Fracturing Manual

Fracturing Manual
© Copyright BJ Services Company 2010 CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed.

Revision No. 0 Revision Date: 01/01/2006 Printed: 19/06/2010
Section:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
History
The first attempts at fracturing formations were not hydraulic in nature – they involved the use of high
explosives to break the formation apart and provide “flow channels” from the reservoir to the wellbore.
There are records indicating that this took place as early as 1890. Indeed, one of the predecessor
companies of BJ Services, the Independent Torpedo Company (founded in 1905), used nitroglycerine to
explosively stimulate formations in Ohio. This type of reservoir stimulation reached its ultimate conclusion
with the experimental use of nuclear devices to fracture relatively shallow, low permeability formations in
the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.
In the late 1930’s, acidising had become an accepted well development technique. Several practitioners
observed that above a certain “breakdown” pressure, injectivity would increase dramatically. It is probable
that many of these early acid treatments were in fact acid fractures.
In 1940, Torrey recognized the pressure-induced

fracturing of formations for what it was. His
observations were based on squeeze cementing
operations. He presented data to show that the
pressures generated during these operations could
part the rocks along bedding planes or other lines of
“sedimentary weakness”. Similar observations were
made for water injection wells by Yuster and
Calhoun in 1945.
The first intentional hydraulic fracturing process for stimulation was performed in the Hugoton gas field in
western Kansas, in 1947. The Klepper No 1 well was completed with 4 gas producing limestone intervals,
one of which had been previously treated with acid. Four separate treatments were pumped, one for each
zone, with a primitive packer being employed for isolation. The fluid used for the treatment was
war-surplus napalm, surely an extremely hazardous operation. However, 3000 gals of fluid were pumped
into each formation.
Although post treatment tests showed that the gas injectivity of some zones had been increased relative to
others, the overall deliverability from the well was not increased. It was therefore concluded that fracturing
would not replace acidising for limestone formations. However, by the mid-1960’s, propped hydraulic
fracturing had replaced acidising as the preferred stimulation method in the Hugoton field. Early
treatments were pumped at 1 to 2 bpm with sand concentrations of 1 to 2 ppa.
Today, thousands of these treatments are pumped

every year, ranging from small skin bypass fracs at
$20,000, to massive fracturing treatments that end
up costing well over $1 million. Many fields only
produce because of the hydraulic fracturing process.
In spite of this, many industry practitioners remain
ignorant of the processes involved and of what can
be achieved.
CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 1
The Process
Hydraulic fracturing occurs as a result of the phenomenon described by Darcy’s law for radial flow:
kh∆P (1.1)
q=
µ ln (re rw )
Where q is the flow rate, k the formation permeability, h the net height, ∆P the pressure differential (or
drawdown), µ the fluid viscosity, re the drainage radius and rw the wellbore radius. This equation describes
the flow rate for a given reservoir-wellbore configuration, for an applied pressure differential. Re-arranging
this equation gives a different emphasis:
qµ ln(re rw ) (1.2)
∆Ρ =
kh
This equation describes the pressure differential produced by a given flow rate. Remembering that Darcy’s
equation applies equally to injection and to production, Equation 1.2 tells us the pressure differential
needed to pump a fluid of viscosity µ into a given formation at a given rate q .
As the flow rate increases, the pressure differential also increases. Pressure and stress are essentially the
same thing (see Section 2.2), so that as the fluid flow generates a pressure differential, it also creates a
stress in the formation. As flow rate (or viscosity) increases, so does the stress. If we are able to keep
increasing the rate, eventually a point will be reached were the stress becomes greater than maximum
stress that can be sustained by the formation – and the rock physically splits apart.
This is how we frac, by pumping a fluid into a formation at high rate and – consequently – high pressure.
However, it is important to remember that it is pressure – not rate – that creates fractures (although we
often use rate to create the pressure).
Pressure – and stress – is stored energy, or more accurately

stored energy per unit volume. Energy is what hydraulic fracturing
is all about. In order to create and propagate a fracture to useful
proportions, we have to transfer energy to the formation.
Producing width and physically tearing the rock apart both require
energy. Overcoming the often highly viscous frac fluid’s resistance
to being pumped also takes energy. So the key to understanding
the hydraulic fracturing process is to understand the sources of
energy gain, such as the frac pumps and the well’s hydrostatic
head, and the sources of energy loss and use. The sum of these
is always equal to zero.
As pressure is energy, a great deal can be learned about a formation by studying the pressures produced
by a treatment. The product of the pressure and the flow rate gives us the rate at which energy is being
used, i.e. work. This is usually expressed as hydraulic horsepower . The analysis of the behaviour of
fracturing pressures is probably the most complex aspect of the process that most Frac Engineers will
become involved in.
Once a fracture has been created, proppant is placed inside it. If the treatment has been designed
effectively and pumped without any problems, then this proppant should form a highly conductive path
from the reservoir to the wellbore. This is what makes the well produce more.

Using this Manual
This manual is not intended as an all-inclusive work on the
science of hydraulic fracturing. Instead, it is intended to be
a practical introduction to the science and art involved in
these processes. It is intended to be used by junior
Engineers who wish to gain some knowledge of the
fracturing process, and by experienced Engineers who
wish to gain a deeper insight into specific areas. This
manual has been written with the intent that anyone with a
technical background can come to understand fracturing.
Readers are invited to consult the references at the end of each section for more detailed information on
any specific subject.
The author of this manual welcomes any comments that the reader may have – whether it is about
something which is unclear, an omission or something that is just simply incorrect. I welcome any
constructive comments that the reader may have.
Throughout this manual, the author has used United Kingdom English, rather than American English.
Consequently, some readers may find the occasional word that seems to be spelled in a manner
somewhat different from that which they are used to. Examples include programme (instead of program),
acidise (instead of acidize), grey (instead of gray), aluminium (instead of aluminum) and sulphate (instead
of sulfate). The author makes no apologies for this.
Acknowledgements
This manual has taken five years to complete, on and off (two to write and three to get proof read.....).
Over this period, I have received assistance from a number of persons who deserve my thanks. Todd
Gilmore, for continually reviewing each section as it was written; Antonio Moreira for correcting the
mistakes and omissions in the equipment section; Phil Rae for his continuing help, support and
encouragement; and finally Dave Cramer, Ron Matson, Harold Hudson and Kieran O’Driscoll, for the vital
but tedious and time consuming process of proof reading. Thanks to you all.
Tony Martin, Singapore, June 2005.
References
Torrey, P.D.: “Progress in Squeeze Cementing Applications and Technique” , Oil Weekly, July 29, 1940.
Yuster, S.T. and Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: “Pressure Parting of Formations in Water Flood Operations – Part I”,
Oil Weekly, March 12, 1945.
Yuster, S.T. and Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: “Pressure Parting of Formations in Water Flood Operations – Part II”,
Oil Weekly, March 19, 1945.
Farris, R.F. : “Hydraulic fracturing, a method for increasing well productivity by fracturing the producing
formation and thus increasing the well drainage area” , US Patent reissued Nov 10, 1953. Re. 23733.
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series Vol 2, SPE, Dallas, Texas, USA
(1970).

Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 BASICS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
3.0 TYPES OF FRACTURING
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
8.0 2-D FRACTURE MODELS
9.0 FRACTURE MECHANICS
10.0 ADVANCED CONCEPTS
11.0 3-D FRACTURE SIMULATORS
12.0 PREDICTING PRODUCTION INCREASE
13.0 CANDIDATE SELECTION
14.0 PERFORATING FOR FRACTURING
15.0 THE STEP RATE TEST
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
17.0 DESIGNING THE TREATMENT
18.0 REAL-TIME MONITORING AND ON-SITE RE-DESIGN
19.0 POST TREATMENT EVALUATION
20.0 EQUIPMENT
21.0 DESIGNING WELLS FOR FRACTURING
22.0 THE FRACTURE TREATMENT: FROM START TO FINISH
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Fracturing Manual
Section:
Subtopics
2.1 The Basic Process
2.2 Pressure
2.3 Basic Fracture Characteristics
2.4 Fluid Leakoff
2.5 Near Wellbore Damage and Skin Factor
2.6 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Fracturing Manual

Section:

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of providing a conductive path from the reservoir to the wellbore. How
this is achieved depends upon the objectives, the reservoir and the well.
As fluid is pumped into a permeable formation, a pressure differential is generated that is proportional to
the permeability of the formation, k f . As the rate increases, this pressure differential between the wellbore
pressure and the original reservoir pressure also increases. This pressure differential causes additional
stress around the wellbore. Eventually, as the rate is increased, this pressure differential will cause
stresses that will exceed the stress needed to break the rock apart, and a fracture is formed. At this point,
if the pumps are shut down or the pressure is bleed off, the fracture will close again. Eventually,
depending on how hard the rock is and the magnitude of the force acting to close the fracture, it will be as
if the rock had never been fractured. By itself, this would not necessarily produce any increase in
production.
However, if we pump some propping agent, or proppant , into the fracture and then release the pressure,
the fracture will stay propped open, providing the proppant is stronger than the forces trying to close the
fracture. If this proppant also has significant porosity, then under the right circumstances a path of
increased permeability has been created from the reservoir to the wellbore. If the treatment has been
designed correctly, this will produce an increase in production.
Generally, the process requires that a highly viscous fluid is pumped into the well at high rate and
pressure, although this is not always the case (see Skin Bypass Fracturing, below). High rate and high
pressure mean horsepower, and this is why the process generally involves large trucks or skids with huge
diesel engines and massive pumps. A typical frac pump will be rated at 700 to 2700 hydraulic horsepower
(HHP) – to put this in perspective, the average car engine (outside North America, that is) has a maximum
power output of 80 to 100 HP.
In order to create the fracture, a fluid stage known as the pad is generally pumped first. This is then
followed by several stages of proppant-laden fluid, which actually caries the proppant into the fracture.
Finally, the whole treatment is displaced to the perforations. These stages are pumped consecutively,
without any pauses. Once the displacement has finished, the pumps are shut down and the fracture is
allowed to close on the proppant. The Frac Engineer can vary the pad size, proppant stage sizes, number
of proppant stages, proppant concentration within the stages, the overall pump rate and the fluid type in
order to produce the required fracture characteristics. Typically, the treatment will look like Figure 2.1a:

Pressure, Rate, Proppant Concentration
BHTP
Rate
STP
Prop Conc
Time
Figure 2.1a – Typical hydraulic fracture treatment job plot
Subtopics
2.2 Pressure
2.4 Fluid Leakoff
2.6 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Fracturing Manual

Section:
2.2 Pressure
Everybody understands what pressure is. Or at least, everyone thinks they understand what pressure is. If
you ask someone to define pressure, then they will usually say “force divided by area”, or something
similar. This is not what pressure is - it is merely how we measure, create and use pressure.
The simple fact is that pressure is stored energy, and we use that energy to perform work on the formation
during the fracturing process. Everything we do in fracturing can be thought of in terms of energy. For
instance, when we pump a fluid into a fracture we start out with chemical energy – in the form of diesel
fuel. This is converted to mechanical energy by the diesel engine. The high pressure pump then transfers
this mechanical energy into pressure in the fracturing fluid. As the fluid moves into the formation, the
pressure is transformed into stress in the formation (see below), which is another form of stored energy,
and so the walls of the fracture are pushed back, creating fracture width and forcing the fracture to
propagate.
Work is defined as the rate at which energy is used – in the SI system, one watt is defined as a joule per
second. Therefore, by observing the way the pressure is changing, or not changing, with respect to time,
we can tell how much work we are performing on the formation (see Section 10.2 – Nolte Analysis).
Pressure and stress are essentially the same thing. The only difference is that stresses act in solids and
pressures act in liquids and gases. Because liquids and gases easily deform away from any applied force,
pressures tend to act equally in all directions. Stresses, however, tend to act along planes, so that a solid
experiencing a stress will always have a plane where the stresses are a maximum, and a plane
perpendicular to this where the stresses are at a minimum.
In fracturing, we refer to several different pressures. These names merely refer to where and when we are
measuring (or calculating) the pressure;
Surface Treating Pressure, STP – also referred to as wellhead pressure, injection pressure, tubing
pressure (if we are pumping down the tubing), P STP, P wellhead, P tubing and so on. The name speaks for itself – it
is the pressure that the pumps have to act against at the surface.
Hydrostatic Pressure – also referred to as hydrostatic head, P H, HH and P hydro. This is the pressure
downhole due to the weight of the column of fluid in the well. This pressure is a function of the density of
the fluid and the vertical depth:
HH = 0.433 γ TVD (2.1)
where HH is the hydrostatic head in psi, γ is the specific gravity of the fluid and TVD is the true vertical
depth at which the pressure is acting. This looks relatively easy to calculate, but can get quite complicated
in a dynamic system in a deviated well with fluids of several different densities actually in the well – which
is the usual situation during a frac job. We use computers to keep track of this.
Tubing Friction Pressure – also known simply as friction pressure, P frict or ∆P frict. This pressure will be
covered in more detail in later sections of this manual (see Section 4). For now, we can define it
qualitatively as the pressure caused by the resistance of the fluid to flow down the tubing. Friction
pressure decreases with increasing tubular diameter and increases with rate.
Bottom Hole Treating Pressure – BHTP or P BHT

. This is the pressure inside the well, by the formation

being treated. Generally, at is calculated at the center of the perforated interval. At this point, the fluid has
not passed through the perforations or into the fracture. Unless there are gauges in the well, or there is a
static column, this pressure is usually calculated:
BHTP = STP + HH − ∆Pfrict (2.2)
As there are always uncertainties with the calculation of ∆P frict

(unless fluid rate is zero), there will always
be uncertainties in calculated BHTP .
Perforation Friction Pressure – also known as perforation friction or ∆P perf. This is the pressure drop
experienced by the fluid as it passes through narrow restrictions generally referred to as perforations:
(2.3)
2.93 SG (q n )
2
∆Pperf =
d4
where ∆P perf is in psi, SG is the specific gravity of the fluid, q is the slurry rate in bpm, d is the perforation
diameter in inches and n is the number of perforations.
Near Wellbore Friction Pressure – a.k.a. near wellbore friction or ∆P nwb. This is the sum of the
perforation friction and any pressure losses caused by tortuosity, which will be covered in greater detail in
Section 10.
Closure Pressure – P c or P closure. This is the force acting to close the fracture. Below this pressure the
fracture is closed, above this pressure the fracture is open. This value is very important in fracturing and is
usually determined from a minifrac, by careful examination of the pressure decline after the pumps have
been shut down.
Extension Pressure – or P ext. This is the pressure required in the frac fluid in the fracture in order to make
the fracture propagate. It is usually 100 to 200 psi greater than the closure pressure, and this pressure
differential represents the energy required to actually make the fracture propagate, as opposed to merely
keeping it open (i.e. P closure). In hard formations, fracture extension pressure is close to the closure
pressure. In softer formations, where significant quantities of energy can be absorbed by plastic
deformation at the fracture tip, extension pressure can be significantly higher than closure pressure (see
Section 9). The fracture extension pressure can be obtained from a step rate test.
Net Pressure – or P net. This is a fundamental value used in fracturing and the analysis of this variable
forms a whole branch of frac theory by itself. This will be discussed in detail later on in this manual. For
now, P net is the difference between the fluid pressure in the fracture and the closure pressure, such that:
Pnet = BHTP − ∆Pnwb − Pclosure (2.4)
Pnet = STP + HH − ∆Pfrict − ∆Pnwb − Pclosure (2.5)
P net is a measure of how much work is being performed on the formation. By analysing the trends in P net
a
great deal can be determined about how the fracture is growing – or shrinking.
Instantaneous Shut in Pressure – or ISIP or ISDP. This is the pressure, which can be determined
either at surface or bottom hole, which is obtained just after the pumps are shut down, at the start of a
pressure decline. If measured at bottom hole, the ISIP should be equal to the BHTP , provided Pnwb is zero.
One of the methods for determining if the P nwb is significant is to compare the ISIP and the BHTP from a

minifrac (provided the BHTP is reliable).
Subtopics
2.4 Fluid Leakoff
2.6 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 10
Fracturing Manual

Section:
2.3 Basic Fracture Characteristcs

Every fracture, regardless of how it was pumped or what it is designed to achieve, has certain basic
characteristics, as shown in Figure 2.3a (below).
All fracture modeling is designed around determining these three characteristics, height H , half length x f
and width W . Once these three characteristics have been determined, other quantities such as proppant
volume, fracture conductivity and ultimately production increase can be determined. It is usually assumed
that the two wings of the fracture are identical and 180° apart (i.e. on opposite sides of the wellbore. This
is not necessarily the case. It is also normal to model the fracture wings as being elipitcal in shape -
however, the reality is that the geometry is probably quite a bit more complex. However, based on the
three characteristics of width, half length and height, we can define a few simple parameters, which will be
used frequently in this manual:
Figure 2.3a – Diagram showing fracture half Length xf , fracture height H , and fracture width W .
Aspect ratio;
H (2.6)
AR =
xf
So a radial frac, which is perfectly circular and has a height equal to twice the fracture half length, has an
AR of 0.5
Fracture conductivity:
Fc = wave .k p (2.7)
where w ave
is the average fracture width and k p is the permeability of the proppant pack.
Remember that the width in equation 2.7 is the propped width, which is usually less than the width actually

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 11
created during the treatment. The propped width is a function of the volume of proppant pumped into the
fracture, expressed in terms of the mass of proppant per unit area of the fracture face. This areal proppant
concentration is expressed in terms of lbs/sq ft, and is not to be confused with the slurry proppant
concentration, that is expressed in lbs/gal (or ppg). This is a measure of how much proppant is added by
the surface mixing equipment to a gallon of frac fluid. Another way of expressing slurry proppant
concentration, which is used less often but is clearer and easier to understand, is ppa, or lbs of proppant
added. This clearly illustrates the quantity of proppant being added to a gallon of clean fluid.
Subtopics
2.2 Pressure
2.4 Fluid Leakoff
2.6 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 12
Fracturing Manual

Section:
2.4 Fluid Leakoff

Hydraulic fracture treatments are pumped into permeable formations – there is little point in carrying out
the process in a formation with zero permeability. This means that as the fracturing fluid is being pumped
into the formation, a certain proportion of this fluid is being lost into the formation as fluid leakoff.
The leakoff coefficient is a function of the formation permeability k f, the fracture area A , the pressure
differential between the fracturing fluid and the formation ∆P , the formation compressibility, viscosity and
the fluid characteristics. Often, this coefficient is set as a constant throughout the treatment, which means
that the fluid loss rate varies with time and fracture area only, and does not vary with pressure differential
or fluid type. The effect of the formation permeability and the fluid characteristics are often combined
together into a single leakoff coefficient, variously called C T, C L or C eff. We shall use C eff. This coefficient
defines the volume of fluid leaked off into the formation V L, as follows:-
V L ≈η C eff A t
½
where t is the time that the fracture has been open. The units of C eff are generally ft/min , so in equation
2.8 if the area is in square feet, the leakoff volume is in cubic feet. Remember that the area A is the
surface area of the whole fracture, including both sides of both wings of the fracture. A fracture geometry
model must be used to determine the value for A. In a multi-layer reservoir, with different values of C eff for
each zone, the total leakoff will be the sum of the leakoff for each zone.
The leakoff coefficient is usually determined from minifrac tests and from analysis of previous treatments.
A more accurate method for calculating fluid loss is to use a dynamic leakoff model, in which variations in
the pressure differential and the fluid composition are taken into account. In dynamic leakoff, the overall
leakoff coefficient is generally assumed to have three components; the viscosity controlled coefficient C V
or C I, the compressibility controlled coefficient C C or C II and the wall-building coefficient C w or C III.
The viscosity controlled coefficient is the effect of the fracture fluid filtrate moving into the formation under
Darcy linear flow conditions, and is defined as (in field units):
k f Φ∆P
C I = 0.0469
2µ f
where k f is the permeability of the formation to the frac fluid filtrate, φ is the formation porosity and µf is the
frac fluid filtrate viscosity in cp.
The compressibility controlled coefficient defines the leakoff which is due to the formation compressing,
and allowing volume into which the frac fluid filtrate can move. It is defined, in field units, as:
kbC f Φ
C II = 0.0374 ∆P
µr

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 13
where k r is the permeability of the formation to the reservoir fluid, c f is the compressibility of the formation
-1
in psi and µr is the reservoir fluid viscosity in cp.
The wall building coefficient is usually determined experimentally using a standard fluid loss test. The
volume of filtrate is plotted against the square root of time, to give a slope m . The wall building coefficient
is then defined as (in field units):
0.0164 m
C III =
Ar
where A f is the area of the filter cake in the fluid loss cell. Generally, modern fracture simulator will have
wall-building coefficients for a wide range of fracturing fluids, so that all the Engineer has to do is select
the fluid type.
The three components can then be combined to produce C eff

as follows:-
2 C I C II C III
C eff =
1+ (C I C III )2 + (4 C II2 (C I2 + C III2 ))
This is for dynamic fluid leakoff. The components can be arranged in a different form for harmonic fluid
leakoff:
C eff =
(C I C II C III )
(C I C II + C II C III + C I + C III )
This process of deducing the theoretical leakoff coefficient looks to be rather intimidating, and in practice
is only used in fracture simulators. During minifrac analysis, the permeability of the formation and the wall
building coefficient are varied to produce the required leakoff rate.
Generally, the dynamic model is better than the harmonic, although under most circumstances there will
not be much difference between the two. This is especially true for a non-wall-building fluid, or for gas
reservoirs.
Another form of fluid loss into the formation is called spurt loss. This is the fluid loss which occurs on
“new” parts of the fracture, before the fluid has a chance to build up a filter cake. Usually, the fracture
models take a simplistic approach to spurt loss and use a spurt loss coefficient, S p , such that:
VS = A S p
where V s is the volume of fluid lost due to spurt loss and A is the total area of the fracture (both wings). A
more detailed approach to spurt loss (and fluid loss in general) can be found in SPE Monograph Volume
12, Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Chapter 8 (see references).
Subtopics
2.2 Pressure
2.6 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 14
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 15
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Darcy’s equation for radial flow defines the rate at which oil is produced from the reservoir into the
wellbore, under steady state flow conditions. In field units for an oil well, Darcy’s equation becomes:-
0.00708 k h ∆P
q= (2.15)
µ ln (re rw )
where q is the downhole flow rate in bbls/day. We can see that the wellbore radius, r w has a huge impact
on the flow rate. This is easily visualised, as the closer the fluid comes to the wellbore, the more
congested the flow paths become and the faster the fluid has to move. Therefore, the final few inches by
the wellbore are the most critical part of the reservoir.
Unfortunately, this is also the part of the reservoir most susceptible to damage. This damage can come
from a variety of sources, but most often comes from the process of drilling the well in the first place.
A full discussion on sources of formation damage is beyond the scope of this manual. However, the major
sources are; particulates in the drilling fluid (barite, calcium carbonate etc), filtrate invasion, whole fluid
invasion, pH of drilling fluid and surfactants in the drilling fluid.
What this results in is a region around the wellbore of reduced permeability, as illustrated in Figure 2.5a.
This reduction in permeability around the wellbore is generally referred to as the Skin, which was first
rationalised by van Everdingen and Hurst (1949). The skin factor, S , is a variable that is used to describe
the difference between the ideal production given in Equation 2.15, and the actual production through the
damaged area. Generally, the skin is measured using a pressure build up test. The API has defined the
skin factor for an oil well as follows (see Section 19):
 P1hr − Pwf k 
S =1.151 − log10 2
+ 3.23 (2.16)
 m Φµcrw 
where P wf is the bottom hole stabilised flowing pressure (psi), P 1hr is the bottom hole pressure after one hour
of static pressure build up (psi), k is the formation permeability, m is the slope of the graph of P against log
i0
[(t + ∆t )/∆t ] (in psi per log10 cycle), φ is the porosity (fraction), µ is the fluid viscosity (cp), c is the average
-1
reservoir compressibility (psi ) and r w
is the wellbore radius (feet).

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 16
Wellbore Damage
Permeability
high low
Figure 2.5a – Illustration of the reduction in permeability around the wellbore
To help matters, m can be found from the following (in field units):-
162.6 q µ
m= (2.17)
kh
Note that both q and µ are at bottom hole conditions. A completely undamaged reservoir will have a skin
factor of zero. Damaged reservoirs will have skins in the ranging from 0 to 50 or even higher. Under
certain circumstances, stimulation can result in a negative skin factor, which means that the well is
producing more than predicted by ideal Darcy flow.
Once the skin factor has been obtained, it can be used in Darcy’s equation to give the modified flow from
a skin damaged reservoir:
0.00708 k h ∆P
q= (2.18)
µ [ln (re rw ) + S ]
This means that as S increases, flow rate decreases, and vice versa .
Another way of employing the skin factor is to use an effective wellbore radius, as given in equation 2.19:
rw, = rw e − S (2.19)
This means that in a damaged wellbore, the well is behaving as if it had a smaller wellbore radius, whilst a
stimulated reservoir behaves as if it had a larger wellbore radius.
Subtopics
2.2 Pressure
2.4 Fluid Leakoff
2.6 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 17
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 18
Fracturing Manual

Section:
2.6 References
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing , Monograph Series Vol 2, SPE, Dallas, Texas (1970).
Gidley , J.L., et al.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing , Monograph Series Vol 12, SPE, Richardson,
Texas (1989).
Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G.: Petroleum Engineering – Principles and Practices, Graham and Trotman,
London (1986).
van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: “The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in
Reservoirs”, 1949, Trans., AIME, 186, 305-324.
Meyer and Associates, MFrac version 5.10 on-line Help section, 2003.
Subtopics
2.2 Pressure
2.4 Fluid Leakoff
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 19
Fracturing Manual
Section:
There are various different types of hydraulic fracturing, which have evolved around the basic process of
creating a fracture and then propping it open. The type of treatment selected depends upon the formation
characteristics (permeability, skin damage, fluid sensitivity, formation strength), the objectives of the
treatment (stimulation, sand control, skin bypass or a combination) and the constraints we have to work
within (cost, logistics, equipment etc).
Subtopics
3.1 Low Permeability Fracturing
3.2 High Permeability Fracturing
3.3 Frac and Pack Treatments
3.4 Skin Bypass Fracturing
3.5 Coal Bed Methane Fracturing
3.6 Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing
3.7 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 20
Fracturing Manual

Section:

This type of fracturing is often carried out in tight gas formations, found in areas such as the Rocky
Mountains, Algeria, Western Germany, parts of Australia and many other places world-wide.
Permeabilities for such formations range 1 md right down to 1 md and less. This type of treatment is also
applicable to low permeability oil formations, although permeabilities tend to be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude
greater.
In order for hydrocarbons to flow down the fracture, rather than through the adjacent formation, the
fracture must be more conductive than the formation. Given that the k p for 20/40 Colorado Silica frac sand
is 275 darcies (provided closure pressure is below 3,000 psi), we can see that even a very narrow fracture
will have a much higher conductivity than the formation itself. This does not allow for the effects of
non-Darcy flow (see Section 10).
Therefore, the limiting factor defining how much the reservoir production has increased is not how
conductive the fracture is (as any propped fracture will be significantly more conductive than the
formation), but instead is how fast the formation can get the hydrocarbon to the fracture. Therefore, when
treating low permeability reservoirs, fractures should be designed with a specific minimum fracture
conductivity, but a large surface area - which means, because formations are usually limited in height,
designing for maximum fracture half length, x f. See Section 17.9 for a detailed discussion of how to
determine the required fracture conductivity.
Because formation permeability is low, fluid leakoff also tends to be low. This has two consequences.
First, pad volumes tend to be very low, relative to the rest of the job volumes. In some cases, a pad is
hardly needed at all – the proppant-laden fluid can be used to create the fracture. The second
consequence is that fracture closure time – the length of time taken for the fracture to close on the
proppant after the treatment has finished – tends to be long. This means that the fracturing fluid has to
suspend the proppant for a relatively long period of time at bottom hole temperature.
Therefore, hydraulic fracture treatments in low permeability formations tend to have fairly large fluid and
proppant volumes, although the overall proppant concentration in the fluid is relatively low. Pad volumes
are small. Treatment fluids are usually fairly robust, capable of maintaining viscosity for extended periods
of time. The process of designing for low permeability formations is discussed in greater detail in Section
17.5.
Subtopics
3.7 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 21
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 22
Fracturing Manual

Section:

High permeability fracturing is, not unexpectedly, the opposite of low permeability fracturing. In high
permeability formations, moving the fluid through the rock to the fracture is easy. The hardest part is
creating a fracture that is more conductive than the formation in the near wellbore region.
In equation 2.7, the concept of fracture conductivity was introduced. The next step is to define relative or
dimensionless conductivity, C fD (often referred to as F cD in many previous publications):
Fc
C fD = (3.1)
xf kf
where x f is the fracture half length and k f is the permeability of the formation. C fD is a measure of how
conductive a fracture is compared to the formation and compares the ability of the fracture to deliver fluids
to the wellbore with the ability of the formation to deliver fluids to the fracture. A C fD of greater than one
means that the fracture is more conductive than the formation, whereas a C fD of less than one means that
the fracture is less conductive than the formation and the reservoir fluids flow more easily through the
formation. This does not account for the effects of the skin factor – in reality all the fracture needs to be in
order to increase production, is more conductive than the skin (see Section 3.4 – Skin Bypass Fracturing).
From equation 2.7, which stated that F c = w ave .k p, we can see that two parts of the definition of C fD are
fixed; k f and k p (although k p can be increased to a certain extent by using a better quality proppant).
Therefore, in order to increase dimensionless conductivity, we have to maximise w ave and minimise x f. This
means that we need a very short, wide fracture. In order to achieve this, a technique known as the Tip
Screen Out (TSO) is often used. This will be discussed in more detail in Section 17.3.
Because the formations have high permeability, fluid leakoff tends to be very high. Therefore, pad
volumes tend to be a significant part of the treatment. This high leakoff is used by the technique of TSO
fracturing. Young’s modulus tends to be very low, which means that creating fracture width is relatively
easy.
Formations with very high permeability also tend to have two other characteristics. First, they are often
weak or unconsolidated, so that the fracturing process is often combined with gravel packing techniques
to produce a frac pack treatment (see below, Section 3.3). Second, the formations also tend to have large
skin factors, so that a significant production increase can be obtained simply by providing a conductive
path through the skin (see Section 3.4, below).
The processes involved in designing treatments for high permeability are discussed in greater detail in
Section 17.3
Subtopics
3.7 References
Related Topics

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 23
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 24
Fracturing Manual

Section:
Figure 3.3a – Diagram illustrating the components of the frac-pack completion. Setting tool is shown in the
squeeze position.
The frac and pack (or simply frac-pack) treatment is a combination of a high permeability fracture
treatment and a gravel pack treatment. Technically, the process of designing the actual treatment is the
same as for a high permeability frac. Operationally, however, the process is much more complex, due the
presence in the wellbore of the gravel pack completion. Figure 3.3a illustrates this.
The treatment is normally pumped with the setting tool in the squeeze position, although sometimes the
tool is in the lower circulating position (see figure 3.3b). In either case, fracturing fluids are pumped down
the tubing, through the setting tools, through the crossover, out into the annulus and into the perforations.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 25
Figure 3.3b – Diagram illustrating two of the three positions in which a standard gravel pack or
frac pack tool can be set. The left hand side shows the squeeze position, in which fluids flow
down the tubing, through the crossover, out into the annulus below the GP packer and into the
formation. The right hand side shows the lower circulating position. Fluid flows down to the
perforations, as for the squeeze position. However, because the setting tool has been shifted
upwards, the fluid can flow either into the formation, or back through the screens, up the
washpipe (inside the screens) through the crossover, and out into the annulus above the tubing
(shown in blue). By closing the annulus at surface, the fluid can be squeezed into the formation,
whilst maintaining a dead string on the annulus, to monitor BHP.
As stated before, the pumping schedule is designed as if the completion did not exist, and a normal high
permeability fracture treatment was being performed. With one exception – extra proppant (or gravel) is
pumped on the final stage, in order to fill the annulus space between the screen and the casing, producing
the gravel pack. The process of designing a frac and pack treatment will be discussed in more detail in
Sections 17.3 and 17.4.
Subtopics
3.7 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 26
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 27
Fracturing Manual

Section:
3.4 Skin Bypass Treatments

Skin bypass treatments are designed to do exactly what the name describes – bypass skin damage.
These treatments are not necessarily designed to be the absolute optimum stimulation treatment for the
well. Instead, these treatments are designed to be small, cost effective and easy to run operationally.
Often these treatments are pumped in places where space or equipment weight is a limiting factor – such
as offshore. In many cases, if the frac engineer was given a technical free hand to design the optimum
treatment, the job itself would be much larger. However, given the restraints of cost and space that are
often placed upon frac engineers, the skin bypass frac is an attempt (often highly successful) to produce
effective stimulation.
The skin bypass frac can also be considered as a more effective alternative to matrix acidising, when
factors such as mineralogy, temperature, logistics and cost prevent the use of acid.
Figure 3.4a – Diagram illustrating how the skin bypass fracture penetrates the skin to allow
undamaged communication between the reservoir and the wellbore.
Figure 3.4a shows the basic concept behind the skin bypass frac. Although the formation has
considerable damage (dark-shaded area), this is effectively bypassed by the more conductive path
created by the fracture. In order for the fracture to produce a production increase, it does not have to be
more conductive than the formation (i.e. C fD > 1.0). It merely has to be more conductive than the damaged
area. Of course, usually we are usually aiming for considerably more than just the production increase due
to skin bypass. Given that Skin Bypass Fracs are normally carried out on marginal wells (wells that cannot
justify the expense of a major stimulation treatment), often the economics dictates that significant
production increase must be obtained. Equation 3.1 gave the definition of dimensionless conductivity,
which has to be greater than 1.0 for the fracture to provide stimulation of the formation. Equation 3.2
shows the condition, for a fracture which has H D ≤ 1.0, under which the skin bypass fracture is more
conductive than the formation:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 28
 Fe   ln (re rw ) 
  >  (3.2)
Hk   ln (r r +S ) 
 f   e w 
Where F c is the fracture conductivity (mdft), H is the fracture height (ft), r e is the radial extent (ft), r w is the
wellbore radius and S is the skin factor. So if S = 0, the RHS of equation 3.2 goes to 1, so that then F c has
to be greater than H .k f , which is another way of saying that the C fD has to be greater than one. This
equation takes into account the fact that the fracture does not cover the entire zone vertically. However, it
is an approximation, as it does not account for vertical flow or non-Darcy effects (Section 10).
H is the dimensionless height and is equal to the fracture height divided by the formation height.
D
Subtopics
3.7 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 29
Fracturing Manual

Section:

It is estimated that for every tonne of coal that is generated underground - by the process of coalification -
up to 45 mscf of gas (mostly methane) is generated. In areas such as the Southern North Sea, this gas
migrates upwards until it reaches an impermeable layer, so that the coal itself contains very little gas. In
other cases, nearly all the gas remains in place, waiting to be produced.
Coal itself usually has very low matrix permeability, with the gas being produced through natural fractures
(called cleats) and through desorption from the coal itself. The objective of coal bed methane fracturing is
to connect up the cleats with a propped fracture, allowing the gas to be produced both from the cleats and
from the coal
CBM fracturing is more of an art than a science. Because of the unusual characteristics of the formations,
most fracture simulators are unable to accurately model these treatments. Engineers usually have to rely
on experience and trial and error.
These treatments usually consist of large volumes of proppant, pumped at low concentrations, at high
rates. Various fluid systems have been used, but recent work has demonstrated that crosslinked fluids,
especially guar-based gels, can be very damaging to the formation. The trend has been towards HEC,
foams and even just water as the carrier fluid.
Proppant concentrations tend to be in the 3 to 4 ppg range. Because wells are relatively low rate, large
fracture conductivities are not required – what is needed is a conductive path from cleat to cleat. As
formations are usually shallow, sand is generally selected as the proppant.
CBM wells often tend to be marginal. They will not produce economically without a frac treatment, but
even after a frac can be very low rate. Therefore, fracturing treatments tend to be fairly low tech, no frills
operations, using minimal fluids technology and often eliminating the need for modern, sophisticated,
computerised blending and pumping equipment. CBM fracturing will be covered in more detail in Section
17.7.
Gas production from a CBM reservoir relies on diffierent mechanisms than production from conventional
reservoirs. The main production mechanism is not expansion of gas in pore spaces - coals generally have
little or no primary porosity. Instead, as stated above, the gas is adsorbed into the coal itself. In order to
produce the gas, the pressure has to be reduced below a specific critical pressure, at which point the gas
starts to desorb. Some CBM reservoirs are naturally below this critical pressure. Most, however, are
significantly above this pressure. In such cases, considerable quantities of water have to be rapidly
produced in order to get the reservoir pressure low enough to initiate gas desorption. Often, a propped
fracture plays a critical role in this de-watering process.
Subtopics
3.7 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 30
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 31
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Fracturing through coiled tubing has been around since the early 1990’s, and was first carried out through
a string of coiled tubing that was left in the well after the treatment, becoming the production tubing.
However, as the industry began to perceive the advantages of this process – and as Engineers began to
leave their preconceived coiled tubing ideas behind – the concept has become more widely accepted.
The advantage of coiled tubing fracturing does not lie with the design or type of fracture that is placed in
the ground, as most types of fracture can be performed this way. The benefits of CT fracturing lie in the
operational aspects of how the treatments are placed.
The obvious limitation for coiled tubing fracturing is the diameter of the coil and the maximum pressure it
can be taken to. However, this restriction is not nearly as bad as it initially seems. With modern fluid
systems, friction pressure down the coiled tubing can be dramatically reduced, allowing treatments to be
pumped at quite high rates. Also, as the coiled tubing is static during the treatment (i.e. the tubing is not
being plastically deformed on a continuous basis), the maximum allowable pressure is far higher than is
normal for CT operations.
Advantages
1. The coiled tubing can be used to isolate the completion from the fracturing process. By setting a
squeeze packer at the end of the tubing, the hole tubing string is protected from the pressure and
temperature changes normally experienced by the completion. This means that completions that are
pressure-limited (due to sliding sleeves, packer ratings, poor quality tubing, wellhead size etc) can be
fractured. Completions which cannot be cooled down too much (due to risk of stinging the tubing out if
the PBR on the packer), can also be fractured.
2. Coiled tubing fracturing is particularly effective when working on monobore completions, or on wells
that have not yet been completed. By using an opposing cup tool, the coiled tubing can be used to
easily isolate one zone from another. An extension of this, is that the tool can be very easily moved
from one zone to another, allowing multiple fracs to be performed in rapid succession.
3. If required, the coiled tubing can be used to gas lift the well on to production after the treatment(s).
4. Coiled tubing can often be used as an alternative to a workover. This can mean significant cost
saving, especially offshore.
Disadvantages
1. The extra cost of the coiled tubing unit, over and above the cost of the frac spread. However, often
this extra cost can produce savings in other areas (rig time, frac crew time etc). The operating
company must also be prepared to pay for some or all of the cost of the coiled tubing string.
2. The extra space needed, due to the extra equipment required as compared to the frac spread by
itself. Of course, if the CT unit is being used as an alternative to a workover rig, this may not be as
significant.
3. Rate limitations. In general, for a given fluid system, higher rates can be achieved through
completions than through coiled tubing. However, it should be remembered that it is usually possible
to take the static coiled tubing to higher pressures than the completion/wellhead assembly.
4. Although it is possible to frac through coiled tubing with standard fluid systems, as the depth increases
and/or the coiled tubing diameter decreases, it may be necessary to use more exotic and expensive
fluid systems.
The combination of the above advantages and disadvantages means that CT fracturing is usually only

