is required

(and

generated.

that

treatments)

involves

half-lengib

As

achieve

by

MHF

materials,

designs

optimal

fractnres.

requirements

of

length.

discounted

generally

revenue
678

the

of

treatment

formation

fractom

revenue

and

WItb

usualIy

can

slope.

length

lower

costs

step
.e.,

on

be

in the

fractnre

revenue-i
shown

can

treatment

to

As

increase

usually
types

fmctnre

is

length

conductivities.

between

treatment

thk

volumes,

and

the

revenue

flat

necessary

lengths

i,

simulator

treatment

length

may

estimate

length

of

relatively

schcdulcs

fracture

for

High-permeability

rcquicc

extmrnely

lengths.

fracture

fmfuring

compute

pumping

rate

will

the

frscture

lower

ftzcpme.

and

Fig.

fracture

The
increasing

A hydraulic

be

of

of

and

high

example

und

a revenue

fracture

portion

to

These

rates

lengths

data,

various

timction

with

eventually

10.0

10,000

Per,neabil;ty

between

performance.

tolerate

is to

conductivities.

simulator

frzcturc

relationship.

diminishes

Ge*

in optimization
balance

penetrating

that

production

these

second

uf
(i.e.,

factor

formations

1.

performance
the

deeply

fracture

returns.

Fig.

rsquirc

be

rcqnirements

and

economic

of

From

can

The
design

Iene@s

in

reservoir

recoveries

and

fmcturc

predictions

a linear

reservoir.

what

might

and

a range

appropriate

reservoir

speaking,

recoveries

lengths

treatment

illustrated

conductivities.

to

a given

desired

arc

Siti

10QO

half-lengths

economics

characteristics

is to determine

and

fmchye

ia to maximize

concepts

provide

One
rates

fcactnre

Optimization

generally

tequirsments.

conductivities

and

treatments,

has

expected

1.0

50100

selected.

the

design

fracture

.05.1

10

(n

Thus,

maximize

significantly.

Fracture

oermeabMies.

Consequently,

treatment

.405.01

2-Desired

optimization.

.001

.?

D.rcb

The

COw.ti...l

E!ik
Fig.

W!

strata.

(1)

me

additives,
of
these
the
in vefiical
in the
TECHNOLOGY

COTTON

DENVER

VALLEY

TREND

10

rll

_J-o.a#

m
);L

= w

0.3

1.0

10

0.1

100

Iwo

10ooo

Fuctlml

TREATMENT

3Re[ative

Pig.

-lUWS

SIZE

MHF

costs

GAL.

treatment

vs.

volumes.

Fig.

4-PI

ratio

increase

vertical

fracturing

fluid.

With
css

todays

may

employ

producing

Vertical

3.

Formation
of

.4.

Formation

the

Formation
Thermal

aasess

drainage

formation

net

porosity,

snd

the

venicrd

factors,

reservoir

and
21.

Formation

embedment

22.

Perforation

coniigurntion

Parameters
that

for

will

Fracture

closme

and

as

formations

in the

fracture

occur

Critical

vicinity

qnite

of the

height

during

or

vertical

11.

Formation
Fracturing

theological

the

fractme

n and

the

time,

as

13.

index.

well

of

Fracturing

fluid

for

flow

It may

values

as

viscositfi

as

nlso

or

behavior
be

functions

index

necessary
of

shear

to
rate

perforation

functional
15.
and

fluid

spun

dependence

Fracturing

fluid

if necessa~,

differemtinl
16.

Vefiical

17.

Fluid

APRIL

1983

on

and,

if necessary,

tempecatire.

combined

behavior

and

loss

as

leakoff
a fmrction

extent

of

net

conductivity.

Ieakoff

per

reservoir
performance

primarily

Although

it still

its

of
the

the

may
that

for

treatment

arrive

at a set

depends
and

not

to the
list

appenm

reflect

may

a complete

affect

of

to try

frncture

effective

results.

In

where

areaa

where

of

parameters

is ve~

treatments

account

the

thm

about
of

of

drilling

this

quick

and

fractures

are

fracturing

In

areas

half

of

fracturing

development

total

Iow-permeability

necessary

important.

treatments

the

arc. adequate),

penetmting
the

to

provide

rdatively

deeply

for

of

fractures

in

impmtmce
that

high-permcablity

to obtsin

in
be

alternative

fracturing

(e. g.,

However,

of

it may

that

poflion

short

experience

of

to

relative

procedures

small

is used

resolution

of

results
the

areas,

injection
treatments

where
often

actual
both

a number

standard

coats

approach

some

and

a relatively

completion

and
on

the nature
In

sizes,

results.

constitute

greater

predicted

operators

fluids,

costs,

the

design

formation.

required,

height.

to

reservoir

remainder

factors

treatments

formations

pressure

the

many

coeftlcient,

tempmmwc.

tiermal

tie

formations

friction

data.
Fracturing

of

of

individual

and

and

shots

contigurntion,

primarily

both

design.

sensitivity

acceptable
and

temperature.
pipe

the

wellhead

6 to

and

qnality

typical

modulus.

appsrent

K values

above

an

pressure.

effective
fluid

consistency

specify

fracturing

and

comprehensive,

The

andlor

(intervals,

design.

growth

treatment.

pressure

frschue,

pressure.

4 pertain,

treatment

of

in the

rntinga.

5 and

fracturin~

cost
net

goods
pressure

I through

fmcture

penetmted

of
size

holes).

performance

of

extension

12.

14.

and

Items

etc.

of

Tubular

sizes,

viscosity,

pressure,

10.

and

size

a function
proppmt

formation.

and

foot,

type,

concentration
the

pay.
distribution

as

proppant

proppsnt
in

flow,

= 1.0.

conductivity

stress,

embedment

h,lh

distribution.

fmcturc

closure

picture

extent
9.

Proppant

distribution,

fracture.
8.

20.

treatment.

temperature.

well

density.

fracture

design

pressure.

as

size

Proppant

configuration.

including

conductivities

fracture,

Proppant

(WI

fracturingsteady-state

fractures,

19.

23.

propemies

reservoir

6.

to

appropriate

from

propped

18.
proc-

pammetem.

volume

7.

design

fracturing

and

of

fluid

Static

the

specify

permeability,

these

formation

by

to

satmntion

profile

data

to

area

extent

hydrocarbon

complete

following

draimge

2.

the

and

pertinent

Well

5.

the

potential

information
1.

technology,

L----+

where
the

is equsl
drilling

MHF

total

well
to

for

or

increasing
679

P.ddns

Fig.
Fig.

5Producing-rate

type

tures-transient

recovemble

high

steps

degree

..-

the

behavior

formation

datn

with

can
for

data

length,

and
behavior

set

of

industw.

is ma@

Recent

authors4-L0

work

design

to

in-

Current

are

describes

provide

better

design.

In
the

programs

information

summary,

past

signifimnt

several

and

for

the

fracture

have

of

yield
are

DeKlerk.

apply

or

t~sient

mewoir

to

curves

to

requirements
example,

realiie

kfblk

significant

~lg.

is severe

4,

Of

near-wellbore

flow.

low

penneabllhy

pruvided

by

Agarwul

Here

real-time

pruducing

rate,

qD,

or

that

throughout

to use

simuIator

those

such

regime

it is necessary

computer

For

fmCturing.

is a dominant

life,

wells

such

(k@)

required

if there

has

flow

use

conductivi~-finction

from

not

reservoir

to

permeability.
that

more

damage

type

et al.,

much

a transient-flow
curves

12 shown

such

as

in Fig.

are

related

by

rate,

q,

and

5.

Eqs.

1 and

$lmenslonless
2.

n
khAp

several

_=

approaches

to

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141.2

qD

. .

. .

(1)

qfl

treatment

capabilities

years

PrO@ss

by

models

and

fracturing

a tr~tment

presented

5 or

does

transient

inadequate.

areas.

deKlerk

theoretical

Geertsma

conductivity

increases

If the

limited

predicting

during

&

for
vs.

possible

fmcturc

mtios
of

skin

difficult

is not

for

formation

a given

course,

pammetem.

data

for

fracturing

given

problem

Kern

It is also
the

productivity

in the

predict

increase.

values

width,

Or sYmmetW

much

and

investigate

(md-ft/md)

essential

it extremely

rock-fracturing

proppant

However,

over

we

procedures

and

very

makes

configurations

Perkins

rate

the

quanti&lng

fracture

6Fracture

frac-

to take

shape,

still

Thk

input
or

sometimes

muny

are

effectiveness

Tbe

laborato~

as

Gewtwrl.

Kem

pressure.

required

accurately

accurately

and

conditions.

wellbore

the

azimuth,

stage.
how

vertical

it is essenti~

such

wellbore

to assess

fluid

for

height,

experimental

propped

resolution.

parameters

conductivity.

situ

Here

methods

fracturing

with

constant

to determine

of

Existing

about

flow,

teserves.

necessary

cuwes

of

the

industry
for

improved

oil,

and

significantly.
khA[m(p)]

1
_=

Reservoir

Response

to

Fracture

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

Length

1424

qD

and
A

(2)

qT

Conductivity
wide

graphic
effects
well

and

varied

and

computerized,

of

fm.cture

productivity

reservoir

has

steady-state

assortment

length
for

and

methods,

both

available
fracture

a particular

a relatively
flow

of
are

on

time,

related

where

it is possible

as

shown

in

penneability
< 1.o)

as

that

Fig.

4.

For

reservoir

the

production
length.

such

graph
increase

For

a lower

conductivity-function
penetrating

fractures

provided

by

example,

in a relatively

(e.g.,

indicates

TkMey

conductivity
that

less

2.634x

regardless

permeability

(i.e.,

enhance

the
the

more
folds

kf

trJXf,

am

@OUm)

of

. .

. . . . . .

. .

