Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
i
Table of Contents
June 1997
1.1 History of Hydraulic Fracturing .................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Amoco Hydraulic Fracturing Course Outline ........................................................... 1-11
1.3 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................ 1-14
1.4 References ................................................................................................................. 1-17
2.1 The Continuity Equation ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Model Differences and the Elasticity Equation .......................................................... 2-4
2.3 References ................................................................................................................... 2-8
3.1 Reservoir Response To Fracture Stimulation ............................................................. 3-1
3.2 Steady-State Reservoir Response .............................................................................. 3-10
3.3 Transient Reservoir Response .................................................................................. 3-24
3.4 Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material) ........... 3-27
3.5 Bilinear Flow - Gas Reservoirs ................................................................................. 3-40
3.6 References ................................................................................................................ 3-49
4.1 Elastic Properties of the Formation ............................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Fracture Toughness .................................................................................................... 4-7
4.3 Hardness ................................................................................................................... 4-10
4.4 References ................................................................................................................. 4-11
5.1 Fracture Height/Fracture Height Growth - 3-D Modeling/Design ............................. 5-1
5.2 Fluid Loss .................................................................................................................. 5-20
5.3 Fluid Viscosity ......................................................................................................... 5-27
5.4 Treatment Pumping ................................................................................................... 5-36
5.5 References ................................................................................................................. 5-43
6.1 Fluid Selection .......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Fluid Classification ..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Fluid Selection Criteria .............................................................................................. 6-3
6.4 Description of Fracturing-Fluid Types ..................................................................... 6-30
6.5 Rheological Testing Of Fracturing Fluids ................................................................ 6-49
6.6 Service Company Trade Names ............................................................................... 6-52
6.7 Fluid Scheduling ...................................................................................................... 6-70
6.8 References ................................................................................................................ 6-80
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Proppant Properties ..................................................................................................... 7-4
7.3 Conductivity/Permeability ....................................................................................... 7-19
7.4 Proppant Transport .................................................................................................... 7-26
7.5 Non-Darcy Flow ........................................................................................................ 7-29
7.6 References ................................................................................................................. 7-32
8.1 Introduction To Fracturing Pressure Analysis ........................................................... 8-1
8.2 Fracture Closure Stress ............................................................................................... 8-4
8.3 Bottomhole Treating Pressure .................................................................................. 8-14
8.4 Pressure Decline Analysis ........................................................................................ 8-25
8.5 Pressure History Matching ....................................................................................... 8-46
8.6 Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline ..................................................... 8-55
Table of Contents
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual ii
June 1997
8.7 Nomenclature .............................................................................................................8-68
8.8 References ..................................................................................................................8-70
9.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................9-1
9.2 General Economic Criteria ...........................................................................................9-3
9.3 Elements Of Fracturing Treatment Costs ...................................................................9-20
9.4 References. .................................................................................................................9-21
10.1 Fracturing Tests ..........................................................................................................10-3
10.2 Introduction To TerraFrac ........................................................................................10-29
10.3 References ................................................................................................................10-49
11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................11-1
11.2 Stimulation Design and Planning ...............................................................................11-2
11.3 Water Quality Control ................................................................................................11-4
11.4 Proppant Quality Control ...........................................................................................11-6
11.5 Fracture Treatment Setup ...........................................................................................11-8
11.6 Fracture Treatment Execution ..................................................................................11-10
11.7 Post-Frac Cleanup ....................................................................................................11-13
11.8 Frac Treatment Reporting Requirements .................................................................11-14
FRAC School Problem No. 1 ............................................................................................... P-1
FRAC School Problem No. 1 ............................................................................................... P-2
9.9 History of Hydraulic Fracturing....................................................................................1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Developments in Hydraulic Fracturing .......................................................................1-3
Fracture Orientation: ..............................................................................................1-3
Fracturing Fluid: .....................................................................................................1-4
Proppants: ................................................................................................................1-5
Fracture Treatment: .................................................................................................1-6
Early Fracture Design ...................................................................................................1-8
9.10 Amoco Hydraulic Fracturing Course Outline.............................................................1-11
9.11 Nomenclature ..............................................................................................................1-14
9.12 References...................................................................................................................1-17
9.13 The Continuity Equation...............................................................................................2-1
Chapter 2 Fracturing Models
9.14 Model Differences and the Elasticity Equation ............................................................2-4
9.15 References.....................................................................................................................2-8
9.16 Reservoir Response To Fracture Stimulation ...............................................................3-1
Fracture Length ............................................................................................................3-1
Chapter 3 Reservoir Analysis
Reservoir Permeability .................................................................................................3-2
Fracture Flow Capacity ................................................................................................3-3
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Table of Contents
iii June 1997
Fracture Orientation ................................................................................................ 3-8
9.17 Steady-State Reservoir Response .............................................................................. 3-10
Effective Wellbore Radius, r'
w
................................................................................... 3-10
A Direct Way Of Finding FOI ................................................................................... 3-14
Optimizing Fractures for Secondary Recovery ......................................................... 3-15
Acid Fracturing .......................................................................................................... 3-22
9.18 Transient Reservoir Response ................................................................................... 3-24
9.19 Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)............. 3-27
Flow Periods For A Vertically Fractured Well .......................................................... 3-27
Fracture Linear Flow ........................................................................................... 3-27
Bilinear Flow ....................................................................................................... 3-27
Formation Linear Flow ........................................................................................ 3-27
Pseudo-Radial Flow ............................................................................................. 3-27
Bilinear Flow Equations ........................................................................................... 3-28
Constant Formation Face Rate ............................................................................ 3-28
Constant Formation Face Pressure ...................................................................... 3-29
Bilinear Flow Graphs ................................................................................................ 3-30
Constant Formation Face Rate ............................................................................. 3-30
Constant Formation Face Pressure ....................................................................... 3-31
End of Bilinear Flow ................................................................................................. 3-33
Constant Formation Face Rate ............................................................................. 3-33
Constant Formation Face Pressure ....................................................................... 3-33
Analysis of Bilinear Flow Data ................................................................................ 3-35
Liquid-Constant Rate ........................................................................................... 3-35
Liquid-Constant Pressure .................................................................................... 3-36
Effect of Flow Restrictions ....................................................................................... 3-37
Effect of Wellbore Storage ....................................................................................... 3-37
9.20 Bilinear Flow - Gas Reservoirs .................................................................................. 3-40
Bilinear Flow Equations ............................................................................................ 3-40
Constant Formation Face Rate ............................................................................. 3-40
Constant Formation Face Pressure ....................................................................... 3-40
Bilinear Flow Graphs ................................................................................................ 3-41
Constant Formation Face Rate ............................................................................ 3-41
Constant Formation Face Pressure ...................................................................... 3-42
End of Bilinear Flow ................................................................................................. 3-43
Constant Formation Face Rate ............................................................................. 3-43
Constant Formation Face Pressure ...................................................................... 3-44
Analysis of Bilinear Flow Data ........................................................................... 3-46
Gas-Constant Rate ............................................................................................... 3-47
Gas-Constant Pressure ......................................................................................... 3-47
9.21 References ................................................................................................................ 3-49
9.22 Elastic Properties of the Formation ............................................................................. 4-1
Table of Contents
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual iv
June 1997
Chapter 4 Formation Mechanical Properties
Effect Of Modulus On Fracturing ................................................................................4-4
Typical Modulus Values .............................................................................................4-4
9.23 Fracture Toughness ...................................................................................................... 4-7
9.24 Hardness ....................................................................................................................4-10
9.25 References ..................................................................................................................4-11
9.26 Fracture Height/Fracture Height Growth - 3-D Modeling/Design ..............................5-1
Factors Controlling Fracture Height ............................................................................5-1
Chapter 5 Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Factors Controlling Fracture Height ............................................................................5-2
Effect Of Closure Stress Profile On Fracture Height Growth .....................................5-3
Effect Of Bed Thickness On Fracture Height Growth .................................................5-6
Effect Of Other Factors On Fracture Height Growth .................................................5-10
Picking Fracture Height ..............................................................................................5-12
(Estimating the In-situ Stress Profile) ........................................................................5-12
Factors Which Dominate In-situ Stress Differences ..................................................5-12
3-D Fracture Modeling/3-D Fracture Design .............................................................5-15
Measuring Fracture Height .........................................................................................5-17
Fluid Loss Height .......................................................................................................5-18
9.27 Fluid Loss ...................................................................................................................5-20
Fluid Loss Coefficient, Ct ..........................................................................................5-20
Spurt Loss ...................................................................................................................5-24
9.28 Fluid Viscosity ..........................................................................................................5-27
Viscosity Determination and Rheological Models .....................................................5-27
Fluid Entry Conditions and Temperature Considerations ..........................................5-29
Reservoir Temperatures .............................................................................................5-32
Effect of Proppant on Viscosity .................................................................................5-33
Summary For Fluid Viscosity ....................................................................................5-34
9.29 Treatment Pumping ....................................................................................................5-36
Fracture Radius ..........................................................................................................5-36
Pump Rate ..................................................................................................................5-36
Fluid Volume: ......................................................................................................5-37
Transport and Viscosity: ......................................................................................5-38
Summary for Pump Rate: ......................................................................................5-40
Depth .........................................................................................................................5-40
Friction Pressure ........................................................................................................5-40
9.30 References ..................................................................................................................5-43
9.31 Fluid Selection ...........................................................................................................6-1
9.32 Fluid Classification ......................................................................................................6-1
Water-Base Fracturing Fluid Systems .........................................................................6-1
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Table of Contents
v June 1997
Chapter 6 Fluid Selection and Scheduling
Hydrocarbon-Base Fracturing Fluid Systems ............................................................. 6-2
9.33 Fluid Selection Criteria ............................................................................................... 6-3
Safety and Environmental Compatibility .............................................................. 6-5
Compatibility with Formation, Formation Fluids, and Chemical Additives ......... 6-6
Simple Preparation and Quality Control ............................................................... 6-7
Low Pumping Pressure .......................................................................................... 6-9
Appropriate Viscosity .......................................................................................... 6-11
Low Fluid Loss .................................................................................................... 6-14
Good Flow Back and Cleanup ............................................................................. 6-18
Economics ........................................................................................................... 6-23
9.34 Description of Fracturing-Fluid Types ..................................................................... 6-30
Water-Base Polymer Solutions ............................................................................. 6-30
Fast-Crosslinking Water-Base Gels .................................................................... 6-32
Delayed Crosslinked Fluids ................................................................................. 6-38
Polymer Emulsion Fluid ...................................................................................... 6-40
Foamed Frac Fluids ............................................................................................. 6-41
Gelled Hydrocarbons ........................................................................................... 6-46
Gelled Methanol .................................................................................................. 6-48
9.35 Rheological Testing Of Fracturing Fluids ................................................................ 6-49
9.36 Service Company Trade Names ............................................................................... 6-52
9.37 Fluid Scheduling ....................................................................................................... 6-70
Fluid Scheduling Given the Fluid Rheology ............................................................ 6-70
Fluid Scheduling Using Constrained Rheology ....................................................... 6-71
Warning: .................................................................................................................... 6-73
9.38 References ................................................................................................................ 6-80
9.39 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7-1
Why Do We Need Proppants? ..................................................................................... 7-1
Types of Proppants Available ...................................................................................... 7-1
Calculating the Stress on Proppant ............................................................................. 7-1
Chapter 7 Proppants
What Causes A Proppant To Be Substandard? ............................................................ 7-3
Overview of Chap. 7 .................................................................................................... 7-3
9.40 Proppant Properties ..................................................................................................... 7-4
Sphericity and Roundness ........................................................................................... 7-4
Hardness ..................................................................................................................... 7-4
Size Distribution ......................................................................................................... 7-5
Crush Resistance ......................................................................................................... 7-9
Bulk and Grain Density ............................................................................................ 7-11
Acid Solubility .......................................................................................................... 7-11
Turbidity ................................................................................................................... 7-13
Resin-Coated Proppant ............................................................................................. 7-16
Table of Contents
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual vi
June 1997
Precured Resin-Coated Proppant ..........................................................................7-16
Curable Resin-Coated Proppant ............................................................................7-16
9.41 Conductivity/Permeability ........................................................................................7-19
Laboratory Methods of Measuring Fracture Conductivity .........................................7-19
Radial Flow Cell ...................................................................................................7-19
Cylindrical Pack ....................................................................................................7-20
Cylindrical Cell With Platens ...............................................................................7-20
Cooke-Type Cell (API Cell) .................................................................................7-20
Long-Term Conductivity: Baseline Data ..................................................................7-20
Long-Term Conductivity: Damage Caused By Frac Fluids and Additives ...............7-23
9.42 Proppant Transport .....................................................................................................7-26
9.43 Non-Darcy Flow ........................................................................................................7-29
9.44 References ..................................................................................................................7-32
9.45 Introduction To Fracturing Pressure Analysis ............................................................8-1
History ..........................................................................................................................8-1
Chapter 8 Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Similarity to Pressure Transient Analysis ....................................................................8-2
9.46 Fracture Closure Stress ................................................................................................8-4
Microfrac Tests ............................................................................................................8-4
Pump-In/Decline Test ..................................................................................................8-7
Pump-In/Flowback Test ..............................................................................................8-9
Step-Rate Injection Test .............................................................................................8-10
9.47 Bottomhole Treating Pressure ...................................................................................8-14
Nolte-Smith Log-Log Interpretation .........................................................................8-14
Critical Pressure ........................................................................................................8-20
BHTP Measuring Techniques ...................................................................................8-22
BHTP Measuring Devices .........................................................................................8-23
9.48 Pressure Decline Analysis .........................................................................................8-25
Fracture Stiffness .......................................................................................................8-26
Fluid Loss Rate ..........................................................................................................8-27
P* - Pressure Decline Analysis ...............................................................................8-30
Type Curve Analysis .................................................................................................8-32
'G' Function Plot for P* ...........................................................................................8-35
Fluid Efficiency .........................................................................................................8-36
Example/Guidelines ..................................................................................................8-38
Example - Pressure Decline Analysis: ..................................................................8-38
Pitfalls .........................................................................................................................8-39
Post-propped-Frac Pressure Decline Analysis ..........................................................8-42
9.49 Pressure History Matching ........................................................................................8-46
Simple History Matching ..........................................................................................8-48
Simple History Matching Procedure & Example .......................................................8-49
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Table of Contents
vii June 1997
Complex Geology Effects .......................................................................................... 8-50
Problem Definition .................................................................................................... 8-52
Pressure Decline Analysis Variables ......................................................................... 8-52
9.50 Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline ...................................................... 8-55
Advantages of an Efficiency Derived Schedule ........................................................ 8-56
Disadvantages of an Efficiency Derived Schedule .................................................... 8-56
Determining Fracture Fluid Efficiency ..................................................................... 8-58
Pad Volume .............................................................................................................. 8-59
Proppant Addition Schedule ..................................................................................... 8-62
Effect of Treatment Volume ..................................................................................... 8-64
Example ..................................................................................................................... 8-65
Find Actual Job Expected Efficiency ..................................................................... 8-65
Treatment Pad Percentage ........................................................................................ 8-66
Proppant Addition Schedule ..................................................................................... 8-66
Time/Temperature History ....................................................................................... 8-67
9.51 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................ 8-68
9.52 References ................................................................................................................. 8-70
9.53 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 9-1
Chapter 9 Economic Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
9.54 General Economic Criteria .......................................................................................... 9-3
The Present Worth Concept ......................................................................................... 9-4
Profitability Index ....................................................................................................... 9-7
Discounted Return on Investment (includes Fracture Discounted Return
on Investment) .......................................................................................................... 9-8
Payout ........................................................................................................................ 9-10
Return on Investment ................................................................................................. 9-11
Incremental Economics .............................................................................................. 9-12
Present Worth Vs. the Profitability Index ................................................................. 9-14
Yet-to-Spend (Point Forward Evaluation) Vs. Full-Cycle Economics ...................... 9-17
9.55 Elements Of Fracturing Treatment Costs .................................................................. 9-20
Stimulation Service Company Costs ......................................................................... 9-20
9.56 References. ................................................................................................................ 9-21
Chapter 10 Special Topics
9.57 Fracturing Tests ......................................................................................................... 10-3
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10-3
Core Tests to Determine Mechanical Rock Properties and Fluid
Loss Coefficient ...................................................................................................... 10-3
Prefrac Logging Program ........................................................................................... 10-5
Borehole Geometry Log ............................................................................................ 10-5
Long Spaced Digital Sonic Log (LSDS) .................................................................. 10-6
Downhole Television and Borehole Televiewer ...................................................... 10-7
Table of Contents
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual viii
June 1997
Cement Bond Log ......................................................................................................10-7
Temperature Logs .......................................................................................................10-8
Perforating and Permeability Determination ............................................................10-10
Bottomhole Treating Pressure Measurement ..........................................................10-11
Procedure for Measurement of Static Pressure Tubing/Annulus .............................10-12
Procedure for Recording Downhole with Surface Readout .....................................10-12
Procedure for Downhole Pressure Measurement .....................................................10-13
Pressure Measurement Devices ................................................................................10-13
Closure Stress Tests ..................................................................................................10-13
Minifracs .................................................................................................................10-17
Postfrac Logging Program ........................................................................................10-18
Temperature Decay Profiles ................................................................................10-18
Postfrac Temperature Log Interpretation .................................................................10-18
Postfrac Gamma Ray Logs ......................................................................................10-21
Fracture Azimuth Determination ..............................................................................10-21
Tiltmeters .................................................................................................................10-22
Borehole Geophones ...............................................................................................10-24
Oriented Core Analysis ...........................................................................................10-26
Borehole Geometry .................................................................................................10-28
9.58 Introduction To TerraFrac ........................................................................................10-29
General Description of the TerraFrac Simulator ......................................................10-29
Input To Terrafrac ....................................................................................................10-31
Terrafrac Simulation Runs .......................................................................................10-32
Confined Fracture Growth .................................................................................10-32
Unconfined Fracture Growth .............................................................................10-36
Summary ..................................................................................................................10-41
9.59 References ................................................................................................................10-49
9.60 Perforating ....................................................................................................................... 1
Hole Diameter ................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 11 Fracture Stimulation Guidelines
and
Quality Control
Chapter 12
Number of Perforations ................................................................................................... 3
Perforation Phasing ......................................................................................................... 4
Perforating for Deviated/Horizontal Well Fracturing ..................................................... 4
Over-Pressured Perforating ............................................................................................. 8
Other Considerations ....................................................................................................... 9
9.61 WELLBORE CONFIGURATION 10
Fracturing Down Casing ............................................................................................... 11
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Table of Contents
ix June 1997
Fracturing Down Tubing with a Packer .........................................................................11
Fracturing Down Open-Ended Tubing ..........................................................................12
Methods of Obtaining Fracturing BHP ..........................................................................12
Considerations for Frac-Pack Completions ...................................................................14
9.62 PRE-TREATMENT PLANNING 16
Data Collection Requirements .......................................................................................16
Preliminary Treatment Design .......................................................................................17
Frac Brief Procedure ..................................................................................................18
Service Co./Operator Interaction ...................................................................................18
9.63 FRACTURING FLUID QC 20
Base Mixing Fluid .........................................................................................................21
Transport and Storage of Fluid ......................................................................................23
Quality Controlling Water-Based Gels ..........................................................................24
Quality Controlling Oil-Based Gels ..............................................................................30
Quality Controlling Foam Fracturing Fluids .................................................................33
Additional Fluid Quality Control Measures ..................................................................34
9.64 PROPPANT QC 36
Closure Stress and Proppant Strength ............................................................................36
Proppant Particle Size ....................................................................................................36
Proppant Grain Shape ....................................................................................................41
Proppant Fines ...............................................................................................................42
Interpretation ............................................................................................................43
Additional Proppant Quality Control Measures ............................................................45
9.65 TREATMENT EXECUTION 46
Lines of Authority and Communication ........................................................................46
Safety Meeting ...............................................................................................................46
Pressure Testing .............................................................................................................47
Treating Problems ..........................................................................................................47
Flushing the Treatment ..................................................................................................49
When to Flowback .........................................................................................................50
9.66 POST-FRAC LOGGING 51
Temperature Logs ..........................................................................................................51
Gamma-Ray Logs ..........................................................................................................54
9.67 FRAC School Problem No. 1 P-1
9.68 FRAC School Problem No. 2 P-2
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ P-2
Purpose ........................................................................................................................ P-2
Description ................................................................................................................... P-2
Procedure: .................................................................................................................... P-9
9.69 Workshop Problem 3 P-10
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... P-10
Description ................................................................................................................. P-10
Objective .................................................................................................................... P-10
Table of Contents
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual x
June 1997
Procedure: .................................................................................................................. P-11
9.70 Workshop Problem 4 P-15
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... P-15
Purpose ...................................................................................................................... P-15
Geologic Setting ........................................................................................................ P-15
Description ................................................................................................................ P-15
9.71 Workshop Problem No. 5 P-23
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... P-23
Description ................................................................................................................ P-23
Objective: .................................................................................................................. P-23
Procedure: .................................................................................................................. P-29
9.72 Water Injection Well Problem 6 P-30
Pressure Falloff Test .................................................................................................. P-30
Mini-Frac Pressure Data ........................................................................................ P-34
9.73 Tight Gas Problem 7 P-39
9.74 Oil Well Problem 8 P-43
Other Pertinent Information ...................................................................................... P-43
Pressure Build-Up Data from Offset Well ................................................................ P-43
Results from Minifrac Treatment .............................................................................. P-48
9.75 Bili near FLow Problem 9 P-49
P-49
P-49
P-49
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1-1
Chapter
February 1993
1.1 History of Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing has made a significant contribution to the oil and gas industry as a primary
means of increasing well production. Since fracturing was introduced by Stanolind (Amoco) in
1947, over one million fracture treatments have been performed and currently about 40% of all
wells drilled are stimulated using hydraulic fracture treatments. Fracture stimulation treatments
not only increase production rates, but are also credited for adding to the United States reserves an
additional seven billion barrels of oil and over 600 trillion scf of gas which would have otherwise
not been economical to develop. In addition, hydraulic fracturing has accelerated recovery and sig-
nificantly increased the present worth of U.S. reserves.
As we move towards the next century, we are challenged with applying this technology domesti-
cally in an attempt to offset large domestic trade deficits and declining production. In addition, as
our industrys focus moves internationally, methods of accelerating recovery, such as fracturing,
must be explored. Fig. 1.1 presents a world cross section of producing oil wells, their average pro-
duction and the total production of each country. This logarithmic plot shows that fracturing appli-
cations will continue to be important throughout North America, driven by the large number of
wells available and the corresponding low producing rates presently experienced by these wells.
Fig. 1.1 - Producing Wells and Average Production
1000000
100000
10000
1000
100
10
Saudi Arabia U. K. Nigeria Mexico China Canada U. S.
10
8
6
4
2
0
No. Wells/Av. Production-bbl/d Total Daily Production-bbl
PRODUCING WELLS & AVERAGE PRODUCTION
Likelihood of Fracturing
Country
# Oil Wells
Total Production
Well Rate
Excerpted DOE/FE-0139
Introduction
1
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-2
February 1993
The idea of hydraulically fracturing a formation to enhance the production of oil and gas was con-
ceived by Floyd Farris
1
of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation (Amoco) after an extensive study of
the pressures encountered while squeezing cement, oil and water into formations. The first exper-
imental treatment intentionally performed to hydraulically fracture a well for stimulation was per-
formed by Stanolind in the Hugoton gas field in Grant County, Kansas, in 1947 as shown in
Fig. 1.2. A total of 1,000 gallons of napalm thickened gasoline was injected, followed by a gel
breaker, to stimulate a gas producing limestone formation at 2,400 ft. However, the deliverability
of the well was not changed appreciably. The hydraulic fracturing process was first introduced to
the industry in a paper written by J. B. Clark
2
of Stanolind in 1948 and patented and licensed in
1949. These patents resulted in royalty income to Amoco in the 17 years following and essentially
funded the construction of the Amoco Production Research (APR) complex in Tulsa, Oklahoma
(i.e., APR is the house that fracturing built).
Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company was given an exclusive license on the new process. The
first two commercial fracturing treatments were performed in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and
Archer County, Texas, on March 17, 1949, using lease crude oil or a blend of crude and gasoline,
and approximately 100 to 150 pounds of sand. Both wells were successful and thereafter applica-
tion of the fracturing process grew rapidly, peaking, as shown in Fig. 1.3, at an average of +3,000
wells per month by the mid-1950s and increasing the supply of oil in the United States far beyond
our early projections.
3
The first one-half million pound fracturing job in the free world was performed in Stephens
County, Oklahoma, in October 1968, by Pan American Petroleum Corporation, now Amoco.
Fig. 1.2 - Hugoton Gas Field in Grant County, Kansas, 1947.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
History of Hydraulic Fracturing
1-3 February 1993
Today, fracture treatments are performed regularly in all petroleum producing countries, including
the Soviet Union. It is estimated that at least 30% of the recoverable oil and gas reserves in the
United States can be attributed to the application of hydraulic fracturing.
Significant technical advancements have been made during the four plus decades since the first
commercial treatments. After the first few jobs, the average fracture treatment consisted of about
750 gallons of fluid and 400 pounds of sand. Today, treatments average about 43,000 gallons of
fluid and 68,000 pounds of propping agent with the largest treatments exceeding one million gal-
lons of fluid and three million pounds of proppant. This reflects advancements made by the indus-
try in both theory and practice which have resulted in a better understanding of the fracturing
process. As this process evolved; cleaner and more suitable fluid systems were developed; sand
quality increased and higher concentrations were pumped; higher strength synthetic proppants
were developed for deep-well fracturing; pumping and monitoring equipment were improved and
computerized; and fracture design and evaluation techniques grew in sophistication.
Developments in Hydraulic Fracturing
Fracture Orientation:
The original, shallow fracture treatments were thought to be horizontal, even though some of the
deep wells that had been squeeze cemented showed cement in vertical fractures. The theory was
that the overburden was lifted and the fracture was inserted in a horizontal plane. Clark et al.
4
reported on a method of forming a vertical fracture in 1953 by plastering the walls of the wellbore
to where it became a thick wall cylinder. Pressures were then applied to obtain vertical fractures,
otherwise it was theorized horizontal fractures were obtained. Huitt et al.
5-7
extended the theories
in the late 1950s that the best fracture systems were horizontal and they could be obtained by
notching the formation. Hubbert and Willis
8
with Shell Oil Company presented a paper in 1956
reporting on the work they had done in a gelatin model. This work indicated that all fractures were
Fig. 1.3 - Average Number of Fracturing Treatments per Month United States.
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
1949 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEARS
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
J
O
B
S
P
E
R
M
O
N
T
H
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-4
February 1993
vertical, creating quite a controversy. In spite of this, it was not until the mid-1960s that the indus-
try accepted the theory that practically all fractures were vertical and that only a few were horizon-
tal. Prior to this time, theories were advanced that all fractures with a treating gradient of over 0.8
or 0.9 psi per foot of depth were vertical. All those with treating gradients less than this were hor-
izontal. Work initiated by Cochran, Heck and Waters and reported on by Anderson and Stahl
9
proved, without a doubt, that the majority of fractures were in fact vertical and it was a rare excep-
tion when a horizontal fracture was obtained.
Fracturing Fluid:
Hydraulic fracturing fluids have varied considerably over time as shown in Fig. 1.4. The first frac-
ture treatments were performed with gelled lease crude, later, gelled kerosene was used. In 1952,
refined and lease crude oils began to gain momentum, and by the latter part of 1952, a large portion
of all fracturing treatments were performed with refined and lease crude oils. These fluids were
inexpensive and safer, permitting greater volumes to be pumped at a lower cost. Their lower vis-
cosities exhibited less friction than the original viscous gel, thus injection rates could be obtained
at lower treating pressures. Higher injection rates, though, were necessary to transport the sand due
to the lower viscosity and high rates of leakoff for these fluids.
In 1953, with the advent of water as a fracturing fluid, a number of different gelling systems were
developed. Surfactants were added to minimize emulsions with the formation fluid and potassium
chloride was added to minimize the effect on clays and other water sensitive constituents of the
formation. Later, other clay stabilizing agents were developed that enhanced the potassium chlo-
ride and permitted the use of water in a greater number of formations. Other new innovations, such
as foams and addition of alcohol, have enhanced the use of water in a number of formations. Aque-
ous fluids such as acid, water and brines are nowused as the base fluid in over 70%of all fracturing
treatments employing a propping agent. In the early 1970s, a major innovation in fracturing fluids
Fig. 1.4 - Trend of Fracturing Base Fluids.
AQUEOUS BASE FLUID
OIL BASE FLUID
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1989 1985 1981 1977 1973 1969 1965 1961 1957 1953 1949
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
O
F
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
YEAR
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
History of Hydraulic Fracturing
1-5 February 1993
was to use crosslinking agents to enhance the viscosity of gelled water base fracturing fluids. Less
pounds of gelling agent were required to reach the desired pumping viscosity, thus reducing cost.
In many cases, however, too high a viscosity was obtained and pumping problems resulted. This
system was soon perfected by reducing the concentration of gelling agents and crosslinker, result-
ing in an economically satisfactory fracturing fluid system.
During the mid 1970s, fracture stimulations were designed for deeper formations. Gel stabilizers
were developed to maintain the properties of the fluid system at the higher temperatures at these
greater depths. The first of these temperature stabilizers was 5% methanol. Later chemical stabi-
lizers were developed that could be used alone, or with the methanol. There was a synergistic effect
obtained when the chemical and the methanol were used together as stabilizers.
Recently, a new innovation was introduced which gives even greater temperature stability. As the
gelled fluid reaches the bottom of the hole and the temperature is increasing, a secondary gelling
agent reacts giving a more uniform viscosity than previous surface crosslinked fluids. Improve-
ments in crosslinkers involve a delayed effect, thus permitting the fluid to reach the bottom of the
hole in high temperature wells prior to crosslinking. This system gives adequate viscosity for mov-
ing the propping agent through the surface equipment and into the tubing, reducing the shearing
effect caused by tubulars, and supplying a good fluid in the hydraulically created fracture to ensure
adequate proppant transport. These are only a few of the highlights of fracturing fluid develop-
ments. Many other developments have enhanced the performance of fracturing fluids.
Proppants:
To keep the artificially created hydraulic fractures open, proppants of many different kinds have
been used. The first fracturing treatment used a northern type sand for proppant; however, screened
river sand was also employed on many early treatments. In fact, on some of these treatments, con-
struction sand sieved through a window screen was employed as the propping agent. It was soon
realized, however, that a high quality sand was desirable and specifications were established on
the type of sand to be used. There have been a number of trends in the size of sand, from very large
down to small. From the very beginning a 20 to 40 U.S. standard mesh sand has been the most
popular and at the present time approximately 85%of the sand used is of this size. Numerous prop-
ping agents have been evaluated throughout the years, including plastic pellets, steel shot, Indian
glass beads, aluminum pellets, high strength glass beads, rounded nut shells, resin coated sands,
sintered bauxite and fused zirconium.
Fig. 1.5 shows that the amount of sand used per fracture treatment has steadily increased through
time. As shown, the concentration of sand (lb/fluid gal) remained low until the mid-1960s when
the use of viscous fluids, such as complexed water base gel and viscous refined oil were intro-
duced. At that time, large size propping agents were advocated to improve well deliverability.
Proppant design techniques at low sand concentration changed from the monolayer or partial
monolayer concept to pumping sand at multiple grain diameters and high concentrations. Over the
last decade, there has been another sharp increase in sand concentrations used corresponding with
improved hydraulic fracturing fluids and advanced pumping equipment.
10
It is not infrequent to
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-6
February 1993
see proppant concentrations averaging 10 to 12 lbm/gal used throughout the treatment. This means
that low concentrations are used at the start of the job and rapidly increased to concentrations of
15 lbm/gal or more.
Corresponding to increased fluid viscosity, higher pump rates and deeper well applications, the
hydraulic horsepower (hhp) used in treatments has increased from an average of about 75 to over
1500 hhp as shown in Fig. 1.6.
Fracture Treatment:
There are cases where as much as 15,000 hhp has been available on jobs with over 10,000 hhp
actually being utilized. Contrast this to some of the early jobs where only 10 to 15 hhp was
required. The initial jobs were performed at rates of two to three barrels per minute (bpm). Rates
Fig. 1.5 - Trend of Average Fracture Treatments in the United States.
a
Fig. 1.6 - Evolution of Fracturing Techniques.
100
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 70
80
90
100
Fluid/treatment
P
o
u
n
d
s
S
a
n
d
s
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
)
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
S
a
n
d
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989
Years
Sand
Concentration
Sand/treatment
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
o
f
F
l
u
i
d
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
HHP/JOB
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989
YEARS
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
H
Y
D
R
A
U
L
I
C
H
O
R
S
E
P
O
W
E
R
INJECTION
RATE
R
A
T
E
,
b
b
l
/
m
i
n
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
History of Hydraulic Fracturing
1-7 February 1993
increased rapidly until the early 1960s where rates around 20 bpm became popular. Today, jobs
are performed at a lowrate of about 5 bpm, to a high rate of over 100 bpm. At one time in the Hugo-
ton gas field, pumping rates of over 300 bpmwere employed. Surface treating pressures sometimes
are less than 100 psi, yet others may approach 20,000 psi. Today, as treatment size, pressure and
pump rate increase, treatment costs have also increased, ranging from less than $10,000 to over
$1,000,000. The first two commercial treatments cost between $900 and $1,000.
Conventional cement and acid pumping equipment were utilized initially to execute fracturing
treatments. One to three units equipped with a jet mixer and one pressure pump delivering 75 to
125 hhp were adequate for the small volumes injected at the low rates. Amazingly, many of these
treatments gave phenomenal production increases. As the treating volumes increased, accompa-
nied with demand for greater injection rates, purpose built pumping and blending equipment was
developed to performthese specialized functions. Today, the development of fracturing equipment
continues, including intensifiers, high pressure manifolds, and computer control systems. Large,
massive hydraulic fracturing (MHF) treatments as illustrated in Fig. 1.7, were developed by
Amoco in the Hydraulic Fracturing Department, Amoco Production Research in Tulsa. The treat-
ments were developed to convert non-commercial, tight gas deposits found throughout North
America into viable, commercial properties. MHF treatments require several million dollars worth
of equipment, utilize in excess of one million gallons of fluid and have placed over 3.3 million
pounds of sand, injected in one continuous operation pumped over 10 hours at rates of approxi-
mately 40 bpm.
Sand and fluid are mixed in a piece of fracturing equipment called a blender. For the first few
years, sand was added to the fracturing fluid by pouring it into a tank or jet mixer containing frac-
Fig. 1.7 - Massive Hydraulic Fracture Treatment.
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-8
February 1993
turing fluid and connected to the pump suction. Later with less viscous fluid, a ribbon or paddle
type batch blender was employed. Finally, the continuous proportioner and blender was devel-
oped. Blending equipment has become very sophisticated to meet the need for proportioning a
large number of dry and liquid additives, then properly blending them into the base fluid with the
specified concentrations of sand or other propping agents. In order to handle large volumes of
propping agents required in large treatments, special storage facilities have been developed to
facilitate storing and moving the propping agents at the proper rate to the blender. Proportioning
and mixing of the gelling agents has become a very sophisticated procedure utilizing computer
control systems to step or ramp sand concentrations in the blender as shown in Fig. 1.8. It is nec-
essary to blend them in a uniform method to give the maximum yield viscosity. One procedure is
to use a concentrated gelling agent prepared prior to the treatment, then taken to the field where it
is proportioned into the base fluid in a semi-continuous method. A very uniform high yield viscos-
ity is obtained. With the advent of larger size treatments, it has become necessary to have a com-
puter control center (Fig. 1.9) to coordinate all of the activities that are transpiring simultaneously,
each of which is critical.
Early Fracture Design
The first treatments were designed by very complex application charts, nomographs and calcula-
tions to arrive at the treatment size to be pumped. The calculations generally predicted a treatment
size of 800 gallons, or multiples thereof, of fluid, and the sand at concentrations of around one-half
to three-fourths lbm/gal. A hit and miss method of designing treatments was employed until the
mid-1960s when programs were developed for use on simple computers. The original programs,
based on work developed by Howard and Fast
11
on fluid efficiency and the shape of a fracture sys-
tem, were a great improvement. Since that time, many innovations have been introduced through
Fig. 1.8 - Schematic Diagram of Sand Fluid Proportioner.
FRACTURING
FLUID
METERING
PUMP
PROPORTIONING
CONTROL
SAND
BULK OR SACK
SAND - FLUID
MIXTURE TO
PUMP TRUCK
PRESSURIZER
AGITATOR
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
History of Hydraulic Fracturing
1-9 February 1993
mathematical modeling in both fixed height, two-dimensional and variable height, three-dimen-
sional solutions.
Today, programs are capable of determining temperature profiles of the treating fluid during a
fracturing treatment. Such a profile can assist in designing the gel concentrations, gel stabilizer
concentrations, breaker concentrations and propping agent concentrations during the various
stages of the treatment. Models have been developed to simulate the way fluids move through the
fracture and how the propping agent is distributed. From these simulations, production increases
can be determined. Following a fracturing treatment, reservoir models and pressure transient anal-
ysis methods can then be used to history match the pressure and production performance to deter-
mine what type of treatment was actually achieved.
The history of fractured reservoir response analysis dates from the late 1960s. Tinsley et al.
12
did
work on an electrolytic model to determine the effect fracture lengths and flow capacity would
have on the production increase obtained from wells with a different drainage radius. Several oth-
ers developed mathematical models for similar projections. Nolte and Smith
13
developed proce-
dures to correlate between observations made during fracturing treatments and Britt
14,15
and
Veatch
16-18
presented methods to optimize the fracturing process. Several theories have been
advanced by this work which added considerably to the understanding of the hydraulic fracturing
process. This technology added considerably to the understanding of the hydraulic fracturing pro-
cess and is summarized in the SPE Monograph Volume 12.
19
Marked advancements were achieved by Amoco and the industry during the 1970s and early
1980s. Much of what was learned during this period is now being applied to fracturing oil and gas
formations. The most notable contribution was field test procedures and data collection programs
developed to better estimate fracture design parameters. These include prefrac stress tests, minifrac
Fig. 1.9 - Computer Control Console.
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-10
February 1993
calibration treatments and the measurement of bottomhole treating pressures during fracturing.
Observations from these tests indicate lateral fracture extension rate, vertical growth behavior,
fracturing fluid leakoff rate, and general characteristics associated with defining fracture geome-
try. This information has led Amoco and the industry to a more precise and systematic approach
to fracture treatment design.
Well stimulation by hydraulic fracture treatment is an important production engineering process
to Amoco Production Company. There are many fields in the United States that would not be in
existence today if it had not been for hydraulic fracturing. Some of these include the Sprayberry
trend in west Texas; the Pine Island field in Louisiana; many wells in the Anadarko Basin, the Bruy
River and Cardinal Fields in Canada, a large number of Morrow wells in northwestern Oklahoma;
the entire San Juan basin of New Mexico; the Denver Julesburg basin of Colorado; the East Texas
and north Louisiana trend in the Cotton Valley; the tight gas sands of south Texas and western Col-
orado; the tight gas sands of southwestern Wyoming and many of the producing areas of the north-
eastern part of the United States. Recent economic developments and the constant fluctuation in
petroleum prices have led to a near-halt in the development of tight gas fields until recently. The
industry has turned its attention more to low risk, high profit type projects. Still, fracturing remains
as important to many of these projects as to the earlier tight gas developments. With continuing
advancements in technology, hydraulic fracturing promises to continue playing a vital role in
unlocking otherwise unobtainable reserves and extending field life accordingly. For additional
information on current hydraulic fracturing technology, refer to the technical references at the end
of this chapter.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Amoco Hydraulic Fracturing Course Outline
1-11 February 1993
1.2 Amoco Hydraulic Fracturing Course Outline
The purpose of this course is twofold. The course will present the principles behind the fracturing
process which will assist you in understanding the dependencies between fluid hydraulics, rock
properties, resulting fracture geometry and associated reservoir response. The second, and most
important purpose, is to provide a technical understanding to evaluate the results you achieve. This
understanding will allow you to improve field applications and develop new techniques for appli-
cation. Significant financial benefits are possible by diligently applying the current state of tech-
nology, and overcoming arbitrary and poorly implemented procedures and attitudes.
A question often asked today is, What can be changed to maximize profits? As shown in
Fig. 1.10, the optimumtreatment results frombalancing different parameters, i.e., fracture conduc-
tivity, fracture length and reservoir permeability, to achieve the maximum profit. Generally speak-
ing, the desired fracture length for optimal production is bigger for lower permeability formations
as shown in Fig. 1.11. Conversely, the desired fracture conductivity for optimal production is
greater for higher permeability reservoirs.
The optimum treatment will differ from field to field and from one area of a field to another based
on reservoir characteristics and treatment cost. Recognize that the amount of fluid and proppant
required to achieve a desired penetration will vary greatly from location to location as a function
of lithology, wellbore stresses and fracture containment. Therefore, it is very important for overall
financial optimization, that the optimization process be completed for each different situation and
that at least two or three different fluid and proppant systems be evaluated for each situation.
Fig. 1.12, illustrates a simplified schematic of the optimization process used in the design of
hydraulic fracture stimulations. The upper portion of Fig. 1.12 considers the reservoir response
resulting from fracturing and the revenue produced. The detailed aspects of reservoir behavior are
covered in other courses, however, a general discussion of how these topics relate to optimizing
revenue through fracture design is included in this manual in Chap. 3 and Chap. 9. The lower por-
Fig. 1.10 - Critical Factors to Optimum Fracture Stimulation.
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-12
February 1993
tion of Fig. 1.12, relates to creating the fracture (i.e., the cost aspect). Unlike reservoirs, fractures
are created by humans and therefore can be changed and made both longer and wider as required.
The design and implementation of a propped hydraulic fracture stimulation treatment is the pri-
mary topic of this course.
The topics detailed in this course include how a fracture is created, what proppants should be used
to hold it open and how the fluid flow in a reservoir is altered. The effect of fracture penetration,
the importance of fracture height development, the concepts of effective wellbore radius, dimen-
sionless fracture conductivity (F
CD
) and folds of increase (FOI) for steady-state conditions are dis-
cussed. The effect of early time transient production and bilinear flow, and the application of
economic analysis and revenue optimization are elements of coupled reservoir analysis and
Fig. 1.11 - Desired Fracture Half-lengths for Different Formation Permeabilities.
Fig. 1.12- Fracture Stimulation Design--The Total Concept for Optimization.
Frac. 1/2 Length
1000s Feet
4
3
2
1
0
MD
Micro
Darcies
In-Situ Gas Permeability
.0001 .001 .005 .01 .05 .1 1.0 10.0 100.
.1 1 5 10 50 100 1000 10,000 100,000
Extremely
Tight
Very
Tight Tight
Near
Tight
Conventional
Reservoir
Simulator
Hydrafrac
Simulator
C
u
m
.
P
r
o
d
.
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
V
o
l
.
Years Length
Length
Fracture Length
Fracture Length
$
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$
C
o
s
t
$ Revenue
Less
$ Cost
Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Amoco Hydraulic Fracturing Course Outline
1-13 February 1993
hydraulic fracture treatment designs covered in this course.
The financial results obtained in fracturing can be significantly increased, over the standard prac-
tice of the industry, through a better understanding of the fracturing process, how to optimize a
treatment design, and the implementation of quality control in the field. The nomenclature which
follows on the next pages summarizes the most important and frequently used terms in the manual.
The SPE Monograph Volume 12
19
provides a comprehensive review and list of references on
many of the aspects covered in this course.
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-14
February 1993
1.3 Nomenclature
BHCP Bottomhole closure pressure in psi. It is equal to fracture pressure; it is also
c
.
BHTP Bottomhole treating pressure in psi. It is equal to surface treating pressure plus hy-
drostatic pressure minus friction pressure. It is also equal to BHCP plus P
N
.
bpm Barrels per minute.
C Fracturing fluid leakoff coefficient. It is also equal to C
t
in .
C
I
Part of C
t
. It is the effects of the frac fluid viscosity and relative permeability in
.
C
II
Part of C
t
. It is the effects of the reservoir fluid viscosity and compressibility in
.
C
III
Part of C
t
. It is the effects of the wall building properties of the frac fluid in
.
C
t
The total effects of the frac fluid leakoff coefficient in .
C
t
It is the total compressibility factor of the reservoir and fluid in psi
-1
. It is used to
calculate part of C
III
.
E Modulus of Elasticity in psi.
F
CD
A dimensionless fracture capacity. It is related to the contrast in permeability be-
tween the fracture and the formation.
FOI Folds of Increase. It is the ratio of the stabilized production after fracturing to the
production before fracturing. It is equal to Q
FRAC
/Q
UNFRAC
.
Rock porosity in decimal percent.
H Total or gross fracture height in feet.
hhp Hydraulic Horse Power in hp.
H
p
Permeability Height. That portion of the frac height, H, to which frac fluids may be
lost.
k Reservoir permeability in millidarcies (md).
k
f
Fracture permeability in md.
k
f
w Fracture conductivity in md-ft.
ft/ minute
ft/ minute
ft/ minute
ft/ minute
ft/ minute
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-16
February 1993
t Time in minutes.
c
Closure Stress. Equal to BHCP.
TVD True Vertical Depth in feet.
V
FRAC
Volume of fracture cavity in cubic feet.
V
IN
Volume of frac fluid pumped into the well in cubic feet.
V
LOST
Volume of frac fluid leaked from the crack into the formation in cubic feet.
w Fracture Width in feet (may also be in inches).
Average Fracture Width in feet (may also be in inches).
x
f
Fracture radius in feet (or fracture half-length). Measured from the center of the
wellbore to the end of the proppant on one wing of the fracture.
w
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
References
1-17 February 1993
1.4 References
1. Farris, R. F.: U. S. Patent reissued Nov. 10, 1953, Re 23733.
2. Clark, J. B.: A Hydraulic Process for Increasing the Productivity of Oil Wells, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 1-8.
3. Maly, J. W. and Morton, T. E.: Selection and Evaluation of Wells for Hydrafrac Treatment, Oil &Gas J, (May
3, 1951) No. 52, 126.
4. Clark, R. C. et al.: Application of Hydraulic Fracturing to the Stimulation of Oil and Gas Production, Drill. &
Prod. Prac., API (1953) 113-22.
5. Huitt, J. L. and McGlothin, B. B. Jr.: The Propping of Fractures in Formations Susceptible to Propping-Sand
Embedment, Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1958) 115.
6. Huitt, J. L., McGlothin, B. B. Jr., and McDonald, J. F.: The Propping of Fractures in Formations in Which Prop-
ping Sand Crushes, Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1958) 115.
7. Huitt, J. L.: Hydraulic Fracturing with Single Point Entry Technique, JPT, (March 1960) XII, No. 3, 11.
8. Hubbert, M. K. and Willis, D. G.: Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing, Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 153-66.
9. Anderson, T. O. and Stahl, E. J.: A Study of Induced Fracturing Using an Instrumental Approach, JPT (Feb.
1967) 261-67; Trans., AIME, 240.
10. Coulter, G. R. and Wells, R. D.: The Effect of Fluid pH on Clays and Resulting Formation Permeability, pre-
sented at the Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, April 17-18, 1975.
11. Howard G. C. and Fast, C. R.: Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture Extension, Drill. & Prod. Prac.,
API (1957) 261-70.
12. Tinsley, J. M. et al.: Vertical Fracture Height--Its Effect on Steady-State Production Increase, JPT (May 1969)
633-38; Trans., AIME, 246.
13. Nolte, K. G. and Smith, M. B.: Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures, JPT, (Sept. 1981), 1767-75.
14. Britt, L. K.: Optimized Oil Well Fracturing, Phase I Report, Amoco Production Company Report F84-P-23
(May 25, 1984).
15. Britt, L. K.: Optimized Oil Well Fracturing, Phase II Report, Analysis of the Effects of Fracturing on the Sec-
ondary Recovery Process; Amoco Production Company Report F85-P-7 (Jan. 24, 1985).
16. Veatch, R. W. Jr.: Overview of Current Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Treatment Technology--Part 1, JPT
(April 1983) 677-87.
17. Veatch, R. W. Jr.: Overview of Current Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Treatment Technology--Part 2, JPT
(May 1983) 853-64.
18. Veatch, Ralph W. Jr.: Economics of Fracturing Some Methods and Case Study Examples, Amoco Production
Company Report F89-P-58 (Aug. 3, 1989).
Introduction
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
1
1-18
February 1993
19. Gidley, J. L., Holditch, D. E., Nierode, D. E., and Veatch, R. W., Jr.:, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
(1989) 12.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
2-1
Chapter
July 1993
Fracture design models attempt to simulate the natural phenomena associated with the hydraulic
fracturing process. They account for the total volume of fluid injected in the ground (continuity
equation) and estimate the fluid volume that leaks off in the formation and the fluid volume that
remains within the fracture; they relate fracture width to the applied hydraulic pressure (elasticity
equation); they account for pressure loss due to flow within the fracture (fluid flow equation); and
they predict fracture dimensions due to fluid pressure by satisfying a fracture propagation criterion
at the fracture tip.
In many cases, the consideration of continuity and elasticity equations provides insight into the
basic relationship between directly measured qualities of the fracturing process, such as injected
volume and treating pressure.
2.1 The Continuity Equation
The continuity (or volume balance) equation expresses the relationship:
Volume Pumped = Volume Lost + Volume in Fracture or
(2.1)
It states that the volume pumped into the fracture is equal to the volume lost to the formation by
fluid loss plus the volume remaining or stored in the fracture. The individual terms (for a constant
height fracture, pumped at a constant rate) are defined as follows:
(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.4)
Substituting Eqs. (2.2) - (2.4) into Eq. (2.1) , and solving for the tip to tip length, L, gives
(2.5)
V
IN
V
LOST
V
FRAC .
+ =
V
IN
Qt proportional to total cost ( ) =
V
LOST
3CH
p
L t proportional to lost cost ( )
V
FRAC
wHL ( proportional to effective cost) =
L
Qt
3CH
p
t wH +
------------------------------------ - =
Fracturing Models
2
Fracturing Models
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
2
2-2
July 1993
where Q = pump rate in cubic feet per minute (5.6 cu. ft. = 1bbl), t= pump time in minutes, C =
fluid loss coefficient in ft/ , Hp = permeable fracture height in feet, = average fracture width
in feet, and H = total fracture height in feet.
Eq. (2.5) determines the length which will result for a fracture treatment in terms of the other vari-
ables and compares within 10-15% of computer fracture models. Also this equation can be rear-
ranged to form a quadratic equation in terms of . Solving this equation gives the pumping time
(i.e., V
IN
) to obtain a desired fracture length.
Inspection of Eq. (2.5) indicates that increasing any of the terms in the denominator (except time)
will decrease the fracture length. In particular, changing the height, H, and/or fluid loss coeffi-
cient, C, can have dramatic effects on fracture length. Fig. 2.1 shows an example of the relation-
ship between fracture height and length for a given treatment volume. Fig. 2.2 shows a similar
relationship between fluid loss coefficient and length.
Fig. 2.1 - Fracture Height vs. Fracture Length 300,000 Gallon Treatment Design.
min w
t
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1000 2000 3000
H
e
i
g
h
t
-
F
e
e
t
Fracture Length - Feet
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
The Continuity Equation
2-3 July 1993
Fig. 2.2 - Fracture Length vs. Volume Pumped for Low (emulsion) and High (base gels) Fluid Loss
Behavior.
Low Fluid Loss
High Fluid Loss
Polymer
Emulsion
Water & Oil
Base Gels
150 ft Fracture Height
20 BPM
Length
Height
2000
1500
1000
500
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260
Volume (1000s Gallons)
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
f
t
)
Fracturing Models
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
2
2-4
July 1993
2.2 Model Differences and the Elasticity Equation
The width term, , in Eq. (2.5) , has caused the industry many problems because two fundamen-
tally different model assumptions are used for constant height designs which give significantly
different results. The two models are commonly termed the Perkins and Kern (PK)
1
and the Khris-
tianovic (K) model.
2
The differences in the models result from their different applications of the
theory of elasticity to hydraulic fracturing. It should be noted that the Perkins and Kern model was
later extended by Nordgren,
3
while the Khristianovic model was extended by Geertsma and de
Klerk.
4
As a result, PK and PKN are used synonymously for the Perkins and Kern model as
K and GDK are for the Kristianovic model.
A classical solution in the theory of elasticity predicts that, for an infinite, elastic slab, in plane-
strain (i.e., deformation restricted between parallel planes in the slab), with a pressurized slit
through the slab, the slit will deform into the shape of an ellipse. The ellipse will have a major axis
equal to the slit half-length and a minor axis proportional to the pressure and slit length, and
inversely proportional to the elastic modulus as seen in the upper portion of Fig. 2.3. This elastic
solution was applied to hydraulic fracturing, but in different directions as seen in the bottom por-
tion of Fig. 2.3. As shown, the ellipse in the PK model is vertical while the ellipse in the K model
is horizontal. As a result, a continuing debate has been waged during the last 30 years as to which
is correct. This debate is more than academic since the two models predict significantly different
fluid volumes to achieve a desired fracture length. In this regard, the K model requires greater vol-
ume per foot of length. Additionally, the K model implicitly assumes free slip between the frac-
tured bed and bounding beds which is physically improbable at depth.
The prevailing thought within Amoco is that the PKNmodel is most applicable for fractures which
are long when compared to their height and that the GDK model is more applicable for fractures
Fig. 2.3 - Two Very Different Models.
w
Fracture Pressure and Width
VOL
IN
= VOL
LOST
+ VOL
FRAC
W H L
ELASTICITY
TWO MODELS
ELLIPSE
ELLIPSE
ELLIPSE
P=S+p
L/2
L=D
W~
D
_
E
p
PERKINS & KERN MODEL
KHRISTIANOVIC MODEL
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Model Differences and the Elasticity Equation
2-5 July 1993
which are short compared to their height. In this latter scenario, a penny frac or a 3 Dimensional
model would be more appropriate.
Fig. 2.4 shows the resulting difference between the PKN and GDK models as a result of the dif-
ferent application of the elasticity relation. Note that their relationships for viscosity (for flow of a
Newtonian fluid), rate, and rock modulus are the same. However, the relationships for pressure and
width are very different as shown in Table 2.1.
For the general case with length greater than height, the PKN model will predict less width; thus
from Eq. (2.5) , the PKN model will generally predict more length. Also, the PKN model predicts
that the net pressure (fluid pressure in fracture minus formation closure pressure) increases as
length, L, (or time, t,) increases, while the GDK model predicts net pressure decreases with length,
L, (or time, t,) as shown on Fig. 2.5.
Bottomhole pressure measurements indicate that, if height is relatively constant and significantly
smaller than fracture length, the pressure will increase as predicted by the PKN model. Also,
downhole televiewer pictures obtained by Amoco, which directly measured the fracture width in
an open hole completion, indicated that the pressure-width relationship of the PKN model was
most applicable.
Table 2.1 - Comparison of Perkins and Kern and Khristianovic Models.
Elasticity Fluid Flow (Newtonian)
Perkins and Kern p ~ L
1/4
Khristianovic p ~
P&K Model Khrist. Model
I. Elasticity
II. Friction From Fluid Flow
(Newtonian)
III. Combining I & II
Fig. 2.4 - Comparison of Perkins and Kern and Khristianovic Models.
W H
W L
1
L
1 2 /
----------
W
H
E
---p
W
4
--W =
W~ W~
L_
P
p
W
QL
E
-------- ( )
1/4
W
QL
2
EH
-----------
,
_
1/4
p
E
3/4
H
--------- QL ( )
1/4
p
E
3/4
L
1/2
--------- QL ( )
1/4
Fracturing Models
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
2
2-6
July 1993
The consequence of the different width assumptions in the models can be seen by a comparison of
service company designs based on exactly the same requested input. This comparison was made
by Amoco in 1980. The input variables supplied to the service companies are shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.3 shows the dramatic variations in the results because of the different schools of thought
in each company at that time. As shown, the Halliburton and Dowell Programs were based on the
GDK model, while the Western, Smith and Amoco programs were based on the PKN model. It is
noted that the BJ program set the leakoff height to 200 ft instead of 100 ft and the Western model
assumed that the fracture width down the complete length was the maximum value at the wellbore.