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 32
economically viable in areas where there are shallow multiple intervals, and where the cost of a workover
rig is relatively high.
Subtopics
3.7 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 33
Fracturing Manual

Section:
3.0 References
Product Catalogue, Colorado Silica Sand, 1994
Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Stimulation , Schlumberger Educational Services, 1987.
Gidley, J.L., et al: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing , Monograph Series Vol 12, SPE, Richardson,
Texas (1989).
Bradley, H.B. (Ed): Petroleum Engineers Handbook , SPE, Richardson, Texas (1987)
Rae, P., Martin, A.N., and Sinanan, B.: “Skin Bypass Fracs: Proof that Size is Not Important”, SPE 56473,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 1999.
O’Driscoll, K.: Middle-East Region Coal Bed Methane Fracturing Manual , BJ Services, 1995.
Gavin, W.G.: “Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing – Recent Developments and Case Histories”, SPE
60690, presented at the 2000 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, April 2000.
Wong, G.K., Fors, R.R., Casassa, J.S., Hite, R.H., and Shlyapobersky, J.: “Design, Execution and
Evaluation of Frac and Pack (F and P) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand Formations in the Gulf of
Mexico”, SPE 26563, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston TX,
Oct 1993.
Tiner, R.L., Ely, J.W. and Schraufnagel, R.: “Frac Packs – State of the Art”, SPE 36456, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver CO, Oct 1996.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 34
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 35
Fracturing Manual
Section:
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
Fluid Mechanics is the study of the behaviour of fluids. In the oil field, this means that fluid mechanics is
used to predict fluid friction pressures and the forces due to the dynamics of fluid flow. Rheology is the
study of the deformation and flow of matter, and in the oil field is used to predict the resistance of a fluid to
the application of a force or pressure.
Subtopics
4.1 Fundamental Fluid Properties
4.2 Shear Stress and Shear Rate
4.3 Types of Fluid
4.4 Measuring Viscosity
4.5 Apparent Viscosity
4.6 Flow Regimes and Reynold’s Number
4.7 Friction Pressure
4.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 36
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:

Density (ρ) - A measure of how much matter a material contains within a unit of volume. The denser
a material is, the heavier a given volume. Provided the liquid composition remains
constant, we can think of fluid density (especially for water-based fluid systems) as a
constant – although it will actually decrease slightly with increasing temperature and
increase slightly with increasing pressure. Hydrocarbon-based fluid systems are
significantly more compressible, and assuming a constant density can result in
inaccuracies (see references for diesel data).
Viscosity (µ) - Viscosity is a measure of how much a fluid resists deformation as a result of an applied
force or pressure. It is a measure of how “thick” the fluid is. Viscosity is only very rarely
a constant value, as it can change dramatically with temperature, applied shear stress
and fluid composition. Viscosity is defined as the relationship between shear stress and
shear rate.
Temperature (T ) - A measure of how much energy a material contains – the hotter the material, the more
energy. Although strictly speaking temperature is not a fundamental property, in the oil
field it an important parameter that needs to quantified. Most fluid properties are
affected to a greater or lesser extent by temperature.
Subtopics
4.3 Types of Fluid
4.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 37
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 38
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:

Shear Rate (γ). In fluid mechanics, shear rate is a measure of how fast a fluid is flowing past a fixed
surface. Shear rate can be thought of as a measure of how much agitation a fluid is receiving.
Causes of Shear Rate:

- Spinning centrifugal pump
- Flow through a pipe
- Fann 35 Test
- Jet mixer
- Tank agitators
Shear Stress (τ). Shear stress is the resistance the fluid produces to an applied shear rate. For instance,
it requires more force (pressure) to pump water at 20 bpm than at 10 bpm.
Viscosity (µ). The fluid property that defines how much shear stress is produced by a shear rate, is called
viscosity. The greater the viscosity, the greater the resistance of a fluid to shear agitation.
Newton’s Law of Fluids

τ
µ= (4.1)
γ
This is known as Newton’s law of fluids, and is illustrated in figure 4.2a:
Shear Stress, τ
Slope = µ
0
0
Shear Rate, γ
Figure 4.2a – Graph illustrating Newton’s law of fluids
In oil field units, Newton’s law can be expressed as follows:-
τ
µ = 47,879 (4.2)
γ

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 39
2 -1
with µ measured in cp (centipoise), τ in lbf/ft and γ in sec . Newton was the first to realise the relationship
in fluids between an applied force and the resistance to that force. His experiments were carried out on
simple fluids such as water and brine, and not on more complex fluids, such as those used in stimulation
activities.
Subtopics
4.3 Types of Fluid
4.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 40
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:
4.3 Types of Fluid

In the oil field, we generally deal with three different types of fluids, according to how the relationship
between shear stress and shear rate develops. These fluid types are defined below.
Newtonian Fluids
As illustrated in Figure 4.2a, these are fluids for which Newton’s law is valid. Newtonian fluids have a
straight line (linear) relationship between shear rate and shear stress until turbulence occurs. Equations
4.1 and 4.2 are valid. Examples of Newtonian fluids include:-
Fresh Water
Sea Water
Most Acids (ungelled)
Diesel
Alcohols
Gases
Newtonian fluids have a constant viscosity, µ.
Bingham Plastic Fluids

Bingham plastic fluids require an initial shear stress to be induced before they will deform. Put another
way, they have a yield point or gel strength that must be broken before the fluid can move (although some
fluids have a gel strength that is nothing to do with yielding). This type of fluid is not Newtonian, although
they usually have a constant viscosity once the initial gel strength has been overcome.
τ = Y p + Pv γ (4.3)
2 2
Y p is the yield point, and in the oil field has units of lbf/100 ft (note that in the oil field, τ has the units lbf/ft ,
so the value for Y p has to be converted before it is used), whilst P v is the plastic viscosity, with cp as its
units.
Figure 4.3a illustrates the behaviour of a Bingham plastic fluid Examples of Bingham plastic fluids include
some cement slurries and some drilling muds

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 41
Shear Stress, τ
Slope = Pv
Yp
0
0
Shear Rate, γ
Figure 4.3a – Relationship between shear rate and shear stress for a Bingham plastic fluid.
Power Law Fluids

The third group of fluids is generally referred to as power law fluids, although there are other names which
have been used to describe them. In general, there is no linear relationship between shear rate and shear
stress, so that apparent viscosity (the viscosity which the fluid appears to have, at a specific shear rate)
changes with shear rate. The following equation describes the behaviour of the power law fluid, and this is
illustrated in figure 4.3b.
n ’
τ = K ’γ (4.4)
Shear Stress, τ
0
0
Shear Rate, γ
Figure 4.3b – Relationship between shear rate and shear stress for a power law fluid. Note that the
graph shows the relationship in its most common form - “shear thinning”. However, in certain
fluids the line can also curve upward - “shear thickening”
K ’ is referred to as the power law consistency index, and in order to be coherent has the rather awkward
n’ 2
units of lbf sec /ft . n ’ is the power law index and is dimensionless.
In order to determine n ’ and K ’, the log of equation 4.4 is taken;
log τ = log K ' + n' log γ (4.5)

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 42
On a plot of log τ against log γ, the intercept of the vertical axis is log K ’ and the gradient of the line is n ’,
as shown in figure 4.3c;
Slope = n’
log τ
log K’
0
0
log γ
Figure 4.3c – Power law fluid log-log plot
Power law fluids can be divided into 3 major categories;
Shear-thinning fluids. In these fluids, n ’ is less than 1, so that the fluids experience a decrease in
apparent viscosity as the shear rate increases. Most of the fluids used for fracturing fall within this
category.
Newtonian fluids. Newtonian fluids are a special case of power law fluids in which n ’ is equal to one, i.e.
the apparent viscosity is constant and equal to K ’.
Shear-thickening fluids. These fluids have an n ’ greater than one, and so exhibit an increase in apparent
viscosity as shear rate increases. Extreme examples of these fluids can behave as it they were solids
when exposed to even moderate shear forces.
Another example of a power law fluid is the Herschel-Buckley fluid, which is often used to model the flow
behaviour of foams;
τ = τ 0′ + K "γ n" (4.6)
where τ’0 is the threshold shear stress, K ’’ is the Herschel-Buckley consistency index and n ’’ the
Herschel-Buckley exponent.
Herschel-Buckley fluids are basically a combination of the Bingham plastic fluid and the power law fluid.
An initial threshold shear stress has to be overcome before the fluid will flow. Once this has happened, the
viscosity is not constant, and will vary according to the shear rate.
Subtopics
4.8 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 43
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 44
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:

In order to measure viscosity, two variables need to be determined. First, the shear rate of some moving
device within the fluid needs to be determined. Second, the resistance to this shear rate needs to be
evaluated. This can be done either by measuring the amount of force required to move the source of
shear rate, or by measuring the deflection on an object placed in the fluid, close to the source of shear
rate.
If the fluid being analysed is not Newtonian, then the apparatus will have to perform these tasks at several
different shear rates.
Once the resistance to the shear rate (i.e. the shear stress) has been determined at one or more known
shear rates, the viscosity (or the components required to determine the apparent viscosity) can be
derived.
Model 35 Viscometer
The model 35 viscometer, produced by Fann , Brookfield or Chandler , is the most common device used in
the oil industry for determining viscosity and rheological properties. It is robust, easy to use and reliable. It
can also be fairly easily calibrated, provided the user is familiar with the process. Figure 4.4a shows a
photograph of a model 35 viscometer, whilst Figures 4.4b and 4.4c illustrate how it works;
A
Figure 4.4a – Chandler Model 35 viscometer. The
position of the rotor is indicated (A), whilst the bob is
hidden inside this. The cup (B) holds the test fluid,
B and is mounted on a support (C) that can move up
and down as required.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 45
Torsion
Spring
Rotor
Fluid
Bob Bob
Bob Shaft
Shaft
Bob
Figure 4.4b – Cross-section through the rotor and bob Figure 4.4c – Schematic diagram showing the model
on a model 35 viscometer 35 viscometer bob assembly
The model 35 viscometer works by rotating the rotor (see Figure 4.4b) around the bob. The fluid is
positioned in a narrow gap between the rotor and the bob. As the rotor spins, it produces a shear on the
fluid, which in turn produces a drag force on the bob. The bob is mounted on a spring loaded bob shaft
(see Figure 4.4c), so that as it experiences a drag force, it will rotate slightly. The greater the drag force,
then more the bob rotates. Attached to the top end of the bob shaft is a dial indicator, allowing the
operator to read how much the bob has rotated. As the bob deflection is directly related to the shear stress
being experienced by the fluid, it is possible to use the dial reading as a measure of viscosity.
Generally, the model 35 viscometer can spin the rotor at the following speeds, although these vary slightly
from model to model. The speeds are 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 20, 30, 60, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm.
By plotting the rpm’s of the rotor (shear rate) against the dial reading (shear stress) it is possible to
determine what type of fluid is being measured, by analysing the shape of the curve.
τ = 0.01066 N θ (4.7)
γ = 1.703ϖ (4.8)
where N is the spring factor of the torsion spring fitted to the model 35 viscometer (usually equal to 1), θ
is the dial reading and ω is the speed of the rotor in rpm’s. It should be noted that equation 4.8 is valid only
for the R1 rotor and B1 bob combination – for other combinations refer to the manufacturer’s manual.
By using equations 4.7 and 4.8, a plot of shear rate against shear stress can be produced, or if necessary,
a log-log plot. From these, the viscosity defining parameters can be derived.
Other Methods for Measuring Viscosity

Various other methods for measuring viscosity are available;
i) Helical Screw Rheometer. Uses a helical screw inside a sleeve. The screw rotates and fluid flows up
the inside of the sleeve and out of the top. The amount of force taken to rotate the screw is measured
to produce the shear stress. The shear rate is derived from the speed of the screw. Used by some
service companies for in-line real-time viscosity measurement during frac jobs.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 46
ii) Model 50 HPHT Viscometer. Works on the same principle as the model 35 viscometer, but is
designed so that the analysis can be carried out at high temperature and pressure. These viscometers
are also usually remotely controlled by a PC, allowing shear rate and temperature schedules to be
used, as well as the recording of all data. Although quite expensive, these machines are commonly
used for designing frac fluid systems. Figure 4.4d shows a Fann 50. HPHT viscometers are also
manufactured by Brookfield and Chandler .
Figure 4.4d – Fann 50 high pressure, high

temperature rheometer. This model is fully computer
controlled, whereas earlier models had manual
controls and were twice the size of the model shown.
iii) Brookfield In-Line Viscometer. Viscometer designed to provide real time viscosity measurement for
fluids flowing down a process line. This viscometer works on a similar principle to the model 35,
although the rotor and bob are of a different size and shape.
iv) Funnel Viscometer. A simple device for determining apparent viscosity. It consists of a funnel with a
hole in the end. A specific volume of the fluid is placed in the funnel, and the time taken for it to drain
out of the small hole in the bottom of the funnel is measured. A chart then provides a quick conversion
from time to apparent viscosity. A crude but effective method for quickly measuring the viscosity of
Newtonian fluids.
The above are the most commonly used varieties in the oil industry, although it should be remembered
that a wide variety of devices and methods are available.
Subtopics
4.3 Types of Fluid
4.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 47
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 48
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:

The apparent viscosity of a fluid is the viscosity of the fluid at a specific shear rate. For a Newtonian fluid,
the apparent viscosity is the same as the actual viscosity. For all other fluids, the apparent viscosity is the
slope of a line on a shear rate vs shear stress curve, from the origin to the line, at a specific shear rate, as
shown in Figure 4.5a:
2
Shear Stress, τ
0
a b
0 Shear Rate, γ
Figure 4.5a – Graph illustrating the change in apparent viscosity for a power law fluid at two different shear
rates.
As can been seen in figure 4.5a, for a shear thinning power law fluid, the apparent viscosity of the fluid
(the slope of the two lines) decreases as the shear rate increases. At shear rate "a" the slope of line 1
(and hence the apparent viscosity) is greater than the slope of line 2 at the greater shear rate "b". Hence
the fluid is said to be shear thinning.
In practice, it is the apparent viscosity that is usually measured. The model 35 viscometer is set up so that
at 300 rpm (with an R1 rotor, B1 bob and spring factor = 1), the apparatus reads apparent viscosity
directly – no additional calculations are required.
The apparent viscosity can be calculated as follows, for a power law fluid:
47879 K '
µ app = (4.9)
γ 1− n '
Subtopics
4.3 Types of Fluid
4.8 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 49
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 50
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:
4.6 Flow Regimes and Reynold's Number

Figure 4.6a illustrates the three different flow regimes that a fluid can experience, with plug flow being at
the lowest fluid velocity, and turbulent flow being at the highest.
Plug Laminar Turbulent

Figure 4.6a – Diagram illustrating the three flow regimes
i) Plug Flow. At low flow rates, the fluid flows with an almost uniform velocity profile. The fluid moves
with a uniform front across almost the entire flow area.
ii) Laminar Flow. As the flow rate increases, the velocity profile begins to change. Fluid close to the
walls of the pipe (or duct, or fracture) flows slowest, whilst fluid in the center of the pipe flows fastest.
Fluid velocity is a function of distance from the pipe wall. Also known as streamline flow.
iii) Turbulent Flow. As the flow rate continues to increase, the contrast in velocity across the flow area
becomes unsustainable, and the fluid breaks down into turbulent flow. This is characterised by a
series of small scale eddies and whirls, all moving in the same overall direction.
The friction pressure produced by the fluid flow is highly dependent upon the flow regime. Therefore, it is
important to be able to determine the which flow regime the fluid is experiencing.
Reynold’s Number
The flow regime is found by using the Reynold’s number (NRe), as follows;
NRe < 100 Plug Flow

100 < NRe < 2000 Laminar Flow
NRe > 2000 Turbulent Flow
It should be remembered that these are very generalised numbers. The actual numbers can vary
significantly, depending upon the circumstances. The Reynold’s number itself can be found from the

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 51
following formula:
ρdv
N Re = (4.10)
µ
where ρ is the fluid density, d is the inside diameter of the pipe, v is the “bulk” fluid velocity along the pipe
and µ is the viscosity. Equation 4.10 is for SI units, whilst Equation 4.11 is for field units;
SG q
N Re = 132,624 (4.11)
dµ
where SG is the specific gravity, q is the flow rate in bpm, d is the inside diameter in inches and µ is the
viscosity in cp.
Obviously Equations 4.10 and 4.11 only apply to Newtonian fluids, i.e. fluids with a constant viscosity. As
stated before, Frac Engineers only rarely deal with Newtonian fluids, so below is Equation 4.11 converted
for power law fluids;
SG v 2 − n '
N Re =15.49 (4.12)
K ' (96 d )
n'
where v is the velocity in ft/sec. To make things easier, v can be easily found from the flow rate, q :
q
v = 17.157 (4.13)
d2
with q in bpm and d in inches.
Usually, when fracturing, it is best to keep abrasive fluids at flow rates below that needed for turbulent
flow. This is to prevent the erosion of flow lines and the washing out of seals, caused by the action of the
proppant. BJ Services' Standard Practices states that for abrasive fluids, the fluid velocity must be kept
below 40 ft/sec.
Subtopics
4.3 Types of Fluid
4.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 52
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 53
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:

One of the ultimate objectives of fluid mechanics - as far as the Frac Engineer is concerned, anyway – is
to be able to predict the friction pressure (∆P frict) of the fluids that are being pumped. This is often very
difficult, as fluid composition and temperature is constantly changing as the treatment progresses. In
addition, two-phase (liquid and proppant) and even three-phase (liquid, proppant and gas) flow is
common.
Predicting fluid friction pressure is therefore an unreliable process and there really is no substitute for
reliable bottom hole pressure data. Failing that, the next best option is to use friction pressure tables, such
as BJ’s Fracturing Fluids – Friction Pressure Data . These tables are usually based on data generated by
actually pumping the fluid around a flow loop, and so are based on a situation similar to the actual
treatment process. Most modern fracture simulators incorporate data from these tests in their fluid
models, so friction pressures predicted by these are also reasonably reliable (although not perfect, as the
temperature of the wellbore is constantly changing) unless there is proppant in the fluid.
Finally, when the three methods outlined above are not possible, the friction pressure may be calculated
from fluid data, using the one of several available methods. The method outlined below, based on the use
of Fanning friction factors, is fairly reliable (i.e. it is just as good as the data used as inputs), but is not
intended for use in narrow diameter pipes at higher than normal flow rates (such as for coiled tubing
treatments).
SG L v 2 f
∆Pfrict = 0.325 (4.14)
d
where L is the length of pipe in feet and f is the friction factor (dimensionless).
The friction factor is determined by using the Reynold’s number. For plug and laminar flow:
16
f= (4.15)
N Re
whilst for turbulent flow:
0.0303
f= 0.1612 (4.16)
N Re
So the first step in the process of finding ∆P frict is to determine the Reynold’s number. Once that has been
found, the friction factor can be determined, which in turn leads to the friction pressure.
4.3 Types of Fluid
4.8 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 54
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 55
Fracturing Manual
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Section:
4.8 References
Texas (1989).
Economides, M.J.: A Practical Companion to Reservoir Stimulation , Elsevier, 1992
FracRT Version 4.6 User’s Manual, BJ Services, 1995 onwards
Friction Pressure Manual , The Western Company, 1989 onwards
Fracturing Fluids – Friction Pressure Data , BJ Services, 1983 onwards
API Recommended Practice 39, Measuring the Properties of a Cross-Linked Water-Based Fracturing
Fluid, 3rd Edition , American Petroleum Institute, May 1998
Stimulation Engineering Support Manual , BJ Services, October 1996 onwards
Standard Practices , BJ Services, 2000 onwards

Subtopics
4.3 Types of Fluid
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 56
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 57
Fracturing Manual
Section:
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
The fracturing fluid is a vital part of the fracturing process. It is used to create the fracture, to carry the
proppant into the fracture, and to suspend the proppant until the fracture closes. On a more basic level,
the fluid system is the vehicle that allows us to transfer mechanical energy (in the frac pumps) into work
performed on the formation.
In order to carry out these tasks efficiently, the ideal fluid must have a combination of the following
properties.
i. Low cost.
ii. Ease of use.
iii. Low tubing friction pressure.
iv. High viscosity in the fracture, to suspend the proppant.
v. Low viscosity after the treatment, to allow easy recovery.
vi. Compatibility with the formation, the reservoir fluids and the proppant.
vii. Safe to use.
viii. Environmentally friendly.
Some of these properties are not easy to combine in the same fluid. Usually, the process of selecting a
fracturing fluid is a trade off. It is up to the Engineers to decide which properties are most important and
which properties can be sacrificed. In order to make this choice easier, there are a number of fluid
systems available for fracturing.
Subtopics
5.1 Water-Based Linear Systems
5.2 Water-Based Crosslinked Systems
5.3 Oil-Based Systems
5.4 Emulsions
5.5 Visco-Elastic Surfactant Fluids
5.6 Energised Fracturing Fluids
5.7 Additives
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 58
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 59
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:

The first fracturing fluid, used in Kansas in 1947, was gasoline gelled with war surplus napalm. Obviously
this was a highly dangerous fluid, and it wasn’t long before water based systems were available. The first
of these systems used starch as the gelling agent, but by the early 1960’s guar was introduced and soon
became the most common polymer for fracturing. Today, polymers derived from the guar bean are used
in most fracturing treatments - the other main source of polymers being cellulose and it's derivatives.
Before the dry polymer is added to the water, the individual molecules are tightly curled up on themselves.
As the polymer molecule hydrates in water, it straightens out – which is why these fluids are referred to as
linear gels – as illustrated in Figure 5.1a:-
A B
Figure 5.1a – Hydration of polymer gels in water. 'A' shows a polymer molecule before hydration in
water, whilst 'B' shows a polymer molecule after hydration in water.
It is these long, linear molecules that produce the increase in viscosity. However, it should be remembered
that this hydration only occurs at a specific pH range. Outside this range, the hydration rate can be very
slow and sometimes almost non-existent. Different polymers have different pH ranges, and buffers may
have to be used to make the polymer hydrate. If a polymer that hydrates at a neutral pH is added to water,
it may start to hydrate very rapidly. This leads to the formation of “clumps” of non-hydrated polymer,
surrounded by partially hydrated polymer, surrounded in turn by hydrated polymer. These are known as
fish-eyes and are a sign that the gel has been poorly mixed.
Several techniques can be employed to prevent the formation of fish-eyes:
i. Buffer the water so that the pH will prevent hydration. Once the polymer powder is thoroughly
dispersed in the water, a different buffer is used to change the pH to a point where the polymer will
hydrate.
ii. Add the polymer through a high shear device (such as a jet mixer) to ensure that the polymer does not
form clumps.
iii. Circulate the hydrating gel through a high shear device, such as a choke, to break up any fish-eyes.
iv. Slurry the polymer into a hydrocarbon-based fluid (such as diesel, kerosene or even methanol). The
slurry is then added to the water, allowing the polymer to disperse before it hydrates.
A combination of these methods can also be used.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 60
Common polymers used for linear gels include:
Starch
Guar
Hydroxypropyl Guar (HPG)
Carboxymethyl Hydroxypropyl Guar (CMHPG)
Carboxymethyl Guar (CMG)
Cellulose
Hydroxyethyl Cellulose (HEC)
Carboxymethyl Hydroxyethyl Cellulose (CMHEC)
Xanthan
® ® ®
Xanthan derivatives (e.g. Bioxan , Xanvis , XC Polymer etc)
The most commonly used polymers for fracturing are Guar, HPG and CMHPG, mostly as the basis for
crosslinked systems (see below). HEC is probably the most widely used polymer for linear gel fracturing,
due to its popularity for fracturing low temperature, high permeability formations.
BJ’s range of water-based linear gel frac fluids includes the Aqua Frac system, which is based on guar
and its derivatives. Gelling agents are GW-3, GW-4 & GW-27 (guar), GW-32 (HPG), GW-38 (CMHPG)
and GW-45 (CMG). Also in BJ’s product range is the Terra Pack system, which is primarily designed for
gravel packing, but can also be used for fracturing. The gelling agent for Terra Pack II is GW-21 (HEC)
and for Terra Pack III is GW-22 (Xanthan).
Subtopics
5.3 Hydrocarbon-Based Systems
5.4 Emulsions
5.7 Additives
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 61
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 62
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:

The majority of hydraulic fracturing treatments are carried out using water based crosslinked gels. These
systems offer the best combination of low cost, ease of use, high viscosity and ease of fluid recovery.
Generally, water based crosslinked gels will be used unless there is a specific reason not to use them –
they are the default option.
the starting point for a crosslinked system is a linear gel, as described above in Section 5.1. When used
for crosslinked systems, linear gels are often referred to as base gels. The most commonly used linear
gels are guar and its derivatives; HPG, CMG and CMHPG.
A crosslinked gel, as illustrated in Figure 5.2a, consists of a number of hydrated polymer molecules, which
have been joined together by the crosslinking chemical. This series of chemical bonds between the
polymer molecules greatly increases the viscosity of the system, sometimes by as much as 100 times.
In order for an efficient crosslink to occur, two separate things need to happen. First, the base gel needs
to be buffered to a pH which will allow the crosslinking chemical to work. Usually, this is at a different pH
to that required for polymer hydration, so a different pH buffer has to be used. Secondly, the crosslinking
radical needs to be present at sufficient concentration. If both these conditions occur, the gel will
experience a dramatic increase in viscosity.
A B
Figure 5.2a – A crosslinked polymer. 'A' shows the hydrated polymer prior to addition of the
crosslinker. 'B' shows the crosslink chemical bonds between the polymer molecules.
Obviously, a fully crosslinked polymer is extremely viscous, and can result - under the wrong conditions -
in a high level of fluid friction as it is pumped downhole. To counter this, it is quite common to use a
delayed crosslinker. A delayed crosslinker can take anything up to 10 minutes before the gel is fully
hydrated, depending upon the temperature, initial pH and shear that the fluid experiences. The ideal
crosslink delay system would delay the onset of crosslink as long as possible, but would still have the fluid
fully crosslinked by the time it reaches the perforations.
The most commonly used crosslinking systems are as follows:

Borates
“Exotic” Borates
Zirconates
Aluminates

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 63
Titanates
Of these, the borates and “exotic” borates are by far the most commonly used, followed by the zirconates.
Figure 5.2b illustrates the pH ranges of these crosslinkers, whilst Figure 5.2c shows their temperature
ranges:-
Zirconates
Aluminates
Organic Titanates
Borates
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 5.2b – pH ranges for crosslinkers (after SPE 37359)
Zirconates
Aluminates
Titanates
High Temperature Borates
Conventional Borates
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Temperature, oF
Figure 5.2c – Temperature range for crosslinkers (after SPE 37359)
All crosslinked gels tend to be shear thinning, which means that the apparent viscosity of the fluid
decreases with shear rate. This is because the shear acts to break the crosslink bonds between the
hydrated polymer molecules. Borate crosslink bonds will reconnect and produce a good quality gel after
the shearing has taken place. However, zirconate bonds are much more shear sensitive and may not
reconnect. Therefore, it is essential to consider the level of shear that a fluid will experience when
selecting a crosslinker.
Like most fracturing companies, BJ Services tends to classify its crosslinked fluids systems by the type of
crosslinker used:-
Viking™ is a guar-based system that uses conventional borates for the crosslink. It is a cheap, easy to
use fluid intended for low temperature applications. There is no crosslink delay. Crosslinkers used are
XLW-4, XLW-32 or XLW-10.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 64
Viking D is the delayed crosslink version of Viking, and uses the crosslinkers XLW-30 or XLW-30A.
Spectra Frac G® is probably the most commonly used of all BJ’s borate frac fluid systems. It is guar
based, and uses an organo-borate crosslinker for a much greater temperature range than the Viking
systems. The system is a premium system at lower temperatures, typically providing more viscosity. The
crosslinker can be delayed, and the length of time for the delay can be varied over a significant range. The
crosslinker for the system is XLW-24.
Spectra Frac G® HT is the high temperature version of Spectra Frac G®. It is guar based, and uses an
organo-borate crosslinker for a much greater temperature range than the Viking systems. The crosslinker
also employs a self-breaking mechanism, which helps to reduce the viscosity over a period of time above
+/- 230°F. The crosslinker can be delayed, and the length of time for the delay can be varied over a
significant range. The crosslinker for the system is XLW-56.
Lightning™ is a new fracturing fluid system that uses a newly developed low-residue guar polymer, GW-3
. The system uses the same borate crosslinkers as Viking™.
Medallion Frac® is a CMHPG based system that uses a zirconate crosslinker. Unlike the borate systems,
which operate at a pH above +/- 9.0, Medallion Frac® operates at a pH below neutral, usually around 4.5
to 5.5. Because of its low pH, it is the fluid of choice for CO2 foam fracs, pads for acid fracs, and for
formations which are sensitive to high pH’s. Crosslinkers for the system are XLW-41, XLW-53 or XLW-60.
XLW-60 is a delayed crosslink, whilst XLW-41 and XLW-53 are designed for a rapid crosslink. The
crosslinkers can be used together in varying proportions to adjust the crosslink time as desired.
Medallion Frac HT® is a high pH version of Medallion Frac®. It uses a different buffer to achieve the
required pH (usually around 8.0 to 9.0), but otherwise is the same as Medallion Frac®. The high pH
zirconate system is more temperature stable than the low pH. Generally, the high pH system uses
XLW-60 as the crosslinker.
Vistar™ is a low or high pH, zirconate crosslinked system, designed so that only very low polymer loading
is needed, as compared to other fluid systems. The base gel is a guar-derivative (GW-45). Crosslinkers
for the system are XLW-63 (lower temperatures) and XLW-14 (high temperatures).
Crosslinked systems are also characterized by the quantity of polymer used in the base gel. For instance,
a “35 lb” system has the base gel mixed with 35 lbs of polymer in every 1000 gals of water. If this base gel
were to be used in Spectra Frac G®, the fluid system would be known as Spectra Frac G® HT 3500.
LFC, XLFC, VSP and GLFC

LFC (which stands for Liquid Frac Concentrate) and XLFC are slurried polymer systems, usually designed
to carry 4 lbs of polymer in every gallon of slurry. Simply add the slurry to water and the base gel will form.
Slurrying the polymer in an oil-based system helps disperse the polymer in the water (preventing
fish-eyes) and is much easier to meter when hydrating gel on-the-fly. The liquid base for the slurry is
usually diesel or a low toxicity diesel-derivative. However, LFC and XLFC systems have been developed
that use vegetable or fish oil as the base liquid, although these hold reduced amounts of polymer per
gallon. In addition to the base oil and polymer, LFC and XLFC also contain suspending agents to prevent
settling during storage, dispersants to help mix the slurry and wetting agents to help the polymer hydrate
quickly once the LFC or XLFC is added to water. A pH buffer can also be incorporated to help the polymer
hydrate more quickly, especially at low temperatures.
LFC-1, GLFC-1 and XLFC-1 contain guar (GW-27)

LFC-2, GLFC-2 and XLFC-2 contain HPG (GW-32)
LFC-3, GLFC-3 and XLFC-3 contain CMHPG (GW-38)
XLFC-5 contains GW-3

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 65
XLFC is the updated version of LFC. VSP (or Vistar Slurried Polymer) is a version of XLFC developed for
the Vistar™ system and contains CMG (GW-45).
GLFC systems, which can be mixed with guar, HPG or CMHPG, use an organically-derived base oil in
order to meet increasingly tight environmental regulations in many areas of the world.
Subtopics
5.4 Emulsions
5.7 Additives
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 66
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:

As stated previously, the very first hydraulic fracture treatment was carried out using gasoline gelled with
war surplus napalm. The operation was performed on Pan American Petroleum’s Klepper No 1 well, Grant
county, Kansas, (part of the Hugoton gas field) in 1947. The treatment was aimed at 4 gas bearing
limestone formations, at about 2500 ft. The gasoline-based fluid was selected, as it was perceived to be
more compatible with the formation. This continues to be the primary reason for selecting an oil-based
fluid.
For the record, the treatment on Klepper No 1 failed to produce a significant production increase, and it
was decided that the "Hydrafrac” process would never compete successfully with acidising in this type of
formation.
The first widely-used oil-based fluid system was based on the reaction of an acidic material (tallow fatty
acid) and basic material (caustic) to form a polymeric salt, in a process similar to the manufacture of soap.
These fluids provided viscosity, but where very unstable at elevated temperatures. As time progressed,
this system was replaced by others based on the use of aluminium phosphates, which were able to
provide significantly increased viscosity and more stability at elevated temperatures.
In the early 70’s, the aluminium phosphate systems were replaced by the aluminium ester systems. The
association of aluminium and phosphate esters is illustrated in Figure 5.3a.
These systems used a combination of two products to produce the required viscosity. The relative ratio of
these two products was extremely critical – so critical that it was difficult to mix these systems on the fly.
Consequently, a great deal of time and effort was spent in pre-gelling tanks full of hydrocarbons, resulting
in considerable spillage and waste of chemicals.
R R R R
O O O O
P P
O O O O
Al O Al O Al
O H O O H O
P P
O O O O
H R H R
Figure 5.3a – Aluminium phosphate association polymer
More recently, BJ Services has introduced a much more user-friendly system known as Super RheoGel .
The ratios of the various components of the system are not nearly as critical, so that the gel can now be
mixed on the fly. The following products are used in Super RheoGel:-
GO-64 (gelling agent) and XLO-5 (activator) are the main components of the system. They are added in
equal quantities, at different stages of the blending procedure, to produce the required viscosity and
stability.
NE-110W is a critical surfactant blend used in the continuous mix gelled oil system. This material aids in
fluid recovery by acting as a hydrotropic material in the system. It helps to reduce emulsion tendencies of
oils and also acts as a long-term breaker for the system. NE-110W also helps to counteract the oil-wetting