(3)

hlghAnd

dimensionless

expressed

fracture

flow

capacity,

FCD,

is

by

fracture

deeply
producing

kfb
FCD=.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)
kxf

JOURNAL
680

time,

+(#cl)ir;

a higher

of

10 4

1[

a three-fold

is achievable

value)

ef al.

finctiOn

than

dimensionless

to use
tDzf

information

t, and

by

If the

permeability

is dominant,

gas.
Real

conductivity

formation.

high

for

to estimate

OF PETROLEUM

TECHNOLOGY

I
TABLE

ICOMPARISON

OF

FRACTURE

OESIGN

FRACTURING

Ref.
Pad

volume,

bbl

Proppant-laden
Average

fluid
sand

Total

amount

Viscosity

Fig.

fracture.

length

and

producing

For

the

little

or

can

investi
?.

and

rates

curves

technology

hey

to

to

100

=500.

effects

of

will

shape

The

such

width

results

how

imsitu

well

formation
require

methods

The
that

width

for

Improved

complex

with

have

contributed

well-flow

studies,
model
complex

are

to

reservoir

Many

improving

paformance

predicting

emerging

There
used
APRIL

cunently

ftacmre

b-~:

Perkins-Kern

expressed

in terms

analysis

mud

fracture

1983

with

height,

. . . . ...(5)

development

in

relation

to

is based

fracture

on

Iengtlx

approaches
simulatom.

..(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Newtonian

pressure

to

flow

injection

rate

equations
and

that

fluid

relate

viscosity

yields

simulators

or

@3ww)x

petfonmmce.
with

,,,,,.,,,

P-

.-.::;..,

. . . . . ...(7)

hf

the

16-23 recently
and

modeling

for

the

Perkins-Kern

approach

and

yields

fractured
%

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...(8)
hf

basic

begins

fracture

reserv0ir3

Models
two

model
of

reservoir

IepRSentS

to cope
authors

in hydraulically

propagation

elliptical
a rectangular

plane.

Geertsma-DeKlerk

(E3#qi)

me
in

and

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..s

P-

Design

approximately
pIane

the

expressed

formations.
Fracture

generally

Geensma-

the

we

Some

problems.

an

The

levels

effective

reservoir

techniques

more

response

and/or

fracture,

the

gas

higher-conductivity

consistent

complex

that
plane,

the

the

CounciI

permeability

a given

analyzing

premise
verticaf

of

6,

Advaoced

conditions.

equslly

for

Fig.
Perkins-

b-=.

as

15 indicate

and/or

reservoir

in
the

the

horizontal

vertical
of

in that

in the
axis

presumes

Incorpomting
making

consider

may

the

and

depicted

contigmation.

in the

approach

that

ovemll

drainage.
When

long

to

an

were

recovemble

fractures

to the

published

As

fracture

elliptical

premises

is credhed

Khristianovitch

from

the

approach

fracture

penetrating

Petrokwm

formation
wells

has

by

is developed

Development

but

who

Barenblatt.2g

of

24 involves
other

differ

an

in

The

basically

configuration

early-life
flow)

to 75%.

deeper

section

DeKferk

range.

frsctming

increase
40

model

msintains

recOveIY.

Veatch

Kem
cross

petpendimlar

maximize

formations,

The

approaches

Kern,

2s

work

and

two

and

DeKlerk,26

earlier

formation

500

deeply

on

To

cumulative

Natl.

and

long,

Fw

significantly.

U.S.

patterned

vakIes

a fracture

to

formations

by

based
Zheltov27

FcD

achieve

from

by

as
increases.

the

c6sh

reservoirs.

of

and

increases

derived

Baker4

trend

Geertsma

in higher-permeability

ultimate

required

conductivities,

of

the

recove~
be

Sneddon.

flow.

increases

on

Perkins

by

into
relate

like

case

(which

efficiently

azimuthal

0.16

by

VariouS

insight

stimulation

implies
as

0.16

published

FCD,

neighborhood

wmdd

formations

fractures

185
0.16

presented

rate

increase

fOr

approach

technology

tight

240
0.17

different

for

conductivity,

the

darcy-ft

producing

fracture

producing

we

by

advanced

and

the

reservoir

Xf,

bght-gas

summarized

from

estimate

in a a?cent

on

453
0.43

85

can

ated
1

466
0.22

6.5

in Iow-permeability

study

36

6.5

ultimate

fractures

845

36
670

9.8

as

that

6%4

36
698

7.1

impact

affect

51,000

conductivity,

in low-permeability

benefits

3.5

68,000

176,000

fracture

unsteady-state

no

350

2.5

Average

fracture

However,

650

2,5

94

during

rntes

1,680

97

steady-state

producing

1,250

0.31

values

reservoirs,

32

1,650

9a

conductivity

FCD

Ref.

0.20

in the

rate,

where

ft

considerable

permeability

24

1,350

in.

that

provides

Ref.
.

height,

fracture

to converge

31

width,

that

This

ft
in,

and

320

fracture

can

tend

30

fracture

a given

dso

Refs,

Effective

half-len=gbs,

Observe

length,

DIFFERENT

Effective

5 we

dimensionless

ft

width,

26

157,500

cp

FOR

750

Ibm/gal

length,

fracture

from

Observe

k@.

bbl

Ibm

pad,

fracture

Created

From

sand,

fracture

Effective

performance

of

after

Created

volume,

concentration,

CALCULATIONS

MODELS

Axf%

commonly
One,

for

the

Geertsma-DeKlerk

model
6S 1

Thus,

for

model

a given

predicts

set

proportionally

with

aPPmximately

the

about

Widths
generally

one-fourth

one-half

power.

calculated

from

smaller

results

will

length

for

rate,

all

prcdkt

other

two

The

30.

method.

The

other

in

data

about

discussed

in detail

exist

as

develop

has

been

tit

properties.

how

assume
relatively
bottom

fracturing

As

significantly

wotdd

model.

However,

indicate

either
fracture

laterally

at about

fashion.
model

If

be

appropriate

to

to

for

detail

the

Fracturing

are

use

throughout

the

models

WY

only

constant

in common

ye

complexities

of

schemes

that

constant

fluid

that

account

variations
temperature,
682

handle
propefiies
for

in

fluid
shear

vertical

top

at

methods

have

the

more

may
or

sophisticated
during

Sinclair

rate,

and

time;

variations

in

by

. . . . . . .

iD

rsnging

(lo)

. . . .

Psi,

Usual

from

0.8

to

0.9.

the

models

today.

injected
fluid

Ti,

solution

both

toward

analytical

the

leakoff

leakoff

linearly

faster

tip.

rate

end

clOse

tO the

fracture

tends

heatup

at the

falls

between

diffe~nces

calculation

as

(constant

entmnce
the

result

opposed

Whhaitt

The

T.

dktribution
for

of

fluid

incrcnsing

the

and

These

increasing

fluid

tempemture,

models

fracture

coupled

along

reservoir

and

fracture

remains
with

by

35

7.

at the
the

Tf,

covered

of

of the

and,

gives

Fig.

volume

temperature
to the

Some

Sinclair,

in terms

efficiency,

fmcture,

of

thk.

Whhsitt

in

volume

in the

the

37 and

leakoff

total

by

shown

the

variety

are

methods

are

temperature,

et%ciency,

approaches

of

as

temperature
A

to accomplish

36 Wheeler,

low

mndels
fluid

treatment.

used

results

At

injection

and

during
presented

(defined
by

Many

to prdct

characterizes

injection).

than

to
for

and

two
mainly

Wheeler

Dysart).

The

simple
and

methods

trcatmen~

propefiies

The

numerical
would

height

been

et al.,
3s

from

rsther

to ve~

computed

expressed

Profiles.

fracture

exponentially

in a radial

fracture

The

discussed

respectively.

values

commonly

tempemture

These

am

34 in a discussion

divided
Thk

and

industry

from

is

inches,

computations

efficiency

then

model

dpf

and

Temperature

in the

or

growth.

the

normally

and

p,

employs

Dysti.

a boundary

growth

theological

qf,

Barrington
is

pressure

Simulators.

are

2.

Ibm/gal,

assumed
Computerized

Part

rheology

q:p

profdes

of

at the

Ekher

radial

(9)

in cP,

. . . .

Settari

Geertsma-DeKlerk

appropriate.
purs

by

vertically

e.,

e~rca$ed

fG n is dimensionless.
flow

friction

incorporate

Perkins-Kern

at

K am

fluid

in

pti,

l?hdd

to increase.

grow

expressions.
by

the

rock

height,

the

rate-i.

occurs,

of

under

and

declining

and

lbf-sec/sq

fracture

bbI/min,

the

grows

is slippage

same

more.

and

i,
and

0.2369

and

slippage

using

there
the

p=,

-1,

where

fra.cturcs

continue

flow

computed

czNpf

model

discuss,

fracture

is

Pfp=~3

during

length

will

tending

slippage

may

no

classical

an

Newtonian

to

gained

of

a contitmdly

is

pipe

not

be

occurs

2 will

than

predicted

that

9,

differences

stresses

growti

fracture

rate

be

that

the

Pmt

wellbore

is what

are

to which

be

the

various

used

pressures

has

and

at the

and

I think

may

contained,

faster

pressure

the

29

knowledge

of

treating

vertical

Eq.

more

by

behavior

information

bounda~,

In

practice

appropriate.

if the

well

from

questions

should

as

in the

for

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

seconds

of

appropriate

a priori

treatment.
that

most

conditions

Such

by

are

premises

premises

value

non-Newtonian.
substitute

the

proposed

is that

conjecture

some

downhole

fracturing

point

basic

the

some

subsurface

observing

the

is most

of

variqus

The

are
to

to

Perforation

in Ref.

fluids

due

requi~ments.

other

msuks

computed

for
width

horsepower

pm.ctice

viscosity

Pa=-.

conditions.

~uires

experience

be

to

approaches

selection

by

Nordgren32

a number

These

fracturing

in-situ

by

p,

require
formation

fractnrc

hydraulic

pa,

term,

on

procedums33

fracturing

apparent

data

etc.

it is common

47800

two

Geertsma-DeKlerk

The

results

of

the

the

addressed

models.
as

two

a method

developed

here.

so

the

1.

arc

considered

two

to

1 mise

result

the

There

similar

of

and

Higher

usuaIly

Geertsma

computed

results

approach.

in

Many

do

as

Table

differeiic&

same.

input

classical

viscosity,

Here

of

etc.

course,

frictionlosses,

of todays
these,

vmcosKy

at a given

comparing

results

was

in Table

methods.

the

One

was

type

summarized
The

well

IS

pipe

aPPa~nt

fracture
fluid

a study

included

2 I that

a Perkins-Kern

injected

bckrg

roaches.