The large differences in the output indicate the impact of modeling assumptions associated with
Fig. 2.5 - Perkins & Kern (PKN) Model and Khristianovic (GDK) Model.
5
Table 2.2 - Input Values - Service Company Designs.
Input Variables Input Values
Propped Radius 2000 ft
Frac Height 200 ft
Leakoff Height 100 ft
Modulus 6x10 psi
Loss Coefcient 0.001 ft/min
Pump Rate 25 BPM
Viscosity 100 CP
Proppant Concentration 1 lb/ft
Frac gradient, depth, surface and reservoir temperatures, and
rock type also specied.
p L
1/4
p Q ( )
1/4
p
1
L
1/2
-------
l
o
g
L
log t (or VOL.)
l
o
g
p
l
o
g
p
log L
log L
(TIME )
PKN
GDK
PKN Model GDK Model
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Model Differences and the Elasticity Equation
2-7 July 1993
comparing service company bids and highlight the importance of knowledgably designing your
own treatments. However, many oil companies still rely on the service companies for designs.
Table 2.3 - Results - Service Company Designs.
Company Model Type
Average
Width Inches Sand, M lb
Volume,
M gal Pad, M gal
Amoco PKN 0.24 715 250 110
B-J PKN 0.39 800 630 125
Dowell GDK 0.51 1280 420 110
Halliburton GDK 0.69 1150 535 150
Smith PKN 0.29 657 166 36
Western PKN 0.40 1425 400 80
Fracturing Models
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
2
2-8
July 1993
2.3 References
1. Perkins, T. K. Jr. and Kern, L. R.: Widths of Hydraulic Fractures, JPT (Sept. 1961) 937-49; Trans., AIME, 222.
2. Khristianovic, S. A. and Zheltov, Y. P.: Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Fluids,
Proc., Fourth World Pet. Cong., Rome (1955) II, 579.
3. Nordgren, R. P.: Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture, SPEJ (Aug. 1972) 306-14; Trans., AIME, 253.
4. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Frac-
tures, JPT (Dec. 1969) 1571-81; Trans., AIME, 246.
5. Nolte, K. G. and Smith, M. B.: Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures, JPT (Sept. 1981) 1767-75.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3-1
Chapter
July 1999
3.1 Reservoir Response To Fracture Stimulation
To understand the reservoir response to fracture stimulations, one must understand the interrela-
tionship between the important reservoir and fracture variables. These variables include reservoir
permeability, fracture conductivity, and fracture half length. The Dimensionless Fracture Capac-
ity, F
CD
, describes this interrelationship. This equation:
(3.1)
relates the fracture's ability to flow fluids to the wellbore to the reservoir's ability to flow fluids to
the fracture. If, for example, F
CD
is low (F
CD
1.6) the fracture has finite conductivity and the res-
ervoir fluids would rather flow towards the wellbore than the fracture. It further indicates that
increasing fracture length would not result in improved reservoir response. Conversely, if F
CD
is
high (F
CD
500), the fracture has infinite conductivity. As a result, increasing fracture conductiv-
ity would not improve reservoir response. For practical purposes, fractures having F
CD
> 30 act as
infinite conductivity fractures. The parameters used to define F
CD
are illustrated in Fig. 3.1.
Fracture Length
Fracture length or penetration generally has the greatest impact on low permeability reservoirs.
The following examples are from the Wattenberg Field, which is operated by Amoco Production
Fig. 3.1 - Major Factors Affecting Performance.
F
CD
k
f
w
k x
f
---------- =
Fracture Length, x
f
, feet
Formation Permeability, k, md
Fracture Flow Capacity, k
f
w, md-ft
x
f
k
k
f
w
3
Reservoir Analysis
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-2
July 1999
Company. This field is located north of Denver, Colorado, and has a permeability of about 0.005
md. Fig. 3.2 shows the effect of fracture half-length, x
f
, on cumulative gas production. As shown,
increasing fracture half length results in significant incremental gas recovery over a 25-year
period.
Reservoir Permeability
Reservoir permeability, k, and its effect on fractured well performance is illustrated in Fig. 3.3 and
Fig. 3.4. Shown in the figures is the pressure distribution map for only one quadrant of a fractured
well. The pressure distribution map was obtained from a computer simulation after the well,
located in the upper left corner, was produced for a period of time. The simulated fracture in
Fig. 3.3 is located vertically on the left and has a high fracture flow capacity, k
f
w. The formation
permeability, k, in the computer simulator was very low at 0.005 md (5 micro darcies). Contours
of the pressure profile in psi were made and because gas flows perpendicular to these pressure con-
tour lines, streamlines which represent the path by which the gas travels to the well can be drawn.
Since the formation permeability is extremely low relative to the fracture flow capacity (k
f
w), the
flow is nearly linear and the fracture acts as an infinite conductivity fracture. As a result, the frac-
ture carries almost all the total gas flow to the well. The path of least resistance is the shortest dis-
tance to the fracture.
Fig. 3.4 shows a pressure distribution map for a fractured well with the same fracture flowcapacity
as in Fig. 3.3, but this time the formation permeability is significantly higher at 100 md. Since the
formation permeability more nearly approximates the fracture flow capacity, equal pressure lines
become circular and the flow is nearly radial as can be seen by converging flow lines. In this case,
the fracture carries a relatively small fraction of the total gas flow which indicates that the benefit
Fig. 3.2 - Effect of Fracture Length Cumulative Gas Produced (25 Years).
ADDITIONAL RECOVERY BY
INCREASING FRACTURE LENGTH
RADIAL FLOW
Time (years)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1500 ft
1000 ft
400 ft
C
u
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
G
a
s
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
M
M
C
F FRACTURE LENGTH
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Reservoir Response To Fracture Stimulation
3-3 July 1999
realized from the fracture stimulation was minimal. In this case, the path of least resistance is pri-
marily via the reservoir.
Fracture Flow Capacity
The key difference in Fig. 3.3 and Fig. 3.4 is the ratio of the fracture flow capacity to the reservoir
permeability, k.
Fracture flow capacity is defined as the product of the permeability in the fracture, k
f
, and the frac-
ture width, w, with dimensions of md-ft. It is also referred to as fracture conductivity. Shown in
Fig. 3.5 are three types of fracture flow capacity. An infinite flow capacity fracture is a fracture
that acts similar to a large diameter pipeline where there is essentially no pressure drop from the
tip of the fracture to the wellbore. Afinite flowcapacity fracture has a pressure drop along the frac-
ture that is proportional to the fracture flow capacity, k
f
w. Nearly all created fractures have finite
capacity. The reservoir response associated with variable conductivity fractures is governed by the
arithmetic average flow capacity.
Estimates of k
f
w are available from the service companies and Amoco's Production Research
(APR) Department. The STIM-LAB data in Fig. 3.6 shows the effect of proppant type on liquid
permeability. The entire set of Stimlab data can be accessed in the Proppants Manual or from APR.
Fig. 3.6 shows that the manufactured proppants bauxite, intermediate density proppant and zirco-
nia have high permeability up to very high closure stresses.
Fig. 3.3 - Pressure Distribution and
Approximate Streamlines, Reservoir K =
0.005 md.
Fig. 3.4 - Pressure Distribution and Approxi-
mate Streamlines, Reservoir K = 100 md.
PRESSU
4
0
0
p
s
i
6
0
0
p
s
i
1
0
0
0
p
s
i
1
2
0
0
p
s
i
8
0
0
p
s
i
F
R
A
C
T
U
R
E
Streamlines
Pressure
Contour
Lines
1
2
0
0
p
s
i
Well
Flow is nearly linear
FCD > 25 (Inifinite Conductivity)
Fracture carries almost the total gas
flow to the well
4
0
0
p
s
i
8
0
0
p
s
i
6
0
0
p
s
i
1
0
0
0
p
s
i
F
R
A
C
T
U
R
E
6
0
0
p
s
i
8
0
0
p
s
i
1
0
0
0
p
s
i
1
2
0
0
p
s
i
4
0
0
p
s
i
Flow is nearly radial
FCD << 25 (Finite Conductivity)
Fracture carries almost no gas
to the well
Pressure
Contour
Lines
Streamlines
Well
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-4
July 1999
The resin coated sand has intermediate permeability values, and the sands (Brady and Ottawa)
have the lowest values at higher stresses. Fig. 3.6 indicates that the Brady sand has higher per-
meability for closure pressure less than 5000 psi (i.e., nominally 6000 to 7000 ft) than the more
pure silica sand of the Ottawa type. This results because the Brady sand tends to be coarser (i.e.,
more toward 20 mesh) and more angular. At higher stresses the less pure and more angular sand
has less permeability (i.e., more crushing).
Fig. 3.7 shows laboratory values of conductivity, k
f
w for both Brady and Ottawa type sands. Note
that the Ottawa types are not available in the coarser sizes, while Brady is not available for the finer
sizes. Notice that at 4000 psi, the 8/16 Brady sand has about 5 times more conductivity or capacity
than the commonly used 20/40 Ottawa (i.e., 15,000 vs 2800 md ft).
Post treatment evaluation experience indicates that in-situ capacity is dramatically less than these
laboratory values. This results from gel residues, fluid loss additives and potentially rock debris.
Indicated values are about 1/3 - 1/10 of the lab values. In addition, Amoco's design program indi-
cates that propped widths of more than 1 lb/ft
2
are difficult to achieve. It is noted that some service
companies claim they achieve 4 lb/ft
2
. Since the laboratory standard (i.e., Fig. 3.7 is 2 lb/ft
2
); a fur-
ther reduction for width must be made. The best method to determine in-situ capacity is to perform
well tests in the field and use the bilinear flow analysis techniques discussed in Section 3.3. If
actual in-situ values are not available, the following guideline for capacity should be used.
(3.2)
Fig. 3.5 - Fracture Flow Capacity.
(Fracture Perm. x Fracture Width)
INFINITE CAPACITY
FINITE CAPACITY
VARIABLE FINITE CAPACITY
k
f
k
f
k
f1
k
f2
expected k
f
w 0.3
k
f
w lab data
lb/ft
2
lab data
---------------------------------lb/ft
2
expected =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Reservoir Response To Fracture Stimulation
3-5 July 1999
Most lab tests are run at 2 lb/ft
2
. However, your test data may be different. Proppant concentration
at which the tests were run should be available, or the data should not be used. The 0.30 factor is
a permeability reduction applied to the lab data to correct for inherent differences in in-situ fracture
conditions and idealized laboratory conditions. This is nothing but a fudge-factor and varies
widely. This correction may be used for scoping studies, but pressure transient testing is still the
preferred technique to obtain the actual in-situ value of k
f
w.
The importance of fracture conductivity and fracture length are illustrated in Fig. 3.8 through
Fig. 3.10. These figures show the results of simulations which combine variations of conductivity
and length with reservoir permeabilities of 0.005, 0.08, and 5.0 md, respectively. The results are
shown as the ratio of flow rate after fracturing to that before stimulation. This ratio is known as
Folds of Increase, FOI.
Fig. 3.6 - Effect of Proppant Type on Flow Capacity.
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-6
July 1999
Fig. 3.7 - Laboratory Fracture Conductivity for Frac Sands.
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
P
r
o
p
p
a
n
t
S
i
z
e
o
n
F
l
o
w
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
C
l
a
s
s
E
o
t
t
a
w
a
F
r
a
c
S
a
n
d
G
a
l
e
s
v
i
l
l
e
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
e
I
r
o
n
t
o
n
/
G
a
l
e
s
v
i
l
l
e
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
e
J
o
r
d
a
n
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
e
S
a
i
n
t
P
e
t
e
r
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
e
S
p
e
c
i
c
G
r
a
v
i
t
y
:
2
.
6
5
(
2
2
.
1
l
b
/
g
a
l
)
B
u
l
k
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
:
1
.
6
5
g
/
c
m
3
(
1
0
2
.
7
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
P
r
o
p
p
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
2
.
0
l
b
/
f
t
2 N
o
t
e
:
N
o
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
m
a
d
e
f
o
r
e
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
n
y
f
o
r
m
o
f
p
a
c
k
d
a
m
a
g
e
.
A
P
I
M
e
s
h
S
i
z
e
1
2
/
2
0
1
6
/
3
0
2
0
/
4
0
3
0
/
5
0
4
0
/
7
0
7
0
/
1
4
0
1
2
J
U
L
8
3
R
W
A
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
S
t
r
e
s
s
,
p
s
i
i
n
1
0
0
0
s
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
0 8 6 4 3 2
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
2
2
0
3
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
F r a c t u r e C o n d u c t i v i t y , k l x W
f ,
d a r c y x f o o t , D x f t
1
0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
O
t
t
a
w
a
S
a
n
d
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
P
r
o
p
p
a
n
t
S
i
z
e
o
n
F
l
o
w
C
p
a
c
i
t
y
C
l
a
s
s
D
b
r
a
d
y
F
r
a
c
S
a
n
d
H
i
c
k
o
r
y
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
e
1
2
/
2
0
&
2
0
/
4
0
B
i
d
a
h
o
c
h
i
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
6
/
1
2
-
1
2
/
2
0
A
e
o
l
i
a
n
d
u
n
e
s
a
n
d
S
p
e
c
i
c
G
r
a
v
i
t
y
:
2
.
6
5
(
2
2
.
1
l
b
/
g
a
l
)
B
u
l
k
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
:
1
.
6
1
g
/
c
m
(
1
0
0
.
5
l
b
/
f
t
3
A
P
I
M
e
s
h
S
i
z
e
6
/
1
2
8
/
1
6
1
2
/
2
0
1
6
/
3
0
2
0
/
4
0
8
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0 8 6 4 3 2
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
2
N
o
t
e
:
N
o
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
m
a
d
e
f
o
r
e
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
n
y
f
o
r
m
o
f
p
a
c
k
d
a
m
a
g
e
.
1
4
J
U
L
8
3
R
W
A
6
0
F r a c t u r e C o n d u c i t i v t y , k l x W f
,
d a r c y x f o o t , D x f t
0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
S
t
r
e
s
s
,
p
s
i
i
n
1
0
0
0
s
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
B
r
a
d
y
S
a
n
d
F r a c t u r e C o n d u c t i v i t y , k l x W f , d a r c y x f o o t , D x f t
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Reservoir Response To Fracture Stimulation
3-7 July 1999
Fig. 3.8 shows for a formation permeability equal to 0.005 md that as the fracture flow capacity,
k
f
w, is reduced from 1000 md-ft to 1.0 md-ft, the effect of improved flow rate due to increased
fracture length is diminished. However, the effect becomes significant when k
f
w is increased from
1 to 10 and 100 md-ft. Beyond a k
f
w = 100 md-ft, the effect of increasing fracture flow capacity
has diminishing returns. Fig. 3.9 and Fig. 3.10 show that as formation permeability increases, the
effect of improved flow rate due to increasing the fracture length diminishes further.
Fig. 3.9 shows a similar graph where formation permeability, k, is increased to 0.05 md. Notice
that increasing the flow capacity, k
f
w, above 100 md-ft will still have an effect on improving flow
rate. This was not the case when k was 0.005 md. Also note that for fracture flow capacities equal
to 10 md-ft or lower, there is little rate improvement as the fracture length increases.
Fig. 3.8 - Formation Permeability Equal to
0.005 md.
Fig. 3.9 - Formation Permeability Increased
to 0.05 md.
Fig. 3.10 - Formation Permeability Equal to 5.0 md.
0 200 100 300 400 500 600 700 800
K=0.005 MD
k
f
w = 1000 Md-ft
k
f
w = 100 Md-ft
k
f
w = 10 Md-ft
k
f
w = 1 Md-ft
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Q
f
r
a
c
/
Q
u
n
f
r
a
c
Fracture-Half Length
K=0.05 MD
K
fw
=1000 Md-ft
K
fw
=100 Md-ft
K
fw
=10 Md-ft
Fracture-Half Length
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Q
f
r
a
c
/
Q
u
n
f
r
a
c
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
K
fw
=1 Md-ft
Kfw = 1000 Md-ft
Kfw = 100 Md-ft
Kfw = 10 Md-ft
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Fracture-Half Length
Q
f
r
a
c
/
Q
u
n
f
r
a
c
K=5.0 MD
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-8
July 1999
Fig. 3.10 shows a similar plot with formation permeability, k, of 5.0 md. This plot shows that
increasing fracture length beyond 200 ft in a 5 md reservoir, has little productivity advantage.
Fig. 3.10 exposes the myth that fractures are only for low permeability wells. As reservoir perme-
ability increases, the Q
frac
/Q
unfrac
ratio decreases for a given fracture length and conductivity. But
since for radial flow, the base rate is directly proportional to permeability, the base rate (Q
unfrac
) is
increasing. Would you invest in a frac for a 5 md well making 10 MMCFD? Fig. 3.10 indicates
that a 100 ft, 1000 md-ft frac would make it a 25 MMCFD well. When the importance of short,
high conductivity fractures is better understood, many high permeability wells will be fractured in
the future. In general, wells in high permeability reservoirs are the least expensive to stimulate and
often provide the greatest incremental benefit.
Fracture Orientation
As a reservoir's permeability decreases, the drainage pattern becomes more elliptical (i.e., smaller
aspect ratio) for an optimum fracture. This results because of two reasons: first, the drainage per-
pendicular to the fracture face decreases, and second, the optimum fracture length is longer.
Fig. 3.11 shows the effect of fracture orientation on reservoir drainage. This figure shows the ellip-
tical patterns after 10 and 25 years for Wattenberg reservoir conditions on 320 acre spacing. The
upper portion of Fig. 3.11, shows fractures placed properly with respect to the fracture orientation.
As shown, there is little interference and relatively complete drainage would occur. However on
the lower portion of Fig. 3.11, for a azimuth, there is significant overlap of the patterns and
substantial areas of the reservoir that will not be drained. Also note that the contours are for a 300
psi drawdown at 10 and 25 years - very far from depletion.
If a similar contour map of the well configuration (unfavorably oriented) shown in the lower por-
tion of Fig. 3.11, was made after 100 years of production, it might show as complete a coverage or
drainage as the well configuration in the upper portion of Fig. 3.11 has shown in 25 years. It suf-
fices to say that fracture orientation can have a significant affect on both ultimate recovery and rate
acceleration benefits derived from fracturing.
It is obvious that to generally benefit from knowing the orientation, well placement must be
selected in a manner that differs from normal practices. The required spacing is with wells closer
in the direction perpendicular to the fracs and farther apart in the direction of the fracs. Also since
the orientation is likely not to be near or , the optimum well placement will be quite differ-
ent than normal patterns of subsequent quartering sections. An SPE paper by M. B. Smith
1
gives
an excellent study of the effect of fracture azimuth, well spacing, and lost production for Watten-
berg.
45
0 45
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Reservoir Response To Fracture Stimulation
3-9 July 1999
Fig. 3.11 - Optimum Well Placement vs. Fracture Orientation.
DRAINAGE AREAS
INITIAL PRESSURE - 2800 PSI FORMATION PERMEABILITY = 0.004 md
DRAINAGE AREAS
INITIAL PRESSURE - 2800 PSI FORMATION PERMEABILITY = 0.004 md
2500 PSI
10 YEARS
2500 PSI
10 YEARS
25 YEARS
25 YEARS
5280
5280
5
2
8
0
'
5
2
8
0
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-10
July 1999
3.2 Steady-State Reservoir Response
The fracturing response for wells in moderate to high permeability reservoirs quickly reaches a
pseudo steady-state condition which can be modeled by radial flow behavior. This is not the case
for very low permeability formations which are in transient flow for a significant part of their pro-
ductive life. Transient flow will be addressed in Section 3.3.
The pseudo steady-state radial flow for fractures in moderate-to-high permeability reservoirs per-
mits modeling by the effective wellbore concept. This concept was introduced by Prats
2
along
with the term, F
CD
, discussed previously (page 3-1).
Effective Wellbore Radius, r'
w
This powerful tool indicates that fracturing wells in moderate-to-high permeability reservoirs is
equivalent to increasing the area of the wellbore, i.e., a giant under-reaming job. Thus fracturing
in moderate-to-high permeability reservoirs is equivalent to enlarging the wellbore. Consequently
the relative benefits of fracturing are the same for heavy or light oils.
Theoretically, for an infinite conductivity fracture, Prats found that
(3.3)
Taking the wellbore analog further and using the steady-state radial flow equation, the ratio of pro-
duction after and before fracturing is
(3.4)
where FOI= folds of increase, q
f
= postfrac production rate, q
o
= prefrac production rate, r
e
= exter-
nal drainage radius, r
w
= actual wellbore radius, and r'
w
= effective wellbore radius. When evalu-
ating the ratio of production in Eq. (3.4), the drawdown pressure, permeability and viscosity are
assumed the same before and after fracturing.
Prats also gave the theoretical relationship between r'
w
and dimensionless flow capacity. Fig. 3.12
gives this relationship in terms of F
CD
. The figure shows that for F
CD
> 30, that r'
w
= 0.5 x
f
; i.e.,
the fracture acts as an infinitely conductive fracture and there is no benefit from increasing F
CD
.
Fig. 3.12 also shows for small F
CD
(i.e., less than 0.3) that r'
w
is independent of the fracture length
and depends only on conductivity.
Studying Fig. 3.12 will reveal where the producer should be spending his money to increase the
results of a fracture stimulation. For example, if the reservoir permeability is 10 md, the fracture
has a conductivity of 1000 md-ft, the fracture half length is 500 ft, wells are 2000 ft apart, and bore-
hole diameter is 5.5 in:
r'
w
0.5 ( ) x
f
; F
CD
large =
q
f
q
o
----- FOI
ln r
e
/r
w
( )
ln r
e
/r'
w
( )
------------------------ = =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Steady-State Reservoir Response
3-11 July 1999
From Fig. 3.12, for an F
CD
= 0.2,
Therefore,
The FOI = (ln 1000/0.229(ID of 5.5 in CSG))/(ln 1000/24)
FOI = 7.6/3.73 = 2.04
Assuming that this FOI is not acceptable, will a bigger frac help?
From Fig. 3.12
Therefore, FOI = (ln 1000/0.229)/(ln 1000/24) is the same as before.
Notice that the cost of the fracture stimulation would have more than doubled by going from x
f
=
500 ft to x
f
= 1000 ft with NO increase in r'
w
or FOI.
Suppose, instead of a longer frac, the decision is made to improve k
f
w. If k
f
w = 2000 md-ft instead
of 1000 md-ft.
F
CD
1000/10 500 .2 = =
r'
w
/ x
f
.048 =
r'
w
.048x
f
.048 500 24' = = =
x
f
1000 ft =
F
CD
1000/10 1000 .1 = =
r'
w
/ x
f
.024 for F
CD
.1 = =
r'
w
.024 x
f
.024 1000 24 ft . = = =
FOI 2.04 =
F
CD
2000/10 500 .4 = =
r'
w
/ x
f
.09 =
r'
w
.09 x
f
.09 500 45 = = =
FOI
ln 1000/0.229 ( )
ln 1000/45 ( )
-------------------------------------- =
7.6/3.1 2.45 = =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-12
July 1999
Fig. 3.12 - Effective Wellbore Radius vs. F
CD
.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Steady-State Reservoir Response
3-13 July 1999
Notice by doubling conductivity, a productivity increase of 20% has been accomplished. A review
of Fig. 3.7 indicates that conductivity could be doubled simply by changing from 20/40 to 16/30
mesh sand.
In summary, for F
CD
less than 0.5, increasing x
f
is a total waste of time and investment. The invest-
ment should be made on a higher conductivity proppant.
Another example, if k = 0.02 md, k
f
w = 1000 md-ft, x
f
= 1000 ft,
The decision is made to improve fracture conductivity, k
f
w from 1000 to 2000.
Notice, greatly improving fracture conductivity, k
f
w, had NO effect on increasing FOI.
However, if x
f
is doubled to 2000 ft,
r
e
2000 ft, r
w
0.229 ft = =
F
CD
1000/.02 1000 50 = =
r'
w
/ x
f
.5 =
r'
w
.5 x
f
.5 1000 500 ft = = =
FOI
ln 2000/0.229 ( )
ln 2000/500 ( )
-------------------------------------- =
8.294/1.386 =
FOI 5.98 =
F
CD
2000/.02 1000 100 = =
r'
w
/ x
f
.5 =
FOI
ln 2000/0.229 ( )
ln 2000/500 ( )
-------------------------------------- which is the same as before =
5.98 =
F
CD
1000/.02 2000 25 = =
r'
w
/ x
f
.48 =
r'
w
.48 x
f
.48 2000 960 ft = = =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-14
July 1999
It is evident from the above, that if F
CD
is greater than 25 to 30, improving fracture conductivity is
not helpful. The investment should be made to achieve more fracture length to increase FOI, if the
increased production offsets the increased cost of the treatment (i.e., economics, addressed in
Chap. 9). When F
CD
's are between 0.5 and 25, FOI will experience an increase if x
f
or k
f
w is
increased. Therefore when F
CD
's fall in the range of 0.5 to 25, economics must be used to determine
whether improving conductivity or creating longer fractures, or some combination of both, is the
most cost effective (i.e., profitable).
A Direct Way Of Finding FOI
In using the FOI technique just shown, x
f
must be determined by trial and error for a design. That
is, once a FOI is selected, a r'
w
can be calculated that will be required to effect a given production
increase. However, since for finite conductivity fractures, x
f
affects both r'
w
and F
CD
, the x
f
is
required to yield the desired FOI.
Fig. 3.13 shows a modified version of Fig. 3.12 which includes the conversion of
on the left vertical axis. On the right vertical axis are various x
f
/r
e
curves. The horizontal axis is
k
f
w/kr
e
. This parameter should be known for specific proppant size and concentration (i.e., k
f
w)
since the k and r
e
should be known. Also from x
f
/r
e
on Fig. 3.13, x
f
can then be determined from
the known r
e
.
Fig. 3.14 shows the use of Fig. 3.13 for a case with a desired FOI = 5 (denoted by a), 160 acre
spacing (denoted by b), a horizontal line (denoted by c), the value of k
f
w/kr
e
= 1.1 (denoted
by d), the intersection (denoted by e), and finally the indicated x
f
/r
e
of 0.75 (denoted by f)
to achieve the FOI.
Fig. 3.13 can also be used in reverse; i.e., find the FOI for a given x
f
/r
e
.
Another example, the objective is an FOI = 4, well spacing is 640 acres (r
e
= 2640), k is 0.1 md
and the proppant selected will have a k
f
w of 1320 md-ft at the proposed concentration and closure
stress. This gives k
f
w/kr
e
= 5
FOI
ln 2000/0.229 ( )
ln 2000/960 ( )
-------------------------------------- =
8.294/.734 =
FOI 11.3 =
FOI
ln r
e
/r
w
( )
ln r
e
/r'
w
( )
------------------------- =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Steady-State Reservoir Response
3-15 July 1999
Enter Fig. 3.13 from the left vertical axis with FOI. Find the intersection for FOI of 4 and the well
spacing of 640 acres. This determines r'
w
/r
e
. A horizontal line should be drawn from the intersec-
tion of the FOI and the spacing line, completely across the graph. Then enter Fig. 3.13 from the
bottom with k
f
w/kr
e
of 5. Draw a vertical line up to intersect the r'
w
/r
e
line. A curved line should
be drawn to the right vertical axis from the intersection of k
f
w/kr
e
and r'
w
/r
e
parallel to the x
f
/r
e
lines, x
f
/r
e
is then determined to be 0.2.
Therefore,
Notice, that by varying k
f
w on the horizontal axis, x
f
/r
e
and therefore x
f
will change.
Studying this graph will also show quickly where to invest time, effort and money. When the x
f
/r
e
curves become horizontal, increasing k
f
w will not result in an increase in FOI. Also, when k
f
w/kr
e
is very small, increasing x
f
has a minimal effect on FOI.
Optimizing Fractures for Secondary Recovery
When designing any fracture stimulation, engineers must consider two primary factors:
(1) designing the treatment to yield the highest productivity or injectivity per dollar cost, and
(2) designing the treatment to minimize any loss in reserves. For moderate permeability wells
under primary recovery, fracture length should be optimized to reservoir permeability and fracture
conductivity. For reservoirs under secondary recovery, the fracture length must not only be eco-
nomically optimized as above, but other factors such as the impact of fracture length and fracture
orientation upon recovery must be addressed.
Two research reports by L. K. Britt,
3,4
have been published which provide significant insight into
the importance of length and fracture orientation on secondary recovery projects.These reports
drew several conclusions that are pertinent to fracture stimulation design in waterfloods:
1. The older potentiometric reservoir response models, such as McGuire and Sikora are invalid.
2. Prats' effective wellbore radius concept (Fig. 3.12), whereby the effect of a fracture upon res-
ervoir response is modeled as an increased wellbore radius, is valid if frac lengths are less than
25% of the interwell distance.
3. Short fractures cause no loss in reserves, and can contribute significantly to rate acceleration.
What frac radius will be required to achieve this FOI?
x
f
/r
e
0.2 =
x
f
0.2 r
e
( ) 0.2 2640 ft ( ) = =
x
f
528 ft =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-16
July 1999
Fig. 3.13 - Folds of Increase vs. Relative Conductivity.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Steady-State Reservoir Response
3-17 July 1999
Fig. 3.14 - Folds of Increase vs. Relative Conductivity.
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-18
July 1999
4. Fracture length (radius) greater than 25% of the distance between injector and producer may
reduce reservoir recovery when the fracture orientation is unfavorable (injector or producer)
and improve recovery when the fracture orientation is favorable (injector to injector).
5. The economically optimum fracture stimulation for moderate permeability reservoirs (1-50
md) is short, with very high conductivity.
6. In-situ fracture proppant conductivity is on the order of 10-30% of published laboratory data.
To verify that Prats' results were correct using Amoco's reservoir simulators, the Coning model
was used to simulate primary recovery from a fractured moderate-permeability reservoir. Runs
were made comparing productivity by combining a radial model using Prats' effective wellbore
radius to simulate the effect of the fracture, and an areal gridded model using the Coning model
with actual fracture parameters. The results were found to be nearly identical.
This comparison was further evaluated for secondary recovery by using a model to compare a frac-
ture simulated in a radial mode using Prats' effective wellbore radius to an areal model for a five-
spot waterflood pattern with both injectors and producers stimulated with identical fractures
(Fig. 3.15).
Increasing the fracture length on the gridded model provides the correct answer used as the basis
for the evaluation. Increasing the effective wellbore radius in the radial model to compare to that
Fig. 3.15 - Validation of the Effective Wellbore Radius Concept.
FRACTURE VS. EFF. WELL RADIUS
FIVE SPOT PATTERN DEVELOPMENT
XFP/XFI EQUALS 1
PERCENT ERROR IN WATER/OIL
RATIO EVALUATED AT THE
ECONOMIC LIMIT OF 2 BDPD
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
100
80
60
40
20
0
FRACTURE HALF LENGTH/INTERWELL DISTANCE
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
O
R
(
%
)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Steady-State Reservoir Response
3-19 July 1999
in the areal model introduces about 10% error when the fracture length for each well reaches 25%
of the interwell distance, implying that Prats' radial flow curves are in error beyond this point.
The effect of fracture length on recovery was also evaluated for a five-spot moderate permeability
waterflood pattern. Fig. 3.16 shows the results of increasing fracture length on recovery. Recovery
is relatively unaffected for fracture lengths up to about 25% of the interwell distance. This data is
for the most unfavorable fracture orientation, where the producing well fracture is directly in line
with the injection well fracture.
It should be noted that even though recovery is about the same for short fractures, the rate of recov-
ery can be significantly different. For moderate permeability, and a maximum fracture length of
25% of the interwell distance, 2 HCPV of water could be injected 20-30 years sooner than if the
well were unfractured, significantly increasing the economic viability of the project. Note also that
results of a study conducted by Connie Bargas
5
indicate that unfavorable mobility recovery pro-
cesses (i.e., CO
2
floods) are even more sensitive to fracture length and orientation.
When fracture stimulation is used to work over wells to restore lost injectivity or productivity, we
must ensure that the two goals stated at the beginning of this section are met. That is, fractures must
be designed to yield the maximum rate of return on investment, and must not reduce recovery due
to excessive length. In most cases, the economically optimum length will be less than the maxi-
mum to affect recovery.
To assure that secondary recovery is not affected by the placement of fractures in the reservoir, the
design fracture radius should not exceed the maximums shown in Table 3.1 unless wells are favor-
ably oriented.
In any situation where the potential to infill drill a field is high, some guidelines must be estab-
lished for the tightest well spacing that might be drilled. The maximum design frac length should
not be allowed to exceed 25% of that interwell distance. Once a hydraulic fracture is created, and
Fig. 3.16 - Loss in Secondary Recovery vs. FRAC Radius.
0 10 20 30 40 50
50
40
30
20
10
0
FRAC RADIUS/INTERWELL DISTANCE, %
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
L
O
S
S
I
N
R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-20
July 1999
conductivity established either by proppant or by acidizing, we obviously cannot reduce that frac
length.
Table 3.1 - Maximum Design Fracture Radius.
Well Spacing Frac Half-Length
10 ac 165 ft
20 ac 233 ft
40 ac 330 ft
80 ac 466 ft
160 ac 660 ft
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Steady-State Reservoir Response
3-21 July 1999
Class Problem
Find: x
f
Given: k = 1 md, 160 acre spacing, Depth = 6000 ft (normal grad.), r
e
= 1320 ft
Find: x
f
for 20-40, 12-20, 6-12 Brady sand to obtain 5-fold increase in production over non-
damaged or stimulated wellbore.
Solution: kr
e
= 1 x 1320 = 1320 md-ft
Use capacity guidelines (1 lb/ft) @ 6000 ft = 4000 psi
k
f
w - 20-40 500 md-ft [Fig. 3.7 and Eq. (3.2)]
12-20 ____________
8-16 ____________
What is the optimum proppant size, and why?
Explain:
Mesh k
f
w' k
f
w/kr
e
r
e
/r
w
x
f
/r
e
x
f
20-40 500
12-20
8-16
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-22
July 1999
Acid Fracturing
Fracturing with acid in carbonates creates a highly-conductive, etched fracture. Fig. 3.13 can be
used for predicting performance of an acid fracturing treatment by assuming F
CD
= (i.e., infinite)
or effectively greater than 30. The line shown on Fig. 3.17 represents an infinite conductivity frac-
ture (F
CD
> 30), and is equivalent to the vertical line for a specific k
f
w/kr
e
for a propped fracture
(i.e., line d on Fig. 3.14). Equivalently for a given x
f
/r
e
or FOI a horizontal line can be drawn
directly across Fig. 3.17 to determine the relationship between FOI and x
f
/r
e
.
Many carbonate wells are initially acidized and later fractured with proppant. This causes a sand
production problem after the fracture treatment because any sand in an acid channel will not be
trapped and is eventually washed into the wellbore by production fluids. Therefore, if a propped
fracture would give a larger FOI, it would be desirable to conduct this fracture initially, thereby
saving the cost of an acid treatment, obtaining more production, and reducing sand production
problems.
For 40 acre spacing, maximum acid x
f
= 150 ft, maximum k
f
w = 1300 md-ft for
proppant, find if an acid frac or propped frac appears more optimumfor k = 1 md
and k = 5 md.
Infinite Conductivity
Unstimulated
defines the degree
of stimulation
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Transient Reservoir Response
3-25 July 1999
Fig. 3.18 also shows finite capacity fracture behavior (i.e., 1.045 1.234). In finite capacity
fractures, bilinear flow can occur. During bilinear flow, the pressure transient has not reached the
tip of the fracture; both linear flow from the reservoir to the fracture and linear flow down the
length of the fracture are occurring. The bilinear flow region, is very important for two reasons:
(1) unique fracture length cannot be found from the production response, and (2) the actual value
of conductivity in-situ, k
f
wcan be determined. The log-log curves, either constant rate or pressure,
have a 1/4 slope for bilinear flow.
Fig. 3.19 shows a plot of pressure change vs. the fourth root of time for fractures with an F
CD
of
greater than 1.6, equal to 1.6, and less than 1.6, respectively. In addition, the lower portion of
Fig. 3.19 shows the effect of damage on the fourth root of time behavior. The upper plot on
Fig. 3.19 shows that a straight line should result on a pressure change vs. fourth root of time if the
fracture is in bilinear flow. It also shows howthe data deviates fromthe straight line (bilinear flow)
is a qualitative indicator of F
CD
. If, for example, the data deviates up from the bilinear flow line
this indicates that F
CD
is greater than 1.6. Conversely, if the data deviates downward fromthe bilin-
ear flow line the F
CD
< 1.6. The lower plot on Fig. 3.19 indicates that if the bilinear flow line does
not go through the origin, the entrance to the fracture is damaged. This loss of production can result
from:
inadequate perforations - reperforate and/or redesign perforations on subsequent wells,
turbulent flow - increase proppant size/concentration,
over displacement of proppant - do not overflush,
kill fluid was dumped into the fracture - let fracture clean up before conducting test.
Fig. 3.20 shows an example of these plots and the indicated k
f
w.
The data in Fig. 3.20 deviates downward from the bilinear flow line qualitatively indicating that
the F
CD
is less than 1.6. Since F
CD
is low, efforts should be made to either increase fracture con-
ductivity, reduce fracture length, or both. A more complete presentation of the transient response
of fractured wells is included in the Pressure Transient Analysis manual from the PTA course
given by the Training Center. Because of the importance of bilinear flow in the analysis of frac-
tured reservoirs and the improvement of treatment design, the section on bilinear flow from the
PTA course is included in this chapter for ease of reference.
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-26
July 1999
Fig. 3.19 - Bilinear Flow on Fourth Root of Time Plot.
Fig. 3.20 - Example of Bilinear Flow Analysis.
FCD > 1.6
END OF BILINEAR FLOW
SLOPE = mbf
p
,
p
s
i
FCD < 1.6
t
1/4
, hours
1/4
BILINEAR
DAMAGE OR
CHOKED FRACTURE
IDEAL
t
1/4
, hours
1/4
ps
0
0
p
,
p
s
i
Mbf = 134
Kfw = 1168/RcD = 1320 mdft
BILINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS
NORTH COWDEN UNIT WELL - A
Downward Deviation
From Bilinear Flow
Line indicates FCD is
less than 1.6
AMERADA BOMB
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
3-27 July 1999
3.4 Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
Flow Periods For A Vertically Fractured Well
Fig. 3.21 depicts the various flow periods which are associated with finite conductivity vertical
fractures.
Fracture Linear Flow
The Fracture Linear Flow, (a) on Fig. 3.21, is the first flow period which occurs in a fractured
system. Most of the fluid which enters the wellbore during this period of time is a result of expan-
sion within the fracture, i.e., there is negligible fluid coming from the formation. Flow within the
fracture during this time period is linear.
Equations which can be used to predict the following formation face pressure, p
wf
, during fracture
linear flow are presented by Cinco-Ley et al.,
6
for the constant rate case. This reference also pre-
sents an equation which predicts the time when this flow period ends. Unfortunately, fracture lin-
ear flow occurs at a time which is too early to be of practical use in well test analysis.
Bilinear Flow
The next flow period to occur is called Bilinear Flow, (b) on Fig. 3.21, because two types of lin-
ear flow simultaneously occur. One flow is linear incompressible flow within the fracture and the
other is linear compressible flow in the formation. Most of the fluid which enters the wellbore dur-
ing this flow period comes from the formation. Fracture tip effects do not affect well behavior dur-
ing bilinear flow; accordingly, unless a well test is run sufficiently long for bilinear flow to end, it
will not be possible to determine fracture length from the data.
Bilinear flow was first recognized by Cinco-Ley et al.
6
Since its introduction into literature, the
use of bilinear flow analysis to characterize both formation and fracture properties has been docu-
mented.
7-11
The details of analyzing bilinear flow data will be detailed in subsequent discussions
beginning on page 3-35.
Formation Linear Flow
The analysis of Formation Linear Flow, (c) on Fig. 3.21, is covered in the Pressure Transient
Analysis course manual.
Pseudo-Radial Flow
The analysis of Pseudo-Radial Flow, (d) on Fig. 3.21, is covered in the Pressure Transient Anal-
ysis course manual.
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-28
July 1999
Bilinear Flow Equations
Constant Formation Face Rate
Dimensionless Pressure:
(3.5)
Dimensionless Time:
(3.6)
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity:
(3.7)
Fig. 3.21 - Flow Periods for a Vertically Fractured Well.
WELL
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
WELL
(a) FRACTURE LINEAR FLOW (b) BILINEAR FLOW
(c) FORMATION LINEAR FLOW (d) PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
WELL
P
D
kh p
i
p
wf
( )
141.2qB
------------------------------ - oil ( ) P
D
khm p ( )
1424T
q
----------------------- gas ( ) = =
t
Dxf
0.0002637kt
c
t
x
f
2
------------------------------ =
F
CD
k
f
w
kx
f
--------- =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
3-29 July 1999
Bilinear Flow Equation:
(3.8)
(3.9)
Bilinear Slope (graph of p
i
-p
wf
vs. t
1/4
):
(3.10)
Constant Formation Face Pressure
Dimensionless Rate:
(3.11)
Bilinear Flow Equation:
(3.12)
(3.13)
Bilinear Slope (graph 1/q of vs. t
1/4
):
(3.14)
Note: The equations presented in this section are written specifically for pressure drawdown tests.
These equations can be modified for pressure buildup tests by replacing the pressure differ-
P
D
2.45 t
Dx
f
1 4 /
F
CD
1\/2
---------------------- =
p
i
p
wf
44.1qB
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
------------------------------------------------------- t
1/4
=
m
bf
494qT
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
kc
t
( )
1/4
-------------------------------------------------- =
q
D
141.2qB
kh p
i
p
wf
( )
------------------------------ - (oil) q
D
1424Tq
khm p ( )
----------------------- (gas) = =
1
q
D
------
2.72 t
Dx
f
1/4
F
CD
1/2
------------------------ =
1
q
-- -
48.9B
p
i
p
wf
( )h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- t
1/4
oil ( ) = =
1
q
-- -
494T
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
kc
t
( )
1/4
m p ( )
--------------------------------------------------------------------- t
1/4
(gas) = =
m
bf
48.9B
p
i
p
wf
( )h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- (oil) =
m
bf
494T
h k
fw
( )
1/2
kc
t
( )
1/4
m p ( )
------------------------------------------------------------------- (gas) =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-30
July 1999
ential , and the producing time, t, with appropriate values as shown in the fol-
lowing table:
Bilinear Flow Graphs
Constant Formation Face Rate
When the rate of a well is maintained constant, the pressure change at the formation face is
described by Eq. (3.9). This equation indicates that a plot of p
i
-p
wf
(p
ws
-p
wf
) for buildup tests) vs.
t
1/4
(t
1/4
for buildup tests) will yield a straight line with slope, m
bf
, predicted by Eq. (3.10). The
plot of pressure change vs. fourth root of time is illustrated by Fig. 3.22. When bilinear flow ends,
the straight line will end and the plot will exhibit curvature which is concave upward or downward
depending upon the value of the dimensionless fracture conductivity, F
CD
. When F
CD
1.6, the
curve will be concave downward; a value of F
CD
> 1.6 will cause the curve to be concave upward.
When F
CD
> 1.6, bilinear flow ends because the fracture tip begins to affect wellbore behavior. If
a pressure transient test is not run sufficiently long for bilinear flow to end when F
CD
> 1.6, it is not
possible to determine the length of the fracture. When F
CD
1.6, bilinear flow in the reservoir
changes from predominately one-dimensional (linear) to a two-dimensional flow regime. In this
case, it is not possible to uniquely determine fracture length even if bilinear flow does end during
the test.
Test Differential Time
Drawdown p = p
i
-p
wf
t
Buildup p = p
ws
-p
wf
t or t
e
Fig. 3.22 - Bilinear Flow Graph for a Constant Rate Well.
p p
i
p
wf
=
F
CD
> 1.6
END OF
BILINEAR FLOW
SLOPE = mbf
t
1/4
, hours
1/4
p
,
p
s
i
F
CD
< 1.6
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
3-31 July 1999
A more diagnostic plot to recognize the occurrence of bilinear flow is the log-log plot. From
Eq. (3.9),
(3.15)
Eq. (3.15) indicates that a log-log plot of p
i
-p
wf
vs. t will yield a straight line with a one-fourth
slope; this is illustrated by Fig. 3.23.
Constant Formation Face Pressure
When formation face pressure remains constant, the formation face rate will change with time as
described by Eq. (3.13). According to Eq. (3.13), a plot of 1/q vs. t
1/4
should yield a straight line
with slope, m
bf
, defined by Eq. (3.14) this plot is depicted by Fig. 3.24. Following the end of the
bilinear flow period, the curve for will be concave downward and the curve for F
CD
>
2.8 will be concave upward. The straight line caused by bilinear flow ends for the same reasons as
described for the constant rate case.
Eq. (3.13) also indicates that a log-log plot of 1/q vs. t should yield a straight line with a slope of
one-fourth:
(3.16)
The plot illustrated by Fig. 3.25, is the primary diagnostic tool by which bilinear flow can be rec-
ognized.
Fig. 3.23 - Log-log Plot Illustrating the Effect of Ideal Bilinear Flow for the Constant Rate Case.
p
i
p
wf
( ) log
44.1qB
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
--------------------------------------------------
1
4
--- t . log + log =
SLOPE = 1/4
t, hours
p
,
p
s
i
F
CD
2.8
1
q
-- -
,
_
log
48.9B
p
i
p
wf
( )h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
4
--- t . log + log =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-32
July 1999
Fig. 3.24 - Bilinear Flow Graph for a Constant Pressure Well.
Fig. 3.25 - Log-log Plot Showing Effect of Ideal Bilinear Flow for the Constant Rate Case.
FCD > 2.8
END OF
BILINEAR FLOW
SLOPE = mbf
t
1/4
, hours
1/4
D
p
,
p
s
i
FCD < 2.8 1/q
SLOPE = 1/4
t, hours
D
p
,
p
s
i
1/q
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
3-33 July 1999
End of Bilinear Flow
Constant Formation Face Rate
The relationship between (t
Dxf
)
ebf
and F
CD
is depicted graphically by Fig. 3.26. This relationship
can be approximated as:
(3.17)
(3.18)
(3.19)
For the case where F
CD
3, the dimensionless pressure at the end of bilinear flow is
(3.20)
Therefore,
(3.21)
and,
(3.22)
Constant Formation Face Pressure
The relationship between (t
Dxf
)
ebf
and F
CD
is presented graphically by Fig. 3.27. This relationship
can be approximated by the following equations:
(3.23)
2 < F
CD
< 5: See Fig. 3.27
(3.24)
For the case where F
CD
5,
F
CD
3: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
0.1
F
CD
2
----------
1.6 F
CD
3: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
0.0205 F
CD
1.5 ( )
1.53
< <
F
CD
1.6: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
4.55
F
CD
-------------- 2.5
,
_
4
p
D
( )
ebf
1.38
F
CD
---------- . =
F
CD
1.38
p
D
( )
ebf
------------------ =
F
CD
194.9qB
kh p
i
p
wf
( )
ebf
------------------------------------- . =
F
CD
5: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
6.94 10
2
F
CD
2
--------------------------- =
0.5 F
CD
2: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
1.58 10
3
F
CD
1.6
=
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-34
July 1999
(3.25)
Therefore,
(3.26)
and,
(3.27)
Fig. 3.26 - Dimensionless Time for the End of the Bilinear Flow Period vs. Dimensionless Fracture
Conductivity, Constant Rate Case.
6
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
F
CD
(
t
D
x
f
)
e
b
f
1
q
D
( )
ebf
------------------
1.40
F
CD
---------- . =
F
CD
1.40 q
D
( )
ebf
=
F
CD
197.7q
ebf
B
kh p
i
p
wf
( )
-------------------------------- - . =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
3-35 July 1999
Analysis of Bilinear Flow Data
The conventional analysis of bilinear flowdata requires two plots - a log-log plot of the appropriate
rate or pressure function vs. t, and a cartesian plot of the appropriate rate or pressure function vs.
t
1/4
.
Liquid-Constant Rate
The following procedure can be used to analyze bilinear flow data for fracture conductivity and
fracture length when the production rate is constant:
1. Make a log-log plot of (p
i
-p
wf
) vs. equivalent producing time, t
p
.
2. Determine if any data fall on a straight line of quarter slope.
3. If any data form a quarter slope in Step 2, plot p
i
-p
wf
vs. t
1/4
on cartesian paper and identify the
data which form the bilinear flow straight line.
4. Determine the slope, m
bf
, of the bilinear flow straight line.
5. Using the slope, m
bf
, from Step 4, compute the fracture conductivity, k
f
w, using Eq. (3.10):
(3.28)
It should be noted that this calculation can only be made if k is known from a prefrac test.
6. If the bilinear flow straight line ends and the data rise above the straight line, determine the
value of p, i.e., p
ebf
, at which the line ends. Then, from Eq. (3.24), F
CD
can be computed as
(3.24)
with F
CD
known, the fracture length can be computed using Eq. (3.7):
(3.29)
It should be noted that Eq. (3.24) assumes F
CD
3. If enough data is available beyond bilinear
flow, a type curve match should be attempted to verify that this is true.
k
f
w
44.1qB
m
bf
h c
t
k ( )
1/4
--------------------------------------
2
. =
F
CD
194.9qB
kh p
i
p
wf
( )
ebf
------------------------------------- . =
x
f
k
f
w
kF
CD
------------- . =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-36
July 1999
Liquid-Constant Pressure
When formation face pressure remains constant during a test, the following procedure can be used
to analyze the bilinear flow data for fracture conductivity and fracture length:
1. Make a log-log plot of 1/q vs. t.
2. Determine if any data fall on a straight line of quarter slope.
3. If any data in Step 2 form a quarter slope, plot 1/q vs. t
1/4
on cartesian paper and determine the
slope, m
bf
, of the bilinear flow straight line.
4. Using the slope, m
bf
, from Step 3, compute the fracture conductivity, k
f
w, using Eq. (3.14)
Fig. 3.27 - Dimensionless Time to the End of Bilinear Flow for Constant Pressure Production.
9
F
CD
= 5
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-1
10
-2
1 2.8 10
(
t
D
x
f
)
e
b
f
F
CD
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
3-37 July 1999
(3.30)
5. If the bilinear flow line ends and the data rise above the straight line, determine the value of q
where the line ends, i.e., q
ebf
. Then, from Eq. (3.27), F
CD
can be computed as
(3.27)
With F
CD
known, the fracture length can be computed using Eq. (3.24):
(3.29)
Eq. (3.27) assumes F
CD
5 ;accordingly, if enough data are available beyond bilinear flow, a
type curve match should be attempted to verify that this is true.
Effect of Flow Restrictions
When a flowrestriction exists in the formation adjacent to the fracture, or when a restriction occurs
in the fracture near the wellbore, the ideal bilinear flow behavior discussed previously, shown by
Fig. 3.22 and Fig. 3.24 will be altered. Ideal bilinear flow results in a straight line on a cartesian
plot of p (constant rate) or 1/q (constant pressure) vs. t; further, this line passes through the origin.
Bilinear flow still exists when a flow restriction is present; however, the restriction causes an extra
pressure drop, p
s
, in the system. This additional pressure loss does not alter the slope, m
bf
, of the
bilinear flow straight line; instead, rather than passing through the origin, the line will have an
intercept equal to p
s
for the constant rate case. This behavior is depicted by Fig. 3.28.
Fig. 3.28 - Effect of a Flow Restriction on Bilinear Flow, Constant Rate Case.
k
f
w
48.9B
m
bf
p
i
p
wf
( )h c
t
h ( )
1/4
---------------------------------------------------------------
2
. =
F
CD
197.7q
ebf
B
kh p
i
p
wf
( )
------------------------------- . =
x
f
k
f
w
k F
CD
--------------- . =
DAMAGE OR
CHOKED FRACTURE
IDEAL
t
1/4
, hours
1/4
ps
0
0
p
,
p
s
i
{
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-38
July 1999
A log-log plot of p (constant rate) or 1/q (constant pressure) vs. t will exhibit a straight line with
quarter slope for ideal bilinear flow. The slope of this line will be altered, however, when a flow
restriction is present. This non-ideal behavior is depicted by Fig. 3.25 for the constant rate case.
Effect of Wellbore Storage
Wellbore storage will alter or completely mask the bilinear flow straight lines ideally expected on
the cartesian and log-log plots of p or 1/q vs. t
1/4
and p or 1/q vs. time, respectively. Fig. 3.30
depicts the effect of storage on a plot of p vs. t
1/4
for the constant rate case. The corresponding
effect of storage on the log-log plot is shown in Fig. 3.31. It has been reported by Cinco-Ley et al.,
6
that the end of wellbore storage effects occurs approximately three log cycles after the end of the
unit slope line.
Fig. 3.29 - Effect of a Flow Restriction on the Log-log Plot for the Constant Rate Case.
DAMAGE OR
CHOKED FRACTURE
SLOPE = 1/4
t, hrs
p
,
p
s
i
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Liquid Reservoirs (Reproduction of PTA Course Material)
3-39 July 1999
Fig. 3.30 - Effect of Wellbore Storage on a Plot of p vs. t
1/4
for the Constant Rate Case.
Fig. 3.31 - Effect of Wellbore Storage on the Log-log Plot for the Constant Rate Case.
p
,
p
s
i
IDEAL BILINEAR
FLOW
EFFECT OF
WELLBORE STORAGE
t, hrs
p
,
p
s
i
t, hrs
SLOPE = 1/4
UNIT SLOPE
= 3 LOG CYCLES
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-40
July 1999
3.5 Bilinear Flow - Gas Reservoirs
Bilinear Flow Equations
Constant Formation Face Rate
Dimensionless Pressure:
(3.31)
Dimensionless Time:
(3.6)
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity:
(3.7)
Bilinear Flow Equation:
(3.8)
(3.32)
Bilinear Slope (graph of m(p) vs. t
1/4
):
(3.33)
Constant Formation Face Pressure
Dimensionless Rate:
(3.34)
P
D
kh m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
1424qT
------------------------------------------------- - =
t
Dxf
0.0002637kt
c
t
x
f
2
------------------------------ =
F
CD
k
f
w
kx
f
--------- =
P
D
2.45 t
Dx
f
1 4 /
F
CD
1\/2
---------------------- =
m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( )
444.6qT
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
-------------------------------------------------- t
1/4
=
m
bf
444.6qT
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
-------------------------------------------------- =
q
D
1424qT
kh m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
------------------------------------------------- - =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Gas Reservoirs
3-41 July 1999
Bilinear Flow Equation:
(3.12)
(3.35)
Bilinear Slope (graph of 1/q vs. t
1/4
):
(3.36)
NOTE: The equations presented in this section are written specifically for pressure drawdown
tests. These equations can be modified for pressure buildup tests by replacing the
pseudopressure differential, m(p), and the producing time, t, with appropriate values as
shown in the following table:
Bilinear Flow Graphs
Constant Formation Face Rate
When the rate of a gas well is maintained constant, the pressure change at the formation face is
described by Eq. (3.32). This equation indicates that a plot of m(p
i
)-m(p
wf
) vs. t
1/4
for drawdown
tests, or m(p
ws
)-m(p
wf
) for buildup tests, will yield a straight line with slope, m
bf
, predicted by
Eq. (3.33). This plot described by Eq. (3.32) is illustrated by Fig. 3.24. When bilinear flow ends,
the straight line will end and the data will exhibit curvature which is concave upward or downward
depending upon the value of the dimensionless fracture conductivity, F
CD
. When F
CD
1.6, the
curve will be concave downward, a value of F
CD
> 1.6 will cause the curve to be concave upward .
When F
CD
> 1.6, bilinear flow ends because the fracture tip begins to affect wellbore behavior. If
a pressure transient test is not run sufficiently long for bilinear flow to end when F
CD
> 1.6, it is
not possible to determine the length of the fracture. When F
CD
1.6, bilinear flow in the reservoir
changes from predominately one-dimensional (linear) to a two-dimensional flow regime. In this
case, it is not possible to uniquely determine fracture length even if bilinear flow does end during
the test.