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 67
surfactants contained in products such as diesel.
GBO-5L, GBO-6 and GBO-9L are the breakers for the system.
Most gelled oil systems can be prepared with a wide variety of hydrocarbon based fluids, including diesel,
kerosene, “frac oil”, condensate and many lease crudes. Because the fluid used to fracture the well is
itself hydrocarbon based, the well can be put straight on to production after the treatment is over. This
makes the fluid recovery phase of the operations much easier.
The Super RheoGel system does not work like a conventional water-based crosslink system. There is no
base gel viscosity when the GO-64 is added, as it does not react with the base hydrocarbon. Instead, the
GO-64 disperses in the hydrocarbon. When the XLO-5 is added, the crosslinker joins up the GO-64
molecules, trapping the hydrocarbon molecules within the GO-64/XLO-5 matrix and producing viscosity.
Because the GO-64 does not react with the base hydrocarbon, it is possible to gel any fluid system in
which this product can be dispersed, hence the ability of the system to be used in a wide variety of
hydrocarbon-based fluids.
Methanol can also be used as the base for fracturing fluids, although the systems designed for oil-based
fluids (such as Super RheoGel) are not suitable. Instead, a polymer is used to produce a base gel and a
specialised crosslinker is used to provide the viscosity necesssary for proppant transport.
Methanol-based fracturing fluids are used in water- and fluid-sensitive reservoirs where fluid recovery after
the treatment is critical. The methanol reduces interfacial tension between the fracturing fluid and the
connate water and also helps remove and prevent capillary water blocks. This allows for much easier
recovery of the fracturing fluid from dry gas and water-sensitive reservoirs.
BJ Services' methanol-based fracturing fluid is called Methofrac XL. The system is designed for
continuous or batch-mixed applications. GM-55 is the guar-derivative polymer powder, whilst XLFCM-1 is
the slurried polymer concentrate. The crosslinker is XLW-40, which is a titanium-based, is usually diluted
before use. The diluted versions (XLW-40B, -41A and -41B) are mixed by adding 2.5 to 10% of XLW-40
by volume to methanol or iso-propyl alcohol, as appropriate (see BJ Services' Mixing Manual instructions).
The breaker for the Methofrac XL system is GBW-5.
When mixing with lease crude or condensate, obtain fresh samples of the hydrocarbon and test to make
sure that the system performs as required. This practice should also be followed when mixing with fluids
such as kerosene or diesel, as local variations in product quality can have a significant effect on fluid
performance. Additionally, be aware that BJ Services has strict safety and operations standards for the
use of hydrocarbon based fluids, and for the handling of low flash point liquids. These standards can be
found in BJ’s Standard Practices Manual and BJ’s Corporate Safety Standards and Procedures Manual .
Subtopics
5.4 Emulsions
5.7 Additives
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 68
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 69
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:
5.4 Emulsions
In general, emulsions are only rarely used in fracturing operations, but in some parts of the world they
have been found to have an ideal combination of fluid loss characteristics, formation compatibility and
downhole viscosity. As a result, in these areas their use is common.
Most of these systems are oil-in-water emulsions and operate in a similar fashion. Water is gelled with a
standard gelling agent and held in a tank(s). During the job, water and oil are mixed together at the ratio of
2 parts oil to one part gel. An emulsifier is either pre-blended in the water phase (the gel) or added on the
fly. The fluids very quickly form a brown emulsion, the viscosity of which is largely proportional to the initial
viscosity of the water phase.
Some systems require an external breaker in order to destroy the emulsion and allow the fluids to be
recovered. However, in most systems, the emulsion quickly falls apart after exposure to the formation.
BJ Services emulsion-based fluid system is known as Polyemulsion for which the emulsifying agent is
E-2.
Subtopics
5.7 Additives
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 70
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 71
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:

Visco-elastic surfactant (VES) systems are water-based fluids that employ a completely different method
from all other water-based fluid systems for obtaining viscosity. They do not rely upon the hydration of a
polymer. Instead, they use the unique properties of certain surfactants when mixed at certain
concentrations in brine-based fluids.
In aqueous fluids, surfactants will tend to expel their lipophilic (water-repelling) tails out from the surface of
the fluid. As the concentration of the surfactant increases, close packing occurs and no more surfactant
molecules can expel their tails. At this point, the surfactant molecules will start to form spherical
aggregates (or micelles) with the lipophilic tail facing inwards, and the hydrophilic head facing outwards.
The concentration at which these micelles start to form is called the critical micellar concentration (CMC),
and is often around 0.5% by volume of surfactant. The CMC will decrease as the molecular weight of the
surfactant increases.
As the surfactant concentration increases further, and in the presence of a suitable counter ion (such as
those produced by brines), these micelles can come together to form worm- or rod-shaped aggregates or
micelles. It is these rod-shaped micelles that impart viscosity to the water.
VES fluids have some rather unique properties, as follows:
1. VES fluids are extremely shear thinning, with the property to quickly re-heal after the shear is
removed. This means that the fluids have an extremely low friction pressure, whilst at the same time
retaining excellent proppant transport characteristics.
2. VES fluids are very easy to mix. Simply start with the base brine and add the surfactant on the fly.
3. VES fluids can be made to be very environmentally friendly, depending upon the combination of
surfactant and brine used.
4. VES fluids often require no breaker system, as micelles can be disrupted by changes in pH, high
temperatures, dispersion in formation waters or by contact with hydrocarbons.
5. The VES system is as formation and proppant pack friendly as the base brine used to mix it. The
systems contain no polymers, and therefore produce no polymer residue. Therefore, these fluids are
capable of providing zero formation damage and 100% regained proppant pack permeability.
The two main disadvantages of VES fluids are that they are relatively expensive and that they are limited
by temperature. Proppant transport characteristics are rapidly lost above temperatures of +/- 230°F.
Development work continues, however. Another problem with VES fluids is leakoff. Because they contain
no polymers, they do not have any wall-building characteristics, and so leakoff control is entirely
dependent upon the fluid’s viscosity and/or additives used in the system.
BJ Services’ has two VES fluid systems, called ElastraFrac and AquaClear.
ElastraFrac uses the surfactant MA-1. The system uses potassium, ammonium or magnesium chloride
as the base brine, although more exotic phosphate-based brines are used at temperatures above +/-
200°F. The surfactant used is anionic (unlike competitor’s products that use cationics and hence risk
oil-wetting the formation).
AquaClear is also a surfactant-based fracturing fluid. The system uses either a combination of FAC-1W
and FAC-2, or the single surfactant FAC-3W as the VES. It is designed for mixing on-the-fly and is
suitable for use up to +/- 250 °F. The system is easily used as an energised fluid and does not need an
additional foaming agent.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 72
Subtopics
5.4 Emulsions
5.7 Additives
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 73
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:

Energised fluids consist of a liquid phase – usually a water-based linear or crosslinked gel – and a
gaseous phase, which is typically N2, CO2 or a combination of these. Such treatments involve large
amounts of equipment and personnel. Consequently, they are relatively expensive. These treatments are
also referred to a foam fracs, as foam is generally what is arriving at the formation. Because of the safety
implications of working with both cryogenic fluids and energised fluids, the procedures detailed in BJ’s
Standard Practices Manual and BJ’s Corporate Safety Standards and Procedures Manual , should be
closely followed at all times.
Foamed fluids have several unique properties that make them advantageous under certain
circumstances:
i. Viscosity and proppant transport. Stable foams have a comparatively high viscosity and make
excellent fluids for carrying and suspending proppant.
ii. Foams have very good leakoff properties. This is due to the multi-phase flow effects as the foam tries
to move through the formation's porosity.
iii. Because foams are typically only 30 to 40% liquid, they are more compatible with water sensitive
formations than frac systems which are 100% liquid.
iv. The extra energy stored in the fluid, coupled with the low hydrostatic head of the foam, makes fluid
recovery relatively easy.
Foam Quality
The foam quality, often expressed as a percentage or just simply as a quality (i.e. “70 quality” or even
“70Q”) is the percentage of foam or energized fluid that is gas, at the anticipated bottom hole conditions.
In order to design a foam treatment, an Engineer must have a reasonable idea of the expected bottom
hole treating pressure and temperature, as the volume occupied by the gas phase will vary depending on
both of these (although the temperature is much less significant than the pressure). As illustrated by
Figure 5.6a, foam viscosity (and hence it’s ability to transport proppant) is heavily influenced by the quality.
If the bottom hole pressure is significantly less than anticipated, the foam quality will be too high, and the
gas phase will expand to make a mist, rather than foam.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 74
Proppant Transport
STABLE
FOAM
0 20 40 60 80 100
Foam Quality
Figure 5.6a – Proppant transport as a function of foam quality. This graph is a combination of the work
performed by several individuals and organisations. It is intended as a qualitative illustration of the effect
foam quality has on the ability of the fracturing foam to transport and suspend proppant.
Gas assisted fluids use lower gas quality (typically 20 to 40%) than foamed fluids. The main purpose of
the gas phase is to reduce hydrostatic head and hence aid fluid recovery. In such treatments, the
proppant transport and fluid leakoff properties for a fully foamed fluid system are not required.
Proppant Concentration
Because proppant is added to the liquid phase of the foamed frac fluid, there is a limit to the overall
proppant concentration that can be achieved downhole. Because it is not possible to blend and pump
proppant at more than 18 or 19 ppg in the liquid phase, by the time the liquid phase has been mixed with
the gaseous phase, the overall proppant concentration has been reduced to 7 or 8 ppg. For this reason, it
is not possible to place the very high proppant concentrations required for fracturing high permeability
formations. This means that foam fracturing is limited to medium and low permeability reservoirs, for skin
bypass fracturing (although the extra cost can defeat the low cost objectives of this type of treatment) and
for coal bed methane fracturing.
Constant Internal Phase vs Constant External Phase

Foams can be thought of as being a multi-phase fluid, with a gas-internal phase, and a liquid external
phase. The difficulty comes in deciding whether or not the proppant is part of internal phase or the
external phase.
The traditional method of modeling foams and designing treatment schedules uses the constant external
phase method. This assumes that the proppant is part of the external phase. It is easier to operate on
location, as both the slurry rate and the gas rate remain constant. However, under constant external
phase, the actual fraction of the foam that is liquid can be severely reduced as higher proppant
concentrations are reached. Obviously, the proppant has no properties that act to hold the foam together,
so foams can become very unstable as the proppant concentration increases.
The modern way of modeling foam is to use the constant internal phase method. This models the
proppant as being part of the gas phase. Therefore, in order to keep foam quality constant, the gas rate
has to go down as the proppant concentration rises, and then increase rapidly as the treatment goes to
flush. This method is harder operationally, but provides much more stable foam.
Foam Stability

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 75
The stability of foam is its ability to remain as foam, rather than separating out into two or even three
phases. Ideally, the fluid should remain as foam long enough for the fluid to be recovered as foam after
the treatment. Obviously, temperature and fluid contamination will act to reduce foam stability. There are
three main methods for maximising foam stability:-
i. Mixing the liquid and gas phases at high shear, such as with a foam generator, or by passing the
mixed phases through a high shear device, such as a choke. The greater the shear that the foam
experiences, the more stable it becomes. High shear acts to reduce the average size of the gas
bubbles, which in turn makes it harder for then to separate out.
ii. Crosslinking the fracturing fluid after the foam has been formed. By using a delayed crosslinker, the
onset of crosslink can be timed to take place after the foam has been generated, so that the gas
bubbles are literally crosslinked into position.
iii. Foaming agents. These surfactants act to increase the surface tension of a material, so that the gas
bubbles are much more stable.
Often a combination of these methods is used.
Foam Viscosity
The viscosity, proppant transport characteristics, fluid leakoff and stability of the foam are all influenced by
the same foam characteristics - the liquid phase viscosity, the average gas bubble size, the foam quality
and the surface tension properties of the liquid phase. All of these are affected by temperature and two of
these are significantly affected by pressure. This means that calculating the viscosity – and hence the
friction pressure and fluid leakoff – of the foam is very difficult.
Consequently, calculated bottom hole treating pressures for foam fracs are extremely unreliable and
should not be used for analysis unless there is absolutely no alternative whatsoever. The results from
such an analysis should be considered as educated guesswork only.
N2 Foam Fracs
N2 foamed fracs are the most straightforward of all the types of energized fluid fracs performed. Nitrogen
is stored as a cryogenic liquid, in specialised, highly insulated tanks on location. Prior to the treatments,
each tank uses a heat exchanger to vapourise a small amount of the liquid into gas. This has the effect of
pressuring up the tank, so that liquid nitrogen is forced from the tank to the N2 pumpers.
Before liquid N2 can be pumped, the pump itself has to be cooled down. This is done by flowing liquid N2
though the pump and out of a vent. Initially gas will bleed out if the vent. Eventually, as the unit cools
down, liquid will be seen coming out of then vent, indicating to the operator that the unit is now ready to
pump. Therefore, when designing N2 foam fracs, sufficient liquid nitrogen should be on location for cooling
the N2 pumpers down at least 3 times (once for the minifrac, once for the main treatment and one spare).
It is much easier to convert a liquid from low to high pressure, than it is to convert a gas from low to high
pressure. Consequently, the N2 pumpers will be working on liquid N2 that is stored and pumped at around
–320°F. This means that specialised equipment is required for pumping this cryogenic liquid. These
pumpers also include a vapouriser, which will heat the high pressure liquid and convert it into a gas (for
this reason, N2 pumpers are often referred to as “converters”). These vapourisers can be diesel fired or
run from the engine coolant.
As N2 is chemically inert, there are no limitations on the fluid systems it can be used with.
CO2 Foam Fracs

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 76
CO2 has a number of properties that make its use significantly different from N2. To start with, liquid CO2 is
stored at –20°F. The much higher temperature means that the liquid can be pumped with a standard frac
pumper (provided they have been specially prepared – see BJ’s Standard Practices Manual ). It also
means that the liquid CO2 does not have to be converted into a gas before it is mixed with the liquid phase
– this will happen automatically as the CO2 heats up.
The second major property difference of CO2 is its tendency to form a solid (“dry ice”) if stored or pumped
under the wrong conditions. Obviously, this must be avoided. Dry ice will only form below +/- 80 psi. So at
every stage, the liquid CO2 is kept well above this pressure. Typically, CO2 is stored at between 150 to 300
psi. There are several different methods for pumping the liquid CO2 from the tanks to the pumpers. One
method involves forcing it out with N2 pressure applied above the fluid level in the CO2 tank. Another
method employs specialised boost pumps. Yet another method employs a combination of these two
systems. Once again, BJ’s Standard Practices Manual should be consulted before designing any
treatments.
The third major difference is that unlike N2, CO2 is not chemically inert. Specifically, on contact with water
based fluids, some of the CO2 will dissolve into the water to form an acid. This has the effect of lowering
the pH of the system. This means that CO2 is not compatible with high pH fracturing fluids, such as borate
crosslinked gels.
Binary Fracs
Binary Fracs involve the use of a mixture of both CO2 and N2 to provide the foam. They were originally
developed as a method of getting around one service company’s patent on CO2 foam fracturing. Since
then, the method has been extensively developed and is now the preferred method of foam fracturing for
many operating companies.
Binary fracs are the most complicated stimulation operations performed, requiring the use of no less than
three service supervisors (one for the CO2, one for the N2 and one for the liquid phase, who is in overall
control). Consequently, these are relatively uncommon.
Poly CO2
Poly CO2 is a highly specialised fluid developed by Nowsco in Canada. In this fluid, a specialised additive
is mixed into the water-based liquid phase, which causes the water-based gel and the liquid CO2 to form
an emulsion, rather than foam. The emulsion is not particularly stable, and will break down after the fluid
contacts the formation.
This fluid system has only ever been used in low temperature applications, and it is unclear as to whether
the stimulation benefits come from the placing of proppant, or from the thermal shock experienced by the
formation. However, in certain formations it has proved to be highly successful.
Subtopics
5.4 Emulsions
5.7 Additives
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 77
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 78
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:
5.7 Additives
There are an enormous number of additives used in the preparation of the various types of fracturing
fluids, and an exhaustive list is beyond the scope of this manual. However, below is a description of the
general types of additive, together with the most commonly used examples from BJ’s product range.
Gelling Agents
Water-based gelling agents are designed to increase the viscosity of water. This water can be fresh
(rarely), 2% KCl, 3% NH4Cl, seawater or any of a myriad of different kinds of brines. Nearly all the gelling
agents are some kind of polymer. A wide range is available, depending upon hydration pH, temperature
stability and polymer residue:
Guar GW-4, GW-27

High-yield guar GW-3
Hydroxypropyl Guar (HPG) GW-32
Carboxymethyl Hydroxypropyl Guar (CMHPG) GW-38
Carboxymethyl Guar (CMG) GW-45
Hydroxyethyl Cellulose (HEC) GW-21, GW-24L, AG-21R
Carboxymethyl Hydroxyethyl Cellulose (CMHEC) GW-28
Xanthan GW-22, GW-22L, GW-37
Polysaccharide GW-23
Hydrocarbon-based gelling agents are designed to increase the viscosity of oil- or methanol-based
fluids. Gelling agents for oil-based fluids work on a wide variety of of non-polar hydrocarbons, but are
primarily designed for diesel and kerosene. Any other hydrocarbon fluid should be tested prior to
application.
GO-64 Gelling agent for Super Rheo Gel

GM-55 Gelling agent for Metho Frac XL
Crosslinkers and Complexers

Crosslinkers and complexers are designed to dramatically increase the viscosity of an already gelled fluid,
so that high viscosity can be maintained for extended periods of time at high temperatures. For many fluid
systems, the crosslinker is the chemical that really defines its characteristics.
XLW-4, XLW-32, XLW-10 Crosslinkers for Viking™ and Lightning™

XLW-30, XLW-30A Crosslinkers for Viking D™
XLW-14, XLW-63 Crosslinkers for Vistar™
XLW-24 Crosslinker for SpectraFrac G®
XLW-56 Crosslinker for SpectraFrac G® HT
XLW-60 Crosslinker for Medallion Frac® and Medallion Frac HT®
XLW-40B, XLW-41A, -41B Crosslinkers for Methofrac™ XL
XLO-5 Complexer for Super RheoGel
Breakers
Breakers are designed to reduce the viscosity of the fracturing fluid to a minimum, so that the fluid can be

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 79
easily recovered after the treatment. They are also designed to minimise polymer residues, so that
damage to the proppant pack is minimised.
GBW-5, GBW-7, GBW-41L Oxidizing breakers

GBW-23, GBW-24 Delayed oxidizers
GBW-26C Enzyme breakers for cellulose + derivatives
GBW-12CD Enzyme breaker for guar + derivatives
GBW-14C Enzyme breaker for xanthan + derivatives
High Perm CRB Encapsulated oxidizing breaker
GBO-5L, GBO-6, GBO-9L Breakers for Super RheoGel
Buffers
Buffers are designed to either raise the pH or lower the pH, as required.
Low pH buffers BF-1, BF-10L, BF-10LE

High pH buffers BF-7, BF-7L, BF-8L, BF-9L, caustic soda
Surfactants
The word Surfactant comes from the phrase SURFace ACTive AgeNT, and includes any chemical that
affects the interface properties between materials. Because this covers such a wide range of materials, it
is necessary to discuss this group of products in more detail. Surfactants can also be grouped according
to the type of charge they possess, so that some surfactants are anionic (negative charge), some are
cationic (positive charge), some are amphoteric (cationic at low pH and anionic at high pH), some are
Zwitterionic (both cationic and anionic simultaneously) and some are non-ionic. Generally speaking, it is
best not to mix anionic and cationic products together, as they might form viscous deposits. Details of this
can be found in BJ’s Mixing Manual .
Most of BJ’s surfactant products are designed to leave the formation water wet. This means that the
relative permeability of the formation to water has been lowered, and the relative permeability of the
formation to oil has been raised. However, it is important to note the following:-
Cationic surfactants will leave sandstones oil wet and carbonates water wet
Anionic surfactants will leave sandstones water wet and carbonates oil wet.
Amphoteric surfactants can behave either way depending upon the pH. At acidic pH’s (less than 7),
amphoteric surfactants show cationic properties, whilst at alkaline pH’s (greater than 7), they display
anionic properties. At neutral pH, they behave like non-ionic surfactants.
Non-emulsifying surfactants are designed to prevent the formation of emulsions between the crude oil
in the formation and the treatment fluid. All water-based treatments should have a non-emulsifying
surfactant added to them, unless they are being pumped into a water injection well or dry gas reservoir
with no trace of condensate.
Inflo 100, Inflo 102 Blend of cationic and nonionic

NE-13 Blend of cationic and nonionic
NE-110W Anionic
NE-118 Nonionic
NE-940 Nonionic
Note that some non-emulsifiers will also act to break existing emulsions.
Foaming agents work by increasing the surface tension of the fluid. This helps increase foam stability.
Most foaming agents also act as detergents and dispersants

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 80
FAW-4 Anionic
FAW-18W Anionic
FAW-20 Anionic
FAW-21 Amphoteric
FAO-25 Nonionic – foaming agent for oil-based fluids
Note that FAW-4, FAW-18W and FAW-20 will leave carbonate formations oil wet.
Low surface tension modifiers act to reduce the surface tension of the fluid. This helps the fluid
penetrate into very small places, such as the pore spaces in low permeability reservoirs. These products
also help the treatment fluid flow back out of the well after the treatment is finished.
Flo-Back-20, Flo-Back-30 Nonionic

Inflo-100 Blend of cationic and nonionic
Inflo-150 Nonionic
Mutual solvents will dissolve hydrocarbon based deposits and allow them to disperse water based fluids.
US-2, US-40 Nonionic

Inflo-40 Nonionic
Emulsifiers are used to deliberately create emulsions. They only should be used as part of an
emulsion-based fluid system
AE-7 Cationic
E-2 Cationic
Biocides
Biocides, also known as Bactericides, are designed to kill bacteria. Any bacteria – especially sulphate
reducing bacteria – will eat the polymer used in frac fluids. A colony of bacteria can reduce a tank of good
quality gel into foul-smelling slick water in less than an hour. Biocides are used to prevent this. Initially, all
tanks used for frac fluids should be as clean as possible. This will help reduce the risk of bacterial
contamination. However, the water used to mix the gel can still contain these bacteria, especially if the
climate is hot or seawater is being used. The biocide should be added either directly to the tank before the
water is added, or it should be thoroughly mixed into the water prior to the addition of any polymer. Once
the biocide has been added, it will quickly kill any bacteria that are present in the water.
It is recommended that a biocide is used on any treatment with involves pre-gelling the fluid.
It should be remembered that biocides are designed to prevent a colony of bacteria from developing in the
first place, rather than for killing an existing colony - any gel that is suspected of being contaminated
should be discarded, and its tank thoroughly cleaned. In order to break down the gel, bacteria secrete
enzymes (similar enzymes to the breakers described above). These enzymes will cause a tank of gel to
degrade, so that even if all the bacteria in a tank have been killed, their enzymes are still present in the
tank. This is why contaminated tanks of gel need to be discarded, and not used again.
It should also be noted that in their concentrated form, biocides are very dangerous materials (after all,
they are designed for killing living things) and should be handled with extreme care.
Magnacide 575
XCide 102, XCide 207

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 81
Gel Stabilisers
Gel stabilisers are used to prolong the viscosity of crosslinked gels at high temperatures. They work by
one of two methods:- they can scavenge the oxygen in the fluid; or they can chelate cations which can
contribute to the degradation of the gel.
GS-1, GS-1L, GS-9

Methanol
Clay Control Additives

Clay control additives are used to prevent the swelling, migration and disintegration of clay minerals such
as illite, smectite, chlorite and montmorillonite. Fresh water by itself will cause these problems. The
addition of chloride ions to fresh water will prevent these problems in most formations, so that most
treatments carried out with seawater do not need any additional clay stabilisers. However, exceptionally
water sensitive formations may need additional protection, which is where BJ’s range of synthetic clay
control additives is applied.
KCl, NH4Cl, NaCl etc standard salts for brines

CaBr2, ZnBr2, etc specialised salts for high density completion brines (some of these may
be incompatible with BJ’s crosslinked fluids).
Clay Treat 3C KCl substitute, recommended for Vistar.
Clatrol
Claymaster 5C, FSP
Note that any salts containing calcium or magnesium should not be mixed with frac fluids, as these are
incompatible with some crosslinkers. Also note that some of the synthetic clay control additives are
cationic in nature and should not be mixed with any anionic products.
Fluid Loss Control

Fluid loss control additives can be used for two main reasons; firstly, to lower a very high matrix leak off
rate; and secondly, to prevent fluid loss down natural fractures. The use of fluid loss additives is becoming
less and less common, as the understanding of fluid leakoff increases. Most Engineers also believe that
pumping more fluid is preferable to using additives that can potentially produce permanent damage.
Silica flour, 100 mesh sand Used for blocking natural fractures
5% diesel
Adomite Regain®
Subtopics
5.4 Emulsions
5.8 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 82
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 83
Fracturing Manual
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Section:
5.8 References
BJ Services’ Mixing Manual
BJ Services’ Stimulation Engineering Support Manual
BJ Services’ Products and Services Manual
BJ Services’ Product Bulletins
BJ Services’ Standard Practices Manual
BJ Services’ Corporate Safety Standards and Procedures Manual
Rae, P., and Di Lullo, G.: “Fracturing Fluids and Breaker Systems – A Review of State-of-the-Art”, paper
SPE 37359, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Colombus OH, Oct 1996.
Brannon, H.D., and Ault, M.C.: “New, Delayed Borate-Crosslinked Fluid Provides Improved Conductivity in
High Temperature Applications”, paper SPE 22838, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas TX, Oct 1991.
Cramer, D.D., Dawson, J., and Ouabdesselam, M.: “An Improved Gelled Oil System for High Temperature
Fracturing Applications”, paper SPE 21859, presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and
Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver CO, Apr 1991.
Blauer, R.E., and Kohlhaas, C.A.: “Formation Fracturing with Foam”, paper SPE 5003, presented at the
49th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE, Houston TX, Oct 1974.
Grundman, S.R., and Lord, D.L.: “Foam Stimulation”, paper SPE 9754, JPT pp 597 – 602, Mar 1983
Valkó, P., and Economides, M.J.: “Foam Proppant Transport”, paper SPE 27897, presented at the SPE
Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach CA, Mar 1994.
Tjon-Joe-Pin, R, DeVine, C.S., and Carr, M.: “Cost Effective Method for Improving Permeability in
Damaged Wells”, paper SPE 39784, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference, Mar 1998.
Di Lullo, G., Ahmad, A., and Rae, P.: “Towards Zero Damage: New Fluid Points the Way”, paper SPE
69453, presented at the SPE 2001 Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 2001.
Subtopics
5.4 Emulsions
5.7 Additives
Related Topics

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 84
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 85
Fracturing Manual
Section:
6.0 PROPPANTS
The word proppant comes from the abbreviation of two words - “propping agent”. Proppants are granular
materials, which are placed inside the fracture in order to “prop” the fracture open as the pressure falls
below closure. The conductivity of the fracture is directly related to the quantity of proppant within the
fracture, the type of proppant, the producing conditions and the size of the proppant grains.
The purpose of hydraulic fracturing is to place the right amount of the right kind of proppant in the right
place. When this is done correctly, the well is effectively stimulated.
Subtopics
6.1 Proppant Pack Permeability and Fracture Conductivity
6.2 Proppant Selection
6.3 BJ Services FlexSand and LiteProp
6.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 86
Fracturing Manual
6.0 PROPPANTS
Section:
6.1 PROPPANTS
As discussed in Section 2, one of the major factors affecting post-treatment well performance is the
fracture conductivity. This is the product of the proppant pack permeability and the width of the fracture. In
other words, the fracture conductivity is a function of the type of material holding the fracture open and the
amount of this material within the fracture.
The permeability of the proppant pack is controlled by several factors:-
i) Proppant Substrate. The material that the proppant is made from obviously has a big effect on the
permeability of the proppant pack. Some materials are stronger than others and are better able to
withstand the enormous forces trying to crush the proppant as the fracture closes. The weaker the
material, the more the proppant grain will deform. Proppant deformation reduces the porosity of the
pack and reduces the overall fracture width. The more brittle the proppant is, the more likely it is that
the proppant will produce fines as the grains are pushed together in a series of point to point contacts.
Any fines will significantly reduce the proppant pack permeability.
ii) Proppant Grain Size Distribution. A normal sedimentary formation has a wide variety of grain sizes,
depending upon how well “sorted” the individual rock grains are. In general, any sandstone will be a
mixture of small, medium and large grains. The mixture of grain sizes acts to reduce the formation's
permeability and porosity, as the smaller grains will occupy the pore spaces between the larger grains
and will also tend to plug up the pore throats. However, if a set of particles are of almost identical size,
then there will be no fines to block up the pore spaces and pore throats, so that the porosity (and
hence the permeability) are maximised.
This is why proppants are generally produced within a specific grain size distribution. This uniformity of
grain size is one of the main reasons why proppant is usually several orders of magnitude more
permeable than the formation, and also one of the main reasons why so much effort is spent in
ensuring this uniformity of size. This is illustrated in Figure 6.1a, below;
Uniform Natural
Figure 6.1a – The effect of uniform and natural grain size distribution on porosity
Proppants are supplied within a specific grain size range. This grain size refers to the size of sieve
used to sort the proppant. For instance, 20/40 size means that the vast majority of the proppant will fit
through a size 20 sieve (20 holes per square inch), but will not fit through a size 40 sieve (40 holes per
square inch). This is sometimes confusing, as larger grain sizes correspond to smaller mesh
numbers. Common proppant sizes are 8/12, 12/20, 16/30, 20/40 and 40/60, although theoretically any

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 87
combination of sizes can be produced.
iii) Average Proppant Grain Size. Generally, the larger the average proppant grain size is, the higher
the permeability of the proppant (provided the grain size distribution is reasonably uniform). This is
because larger grains produce larger pore spaces and pore throats, allowing an increased flow rate
for a similar porosity. However, the larger grains are more susceptible to producing permeability
reducing fines than are the smaller grain sizes. This is because larger grains distribute the closure
pressure across fewer grain-to-grain points of contact and so the point contact loads tend to be
greater. This is illustrated in Figure 6.1b;
Figure 6.1b – Diagram illustrating how larger grains have larger pore spaces and hence greater permeability,
but also have fewer points of contact between grains.
iv) Sphericity and Roundness. These quantities define how spherical the proppant grains are and how
many sudden, sharp edges the grains have. Obviously, the smoother and more spherical the proppant
grain is, the higher the pack permeability. There are standard API procedures for checking these
quantities, but unfortunately they rely on some subjective analysis. Consequently, it is often difficult to
see a clear trend between one proppant type and another. However, in general, artificial proppants will
have better sphericity and roundness than naturally occurring types. This is illustrated in Figure 6.1c;
Figure 6.1c – Diagram illustrating the difference between a proppant with good sphericity and roundness
(left), and a proppant with poor sphericity and roundness (right).
Coarse, angular grains also tend to produce more fines, as corners and edges tend to get broken off
as compressive stress is applied. Therefore, proppants with good sphericity and roundness also tend
to retain greater permeability at high stresses. In addition, because proppant with low sphericity and
roundness will produce a more convoluted flow path for the produced fluids, non-Darcy pressure
losses tend to be greater in these materials (see Section 10.9), leading to decreased effective
proppant pack permeability.
iv) Frac Fluid Quality. The amount of residue left by the fracturing fluid can also have a big influence on
the permeability of the proppant pack. In order to assess the effect of these fluids, a quantity called
Regained Permeability is measured. Put simply, a sample of the proppant is put into a load sell and is

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 88
subjected to a closure pressure, at an elevated temperature. A standard, non-damaging fluid is then
flowed through the test cell. By analysing the pressure drop and flow rate, the permeability of the pack
can be calculated. Next, the frac fluid is flowed through the test cell, and allowed to remain there for a
specific time, during which it is designed to break. Once the fluid has broken, the permeability of the
pack is measured again, by the same method as before. The two permeabilities are compared and
the result (the regained permeability) is given as the percentage of the original permeability that
remains after the test.
Figure 6.1d, below, illustrates the difference between fluids with a high and low regained permeability;
Figure 6.1d – Three SEM micrographs showing the effects of frac fluid residue. The micrograph on
the left shows undamaged proppant before the addition of the frac fluid. The center micrograph
shows the residue left by a poorly designed crosslinked system. The final micrograph (right)
shows the same proppant pack after an enzyme breaker has been used.
Proppant packs can lose significant proportions of their permeability to fluid damage. Cheap, poorly
designed fluids can cause regained permeabilities to be as low as only 30% or even less, whereas the
state-of-the-art fluids can produce values in excess of 90%.
v) Closure Stress. As the proppant is crushed by the closure of the formation, it will start to produce
fines. As discussed above, these fines will reduce the permeability of the pack. The stronger the
proppant, the fewer fines are produced - nevertheless, all proppant types experience a decrease in
permeability as closure stress increases, to a greater or lesser extent. In addition, most proppants
also have a “maximum” stress, above which whole-scale disintegration of the proppant substrate
starts to occur, rather than simple fines production. At this point, pack permeability falls dramatically.
It should be noted that the reservoir pressure has an influence on the closure stress experienced by
the proppant. This phenomenon is discussed in greater detail later in this manual (see Section 7.6).
The relationship between reservoir pressure and closure pressure is dependent upon a number of
factors - there are circumstances under which a decrease in reservoir pressure can result in an
increase in closure stress. Additionally, there can be localised areas of low reservoir pressure (such
as near the wellbore during drawdown) where once again the proppant experiences higher closure
pressure. This potential increase in stress with the life of the well must be allowed for when selecting a
proppant.
vi) Non-Darcy Flow. This effect will be discussed on more detail in Section 10.9. However, as the flow
rate through the proppant pack increases, the pressure drop will increase at a rate faster than that
predicted by Darcy’s law. This is due to the effects of inertial energy loses, as the fluid rapidly changes
direction as it moves through the pore spaces. As the fluid velocity increases, the pressure drop due
to inertial flow effects increases with the square of the velocity. So at low flow rates, (such as in a
reservoir rock), non-Darcy effects can safely be ignored, whilst at high rates (such as in a proppant
pack), the effective proppant permeability has to be reduced to reflect this effect. The phenomenon is

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 89
particularly significant in high rate gas completions.
vii) Multi-Phase Flow. Multi-phase flow has a similar effect upon proppant pack permeability as it does
on formation permeability. It reduces it, by an amount that is dependent upon the absolute
permeability, and the relative saturation of each phase. As it is very rare for a reservoir to produce a
single phase (with the exception of some gas reservoirs), it is also very rare for proppant to conduct
only a single phase. Therefore, the actual effective permeability of the proppant pack may be
significantly less than the published data, which is generally produced for single-phase flow only
(although this situation is improving).
Subtopics
6.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 90
Fracturing Manual
6.0 PROPPANTS
Section:

As illustrated in Section 6.1, there are a substantial number of variables that must be taken into account
when selecting proppant. However, in many cases the selection process has been simplified.
All proppant suppliers and manufactures publish data for pack permeability against closure stress, for all
their proppant types and grain size distributions. Provided the closure stress is known (taking into account
any subsequent loss in reservoir pressure), the absolute permeability of the proppant pack can be easily
found. This eliminates the need for the Frac Engineer to hold data on sphericity, roundness, crush
resistance, grain size distribution, substrate material etc. Simply look up the proppant you are interested
in, and see what the permeability is for a given closure stress.
Most fracture simulators already have this data for most major proppant types. This allows the simulator to
predict the fracture conductivity for most given proppant/closure stress combinations. Usually, there is also
a “proppant damage factor”, which allows the user to simulate the regained permeability effects of the
fracturing fluids.
Some - but not all - fracture simulators will also model the effects of non-Darcy flow, showing a decrease
in effective permeability as production rate rises.
However, no current fracture simulators allow for the effects of multi-phase flow. Data on this has been
published by a few sources, the most notable of these being the Stim-Lab Consortium’s PredictK
software and Carboceramics' FracFlow proppant permeability simulator.
Table 6.2a gives guidelines as the maximum closure stress each of the major proppant types can
withstand, before substrate failure begins to occur. Obviously, these limits are very generalised, and are
highly dependent upon factors such as grain size and the quality of the manufacturing process and/or
source of sand. More detailed information is available from the manufacturers or in the references;
Maximum Closure Product

Type
Stress, psi Example
Frac Sand 5,000 Brady, Ottawa, Colorado
Low Density Ceramics 9,000 CarboEconoprop, CarboLite
Intermediate Density Ceramics 12,000 CarboProp, InterProp
Sintered Bauxite 14,000 Carbo HSP, Bauxite
Table 6.2a – Generalised maximum closure stresses for the main proppant types.
Important Note
The quality of the proppant, and the subsequent conductivity of the fracture, has a bigger effect on post
treatment production than virtually anything else under the Frac Engineer’s control. In most cases, an
economy made on proppant selection is a false economy. For instance, although low-density ceramics
cost two to three times as much as frac sand, they have four to five times the pack permeability - even at
low closure stresses - due to their high sphericity and roundness.
Resin-Coated Proppant
Many operating companies prefer to use resin-coated proppant or sand for some or all of their fracture

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 91
treatments. There are many different types of resin coat and the manufacturers are continually improving
and updating their products. Therefore, the reader is advised to consult the manufacturer’s specifications
for details of any specific product. However, broadly speaking, resin-coated proppant can be divided into
two main categories as follows:-
Curable
Curable resin-coated sand or proppant is coated with a resin designed to harden when exposed to
temperature and/or closure stress. This allows the resin-coated grains to adhere to each other, and hence
dramatically reduce the effects of proppant flowback (see Section 10.7 for more details). At low
temperatures, an activator is added to the fracturing fluid in order to improve the adhesion.
Tempered or Pre-Cured
Tempered or Pre-cured resin coatings are harder than curable resin coats. They rely more on closure
pressure than temperature in order to make the sand or proppant grains adhere to each other. These
resin-coatings also have a secondary effect. Because the resin coat acts to reduce the localised contact
stresses between proppant or sand grains and because any fines produced by this process are kept within
the resin coat, these materials tend to have a higher closure pressure resistance than the same material
without the resin coat. This means that they retain permeability under higher crush loadings and so can –
for instance – extend the range over which a cheaper material, such as frac sand, can be used.
Resin coated proppant or sand has a number of significant drawbacks, however:-

1. Cost. Coating the grains with resin can substantially increase the cost of the proppant, especially
when coatings designed for high pressure and temperature are used.
2. Resin coats tend to affect the properties of the fracturing fluid. The exact variation in properties
depends upon the pH of the frac fluid and the type of resin coat. However, it is common for
resin-coated proppant to make frac fluids much harder to break. It is recommended that when
resin-coated proppant or frac sand is being used, testing is performed on the frac fluids with the
proppant in the fluid.
3. Resin coat tail-in. Many operators like to save money on a treatment by only using resin coated sand
or proppant for the last 20 or 30% of the treatment. The theory being that only the part of the proppant
close to the wellbore actually needs to adhere together to prevent proppant flowback. However, due to
the effects of proppant convection and settling (see Section 10.6), there is no guarantee that the
proppant pumped last in the treatment will be the proppant that ends up right by the wellbore. In fact,
the only way to guarantee this is to pump 100% resin coated material.
Subtopics
6.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 92
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 93
Fracturing Manual
6.0 PROPPANTS
Section:
6.3 BJ Services' FlexSand and LiteProp