Perkins-Kern

use

losses,

Many
For

the

of

behavior,

models

determining

to

model
by

longer

of

9 presented

as

ap

the

a significantly

study

raised

computed

hence,

amount

approaches

modified
Daneshy

length

temperature,

set

fluid

Most

Perkins-Kern

those

ammeters
$

Haafkens

theories.

the

model;

a given

properties,

the

and

sophktication,

comprehensive

friction

than

Geettsma-DeKlerk

pressure
of

more

to

pressures

to fractme

with

degrees

increasing

and

indkates

loss

Perkins-Kern

raised

power,

method

are

the
pressures

length

propofiionally

the

and

condhions

fracturing

fmcture

Geertsma-DeKlerk
decreasing

of

wellbote

Proppant

Transport

transport

predictions

developed

Clark

with
in fluid

fmm

Newtonian

of

the

fluids
and

various

Models

that

genemlly
Stokes

law

and

Newtons

@adlr39

for

present

approaches
JOURNAL

proppant

expressions

laminar

law

flow

for

flow.
review

to compute

PETROLEUM

of

turbulent

a comprehensive

propoacd
OF

include

employ

patticle

TECHNOLOGY

, /-.777

Length

of+

cc

To

Stress

1,0

wheel.,

--%clai,

0.8

Whi,,

&

i,,

D,m

0.6
Oimm,i.!m%
T.mpwatur.

,.

0,4

Tf

Ti

TD=

T-Ti

0,2

VW,:.,(

Fig.

7Fluid

temperature

ing

settling
by

velocities.

Ref.

45,

the

Newtonian
For

and

expressions

the

settIing

v,

and

pertain

to

velocities

Of

surface

of

roughness.
particles
Ref.

for

the

turbulent

do

not

indicates

laminar
(Newtons

law)

(lamimm),

:=!:%] +

the

law),
are

,(11)

13

hchaves

patitle

interf&ence

concepts

indicate

less

S,,8,s

Lateral

Less

propagation.

the

are

for

somewhat

work

Guler48

snd/or
of

address

settling

an

Ref.

the

46
fluids,

for
for

for

45

crosslinked

better

prnppant

crosslinked

fluids

of

directions

fractures

are

that
As

(i.e.,

lateral

direction

number
can

and

in

the

stated,

the

are

a wellbore.

more

outward

in

in a radial

predominantly

natural

fotination

direction

vertical

current

oriented

Typically,
either

or

a hydmdic
onr

propagate

to propagate

penny-shaped)

possible

from

fractures

pkme
from

of

of

result

previously

most

thought

fashion

Modeling

infinite

that

opposite

Many

factors

the

theoretically

of

of

rock

of

single

particles.

In

because

clumping.

Ref.

in explicit

psuticle

slurries,
of

42,

in the
beds

across

the

transport

in non-Newtonisn
K, is commonly

and

in

fluids,

(6)

and

less

bedding

by

fluid

stress

effects

fields

growth
the

pressuce

gradients

in the

fracture

from

trend

Regional
of

one

or
fracture;
zone

in st~sses
to

have

orientation

tendencies.

azimuthal

rock
toughness,

variations

in the

between

mechanical

thought

layers

formations

moduhts,

pressure

and
are

in controlling

fmctme

in

(1)

in dfferent
of

bonding

elastic

A few

include

existing

(3)

in pore

formations

propagation.

factors

thickness

variations

variations

LocaI

affect

the

replaced

(4)

(5)

next.

bed

fracturq

ductility);
and

fracture

stresses

relative

(including

the

affect
identified

properties

adjacent

which

form,

can

in-situ

(2)

fmcturitzg

viscosity,

Ref.

planes.

differently

Zanker47

IL..

applicable

and

in a vertical

mnsitin)

slurries.

APR2L

of
1,

Thao

uncrosslinked

need

Aspects

treatment.

dominantly

.(13)

particle

Vefiical

(We;ght

O,erburdml

today.

to be

formations;

11 through

be

configurations

vicinity

settling

for

methods

use

appear

fracturing

and

For

fracture

approximation.

not

Propagation

variations

Newtonian

Whera

stress

viscosity,

cases

is a significant

Mechanics

fracture

of

and

on

Ho,;mntal

Frac

Bed,

fields

adequate

in

There

. . . . . .. . . (12)

Clark

Swe,,

apparent

it may

commonly

exhibit

. .

an

pndiction

Rock

regions

be
that
There.

Fracture

that

(Stokes

of

in some

transport

assume

= dpp ddz

expresses

stress

Po,,;ble

Two

of

particIe,

If we

that
46

density
the

may

suggests

or

Eqs.

of

value
that

fluids.

mea

accele~tion,
dinmeter

sphericaJ

velocily

this
exception

fluids.

interactions,

transition,

computed

develop::

the

Wkb

in general

pardcIe,
and

uniform

electrostatic

expressions

46

gravitational

the

viscosity,

settling

Aziz.

fluids,

of

present

43 ;:$yle;g:::::y

Newtonian

function

single

8Effect

Fig.

dur-

By

Higher

Stress

suggests

power-law

flnid

in fractures

Swanson

or

me
fluid

They

and Mednick,
and GOvier
and

al.,s

predictions

Laa,t

F,HC

confined

r r.

treatment.

Novotny,

Bamea

profile

VsfliC#

F,,.

P.,pedkul.

fracture

to

between

dominant
and

stresses

vettical
may

resulting

from

stimulation.

Fig.

8 shows

how

vertical

suesses

can

differences
affect

the

in horizontal
plsne

of

and

orientation

of

a
683

1983

.-

Actual

Theory

tDG

DERIVED

STRESS,

psi

DEPTH,

ft

6055
-9470
6S45

II

6550

Ill

-9495
:~
,,, ,.

6150

-9525

.......... . ,,
,,,:

,V
l!!-

-,,K .,.,:
f:;: .

-9595

6365
F
Y
Fig.

9Theoretics

fracture

aotual

in-situ

propagation

models

vs.

possiblo

behavior.
t

R*:R

.~wl

EFFECTIVZS7RESS

3
,,200,

Fracture
Lw!th

1,000

~a

500F!.

SHALE

CORRELATE

MOOIFIED
(1,11,

ZONES

TREATING

6W

IN

WITH

fll,

V)

MEAsuREO

PRESSURES

800

.00

400

200

~
,,000

F!,

e
2
1,500

E
~m

F.

w
00

200

10Simulation

Flu!d

model

7~

600

400

F,..

tig.

?
.

SOD

Volume,

1,0C4

(ThOUS4nd,

fracture

1.200

of

1.400

FRAcTURE

0.!!.s1

length

and

height

Fig.

11-in-situ

tire~profi[es

HEIGHT,

and

fmcture

height

vs.

pressure.

calculations.

fracture.

Here

arrow
have

sizes.
been

condhion

the
At

stresses

shallow

repofied33
depicted

to 2,000

ff experience

oriented

vertically

fracture

growth

stresses

existing

equations

used

Experience

as
with

complicated
right
684

side

as

in

FLg.

8c.

as

in Fig.

FIg.

might
At

indicates
be

to

result
depths

that
8a.

dominated

by

from

effect

1,000

fracture

Iengti

fracmre

heights.

fractures

Control

of

lateral

formations

above

and

in Fig.

8b.

fracture

a rather
shown
MHF

simple

on

the

treatments
configurations

are

probably

left

are

vertical

higher

as showu

theoretical

of

impo~ntto

below

most

Knowledge

the

fm.ctures

zone

fracture
of

horizontal

in the

presume

configuration

proportional

such

may

fractnre-initiation
CommonIy

are
depths,

below

the

on

fracture.

inversely

proportional

emphasizes

the

information

when

common
are

side

radioactive

as
more

9.

Zn many

that

shown

on

common.

the

remaining
this

occurs,

height

fmcturc

to

JOURNAL

Thk

fracture

height
Currently

investigating

the

veflical
decay

profiles

profiles.
heights

throughout

methods

is~sentidly

height.

tempemture

tracer

of

different

throughoutd?e

length

treatment.$.

post-treatment

of

inconstant

forreliabl+

for

asigtificant
results

a number

fracture

designing

constant

has
shows

to fm.cture

need

cases

10

for

data,

is extremely

heigM

Fig.

methods

and/or

Fig.

Here

Forthese

growth

of

height

Fracture

calculations

fm.cturs

indicates

vefiical

length.

treatment.

most

propagation

the

design.

may
the

estimate
OF

grow

treatment.
the

growth

PETROLEUM

instead
Where
profile
TECHNOLOGY

of

must

be

developed.

in-situ

stress

those

discussed

This

and

&quires

fmcture

conducting

mechanics

in Refs.

4,

8,

spetial

stndles

49,

and

such

50

to

16th

arcive

lntersocie~

16.

at

Ci!rco-Ley,

H.

Analysis

profiles

such

shows

as

upper

for

in Fig.

in-situ

of

Fig.

11.50

This

growth

profile

Data

to have

depicted

such

tfeatment

known

graph

as these

are

effectiveness

undesirable

17:

in

fhe

this

in-situ

time

it

stress
not

profiles.

totally

rccefitly

these

difficult

18,

in
fracture.

work

beginning

to

addressing

improve

the

our

are

1-65

Pet.

Tech.

capabilities

20.

21.

References

Tech.
2.

(Aug.

cHydra.lic

1981)

M.B.:

Smifh,

Is

It?,+>

J.

Per.
22.

1416,

Simulation

Fractures-mHF.,,
Annual

Fmct.ring-What

Design

!rmer

Technical

SPE

for

10313

Cb;ference

and

Short

Precise

Dresmded

at the

March

Bmmmt,

C.O.

Ex<ibhim,

.%n

3,

L. E,:

, Western

quirmwnts,,x

pawr

Chicago,
4.

June

Veatcb,

Jr,

Tech.

Abo.-Sayed,
proach

!0

6.

White,

Tech.

R, F.:

1982)

2763-75.

Ahrned,

U.,

Re-

Research

Co

1981)

A.:

at
the
Sympmim,
Key

Factors

in MHF

Low27-29.

Design,;

Fracture

Design

for

SPE

and

10133

presented

ad

Exhibition,

Cm ference

Lueders,

the

East
at the

1981

San

K. G.:

Analysis,

Valley
9.