A more diagnostic plot to recognize bilinear flow is the log-log plot. From Eq. (3.32)
Test Pseudopressure Differential Time
Drawdown m(p) = m (pi)-m(pwf) t
Buildup m(p) = m(p
ws
)-mp(p
wf
) t or t
e
1
q
D
------
2.72 t
Dx
f
1/4
F
CD
1/2
------------------------ =
1
q
---
493.6T
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t
1/4
=
m
bf
493.6T
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-42
July 1999
(3.37)
Eq. (3.37) indicates that a log-log plot of m(p
i
)-m(p
wf
) vs. t will yield a straight line with a one-
fourth slope; this is illustrated by Fig. 3.35.
Constant Formation Face Pressure
When formation face pressure remains constant, the formation face rate will change with time as
described by Eq. (3.35). According to Eq. (3.35), a plot of 1/q vs. t
1/4
should yield a straight line
with slope, m
bf
, defined by Eq. (3.36) this graph is depicted by Fig. 3.24. Following the end of the
bilinear flowperiod, the curve for F
CD
2.8 will be concave downward and the curve for F
CD
> 2.8
will be concave upward. The straight line for bilinear flow ends for the same reasons presented for
the constant rate case on page 3-41. Eq. (3.35) also indicates that a log-log plot of 1/q vs. t should
yield a straight line with a slope of one-fourth:
(3.38)
The log-log plot of pressure change vs. time, illustrated by Fig. 3.35, is the primary diagnostic tool
by which bilinear flow can be recognized.
Fig. 3.32 - Bilinear Flow Graph for a Constant Pressure Well.
F
CD
> 1.6
END OF
BILINEAR FLOW
SLOPE = m
bf
t
1/4
, hours
1/4
p
,
p
s
i
F
CD
< 1.6
m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ] log
444.6qT
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
--------------------------------------------------
1
4
--- t . log + log =
1 of q ( ) log
493.6T
h k
f
w ( )
1/2
c
t
k ( )
1/4
m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
4
--- t . log + log =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Gas Reservoirs
3-43 July 1999
End of Bilinear Flow
Constant Formation Face Rate
The relationship between (t
Dxf
)
ebf
and F
CD
for constant formation face rate is depicted graphically
by Fig. 3.37. This relationship can be approximated as:
(3.17)
Fig. 3.33 - Log-log Plot Showing Effect of Ideal Bilinear Flow for the Constant Gas Rate Well.
Fig. 3.34 - Bilinear Flow Graph for a Constant Pressure Well.
SLOPE = 1/4
t, hours
p
,
p
s
i
FCD > 1.6
END OF
BILINEAR FLOW
SLOPE = mbf
t
1/4
, hours
1/4
p
,
p
s
i
FCD < 1.6
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-44
July 1999
(3.19)
(3.20)
For the case where F
CD
3, the dimensionless pressure at the end of bilinear flow is
(3.39)
Therefore,
(3.40)
and,
(3.41)
Constant Formation Face Pressure
The relationship between (t
Dxf
)
ebf
and F
CD
for constant formation face pressure is presented graph-
ically by Fig. 3.37. This relationship can be approximated by the following equations:
Fig. 3.35 - Log-log Plot Illustrating the Effect of Ideal Bilinear Flow for the Constant Pressure Case.
SLOPE = 1/4
t, hours
p
,
p
s
i
1.6 F
CD
3: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
0.0205 F
CD
1.5 ( )
1.53
< <
F
CD
1.6: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
4.55
F
CD
---------- 2.5
,
_
4
p
D
( )
ebf
1.38
F
CD
---------- . =
F
CD
1.38
p
D
( )
ebf
------------------ =
F
CD
1965.1qT
kh m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
ebf
-------------------------------------------------------- - . =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Gas Reservoirs
3-45 July 1999
(3.23)
2 < F
CD
< 5: See Fig. 3.37
(3.24)
For the case where F
CD
5,
(3.25)
Fig. 3.36 - Dimensionless Time for the End of the Bilinear Flow Period vs. Dimensionless Fracture
Conductivity, Constant Formation Face Rate Case.
6
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
F
CD
(
t
D
x
f
)
e
b
f
F
CD
5: t
Dxf
( )
ebf
6.94 10
2
F
CD
2
---------------------------
1
q
D
( )
ebf
------------------
1.40
F
CD
---------- . =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-46
July 1999
Therefore,
(3.26)
and
(3.42)
Analysis of Bilinear Flow Data
The conventional analysis of bilinear flowdata requires two plots - a log-log plot of the appropriate
rate or pressure function vs. t, and a cartesian plot of the appropriate rate or pressure function vs.
t
1/4
.
Fig. 3.37 - Dimensionless Time to the End of the Bilinear Flow for Constant Pressure Production.
9
F
CD
= 5
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-1
10
-2
1 2.8 10
(
t
D
x
f
)
e
b
f
F
CD
F
CD
1.40 q
D
( )
ebf
=
F
CD
1988Tq
ebf
kh m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
------------------------------------------------- - . =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bilinear Flow - Gas Reservoirs
3-47 July 1999
Gas-Constant Rate
The following procedure can be used to analyze bilinear flow data for fracture conductivity and
fracture length. When rate is constant:
1. Make a log-log plot of m(p
i
)-m(p
wf
) vs. t.
2. Determine if any data fall on a straight line of quarter-slope.
3. If any data in Step 2 form a quarter-slope, plot m(p
i
)-m(p
wf
) vs. t
1/4
on cartesian paper and iden-
tify the data which form the bilinear flow straight line.
4. Determine the slope, m
bf
, of the bilinear flow straight line.
5. Using the slope, m
bf
, from Step 4, compute the fracture conductivity, k
f
w, using Eq. (3.33):
(3.43)
It should be noted that this calculation can only be made if k is known from a prefrac test.
6. If the bilinear flow straight line ends and the data rise above the straight line, determine the
value of m(p), i.e., [m(p)]
ebf
, at which the line ends. Then, from Eq. (3.42), F
CD
can be com-
puted as
(3.42)
With F
CD
known, the fracture length can be computed using Eq. (3.7):
(3.29)
It should be noted that Eq. (3.43) assumes F
CD
3. If enough data is available beyond bilinear
flow, a type curve match should be attempted to verify that this is true.
Gas-Constant Pressure
When formation face pressure remains constant during a test, the following procedure can be used
to analyze the bilinear flow data for fracture conductivity and fracture length:
1. Make a log-log plot of 1/q vs. t.
2. Determine if any data fall on a straight line of quarter slope.
k
f
w
444.6qT
m
bf
h c
t
k ( )
1/4
--------------------------------------
2
=
F
CD
1965.1qT
kh m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
ebf
-------------------------------------------------------- - . =
x
f
k
f
w
kF
CD
------------- . =
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-48
July 1999
3. If any data in Step 2 form a quarter-slope, plot 1/q vs. t
1/4
on cartesian paper and determine the
slope, m
bf
, of the bilinear flow straight line.
4. Using the slope, m
bf
, from Step 3, compute the fracture conductivity, k
f
w, using Eq. (3.38):
(3.44)
5. If the bilinear flow line ends and the data rise above the straight line, determine the value of q
where the line ends, i.e., q
ebf
. Then, from Eq. (3.43), F
CD
can be computed as
(3.42)
With F
CD
known, the fracture length can be computed using Eq. (3.29):
(3.29)
Eq. (3.29) assumes F
CD
5; accordingly, if enough data are available beyond bilinear flow, a
type curve match should be attempted to verify that this is true.
k
f
w
493.6T
m
bf
h c
t
k ( )
1/4
m p
i
( ) m p
wi
( ) [ ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
=
F
CD
1988Tq
ebf
kh m p
i
( ) m p
wf
( ) [ ]
------------------------------------------------- - . =
x
f
k
f
w
kF
CD
------------- . =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
References
3-49 July 1999
3.6 References
1. Smith, M. B.: Effect of Fracture Azimuth on Production With Application to the Wattenberg Gas Field, paper
SPE 8298 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26
2. Prats, M.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior - Incompressible Fluid Case, SPEJ (June 1961)
105-18; Trans., AIME, 222.
3. Britt, L. K.: Optimized Oil Well Fracturing, Phase I Report, Amoco Production Company Report F84-P-23
(May 25, 1984).
4. Britt, L. K.: Optimized Oil Well Fracturing, Phase II Report, Analysis of the Effects of Fracturing on the Sec-
ondary Recovery Process; Amoco Production Company Report F85-P-7 (Jan. 24, 1985).
5. Bargas, C. L.: The Effects of Vertical Fractures on the Areal Sweep Efficiency and Relative Injectivity of Ad-
verse Mobility Ratio Displacements, Amoco Production Company Report F89-P-13 (Feb. 13, 1989).
6. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells, JPT (Sept. 1981) 1749-
66.
7. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient Pressure Analysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture Case vs. Dam-
aged Fracture Case; paper SPE 10179, presented at the 1981 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Oct. 5-7.
8. Cinco-Ley, H.: Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing by Transient Pressure Analysis Methods, paper SPE 10043,
presented at the 1982 SPE Intl. Petroleum Exhibition and Technology Symposium, Beijing, March 19-22.
9. Bennett, C. O., Reynolds, A. C., and Raghavan, R.: Performance of Finite-Conductivity, Vertically Fractured
Wells in Single-Layer Reservoirs, SPEFE (Aug. 1986) 399-412; Trans., AIME, 281.
10. Guppy, K. H., Cinco-Ley, H., and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: Pressure Buildup Analysis of Fractured Wells Producing at
High Flow Rates, JPT (Nov. 1982) 2656-66.
11 Rodiquez, F., Horne, R. N., and Cinco-Ley, H.: Partially Penetrating Vertical Fractures: Pressure Transient Be-
havior of Finite Conductivity Fracture, paper SPE 13057, presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
Reservoir Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
3
3-50
July 1999
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
4-1
Chapter
March 1993
The following mechanical properties are of interest in fracturing: (1) Elastic Properties of the For-
mation (i.e., Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio), (2) Fracture Toughness, and (3) Hardness.
Rock strength plays only a small role in the fracturing process and is not included in the fracture
design calculations.
4.1 Elastic Properties of the Formation
As an engineering simplification, the formation is often assumed to be a linearly elastic homoge-
neous material. This simplification allows the use of solutions from the theory of elasticity to esti-
mate, for example, fracture widths and stresses in the formation. However, it should always be
remembered that the formation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. Therefore, the assumption
of a linearly elastic isotropic formation may be grossly violated, especially in poorly consolidated
formations.
Based on this simplifying assumption, formation properties can be characterized by two elastic
constants, the modulus of elasticity (or Youngs modulus), E, given in psi or units of pressure, and
Poissons ratio (in honor of the great French mathematician), , a dimensionless number as its
name implies. The modulus characterizes how stiff the formation is and quantifies how easily a
core is deformed by an axial stress (tension or compression). Poissons ratio quantifies howa core
bulges (expands or contracts laterally) by an axial compression or tension and it characterizes
(together with E) the transmittal of horizontal pressure due to the overburden.
Fracture design is greatly affected by how much the formation opens for a given pressure inside a
fracture. Fracture width depends on both fracture dimensions and formation stiffness. Fracture
width is inversely proportional to the formation plane strain modulus, E , given by
. (4.1)
Fig. 2.3 in Chap. 2 expressed this spring stiffness type relation as
(4.2)
where, for simplicitys sake, E was used instead of E . This is usually a good approximation since
a rough estimate for the Poissons ratio for most rocks is between 0.20 to 0.35. Therefore, E is
expected to be about 4 to 12% larger than E. Note that the theoretically expected values for are
E
E
1
2
( )
------------------- =
W
D
E
---- p
0
0.5
s
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
p
s
i
)
Formation Mechanical Properties
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
4
4-6
March 1993
Again, this dynamic modulus will be an upper bound for the static modulus used for fracture
design.
The best solution is to obtain core samples and have tangent modulus measured in a lab. If this is
impossible and E must be estimated, try to estimate on the high side. This will result in a design
with a narrower fracture width, higher net pressure and greater fracture height than should actually
occur, providing a conservative safe approach to fracture design.
Fig. 4.5 - Youngs Modulus (E) vs. Acoustic Travel Time.
E x 10
6
- psi
Sand
Dolomite
Lime
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
100
80
60
40
A
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
T
r
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
(
m
i
c
r
o
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
f
t
)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracture Toughness
4-7 March 1993
4.2 Fracture Toughness
Fracture toughness is one of the most elusive material properties that comes from linear fracture
mechanics. It is discussed here because it is often used in numerical simulators as a matching
parameter of the treating pressure and because there are many near fracture tip phenomena that
could appear as apparent fracture toughness.
Without getting too deep into theory, the fracture toughness concept comes from Griffiths
1
work
on the fracture of brittle solids. The fracture toughness of a material represents its natural ability
to resist the propagation of a fracture. To quote an article by Srawley and Brown,
2
In the simplest
terms, the fracture toughness of a material determines how big a crack the material is able to tol-
erate without fracturing when loaded to a level approaching that at which it would fail by excessive
plastic deformation. Fracture toughness can be quantified by lab experiments (such as the three
point loading of the Chevron notch) from which the loading vs. deformation curve is plotted until
failure, and the energy spent to fracture the specimen can be calculated from this diagram. It may
be noted that loading capacity of a specific specimen depends not only on crack size, but also on
crack shape, bulk of the specimen, crack orientation with respect to layering of material (e.g. for-
mation), temperature, rate of loading, etc. For this reason, it is very difficult to extrapolate labora-
tory results to the field, and an indirect assessment of apparent fracture toughness is done in the
field from treating pressure behavior using fracturing simulators, as described below.
The fracture toughness is quantified by either of two related parameters: (1) the critical strain
energy release rate, G, expressed in energy per area of created fracture (not the area of the fracture
faces) in units of force/length; and (2) the critical stress intensity factor, K
c
, expressed in units of
pressure times square root of length. The relation between the two parameters for hydraulic frac-
turing problems (plane strain problems) is
G = K
c
2
/E'. (4.5)
Typical laboratory range of K
c
values are given by Thiercelin
3
in Table 4.2. From Table 4.2 we see
that typical laboratory K
c
s are of the order of 900 to 2000 psi with a value of about 1500
psi being a good rough estimate. A corresponding rough estimate of fracture energy is about 1
psi-in. Note that some simulators require K
c
and some require G as input.
Fracture toughness relates the pressure required to propagate a fracture with the dimensions of the
fracture. Let us consider an example from the Wattenberg field,
4
where fractures in the Muddy J
formation are highly confined by shale layers above and below the pay. Stress tests, minifrac and
fracturing treatments in the example well show that a fracture height of 90 ft is representative for
these type of calculations. Furthermore, net pressures, P
N
, on the order of 400 to 550 psi for mini-
frac treatments and 2100 psi for the main fracture treatments are typical. These observations indi-
cate the magnitudes of the formation toughness (i.e., critical stress intensity factor K
c
), the
confining stress contrast
c
between layers, and other rock mechanics considerations. Consider-
in
in
Formation Mechanical Properties
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
4
4-8
March 1993
ing the lateral propagation of the fracture tip of this highly confined fracture gives estimates of the
Muddy J pay toughness, or, better, its apparent toughness.
The fracture tip is essentially a penny shaped fracture that is subjected to the net treating pressure
P
N
. There is no stress contrast confining the fracture in the horizontal direction. Therefore, fracture
toughness is expected to be a dominant confining mechanism in the horizontal direction. From
fracturing mechanics,
5
the stress intensity factor, K, in the opening mode of a penny shaped crack
under uniform pressure is given by
(4.6)
where R is the radius and P
N
the uniform net pressure. The fracture propagates when K is equal to
the formation fracture toughness, K
c
(which is a material property), and remains stationary when
K < K
c
.
The fracture tip geometry of the Wattenberg fractures is characterized by R = 45 ft = 540 in and P
N
= 500 psi. This value of net pressure is estimated from the minifrac treatment which does not have
the additional friction due to a proppant. With these values, Eq. (4.6) gives K
c
= 13110 psi . This
estimate is approximately 10 times greater than the fracture toughness of rocks measured in the lab
which have a typical toughness value of 1000 to 1500 psi . Note that this discrepancy is a com-
mon phenomenon and consequently the calculated K
c
is called an apparent formation toughness.
Table 4.2 Fracture Toughness and Properties as a Function of Conning Pressure.
Lithology
Porosity
%
Youngs Modulus
Conning
Pressure K
Ic
MPa
Error 10
6
psi MPa psi MPa
% Error
psi
Mesa Verde
Sandstone
-
5-10
-
-
-
-
32,000 (3) 11%
-
-
4.8
0.
13.8
20.7
0
2068
3102
2.12 (2)
2.4 (2)
3.6 (1)
11%
17%
1993
2256
3384
Mesa Verde
Mudstone
-
-
-
45,000 (2)
9% -
6.7
0.
20.7
0
3102
2.12 (1)
2.6 (1)
1993
2444
Cardium
Sandstone
13
-
-
25,500 (2)
-
31%
-
3.8
0.
21.0
0
3147
0.98 (3)
3.3 (2)
14%
6%
921
3102
Berea
Sandstone
-
-
23
-
-
-
-
-
19,400 (2)
20,500 (1)
-
-
2%
-
-
2.9
3.1
0.
5.0
10.0
20.0
0
74
9
1499
2997
1.11 (2)
1.3 (2)
1.3 (2)
1.5 (3)
5%
8%
8%
13%
1043
1222
1222
1410
Note: the gures in parentheses show the number of samples tested.
t
m
t i n
K 2 P
N
R
c2
c2
c
c2
c1
=
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 3
H
i
a
b
A
B
C
D
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Ratio Frac Height:
Initial Frac Height
H
H
i
---- ( )
R
a
t
i
o
N
e
t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
:
S
t
r
e
s
s
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
P
n
c
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
0
c
A
B C
D
d
Pressure
A
B
C
D
Time
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracture Height/Fracture Height Growth - 3-D Modeling/Design
5-5 December 1995
allowed to rise to 1000-1100 psi before the fracture will begin to grow significantly out of zone.
This would allow an ample pressure limitation for designing most fracture treatments.
Obviously, an in-situ fracture closure stress profile, as seen in Fig. 5.3, is the major input data for
3-D or Pseudo 3-D fracture treatment design. The example in Fig. 5.3 illustrates a stress profile
generated by conducting multiple small volume, microfrac stress tests. Generally, such multiple
stress data are not available and some form of log-stress correlation will be required. However,
this example illustrates another important item - namely typical (or maximum) values for
in-situ stress differences. Consider data from the sandstone at ft showing a fracture closure
pressure (closure stress) of psi. Then consider the stress of psi at a depth of about
7650 ft in the Mancos Tongue Shale. This stress difference of psi at this depth represents a
stress difference of psi/ft - and this is about the maximum stress difference which has been
recorded, verified, and published. Thus, assuming some lithology differences exist, an optimistic
estimate for in-situ stress differences might be:
Max Stress Difference, = 0.2 psi/ft of depth.
Fig. 5.3 - Variations in Fracture Closure Stress in a Sand/Shale Sequence.
7500 t
6500 t 8000 t
1500 t
0.2 t
0
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
2
0
0
.
0
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
1
ft
7300
(2225m)
7400
(2255m)
7500
(2286m)
7600
(2315m)
7700
(2347m)
7800
(2377m)
7900
(2408m)
8000
(2438m)
8100
(2459m)
GAMMA (GAPI)
POROSITY
COAL
SILT
SHALE
SAND
M
A
N
C
O
S
T
O
N
G
U
E
C
O
Z
Z
E
T
T
E
M
A
N
C
O
S
T
O
N
G
U
E
R
O
L
L
I
N
S
P
A
L
U
D
A
L
6
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
STRESS (psi)
m
2250
2300
2350
2400
2450
45 50 55 60 MPa
Estimated over-
burden stress
(1.05 psi/ft)
Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
5
5-6
December 1995
The effects of lithology on in-situ stress (fracture closure stresses or closure pressure) along with
the effect of closure stress variations on fracture geometry may also be seen in Fig. 5.4, a set of
field data presented by Esso Canada.
2
Fig. 5.4 compares two cases (within the same wellbore)
showing measured in-situ stresses along with pre and postfrac radioactivity logs for fracture height
growth. For Case 1, several stress tests (microfrac type stress tests) were conducted in zones with
(based on differing gamma ray readings) varying lithology. This stress data showed basically a
psi/ft (e.g. normal) stress gradient - and the postfrac logs suggest massive height growth
outof-zone. Case 2 shows stress data collected from two zones, both of which were perforated, and
a propped fracture treatment was conducted attempting to stimulate the two zones simultaneously.
The upper zone shows a significantly higher closure stress (associated with a different lithology)
and the postfrac logs indicate that the entire treatment entered the deeper, lower stress zone.
Thus we see examples - in the same wellbore - of lithology changes with and without associated
differences in fracture closure pressure. A guideline for interpreting stress profiles where no other
information exists might be:
There must be some change in lithology in order to expect some variations in closure pressure
- and thus some degree of fracture height confinement. However, do not try to quantify
lithology logs. That is, relatively minor apparent lithology changes could signify significant
stress differences, OR a major lithology change might have no associated stress differences.
As discussed in Chap. 4, the one exception to this would be for stress changes created by artificial
changes in reservoir pressure (e.g. depletion).
Effect Of Bed Thickness On Fracture Height Growth
In addition to the stress difference in the beds, bed thickness is important. If the bounding beds are
not infinitely thick, then we must consider their thickness to determine if the fracture might grow
completely through the bounding beds and into zones of lower stress. A 2 ft shale bounding a 10
ft pay zone is obviously not going to stop a fracture from growing out of zone, nor will a 20 ft shale
bounding a 50 ft zone. A good rule for beds immediately bounding a zone to be fractured, is that
they should be at least as thick as the zone being stimulated to confine frac height; the basis
for this rule-of-thumb is discussed under Picking Fracture Height on page 5-12.
Consider the Pressure-Height Curve as seen in Fig. 5.2b. At the point where the fracture has tri-
pled in height (e.g., H/H
i
= 1 and the fracture has grown upwards a distance equal to one initial
height and downwards one initial height), net pressure has reached % of the in-situ stress
difference. Also at this point, pressure-height behavior is fairly flat, that is, relatively large
amounts of height growth begin to occur for small increases in bottomhole treating pressure. Thus,
even for infinite bounding beds, fracture height will begin to increase rapidly after an upward
or downward growth about equal to one original formation thickness.
0.7 t
80 t
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracture Height/Fracture Height Growth - 3-D Modeling/Design
5-7 December 1995
Case 1
Apparent Lithology No Stress Difference
Case 2
Large Stress Differences
No FRAC in High Stress Interval
Fig. 5.4 - Examples of Lithology Changes, With and Without Associated Stress Differ-
ences.
Collar
Locations
2675
2700
2725
2750
Increasing Gamma Activity
Gamma Ray
Post-Frac
Gamma Ray
Base
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
0.7 psi/ft
gradient
6
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
Closure Stress (psi)
U
p
p
e
r
Z
o
n
e
L
o
w
e
r
Z
o
n
e
Collar
Locations
2060
2060
2060
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
) P
e
r
f
s
P
e
r
f
s
Base
GR
Post-Frac GR
Increasing Gamma Activity Closure Stress (psi)
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
5
5-8
December 1995
The first important effect of bed thickness then is the thickness of bounding formations as illus-
trated by the four drawings in Fig. 5.5. This figure repeats the three-layer behavior discussed
above until point C is reached - e.g. the fracture has approximately tripled in height and the top
of the fracture has just reached the top of the barrier formation. At that point in time, the treating
pressure inside the fracture, near the wellbore, is considerably greater than the pressure needed to
propagate a fracture into the shallower low stress zone. Thus treating pressure will begin to drop
(sometimes fairly rapidly) as the fracture preferentially migrates into this new formation.
Fig. 5.5 - Fracture Height Growth Through Finite Bounding Beds.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracture Height/Fracture Height Growth - 3-D Modeling/Design
5-9 December 1995
This can, in extreme cases, even lead to the main fracture beginning to grow shorter and can have
major (usually undesirable) effects on the ability to pump proppant, proppant placement, and on
stimulation effectiveness. Some of the treatment pumping problems which can arise from such
height growth behavior are discussed in Chap. 8. Also, some of the fracture modeling/fracture
design issues raised by such a fracture geometry are briefly discussed below.
The second major importance of bed thickness is thickness of the pay zone itself. The net pressure
which the stress and thickness of the bounding beds must counteract depends on the thickness of
the pay zone. Fig. 5.6 illustrates the net pressure required to create a 500 ft fracture for several pay
zone thicknesses. This figure shows that height growth would probably not be expected to be con-
fined to a 20 ft zone at 2000 psi, but height confinement could be expected for a 200 ft zone at 200
psi. While the actual net pressures tabulated in Fig. 5.6 are for a specific case, the figure can also
be used, in a general, qualitative, sense to estimate the potential for height confinement for partic-
ular zones.
The actual net pressures tabulated in Fig. 5.6 are for a specific case. However, they might also be
viewed as typical values of net treating pressure for various gross zone thicknesses. Thus, if a
formation being considered for fracturing has a gross thickness on the order of 30 ft - then net treat-
ing pressure will probably be psi, and stress differences on the order of 1600 psi will be
needed to give reasonable height confinement. Assuming a formation depth of 6000 ft, the required
gradient of stress difference would be 0.27 psi/ft - good height confinement is unlikely and
extensive height growth would be expected. On the other hand, a typical net pressure for fracturing
a zone with a gross thickness of 60 ft might be on the order of 800 psi - with stress differences of
psi needed for reasonable height confinement. For a formation depth of 8000 ft, the required
Fig. 5.6 - Net Pressure Required to Create a 500 ft (1/2 Length) Fracture.
1500 t
900 t
Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
5
5-10
December 1995
gradient difference is only 0.1 psi/ft - and assuming some lithology differences exist - then fairly
good height confinement may be a reasonable possibility.
Effect Of Other Factors On Fracture Height Growth
Modulus contrast between pay and bounding beds
Interface or bedding plane slip - applicable at shallow depth?
Ductility of bounding bed-may facilitate bedding plane slip, rare
Stress gradient due to fluid pressure - generally insignificant
Fracture toughness or strength differences-probably not a barrier
Probably the most important of the remaining variables which affects frac height (after the stress
and pressure behavior), are modulus contrasts (Fig. 5.7), and bedding plane slip (Fig. 5.8 and
Fig. 5.9).
Though not as strong a barrier as once thought, bounding beds with higher modulus than the pay
zone can retard height growth by causing fracture width in the bounding formations to be very nar-
row. However, as seen in Fig. 5.7, the maximum possible L to H ratios are fairly small - that is the
height confining effect of modulus contrasts is actually quite minimal.
For shallow depths, overpressured formations, or highly jointed formations such as coals, slip may
occur along bedding planes at the top or bottom tip of the fracture, Fig. 5.8, blunting the fracture
and arresting height growth. This would be a very strong barrier; however, it probably does not
occur often in oil and gas well fracturing except possibly at the interfaces with coal seams. Slip of
this type would be required for the Geerstma de Klerk model to be applicable for fractures with
lengths greater than their height (L/H > 1).
Fig. 5.9 presents the results of a series of lab tests conducted to determine the likelihood of a
hydraulic fracture stopping at an unbonded interface between two rock layers. As seen from these
Fig. 5.7 - Effect of Modulus Contrast on Fracture Containment.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracture Height/Fracture Height Growth - 3-D Modeling/Design
5-11 December 1995
results, for an effective vertical stress across the interface (e.g. overburden weight minus pore pres-
sure) of only psi the fracture crossed the interface for almost all rock types. Since an effec-
tive vertical stress of this magnitude would correspond to a depth of only about 2000 ft - it is clear
that interface slip will not be an effective barrier to vertical frac height growth for most oil and gas
well situations.
Fracture closure pressure or closure stress generally increases with depth, with a typical gradient
of psi/ft - e.g. for each 100 ft increase in depth, closure pressure will increase by 70 psi. This
increase in closure stress is generally greater than the increase (with depth) in fluid pressure inside
the fracture due to the hydrostatic gradient of the fluid. As an example, consider a fracture 200 ft
in height which is filled with a water based fluid. Closure stress at the bottom of the fracture is
greater by about 140 psi than closure stress at the top; at the same time the driving fluid pressure
at the bottom is greater by psi (assuming a hydrostatic gradient of 0.43 psi/ft for water). Thus
net pressure (e.g. driving fluid pressure minus closure pressure) is about 54 psi less at the bottom
of the fracture than at the top. Thus the fracture would have some tendency to grow upward rather
than downward.
However, for many (most?) fracturing cases net pressure may have a typical value on the order of
500 to 1000 psi - thus a difference (over the height) of psi in net pressure is relatively insig-
nificant. Stress gradients, then, only become significant in affecting fracture height growth for
cases where significant height already exists (e.g. several hundred feet), or for cases of very low
net pressure (e.g. typically associated with low modulus formations and/or the pumping of very
low viscosity fluids).
Fig. 5.8 - Illustration of Fracture Interface
Slip.
Fig. 5.9 Interface Slip vs. Stress.
1000 t
0.7 t
86 t
50 t
Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
5
5-12
December 1995
Picking Fracture Height
(Estimating the In-situ Stress Prole)
Obviously, normal strata are not as simple as the idealized case described in Fig. 5.10, but the prin-
ciples are still applicable. If the bounding beds are not infinitely thick, then we must ensure that
they are of adequate thickness so the fracture does not grow completely through them and into a
zone of lower stress. A 2 ft shale bounding a 10 ft pay zone is obviously not going to stop a fracture
from growing out of zone. As discussed on page 5-6, a good rule for beds immediately bounding
a zone to be fractured is that they must be at least as thick as the zone being treated. Still, there will
be some height growth into the bounding layers with the final magnitude of fracture height being
predominantly determined by the stress difference between the pay and the bounding forma-
tions. Thus predicting or picking fracture height becomes an exercise in estimating (or measuring)
the in-situ closure stress for various zones.
There are tools which may, under some conditions, possibly aid in determining the in-situ stress
profile. However, in general, consideration of two dominant parameters will aid in constructing
reasonable estimates of in-situ stresses.
Factors Which Dominate In-situ Stress Differences
Lithology Changes
Pore Pressure
Pore Pressure Variations
Fig. 5.10 - Illustration of Stress Gradient Effect on Frac Height Growth.
Generally Insignificant Except in Case of Unrestrained
Vertical Growth Where Height Becomes Very Big
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracture Height/Fracture Height Growth - 3-D Modeling/Design
5-13 December 1995
One minimum consideration for height confinement is significant lithology changes as seen with
a Gamma Ray log. Shales often have higher closure stresses than clean sands so thick boundary
shales can confine fractures. Such confinement is not always the case, but the lack of lithology
changes virtually ensures unrestricted height growth or radially shaped fractures. Thus a change in
lithology makes it possible for stress differences to exist. However, one should not try to quan-
tify a Gamma Ray log, e.g., if a lithology difference exists, then stress differences may exist and
fracturing pressure analysis (as discussed in Chap. 8) must be used to determine the magnitude of
the stress differences.
As discussed, closure stress is related to reservoir pressure. Therefore, a reservoir that has been
drawn down, as in a producing well, is likely to have a lower closure stress than normal in the pay
zone, and consequently a higher stress differential between pay and the bounding beds, improving
chances for height confinement. On the other hand, height confinement could be more difficult to
achieve in an injection well due to pressuring up of the pay zone. Thus pore pressure and pore pres-
sure differences between zones (e.g. due to partial depletion from offset production) is a major fac-
tor to consider in estimating in-situ stresses. Fracture closure stress is generally related to pore
pressure by
3
(5.2)
where OB = Overburden Pressure 1 psi/ft, p = pore pressure, = Poissons ratio, Sandstones
= 25, and Carbonates = .33.
Inspection of Eq. (5.2) for a typical sandstone reservoir with a Poissons ratio, of 0.25 indi-
cates that for every psi change in reservoir pressure there is a corresponding 2/3 of a psi change in
closure pressure. Thus a depletion of 1500 psi in a sandstone will typically cause a reservoir clo-
sure pressure to decrease by about 1000 psi. Since there should presumably be no pore pressure
reduction in the surrounding impermeable shales, this 1000 psi decrease in the pay zone closure
pressure would be added to any naturally existing stress differences and very good height con-
finement can exist in depleted formations. Further inspection of Eq. (5.2) for a typical carbonate
reservoir would show a 1/2 psi change in closure pressure for every psi change in reservoir pres-
sure.
Special logs have been developed and marketed which may, sometimes be of value in determining
the in-situ stress profile (see Chap. 10). However, these logs are based on simple, elasticity
assumptions and should be treated with extreme caution. For sand/shale sequence geology, there
is often some relative truth in the logs and the actual stresses can frequently be successfully cal-
ibrated against the log derived stress values. Carbonate geology tends to be more complex and
the value of the logs is more questionable. In either case, however, the raw information from the
logs should never be used. If test procedures are not planned in order to calibrate the logs - then
the logs should not be run.
1
------------
,
_
OB p ( ) p + =
f
Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
5
5-22
December 1995
The C
I
effect is primarily governed by the viscosity of the filtrate of the fracturing fluid. Since the
viscosity is generally very small (i.e., < 1 cp), the C
I
term is generally large for current fracturing
fluids and is not effective for fluid loss control. This is not the case for very viscous oils such as
those used during the 50s and 60s.
The reservoir fluid viscosity-compressibility (i.e., formation fluid) effect can be obtained from the
following equation:
(5.6)
The C
II
effect is primarily governed by the compressibility, c
t
and therefore is very important for
liquid filled reservoirs such as oil wells or water injection wells. These generally have a very low
c
t
compared to gas reservoirs. However, the C
II
term has negligible control in gas reservoirs which
have a relatively high c
t
(c
t gas
= 1/p
r gas
).
Permeability to the reservoir fluids (k
HC
) (millidarcies) should be measured by a pressure transient
test. Viscosity and compressibility of the reservoir fluids should be determined as in a pressure
transient analysis (e.g., lab tests, tables, or calculations).
The wall building effect for the fluid loss coefficient is determined from data obtained experimen-
tally in a laboratory as shown in Fig. 5.16. A standard fluid loss test is conducted in a high pres-
sure-high temperature Baroid filter press containing core samples or filter paper. The fluid loss test
is run with a pressure differential of 1000 psi as standard, although may be much larger, i.e.,
3000 psi. Additional work is required on the effect of which is currently assumed to be neg-
ligible.
For very low k rocks (< .1 md), the tests should be run using filter paper instead of cores. Other-
wise, the data for C
III
will be erroneous due p of the filtrate through the core during the early por-
tion of the test which has a high loss rate. The fluid loss in cubic centimeters is measured at time
intervals of 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, and 36 minutes; and these fluid loss values are then plotted on straight
coordinate paper against the square root of time in minutes (Fig. 5.16). The experimental fluid loss
coefficient is then calculated as follows:
(5.7)
where m is the slope of the plotted data (cc/ ) and A is the cross sectional area (cm
2
) of the core
wafer.
Normally, C
III
is furnished by the fracturing service company. For critical treatments, fluid loss
tests for the specific fluid and in-situ conditions should be requested.
C
II
0.374 p
k
HC
c
t
HC
1000
HC
-------------------------------- =
p
p
C
III
0.0164m/A =
t
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fluid Loss
5-23 December 1995
Fig. 5.17 shows a qualitative comparison of C
III
values for different fluids based on laboratory data
from low permeability cores. These test data were run at 150 F and one polymer loading. At
250 F, it has been found that the C
III
values for most frac fluids increased by a factor of 1.5 to 2
because of the reduced viscosity of the filtrate through the wall (Fig. 5.15). Keep in mind that the
data in Fig. 5.17 is approximate and the wall building ability of a fracturing fluid depends on for-
mation temperature, and the fracturing fluid type and polymer loading under consideration.
The addition of 5%hydrocarbon to crosslinked water systems (Type III, on Fig. 5.17) can be a very
effective loss control additive for permeabilities less than 1 md and is generally recommended. The
addition of a hydrocarbon dispersion works primarily by reducing the relative permeability of the
polymer cake to water and by droplet plugging of pore throats. Adding the second (oil) phase
reduces the relative permeability to water. Since the hydrocarbon works primarily in the polymer
cake, this technique provides little benefit if most of the fluid loss is C
I
or C
II
controlled, as in high
permeability reservoirs. The effect of droplet plugging on a lowpermeability formation also makes
wall building fluid loss control important for emulsion and foam fluids.
Solid fluid loss additives are sometimes required for efficient fracturing in moderate to high per-
meability or naturally fractured reservoirs. These agents work by blocking the larger pore throats
(i.e., required to form wall building) and fractures. Fig. 5.18 shows the effect of silica flour (Hal-
liburton's WAC-9) on C
III
. Such agents are silica flour, 100 mesh sand and manufactured mixtures.
These additives must be used with extreme caution if they are mixed with the proppant, since they
can plug the proppant, unless they are designed to dissolve in the produced fluid. Use of these
additives with proppant laden fluid is not recommended unless absolutely required and then such
that the total does not exceed 1% of the total proppant during the treatment. The addition of silica
flour to the pad at a loading of 15 lb/1000 gal has been used to seal off closed natural fractures.
WALL BUILDING FLUID LOSS TEST
Fig. 5.16 - Standard Fluid Loss Test.
HC
0.125 =
g
0.0174 cp =
C
III
0.001 ft\/ min =
d
--
wR
o
R
o
R
i
---------------- =
F
A
--
T / R
i
2R
i
H
-------------
T
2R
i
H
------------- = = =
Rheological Models
I. Newtonian II. Bingham III. Power Law
Y
p
Y
p
p
+ =
p
log
n'
log
1.0
K'
K'
n
=
Y
p
0 n' 0
Newtonian
p
=
Newtonian
K' =
1
Power Law: Given: n' = .5
a
= 100 cp, =170 sec
-1
Find: K',
a
at 40 and 511 sec
-1
K' = 100 x (170)
.5
/ 4.8 x 10
4
= 0.27
a
(511) = (170/511)
.5
x 100 = 58 cp
a
(40) = (170/40)
.5
x 100 = 206 cp
a
4.8 10
4
K'
1 n ( )
-------------------------- =
a
cp =
For Power Law Model
1/sec, sec
1
K' lb sec
n'
/ft
2
=
Find: K',
a
at 40 and 511 sec-1
K' = 100 x (170).5 / 4,8 x 104 =. .027
a
(511) =
170
511
-------- ( )
0.5
x = 58 cp
a
(40) =
170
40
-------- ( )
0.5
x 100 = 206 cp
---- = Depends on
( )
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fluid Viscosity
5-31 December 1995
As alluded to previously, the entry viscosity of the fluid depends on the type of fracturing fluid as
well as on the fluid and thermal histories at the surface and down the wellbore. Not all fluids have
maximum viscosities at the entry temperature. Some gelled oil systems, and most all delayed orga-
Table 5.2 - Typical Service Company Rheology Data (DS - 1984).
Fluid
Temp Time
n' K'
Viscosity (cp)
( F) (hr) 170 sec
-1
511 sec
-1
YF440
YF440
YF440
YF440
YF440
225
225
225
225
225
1
2
4
6
8
0.600
0.657
0.746
0.808
0.848
0.095
0.052
0.017
0.0065
0.0027
582
426
225
116
60
375
293
167
94
50
YF440
YF440
YF440
YF440
YF440
YF440
260
260
260
260
260
260
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.640
0.697
0.745
0.786
0.820
0.849
0.036
0.023
0.014
0.0091
0.0057
0.0036
272
230
186
145
109
079
183
165
141
114
89
67
YF450
YF450
YF450
YF450
YF450
260
260
260
260
260
1
2
4
6
8
0.600
0.657
0.746
0.808
0.848
0.056
0.035
0.016
0.0081
0.0047
342
289
205
145
103
221
197
157
117
87
YF450
YF450
YF450
YF450
YF450
285
285
285
285
285
1
2
4
6
8
0.640
0.697
0.786
0.849
0.888
0.030
0.018
0.0068
0.0029
0.0014
228
178
108
65
39
152
130
86
54
33
YF460
YF460
YF460
YF460
YF460
260
260
260
260
260
1
2
4
6
8
0.580
0.637
0.726
0.788
0.828
0.091
0.055
0.023
0.011
0.0058
502
409
270
177
115
317
273
199
140
95
YF460
YF460
YF460
YF460
YF460
285
285
285
285
285
1
2
4
6
8
0.600
0.657
0.746
0.808
0.848
0.057
0.033
0.013
0.0056
0.0027
350
274
166
100
59
225
186
127
81
50
Fig. 5.22 - A Bilinear Temperature Variation Down the Fracture.
G
R
I
14
A
M
O
C
O
Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
5
5-34
December 1995
Summary For Fluid Viscosity
Fluid viscosity is critical for the successful execution of pressure controlled treatments. Sufficient
viscosity is required for proppant transport, while excessive viscosity will proportionally reduce
the fracture penetration prior to the fluid pressure reaching the formation's pressure capacity (i.e.,
inefficient fracture extension).
For proppant transport, crosslinked gels are preferred over noncrosslinked gels. Studies show sub-
stantial reduction (e.g., 78%) in proppant fall rates through crosslinked gels, under shear, com-
pared to noncrosslinked gels with the same apparent viscosity. The fall rate through foams and
emulsions are also believed to be less than indicated by the apparent viscosity. Another consider-
ation is particle concentration which increases slurry viscosity and retards particle fall. The effect
of increased slurry viscosity due to proppant concentration is important for pressure controlled
designs and requires the base fluid's viscosity to be reduced as proppant concentration increases.
Also, the apparent viscosity for non-Newtonian fluids depends on the shear rate with lower rates
producing higher apparent viscosities. Generally, the shear rate in the fracture is lower than the 170
sec
-1
normally used to characterize fluids.
The above considerations can significantly reduce the viscosity requirement over that indicated by
a direct use of Stokes Law. An example, illustrated in Fig. 5.3, show that if proppant fall were to
be limited to 10 ft in four hours, a direct application of Stokes Law would require a viscosity of
1500 cp for 20-40 mesh sand. Assume that under fracturing conditions the crosslink effect would
retard fall only by 50% in contrast to the 78% for ambient and laboratory conditions. In addition,
assume the slurry dehydrates from a low proppant concentration as it enters the fracture to 10
lbm/gal, Fig. 5.3, at the end of the treatment. For these conditions, the effect of hindered settling
would be equivalent to a multiple of 3.2 in the time-averaged value of viscosity. If the reference
viscosity is at 170 sec
-1
, the shear rate in the fracture is 40 sec
-1
and the fluid can be characterized
by the power law with n = 0.6, the apparent viscosity would be 1.8 times greater in the fracture
than for the reference. If, during the time in the fracture and at reservoir temperature, the fluid vis-
cosity reduces by a factor of 10 with a log-viscosity vs. time relationship, the average value of vis-
cosity would be 4.3 times the final value. Combining these factors (2 x 3.2 x 1.8 x 4.3) results in a
multiple of 50, as shown in Table 5.3, and for the fluid considered, sufficient viscosity would be
achieved if it had a final viscosity of 1500/50 = 30 cp at the end of the treatment. Furthermore, this
estimate may be conservative since a reduction of the crosslink effect was used, the fluid does not
experience reservoir temperature for a portion of the fracture length, and suspended particles are
transported in the center portion of the channel (for viscoelastic fluids), where the shear rate is
lower and the apparent viscosity higher than the channel average. Consequently, the viscosity
requirements for proppant transport can be grossly overestimated and a reference value of 100 to
150 cp can provide significant transport.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fluid Viscosity
5-35 December 1995
The next chapter, Chap. 6, gives more background for selecting specific fluids and additives to
achieve the desired viscosities throughout a treatment.
Table 5.3 - Why Low Viscosity Fluids Work.
Sufficient Viscosity (
= 1500cp)
1) X-L FLUID (HARRINGTON-HANNAH
,
_
H
p
CL t WHL + =
=
VOL
Q
------- -IN
QL ( )
1/4
=
FRAC
LOST
log Q
log VOL
FOR FIXED L
FLUID LOSS &
VOLUME REQMENTS
1 ) Q
2
1.5 Q
1
LOST
2
0.82 LOST
1
FRAC
2
, 1.11 FRAC
1
= = =
-18% +11%
CAN SHOW VOL
IN
if
VOL
FRAC
VOL
IN
------------------- > eff 62% > =
2 ) Q
2
2/3Q
1
LOST
2
1.22 LOST
1
; FRAC
2
0.90 FRAC
1
= = =
+22% -10%
3 ) eff 0 VOL
IN
1/Q
F Q
1.75
QL ( )
1/4
TURBULENT ( )
1 )Q
2
1.5 Q
1
F
2
2.0 F
1
; HHP
F
2
3.0 HHP
F
1
; p
2
1.11 p
1
= = = =
+100% +200% +11%
2 )Q
2
2/3Q
1
F
2
0.49 F
1
; HHP
F
2
0.33 HHP
F
1
; p
2
0.90 p
1
= = = =
-51% -67% -10%
MAY BE CRITICAL
TO HEIGHT CONFINEMENT
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Treatment Pumping
5-39 December 1995
Increasing pump rate will increase proppant transport distance (per fall distance) by an amount
approximately proportional to the pump rate increase (as shown by the examples in Fig. 5.28.)
(Note that transport distance is independent of height.)
The examples also indicate that increasing pump rate can reduce the fluid viscosity requirements.
These reduced requirements result from both the lower ultimate viscosity for proppant transport
needed and from the smaller residence times which reduce the initial viscosities required to allow
for time degradation. This can be very significant for large jobs in hot zones.
However, high pump rates down small tubulars (i.e., high friction pressures) may cause signifi-
cant fluid degradation for some fluid systems. These systems are nondelayed crosslinked systems
with metallic bonding (e.g., Titinate). Guidelines for these systems which will not result in signif-
icant degradation are:
Pump Rate and Time
PROPPANT TRANSPORT
& 1.5 > ENDURANCE
Fig. 5.28 - Effect of Rate on Transport and Viscosity Requirements.
Tubulars Maximum Rate (bpm)
2-3/8 7
2-7/8 12
3-1/2 15
4-1/2 28
5-1/2 40
7 65
H
V
2
V
1
D
D
H
--
V
1
V
2
----- =
V
1
FLUI D VELOCI TY =
Q
HW
-------
Q
H Q ( )
1/4
-------------------
Q
3/4
H
1/4
----------- or ; V
2
FALL RATE
1
-- = =
D
H
--
Q
3/4
3/4
H
----------------- (D indep. of H)
1 )Q
2
1.5 Q
1
D
2
1.35 D
1
same ( );
2
0.79
1
same D ( ) = = =
+35% D -21%
2 )Q
2
2/3Q
1
D
2
.74 D
1
2
1.28 , = = =
-26% D +28%
Design of Pseudo 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
5
5-40
December 1995
For these degradable systems, pumping down the annulus can cause significant degradation at very
low rates due to the effect of the tool joints.
Degradation is not a consideration for fluids which rebuild their crosslink, i.e., borate crosslinker,
or fluids which benefit from shear, i.e., foams or emulsions. High pump rates can actually improve
the quality of foams and polyemulsion fluids.
Summary for Pump Rate:
Pump rate has far reaching effects on many aspects of a fracture treatment, and these different
aspects (Fig. 5.29) should be weighed o arrive at the optimum rate for a given treatment.
Depth
The depth to mid point of perforations is used in the wellbore hydraulics equation to estimate sur-
face pressure. At the present time it is considered to be true vertical depth for hydrostatic calcula-
tions.
Friction Pressure
The pressure loss associated with the flow of fracturing fluid and proppant through tubulars. Gen-
erally the values to be entered are estimated for the fluid system in units of psi/100 ft.
Pump Rat e and Time
Summary
I. VOLUME REQUIREMENTS REDUCE VOLUME:
a) EFF > 60 - 70%; DECREASE RATE
b) EFF < 60 - 70%; INCREASE RATE
c)
II. PROPPANT TRANSPORT INCREASING RATE WILL:
a) BETTER TRANSPORT
b) REDUCE REQUIREMENTS
c) REDUCE TIME ENDURANCE FOR FLUID
III. PRESSURES DECREASING RATE WILL:
a) LESS PRESSURE FOR TUBULARS
b) LESS HHP
c) REDUCE NET FRAC PRESS.
Fig. 5.29 - Considerations for Rate.
EFF 0; VOL 1/Q
1 4 /
Z
1
v
t
/U ( )
o
x
1
--------------- ; N
Rep
d
p
n
v
t
2 n
3
n 1
K
------------------------
0.695 d
p
n
v
t
2 n
K
----------------------------------------- = = =
(in Oil-Field Units)
p
3 v
t
/d
p
36 v
t
/d
p
(in oil-field units). = =
p
C
D
24
N
Rep
------------ , Where N
Rep
d
p
v
t
p
( )
18 K (3)
n 1
--------------------------------------- =
1/n
d
p
n 1 +
p
( )
9.626 36 ( )
n
K
---------------------------------- =
1/n
, for N
Rep
2.0 . <
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fluid Selection Criteria
6-13 July 1999
If the calculated v
t
, does not give a N'
Rep
less than 2., then the higher Reynolds number correlations
can be used.
5
For 2 < N'
Rep
< 500, C
D
= 18.5/N'
Rep
0.6
; and for 500 < N'
Rep
< 200,000, C
D
= 0.44.
Thus, this can involve a trial and error approach. Shah
6
developed a method using empirically gen-
erated correlation constants which avoids trial and error.
Note that the above are relationships for single particle settling. As proppant concentration
increases, the particles may clump and give accelerated settling. Above a certain proppant concen-
tration, however, i.e. 4 lb/gal liquid, the separation between proppant particles becomes small
enough where hindered settling starts to reduce the settling velocity. Hindered settling can be
treated by increasing the K' to reflect an increase in the effective viscosity of the continuous
medium. Novotny
7
performed static settling tests in simulated fractures using concentrated prop-
pant slurries in polyacrylamide solution and found the hindered settling velocity, v
h
, to be related
to proppant concentration as
where ppg is the lbm proppant/gal liquid, and
p
is the proppant density in lbm proppant/gal prop-
pant (e.g. 22.1 for sand). Thus, for ppg = 8, and v
t
= 0.005 ft/sec, v
h
would be 0.0009 ft/sec. For a
fracture flow velocity, U, of 0.56 ft/sec, (40 BPM down a 50 ft high by 0.25 inch wide two-wing
fracture) this would give v
h
/U equal to 0.0016, which according to Medlins criteria would give
suspension flow. The clear fluid layer at the fracture top after 1000 ft would only be 1.6 ft. This of
course is a rough estimate of settling. The settling properties of flowing suspensions are not yet
well established.
The viscosity is affected by temperature and time and should be accounted for in fracturing design
since this can affect fracture width and proppant transport as stated above. There are high and low
temperature versions of water-base crosslinked and uncrosslinked gels, of hydrocarbon-base
crosslinked gels, and foams. Polyemulsion is usually restricted to temperatures less than 250F.
High temperature stabilizers, such as sodium thiosulfate or methanol, are used above 200F to
retard oxidative hydrolysis of water-base polymers. At pH less than 6., the sodium thiosulfate sta-
bilizer is not effective in some cases.
There can be a large variation of high temperature behavior for similar gel systems. For example
in Fig. 6.3, various service company high temperature gels are compared at 265F. All the gels
were tested by Amoco using the Amoco procedure for testing organometallic crosslinked gels. It
is apparent that high temperature stability is a function of pH and type of polymer, buffer, and
crosslinker. In some cases, service companies reported viscosities to be up to six times greater than
those measured in Amocos lab (e.g. those for the Saturn I, Apollo I, Gemini III DXL, and Titan
XL gels). The discrepancy is the result of many factors including conditioning method, viscometer
bob, viscometer procedure, and calculation method. At this time we feel our procedure gives the
v
h
1
ppg
ppg
p
+
---------------------- =
5.5
v
t
,
Fluid Selection and Scheduling
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
6
6-14 July 1999
most realistic data. As of 1991, the API is still a couple of years away from approving a recom-
mended practice for testing organometallic crosslinked gels.
Low Fluid Loss
Fracturing fluid systems offer varying degrees of fluid loss control. Water-base fluids with poly-
mer give fluid loss control by building filter cake as the fluid leaks off in formations having per-
meability less than 5-10 md. In higher permeability formations, a particulate fluid loss additive
(preferably a degradable product, 100 mesh sand, or silica flour) should be used to prevent the
polymer from flowing into the pores. This is especially true for naturally fractured reservoirs
where the natural fractures provide the bulk of the permeability. Particulate fluid loss additives
should be used only in the pad to avoid damaging the fracture conductivity. The gel filter cake has
permeability on the order of 1x10
-6
md and thus can significantly lower fluid loss. Crosslinked gels
give fluid loss control roughly the same as uncrosslinked gels at the same polymer loading.
Fluids with internal phases can have additional fluid loss control when used in low permeability
reservoirs ( < 1. md). This is true when the internal phase is a hydrocarbon, such as is the case when
diesel fluid loss additive is used. Aromatic hydrocarbons with surfactants which yield microemul-
sions are also used but to a lesser extent. Generally speaking 3%diesel gives about 80%of the fluid
loss reduction possible with hydrocarbon fluid loss additives. Accordingly, polyemulsion (i.e.,
polymer emulsion), with 67% hydrocarbon internal phase, gives the lowest values of wall building
Fig. 6.3 - Ti and Zr Continuous-Mix Gels at 265 F.
All Delayed Crosslinked
Except Gemini II DXL Gel.
Conditioned at 0.8 hp/ft3
for 5 min to simulate
40 BPM down 5 1/2" casing
All contain 10 lb stabilizer
and no breaker.
40 lb Versagel HT, HPG-Ti, pH 8.32
40 lb Ultra Frac RXL, Guar-Zr Lactate, pH 7.9
40 lb Saturn II, HPG-Zr, 2 gal XLD, pH 9.0
40 lb Pur-Gel III, CMHPG-ZrNH4C1, pH 6.56
40 lb Titan XL, CMHPG-Zr AL acetate, pH 5.2
40 lb Gemini III DXL, CMHPG-Zr-Al, pH 6.-5.6
40 lb MY-T-Gel HT, Guar-Ti, pH 8.7-7.9
40 lb Saturn I, Guar-Zr, pH 9.5-9.0
40 lb Appollo I, Guar-Ti, pH 7.3-5.8
t6399-08 DATA
t
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fluid Selection Criteria
6-19 July 1999
Fig. 6.9 - Spurt Loss vs. Permeability and Additive for 40 lbm Complexed HPG Fluids at 125 F.
Fig. 6.10 - Spurt Loss vs. Permeability and Gel Concentration For Complexed HPG Fluids at 125 F.
p
1-
p
( )C
p
C
s
p
------------------------------- , =
s
H
P
G
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
T
h
e
o
r
y
M
a
n
u
a
l
6
-
6
7
J
u
l
y
1
9
9
9
Fig. 6.19 - Comparison of 40-lbm/1,000-gal Hpg Gels Crosslinked with Titanium Acetyl Acetonate
Subjected to Various Turbulent Flow and Temperature Histories.
Fluid Selection and Scheduling
6
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
6-68
July 1999
References
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual 6-69 July 1999
Fluid Selection and Scheduling
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
6
6-70 July 1999
Fig. 6.20 - Viscosity of Halliburtons Boragel (Borate Crosslinked Guar) as a Function of Time at
225 F.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
References
6-71 July 1999
Table 6.6 - Useful Crosslinkers for Guar and Guar Derivatives.
Crosslinking Guar
Crosslinker
pH Range of
Fluid
Effective Temperature
Region
Borate 8-10 60 F - 275 F maximum
Antimony 2-3.5 140 F maximum
Titanate 7-8 or higher 300 F +
Zirconium 7-8 or higher 350 F +
Aluminum 4-8 160 F maximum
Zirconium <1 (acids) <100 F
Fig. 6.21 - Generalized Crosslinking Scheme.
Nolte-Smith Plot
Slope: 1/8 to 1/4
Log Time
L
o
g
P
n
e
t
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bottomhole Treating Pressure
8-17 July 1993
To analyze what may cause this flattening of the pressure - time slope, the continuity or mass bal-
ance equation can be examined;
where q
Frac
is the rate of fluid storage in fracture volume (e.g., w + H+ L). Pressure is propor-
tional to fracture width, thus the equation can be rewritten as
where K is a constant. For the Mode I behavior, injection rate Q is constant, height is constant (H
= 0), and q
Loss
increases with time as fracture area increases. Also, P and L are increasing with
time. If P goes to zero, then q
l
and/or H must increase to honor the equation. As a result, more
fluid is lost to the formation or stored in additional height. This leads into a discussion of Mode II
behavior on a log-log net pressure vs. time plot.