BJ Services’ has two proprietary products that have significant technological advantages over
conventional proppant systems
FlexSand™
FlexSand ™ is designed to prevent proppant flowback by dramatically increasing the internal friction of the
grains inside the proppant pack. Put simply, in order for proppant flowback to occur, individual proppant
grains have to be able to move relative to each other. FlexSand acts to prevent this by introducing
deformable particles into the proppant pack.
Figure 6.3a - SEM micrograph of FlexSand grain clearly showing the indentations caused by the closure of
the surrounding proppant grains.
The FlexSand grains are designed to be slightly deformable relative to the proppant itself. The theory, as
illustrated in Figure 6.3a, is that as the formation closes on the proppant, the proppant causes the
FlexSand to deform slightly, allowing the proppant grains to “key into” the FlexSand and as a result
making it much harder for the grains to move relative to each other. Typically, FlexSand is mixed into the
sand or proppant at between 10 and 15% by weight. The material can be either added on the fly – using a
process controlled FlexSand “Bazooka” – or can be dry blended into the proppant or frac sand prior to the
treatment.
Because the FlexSand has to be only slightly deformable relative to the proppant, there are three different
types supplied, for different sand or proppant types; FlexSand™ LS, FlexSand™ MSE and FlexSand™
HS. These are made of different materials and – in the case of the FlexSand™ HS material – different
shapes. BJ Services’ patent for FlexSand™ describes the method of preventing proppant flowback, and
does not limit BJ to any specific material, nor to any grain size or shape.
FlexSand also has a secondary effect. Because the FlexSand grains deform slightly, they act to “cushion”
the sand or proppant grains, reducing the localised point contact stresses between grains. The reduces
the quantity of fines produced, particularly by frac sand, and helps to preserve proppant or sand
permeability at higher closure stresses. Thus using FlexSand can also lead to improved fracture
conductivity in addition to preventing proppant flowback.
LiteProp™
LiteProp ™ is a proprietary low-density proppant system, designed to be neutrally buoyant in the fracturing

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 94
fluid. Currently, it comes in two versions, LiteProp™ 125 and LiteProp™ 175, with SG’s of 1.25 and 1.75
respectively. Table 6.3a illustrates how this compares to other types of proppant.
Proppant Type Specific Gravity

LiteProp™ 125 1.25
LiteProp™ 175 1.75
Frac Sand 2.65
Carbolite™ 2.71
Carbprop™ 3.27
Carbo HSP™ 3.56
Table 6.3a – Specific gravity of selected proppant types
Because the LiteProp is designed to be neutrally buoyant, there is no need to use an expensive
crosslinked fracturing fluid. Instead, any brine with the same SG as the LiteProp can be used. This in turn
significantly reduces the cost and complexity of fracturing operations. However, there are a few points to
be aware of when using LiteProp.
.
1. Although expensive fracturing fluids do not have to be used, heavy-weight brines will still have to be
mixed, if neutral density is required. For instance, 1.25 SG calcium chloride brine requires 2860 lbs of
CaCl2 per 1000 gals of brine – mixing this quantity of material on location could present a logistical
challenge in itself.
2. Although the proppant does not require fluid viscosity in order to stay in position within the fracture,
this is not the only reason for having viscosity in the fluid. If the fracture is experiencing significant
tortuosity (see Section 10.1), viscosity will be required to transport the proppant through the near
wellbore region. A system without viscosity may experience premature screenouts.
3. Fracturing fluids are also designed to reduce leakoff. The polymer in a typical crosslinked gel will form
a filter cake against the wall of the fracture, reducing the rate at which fluids leave the fracture. Brines
will not have this polymer and so will leak off into the formation much more quickly. Therefore,
significantly higher fluid volumes may be required.
4. At the time of preparation of this manual, LiteProp is limited to fairly shallow formations, as the
maximum closure stress that can be sustained by the material is about 5,000 psi (for LiteProp™ 125
).
Nevertheless, in spite of these limitations LiteProp has the potential to revolutionise the way fracturing
treatments are performed.
Subtopics
6.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 95
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 96
Fracturing Manual
6.0 PROPPANTS
Section:
6.4 References
Technical Data Interactive CD ROM , Carbo Ceramics Inc, 2000 onwards.
www.carboceramics.com, Carboceramics Inc. website, 2001 onwards.
PredictK software, Stim-Lab Consortium, 1999 onwards
BJ Services’ Mixing Manual
BJ Services’ Stimulation Engineering Support Manual
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., and Kullman, J.: “Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow in Propped Hydraulic
Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well Productivity”, paper SPE 54630, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct 1999.
API Recommended Practice 56, TestingSand Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations , 2nd Edition,
American Petroleum Institute, December 1995.
API Recommended Practice 60, Recommended Practices for Testing High Strength Proppants Used in
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations , 2nd Edition, American Petroleum Institute, December 1995.
Rickards, A., Lacy, L., Brannon, H., Stephenson, C. and Bilden, D.: “Need Stress Relief? A New Approach
to Reducing Stress Cycling Induced Proppant Pack Failure”, paper SPE 49247 presented at the 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct 1998.
Wood, W.D., Brannon, H.D., Rickards, A.R. and Stephenson, C.: “Ultra-Lightweight Proppant
Development Yields Exciting New Opportunities in Hydraulic Fracturing Design”, paper SPE 84309,
presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, Oct 2003.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 97
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 98
Fracturing Manual
Section:
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
Rock mechanics is the study of the mechanical properties of a rock, especially those properties which are
of significance to Engineers. It includes the determination and effects of physical properties such as
bending strength, crushing strength, shear strength, moduli of elasticity, porosity and density, and their
interrelationships.
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.3 Young’s Modulus
7.4 Poisson’s Ratio
7.5 Other Rock Mechanical Properties
7.6 In-Situ Stresses
7.7 Stresses Around a Wellbore
7.8 Fracture Orientation
7.9 Breakdown Pressure and Frac Gradient
7.10 Rock Mechanical Properties from Wireline Logs
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 99
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:
7.1 Stress
Consider the situation illustrated in Figure 7.1a, in which a block of material is subjected to a force F :
Figure 7.1a – A block of material subjected to a force F .
The block of material has an area A , on the plane at right angles to the line of action of the force.
Therefore the stress, σ, is given by:
F
σ= (7.1)
A
Note that this is very similar to the formula for calculating pressure. Stress and pressure have the same
units and are essentially the same thing – stored energy. The main difference between the two is that in
liquids and gases, the material will flow away from an applied force, until the force and stress (or pressure)
is the same in all directions (i.e. equilibrium has been reached). However, solids cannot deform in such a
manner, so these materials will always have a plane across which the stresses are at a maximum. They
will also have a plane perpendicular to this, across which the stresses are at a minimum.
Properties such as mass and volume are said to be scalars – they require only a magnitude to define
them. Quantities such as force and velocity are vectors – they require not only a magnitude, but also a
direction in which they are acting in order to be fully defined. Stress takes this one step further, and is a
tensor property – it can only be fully defined by a magnitude and an area across which it is acting.
Subtopics
7.2 Strain
7.11 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 100
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 101
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:
7.2 Strain
Strain is measure of how much the material has been deformed when a stress is applied to it. Figure 7.2a
illustrates how the block of material is compressed by the force F :
x1
x2
Figure 7.2a – Strain produced by the application of force F
As the force is applied, the height of the block of material changes from x 1 to x 2. The strain, ε, is given by:
x1 − x2
ε= (7.2)
x1
Note that the strain is defined in the same direction as the applied force F and perpendicular to the plane
across which the stress acts.
Strain is important as this is the way we measure stress – by observing the deformation of a known piece
of material. Strain is dimensionless.
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 102
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 103
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:
7.3 Young's Modulus

Young’s modulus, E , (also known as modulus of elasticity or elastic modulus) is defined as follows:
σ
Ε= (7.3)
ε
E is the ratio of stress over strain. As strain is dimensionless, E has the same units as stress. Young’s
modulus is a measure of how much a material will elastically deform when a load is applied to it. This is
another term for hardness.
On a more fundamental level, if stress and pressure are closely related (apply a pressure to a surface and
it will induce a stress), then in fracturing we can think of Young’s modulus as a measure of how much a
material (i.e. rock) will elastically deform when a pressure is applied to it. As pressure is stored energy, E
is also a measure of how much energy it takes to make the rock deform.
Materials with a high Young’s modulus, such as glass, tungsten carbide, diamond and granite, tend to be
very hard and brittle (susceptible to brittle fracture). Conversely, materials with a low E , such as rubber,
Styrofoam and wax, tend to be soft and ductile (resistant to brittle fracture).
Caution – Elastic vs Plastic. Elastic deformation is reversible – if the applied force (or pressure, or
stress) is removed, the material returns back to its original size and shape. However, if so much force is
applied to a material that it passes beyond its elastic limit, then the material will start to plastically deform.
This is permanent. A good illustration of this is the small spring from a ball point pen. When the spring is
lightly stretched, it will return to its original shape. However, if the spring is stretched too far, it will be
permanently, or plastically, deformed. Young’s Modulus only applies to elastic deformation. As a group of
materials, rocks tend not to plastically deform very much. Instead they will elastically deform and then
fracture if the stress gets too high. Notable exceptions to this are salt beds, soft carbonates (e.g. chalk)
and young coals.
Static Young’s Modulus is the standard measure of E and is applicable to hydraulic fracturing. The
material is being deformed slowly and in only one direction.
Dynamic Young’s Modulus is the rock property measured by special sonic logging tools. The material is
no longer static – it is being continually stretched and then compressed rapidly. There is often a significant
variation between static and dynamic values for E due to a process known as hysteresis . Hysteresis is a
retardation of the effects of forces, when the forces acting upon a body are changed (as if from viscosity
or internal friction). In this situation, it represents the history dependence of the physical systems. In a
perfectly elastic material, elastic stress and strain is infinitely repeatable. In a system exhibiting hysteresis,
the strain produced by a force is dependent upon not only the magnitude of that force, but also the
previous strain history (see Section 7.10). Dynamic Young's modulus should not be used in place of static
Young's modulus. However, a useful correction does exit for converting from dynamic to static (Lacy, 1997
- see references).
Plane Strain Young’s Modulus. In hydraulic fracturing, the strain in the direction perpendicular to the
fracture plane (i.e. the direction in which fracture width is produced) is effectively zero. This is because in
this situation the denominator in Equation 7.2 (the “x 1”) is so large that the strain is effectively zero, even
though there has been measurable material deformation. This is known as “plane strain”, which implies
that strain only exists in a directions perpendicular to the direction in which strain is zero. To account for
this anomaly, fracture simulators use the plane strain Young’s modulus, E ', to calculate the fracture width:-

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 104
E
E′= (7.4)
(
1− v 2 )
In fracturing, Young’s modulus will typically have values ranging from as low as 50,000 psi (for a shallow,
very soft chalk or weak sandstone) to as high as 6,000,000 psi for deep, tight, shaley sandstone. It should
be noted that Young’s modulus may not be constant in weak or unconsolidated formations, even though
fracture simulators always assume constant rock mechanical properties.
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 105
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:
7.4 Poisson's Ration

Poisson’s ratio, ν, is a measure of how much a material will deform in a direction perpendicular to the
direction of the applied force, parallel to the plane on which the stress induced by the strain is acting. This
is illustrated by Figure 7.4a:
Figure 7.4a – Application of force F also produces a deformation in the y direction
The strain in the x direction, εx, is given by Equation 7.2 (see Section 7.2). The strain in the y direction is
given by the following:
y1 − y 2
εy = (7.5)
y1
Note that this value is negative – this is a result of the way the forces and the direction the forces act in are
defined. Compressive strain is positive and tensile strain is negative.
Poisson’s ratio is defined by Equation 7.6:
εv
ν= (7.6)
εX
Poisson’s ratio is an important factor in determining the stress gradient of the formation, but is less
important in defining fracture dimensions, although it does have some effect. Typical values for ν for rocks
are between 0.2 and 0.35 (ν is dimensionless).
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 106
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 107
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:

Tensile Strength. The tensile strength of a material is the level of tensile stress that is required in order to
make the material fail. Usually, as stress is applied the material will elastically deform (reversible),
plastically deform and then fail. In most rocks this amount of plastic deformation is negligible and the
material will, for all practical purposes, elastically deform and then fail.
This property is important in hydraulic fracturing, as this stress level has to be overcome in order to split
the rock. Usually, the frac gradient (which is the pressure – a.k.a. the stress – needed to make the rock
fracture) has two components – the stresses induced by the overburden, and the tensile strength of the
rock. See Section 7.6 below for a more detailed explanation of in-situ stresses.
It should be noted that materials also have a Compressive Strength, which is the compression load
beyond which a material will fail. Failure mechanisms are more complex, as the material is often
compressed in several directions at once. Generally, rocks are much stronger in compression than in
tension, a fact which we take advantage of during fracturing.
Shear Modulus. The shear modulus is similar to the Young’s modulus, except that it refers to the material
being in shear, rather than in compression or tension. It defines how much energy is required to elastically
deform a material in shear:-
b
a
Figure 7.5a – Force F applied to produce a shear stress
With reference to Figure 7.5a, the shear stress, τ, is given by:
F
τ= (7.7)
A
where A is the area of the block of material parallel to the line of action of the force F , (this is the plane
along which the shear stress acts) and is equal to a x b in figure 7.5a.
The shear strain, γ, is defined as follows:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 108
x
γ= (7.8)
h
Therefore, the shear modulus, G , is equal to the shear stress divided by the shear strain:
t Fh
G= = (7.9)
g xA
Bulk Modulus. This is another elastic constant, which defines how much energy is required to deform a
material by the application of external pressure. This is a special form of compressive stress, in which the
applied compressive stress is equal in all directions. Suppose we have a block of material, which originally
has a pressure P 1 applied to it and has a volume V 1. This pressure is increased to P 2, which causes the
volume to decrease to V 2, as illustrated below in Figure 7.5b. The increase in bulk stress is the same as
the increase in pressure, P 2 – P 1. The bulk strain is equal to the change in volume, V 2 – V 1 divided by the
original volume, V 1. Thus, the bulk modulus, K , is given by:
Figure 7.5b – Volume changes from V 1 to V 2 as pressure increases from P 1 to P 2.
dP
K =−V (7.11)
dV
The minus sign is introduced into the equation due to the fact that the term V 2
–V 1
will always be of the
opposite sign to the term P 2 – P 1.
The bulk modulus is therefore a measure of how much energy it takes to compress a material using
externally applied pressure.
Relationships Between the Four Elastic Constants. The four main elastic constants – Young’s
modulus, shear modulus, bulk modulus and Poisson’s ratio - are all related to each other. If two of these
material properties are known, the other two can be deduced:
Ε = 3K (1− 2ν ) (7.12)
Ε
K= (7.13)
3 − 6ν
Ε
G= (7.14)
2 + 2ν

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 109
3K − Ε
ν= (7.15)
6K
Therefore, if the Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio are known, the shear modulus and the bulk
modulus can be deduced. Thus, fracture simulators only require the input of E and ν.
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 110
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:

In situ stresses are the stresses within the formation which act as a load (usually compressive) on the
formation. They come mainly from the overburden and these stresses are relatively easy to predict.
However, factors such as tectonics, volcanism and plastic flow in underlying formations can significantly
affect the in-situ stresses – and these factors are much harder to predict. In addition, the act of producing
a localised anomaly – such as an oil well – can also significantly affect the stresses in a specific area.
The stresses due to the overburden are simply the sum of all the pressures induced by all the different
rock layers. Therefore, if there has been no external influences – such as tectonics – and the rocks are
behaving elastically, the vertical stress, σν , at any given depth, H is given by:
H
σ ν = ∑ ρ n ghn (7.16)
0
where ρn is the density of rock layer n , g is the acceleration due to gravity and h n
is the vertical height of
zone n , such that h 1 + h 2 + ..... + h n = H .
This is usually modified (after Biot et al ) to allow for the effects of pore (or reservoir) pressure, such that:
σ ν = γ ob H − αPres (7.17)
where γob is the overburden pressure gradient (usually around 1.0 to 1.1 psi/ft) and α is Biot’s poroelastic
constant (a measure of how effectively the fluid transmits the pore pressure to the rock grains, which
depends upon variables such as the uniformity and sphericity of the rock grains). By definition α is always
between 0 and 1, usually it is taken to be between 0.7 and 1.0 for petroleum reservoirs.
Stresses under the ground do not just act on a single plane. There is a complex three dimensional stress
regime. To simplify things, stresses are usually resolved into three mutually perpendicular stress
components; the vertical stress, σv, and two horizontal stresses, σH, min and σH, max.
Additionally, as the stresses are three dimensional, so are the strains. The elastic relationship between
these stresses and strains in three mutually perpendicular directions, x, y and z, is governed by Hooke’s
law:
1
εx =
Ε
[
σ ν −ν (σ y + σ z )] (7.18)
Now, for the case of elastic deformation with no outside influences (such as tectonics) in subterranean
rock strata, there are two important things to note. First, σH, min = σH, max, as the stresses will be
symmetrical on the horizontal plane. Secondly, as each individual unit of rock is pushing against another
identical unit of rock with the same force, εH, min = εH, max = 0 (i.e. no deformation on the horizontal plane).
Therefore:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 111
σν ν
σH = (7.19)
1 −ν
As a result of the work of Terzaghi, Biot and Handin et al., this equation is generally modified to allow for
the effects of the pore pressure:-
ν (σ v − αP )
σH = + αP (7.20)
1− v
From Equation 7.20 we can see that the Poisson’s ratio can have a considerable influence on the
horizontal in-situ stresses.
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 112
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:

A wellbore is essentially a pressure vessel with a very thick wall. Consequently, the same theories that are
applied to thick walled pressure vessels can also be applied to wellbores, providing that the in-situ
stresses and pore pressure are accounted for. Figure 7.7a illustrates how the stresses at any given point
near the wellbore can be resolved into three principle stresses:- radial (σr), tangential (σt - also referred to
as circumferential) and vertical (σv). Once again, these are perpendicular to each other.
σv
σt
σr
σr
σt
σv
Figure 7.7a – Three dimensional stresses around a wellbore
From Deily and Owens (1961) we can get expressions for the radial and tangential stresses induced by a
pressure in the wellbore, P wb, at a radius r , from the centre of the well. The vertical stress is as given in
equation 7.17;
 rw 2   rw 2 
σ t = − [Pwb − α (Pres + Pwb )] 2  + 1 + 2  σ v (7.21)
r   r 
 rw 2   ν   rw 2 
σ r = Pwb − Pres  2  +   1 − 2  (Pob − Pres )
  (7.22)
 r   1 − v  r 
where P ob
is the pressure due to the overburden (see reference for more details).
At the wellbore face, the stresses due to wellbore pressure will be at a maximum. Also, this is by definition
the point at which the fracture initiates. Therefore, these are the stresses that interest us most. At the
wellbore r → r w and P r → P wb so that:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 113
 2ν 
σ t =  (γ ob H − αPres ) − (Pwb − αPres )
 (7.23)
 1 −ν 
σ ν = Pwb − Pres (7.24)
Furthermore, Barree et al (1996) went on to show that provided the rock does not have any significant
tensile strength and no significant plastic deformation, failure of the rock (i.e. breakdown) occurred when
the tangential stresses were reduced to zero;
 2v 
Pb =   (γ ob H −αPres ) + αPres (7.25)
 1 − v 
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 114
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:

Fractures will always propagate along the line of least resistance. In a three dimensional stress regime, a
fracture will propagate so as to avoid the greatest stress. This means that a fracture will propagate parallel
to the greatest principal stress, and perpendicular to the plane of the least principle stress. This is a
fundamental principle – therefore the key to understanding fracture orientation is to understand the stress
regime itself.
Propagation parallel to the greatest principle stress usually means that the fracture will propagate on a
vertical plane. We can see from Equations 7.16 to 7.20 that the horizontal stresses in an undisturbed
elastic formation will always be less than the vertical stress. However, there are some exceptions to this.
Magnitude of In-Situ Stress Magnitude of In-Situ Stress
Formation lost
due to erosion
Depth
Depth
σV σV
σH σH
Original Stress Regime Stress Regime After Loss

of Height by Erosion
Figure 7.8a – Changes in stress regime due to erosion
Equations 7.17 and 7.20 define the magnitude of horizontal and vertical stresses in undisturbed
formations. The horizontal stresses are induced by the vertical stresses. There is evidence to suggest that
these horizontal stresses somehow get “locked” into place (Economides, et al ), and remain relatively
constant, regardless of what later happens to the vertical stress. Figure 7.8a illustrates what happens
when the vertical stress is reduced.
If formation is lost due to erosion, then the overburden stresses are reduced. However, because the
horizontal stresses are “locked-in”, they have not been reduced. Therefore, there is a region, close to the
new surface, where the horizontal stresses are greater than the vertical stresses. This means that the
fracture will propagate horizontally – a “pancake frac”. Thus, in shallow formations in areas with a history
of surface erosion, horizontal fracs are not only possible, they are in fact likely. This does not apply to
formations which are very weak or unconsolidated, as stresses cannot be “locked in” if the rock strata
have no strength.
Another consequence of this phenomenon is that in formations where the σν and the σH are approximately
equal, it can be very hard to predict fracture orientation.
The action of outside forces, such as tectonics and volcanism, can also significantly affect fracture

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 115
orientation. The extra stresses imposed by the movement of the Earth’s crust, which does not usually alter
the overburden stress, but can significantly alter the horizontal stresses. In addition, formations can
sometimes be bent and buckled. In Barbados, there is a formation that has experienced so much tectonic
stress that it now runs vertically. Its stresses have been locked into place, so now the original vertical
stress is horizontal, and vice versa . So the fractures propagate horizontally.
Influence of Wellbore Orientation. Drilling a well can significantly alter the stress regime in an area
around the well. The distance away from the wellbore that is affected by this change is dependent upon
the Young’s modulus of the formation. Hard formations (high E ) tend to transmit stress more easily than
soft formations (which will deform to reduce the stress). Therefore hard formations are affected more than
soft formations.
In the area around the wellbore – the area affected by the new stress regime – fractures may propagate
parallel to the wellbore, even if the wellbore is highly deviated or even horizontal. As the fracture
propagates away from the wellbore, it will eventually reach a point at which the normal stress regime of
the formation becomes more significant than the near wellbore stress regime. At this point, the fracture will
change orientation. Sometimes this re-orientation can be quite sudden, resulting in sharp corners in the
fracture, which can cause premature screen outs.
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 116
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 117
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:

The breakdown pressure is the pressure it takes to initiate a fracture from the wellbore. Due to the effects
of the stresses induced by the presence of the wellbore, the breakdown pressure is usually significantly
greater than the fracture - or frac – gradient, which is a measure of how much pressure it takes propagate
the fracture through the formation, away from the influence of wellbore effects. Both are usually expressed
as pressure gradients (i.e. in psi/ft or kPa/m) so that similar formations in different wells at different depths
can be more easily compared. The frac gradient is a very important quantity in fracturing, as it is the most
significant contributor to the bottom hole treating pressure, which in turn helps to define the surface
treating pressure, the loading on the completion and the proppant selection.
In order to produce a fracture in the formation, two forces have to be overcome. The first force is the
in-situ stress, which is defined in Equations 7.19 and 7.20 when there are no external influences such as
tectonics etc. The second force that has to be overcome is the tensile strength of the rock, which is
usually in the region of 100 to 500 psi. Roegiers, in his chapter on Rock Mechanics in Economides and
Nolte’s excellent Reservoir Stimulation , defined the breakdown pressure in the following equations:-
Pb , upper = 3σ H ,min − σ H , max − P + T (7.26)
3σ H ,min − σ H , max − 2ηP + T

Pb , lower = (7.27)
2(1 −ν )
where η is a parameter defined by the Poisson’s ratio and Biot’s constant, as follows:
α (1 − 2ν )
η= (7.28)
2(1 −ν )
P b, upper is the breakdown pressure assuming no fluid invasion into the formation (and hence the maximum
possible theoretical breakdown pressure), P b, lower is the lower boundary for breakdown pressure, assuming
significant alteration of the near wellbore pore pressure due to fluid invasion, σH,min is the minimum horizontal
stress, σH,max is the maximum horizontal stress, P is the reservoir pressure and T is the tensile strength of the
rock. From this we can see that the higher the reservoir pressure, the easier it is to fracture the rock, so
that depleted reservoirs tend to have higher breakdown pressures than undepleted reservoirs. In addition,
we can see that when we have fluid invasion, the breakdown pressure can be significantly reduced, which
implies that lower viscosity fluids provide lower breakdown pressures. In the case where there are no
significant external influences on the stress regime, the two horizontal stresses are equal and the
equations can be simplified to:
Pb , upper = 2 σ H − P + T (7.29)
and
2 σ H − 2ηP + T
Pb , lower = (7.30)
2(1 −η )

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 118
The breakdown gradient is simply the breakdown pressure, Pb, divided by the TVD.
The frac gradient is the pressure required to make the fracture propagate, outside of the influences of the
wellbore (the region referred to as “far-field”). As stated above, this is often significantly lower than the
breakdown pressure, depending upon the viscosity of the frac fluid, the reservoir pressure and the
minimum horizontal stress.
In general, the far field fracturing pressure is equal to the minimum horizontal stress, modified to allow for
the effects of pore pressure. Any external effects such as tectonics or faulting can act to either increase or
decrease the stresses. Therefore equation 7.18 defines the frac gradient, g f, as follows:
 1   ν (σ y − 2αP ) 
g f =  + αΡ  (7.31)
 TVD   1 −ν 
Important Note. The best way to get the frac gradient for a formation is to pump some fluids into it and
measure the response. There are many influences on the formation that equations 7.26 and 7.27 do not
account for, such as tectonics (there are very few areas of the world that are completely free of tectonics),
and the only way to account for these is to actually measure them. The second best way to get the frac
gradient is to look at data from offset wells. Make sure that you are looking at data from the same
formation. Compare values for Poisson’s ratio and reservoir pressure. If these values are similar (provided
they come from the same formation), then the frac gradient will probably be similar as well. Once these
two methods have been rejected, the remaining way to get the frac gradient is to use the equations above.
This method should only be used if attempts at carrying out the other two methods have failed.
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 119
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 120
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:

Certain types of open hole wireline logs can be used to provide useful information about the mechanical
properties of the formations involved in the fracturing process. The dipole sonic or sonic array is the main
tool used to do this. This is a special tool, and is different from the sonic logging tool used to generate the
sonic transit time seen on most logs.
In order to be able to quantify the rock mechanical properties, the logging tool must be able to generate
and measure two completely different types of sonic waveform, the shear or s-wave and the compression
or p-wave, as illustrated in figure 7.10a, below:
Figure 7.10a – The left hand side shows the shear or s-wave, whilst the right hand side shows the
compression or p-wave. In both diagrams, the blue arrows illustrate the overall movement of the sonic
waveform, whilst the red arrows indicate the movement of individual particles.
For the shear wave, the material is continually sheared in one direction and then the opposite direction,
back and forth. The plane across which the material is being sheared is perpendicular to the direction the
shear wave is travelling. For the compression wave, the material is subject to alternating compression and
tension, on a plane that is again perpendicular to the direction of wave travel.
The dipole sonic tools measures the transit time of both the shear wave, t s
and compression wave, t p.
These values are usually expressed in units of µsec/ft, so that the transit time is the reciprocal of the wave
velocity. The transit time of the sonic waves through the formation can be used to derive dynamic rock
mechanical properties as follows:
0.5(t s t p ) − 1
2
νd = (7.32)
(t s t p ) −1
2
ρ 
Ε d = 2 b2  (1 +ν d ) (7.33)
t 
 s 
ρ 
= 26,950  b2  (1 + ν d )(in field units )
 (7.34)
 ts 
Where νd is the dynamic Poisson’s ratio, E d

is the dynamic Young’s modulus (see below for an
explanation of dynamic and static properties) and ρb is the bulk density, usually taken from the corrected

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 121
bulk density log. For equation 7.34 in field units, ρb is in g/cc and ts is in µsec/ft – the units most commonly
6
used on logs - whilst E d is in psi x 10 .
Other rock mechanical properties can also be found (in “log” field units):
Ed
Gd = (7.35)
2(1 +ν d )
 1 1 
K d = 26,950 ρ b  2 − 2  (7.36)
t 
 p 3t s 
1
cb = (7.37)
Kd
1
cr =
 1 4  (7.38)
26950 ρ b  2 − 2 
 t ma 3 f sma 
cr
α =1 − (7.39)
cb
Where G d is the dynamic shear modulus, K d is the dynamic bulk modulus, c b is the bulk compressibility of
the formation, c r is the rock, or zero porosity, compressibility tma is the rock matrix compression wave
transit time (see below), t sma is the rock matrix shear wave transit time (see below) and α is Biot’s
poroelastic constant. Table 7.10a lists commonly used values for t ma and t sma:
Commonly used values for sonic wave

Rock rock matrix transit times, µsec/ft
Matrix Compression Wave Shear Wave
tma tsma
Quartz 55.5 or 51.0 83.3
Calcite 49.7 90.0
Dolomite 43.5 78.7
Anhydrite 50.0 87.7
Granite 50.8 89.3
Salt 66.7 125.0
Table 7.10a – Commonly used values for compression and shear wave rock matrix sonic transit
times (after Schlumberger, 1989)
Figure 7.10b shows an example dipole sonic log with interpreted values for Poisson’s ratio, Young’s
modulus and horizontal stress.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 122
0 PR 1
0 GR 200 50 DTCO 250 1 YO UNGS 3.5
4 HCA L 14 50 DTSM 250 500 0 HSTRES S 750 0
9,050
9,100
9,150
9,200
Figure 7.10b – Example interpreted dipole sonic log. The left track shows gamma ray (GR) and caliper
(HCAL) logs. The center track shows compression (DTCO) and shear (DTSM) wave transit times. The right
track shows interpreted values for Poisson’s ratio (PR), Young’s modulus (YOUNGS) and horizontal stress
(HSTRESS).
Stress can be derived by using the dynamic Poisson’s ratio and the density log (to give the vertical stress)
using equation 7.19. However, it should be remembered that these “stress logs” are based on dynamic
properties (see below) and do not take poroelastic effects into account. Nevertheless, whilst the absolute
values for these logs cannot be trusted, they can be useful for determining stress contrasts.
Dynamic and Static Rock Mechanical Properties

In most applications, including hydraulic fracturing, we are using values for rock mechanical properties
that are based on static material properties. However, because of the conditions that sonic-based rock
mechanical properties are measured under, they are said to be dynamic and there is often a significant
difference between the static properties that the Frac Engineer needs and the dynamic properties that are
measured by open hole logs.
To put things simply, when a stress related event happens to a material, the changes that occur to the
stresses in the material to not occur instantly. Instead, any change to the stress will spread through the
material at the speed of sound in that material. Usually, the time taken for this to happen is so small
compared for the time taken for the applied stresses to change (as in fracturing) that it does not affect the
process. However, when the stresses applied to a material alter at a speed that is a significant fraction of
the speed of sound of that material, then the time taken for the change in stress to propagate can
significantly affect the stresses themselves. For instance, when a compression wave is passing through a
material, any given portion of that material is constantly being subjected to alternating tensile and
compression loads. The speed at which the load changes is directly proportional to the frequency of the

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 123
sound wave, whilst the speed that the compression wave moves through the material is the speed of
sound for that material (i.e. constant). At low frequencies, the length of time taken for a piece of the
material to undergo one full stress cycle is much less than the length of time it takes one sound wave to
travel past that piece of material. However, as the frequency increases, the length of time between stress
cycles decreases, whilst the wave transit time stays constant, and it becomes increasingly difficult for the
material to return to it’s original state before the next wave passes through. This causes a deviation away
from linear elastic behaviour, as illustrated by figure 7.10c.
Stress Stress
TENSION TENSION
Strain Strain
COMPRESSION COMPRESSION
Figure 7.10c – Static (left) and dynamic (right) cyclic stress loading.
The left side of figure 7.10c shows cyclic loading under static conditions. As the load is alternated between
tension and compression, the relationship between stress and strain is linear (proportional to the Young’s
modulus) and follows the same path on the stress strain plot every time, provided the elastic limit is not
exceeded and the material is not plastically deformed. This relationship between stress and strain is
referred to as linear elastic.
The right side of figure 7.10c shows the dynamic case. The behaviour of the material under loading is now
dependent upon the stress history of the material. The relationship between stress and strain is different
depending upon whether the loading is being applied or removed and whether it is tensile or compression.
This deviation away from linear behaviour becomes more pronounced as the frequency of the sound
waves (i.e. the frequency of the stress cycling) increases. When an alternating stress is applied to a
material the induced alternating strain moves through this material at the speed of sound, for that material.
However, as the frequency of the changes gets closer to the speed of sound in that material, the material
has insufficient time to return to its original state, before the next deformation occurs. Thus the
subsequent deformation is influenced by the previous deformation.
This deviation from linear elastic behaviour under high frequency stress cycling is often referred to as
hysteresis . Hysteresis is a general term used throughout science and engineering to denote when the
behaviour of a material under certain conditions is dependent upon the historical application of these
conditions. The behaviour of a material that does not exhibit hysteresis (such as that shown on the left
hand side of figure 7.10c), is the same every time, regardless of what has happened previously.
In order to convert from dynamic to static properties, several correlations are available. Usually these are
based on empirical data derived from tests on core samples and then extrapolated back to BH conditions.
As such, there is a degree of inaccuracy associated with them. Lacy’s method (1997) is recommended for
Young’s modulus:
2
Ε = 0.018 Ε d + 0.422 Ε d (7.40)
However, there is no such correlation for Poisson’s ratio.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 124
Frac Gradient
The horizontal stresses (assumed to be equal) can be calculated using the log data and equation 7.20. To
use this equation, three important pieces of information must be acquired:
Vertical stress. Usually found by taking the bulk density back to the surface and using equation 7.16.
Pore pressure.
Biot’s poroelastic constant, usually found using equation 7.37 – 7.39 and table 7.10a. Otherwise use
0.8 for a poorly consolidated formation and 1.0 for a consolidated formation
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
7.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 125
Fracturing Manual
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Section:
7.11 References
Biot, M.A.: “General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation,” Journal of Applied Physics , 1941, 12,
p155-164.
Biot, M.A.: “General Solutions of the Equations of Elasticity and Consolidation for a Porous Material,”
Journal of Applied Mechanics , 1956, 23, p91-96.
Deily, F.H., and Owens, T.C.: “Stress Around a Wellbore”, paper SPE 2557, presented at the Annual Fall
Meeting of the SPE, October 1969.
Barree, R.D., Rogers, B.A., and Chu, W.C.: “Use of Frac-Pack Pressure Data to Determine Breakdown
Conditions and Reservoir Properties”, paper SPE 36423, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, October 1996.
Handin J., Hager, R. V. Jr, Friedman, M., and Feather, J. N.: “Experimental Deformation of Sedimentary
Rocks Under Confining Pressure: Pore Pressure Tests,” Bulletin AAPG, 1963, 47, p717-755.
Terzaghi, K. van: “Die Berechnung der Durchlassigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem Verlauf der
Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungrn,” Sber. Akad. Wiss, Vienna, 1923, 123, p105 (in German)
Bradley, H.B. (Editor), Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson,
Texas, 1987, 51.
Log Interpretation Principles/Practices, Schlumberger Educational Services, Houston, Texas, 1989, 5.
Lacy, L.L.: “Dynamic Rock Mechanics Testing for Optimized Fracture Design”, paper SPE 38716,
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct 1997
Subtopics
7.1 Stress
7.2 Strain
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 126
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 127
Fracturing Manual
Section:
2-D fracture models were the industry’s first attempt at mathematically modelling the process of fracture
propagation. By today’s standards, they are crude approximations. However, there are two important
points to note. First, in order to understand how the modern 3-D models work, it is first necessary to
understand the 2-D models. Second, there are some circumstances in which certain 2-D models can be
valid. These include coal bed methane fracturing (KZD) and fracturing in massive, uniform formations
(radial).
Subtopics
8.1 Radial or Penny-Shaped
8.2 Kristianovich and Zheltov - Daneshy (KZD)
8.3 Perkins and Kern – Nordgren (PKN)
8.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 128
Fracturing Manual

Section:
Figure 8.1a – Propagation of a radial or penny-shaped fracture
Figure 8.1a shows the propagation of a radial or penny-shaped fracture. In this model, the height, H , is a
function of the radius or half-length of the fracture, R , such that H = 2R . This produces a fracture, which is
circular in shape. The width of the fracture is given by:
Wmax =
( )
8 1 − ν 2 ∆P R
(8.1)
ηE
Where ∆P is the net pressure, ν is the Poisson’s ratio and E is the Young’s modulus.
In this model, the width at any part of the fracture is a function of the distance between the center and the
edge of the frac such that:
r
w(r ) = Wmx 1 −   (8.2)
 R
Where W max
and R are constant and r is defined such that 0 ≤ r ≤R.
The average width, needed for calculating the volume of the fracture and the fracture conductivity, is given
by:
8
wave = Wmax (8.3)
15
Note the following points, which are applicable to all the 2-D fracture models:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 129
i W max is inversely proportional to the Young’s modulus. This means that as the formation gets harder
(i.e. the Young’s modulus increases), the net pressure required to produce a given width increases.
So it takes more energy to produce width in a hard formation than it does in a soft formation.
ii W max is directly proportional to the half-length of the fracture – if the half-length is doubled, the width is
doubled. Note that this is the created width , not the final propped width, which is what the post
treatment production increase will be partially dependent upon. The propped width will always be
equal to or less than the created width, and is a function of the volume of proppant placed per unit
area of the fracture.
iii W max
is relatively insensitive to changes in Poisson’s ratio. An increase in ν from 0.2 to 0.25 (an
2
increase of 25%) will change the term (1 - ν ) from 0.96 to 0.9375, a decrease of only 2.34%.
Therefore, it is pointless to spend too much time trying to get accurate values for ν. However, as seen
in Chapter 6, ν can have a significant effect on the magnitude of the horizontal stresses – if the frac
gradient is unknown, then finding accurate values for ν can be important.
The radial model has no limits to height growth. As long as the fracture is growing outwards (i.e. R is
increasing), then it will also be growing up and down the wellbore (i.e. an increase in H ). This type of
propagation can be found in a massive uniform formation with no vertical variations in rock properties and
hence no “barriers” to height growth. It can also be found for small fractures that have not contacted any
“barriers”, such as in skin bypass fracturing.
The volume of the fracture is obtained from the volume of fluid pumped into the fracture, less the volume
of fluid leaked off. The volume of fluid leaked off is a function of the leakoff area of the fracture (which is
2
equal to 2πR ), so that if the fluid efficiency (η), injected volume of fluid, E , ν and ∆P are known, R can be
easily obtained:
0.33
 
 15η Q t E 
R = 
 64 1 −ν  ∆P 
2
   
where Q is the average pump rate and t is the pump time.