U.

and

DOE
paper

A. B.,

11183

fermce

finsley,

md

SPE

Am

D. A.,
Projecl

presented,

er

State

al.:

1982

at

Fractwe

Sand

Reservoir,,

AmmaJ

T%h.ical

and

R. G.,

the

Pmfcrnmnce

Stimulated

Sanler,

paper

SPE

(March
13,

1982

A.R.

SPE

~ <The

1979)

refmt

by

tional

Gas

Techicrd

33.

Effect

on

Tech,

(May

C. B.:

Evii&iiori

34.

1969)

Fractmhg,,

J.

tie

TiSht

Sources:
Oas

Cormniftee

3ight
Taak

Re$emoir

of.

@
Group

Nat].

Petrole.gm

Price

md

Techmlogy

of

the

0.s

Wells

Pet

Tech,

36.

of

Effect
the

Energy

Ccmvenim
R. W.

1983

of

Unconven-

United
Con

Jr.:

Recovery

Proc.,

ASME

Atlanta.,

GA

States,,,
ferem.,

,.<A Brief
from

Survey
Tight

of tie
Gas

o
1603

37.

(198

Reservoirs,,,

Gas

38.

Pm..,

High

Flow

Infill

f-aca-

paper

Technical

Tests

SPE

SPE

Cm ference

of Hydra.lieaJly
Reservoir,x

Annual
Sept.

Widths

3 paper

Technical

Con-

26-29.

o~ Hydmdic

of

Solid,

Stress

Pmt.,

F12ctuxs,

in the

Royal

Neighborhood

SW.

(1946)

187,

39.

and

Meam

of

G.I.:

Geertama,

J.

Width

and

Trans.,

of a Hy&aulic

ec .1.:

R. P.:
E.g.

Howard,

G.C.

Settari,

Sinclair,

and

A.:

,SimnJation

Tech.

Hmrington,

Heat

Wheelec,

L. J,,

Hannnh,

Recovew

Clark,
Fmcfure.x

N.w

SPE

C. R.:

Hydmdic

and

Oct.

on

fhe

presented

at

3-6.

Hydraulic

Fcwt.re,

Fracturing,

Fracturing

Effects

14S4-92

i.

Monograph

Processes,,,

Beimte,

Its

Implication

presemed

Exhibition.

at the

S...

presemed
Tulsa,

April
l?hc

J. Pet,

Tech.

of
at rhe

G. R.:

(April

Fracturin

g,

251.
R.:

Posl-

for. Stimukv

1978

Houstm.

Calculations

2494

Well
AIME,

md
md

7560

Deep

Trans.,

R.R.

Dysart,

Dmigm,>>

3507

2.

and

SPE

Frac-

Parametaa
SPE

Orleans,

306-14.

Symposium,

N.F.

paper

of a Vertical

<Analytical

paper

Treatment

Recovay

paper

J. A.:

V?hhsin,

of

Transfer

Conference

Hydraulic

487-5CQ

1971)

TempemtiE

for

Induced

83-97.

of Hydraulic
1980)

fDec.

Design,,,

VmdcaJ

1972)

(197o)

(Dec.

A. R.:

Per.

Fast,

Dallas

J,

8-19.

of

Fracture,

(Aw.

SPE,

E.g.

101,

Pmpagatio
J.

of Theories

Hydmlically

(1979)

1973)

Cracks,

55.

Design

Meeting,

Fourth

of Equilibrium
7,

Vemical

Effect

Annual

of VerticaI
Proc,,

CA Comparism

of

(Jan.

A.A.

Pet

R.:

the

Geometry

Nord,grm,

Per.

579.
Theory

ASME
O.

Tech.

SPE

J.

Formation
Fluids,,

(1962)

Extent

DaneShy,

1971

Predicting

of

Fractures,.,

Y. P.:

(1955)2,

Haafkens,
and

Pet.

Method

!&m

Meckmics

A. A.:
1.

Zheltov,

Mathematical

Predicting

Rapid
Induced

H@My

Rome

in Applied

Daneshy,

1571-81.

Cong.,

Barenblatt,

F.:

Hydraulically

S.A.
by

Pm.

AIME,
ASME

at

Play,

Gas-Drive

Distribution

of

Khristianovitch.

Stimulation

J),
Challenge

26-29.

Pressuce

26-29.

Orleans,

DeKIeck,

1969)

Fractures,,,

Imerso.irxy

Techwlogy

3r.:

93749.

Elastic

and

(Dec.

Technical

(Dec.

Tight

Annual

Sept.

Potential
Gas

AN&J,

1982

L. R.:

1961)

Extem

Fm.NI@

I,

Council

an

J.
and

Oil

C. O.:

to Improve

G.errsma,

J.

Reservoirs-Parr

the

Kern,

C-The

in

the

of
Reser-

SPE

Producing

Sept.

NW

(Sqt.

I. N.:

a Crack

tion

Gas

and

Tech.

Sneddon,

Pet.

362-72.

Veatcb,

APRJL

LmwPemneabiIity

Exhibition.

H.J.

Tk.ht

Solution

at

Ramey,

of Pmdction

i a Ti8ht

1982

Odeam,

Selecting

SPE

Orleans,

.Analysis

2656-66.

for

.< AoaJysis

the

New

Valley

1982

presmted

T.K.

Pet.

Series,

V.

Baker,
Resou=es

15.

PolIock,

Hydraulic

Perkins,

Sot.

26-29.

HeightIts
Per.

32.

U.S.

Updates,,

Amwd

Sept.

J.

id
of

Massive

Unconvewio?wl

1980)
14.

31.

Cm ference

Experiment

Fracture

R. D.,

Prediction

by

Wells

the

Odems,

Icr?ase,$3

Carter,

Fractured

and

1982)

Cottm

New

C. M. J.:

mres,9

StiimOa-

35.

Aganwd,

Exhibition,

Vefoeek,

at

and

*A Metiod

at the

R.:

M.kilayer

Wells

(Nov.

Texas

p~sented

Fracmres,,,

Cotbm

26-29.
md

,<Vertical

Pressure

SPE

PI al,:

Raghavan,

E~tbition,

Fractured

SPE

Conference

26-29.

and

H.,

Ver-

paper

Technical

mesented

md

of

Fast

11084

at the

Synpsium,

Ccmd.ctivity

Inte~ting

11030

Tech.

Finite

Am.d

Fracture

Pet.

Advances

30.

Mukiwell

New

Production

the

o.

633-38.
.12.

28.

Oct.

20,

Sept.

Exhibition,

J.M.

Steady

SPE

Odeam,

Sands

at

May

Ti$ht

1982

Northrup,

Gas

SPE

Co
1 I.

New

Based

Hydm.lic

a Western
M the

Western

preserded

TX,

C%de+f
-the-An

for

Exhibition,

Comideratirms

10911

Tyler,

presemed

Crawley,

Design

SPE

et al.:

Treaonent

11184

10.

paper

Sympesiurn,

Ahmed,
tio

FraCfUE

J.

World

29.

Noltc,

Analysis

Rates,,,

J,K.

Transient

Resewoin,

Sept.

A. C.,

Cinco-Ley,

Buildup

i the

p~sented

TechnicaJ

of

SPE

Orleans,

SPE

K. H.,

Fractures

Cotton

Antonio,

the

hnfeence

Tison,

With

Resewoi=,

by

10043

Sing[e-fayer

Reynolds,

DaDtl

Gnppy,

Evaluation

Fracturing

and

PmJonnance

Conductivity

Tech.

R. K.:

Texas

cd.:

New

CO.,

Widti

J.

5-7,
8.

26.

27.
JJ,

1981)

229.

1501-12.
W.K.

P%s.E

18-26.
a

Exhibition,

Bennett,

of

Ap-

Design,,,

1981
SPEIDOE
Denver,
May

GA

(Sept.

Gas

SPE

Exhibition

1982

J.

Systematic

Treatment

Miller,

paper

24.

Technology,,

25.
Jones,

Tech.

of Hydraulic

at

SPE

f.,

Research-Operations

Fracturing

Fracturing

E. F,:

B. W.,

Sands,,

Research

Gas

aJoint

and

Hydraulic

Daniel,

Technical

Ind.

Hydraulic

(Dec.

Hydraulic

Valley
nual

Crowell,

A, S,,

(Aug.

Schlonman,

First

Major

Tmnsiml

<Fracture

37 paper

presented

f&nce

Massive

and

Massive

at

9877
Presentei
Gas Re$ervoi!s

J.L,

Pet.
7.

and

Massive

PaPer
SFE
Pmnmbility

Sands

atim

11029

and

Oct.

19s0,

Accekate

J. P@.
5.

presenfed

9-12,

R. W.

Pm&mm

Tight

F.:
Per.

Low-Pennea6ilify

Methods,

in

11022

Antonio,

,Eval.

Wells

SPE

23,

Elkins,

Atlanta,

1776-92.

Fractmtd

tions

5-7.

1981)

tically

Hydmulk
19S1

in

Petroleum

Beijing,

voirs.,

A. B.:

J.

S. A.:

Testing

H.:

ImL

Finite

in

areas.

Waters,

Wells,

Holditch,

Analysis

Tech&;l

1.

Conference,

Samaniego-V.,

(Sept.

Cinco-f-ey,

and

problems,

and

Transient

1982

19.

capabilhiea

investigatorss

and
Fractured

W.J.

Pressure

subsurface

modeling

Many

published

are

10 infer

Curcent

adequate.

have

we

quite

is

Lee,

J.

tendencies.

At

for

Pressure

used

vertical

Conversion

16$9-66.

relationahlp

stress

11.

fracturing

formations

and

the

portion

Improve

still

shown

a fractuie-heightiffactum-pressure

developed

to

that

Energy

.(IW71>
.. . .. .

as

SPE

Oct.

Annual

14

Heat

Transfer

1969

SPE

Fmm

Irnpmved

13-H.
Effect
1970)

of Temperamre
493-502;

on
Trans.,

249.
P.E.

and
A

Q.adir,

Critical

J. A.:
Review

. PmppaM
of

Pardcle

Transport
Settling

in
Velocity

Hydraulic
Equa-

685

tions,,,

paper

SPE

Pernmbilify
,accepted
40,

for

Novotny,
at

1977

Denver,
41,

43.

(June

SOC.

Pet.

SPE/DOE

E.g.