Mode II - A flat pressure:time slope indicates stable height growth or increased fluid loss which
negates the predicted pressure increase. The potential for height increase is shown in
Fig. 8.17, where the fracture penetrates a section of higher stress at a constant growth
rate. As additional height is generated, the cross-sectional area of the fracture increases,
thus reducing the flow velocity and frictional pressure drop down the fracture and
reducing the normal pressure increase. If height growth continues and reaches a low
stress zone, as seen in the figure, the pressure:time slope may become negative, indicat-
ing uncontrolled, rapid height growth (Mode IV). This type of behavior is discussed
later on page 8.19. The other variable that can change besides H, without violating the
continuity equation is q
Loss
(fluid loss). One mechanism for a higher fluid loss rate
would be opening of natural fissures intersected by the main fracture as shown in
Fig. 8.18. The opening of natural fissures increases fracture volume and fluid loss area,
and decreases the pressure in the fracture. When pressure declines below the stress
holding the fissures closed, the fissures re-close. Pressure then increases slightly and the
fissures reopen, etc. This opening-closing-opening of the fissures is like a pressure reg-
ulator, producing a constant pressure profile. Due to the increased fluid loss rate, Mode
II will normally be followed by undesired behavior such as a screenout.
Looking back at the continuity equation, if something occurs to stop fracture extension (i.e., L =
0), then either P or H must increase. As shown in Fig. 8.18, increased fluid loss to natural fis-
sures may dehydrate the slurry to the point that a proppant bridge forms in the fracture. If pumping
continues, no additional fracture penetration will occur. If the fracture is contained, pressure must
increase at a higher rate as seen in cases 1 and 2 on Fig. 8.16. If the fracture is not contained, the
rate of height growth will increase and pressure will decrease with time as shown by case 3 of
Fig. 8.16. In the case where the fracture is contained and the pressure increases, this rapid pressure
increase is characteristic of Mode III behavior on the log-log Nolte-Smith plot, Fig. 8.21.
Q q
Loss
q
Frac
+ =
Q q
Loss
K P H L + + [ ] , + =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-18
July 1993
Mode III - This behavior is characterized by a region of positive unit slope (i.e., 1:1 log-log
slope), indicating a flowrestriction in the fracture. This implies that the pressure is pro-
portional to time or, more importantly, that the incremental pressure change is propor-
tional to the incremental injected fluid volume. This 1:1 slope is similar to the same
slope in Pressure Transient Analysis, indicating storage of fluid, in this case by swell-
ing or ballooning the fracture. Common causes of this behavior are pad depletion
where proppant reaches the fracture tip, slurry dehydration to natural fissures (dis-
cussed above), excessive height growth increasing fluid loss area, and/or proppant fall-
out due to poor gel quality.
Fig. 8.19 shows how excessive height growth can cause slurry depletion resulting in a premature
screenout. The fracture has grown through a shale section into a lower closure pressure sand. Due
to the higher stress in the shale, the fracture width is less than in the sands forming a pinch point
which will not allow sand to pass through, yet allows fluid to pass, dehydrating the slurry in the
Fig. 8.17 - Height vs. Net Pressure for Multizone Geology.
Fig. 8.18 - Effect of Natural Fractures, Critical Pressure Causes Increased Fluid Loss.
P + S < : I P + S > : II
P V 1/1 Slope
Screenout: III
Regulator
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Bottomhole Treating Pressure
8-19 July 1993
target interval. As the slurry dehydrates it forms a plug which will eventually bridge in the fracture.
The approximate distance to the bridge can be calculated from:
where Q = pump rate (bpm), E' = modulus (psi), H = frac height (ft), and p/t = rate of pressure
increase (psi/min). This information can be useful in postanalysis and the design of future treat-
ments. A near-wellbore bridge would likely be caused by natural fissures, height growth, or a high
sand concentration slug; whereas a bridge some distance from the wellbore would more likely be
due to pad depletion, or sand fallout due to poor gel quality.
As noted previously on page 8.14, if fracture extension ceases and the fracture is not contained,
then rapid, unstable height growth will occur as pumping continues and the pressure:time slope
will become negative. This is Mode IV behavior as seen during case 3, Fig. 8.16.
Mode IV - A negative slope can be interpreted as rapid height growth into a lower closure stress
zone. Referring back to the continuity equation, discussed on page 8.17, a significant
decrease in pressure must be accompanied by a significant increase in one or more of
the other variables. A significant increase in fluid loss is possible from opening new
fractures or fissures, but is not likely with decreasing pressure. An increase in length
is not consistent with a decrease in pressure. The only change which is compatible
with a decrease in pressure is an increase in height.
The steepness of the negative slope would imply the rate of unstable growth. A high
rate of growth would exhibit a steep slope, while a low negative slope would imply a
low rate of growth. If the fracture grows into a much lower stress zone, the decrease
Fig. 8.19 - Example of Height Growth Directly Leading to Premature Screenout.
Log
Width
Top
Top
R
max
x
f max
1.8
QE'
H
2
p/t
---------------------- = =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-20
July 1993
in pressure will be rapid. If the fracture grows into a slightly lower stress zone the neg-
ative slope will be shallower.
A negative slope observed from the beginning of the treatment indicates a lack of
height confinement. In this case the fracture will grow radially and future treatments
should be designed using a radial model.
While the observed pressure behavior on the net pressure vs. time plot is primarily a function of
fracture geometry, other parameters may interfere with interpretation. These parameters are shown
in Fig. 8.20, clearly showing that an increase in rate or viscosity will increase net pressure. As a
simple example of this, consider the plot in Fig. 8.21 for a gelled oil fracture treatment. The initial
declining pressure indicates unconfined fracture height, and then after 9 minutes, pressure begins
to increase. This might be interpreted as a change in fracture geometry but, for this simple case,
this is simply the time when gelled fluid is on the perforations. After 4 or 5 minutes, the fracture
is filled with this new, higher viscosity fluid, and pressure again begins to decline. Complete
records of treating parameters must be kept, and what was happening during a job borne in mind
when interpreting net pressure behavior.
Critical Pressure
As mentioned in the previous discussion on page 8.17, Mode II behavior on the net pressure vs.
time plot is usually followed by some undesirable behavior such as excessive height growth or a
screenout. For this reason, the net pressure where the pressure:time slope flattens is termed the crit-
ical pressure. For the case of height growth, critical pressure is roughly 70-80% of the differential
closure stress between the initial zone and bounding beds. When natural fissures exist, critical
Fig. 8.20 - Variables Affecting Fracture Pressure.
t
P & K
Conned Height
Fracture
Unconned Height
Penny Shaped
Fracture
Elasticity
Fluid Friction
Combining
W
H
E
--P W
R
E
--P
W Q
L
E
-- ( )
1 4 /
W Q
R
E
-- ( )
1 4 /
P
E
1 4 /
H
--------- QL ( )
1 4 /
P
E
3 4 /
R
--------- QR ( )
1 4 /
=
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-28
July 1993
the fracturing pressure decline data will become of limited usefulness. However, while this func-
tion is not known, it can be bounded and these bounds can be used to test the importance. For
example, as shown by Nordgren,
23
Geertsma,
4
and others, for very low fluid loss, fracture area will
grow approximately linearly with time,
(8.7)
while for very high fluid loss, fracture area will grow with the square root of time
(8.8)
as illustrated in Fig. 8.26.
As an example, consider a low fluid loss case, A t, or
where A is the total fracture area created at the end of the pump time, t
p
, and 'a' is a small incre-
mental fracture area that was created or opened at time , < t
p
. This gives
or
Fig. 8.26 - Fracture Growth with Time.
A t , Low "0" ( )Loss
A t , High "" ( )Loss
Time
A
r
e
a
a
A
---
t
p
---- =
s
a
A
--- t
p
=
q
Loss
2Cda
t A/a ( )t
p
[ ]
-----------------------------------
=
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-29 July 1993
which can be integrated from area=0 to area = A to give the rate of fluid loss, q
Loss
, for times
greater than (or equal to) t
p
. This integration gives
or
where time, t, equals t
p
+t
s
(e.g., pump time + shut-in time) and = t
s
/t
p
.
Similarly, for high fluid loss, Eqs. (8.6) and (8.8) can be integrated to give
or, more generally,
(8.9)
where
and a new parameter, r
p
, has been added for cases where only a fraction of the fracture area is lea-
koff area. That is, r
p
is the ratio of permeable area opened by the fracture to total fracture area,
The time behavior of the fluid loss rate is determined by f()
and these two functions are plotted vs. dimensionless shut-in time, in Fig. 8.27. The similarity
between the two time functions seen in the figure indicates that an EXACT knowledge of how the
fracture grew with time is not necessary for the decline analysis - so long as the fracture was free
to extend, e.g., no screenout condition occurred. For example, consider the dashed curve in
Fig. 8.24, showing an ideal fracture area vs. time behavior for a treatment which screens out very
early. For this case, fracture area stops increasing early during the pumping. Thus, during the pres-
q
Loss
2AC
t
p
-----------2 t t t
p
{ } =
q
Loss
2AC
t
p
-----------2 1 + ( ) { } =
q
Loss
2CA
t
p
----------- sin
1 1
1 + ( )
---------------------
' )
=
q
Loss
2Cr
p
Af ( )
t
p
---------------------------- =
t
s
/t
p
e.g., Shut-in Time/pump time ( ) =
r
p
Permeable Fracture Area
Total Fracture Area
----------------------------------------------------------- - . =
f ( ) 2 1 + ( )
1/2
1/2
{ } Low Fluid Loss =
sin
1
1/ 1 + ( ) [ ] High Fluid Loss
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-30
July 1993
sure decline, all of the leakoff area is old, leading to lower than expected leakoff and application
of the pressure decline analysis to the postpumping pressure behavior would calculate an errone-
ously lowfluid loss coefficient. Finally, note that Fig. 8.27 does not indicate that there is no behav-
ior difference between high and lowfluid loss cases. Merely just that the exact time-rate-of-growth
of the fracture while pumping is not a dominant factor, and that postfrac fluid loss rate (and thus
pressure decline behavior) is a function of fluid loss coefficient, C, pump time, t
p
, and the total cre-
ated fracture area, A.
P* - Pressure Decline Analysis
Going back to the basic pressure decline behavior Eq. (8.2) and combining this with the fluid loss
rate from Eq. (8.9) gives
(8.10)
or
(8.11)
and this gives a definite relation between fracture stiffness, S, fluid loss coefficient, and postfrac
pressure decline. If pressure decline were a linear function of time (e.g., dp/dt = constant), then the
relation could be characterized with a simple psi/minute. For example, assume a case with a
pump time, t
p
, of 20 minutes. If 10 minutes after pumping is stopped, e.g., t
s
= 10 or = 0.5, the
rate of pressure decline, dp/dt was 5 psi/minute, then, from Fig. 8.25, f() 1. If the fracture stiff-
ness were known, then Eq. (8.11) could be solved for fluid loss coefficient. However, the behavior
Fig. 8.27 - Bounds on Rate of Fluid Loss Function (bounds are less than 10%different after shut-in
time equal to 1/4 of pump time).
q
Loss
2AC
t
p
----------- r
p
f ( )
A
S
-------d p
net
/dt = =
d p
net
/dt
2CS
t
p
------------ r
p
f ( ) =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-31 July 1993
is more complex than this, and a value, defined as P*, will be used to describe the pressure
decline behavior. Basically, P* is a single value which characterizes the rate of pressure decline.
A high value indicates a rapid pressure decline, which would usually correspond to high fluid loss,
however, it might also correspond to a very stiff formation. Thus we see that P* does not directly
describe fluid loss, but rather it will be seen to specify a relation between several variables.
Unfortunately, the rate of change of pressure, dp
net
/dt, is hard to measure and use, making it con-
venient to integrate the pressure decline, dp
net
/dt, to convert Eq. (8.11) into a pressure difference
form. Clearly integrating dp/dt from time = t
o
to time = t
o
+ t
gives a pressure difference
where t
o
(or
o
) is just a convenient marker time or starting time for calculating pressure differ-
ences.
Simultaneously, the right hand side of Eq. (8.11) is integrated from t
o
to a later time, t giving
where the G function, G(
o
,), is defined as
and arises from integrating the time function, f(), controlling the postfrac rate of fluid loss. For
example, for the low fluid loss (high efficiency) limit, g() is given by
while, for the high fluid loss (low efficiency) limit,
Finally, redefining the variable group (C r
p
S)/(2) as P* gives
(8.12)
dp
dt
------dt
p p t=t
o
( ) p t
o
t + ( ) + = =
p
o
, ( ) p
o
( ) p ( ) =
p
o
, ( ) p
o
( ) p ( )
pCS
2
----------- r
p
t
p
G
o
, ( ) = =
G
o
, ( )
4
--- g ( ) g
o
( ) { } =
g ( )
4
3
--- 1 + ( )
3/2
3/2
{ } , =
g ( ) 1 + ( )sin
1 1
1 + ( )
--------------------- + =
t
p
p
o
, ( ) P* G
o
, ( ) , =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-32
July 1993
indicating that the variable P* is simply a multiplier which best matches the actual pressure
decline behavior to the theoretically perfect behavior defined by G,
Type Curve Analysis
The actual value for P* is found by creating theoretical type curves from the G function (as
seen in Fig. 8.28) and then matching the actual data to these curves. This is illustrated in the fol-
lowing example.
Consider a case where a minifrac (e.g., a volume of fracturing fluid pumped without proppant)
has been pumped down tubing while measuring surface annulus pressure. After shut in, the pres-
sure decline is measured as seen in Fig. 8.29 and tabulated in the table below.
The first step in any pressure decline analysis is to determine the fracture closure pressure and
closure time. For the example here, it is assumed that pre-minifrac stress tests indicated a (surface
equivalent) closure stress of 1500 psi. The minifrac pressure decline reaches this pressure after a
shut-in time, t
s
, of about 26 minutes - giving a closure time, t
c
, of 26 minutes. This gives a dimen-
sionless closure time,
c
, of 1.3, with, since no proppant was pumped, the fracture being com-
pletely closed at closure time.
Fig. 8.28 - Plot of G(,
o
), Master Curves for Matching Pressure Differences.
P*
CS
2
----------- r
p
t
p
. =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-33 July 1993
Fig. 8.29 - Example, Minifrac Pressure Decline Data.
Table 8.2 - Example Pressure Decline Data.
Shut-in
Time (min)
Pressure
(psi)
P(t
o
=4,t)
(psi)
P(t
o
=10,t)
(psi)
P(t
o
=20,t)
(psi)
0 1658
2 1.4 1642
4 2.0 1625
6 2.47 1610 1625-1610
= 15 psi
8 2.83 1595 30
10 3.16 1582 43
12 3.46 1569 56 13
14 3.74 1558 67 24
16 4.0 1544 81 38
18 4.24 1534 91 48
20 4.47 1525 100 57
22 4.69 1515 110 67 10
24 4.90 1507 75 18
26 5.10 1498 84 27
28 5.29 1493 89 32
30 5.48 1486 96 39
32 5.66 1481 101 44
34 5.83 1476 106 49
ts
c
t
c
/t
p
Shut-in Time at Closure
Pump Time
------------------------------------------------------------- -
26
20
----- -. = = =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-34
July 1993
In selecting the start times for the pressure difference analysis, all start times must be less than
this dimensionless closure time since the analysis has no meaning for pressures below fracture clo-
sure pressure. Referring to the type curve of Fig. 8.28, one might select the 0.2, the 0.5, and
the 1.0 curves, since the dimensionless start times,
o
, for these curves all come prior to the
dimensionless closure time of
c
= 1.3. For the
o
= 0.2 curve, the corresponding real start time is
e.g., dimensionless start time,
o
, times pump time.
Thus a column of pressure differences is created (as seen in Table 8.2) starting at a shut-in time of
four minutes. Similarly, a column of pressure differences is created corresponding to a real start
time of 10 minutes (t
o
=
o
x t
p
= 0.5 x 20) and to a real start time of 20 minutes. These pressure
difference values are then plotted vs. shut-in-time (as three separate and independent curves) on
log-log scales identical to the type curve scales as seen in Fig. 8.30, and the data is matched to
the theoretical curve.
Note, however, that the theoretical type curves include two sets of curves: three dashed curves
for dimensionless start times of
o
= 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20; and solid curves for dimensionless start
times of
o
= 0.20, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, and 2.0. The early time, dashed curves correspond to the
low efficiency solution, while the later time, solid curves correspond to the high efficiency,
e.g., low fluid loss, solution. Closure time, found by plotting the pressure decline vs. the
Fig. 8.30 - Type Curve Match for Example.
t
o
o
t
p
0.2 20 4 minutes . = = =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-35 July 1993
square-root of shut-in time, is used to determine which type curves to use. If the fracture closes at
a dimensionless time less than 0.5 (
c
< 0.5), e.g., a fracture closing in less than 30 minutes after a
1 hour pump time, then the high curves (dashed) should be used. For closure times greater than
pump time, the low curves (solid) should be used. For cases which fall into the gray area in
between these limits (e.g., maybe a closure time of 30 minutes after a pump time of 40 minutes)
the curves which best match the shape of the data should be used, and/or one might interpolate
between the two sets of theoretical type curves.
'G' Function Plot for P
*
Eq. (8.12) showed a linear relation between the pressure decline differences and a function of
shut-in time - the 'G' Function. As a special case for using this equation, a start time,
o
, of 0
might be chosen, then Eq. (8.12) could be rewritten as
where ISIP is the Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure. This leads to
or
That is, the slope of a linear plot of the shut-in pressure decline vs. 'G' (as defined earlier) gives
the match pressure P
*
.
Since this 'G' function is generally a complex function of the dimensionless shut-in time, d, the 'G'
Function Plot is clearly most amenable to computer generated analysis. Also, in several cases the
'G' function has been found to work better for very high fluid loss cases where closure time is on
the order of 20 to 30% of pump time or less. For cases with longer closure times, e.g., closure time
40% (or more) of pump time, the type curve approach discussed above often offers an easier anal-
ysis.
For the previous example, the pressure decline data is plotted vs. 'G' in Fig. 8.31, where, as before,
closure stress is assumed known fromminifrac tests to be 1500 psi. (Actually, this would be a sur-
face equivalent closure pressure, with real closure pressure equal to 4530 psi, e.g., 1500 plus
the hydrostatic head of t7000 ft of water.) At any rate, in the 'G' Function Plot, the slope of the
data is taken just prior to closure pressure, though for this plot (which is an excellent example of a
'G' Plot) the slope is relatively constant from shut-in all the way down to fracture closure. Taking
the slope of the indicated line shows a slope of -98 psi, which gives P* = 98 psi, essentially per-
fect agreement with the earlier type curve match analysis.
p 0 , ( ) ISIP p ( ) P*G 0 , ( ) = =
p ( ) ISIP P*G 0 , ( ) =
P* dp/dG . =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-36
July 1993
This plot also shows a distinct slope change at a pressure of t1500 psi, e.g., just at closure pressure
and sometimes, a 'G' Function Plot can be used to determine fracture closure. The procedure is
similar to a root-shut-in-time analysis for closure, a distinct slope change is taken to indicate a dis-
tinct fracture behavior change, e.g., the fracture closing. Again, as with 'G' Function Plot analysis
in general, we have found this analysis procedure to be most useful in low efficiency (high fluid
loss) environments - though clearly this example shows a very clear 'G' Function analysis for a case
with closure time equal to 1.3 times pump time, e.g.,
c
= t
c
/t
p
= 1.3.
A final note concerning 'G' Function Plots is - What 'G' Function should be used? For low effi-
ciency (high fluid loss) cases where
c
< 0.4 to 0.5, clearly the low efficiency function is correct.
Similarly, for longer closure time cases with
c
> 1, the high efficiency (low fluid loss) function as
used for Fig. 8.31 is probably most correct. However, for the gray area between these limits,
some distortion and error can be introduced by the lack of a purely applicable 'G' Function. In these
cases, type curve analysis often proves superior by allowing easy, manual interpolation between
the two limiting theoretical solutions.
Fluid Efciency
Fluid efficiency is defined as the fracture volume (at the end of pumping, e.g., at time = t
p
) divided
by the total slurry volume pumped (e.g., fluid, sand, everything). As an aid in Pressure Decline
Analysis, the rate of pressure decline equation can be integrated to determine the volume of fluid
lost between shut-in, t
p
, and the time at which the fracture closes, t
p
+ t
c
. For a minifrac treatment,
e.g., a small volume calibration treatment with no proppant, the volume lost between t
p
and t
p
+t
c
equals the volume of the fracture at t
p
. Dividing this volume by the total volume injected gives effi-
ciency. Thus, a relationship between closure time and fluid efficiency exists as shown in Fig. 8.32.
Fig. 8.31 - G Function Plot.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-37 July 1993
The efficiency, e
f
, obtained from this figure is used to define a new variable, , which is used in
the type curve analysis and defined as
where V
f
is fracture volume and V
L
is fluid loss volume during injection. can also be determined
directly from the type curve analysis in terms of the match pressure, P
*
, and the net fracturing
pressure at shut-in, p
s
(e.g., ISIP - closure pressure).
where G
o
is the pressure difference function at = 0 (discussed on page 8.31) and equal to
1.57-0.238 e
f
(within 5%, G
o
= 1.45), and K is a correction to the fluid loss coefficient which
accounts for additional fluid loss only during pumping (e.g., spurt loss or opening of natural fis-
sures during injection). However, K cannot (at this time) be determined from any analytical pres-
sure decline analysis so should always be set equal to 1.
These two efficiency values supply a means of quality control for fracturing pressure decline
analysis. First, efficiency is determined from the dimensionless time-to-close,
c
and the graph in
Fig. 8.32. Next, the loss ratio, , is determined from the type curve match pressure, P*, and the
final net pressure, ps, as discussed above. This value for is then used to calculate an efficiency
Fig. 8.32 - Efciency vs. Dimensionless Closure Time.
V
f
/V
L
e
f
/ 1 e
f
( ), or = =
e
f
/ 1 + ( ), =
p
s
/4Kg
o
P* , =
g
o
1.57 0.238 e
f
(within 5%,g
o
1.45), = =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-38
July 1993
from e
f
= / (1 + ). These efficiency values should be within 2 to 3 percentage units of each
other, e.g., 10%vs. 12%would be good agreement as would 90 vs. 92%. If the difference is greater
than this, then one might initially check the analysis, choice of closure pressure, etc. If disagree-
ment persists, then it may indicate a real discrepancy between actual fracture behavior, and the the-
oretical assumptions which form the basis for decline analysis. If the efficiency from time-to-close
and the chart in Fig. 8.32 is less than the calculated efficiency (e.g., calculated from P*), the dis-
crepancy could be due to significant spurt loss and/or to fluid loss to natural fractures which are
open during injection but which close (or are closing) during the pressure decline. Decline analysis
cannot quantify this loss, but can indicate its existence and thus allow appropriate job changes (for
example, possibly the inclusion of 100 mesh fluid loss additive to reduce any loss to natural frac-
tures).
In addition to this quality control procedure for the decline analysis, Section 8.6 presents a proce-
dure for determining a fracture treatment design schedule based solely on fluid efficiency. Also,
efficiency corrections are presented to account for proppant in the fracture at closure, so the pres-
sure decline after an actual propped fracture treatment can be used in a type curve analysis to cal-
culate fluid loss coefficient.
Example/Guidelines
The following will present some general guidelines for fracturing pressure decline analysis in the
context of reviewing an actual field example. The pressure data is the same as that presented and
discussed earlier in Fig. 8.29 and Table 8.2.
Example - Pressure Decline Analysis:
Prefrac tests were conducted on a 7000 ft deep oil bearing formation with a reservoir pressure
of 3250 psi and a formation temperature of 240F. The formation is a thick sand-shale
sequence with 5-10 ft sandstone layers (porosity of 12 to 14%) interbedded with 1 to 3 ft thick
layers of low porosity siltstones and anhydrites. From pump-in/flowback stress tests, surface
closure pressure was found to be 1500 psi. The stress tests were followed by pumping a 20,000
gallon crosslinked gel minifrac (estimated viscosity of t300 cp) in 20 minutes at an average
rate of 24 bpm. At the end of pumping the ISIP was 1658 psi and the postminifrac pressure
decline data was shown in Fig. 8.29 (listed in Table 8.2).
Lab Tests show the sand to have a Young's modulus of 4 to 5 million psi; the siltstones, 6-8
million; and the anhydrite, 8-10 million. Based on a simple volume percentage, a modulus of
6 million psi is assumed to be representative of the formation.
Before proceeding with the example, some general guidelines are given in Table 8.3, and these
guidelines will be followed (essentially step-by-step) for analyzing this data and calculating a fluid
loss coefficient.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-39 July 1993
Following the general guidelines, the first step is always to determine fracture closure pressure.
For this case, closure pressure was known as 1500 psi from pre-minifrac stress tests and one might
simply assume that the fracture closes when the pressure declines to this value. However, it is often
a good procedure to conduct a closure stress analysis with the decline data itself. This is particu-
larly appropriate since into a liquid saturated formation (remembering that this is an oil bearing
formation) can locally increase pore pressure and thus locally increase closure pressure, e.g., fluid
loss can generate what is often referred to as back stress. Since this is an oil zone, the pressure
decline is first plotted vs. root shut-in time as seen in Fig. 8.33. This shows a distinct slope change
at a pressure of 1500 psi, e.g., for this case the minifrac has not altered closure stress.
Table 8.3 - Guidelines for Analysis.
1. Must know when fracture closes (or closes on proppant)
a. pressure = known closure pressure
b. pressure vs. plot (t
s
is shut-in time)
2. Find dimensionless time-to-close
c
= Shut-in time-to-closure / pump-time (t
c
/t
p
)
3. Select 2 or 3
o
values from master curves such that
o
< about 2/3
c
4. Convert
o
to real shut-in time, t
o
= (
o
) x (t
p
)
5. Find pressure differences for each t
o
e.g., P(t
o
,t) = p(t
o
) - p(t), t > t
o
6. Plot a data curve for each t
o
e.g., plot P(t
o
,t) vs. t on log-log paper with same scale as Master Curves
7. Draw vertical line at t = t
c
do not use data for matching after fracture closure
8. Draw vertical line at t = t
p
(shut-in time equal to pump time)
9. Place transparency of Master over data with vertical PUMP-TIME line on Master aligned with
vertical t = t
p
line on data
10. Only moving master vertically, find best match for corresponding t
o
curves
- give most weight for greater to curves as these are least affected by any additional fracture extension
- give more weight for longer times on each curve (but t < t
c
)
11. After match, read P* (match pressure) from pressure difference scale on left
12. Determine efficiency from
a. Find efficiency from
c
and time-to-close vs. efficiency chart
b. Use P* from type curve match and net pressure at shut-in
(p
s
= ISIP - closure pressure) to calculate e
f
.
13. Compare e
f
(a) and (b)
If similar within a 2-3 percentage units, proceed to determine and choose correct fracture model and then calculate
other variables such as fluid loss coefficient, etc.
Pitfalls
1. Using pressure data after fracture closed.
2. Using equations for wrong fracture model.
t
s
c
Shut In Time To Closure
Pump Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 26 / 20 1.3 , = = =
p
s
/4KG
o
P*
3.142 158
4 1 1.45 100
-------------------------------------------- 0.86 = = =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-41 July 1993
where G
o
is assumed = 1.45, K = 1, and e
f
= / (1 + ) = 0.86 / 1.86 = 0.46.
Note: If this calculated efficiency was significantly different from50%, it would probably be best
to use this first calculated efficiency to recalculate g
o
= 1.57 - 0.238 * e
f
, and then use this
new value of g
o
to find a new efficiency. It is seldom worthwhile, however, to follow this
iteration for more than one time through.
This is clearly in excellent agreement with the time-to-close efficiency and thus the analysis can
proceed with confidence, e.g., there is no indication of unaccounted for fluid loss.
Note that up to this point, the analysis has been independent of fracture geometry, e.g., it made
no difference whether the fracture was radial, confined height, etc. However, once the match pres-
sure, P*, and efficiency have been determined and the efficiency checked, then it is necessary
to assume a fracture geometry in order to calculate a loss coefficient.
For this example, one might initially expect no height confinement based on: (1) no discrete beds
with sufficient thickness to contain a fracture, and (2) high modulus which leads to high treating
pressures and thus increases any tendencies for height growth. While it is not conclusive, the low
net pressure at shut-in of 160 psi reinforces this expectation since confined height fractures often
have higher net treating pressures than this. Equations from Table 8.5 can then be used as seen
below:
First the radius of the fracture is found from
and this radius is then used to calculate a fluid loss coefficient and fracture width
and
Taking a look at this problem from a slightly different view, assume that postminifrac logs were
available which gave indications of a gross fracture height of 350 to 400 ft. This value for H' might
then be used in the equations for a confined height fracture (e.g., a Perkins & Kern fracture geom-
etry) as seen below,
x
f
0.134 VG E'
2KP*g
o
1 + ( )
----------------------------------------------
1/3
=
x
f
0.134 ( ) 20 000 , ( ) 6 10
6
( )
2 ( ) 3.14 ( ) 1 ( ) 100 ( ) 1.45 ( ) 1.86 ( )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/3
211 ft = =
C P*x
f
( )/ r
p
E' t
p
( ) [ ] 100 ( ) 211 ( )/ 1 ( ) 6 10
6
( ) 20 ( ) 0.0008 ft/ min = = =
w 6p
s
x
f
( )/E' 6 ( ) 3.14 ( ) 158 ( ) 211 ( )/ 6 10
6
( ) 0.10 inches. = = =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-42
July 1993
However, it is immediately noted that this gives a tip-to-tip length of 326 ft which is less than the
approximate fracture height of 350 to 400 ft; thus, the Perkins & Kern model would not be appro-
priate, and the calculations should move on to the radial model (as discussed on page 8.26) or to
the Geertsma model calculations (which would be for a fracture with a tip-to-tip length less than
the height). For this example, the radial model shows a predicted radius of 211 ft which would give
a total, gross fracture height of H = 422 ft, and since this would be in fair agreement with the logs,
a radial model would probably be the most appropriate geometry model for describing the test.
It is important to note in these calculations that there are several uncertainties; in particular, the
final result for fluid loss coefficient (the usual goal for the decline analysis) is strongly dependent
on the value of modulus. If this value is not known from core analysis then the final result for 'C'
becomes uncertain. In many cases, however, the final analysis can be improved through a proce-
dure of pressure history matching as discussed in Section 8.3.
Post-propped-Frac Pressure Decline Analysis
Fracture pressure decline analysis as presented above assumes a minifrac test injection, where, at
closure, a fracture will be completely closed. However, the same analysis is applicable to post-
propped-fracture treatment pressure data, so long as two important points are remembered:
1. After a propped fracture treatment, fracture closure occurs when the fracture closes on prop-
pant. However, at this point, of course, the fracture is not completely closed, but is held par-
tially open by the proppant. Thus the time-to-close efficiency must be corrected as discussed
below.
2. The pressure decline analysis assumes that the fracture was free to propagate during the injec-
tion period. When proppant is included in a real stimulation there is, of course, always the pos-
sibility that due to slurry dehydration and/or proppant reaching the fracture tip, fracture
extension will be halted and a tip screenout will occur. This is usually evident from the net
pressure behavior and if such a condition occurs, then normal decline analysis is no longer ap-
plicable. Note, however, that pressure history matching as discussed below can still be used to
analyze the data with the time where the screenout starts (e.g., the beginning of the unit slope
on a Nolte-Smith plot, Fig. 8.16) being a good marker for history matching analysis.
The time-to-close expressions previously presented on page 8.35, assumed the fracture closed
completely, e.g., no proppant. Similar analysis can be performed fromthe postfrac pressure decline
x
f
0.134 VG E'
4KP*
x
g
o
1 + ( )H
2
------------------------------------------------------- - =
x
f
0.134 ( ) 20 000 , ( ) 6 10
6
( )
4 ( ) 1 ( ) 100 ( ) 0.65 ( ) 1.45 ( ) 1.86 ( ) 375 375 ( )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 163 ft . = =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-43 July 1993
Table 8.4 - Pressure Decline Analysis Calculations.
Perkins & Kern (Conned Height) Geometry Geertsma deKlerk Geometry
Radial Geometry (Unconned Height Growth)
NOMENCLATURE
s
- See discussion on reverse side of table
K - Correction factor for spurt loss, normally K = 1
C - Fluid loss coefcient (ft/
E' - Plain Strain Modulus = E / (1-
2
) (psi)
E - Youngs Modulus, - Poissons Ratio
e
f
- Fluid efciency = Fracture-volume-at-shut-in / Volume-injected
g
o
- Constant approximately = 1.45, (g
o
= 1.57 - 0.238 e
f
)
H
p
- Permeable or leakoff height (ft)
H - Gross fracture height (ft)
P*- Pressure decline Type Curve Match Pressure (psi)
P
s
- Net pressure at shut-in (psi)
- Loss Ratio = Fracture-Volume-at-shut-in divided by Volume-lost-during-pumping = e
f
/ (1-e
f
)
r
p
- Ratio of permeable or leakoff area to total fracture area
For P&K or Geertsma r
p
= H
p
/ H, for a radial geometry r
p
is more difcult to dene and is normally set = 1
t
p
- Injection time (minutes)
VG - Total Injected Volume in Gallons = V
p
w - Average fracture width (inches)
x
f
- Fracture 1/2 length or penetration (ft) (Radius for Radial Geometry)
x
f
0.134 VG E'
4KP*
s
g
o
1 + ( )H
2
------------------------------------------------- =
x
f
0.134 VG E' [ ]
1/2
8KP*
s
g
o
1 + ( )H
---------------------------------------------- =
w 6
s
p
s
H/E' =
w 12
s
p
s
x
f
/E' =
C P*
s
H ( )/ r
p
E' t
p
( ) = C 2P*
s
x
f
/r
p
t
p
E' =
x
f
0.134 VG E'
2KP*g
o
1 + ( )
----------------------------------------
1/3
=
w 6p
s
x
f
( )/E' =
C P*x
f
( )/ r
p
E' t
p
( ) =
min
s
- Average Pressure Correction Factor
Pressure decline analysis is based on the average pressure in the fracture, but, unfortunately, the only value that
can be monitored is wellbore pressure, which will tend to be slightly higher than the average pressure. The value
for this correction factor is a function of fracture geometry and uid rheology.
Geertsma deKlerk Geometry
For a fracture with this geometry, Daneshy showed in SPE publications that
p
(the correction factor during pump-
ing) is t 0.85. After shut-in, the correction f actor will be higher than this, thus 0.85 <
s
< 1.0. Typically, a value of
0.9 is used.
Radial Geometry
For a radial geometry (or penny shaped fracture),
s
is near unity. For convenience in simplifying the preceding
equations,
s
was assigned a value of
Perkins & Kern Geometry
Perkins & Kern Geometry
For a conned height fracture, the correction factor can vary from 0.5 to 0.8, with a typical value of 0.65. The
exact value for a particular case is a function of the non-Newtonian character of the injected uid, and a function of
how much viscosity degradation occurs along the fracture during pumping. The non-Newtonian nature of the uid
is characterized by the uids non-Newtonian, n', and this parameter might vary between 0.5 (for very non-Newto-
nian uids such as a Nitrogen foam) and 1.0 for an essentially Newtonian uid such as a linear gel. The amount of
viscosity degradation is qualitatively associated with a, where a=1 indicates no viscosity degradation along the
fracture, a=1 indicates moderate viscosity degradation, and a=2 indicates severe viscosity degradation fromthe
wellbore out to the fracture tip. The pressure correction factor is found from these two parameters by
Typical Values for this factor are given below:
T(F) n ' a
s
Linear Gel - 60-80 1 1 0.67
80-120 1 2 0.57
Crosslink Gel - 80-120 0.75 0 0.78
140-180 0.75 1 0.64
200-250 0.75 2 0.54
Nitrogen Foam - 80-120 0.5 1 0.60
140-180 0.75 2 0.54
Gelled Oil - 100-140 0.5 1 0.60
150-220 0.75 2 0.54
Table 8.4 - Pressure Decline Analysis Calculations.
s
3
2
/32 0.925 . = =
s
2n' 2 + ( )/ 2n' 3 a + + ( ) . =
V
f
' V
f
V
pr
, =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure Decline Analysis
8-45 July 1993
where f
pr
is the volume fraction of proppant pumped (including proppant porosity) relative to the
total slurry injected and defined as
W is the proppant weight,
pr
is the specific weight of the proppant material, e.g., 165 lb/ft
3
,
2.65 gm/cc, 22 lbs/gallon for sand, is the proppant porosity (typically on the order of 0.40 since
this refers to a proppant pack with essentially zero stress), and V
p
= V
fl
+W/
pr
. For example,
assume a fracture treatment containing 100,000 gallons of gel and 300,000 lbs of sand is pumped
at a rate of 30 bpm. After the end of injection, the pressure decline is monitored and fracture clo-
sure is detected at t
c
= 45 minutes. The total volume injected is
Substituting V
p
into the equation for f
pr
,
Total pump time was 113,636 gallons/(42 gal/bbl)/(30 bpm) = 90.2 minutes and with a closure
time of t
c
= 45 minutes, the dimensionless time-to-close was
This value of
c
= 0.50 is used with the time-to-close/efficiency relation to give an apparent effi-
ciency of 28%,
However, the actual efficiency must be greater than this since this apparent efficiency is based
on closure on proppant, and, of course, the fracture is not completely closed at this point. The
actual efficiency is then found from
to be equal to 41%.
This efficiency of 0.41 is now used with the pressure decline data (prior to closure on proppant)
to perform a type curve analysis using the same procedures discussed previously and outlined in
Table 8.3.
e
f
1 1 f
pr
( ) 1 e
f
' ( ) , =
f
pr
V
pr
/V
p
W/
pr
V
p
1 ( ) ( ) . = =
V
p
100 000 gals 300 000 lbs/(22 lbs/gal) , [ ] + , 113 636 gals . , = =
f
pr
300 000 lbs/ 22 lbs/gal ( ) 113 636 gals , ( ) 1 0.40 ( ) [ ] , 0.179 . = =
c
45/90.2 0.50 . = =
e
f
' 0.28 . =
e
f
1 1 f
pr
( ) 1 e
f
' ( ) =
1 0.179 ( ) 1 0.28 ( ) 0.41 . = =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-46
July 1993
8.5 Pressure History Matching
The most powerful method of interpreting/analyzing fracturing pressure data is via the history
matching of actual net treating pressure (and pressure decline) data - generally with a numerical
fracture simulator. Another method of looking at this is - Calibrating the Fracture Model for the
particular formation being studied. Also, whether a numerical model is used, or the simple equa-
tions below are used, some simple pressure history matching can overcome the uncertainties
involved in fracturing pressure analysis.
These uncertainties mainly arise since there are essentially more variables than there are equations.
The first of the two main equations can be represented by (from Section 8.3)
where the net treating pressure (and thus the value for p
s
used in the decline analysis) is mainly a
function of the modulus of the formation and the gross or total fracture height, H.
The second main equation is the pressure decline behavior which might be represented by the
P* value
where 'S' is the fracture stiffness which (for any fracture geometry) is primarily a function of frac-
ture height and the formation modulus. Thus there are three main variables or unknowns, modulus,
E, height, H, and fluid loss coefficient, C. The important point here is that since there are basically
three unknowns and only two equations, these equations and any solution for them is interde-
Fig. 8.34 - Pressure History Matching
Pressure Decline
(Fluid Loss; Sand Schedule)
Treating Pressures
(Critical Pressure)
Simulator
Improved Designs
p
net
E'
H
----- QL [ ]
3/4
=
P*
CS
2
-----------r
p
t
p
. =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure History Matching
8-47 July 1993
pendent. For example, simply solving the pressure decline equations for a loss coefficient gives no
assurance that the answer is meaningful; i.e., is the modulus and fracture height used to calculate
the fluid loss consistent with the net treating pressure. If these values are consistent, then the fluid
loss coefficient determined from P
*
will be a reasonable (though possibly still not unique) value.
This history matching process is illustrated in Fig. 8.34. For an example, consider the data in
Fig. 8.35. The Nolte-Smith plot of net treating pressure shows increasing pressure with a small
positive slope, indicating a confined height fracture and a numerical model was used to history
match this data and thus determine a height and modulus consistent with the actual treating pres-
sure behavior (with the modulus also being consistent with published industry data). This height
and modulus can then be used with some confidence to calculate a fluid loss coefficient from the
decline analysis. At this point, however, the calculated value for 'C' might be different from the
value used in the initial numerical modeling of the treating pressure, and if this difference is sig-
nificant (e.g., greater than 20 to 30% difference), the modeling should be redone with the new
value for 'C', modifying the height and/or modulus values as required. The new height and modu-
lus would be used to calculate a revised fluid loss coefficient, e.g., one would iterate. Note, how-
ever, that it is very seldomnecessary more than one time since the net treating pressure is relatively
in- sensitive to a precise value for 'C'. Because of this relationship (that net pressure is relatively
insensitive to fluid loss), the history matching should always begin with matching the net pressure,
with the modulus and height thus determined then used to calculate a loss coefficient .
With this history match, then, one has a set of three main variables (H, E, &C) which yield a good
description of the minifrac test. These can then be used with some confidence to consider different
Fig. 8.35 - Case History of Pressure History Matching
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-48
July 1993
treatment designs, larger/smaller volumes, etc. Note, however, that even though the three values
may be consistent they are still not necessarily the correct values. External data is required to
fully determine the problem. For example, core data for the modulus might make this a fully deter-
mined problem. For the case in Fig. 8.35, postfrac temperature logs showed a height in fair agree-
ment with the history matching, making this a fully determined problem.
Simple History Matching
The use of a numerical model for pressure history matching offers many advantages including the
ability to handle fairly complex geology, the ability to simulate the entire history of a test, and (pos-
sibly most important) the ability to proceed immediately to considering different treating sched-
ules, treatment volumes, etc. Since these considerations are based on a set of data that has
accurately described the past, one can simulate other treatment designs and arrive at an optimum
treatment with some confidence. However, in many cases an appropriate model may not be avail-
able, but, rather than abandon history matching, it is often possible to use quite simple equations
to gain some of the benefits achievable from detailed modeling and matching.
In particular, for a confined height fracture (e.g., a case where the net treating pressure increases
during a job as seen in Fig. 8.35), treating pressure is generally dominated by fluid flow consider-
ations and can often be reasonably predicted (e.g., maybe within t10%). For a confined height
fracture, net pressure can be approximated by the following equation
(8.13)
(8.14)
where is the average fluid viscosity (centipoise), 'VG' is the total fluid volume pumped in gallons,
'Q' is the pump rate in bpm, 'E' is the modulus in psi, x
f
is the fracture 1/2 length in feet, 'H' is the
gross fracture height in feet, and P
*
, , etc., are determined from the pressure decline analysis as
discussed earlier starting on page 8.30.
For other geometries such as an unconfined, radial fracture or a case where the fracture is initially
confined but then experiences significant height growth, rock mechanics considerations at the frac-
ture tip begin to play a more dominant role, often precluding the use of such simple, analytical
equations. However, such equations can be developed and may sometimes prove useful. For exam-
ple, for a radial fracture,
p
net
0.015 E
3
Qx
f
[ ]
1/4
H
--------------------------------------------- =
x
f
0.134 VG E
4KP*
s
g
o
1 + ( )H
2
------------------------------------------------------- =
p
net
0.0078 QE
3
[ ]
1/4
x
f
2/3
------------------------------------------ =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure History Matching
8-49 July 1993
Simple History Matching Procedure & Example
The suggested procedure for use of such equations is a type of single data point history matching.
That is, p
s
, the final net pressure (e.g., ISIP minus closure pressure) is matched to determine a com-
patible set of 'H' and 'E' values to use in calculating fluid loss coefficient, 'C'. These values for
modulus and height are then used in the pressure decline equations to recalculate the fracture 1/2
length, x
f
, and the loss coefficient. If these new values for penetration and 'C' are significantly dif-
ferent from the first values, it might be necessary to iterate one more time. However, as mentioned
above, it is seldom necessary to iterate more than once. If the final height determined from this
pressure matching is consistent with the geology and/or possibly other log indications of fracture
height; or if the modulus is consistent with core data; then the final three major variables (E, H,
and C) can be used with confidence.
As an example, consider the minifrac studied earlier in Section 8.4, with some of the relevant data
from that case listed in Table 8.5.
Using this data in the radial fracture geometry calculation for p
net
gives a predicted net pressure at
shut-in (e.g., p
s
) of 240 psi, somewhat greater than the actual measured value of p
s
= 158 psi.
Remembering that the modulus was strictly an assumed value, one might then use a lower modu-
lus, say 4x10
6
psi to calculate (still using the initial value for x
f
) a final net pressure of 178 psi, in
fair agreement with the actual data. This new modulus is then used to revise the initial estimate of
fracture radius (x
f
), with a new calculated value of x
f
= 185 ft, and a new calculated loss coefficient
of 0.0010 ft/ . With this new fracture radius of 185 ft, and the new modulus of 4 million
psi, the new calculated p
s
is 195 psi, which is still about 20% greater than the actual data, thus one
more iteration might be in order with a modulus of maybe 3.5x10
6
psi. At the end of that final iter-
ation, a set of the three major variables (H, E, and C) would be determined which are compatible
with the minifrac data. In addition, since the calculated fracture radius of t190 ft (which gives a
Table 8.5 - Minifrac Analysis Data.
Test Parameters
Volume=20,000 gallons t
p
= 20 minutes
Q =24 bpm = 300 cp
Minifrac Analysis Parameters
K =1 e
f
= 0.46
DP* =100 psi = 0.86
Pressure Decline Analysis Initial Results
(Calculations for Radial Fracture Geometry)
E' =Assumed equal to 6x10
6
psi
x
f
=Calculated as 211 ft
C =Calculated as 0.0008 ft/
x
f
0.134 VG E'
2KP*g
o
1 + ( )
----------------------------------------------
,
_
1/3
= .
minute
minute
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-50
July 1993
gross fracture height at the wellbore of 380 ft) is consistent with fracture height logs, it is probable
that these values are a very good solution to the actual in-situ conditions.
Complex Geology Effects
Pressure analysis might be considered proven for simple geologies, making it a practical tool for
many (if not most) cases. In general, even, it might be stated that where the basic theory and anal-
ysis methods break down - the problems are related to some more complex geology. These geo-
logic complexities can further be categorized into cases involving: (1) multiple formation layers
and (2) natural fractures. In fact, the bulk of the problems in analyzing fracturing pressure data or
in utilizing the results of such analysis can be traced to one of these complicating factors.
The effect of natural fractures was discussed in Section 8.4, and this effect is often identifiable
from a constant net pressing pressure on a Nolte-Smith plot (e.g., a critical pressure) and some-
times by comparing the type curve match efficiency with the efficiency derived directly from the
time-to-close.
The possible effects of multiple formation(s) layers is more difficult to categorize since such
multi-layered geology can lead to gross distortions and changes with time of the basic fracture
geometry. As an example, consider the case pictured in Fig. 8.36, where a hydraulic fracture was
initiated in one zone, but then penetrated a barrier and broke into a zone with lower closure
stress. During the remainder of the pumping, the lower stress zone will accept most of the injected
fluid. That is the main fracture will not be in the zone where the fracture started. After shutdown,
however, one might expect the barrier between these two zones to close rather quickly - isolating
the perforated interval from the main fracture. Thus the pressure decline behavior will be dom-
inated by the characteristics of the perforated zone, and may give little or no information concern-
ing the redirection of the fracture geometry, or the characteristics of the lower stressed zone which
accepted most of the injection. Possibly, though, such behavior may be inferred through an obser-
vation of some decline in the net treating pressure indicating the height growth combined with dis-
crepancies between the P
*
derived efficiency and the efficiency derived from the time-to-close.
Another example of the effect of multiple layers might be seen in the Big pressure decline anal-
ysis problem. The problem as described and several parameters determined from the pressure
decline analysis are included in table Table 8.6.
Using the simple history match equations from page 8.48 (for a confined height, Perkins &Kern
geometry since the net pressure for the minifrac increased indicating height confinement),
(8.13) p
net
0.015 E
3
Qx
f
[ ]
1/4
H
--------------------------------------------- =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure History Matching
8-51 July 1993
(8.14)
and the problem definition data from Table 8.6, one calculates a final net treating pressure (e.g.,
net pressure at shut-in) of 688 psi, 20% less than the actual value of about 860 psi. Since net pres-
sure is most affected by fracture height and modulus, either the fracture height must be less than
the gross zone thickness (e.g., less than 150 ft), or the modulus of the formation(s) must be greater
than 7x10
6
psi, or ?. Since it might be unexpected (but not impossible) for the fracture height to
be less than the gross formation thickness, an initial approach to history matching this data would
probably be to increase the modulus. Doing this shows, after a couple of iterations, a modulus of
9x10
6
psi giving a calculated final net pressure, p
s
, of 885 psi, in near perfect agreement with the
actual data. The new calculated values for x
f
and 'C' are then 802 ft and 0.00075 ft/ ,
respectively.
Fig. 8.36 - Fracture Going Out of Zone.
x
f
0.134 VG E
4KP*
s
g
o
1 + ( )H
2
------------------------------------------------------- =
minute
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-52
July 1993
Thus the pressure history matching gives a set of three major variables of H = 150 ft, E = 9x10
6
psi, and C = 0.00075 ft/ , which satisfy both the final net treating pressure of about 860 psi
and the pressure decline behavior of P
*
= 260 psi and efficiency = 62%. However, since core data
indicated a modulus on the order of 7 million psi, what might explain the higher apparent stiffness
of the formation(s)?
A possible answer to this might be seen in Fig. 8.37, which illustrates the geology of the forma-
tion, showing that the 110 ft net height (out of the 150 ft gross section) is actually composed of two
distinct sandstone layers with t30 ft of shale separating the two zones. Since the increasing pres-
sure behavior during the minifrac seems to indicate good height confinement (e.g., the over- and
underlying shales having higher closure stress than the sands), it might be reasonable to assume
that the separating shale might also be a barrier (e.g., have a higher closure stress) to fracture
growth. Thus this shale would pinch the fracture width (as seen Fig. 8.37), causing the fracture
to behave stiffer than a simple, 150 ft high fracture, thus explaining the need for an unusually
high modulus if the basic pressure analysis methods are to be used.
Given this more complex geology, a fracture simulator capable of treating multiple formation lay-
ers might be used to history match the actual data, as seen in Fig. 8.38 for the treating pressure
behavior. Once the model is successfully set up to history match the past, it can then, of course,
be used with some confidence to design future jobs. Or, in fact, where the dominant effect of the
multiple zones is to just stiffen the fracture, a simple Perkins & Kern type procedure might be
used for frac design by using the artificially high modulus value to account for the effect of the
shale layer on fracture width.
Table 8.6 - Big Pressure Analysis Problem.
Problem Denition
Volume Pumped = VG = 38,000 gallons
E = Modulus, estimated as 7 million psi
Gross formation thickness = H = 150 ft
Leakoff Height (= net height?) = 110 ft
Rate = 35 bpm
Pump Time = 25.5 minutes
Fluid Viscosity estimated at 300 cp
Pressure Decline Analysis Variables
P
*
= 260 psi
Final Net Treating Pressure = ps = 860 psi
Efficiency = 0.62
= 0.62 / (1 - 0.62) = 1.63
Initial Calculations
Fracture 1/2 Length = 624 ft
C = 0.00095 ft/ minute
minute
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Pressure History Matching
8-53 July 1993
Fig. 8.37 - Actual Fracture Geometry - Pressure Decline Analysis Problem.
Fig. 8.38 - Nolte-Smith History Match, Pressure Decline Analysis Big Problem.
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-54
July 1993
The above two brief examples have illustrated the extreme range of effects that multiple formation
layers can have on fracture pressure analysis - from the case of the frac growing totally out of zone
and almost invalidating the analysis methods; to a case where the basic analysis methods are fine,
but a slightly artificial modulus must be used in order to accurately describe the fracture width. In
general, it is this extreme range of effects that makes general statements about the effects of com-
plex geology difficult or impossible to make. However, while multiple formation layers clearly
create problems, two recent studies (Warpinski
25
and Miller and Smith
22
) have shown that the
combination of pressure decline analysis with numerical modeling/history matching provides a
useful, powerful tool for analysis of such complex geologic cases.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline
8-55 July 1993
8.6 Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline
While the ultimate goal of a well stimulation treatment is to increase production using the most
cost effective procedures and materials, the actual, final product from the treatment design and
analysis consists of pumping schedules specifying volumes, proppant addition concentrations (as
seen in Fig. 8.39), and specifying in-situ time-temperature history for the injected fluid (as seen in
Fig. 8.40 for use in selecting and specifying materials). The pressure analysis procedure discussed
in this chapter have concentrated on measuring or determining the physical variables which govern
fracture growth, e.g., in-situ stresses, modulus, fluid loss coefficient, etc. With these variables
properly measured, it becomes possible, through the use of a numerical fracture model, to develop
pumping schedules for achieving the desired goals. However, in some conditions existing wellbore
limitations, or time/budget constraints may not allow adequate time or data collection for measur-
ing the individual variables governing fracture behavior. However, it will be shown and discussed
below (following Nolte
14
) that the final products (e.g., pumping schedules) are a strong function
of a single variable, the fluid efficiency for the treatment. If this single value can be determined
from a prefrac injection test (or from experience gained on previous treatments in the area) then a
pumping schedule can be determined directly from this one value, e.g., efficiency is essentially a
state variable for the propped fracturing process. Note however, that the efficiency derived
schedule is developed from a preselected total treatment volume - with no direct consideration of
fracture length, fracture conductivity, etc. (e.g., no direct consideration of creating the best or most
cost effective stimulation for a particular formation).
Fig. 8.39 - Treatment Schedule, Proppant Addition Concentrations.
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-56
July 1993
Advantages of an Efciency Derived Schedule
1. Allows development of an optimum pumping schedule based on a direct measurement of
fluid efficiency for the particular well and formation being treated.
2. The analysis requires relatively simple data collection and can generally be done from surface
pressure information. Also, the analysis can be completed in a short time making it an ideal
procedure for field use.
3. Final pumping schedule is not significantly affected by actual fracture geometry, thus efficien-
cy procedures can be used in formations (such as coal seams for one example) where actual
fracture geometry may be very complex. Also, this independence from fracture geometry
makes the procedure ideal for initial treatments in a new, wildcat area.
Disadvantages of an Efciency Derived Schedule
1. Prefrac injection must use same fluid as planned for the stimulation and must be pumped at
the same rate as will be used for the actual propped fracture treatment.
2. Efficiency procedure assumes no knowledge of actual fracture geometry, thus the pre-selected
treatment volumes used as a basis for developing the final pumping schedule may be insuffi-
cient for achieving required production, or the volumes may be excessive, incurring additional
costs and unnecessarily increasing the risks associated with completion operations.
The information generally needed for a stimulation are: (1) the fluid volume to be injected, (2) the
injection rate, (3) the proppant addition schedule, (4) the resulting propped fracture width and
length, and (5) the amount of time that fluids will be exposed to reservoir temperature. This expo-
Fig. 8.40 - Treatment Schedule, Fluid Temperature History.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline
8-57 July 1993
sure time is needed for selecting the required fluid system along with the amount and type of fluid
additives. For a new area, the volume limitations may be determined from budget constraints, or,
for a more developed area, volumes may be specified based on the requirements to achieve a rel-
ative change in fracture length (or conductivity) from that achieved by prior treatments. Finally,
pump rate is often prescribed based on horsepower limitations or pressure limit constraints of the
wellhead and/or tubulars. While, as mentioned above, the efficiency procedure gives no informa-
tion on propped fracture length or width, it does give the final ingredient, that being the required
pad volume and proppant addition schedule.