Subtopics
8.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 130
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 131
Fracturing Manual

Section:

This model was originally developed by two Russians, Kristianovich and Zheltov, and was later modified
by Daneshy, Geertsma and de Klerk , and also by Le Tirant and Dupuy. Often, this model is referred to as
GDK, after Geertsma and de Klerk. In this model, the height is fixed, and remains constant throughout. It
is usually set as the gross height of the formation:
Figure 8.2a – Schematic showing the general shape of the KZD fracture
As we can see from Figure 8.2a, the KZD model produces a fracture with a constant height. This means
that there must be slippage between the formation being fractured and the formations above and below.
This is unlikely (but not unknown) in most situations, but can happen when fracturing coal beds. The
maximum width is related to the half length L by the following equation:
Wmax =
( )
4 1 − ν 2 ∆P L
(8.5)
E
Note that for a given net pressure and half length, the maximum width of a KZD fracture is greater than
the maximum width of a radial fracture by a factor of π/ 2.
The average width is given by:
π
Wave = Wmax (8.6)
4
Therefore, for two “wings”, the length of the fracture is given by
(8.7)

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 132
η Qt E
L=
2 π (1 −ν 2 )∆P H
where η is the fluid efficiency, Q is the average pump rate and t is the pump time.
Subtopics
8.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 133
Fracturing Manual

Section:
8.3 Perkins and Kern - Nordgren (PKN)

This fracture model was originally conceived by Sneddon and later developed by Perkins and Kern, with
further work by Nordgren, Nolte and Advanti et al. In this model, the maximum width is related to the
height of the fracture, such that:
Wmax =
(
2 1 − v 2 ∆Ρ H ) (8.8)
E
whilst the average width, wave, is given by:
π
wave = Wmax (8.9)
5
Thus, both fracture height and width are constant down the length of the fracture. Figure 8.3a illustrates
the shape of this fracture:
Wmax
Figure 8.3a – The Perkins and Kern - Nordgren fracture
The length of the fracture can be determined by a method similar to those used for the radial and KZD
fractures:
5η Q t E
L= (8.10)
( )
4 π 1 − v 2 ∆P H 2
The PKN fracture geometry was used for many years by the industry as the standard, until the advent of
pseudo-3D fracture simulators and an improved understanding of fracture propagation and fracture
mechanics (see Sections 9 and 11).

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 134
Subtopics
8.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 135
Fracturing Manual

Section:
8.4 References
Abe, H., Mura, T., and Keer, L.M.: “Growth Rate of a Penny-Shaped Crack in Hydraulic Fracturing of
Rocks”, J. Geophys. Res. (1976) 81, 5335.
Zheltov, Y.P., and Kristianovitch, S.A.: “On the Mechanism of Hydraulic Fracturing of an Oil-Bearing
Stratum”, Izvest. Akad. Nauk SSR, OTN (1955) 5, 3-41 (in Russian)
Daneshy, A.A.: ”On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures”, JPT , Jan 1973, 83-93.
Geerstma, J., and de Klerk, F.A.: “Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced
Fractures”, JPT , Dec 1969, 1571-81
Le Tirant, P., and Dupuy, M.: “Fracture Dimensions Obtained During Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments of
Oil Reservoirs”, Rev. Inst. Francais du Petrole (1967) 44-98 (in French).
Sneddon, I.N.: “The Distribution of Stress in the Neighbourhood of a Crack in an Elastic Solid”, Proc.
Royal Society of London, (1946) 187, 229.
Perkins, T.K., and Kern, L.R.: “Widths of Hydraulic Fractures”, JPT , Sept 1961, 937-949.
Nordgren, R.P.: “Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture”, SPEJ , Aug 1972, 306-314.
Nolte, K.G.: “Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules From Fracturing Pressure Decline”, SPEPE ,
July 1986, 255-265.
Advanti, S.H., Khattib, H., and Lee, J.K.: “Hydraulic Fracture Geometry Modeling, Prediction and
Comparisons”, paper SPE 13863, presented at the SPE/DOE Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, May 1985.
Texas (1989).
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 136
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 137
Fracturing Manual
Section:
Fracture mechanics is the study of how fractures propagate through a material. The aim of fracture
mechanics is to predict how fast a crack will grow, and at what point the fracture becomes “critical” – i.e.
the fracture will suddenly spread across the entire material causing catastrophic failure. In hydraulic
fracturing we use fracture mechanics to predict how far our fracture will grow – both horizontally and
vertically.
When reading this section, it should be remembered that stress and pressure are essentially the same
thing. This means that a pressure in a fracture puts a stress of equal magnitude in the formation at the
fracture face, in a direction perpendicular to the fracture face. Therefore, when the fracture is propagating,
the critical stress (the stress needed to make the fracture grow) has to be equal to the net pressure.
Subtopics
9.1 LEFM and Fracture Toughness
9.2 Non-Linear and Non-Elastic Effects
9.3 The Energy Balance
9.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 138
Fracturing Manual

Section:
9.1 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics and Fracture Toughness

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) is all about the prediction of how much stress (i.e. energy) it
takes to make a fracture propagate. LEFM assumes linear elastic deformation (constant Young’s
modulus) followed by brittle fracture – it is assumed that no significant energy is absorbed by non-linear or
non-elastic effects. That is to say, energy stored as stress in the material is transferred directly to
fracturing the material, and no energy is lost to plastic deformation. LEFM was used almost exclusively in
the earlier fracture models (see Section 8), and is still used – to a greater or lesser extent - in a number of
fracture models currently available in the industry (e.g. MFrac, StimPlan – see Section 11).
The Griffith Crack

The first person to adopt a meaningful analytical approach to studying the mechanics of fracture
propagation was Griffith, in the 1920’s. Figure 9.1a illustrates the concept of the Griffith crack, which can
be expressed with the following Equation;
δU 2πσ 2 a
= (9.1)
δa E
Figure 9.1a – The Griffith crack
where U is the elastic energy (i.e. the energy used to produce elastic stress on the material), a is the
characteristic fracture length, σ is the far field stress (i.e. the “bulk” stress away from the influence of the
fracture) and E is the Young’s modulus. Therefore, Equation 1 describes the amount of additional energy (
δU) required to make the fracture grow from length a to length a + δa.
Usually δU/δa is replaced by 2G. G is referred to as the “elastic energy release rate” and also the “crack
driving force”, such that;

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 139
πσ 2 a
G= (9.2)
E
In order to reach this relationship, Griffith makes a significant assumption – that there is no energy lost at
the fracture tip and not used to propagate the fracture. Energy is used either to elastically deform the
material or to rupture the material. Therefore, there can be no plastic deformation at the tip, and the
Griffith model is only applicable to materials liable to elastic deformation followed by brittle fracture .
Griffith Failure Criterion

Given that for a uniform material with constant geometry δU/δa is a constant, there is a critical value of
stress, σc, at which the material will experience catastrophic failure, i.e. the fracture propagates at high
velocity across the material causing failure . This critical stress is defined as follows ;
EG lc
σc = (9.3)
πa
The critical energy release rate, Glc, is determined experimentally and is a material property, although it
will vary with both temperature and the overall geometry of the test specimen. Equation 9.3 also defines -
for a given stress - a critical fracture length. If the fracture is less than this critical length, the material will
not fail. However, if the fracture grows above this critical length , the material will fail.
The subscript "I" refers to the failure mode, as illustrated in Figure 9.1b. Failure mode I is the "opening
mode", mode II is the "sliding mode" and mode III is the "tearing mode". In hydraulic fracturing, we are
usually only concerned with failure mode I .
Mode I Mode II Mode III

Opening Sliding Tearing
Figure 9.1b – Failure modes in Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
Stress Intensity Factor

With reference to Figure 9.1c, the stresses in the principal directions , at some point away from the fracture
tip, can be expressed as follows;

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 140
K θ θ 3θ 
σ xx = cos 1 − sin sin  (9.4)
2πr 2 2 2 
and
K θ θ 3θ 
σ yy = cos 1 + sin sin  (9.5)
2π r 2 2 2 
where K is the stress intensity factor.
r
θ
Fracture
x
a
σ
Figure 9.1c – Coordinate system for stress intensity factor
Considering the plane strain situation (i.e. εzz = 0, an object with a thickness large enough to make strain
on the z-axis negligible), and the case that a >> r, then the stress in the y-direction – “across” the line of
the fracture (i.e. θ = 0) – can be expressed as follows;
K
σ yy = (9.6)
2π r
Obviously in Equation 9.6, as r tends to 0, σyy tends to infinity . This represents a fundamental flaw in this
approach to modeling fractures – it fails close to the fracture tip .
Using this approach, K is the only factor that affects the magnitude of the stress at a given distance from
the fracture tip. Whilst K is a material property, it is also a variable, depending upon the gross geometry of
the fracture and its surroundings, as well as temperature.
Assuming a constant temperature in any given instance, relationships linking K, a and σ for most
situations have been solved, either analytically or numerically. At material failure, σc can be described in
terms of a critical stress intensity factor , KIc, which is more commonly referred to as the fracture toughness
;

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 141
K Ic
σ yy = (9.7)
β πa
This is the fundamental Equation of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics, where β is a geometrical factor
and is equal to 0.4 for a radial fracture. KIc is related to GIc as follows;
2
K Ic
(
Gl c = 1− v 2
) E
(9.8)
For a given geometry, the fracture toughness is a material property. Equation 9.8 shows that it represents
the amount of mechanical energy a material can absorb before it fails by brittle fracture. Put simply, a
2
material with a low KIc is brittle and a material with a high KIc is tough. The term E/(1 - ν ) is often referred
to as the plane strain Young's modulus or E', so that Glc is equal to Klc divided by E'.
Subtopics
9.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 142
Fracturing Manual

Section:

From the extensive work done in this field, it is clear that LEFM alone does not adequately account for the
pressure needed to make the fracture grow. There is a tip over pressure effect, which means that more
pressure (energy) is required than is predicted by LEFM. Two possible – and not necessarily mutually
exclusive – theories for this are described below.
Crack Tip Dilatency

The theory of crack tip dilatency was first put forward by Cleary et al , and has been used extensively by
them in the FracPro model. This approach has almost entirely done away with the concept of fracture
toughness, which means that users of simulators based on this model find that changes to input fracture
toughness values have little or no effect on fracture geometry. Instead the theory states that deep
underground, the effect of the confining stress is much more significant than the effect of the fracture
toughness. Thus K Ic can be ignored if the following condition is satisfied;
σ πR > > K lc (9.9)
where R is the radius of the fracture and is analogous to the LEFM characteristic fracture length. Equation
9.9 shows us that fracture toughness is more significant for small fractures in shallow formations, such as
during skin bypass fracturing.
The fracturing fluid does not penetrate to the very end of the fracture. This means that there is a very rapid
change in net pressure at a distance ω from the tip of the fracture, as illustrated in Figure 9.2a.
Dilation Contribution
Pnet
ω
r
Figure 9.2a – The Cleary et al approach.
If the condition described in Equation 9.9 is satisfied, then ω can be found as follows;
2
R P 
ω =  net  (9.10)
2  Pnet + Pc 

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 143
Because the fluid does not penetrate into the tip of the fracture, energy is lost as the tip of the fracture
deforms. It is postulated that this deformation occurs in a non-linear or dilatent fashion. This crack tip
dilatency reduces the energy left for the fracturing fluid to propagate the fracture, and hence reduces the
size of the fracture, for a given P net.
Crack Tip Plasticity

The crack tip plasticity theory allows for a significant region of plastic deformation at the fracture tip. All
materials exhibit some level of plastic deformation prior to failure – it is assumed in LEFM, and most of the
other approaches to modeling hydraulic fracturing, that this is not significant. This may be true in some
formations. However, there may be a wide range of circumstances under which significant plastic
deformation is not only possible, but probable.
Even so-called brittle materials can experience plastic deformation when exposed to extreme tri-axial
stresses.
As the load on a material containing a fracture increases, the stresses around the fracture tip also
increase. Because of the geometry of the area of the fracture tip, these stresses are usually far in excess
of the overall stress on the material - as illustrated in Equation 9.6. As the overall stress increases, the
stress around the fracture increases to a point where it exceeds the yield point of the material (σy). The
material then starts to plastically deform, and to move in a direction that will relieve the stress – away from
the crack tip. This produces a crack tip of finite radius, as opposed to the infinitely small fracture tip
modeled in LEFM. The diameter of the fracture tip, d , is given by the following equation:
K l (1−ν 2 )
2
d= (9.11)
Eσ y
For a long, narrow fracture, having a tip of finite radius can significantly reduce the overall length of the
fracture. This is illustrated in figure 9.2b:
σyy
σy
rp r
Fracture d
The plastic zone
Figure 9.2b – Crack tip diameter and the plastic zone. Note that r p is the radius of the plastic zone.
Figure 9.2b shows the plastic zone as a circle around the fracture tip. However, this is not necessarily the
case. By using the principle stresses given by Equations 9.4 and 9.5, and assuming plane strain (εzz = 0),
the von Mises yield criterion gives the following result:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 144
σ y 2πrp 1  3  
=   sin 2 θ + (1 − 2ν ) (1 + cos θ )
2
2
(9.12)
Kl 4  2  
2 2
By plotting, in polar coordinates, σy πr p/K I (dimensionless plastic radius) against θ, we can see the shape
of the plastic zone at the fracture tip, as illustrated in Figure 9.2c. This produces two plastic “ellipses”
either side of the fracture plane.
0.5
ν = 0.25 σy2 π r p
2
KI
θ
-0.5 0.5
-0.5
Figure 9.2c – The shape of the plastic zone, for a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25 (after Martin , 2000)
In hard rocks, the actual size of the plastic zone is quite small, compared to the volume of the fracture.
However, as Young’s modulus and yield stress decrease, the relative size of the plastic zone increases
until it reaches a relatively large volume. At this point, the energy absorbed by the plastic deformation of
this volume becomes a significant fraction of the energy contained in the fracturing fluid.
This means that in a formation liable to significant plastic deformation, it requires significantly more energy
to propagate the fracture than is predicted by LEFM. As discussed below, if the fracture tip takes more
energy, the fracture will be smaller and will have less width.
Subtopics
9.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 145
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 146
Fracturing Manual

Section:

The process of propagating a fracture through a formation is all about the transfer of energy from the frac
pumps to the formation. Energy transfer occurs as shown in Figure 9.3a. Reducing all the processes
occurring in the creation of a fracture to energy, allows them to be related to each other in the most
fundamental fashion. To start with, we must remember that pressure and stress are essentially energy per
unit volume.
Therefore, the total energy per unit time (a.k.a. power) in the fluid available for creating a fracture is:
.
U = BHTP.Q (9.13)
Not forgetting that:
BHTP = STP + HH − Pfrict (9.14)
Therefore, the total energy available to the fracturing fluid is given by:
.
t
U fluid = ∫ 0p U dt (9.15)

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 147
Energy Gains Energy Losses
The Frac Fluid
Printed: 19/06/2010
Chemical Energy from the Diesel
Fuel is Changed into Mechanical
Energy by the Engine, which is At the Wellhead
Changed into Pressure and STP
Kinetic Energy by the Frac Pump
Energy from By the Perforations Friction Pressure in the Surface

Hydrostatic Head BHTP Lines and Wellbore
CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed .

In the Near Wellbore Perforation Friction & Tortuosity
Region, P net Overcoming the Closure
Stress of the Formation
Energy Gains + Energy Losses = 0.

Moving Down the Fluid Leakoff
Fracture, P net Compression of Formation
to Produce Frac Width
Fluid Friction in Fracture
Figure 9.3a – Sources of Energy Gains and Losses for the fracturing fluid.
© Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

At the Fracture Tip Propagation of
Pnet - Fluid Friction Fracture
in Fracture
Page: 148
Where t p is the total pumping time. Equation 9.15 looks intimidating, but it is simply the area under the
graph of (bottom hole) horsepower against time.
A substantial portion of the energy is used up, simply by overcoming the in-situ stresses of the formation.
Another portion of the energy is used up in overcoming friction in the near wellbore area. Therefore, the
final amount of energy available for fracturing the formation is given by:
t
U fluid = ∫ 0p Pnet Q dt (9.16)
Given that in most cases the rate is relatively constant, a plot showing P net versus time can show a great
deal about how much energy is being used to create the fracture. This is the basis of Nolte analysis (see
Section 10.2).
Most fracture simulators spend a great deal of time quantifying these energy loses and gains, so that the
amount of energy left in the fracturing fluid for propagation and the production of width can be a found. If
the Young’s modulus is known, the fracture width – for a given P net – can be easily determined. This then
leaves the amount of energy available for the propagation of the fracture, which in turn defines how big the
fracture gets. This is the ultimate goal of the fracture simulator.
Subtopics
9.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 149
Fracturing Manual

Section:
9.4 References
Griffith, A.A.: “The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. of London, A 221
(1921), pp. 163 – 167
Broek, D.: Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics , Kluwer Academic Publishers, 4th Ed. (rev), 1986.
Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: “Experimental and Modeling Evidence for Major Changes in
Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field Procedures”, paper SPE 21494, presented at the SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Houston TX, Jan 1991.
de Pater, C.J., Weijers, L., Saviæ, M., Wolf, K.H.A.A., van den Hoek, P.J., and Barr, D.T.: “Experimental
Study of Nonlinear Effects in Hydraulic Fracture Propagation”, paper SPE 25893, SPEPF , Nov. 1994, pp.
239 – 246.
Dugdale, D.S.: “Yielding of steel sheets containing slits”, J. Mech. Phys. Sol ., 8, 1960, pp. 100 – 108.
Martin, A.N.: “Crack Tip Plasticity: A Different Approach to Modeling Fracture Propagation in Soft
Formations”, paper SPE 63171 (revised), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas TX, Oct 2000.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 150
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 151
Fracturing Manual
Section:
In this section we shall deal with some of the more advanced concepts used in the process of designing
hydraulic fracture treatments, as well as in diagnosing what may (or may not) have happened during a frac
or minifrac treatment.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.3 Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.5 Multiple Fractures and Limited Entry
10.6 Proppant Convection and Settling
10.7 Proppant Flowback
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 152
Fracturing Manual

Section:
10.1 Tortuosity
Hydraulic fractures are created by pressure, not rate. Often we use rate to help generate the required
pressure, but we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that it’s pressure that splits the rock. Over a long
perforated interval, fractures can form anywhere that the fluid pressure exceeds the local frac gradient.
Generally, the rock will have one point that is weaker than the rest and the initial fracture will form here.
However, if the pressure continues to rise, additional fractures may be formed. Potentially, every single
perforation is a source of fracture initiation. Many of these fractures will be very small – but some may be
large enough to take a significant proportion of the treatment fluid.
Away from the artificial stress environment around the wellbore, treatments tend to produce a relatively
small number of larger fractures. Normally, fractures do not tend to join together – the stress regime
around the fracture tip tends to keep fractures apart. However, under the influence of the complex
stresses around the wellbore and perforations, fractures can join together, sometimes giving several
narrow paths towards a single, large fracture. So the treating fluid has to travel from a region containing a
large number of small fractures to a region containing a small number of large fractures. In doing so, the
fluid has to move through a series of convoluted, narrow fractures – or put another way, through a
tortuous path. This tortuosity can produce a significant loss in pressure, resulting in a smaller than
expected fracture and possible early screenouts. Screenouts can also be caused by tortuosity for another
reason – the width of these channels through the rock is often not large enough to carry the proppant
concentration passing through it. This causes the proppant to bridge off, preventing any further flow of
proppant.
Tortuosity manifests itself as a pressure drop through the near wellbore region. There are also other
phenomenon that can result in a near wellbore pressure loss (such as poor quality perforations). However,
the important point is that there is a loss of pressure, which can be a substantial proportion of the
observed net pressure (i.e. the total energy available to propagate the fracture). Because the pressures
inside the fracture drive the pressures at the surface, the pressure loss due to the tortuosity actually
produces a higher BHTP and hence higher STP. This gives the surface observer the impression that the
net pressure is higher than it really is. For instance, for a well with 200 psi net pressure and 300 psi
pressure loss due to tortuosity, it appears, to an Engineer who is unaware of the tortuosity, that the net
pressure is 500 psi. This means that Engineer thinks that the frac fluid has much more energy for creating
fracture volume than it has in reality, potentially resulting in a treatment design that contains more
proppant than can physically fit into the fracture. It is therefore important to understand the magnitude of
the near wellbore pressure loss, so that this can be allowed for when designing the treatment.
Hard Rocks (that is, rocks with a high Young’s modulus and low fracture toughness) tend to be more
susceptible to tortuosity than soft rocks. In this type of brittle formation, there is already a fracture formed
at each perforation by the explosive action of the perforating charges – all we are doing when we pump
fluid is making these fractures extend, through a medium that allows easy fracture extension. Because of
the high Young’s modulus, the stress concentrations at the fracture tip are more intense and so these
smaller fractures are less likely to link up. This means that hard rocks are more likely to produce a large
number of small fractures than soft rocks.
Deviated Wellbores tend to be more susceptible to tortuosity than vertical wells. As fractures propagate,
they compress the rock either side of them. This makes it harder for other fractures to propagate in this
region. As discussed in section 7, fractures tend to propagate on a vertical plane. This means that the
more deviated the wellbore, the less each fracture interferes with its neighbour, and so they propagate
more easily. Additionally, as each fracture is further apart, there is less joining together of fractures.
Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that on some deviated wells, the fracture can initiate along the
wellbore. At some point not too far from the wellbore, the fracture grows out far enough so that the

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 153
influence of the wellbore is less significant than the influence of the in-situ stresses. At this point the
fracture has to change its orientation, rapidly if the rock is very hard. This produces a “corner” around
which the fluid and proppant has to flow, which causes further loss of pressure.
Thus, highly deviated wells in hard rocks are more likely to experience tortuosity problems than vertical
wells in soft formations. This does not mean that significant tortuosity will not be encountered in soft
formations or in vertical wells – it simply means that it is less likely.
Perforation Strategy. Often Service Companies are asked to treat wells which are already perforated. In
such wells, it is very difficult to control fracture initiation. However, sometimes the well to be treated is new
and we can perhaps influence the perforation strategy. This can have a significant effect on the tortuosity,
and is explained in detail in Section 14.
Horizontal Stress Contrast. As illustrated in figure 10.1a, the contrast between the maximum and
minimum horizontal stresses can also influence the tortuosity. For the left hand side of figure 10.1a, there
is a large contrast between σh,max and σh,min. This produces a narrow fracture close to the wellbore and a very
tight radius turn for the fracture. For the right hand side of figure 10.1a, there is little difference between
the two horizontal stresses, so the fracture starts with a wider width and gradually changes direction.
Therefore, depending upon the initial fracture orientation (which is turn is affected by the perforation
strategy and wellbore deviation), the contrast between horizontal stresses can have a significant effect on
tortuosity.
σh,max >> σh,min σh,max ~= σh,min
σh,max
σh,min
Figure 10.1a. Diagram illustrating the effects of horizontal stress contrast on tortuosity (after GRI-AST
1996).
Curing Tortuosity. If tortuosity is detected before the main treatment (see Sections 15 and 16), it can
sometimes be cured. This is done by pumping proppant slugs. The first company to successfully
accomplish this on a regular basis was Mærsk Olie og Gas , a Danish company operating in the North
Sea. Several SPE papers have been produced by Mærsk and their contractors to document this. Mærsk
had the advantage that they were operating off a large frac boat, mixing gel with seawater on the fly. This
meant that they had an effectively limitless supply of both gel and proppant at their disposal – most of the
time this is not the case.
To start with, Mærsk would pump a proppant slug in the minifrac, ideally at the maximum anticipated
proppant concentration for the main treatment. If this slug passed into the formation without a significant
rise in pressure, they could be reasonably sure that the tortuosity would not significantly affect the
treatment. Sometimes they would pump a series of slugs, mixed at increasing proppant concentrations. If
these slugs encountered a significant rise in pressure, or worse still screened the well out, they knew they
had a problem. The cure was to deliberately screen the tortuosity out.
This is done by pumping proppant slugs and then shutting down with the slug in the perforations and near

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 154
wellbore region. The effect of this is to block up the narrow channels and force open the wide channels.
After a few years, Mærsk became so proficient at this – and so familiar with their formations – that they
developed a standard method used on every treatment. This involved pumping a relatively long stage of
100 mesh sand at 1 or 2 ppa during the minifrac, followed by a relatively short stage with 20/40 proppant
at 4 or 5 ppa. The minifrac was shut down with the 20/40 proppant in the perforations. The 100 mesh sand
blocked the narrow channels, whilst the 20/40 proppant held open the wide channels, so that they would
accept fluid when the main treatment started. Using this method, Mærsk achieved a near perfect record
for placing treatments, in an area notorious for tortuosity problems.
Subtopics
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 155
Fracturing Manual

Section:
10.2 Nolte Analysis

Nolte analysis is a branch of frac theory originally developed by Ken Nolte of Amoco in the early 1980’s. It
uses a plot of log Pnet against log time to determine the shape of the fracture, as illustrated in Figure 10.2a:
b
a
III
log Pnet
II
I
IV
log (job time)

Figure 10.2a – The Nolte plot
Basically, pressure is stored energy – or in the case of the fracturing fluid, stored energy per unit volume.
As work (a.k.a. horsepower) is the rate of using energy, on a graph of pressure against time the gradient
is the amount of work being performed. In this case, it is the amount of work being performed by the
fracturing fluid on the formation.
Nolte used a mathematical analysis to show that at certain gradients on the log Pnet against log job time
plot, certain fracture geometries will apply (with reference to Figure 10.2a):-
Mode I - Good height containment, fracture propagates preferentially in the horizontal direction .
Mode II - Even fracture growth, fracture is propagating elliptically with vertical as well as horizontal
growth.
Mode IIIa - Screenout, fracture is filling with proppant and is having to balloon in order to cope with
the volume of fluid entering the fracture.
Mode IIIb - Screenout, near wellbore event. It is no longer possible to pump proppant into the
fracture.
Mode IV - Uncontrolled height growth. Also radial fracture geometry.
Nolte’s work was carried out with respect to the three main 2-D models that were widely used at the time.
However, it is still a useful tool for the Frac Engineer to assess fracture geometry without using a fracture
simulator, or as a back up to a simulator.
Nolte analysis became popular at the same time that Service Companies began to use computer
monitoring and data storage systems on location. It became possible to have a Nolte plot running real time
– providing the industry with its first real-time fracture simulation and diagnosis tool.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 156
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 157
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity (FCD or – as recently redefined by the API - CfD ) or Relative Fracture
Conductivity is a measure of how conductive the fracture is compared to the formation. In order to
produce a production increase, the propped fracture has to be more conductive than the formation (setting
aside the effects of bypassing the skin damage). In Section 2 we defined the fracture conductivity (FC ) as
being the product of the fracture width and the permeability of the proppant. Dimensionless fracture
conductivity is defined as follows:
Fc k p wave
C fD = = (10.1)
xf k xf k
where xf is the fracture half length, kp is the permeability of the proppant, wave is the average fracture width
and k is the permeability of the formation. In order for the fracture to be more conductive than the
formation, the dimensionless fracture conductivity has to be greater than one.
Equation 10.1 compares the ability of the formation to deliver fluids to the fracture, with the ability of the
fracture to delivery fluids to the wellbore. If the CfD is less than one, then post treatment production
increase is limited by the relatively low conductivity of the fracture, and the fluids will flow more easily
through the formation. If the CfD is significantly greater than 1, then the limiting factor is the formation’s
ability to deliver hydrocarbons to the fracture.
Of the four components on the right hand side of equation 10.1, the permeability of the formation is fixed,
whilst the permeability of the proppant is defined by the proppant type, the closure stress and the
producing conditions. In order to maximise CfD , it is necessary to control the fracture half length, whilst at
the same time getting the width and the proppant permeability as large as possible. Under most
circumstances – for any given fracture situation – there is a fixed relationship between width and length.
For so much length created, there will be so much width created. However, created width is not the same
as propped width, unless the well has screened out from tip to wellbore. The more proppant that is placed
per unit area of the fracture, the wider the propped fracture will be. Therefore, two ways to increase CfD
are; one – pump more proppant; or two – pump better quality proppant.
In higher permeability formations, this is not enough. Even with the fracture completely full of good quality
proppant, the CfD can still be less than one. Therefore, a technique called the Tip Screen Out must be
used (see section 10.4, below).
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 158
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 159
Fracturing Manual

Section:
10.4 The Tip Screen Out (TSO)

The Tip Screen Out is a technique used to artificially increase the width of the fracture, without increasing
the length. As previously discussed, for any given fracture, there is a fixed relationship between width and
length. If we can artificially overcome this, then we can dramatically increase the CfD . Figure 10.4a
illustrates this:-
Proppant Fracture Tip
∆P
Figure 10.4a – The Tip Screen Out
The TSO is a technique that is generally used in high permeability formations. The high formation
permeability means that it is very difficult to get a C fD greater than one. In order to generate the TSO,
proppant is pumped into the fracture earlier than would normally be the case. As the formation has high
permeability, the fracturing fluid is leaking off relatively quickly. This acts to dehydrate the proppant-laden
slurry. If the treatment is correctly designed, this dehydration will cause the proppant to collect at the
fracture tip. In order for the fracture to continue to propagate, a positive P net must be maintained at the
fracture tip. As the proppant builds up in the fracture tip, fluid has to flow through it to reach the tip and
maintain the Pnet . Whilst flowing through the proppant build-up, the fluid loses pressure due to friction as it
passes between the proppant grains. When the proppant build-up gets large enough, the ∆P of the fluid
equals and then exceeds Pnet and the fracture ceases to propagate.
At this point, fluid is still being pumped into the fracture and has to go somewhere. Some of this fluid is
leaking off, but not all of it – so the fracture volume still has to grow. This means that the fracture starts to
get wider. It also means a rise in net pressure as the formation gets increasingly compacted – this is how
the onset of a TSO is spotted during a treatment.
The TSO technique relies on two things; high permeability (and hence high fluid leakoff), and low Young’s
modulus. High leakoff is necessary so that the slurry will dehydrate sufficiently to allow proppant build-up
at the tip. Low Young’s modulus is necessary to allow the width to increase. If the formation is too hard
(i.e. Young’s modulus too high), the pressure will rise very rapidly and quickly exceed the maximum
treating pressure at surface.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 160
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 161
Fracturing Manual

Section:

As previously discussed, any perforation is potentially a source of fracture initiation. All it takes is for the
fluid pressure to exceed the fracture extension pressure at any given point and a fracture is formed. How
large that fracture is depends upon the volume of fluid the fracture receives. Usually, most of the small
fractures get “squeezed out” as larger fractures close by develop. However, if the fractures are far enough
apart (which is easy enough on deviated wellbores), more than one fracture will develop into a significant
size. This is often detrimental, as multiple fractures that cover the same vertical plane are largely wasted,
unless they are widely spaced out. In addition, as the rate (and hence frac fluid volume) is split between
two or more fractures, the treatment ends up producing a range of smaller, narrower (i.e. less conductive)
fractures, rather than a single large fracture. Finally, although each fracture receives only a fraction of the
total rate, the proppant concentration remains unchanged. As the fracture width is less, and the slurry
velocity down each individual fracture is decreased, there is a much greater chance of proppant bridging
and a premature screenout.
In short, multiple fractures can lead to less effective stimulation and an increased chance of job failure.
The majority of wells worldwide are completed with more than one set of perforations. Unless something
is done to isolate these perforations and control the point of fracture initiation, multiple fractures are likely.
However, there is one situation where this is deliberately used to produce stimulation of an entire interval
at one go. This is called Limited Entry fracturing.
Limited Entry Fracturing. Even whilst fracturing, fluids follow the path (or paths) of least resistance. The
resistance to the flow of the fluids comes from three sources:- perforation friction; tortuosity; and the
formation’s fracture extension pressure. All of these can vary with fluid rate. However, the fracture
extension pressure and tortuosity are not controllable, whereas the perforation friction is. Therefore, if the
fracture extension pressure of each formation is known, as well as the tortuosity (usually assumed to be
zero), the number and size of the perforations can be varied to balance the fluid flow, so that each set of
perforations receives the same proportion of fluids. This technique is called Limited Entry, as we are trying
to limit and control the amount of fluids entering each zone.
This technique can be taken one step further. By further varying the number of perforations, the proportion
of each fluid going into each zone can be adjusted to produce the optimum treatment for that zone – more
fluid enters zones needing most stimulation, for example.
Obviously, the calculations for working out the size and number of perforations can get pretty complex –
once there are more than two zones you need a computer model to keep things straight. In addition, the
results are only as good as the data input – if you are guessing at the frac gradient, then you are also
guessing at the number of perforations needed. Finally, this analysis also assumes perfect perforations –
something that cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, limited entry fracturing is unreliable unless exact data is
available.
In addition to being unreliable, limited entry fracture treatments tend to be very big. The treatment is trying
to place effective fractures in several zones simultaneously. This means lots of rate and large fluid
volumes, as well as lots of proppant, as this treatment is trying to do the work of several smaller
treatments in one go.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 162
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 163
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Proppant Convection. Proppant Convection is caused by variation in slurry density, and can lead to the
majority of the proppant being placed in the bottom of the fracture. Put basically, a 10 ppa slurry is much
denser than a – for instance – 5 ppa slurry. This means that if a 10 ppa slurry follows a 5 ppa slurry into
the formation, it will tend to slide beneath the lighter slurry, leading to the placement of the higher proppant
concentration at the bottom of the fracture, where it may not necessarily connect with the perforations.
This is illustrated in figure 10.6a.
Obviously, proppant convection is not really an issue on TSO designs, as the plan is to completely fill the
fracture from tip to wellbore. However, when fracturing lower permeability formations, proppant convection
can cause significant problems. The way to prevent this is to use long proppant stages mixed at the same
concentration. Once in the formation, slurries will dehydrate with time due to leakoff - increasing the ppa of
the slurry - so it may be necessary to gradually increase the proppant concentration at the blender as the
treatment progresses.
Figure 10.6a – Proppant convection. As the heavier slurry enters the fracture it sinks and displaces the
lighter slurry upwards
Proppant Settling. Proppant settling occurs when the frac fluid has insufficient viscosity to suspend the
proppant inside the fracture. Proppant moves downward, leading in the worst cases to a fracture that only
has proppant right at the bottom. This may be completely unconnected to the wellbore. Once again, this
phenomenon is not an issue when a TSO treatment is being performed. However, on lower permeability
formations, especially those with very long closure times, settling can be a significant issue.
The key to preventing proppant settling is to design the frac fluid correctly. In order to prevent settling, the
frac fluid must exhibit good proppant transport qualities at BHST for at least the anticipated job time, plus
the anticipated closure time, plus a safety factor. This can be tested by the use of the model 50 high
temperature rheometer. A widely accepted criterion for proppant transport is to have at least 200 cp
-1
apparent viscosity at a shear rate of 40 sec . Note that this criterion is not an API standard and is
somewhat subjective – different standards are used in different places.
Equation 10.2 gives an equation for calculating the terminal velocity (i.e. the maximum possible velocity)
for a spherical particle falling through a power law fluid (note that this assumes the fluid is almost at rest ):-
 1 n1
0.04212 d p
n ' +1
(SG p − SB f ) (10.2)
vt =  
 36  K'