27-2%

61,

J.

presented

Con fetwms

Parficke

Settling

Development

Settling

and

Velocity

Formula

of Any

for

Size

JJirect

Particle,

Deter-

N. D.:

Velocities

27,

1043-44

E,

and

M.dnick,

S, Trans.,

in

An

Explicit

Solid-Liquid

Equation

Systems,,,

for

AIChE

63.

45.

J.

R. L.:

S Trans.,

Correladom
Jnst.

for

Chem.

Minimum

E.grs.

53,

64.

,A.A.:

Hydraulic

Fracturing,,,

Hmd:gton,

L. J,,

accepted

for

Govier,
Pipes,

Van

Za.ker,

P.E.

twex

Setting

Velocity

1983

SPEIDOE

the

posium,

50.

and

Rosepilm,
Con

fimrmnt

of

8405

presented

sndExhibitio,

Nolte,

K.G.

52.

Warpimki,

E.g.

53.

N.R.

in

54.

Vegas,

1982)
and

Stress,

Laborato~

Vane

J. A.:

and

and

9260

the

Co-

F1OW

1982)

SpE
Gas

Favorable

A. S.:

of

tie

Danesby,

57.

Palmer,

Dallas,
A A.:

mations,

Sot.
J.D.

Propagxicm

the
.A

ct

total

pmticle

perforation

ti

shesr

Youngs

dimensionless

gravitational

dpf

FCD
g

Effect

of
Pa

hf
k

Propagation
Comain-

in

R.covmy
58.

Smith,

the

M, B.,

1982

Approach

Gmmetty

of

to

the

1982

Odezm,
60.

11626

686

SPE
Sept.

Thiercelin,
dient

(Feb.
C.D.

ihe

1978)
Jr.:

of
1982

Stress

formation

formation

presemed

R.J.,

md

SPE

in Layered

For-

Hydraulic

Resavoim

Corm

Fmm

Anebtic

Applications

p~per

SPE
Gas

psi

] (kPa

in.

(cm)

seconds-1
of

elasticity

fractuti

flow

acceleration,
pay,

capacity
fflsec

(mIs)

ft (m)

ft (m)

msJ

.Conf&me

S pa~r

10965

and

permeability,

Evaluation
,- paper

SPE

Gas

Annal

Technical

Conference

Exh&ition3

11069

amd

Lmmmczyk,
of
the

Vefiical
1983

R,:

The

Hydraulic

SWSS
presented

Exhibition,

SPE/DOE

Effect

lbf-sec/sq

pseudopmssurc,

ft (Pa.s)

psi2/cp

Pd
NJJ)z(p)

Pb

~ =

b~h~vio~

flo..xj

number

pressure,

base

(&,~~@&s~)

incje~

of perforations

pb

psi

(IJ%)

Pfi

friction

fracture

pressure

flOw

pressure,

psi

10ss

across

closure

(kPa)
petiorations

strew

FZWIUE
~resented

of Jn-Situ
SPE

md

index,

gas

at

New

,Ap
q

drop,
Me,

m3/d
laboratory

md

Fraxure

J. F.:

SPE

to
11649

Reservoirs

(cm)

permeability,

p=

Bowen,

11637

Gas

factor

in.

net

fracture

SPE

16-18,

LMper

Sedimmts

at

SUt?sses

Low-Permeahd!ty

height,

Consistency

and

Unmnvemiqmd

May

Stress

13-16.

modulus

Pr-

Conference

Variations,,

B.rkd

ad

paper

Oriented

diameter,

m(p)

3341.

3-D

SPEIDOE

Pittsburgh,

Technical

Height

Blocks,,,

of

laboratory

(kPaz/Pa.s)

of

Fractures,,>
Low-Permeability

Stress
paper

psi/ft

STBID
or

103

(kPa/m)
or

Mcf/D

(stock-tank

m3/d)

Conat
New

26-29.

M.
fhe

for
paper

Propagation

Meawwnmt.,,

A. S.:

in Deeply

Effect
A

compressibility,

rate,

fixture

26-29.

Abou-Sayed,
tmst

J,

Roseberg,

Sept.

J.:

Design,,,

diameter,

Hydrmdk

Procedures

Technical

11631

Resewoim

ft (m)

system

1981
SpE/DOE
Denver,
May

Fracmres,,,

Amwa[

Fraclure

Preseme

at

vs.

of

voluine

21-24,

E.g.

the

and

Hydraulic

SPE

Danull,

SP~AmIJa3

Odeams,
59.

Pet.

Symposium,

Widfb-Desizn

Gas

G.omem

of In-Situ

width,

if

1981
SPEIDOE
LOW.
May
27-29.
Demmr,
Variational

Mechmkms
of

1980
Sept.

presented

10849

of

;<Hydmdic

and

Three-

SPE

1316.

March

fracture

on

S...

Fracture

987g
p=senf~
at tie
Reservoirs
Symposium,

Shapes
at the

Exhibiticm,
56.

Cubic

SPEIDOE

formation

321-32.

Fracture

Studies

Three-Dimensional

Amlysis

presented

Straw.,

Treahnem

27-29.

oducing

Fractwing

Fully

the

Thor$m,

Fluid

(J.m

Hydraulic

Abau-Sayed,

paper

MB::

Measurements

paper

Low-Permeability

March

Fracturing

Coma.iormnt,,.

and

Cleary,

SPWDOE

Recovery

K. Y.:

333-4o.

Low-Permeability

55.

One-Meter

y,,, paper

of

Investigation

Cliftcm,

FrattnEs,,

imd

Technical

R. J.,

J.

Fracture

and
FtackIre

on

Sym-

1767-75.

Eg.

Lam,
Sinwlator,

23-26.

Friction,

Pet.

and

Nomenclature

piesented

Stresses

Shaffer,

Expwimeotal

of

11636

Interpretation

G. D.,

at
Sym-

13-16.

1983

1983

Resewoin

Law-Penneabilitv

Hydraulic

Denver,

Gas

presented

Frac-

Reservoirs

Cotfcm

19S1)

SPE
9878
mesented
at
Gas Resewo~rs
Symposium,

R.J.

SPE

M. D.,

at the

Vertical

11629

for

147,

in Vertical

Anmal

Sept.

M. B.:

Clark,

Rock:

Predktion

1980)

Primipal
in

merit, Dater
Permeab;liiy

the

19,

March

Wilsm,

, Determination

Symposium,

Commlling

SPE

(1972),
Velocities

Gas

SPE

(Sept.

Hydraulic

(J..

Layered

Las

of

et .1,:

City

in

13-16.

of Factors

SPEJDOE

Demw,

Hydra.Jic

M.M.IW

M.,

L. W.:

presented

Transpofi

of

1979

> .%..

L. W.

J.

Teufel,

(May

Fractures

Tech.

Effects

Stresses

Sept.

York

paper

the

Smiti,

FrachIri8,,

In-situ

Strain

A..U,I
23-26;

13-16.

Andemm,

C<Some

Hydraulic

Vegas,

c%mpleJ

Low-ParneabiIity

Pet.

M. E.,

E.g.

Correlations,-

at

md
J.

SpE

Teufel,

paper

Low-Permeability

March

peper

for

Leakoff,,x

13-16.

Denver,

Study

Solution

with

SPEIDOE

Fracture

1983

at the

Symposium,
65,

March

on

Simulation

, Dynamic
Fracturing

Setdig

Pmppant

Hydraulic

f.wence

D.:

1979

of

New

CDelermimdion

SPE

L. D,,

N.:

March

M. H.:

Hanson,

Co.,

Chem.

Guler,

Drover,

Pressures,3
51,

U.,

presented

J..

Flow

Dctermim

Systems,x,

Clwk,

at

49.

Reinhold

E.g.

in

13240,

Cmsslinked

at ~e
Las

3%

Nomography

Solid-Liquid
48.

K.:

Trampmf

1978)

Williams,
i

Pet.

in SOc,

Nostrand

A.:

and

presented
Exhibition,

Aziz,

Sand

(Jan,

Settling

8342
and

and

of

Tech.

R. R.,

Pmppant

p.blicakm

G. W.

Prz.

Hannah,

S paper
SpE
Conference

Technical

Solution

3.

and

Fluids,,

47.

Numerical

.1983
Denver,

Hydraulic

Distribution

Daneshy,

fhe

Kavvadas,

ac the

Ahmed,

Fractures

Low-Pcnneability

Denver,

~ymposiwn,

(1975)

Numerical

Analysis

SPEiDOE

Dimensional

13-16.

Jr.:

(Containment),,9

M. P.,

wesented

Velocify,,

Expenmmfs

46.

1983

at

Quantitative

Growth

CIeaIY,

Hydraulic

Symposium,

A.:<

the

278-81.
44.

SetWi,

March

H.B.

presented

Reservoirs

Fracture

card,

Elomgated

11627

Gas

posium,

Sylvester,

1981)

of

Denver,

md

I.D.

SPE

Exhibition,

16&66,

and

F1.idizatim

of

Sympmium,

Pahmw,

Height

paperSPE6813

Technical

Reservoirs

Low

May

62.

1967)
D.J.

Bamea,

1981
Denver,

Transport,>

&The

Free

Zigr.mg,

(No,,

the

9-12.

of

SME
42.

i.

Annual

V. F,:

mimticm

at

Symposium,

Proppant

SPE

Oct.

Swanson,

presented

Reservoirs

publication

E. J.:

the

9866

Gas

GmSPE
Gas

qzJ

$rnensionless

qf

mJection

rate,

re

resewoir

drainage

rw

wellbore

radius,

S =

weIl

flow

spacing,
JOURNAL

rate

bblhnin

(m3/s)

mdius,

fI (m)

ft (m)
acres
OF

(mz)
PETROLEUM

TECHNOLOGY

1)

t =
t~,

time,

dimensionless

dimensionless

$=
TD

producing

hours
time

fmntaticm

based

temperature,

S1

Ti

injection

Tf

fluid

v,

settling

velocity,

distance

from

Paficle

fomration

Metric

T~)/(T-Ti)

tempe~NO%
in tie

fracture

at point

fdsec

1.589873

E01

I.OCKI*

E-03

Pas

3.048*

E-01

m
m3

ft

to

some

point

fracture

half

real

deviation

gas

length,

=. viscosity,

perforation

3.785412

E-03

in.