While lack of knowledge of final propped fracture dimensions precludes any quantitative devel-
opment of the treatment design in terms of postfrac production; determining the required pad vol-
ume and pumping schedule still remains the most difficult and critical to obtain of any of the
necessary information. As an example, consider the final fracture conductivity distribution pic-
tured in Fig. 8.41. This is the results of a numerical simulation for a case which (purposefully)
included an excess pad volume. As seen in the figure, at shut-down (e.g., at the end of pumping)
the propped fracture 1/2 length is on the order of 500 ft, which was the design length. However,
due to the excess pad volume, the created length is nearly twice as long. Since the area of high fluid
loss is located near the fracture tip, fluid continues to flow from the wellbore region of the fracture
out toward the fracture tip after shutdown. This afterflow results in a proppant redistribution
leaving a relatively (undesirable) low fracture conductivity in the near well area - reducing future
production rates. Another example of the critical need for pad volume/proppant schedule informa-
tion is, of course, the case of inadequate pad volume. This will result in the slurry portions of a
treatment dehydrating and screening out, reducing the propped fracture length and possibly forc-
ing remedial wellbore cleanout operations. Thus, even for fixed treatment volume, either too
much, or too little pad volume is detrimental to final postfrac results.
Determining Fracture Fluid Efciency
As discussed in Section 8.3, the fluid efficiency for a treatment can be determined by measuring
the time-to-close after a fracturing rate injection. Thus the most direct way to measure fluid effi-
ciency for use in an efficiency design is to conduct a prefrac calibration treatment or minifrac
test. This is the most common method when using the efficiency design techniques, and data col-
lection and analyses for such prefrac testing are thoroughly discussed in earlier sections and will
not be repeated here.
However, an alternate method may be available when earlier propped fracture treatments have
been performed in the area, and where formation properties such as thickness and permeability do
not change radically fromwell-to-well. As an example, consider the ideal Nolte-Smith net pressure
plot in Fig. 8.42, and assume this is a field measured curve from an offset propped fracture stimu-
lation. At a pump time of 20 minutes, proppant is on the formation (e.g., pad was pumped for
twenty minutes) and one hour later (e.g., at a pump time of t80 minutes) pressure starts to increase
indicating that fracture growth has stopped. Probably this job would have been pumped to comple-
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-58
July 1993
tion, since pressure only increases by t500 psi after the start of the screenout, with this relatively
small increase possibly not even being noted in normal surface pumping records. However, unless
this screenout was a planned occurrence, it is probable that fracture length is much less than
desired. While unfortunate for this well, the information can aid in future treatment designs by sim-
ply noting the pad percentage at the start of the pressure increase.
For this case, pressure starts increasing after t80 minutes, with a pad pump time of 20 minutes -
thus pad percentage for the first part of the job was 25%. For future treatments, the pad percent-
age should be increased in volume to at least equal 25% of the total pump time. More accurately,
since pad percentage is related to job size, the pad percentage of 25% could be used to back out
Fig. 8.41 - Fracture Conductivity Redistribution Resulting from Excess Pad Volume.
Fig. 8.42 - Use of Field Data to Determine Fluid Efciency.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline
8-59 July 1993
a fluid efficiency. The fluid efficiency thus measured for the first 80 minutes of the job is then used
to calculate an expected fluid efficiency for a larger treatment (as discussed below), and this
expected efficiency for the total job is used to determine the new, required pad percentage and pad
volume.
Pad Volume
Once an efficiency (or expected efficiency) has been determined for a proposed treatment, the
required pad percentage for the job is found from the simple relation
(8.15)
where e
f
is the expected efficiency for the treatment, f
p
is the required pad fraction for the treat-
ment, and f
C
is a correction term.
In developing this, consider the curve shown in Fig. 8.43. This curve illustrates fracture area grow-
ing with time (or volume). Further, consider that at some time, ft
p
(where t
p
is the total pump time
and f is a fraction) a switch is made from pumping pad to pumping proppant laden slurry. Thus,
the initial fracture area created (e.g., the small element of fracture created just as pumping starts)
is exposed to fluid loss for the entire pump time t
p
, with this fluid loss coming out of the pad from
time '0' to time ft
p
, with subsequent fluid loss coming out of, and serving to dehydrate, the proppant
laden slurry.
Similarly, one might consider some later element of the created fracture area, da, which is created
at time = (e.g., before that time it did not exist since the fracture had not reached that point) and
has a total exposure time to fluid loss of = (t
p
- ). For some fraction of that total exposure time
( < t
p
), fluid loss from this increment of the fracture area will come from the pad volume. After
that point, the slurry front passes and subsequent fluid loss out of that element of the fracture
Fig. 8.43 - Variables for Determining Pad Percentage.
f
p
1 e
f
( )
2
f
c
+ =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-60
July 1993
area will be coming out of the slurry. Assume then, that this point in time where the slurry front
passes an element of fracture area is similar for each element of the fracture. Then for some incre-
mental area, da, total fluid loss exposure time is . For a fraction of this total time, f, fluid loss is
from the pad while for the remainder of the exposure time, fluid loss is from slurry.
The volume of fluid lost during a fraction, f, of each incremental fracture area's fluid exposure
time, , can then be found by integrating
14
where V
Loss
is the total volume of fluid lost during the entire pump time. Thus the portion of fluid
lost for a (constant) fraction of the fluid exposure time of each incremental area of the fracture is
simply proportional to . Also, if this assumption concerning the slurry front passing each ele-
ment of the fracture is correct, then this simple curve (dashed line in Fig. 8.43) defines the perfect
pad. That is, the slurry front reaches the fracture tip just as pumping stops, e.g., it neither reaches
the tip prematurely leading to proppant bridging (a screenout), nor does it fail to reach the tip, leav-
ing a portion of the fracture without proppant or allowing harmful afterflow proppant redistribu-
tion during fracture closure.
Clearly then this is a possible curve for the optimum pad volume, and based on this curve, the
desired fraction, f = f
p
, is readily found. As discussed above, the volume of fluid lost during a frac-
tion, f, of each fracture elements' fluid exposure time, equals x V
Loss
, where V
Loss
is the total
loss volume during the treatment. For the ideal pad then this fractional lost volume exactly equals
the pad volume giving
where V
p
is the total volume injected during the entire pump time t
p
. Since efficiency, e
f
, is defined
as fracture volume at the end of pumping divided by the total volume injected, then V
Loss
, must
equal
and the ideal, theoretical pad fraction is given by
V
Loss
f ( ) 2C
d
-------
0
f
da
0
A
=
f x V
Loss
=
f
f
f
p
xV
p
f xV
Los
=
V
Loss
1 e
f
( )xV
p
=
f
p
1 e
f
( )
2
= .
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline
8-61 July 1993
However, reviewing the dashed (slurry front propagation) curve in Fig. 8.43 shows a vertical
slope at the beginning, e.g., implying an initially infinite velocity for the slurry front. This is clearly
an impossibility, and leads to a correction factor,
14
f
C
, as shown in Fig. 8.44.
Thus, more generally, the ideal pad percentage, f
p
, is given by
(8.13)
where f
C
= 0.05, efficiency, e
f
, > = 0.20, = e
f
/4, efficiency < 0.20 .
Using this (somewhat in reverse) with the ideal case shown in Fig. 8.42 where the pad percentage
(prior to start of screenout) was 0.25 gives an efficiency on the order of
for the first 80 minutes pumping of that job. (Note that in this case, the final efficiency is greater
than 0.20, thus the initial estimate of f
C
= 0.05 was correct, otherwise it would have been necessary
to iterate on the correction term in order to find the actual efficiency.)
Of course, while the dashed curve in Fig. 8.43 represents the general character of an ideal pad
stage, the assumption that each incremental fracture area element is exposed to pad fluid loss and
slurry fluid loss in the same ratio (e.g., 'f' is a constant for each incremental element of the fracture)
is not proven. As one proof, or at least justification, for this assumption, pad percentage and
proppant addition schedules (as discussed in the following section) arising from the efficiency
analysis are compared to schedules developed from computer models in Fig. 8.45. This shows
actual treatment schedules from three separate areas, representing fluid efficiencies ranging from
18 to 70%. The low loss, high efficiency example is for a tight gas field in Colorado where height
Fig. 8.44 - Correction Factor for Pad.
f
p
1 e
f
( )
2
= f
C
+
0.25 1 e
f
( )
2
= 0.05 1 e
f
( )
2
, + 0.20 =
e
f
0.55 t =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-62
July 1993
confinement was virtually perfect; the middle curve comes from treatment histories from a gas
field in East Texas where some height growth generally occurred; and the third, high fluid loss
example, was for fracturing in a thick, moderate permeability, carbonate formation in the North
Sea. In each case, computer model designs were based on extensive data collection programs and
field experience, and, in each case, the final proppant schedule is seen to be quite accurately deter-
mined by fluid efficiency alone.
Proppant Addition Schedule
The average proppant concentration, c
avg
, for a treatment is
(8.16)
where W is the total weight of the proppant and V
p
is the total slurry volume (fluid plus proppant)
injected. Note here that this definition of proppant concentration differs from the normal field
usage of pounds-of-proppant per gallon-or-fluid. Additionally, c
f
is defined as the final, maximum
proppant concentration pumped during a treatment, and due to fluid loss, c
f
must be greater than
c
avg
. One possible design goal for a propped fracture stimulation is to, at the end of pumping, have
a uniform proppant concentration, equal to c
f
, from the wellbore to the fracture tip. This will gen-
erate a fracture with reasonably uniform conductivity along the fracture length (assuming a single
type of proppant is used) and will maintain fairly uniform slurry viscosity throughout the fracture.
In terms of the fracture volume at the end of pumping, V =e
f
x V
p
, this final proppant concentration
can be written as
Fig. 8.45 - Comparison with Computer Models.
c
avg
W/V
p
=
c
f
W/V W/ e
f
V
p
( ) . = =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline
8-63 July 1993
Combining this with the definition of average concentration gives
where c
D-avg
is a normalized value for average concentration. Similarly, a normalized concen-
tration at any point in time during the treatment is defined by
and, for convenience a new time scale is defined, , where the new time scale starts at 0 when
proppant is started and reaches a value of 1 at the end of the job as illustrated in Fig. 8.46.
In terms of this new time scale, certain fixed values for the normalized proppant schedule, c
D
, can
be stated
Assuming a function for the proppant schedule of the form
the exponent, , can be evaluated from the above limits on the function, c
D
, given above
Fig. 8.46 - Time Scale, , for Determining Proppant Addition Schedule.
c
D avg
c
avg
/c
f
e
f
, = =
c
D
c/c
f
, =
t f t
p
( )/ t
p
f t
p
( ) . =
c
D
( ) 0 = 0 < ( ), =
c
D
( ) 1 = 1 < ( ) =
c
D avg
e
f .
=
c
D
( ) (0 = = 1) < < =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-64
July 1993
or after incorporating a correction factor discussed on page 8.62 for the pad volume calculations
Thus a dimensionless or normalized proppant addition schedule is defined by
(8.17)
and since this function satisfies the numerical end points for a proppant schedule as stated above,
satisfies the relation for the final average proppant concentration, and also provides a monotoni-
cally increasing schedule as commonly utilized in practice - it is expected to be a reasonable
approximation to an ideal schedule. As seen in Fig. 8.45, again for three cases covering a range of
conditions and fluid efficiency, this simple relation does indeed provide an acceptable pumping
schedule.
Effect of Treatment Volume
In an example considered in the discussion of Fig. 8.42, from the pad pump time of 20 minutes and
the time when a screenout started at 80 minutes (pad fraction, f
p
, of 0.25), it was found that the
fluid efficiency for the first 80 minutes of pumping was t55%. Also, a minimum design criteria
for future treatments in that formation was to use a pad volume equal to 25% of the total volume
to be pumped. However, this fluid efficiency of 55% is applicable for the first 80 minutes of the
job and, in general, fluid efficiency is a function of job size and will tend to decrease as pumping
time gets longer and longer. Thus for a job requiring a total pump time of about 2 hours as shown
in Fig. 8.42, the expected efficiency would be somewhat lower than 55% and the required pad per-
centage would be somewhat greater than 25%.
Fluid efficiency is related to pump time (e.g., volume and rate), fluid loss coefficient, C, and to the
fluid loss area, or r
p
, the ratio of loss area to total fracture area. While these are the primary vari-
ables governing efficiency, it is also slightly affected by fracture geometry (e.g., confined height
vs. radial fracture growth) and fluid rheology. For a general case there is no analytical solution for
fluid efficiency, however, as with the other fracturing pressure decline analyses discussed earlier,
it is possible to place certain bounds. For example, for efficiency approaching 0 (e.g., very high
fluid loss), fluid efficiency is proportional to time raised to a power
14
= 1 e
f
.
= 1 e
f
f
C
/e
f
.
c
D
( )
0 = < = 1 < ( ) , = 1 e
f
f
C
/e
f
, =
e
f
t** n / 2n 2 + ( )
5n 2 + ( )/ 82 8 + ( )
"PK"
"Radial"
Geometry
Geometry
Geometry
2n 1 + ( )/ 4n 4 + ( )
"GdK"
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Proppant/Fluid Schedule From Pressure Decline
8-65 July 1993
where 'n' is the power law exponent for a non-Newtonian fluid. 'n' generally ranges between 0.5
and 1 for common fracturing fluids, and using n = 0.75 (a typical value for crosslink gels) gives
While the range between these various possible fracture geometries is possibly significant in some
cases, it is noted that the values above are for the limited case of very high fluid loss. As efficiency
approaches 1 (e.g., no fluid loss), then the fracture geometry does not effect efficiency, and, in
the above form, efficiency is proportional to time raised to the 0 power, e.g.,
Interpolating between these limits gives a ratio of efficiencies between two different pump times
(t
2
and t
1
) as
but, generally, acceptable accuracy is obtained by simplifying the above ratio to a single relation-
ship
(8.18)
Example
As an example, consider a case where a minifrac test was pumped. The test consisted of a cross-
linked gel identical to the fluid planned for use during the propped fracture treatment. The test used
25,000 gallons (595 barrels) pumped at 25 bpm with a total pump time, t
p
, of 23.8 minutes. Frac-
ture closure was observed 28.6 minutes after shut-in, e.g., t
c
= 28.6 minutes. This gives a dimen-
sionless closure time of
And, from Fig. 8.32,
c
of 1.20 gives e
f
= 0.45 (45).
Find Actual Job Expected Efciency
Now assume that it is desired to pump an actual propped fracture treatment with a total slurry vol-
ume of 100,000 gallons and a final proppant concentration of 8 ppg (pounds of proppant per fluid
gallon). The actual treatment will also be pumped at 25 bpm, and it is important to note here that
e
f
t**
"PK"
"GdK"
"Radial"
Geometry
Geometry .
Geometry
0.357
0.214
0.411
e
f
t
0
constant 1 . = =
e
f 2
/e
f 1
( ) t
2
/t
1
( ) ** = 0.214 1 e
f 1
( )
0.411 1 e
f 1
( )
"PK"
"GdK"
"Radial"
Geometry
Geometry ,
Geometry
0.357 1 e
f 1
( )
e
f 2
/e
f 1
( ) t
2
/t
1
( )
1 e
1
( ) 3
=
c
t
c
/t
p
28.6/23.8 1.20 = = =
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-66
July 1993
while the minifrac efficiency can be corrected for the larger volume, it cannot be corrected for
rate changes, thus in order to use simply the efficiency from the minifrac, the propped stimulation
treatment must be pumped at the same rate. This gives [using Eq. (8.18)] an expected efficiency
for the actual treatment of
Treatment Pad Percentage
The actual treatment pad percentage is then found from Eq. (8.15)
and since the total expected treatment volume is 100,000 gallons, the pad stage should consist of
47,000 gallons.
Proppant Addition Schedule
The proppant schedule exponent, , is then found from
and the dimensionless proppant schedule is given by
and this equation is used to construct the simple table shown in Table 8.7, where the slurry vol-
umes shown are arbitrarily selected points which will be used to construct a curve of prop con-
centration vs. slurry volume. It is particularly important to note that the calculations are conducted
in terms of slurry volume and slurry concentration, e.g., pounds of proppant per slurry gallon, so
a conversion is necessary to the more common industry terminology of ppg (pounds of proppant
per fluid gallon).
These conversions from ppg (pounds of proppant per fluid gallon - C
fl
) to pounds of proppant per
slurry gallon (C
sl
) have been made using the formulae
and
e
f 2
/0.45 4/1 ( )
1 0.45/3 ( )
=
e
f 2
0.45 ( ) 4 ( )
0.18
0.35 35% . = = =
f
p
1 0.35 ( )
2
= 0.05 + 0.47 , =
1 e
f
f
C
/e
f
1 0.35 0.05/0.35 0.51 = = =
c
D
( )
c
Dimensionless Closure Time,
c
= t
c
/t
p
e
f
Fracture Fluid Efficiency = Fracture Volume at Shut-In (V)/Total Volume Pumped (V
p
)
E Young's Modulus of Formation (psi), Typical Values - 2x10
6
psi to 8x10
6
psi
E' Crack Opening Modulus = E/(1-
2
) (psi)
f Fraction
f
p
Pad Fraction or Pad Percentage
f
pr
Proppant Fraction of Job, V
pr
/V
p
H Total or Gross Fracture Height (ft)
H
p
Permeable or Leakoff Height (ft)
p
c
Fracture Closure Pressure (psi)
p
net
Net Fracturing Pressure (e.g., bottomhole treating pressure just outside the perforations
minus fracture closure pressure) (psi)
p
s
Net Pressure at Shut-In (e.g., ISIP - p
c
)
Porosity of Proppant Pack (typically on the order of 0.40)
Q Total Injection Rate (barrels/minute, bpm)
q
Loss
Fluid Loss Rate (bpm)
r
p
Ratio of permeable or leakoff area to total fracture area for P&K or Geertsma r
p
= H
p
/ H;
for a radial geometry r
p
is more difficult to define and is normally set = 1
Loss Ratio = efficiency/(1 - efficiency)
pr
Specific Gravity of Proppant (e.g., 2.65 gm/cc or 22 lb gal for sand)
S Fracture Stiffness for Pressure Decline Analysis
t
c
Closure Time, e.g., Shut-In Time to Fracture Closure (minutes)
t
p
Pump Time (minutes)
t
s
Shut-In Time (e.g., incremental time since pumping stopped) (minutes)
minute
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Nomenclature
8-69 July 1993
Time when an incremental element of fracture area is first exposed to fluid loss
V Fracture Volume (ft
3
)
V
Loss
Total Fluid Loss Volume During Pumping (ft
3
)
V
p
Total Slurry Volume Pumped (ft
3
)
V
pr
Total Proppant Volume Pumped (ft
3
), including porosity of proppant
V
fl
Total Fluid Volume Pumped (ft
3
)
Dimensionless Shut-In Time, t
s
/t
p
or (t-t
p
)/t
p
W Total weight of proppant pumped (pounds)
Poisson's Ratio for Formation (dimensionless), Typical Values - 0.15 to 0.25
Fluid Viscosity (centipoise)
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-70
July 1993
8.8 References
1. Godbey, J. K. and Hodges, H. D.: Pressure Measurements During Fracturing Operations, Trans., AIME, (1958)
213, 65-69.
2. Khristianovic, S. A. and Zheltov, Y. P.: Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid,
Proc. Fourth World Pet. Cong., Rome (1955) Sec. II, 579-86.
3. Perkins, T. K. Jr. and Kern, L. R.: Widths of Hydraulic Fractures, JPT (Sept. 1961) 937-49; Trans., AIME 222.
4. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: ARapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulic Induced Fractures,
JPT (Dec. 1969) 1571-81; Trans., AIME 246.
5. Veatch, R. W. and Crowell, R. F.: Joint Research/Operations Programs Accelerate Massive Hydraulic Fractur-
ing Technology, JPT (Dec. 1982), 2763-75.
6. Nolte, K. G. and Smith, M. G.: Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures, JPT (Sept. 1981), 1767-75.
7. Nolte, K. G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline, paper SPE 8341, pre-
sented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
8. Schlottman, B. W., Miller, W. K. II, and Leuders, R. K.: Massive Hydraulic Fracture Design for the East Texas
Cotton Valley Sands, paper SPE 10133, presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
9. Elbel, J. L. et al.: Stimulation Study of Cottage Grove Formation, JPT (July 1984) 1199-1205.
10. Dobkins, T. A.: Procedures, Results, and Benefits of Detailed Fracture Treatment Analysis, paper SPE 10130,
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
11. Smith, M. B.: Stimulation Design for Short, Precise Hydraulic Fractures SPEJ (June 1985) 371-79.
12. Smith, M. B., Miller, W. K. II, and Haga, J.: Tip Screenout Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable Forma-
tions, SPEFE (Feb. 1987) 95-103; Trans., AIME, 283.
13. Morris, C. W. and Sinclair, R. A.: Evaluation of Bottomhole Treatment Pressure for Geothermal Well Hydraulic
Fracture Stimulation, JPT (May 1984) 829-36.
14. Nolte, K. G.: Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules From Fracturing-Pressure Decline, SPEPE (July
1986) 255-65; Trans., AIME, 281.
15. Nolte, K. G.: A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline With Application to Three Models, SPEFE,
(Dec. 1986) 571-83.
16. Martins, J. P. and Harper, T. R.: Mini-frac Pressure Decline Analysis for Fractures Evolving From Long Perfo-
rated Intervals and Unaffected by Confining Strata, paper SPE 13869 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low-Per-
meability Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 19-22.
17. Castillo, J. L.: Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff, paper
SPE 16417, presented at the 1987 SPE/DOE Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium,.Denver, May 18-19.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
References
8-71 July 1993
18. Cooper, G. D., Nelson, S. G., and Schopper, M. D.: Comparison of Methods for Determining In-Situ Leakoff
Rate Based on Analysis With an On-Site Computer, paper SPE 13223 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
19. Warpinski, N. R.: Investigation of the Accuracy and Reliability of In Situ Stress Measurements Using Hydraulic
Fracturing in Perforated, Cased Holes, Proc., 24th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, College Station, TX,
(June 1983) 773-86.
20. McLennan, J. D. and Rogiers, J. C.: How Instantaneous are Instantaneous Shut-In Pressures, paper SPE 11064,
presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of SPE, New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 26-29.
21. Warpinski, N. R. and Teufel, L. W.: In-Situ Stresses in LowPermeability, Nonmarine Rocks, JPT, April, 1989.
22. Miller, W. K. II and Smith, M. B.: Reanalysis of the MWX-Fracture Stimulation Data from the Paludal Zone of
the Mesaverde Formation, paper SPE 19772, presented at 1989 Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, San Antonio, Tex-
as, Oct. 8-11.
23. Nordgren, R. P.: Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture, SPEJ (Aug. 1972) 306-14; Trans., AIME, 253.
24. Carter, R. D.: Appendix I to paper by C. C. Howard and C. R. Fast, Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture
Extension, presented at the 1957 ASME Spring Meeting, Mid-Continent District, Div. of Production, Tulsa,
OK, April.
25. Warpinski, N. R.: Dual Leakoff Behavior in Hydraulic Fracturing of Tight, Lenticular Gas Sands, SPE Pro-
duction Engineering (August 1990) 243.
Fracture Treating Pressure Analysis
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
8
8-72
July 1993
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
References
8-73 July 1993
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
9-1
Chapter
August 1992
9.1 Introduction
After 40 years of growth in income, we are now in a period where there will be little growth. We
have to continue to rationalize both staff and assets to reduce our operations to the size required
for expected level of (future) investment and to reduce costs so that cash flow can be maximized.
The fat, lazy days are over. We must continue to become leaner and meaner. We must improve our
efficiency. This is the charge made by the authors of a paper entitled Petroleum Reinvestment-
Is there a future for our Industry?
Doom and gloom or a challenge to be overcome? These statements bring home the importance of
properly maximizing cash flow in the management of our oil and gas properties and emphasize the
need to focus on immediate opportunities to bring about revenue improvement. Well stimulation,
either by acidizing or through hydraulic fracture stimulation, is one method available to generate,
virtually overnight, improved production revenues that will assist in our accomplishing this goal.
Well stimulation, however, is a business decision that can just as easily result in an investment loss
if not properly understood and applied.
Amoco Corporation has traditionally reinvested over 50% of it's total earnings in Amoco Produc-
tion Company (APC) for the sole purpose of developing reserves and the resulting production of
oil and gas. Over the last decade, APC has developed and applied hydraulic fracture stimulation
technology worldwide, an investment that today provides over 50% of all oil and gas produced in
our domestic U.S., Canadian and North Sea operations. Price declines in recent years have made
it increasingly difficult to justify investment in drilling, completing and stimulating wells. Low
prices have been compounded by an increased incidence of poor economic returns and project cost
overruns, as summarized in Table 9.1, suggesting better risk management procedures must be
included as a part of economic analysis and stimulation optimization. This section addresses the
methods to follow and the pitfalls to avoid when maximizing revenue from the implementation of
hydraulic fracture treatments.
Table 9.1 - Average of Gulf of Mexico Projects to 1988.
1
Production: -10%
Reserves -9%
Project Time +29%
Project Cost: +33%
Present Worth -88%
Economic Optimization of Hydraulic
Fracture Treatments
9
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction
9-2 August 1992
Economic optimization of a well stimulation treatment requires that the designer carefully balance
a large number of parameters describing the reservoir, including its fluid and rock properties, with
the inflow performance and associated cost of providing a man-made flow conduit that will pro-
duce the largest production increase at the least incremental cost. There are usually many solutions
to this problem because the different stimulation materials and their associated costs can be com-
bined in many ways to produce an optimum. The challenge facing us today is to consider all mate-
rials and sensitivities, and their associated risks, to arrive at the true optimum, a task that is by
no means trivial and is best suited to todays computer technology. Amoco Production Research
has developed an integrated fracture, reservoir, and economics program called ULTRAFRAC.
This programallows the user to assess the economic benefits and sensitivities of the fracturing pro-
cess. The following sections are some of the more important considerations to be evaluated when
optimizing stimulation treatments.
Economic Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
9
9-3
August 1992
9.2 General Economic Criteria
Provided that cash inflows may be reinvested in projects yielding some positive rate of return,
there is a benefit associated with receiving cash inflows as early as possible, and delaying expen-
ditures as long as possible. This is just a restatement that funds have time value. The magnitude
and timing of project net cash flows are important yardsticks by which to measure project perfor-
mance. Similar considerations are valid with associated costs of production.
Amoco evaluates investment projects on the basis of several standards. The most important of
these will be discussed in this section, and the merits and shortcomings of each will be outlined.
As the discussion proceeds, it will become clear that no single measure is sufficient to adequately
analyze a project and that an evaluation utilizing a variety of measures is desirable. The measures
used within Amoco are defined as follows:
1. Net Present Worth or Value (PW or PV) The sum of all future cash flows discounted to the
initial time, at a stated discount rate.
2. Incremental Present Worth or Value of the Fracture (INCPVF) The Net Present Value of a
fracture case less the present value of the unfractured case.
3. Fracture Incremental Present Worth or Value (FINCPV) The Net Present Value of a fracture
case less the present value of the preceding case. Used to show diminishing returns.
4. Profitability Index (PI) The [continuous] compound interest rate whose discount factors make
the present worth of a projects net cash flows equal to zero.
5. Discounted Return on Investment (DROI) The ratio of a projects net present worth to the
present worth of the total investments discounted at a stated rate. (The denominator is calcu-
lated after tax and overhead and includes investment tax credits and the after-tax effect of de-
preciation.) In ULTRAFRAC, DROI includes capital expenses such as well costs in addition
to fracturing costs.
6. Fracture Discounted Return on Investment (FDROI) FDROI is defined as above only cap-
ital costs such as well costs are excluded. Only the AFIT (After Federal Income Tax) fracturing
costs are used in this economic analysis.
7. Incremental Discounted Return on Investment (INCDROI) INCDROI is defined as the ratio
of the incremental present worth of the fracture cases to the incremental cost to achieve the ad-
ditional length. As a result, a DROI cutoff, consistent with Business Unit budgeting, can be
used to aid in determining the optimum fracture treatment.
8. Payout (PO) The time for the cumulative undiscounted cash flow of a project to reach zero.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
General Economic Criteria
9-4 August 1992
The Present Worth Concept
A concept which lies at the foundation of economic evaluation procedures is present worth, also
called present value (PV). While these two expressions are interchangeable and all of Amocos
other subsidiaries use the term present value, the term present worth is normally used within
Amoco Production. Present worth is abbreviated in this text as PW
i
, where i is the interest rate. The
principle is that a dollar of income is worth more to an investor, or a firm, if received now rather
than at some time in the future. This is because the dollar can be invested at some positive percent-
age rate of return (interest rate) during the intervening time.
For example, a dollar received now would, at 5% annual interest, be worth $1.05 after one year.
Hence, to be indifferent between accepting a dollar now or a certain sum of money one year in the
future, that sum of money would have to be $1.05 (assuming 5% return is the highest return avail-
able to investors). The future worth (FW) of a dollar after one year at 5% is calculated as follows:
FW = 1.00 (1 + .05)
= 1.05
After two years, if the interest were left in the account, the future worth would be:
FW = 1.00 (1 + .05) (1 + .05)
= 1.00 (1.05)
2
= 1.1025
Present worth is the value that, when invested at the given interest rate, will yield the given future
worth after the applicable number of periods. Using the previous example of $1.05 received after
a year, the present worth is $1.00 (since it would grow to the future worth of $1.05 when invested
at 5%for one year). Another way to think of present worth is the value in current dollars you would
require to make you indifferent between receiving that amount or the future worth.
The relationship of present and future worth can be stated generally as,
FW = PW (1 + i)
n
(2.1)
where FW = future worth, PW = present worth, i = interest rate (assumed constant), and n= number
of periods over which the interest rate applies.
In general terms, present worth is found by solving Eq. (2.1) for PW.
PW = FW (2.2)
The quantity
1
1 i + ( )
n
------------------
1
1 i + ( )
n
------------------
Economic Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
9
9-5
August 1992
is known as a discount factor.
The form of present worth discussed so far is known as end-of-period discrete (or periodic) dis-
counting. If one assumes that the time period over which compounding occurs is infinitesimally
short, the result is continuous discounting, the type employed Amoco. With continuous discount-
ing, the present worth is determined as follows:
(2.3)
where PW = present worth, FW = future worth, e = Exponential Function, i = Interest Rate
(assumed constant) and n = number of periods over which the interest rate applies
The use of tables and computer programs simplifies the calculation of the discount factor 1/e
ni
.
If more than one future amount, occurring at different times, is being discounted, it is necessary to
alter the equation to account for multiple cash flows. Eq. (2.4) illustrates the case of n cash flows,
each assumed to occur at year end.
(2.4)
where C
0
, C
1
, ..., C
n
= annual point-in-time cash flows for years 1 through n and DF
1
, DF
2
, ..., DF
n
= associated continuous discount factors for years 1 through n.
The discussion of present worth thus far has centered around cash flows which occur at a point in
time. More frequently, however, cash flows occur uniformly throughout a period, rather than at
year end. An example of a uniformcash flowis revenue froman oil well. The oil is not all produced
on December 31, 19xx; therefore end-of-year discounting is not appropriate. An example of a sit-
uation tailored to use end-of-period discounting might be annuity payments received at year end
for several years.
Table 9.2 summarizes the types of discounting and cash flows which exist and the applicable dis-
count factor tables, which are included, along with brief instructions, in a separate section of this
manual. Only the continuous form of discounting is utilized by Amoco and all future references to
discounting will be to that form.
Annual continuous discount factors, the type normally used by Amoco, for point-in-time cash
flows are listed in Table 9.3, and factors for uniform cash flows are listed in Table 9.4. Examples
Table 9.2 - Summary of Discounting and Cash Flows.
Type of Discounting Cash Flow Applicable Table
1. Discrete Point-in-time
Uniform
Not applicable
Not applicable
2. Continuous Point-in-time
Uniform
9.3
9.4
PW
FW
e
ni
--------- =
PW C
o
C
1
DF
1
( ) C
2
DF
2
( ) ... C
n
DF
n
( ) + + + + =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
General Economic Criteria
9-6 August 1992
of present worth calculations for both uniform and point-in-time cash flows are also provided. For
anything other than the simplest of examples, computer programs such as ULTRAFRAC and
GEM handle the calculations.
Table 9.4 also shows an example of present worth calculation. The annual $75 M project net cash
flow streams are assumed to result from a $100 M investment. Discounted cash flows are obtained
by multiplying the annual net cash flows by the appropriate discount factors. The present worth of
the project is the sum of the discounted cash flows. Present worth has been calculated at 15% dis-
count rate for point-in-time and uniform cash flows.
The significance of present worth is that, provided an investor has other investment opportunities
at the stated discount rate, he would be indifferent to accepting $81.1 M now or accepting the
undiscounted uniform cash flows over the three years of project life. In fact, the value of a firm is
frequently said to be the present worth of all of its cash flows from its various projects.
Present worth is helpful in ranking projects of the same size as illustrated by Table 9.5:
In examining these projects, it is clear that an investor would favor project A over B, because
Project B for the same investment ($1,000 M) yields $100 M less per year over the three-year
Table 9.3 Calculation of Present Worth Using Continuous Discount Factors (Amoco).
Year
Net Cash Flow
($M)
Point-in-time Cash Flows
Discount Factors @ 15%
Discounted Cash Flow
($M
0 -100 - -100
1 75 .8607 64.6
2 75 .7408 55.6
3 75 .6376 47.8
68.0 = PW
15
(Point-in-Time)
Table 9.4 - Calculation of Present Worth Using Uniform Discount Factors.
Year
Net Cash Flow
($M)
Uniform Cash Flows
Discount Factors @ 15%
Discounted Cash Flow
($M
0 -100 -
-100
0-1 75 .9286
69.6
1-2 75 .7993
59.9
2-3 75 .6879
51.6
81.1 = PW
15
(Uniform)
Economic Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
9
9-7
August 1992
project life. Project A and Project C, however, each return a total of $500 M, and the concept of
present worth aids in differentiating between them. Project C is preferred because it returns more
of its cash earlier which leads to its having a higher present worth (the incoming cash can be rein-
vested). This once again emphasizes that both the timing and magnitude of investments have to
be considered. It is interesting to note that Project B, while returning all of its investment, still has
a negative present value at both 13% and 15% discount rates.
If this firms cost of capital is 13%, it would undertake all projects with a PW
13
> 0, accepting
project A and C but rejecting B. However, if the firm were capital constrained, it would rank the
projects in order of economic attractiveness and choose those which maximize the value of the firm
within the imposed constraints.
Amoco has set a minimum investment criterion that those projects accepted must have a positive
PW
15
. Subject to the size of Amocos investment budget and manpower constraints, those
projects should be selected which maximize the present worth of the total package of projects
available.
Protability Index
Profitability Index (PI) is defined as that [continuous] compound interest rate whose discount fac-
tors make the present worth of a projects net cash flows equal to zero. PI is also referred to as the
projects internal rate of return.
The PI may also be thought of as the discount rate which sets the sum of the discounted annual
cash inflows equal to the sum of the discounted annual cash outlays. Investments normally occur
at the commencement of a project, followed by a number of years of cash inflows. Where this pat-
tern is substantially altered, there may be multiple PIs, which is a serious limitation to the use of
this technique.
Table 9.5 - Project Ranking Using Present Worth Concept.
Year
Annual Cash Flows
Project A Project B Project C
0 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000
1 500 400 600
2 500 400 600
3 500 400 300
Total 500 200 500
PW
13
163 -70 193
PW
15
120 -104 152
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
General Economic Criteria
9-8 August 1992
An example may be helpful in explaining PI. Suppose a firm is offered a project with annual end-
of-year point-in-time cash flows of $100 M for five years after an initial (time zero) investment
of $350 M. The calculation of PI for such a project is shown in Table 9.6.
Recall that the PI is that discount rate which sets the present worth of the project equal to zero.
Therefore, by interpolation,
Once the PI is calculated for a proposed project, it should be compared to the established standard.
In the current environment for Amoco, the minimum standard is 15 PI (or ). Projects
which yield less than a 15 PI should not generally be accepted. However, other considerations,
such as an interrelationship with more profitable opportunities, may lead to their acceptance.
Should Amocos supply of projects returning at least 15 PI dwindle to the point where the available
monies exceed the investment requirements for such projects, the minimumPI standard would pre-
sumably be lowered, but never less than the cost of capital. Investors would prefer that Amoco pay
out the excess funds as dividends if they can earn higher return than can be realized by plowing
the funds back into Amocos operations. Amoco might also choose to invest the funds elsewhere
within the consolidated corporation if projects in other lines of business could yield a higher PI.
Discounted Return on Investment (includes Fracture Discounted Return on Investment)
Discounted Return on Investment (DROI) is the ratio of a projects net present worth to the present
worth of the total investments (after tax and overhead and including investment tax credits and the
after-tax effects of depreciation), discounted at some rate. The denominator is calculated as fol-
lows:
Table 9.6 - Calculation of Protability Index.
Time (years) Cash Flow ($M)
Present Worth @ 12% Present Worth @ 14%
Discount
Factors Present Value
Discount
Factors Present Value
0 -350 - -350.0 - -350.0
1 100 .8869 88.7 .8694 86.9
2 100 .7866 78.7 .7558 75.6
3 100 .6977 69.8 .6570 65.7
4 100 .6188 69.9 .5712 57.1
5 100 .5488 54.9 .4966 59.7
+4.0 -15.0
PI
4
19
------ x 14% 12% ( ) 12% + =
PI 12.4 approximately =
PW
15
0
Economic Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
9
9-9
August 1992
Discounted PW of Cash Investment, After Tax =
+ (Capitalized Part of Investment), discounted at i percent
+ 0.5 (Expensed Part of Investment), discounted at i percent
+ 0.5 (0.2 x Investment), discounted at i percent
- 0.5 (Depreciation), discounted at i percent
- (Investment Tax Credit), discounted at i percent
where 0.5 = Tax Rate and 0.2 x Investment = Overhead
DROI is a measure of capital efficiency which may be viewed as the amount of after-tax present
worth generated per dollar of discounted investment. It is only used within Amoco Productions
domestic operations. Differing fiscal regimes in foreign countries make it difficult to define the
denominator of the expression on a consistent basis, so the measure is not useful to any subsidiary
having operations outside the United States. To understand how DROI is useful in economic eval-
uations, it may be worthwhile first to review other evaluation criteria, and the circumstances under
which they are useful. Some of their shortcomings will illustrate the utility of DROI.
When considering two mutually exclusive projects with the same investment, the one with the
higher present worth should be accepted. Likewise, when considering an entire collection of poten-
tial projects with different investment requirements (such as during budget preparation), the
present worth of the total package should be maximized. The decision as to which projects to
include and which to reject is complicated by the fact that not all projects offering a given present
value require an equal capital investment. DROI is a useful tool for dealing with this problem, as
illustrated by the following group, in Table 9.7, of potential projects available to a firm:
Table 9.7 - Utility of DROI in Project Ranking.
Project
Current Year
Investment
($MM)
After-tax PW
15
Investment
($MM) PI
PW
15
($MM) DROI
15
*
A 12 6 21 9 1.50
B 8 4 17 5 1.25
C 4 2 18 4 2.00
D 6 3 19 2 0.67
E 2 1 16 3 3.00
F 2 1 20 2 2.00
G 8 4 14 -2 -.50
* Assumes these are after-tax numbers and that no overhead, tax credits, or depreciation
credits exist.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
General Economic Criteria
9-10 August 1992
Assume that this years capital budget allows $20 MM of expenditures. Since the projects return-
ing at least 15 PI exceed the available funds, some projects must be foregone. Under these condi-
tions, the firm should rank its projects in such a way as to maximize the present worth of the
package of projects. Ranking these projects on the basis of the highest PW
15
results in Projects A
and B being selected with a combined PW
15
of $14 MM. Ranking these projects on the basis of PI
results in the selection of projects A, F, and D with a combined PW
15
of 9 + 2 + 2 = $13 MM for
the total $20 MM investment. Ranking on the basis of highest DROI
15
yields projects E, C, F, and
Afor a combined PW
15
of 3 + 4 + 2 + 9 = $18 MMfor the $20 MMinvestment, which is consistent
with the goal of maximizing PW
15
of the package of projects given the spending limitations.
The PW method of ranking fails in the situation described above because of the different invest-
ments required to yield a given present worth. The PI method also fails to rank projects since it
implies an ability to reinvest cash thrown off by a project at the PI rate. Since this is not generally
the case, the PI method does not compare projects on a consistent basis.
In summary, DROI is of use in ranking projects of different investment magnitudes. It takes into
account the time value of money and it also measure a projects susceptibility to risk. In the above
example, a DROI
15
of 1.50 is the minimum which would be accepted. Amoco in fact has no rigid
minimum DROI criterion. In general, where a 15 PI is Amocos minimum investment standard, a
DROI
15
would be determined and used to rank the available investment projects. A DROI
15
equal
to zero will indicate that the 15 PI standard has been met. While DROI provides a consistent
method of ranking projects, other factors such as payout, ROI, and maximum cash out-of-pocket
may be considered depending upon the investment climate.
Payout
Payout (PO) is defined as the length of time taken for the cumulative cash flowof a project to reach
zero. For some projects payout provides a rough measure of risk, by indicating how long the
investment capital is exposed. Amoco has no specific payout time criterion. When neither present
worth, PI nor DROI distinguishes between two mutually exclusive projects, the one with the
shorter payout is generally preferred.
The major shortcoming of the payout standard is that it fails to account for the timing of cash flows,
or to recognize cash flows after payout. If, for example, most of the project life occurs after payout,
later cash flows are not considered by the payout criterion. Table 9.8 summarizes a comparison of
two projects which have identical payouts but differ in present worth and illustrates howthe timing
of cash flow is ignored by payout.
When used in combination with PI and present worth, payout does serve a useful purpose. Not only
does it indicate how long investment capital is at risk, but it also functions as a rough measure of
liquidity. For instance, if Amocos management decided that all available capital was to be needed
next year for a major expenditure, e.g., a large acquisition, then payout time could be the determin-
ing factor in ranking economically qualified projects.
Economic Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
9
9-11
August 1992
Return on Investment
Return on Investment (ROI) is defined as the ratio of the undiscounted cumulative net cash flow
of a project to the total investments (after tax and overhead and including investment and depreci-
ation tax credits). The ROI calculation is performed in the same manner as the DROI calculation
(shown on page 9-8) with the exception that all values are undiscounted in the ROI equation. When
comparing project with similar cash flow patterns, such as a number of individual development
drilling wells, ROI, in combination with payout, can provide an indication of project attractive-
ness.
Like payout, however, ROI does not account for the time value of money. This is illustrated by the
two projects in Table 9.9 which are identical with regard to ROI. When evaluated on a present
worth basis, which accounts for the time value of money, Project B is clearly preferred.
Another characteristic of ROI, which may be misleading, is that the measure increases dramati-
cally with an increase in project life. The example in Table 9.10 clearly demonstrates this effect
for five projects, each of which shows a 15 PI on a single $1,000 time zero investment. The cash
return is the total amount of cash to be returned to the investor at the end of the project.
All five projects are equally attractive assuming the ability to reinvest the cash in similar 15 PI
opportunities over the lives of the projects.
Amoco has no minimum ROI standard, for reasons which are apparent from the above example.
The high ROI, long-life project does have the advantage that the company does not have to go out
and find a 15%reinvestment opportunity quite as soon, but as long as it is assumed that such oppor-
tunity can be found, there is no need for a minimum ROI. Requiring minimum ROIs indicates that
the company does not have the ability to find reinvestment opportunities. As a result, ROI is not
included in ULTRAFRAC.
Table 9.8 - Pitfalls of Optimizing Using Payout.
Year
Net Cash Flow
Project A Project B
0 -$2000 -$2000
1 1500 1000
2 500 1000
3 1000 1000
PW
15
= $ 299 $ 240
PI = 23.3 21.0
PO = 2.0 years 2.0 years
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
General Economic Criteria
9-12 August 1992
Incremental Economics
The PI standard should be employed to qualify projects for acceptance, but not to select between
mutually exclusive projects, i.e., projects such that either Project A or Project B may be under-
taken, but not both.
Incremental economics should be run in this case. If both projects return positive cash flows, there
is an opportunity cost in opting for one over the other. Hence, the benefit to the firm, in terms of
increased cash flow, is the difference (or increment) between the two cash flows.
An importance use of incremental economics is shown by the example below (Table 9.11). The
two alternatives represent the options of developing or dropping a certain lease. Note that because
Alternative A generates tax benefits with no cash expenditures, the resulting PI is infinite.
Examining either mutually exclusive option in isolation can result in an incorrect decision. In the
example, while Alternative A provides a positive PW
15
due to the benefit of being able to write off
Table 9.9 - Pitfalls of Optimizing Using ROI.
Year Project A Project B
0 -200 -200
1 100 150
2 100 150
3 150 100
4 150 100
Total 300 300
ROI 1.5 1.5
PW
15
138.1 158.9
Table 9.10 - ROI and Project Life Relationship.
Project Life
(years)
Cash Return
($) PI ROI
1 1,162 15 0.16
5 2,117 15 1.12
10 4,482 15 3.48
20 20,089 15 19.09
50 1,808,042 15 1,807.04
Economic Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
9
9-13
August 1992
the asset on current taxes, it is less than the PW
15
of Alternative B. On the other hand, deciding on
Alternative B means foregoing the option of dropping the lease (an opportunity cost). The net ben-
efit to Amoco of developing would not be $3.5 MM, but rather $0.5 million.
When considering development of a lease, it is important to examine the drop alternative since
doing nothing is generally a poor alternative. Dropping the lease at least has the advantage of tax
write-offs. A development vs. drop analysis is ideally handled by incremental economics, as in the
above example. On occasion, the alternatives may both have negative (but different) PW
15
s, but
an incremental PW for one alternative over the other will always be positive.
Mutual exclusivity frequently gives rise to multiple PIs since the cumulative incremental cash flow
may have several sign reversals. In that case, the PW vs. discount rate profile would cross the hor-
izontal axis (PW=0) more than once (Table 9.12). The following example illustrates this situation.
Table 9.11 - Incremental Economics.
Alternative A
(Drop)
Alternative B
(Develop)
PI 19
PW
15
($MM) 3 3.5
Table 9.12 - Illustration of Multiple or Dual PI.
Year
Project A
(M$)
Investment Annual Cash Flows
Cumulative
Incremental
Project B
(M$)
Incremental
(B)-(A)
0 -400 -500 -100 -100
0-1 75 150 75 -25
1-2 100 150 50 25
2-3 100 150 50 75
3-4 125 150 25 100
4-5 100 150 50 150
5-6 50 0 -50 100
6-7 50 0 -50 50
7-8 25 0 -25 25
8-9 25 0 -25 0
9-10 20 0 -20 -20
Total 270 250 -20 -20
F
C
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-9 September 1992
1. Run static temperature log over interval to be fractured [approximately 1,000 ft above pay to
Plug Back Total Depth (PBTD)] at 20-30 ft/min.
2. Run tubing open-ended to 20-25 ft above PBTD.
3. Circulate water down tubing and up the annulus at maximum possible rate within pressure lim-
itations for at least 3-4 hours. Friction reducer may be added to the water to reduce pumping
pressure. The water may be recirculated if a significant temperature differential exists between
reservoir temperature and the outlet temperature of the water at the surface. Cold water should
be added to the inlet stream when the outlet temperature rises by 25% of the initial reservoir:
inlet temperature differential.
4. Trip in with temperature tool to 1,000 ft above the pay interval.
Fig. 10.5 - Effect of Wellbore & Completion.
11
INJECTION
CURVE
INJECTION TIME
2100
DAYS
150
DAYS
48 HR
SI
11 DIA
HOLE
INJECTION ZONE
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
TEMPERATURE F
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
INJECTION
CURVE
HOURS SHUT-IN
3
12
48
CEMENT
14 DIA
HOLE
INJECTION ZONE
TEMPERATURE F
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-10 September 1992
5. Log downward at a speed of 20-30 ft/min.
6. Pull tool to 1,000 ft above pay.
7. Repeat logging runs every 30-45 minutes until temperature anomalies are well developed, usu-
ally 3-5 logging runs.
This technique has shown more success in some areas than others. Still, in new areas, the test may
be run to verify whether it shows potential to increase the accuracy of postfrac temperature log in-
terpretation.
Perforating and Permeability Determination
The interval to be stimulated should be perforated with a casing gun at a minimum density of four
shots per expected bpm fracturing injection rate, using guns with 90 or 120 phasing.
Perforating with many large holes will reduce perforation friction pressure and excessive shear on
the frac fluids. Perforating out of phase decreases the likelihood of the perforation being oriented
in a line at a high angle to the fracture azimuth, as shown in Fig. 10.6, and therefore reduces friction
pressure and shear between the wellbore and fracture. This method of perforating also affords a
better flow path to the wellbore during bottomhole pressure buildup and may reduce the need to
acidize the zone to attain an adequate flowrate for obtaining a buildup. If possible, do not stimulate
or breakdown the perforations prior to flow testing.
Fig. 10.6 - The Effect of Zero Degree Phasing Perforations on a Fracture Treatment.
Narrow
Gap Vertical
Fracture
min
max
Cement
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-11 September 1992
Better results are obtained in the minifrac and fracture treatment analysis if only one pay zone is
perforated. The analysis of net pressure is complicated by fracturing multiple zones at the same
time, particularly if the zones are separated by sufficient thicknesses of confining beds to allow the
propagation of two or more fractures at the same time.
When closure stress tests are performed in shales to measure the closure stress of bounding layers,
experience has indicated that high density perforating with large charges could compress the shale
around the perforation tunnel. This added stress to the rock has made breakdown impossible in
some cases. Little is known at this time about the best method for perforating shales for stress test-
ing and further field research testing is required in this area.
A bottomhole pressure buildup test should be run to determine formation flow capacity. The for-
mation permeability is used to determine optimum fracture length, to set limits on the fluid loss
coefficient to be used for designing the fracture stimulation, for improving the accuracy of post-
fracturing performance prediction, and for analyzing postfrac buildup tests for fracture length and
conductivity.
Bottomhole Treating Pressure Measurement
Three tests require the measurement of BottomHole Treating Pressure (BHTP): closure stress tests
to establish the base fracturing pressure, minifracs to determine the mechanics of fracture growth
and to estimate fluid loss coefficient, and fracture stimulation BHTP analysis to determine the me-
chanics of fracture growth and to evaluate the treatment. In all cases, the pressure data needed is
the pressure at the perforations to eliminate tubing friction pressure as a factor. To date, a fool-
proof technique has not been developed to accurately account for all variables affecting friction
pressure to allow the subtraction of friction pressure from surface treating pressures to yield
BHTP. Extensive work has been performed in this area by the industry, but at best the results are
only reliable about 50% of the time.
Three techniques are recommended for measuring BHTP.
12
Fig. 10.7 shows wellbore schematics
for executing these procedures. The first requires running tubing open-ended (without a packer)
and pumping down either the tubing or annulus. The other side is then static, and pressures at the
surface on the static side are a direct reflection of BHTP, corrected for hydrostatic pressure. The
second technique involves the use of a surface readout pressure gauge mounted in a side pocket
mandrel, strapping the electric line to the outside of the tubing. The third technique employs a
downhole recording pressure bomb placed into a simple mandrel below a packer. With this tech-
nique, actual BHTP are recorded, but the data cannot be accessed until after the treatment. For the
two procedures where BHTP is measured in real-time, the stimulation service companies can pro-
vide on-site computer vans which facilitate quick manipulation of the prefrac test and/or main
treatment data for plotting to make on-site judgmental decisions.
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-12 September 1992
Procedure for Measurement of Static Pressure Tubing/Annulus
Run tubing open ended (without packer) to within 100 ft of the perforations. When pumping be-
gins, tubing and annular pressure will be continuously recorded. If pumping down the tubing, the
annular pressure is a direct reflection of BHP, with a correction for hydrostatic head. Any gas on
the static side (tubing or annulus) should be circulated out of the hole so that the pressure at the
surface will reflect true bottomhole treating pressures. Gas bubbles in the static fluid column will
(1) alter the hydrostatic head of the fluid and (2) dampen the pressure response being transmitted
through the fluid as the gas compresses and expands with changing pressure. Collect four water
samples for determination of specific gravity at one-third points (beginning, one-third, two-thirds,
and end) of the total volume used to load and circulate the hole. Since BHTP must be corrected for
hydrostatic head to derive bottomhole closure stress, an accurate fluid density determination is de-
sirable.
Procedure for Recording Downhole with Surface Readout
Prior to running tubing for any of the BHTP tests, a side pocket mandrel is placed in the tubing
string just above the packer. A port from the side pocket mandrel to the inside of the tubing allows
measurement of pressure by a pressure gauge in the mandrel. The wireline for the pressure gauge
is strapped to the tubing as the string is run in the hole. The wireline is connected to the pressure
bomb through an electrical port which is an integral part of the side pocket mandrel.
Fig. 10.7 - BHTP Measurement.
P
t
Q
t
P
a
Q
a
Q
t
- 0
P
t
- BHP-P
n
or
Q
a
- 0
P
a
- BHP-P
n
WIRELINE
SIDE POCKET
MANDRIL
PRESSURE
SENSOR
MANDRIL
PORT
PACKER
Q
Q
PACKER
PERFORATED
SUB
(BLAST JOINT)
PRESSURE
BOMB
SEATING
NIPPLE
NO-GO NIPPLE
(a) (b) (c)
Open-ended Tubing Downhole Recorder
With Surface Readout
Downhole Pressure
Measurement
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-13 September 1992
Procedure for Downhole Pressure Measurement
Prior to running tubing and packer a special mandrel must be constructed in which to set a pressure
bomb. The mandrel consists of (from bottom to top) a joint of tubing with a NO-GO nipple at
the bottom, a seating nipple, a perforated sub (usually a blast joint) and a pup joint for tailpipe. A
downhole recording pressure bomb is set into the seating nipple with a slick line, and the treatment
pumped down tubing and out the perforated sub. Pressures at the bottomof the string are then mea-
sured by the bomb.
To ensure the mandrel assembly does not cause increased fluid shear during the treatment, (1) the
perforated subs should be prepared such that the perforation area is adequate to yield near zero per-
foration friction, and (2) the outside diameter of the assembly should not exceed the outer diameter
of the tubing to provide adequate annular space between the assembly and casing. Probably the
easiest and least expensive way to prepare the perforated sub is to have the holes drilled in a ma-
chine shop. This ensures all holes are open, large and properly spaced.
After the fracture treatment, the pressure bomb may be retrieved with a slick line by latching onto
a fishing neck on top of the bomb or by pulling the tubing string.
Pressure Measurement Devices
A number of service companies are equipped to accurately record treating pressures. Accurate
pressure measurements are a must. The minimum pressure/time resolution for minifrac and frac-
ture treatment analysis is pressure to the nearest 10 psi and data acquisition once per minute. For
closure stress tests, pressure resolution to the nearest 1 psi and 10 sec data acquisition is usually
adequate. Fracturing service company pressure transducers have proven to be too unreliable for
this type of work. Aside from the resolution of the transducers, fracturing company equipment is
often not accurately calibrated and is prone to failure. In cases where highly accurate pressure de-
vices have been used to independently monitor the same pressures as the service companies, the
two pressure recordings commonly differed by 100-500 psi. This level of accuracy is generally un-
acceptable for this type of analysis.
Closure Stress Tests
Closure stress is measured to determine the minimum pressure necessary to sustain a fracture, to
allowdetermination of net fracture pressure during a minifrac and fracture stimulation, and to eval-
uate proppant strength requirements. In the analysis of bottomhole treating pressures while frac-
turing, closure pressure is analogous to the flowing bottomhole pressure measured in pressure
transient tests; i.e., it is a base pressure above which pressure analysis is performed.
Closure stress is determined by pumping a volume of fluid at a rate sufficient to create a fracture,
and then allowing the fracture to close either by shutting-in the well and allowing pressure to de-
cline to below closure pressure, or by flowing the well back until pressure is reduced to below clo-
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-14 September 1992
sure pressure.
12
In either case, closure pressure is identified by a change in the pressure decline
characteristics as the fracture closes. Either test should be preceded by a step-rate test to determine
extension pressure, which should be within about 100 psi of closure pressure. The step-rate test
will also assure that a fracture exists before the closure test is attempted. Fig. 10.8 shows a typical
step-rate test plot. The time step at each rate should be constant, e.g., 2 minute intervals.
To create the fracture requires that a sufficient volume of fluid be pumped at a sufficient rate. In
practically all cases, pumping for 10-20 minutes at 10 bpm has proven to be adequate; but, depend-
ing on the results of the step-rate test, these guidelines may be altered. In low permeability, low
leakoff formations 50 bbls at 5 bpm may be sufficient.