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 164
where vt is the terminal velocity (ft/sec), d p is the proppant grain diameter (inches), SG p is the proppant
absolute specific gravity, SG f is the fluid specific gravity, n’ is the flow behaviour index (dimensionless) and
n’ -2
K’ is the consistency index (lbs.sec ft ).
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 165
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Proppant flowback is when the proppant that been placed in the fracture flows back into the well during
production. It has been the subject of intense industry debate and investigation over the last 10 years.
Some of the causes of proppant flowback are listed below:-
i) Stress Cycling. Every time the well is drawn down, the closure stress on the proppant increases,
as the reservoir pressure in the fracture is effectively reduced. When the well is shut in, the
pressure builds up again and the closure pressure is reduced. This is stress cycling, which was
first identified in 1994 by Shell and Stim-Lab as a major cause of proppant flowback. As the well
is opened and closed, the proppant pack expands and contracts slightly, weakening its integrity. If
the stress is cycled enough times – or too suddenly – the pack will literally break apart, allowing
proppant to flow back into the wellbore. Wells that have been fractured should be handled with
care – don’t shut them in unless there is no alternative, and if it has to be done, then it should be
done slowly.
ii) Weak Formations. Obviously, if the formation holding the proppant in place falls apart, then the
proppant will flow back. Formations that are susceptible to this need to be frac and packed, rather
than just fractured.
iii) Insufficient Fracture Conductivity. If the propped fracture has insufficient conductivity,
especially in the near wellbore area, then the higher velocity of the produced fluids, coupled with
the increased pressure gradient along the plane of the fracture, will result in an increased net
force acting to push individual proppant grains out if the fracture.
No Proppant
Void Space
Proppant
Figure 10.7a – Illustration of the “Pipelining” effect.
iv) Poor Quality Frac Fluid. If the frac fluid does not have sufficient viscosity to keep the proppant
suspended until the fracture closes, then the proppant will settle into the bottom part of the
fracture. In extreme cases, this can result in the bottom half of the fracture having all the
proppant, whilst the top half closes up on nothing. This creates a void space at the top of the
proppant pack, as illustrated in Figure 10.7a.
As the well is produced, fluid flows rapidly across the top of the proppant pack, through the void

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 166
space, as this is the path of least resistance. As it does so, it picks up proppant grains, and can
carry these out of the fracture and even up to the surface. This effect is known as “pipelining” and
can result in almost all of the proppant being produced back out of the fracture.
Preventing Proppant Flowback

Once proppant flowback has started, it is usually very difficult to stop. Therefore, the best option is to
prevent proppant flowback from happening in the first place. Obviously, a well designed treatment using a
good quality frac fluid, together with good well management, can go a long way to mitigating proppant
flowback. However, it is also true that for some formations, this is not sufficient. To combat this, there are
several different methods which can be employed:-
i) Resin Coated Proppant. By far the most common method for controlling proppant flowback,
resin coated proppant (RCP) is simply proppant which has been coated with a layer designed to
make the proppant grains stick together. Usually, it requires temperature and a closure stress for
this to happen. RCP tends to come in two main varieties, curable and pre-cured (or tempered).
Curable RCP has a softer coating, which is designed to chemically cure when exposed to
temperature. Pre-cured RCP has a harder resin coat, which relies more on the closure pressure
to make the proppant grains stick together. RCP has an additional effect, in that it makes the
proppant more tolerant to closure pressure, as the resin coat will capture permeability-reducing
fines produced as the fracture closes.
RCP is generally used as an alternative to ordinary proppant, either for the whole treatment, or for
the last few proppant stages. This latter method, whilst being cheaper, is less reliable as there is
no guarantee that the stage which is pumped last will be the stage that is positioned by the
wellbore (see earlier section on Proppant Convection).
RCP can be highly effective, but has three main disadvantages. First, it is expensive, often being
more than twice as expensive as the non-coated proppant. Second, it can have a significant effect
on the fracturing fluid, especially at high pH’s, as some of the resin is stripped off and dissolves in
the fluid. Finally, the standard bulk pneumatic systems generally used for handling large volumes
of proppant cannot be used for RCP, as it the resin coat can be chipped off.
ii) Micro-Fibres. Another method for preventing proppant flow back is to pump very small fibres with
the proppant. These fibres, if used in sufficient quantity, will form a three dimensional mesh within
the proppant pack, acting to prevent individual grains slipping past one another. The use of these
fibres can result in a slight decrease in proppant pack permeability, but this can be allowed for in
the frac design. The fibres are usually made from a polymer.
The main problems with this system (other than its cost) are operational. Because the fibres are
very small, they have a very high surface area to mass ratio. This in turn means that it can very
difficult to actually mix the fibres into a fluid, especially on the fly during a treatment. Because of
the large difference in specific gravity between the proppant and the fibres, it is also very difficult
to mix the proppant and fibres together before adding them to the gel.
The fibres also have a limited maximum temperature above which, they will disintegrate. This
significantly reduces the number of wells that are suitable for this type of treatment. Finally, if used
in the wrong proportions with the proppant (due either to poor design or ineffective mixing), the
fibre itself can be produced out of the formation, sometimes resulting in a “hair ball” somewhere in
the production facilities.
iii) Micro-Sheets. In order to get around the patent held by one service company for the micro-fibres,
a competitor introduced a product that uses small sheets or platelets of polymer, which act to
wrap around the proppant grains. This has several effects. First, and unfortunately foremost, is a
significant reduction in permeability of the proppant pack. Secondly, the sheets will form a three
dimensional mesh, acting in a similar fashion to the micro-fibres. The sheets also act a little like a

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 167
resin coat, in that they can cushion the proppant grains and tie up fines.
Unfortunately, the micro-sheets also suffer from many of the same operational and temperature
limitation problems experienced by the micro-fibres.
iv) Deformable Particles, such as BJ’s FlexSand , is another approach. These particles, mixed at
about 10 to 15% by weight with the proppant, will deform – to a limited extent – around the
proppant as the fracture closes. This acts to lock the proppant grains together and reduce the
tendency for them to slide past each other. The deformable particles also have the effect of
cushioning the proppant grains and increasing the grain to grain area of contact. This acts to
increase the proppant pack permeability, by reducing the production of fines.
The main disadvantage of the deformable particles is the extra equipment needed to handle it and
mix it at the correct proportions. However, this is no worse than for the micro-fibres and the
micro-sheets.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 168
Fracturing Manual

Section:
10.8 Forced Closure

Forced closure is a technique used to produce a very tight proppant pack in the near wellbore area. As
soon as the treatment is finished, the well is opened up and flowed back at 0.5 to 1.0 bpm. This is before
the fracture has closed and before the fluid has broken. Although the exact mechanism by which this
prevents proppant flowback is not clear, there is sufficient empirical evidence to make this a valid
technique, in a suitable formation. However, there are no methods for deciding which formations are
suitable, apart from actually trying the technique.
Modern treatment monitoring software and fracture simulators are set up to allow for forced closure. Many
of them even allow input from a flowmeter placed on the flowback line whilst monitoring the post-treatment
pressure decline.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 169
Fracturing Manual

Section:
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow

Darcy defined fluid flow through a porous media, in terms of the flow dimensions, the fluid viscosity, the
pressure differential and the permeability of the media, in an equation that is fundamental to the oil
industry:
kh∆P
q= (10.3)
µ ln (re rw )
However, this doesn’t tell the whole story. Whilst this equation can be very reliable for fluid flow through
relatively low permeability media (such as rocks), it does not take into account inertial flow effects. On the
microscopic scale, the fluid is constantly changing direction as it moves through the pore throats and pore
spaces. This represents a loss of kinetic energy, and so also an increased loss in pressure per unit
distance. This effect is quantified in the Forcheimer equation:
− dP µν (10.4)
= + βρν 2
L kp
(1) (2) (3)
The term –dP /L is the pressure drop per unit length along the propped fracture, µ is the viscosity, v is the
overall “bulk” velocity of the fluid, kp is the permeability of the proppant pack, β is a constant (the “beta”
factor, non-Darcy flow factor or turbulence factor), and ρ is the density of the fluid.
In equation 10.4, parts (1) and (2) are essentially the Darcy equation. Part (3) is the non-Darcy term, and
is basically kinetic energy per unit volume. Obviously, the effect of the non-Darcy term varies with the
square of the velocity, so at lower flow rates (such as for oil flowing through a permeable rock) this effect
is negligible. However, at high flow rates (such as for gas flowing through a highly permeable fracture) this
term becomes highly significant and can produce a pressure gradient many times greater than that
caused by Darcy flow.
Obviously, the magnitude of the non-Darcy effect is also highly dependent upon the beta factor. The
magnitude of beta is determined by a number of factors, but experimental determination of beta factors,
has revealed two relationships:
βα D (10.5)
where D is the average grain diameter, and:-
1
βα (10.6)
kp
It is also true that artificial proppants tend to have lower beta factors than naturally occurring sands, due to
their greater sphericity and roundness. In practice, beta factors have been determined for a wide range of
proppants and closure stresses, and can be easily obtained from the proppant manufacturers, such as in
Table 10.1:
Closure Stress, psi

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 170
2
β, atm sec /gram
12/18 16/20 20/40
2000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002
4000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003
6000 0.0007 0.0003 0.0004
8000 0.0018 0.0007 0.0007
10000 0.0023 0.0015
Table 10.1 – Beta factor data for CarboLite artificial ceramic proppant (Carbo Ceramics Inc )
As the expected production rate from the treatment increases, so does the pressure loss due to
non-Darcy effects, and this should always be taken into account when selecting proppant and predicting
production increase.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 171
Fracturing Manual

Section:
10.10 References
Wright, C.A., Weijers, L., and Minner, W.A.: Advanced Stimulation Technology Deployment Program ,
report GRI-09/0075, Gas Research Institute, March 1996
Cleary, M.P, et al .: ”Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic
Fractures with Adequate Proppant Concentration”, paper SPE 25892, presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver CO, April 1993.
Kogsball, H.H., Pits, M.J., and Owens, K.A.: “Effects of Tortuosity in Fracture Stimulation of Horizontal
Wells – A Case Study of the Dan Field”, paper SPE 26796, presented at the Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen, UK, Sept 1993.
Nolte, K.G.: “The Application of Fracture Design Based on Fracturing Pressure Analysis”, paper SPE
13393, SPEPE (Feb 1988) p31-42.
Nolte, K.G., and Smith, M.B.: “Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures”, paper SPE 8297, JPT (Sept 1981)
p1767-75.
Gidley , J.L., et al .: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing , Monograph Series Vol 12, SPE, Richardson,
Texas (1989).
Vreeburg, R-J., Davies, D.R., and Penny, G.S.: “Proppant Backproduction During Hydraulic Fracturing – A
New Failure Mechanism for Resin Coated Proppants”, paper SPE 27382, JPT , 1994.
Ely, J.W.: “Experience proves forced closure works”, World Oil , Jan 1996, p 37 – 41.
Rickards, A., et al .: “Need Stress Relief? A New Approach to Reducing Stress Cycling Induced Proppant
Pack Failure”, paper SPE 49247, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Sept 1998.
Forcheimer, P.: Wasserdewegung durch Boden. ZVDI (1901), Vol. 45, p. 1781. (in German)
Martins, J.P., Milton-Taylor, D, and Leung, H.K.: “Effect of non-Darcy Flow in Propped Hydraulic
Fractures”, paper SPE 20709
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., and Kullman, J.: “Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow in Propped Hydraulic
Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well Productivity”, paper SPE 54630, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct 1999.
Subtopics
10.1 Tortuosity
10.2 Nolte Analysis
10.4 Tip Screen Out
10.8 Forced Closure
10.9 Non-Darcy Flow

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 172
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 173
Fracturing Manual
Section:
The three main fracture simulation models used in the industry today are FracPro , FracproPT and MFrac .
Between them, they are used on well over 90% of all treatments currently performed. Other simulator’s,
such as StimPlan , GOHFER and the proprietary simulators produced by Schlumberger, Halliburton, Shell
and others, are available, but their use is limited mainly to Engineers who work for the actual company that
produced the simulator.
Most of the 3-D and lumped-parameter 3-D simulators described below are produced by companies
whose main tasks are producing software or providing a fracturing service. As such, there is a
considerable amount of detail concerning these simulators that is proprietary and not available in the
public domain. Therefore, detailed descriptions of the actual algorithms behind the model are not possible
and in any case beyond the scope of this manual. The reader is referred to the references for more
information. The term pseudo or lumped-parameter 3-D is applied to most of the simulators, as they relate
everything back to a single characteristic dimension (usually fracture half-length), which is found by a
variety of methods. Fully 3-D models have every dimension as independent variables.
As stated, most simulations are performed by one of three simulators (and it should be noted that FracPro
and FracproPT are essentially the same model). In the industry, there is a perception that the
FracPro-FracproPT model is more applicable to low permeability “hard” formations, whilst the MFrac
model is more applicable to high permeability “soft” formations. The reliability of this perception is a matter
of some debate, but it may be due to the respective origins of the two models. In any case, it should be
remembered that the producers of these simulators are all competitors. Most of the discussions about the
relative merits of each model are subjective and partisan.
For a discussion on the limitations of the 3-D fracture simulators, refer to the discussion on pressure
matching in Section 19.1.
Subtopics
11.1 RES’s FracPro and Pinnacle Technology’s FracproPT
11.2 Meyers & Associates’ MFrac
11.3 Other Simulators
11.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 174
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 175
Fracturing Manual

Section:
11.1 RES' FracPro and Pinnacle Technology's FracproPT

FracPro and FracproPT originally started out as one simulator, FracPro . The
model was originally developed using funding from the Gas Research
Institute, a joint US Government and gas industry funded organisation.
Eventually, a company called Resources Engineering Systems (RES)
produced a commercial simulator based on the work carried out by the GRI.
However, a couple of years ago, a group of people dissatisfied with the
company’s approach, split away from RES and moved over to Pinnacle
Technologies. For a variety of reasons, they were able to take the FracPro
technology with them and FracproPT was the result. At this point in time,
there is very little difference between how the two models work. The major differences between the two
models concentrate on the way they interface with the user, and with the on-screen graphics.
The FracPro approach has almost entirely done away with the traditional
concept of fracture toughness, which means that users of simulators based
on this model find that changes to input fracture toughness values have little
or no effect on fracture geometry. Instead the theory states that deep
underground, the effect of the confining stress is much more significant than
the effect of the fracture toughness. Thus K 1c can be ignored if the following
condition is satisfied;
σ p R >> K Ic (11.1)
where R is the radius of the fracture and is analogous to the characteristic fracture length used in classical
linear elastic fracture mechanics. The above equation shows us that fracture toughness is more significant
for small fractures in shallow formations, such as during skin bypass fracturing.
The fracturing fluid does not penetrate to the very end of the fracture. This means that there is a very rapid
change in net pressure at a distance ω from the tip of the fracture. If the condition described in the above
equation is satisfied, then ω can be found as follows;
2
R  Pnet 
ω =   (11.2)
2  Pnet + Pc 
Because the fluid does not penetrate into the tip of the fracture, energy is lost as the tip of the fracture
deforms. It is postulated that this deformation occurs in a non-linear or dilatent fashion (see Section 9.2).
This crack tip dilatency reduces the energy left for the fracturing fluid to propagate the fracture, and hence
reduces the size of the fracture, for a given P net. Once the energy absorbed by the fracture tip has been
found, the model then goes on to solve the fracture geometry using a series of equations which relate
mass conservation, energy conservation, fluid dynamics and heat transfer. The model is 3-dimensional,
allowing separate rock mechanical and reservoir properties to be input for each different rock strata.
This model was the first to incorporate various aspects that are now taken as standard, such as near
wellbore friction, proppant convection and multiple fractures. This model also incorporates a data
conversion and editing facility, an acid fracture simulator and a simple production simulator.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 176
Although all of the three main simulators can model the fractures real time, only FracPro and FracproPT
have the ability to predict forward to the end of a job, whilst in the middle of a treatment. This is a very
powerful tool, which allows the fracture characteristics can be predicted in the middle of a treatment. The
model takes the treatment data received up to that point, and then uses the remaining input treatment
schedule to predict the fracture at the end of the treatment. Thus the Frac Engineer can “see how things
are going” based on actual treatment data, and alter the treatment schedule as the job is being pumped.
So far no other commercially available simulator has mastered this.
Subtopics
11.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 177
Fracturing Manual

Section:
11.2 Meyers & Associates' MFrac

MFrac is produced and developed by Meyer and Associates. This methodology sticks much more closely
to the conventional Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
approach to fracture propagation, than the FracPro/FracproPT
approach. The model uses the basic LEFM criterion, which
states that in order for the fracture to propagate, the stress
intensity factor (K ) must be greater than K Ic (the critical stress
intensity factor, or fracture toughness). It uses a characteristic
length (referred to as H ξ ) and a geometry factor, γ, in the classic LEFM Equation:-
k Ic
σc = (11.3)
γH ξ
The actual value for γ depends upon the fracture model being used (PKN, KZD, Ellipsoidal or 3-D), as
does the dimension actually being used for the characteristic length. For the 3-D model, the characteristic
length is found from a set of partial differential equations, which relate mass conservation, mass
continuity, momentum conservation, and vertical and lateral propagation rates.
The authors of this fracture propagation model acknowledge that there is a “tip over-pressure” effect that
cannot be accounted for. This is handled by using an “over-pressure factor” - that has to be obtained
empirically - or by using huge values for fracture toughness.
Subtopics
11.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 178
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 179
Fracturing Manual

Section:
StimPlan
StimPlan is a pseudo 3-D numerical simulator produced by NSI Fracturing Technologies. The simulator
works by performing implicit finite difference solutions to basic equations of mass balance, elasticity,
height growth, and fluid flow. The simulator is based on LEFM. It is probably the most widely used of the
non-FracPro/FracproPT/MFrac simulators.
Recently, NSI have started introducing E-StimPlan , a fully 3-D fracture simulator. This simulator divides
the formation into a series of grids of variable size, allowing fully 3-D fracture growth and
irregularly-shaped fractures (as opposed to the elliptical fractures almost always predicted by the lumped–
parameter 3-D models). This model also allows 2 dimensional proppant transport. At the time of writing
this manual, this simulator is still too slow for practical use, but shows great promise.
GOHFER
GOHFER (Grid Orientated Hydraulic Fracture Extension Replicator) has taken a completely different
approach to modelling fracture growth. Of the four main models described, only GOHFER and
E-StimPlan said to be fully 3-D and only GOHFER has a significant history of use. The model takes a
finite element approach to fracture propagation, modelling the reservoir and the formations above and
below it as a series of elements, rather than as a continuum. The fracture propagates along a plane
between elements, so in order to produce fracture width, elements either side of the fracture have to be
compressed. At the fracture tip, there is a single element just ahead of the fracture, so that the tip is
positioned at some point on the side of the element. Fracture propagation occurs when the tensile stress
in the element exceeds the failure criterion for the material, and the element splits into two pieces, along
the plane of the fracture. The fracture has then propagated by a distance equal to the width of the
element.
The advantages of this approach are that it is very simple to give each element its own set of rock
mechanical and reservoir properties, making simulation of multiple formations very easy. The main
disadvantage is the use of a tensile failure criterion, which tends to make hard rocks harder to fracture
than soft rocks, which tends to be the opposite way around to conventional theories. Additionally, because
each element in the model can be assigned individual rock mechanical and leakoff properties, it is very
easy to "dial-a-frac", that is, produce a fracture geometry that has more in common with uses wishes than
with reality.
Subtopics
11.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 180
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 181
Fracturing Manual

Section:
11.4 References
Crockett, A.R., Okusu, N.M., and Cleary, M.P.: “A Complete Integrated Model for Design and Real-Time
Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Options”, paper SPE 15069, presented at the 56th California Regional
Meeting of the SPE, Oakland CA, April 1986.
Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: “Experimental and Modeling Evidence for Major Changes in
Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field Procedures”, paper SPE 21494, presented at the SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Houston TX, Jan 1991.
Johnson, E., and Cleary, M.P.: “Implications of Recent Laboratory Experimental Results for Hydraulic
Fracturing”, paper SPE 21846, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver CO, April 1991.
Wright, T.B., Aud, W.W., Cipolla, C., Perry, K.F., and Cleary, M.P.: “Identification and Comparison of True
Net Fracturing Pressures Generated by Pumping Fluids with Different Rheology into the Same
Formations”, paper SPE 26153, presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 1993.
FracPro Version 8.0 onwards On-Line Help, RES/Gas Research Institute, March 1998 onwards.
FracproPT Version 9.0 onwards On-Line Help, Pinnacle Technologies/Gas Research Institute, July 1999
onwards.
Meyer, B.R.: “Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures: Model Comparison and
Parametric Studies”, paper SPE 15240, presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Technology
Symposium, Louisville KY, May 1986.
Meyer, B.R.: “Three Dimensional Hydraulic Fracturing Simulation on Personal Computers: Theory and
Comparison Studies”, SPE 19329, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown WV, Oct
1989.
Meyer, B.R., Cooper, G.D., and Nelson, S.G.: “Real-Time 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing Simulation: Theory and
Field Case Histories”, paper SPE 20658, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans LA, Sept 1990.
Hagel, M.W., and Meyer, B.R.: “Utilizing Mini-Frac Data to Improve Design and Production”, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology , March 1994, pp. 26 – 35.
MFrac III Version 3.5 (onwards) On-Line Help, Meyer and Associates Inc, December 1999 onwards.
NSI Fracturing Technologies Web Site, www.nsitech.com
Barree, R.D.: “A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three-Dimensional Fracture Propagation in

Heterogeneous Media”, paper SPE 12273, presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San
Francisco CA, Nov 1983.
StimLab division of CoreLab, Web Site, www.corelab.com/StimLab/Depts/GOHFER_ prodinfo.asp, 2002

onwards.
Subtopics

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 182
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 183
Fracturing Manual
Section:
Being able to accurately predict a production increase from a formation is an important part of the process
of designing a frac treatment. All treatments have to be economically justifiable, before approval by the
operating company. In order to be able to produce an economic justification, the Engineer must have a
reasonable idea of what the post fracture production increase will be. Moreover, this prediction must be
reliable, as the Engineer will have a hard time justifying subsequent treatments, if previous justifications
have proved to be inaccurate.
In order to be able to produce an accurate prediction of the increase in production, the Engineer needs
accurate pre-treatment production data. Items like permeability, skin factor, BHP and downhole producing
rate are all critical. If accurate values for items such as these cannot be obtained, then the subsequent
predicted production increase will also be inaccurate.
Nevertheless, because of the uncertainties associated with most of the data used in the analyses below,
any estimate of post fracture production remains just that – an estimate. The Frac Engineer must make
this clear to any customer. As a result, it is often more reliable to base post-treatment production estimate
on the results of offset wells, if any are available.
Subtopics
12.1 Steady State Production Increase
12.2 Pseudo-Steady State Production Increase
12.3 Nodal Analysis
12.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 184
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Steady state production is when all reservoir parameters remain unchanged during the production
process. Items such as radial extent and reservoir pressure are fixed. Most of the time this does not exist,
and the reservoir is at least in a pseudo- steady state (see below). Consequently, production increases
based on steady state are an approximation only.
However, they are often useful as a “first look”, “back-of-the-envelope” calculation, to quickly see if a
fracture is viable or not.
Darcy’s equation (which is for steady state flow only) can be expressed as follows for a skin damaged
reservoir:
0.00708 kh∆P
q= (12.1)
[ (
µ In re / rw e − s )]
where q is the downhole producing rate in bpd, k is the effective reservoir permeability in md, h is the net
height of the formation in ft, ∆P is the pressure differential between the edge of the reservoir and the
wellbore (the drawdown ) in psi, µ is the downhole viscosity of the reservoir fluid in cp, r e is the radial extent
of the reservoir, rw is the wellbore radius and S is the skin factor (dimensionless). Note that re and rw should
always have the same units, usually either feet or inches.
To provide a fair comparison between production at different times, which may be at varying drawdown,
the productivity index, J , is usually used instead of the production rate. The units of productivity index (or
PI) are usually bbls/day/psi, or bpd/psi.
0.00708 k h
J= (12.2)
[ (
µ In re / rw e − s )]
To avoid confusion, the symbol J will be used to signify the PI from a real, damaged reservoir. Jo is used to
represent the PI from an undamaged reservoir and Jf for the fractured reservoir.
In Darcy’s equation, the term kh is often referred to as the permeability-thickness, or conductivity. This
equates to the fracture conductivity, F c, of the propped fracture. By replacing the term kh with F c we can
obtain an expression for the PI of the fractured reservoir:
0.00708 Fc
Jf = (12.3)
µ In[(re rw )]
Equation 12.3 should be used with some caution. As explained earlier, this is a steady state approximation
to a situation that in reality is far from steady state. The equation no longer uses the skin factor term, as it
is assumed that the fracture has completely bypassed the skin, rendering it irrelevant. This equation also
assumes that all production into the wellbore comes via the fracture. This is a valid assumption for
fractures with a very high CfD , but becomes less and less accurate as the contrast between the fracture
and reservoir conductivity becomes lower. Indeed, if the fracture conductivity is too low, this method may
actually predict a production decrease – something that is theoretically impossible, unless the fluid or

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 185
proppant somehow damages the formation. This equation also assumes that the formation has no
difficulty delivering reservoir fluids to the fracture – the equation is independent of fracture length.
Nevertheless, Equation 12.3, still provides a “first guess” to see how viable a fracture treatment is.
However, it is less accurate for low permeability reservoirs and for fractures which relatively low fracture
conductivity.
The “folds of Increase” (Jf /J ) can be calculated, by dividing equation 12.3 by equation 12.2, which gives the
following:
Jf
  =   
[ ]
  Fc   In re / (rw e − s ) 
 (12.4)

 J   kh   In(re rw ) 
Another way of getting a “quick look” at potential post-treatment production is simply to use a skin factor of
-5 in equation 12.1.
Subtopics
12.3 Nodal Analysis
12.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 186
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Pseudo-steady state flow is when the reservoir has been producing for a sufficient period of time, so that
the effects of reservoir boundary can be felt. In practical terms, this means that the reservoir has an outer
boundary.
Pr
Radius of Disturbed
Increasing
Formation
Time
Pressure
Pwb
0
rw Distance from Well re
Figure 12.2a – Transient production. The red lines illustrate the variation of pressure with distance from the
wellbore, as time increases. The radius of the disturbed formation is continually increasing
As the well is produced, the radius from the wellbore at which the reservoir has been disturbed by
production increases at a rate proportional to the square root of the producing time. During this period,
flow into the wellbore can be described as transient , as the effective radial extent of the reservoir is
continually increasing. However, at some point the area of formation disturbed by the production from the
well will hit an outer boundary. At this point, the radial extent of the reservoir ceases to expand, and the
reservoir pressure starts to fall. At this point, the reservoir switches from transient to pseudo-steady state .
The difference between transient and pseudo-steady state is illustrated in figures 12.2a and b.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 187
Pr
Increasing
Pressure
Time
Pwb
0
rw Distance from Well re
Figure 12.2b – Pseudo-steady state production. The radius of the disturbed formation has reached the
reservoir boundary r e , and now the reservoir pressure is decreasing
Most reservoirs will spend the majority of their producing lives in pseudo-steady state production.
McGuire and Sikora

The best known method for predicting production increase during pseudo-steady state production was
developed in 1960 by McGuire and Sikora. This work was based on earlier work carried out on electrical
circuits by Dyes, Kemp and Caudle. Basically, they used a series of resistors and capacitors to represent
the reservoir – resistors to represent permeability (the lower the resistance the higher the permeability),
capacitors to represent the porosity or storage capacity of the reservoir, voltage to represent pressure and
current to represent flow rate.
These experimentally-derived curves, shown in figure 12.2c, define for a given dimensionless fracture
length (L /r e) and a given fracture relative conductivity (see below – note that this definition is different from
that used throughout the rest of this manual), the dimensionless production increase that can be
expected. McGuire and Sikora used L for fracture half length, instead of the usual x f.
Note that the following use a different system of nomenclature than the rest of this manual:
Wk f 40
relative conducitvity = (12.5)
k A
where W is the average propped fracture width in inches, k f is the permeability of the proppant in md, k is
the formation permeability in md, and A is the well spacing in acres.
L
Dimensionless fracture half length = (12.6)
re

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 188
14
L/re = 1.0
.9
12 .8
k = AVERAGE FORMATION PERMEABILITY, md.
(BASED ON GROSS THICKNESS) .7
L = FRACTURE LENGTH FROM WELL BORE, Ft.
re= DRAINAGE RADIUS, FEET .6
10 A = WELL SPACING, ACRES
ln 0.472 r e
w
Wkf = CRACK CONDUCTIVITY, md-in.

r
.5
W = PROPPED WIDTH OF FRACTURE, in.
7.13
kf = PERMEABILITY OF PROPPING
MATERIAL, md.
8 rw = WELL BORE RADIUS, FEET .4
J = PRODUCTIVITY INDEX AFTER
FRACTURING
Jo= PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
BEFORE FRACTURING .3
J/Jo
.2
4
.1
0
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Wkf 40
RELATIVE CONDUCTIVITY, A
k
Figure 12.2c – The McGuire-Sikora Curves
Where L is the fracture half length (x f normally) in feet and r e

is the reservoir drainage radius or radial
extent, also in feet.
 J  7.13 
Dimensionless fracture half length =     (12.7)
 J o   In 0.472 (re rw ) 
Where J is the pre-frac productivity index, Jo is the post-frac productivity index (Jf normally) and rw is the
wellbore radius.
McGuire and Sikora is an approximation based on the limits of the experimentation they conducted. The
main assumption is that the fracture is significantly more conductive than the formation, so that the main
rate limiting variable is the fracture half length. Vertical fluid flow is assumed to be negligible, fluids are
assumed to be incompressible and in single-phase flow and skin factor is assumed to be zero. However, it
is often relatively easy to find the production increase if the skin was reduced to zero. The McGuire-Sikora
production increase can simply be added to this.
Skin Bypass Fracs

Rae et al presented a simple method for predicting the production increase from a skin bypass frac. It
combines elements of the McGuire-Sikora and Prats methods and allows for the existence of a skin
factor:
Jf
=
[ ]
In re / (rw . e − s )
(12.8)
J [
In 4 / (re / C fD .x fD ) ]
This method is valid for fracture with a C fD
greater than 1 – i.e. more conductive than the formation.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 189
Subtopics
12.3 Nodal Analysis
12.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 190
Fracturing Manual

Section:
12.3 Nodal Analysis

The most modern method for predicting production increase is the Nodal Analysis programme. These
simulators work by analysing the flow from the reservoir at a node , which can be down hole at the “sand
face”, at the wellhead or at some distance from the wellhead in a separator. By defining the flowing
conditions at this node, the software can then calculate back to the flow rate from the reservoir.
Nodal analysis can be used to produce inflow performance relationship (IPR) curves, which relate the
ability of the reservoir to deliver fluids, with the ability of the completion to carry fluids out of the reservoir.
These curves are particularly useful for oil wells with a GOR (i.e. real wells and not “black oil”
approximations), gas wells and wells producing at significant water cuts, where the ability of the
completion to carry the fluids is not always easy or straightforward to calculate. Figure 12.3a shows an
example for a gas well with a fracture of varying average propped fracture width.
3000
2500
2000
FBHP, psi
1500
1000 Tubing
500
Average Propped
Fracture Width, inches
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Gas Rate, mscfpd
Figure 12.3a – Nodal analysis IPR curves for a gas well with a fracture of varying propped fracture width.
With reference to the example in figure 12.3a, note the following points:-
The blue curves represent five different production scenarios. In this case, each curve represents
varying propped fracture width. However, they could just as easily be varying skin factor, permeability
or water cut. This ability to test the sensitivity of the system to varying producing scenarios makes
nodal analysis very powerful.
The blue curves are the inflow curves. For these, the node is fixed at bottom hole (or the “sand face”).
Each of these curves represents the inflow into the well from the formation for hydrocarbons at various
FBHP’s (flowing bottom hole pressures). The drawdown is the difference between the reservoir
pressure and the FBHP, so the smaller the FHBP, the greater the drawdown.
The red curve is the outflow or tubing curve. This represents the ability of the completion to carry the

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 191
hydrocarbons out from the well. In this case, the node is fixed at the wellhead. A set of wellhead
conditions are specified, and then the software calculates (for a fixed FWHP – flowing wellhead
pressure – and surface temperature) what the bottom hole pressure must be for a variety of different
flow rates.
The point at which the red curve and the blue curve cross represents the point at which the two sets of
conditions coincide. Therefore, this is the rate and FBHP at which the well will produce. For instance,
in figure 12.3a, for a frac width of 0.2 inches, the well will flow at 4250 mscfpd at a FBHP of +/- 1450
psi.
Most nodal analysis programmes allow the user to produce the well through a propped hydraulic fracture
of varying geometry. This is very useful to the Frac Engineer, who may well end up spending more time
with the nodal analysis than with the fracture simulator.
When using nodal analysis to predict production increase, the following steps should be followed:
1. Get production data from the well. If the well is new, get production data from an offset. If no offsets
are available, use the well test data.
2. History match the production data with the nodal analysis (and without a fracture being present). Vary
items such as skin factor, permeability and reservoir pressure to make the nodal analysis production
match the historical production data. The nodal analysis production simulator is now tuned to the real
data.
3. Introduce a fracture. Vary characteristics such as fracture length and fracture conductivity (or average
propped width) to produce the biggest possible increase in production.
4. Be aware of what is achievable and what is efficient. For instance, the nodal analysis may indicate that
doubling the fracture length gives an extra 50% production. What it does not tell you is that doubling
the fracture length means at least 4 times as much proppant, 8 times as much fluid and a
corresponding increase in equipment. Such an increase in job size may not be practical and could well
be uneconomic.
5. Once the optimum fracture geometry has been obtained, go to the fracture simulator and design a
treatment to make a fracture of these dimensions. Often, it is at this point that the Engineer finds out
what is realistically achievable and so the final design may be the product of several alternating runs
on both the nodal analysis and the fracture simulator.
Subtopics
12.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 192
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 193
Fracturing Manual

Section:
12.4 References
Prats, M.: “Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behaviour – Incompressible Fluid Case” Trans AIME
(1961), 222 105-118
Dyes, A.B., Kemp, C.E. and Caudle, B.H.: “Effect of Fractures on Sweep-Out Pattern”, Trans AIME
(1958), 213, 245
McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: “The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity”, Trans AIME
(1960), 219, 401-403
Texas (1989).
Rae, P., Martin, A.N., and Sinanan, B.: “Skin Bypass Fracs: Proof that Size is Not Important”, paper SPE
54673, presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct 3–6
1999.
Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G.: Petroleum Engineering Principals and Practices , Graham & Trotman,
London, 1986.
Perform (Well PERFORMance Analysis TM) Nodal Analysis Software, version 3.00 and higher, PSG/IHS
Energy Group, Richardson, Texas, USA, 1999 onwards.
Subtopics
12.3 Nodal Analysis
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 194
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 195
Fracturing Manual
Section:
Virtually any zone in any well is a potential candidate for hydraulic fracturing. Given a free hand, it is
possible to produce an increase in productivity index in almost any formation using hydraulic fracturing.
However, often the Frac Engineer is limited by considerations such as water-oil contacts, gas-oil contacts,
poor cement bonding, completion restrictions and placement of perforations. Moreover, the formation
must also have the reserves and production potential to economically justify the large expense often
associated with fracturing.
This section of the manual is designed as a guide to the science and art of frac candidate selection.
Guidelines will be given, as to when an interval is a good candidate for fracturing and when it is not.
However, there are often considerable “grey areas” between good candidates and poor candidates. In
these cases, there is no substitute for experience.
It should never be forgotten that the best wells are also the best candidates for fracturing. Fracturing
cannot add reserves (although economically recoverable reserves and drainage efficiency can be
improved) nor can it increase reservoir pressure – if there is nothing there to start with, there will be
nothing there afterwards. A 50% increase in production from a good well is often more valuable than a
500% increase from a poor well.
Subtopics
13.1 Economic Justification for Fracturing
13.2 Completion Limitations
13.3 Things to Look For
13.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 196
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Fracturing – as with any other operation performed on an oil or gas well – has to be economically justified.
That is to say, the increased revenue generated by the treatment must satisfy economic criteria set by the
operating company. This is vitally important – it is not enough for the Frac Engineer to simply produce a
production increase. Instead, the Frac Engineer must usually either produce at least a minimum
production increase or increase economically recoverable reserves, in order to meet the economic criteria.
Part of the skill in designing a fracture treatment is deciding whether or not these economic justifications
can be met. An inability to meet these criteria is adequate grounds for rejecting a well as a candidate for
fracturing. However, given that a treatment such as a skin bypass fracture can cost less than $20,000 to
carry out, usually any reasonable criteria can be satisfied, unless the well has very low productivity indeed.
Economic criteria can often be simple. For instance, many companies insist that the cost of the treatment
be paid back within a period of three months. In such a case, the Frac Engineer has to estimate the
increase in production and from that the total extra production over the first three months. Once the extra
production has been calculated, the total extra revenue can easily be calculated by multiplying by the oil or
gas price, as appropriate. If the total extra revenue is greater than the cost of the treatment, then the
treatment is economically justified.
All parties involved in the fracturing operation must be willing to accept a certain element of risk.
Fracturing is not an exact science. Although many of the theories associated with fracturing are very
rigorous and thoroughly proven, the fact remains that they are only as good as the available data. Often
this data is of poor quality or is absent entirely. Even when considerable time, effort and expenditure have
been taken to obtain data, it is usually only valid for a few inches around the wellbore. In order to complete
a frac design, the Engineer has to assume this data is valid for sometimes hundreds of feet from the
wellbore, encompassing a huge volume of rock. In addition to this lack of adequate data, the Frac
Engineer also has to cope with the fact that no one really understands how the fracture propagates
through the formation. This is illustrated by the fact that there are several different fracture simulators on
the market, all using different methods to model the fracture.
This uncertainty regarding how the fracture will propagate is in addition to the standard risks associated
with any operation on an oil or gas well.
Internal Rate of Return