2.540*

E+OO

cm

lbf

4.448222

E+OO

Ibm

4.535924

E01

kg

psi

6.894757

E-03

MPa

9.290304

E-02

mz

irr

ft (m)
factor

coefficient
Co.vmim

cp

(Pa

appment

viscosi~,

cp

Author

SUmmarim

(Pa.s)

the

developm.m,,

@cr)i

viscosity-compressibility
reservoir

APa3L

19s3

fluid

density,

JPf

is exact.

factor

.s)
D!wng.lshed

v.

m3

gal
(m/s)

wellbore

Factors

sq ft
z =

ft (g/m3)
fraction

q
of

a fracture
Xf

g/err

porosity,

bbl

tbe

density,

Conversion

temperature

interest,

PP

.rf

temperuhrrc=(Tf-

.x =

on

prnduct

initial

intividuds
!.

conditions
g/mL.

at

@crrr3)

mote

series

stale
for

.[

readers

recognized
de fi.iWE

Purpose

To

,oelrolewn

.ngineerMg.

inform

as
work

art

i.

who

are

not
in

present

general
The

are

the

expwt$

and
the

articles

serlm

an

area

01

,Peci.4isls

me

specific

a project

uescriPfive
:echno[ogy
in

areas,

read.amhip
is

general,

these
dewls
of

recent

of !he

the

by

toPics

articles
only

to

desccibinq

tiscu,%d.
prmide

illustrate

ad.ancm

Technical

Presentations

key
tie

in

Cmwe

ma
recant

Wriiten

various

by

mference$
technology,
areas
Cmnmiuee.

687

of

10039

Ralph W, Veatch, Jr,

to = post frac shut-in time

3. Elkins, Lloyd E.:

Research Conf,

post frac dimensionless shut-in time =

t
SD =
At/to

T=

dimensionlesstime based on

Tinsley, J. N., Williams, J. R., Tiner, R, L.,

and Nalone, W. T.: Vertical Fracture Height Its Effect on Steady State Production
Increase, SPE 1900, J. Pet. Tech., May, 1969,
p. 633.

5.

Agarwal, R. G., Carter, R. D., and Pollock, C.

B
Evaluation and Performance Prediction of
L;;-Permeability
Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Trans.,
Vol. 267, 1979, pp. 362-372D.

6.

IJPC- UnconventionalGas Sources - Volume V Tight Gas Reservoirs - Part I - December,

1980, Report by the Tight Gas Reservcir Task
of
Group of the UnconventionalGas Committee
the National Petroleum Council.

7.

Baker, C. O.: Effect of Price and Technology

Tight Gas Resources of the United States,
paper 819584, ASNE Proc. of the 16th Intersoc.
Energy Conversion Conf., Atlanta, Aug. 9-!4,
19810

reservoir temperature, R

TD = dimensionlesstemperature = (Tf-Tr)/(Ti-Tr)
T=
i
f =

injection temperature, R
temperature in the fracture, R

Tr = reservoir temperature,or
v.

pipe fluid velocity, ft/sec

Presented at May, 1980 Gas

4.

= reference shut-in time for pressure differt

SDO
ences
Dxf =

13

on

f =
v=
o
w=
f =

fluid velocity in a fracture, ft/sec

settling velocity, m/see
fracture width, ft

8.

Veatch, R. W.: A Brief Survey of the Technology Challenge to improve Recovery from Tight
Gas Reservoirs* PaPer 819582, ASHE proc. of
the 16th Intersoc. Energy Conversion Conf.,
Atlanta, August 9-14, 1981.

9.

Veatch, Ralph W., Jr. and Crowell, Ronald F.:

Joint Research-Ope]~tions Programs Accelerate
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Technology,SPE
Paper 9337 presented at the 55th Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE
of AIHE, Dallas, Texas, September 21-2fI,1980.

fracture width, it

x = distance from the wellbore to some point in

a fracture
f =

fracture half length, ft

z = real gas tieviationfactor

$=

foratationvoltuaefactor

10. Abou-Sayed, A. S., Abmed, U., and Jones, A:

Systematic Approach to Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Design, SPE/DOE 9877
presented at 1981 SPE/DOE Low Perm. Symp.,
Denver, Nay 27-29, 1981.

$6 = ratio of average and wellbore pressures

while shut-in
i=

-1
shear rate, sec

P = viscosity, cp
11. White, J. L., and Daniel, E. F.: Key Factors
in NHF Design, J. Pet. Tech, V. 33, Aug.,
1981, pp. 1501-1512.

IJ= Poissons ratio

Pa = apparent viscosity, cp

12. Howard, G. C., and Fast, C. R., Hydraulic

Fracturing, SPE Nonograph, Vol. 2, 1970.

(pct)i = viscosity-compressibilityproduct at initial reservoir conditions

p=

13. Rosepiler, M. H.: Determinationof Principal

Stresses and the Confinement of Hydraulic Fractures in Cotton valley, paper SPE 8405 presented at SPE 54th Annual Technical Conference,
Las Vegas, September 23-26, 1979.

fluid density

Pp = particle density
4=

formationporosity, fraction
14. Nolte, K. G. and Smith, H. Il.: Interpretation
of Fracturing Pressures,paper SPIi8297 presented at SPE 54th Annual Technical Conference,
Las Vegas, September 23-26, 1979.

REFERENCES
1. Waters, A. B.: Hydraulic Fracturing - What Is
It?, TIC Facts JPT, V. 33, August, 1981,
pp. 1416.
2.

15. Hanson, M. E., Anderson, G. D., Shaffer, R. J.,

an~tThorson, L. D.: Some Effects of Stress,
Friction and Fluid Flow on Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE/DOE 9831 presented at the SPE
Symp. on Low Perm. Gas Reservoirs, Denver,
May 27-29, 1981.

Smith, M. B.: StimulationDesign for Short

Precise Hydraulic Fractures - mHF, SPE 1013,
presented at 56th Annual SPE Fall Tech. Conf.,
San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 5-7, 1981.

317

14

CURRENT HY!RAULIC FRACTURING TREATMENT AND DESIGN TECHNOLOGY

.6. Warpinski, N, R., Clark, J. A., Schmidt, R. A.,

and Huddle, C. W.: Laboratory Investigation
on the Effect of In Situ Stresses on Hydraulic
Fracture Containment,SPE/DOE 9834 presented
at the SPE Symp. on .LowPerm. Gas Reservoirs,
Denver, May 27-29, 1981.
.7. Tuefel, L. W., and Clark, J. A.: Hydraulic
Fracture Propagation in Layered Rock: Experimental Studies of Fracture Containment,
SPE/DOE 9878 presented at the SPE Symp. on Low
Perm. Gas Reservoirs, Denver, May 27-29, 1981.
.8. Clifton, R. J., and Abou-Sayed, A. S.: A Variational Approach to the Prediction of the
Three-DimensionalGeometry of Hydraulic Fractures, SPE/DOE 9879 presented at the SPE Symp,
on Low Perm. Gas Reservoirs, Denver, May 27-29,
1981.
19. Cleary, M. B,: Analysis of Mechanisms and
Procedures for Producing Favorable Shapes of
Hydraulic Fractures, SPE 9260 presented at the
SPE 55th Ann, Fall Tech. Conf. and Exhib.,
Dallas, Sept. 21-24, 1980.
?0. Daneshy, A. A.: Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Layered Formations,Sot. Pet. Eng.
Jour. V. 18, No. 1, pp. 33-41, 1978.
!1. BJ Hughes, Inc., a subsidiary of Hughes Tool
Company, Arlington, Texas - fracturingengineering and product data.

10039

from Hydrauli30. Williams$ B, B,: ItFluidLOSS

tally Induced Fractures, SPE Trans. (1970),
V. 249, pp. 882-888.
31. Hall, C. D., Jr. and Dollarhide, F. E,: Fracturing Fluid Loss Agent Performance Under
Dynamic Conditions,J. Pet. Tech. (July, 1968)
763-768.
32. Rogers, R. E., Veatch, R. W., and Nolte, K. G.:
Pipe Viscometer Study of Fracturing Fluid
Rheology, SPE 10258 presented at SPE 56th Ann,
Fall Tech. Conf. and Exhib., San Antonio,
Ott. 4-7, 1981.
33. Cloud, J. E. and Clark, P. E.: Stimulation
Fluid Rheology 111. Alternatives to the Power
Law Fluid Model for Cross-Linked Gels,
SPE 9332 presented at 55th SPE Ann. Fall Tech.
Cori?.and Exhib., Dallas, Sept. 21-24, 1980.
34.

Cutler, R. A,, Jones, A. H., Swanson, S. R.,

and Carroll, H. B., New Proppants for Deep Gas
Well Stimulation,Paper 9869 presented at the
1981 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilitySymposium,
Denver, May 27-29, 1981.

35. Neal, E. A., Parmley, J. L., and Colpays, P.

J .: Oxide Ceramic Proppants for Treatment of
Deep Well Fractures, Paper 6816 presented at
the SPE 52 Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, October 9-12, 1977.
36.

Sinclair, A. R., and Graham, J. W.: A New

P~oppant for Hydraulic Fracturing, Paper presented at ASME Energy Technology Conference in
Houston, Texas (November5-9, 1978).

23. Dresser-TitanDivision of Dresser Industries,

Houston Texas - fracturing engineering and product data.

37.

Perkins, T. K. and Kern, L. R.: ;Widthsof

Hydraulic Fractures, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, September, 1961, p. 937.

24. Halliburton Services, a Halliburton Company,

Duncan, Oklahoma - fracturing engineering and
product data.

38.

Sneddon, I. N.: The Distribution of Stress in

the Neighborhood of a Crack in an Elastic
Solid, Proc. Royal Sot. (1946) A, vol. 187,
229.

39.

Geertsma, J. and DeKlerk, F,: A Rapid Method

of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically
Induced Fractures, Journal of Petroleum Technology, December, 1969, p. 1571.

40.

Khristianovitch,S. A and Zheltov, Yu. P.:

Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of
Highly Viscous Fluids, Proceedings of the 4th
World Petroleum Congress, Vol. II, 1955,
p. 579.

41.

Barenblatt, G. I.: MathematicalTheory of

Equilibrium Cracks, Advances in Applied
Mechanics, Vol. III, 1962, p. 55.

42.

Geertsma, J., and Haafkens, R.: A Comparison

of Theories for Predicting Width and Extent of
Vertical Hydraulically Induced Fractures,
Trans ASME, V. 101, March 1979, pp. 8-19.