Any fluid, which is compatible with the formation rock and fluids, may be used for the tests. Gen-
erally whatever base fluid is to be used for the fracture stimulation is used for the closure stress
test: produced formation water, 2% KCl water, etc.
Determination of closure pressure from shut-in pressure declines is operationally very simple. The
well is left shut-in until pressure declines to a point at which closure pressure can be identified as
shown in Fig. 10.9. This method of determining closure pressure is most appropriate for high per-
meability formations which close quickly. In this type formation, closure would occur almost in-
stantly during a flowback test making identification of closure pressure difficult. The data, during
a shut-in decline test, should be plotted real-time, if possible, to determine the length of shut-in
time. The decline data can also be plotted on a Horner type plot, Fig. 10.9, to identify radial flow
and, thus, ensure the fracture has closed.
13
Also, this plot can be used to estimate the near wellbore
reservoir pressure, p*. To ascertain the length of shut-in time may require a trial test, followed
by subsequent tests. The number of tests performed will depend on the agreement of closure pres-
sures picked. If good agreement is evident, only 2-3 tests may be required. It has been noted that
in liquid filled reservoirs closure pressure increases with each subsequent test due to an increase
in pore pressure. When this occurs, the earlier test results are probably most representative of for-
Fig. 10.8 - Step-Rate Test.
I
N
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
R
A
T
E
TIME INJECTION RATE
FRACTURE
EXTENION PRESS
B
O
T
T
O
M
H
O
L
E
P
R
E
S
S
.
A
T
S
T
E
P
E
N
D
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-15 September 1992
mation closure and should be used to calculate net pressure during the minifrac and fracture treat-
ment.
Closure stress determination from flowback pressures is only slightly more complicated than a
shut-in decline test and is more conducive for low to moderate permeability formations, which
would require extensive monitoring periods during a shut-in decline test. The flowback rate is de-
termined by the fluid loss characteristics of the formation and the surface pressure; the purpose of
the flowback being to flow back at a rate on the order of the rate at which fluid is being lost to the
formation. For this flow back rate, a characteristic reverse curvature occurs in the pressure decline
at closure pressure as shown on Curve b in Fig. 10.11. A suggested initial flowback rate is 1-2
bpm. The proper flowback rate is usually determined by trial and error on the first tests, flowing
back at different rates until the correct flow back rate is found and a good test is obtained.
To control the flowback rate, a manifold similar to that shown in Fig. 10.12 is required. An adjust-
able choke, gate valve, or automatic constant flow regulator (e.g., manufactured by Oilmaster - se-
Fig. 10.9 - Pump-In/Shut-In Decline. Fig. 10.10 - Pump-In/Shut-In Decline.
Fig. 10.11 - Pump-In/Flowback.
SHUT-IN DECLINE
POSSIBILITIES
CLOSURE
PRESSURE
B
O
T
T
O
M
H
O
L
E
P
R
E
S
S
t
si
or t
i
+ t
si
t
si
= SHUT-IN TIME
ti = INJECTION TIME
INTO FRACTURE
P*
START
RADIAL
B
O
T
T
O
M
H
O
L
E
P
R
E
S
S
LOG (t
si
+t
i
) / t
si
t
si
= SHUT-IN TIME
t
i
= INJECTION TIME
= INTO FRACTURE
PUMP IN /
FLOWBACK
a
b
c
p
c
TIME
B
O
T
T
O
M
H
O
L
E
P
R
E
S
S
a - RATE TOO LOW
b - CORRECT RATE FOR
p
c
- CLOSURE PRESS AT
CURVATURE REVERSAL
FROM (+) TO (-)
c - RATE TOO HIGH
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-16 September 1992
rial no. 280-390) should be installed downstream of a 1-inch and/or 2-inch flowmeter(s). When
selecting a flowmeter for measuring the flowback rate, one must keep in mind the rate range of the
meter used. Service companies tend to recommend, and will usually supply, a 2-inch turbine meter.
Experience has shown that it is difficult to impossible to measure flowback rates of 1-2 bpm with
meters of this size. The best choice seems to be a 1-1.5 inch turbine meter with digital readout in
bpm. Digital readout boxes, showing flowback rate, should be positioned near the valve or choke
for ease, accuracy, and quickness of adjustment. To minimize the adjustment of this valve or choke
from test to test, a full opening gate valve or Lo-Torque valve should also be placed between the
wellhead and flowmeter(s). This valve can be used to open and close the flowback system without
having to fully close the valve downstream of the flowmeter(s).
The following procedure is recommended for closure stress tests in low to moderate permeability
formations:
1. Since real-time data is necessary, either open-ended tubing or a downhole pressure recorder
with a surface readout is required to obtain BHP. In some cases, surface pressures may be suf-
ficient. Pressures and rates should be monitored and recorded continuously throughout the
tests.
2. Perform step-rate test to determine extension pressure and the minimum injection rate re-
quired to fracture the formation. Utilize the step-rate test as a pump-in/flowback test, flowing
the well back at a constant rate of 2 bpm. Note: In latter portion of pump-in, the injection rate
should be increased by an equivalent rate to the planned flowback rate. At the same time, the
flowback manifold should be opened and the flowback rate set prior to shutting down injection.
The shutdown should be slow, i.e., in 10-15 seconds be pumping at 0.5 bpm, then shutdown
completely. This will prevent fluid hammer effects in the wellbore, which could distort test
results.
3. Flowback at a constant rate until the BHP approaches reservoir pressure. To keep the flowback
rate constant will require constant adjustment to the valve as the surface pressure decreases.
Fig. 10.12 - Pump-In/Flowback.
WELLHEAD
FLOWBACK
LINE
GATE VALVE
OR LO-TORQUE
VALVE
1
FLOWMETER
2
FLOWMETER
DIGITAL READOUT
DISPOSAL
PIT
ADJUSTABLE CHOKE
OR GATE VALUE
DIGITAL READOUT
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-17 September 1992
4. Based on the required injection rate, perform pump-in/flowback test by injecting fluid for a
minimum of 10 minutes, e.g., if rate = 5 bpm, pump 50 bbls. Flowback using procedure in
Steps 2 and 3 above. Constant flowback rate may have to be increased or decreased from the
2 bpm in Step 2 depending on the results from Step 3. Fig. 10.11 shows examples of too high
and too low flowback rates.
5. Repeat Step 4 until a repeatable closure pressure is established.
6. Perform pump-in/shut-in decline using the same volume and rate determined above. Record
pressure decline until pressure falls well below the closure pressure determined above. Do not
flowback during this step.
Note: In formations with relatively high permeability (>0.1 md), acid ISIPs may closely approxi-
mate closure stress, if the acid jobs are small, pump rates are low (yet high enough to create a frac-
ture), and nitrogen or CO
2
are not mixed with the acid.
14
This will yield a first estimate of closure
stress in most cases and will set an upper limit for closure stress.
Minifracs
Minifracs or Calibration Treatments are pumped to obtain information on the mechanics of frac-
ture propagation during the small treatment (net fracture pressures, height growth or confinement,
etc.), and to collect data for determination of fracture geometry, time for the fracture to close, and
fluid loss coefficient.
15
This test consists of pumping a relatively small volume of fluid, i.e.,
10-20% of the main fracture treatment depending on its size, using the main treatment fluid system
and pumping at the expected main treatment injection rate. During and after the minifrac, BHTP
and the shut-in pressure decline is monitored and recorded.
The following procedure is recommended to perform the minifrac:
1. Batch mix the required amount of fracturing fluid. Batch mixing is required for gel consistency
and to minimize friction pressure variations throughout the test.
2. One of the BHP measurement techniques described previously on page 10-11 should be used
for measuring pumping and shut-in decline pressures. Tubing pressure and casing pressure
should be recorded by the fracturing service company. In addition, the wellhead should be
rigged with a lubricator as described under Temperature Profiles.
3. Pump minifrac at expected main treatment rate (constant rate throughout test). Record all pres-
sures and rates continuously throughout the job.
4. Shut down and record pressure decline for as long as required until the pressure bleeds off to
well below the closure stress value previously determined by the closure stress test.
Fracture geometry can be evaluated from a Nolte-Smith Log-Log plot of net fracturing pressure
(BHTP - closure pressure) vs. pump time as discussed previously in Chap 8. Design parameters,
including the fluid loss coefficient, can be determined using the pressure decline analysis which is
also presented in the Fracturing Pressure Analysis Section.
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-18 September 1992
Postfrac Logging Program
Temperature Decay Profiles
Temperature decay profile surveys should be run as soon as possible after a minifrac without in-
terfering with the collection of pressure decline data. If bottomhole pressure is measured via a stat-
ic tubing string, the lubricator can be rigged up on the wellhead ahead of time, and the closure
stress tests and minifrac can be pumped through a wing valve or T-connection belowthe lubricator.
The temperature tool is run in the lubricator before the job and isolated from the wellbore with a
valve while pumping.
If a wireline pressure gauge is run during the prefrac tests, the pressure decline data collection
should be completed and the pressure gauge removed prior to installing and running the tempera-
ture tool. If bottomhole pressure is measured via a static open-ended tubing string, the temperature
tool should not be run until after the pressure decline since running the tool will distort the pressure
data.
A minimum of three logging runs should be made at intervals of 45 minutes from the start of each
run. No backflow from the well should be allowed prior to or during temperature profiling. The
logs should be run from several hundred ft above the pay interval to several hundred ft below the
fracture bottom or plug back Total Depth (TD), logging down at a speed of about 20 ft/minute. It
is the Amoco engineer's responsibility to see that the logging company records the necessary data
on the log heading, including fluid type and volume pumped, total pump time, times minifrac start-
ed and ended, and fluid surface temperature.
This same procedure also applies to temperature decay profile surveys run after the main fracture
treatment.
Postfrac Temperature Log Interpretation
After a minifrac or fracture treatment, heat transfer will occur above the treated zone by radial heat
conduction, while over the fracture faces, heat transfer will be by linear flow. Ideally, across these
two areas temperature will recover at different rates following the end of pumping, causing a tem-
perature anomaly to develop which identifies the fractured zone. Unfortunately, this ideal situation
rarely occurs, making misinterpretation of postfrac temperature logs all too common.
As discussed earlier on page 10-8, a static base temperature log and cold water circulation survey
may be run to determine the temperature gradient and identify anomalies caused by formation
changes, the wellbore, and the completion. Fig. 10.13 shows the conductivity effects from differ-
ent formations on both pre and postfrac logs.
11
Fig. 10.5, shown previously, shows how a washout
behind casing will create a cool anomaly which may be interpreted as a fractured zone. On the oth-
er hand, a washout completely filled with cement will insulate the wellbore and create a hot nose
on the log. Also, a change in tubular diameter, such as the bottom of tubing or casing can cause an
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-19 September 1992
offset in the log. All of the above anomalies can be detected with the base temperature log and
subtracted out of the postfrac log interpretation.
Fig. 10.14 shows a warm anomaly or hot nose above the fractured zone and the obvious prob-
lems associated with picking the fracture top.
11
It has been theorized that this is caused by fluid
movement after shut-in and that the hot nose is part of the fracture height.
Temperature crossovers are often seen below the perforated interval from one logging run to an-
other. Below the perforations, the wellbore is filled with stagnant, hot fluid; and any downward
fracture growth will place cooler fluid outside the casing than inside. Thus, heat flow will be in the
opposite direction from that across and above the fractured zone and the wellbore may cool down
with time. This often results in a temperature crossover, as seen in Fig. 10.15, which can be a
good indicator of the bottom of the created fracture.
Since temperature logs are shallow investigative tools, they only see the fracture at or near the
wellbore. If the created fracture is not vertical, but dipping at an angle somewhere between true
vertical and true horizontal, temperature logs will not provide a meaningful interpretation of the
fractured interval as illustrated in Fig. 10.16. This same problem occurs when the fracture is ver-
tical and the wellbore is deviated. Thus, under these circumstances temperature logs are, at best,
poor indicators of fracture growth.
Fig. 10.13 - Pre and Postfrac Temperature
Logs Showing Thermal Conductivity
Effects.
Fig. 10.14 - Temperature Log Showing
Warm Anomaly Above Treatment Zone.
8800
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10200
10400
PERFS
10000
80 93 108 121 135
175 200 225 250 275
F
TEMPERATURE
3170
3110
3050
2990
2930
2870
2810
2750
2690
STATIC
LOG
PRE FRAC
PROFILE
THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY
EFFECTS
POST FRAC
PROFILE
FRACTURE TOP PROFILES
SEPARATE
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
TOP
POST FRAC
TEMP LOG
TOP?
TOP?
3750
3720
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
PERFS
190 200 210
TEMPERATURE
88 93 98
C
GR
SP
12200
12300
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-20 September 1992
In a well which goes on vacuum after a stimulation, the falling fluid level will continually carry
warm fluid down into the fractured zone, obscuring the temperature anomaly. This is possible in
injection well stimulations and on pumping wells with low reservoir pressure. In such cases, the
fluid level should be allowed to stabilize prior to running the logs.
Fig. 10.15 - Crossover Below Perfs.
Fig. 10.16 - Fracture - Wellbore Communication.
#1
#4
4
1
TOP
TEMP
LOG
GR
Fracture Communication
With Wellbore
Vertical Fracture
Straight Wellbore
Dipping Fracture
Or Deviated Wellbore
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-21 September 1992
Postfrac Gamma Ray Logs
In addition to temperature logging, postfrac gamma ray logs are often run to evaluate fracture
height. Fracturing proppant is tagged with radioactive-traced proppant, the tracer concentrations,
shown in Table 9.1, have proven to give good results:
16
Noting the variation in half-lives, a postfrac gamma ray log should be run early in the half-life of
the tracer used. Also, for the most definitive results with regard to fracture height, the tagged ma-
terial should be added throughout the stimulation.
One advantage of gamma-ray over temperature logs is that they do not need to be run immediately
after a stimulation, allowing wellbore fill below perforations to be removed before logging. How-
ever, the other restrictions on the temperature logs apply equally to radioactivity logs - that is they
are shallow investigative tools (shallower, even, than temperature logs), the response is propor-
tional to fracture width, and the wellbore and completion can effect the resultant log profile. Thus
while the two logs are often used in combination, the potential exists for them to confirm one an-
other and still not yield reliable results.
One disadvantage of radioactivity logs is their inability to distinguish between a fracture and a
small channel behind casing. The temperature response due to a small amount of flow in a channel
or annular space behind casing may not alter the radial flow heat conduction around unfractured
portions of the wellbore and does not affect the temperature logs. However, any material deposited
in a channel is indistinguishable from tagged material in a fracture.
Fig. 10.17a shows a good example of pre and postfrac gamma ray logs.
11
The radioactive material
indicates the top and bottom of the fracture and correlates well with the postfrac temperature log.
A second example, shown in Fig. 10.17b, utilized radioactive material in only the later pact of the
fracture treatment, thus radioactive material showed up only through a portion of the fracture.
11
In
this same figure, radioactive material shows up across the hot nose indicating this to be, in fact,
part of the fracture height.
Fracture Azimuth Determination
Currently, the four most common techniques available for determining fracture azimuth include
tiltmeters, borehole geophones, oriented core, and borehole geometry. The two most widely ac-
Table 9.1 - Tracer Concentrations.
Tracer Half-Life
Recommended
Concentration
Iodine 131 8 days 2 mc/10,000 lbs
Iridium 192 74 days 1 mc/10,000 lbs
Scandium 46 85 days 0.5 mc/10,000 lbs
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-22 September 1992
cepted techniques are tiltmeters and geophones, with increasing acceptance of oriented core anal-
ysis generated through recent consistent results from strain relaxation measurements.
Tiltmeters
Tiltmeters are highly sophisticated, extremely accurate bi-axial instruments which utilize bubble
sensors to measure the change in angle of a surface. These devices were originally developed to
aim intercontinental missiles, and were later employed by the U.S. Geological Survey for use in
the study of earth movements associated with earthquakes and volcanic activity. The use of tiltme-
ters to monitor hydraulic fractures, at depths up to 10,000 ft, is based on the assumption that the
earth will respond in a more or less elastic manner to deformations caused by opening a hydrau-
lic fracture. In that case, the surface of the earth will deform in a predictable manner and measure-
ments of this deformation can be interpreted to obtain data with respect to fracture geometry.
17,18,19
Fig. 10.18 illustrates surface deformations associated with fractures of several orientations.
A typical tiltmeter array consists of 12-16 instruments evenly spaced radially around the well, at a
distance of about 0.4 times the depth of the zone to be fractured. Each instrument is installed in a
shallow cased hole, usually 10 to 20 ft deep, and packed into position using sand to insulate the
device from surface weather and noise effects.
The tiltmeter instruments are capable of measuring changes in tilt of a surface with accuracy on
the order of 1 x 10
-7
radians. Due to the sensitivity of the measurements, changes in the level of the
earth's crust due to solid earth tides cause changes in the surface angle which are orders of magni-
Fig. 10.17 - Comparison of Postfrac Gamma-Ray and Temperature Logs.
POST
FRAC
TEMP
PROFILE
BASE
GR
POST FRAC
GAMMA RAY
FRAC ZONE
PERFS
9200
9300
9400
9500
9600
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
(a)
POST FRAC
GAMMA RAY
WARM
NOSE
RADIOACTIVE SAND
IN WARM NOSE
POST
FRAC
TEMP
PROFILE SP
9100
9200
9300
9400
9500
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
2780
2810
2840
2870
2900
H
O
L
E
D
E
P
T
H
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
(b)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-23 September 1992
tude greater than the fracture treatment. Fortunately, the period of the fracture event is much short-
er than the tidal noise and can be separated by post-analysis using frequency domain filtering
and/or tidal filtering. The residual from this filtering is then used to measure the tilt signal related
to hydraulic fracturing. The signals from both channels of a tiltmeter are combined to form a tilt
vector which embodies direction and magnitude of the tilt measured at that site. Fig. 10.19 shows
the recorded response for one channel from a single site.
To analyze the data, observed tilts are compared with theoretical values for many possible combi-
nations of fracture azimuth and dip; and thus, the azimuth and dip are determined which produce
the least error. An example shown in Fig. 10.20 shows theoretical tilt responses for vertical and
horizontal fractures and Fig. 10.21 shows a least error fit for observed vs. theoretical data.
Just as the pattern, or direction of the tilt vectors is related primarily to the fracture azimuth and
dip, the magnitude of the vectors is principally a function of fracture volume. Recent work has
been performed which combines fracturing pressure analysis with tilt vector magnitude to place
bounds on created fracture dimensions for wells shallower than 4000 ft, as seen in Fig. 10.22.
Fig. 10.18 - Surface Tiltmeter Monitoring.
DIP = 90
DIP = 60
DIP = 30
DIP = 0
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-24 September 1992
Because extensive site preparation is required to install the tiltmeter array and a site aging period
is required, scheduling should begin far in advance of the hydraulic fracture treatment. Site prep-
aration should begin a minimum of three weeks prior to the treatment. District personnel involved
in this testing should work closely with the Research Department in setting up and executing these
tests.
Borehole Geophones
Borehole geophones measure the sonic energy, or noise, produced while a formation is being frac-
tured.
21-,25
Aset of three geophones is typically installed in the wellbore on a single conductor wire-
line prior to the well being fractured. Since a wireline is in the hole while fracturing, the treatment
is usually a small gelled-water minifrac without proppant. One geophone is vertical and the other
two are horizontal. The orientation of the geophone tool is determined using surface shots set off
in strategically located sites in an array with a radius equal to the depth of the tool. A minimum of
Fig. 10.19 - Typical Tiltmeter Record for a Hydraulic Fracture.
CHANNEL 9 - RAW DATA
1.7670
1.7537
1.7404
1.7270
1.7137
1.7004
1.6871
1.6738
1.6604
1.6471
1.6338
317.53 317.56 317.61 317.58 317.51 317.55 317.59 317.62 317.64
VOL1
Tilt Signal
11:12:11:58:05 TO 11:12:15:40:31
READING ARE FROM CHANNEL 9 PROJ: 84-28
TOTAL OF 217 POINTS PLOTTED
STARTING TIME IS 11:12:11:58:05
ENDING TIME IS 11:12:15:40:31
STARTING TIME IN JULIAN UNIT IS 317.49867
ENDING TIME IN JULIAN UNIT IS 317.65314
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-25 September 1992
Fig. 10.20 - Theoretical Tilt Vectors.
Fig. 10.21 - Observed vs. Theoretical.
VERTICAL FRACTURE
(mirror symmetry
relative to the strike
of the fracture)
HORIZONTAL FRACTURE
(radial symmetry relative
to the wellbore)
Theoretical
Observed
Well B DIP = 50 AZIMUTH=29
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-26 September 1992
four shots are detonated, one at a time, using dynamite. The sites are 20 ft deep and located at equal
intervals of 45. The recorded arrival time of the shock wave indicates the direction of the source
with respect to the geophones.
Fracture azimuth is determined by analyzing the arrival times of sonic waves being propagated
through the formation as the rock cracks and the fracture extends in length. The variation in arrival
times between the three geophones is analyzed to determine the direction of the source of the sonic
waves (the tip of the fracture) fromthe wellbore. Fig. 10.23 shows an example of the type of results
obtained.
Oriented Core Analysis
The use of oriented cores to predict fracture azimuth has been suggested for many years.
3,5
The
chief advantage of core analysis for fracture azimuth is its ease of application. During routine cor-
ing operations, the additional work required to orient and analyze the core is small compared to
other azimuth measuring procedures. Also, since most coring is done early in the life of the field,
the azimuth data collection is very timely. The biggest disadvantage to common oriented core anal-
ysis is the fact that this is an indirect measurement, and it is difficult to be certain that the answer
is correct. The most successful core analysis, which has only recently gained acceptance, is the di-
rect on-site measurement of strain relaxation.
26
Fig. 10.22 - Fracture Dimensions.
R = 330 ft
R = 1000 ft
R = 570 ft
Fracture Volume
E
r
r
o
r
i
n
F
i
l
(
%
)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fracturing Tests
10-27 September 1992
The indirect oriented coring process uses a shoe on the bottom of the core barrel with three knives
to cut grooves in the core. One of these is the reference groove at a known orientation to an azimuth
lug attached to the inner core barrel. An orientation tool is mounted above the core barrel such that
the orientation lug is visible when the tool photographs the compass. The correction between the
reference knife and the orientation lug can be pre-set in the shop, but a preferred technique is to
hoist the barrel in the derrick and use an optical aligning device to determine their relative orien-
tation; this is then recorded for future calculations.
27
Since this tying of orientation to depth is in-
direct, the biggest sources of error come from incomplete core recovery, breaks in core, or a
spiraling reference groove.
The technique of direct on-site measurement of strain relaxation from cores to determine fracture
azimuth is based on laboratory observations that the stress-strain behavior of rocks is not purely
elastic, but is a function of loading rate and time.
28
In such a case, strains stored in the rock by the
in-situ stresses will not be released instantly when the core is cut, but will relax over many hours.
If the core can be recovered and instrumented during this time, the orientation of stresses can be
determined by measuring relaxation in different directions.
The strain relaxation process involves selecting several core samples as soon as possible after the
core reaches the surface. The samples should be selected from intact core sections to ensure good
orientation data, then removed to a reasonably constant temperature environment, sealed to pre-
vent moisture evaporation, and then tested by attaching the deformation gauges to the sample to
record strain relaxation (and temperature) data from 12 to 24 hours. These measurements are then
used to calculate the orientation of the in-situ stresses.
29
Fig. 10.24 shows typical data taken from
strain relaxation measurements on a shale sample.
30
Fig. 10.23 - Borehole Geophones.
X
Y
Z
S
I
G
N
A
L
A
M
P
L
I
T
U
D
E
Time
Typical microseismic event recorded on three
orthogonally mounted seismic detectors. The
time marks are 0.017 sec. apart.
N
E W
S
Polarization of single-phase events recorded with
three-axis geophone package. downhole
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-28 September 1992
The strain relaxation technique has proven accurate in several tests where azimuth was also mea-
sured with other procedures.
21,26,31,32
These include tests in a volcanic tuff in Nevada; a low perme-
ability Mesa Verde Sandstone; a low permeability gas sand in the Cotton Valley Formation; and a
high porosity, high permeability sandstone in Oklahoma.
Borehole Geometry
The geometry of the borehole (ellipticity) may be affected by the stresses in the earth in the near
wellbore region. The fracture azimuth is also affected by these stresses.
1-5
Therefore, a simple cor-
relation might be made between borehole ellipticity and azimuth if conclusive supporting data can
be obtained. As discussed earlier on page 10-5, borehole ellipticity measurements in two different
areas indicate that fracture azimuth is either parallel to or perpendicular to the long axis of the bore-
hole. By combining the results of the azimuth measurements discussed above with borehole geom-
etry, a correlation might be made for a given field which would greatly simplify fracture azimuth
determination. Borehole geometry must be obtained in open-hole, and can be measured with a
Borehole Geometry Log as previously discussed on page 10-5, or from the oriented caliper incor-
porated into the Dipmeter Log. The Dipmeter Log yields information useful in geologic interpre-
tation, whereas the Borehole Geometry Log describes only the orientation and dimensions of the
borehole.
Fig. 10.24 - Strain Relaxation.
Elastic Strain
Time-Dependent Strain
C
C'
B
A
to t1 t2
TIME
S
T
R
A
I
N
Core Recovered and Instrumented at C'
De
t1 - t2
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-29 September 1992
10.2Introduction To TerraFrac
TerraFrac is a three dimensional fracturing simulator that is probably the most advanced commer-
cially available hydraulic fracturing simulator presently available. It has been in use by TRC since
1983 to address nonstandard fracture design problems. Fracturing design problems in wells in the
Valhall Field in the North Sea, as well as exploration wells all over the world, have been success-
fully addressed using the TerraFrac Simulator.
TerraFrac is installed on the IBM mainframe computer at the Research Center; however it is not
yet released for general use because of the complexity and time-consuming requirements of data
input, code execution, and the requirement of output analysis. The code is still undergoing devel-
opment and possesses very advanced capabilities such as thermal and poroelastic effects. It can
also be applied in fracture designs where the fracture may migrate considerably up or down from
the point of initiation, to study the effects of perforation placement on resulting fracture geometry.
TerraFrac solves the fracturing problem, in a general sense, i.e., it determines the fracture geome-
try as part of the solution process. A three-dimensional simulator is a simulator that can predict
fracture shape (width and height at any point along the fractures length). However, this is a nu-
merically demanding problem which is strongly nonlinear because of the coupling required be-
tween the fluid pressure distribution in the fracture with the stiffness of the opening fracture. The
solution of the problem may lead to fracture shapes that are complex, like the one at the top of
Fig. 10.25, which are relatively realistic even though they employ certain simplifying assump-
tions, e.g., planar fractures. The schematics in the lower part of Fig. 10.25 represent the simplest
models which are still used throughout the industry for simulating fracture treatment design. These
are idealistic versions of what may be happening downhole.
There is a category of fracturing simulators of intermediate complexity referred to as pseudo
three-dimensional simulators. These simulators can also predict the shape of the fracture, however
they still apply some simplifying assumptions on fracture propagation derived from the simplest
models. The majority of practical fracture design simulators (e.g., STIMPLAN, MFRAC,
FRAC-HT, etc.) fall in this category and are widely used because of their computational efficien-
cy. However, they do not replace the need for a 3-D simulator, especially when estimation of frac-
ture shape is crucial, e.g., for fractures near water bearing zones in the absence of strong confining
barriers, unconventional location of the perforations within adjacent layers to the pay zone, etc.
Therefore, depending on the fracture design problem, the engineer has a wide range of tools to use
and obtain the proper solution, the most important of which is sound judgment and understanding
of the governing physical phenomena.
General Description of the TerraFrac Simulator
The TerraFrac simulator assumes that the fracture is planar and symmetric with respect to the well-
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-30 September 1992
bore. It determines fracture geometry fromthe solution of a complex nonlinear interaction problem
of:
3-D Rock Deformation assuming Elastic Layered Formation;
Fluid flow in the Fracture with Proppant and Thermal Effects on Rheology;
Fracture Propagation using Linear Fracture Mechanics;
Leakoff;
Simplified (One Dimensional) Thermo-poroelastic Effects;
etc.
In this sense TerraFrac is a fully three-dimensional fracturing model. However, it is not the ulti-
mate model! Our desire is for a super simulator which can determine the shape of nonplanar
fractures and account for other phenomena such as formation nonlinearity (plasticity) rigorous
Fig. 10.25 - Models to Better Simulate Actual Fracture Behavior.
Actual?
R
w
f
Penny
Area of Largest
Approximately Ellipitical
Share of Fracture
Flow Resistance
w
f
w
f
x
f
x
f
h
f
Perkins & Kern Geertsma & deKlerk
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-31 September 1992
modeling of the formation-fracture interaction (coupled thermo-poroelastic interaction of the res-
ervoir and the propagating fracture), etc. Although much work has been done in these areas, this
type of simulation capability is not yet available.
A short account of how the model works is as follows: TerraFrac determines the shape of the frac-
ture in an iterative way. It starts from an assumed fracture shape which is small relative to the frac-
ture dimensions after the treatment has ended. An initial pressure distribution is also assumed. It
is recommended to start the simulation with a small penny shaped fracture at the center of the per-
forations. If the perforation interval is large with varying closure stresses, one would probably
choose to initiate the fracture at a point where the closure stress is minimized. The fluid pressure
is assumed (handled internally) initially to be constant. The fracture width is dependent on fluid
pressure distribution and fracture shape, and can be calculated from an elastic 3-D rock deforma-
tion solution. TerraFrac has the capability to calculate fracture width for a general shaped fracture
with arbitrary fluid pressure distribution. The widths from this solution stage are used to solve the
fluid flow problem in the plane of the fracture. The fracturing fluid is assumed to behave like a
power law fluid in laminar flow between parallel plates. The widths determined from the elastic
solution are used as the distance between the parallel plates. The fluid pressure distribution can be
calculated by satisfying the momentum and continuity equations with appropriate conditions at the
boundaries. Then the fracture widths can be derived using this pressure distribution from the elas-
tic solution. In this way, an iteration can be performed to derive the pressures and widths which
are mutually consistent.
The tendency of the fracture to propagate can be quantified using the closure stress profile, elastic
constants, toughness, the fluid pressure distribution, and the pre-existing fracture shape. A Critical
Fracture Width is calculated internally (Fracture Propagation Criterion), and, if the width of the
fracture at some given distance behind the front exceeds the critical fracture width, the fracture
propagates. The distance of propagation is calculated froma combination of mass balance enforce-
ment and the amount by which the widths near the front exceed the critical fracture width.
During the propagation, leakoff is assumed to occur according to Carter's model. The enforcement
of the continuity equation dominates the propagation and is given priority. In this sense, the frac-
ture Propagation Criterion is satisfied within broad tolerances, while continuity near the fracture
front is satisfied more accurately.
Input To Terrafrac
The downhole schematic of Fracturing Configuration of Fig. 10.26 gives a pictorial definition of
the input to TerraFrac. For each formation layer, it is required to define reservoir (porosity, perme-
ability, thermal conductivity), and elastic (modulus, Poissons ratio, toughness) properties.
Input relative to model discretization, convergence limits, input, output, and plotting are also re-
quired. The model uses a combination of finite element and boundary element methods to solve
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-32 September 1992
the coupled elastic-fluid flow problems. The fractures boundary is subdivided into quadrilaterals
which are further subdivided into four triangles. All calculations are performed on the triangles in
terms of the pressures and widths at the nodes. A typical plot of the mesh is shown on Fig. 10.28.
A detailed explanation of the input and the numerical techniques employed are beyond the scope
of this manual.
Note that the original TerraFrac formulation required the elastic properties to be uniform in all lay-
ers; however, an approximate way to account for the first order effects of modulus changes from
layer to layer has been recently implemented by TerraTek and has been installed on our IBMmain-
frame computer.
Terrafrac Simulation Runs
Confined Fracture Growth
The TerraFrac model can be applied for confined fracture growth. However, it should be remem-
bered that confined fracture growth is not the target of the TerraFrac capabilities. For confined
fracture growth, Perkins and Kern (PKN) type model programs are much more efficient than Ter-
raFrac.
The confined height example of Fig. 10.27 was devised to demonstrate the influence of leakoff and
closure stress gradient during the initial stages of fracture evolution. Furthermore, it acquaints the
reader with typical plots of the TerraFrac results produced by the plotting postprocessor developed
Fig. 10.26 - Schematic of the Hydraulic Fracturing Conguration.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-33 September 1992
by the Frac Group. The mesh used for this analysis is shown on Fig. 10.28.
The fracture shape evolution gives an appreciation of the delicate balance of the in-situ parameters
and their influence on fracture shape. Note that steep closure stress gradients push the fracture
growth upwards, while low leakoff zones encourage fracture growth in them. This is clearly dem-
onstrated in Fig. 10.29 which shows fracture evolution until the fracture reaches the lower confin-
ing layer (layer 5). The fracture was initiated as a penny shaped fracture of 20 ft radius at 8025 ft
depth. The fracture initially propagates as a penny in layer 3. Later, the small leakoff of layer 4 is
attracting the fracture more than the closure stress gradient of 0.848 psi/ft of layer 2 and the frac-
ture grows downwards until it reaches layer 5. The remainder of the fracture evolution is shown in
Fig. 10.30. The fracture, being confined below, grows upwards until it reaches layer 1. From then
on, we have confined fracture growth and the TerraFrac analysis does not offer anything additional
to a PKN program analysis.
Fig. 10.27 - TerraFrac Example (Demo 2).
Depth-Feet
LAYER 1
C = 0.0
LAYER 2
0.848 psi/ft
C = 0.0025 ft/min
LAYER 3 C = 0.0025 ft/min
C = 0.0005 ft/min
LAYER 5 C = 0.0
7200 7300 7400 7500 7600
1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
PERFORATIONS
FORMATION PROPERTIES
E = 1.26x10
6
psi
= 0.35
FLUID VISCOSITY
= 90 cp
PUMPING RATE
Q = 16 bbl/min
CLOSURE PRESSURE - PSI
-7900
-8000
-8100
-8200
CLOSURE STRESS
LAYER 4
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-34 September 1992
Fig. 10.28 - Step 50 Fracture Grid.
Fig. 10.29 - Fracture Evolution Steps 0-40.
X (FEET)
Y
(
F
E
E
T
)
Y
(
F
E
E
T
)
X (FEET)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-35 September 1992
Fig. 10.31 shows the plot of the step number vs. injected volume. From this plot we see that a great
amount of steps (and computing time) is spent during the initial propagation stages. During the first
40 steps only 23 barrels of treatment volume were injected. Consequently, a small amount of in-
jected volume propagates the fracture rapidly to a confined mode of fracture extension; therefore,
a PKN analysis is essentially applicable for the entire fracturing propagation process.
Fig. 10.32, Fig. 10.33, and Fig. 10.34 show plots of the evolution of leakoff volume, fracture vol-
ume, fracture width, and fracture dimensions. Fig. 10.35 shows the variation of fluid pressure dur-
ing the fracture treatment. The kinks in the pressure are due to numerical reasons and should be
smoothed out (see next paragraph). The maximumpressure reflects the slightly increasing pressure
trend of confined fracture extension. The pressure at the perforations (depths are plotted with ref-
erence to the center of perforations referred to as 0.0 ft) shows this increasing tendency to a lesser
degree. Note that hydrostatic head in the fracture forces the maximum pressure to occur below the
perforations.
Fig. 10.36 and Fig. 10.37 show the error distributions of the iteration scheme. Comparing these
figures with Fig. 10.35, we see that the pressure distribution is sensitive to these errors. This is ex-
pected due to the strong nonlinearity of the problem. Consequently, despite the stringent conver-
gence error of 1%, the TerraFrac user should be able to distinguish real behavior from spurious
numerical behavior of the solution. This is valid especially for pressures which are the most sen-
sitive.
Fig. 10.30 - Fracture Evolution Steps 41-80.
Y
(
F
E
E
T
)
X (FEET)
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-36 September 1992
Fig. 10.31 - Evolution of Leakoff Volume, Fracture Volume, Fracture Width, and Fracture
Dimensions.
Fig. 10.32 - Evolution of Leakoff Volume, Fracture Volume, Fracture Width, and Fracture
Dimensions.
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
S
T
E
P
N
U
M
B
E
R
STEP NUMBER
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
800
600
400
200
0
0
200 400 600 800 1000
B
A
R
R
E
L
S
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
TOT. FRACTURE VOL (bbl)
TOT. LEAKOFF VOL (bbl)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-37 September 1992
Fig. 10.38 shows the efficiency of the treatment. We see that the efficiency of the treatment drops
to approximately 20% while 80% of the volume injected leaks into the formation.
Unconfined Fracture Growth
Two examples of unconfined fracture growth are briefly discussed in this section. They were taken
from a real case analysis of fracturing treatment for the Upper Hod formation of the 2/8A-17 well
in Valhall. These examples illustrate the capabilities offered by TerraFrac and the opportunity it
offers to enhance understanding of the fracturing process for complicated in-situ conditions.
Fig. 10.39 shows the two closure stress profiles considered; they were derived from our best esti-
mates of the in-situ conditions. Case A represents the base case; case B has a 200 psi lower closure
stress in the Tor relative to case A (due to reduced reservoir pressure after production) and a 50 psi
higher closure stress in the Dense zone to account for its higher confining capacity. The perfo-
rations are located directly below the dense zone. A constant 15 bbl/min pumping rate and a 90 cp
downhole viscosity fracturing fluid were assumed. The reservoir pressure was taken as 6275 psi.
Completion experience in Valhall has established that the Tor should not be directly perforated be-
cause it produces solids and plugs the well. The Upper Hod is perforated instead. Upper Hod treat-
ments have the dual purpose of stimulating the poorer Hod formation and communicating with the
rich Tor formation. Fracture height growth is not confined and fracture shapes may be complex
dependent on the in-situ conditions. It has been the practice to design such fracture treatments as
Fig. 10.33 - Evolution of Leakoff Volume, Fracture Volume, Fracture Width, and Fracture
Dimensions.
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000
I
N
C
H
E
S
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
MAX FRAC WIDTH (in)
WIDTH (in) AT 0.0000C+00 ft
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-38 September 1992
Fig. 10.34 - Evolution of Leakoff Volume, Fracture Volume, Fracture Width, and Fracture
Dimensions.
Fig. 10.35 - Variation of Fluid Pressure During the Fracture Treatment.
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
F
E
E
T
0 200 400 600 800 1000
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
MAX FRAC LENGTH (ft)
MAX FRAC HEIGHT (ft)
MAX HEIGHT ABOVE CNTR (ft)
MAX DEPTH BELOW CNTR (ft)
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 200 400 600 800 1000
P
S
I
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
MAX PRESSURE (psi)
PRES (psi) AT 0.0000F+00 ft
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-39 September 1992
penny shaped fractures for lack of a better alternative. However, using TerraFrac we can deter-
mine fracture shape and study the effects of closure stress profile, actual closure stress gradient,
leakoff variation, and position of perforations. It is this capability that makes the TerraFrac simu-
lator so useful for Valhall field and other fields where no significant confining barriers exist.
Fig. 10.40 shows the fracture evolution for case A. The fracture was initiated (for both A and B
cases) as a small penny (of 10 ft radius) located at the center of the perforations, which is the origin
of the Y-axis. Note that in case A the fracture essentially remains approximately a penny, although
some confinement can be observed at the shale-Tor interface.
Fig. 10.41 shows the fracture evolution for case B. For this case the shape is drastically different.
It grows mainly in the Tor where closure stress is low. The lower part of the fracture simply con-
nects the perforations. This type of behavior can only be quantified by numerical simulation and
represents a delicate balance of the in-situ values of closure stress, closure gradients, and leakoff
as well as the location of the perforations and fluid rheology.
Fig. 10.42 compares the fracture width profiles along the wellbore for both A and B cases. In case
A, the maximum fracture width occurs close to the perforations (the origin of the Y-axis). In case
B, the fracture grows unsymmetrical with respect to the perforations and a pinching point devel-
ops. Width pinching near the perforations may cause a screen-out during the early stages of the
treatment.
Fig. 10.36 - Error Distributions of the Iteration Scheme.
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C
O
N
V
E
R
G
E
N
C
E
E
R
R
O
R
(
%
)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
CONVERGENCE ERROR (%)
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-40 September 1992
Fig. 10.43 shows the fracture width history for both cases. The maximum fracture width and the
fracture width at the perforations (i.e., at 0.0 ft) are plotted vs. the total injected volume. In case A,
we see no significant difference between these two values, both of which increase with the volume
of the fracturing treatment. In case B, the max width occurs in Tor and increases with the volume
injected as expected. However, the width at the perforations initially increases (while the fracture
is still a penny) and subsequently decreases at about 200 bbl, to remain constant at approximately
0.10 inches for the remaining of the treatment. This pinching effect may be the reason for prema-
ture screen-out. For such a case, an increased pad volume does not diminish the danger of
screen-out. More viscous fluid and small proppant may be required to pump the fracturing treat-
ment successfully. Note that the width at perforations can actually decrease during pumping of the
treatment, especially when unconfined nonsymmetric fracture growth occurs. The width history
plot may by used to estimate the volumes of the pad and the total volume of the treatment, so that
proppant is introduced when the fracture attains sufficient width. The maximumproppant size may
also be estimated. For example, case B allows a 20/40 proppant to be pumped with a maximum
proppant diameter of 0.0331 inches.
The character of the pumping pressure behavior for the two cases is also different as shown in
Fig. 10.44. These pressure histories are sufficiently smooth to represent real pressure behavior.
The maximum pressure and the pressure at the perforations are plotted vs. the total injected vol-
ume. Note that the pressures plotted are in addition to the reference pressure of 7084 psi. Due to
Fig. 10.37 - Error Distributions of the Iteration Scheme.
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
200 400 600 800
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
STEP VOLUME. BAL. ERROR (%)
TOTAL VOLUME BAL. ERROR (%)
CONVERGENCE ERROR (%)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-41 September 1992
hydrostatic pressure the maximum pressure occurs below the perforations. Case A demonstrates a
typical pressure decrease during pumping which is characteristic of unconfined fracture growth of
a penny shaped fracture. Case B shows a complicated pressure behavior at the early pumping stag-
es. This is due to the presence of the pressure barrier in the dense zone which temporarily confines
the fracture.
In some cases the pressure plot may be used as a closure stress diagnostic tool by comparing the
simulated pressure with the actual pumping pressure during a minifrac test.
Fig. 10.45 shows the evolution of the fracture dimensions. Maximum fracture length, fracture
height above perforations, fracture depth below perforations, and maximum fracture height are
plotted vs. the total volume injected. In case A, the fracture propagates in both the horizontal and
vertical directions. In case B, the fracture is essentially confined height-wise and grows
length-wise in the Tor formation. An estimate of the total fracture treatment volume may be made
from this plot, based on the desired dimensions of the fracture.
Summary
TerraFrac is be a valuable simulation tool both for research and design of hydraulic fractures.
1. It can be used to determine the fracture shape for given in-situ and pumping conditions.
Fig. 10.38 - Efciency of Treatment.
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft): 8.025000E+03
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi): 7.300000E+03
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
TOTAL FRAC VOL/VOL INJ
STEP LEAK VOL/INJ VOL
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-42 September 1992
2. It can be used to study the effect of the location of the perforations and the associated problems
of width pinching.
3. It may be used to diagnose in-situ closure stress features by comparing the actual minifrac pres-
sure with simulated pressure.
It is possible, however, to make some overall proppant scheduling judgements using the history
plots. For example, the proppant volume at screen-out conditions should be less than the fracture
volume at any instant, and this leads to an upper limit for proppant loading per fluid gallon.
Fig. 10.39 - Valhall A-17 Cases A and B.
6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200
D
E
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
CLOSURE PRESSURE (psi)
min
-8200
-8300
-8400
-8500
-8600
SHALE C=0 0.75 psi/ft
TOR
C=0.005 ft/
0.68 psi/ft
0.66 psi/ft
DENSE ZONE
C=0.002 ft/ min
PERFORATIONS
U. HOD min
C=0.002 ft/
L. HOD C=0.002 ft/ min
0.64 psi/ft
0.64 psi/ft
FORMATION PROP.
E = 1.26 X 10
6
psia
= 0.4
FLUID VISCOSITY
= 90 cp
PUMPING RATE
Q = 15 bbl/min
CLOSURE STRESS A
CLOSURE STRESS B
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-43 September 1992
Fig. 10.40 - Fracture Evolution A17A.
1338 bbl
896 bbl
570 bbl
346 bbl
201 bbl
113 bbl
U HOD
DENSE ZONE
TOR
SHALE
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
X FEET
Y
F
E
E
T
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-44 September 1992
Fig. 10.41 - Fracture Evolution A17B.
SHALE
631 bbl
442 bbl
298 bbl
128 bbl
TOR
DENSE ZONE
U HOD
138 bbl
87 bbl
0 40 80 120 160 200
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
X FEET
Y
F
E
E
T
SHALE
1424 bbl
1012 bbl
751 bbl
DENSE ZONE
U HOD
0 50 100 150 200 250
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
Y
F
E
E
T
X FEET
TOR
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-45 September 1992
Fig. 10.42 - Fracture Width at the Wellbore.
A17A
A17B
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
140
120
100
80
60
40
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
20
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
1338 bbl
631 bbl
WF IN
Y
F
E
E
T
WF IN
Y
F
E
E
T
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-46 September 1992
Fig. 10.43 - Fracture Width, A17A and A17B.
A17A
A17B
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
500 1000 1500 2000
I
N
C
H
E
S
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 400 800 1200 1600
I
N
C
H
E
S
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
MAX FRAC WIDTH (in)
WIDTH (in) AT 0.0000E+00 ft X
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Introduction To TerraFrac
10-47 September 1992
Fig. 10.44 - Pumping Pressure.
AMOCO REPORT NO. A17A
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
P
S
I
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
AMOCO REPORT NO. A17B
500
400
300
200
100
0
P
S
I
-100
0 400 800 1200 1600
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
REFERENCE DEPTH (ft):
REFERENCE PRESSURE (psi):
7.084000E+03
8.366000E+03
MAX PRESSURE (psi)
PRES (psi) AT 0.0000E+00 ft X
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-48 September 1992
Fig. 10.45 - Fracture Dimensions.
A17A
A17B
400
300
200
100
0
0
500 1000 1500 2000
F
E
E
T
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
600
400
200
0
0 400 800 1200 1600
F
E
E
T
TOTAL VOLUME INJECTED (bbl)
X
X MAX DEPTH BELOW CNTR (ft)
MAX HEIGHT ABOVE CNTR (ft)
MAX FRAC HEIGHT (ft)
MAX FRAC LENGTH (ft)
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
References
10-49 September 1992
10.3References
1. Gough, D. I. and Bell, J. S.: Stress Orientations from Oil Well Fractures in Alberta and Texas, Cdn. J. Earth
Sci. (1981) 18, 638.
2. Thorpe, R. and Springer, J.: Relationship Between Borehole Elongation and In Situ Stress Orientation at the Ne-
vada Test Site, paper presented at the 1982 U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Berkley, CA, Aug. 25-27.
3. Babcock, E. A.: Measurement of Subsurface Fractures from Dipmeter Logs, AAPGBull. (July 1978) 62, 1111.
4. Brown, R. O., Forgotson, J. M., and Forgotson, J. M. Jr.: Predicting the Orientation of Hydraulically Created
Fractures in the Cotton Valley Formation of East Texas, paper SPE 9269 presented at the 1980 SPE Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Sept. 21-24.
5. Bell, J. S. and Gough, D. I.: Northeast-Southwest Compressive Stress in Alberta: Evidence from Oil Wells,
Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, 45, 475-82.
6. Dutton, R. E., Nolte, K. G., and Smith, M. G.: Use of the Long-Spaced-Digital-Sonic Log to Determine Rela-
tionships of Fracturing Pressure and Fracture Height for Wells in the East Texas, Cotton Valley Tight Gas Play,
Amoco Production Company Report F82-P-12 (February 15, 1982).
7. Beaudoin, G. J.: Interpretation and Use of 3-D Sonic Data: A Preliminary Study, Amoco Production Company
Report F80-E-13 (September 1980).
8. Smith, M. G., Rosenberg, R. J., and Bowen, J. F.: Fracture Width: Design vs. Measurement, paper SPE 10965,
presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
9. Zamenek, J. et al.: The Borehole Televiewer - A New Logging Concept for Fracture Location and Other Types
of Borehole Inspection, JPT (June 1969) 762-74; Trans., AIME, 246.
10. Bredehoeft, J. D., et al.: Hydraulic Fracturing to Determine the Regional In Situ Stress Field, Piceance Basin,
Colorado, Bull., GSA (Feb. 1976) 87, 250-58.
11. Dobkins, T. A.: Improved Methods To Determine Hydraulic Fracture Height, JPT (April 1981) 719-26.
12. Nolte, K. G.: Fracture Design Considerations Based on Pressure Analysis, paper SPE 10911 presented at the
1982 SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, Tyler, TX, May 20.
13. Nolte, K. G.: Analysis of Pump-In/Shut-In Tests for Closure Pressure, Amoco Document.
14. Rosepiler, J. M.: Determination of Principal Stresses and Confinement of Hydraulic Fractures in Cotton Val-
ley, paper SPE 8405 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.
15. Nolte, K. G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters fromFracturing Pressure Decline, paper SPE 8341 present-
ed at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
16. Heidt, J. H., Nolte, K. G., and Smith, M. B.: Fracturing Field Research Programs, unpublished Amoco Re-
search document, September 1981.
Special Topics
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
10
10-50 September 1992
17. Wood, M. D., Pollard, D. D., and Raleigh, C. B.: Determination of In-Situ Geometry of Hydraulically Generated
Fractures Using Tiltmeters, paper SPE 6091 presented at the 1976 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
hibition, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
18. Wood, W. D.: Method of Determining Change in the Subsurface Structure Due to Application of Fluid Pressure
to the Earth, U.S. Patent No. 4,272,696, (1981).
19. Davis, P. M.: Surface Deformation Associated with Dipping Hydrofracture, J. Geophysical Res. (1983) 881,
No. 87, 5826.
20. Pollard, P. O. and Holzhausen, G.: On the Mechanical Interaction Between a Fluid-Filled Fracture and the Earth
Surface, Tectonophysics (1979) 53I, 27.
21. Lacy, L. L.: Comparison of Hydraulic-Fracture Orientation Techniques, SPEFE (March 1987) 66-76; Trans.,
AIME, 283.
22. Schuster, C. L.: Detection Within the Wellbore of Seismic Signals Created by Hydraulic Fracturing, paper SPE
7448 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3.
23. Pearson, C.: The Relationship Between Microseismicity and High Pore Pressure During Hydraulic Stimulation
Experiments in Low Permeability Granite Rock, J. Geophysical Res. (Sept. 1981) 86, 7855-64.
24. Albright, J. N. and Pearson, C. F.: Acoustic Emissions as a Tool for Hydraulic Fracture Location: Experience
at the Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Site, SPEJ (Aug. 1982) 523-30.
25. Dobecki, T. L.: Hydraulic Fracture Orientation by Use of Passive Borehole Seismics, paper SPE 12110 pre-
sented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
26. Teufel, L. W.: Prediction of Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth from Anelastic Strain Recovery Measurements of Ori-
ented Core, Proc., 23rd U.S. National Rock Mechanics Symposium (1982) 238-46.
27. Rowley, D. S., Burk, C. A., and Manual, T.: Oriented Cores, Christensen Technical Report, Christensen Dia-
mond Products (Feb. 1981).
28. Robertson, E. C.: Viscoelasticity of Rocks in State of Stress in the Earths Crust, W. Judd (ed.), (1964) 181-224.
29. Blanton, T. L.: The Relation Between Recovery Deformation and In-Situ Stress Magnitudes, paper SPE 11624
presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, March 14-16.
30. Blanton, T. L. and Teufel, L. W.: A Field Test of the Strain Recovery Method of Stress Determination in Devo-
nian Shales, paper SPE 12304 presented at the 1983 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Champion, PA, Nov. 9-11.
31. Teufel, L. W. et al.: Determination of Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth by Geophysical, Geological, and Orient-
ed-Core Methods at the Multiwell Experiment Site, Rifle, Colorado, paper SPE 13226 presented at the 1984 An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
32. Smith, M. B., Ren, N. K., Sorrels, G. G., and Teufel, L. W.: A Comprehensive Fracture Diagnostic Experiment.
Part II. Comparison of Seven Fracture Azimuth Measurements, paper SPE 13894 presented at the 1985 Sympo-
sium on Low-Permeability, Denver, May.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11-1
Chapter
July 1999
11.1 Perforating
Proper selection and execution of a perforating program is essential to the success of a fracture
treatment completion. Consideration must be given to perforation diameter, shot density, phasing,
location and length of the perforation interval, and, in some special cases, perforation orientation.
While most of that presented in this section applies to both vertical and deviated wellbores, parts
also deal specifically with perforation patterns and procedures for deviated or horizontal well frac-
turing.
Hole Diameter
Perforation hole diameter directly affects the proppant size and maximum concentration that can
be pumped during a fracturing treatment. Perforations must be large enough relative to the maxi-
mum proppant diameter to prevent bridging. Fig. 11.1 shows the minimum recommended perfo-
ration size necessary to inject various size proppants at different concentrations. For example, to
pump 20/40 mesh sand at 10 ppg, a minimum perforation diameter of 0.20 in. is recommended.
RULE-OF-THUMB: Perforation diameter should be at least six times the maximum
proppant diameter to prevent bridging.
Another consideration in perforation sizing is fracturing fluid degradation. If perforation diameter
is too small, high shear-rates in the perforation tunnel can irreversibly destroy gel structure. This
will result in a reduction in the gels ability to carry proppant and a screenout can ensue.
Entry hole diameter can be affected by several variables, including
casing grade
stand-off of the perforation gun with the casing,
charge design (big hole versus deep penetrating),
charge alignment, and
casing thickness.
API charges are tested in casing from K-55 to L-80. When using P-110 and harder casing, the
entrance hole size will be reduced by as much as 20%.
Fracture Stimulation Guidelines
and
Quality Control
11
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual 11-2 July 1999
11
Figure 11.1 Minimum Perforation Diameter v. Proppant Size and Concentration.
The ideal stand-off to obtain maximum performance from a perforating gun is approximately
1/ 4 in. to 3/4 in., depending on gun size and charge design. If stand-off is significantly greater
than this, hole diameter and penetration will be reduced. Also, if the jet charges do not exit the
port plugs of the gun through the near center of the plug, perforation performance can be
dramatically reduced. Following a perforation job, all guns should be inspected to determine
what percent of charges fired and any misalighned firing through the port plugs.
Table 11.1 provides a very approximate chart of gun type/size, casing/tubing size, and weight
charge versus perforation entry hole diameter. These diameters were generated by various service
companies using the API recommended cement target. Results from different service companies
can vary dramatically; thus, this chart should only be used as a rough reference. When
determining the most appropriate perforating gun and weight charge, the service company should
be consulted to obtain the most recent data and recommendations.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Perforating
11-3 July 1999
Number of Perforations
In addition to perforation size, the number of holes open affects the injection rate at which a frac-
ture treatment can be pumped. To determine the number of perforations required for a specific
treatment design, the following equation can be used
(11.1)
where, is the specific injection rate per perforation (bpm/perf), is perforation friction
(psi), is perforation diameter (in.), is the perforation coefficient (usually 0.9), and is the
maximum fracturing fluid (slurry) density (lbs/gal). is an efficiency number that corrects for
the fact that all perforations are not perfectly circular or smooth orifices. Assuming minimal per-
foration friction, a value of 100 psi is normally used in the equation.
Table 11.1 - Approximate Chart of Gun and Casing/Tubing Sizes Versus Charge Size and Entry Hole
Diameter for Various Type Perforating Guns.
Gun Type
Gun OD
(in.)
Casing OD
(in.)
Entry Hole Diameter
(in.)
Charge Wt.