Many operating companies use a criterion known as the Internal Rate of Return . This is a percentage
value, and any potential project requiring an AFE (Authorisation For Expenditure), must make a return on
investment greater than this value. The theory is that the company would be better off spending the money
elsewhere if a project cannot meet this criterion. For instance, if a Company Man wishes to spend
$1,000,000 on a project, and his company has an internal rate of return criterion of 18% over one year,
then the expenditure of $1,000,000 must generate additional production worth at least $1,180,000 in the
first year after the treatment.
The internal rate of return is also referred to as the discount factor, or DCF.
Net Present Value

Net Present Value (or NPV) is a useful tool that can be used in two ways. First, the operating company
can set an NPV criterion that has to be met. Secondly, it can be used to compare different fracture

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 197
designs, and decide which one is the most cost effective. For instance, a Frac Engineer may be
confronted with the following question – is it worth pumping twice the quantity of proppant for only a 10%
gain in production? This question can be answered by using NPV analysis.
NPV is calculated using the following method:
Net Revenue = Production Increase x Price (13.1)
where the Production Increase is the total extra production due to the fracture treatment.
n  
Net R evenue for year X
Discounted R evenue = ∑  
 (13.2)
x =1  (1 + i ) x 
where n is the payback period, usually measured in years, and i is the internal rate of return, expressed as
a fraction.
NPV = Discounted Revenue - Total Treatment Costs (13.3)
Remember that the Total Treatment Costs are the total cost that the customer has to pay, which includes
the cost of the frac job (i.e. BJ’s ticket), plus items such as rig time, workover costs, wireline work, well
testing, coil tubing etc.
Example – NPV Calculation
Calculate the NPV, given the following data:-
Oil price $20 per bbl

Payback period 3 years
Internal rate of return 15%
Total treatment costs $1,250,000
Production gain, yr 1 400,000 bbls
Therefore
Net Revenue, yr 1 = 400,000 bbls x $20 per bbl

= $8,000,000
= $4,000,000
$2,000,000
And so
1
Discounted Revenue, yr 1 = [$8000000 / (1 + 0.15) ]
= $6,956,522
2
= $3,024,575
3
$1,315,032
Therefore
Total Discounted Revenue = $6,956,522 + $3,024,575 + $1,315,032

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 198
= $11,296,129
And finally
NPV = $11,296,129 - $1,250,000

$10,046,129
Now, let’s return to the Engineer’s original question - is it worth pumping twice the quantity of proppant for
only a 10% gain in production?
Let’s say that the cost of the actual fracturing was $500,000, and of that, the cost of the proppant was
$200,000 and the cost of the fluid was $50,000. If we double the amount of proppant, we will probably
need to at least double the amount of fluid. So the cost of the frac job goes up by $250,000. The final cost
of the frac is now $750,000 and the overall cost of the treatment is now $1,500,000.
A 10% increase in production gives us the following:-
Production gain, year 1 = 440,000 bbls

So that
Discounted Revenue, yr 1 = $7,652,174
and
Total Discounted Revenue = $12,425,742
which gives
NPV = $12,425,742 - $1,500,000
= $10,925,742
So the answer to the Engineer’s question is yes – in this case, using a payback period of 3 years and an
internal rate of return of 15%, it is worth doubling the volume of proppant.
Of course, two other things that the Frac Engineer must consider are;
1. Can the customer afford the increase in the initial treatment cost? Small operators cannot always
generate enough cash flow to do this.
2. Is it physically possible to place twice as much proppant in the fracture? Is this to be accomplished by
increasing the fracture length, width or by some combination of the two?
In more remote locations the Frac Engineer must also make sure that the equipment needed to store and
blend the extra fluids and proppant is available.
Subtopics
13.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 199
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 200
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Tubing Cooldown
As relatively cold fracturing fluid is pumped down a completion, the tubing will start to cool down. As it
cools down, it will shrink and decrease in length. On some wells, this can result in shrinkage of several
feet
Usually, wells are completed using packers with polished seal bores, and tubing with seal assemblies.
When the completion is run, the packer is set at the required depth. Then the tubing is run, complete with
a seal assembly on the bottom.
The seal assembly is a length of pipe with a number of rubber seals on the outside. The idea is that these
seals slide into the polished bore of the production packer, providing the required isolation. The seal
assembly is usually several feet in length, so that it can slide up and down inside the polished bore,
allowing the tubing to expand or contract whilst still retaining completion integrity.
However, if the tubing is cooled down too much, the seal assembly can sting right out of the polished bore,
and the completion will loose its integrity. This is highly undesirable. Additionally, as the tubing re-heats
after the treatment, it probably will not sting back into the polished bore, and thus will produce additional
stress on the packer, wellhead and other completion components.
In order to prevent this from happening, special software programmes are used to simulate the effects of
tubing shrinkage, to predict if the tubing will shrink too much. BJ’s programme for predicting this is DTools .
There are two obvious answers to a tubing cooldown problem:-
1. Reduce the size of the treatment, so that the tubing does not get cooled down as much, or pump
the treatment at a lower rate, so that the fluid heats up more as it travels down the well.
2. Heat up the treating fluid before it goes down the well. This can be done in two ways. The first way
is to pump the fluid through a heat exchanger, which contains a hot fluid, such as steam or
burning oil. Such heat exchangers are often called “hot oilers”. The advantage of this system is
that it can be used on the fly. The second way is to circulate the fluid through a choke, using the
high-pressure frac pumps. A frac tank of fluid circulated through a choke can be quickly heated up
– if the choke is set small enough so that the pumps can develop significant horsepower. 4000
HHP produces the approximately the same amount of energy as a 3MW power plant. The
disadvantages of this method is that heating multiple frac tanks can be very time consuming, and
individual tanks will cool down as other are heated up. Therefore, hot oilers tend to be used for
large treatments, whilst pumping through a choke is used for smaller treatments.
Tubing Expansion
Another effect of fracturing on tubing is to cause its expansion, due to an elevated internal –or burst –
pressure. This increase in diameter is usually not too much of a problem. However, as the tubing expands
radially and circumferentially, it also contracts axially, reducing the length of the tubing string.
Obviously, the effect of tubing expansion and the effect of tubing cooldown will combine to produce an
even worse effect. Once again, software must be used to model these effects.
There are two ways to help mitigate the effects of tubing expansion:-

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 201
1. Put pressure on the outside of the tubing, as it is an increase in the differential pressure across
the tubing wall that causes the expansion. However, this is not always possible – especially on a
completion with multiple packers. If it is possible, the maximum allowable pressure may be
insufficient.
2. Reduce the pumping rate. Obviously, the BHTP is pretty much fixed. However, by reducing the
rate, and hence the friction pressure, the internal pressure that most of the tubing experiences
can be reduced.
Maximum Wellhead Pressure

Often, a treatment will be constrained by a low maximum wellhead pressure. It is very rare that a
treatment is completely prevented by this, but a low wellhead rating can sometimes severely limit what can
be achieved by the treatment.
One solution to this problem is to use wellhead isolation tool or WIT (commonly referred to as a “Tree
Saver”). This tool, which is described in detail in Section 20, actually bypasses the wellhead, by allowing
the frac fluid to be pumped directly into the tubing, rather than through the wellhead and into the tubing.
Another potential solution to this problem is to reduce the friction pressure. This can be done by either
reducing the pumping rate or by altering the friction properties of the fluid (which can be done by either
reducing the polymer loading or by delaying the crosslink). Both of these parameters are usually flexible to
a certain extent. However, some wells have a frac gradient so high that even with zero friction pressure,
the maximum wellhead pressure is exceeded.
A third method for reducing the wellhead pressure is to pump a high density frac fluid. This has the effect
of increasing the hydrostatic head, which in turn lowers the wellhead pressure. These fluids are usually
mixed using high density brine. Potassium chloride brines can be used up to about 9.6 ppg, sodium
chloride to about 10 ppg and calcium chloride to 11.0 ppg. Above that, things start to get expensive and
considerably less environmentally friendly. Examples of materials used to weight brine above 11.0 ppg
include caesium formate and zinc bromide. It should also be remembered that heavy-weight brines are
harder to recover from the well after the treatment.
Completion Jewelry
Completion jewelry is a general term, used describe all the various special tools that were added to the
completion as it was run. Examples include:-
• Sub surface safety valves (SSSV)

• Sliding side doors (SSD)
• Gas lift mandrels
• Blanks, used to close off gas lift mandrels
• Gauges and gauge carriers
• Non-return valves
All of these items will have a pressure rating. Ideally, this should be in excess of the overall pressure rating
for the completion. However, this is not always the case, and such items should be checked.
SSSV’s will form a restriction in the completion and may be abraded by the proppant. These always need
to be locked open during a treatment, as the potential damage caused by an accidental closing is not
worth the risk. Sometimes this can be performed from the surface, using the hydraulic control lines. In
other instances, this has to be performed by installing an isolation sleeve by wireline.
SSD’s can be both beneficial and detrimental to a fracture treatment. They can be beneficial, as they often
allow the fracture treatment to be precisely injected into a specific zone. They can be detrimental, as they

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 202
can get stuck both open and closed, and even when fully functional, usually require wireline intervention in
order to manipulate them.
Non-return valves should be avoided. Obviously, treatments cannot be pumped through a non-return
valve. Treatments can be placed above a non-return valve, provided the non-return valve is isolated from
the treatment by a bridge plug or similar tool.
Justifying a Workover
Often, the only feasible way to fracture a formation is to carry out a workover. This allows the treatment to
be pumped through a dedicated workstring, usually with some kind of packer. Consequently, the Frac
Engineer has maximum control over the process – the treatment is placed in the right interval and the
treatment can be pumped at relatively high rates and pressures.
There are two ways to justify a workover; economically and technically. Generally, the first kind carries all
the influence – there are very few companies that will approve a workover purely on technical grounds
alone, unless there is some kind of research project going on.
Workover operations can vary from the very cheap (such as a shallow land well) to the very expensive
(offshore, deep water). Consequently, the grounds for justifying such a workover can also vary. In general,
the best way to justify the cost of the workover is to first obtain an estimate for cost of the workover. Then,
work out two different production increases. The first production increase assumes that a workover is
performed and the Frac Engineer can place the optimum treatment. The second production increase uses
the best stimulation method available, assuming no workover (this may not even be a frac – it could be an
acid treatment). Then calculate rate of return and net present value for both of these methods. If the frac +
workover generates a better return on investment, then it is economically justified.
Another way to get a workover performed is to frac a well that is already in need of a workover. Then the
costs of the workover can be split between the frac and the existing completion programme. Alternatively,
a well can be selected for treatment that is in need of a workover which cannot be economically justified.
The combined effects of the frac and the existing need may be enough to justify the additional expense.
Subtopics
13.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 203
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 204
Fracturing Manual

Section:
13.3 Things to Look for

Listed below are a number of items that may make an interval a good, or bad, candidate for hydraulic
fracturing.
1. Skin Factor. All wells have skin damage, to a greater or lesser extent, unless they have been
stimulated in some fashion. This means that all unstimulated wells are producing significantly
below their full potential. As a general principle, the higher the permeability, the higher the skin
factor – so that the most productive wells are also the ones which produce least efficiently. All this
means that in practice, all wells are potential candidates for fracturing.
Figure 13.3a shows the effect skin factor, S , has on the production of a well. The horizontal axis
shows the well’s original Skin Factor. The vertical axis shows the effect this has on productivity,
relative to the undamaged production (S = 0), so that production from the undamaged well equals
100%. Note that this graph does not include the stimulation effects of the frac – it merely
illustrates how much production is lost due to skin factors. A hydraulic fracture will punch a highly
conductive path through the skin damage, producing a production increase by two methods;
through bypassing the skin damage and through stimulation of the undamaged reservoir.
Therefore, an interval with a high skin factor is usually a good candidate for fracturing.
100
Production Relative to S = 0, %
80
60
re = 2000 ft
rw = 4.25 inches
40
20
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Skin Factor, S
Figure 13.3a – The effect of skin factor upon production rate. Note that this figure is based purely on skin
factor effects. No fracture stimulation is included.
2. Low Permeability Wells. So-called “tight” formations are where fracturing first became widely
accepted by the industry. These formations cannot produce enough hydrocarbons purely because
the rock matrix itself is not conductive enough. Any production loss due to the (usually) low skin

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 205
factor is generally not significant. Therefore, in order to unlock the potential of the reservoir, a
fairly large hydraulic fracture treatment is required.
3. Weak or Unconsolidated Formations. Hydraulic fracturing is a very effective method for

completing a weak or unconsolidated formation. Fracturing can help reduce or eliminate sand
production by a number of methods:-
• By reducing the drawdown on the formation

• By re-stressing the formation
• By acting as a filter, provided the proppant is sized correctly.
A hydraulic fracture can also be used as part of a gravel pack completion, providing a so-called
frac and pack treatment. This is probably the most effective way of developing an unconsolidated
formation.
4. Water and/or Gas Contacts. In general, these are to be avoided. The presence of a water or gas
contact close to the perforations can often prevent fracturing. If a propped fracture were to
propagate into a water or gas zone, then the well will quickly stop producing oil, and start
producing water or gas. Once a propped fracture has connected with a water or gas zone, it is
very difficult to halt the water or gas production.
5. Poor Cement Bond. If the bond between the casing and cement, or cement and formation, is
poor or non-existent, then fracturing should be avoided. In these situations, it is possible to make
the poor bond even worse and to connect with separate formations above and below the zone of
interest. However, in the case of a “micro-annulus”, the pressures induced by the fracturing,
coupled with the filter-cake building properties of the fluid, will usually permit successful fracturing
operations.
6. Corroded Casing or Tubulars. Badly corroded casing or tubulars will probably not stand up to
the differential pressures produced by fracturing. Therefore these wells should be avoided.
7. Perforation Strategy. The position of the perforations can often prove to be the difference
between a successful and an unsuccessful frac. Section 14 discusses this in more detail.
8. Logistics. This is a measure of how easy it is to get materials and equipment to location. For
instance, there is a big difference between a land location a few miles down the road from the
base, and an offshore location on a satellite platform with a 5 tonne crane limitation. These two
locations may have wells and formation that require similar treatments. However, it is very unlikely
that the offshore would be treated in the same manner to the land well, unless a stimulation vessel
was available. More often than not, it is the logistics of the operations – rather than any formation
parameters – that has the biggest influence on the treatment.
Subtopics
13.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 206
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 207
Fracturing Manual

Section:
13.4 References
Howard, G.C., and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series Vol 2, SPE, Dallas, Texas (1970).
Texas (1989).
Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G.: Petroleum Engineering – Principles and Practices , Graham and Trotman,
London (1986).
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 208
Fracturing Manual
Section:
Of all the things under our control, the position, number, size and phasing of the perforations has the
single biggest influence on the effectiveness of the hydraulic fracture treatment. Many times this is outside
of the control of the Frac Engineer, as a high proportion of treatments are carried out on existing wells that
have already been perforated. However, if a well or an interval is new, the Frac Engineer can often greatly
increase the effectiveness of a treatment by perforating for fracturing, rather than in a more conventional
manner.
When perforating for fracturing, it is often desirable to only perforate a very limited section of wellbore,
usually located towards the centre of the gross interval. This controls the point of fracture initiation and
helps to reduce tortuosity. However, there are quite legitimate reasons for wanting to perforate all of the
net pay (which can often result in several sets of perforations). One of these reasons is well testing, which
is used by reservoir engineers to help determine the recoverable reserves in the formation - obviously a
very important task. Results from well test analysis can be misleading if the entire interval is not
perforated, especially if the formation contains several discrete intervals. Therefore, the need to reduce
the number of perforations and to reduce the length of the perforated interval, must be balanced with the
operating company's other interests. A compromise must be reached.
Subtopics
14.1 Controlling Fracture Initiation
14.2 Controlling Tortuosity
14.3 Perforating for Skin Bypass Fracturing
14.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 209
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Perforations can be used to control the point of fracture initiation, as illustrated in Figure 14.1a, below. On
the left-hand side, there is an interval that has been perforated across its entire section. When the
treatment commences, fracture initiation takes place. At this point, it should be remembered that fractures
are initiated by pressure, not by rate. As Frac Engineers, we often use rate to create pressure (as a
consequence of Darcy’s law), but it’s the pressure that makes the fracture. As the pressure increases, a
fracture will initiate when the pressure rises above the breakdown pressure of the weakest point along the
perforated interval. This can be in at the top of the zone (frac A, below), in the middle of the zone (B), at
the bottom of the zone (C) or somewhere else. There can also be more than one fracture – wherever the
fluid pressure exceeds the breakdown pressure, a fracture will be initiated. Multiple fractures (see Section
10.5) can result in poor fracture conductivity and early screenouts.
B D
Figure 14.1a – The Effect of perforations on fracture initiation
If the interval is perforated as shown in the left-hand side of Figure 14.1a, the point at which the fracture or
fractures initiate is beyond the control of the Frac Engineer. Fracs A and C have substantial sections
propagated outside the interval. This results in poor coverage of the interval and a considerable amount of
wasted proppant. There is also a risk that Frac A could penetrate into a gas cap or that Frac C could
penetrate into a water zone.
Alternatively, the interval could be perforated as shown in the right-hand side of Figure 14.1a. In this
example, the zone has been perforated over a very short interval (5 to 10 ft). This controls the point at
which the fracture initiates, and dramatically reduces the chances of multiple fractures forming. If this
short perforated interval is in the center of the zone, then there is a good chance that the fracture will
propagate both up and down, covering the entire section and using the proppant efficiently. Alternatively, if
there is a water zone close by, the interval can be perforated towards the top. This causes the fracture to
initiate near the top, reducing the chances of the fracture penetrating down into the water.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 210
Of course, once the interval has been fractured, there is nothing - other than cost – to stop a second
perforation run being made to cover the rest of the interval. However, if the treatment has been effective,
the fracture will be many times more conductive than the formation. Consequently, any perforation that is
not directly connected to the fracture will be unproductive:-
We have recognized point-source perforating improves your ability to successfully stimulate

an interval........to improve our completions and ultimate recoveries. We have learned from
perforating for stimulation that it does not take 100 ft of perforations to produce a 100 ft
zone. We have proven that 5ft placed in the proper place will outperform all 100 ft.
Robert Lestz, Production Engineer, Chevron

Hart’s E&P , February 2000
Another example of perforating to control fracture initiation is the case when multiple zones are treated
simultaneously in a single treatment. The conventional method is to try a limited entry treatment (see
Section 10.10), but these are unreliable and difficult to control.
Figure 14.1b – Perforating for zonal coverage
Figure 14.1b illustrates this concept. Conventionally, each productive section of the formation is perforated
individually. When this well is fractured, a portion of the fluid (dependent upon a number of variables) will
enter each of the intervals, as in the left-hand side of Figure 14.1b. Limited entry fracturing is all about
controlling how much fluid goes into each interval and can be very unreliable. However, if the well has not
already been perforated, another method is to perforate a small section in the center of the formation, and
allow the fracture to connect up all of the individual intervals (right-hand side of Figure 14.1b). Under any
circumstances, a treatment that produces a single fracture is much easier to predict and control than a
treatment that produces multiple fractures.
Once again, a small section (5 to 10 ft) of perforations is shot. These need to be placed roughly in the
center of the interval to be covered, or slightly towards the bottom, depending upon the stress regime.
Consequently, this may even mean deliberately perforating a non-productive formation, such as a shale. It
can often be quite hard to convince an oil or gas company to deliberately do this.
Important Note:- Sometimes, if there is a significant contrast in Young’s modulus between the various
formations, sections were the fracture is significantly narrower than the average can form. These narrow

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 211
bands can act to prevent proppant transport, leaving formations above and below un-propped. The reader
should not use the above method unless reliable information on Young’s modulus contrasts – such as
from a sonic array log – is available.
Perforating to control fracture initiation also makes fracture simulation and post-treatment pressure
matching more reliable. By controlling the point of fracture initiation, the Frac Engineer defines a
significant simulation variable and reduces the complexity of any possible solution by an order of
magnitude.
Subtopics
14.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 212
Fracturing Manual

Section:

In order to minimise tortuosity, it must be as easy as possible for the fracture to propagate from the
perforations. Every single perforation is a potential source of fracture initiation, so one of the steps taken is
to reduce the number of perforations to an absolute minimum, consistent with the anticipated production
rate. This in turn means big holes.
Another important factor is the phasing of the perforations. Ideally, this should be 180°, with the guns
oriented so that they shoot perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress. This way the holes are lined
up with the direction of fracture propagation, minimising any changes of direction between the hole in the
casing and the main fracture. Most of the time it is not possible to orientate the guns in this fashion – the
best strategy will then depend upon factors such as the contrast between the maximum and minimum
horizontal stresses and the formation’s Young’s modulus. The situation is complex, but in general it is best
to minimise the number of holes shot, to use big holes to minimise perforation friction, and to perforate to
that the holes line up along the wellbore (see figure 14.2a), rather than produce a spiral of holes around
the circumference. . The best strategy for perforating for fracturing was presented by Behrman in 1998.
However, it is the author’s experience that 90º phasing usually produces the least near wellbore friction in
vertical or near-vertical wellbores, without getting involved in very complex strategies.
Deviated Wellbores
Hydraulic fractures tend to propagate on a vertical or near vertical plane (see Section 7). On a vertical
well, this means that the fracture will propagate along or close to the wellbore. This minimises the
formation of multiple fractures, as the compression of the rock on either side of the fracture will make it
harder for parallel fractures to grow. However, on a deviated or horizontal wellbore, the horizontal distance
between potential points of fracture initiation is much greater, making it much easier to produce tortuosity
and/or multiple fractures.
Consequently, it is common practice for highly deviated or horizontal wells, to perforate a very short
section of the formation (+/- 2 ft or less), with as many big holes as possible. This is shown in Figure 14.2b
(for a horizontal well):
Figure 14.2a – Perforation strategy for vertical wells Figure 14.2b – Perforation strategy for horizontal wells
Subtopics

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 213
14.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 214
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Skin Bypass Fracturing (SBF - see Section 3.4) is a special type of small-scale fracturing operation
designed to penetrate through skin damage, and to provide effective stimulation without the cost and
logistics of larger-scale treatments. Whilst it is true that SBF’s may not necessarily offer such a large
production increase as conventional fracturing, the stimulation is still effective, and is usually more than
adequate to justify the cost of the treatment. As with any type of fracturing, the position of the perforations
can have a significant effect on the results of the treatment.
Figure 14.3a – The Effect of fracture initiation point on skin bypass fracs
With reference to Figure 14.3a, it is easy to see how the point of fracture initiation can effect a fracture not
designed to cover the entire height of the formation, such as in skin bypass fracturing. Obviously, fracture
B will produce more stimulation than fractures A or C. If the entire section of the formation is perforated, it
is usually not possible to control the point of fracture initiation (although a sand fill can be used to ensure
that the fracture doesn’t initiate towards the bottom). Therefore, when planning a perforation strategy, it
would be better to shoot holes over a small, central section, than over the entire interval.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 215
3
Figure 14.3b – Multiple skin bypass fracs over a long interval
Figure 14.3b shows a different approach to perforating for SBF’s. Over a large section, one of the most
cost effective methods of stimulation is to carry out several small consecutive treatments, as listed below
(with reference to Figure 14.3b):
Zone Step Action

Lower 1 Perforate bottom zone
2 Frac lower zone
3 Recover fluids
4 Isolate lower zone by placing bridge plug or
sand fill
Middle 1 Perforate middle zone
2 Frac Middle zone
3 Recover fluids
4 Isolate middle zone by placing bridge plug or
sand fill
Upper 1 Perforate upper zone
2 Frac upper zone
3 Recover fluids
All 1 Remove bridge plugs or sand fill
2 Place on production
This method ensures maximum coverage of the interval for minimum of effort, although it does involve
three separate perforating runs and the use of coiled tubing to remove the bridge plugs or sand fill.
Subtopics
14.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 216
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 217
Fracturing Manual

Section:
14.4 References
Behrmann, L.A.: “Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations”, paper SPE 39453, presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette LA, Feb 1998.
Rae, P., Martin, A.N., and Sinanan, B.: “Skin Bypass Fracs: Proof that Size is Not Important”, paper SPE
56473, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio TX, Oct 1999.
Behrmann, L.A., and Nolte, K.G.: “Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations”, paper SPE 59480,
SPE Drilling and Completions , December 1999, pp 228 – 234.
Venkitaraman, A., Behrmann, L.A., and Chow, C.V.: “Perforating Requirements for Sand Control”, paper
SPE 65187, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, Oct 2000.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 218
Fracturing Manual
Section:
Step rate tests are usually performed before a hydraulic fracture treatment, as part of the fracture design
process. Together with the minifrac (see next section), they are often referred to as calibration tests , as
they are used to adjust the fracture model to the actual pressure response of the formation.
There are two types of step rate test, the step up test and the step down test. One is used for determining
fracture extension pressure, whilst the other is used for determining near wellbore friction. Both tests can
be extremely useful when designing the treatment. Whenever possible, bottom hole pressure data should
be used, as this is more accurate and reliable than calculated BHTP.
Subtopics
15.1 The Step Up Test
15.2 The Step Down Test
15.3 Step Rate Test Example – Step Up/Step Down Test
15.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 219
Fracturing Manual

Section:

The step up test is used to determine the fracture extension pressure, Pext . This is usually 100 to 300 psi
higher than the fracture closure pressure, Pclosure , which is a very important factor in fracture design.
Usually the results of the step up test will be used to determine an upper boundary for Pclosure and to give
the expected BHTP.
To carry out the step rate test, it is common practice to use either KCl water or linear gel. However, if this
test is to be combined with the minifrac (see Section 16), then the actual frac fluid should be used.
The test itself consists of pumping fluid into the formation at various rates. These rates start off slowly and
gradually increase. For example, these could be the pump rates for a typical test; 0.25 bpm, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0,
1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0 and 10 bpm. The first step is usually the lowest rate that the pumps can manage. It is
important to get as many stages at low rate as possible. At each stage, first achieve the rate, then wait for
the pressure to stabilize and finally record the exact pressure and rate. Then move on to the next stage.
Pext
Pressure
Rate
Figure 15.1a – The step up test
What is important with this test is to get stabilized pressure. It is not that important to get the exact rates.
Often, pump operators will fiddle with the rate for 30 seconds or so in order to get exactly 0.75 bpm. This
is not necessary. Get approximately the correct rate and then leave it alone, so that the pressure can
stabilise and be recorded. Once the test has been carried out, a plot of pressure against rate can be
made, as illustrated in Figure 15.1a.
The change in gradient of the slope shown in Figure 15.1a marks the change from Darcy radial flow (lower
rates) to Darcy linear flow at higher rates. This is the point at which our fracture is created and hence this
is our extension pressure.
When carrying out a step up test it is important that no artificially induced fracture exists prior to the test.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 220
Thus, if any pumping above the frac gradient has already been carried out, sufficient time should be taken
for the fracture to heal up before commencing the step rate test. On very tight rocks, this could be several
days.
The step rate test can also provide an indication of fracture toughness, at least in the formation close to
the wellbore. In theory, the difference between the extension pressure and the closure pressure (usually
obtained from the minifrac) is directly related to the fracture toughness. However, it is also heavily
influenced by wellbore orientation, perforation strategy and the orientation and magnitude of the horizontal
stresses.
Subtopics
15.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 221
Fracturing Manual

Section:

This test is used to determine the nature of any near wellbore friction that may exist, i.e. to see if it is
perforation or tortuosity dominated. As the name suggests, the step down test is the opposite of the step
up test. Instead of starting at low rates and increasing, the rates are started high and decreased.
When performing the step down test, it is important that the fracture is open the whole time, otherwise the
test is invalid. Therefore, this test is often carried out after a step up test. It is not uncommon to step up
then step down right after. Another factor to remember when conducting a step down test is keeping the
stages short as the rate is stepped down. Unlike the step up test, which starts with no fracture and ends
with an open fracture, the step down test must be performed with the fracture open all the way through.
Consequently, if the steps down take too long, the fracture will close before the end of the test, making the
low rate data points invalid. 4 or 5 steps down, taking 10 to 15 seconds each, is all that is required. Also,
make sure that before starting the step down, that the fracture has been open for at least 5 minutes - the
longer the better, as smaller fractures will close more quickly than larger fractures.
Tortuosity Dominated
Pressure
Perforation
Dominated
Rate
Figure 15.2a – The step down test
Figure 15.2a shows the relationships between pressure and rate for the step down test. The different
shapes of the curves indicate how the near wellbore friction is dominated by the perforations, by the
tortuosity or by a combination of the two.
For perforation friction:
Pnwb α Q 2 (15.1)
In theory, perforation friction follows the same theory as flow through orifices, involving Bernoulli’s
equation and stagnation pressure. Allowances have to be made for the diameter of the perforation
(assumed to be constant) and for the discharge coefficient (a measure of how “smooth” the flow is as it
goes through the orifice). The discharge coefficient is also assumed to be constant. As a result, the

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 222
pressure loss is proportional to the rate per perforation, as illustrated in equation 2.3. Generally, at this
stage no significant volumes of proppant have been pumped and so the assumption that perforation
diameter is constant is valid.
For tortuosity:
Pnwb α Q (15.2)
In theory, for tortuosity dominated near wellbore friction, as the pumping rate increases, so does the width
of the near wellbore flow channels, as the width of these is dependent upon pressure – the higher the rate,
the higher the pressure and hence the greater the width. This is why, for tortuosity, Pnwb does not increase
as fast as rate.
In reality, the relationship between rate and near wellbore friction may be a lot more complex than that
0.25
suggested by equation 15.2. Recent work by the GRI suggests that Pnwb may be proportional to Q rather
than the square root of rate. On top of this, it is likely that the relationship between Pnwb and Q is also
controlled by the nature of the tortuosity, so that different relationships exist for tortuosity generated by
perforations, for tortuosity generated by horizontal stress contrasts, or for tortuosity generated by wellbore
deviation (to name but three potential causes). To further complicate the situation, it is entirely possible
that a well could experience tortuosity that is a combination of two or more causes. However, in spite of
this complex relationship between pressure loss and rate, the geometry of the tortuosity will always be
pressure-dependent and hence under most circumstances the pressure-rate crossplot will have the
characteristic convex shape for tortuosity-dominated near wellbore friction.
Of course, usually the near wellbore friction is a combination of perforation friction and tortuosity. Although
Meyer’s MinFrac minifrac analysis programme is not recommended by the author, as it is based on a
rather simplistic 2-D analysis, the step rate test analysis section within MinFrac is excellent, especially for
the step down test. It incorporates a feature that allows the theoretical perforation friction to be backed out,
allowing the user to view the total tortuosity-based friction, regardless of the exact relationship between
pressure loss and rate. In addition, both MFrac and Fracpro (both versions) allow data from a step down
test to be input directly into the simulator, so that the model can allow for the effects of tortuosity related
pressure losses when calculating net pressure. However, given that most step rate tests are performed
using a different fluid to the actual treatment (slick water rather than crosslinked gel), it must be
remembered that the actual pressure loss will probably be greater than data generated by the step rate
test indicates.
Subtopics
15.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 223
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 224
Fracturing Manual

Section:
15.3 Step Rate Test Example - Step Up/Step Down Test

The following data was taken from a step rate test in which the rate was stepped up and then immediately
stepped down again, using slick water. The data generated by the step rate test is given in table 15.3a.
Figure 15.3a shows the step up pressure-rate crossplot. Figure 15.3b shows the step down crossplot,
whilst figure 15.3c shows the same step down crossplot using surface pressure. This illustrates why
bottom hole pressure must always be used for step rate test analysis, even if it has to be calculated from
surface data.
Rate STP BHTP

BPM psi psi
0.5 2030 5958
0.9 2310 6211
1.0 2445 6337
1.2 2600 6474
1.6 2730 6559
2.0 2850 6623
2.3 2910 6636
3.2 3120 6671
4.2 3450 6753
5.2 3780 6783
6.3 4224 6838
8.4 5290 6996
10.2 6280 7041
11.8 7281 7076
8.4 5180 6886
6.3 4160 6774
4.2 3271 6574
2.0 2580 6353
Table 15.3a - Example step rate test data

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 225
7200
7000
6800
BHTP, psi
6600
Fracture Extension = +/- 6570 psi
6400
6200
6000
5800
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 15.3a – Step up pressure-rate crossplot using the example data. This plot shows the fracture
extension pressure to be at +/- 6570 psi.
7200
7000
6800
BHTP, psi
6600 Tortuosity Dominated
6400
6200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 15.3b – Step down pressure-rate crossplot for the example data. The convex shape of the curve
indicates near wellbore friction dominated by tortuosity.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 226
8000
7000
6000
STP, psi
5000
Perforation Dominated?
4000
3000
2000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 15.3c – Step down pressure-rate crossplot for the example data, using surface treating pressure
(STP). This graph illustrates the danger of using STP for step rate test analysis, as in this case, the near
wellbore friction would have been incorrectly diagnosed as being perforation dominated.
Subtopics
15.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 227
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 228
Fracturing Manual

Section:
15.4 References
Lacy, L.L. and Hudson, H.G.: ”Step Rate Test Analysis for Fracture Evaluation”, SPE 29591, presented at
the SPE Rocky Mountain Region/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March
1995.
Texas (1989).
Cleary, M.P.:, Johnson, D.E., Kogsbøll, H-H., Owens, K.A.: Perry, K.F., de Pater, C.J., Stachel, A.,
Schmidt, H., and Tambini, M.:” Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out of
Hydraulic Fractures with Adequate Proppant Concentration”, paper SPE 25892, presented at the SPE
Ricky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver CO., April 1993.
Cleary, M.P., Doyle, R.S., Meehan, D.N., Massaras, L.V. and Wright, T.B.: “Major New Developments in
Hydraulic Fracturing with Documented Reductions in Job Costs and Increases in Normalized Production”,
SPE 28565, presented at the SPE 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, September 1994.
Wright, C.A., Weijers, L., and Minner, W.A.: Advanced Stimulation Technology Deployment Program ,
report GRI-09/0075, Gas Research Institute, March 1996.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 229
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 230
Fracturing Manual
Section:
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
The purpose of the minifrac is to provide the best possible information on the formation, prior to pumping
the actual treatment. Any time that the quality of information available for a frac candidate is poor, a
minifrac should be planned. This includes most wells, as it is not usual to have detailed rock mechanical
and leakoff data for a formation (and for the non-productive formations surrounding the zone of interest).
The only time a minifrac should not be pumped is when there is reliable data available from offset wells
that have been fractured (as is often the case in the US).
The minifrac is designed to be as close as possible to the actual treatment, without pumping any
significant volumes of proppant. The minifrac should be pumped using the anticipated treatment fluid, at
the anticipated rate. It should also be of sufficient volume to contact all the formations that the estimated
main treatment design is anticipated to contact. A well planned and executed minifrac can provide data on
fracture geometry, rock mechanical properties and fluid leakoff – information that is vital to the success of
the main treatment.
Subtopics
16.1 Planning and Execution
16.2 Anatomy of a Minifrac
16.3 Decline Curve Analysis
16.4 Pressure Matching
16.5 Near Wellbore Effects and Multiple Fractures
16.6 Minifrac Example 1 - 2D Minifrac Analysis
16.7 Minifrac Example 2 - 3D Pressure Matching with FracProPT
16.8 Minifrac Example 3 – Problems with Tortuosity
16.9 Minifrac Example 4 – Perforation Problems
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 231
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 232
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:

Bottom Hole Data
Do whatever it takes to get bottom hole pressure data for the minifrac (and also for the step rate test), as
this is far more accurate than data calculated from the surface pressure. Bottom hole data can be
obtained using three acquisition methods:-
1. Real Time Gauges. These can be run on wireline or can be part of the well’s completion. These
gauges allow both pressure and temperature to be recorded real time at the surface. Usually, it is
possible to run a data cable so that the pressure data can be incorporated real time with the
standard frac data already being recorded. This is the best possible situation for the Frac
Engineer.
2. Memory Gauges. These are gauges that are run in on wireline or slick line, and hung in either a
specially designed gauge carrier, or some other suitable position (such as an empty gas lift
mandrel). Alternatively, they can just be held on slick line at a specific depth. After the mini-frac
and the step rate test are completed, the gauges are retrieved and the data is downloaded at the
surface. This data is then merged with the surface data that has already been collected. This is
the most common method of using gauges, even though there is a delay caused by the retrieval
of the gauges.
3. Dead String/Live Annulus. Both of these methods work on the same principle. With the live
annulus, the well is completed with tubing but no packer (or the packer has not been set, or the
packer is fitted with a circulating valve that is left open during the treatment). Basically, the
annulus is exposed to the BHTP during the treatment, and shows a corresponding surface
pressure. As the fluid is not moving in the annulus, BHTP can be easily calculated, provided the
density of the fluid in the annulus is known. Most fracture monitoring programmes have the
capability to perform this real time. A dead string relies on the same principle, but instead employs
a small diameter tubing string, inside the actual treatment tubing. A common example of this is
coiled tubing placed inside a large diameter frac string.
Remember that it is more important to get downhole pressure data during the minifrac and the step rate
test, than it is during the actual treatment. Companies that supply gauges are often reluctant to have
proppant pumped past them (this also applies to wireline cables). Consequently, it is common to have the
gauges in the well for the minifrac and the step rate test, and then retrieve them prior to pumping any
proppant.
Most bottom hole pressure gauges also record temperature. This data, whilst not as important as
pressure data, can also be useful:-
1. The data can provide a good check of the bottom hole static temperature, to ensure that the
correct temperature has been used for designing the fluid system.
2. The data can provide a good value for the bottom hole treating temperature. This is especially
important when performing treatments with nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide and also for treatments
where tubing shrinkage due to cooldown is critical.
3. If the gauges have been run on wireline or slick line, then it is possible to run the gauges past the
perforations after the minifrac and the step rate test, to perform a temperature log. This is a plot of
temperature against depth. By looking at how far each the perforations have cooled down – and
how this cooling down varies across the perforated interval – it is possible to get a qualitative
indication of where the fluids are going and hence were the fracture(s) is(are) initiating.
Because the rheology of the fracturing fluid is constantly changing as the minifrac is being pumped, and