43.

Daneshy, A. A.: On the Design of Vertical

Hydraulic Fractures, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, Jan. 1973, p. 83.

~2. Dowell Division of Dow Chemical U.S.A., Tulsa,

Oklahoma - fracturingengineering and product
data,

25. Smith Energy Services, a Division of Smith

International,Inc., Golden, Colorado - fracturing engineeringand product data.
26. The Western Company of North America, Fort
Worth, Texas - fracturingengineering and product data.
27. RecommendedPractice for Standard Procedure
for the Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing
Fluids, RP 39, American Petroleum Institute,
Dallas, Texas.
28. McDaniel, R. R,, Deysarkar, A. K., and Callanan, M. J.: An Improved Method for Measuring Fluid Loss at Simulated Fracture
Conditions,SPE 10259 presented at SPE 56th
Ann. Fall Tech. Conf. and Exhib., San Antonio,
Oct. 4-7, 1981.
29.

King, G, E.: Factors Affecting Dynamic Fluid

Leakoff with Foam Fracturing Fluids, SPE 6817
presented at SPE 52nd Ann. Fall Tech. Conf. and
Exhib., Denver, Oct. 9-2.2,1977.

10039
h4.

Ralph W. Veatch, Jr,

Daneshy, A, A,, et al,: Effect of Treatment

Parameters on the Geometry of a Hydraulic Fracture, SPE Preprint 3507, presented at the 46th
Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, New Orleans, 1971.

\5. Nordgren, R. P.:

Propagationof a Verti:al
Hydraulic Fracture, Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal, August, 1972, p, 306,
i7. Settari, A.: Simulationof Hydraulic Fracturing Processes, SPEJ, v. 2<,December,
1980, pp. 487-500.
i8. Sinclair, A. R.: Heat Transfer Effects in
Deep Well Fracturing,J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1971) 1484-1492;Trans., AIME, 251.
19. Barrington, L. J., Hannah, R. R. and Beirute,
R .: Post Fracturing Temperature Recovery and
Its Implication for StimulationDesign, paper
SPE 756fJpresented at the SPE 53rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Oct. 1-4, 1978.
50. Wheeler, J. A.: AnalyticalCalculationsof
Heat Transfer From Fractures, paper SPE 2494
presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 13-15, 1969.
51. Whitsitt, N. F. and Dysart, G. R.: The Effect
of Temperature on StimulationDesign, J. Pet.
Tech. (April 1970) 493-502; Trans., AIME, 249.
52. Clark, P. E. and Quadir, J. A.: Prop Transport in Hydraulic Fractures: A Critical Review
of Particle Settling Velocity Equations, Paper
9866 presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symposium, Denver, Colorado, May 27-29,
1981.
i3. Novotny, E. J.:
Proppant Transport,
paper
SPE 6813 presented at SPE 52nd Annual Fall
Technical Conference,Denver, Oct. 9-12, ;977.

59.

15

Govier, G. k. and Aziz, K.: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes, van Nostrand Reinhold
co,, New York (1972).

60, Dobkins, Terrel A.: Methods to Better Determine Fracture Height, paper SPE 8403 presented
at SPZ 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference,
Las Vegas, September 23-26, 1979.
61,

Smith, R. C., Dobkins, T. A., Smith, M. B., and

Pattillo, P. D.: Fracture Height - From Temperature Logs?: paper SPE 7559 presented at
SPE 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference,Houston, October 1-4, 1978.

62. Nolte, K. G.: Determinationof Fracturing

Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline,
paper SPE 8341 presented at SPE 54th Annual
Technical Conference,Las Vegas, September
23-26, 1979.
63. Voegele, M. D., and Jones, A. H.: A Wireline
Hydraulic Fracturing Tool for the Determination
of In Situ Stress Contrasts,paper SPE-DOE
8937 presented at SPE-DOE UnconventionalGas
Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 18-20,
1980.
64. Fertl, W. H.: Evaluationof Fractured Reservoir Rocks Using GeophysicalWell Logs, paper
SPE-DOE 8938 presented at SPE-DOE
UnconventionalGas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 18-20, 1980.
65. Koerperich, E. A.: Shear Wave Velocities
Determined from Long and Short Spaced Borehole
Acoustical Devices, paper SPE 8237 presented
at SPE 54th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
66.

j4. Swanson, V. F.: The Development of Formula

for Direct Determinationof Free Settling
Velocity of Any Size Particle, SME Trans.,
Dec. 1967.

Arm, J., and Murray, J.:

Formation Compressional and Shear Interval Transit-Time Logging
by Means of Long Spacings and Digital Techniques, paper SPE 7446 presented at SPE 53rd
Annual Technical Conference, Houston, Oct. 1-4,
1978.

67.

i5. Zingrang, D. J. and Sylvester, N. D.: An

Explicit Equation for Particle Settling Velocities in Solid-LiquidSystems, to be published
in AIChe J.

Smith, M. B., Holman, G. B., Fast, C. R., and

Covlin, R. J.: The Azimuth of Deep Penetrating Fractures in the Wattenberg Field, J.
Pet. Tech (Feb. 1978), 185-193.

68.

Smith, M. B., Logan, J. M., and Wood, M. D.:

Fracture Azimuth--A Shallow Experiment,
J.
Trans. ASME (June,
1980, V. 102, 99-105).

Energy
Resources
Tech,

56. Barnea, E. and Mednick, R. L.: Correlations

for Minimum FluidizationVelocity, Trans.
Inst. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 53, 1975, 278-281.
57.

Daneshy, A. A.: NumericalSolution of Sand

Transport in Hydraulic Fracturing,
Journal of
PetroleumTechnology,
Jan. 1978, 132-140.

58.

Hawington,
L. J., Hannah, R. R. and Williams,
Dynamic Experiments and Proppant Settling
D.:
in Crosslinked
Fracturing
Fluids,
paper SPE
8342 presented at SPE 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference,
Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26,
1979.

69.

Wood, M. D., Pollard, D. D., and Raleigh,

of In-Situ Geometry of
C. B.: !!Determination
Hydraulically
Generated Fractures
Using Tiltmeters,
paper SPE 6091 presented
at SPE 51st
Annual Technical
Conference,
New Orleans,
October 3-6, 1976.

70.

Detection
Within the WellSchuster,
C. L.:
bore of Seismic Signals Created by Hydraulic
Fracturing,
paper SPE 7448 presented
at 53rd
Annual Technical
Conference,
Houston, Oct. 1-4,
1978.

TABLE 1
COMMONLY USED FRACTURING FLUID SYSTEMS

Water-based polymer solutions of

Natural Guar Gum (Guar)a
HydroxypropylGuar (HPG)a
Hydroxethyl Cellulose (HEC)
CarboxymethylHydroxethyl Cellulose (CMHEC)a
Polymer Water-in-Oil Emulsions
2/3 Hydrocarbonb + 1/3 Water-Based Polymer Solutionc
Gelled Hydrocarbons
Petroleum distillate, diesel, kerosene, crude oil
Gelled Alcohol (Methanol)
Gelled Acid (HC1)
.!queousFoams
Water phase - guar, HPG Solutlons
Gas phase - nitrogen, COZ
a
Can be crosslinked to increase viscosity.
b
Petroleum distillate, diesel, kerosene, crude oil..
c
Usually guar or HPG.

TABLE 2
TYPICAL FUNCTIONS OR TYPES OF ADDITIVES

TABLE 3

AVAILABLE FOR FRACTURING FLUID SYSTEMS

Typical Fracturing Sand Sizes

Activators, chelating, or cross-linkingagents

Anti-foaming agents
Bacteria control agents
Breakers for reducingviscosity
Buffers
Clay stabilizing agents
Defoamers
Demulsifyingagents
Dispersing agents
Emulsifying agents
Flow diverting or flow blocking agents
Fluid loss control agents
Foaming agents
Friction reducing agents
Gyp inhibitors
pH control agents
Scale inhibitors
Secvxestering
agents
Sludge inhibitors
Surfactants
Temperature stabilizing agents
Water blockage control agents

Sand Size
Designation

CorrespondingSieve Screen
Range of Opening Sizes

Primary Sizes
12/20
20/40
40/70

850-1700 micrometers
425- 850
212- 425

Alternate Sizes
6/12
8/16
16/30
30/50
70/140

1700-3350
1180-2360
600-1180
300- 600
106- 212

TABLE 4
Comparison of Fracture Design Calculations
for Different Fracturing Models

Results calculated on the basis of different theories for predicting

fracture dimensions.
Geertsma &
DeKlerk

Daneshy

Perkins &
Kern

Nordgren

Pad Volume

(bbl)

750

320

1350

1650

Proppant-ladenfluid
Volume

(bbl)

1250

1680

650

350

Average sand
Concentration

(lb/gal)

2.5

2.5

3.5

Total amount of sand

Viscosity after pad
Created fracture length
Effective fracture length
Created fracture width
Effective fracture width
Effective fracture height
Average fracture cond.

(lb)
(Cp)
(ft)
(ft)
(inch)
(inch)
(ft)
(Dft)

157500
36
698
486
,22
.20
98
7.1

176000
36
670
453
,43
.31

68000
36
804
240
.17
.16

51000
36
845
185
.16
,16
85
6.5

9%

6:;

TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF FLUID LOSS COEFFICIENTVALUES

OBTAINED FROM FIELD TESTS VERSUS LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS
Permeability
Field Data
Formation/Area (microdarcies)Fluid Type$ (JJ 3 ft/~min)

Laboratory Data
(10 3 ft/Jmin)

Cotton Valley/
Texas

1-1oo

1, 2, 4

0,3 - 0.7

0.7 - 1.0

!4uddy-J/
Colorado

1-1oo

1, 3

0.5 - 0.7

0.3 - 0.7

Frontier/
Wyoming

1-300

1, 2

1.0 - 1.2

1.0 - 1.5

Mesa Verde/
Wyoming

1-1oo

1, 2

1,0 - 6.0

0.5 - 2.0

10-1000

1, 2

0.8 - 1.2

1.0 - 1.5

Dakota/
New Mexico

*Fluid types: 1 = 40# or 50# gel per ?fgalX-linked HPG

2 = 1 + 5% hydrocarbon
= polymer emulsion
:= 50# gel per Mgal X-linked cellulose derivative

Propped

Healed
Healed

1}

Propped

propped

Fig. 1- Example One wing of a propped vertical fracture.