(grams)
Hollow
Steel Carrier
3-1/8
3-3/8
3-5/8
4
4
4-1/2
4-1/2
4-1/2
5-1/2
7
0.31-0.39
0.38
0.40
0.34-0.50
0.38-0.46
10
14
10
10-22.7
19-22.7
Expendable
Retrievable
Carrier
1
1-1/4
1-11/16
1-11/16
1-11/16
2-1/8
2-1/8
2-1/8
4-1/2
2-3/8
2-3/8
2-7/8
5-1/2
2-7/8
5-1/2
7
0.15
0.30
0.36
0.38
0.27
0.43
0.33-0.49
0.32-0.44
2
5
13
13
13
22.7
22.7
22.7
Expendable 1-1/4
1-11/16
1-11/16
1-11/16
2-1/8
2-1/8
2-1/8
3-3/4
3-3/4
3-3/4
2-3/8
2-7/8
4-1/2
5-1/2
2-7/8
5-1/2
7
4-1/2
5-1/2
7
0.30
0.36
0.51
0.30
0.44
0.41
0.42
0.66
0.67
0.71
5
13
13.5
13
22.7
22.7
22.7
90
90
90
NOTE: Entry hole diameters generated with API Concrete Target test.
i
pf
P
pf
( ) d
pf
( )
4
( )
2
0.2369 ( )
--------------------------------------
1/2
=
i
pf
P
pf
d
pf
i
pf
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-6 July 1999
turning sharply to followthe preferred azimuth, (3) a single fracture crossing the well, and (4) mul-
tiple fractures crossing the well. In each of these cases, high apparent downhole friction may
be caused by near-wellbore fracture width restrictions (tortuosity).
For the most awful case, i.e., multiple fractures crossing the wellbore, a small clustered group
of perforations is often used as shown in Fig. 11.5, though this may not totally eliminate multiple
fractures. To totally eliminate the possibility of multiple fractures, a single plane of perfora-
tions is desired, or even better a notched casing using abrasive techniques. Some perforation
patterns may maximize the chances of creating the preferred single fracture along the wellbore. In
particular, two lines of perforations (0-180 phasing), properly oriented, with a minimum
spacing between holes, should maximize the chances of this occurring. The fracture, though, may
then still have to turn to follow the preferred azimuth. Any real calculation of an optimal perfo-
Fig. 11.2 - Effect of Perforation Phasing on Fracture - Wellbore Communication.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Perforating
11-7 July 1999
Fig. 11.3 - Wellbore Orientation with Respect to Hydraulic Fracture.
Fig. 11.4 - Bad to Awful Patterns of Wellbore to Fracture Communication for Deviated Wells
(and Vertical Fractures).
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-8 July 1999
rating pattern for deviated or horizontal wells requires extensive knowledge of the in in-situ
stresses.
Over-Pressured Perforating
Another procedure first introduced in Prudhoe Bay, is the combination of in-line perforations
with super over-pressure perforating. ARCO has shown that a rapidly propagating fracture
turns much more slowly and smoothly to follow its preferred direction than a hydraulic fracture
propagating at a normal speed. The following perforation procedure is followed: (1) a small
volume of water is placed in the bottom of the well, (2) the perforation guns are then positioned
and the remainder of the well filled with nitrogen at relatively low pressure, (3) water is then
injected into the top of the well to compress the gas and increase bottomhole pressure to a level far
beyond the fracture closure stress, and (4) the perforating guns are fired, opening perforations in
the pipe and creating and rapidly propagating a fracture (downhole injection rates on the order of
100s of bpm have been measured during the initial breakdown following perforating). Since the
fracture is being created with pressure greater that the other in-situ stresses, a fracture can open
and propagate at unfavorable angles. This high pressure, combined with dynamic effects of rapid
propagation cause a smooth, slow turning to the favorable fracture orientation, e.g., case 1 in
Fig. 11.4. Thus, in principal, this procedure should produce the least non-ideal deviated well
Fig. 11.5 - Perforation Patterns for Deviated Well Fracture.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Perforating
11-9 July 1999
fracture, though of course for certain combinations of wellbore orientation and in-situ stresses,
the same procedure could cause the very undesirable, multiple, crossing fractures, with the critical
conditions where this might occur again being related to the differences in the three directional in-
situ stresses. Since the directions and magnitudes of all in-situ stresses is usually not known, deter-
mining the proper conditions for this type of completion becomes subject to field experiments.
Other Considerations
The location and length of the perforated interval needs to also be considered under certain cir-
cumstances. For example, if a large pay zone is bounded above by a zone of similar stress, it may
be more conducive to perforate only the lower half of the pay to obtain more complete vertical cov-
erage. With the entire pay perforated, the fracture would tend to initiate in the top half and might
grow more in an upward direction and place a large portion of the treatment in non-pay. Similar
perforating strategy might also be appropriate when an oil-water or gas-oil contact is in the near
proximity to the pay zone.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-10 July 1999
11.2 WELLBORE CONFIGURATION
The three most common wellbore configurations used to pump fracture treatments (Fig. 11.6) are
down production casing,
down tubing with a packer, and
down open-ended tubing.
Performing a fracture treatment down casing can be quite beneficial, this configuration allowing
higher injection rates and lower surface treating pressures and, in turn, requiring less fluid and
hydraulic horsepower to perform the treatment. In certain situations, though, it may be necessary
to pump down tubing with a packer to isolate the annulus, i.e., when the casing is not strong enough
to withstand fracturing pressure or shallower perforations exist. The third configuration, i.e.,
pumping down open-ended tubing, allows fracturing BHP to be obtained via the open annulus and
this can be a very valuable tool in determine fracturing behavior, especially on early wells in a
development program. The disadvantages to this configuration, however, are that the casing must
be strong enough to withstand fracturing pressure and pumping down tubing lowers the injection
rate and/or increases the surface treating pressure. This and alternative methods of measuring frac-
turing BHP are presented later. First, though, the following discusses the pressure limitations of
each configuration and briefly how to determine them.
Fig. 11.6 - Common Wellbore Configurations for Hydraulic Fracture Treatments.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
WELLBORE CONFIGURATION
11-11 July 1999
Fracturing Down Casing
Fracture treatment conditions should be considered in the casing design, when possible. When
fracturing down casing, one must design the treatment to keep the surface treating pressure below
the burst pressure of the casing. The worst conditions will occur if the treatment screens-out
and surface pressure reaches a predetermined maximum value. One can either design a casing
string to withstand the expected maximum surface treating pressure under screenout conditions or
limit the maximum surface pressure if the casing has already been set.
Treating pressure conditions can be calculated by the equation
(11.2)
where, BHTP is the expected bottomhole fracturing pressure, is hydrostatic pressure, is pipe
friction, and is perforation friction. While and are easily calculated or data exists, often
times BHTP and are unknown at onset of a treatment. In an exploratory or new development
well, a minifrac may be in order to determine these values, along with in-situ stress and fluid leak-
off data.
Casing burst values can be found in most service company or casing design handbooks. To deter-
mine a safe surface treating pressure, a burst safety factor of 1.1 is recommended for fairly new
casing. For older casing, this should be increased. Assuming a 2000 psi sudden increase in pres-
sure if a screenout occurs, the design treating pressure should not exceed the safety factor
reduced casing burst pressure minus 2000 psi.
Pop-offs or pressure relief valve should always be installed on the injection line(s) and set/tested
to just below the predetermined maximum surface treating pressure.
Fracturing Down Tubing with a Packer
As for a casing treatment, the maximum allowable surface fracturing pressure for this configura-
tion must be determined from the burst pressure of the tubing string. With this setup where the
annulus is isolated, backside or annulus pressure can be held to allow increased maximum sur-
face treating pressure. In addition to the burst pressure of the tubing, other factors must also be con-
sidered; including forces on the packer when the tubing is anchored in the packer, and tubing
movement when a locator seal assembly is used.
When the tubing is latched or anchored in the packer, disallowing tubing movement, forces on
the packer should be calculated to select a packer strong enough to withstand these forces. Tubing
pressure will cause an upward-acting force below the packer, and the annular pressure will
cause a downward-acting force above the packer. This can be computed by the equation
(11.3)
p
s
BHTP p
h
p
f
p
pf
+ + =
p
h
p
f
p
pf
p
h
p
f
p
pf
F
a
A
p
A
o
( ) p
o
[ ] A
p
A
i
( ) p
i
[ ] =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-12 July 1999
where is the area of the packer bore, is the area based on the tubing OD, is the area based
on the tubing ID, is the annular pressure at the packer, and is the injection pressure at the
packer. The injection pressure, , should be calculated based on the maximum allowable surface
treating pressure under screenout conditions with the maximum slurry density in the tubing.
When a locator seal assembly is used, allowing tubing movement, the forces and length changes
on the tubing must be calculated to determine the length of seals to run and slack-off when landing
the tubing. The four different effects that cause these forces and length changes are
1. piston effect,
2. buckling effect,
3. ballooning effect, and
4. temperature effect.
The first three are caused by pressure changes and the last by temperature changes in the well-
bore. Table 11.3 includes the equations used to calculate these to determine the length of seals
required and tubing slack-off for fracturing conditions. Again, screenout conditions need to always
be considered in designing the tubing/packer configuration.
Fracturing Down Open-Ended Tubing
When designing this type configuration for a fracture treatment, the burst pressure for both the
casing and tubing must be considered. Since this configuration is normally used to obtain BHTP
via the live annulus, no additional pressure is applied on the annulus side at the surface. Thus, the
maximum surface treating pressure should be limited to keep the surface annulus pressure
below the safety factor reduced casing burst. Since the tubing burst will normally be greater
than the casing, this configuration will not allow as high a treating pressures as would be possible
with a packer and the annulus isolated.
This configuration also allows pumping of a fracture treatment down the annulus and monitoring
the BHTP on the tubing side. When pumping down the annulus, a blast joint should be used at the
top of the tubing string to prevent erosion. Again, the maximum surface treating pressure should
not exceed the safety factor reduced burst pressure of the casing. Also, screenout conditions should
always be considered in determining the maximum treating pressure and pressure relief valves set
to just below this pressure on all injection lines.
Methods of Obtaining Fracturing BHP
Several methods exist to obtain BHTP during a fracturing treatment, including
open-ended tubing,
A
p
A
o
A
i
p
o
p
i
p
i
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
T
h
e
o
r
y
M
a
n
u
a
l
W
E
L
L
B
O
R
E
C
O
N
F
I
G
U
R
A
T
I
O
N
1
1
-
1
3
J
u
l
y
1
9
9
9
Table 11.3
Tubing Forces and Length Changes Nomenclature
PISTON EFFECT:
(11.4)
(11.5)
HELICAL BUCKLING:
(11.6)
(11.7)
BALLOONING EFFECT:
(11.8)
(11.9)
TEMPERATURE EFFECT:
(11.10)
(11.11)
SLACKOFF EFFECT:
(11.12)
TOTAL EFFECT:
(11.13)
(11.14)
ACTUAL FORCE:
(11.15)
Ai = area based on tubing ID, in**2 [cm**2]
Ao = area basing on tubing OD, in**2 [cm**2]
Ap = area of packer bore, in**2 [cm**2]
As = area of steel in pipe body, in**2 [cm**2]
E = Youngs modulus for steel, 30x10**6 psi [207x10**6 kPa]
Fa = actual force, lbf [N]
Fm = mechanical force, lbf [N]
Fp = total force at packer, lbf [N]
F1 = piston force, lbf [N]
F2 = helical force, lbf [N]
F3 = ballooning force, lbf [N]
F4 = temperature force, lbf [N]
I = moment of inertia, in**4 [cm**4]
L = length of tubing or casing, in. [cm]
dLm = length change due to mechanical force, in. [cm]
dLt = total length change due to changes in pres. & temp., in. [cm]
dL1 = length change due to piston force, in. [cm]
dL2 = length change due to buckling, in. [cm]
dL3 = length change due to ballooning force, in. [cm]
dL4 = length change due to temperature force, in. [cm]
dpi = change in pressure in tubing at packer, psi [kPa]
dpo = change in pressure in annulus at packer, psi [kPa]
dr = clearance between casing ID and tubing OD, in. [cm]
dT = change in average temperature, deg F [deg C]
Wi = weight of uid inside tubing, lbm/in. [kg/cm]
Wo = weight of uid in annulus displaced by tubing, lbm/in. [kg/cm]
Ws = weight of steel, lbm/in. [kg/cm]
F1 Ap Ao ( )dpo [ ] Ap Ai ( )dpi [ ] =
dL1
F1 ( ) L ( )
E ( ) As ( )
----------------- =
F2 0 =
dL2
dr**2 ( ) Ap**2 ( ) dpi dpo ( )**2
8EI Ws Wi Wo + ( )
------------------------------------------------------------- =
F3 0.6 dpo ( ) Ao ( ) dpi ( ) Ai ( ) [ ] =
dLm
0.2L
1.0 10**7
---------------------
R**2 dpo dpi ( )
R**2 1
-------------------------------- =
F4 207 As ( ) dT ( ) =
dL4 0.0000069 L ( ) dT ( ) =
dLm
Fm ( ) L ( )
E ( ) As ( )
----------------- -
dr**2 ( ) Fm**2 ( )
8EI Ws Wi Wo + ( )
--------------------------------------- - + =
Fp F1 F3 F4 Fm + + + =
dLt dL1 dL2 dL2 dL3 dL4 dLm + + + + + =
Fa Ap Ao ( ) po [ ] Ap Ai ( ) pi [ ] =
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-14 July 1999
gauges in a tail-pipe below a perforated joint below the packer,
placing gauges in the rat-hole, and
through a telemetry acquisition system.
To obtain fracturing BHP with open-ended tubing, the annulus must be kept full of a known den-
sity fluid and the annulus surface pressure measured. The main advantage of this systemis that can
be monitored real-time. To insure that the annulus is full of the same density fluid, the wellbore
should be circulated prior to the fracture treatment and the density of the fluid measured.
Gauges are often times placed in a nipple in a tail-pipe configuration below a perforated tubing
joint below the packer. This is a good method for obtaining fracturing BHP when the annulus
must be isolated. While proppant may fall down around the gauges, making retrieval with wire-
line difficult, the data can still be retrieved by pulling the tubing string. When possible, a fishing
neck should be installed on top of the gauges and the location of the gauge landing nipple placed
so that the fishing neck extends into the perforated joint. Proppant is less likely to pack around the
fishing neck, making wireline retrieval of the gauges more likely.
Gauges can be placed in the rathole, but this requires going in and washing out proppant settled
from the under-flush to retrieve them.
A recent advance in BHTP measurement during a fracturing treatment is a telemetry acquisition
system patented by Real Time Diagnostics, Inc. A sensor placed in the bottom of the well detects
pressure and temperature and transmits this data to the surface in the form of electromagnetic
waves. A receiver at the surface captures, interprets, and records the data. The advantages of this
system are (1) that is acquired nearly real-time to make informed decisions during the fracture
treatment and (2) that it allows the treatment to be pumped down casing at higher rates with
often times less fluid. The only disadvantage would be possible difficulty in retrieval of the bot-
tomhole sensor.
Measurement of fracturing BHP can be a valuable tool in evaluating fracturing behavior, espe-
cially on early development wells in an area. The best method of retrieving this data must be deter-
mined as a function of the wellbore configuration and the requirements of the treatment.
Considerations for Frac-Pack Completions
In addition to the forces placed on the workstring and packer during a fracturing treatment, other
things must be considered when fracturing through gravel-pack tools. Typically, frac-packs are
pumped through multi-positional gravel-pack tools upgraded to allow for high-pressure, high-
rate injections. Normally, the tools have three positions, including squeeze, circulate, and reverse
as shown in Fig. 11.7. When injecting into the formation, the tool is in the squeeze position and
the fracturing slurry exits the workstring through ports in the tool. Most tools have either two or
three ports, sized and positioned to allow for a large flow area to prevent tool erosion. The port
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
WELLBORE CONFIGURATION
11-15 July 1999
size and number have to be considered when determining the design injection rate to prevent
tool erosion and shear-thinning of the fracturing fluid.
The diameter of the tool ports must also be large enough to prevent proppant bridging and even-
tual treatment screenout in the gravel-pack tool. The previous section discussed proppant
bridging in perforations and the same applies here. Depending on the number and port diameter,
the design maximum proppant concentration may have to be limited.
Another consideration deals with the blank pipe normally used to extend from the top joint of
screen to the bottom of the gravel-pack tool assembly. This must be of a sufficiently high enough
grade to withstand maximum collapse forces during a frac-pack operation. This needs to be
determined under screenout conditions.
Fig. 11.7 - Multi-Positional Gravel-Pack Tool Commonly Used for Frac-Packs
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-16 July 1999
11.3 PRE-TREATMENT PLANNING
Pre-treatment planning encompasses many aspects including data collection, preliminary treat-
ment design, preparation of the frac brief, and service company/operator interaction. The suc-
cess or failure of most treatments can be traced to (1) the availability and judicious use of data
necessary to optimize the treatment design, and (2) improper planning by and interaction between
the service company and operator.
Data Collection Requirements
With respect to data requirements, three technical areas need to be addressed, these being well
potential, fracture geometry, and treatment fluids and proppants. Proper evaluation of each of these
areas requires the knowledge of various rock and fluid properties. In practice, it is not possible or
economical to collect data from every desirable source. In general, optimization of the data gath-
ering should be done on the basis of whether the well is early or late in a development program. In
an initial development well, effort should be made to fully understand the well from all perspec-
tives. However, knowledge gained from exploratory or early development wells can be applied to
subsequent wells in a localized area provided there is a good understanding of the local geology.
Formation Flow Potential. To justify a stimulation treatment, the formation flow potential from
fracturing must first be critically evaluated. The important data and parameters that fall into this
category include
porosity (logs),
water saturation (logs),
permeability (logs/core),
petrographic description of minerals (core),
reservoir pressure (pressure transient testing), and
gas/oil, water/oil contacts (logs).
In an early development well these would need to be measured or determined directly. In later
development wells, though, it might be possible to extract reasonable estimates from offset wells.
This again would depend, to a great degree, on the spacing of the wells, the complexity of the local-
ized geology, and the number and behavior of previous treatments in the area.
Fracture Geometry. After it has been established that a fracture stimulation will provide suffi-
cient economic recovery, certain data and parameters are required to ascertain what size treatment
is required to optimize recovery. For fracture length, width, and height determination, the follow-
ing data is required.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
PRE-TREATMENT PLANNING
11-17 July 1999
minimum horizontal stress (pre-frac injection testing),
Young's modulus (core),
overburden stress (integrate density log),
pore pressure (pressure transient testing),
reservoir temperature (logs, static measurement),
an estimate of fluid leak-off properties (core, minifrac injection), and
treatment fluid injection rates, viscosity, and proppant density.
Again, the extent to which this data is collected should depend on when the well is drilled in a
development program, the availability of data from previous wells, the complexity of geology, and
the number and behavior of previous treatments. For example, injection/decline tests and minifracs
may only be required on a select few wells early in a development program to ascertain formation
stresses and leak-off. Also, overburden stress and Young's modulus values should only be required
on early wells, unless the geology varies significantly from one area to another in the development
region.
Treatment Fluid and Proppant Evaluation. The areas that need to be addressed when optimiz-
ing treatment fluid and proppant requirements are
ability of the fluid to carry the proppant the desired distance out in the fracture,
fluid loss control,
minimum impairment to proppant-pack conductivity by the fluid, and
the strength and size of the proppant to provide the necessary fracture conductivity.
Laboratory testing by the service company may be required early in the life of a development pro-
gram to choose the most appropriate fluid and proppant.
Preliminary Treatment Design
Using the available data, a preliminary treatment design should be formulated at this point to aid
in pre-treatment planning. While this might not be the final design pumped, this will provide esti-
mates of treatment requirements including
fluid/chemical/proppant amounts,
on-site storage,
equipment,
location sizing, and
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-18 July 1999
personnel requirements.
The expected treatment schedule should be reviewed by the service company at the earliest pos-
sible date to insure that these requirements can be met. Often times, in remote areas, chemicals or
proppant may have to be ordered weeks or even months in advance. Also, additional equipment
may have to be brought in from other areas or scheduled.
Frac Brief Procedure
To aid in pre-frac planning and treatment execution a fracturing procedure should be prepared
either by the operator or jointly by the operator and service company for each treatment and should
include at a minimum the following:
pertinent wellbore information including
casing/tubing depth, size, weight, and grade;
packer type and depth;
plug-back TD;
perforation interval; and
perforation size, density, and phasing.
pertinent reservoir information including
formation name and type,
reservoir pressure, and
reservoir temperature.
treatment pump schedule including
stage volumes, rates, proppant concentrations,
fluid and proppant types,
special chemical addition, e.g., breaker scheduling, and displacement fluid and volume.
pressure requirements including
maximum allowable surface pressure (tubing/casing) and anticipated treating pressure.
maximum HHP requirements.
standby equipment requirements.
Service Co./Operator Interaction
In an Alliance environment, more responsibility for designing, setting-up, executing, and eval-
uating fracture treatments has been placed with the service company partner. There are certain
areas, however, where the operator and service company need to interact to help insure a successful
treatment. The first obvious area is in the design phase. The operator will need to furnish the ser-
vice company with all available well and reservoir data. If sufficient data is not available, both par-
ties should discuss and determine what additional data is required and how it can be most cost-
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
PRE-TREATMENT PLANNING
11-19 July 1999
effectively acquired. Regardless which party takes on the bulk of responsibility for the design, all
designs should be reviewed by the other partner to insure there are no differences or questions
before proceeding to the field. When prepared, the frac brief should also be reviewed and
approved by both parties since, ultimately, safety issues are still the responsibility of Amoco.
Once the design and procedure have been prepared, under the alliance arrangement it is the service
company's responsibility to implement the treatment. This includes making sure the location size
is adequate, that adequate storage tanks are provided, and that sufficient fluid, chemicals, proppant,
equipment, and personnel are available to fulfill the requirements of the treatment. Certain phases
of this will require interaction with the operator representative, e.g., enlargement or grading of the
location.
During the treatment it is the ultimate responsibility of the service company to insure that the
materials pumped meet design specifications and that proper quality control procedures have been
implemented to insure this. Periodically, the service company should be called upon to demon-
strate to the operator the quality of the fluids and proppants on-site. It is also the service company's
responsibility to see that the treatment is pumped as close to design as possible, adhering to safe
practices as dictated by both parties. An operator representative should be present for the pre-treat-
ment safety meeting and treatment execution and should be allowed to interject comments or make
changes to the treatment if deemed necessary to insure completion of the treatment or to prevent
an unsafe situation.
Post-treatment appraisal should include both parties. Any deviations from the design and prob-
lems encountered with equipment or fluids should be documented and contingencies formulated
to help prevent reoccurrences.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-20 July 1999
11.4 FRACTURING FLUID QC
Several types of fracturing fluids are available for use on today's fracturing treatments, including
water-based fluids, oil-based fluids, alcohol-based fluids, emulsion fluids, and foam-based fluids.
It is important that the design engineer choose the best fluid to achieve successful and the most
cost-effective stimulation of his/her well. While this is a design issue, it is also the first step in a
proper fluid quality control program. Compatibility of the fracturing fluid with the formation mate-
rial/fluids is essential to prevent such things as clay swelling and pore throat plugging, the creation
of emulsions and/or sludging of crude oil, the degradation of matrix cementation, etc. An ideal
fracturing fluid should have certain physical and chemical properties that include:
Compatibility with the formation materials/fluids.
Sufficient viscosity to develop the necessary fracture width and transport proppants the
desired distance into the fracture.
An efficient (i.e., low fluid loss) fluid to minimize the amount of fluid required.
Easy to remove from the formation with minimal damage to the formation and proppant pack.
Low friction pressure in the tubulars.
Easy preparation of the fluid and quality control in the field.
Choosing a fracturing fluid will require compatibility testing by the service company with forma-
tion core/fluids and rheology testing with the actual base (source) mixing fluid. In a new area or
formation, where no historical data exists, these tests should always be performed. Starting with
this step, a proper fluids quality control program should include the following:
Choosing the appropriate gel system and familiarity with this system.
Base fluid and gel rheology testing.
Base fluid delivery, filtration, and storage on-location.
Gel pilot testing on-location.
Final gel preparation.
Sampling.
Since most treatment today are performed with water-based, oil-based, or foam-based fracturing
fluids, the following focuses on quality control measures for these.
FRACTURING FLUID QC
July 1999 11-21 Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Base Mixing Fluid
Prior to moving any equipment on location for a fracturing treatment, the service company
should be confident that the base mixing fluid will be compatible with the formation and the
chosen gel system. In a new area and/or formation, where there are significant changes to job
size, and/or the source water changes, the base mixing fluid should always be tested by the
service company in the lab and a base set of rheology values generated. At the other end of the
spectrum, where a particular water source has been tested and used routinely with success, this is
not necessary on every treatment; but, should still be periodically spot checked.
When a water-based gel is used, it is imperative that a fresh, clean water be used and that the ser-
vice company check the ion content and bacteria count. Certain ions, bacteria, and other foreign
materials can interfere with the proper building of a quality fracturing fluid. One example of this
is a source water used in Australia where the natural borate content is high and causes a weak
crosslink of the base gel if the pH is lowered. This was discovered through laboratory testing and
prevented a potentially nasty situation, i.e., crosslinking of the base gel in the frac tanks. Instead
these jobs are successfully pumped by adding the pH reducing chemicals on-the-fly.
Table 11.4 is an example form for testing the base mixing water. The three most important com-
ponents of a base mixing water are the iron content, pH, and bacteria count. For most water-
based gel systems, the total iron content should be less than 25 mg/liter. Excess iron can
reduce the temperature stability of the gel as well as causing the gel to be more shear-sensitive
when crosslinked. Excessive iron is usually introduced into the system through rusty frac tanks
or transports delivering the water to location.
The pH of the base mixing water should be in the 6 to 8 range. A pH higher than 8 can cause
poor gel hydration and a ph less than 6 can cause gel lumping and fish eyes. It is desirable to
start with a base mixing water pH close to a 7. A pH buffer, acid, or base can be used to bring the
pH into this desired range.
One of the more common sources of gelation problems is bacterial contamination of the base
water. Certain types of bacteria thrive on gel as a food source, destroying the gel structure by
bacterial enzymes. Sulfate reducing bacteria are most common, converting sulfates in the fluid
and reservoir to sulfide, a detrimental formation blocking agent. This type of bacteria is
characterized by a blackening of the water and a strong hydrogen sulfide odor.
Bacteria presence is most common during summer months when temperatures exceed 80F.
During hot periods, bacteria growth accelerates in stagnant water such as that stored in frac tanks
for an extended period (as little as a few days). As a preventative, bactericide should always be
added to the frac tanks prior to filling. This measure is more effective and less expensive than
combating the bacteria after it has flourished. If the water becomes contaminated, dispose of the
water, re-clean the tanks, and re-fill with bactericide treated water. Adding bactericide to a
contaminated tank will not solve the problem. This will only kill the bacteria, but the bodies
and enzymes will remain.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual 11-22 July 1999
11
Table 11.4 - Sample Form for Testing Base Mixing Water for Hydraulic Fracturing
In many cases, the water should be filtered through a 10 micron filtering system. While this
is more costly and time consuming, it can prevent much larger costs incurred if the gel cannot be
properly mixed and has to be disposed of. When city water is routinely used, filtering should not
be required. The service company/operator must make sure, though, that the source water deliv-
ered to location is the same as that requested and not contaminated in transit. Visual inspection
of the water in the frac tanks should be a routine step prior to mixing any gel. This may help
detect contaminants in the water and, possibly, the improper filtration of the water.
When oil is the base fluid, usually lease crude or diesel, compatibility/stability tests should be
performed with the gel system chemicals (preferably those to be used during the treatment). Most
systems will not gel as easily with crudes having an API gravity of 30 or higher. Also, some
diesels may contain detrimental components. The content of diesel will vary with supplier,
refinery, and seasonal changes. Special additives are included in extreme cold regions to prevent
diesel freezing and these can be detrimental to the gelling and gel breakage process. Oil-based
fluids are more difficult to mix than water-based gels and by knowing the properties of the oil
and performing early pilot tests, the first step has been taken to insure the fluid can be prepared
on-site with the least amount of difficulty.
WATER QUALITY TEST
Date: _________________________________________________________________
Water Source: __________________________________________________________
Company/Person Testing: ________________________________________________
TESTS: Recomd Level Conc. ppm, mg/l
Temperature 40-100 deg F
SG Corrected to 60 deg F <1.038
pH 6 - 8
Total Iron <20 ppm
Ferrous Iron (Fe+2)
Ferric Iron (Fe+3)
Total Phosphorous (PO4-3) <5 ppm
Sulfite (SO3-2)
Sulfate (SO4-2)
Calcium-Magnesium Hard (CaCO3) <1000 ppm
Total Reducing Agents 0 ppm
Total Bacteria Count <10**5 ppm
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Boron
FRACTURING FLUID QC
July 1999 11-23 Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Table 11.5 - Testing of Base Mixing Fluids for Hydraulic Fracturing
Transport and Storage of Fluid
All transports bringing the base mixing fluid and all frac tanks used for storage on location
should be very clean and free of rust and other chemical contaminants. Transports and frac tanks
should be thoroughly drained, steam cleaned, and flushed with clean water prior to loading the
mixing fluid. If oil or diesel is to be shipped and stored, all water must be removed prior to
filling. Less than 1% water in a gelled-oil system can cause severe gelation problems.
If frac tanks are showing signs of excessive rust and wear, the valves do not operate freely,
and/or the tanks are not thoroughly clean they should be rejected. This will require an inspection
by the service company and/or operator. Ultimate care should be taken to insure that the transport
and on-site storage of the base-mixing fluids results in a clean fluid to start with in mixing the
fracturing fluid. Of all the quality control measures, this is one of the most important to
preventing gelation problems. Prevention far exceeds the cure.
BASE MIXING FLUID
Obtain 3 Samples from Source
- Composition / Compatibility Testing (Svc Co.)
WATER-BASE FLUID:
Iron Content <20 mg Fe/liter
- Reduce Temp. Stab. of Gel
- Transports / Frac Tanks
pH between 6.0-8.0
- >8.0 Poor Gel Hydration
- <6.0 Lumping or Fish-Eyes
Bacteria
- Most Common Above 80 deg F
- Will Destroy Gel Structure
- Hydrogen Sulfide Odor
OIL-BASE FLUID:
Lease Crude or Diesel
deg API Gravity or Lower Best
Diesel Content Change with Supplier, Refinery, and Seasonal Change
Compatibility Test is a Must
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual 11-24 July 1999
11
Quality Controlling Water-Based Gels
Water-based fluids can be broken into two categories, i.e., linear and crosslinked gels. Linear gel
is water thickened with a viscosifier, the more common viscosifiers being guar, hydroxypropal
guar (HPG), hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC), and carboxymethyl HPG (CMHPG). With linear gels
the only means of increasing the viscosity is to increase the polymer loading. Crosslinked fluids
on the other hand start with a linear gel and a borate or metal (zirconate or titinate) crosslinker is
added which ties or bonds the polymer molecules together, resulting in a pseudoplastic fluid with
much higher viscosity than obtainable with simple linear gel systems.
Quality control procedures for linear gels are fairly straight forward and include checking the
following:
Base gel viscosity.
pH of the fluid.
Consistency and appearance of the gel.
Breakage of the fluid.
Prior to mixing any gel in the frac tanks, pilot tests should first be performed with the base-
mixing water from each tank. Minimum equipment requirements to perform these tests, which
should be supplied by the service company, include:
Fann 35 viscometer.
Properly calibrated scale.
pH meter.
Thermometer.
Waring blender or similar mixing devise.
Heat bath capable of reaching 180-200F.
All pilot tests should be performed using samples of the chemicals supplied on-location for the
treatment. The following procedure should be followed and all phases recorded:
Visually check the base water for signs of bacteria or contaminants.
Measure the pH of the base mixing water.
Mix the gel sample to include all chemicals planned for the treatment, including the breaker.
Measure the temperature and pH of the final gel sample.
FRACTURING FLUID QC
July 1999 11-25 Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Measure the viscosity of the gel, taking Fann readings at 100, 300, and 600 rpms.
Immerse the gel sample in the heat bath.
Measure and record the viscosity of the fluid in the heat bath every 30 minutes or so to
determine viscosity degradation for use in the design model and to evaluate breakage of the
fluid. (At a minimum, the fluid should be heated and sufficient breaker added to insure that
the breaker on-site works.)
Fig. 11.1 and Fig. 11.2 are Fann viscometer readings for various linear HPG gel loadings and
temperatures at a shear-rate of 511 sec-1 (corresponds to Fann 35 - 300 rpm reading). The same
are provided for linear HEC gel in Fig. 11.3 and Fig. 11.4 . These can be used as a guide in
checking the initial gel viscosity at surface temperature. Some tolerance should be allowed, i.e.,
a few cp either side of the values shown in the plots, since there will be some variance in the
mixing of each tank, e.g., for a 50 lb HPG gel loading an acceptable range of Fann readings at
70F might be 45-53 cp. If the gel viscosity falls much outside this range, another sample should
be caught from the tank and re-checked. If it is still outside this range, then corrective measures
must be taken to bring it into spec if it can not be used in the tail-end of the treatment when the
formation is coolest
Fig. 11.8 - Hydroxypropylguar (HPG) - Fann Viscosity v. Polymer Concentration in 2% KCI
Water @ 60F.
When performing break tests, it is usually necessary to mix several samples with different
breaker concentrations to determine the final breaker loading. The breaker loading should be
tailored so that the maximum effective loading is added throughout the treatment to insure
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual 11-26 July 1999
11
Fig. 11-9 - Hydroxpropylguar (HPG) - Fann Viscosity v. Temperature for Various Polymer Loadings
in 2% KCI Water.
eventual complete degradation of the gel. When the expected BHT exceeds the achievable
temperature of field heat baths, the breaker scheduling will have to be determined in the
laboratory (also required when go into a new area or formation or where significant changes are
made to the treatment size and/or the fracturing fluid or water source is changed).
Different breaker concentrations may be required for different fluid systems. Also, the
reservoir BHT will dictate the amount of breaker that can be added so the gel degrades in the
time required. Two general types of breakers are available for use, i.e., raw (oxidizing or
enzyme) breaker and encapsulated (delayed) breaker. It has been shown in industry studies that
up to a point more breaker is better from the standpoint of degrading the gel filter-cake
formed on the fracture walls and removing the gel residue from the proppant pack. A rough
rule-of-thumb is to design the breaker schedule so the pad fluid is completely broken in
twice the expected pump time and the tail-end fluid is broken in about an hour after shut-
down. For example, as shown in Table 11.3, on a 1-hour or less treatment, sufficient breaker
should be added to the pad to break the fluid in approximately 2 hours and the breaker schedule
increased so the tail-end fluid breaks within 1 hour after shut-down. Depending on the reservoir
temperature and gel loading, only encapsulated (delayed) breaker may be required in the pad,
whereas in the later stages the raw breaker concentration may be increased and the encapsulated
breaker concentration decreased. When feasible, the breaker schedule should be
FRACTURING FLUID QC
July 1999 11-27 Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Fig. 11.10 - Hydroxyethlcellulose (HEC) - Fann Viscosity v. Polymer Concentration in 2% KCI Water
@ 60F.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual 11-28 July 1999
11
Fig. 11.11 - Hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) - Fann Viscosity v. Temperature for Various Polymer
Loadings in 2% KCI Water.
designed/evaluated on-site based on pilot test ing with the actual mix fluid and breaker
stock provided for the treatment. Ineffective batches of breaker have been known to exist!
Table 11.6 - Sample Fracture Treatment Schedule with Raw and Encapsulated Breaker Ramps.
Fluid Type Fluid Vol
(gals)
Raw Brkr
(#/Mgal)
Enc. Brkr
(#/Mgal)
Prop Conc
(ppg)
Rate
(bpm)
30# Borate XL 3500 0.0 5.0 0.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 500 0.0 5.0 1.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 300 0.5 4.0 2.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 300 0.5 4.0 3.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 300 1.0 3.0 4.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 300 2.0 3.0 5.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 300 3.0 2.0 6.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 400 4.0 2.0 7.0 20.0
30# Borate XL 600 5.0 2.0 8.0 20.0
Note: Raw breaker ramped up and encapsulated breaker ramped down based on field-generated lab tests
in heat bath at expected BHT.
FRACTURING FLUID QC
July 1999 11-29 Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Quality control procedures for crosslinked gels are much the same as for linear gels with the
exception of checking the ability of the fluid to crosslink, it's crosslinked consistency, and
crosslink time. The same procedures as above should be followed to prepare and test the base
linear gel prior to crosslinking. Crosslinked gel systems generally fall in one of two categories,
i.e., instantaneous crosslink and delayed crosslink. The crosslink time can be controlled by a
number of methods. Some companies control crosslinking by adjusting pH, others vary crosslink
time by changing the crosslinker concentration or by blending crosslinkers, while still others use
retarders or accelerators to control the time to crosslink without changing the crosslinker or pH.
Again, pilot testing is very important in determining if the gel is properly crosslinking and how
long it takes to crosslink. Generally, the best way to test this is to obtain a sample of the
crosslinker on-site and observe the crosslinking of the linear gel in a blender. The speed of the
blender should be set just high enough so a vortex forms in the center of the linear gel sample.
The crosslink time is then measured from the time the crosslinker is added until the vortex closes
and a mushroom forms on top of the sample - this termed the Vortex closure time. For
instantaneous crosslink systems, the gel should form a bonded structure very quick. For a
delayed system, though, this may take some time, depending on the temperature and pH of the
fluid. When testing a delayed crosslinked gel, it is best to heat the base gel to the expected
average wellbore temperature during the treatment to perform the pilot tests. The delay time for
the crosslink is determined by the expected residence time in the pipe, i.e., the gel should ideally
be crosslinking just outside the perforations. This will minimize pipe friction pressure and
minimize the shear on the gel before it enters the fracture.
A good crosslinked gel should exhibit a strong bonding with a smooth texture that can be lipped
out of the sample container and returned as a whole unit. If a gel is under-crosslinked it will
exhibit a weak, slimy, runny appearance absent of strong bonding. At the other end of the
spectrum an over-crosslinked gel will exhibit a chunky, rough, brittle appearance. This type
fluid, while viscous in appearance will have poor temperature stability.
If crosslinking problems occur, several things can be investigated including:
The crosslinker itself. Catch another sample from a different drum on-site.
The pH of the fluid if the crosslinker is being controlled by pH.
The crosslinker concentration.
In special cases where the gel simply will not crosslink properly, it may be due to contaminants
in the base gel. This, however, can be prevented if proper laboratory and pilot testing (including
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-30 July 1999
crosslinking) is performed prior to mixing the tanks of gel. If crosslinking is a problem in only one
tank and sufficient excess is available or can be mixed, then that particular tank may have to be
utilized as prepad or flush or disposed of. Do not pump any gel as part of the main treatment that
is suspect.
Again, as for the linear gel systems, breaker scheduling is very important for crosslinked gel sys-
tems. There is nothing worse than pumping a crosslinked gel into a reservoir that might not break.
Undoubtedly many wells have been ruined this way. If possible, breaker tests should be performed
in a heat bath on-site to determine the optimum breaker schedule. If the reservoir temperature
exceeds 200F, the upper limit for most conventional heat baths, then extensive laboratory testing
should be performed by the service company with the actual mixing water and preferably the
chemicals from the treatment stock to determine the best breaker schedule for the desired time
period.
When utilizing resin-coated proppants, these can have a dramatic affect on the crosslink and
break time of crosslinked gel systems. Some of the crosslinker and breaker are neutralized by the
resin, requiring that additional amounts of these chemicals be added to achieve the same gel.
Again, this requires extensive testing by the service company to determine the adjustments
required. This is generally a hard thing to quantify and impossible to determine on-site. A new
encapsulated curable resin-coated proppant has just recently been introduced on the market which
still bonds in the fracture with closure stress yet is inert to fracturing fluids and chemicals. If it
proves to work as advertised, it should eliminate the problems associated with the interaction with
crosslink gel chemicals and breakers.
All pilot test results done on-site should be recorded on a form similar to Table 11.7.
Quality Controlling Oil-Based Gels
Some formations, although these are few and far apart, simply do not lend themselves to water-
based fracturing. These might have large quantities of swelling or migrating clays, imbibe large
amounts of water, and/or the rock matrix structure is weakened by water. In these cases, oil-based
gel may be the preferred fracturing fluid. Due to difficulties in properly mixing and quality con-
trolling this system, in addition to the safety hazards, gelled-oil should only be used as a last resort
after careful reservoir and laboratory evaluation.
Most gelled-oil are made up of the following components:
Lease crude or diesel as the base fluid.
Gelling agent.
Activator additive.
pH control additive.
Breaker.
Fluid loss additive.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
FRACTURING FLUID QC
11-31 July 1999
Most crude oil from28F API and higher can be gelled with this system; however, the particular
crude must be tested for gelation prior to a decision being made on its use. Testing should also be
performed with each diesel source to determine its suitability. The content of diesel may vary with
supplier, refinery, and seasonal changes. Special additives included to prevent diesel freezing can
have a detrimental affect on the gelation and breakage of a gelled-oil system.
The concentration of gelling agent (aluminum phosphate) is the controlling factor in determining
the viscosity of the gel. This concentration will depend on the desired viscosity at BHT. Typical
viscosities achievable with this system are 50-300 cp (170 sec-1) at 80-190F and 50-150 cp at
200-250F. The activator (sodium aluminate or other base) is normally held to a constant ratio
with the amount of gelling agent, e.g., if 8 gals/Mgals gelling agent is used, 3 gals/Mgals of acti-
Table 11.7- Fracturing Fluid Quality Control Form.
Well / Field:________________________________ Date:_________________
Location: ________________________________ Tested By: ___________
Tank
No.
Gel Type
/ Conc.
Gauge /
Pump
Volume
Fluid
Temp.
Vis. @
300
rpm pH
XL
Time
Break
Time Appearance
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-32 July 1999
vator is added; with 6 gals/Mgals of gelling agent the activator concentration is around
2.3 gals/Mgals.
The concentration of pHcontrol additive is dependent on the pH of the particular oil. Lab testing,
through trial and error, is required to determine the correct concentration of pH control additive.
In lab testing the gelling agent and activator are added first and then the pH control added drop
wise until gel viscosity is observed.
Breakers used for gelled oil systems include sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and slaked lime or
calcium hydroxide. The sodium bicarbonate is used on most treatments unless the BHT is very low
or a short break time is desired. Typical concentrations of breaker range from 10-
75 lbs/1000 Mgals depending on the BHT, pump time, and the desired break time. As noted for
the water-based gel systems, it is preferable to add as much breaker as lab tests indicate possible
while still maintaining sufficient viscosity to safely complete the treatment. Cases have been sited
where no or an insufficient amount of breaker were added and the gel did not break, causing the
treatment to be ineffective and plugging of the formation.
In a gelled-oil system, the sodium bicarbonate breaker also acts as a fluid loss agent, this being in
a free flowing powder form. Other additives such as Adomite Aqua and silica flour can be used,
however, these are not recommended unless absolutely necessary.
On-site quality control test procedures for gelled-oil systems should include the following:
Roll each frac tank of oil thoroughly.
Sample the base oil from each tank.
Add the gelling agent and activator to the sample(s) at the prescribed concentrations
recommended by the service company and previous lab testing.
Determine the amount of pH control additive by adding drop-wise until viscosity develops.
Test the viscosity of the fluid with a Fann 35 viscometer. If the viscosity is within the desired
range, proceed with the next step. If it is too high or too low, prepare another sample, adjusting
the gelling agent and activator concentration and going through the pH additive test again.
Continue to retest until the desired viscosity is obtained or the best gel obtainable is achieved.
After the gelling agent, activator, and pH additive concentrations have been fine-tuned, mix
several more samples with varying concentrations of breaker and immerse these in a heat bath
to monitor the gel degradation and break time. The gel should have sufficient viscosity to
complete the treatment safely and then break back to less than 10 cp at a Fann 300 rpm reading.
An example of the results of this type testing are shown in Fig. 11.12. In this case, it was
determined that 40 lbs/Mgals of breaker was optimum for completing the short pump time
treatment and getting a good break within a reasonable time after the treatment.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
FRACTURING FLUID QC
11-33 July 1999
These tests should be performed for each tank of oil as some may react differently than others
requiring slight alterations to the chemical additive combination.
Safety precautions associated with handling gelled-oils include:
Wearing rubber gloves and safety goggles when handling all chemicals. Some are acidic
and some alkaline and can cause severe burning.
Take the necessary precautions associated with a highly flammable fluid, i.e., ground the
blending and pumping equipment, no smoking on location, use of shrouds on high pressure
discharge lines, and proper fire fighting equipment.
Quality Controlling Foam Fracturing Fluids
Foam fracturing fluids are sometimes an alternative to oil-based gels to minimize the amount of
fluid placed on the formation. Their most common application, though, is in fracturing underpres-
sured reservoirs where the entrained gas in the fluid results in improved and rapid cleanup. Virtu-
ally any liquid can be foamed, including methanol, methanol/water mixtures, hydrocarbons, and
water. The most commonly used system is comprised of a 20-40 lb/Mgal linear water-based gel
and 65-80% CO
2
or N
2
, i.e., a 65-80 quality foam. This means that 65-80% less water is used as
compared to conventional treatments. The advantages of using CO
2
over nitrogen as the gas phase
Fig. 11.12 - Results of Field Break Test for Oil-Base Gel, Using a Fann 35 Viscometer and Heat Bath
to Determine Optimum Breaker Concentration.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-34 July 1999
is (1) that CO
2
can be pumped as a liquid, it not turning into its gas phase until reaching reservoir
conditions, and this resulting in lower treating pressures and (2) the liquid CO
2
is soluble in water,
thus as it turns into a gas in the reservoir it will not dissipate into the formation as might be the case
with a less soluble gas such as nitrogen. The use of nitrogen, though, can be considerably cheaper
when the expected treating pressures are low. Some of the disadvantages of using foam fracturing
fluid are (1) that job execution must be precise - small variations in water or gas mixing rates can
cause loss of foam stability and (2) downhole proppant concentrations are generally limited to
about 8 ppg since all of the proppant must be added to the liquid phase which comprises only about
1/4 of the total foam fluid.
Since most foam treatments use a water-based linear gel for the liquid phase, the same quality
control procedures outlined previously for this type gel should be applied here. Generally, these
would again include checking the base gel viscosity, pH, and temperature to make sure the gel
meets design specifications. Little can be done in regard to quality controlling the gas phase, aside
from checking to make sure sufficient quantity is on-site to conduct the desired treatment.
Because foam fracturing treatments are more complex to perform than single-phase treatments, it
is important that the service company treater and engineer fully understand the surface proppant
schedule and liquid/gas rates to obtain the desired concentrations and rate downhole. Aplan should
be carefully laid out with a table such as shown in Table 11.8 for all to follow during the treatment.
Additional Fluid Quality Control Measures
Inventory all chemicals and fluids/gas on location at the earliest possible time to make sure the
right materials in the right amounts are available for the treatment.
Table 11.8 - Sample Schedule Prepared for Constant Clean Side and Nitrogen-Rate Foam Fracture
Treatment.
Foam
Volume,
gal
Liquid
Volume,
gal
FOAM FRAC PUMPING SCHEDULE
Time,
min:sec
Proppant Slurry Volume Pumping Rate
Foam,
ppg
Liquid,
ppg
Total
lb
Foam,
gal
Blend,
gal
Nitrogen,
scfm
Liquid,
bbl/min
Sand,*
bbl/min
Total
bbl/min
35,000
25,000
30,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
1,800
TOTALS:
121,800
10,500
7,500
9,000
3,750
3,000
2,250
540
36,540
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
6.7
10.0
13.3
16.7
0.0
0
25,000
60,000
37,500
40,000
37,500
0
200,000
35,000
26,130
32,712
14,195
11,808
9,195
1,800
130,840
10,500
8,630
11,712
5,445
4,808
3,945
540
45,570
13,820
13,820
13,820
13,820
13,820
13,820
13,820
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
0.0
0.7
1.4
2.0
2.7
3.4
0.0
15.0
15.7
16.4
17.0
17.7
18.4
15.0
55:33
39:37
47:29
19:53
15:53
11:54
2:51
193:10
Foam quality: 0.70
Total Nitrogen required: 2,669,563 scf (calculated as scf/min x total time)
2,671,480 scf (calculated as total bbl nitrogen x scf/bbl space)
*Rate of sand, bbl/min = ppg x bbl/min x 0.0452
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
FRACTURING FLUID QC
11-35 July 1999
Perform pilot tests as soon as possible on-site to insure that the available chemicals all work
and that the base mixing fluid is not contaminated.
Take tank dips before and after the treatment to help in evaluating the accuracy of metering
during the treatment and to access what was actually pumped.
Set up a sampling program during the treatment to determine that the system is acting as pilot
testing predicted it would. On a relatively small treatment, this might include catching 1-2
samples during the pad and 2-4 samples during the proppant stages. On a larger treatment, with
a pump time of several hours, several samples should be caught during the pad and, preferably,
one sample per proppant stage. In the most severe case on a crosslinked gel treatment, where
the gel is not properly crosslinking and this can be detected before proppant is started, the
treatment should be aborted and the problem remedied before a reattempt of the treatment.
Immerse half of the treatment samples in a heat bath to determine the gel break time and to
determine the earliest possible time at which the well can be flowed back. The remaining
samples should be retained for a period of time after the treatment until the well has cleaned
up. Also, if gelation problems occur during the treatment, these samples may help determine
the cause.
Record all phases of the gel pilot testing, inventory, mixing, and results of treatment sampling.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-36 July 1999
11.5 PROPPANT QC
The selection and quality of a proppant agent is very important to the outcome of a fracturing treat-
ment. Production increase is a function of fracture conductivity, and fracture conductivity is
directly related to the insitu proppant characteristics and confining (closure) stress on the proppant.
Factors affecting fracture conductivity include:
Closure stress and proppant strength.
Proppant particle size.
Proppant concentration.
Proppant grain shape - roundness/sphericity.
Amount of fines generated.
Many of these variables can be controlled to varying degrees through proper quality control prac-
tices.
Closure Stress and Proppant Strength
The stress transmitted from the earth to the proppant pack at fracture closure can cause proppant
crushing and embedment of the proppant into softer formation, both of which reduce the effective
fracture conductivity. In selecting a proppant it is very important to know the approximate stress,
the stress on proppant being equivalent to the closure stress minus the bottomhole flowing pres-
sure. The maximum potential for proppant damage will usually occur early in the life of a well
when the reservoir and closure pressures are high and the BHFP is low.
Fig. 11.13 illustrates the affect closure stress has on several types of proppants, showing that at
higher stresses, higher strength proppants will be required to provide adequate fracture conductiv-
ity. If closure stress is unknown, this parameter should be measured through injection/decline test-
ing. A list of currently available proppants and their recommended stress limitations are shown in
Table 11.9, including sand, intermediate-strength, high-strength, and resin-coated proppants.
Industry studies over the past 10-15 years have shown that when proppants are subjected to stress
and temperature for longer periods of time, conductivity decays with most of this decay occurring
over the first 100 hours. Fig. 11.14 shows examples of this for several different type proppants. In
designing the fracture treatment, long-term conductivity data should be obtained from the ser-
vice company and used instead of the more typically published short-term data.
Proppant Particle Size
Proppant particle size selection is a design consideration and dependent on the stress level, desired
conductivity, and proppant transport (i.e., achievable fracture width). In most cases, either 20/40,
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
PROPPANT QC
11-37 July 1999
Fig. 11.13 - Effect of Proppant Type on Proppant-Pack Permeability (Conductivity). Relative
Performance of Various Proppant is Demonstrated for 20/40 Mesh Size.
Table 11.9 - Fracturing Proppant List
Proppant Manufacture Specic
Gravity
Application Limitations/
Alternative
AcFrac CR-5000 Acme Borden 2.59 Curable resin coated white
sand. Less resin than
AcFrac CR. Closure stress
to 6,000 psi.
AcFrac CR Acme Borden 2.59 Curable resin coated white
sand for owback control.
Closure stress to 8,000 psi.
AcFrac CR-100 Acme Borden - Curable resin coated
100 mesh sand.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-38 July 1999
Super TF Santrol 2.60 Low cost low resin content
(2%) for bonding and ow-
back control. A true 20/40
mesh white sand. Closure
stresses up to 6,000 psi.
Super LC Santrol 2.60 Low cost low resin content
(2%) for bonding and
owback control. White
sand. Closure stresses up
to 6,000 psi.
Super DC Santrol 2.57 Dual-coat, half-cured and
half-uncured resin coated
white sand for strength and
owback control. 4% resin.
Closure stresses up to
8,000 psi.
Super HS Santrol 2.54 High strength, dual-coat,
resin coated white sand for
strength and owback
control. 5% resin. Closure
stresses up to 8,000 psi.
Tempered TF Santrol 2.60 Identical to Super series
except precured rather than
curable.
Tempered LC Santrol 2.60 Identical to Super series
except precured rather than
curable.
Tempered DC Santrol 2.57 Identical to Super series
except precured rather than
curable.
Tempered HS Santrol 2.54 Identical to Super series
except precured rather than
curable.
EconoFlex Santrol 2.55 Resin coated EconoProp
ceramic proppant. Closure
stresses to 14,000 psi
White Sand 2.65 Used to prop open created
fracture to conduct
hydrocarbons to the
wellbore. Closure pressure
to 4,500 psi. Ranked 1st
among sands.
Low closure stress.
Table 11.9 - Fracturing Proppant List (Continued)
Proppant Manufacture Specic
Gravity
Application Limitations/
Alternative
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
PROPPANT QC
11-39 July 1999
EconoProp Carbo Ceramics 2.65 Economical intermediate
strength ceramic proppant.
Closure stress 3,000 to
8,000 psi.
Lower closure
application. Only
offered in 20/40
mesh. Competes
with LWP 1.
Carbo-Lite Carbo Ceramics 2.73 Intermediate strength
ceramic proppant. Closure
stress 4,000 to 9,000 psi.
Competes with
LWP Plus.
Carbo-Prop HC Carbo Ceramics 3.17 Intermediate strength
bauxite. Closure stress up
to 15,000 psi.
Competes with
InterProp Plus.
Carbo ISP-1 Carbo Ceramics 3.16 Intermediate strength
bauxite. Closure stress up
to 15,000 psi. Less
expensive than Carbo-Prop
HC. Broader size
distribution.
20/40 mesh only.
Competes with
InterProp 1.
LWP 1 Norton-Alcoa 2.64 Economical intermediate
strength ceramic proppant.
Closure stress 3,000 to
8,000 psi.
Lower closure
application. Only
offered in 20/40
mesh. Competes
with EconoProp.
LWP Plus Norton-Alcoa 2.60 Intermediate strength
ceramic proppant. Closure
stress 4,000 to 9,000 psi.
Competes with
Carbo-Lite.
InterProp Plus Norton-Alcoa 3.15 Intermediate strength
bauxite. Closure stress up
to 15,000 psi.
Competes with
Carbo-Prop HC.
InterProp 1 Norton-Alcoa 3.15 Intermediate strength
bauxite. Closure stress up
to 15,000 psi. Less
expensive than InterProp
Plus and Carbo-Prop HC.
Broader size distribution.
Competes with
Carbo ISP-1.
InterProp 1 RCP Norton-Alcoa 3.06 Same as above with resin
coating for owback control.
Same as above.
UltraProp Plus Norton-Alcoa 3.49 High strength bauxite.
Closure stress up to 20,000
psi.
Expensive.
AcFrac SB
ULTRA
Acme Borden 2.56 Partially cured white sand,
requires stress for bonding.
For owback control and
strength. Will not set up in
wellbore in screenout.
Closure stress to 8,000 psi.
More compatible
with oxidizing
breakers.
Table 11.9 - Fracturing Proppant List (Continued)
Proppant Manufacture Specic
Gravity
Application Limitations/
Alternative
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-40 July 1999
16/20, or 12/20 mesh proppant is used. Particle size distribution can have a measurable affect on
fracture conductivity. For example, as shown in Fig. 11.15, one sand having 90%of the grains fall-
ing between the designated 20/40 mesh sieve screen sizes, as compared to another having only
60% of the grains within the required range, will exhibit much higher conductivity and the contrast
will increase as the closure stress increases.