.
B!
a

Length
$ Revenue
Less
1/
s cost

Langth

Fig.

Fracture Langth

Resewoir
Permeability

Fracture
Length

Fracture
Conductivity
~
costs &
Revenues

Fig. 3- Critical factors tooptimum fracture stimulation.

Frac. 1/2 Length

1000s Feet

2
1

xtremely Very
Tight
Tight

Near
Tight

Tight

Conventional

!,
MO
Micro
Darcies

.0001
.1

.0
1

.005 .01

,!
.06.1

II

o
1

10 60100
1000
hl Situ aBe Permeability
5

10.0

100.

Ic),ooo

Fig. 4- Desired fracture half:lengths for different formation permeabilities.

100,OOO

10 I ?I 11111

I 1111!1

I 111111

1 I [11111

I Ilrllr

L
-=
e

Folds Of Producing
Rate Increase

k w

conud#g??ty

++[

..oo159+(*)vq

Fig. 5- Producing rate folds of increase from fracturing-steady

state flow.

10
Dimensionless
Fracture Capacity
1

. CD
-().~

Reciprocal
Dimensionless
Rate,
1

-(),5
-f

10-

>6
/9
/50
/~ w

q~

10-:

2.624 x104kt

*um
2

kfw
CD=

10-:
1 o-m

10-4

10-
Dimensionless Time, tD~
10-

10

Fig. 6-Producing rate type curves with propped vertical fractures - transient flow,
constant wellbore pressure.

80

r
Fracture Length

Cumulative Production,
% Gas In Place

~.

20 100
0

12

Producing

20

16

Time,

24

Years

Fig. 7- Cumulative production vs. fracture length - low permeability (.005 md) case.

SP

Lithology
Type

Permeability

~.

..

.Ooo1 .001

Profile (MD)
.01

.1

1.0

.* O. O.*. .

.=:::~
;:.:
8*-*.*.
-**.*..
,* ;.-*

.0.

l~~llbge~o
9:,.,
, .**

****.*,

i;;:

0,:.;.i:

e***,*:,
,9.::
.*

***.***

~l I :Oy,

{{*. j: .,.:,*O;

***;*., I 9.,**
..***.
.*,**
:.*..,.

.
.
- ..
.
.

This?
I
Or
This?

Fig. 8- Possible tight gas reservoir permeability profiles - can we

identify from logs?

Length

of_

To Stress

E
B

3E

c
Possible Horizontal
Frac Where Vertical
Stress (Weight Of
Overburden) Is Less
Than Lateral Stress

Vertical Frac
Confined By Two
Higher Stress Beds

Vertical Frac

Perpendicular 10
Least Stress

Fig. 9-Effect

of stress fields on fracture propagation.

400
Height-

~Oo

Feet

200

1Oa

~
1000

3000

2000
Fracture Length - Ft.

Ffg. 10-Fracture

height vs. fracture length-300,000

gallon treatment design.

LOG DERIVED
STRESS, psi

DEPTH, ft

6055

6845

II
Ill

6550
~lx

-9470

~
~

,V

6855x
:

lam

-9495

*.:
,**
,,,:;,
.,,,,1
,,* S*:,
:;;X,, ,,

-9525

:. :,
t .,,.f
.,,,.,
,.,
b

-9595

-%35

RA;TUREA

EFFECTIVE S-r
. MODIFIED
IN SHALE ZONES (I, II, II I,V}
TO COPTEIATE WITH MEASURED
TREATING PRESSURES

/&-=
FROM LOG

I
I
I

20

:
,

RAPID FRACTURE
GROWTH ZONE

111+11

70

>

100

150

FRACTURE HEIGHT, ft

Fig. 11 -in

situ stress profiies, and fracture height vs. pressure.

Actual ?

Theory

Fig 12- Theoretical fracture propagation models vs.

possible actual in situ behavior.

.-

T/

1,500
Fracture
Length 1,000
(Ft.)

Water & Oil

Base Gels

500 ~~~
01

20

150Fracture Height
20 BPM
1

60

1
100

140

Volume (1000s

180

I
220

260

Gallons)

Fig. 13- Fluid 10 .s vs. fracture length for low (emulsion) and high (base gels) fluid
loss behavior.

1.0
90-150

0.5

Spurt Loss
gawtz

175 F

\~

0,

80 OF

=rmabiit

0.05

0,01I
0

md: Excessive Spurt Loss

1
20

1
40

0,1-1

60

md S Zero Spurt Loss

# o

100

80

Guar Concentration-lb/l

000 Gal Water

Fig. 14- Spurt loss vs. Guar conceritratlon(uncrosslinked), temperature, and formation
permeability.

0.01 \
0,005

C,ll-ft/mh
/2

~:;m!;:~:

20

0.OO1

.40

60

Guar Concentration-lb/l

80

100

000 Gal Water

Fig. 15- Clll fluid ioss coefficient VS. Guar concentration (uncrosslinked).

140

.008

Without

FLA

,007
60$ Lb,

401 Lb.

,006
,Oog
Fluid Loss Coefficient,
Clll,

40 Lb.

1/

Ft/Min.12

,004

//

,00:

0=;
z
60

Lb{

With 25 Lbt2000
Solid Particulate

,00:

.00

i
1

100 150 200 250 300

Fluid Temperature, F

350

Fig. 16- Fluid loss additives and temperature effect on Clll fluid loss coefficientc:osslinked HPG.

1000
1/4 D Tube
Rotational Viscometer
1/8 D Tube
o 40 Lb/1000 Gal, 149*F

0
A

Shear Stress,
dyne/cm2

,0.

Jn

10
4

11111

100

Shear Rate, sem-

Fig. 17- Flow curve for uncrosslinked 40 lb HPG.

$aa

1{

10

Gal.
FLA

Flow Behavior

Consistency

Index n

Index

0.10 =Y*
$
u
c

o~

300
180
240
Fluid Temperature, F

240
300
180
Fluid Temperature, F

Fig. 18- Typical n and K behavior-crosslinked 40 and 60 lb HPG (2 hours continuous

shear at temperature).

Apparent Viscosity,
pa @ S11 see-l

10

0123466

7
Timo @ Temperature,

Hours

Fig. 19- Temperature and time effects on viscosity-40 lb crosslinked HPG.

Crosslinked,
Borate Ion

la

10

Apparent Viscosity,
Poise@

51 see-l

l.O

1
L

0.1

Soln,
0 Polymer
No Crosslinker

1000

..-

A/

A 25

13

Fig. 20-Temperature

stabilitycrosslinked

1 I

17

19

OR-l ~ 104

versus uncrosslinked HPG.

I If

,0/

Shear Stress,
1 oa
dyne/cm2

#[d

A Rotational viscometer
01/8
D Tubes
l/4 D Tubes
i

1(

10

i 1 1111

1 I i 1(

100
Shear Rate, see-l

Fig. 21- Flow curves from pipe and rotational viscometer 40 ib crosslinked HPG at
176F.

,
1

Ooov

1 I I II

800
600 -

I/1

400 -

200 -

Lbs/1 000 Gal

HEC
@o

Friction PressurePSI Per 1 000 Feet

100 F
80 60 ~

*O

60

40 -

20 -

10

40
4
6 810
20
Flow Rate-BBL Par Min.

Fig. 22- Pipe friction vs. flow rate and gel concentration-iiEC

6080100

fluids.

1 O,ooa

MDFt. Fracture
Conductivity

1 ,Ooc

Range Of Fracture
Conductivity Achievable
With 20-40 Mesh Sand
1900014,000 Depth Range)
1

Oc

6
Depth

10

( 1000s

Ft.)

12

Fig. 23- Expected typical fracture conductivity vs. depth.

14

16

100,000

1 1 1]

fl

1 ~,ooo

Fracture
Co;d;;t~ty
.

1,000

100,
Proppant Concentration
Fig. 24- Fracture conductivity,
sand.

- lb. per 1000 sq. ft. of propped area

closure stress, and proppant concentration-24/40

Perkins & Kern

frac

Geertsma & deKlerk

<P .pproximatel
~pe of Fracture

hf

Fig. 25- Fracture configurations for theoretical models - Perkins and Kern vs. Geertsma
and DeKlerk.

1,200

1,000
800

40(1

2oa

800
1,000
1,200
200
400
600
Frac Fluid Volumes (Thousands of Gallons)

Fig. 26- Simulation model fracture length.

10

Wheeler

Dimensionless
Temperature

T*

6
4 .

2 .

X@

Fig. 27- Fluid temperature profile predictions in fractures during treatment.

,*

2900

9,500
SIMULATED !
\
TEMP.
PROFILE
i

9,6(X)

(
;\

f- POSTFRAC

FRACTURE TOP . &

----

9,7(XI

2930

T~p.oF,

0
;

<

i=
w
w
L

E
a 9,80)
w
m
Y

IA

o
= 9,900

3020 z

3050

10,OM

10,m

\i

200

225

250

.0
)F

43

108

121

135c

Fig. 28- Temperature profiles: pre.frac (PWC), post-frac (PROFILE), and pre.
frac model simulated.

POST FRAC
GAMMA RAY

OST
RAC

2780
+

LP

2840 y
?

)
Fig. 29- Warm Nose anomaly temperature profiie and post-frac gamma
surveys.

-Pc

pn:pT+ STAT[CHEAD

I -CONFINED HEIGHT;
UNRESTRICTED EXTENS ION
II - STABLE GROWTH,OR FLUID LOSS
II - GROWIH RESTRICTION
Iv - UNSTABLE HEIGHT
ill
P;
-----

Iv
/

.
.
.
..
.

EXTENSION--

LOG TIME

Fig. W- Wellbore net fracturing behavior during treatment-vertically

confined fractures.

f-o
T

TUBING

I
v

DFP = PT+

STATIC HEAD

ul

I
9

12

CLOCKTIME (HOURS)
Fig. 31- Injection rates, downhole (tubing) and surface (annulus) fracture pressures
during MHF.

I-

1 LOGCYCI.E -

SDO

0.25

P*
/

CHLE &
H;

fiiih.

psi
min.
R
.

ft
1

=1
SD

- DIMENSIONLESS SHUT-IN TIME

Fig. 32- Post-fracturing

type curves.

treatment

shut-in

pressure

master

DECLINE