Testing of proppant size distribution requires a sieve analysis and should be routinely performed
as a quality control practice on most fracture treatments. The American Petroleum Institute (API)
provides several publications detailing tests for sands and intermediate- and high-strength prop-
pants. Shown in Table 11.10 is an excerpt from API RP 56 showing the range of various frac sands
(6/12 to 70/140) and the nest of sieve screens recommended for testing. A minimum of 90% of the
tested sand sample (also generally applies to other proppant types) should fall between the
designated sieve sizes correlative to the indicated mesh size, i.e., 6/12, 12/20, 20/40, etc. Not over
AcFrac Black
(PRB)
Acme Borden 2.55 Precured white sand
designed for strength during
closure. Closure stress to
8,000 psi.
AcFrac PR-5000 Acme Borden 2.59 Precured white sand
designed for strength during
closure. Closure stress to
8,000 psi.
Brown Sand 2.65 Brady sand. Used to prop
open created fracture to
conduct hydrocarbons to
the wellbore. Closure
pressure to 4,500 psi.
Ranked 2nd among sands.
Low closure stress.
Colorado Sand 2.65 Used to prop open created
fracture to conduct
hydrocarbons to the
wellbore. Closure pressure
to 4,500 psi. Ranked 3rd
among sands.
Does not meet a
number of API RP-
56 guidelines.
Arizona Sand 2.70 Used to prop open created
fracture to conduct
hydrocarbons to the
wellbore. Closure pressure
to 4,500 psi. Ranked 4th
among sands.
Does not meet a
number of API RP-
56 guidelines.
Sinter Ball 3.60 Sintered bauxite from
Brazil. Used for high closure
pressure conditions too
extreme for ceramics.
Exxon license fee
required for wells
deeper than 7,150
feet.
Table 11.9 - Fracturing Proppant List (Continued)
Proppant Manufacture Specic
Gravity
Application Limitations/
Alternative
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
PROPPANT QC
11-41 July 1999
0.1% of the total proppant sample should be larger than the largest sieve screen mesh and not over
1.0% should be smaller than the smallest sieve screen mesh.
Proppant Grain Shape
Proppant particle roundness and sphericity are measures of grain shape. Roundness is a
measure of the relative sharpness of grain corners or grain curvature and sphericity is a measure of
howclose a proppant grain approaches the shape of a sphere. Because the surface stresses are more
uniform, a well-rounded, spherical particle is capable of carrying higher loads without crushing.
Therefore, at higher stress levels, a higher degree of roundness and sphericity contribute to higher
proppant-pack conductivity.
A visual comparator, shown in Fig. 11.16 from API RP 56, is the most widely used method of
determining grain shape. For sands, the API recommends a minimum sphericity of 0.6 and a min-
imumroundness of 0.6 (1.0 being a perfect sphere). For intermediate- and high- strength proppants
a minimum sphericity and roundness of 0.7 is recommended.
Fig. 11.14 - Example of Long-Term Permeability (Conductivity) Data for Various 20/40 Mesh
Proppants Tested @ 275F and a Proppant Concentration of 2 lbm/sq. ft.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-42 December 1995
Fig. 11.17 shows the effect on fracture conductivity for two sands at stresses of 5000 and
10,000 psi, one exceeding API specs and other falling below the recommended roundness/spheric-
ity. From this, it is obvious that the rounder, more spherical proppant results in much higher con-
ductivity, i.e., 61% higher at 5000 psi and 300% higher at 10,000 psi stress.
Proppants routinely used and/or new proppants being considered for use should be subjected to
grain shape testing under a microscope by the service company and/or operator.
Proppant Fines
The presence of silts, clays, and other fine particles in the proppant can also reduce fracture con-
ductivity. Fine particles can be detected through an API recommended turbidity test on-site. The
recommended procedure for this test is:
Using a black marking pen, record the proppant sample identification on one side of a clear
glass 4-ounce prescription bottle (100 ml in 10 ml increments) in characters approximately
1/2 high.
Place the proppant sample in the container and fill to the 20 ml mark, gently tapping and
leveling the sand and further fill to bring to but not exceed the 20 ml mark.
Add turbidity-free water (distilled water, if available) to the 100 ml mark.
Cap the bottle and shake vigorously for 10 seconds.
Hold the bottle at arm's length toward a moderate light source with the side of the bottle with
the identification mark facing the light source.
Fig. 11.15 - Effect of Proppant Particle Size Distribution on Fracture Conductivity for 20/40 Mesh
Sand at Proppant Stresses of 5,000-10,000 psi.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
PROPPANT QC
11-43 December 1995
Interpretation
If the sample ID can be read through the water phase, the proppant should be judged clean
and suitable for use.
If the sample ID can not be read, the proppant sample should be judged dirty and unsuitable
for use.
Table 11.10 - Recommended API Proppant Specications for Frac Sand and Manufactured
Proppants.
Recommended Mesh Size Requirements
A minimum of 90% of the tested sample should fall between the designated sieve size. Not more than
0.1% of the tested sample should be larger than the first sieve size. Not over 1% should be smaller than
the last sieve size.
Recognized Proppant Mesh Sizes
Frac Sand Size
Designation
+
6/12
+
8/16
*
12/20
+
16/30
*
20/40
+
30/50
*
40/70
+
70/140
USA Sieves
a
Required for Testing
4 6 8 12 16 20 30 50
6 8 12 16 20 30 40 70
8 12 16 20 30 40 50 100
10 14 18 25 35 45 60 120
12 16 20 30 40 50 70 140
16 20 30 40 50 70 100 200
Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan
* Primary Mesh Size
+ Alternate Mesh Size
a
USA Sieve Series as dened in ASTM E 11-70
Frac Sand Manufactured
Roundness: 0.6 value or greater 0.7 value or greater
Sphericity: 0.6 value or greater 0.7 value or greater
Turbidity: 250 FTU or less not specied
Silica: greater than 98% by weight not specied
Acid Solubility Hydrochloric acid solubility - less
than 0.3%. 12% hydrochloric - 3%
hydrouoric acid solubility - 6/12
through 30/40 mesh - 2.0%
maximum allowable, 40/70 through
60/140 mesh - 3.0% maximum
allowable percentage.
Hydrochloric acid solubility - not
specied. 12% hydrochloric - 3%
hydrouoric - not specied.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-44 December 1995
If the sample ID can be read but with some difficulty, let the sample stand for 10 minutes and
repeat the test. If the ID still cannot be read, the sample should be judged unsuitable for use.
The most suitable time to perform the turbidity test is when the proppant bins or trucks are
loaded in order to get a representative sample from a moving stream. Also, performing the test at
Fig. 11.16 - Chart for Visual Estimation of Roundness and Sphericity for Proppants Used in
Hydraulic Fracturing (from Krumbein and Sloss, 1955).
Fig. 11.17 - Effect of Proppant Roundness and Sphericity on Fracture Conductivity for 20/40 Mesh
Sand at Proppant Stresses of 5,000-10,000 psi.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
PROPPANT QC
11-45 December 1995
this early time in the operation will allow for corrective measures to be taken if necessary without
undue delay to the treatment.
Proppant fines can also be generated in the fracture if the proppant strength is not high enough to
withstand formation stresses. Crush resistance testing should be performed periodically on rou-
tinely used proppants and all newproppants being considered for use, using the recommended pro-
cedure in API RP 56. Testing of this nature can be performed by the service company, the Amoco
Tulsa Technology Center, or by commercial core laboratories. Table 11.11 includes the recom-
mended test cell loads and maximum allowable fines for frac sand.
Additional Proppant Quality Control Measures
Obtain weight tickets from the service company on the amounts and types of proppant
delivered and loaded on location.
If using more than one type or size of proppant on a treatment, know where each proppant is
loaded in the proppant storage bins on location and discuss with the frac operator in what order
these are to be run.
Catch samples of the proppant during various stages of the treatment and label these according
to size/type proppant and when they were caught.
Table 11.11 - Stress to be Applied and Suggested Maximum Fines for Frac and Sand Crush
Resistance Tests (API RP 56).
Mesh Size
Load on Cell*
(lb force)
Stress on Sand
(psi)
Suggested Max. Fines
(% by weight)
6/12 6,283 2,000 20
8/16 6,283 2,000 18
12/20 9,425 3,000 16
16/30 9,425 3,000 14
20/40 12,566 4,000 14
30/50 12,566 4,000 10
40/70 15,708 5,000 8
70/140 15,708 5,000 6
NOTE: Indicated loads are for cells with a 2 diameter piston. For cells of other
sizes, the cell load should be adjusted by the factor:
(diam. of cell, in./2)**2.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-46 December 1995
11.6 TREATMENT EXECUTION
Successful execution of a fracturing treatment requires good lines of communication, following
safe working practices, and having contingencies in place for mechanical and/or abnormal pres-
sure behavior problems.
Lines of Authority and Communication
The operator should have only one person in charge of communicating changes or decisions to
the service company.
Key personnel from the operator and service co. should have a final review meeting to go over
the treatment pump schedule, maximum treating pressures, lines of authority, contingency
plans in case of mechanical/pressure problems, and safety issues.
Service co. should supply properly working radios and headsets to all personnel at key
equipment focal points, i.e., blender, pumps, sand delivery, frac tanks, valve operator, and frac
operator in control van.
Prior to pressure testing, the service co. should perform a radio check to make sure all radios
and headsets are fully functional. If an insufficient number of working radios are not
available, the treatment should not be performed until this is remedied.
Safety Meeting
The safety meeting should be conducted by the frac operator with all personnel on-site and should
include the following:
An outline of the job procedure.
Maximum treating pressures and rate.
Pressure testing.
Operator responsibilities.
Operator safety gear, including safety glasses, hard hats, safety boots, and proper clothing.
Chemical hazards.
Location and use of fire extinguishers, eye wash facilities, first aid kits, and other safety
equipment.
Other emergency procedures, including fire, leaks, other accidents.
Smoking restrictions.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
TREATMENT EXECUTION
11-47 December 1995
Normal and emergency shut-down procedures.
A sign-up list of all personnel on-location during the treatment.
A designated safe assembly area in case of an emergency situation.
Pressure Testing
Prior to every fracture treatment, all injection lines and valves should be pressure tested and pop-
offs or pressure relief valves set. All lines should be properly staked and all personnel not
directly involved in the pressure test should move well clear of the area surrounding the lines, well-
head, and fracturing equipment. All lines should be tested to just above the determined maximum
treating pressure set by the operator, with this pressure being held and recorded for a minimum of
5 minutes. If treating down tubing, with the plan to hold back-pressure on the annulus, both tubing
and annulus lines must be tested. All leaks should be eliminated prior to proceeding with the treat-
ment.
Pressure relief valves should always be installed on injection lines and set and tested to just below
the determined maximum treating pressure.
Treating Problems
Oftentimes, treating problems arise during the job that must be dealt with, the most common be
equipment failures, gel not properly crosslinking, proppant delivery problems, and abnormal pres-
sures. These can be very disruptive to the successful completion of a treatment if proper planning
and contingencies have not been put in place. Some of the more common problems are as follows:
Blender failure due to mechanical problem - In most cases, it is advisable to have a standby
blender rigged-up and operational. While blender failures are rare, the cost of standby is
minimal compared to the costs that might be incurred if the treatment has to be prematurely
aborted. Hoses should be run from the standby to the frac tank manifold, the standby blender
tub filled with gel, and sufficient chemicals installed on this blender to complete the job if need
be. Also, when a standby blender is installed, provisions need to be made to change the sand
delivery over to this second blender.
On small treatments, where leak-off is expected to be high, fracture closure time may not
allow sufficient time to switch to a standby blender. If this is the case, a standby serves no
purpose.
Sanding-up the blender tub - This is caused when fluid cannot be transferred to the blender
at a fast enough rate, blender operator error (i.e., letting tub fluid level get too low), and/or
the proppant feed rate into the tub is too high. If this occurs, switch immediately to the
standby blender and resume the treatment. If no provision has been made for a standby, the
treatment may have to be terminated. With a single blender, opening multiple fluid tanks may
increase the feed rate to the blender. If problems are encountered early in the treatment in
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-48 December 1995
sucking fluid fast enough from the tanks at the desired injection rate, and a standby blender is
available; then both blenders may have to be employed to keep up with the rate. This, though,
takes careful planning.
Inadequate fluid transfer fromtanks to blender - This can be caused by the inability of the
centrifugal pump on the suction side of the blender to draw fluid from the tanks, especially
those a significant distance from the blender; partially closed valves; and/or plugged or kinked
suction hoses. Adequate suction lines of proper sizing must be installed to achieve the desired
rate. On extremely large treatments, transfer blenders may be required to transfer fluid from
remote tanks to the primary blender.
Proppant delivery systemfailure - This is usually the weak link on any treatment. On smaller
treatments, there is seldom any way to provide backup for the proppant delivery system. If this
fails, the treatment should be flushed. On larger treatments, however, dual-belt proppant
conveyor systems are available, which allow the treatment to be continued if one belt bogs
down or the hydraulics on one side fail. It is important that the proppant delivery system used
be capable of delivering the desired pounds per minute with adequate safety margin.
Pump failures - This is one of the more common occurrences and should be dealt with by
having adequate standby. The amount of standby is usually determined by the nature of the
treatment. Long, high-pressure treatments, where an abrasive proppant such as bauxite is
pumped, should have a minimum of 100% standby. On other treatments, 50% standby is
usually sufficient.
Inaccurate metering - Flowmeters, densimeters, and pressure transducers can sometimes fail.
It is advisable to have at least two of each type meter/gauge in the main injection line. All
should be properly calibrated prior to the treatment, and early in the treatment, they should be
checked against other gauging methods, e.g., the flowmeter checked against tank dips and the
densimeter checked against sand screw RPM's. Prior to and immediately following the
treatment, the fluid, chemicals, and proppant should be inventoried to determine what was
pumped and how this compares with the treatment metering.
Loss of power or electronics to treatment van - This can present a very dangerous
situation if not dealt with properly. A proper contingency plan is required to avoid this. This
would include good communication with the operators and material gaugers - the volume and
rate obtained from the tank gaugers, the sand concentration determined from the blender sand
screw RPM's, and the pressure monitored on the pump trucks.
Fluctuations in treating pressure can often signal quality control problems. Pressure changes can
be caused by mechanical problems, a change in gel properties, varying proppant concentration, and
formation responses.
Abnormal pressures from wellbore conditions - The more common pressure problems
caused by wellbore conditions are excessive pipe or perforation friction, and downhole
equipment failures or leaks. An ISIP early in the treatment or during pre-frac testing can detect
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
TREATMENT EXECUTION
11-49 December 1995
whether or not pipe and/or perforation friction is a problem. Without bottomhole pressure data,
though, it can be difficult to tell the difference between perforation friction and excessive
pipe friction due to improperly mixed frac fluids. One common reason for excessive pipe
friction on crosslinked gel treatments is that the fluid is crosslinking too quick or the
crosslinker addition is incorrect. Also, different tanks of base gel may result in slightly
different crosslinked gel frictions. This should be checked as a first line of action. If the fluid
mixing is not a problem and the treating pressure is excessively high, the treatment should be
aborted. Re-design of the treatment at a lower rate may be required or the well re-perforated or
an acid ball-out performed. Proper pre-frac testing with BHP, including a gel minifrac, can
usually detect these types of problems so they can be remedied prior to performing the
treatment.
When the treatment is pumped down tubing, below a packer, positive annulus pressure should
always be held to immediately detect any communication through a tubing leak or packer
failure. If this occurs, the treatment should be terminated.
Abnormal pressures from formation response - The two most common abnormal pressure
responses caused by the formation are usually a result of fracturing out of zone or pressuring
out (screening-out). If the fracture grows out of zone into a lower stressed interval, a sudden
drop in pressure may be apparent. This, however, is often hard to detect at the surface due to
changing friction and hydrostatic pressures. Pressure increases preceding a screenout may
serve as an early warning signal to flush the treatment. Often, though, this is also masked by
the changing friction and hydrostatic pressures and it is not until a complete screenout occurs
that it is apparent at the surface.
The service companies have developed means of calculating BHTP from surface pressure and
friction correlations to use in detecting downhole pressure changes. Due to the oftentimes
inaccuracy of these correlations, though, the calculated BHTP can be misleading and has
resulted in premature flushing of treatments when, in fact, the rising pressures were nothing
more than poor gel quality and increased friction pressure. As a rule-of-thumb, calculated
BHTP's can not be relied on and should not be used to make real-time decisions during a
fracturing treatment. The only time when they may provide valuable information is when
pumping down large tubing or casing where friction is not a factor and the proppant stages are
large enough that the pipe contains all one slurry.
Flushing the Treatment
Special attention should be given the flush procedure to avoid over-flushing the proppant away
fromthe wellbore. Flush should be initiated froma near-wellhead densimeter, to avoid major dis-
crepancies in the treatment line volume. Using this method, the flush volume can be calculated by
adding (1) the wellbore volume to the top perforation to (2) the volume from the near-WH den-
simeter to the wellhead, and subtracting (3) the desired under-displacement. Flowmeters are
usually only accurate to within 5% and this should be used as a rule-of-thumb in determining the
under-displacement, unless the flush volume is relatively small to begin with. All treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-50 December 1995
should always be under-flushed by at least 2 bbls unless the 5% rule dictates more. When calcu-
lating the flush volume, several people should go through this exercise to insure there are no mis-
takes.
The flush counter should be immediately zeroed at the time the proppant concentration from the
wellhead densimeter starts to fall off from the maximum slurry concentration. This will generally
result in leaving the maximum proppant concentration in the fracture at the wellbore. Performing
the flush this way, though, will also result in a tail-off of proppant left in the wellbore above
the point of flushing, this tail-off being that in the lines and blender tub behind the wellhead den-
simeter. If adequate rat-hole is not available to accommodate this, the wellbore may have to be
cleaned out.
Another method to prevent some of the proppant tail-off is to by-pass the blender tub. While this
prevents the blender contents from being pumped into the well, there are certain problems that can
occur in switching to the by-pass, the most common of these being a loss of prime on the pumps.
While this method is attractive, it is not recommended.
It is not advisable to flush Foam fracturing treatments with foam. To accurately determine a
foam flush volume, the bottomhole conditions (temperature and pressure) must be accurately
known and this is seldom the case. After a foam fracturing treatment, the reservoir should be
charged up enough to unload a column of water, provided the flowback is initiated in a timely fash-
ion.
When to Flowback
Following a non-foam type fracturing treatment, the well should remain shut-in long enough for
the fracture to close and the tail-end gel to fully break. If closure time is expected to be short,
this can be monitored from surface pressure in the frac control van. In tighter reservoirs, the shut-
in time may be as much as 24 hours. Samples caught during the treatment, should be placed in a
heat-bath immediately after the treatment to monitor the break time. Depending on the size of treat-
ment, it will take some time for the reservoir in the proximity of the fracture to recover to original
BHT. This needs to be taken into consideration to allow some safety margin prior to initiating
flowback.
Where a foam fracturing treatment has been performed, the primary objective is usually to flow
the well back in a relatively short time frame to aid in cleanup from under-pressured reservoirs.
Typically, this is done within 1-2 hours following the treatment and, in most cases, this is sufficient
time for the foam to degrade, i.e., foam half-life generally less than 1 hour. Initiating flowback
immediately after a non-foam type treatment, i.e., forced closure, is not recommended. During
flowback, the fracture will try to close in the near-wellbore region and, if the proppant is still sus-
pended in viscous fluid, much of the proppant in this region of the fracture may be pulled back into
the wellbore. If this happens, as suspected, the result could be poorer near-wellbore fracture com-
munication. Only in cases where the closure time is very long and proppant may tend to settle
beneath the primary pay zone, should forced closure even be considered.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
POST-FRAC LOGGING
11-51 December 1995
11.7 POST-FRAC LOGGING
Post-frac logs are often run to help in evaluating whether or not model-predicted fracture geometry
was obtained. These independent measurements, when coupled with pressure analysis and post-
frac modeling, can help to verify and/or modify the calculation procedure for future treatments in
an area. The two most common post-frac logging tools are the temperature and gamma-ray logs.
While both are shallow investigative tools and can have interpretation problems, they can provide
valuable information when run correctly in a proper environment.
Temperature Logs
Post-frac temperature logs are the most common method of measuring fracture height due to their
operational ease of use. They are easy to run, can be run in cased- or open-hole, and have minimal
impact on operations since the well is typically shut-in for several hours after a stimulation.
Procedure. The most reliable procedure for running post-frac temperature logs is to first run a base
(pre-fracture) log to determine the undisturbed temperature gradient of the formations, then two to
three additional logs following the fracture treatment as shown in Fig. 11.18. The best results are
obtained by logging down, so the temperature sensor is always entering undisturbed fluid, at a
speed of 20-30 fpm. The best time to obtain the base log is prior to any other completion phase,
e.g., perforating, running tubing, etc. This, however, might not always be possible or cost-effective
and the next best method is to run the base log the day before the fracture treatment. The post-frac
logs should be run shortly (1-3 hours) after the treatment and multiple passes made with a mini-
mum of 3/4 to 1 hour between logging starts. No flowback from the well should be allowed prior
to logging, but if this is necessary, it is usually possible to obtain a good log by allowing a couple
of hours for the temperature to re-stabilize following the flow back. In the case of an under-pres-
sured reservoir where the fluid level might continue to fall after the treatment, the fluid level should
be allowed to nearly stabilize prior to running the post-frac logs.
When To Log. Post-frac temperature logs are typically run when there is a question about the
degree of fracture height containment that occurred as compared to model predictions. Fracture
height determination is generally more applicable when stimulating low permeability zones,
where the objective is to achieve long fracture half-lengths. In particular, in new areas with wells
having virgin reservoir pressure where little is known of the boundary stresses, it is usually appro-
priate to conduct a minifrac and run post-minifrac logs to calibrate the model stress profile for
final design determination. Temperature logs may then also be run after the main treatment to con-
firmor verify model predictions. In moderate to high permeability zones usually the main objec-
tive is to by-pass near-wellbore damage and fracture height is not as critical. For these type zones,
though, temperature logs might still be appropriate following a minifrac if the objective is to stay
out of alternative pay zones or water-bearing intervals in close proximity to the target zone.
Also, when fracturing thick intervals of moderate to high permeability, where multiple layers
exist with varying permeabilities and stresses, temperature logs might be appropriate following
a minifrac and/or treatment to evaluate how much of the interval was treated.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-52 December 1995
Limitations. Ideal logs, such as shown in Fig. 11.18, are rare and may be in error when they do
occur. To help in evaluating when temperature logs should be run and how best to interpret them,
it is important to understand their limitations. The two primary factors affecting temperature log
interpretation are the created fracture width and wellbore conditions. Low-stress and/or low-
modulus zones can have significantly greater fracture width and will accept the majority of fluid.
This results in more cooling across this region(s) and the largest temperature anomaly. This is both
a strength and weakness: a strength because the log is indicating where the bulk of fluid went and
a weakness because the larger anomaly can mask height growth into higher stress/modulus zones,
leading to misinterpretation of fracture height and geometry.
Wellbore conditions can also affect temperature log interpretation, these including placement of
the downhole assembly and wellbore deviation. Pumping down tubing will create a temperature
anomaly immediately below the tubing because of the difference in radial heat flow rates for a tub-
ing/casing configuration compared with fluid flow just inside the casing.
When post-frac temperature logging is planned, the tubing/packer/tail-pipe assembly should be
positioned far enough above the highest point of expected fracture growth to prevent
interpretation problems.
Wellbore deviation can also significantly impact temperature log interpretation. Generally, where
the wellbore is vertical and the fracture grows vertically, there is complete communication of the
fracture along the wellbore. However, when the fracture grows vertically from a deviated wellbore
or a non-vertical fracture grows from a vertical wellbore, the fracture will (in most cases) leave the
wellbore. And, because the temperature tool is a very shallow investigative tool, it will not identify
Fig. 11.18 - Base and Post-Fracture Temperature Logs: Runs #1 - 8 hrs after Injection and Run #2 -
18 hrs after Injection.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
POST-FRAC LOGGING
11-53 December 1995
that portion of the fracture not in direct contact with the wellbore. Thus, in situations such as this,
temperature logs have limited application.
Temperature logs have very little to no application in deviated well fracturing, unless they are
used to determine whether vertical or horizontal fracturing is occurring. Even for this
application, their interpretation may be questionable.
Interpretation. While temperature logs, when used as a stand-alone tool, can be difficult to inter-
pret, they can yield valuable information when interpreted correctly. Several analysis techniques
have been developed to aid in this. One of these is a cold-water circulating test to assist in anal-
ysis. This involves circulating down tubing and up the annulus to cool the wellbore without creat-
ing a fracture. Post-circulation logs then indicate perturbations caused by thermal conductivity
changes and wellbore effects, such as washouts. Post-frac logs can then be compared to this pre-
frac log to identify fluid movement outside the pipe and thus the presence of fracture height
growth. An example of this is shown in Fig. 11.19. For the particular case of a warmnose above
perforations, further evidence of the correctness of this interpretation was given by comparing
post-frac temperature and gamma-ray logs, as shown in Fig. 11.20.
Fig. 11.19 - Example of Post-Cold-Water-Circulation Test Log with Post-Fracture Log.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-54 December 1995
Running of multiple post-frac logs also improves the temperature log interpretation. Fig. 11.21
shows an example where the temperature profile changed with later logs, giving a much easier
interpretation.
Downward fracture growth is difficult to determine with a temperature log. Typically, at the con-
clusion of a fracture treatment, the wellbore fluid below the perforated interval is very near static
reservoir temperature. Thus, the temperature log will show a sharp break at this point and this is
often misconstrued as the fracture bottom when, in fact, this is only indicating stagnant fluid in the
rathole. If the fracture has grown downward, the fluid outside the wellbore will be cooler than that
inside the rathole and post-fracture cooling below the perforated interval may be observed, result-
ing in a temperature cross-over as shown in Fig. 11.22. This is a clear indication of downward
fracture growth and the point of cross-over is interpreted as the fracture bottom.
Gamma-Ray Logs
Gamma-ray logs are another common method of measuring fracture height. These are conducted
by inducing artificial radioactivity in the fracture by including tagged proppant or tagged liquid in
the normal fracturing proppant or fluid, followed by post-treatment gamma-ray logs. One advan-
tage of gamma-ray logs over temperature logs is that they need not be run immediately after
stimulation, allowing wellbore fill below perforations to be cleaned out before logging. The other
restrictions on temperature logs, however, apply equally to radioactive logs, i.e., they are shal-
Fig. 11.20 - Comparison of Post-Fracture Temperature Log and Post-Fracture Gamma-Ray Log.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
POST-FRAC LOGGING
11-55 December 1995
low investigative tools (shallower even than temperature logs) and the response is proportional to
fracture width. Thus, while the two logs are often used in combination, the potential exists for them
to confirm one another and still not yield totally reliable results.
Procedure. Radioactive materials are added to the fracturing slurry stream with proper injection
and metering equipment supplied by the radioactive tracer company. Both high-pressure and low-
pressure equipment is available for adding the radioactive material either upstream or downstream
of the high pressure pumps. As mentioned earlier, tracers can be added either in a solid (proppant)
form or a liquid form. Zero-wash tracers, patented by ProTechnics, should be used whenever pos-
sible. This minimizes the residual radioactive material left in the wellbore and eases the interpre-
tation of post-frac gamma-ray logs. Table 11.12 lists the available types of tracers, their
recommended application, the more commonly used isotopes, mesh sizes for solid tracers, and
crush resistance limitations. Typically, for a fracturing treatment, proppant embedded with Sc-46
(Scandium), Sb-124 (Antimony), and/or Ir-192 (Iridium) are used as solid tracers. These same iso-
topes can also be used in liquid form. Typical tracer concentrations are 0.15-0.8 mCi per
1000 gals of fluid or pounds of proppant, depending on the gamma-ray tool size planned for use.
For a 1-11/16 in. tool, the recommended concentration is 0.35-0.8 mCi/1000 gals or lbs and for a
3-5/8 in. tool, it is 0.15-0.30 mCi/1000 gals or lbs. The types and concentrations of isotopes used
is dependent on the program objectives and the time before post-frac logs will be run, some iso-
Fig. 11.21 - Example of Temperature Profile Changing with Time, Later Log Showing a Clearer
Interpretation.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
11
11-56 December 1995
topes having longer half-lifes than others, i.e., Au-198 (gold) - 3 days, Sb-124 - 60 days, Ir-192 -
74 days, and Sc-46 - 84 days. The tracer service company should be consulted to obtain recom-
mendations for a specific application.
A proper gamma-ray logging program for fracture treatment evaluation should always include a
pre-treatment log to identify naturally occurring isotopes in formation layers and to provide a base
log for comparison to the post-frac log. Comparing these two greatly enhances the interpretation
of post-frac logs. Spectral gamma-ray tools are available for use in distinquishing multiple iso-
tope tracing.
Application. Some of the more common applications of tracer logs are:
Minimum fracture height. Radioactive tracers can identify the minimum height of the
medium pumped - either hydraulic height (liquid tracers) or propped height (proppant tracers).
In many cases, this minimum height may be equal to or very close to the created height; but,
Fig. 11.22 - Example of Temperature Crossover Below Perforations.
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
POST-FRAC LOGGING
11-57 December 1995
Table 11.12 - General Description and Properties of ProTechnics Patented ZERO WASH Tracer
Products.
SOLIDS
PTI-ZW ZERO WASH
School Problems
P-44
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
Results from Minifrac Treatment
Injected 20,000 gals of 90 cp gel at an average injection rate of 7.94 BPM. Following injection, the
shut-in BHP was monitored for 14 minutes.
SI TIme (min) BHP (psi)
0 7200
1 7194
2 7169
3 7157
4 7146
5 7136
6 7128
7 7121
8 7114
10 7100
12 7087
14 7074
Oil Well Problem 8
P-45
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
School Problems
P-46
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
Oil Well Problem 8
P-47
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
Net Treating Pressure During Minifrac
(Time = 0 when gel on performations)
OIL WELL PROBLEM
ATTACHMENT 5
School Problems
P-48
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
Bili near FLow Problem 9
P-49
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
Bili near FLow Problem 9
An oil field, fully developed on 80 acres is being considered for a re-stimulation program. One well
was fractured and a post-frac build up test run. Plotting the data on a log-log type curve showed a
1/4 slope, and a plot of build-up vs. fourth root of shut-in time is attached. Based on a qualitative
examination of this plot, can any general recommendations be made about future stimulations?
Using the plot and the following reservoir properties, find fracture conductivity and length, Fcd,
and steady-state folds of increase (FOI) resulting from this stimulation.
Reservoir Properties -
k = 3.3 md , = 0.10 , C
t
= 9 x 10
-6
(1/psi)
= 3.0 cp , h = 200 ft , q = 290 BPD , B = 1.2
Calculations -
k
f
w = (eqn. 6, p. 11)
x
f
= (eqns. 13-15, p. 16)
(Note: These equations can be solved in several ways, one way is graphically, plotting both
sides of the equation vs. length, since both sides are functions of x
f
.)
F
cd
=
Steady-State FOI =
Based on extrapolating from 3 months production, it has been determined that the PW(15) of the
increased production resulting from the stimulations is $390,500. The cost of the fracture job was
$35,500. Calculate the discounted return on investment for this stimulation.
DROI =
Fracture design calculations were done based on analysis of post-frac pressure data from the first
well. These were used to develop a price table for changes in the stimulation design:
School Problems
P-50
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
Using these prices and steady-state calculations for folds of increase (FOI), calculate the DROI for
the various stimulation designs. Should a change in design be recommended? Should more cases
be considered?
(Costs in $1,000.00)
x
f
= k
f
w 0.5 * base base case 2 * base
0.5 * base 24 34 48
base case 25 35.5 51.5
2 * base 27 39 59
DROI
x
f
= k
f
w 0.5 * base base case 2 * base
0.5 * base
base case
2 * base
Bili near FLow Problem 9
P-51
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
School Problems
P-52
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual April 1994
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual I-53
Index
A
Accelerated settling 6-13
Acid Fracturing 3-22
Activator and gellant 6-8
Additive(s)
chemical 6-7
clay control 6-6
diesel fluid loss 6-14
fluid loss 5-23
particulate fluid loss 6-14
Advantages
foamed frac fluids 6-41
gelled hydrocarbons 6-48
methanol gels 6-49
polymer emulsion fluid 6-40
Aluminum
antimony and boron 6-32
crosslinked orthophosphate esters 6-47
Anaerobic bacteria 6-6
Analysis of bilinear flow data 3-46
Anderson and Stahl 1-4
Anionic surfactants 6-6
Antimony, boron and aluminum 6-32
Apparent productive length 5-36
Appropriate viscosity 6-11
Aqueous
fluids 1-4
foam 6-1
Auxiliary stimulation equipment 9-20
Axial
strain 4-2, 4-3
stress 4-2
Azimuth 3-8
B
Bacteria, anaerobic 6-6
Base temperature logs 10-8
Bedload, transport 6-12
BHTP
gauge tailpipe assembly 8-23
measuring devices 8-23
measuring techniques 8-22
Bilinear flow 3-25, 3-27
data analysis 3-35
equations 3-28
graphs 3-41
Binary foam 6-43, 6-46
Bingham plastic fluid 5-29
Biocides 6-7
Blender 1-8
services 9-20
Blocks,water 6-7
Borate
gels and foams 6-9
ores 6-34
Borehole
geometry log 10-5
televiewer 10-7
Boron, aluminum and antimony 6-32
Bottomhole
pressure 5-15
treating pressure 8-14, 8-22
Bounding beds 5-3, 5-4, 5-12, 5-13, 5-15
Breakdown pressure 8-4
Breaker(s)
crushable 6-20
encapsulated 6-7, 6-20
enzyme 6-7, 6-20
gel 6-20
release, crushable and controlled 6-21
C
Capacity
finite 3-4
infinite 3-4
variable finite 3-4
Capillary tubing
field nominal shear rates 6-51
nominal shear rates 6-51
Carboxymethyl
cellulose (CMHEC) 6-30
hydroxypropyl guar (CMHPG) 6-30
Cationic
polymeric clay stabilizers 6-6
surfactants 6-6
Cement bond log 10-7
Ceramic proppants 7-1
Chemical stabilizers 1-5
Clay
control additives 6-6
swelling or migrating 6-6
Cleanup, flow back and 6-18
Closure
pressure 5-13
stress 5-3, 5-4, 5-11, 5-13
differentials 5-15
profile 5-3
tests 5-14
Clump 6-13
CMHEC (carboxymethyl cellulose) 6-30
CMHPG (carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar) 6-30
CO2 foams 6-9
Cochran, Heck and Waters 1-4
Coding system
Dowell Schlumberger 6-53
Index
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual I-54
Halliburtons 6-52
Western Company 6-53
Cold water circulation temperature surveys 10-8
Compatibility
formation, formation fluids and chemical additives 6-6
safety and environmental 6-5
Compression test 4-2, 4-3
Computer control console 1-9
Concentrates, polymer 6-30
Concentration, effective polymer 6-20
Conditions
dynamic 4-2
quasi static 4-2
Conductivity of proppant 7-19
Consistency Index 5-29
Constant
formation face
pressure 3-29, 3-42, 3-44
rate 3-28, 3-41
internal phase 6-40
Continuity equation 2-1, 8-17, 8-19, 8-25
Continuous
mixed fluid systems 6-8
proportioner 1-8
Controlling fracture height 5-2
Core
bulging 4-2, 4-4
flow tests 6-6
tests 10-3
Cost(s)
pumping 6-23
pumping hp 6-11
Criteria, fluid selection 6-3
Critical
concentration 6-9
pressure 8-1, 8-20
strain energy release rate 4-7
stress intensity factor 4-7
Cross reference of similar additives 6-54
Crosslinked
aluminum orthophosphate esters 6-47
delayed fluids 6-38
delayed systems 6-8
dual functionality 6-34
gels 6-14
hydrocarbon 6-2
ideal delayed fluid 6-38
polymer solutions (gels) 6-1
Crosslinking
agents 1-5
fast 6-32
fast, water-base gels 6-32
Crushable breakers 6-20
D
Delayed crosslinked systems 6-8
Density log 10-5
Depth 5-40
Design package, integrated 6-23
Desired fracture half-lengths 1-12
Devonian shale 6-11
Diesel fluid loss additive 6-14
Dimensionless fracture
capacity (FCD) 3-1
conductivity (FCD) 1-12
Disadvantages
foamed frac fluids 6-46
gelled hydrocarbons 6-48
methanol gels 6-49
polymer emulsion fluid 6-40
Discounted return on investment (DROI) 9-3, 9-8
Dowell Schlumberger coding system 6-53
Downhole
flow, turbulent conditions 6-51
television 10-7
Drag
coefficient, particle 6-12
reducing 6-9
DROI (discounted return on investment) 9-3
Droplet-size 6-41
Dynamic
conditions 4-2
fluid loss 6-18
moduli 4-2
modulus 4-5
E
Economics 6-23
Effect of
flow restrictions 3-37
wellbore storage 3-37
Effective
particle shear rate 6-12
porosity 5-21
wellbore radius (rw) 3-10
Elastic modulus 10-3
Elasticity equation 2-1
Emulsifying 6-8
Emulsions 6-7
Encapsulated
breaker(s) 6-7, 6-20
Environmental and safety compatibility 6-5
Enzyme breakers 6-7, 6-20
Equation
continuity 2-1
elasticity 2-1
fluid flow 2-1
Equilibrium bank(s) 6-11
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Index
I-55
F
Fatty-acid soaps 6-47
FCD
dimensionless fracture capacity 3-1
dimensionless fracture conductivity 1-12
FDROI (fracture discounted return on investment) 9-3
Filtrate 5-20
FINCPV (fracture incremental present worth or value) 9-3
Finite capacity 3-4
Flash points 6-5
Flow
back and cleanup 6-18
behavior index 5-29
Fluid loss 6-14
addtives 5-23
coefficient 5-20, 10-3
foams 6-15
oil base gels 6-15
rate 8-27
test 5-22
Fluid(s)
affected by fluid flow loss 6-18
aqueous 1-4
bingham plastic 5-29
classification 6-1
crosslinked delayed 6-38
degradation 5-39
description of fracturing types 6-30
dynamic loss 6-18
efficiency 5-37, 8-36, 8-44, 8-55
flow equation 2-1
foamed frac 6-41
hydrocarbon-base 6-23
ideal delayed crosslinked 6-38
low loss 6-14
napalm-type 6-47
optimal scheduling for 6-70
polymer emulsion 6-40
power law 5-29
pressure calculating 5-15
rheological testing of fracturing 6-49
scheduling 6-70
scheduling given the fluid rheology 6-70
scheduling using contained rheology 6-71
selection 6-1
selection criteria 6-3
viscosities, proppant transport 6-11
viscosity 5-27
volume 5-37
Fluid-element
exposure time 6-70
rheology 6-70
time at temperature vs. volume pumped 6-72
Fluidized layer of sand 6-12
Fluorocarbon, surfactants 6-7
Foam(s) 6-15
aqueous 6-1
binary 6-43, 6-46
CO2 6-9
friction pressure data 6-43
hydrocarbon 6-2
hydrocarbon-base 6-23
nitrogen 6-9
viscosity data 6-43
texture 6-43
Foamed frac fluids
advantages 6-41
disadvantages 6-46
Foaming potential 6-8
FOI (folds of increase) 1-12, 3-5, 3-10
Folds of increase (FOI) 1-12, 3-5, 3-10
Formation
elastic properties 4-1
fluid 5-22
linear flow 3-27
permeability 3-1
wettability of 6-6
Frac Height
variables affecting 5-15
Fracture 5-36
closure pressure 5-11
closure stress 8-4
determining fluid efficiency 8-58
discounted return on investment (FDROI) 9-3
early design 1-8
extension pressure 8-4
flow capacity 3-1, 3-2, 3-3
geometry 5-16
half-length 3-2, 5-36
height 5-1, 5-3, 5-15, 5-16
controlling 5-2
growth 5-1, 5-3
incremental present worth or value (FINCPV) 9-3
initial height 5-3
length 3-1, 5-16
linear flow 3-27
orientation 1-3, 3-8
radius 5-36
stiffness 8-26
stimulation
critical factors to optimum 1-11
design 1-12
toughness 4-7
treatment 1-6
design 5-15
width 5-15, 5-16
Fracturing
effect of modulus on 4-4
fluid(s) 1-4
compatibility with its additives 6-7
Index
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual I-56
components, toxicity 6-5
costs 6-23
friction pressure 6-9
gelled diesel 6-9
pressure analysis 8-1
pumping equipment 9-20
stimulation treatments 1-1
Friction
pressure 5-40
data for foams 6-43
fracturing fluids 6-9
various frac fluids 6-10
wellhead and horesepower requirements 6-9
reducers
oil-base 6-9
water-base 6-9
Friction-loss pressures 5-37
Friction-outs 6-40
Full-cycle 9-18
economics 9-17
G
G function 8-35
Gamma ray log 5-13, 5-17, 5-18, 10-5
Gas-constant
pressure 3-47
rate 3-47
GDK (Geertsma and de Klerk model) 2-4, 5-16
Gear pump, Jabsco 6-51
Geertsma and de Klerk model 2-4, 5-10, 5-16
Gel
breakers 6-20
crosslinked 6-14
crosslinked polymer solutions 6-1
determining rheology of 6-51
fast-crosslinking water-base 6-32
filter cake 6-14
high temperature 6-13
oil base 6-15
organometallic crosslinked 6-13
polymer concentrates 6-37
quality control of continuous-mix jobs 6-8
stabilizers 1-5
systems, high temperature behavior 6-13
testing organometallic crosslinked 6-14
uncrosslinked 6-14
viscosities, hydrocarbon 6-8
viscosity uncrosslinked 6-8
Gelatin model 1-4
Gellant and activator 6-8
Gelled
diesel fracturing fluid 6-9
hydrocarbons 6-46
advantages 6-48
disadvantages 6-48
high-temperature 6-47
methanol 6-2, 6-48
Gradients, hydrostatic 6-9
Growth, fracture height 5-1
Guar gum 6-30
Guideline 6-73
pad fluids 6-74
viscosity 6-70
H
Half-length 2-4, 5-36
Halflife 6-8
Halliburton
coding system 6-52
Oil Well Cementing Company 1-2
Hardness 4-1
HEC (hydroxyethyl cellulose) 6-30
Height
confinement 5-13, 5-14
growth 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-15, 5-16
vertical growth 5-16
hhp prices and fracturing chemical 6-23
High temperature
stability 6-13
stabilizers 6-13
Hindered settling 6-13
History
matching 5-15
of hydraulic fracturing 1-1
Horizontal closure stress 4-3
Horner plot 8-8
Horsepower 5-37
requirements, friction and wellhead pressure 6-9
Howard and Fast 1-8
hp, pumping (cost) 6-11
HPG
hydroxypropyl guar 6-30
solution viscosity behavior 6-32
Hugoton 1-2, 1-7
Hydraulic
fracture treatments 1-1
fracturing developments 1-3
fracturing history 1-1
horsepower 1-6
Hydrocarbon
Aromatic with surfactants 6-14
crosslinked 6-2
foams 6-2
gel viscosities 6-8
gelled 6-46
gels, viscosity 6-48
recovered, value of 6-23
slick 6-2
Hydrocarbon-base
fluids or foams 6-23
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Index
I-57
fracturing fluid systems 6-2
Hydrostatic, gradients 6-9
Hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) 6-30
Hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) 6-30
Hydroxypropylcellulose 6-49
I
INCDROI (incremental discounted return on investment) 9-3
INCPVF (incremental PW or value of the fracture) 9-3
Incremental
discounted return on investment (INCDROI) 9-3
economics 9-12
present worth or value of the fracture(INCPVF) 9-3
Infinite
bounding beds 5-3
capacity 3-4
thickness 5-3
Initial fracture height 5-3
In-situ
closure stress 5-12
closure stress profile 5-15
stress 5-12
stress profile 5-13
stress tests 8-4
stresses 5-15
Insoluble residue 6-20
Integrated design package 6-23
Interface slip 5-11
Ionic surfactants 6-6
ISIP (instantaneous shut-in pressure) 8-4
J
Jabsco gear pump 6-51
Jet mixer 1-7
K
K (Geertsma and de Klerk model) 2-4
kfw (fracture flow capacity) 3-2
Khristianovic model 2-4
Perkins and Kern comparison of 2-5
L
Lateral
strain 4-2
Lateral strain 4-2, 4-3
Leakoff
driving pressure 6-15, 6-18
resistance in the reservoir rock 6-15
Liquid-constant
pressure 3-36
rate 3-35
Lithology changes 5-12
Load recovery 6-8
Log(s)
base temperature 10-8
borehole geometry 10-5
cement bond 10-7
density 10-5
gamma ray 5-13, 5-17, 5-18, 10-5
long spaced digital sonic 10-6
LSDS 10-6
neutron porosity 10-5
resistivity 10-5
spontaneous potential 5-18, 10-5
static temperature 10-9
temperature 5-18
Long spaced digital sonic log (LSDS) 10-6
Low
fluid loss 6-14
pumping pressure 6-9
M
Mass balance equation 8-17
Massive hydraulic fracturing (MHF) 1-7
Material Safety Data (MSD) 6-5
Mechanical properties in fracturing 4-1
Methanol 1-5, 6-7
gelled 6-2, 6-48
gels
advantages 6-49
disadvantages 6-49
used with CO2 6-49
viscosify 6-49
MHF (Massive hydraulic fracturing) 1-7
Microfrac 8-4
tests 8-4, 8-7
Minifrac 8-2
calibration treatments 1-10
Mixing, simulated field 6-51
Model 35 Fann viscometer 6-8
Models, Pseudo 3-D 5-16
Moduli
dynamic 4-2
static 4-2
Modulus
effect on fracturing 4-4
of elasticity 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 10-3
plane strain 4-1
MSD (Material Safety Data) 6-5
N
Napalm 1-2
Napalm-type fluids 6-47
Net
fracture pressure 5-3, 5-4, 5-15
fracturing pressure 4-4
present value of post-frac production 6-23
Index
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual I-58
present worth or value (PW or PV) 9-3
pressure 2-5, 5-11, 5-16, 8-14
Neutron porosity log 10-5
Newtonian fluid 5-29
Nitrogen foams 6-9
Nolte-Smith log-log interpretation 8-14
Nomenclature, service company fluid system 6-52
Non-darcy flow 7-29
Nonemulsifier 6-8
Nonionic surfactants 6-6
Nordgren 2-4
O
Oil-base
friction reducers 6-9
gels 6-15
Open-ended tubing 8-22
Organo titanates and zironates 6-32
Organometallic
crosslinked gels 6-13
delayed-crosslinked gels 6-39
Orientation fracture 3-8
Overburden weight 5-11
Overpressured reservoirs 6-9
P
Pad
fluids guideline 6-74
volume 8-59
Pan American Petroleum Corporation 1-2
Particle
clumping 6-13
drag coefficient 6-12
generalized, Reynolds 6-12
single settling 6-13
terminal settling velocity 6-11
Pay zone 5-3, 5-4, 5-13
Payout (PO) 9-3, 9-10
Perforating 10-10
Perkins and Kern model 2-4, 5-16
Khristianovic model comparison of 2-5
Permeability 5-20
formation 3-1
impaired proppant pack 6-21
of proppant 7-19
proppant 7-5
reservoir 3-2
pH 6-8
PI (profitability index) 9-3
Pilot tests 6-7
Pinch outs 6-11
PK (Perkins and Kern model) 2-4
PKN (Perkins and Kern model) 2-4, 5-16
Plane strain modulus 4-1
PO (payout) 9-3
Point forward evaluation 9-17
Points, flash 6-5
Poissons ratio 4-1, 4-3, 5-13, 10-3
Polyacrylamides 6-30
Polyemulsion, see polymer emulsion
Polymer
(gel) concentrates 6-37
concentrates 6-30
effective concentration 6-20
emulsion 6-1, 6-14, 6-23
fluid 6-40
fluid advantages 6-40
fluid disadvantages 6-40
viscosity 6-41
natural water soluble 6-30
solutions
crosslinked (gels) 6-1
uncrosslinked 6-1
Pore
pressure 5-11, 5-12, 5-13
variations 5-12
Power law
exponent 5-29
fluid 5-29
Prefrac stress tests 1-10
Preparation and quality control 6-7
Present worth 1-1, 9-4, 9-14
Pressure
bottomhole treating 8-14
closure 5-13
critical 8-1, 8-20
decline 8-2
decline analysis 8-25, 8-30
example/guidelines 8-38
post-propped-frac 8-42
differential 5-21
fracture closure 5-11
History Matching 8-46
leakoff driving 6-15, 6-18
multiplier pumps 9-20
net 5-16, 8-14
net fracture 5-3, 5-4
net fracturing 4-4
reservoir closure 5-13
Prices fracuring chemical and hhp 6-23
Problem proppant and fluid scheduling 6-78
Products
modified natural 6-30
synthetic 6-30
Profitability
index 9-7, 9-14
index (PI) 9-3
Propagation criterion 2-1
Proppant fall correction factor (PFCF) 7-26
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Index
I-59
Proppant(s) 1-5
acid solubility 7-11
addition schedule 8-62, 8-66
and fluid scheduling problem 6-78
bulk and grain density 7-11
ceramic 7-1
concentrations 8-55
crush resistance 7-9
damage factor 7-23
design techniques 1-5
fluid schedule from pressure decline 8-55
hardness 7-4
high strength - see Proppant(s), ceramic
impaired pack permeability 6-21
intermediate strength - see Proppant(s), ceramic
long-term conductivity 7-20
permeability 7-5
PREDICTK 7-23
resin-coated 6-7, 7-1, 7-16
sand 7-1
sieve distribution - see size distribution
single-grain test 7-4
size distribuiton 7-5
sphericity and roundness 7-4
stress 7-1
temperature effect on conductivity 7-21
transport 5-39
fluid viscosities 6-11
fluid viscosity 6-11
from viscous drag 6-11
using thin fluids 6-11
turbidity 7-13
volume fraction 5-33
Propping
agent pumping charge 9-20
agents 1-5
Pseudo 3-D model 5-16
Pseudo-Radial Flow 3-27
Pump
Jabsco gear 6-51
rate 5-36
time, estimated 6-70
Pump-in/decline
test 8-4, 8-7
Pump-in/flowback test 8-9
Pumping
cost 6-23
hp (cost) 6-11
PV (net present worth or value) 9-3
PW (net present worth or value) 9-3
Q
Qualitative checks on water-base gel crosslinking 6-8
Quality 6-43
control
and preparation 6-7
aspects of 6-9
gel continuous-mix jobs 6-8
Quasi static conditions 4-2
R
Radius 5-36
Recovery, load 6-8
Reservoir
closure pressure 5-13
naturally fractured 6-14, 6-17
overpressured 6-9
permeability 3-2
rock leakoff resistance in 6-15
Temperatures 5-32
underpressured 6-9
Residue
concentrates at the fracture wall 6-21
insoluble 6-20
uniformly distributed 6-21
Resin-coated proppant(s) 6-7, 7-1, 7-16
compressive strength 7-17
Resistivity log 10-5
Return on investment 9-11
Reynolds generalized particle 6-12
Rheological data 6-72
Rheology
determining for titanium and zirconium gels 6-51
of uncrosslinked polymer solutions 6-30
Rock hardness 4-10
S
Safety and environmental compatibility 6-5
Sand 7-1
fluid proportioner 1-8
Scaling 6-7
Scheduling
fluid 6-70
given the fluid rheology 6-70
optimal for fluids 6-70
using contained rheology 6-71
Screen outs 6-11
Secant Modulus 4-3
Service company
fluid system nomenclature 6-52
trade names 6-52
Settling
hindered 6-13
single particle 6-13
Stokes 6-12
terminal, velocity of a particle 6-11
velocities 6-12
Shear rate 5-27
Silica flour 6-14, 6-17
Index
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual I-60
Simple history matching 8-48
Simulated field mixing 6-51
Slick
hydrocarbon 6-2
water 6-1, 6-11
Slip flow 6-51
Slurry concentration handling service 9-20
Solutions
polymer crosslinked (gels) 6-1
polymer uncrosslinked 6-1
Spontaneous
potential log 10-5
potential logs 5-18
Spurt loss 5-20, 6-17
SRT (step-rate injection test) 8-10
Stability of foam 6-43
Stabilizers
cationic polymeric clay 6-6
chemical 1-5
gel 1-5
high temperature 6-13
viscosity guideline 6-74
Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation 1-2
Static
moduli 4-2
temperature
log 10-9
temperature gradient 5-32
Step-rate injection test (SRT) 8-10
Stokes
Law, Proppant Transport 7-26
settling 6-12
Strain
axial 4-2, 4-3
critical enery release rate 4-7
lateral 4-2, 4-3
volumetric 4-2, 4-3
Stress
axial 4-2
closure 5-3, 5-11, 5-13, 5-15
critical intensity factor 4-7
differential 5-3
horizontal closure 4-3
in-situ 5-12, 5-15
closure 5-12
closure profile 5-15
profile 5-15
proppant 7-1
vertical 5-11
Surface
recorded BHP gauge 8-22
treating pressures 1-7, 6-11
Surfactants 1-4, 6-8
anionic 6-6
aromatic hydrocarbons with 6-14
cationic 6-6
fluorocarbon 6-7
ionic 6-6
nonionic 6-6
Suspension
flows 6-11
transport 6-12
Synthetic
products 6-30
water soluble polymers 6-30
Systems
delayed crosslinked 6-8
dual crosslinker 6-38
fluid, continuous mixed 6-8
hydrocarbon-base fracturing fluid 6-2
water-base fracturing fluid 6-1
T
Tangent modulus 4-3
Temperature
and time, viscosity affected by 6-13
high
gel system behavior 6-13
gelled-hydrocarbon 6-47
gels 6-13
logs 5-18
time at 6-72
TerraFrac 5-15
Test(s)
closure stress 5-14
compression 4-2, 4-3
core 10-3
flow 6-6
fluid loss 5-22
in-situ stress 8-4
microfrac 8-4, 8-7
pilot 6-7
procedures 6-51
pump-in/decline 8-4, 8-7
pump-in/flowback 8-9
step-rate injection 8-10
triaxial stress-strain 10-3
vortex closure 6-8
Testing
organometallic crosslinked gels 6-14
rheology, of fracturing fluids 6-49
Texture 6-43, 6-46
3-D models 5-15
Time at temperature 6-72
Time-temperature
history 8-67
for fluid 8-55
Titanium, determining rheology of 6-51
Toxicity, fracturing fluid components 6-5
Trade names, service company 6-52
Hydraulic Fracturing Theory Manual
Index
I-61
Transient Reservoir Response 3-24
Transport
bedload 6-12
suspension 6-12
Treatment
pad percentage 8-66
volume, effect of 8-64
Triaxial stress-strain tests 10-3
Type curve(s) 8-32
analysis 8-32
U
Uncrosslinked
gels 6-14
polymer solutions 6-1
viscosity gels 6-8
Underpressured reservoirs 6-9
V
Valhall chalk 4-3
Variable(s)
affecting frac height 5-15
finite capacity 3-4
Vertical
fracture width profile 5-16
stress 5-11
Viscometer, Model 35 Fann 6-8
Viscosify, methanol 6-49
Viscosity 6-39
affected by temperature and time 6-13
appropriate 6-11
data for nitrogen foams 6-43
effective 6-70
fluid, proppant transport 6-11
guideline 6-70
hydrocarbon gels 6-48
of foam 6-43
polymer emulsion 6-41
proppant transport 6-11
stabilizer guideline 6-74
sufficient to create wide fractures 6-11
Ti and Zr continuous-mix gels 6-14
uncrosslinked gels 6-8
Volumetric strain 4-2, 4-3
Vortex closure tests 6-8
W
Wall building 5-23
effect 5-22
Water
blocks 6-7
slick 6-1, 6-11
soluble polymers, natural 6-30
Water-base
fast crosslinking gels 6-32
fracturing fluid systems 6-1
friction reducers 6-9
Wellhead pressure, friction pressure and horsepower require-
ments 6-9
Western Company coding system 6-53
Wettability of formation 6-6
Width
create conductive proppant pack 6-11
fracture 6-11
prevent pinch outs 6-11
Y
Yet-to-spend 9-17
Youngs modulus 4-1, 4-3
Z
Zirconium, determining rheology of 6-51
Zironates and organo titanates 6-32