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 233
because the well is continually cooling down, calculated friction pressures can often be unreliable. This in
turn means that a BHTP calculated from a STP can also be unreliable. This is why it is important to obtain
reliable downhole data, from which to base the frac design.
Fluid Volumes and Rates

Deciding what volume to pump for the minifrac can be difficult. Ideally, we wish to pump the minimum
volume necessary to gather accurate formation and fracture data. However, remember that we are not
just interested in getting data on the producing formation – we are also after data on any formation above
and below that may be contacted by the fracture. This means that as a minimum, we must pump at least
the two-thirds of the anticipated pad volume. On low permeability wells we may have to pump significantly
more than the pad volume.
The best method to decide the minifrac volume, is to run a few simulations for the minifrac, based on the
data used to design the main treatment. Adjust the minifrac volume such that it will contact all the
formations that main treatment will contact.
As we are trying to create a treatment that is a close as possible to the actual treatment (minus the
proppant), the minifrac should be pumped at the same rate as the anticipated treatment.
The minifrac should be displaced with slick water. The displacement volume should be enough to displace
the minifrac to just short of the perforations, to ensure that the near wellbore fracture(s) close on frac fluid,
rather than slick water. To do this, it is common to under-displace by +/- 5 bbls.
Fluid Type
As stated above, we are trying to create a test that is as close as possible to the actual treatment, minus
the proppant. This means that the minifrac should use the same fluid as the anticipated treatment. In fact,
every step should be taken to ensure that the fluids used in the minifrac and the main treatment are as
identical as possible, so that fluid related data gathered in the minifrac is as valid as possible for the main
treatment.
Often, an operating company will suggest using slick water for the minifrac, as a way of saving time and
money. This is a false economy, as the subsequent minifrac will have only a passing resemblance to the
fracture that will be created by the main treatment. In particular, the fluid leakoff will be (usually)
significantly greater with slick water. This results in faster than normal fracture closure, and smaller than
normal fracture geometry.
Recently, some Engineers have argued that because of the wall building effects of the fluid used in the
minifrac, the leakoff for the main treatment can be lower than that for the minifrac. To compensate for this,
increased breaker loadings are used in the minifrac.
Wellbore Fluid
Usually, there is some kind of fluid in the wellbore prior to the minifrac. Often, this fluid will be slick water
from the step rate test, or produced fluids. Unless this fluid can be circulated out of the well ahead of the
minifrac fluid, it will be injected into the formation as part of the minifrac. Obviously, having two different
fluid types in the fracture makes the job of analysing the minifrac data that much more difficult, so every
effort should be taken to minimise the volume of fluid ahead of the minifrac fluid. On some wells, this can
be achieved by circulating the minifrac fluid into position. However, on most wells this cannot be done, and
the Frac Engineer has to live with the situation.
Pressure Decline
The data collected during the pressure decline (i.e. after the minifrac has been displaced and the pumps
are shut down) is just as vital as the data collected whilst pumping. It is therefore important to monitor the

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 234
pressure decline, sometimes for up to 2 hours after the minifrac is completed. During this period, it is
important that nothing is done to compromise the quality of this data. Any opening or closing of valves,
hammering on equipment or circulating of fluids should be avoided at all costs. In particular (and this may
sound obvious, but it does happen) the wellhead should not be closed during this period. There should
also be no pumping into the annulus, as this will affect the tubing pressure. Once the Frac Engineer is
sure that the fracture has closed, the well can be shut in and normal activities resumed.
Proppant Slugs
Many Engineers prefer to pump a proppant slug in the minifrac. This is a proppant stage in the middle of
the minifrac, often containing as little as 500 lbs of proppant. This slug will test the near wellbore region for
tortuosity. Ideally, the proppant slug should pass into the formation with no detectable pressure rise. If the
pressure rises when the proppant flows into the formation (and worse still, if it rises and does not come
down again), then there is restricted flow in the near wellbore region – tortuosity. A series of proppant
slugs of increasing concentration can be use to effectively diagnose the severity of a tortuosity problem.
See Section 10.1 for more details on tortuosity.
Multiple Minifracs
Some companies, especially those operating in high permeability formations, prefer to use more than one
minifrac. The first minifrac is designed to be small, to penetrate only into the zone of interest and provide
good leakoff and closure data on this formation. The second minifrac is larger, designed to penetrate
further and give a better idea of the overall fracture geometry. Obviously, the use of two minifracs provides
more data than just a single treatment. However, in most cases this is probably not necessary. A
well-designed and executed treatment should be able to provide the Frac Engineer with all the necessary
data. However, there are cases when it is very difficult to interpret the minifrac data, through no fault of the
treatment. Some formations are just too complex to easily analyse. In such cases, when the data from the
first minifrac defies scrutiny, often the only way to proceed is to pump a second minifrac, in the hope that
this data will be better.
Subtopics
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 235
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 236
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:

Figure 16.2a shows a typical job plot from a minifrac:-
BHTP
Pressure, Rate
STP
Rate
Time
Figure 16.2a – Typical minifrac job plot, showing BHTP, STP and rate
Three important parameters are used – to a greater or lesser extent – in obtaining the required data from
the minifrac. The BHTP (ideally actual pressure data, rather than calculated) is the main variable, as this
tells us the way the fracture is behaving and the amount of work being performed on the formation by the
fluid (or visa versa). The rate is important for determining the fracture geometry, as the volume of fluid
pumped into the formation, less the volume of fluid which has leaked off, is equal to the volume of the
fracture. In addition to these two parameters, the proppant concentration can also be important, if
proppant slugs have been pumped.
Shut
Down
BHP
Pressure
Decline
Start
Pumping
Time
Figure 16.2b – Expanded plot showing BHTP
Figure 16.2b shows an expanded portion of Figure 16.2a, giving the BHTP more detail. Generally, a large

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 237
number of minifracs will have this same basic shape, although by no means all. The area between the
start of pumping and the shut down is often shaped like this, with the pressure declining initially and then
increasing towards the end. In terms of Nolte analysis (see Section 10.2), this means that the fracture is
initially growing in a shape which is radial or preferentially vertical (rather than horizontal), but after a
period of time the height growth becomes more controlled, and the preferential growth direction is
horizontal.
Subtopics
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 238
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:

As soon as the pumps shut down, the pressure will start to decline. Initially, the net pressure will still be
positive, and the fracture may still propagate. However, as soon as the fluid input into the fracture stops,
the fracture will start to decrease in volume, as fluid is still leaking into the formation. As the fluid volume in
the fracture (and hence the volume of the fracture itself) decreases, the fracture width also decreases until
the fluid volume in the fracture is zero – the fracture has closed.
The time taken for the fracture to close defines the rate at which the leakoff is occurring, whilst the
pressure at which the fracture closes (and the difference between the treating pressure and the closure
pressure) tells us how hard it will be to produce the required fracture. Both of these parameters have been
more rigorously defined in previous sections of this manual, but suffice to say that they are both extremely
important parameters for defining the size and shape of the fracture.
A typical pressure decline curve is shown in Figure 16.3a.
BHTP
ISIP
BHP
Closure Pressure
Linear
Radial Flow
Flow
Time
Figure 16.3a – Typical minifrac pressure decline curve
It is possible to see several distinct features on this curve, although it must be emphasized that Figure
16.3a is idealised and that actual minifrac pressure decline curves are rarely this clear. Features which the
Frac Engineer needs to identify include:-
1. BHTP – the actual bottom hole treating pressure. This is the pressure inside the well, at the
middle of the perforated section that is being treated. Ideally, this should be measured via a gauge
or a dead string.
2. ISIP – the instantaneous shut-in pressure, also referred to as the instantaneous shut down
pressure, or ISDP . This is the bottom hole treating pressure just after the pumps shut down, and
before the pressure the pressure starts declining. Often, this point is hidden by noise generated by
“pipe ring” as the pressure suddenly drops. In that case, the decline curve has to be extrapolated
backwards in order to find the ISIP .
The difference between the ISIP and the BHTP is due purely to friction pressure loses in the near wellbore
area. Therefore, this difference can often be used as a quantitative assessment of tortuosity.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 239
3. Closure Pressure, or P closure, is the pressure at which the fracture closes, and is often denoted by
a change in gradient on the pressure decline curve. The difference between the ISIP and the
closure pressure is referred to at the net pressure, or P net (see Sections 2.2 and 10.2). As
discussed previously, the net pressure is a measure of how much energy is being used to create
the fracture and so is a very important parameter. However, it should be remembered that the net
pressure will usually vary throughout the treatment, and that this method only captures the net
pressure right at the end of the treatment. The closure pressure is also a measure of the in-situ
stresses in the formation (see Section 6, Rock Mechanics).
4. Closure Time. The closure time is the time taken for the fracture to close, after the pumps have
shut down. If the geometry of the fracture is known (or, more likely, can be estimated from a
model), then the volume of fluid in the fracture is also known. Therefore, if the length of time taken
for the fracture to close is also known, the rate at which the fluid is leaking off can be easily
calculated.
The are various different methods for helping the Frac Engineer pick closure pressure, as often it is very
difficult to spot the change in gradient on the pressure decline curve. Additionally, there may be more than
one closure pressure, if multiple fractures are closing. Finally, the effects of tortuosity may mask the
closure pressure, as there is evidence to suggest that the tortuosity can, in some cases, close before the
main part of the fracture.
Various Methods for Displaying Time

In order to help find the closure pressure(s) on the pressure decline curve, various methods have been
developed for plotting the data. Some of these will be described in more detail below. As part of these
methods, and for general information, there are various methods of plotting time along the horizontal axis,
listed in Table 16.3a, below:
Description Symbol Equal to

Time, general t Usually time since start of pumping
Data Time tdata Time since data collection started
Pump Time tp Length of time spent pumping
Shut in Time ts Time since ISIP
Delta Time ∆t t - tp
0.5
Square Root Time t
Horner Time  t p + ts 
 
ts
log10  
Nolte Time or Dimensionless tD  t 
Time  
t 
 p
Delta Nolte Time ∆tD  t −tp   t 
  =  −1
 t  t 
 p   p 
Nolte G Time or G Function G or G (∆tD ) Dimensionless function of ∆tD (see below)
Table 16.3a - Table illustrating the various ways of calculating and using time during pressure decline
analysis.
Square Root Time Plots

According to equation 2.9, the volume of fluid leaked off into the formation (and hence the fracture

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 240
volume) is proportional to the square root of time that the fracture has been open. However, once the
fracture is closed, the fluid is no longer leaking off from the fracture faces, and is now leaking off
according to Darcy’s radial flow law:
k h ∆P
q= (16.1)
µ In (re rw )
where q is the leakoff rate, k is the permeability of the formation, h is the net height of the formation, µ is
the fluid viscosity, re is the radial extent of the formation, rw is the wellbore radius and ∆P is the pressure
differential between the formation and the wellbore. Therefore, if a plot is made, showing BHP as the
y-axis and square root time as the x-axis, the period before fracture closes should have the pressure
decline as a straight line. The point at which the fracture closes is defined as the point at which the straight
line starts to curve, as illustrated in figure 16.3b:
BHTP
ISIP
BHP
Closure Pressure
Linear
Radial Flow
Flow
Square Root Time

Figure 16.3b – Use of a square root time plot to determine closure pressure.
Square root time plots are both the easiest to use, and the easiest to understand, of all the pressure
decline curve plots. However, their usefulness is limited by the ease with which multiple fractures and
tortuosity can mask and obstruct the point at which the flow regime changes. The method is also
dependent upon the reliability of equation 2.9, which itself is an approximation, assuming that leakoff is
independent of pressure. However, because of its ease of use, the square root time plot is usually the first
stop in an often rather involved process.
Horner Plots
Horner plots are taken directly from well test theory, and can very useful in helping to determine closure
pressure. However, these plots must always be used in conjunction with other methods, as the Horner plot
will only determine the lowest possible pressure at which closure could have existed. In other words, it will
give a lower boundary, above which the closure must be found. Remember that the step rate test (step up
variety – see Section 15.1) will give an upper boundary, so that using these two methods in conjunction
will provide a region within which the closure pressure lies.
Horner plots work by plotting BHP on the y-axis and the Horner time on the x-axis. Horner time is defined
as follows:
 t p + ts 
t Horner = log10   (16.2)
 ts 

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 241
According to Horner’s theory, on a plot of pressure against Horner time, pseudo-radial flow (which, for our
purposes, means flow when the fracture is closed) produces a straight line on the plot, and
non-pseudo-radial flow (i.e. the fracture is open) produces a curve. A typical minifrac pressure decline
Horner plot is shown in figure 16.3c:-
Closure Pressure
BHP
Pres
0 Horner Time
Figure 16.3c – Typical minifrac pressure decline Horner plot
As the minifrac pressure decline progresses, the BHP will eventually reach the reservoir pressure, Pres . So,
for equation 16.2, as ts tends to infinity, the right hand side of the equation tends to zero. This means that if
the pressure decline is extrapolated back to the point where t Horner equals zero, the average reservoir
pressure can be determined (also referred to as P *).
Nolte G Time Analysis

Below is a summary of Nolte’s work on G Time and minifrac analysis. A full derivation of the method is
beyond the scope of this manual, and the reader is referred to the references.
Nolte derived the following relationships for the decline curve:
 4 3(1 + ∆t D ) − ∆t D
32 32

g (∆t D ) =   (16.3)
 (1 + ∆t ) sin −1 (1 + ∆t )−1 2 + ∆t 1 2 
 D D D 
where the upper part of the RHS represents the upper boundary and the lower part of the RHS is the
lower boundary. In practice, to find the actual value of g (∆tD ), both values are calculated, and an
extrapolation is made based on the power law exponent of the fracturing fluid (n ’) and the fracture
geometry (radial, PKN or KZD). Remember that when calculating from the lower boundary, the
trigonometrical function works in radians, not degrees.
The extrapolation is performed between two values of the variable α. At the lower boundary α = 0.5 and at
the upper boundary α = 1. The actual value for α is given as follows:
α = (2n' + 2) (2n' + 3) − PKN (16.4)

α = (n' + 1) (n' + 2) − GKD (16.5)

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 242
α = (4n' + 4) (3n' + 6) − radial (16.6)
The actual value of α used for the extrapolation is dependent upon the fluid efficiency and n ’. Values tend
to be almost always in the region of 0.5 to 0.7, and in practice 0.6 is often used. Also, given the fact that n ’
is often variable, a quicker method is just to take the average of the upper and lower expressions for g (∆tD
). As shown in figure 16.3d, as ∆tD increases, the difference between the upper and lower boundaries
becomes smaller and eventually becomes negligible compared to the accuracy of the rest of the system:
3
g (♦t D)
Lower (α = 0.5, g (∆t D) = (1 + ∆t D)sin-1(1 + ∆t D)-1/2 + ∆t D1/2)
2
g (∆t D = 0) = π/2
3/2 3/2
Upper (α = 1, g (∆t D) = 4/3[(1 + ∆t D) - ∆t D ])
g (∆t D = 0) = 4/3
1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Dimensionless Time, ∆t D
Figure 16.3d – Graph showing the variation of g (∆

∆t D) with ∆t D.
Nolte G time is then a function of t D such that:
G (∆t D )= g (∆t D ) − g (∆t D = 0 ) (16.7)
Note that for α = 1 and α = 0.5, g (∆tD = 0) is equal to 4/3 and π/2 respectively.
A typical plot of a pressure decline against Nolte G time is shown below in figure 16.4e.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 243
Additional Fracture Extension
Closure Pressure
BHP
“Ideal” ISIP
0 ∆ tD )
G(∆
Figure 16.3e – Typical Nolte G time pressure decline plot. The match pressure is the gradient of
the straight line section in the middle of the decline, before closure.
Figure 16.3e illustrates three important points. First, the ISIP recorded using field data may be artificially
high, due to the effects of fracture storage and fluid friction. Second, that there is a period of constant
gradient before the fracture closes, which is often referred to as the match pressure (pm ) and has pressure
units (as G time is dimensionless). This is an important parameter in Nolte’s minifrac pressure decline
analysis. Finally, closure occurs when the decline pressure deviates from this constant gradient. At this
point G (∆tD ) = Gc .
It should be noted that if the closure time equals the pump time, then Gc = 1.
From the g (∆t D) time at closure [ = g (∆t )], the fluid efficiency can be determined as follows:-
cD
 g (∆t cD ) − g (∆t D = 0 )   1 − v prop 

η =     (16.8)
g (∆ t )  1− v η 
 cD  prop 
where vprop is the fraction of the total fracture volume occupied by proppant. For a minifrac, vprop will be
equal to zero. Therefore:
 g (∆t cD ) − g (∆t D = 0) 
η =   (16.9)
 g (∆t cD ) 
This can be simplified to:
Gc
η= (16.10)
2 + Gc
which is a quick and easy method for determining fluid efficiency. Most modern real time data monitoring
systems can plot G-Function real time, so if the closure pressure can be determined, the fluid efficiency

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 244
can be easily calculated from equation (16.10).
The fluid loss coefficient can be calculated as follows:
Pm β s
C eff = x (16.11)
rp t p E '
where Pm is the match pressure (see Figure 16.3e), β s a geometry-dependent factor (see below), rp is the
ratio of fracture area in permeable formation over total fracture area (i.e. net to gross area ratio for the
fracture), E’ is the plane strain Young’s modulus (see below) and X is a factor dependent upon which
2
geometry model is being used, such that for KZD, X = 2xf , for PKN, X = hf and for radial, X = (32R / 3π ).
(2n' + 2) (2n' + 3 + a ) PKN (16.12)

βs ≈ 0.9 KZD
(3π 2
32 ) Radial
where n ’ is the power law exponent for the fluid and a is a variable describing how constant the viscosity of
the frac fluid is in the fracture, such that for a constant viscosity, a = 1 and for a falling viscosity a < 1.
Usually, a is assumed to be 1. Finally, the plane strain Young’s modulus can be easily calculated:-
E
E' = (16.13)
1− v 2
Thus, not only is Nolte G time a useful tool for finding the “ideal” ISIP and the closure pressure, it can also
be used to find fluid efficiency and fluid leakoff (provided a 2-dimensional fracture geometry is assumed).
Finally, Nolte G time can be used to find the fracture dimensions:-
Af =
(1 − n )Vi
(16.14)
2 g (∆t D = 0 )Ceff rp tp
Where Af is the area of one fracture wing and Vi is the total volume of fluid injected.
Given that for the 2-D models:
2x f h f PKN (16.15)
Af = 2x f h f KZD
2
πR PKN
then the fracture length or fracture radius can be easily found. Average fracture width can also be
obtained:-
2 g (∆t D = 0) C eff rp t D η
wave = (16.16)
(1 −η )
Derivative Plots

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 245
When carrying out pressure decline analysis, a lot of time is spent trying to find various changes in
gradient on the curve, or points were the pressure decline changes from a straight line to a curve (or visa
versa). Therefore, it is often easier to spot these changes in gradient by actually plotting the gradient - or
derivative – itself.
On a derivative plot, a horizontal line (i.e. constant gradient) indicates a straight line on the parent plot (not
necessarily horizontal, however). Changes in gradient on the parent plot, produce rapid changes in value
on the derivative plot. An example is shown below in Figure 16.3f.
All of the main types of plots - and their derivatives - can be plotted by most modern fracture simulators
with the minimum of effort. Often, these plots can be displayed real-time by the data acquisition systems.
Consequently, there is always a temptation to stop recording data too early – the Frac Engineer notices a
change in gradient and assumes the fracture is closed. This is not necessarily the case, and so it is
important to keep recording data for as long as feasible. It takes relatively little effort to record the data for
an extra 10 minutes and a lot of embarrassment can be avoided.
Closure Pressure
d(BHP)
dtHorner
BHP
Derivative
0 tHorner
Figure 16.3f – Example derivative plot based on a Horner Plot
Subtopics
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 246
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 247
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:

Another method for analysing minifrac data, is to carry out a process known as a pressure match (also
referred to as a history match). In this process, the fracture simulator is “tuned” until the simulator’s
predicted net pressure matches the actual net pressure. This “tuning” process is carried out by adjusting
variables such as Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, fracture toughness, stress gradient, near wellbore
friction, leakoff rate, and spurt loss.
Pressure matching, which is discussed in more detail in Section 19, is a very powerful tool, providing the
user is aware of the limitations. The user is actually adjusting the computer model to produce the same
pressure response as the formation. Once the model has been adjusted (the pressures have been
“matched”), any potential treatment schedule can be run on the simulator, and its effects assessed. This
means that once the match has been made, the Frac Engineer can very quickly adjust the treatment
schedule to produce a fracture of the required geometry.
Limitations of Pressure Matching

1. Complexity. Because so many variables are adjusted, in so many different rock strata, a Frac
Engineer may often have to keep track of 20 or more variables. Each of these variables can affect
the overall outcome of the simulation. Therefore, a Frac Engineer must remain aware of what
variable changes and values are realistic and what are not.
2. Non-Unique Solution. Because there are so many variables to adjust, it is quite possible for 2
Frac Engineers to produce good pressure matches, using different values. Often, these solutions
will only produce similar net pressure responses for the particular data set being analysed, so that
when a different treatment schedule is simulated (such as the actual treatment schedule to be
pumped), two significantly different fractures are generated. Which one is closest to the truth?
3. Data Quality and Model Inaccuracies. As with any type of computer analysis, the results are
only as good as the raw data (garbage in = garbage out ). In particular, errors generated by the
use of surface pressure data to calculate BHTP can sometimes render pressure matching almost
ineffective. For instance, it is quite possible to interpret a gradual rise in STP as good fracture
containment, whereas in reality it may have been caused by variations in fluid properties. Even if
the quality of data is good, the final result is only as good as the model itself. Just because a
model predicts a fracture that is 150 ft long and 100 ft high, doesn’t mean that this is what
happens in the ground. In fact, two different fracture simulators will almost always produce
different fractures, when fed the same input data. Again, which one is closest to the truth?
The study of the theory of how the fracture models work will only get a Frac Engineer so far in trying to
solve these conundrums, especially as the companies responsible for the most widely used fracture
models do not publish significant parts of their theory. Unfortunately, in this case there is no substitute for
experience.
Subtopics
16.10 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 248
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 249
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:

Most of the time, minifrac analysis is not simple. Often, it is not possible to find closure pressure, or obtain
a pressure match. More often that not, this is due to the effects of tortuosity and/or multiple fractures.
Both of these concepts were explained in Section 10. However, it is worth discussing the particular effects
that these phenomena can have on minifrac analysis.
Tortuosity
As previously discussed in Section 10, tortuosity consists of a number a small, restricted, flow channels in
the near wellbore area, connecting the perforations to the fracture(s). Generally, this phenomenon is
detected by the pressure drop it produces whilst the frac fluid is being pumped. Obviously, it is much
easier to detect and quantify tortuosity from bottom hole pressure data, as pipe friction effects can easily
mask its effect if surface pressure data is used.
Tortuosity can confuse the results of a minifrac analysis in two ways:-
1. The pressure drop produced by tortuosity represents a loss of energy from the fracturing fluid. This
means that the frac fluid does not have as much energy as the pressure data indicates. The pressure
inside the fracture remains the same, irrespective of whether or not tortuosity exists, as the fluid flow
rate out of the near wellbore area is the same as the flow rate into it. As the inlet rate and fluid
properties going into the fracture are unchanged, so the fracture dimensions remain unchanged and
hence the net pressure remains unchanged. Tortuosity does not produce a lower than normal
pressure in the fracture – it produces a higher than normal pressure in the wellbore. However, the
effect of this is to lead the Frac Engineer into believing that the pressure in the fracture is higher than
it actually is. Consequently, the Frac Engineer is led to believe that the fracture is significantly bigger
than it really is, and can be tempted to plan a treatment with larger volumes of proppant than can
actually be pumped into the fracture.
2. Tortuosity can also cloud the interpretation of the minifrac pressure decline. The channels which form
the tortuosity are always significantly narrower than the main fracture (otherwise they wouldn’t produce
a pressure drop), and so can often close entirely before the main fracture(s) itself closes. This means
that the main fracture is no longer hydraulically connected to the wellbore and so the actual closure
pressure can be very difficult to spot. In addition, the pressure at which the tortuosity closes can itself
cause a change in gradient on the pressure decline plot, causing a false value to be selected for
closure pressure, at a higher pressure.
The only way to allow for these effects is to be fully aware of the existence of tortuosity, and to have some
idea of its magnitude. The main ways of obtaining this information is to use bottom hole pressure data,
and to pump a step down test (see Section 15).
Multiple Fractures
The existence and causes of multiple fractures have already been discussed in some detail in Section 10.
Sufficient to say that under the right circumstances multiple fractures are not only possible, they are likely.
Of course, the classic way to identify multiple fractures is to see two or more closure pressures on a
minifrac pressure decline curve. However, in reality this very rarely happens. In order for multiple closures
to be apparent on a decline curve, there must be significant differences in the actual closure pressures of
each individual fracture, otherwise they will merge into one closure on the plot. Usually, the multiple

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 250
fractures all exist in the same formation(s) and so will close at approximately the same pressure.
The main problems for minifrac analysis associated with multiple fractures are as follows:-
1. Although the multiple fractures will close at approximately the same pressure, they will almost never
close at exactly the same pressure. Variations in depth and bisected formations will cause a variation
that could be as much as 20 psi or more. This means that when the fractures close, instead of a nice,
easy-to-spot, change in gradient on the pressure decline curve, there is a significant region where the
gradient gradually changes between the open fracture environment and the Darcy flow wellbore
leakoff environment. This “smudging” of the closure pressure can make it very hard to identify.
2. As discussed above, multiple fractures will usually close at around the same pressure, allowing for the
effects of variations in depth. However, they probably will not have similar fracture geometries, and so
some fractures will be much larger than others. As stated previously, the leakoff rate is proportional to
the fracture area, whilst the time taken for the fracture to close depends upon the fracture volume. For
most fractures, the area of the fracture faces is proportional to the square of the length, whilst the
volume of the fracture is proportional to the cube of its length. So a fracture which is twice the length
of another fracture will leakoff at four times the rate, but will have eight times as much volume to lose
before closure, so that the fracture takes twice as long to close.
Therefore the bigger fractures tend to take longer to close than smaller fractures. However, all of our
fractures are connected hydraulically via the wellbore. We know that our fractures will tend to close at
the same time, because they will all have similar closure pressures. Therefore, in order to prevent the
smaller fractures closing significantly before the larger fractures, there must be fluid flow from the
larger fractures to the smaller fractures, at a rate equal to the difference in leakoff rates. This means
that the smaller fractures have an artificially long closure time and the large fractures have an
artificially short closure time. In a situation where there are several fractures, the flow dynamics can
get very complex indeed.
This flow of fluids from one fracture to another, as well as the pulling in of extra fluid from the wellbore,
can produce complex shapes on the pressure decline curve . This can make analysis very difficult .
Subtopics
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 251
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 252
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:

The following minifrac treatment was pumped into an oil-bearing formation, located in South Kalimantan,
in the Indonesian part of island of Borneo. Bottom hole memory gauge data was available. This example
will demonstrate the use of the Nolte G Function analysis technique to obtain the leakoff coefficient,
closure pressure, and fracture geometry.
Well and Formation Data

Reservoir Type: Oil
Reservoir Temperature: 145°F
Reservoir Pressure: unknown
Perforations: 986 m (3235 ft) to 1032 m (3386 ft)
Deviation at Perforations: Vertical
Liner: 7”, 23#
Treating String: 3.5”, 9.3# tbg
Packer set at: 940 m (3084 ft)
End of Tubing: 950 m (3117 ft)
Top of Formation: 986 m (3235 ft)
Bottom of Formation: 1032 m (3386 ft)
Permeability: 6 mD
Porosity: 18%
Young’s modulus: 500,000 psi (assumed)
Poisson’s ratio: 0.25 (assumed)
Treatment Data
Wellbore Fluid: Slick water
(from step rate test)
Treatment Fluid: Crosslinked gel
(SpectraFrac G 4500, n ’ at BH = 0.65)
3
Treatment Volume: 50 m (314 bbls)
Displacement Fluid: Slick water
3
Displacement Volume: 5.3 m (33.3 bbls)
3
Treatment Rate: 3 m /min (18.8 bpm)

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 253
4,000 40
Gauge BHTP
3,000 30
Slurry Rate, bpm

STP
Pressure, psi
2,000 20
Slurry Rate
1,000 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.6a – Minifrac example 1 job plot.
We can see from Figure 16.6a that the treatment was well executed, with the rate staying constant. The
pressure was monitored for a significant length of time, probably longer than necessary. However, it is
better to record too much data than too little. Figure 16.6a actually shows merged bottom hole gauge and
surface data. This plot would not have been available whilst the treatment was being performed.
Figure 16.6b shows the gauge BHTP pressure decline in more detail, whilst Figure 16.6c shows the
pressure against the square root of elapsed time.
3,300
3,100
Gauge BHTP, psi
2,900
2,700
2,500
2,300
10 20 30 40 50 60
Elapsed Time

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 254
Figure 16.6b – BH gauge pressure decline against elapsed time. Possible closure pressure at +/- 2770 psi
(where the two red lines cross, marking a change in gradient). Note the sudden drop of about 50 psi as the
pumps shut down at t = +/- 13 mins.
3,300
3,100
Gauge BHTP, psi
2,900
2,700
2,500
2,300
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Square Root Time, mins1/2
Figure 16.6c – BH gauge pressure decline against the square root of elapsed time. Possible closure pressure
at +/- 2790 psi (where the two red lines cross, marking a change from straight line to curve).
These two plots are basically in agreement – closure pressure at about 2780 psi. On both plots we see a
sudden drop of about 50 psi, as soon as the pumps shut down. This is almost certainly due to near
wellbore friction. This drop in pressure makes the true ISIP (the treating pressure inside the fracture)
difficult to spot exactly. However, 50 psi is quite low and is unlikely to cause any problems as far as
pumping the treatment is concerned (see later example number 3 for a case where near wellbore friction
did effect the treatment).
Figure 16.6d shows the G Function plot, which should enable a “true” ISIP to be determined, by
extrapolating the straight line back to the y-axis:-

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 255
3,200
3,100
3,000
Gauge BHTP, psi
2,900
2,800
2,700
2,600
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
G Function
Figure 16.6d – G function plot. The “true” ISIP is at +/- 3150 psi, whilst the closure pressure appears to be at
+/- 2780 psi (where the two red lines cross). This gives a Gc of 1.30.
3,500
3,200
2,900
Gauge BHTP
2,600
2,300
2,000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Horner Time
Figure 16.6e – Horner plot. The results from this plot are ambiguous and do not help in the analysis.
Figure 16.6e shows the Horner plot for the minifrac pressure decline. As can be seen, there is no clear
change in gradient from linear flow to pseudo-radial – several different points could be picked. Therefore
this plot is not much help in the analysis. This is a common phenomenon in minifrac analysis – one plot
being ambiguous, whilst others show clearer results. This is one reason why the Frac Engineer must be
familiar with the various types of plots that exist. Most fracture monitoring and analysis software packages

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 256
allow the user to easily display several different types of decline curve.
Results of Graphical Analysis

There is a high degree of agreement between the pressure decline plot, the square root time plot, and the
G function plot. In fact, any experienced Frac Engineer reading this example may find this data suspicious
– minifracs are rarely this easy to interpret. However, this is real data – later on we shall see an example
from a similar formation that is much less easy to analyse.
To summarise the results of the graphical analysis:
ISIP 3150 psi

Closure pressure 2780 psi
Closure time 31 mins (elapsed time)
17.5 mins (shut in time)
Pump Time 13.5 mins
G function at closure, Gc 1.30
Nolte G Function Analysis

Assumptions
Radial geometry, initial fracture radius estimate 50 ft, initial rp estimate 1.0 (i.e. the fracture is completely
contained in the production formation).
1. From equation 16.10, we can find the fracture efficiency at pump shut down:-
η = 39.9%
2. From equation 16.11, we can find the leakoff coefficient:-

1/2
Ceff = 0.00686 ft/min
3. From equation 16.14, we can find the area of the fracture:-

2
Af = 20,147.56 ft
4. From equation 16.16 we can get the average width of the fracture:-
wave = 0.604 inches
5. From equation 16.15 we can obtain a revised value for the fracture radius:-
R = 80.1 ft
Obviously, this final result is significantly different from the initial fracture radius estimate of 50 ft. They
both cannot be right, and are in fact both wrong. In order to find the final answer, an iterative process must
be performed, bringing the initial and final values of the fracture radius closer and closer together until the
difference is negligible.
To start the first iterative step (in this example) steps 1 to 5 are re-worked using the average of the initial
and final values for R , 65 ft. Remember that our formation height is 118 ft – and our fracture height is now
130 ft (2R ). In this case of radial geometry, once the fracture height exceeds the formation height, the ratio
of net to gross area (rp ) must be less than 1. With a fracture radius of 6 5ft, rp can be calculated (using
relatively simple geometry) as 0.967.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 257
6. Using a new initial R of 65ft and a rp of 0.967, we get the following result:-
η = 39.4 % (unchanged, as this depends upon G c only)

1/2
2
Af = 15,498.13 ft
wave = 0.785 inches
R = 70.2 ft
The iterative process continues until the difference between the initial and final values for R are negligible.
This gives the final minifrac analysis result:
η = 39.4 %
1/2
2
Af = 14,728 ft
wave = 0.826 inches
R = 68.4 ft
These values can now be plugged into the 2-D fracture simulator as the basis for a simulated treatment
with proppant.
Note that in order to obtain this result, both Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio have to be assumed. In
addition, it was also assumed that the formations above and below the zone of interest had the same rock
mechanical properties as the main zone. Finally, it was assumed that each fluid that entered the formation
had the same leakoff properties. These are the limitations of using a 2-D model.
Subtopics
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 258
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 259
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:

The next example was pumped in an offshore well in Vietnamese waters. The well itself was an
exploration well that was extensively tested before and after the treatment – and then abandoned. The
operating company wished to determine if hydraulic fracturing was a viable field development technique.

Reservoir Type: Gas Condensate
Perforations: 3122 m (10,243 ft) to 3137 m (10,293 ft)
Casing: 9-5/8”, 47#
Treating String: 3-1/2”, DST string
Packer set at: 3094 m (10,151 ft)
Ported XOver Sub: 3098 m (10,164 ft)
Top of Formation: 3116 m (10,222 ft)
Bottom of Formation: 3143 m (10,312 ft)
Permeability: na
Porosity: na
Treatment Data – Step Rate Test

Wellbore Fluid: Seawater
Treatment Fluid: Slick Water (20 ppt GW-27)
3
Treatment Volume: 2.4 m (15 bbls)
3
Treatment Rate: 0.08 to 2.4 m /min (0.5 to 15 bpm)
Treatment Data - Minifrac

Wellbore Fluid: Slick water
(from step rate test)
(SpectraFrac G 4500)
Treatment Volume: 18.9 m3 (119 bbls)
3
3
Treatment Rate: 2.4 m /min (15 bpm)
Step Rate Test

Figure 16.7a shows the job plot for the step rate test. We can see from this figure that this was not a
particularly well executed step rate test – the rate, and hence the pressure, never really stabilises for each
of the steps. Nevertheless, Figure 16.7b does show quite a marked change in gradient, indicating that the
fracture extension pressure is around 8700 psi, which gives a frac gradient of 0.85 psi/ft – quite high, but
not unheard of.
Unfortunately, there is no step down portion for this step rate test. This is recommended in any situation
where tortuosity is suspected. As this was a formation that had never been fractured before, it would have

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 260
been prudent to perform the step down test.
10,000 20
Gauge BHTP
8,000 16
6,000 12
Pressure, psi
Surface Pressure
Rate, bpm
4,000 8
2,000 4
Slurry Rate
0 0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.7a – Minifrac example 2 step rate test job plot.
However it appears that in this case there are no indications of tortuosity, as the step rate test pressure
decline shows no immediate drop in bottom hole pressure as the pumps are shut down.
Also note that the bottom hole pressure is taken from memory gauges mounted in the DST string.
Therefore, the frac engineer on site did not have access to this data.
10,000
9,000
8,000
Gauge BHTP, psi
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 16.7b – Step rate test crossplot for minifrac example 2, step rate test, showing fracture extension at
+/- 8700 psi.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 261
Minifrac
Figure 16.7c shows the job plot for the minifrac. Execution for this treatment was not perfect, with
significant variations in rate throughout the treatment.
10,000 20.0
Gauge BHTP
8,000 16.0
Slurry Rate
6,000 Surface Pressure 12.0

Pressure, psi
Rate, bpm
4,000 8.0
2,000 4.0
0 0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.7c – Minifrac example 2 job plot.
11,000
10,000 Calc BHTP
9,000
Gauge BHTP
Pressure, psi
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.7d – Comparison between gauge and calculated BHTP for minifrac example 2. Note that
whilst the calculated BHTP follows the same general trend as the gauge BHTP, the actual value is

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 262
quite different. Short term variations in the trend of the calculated BHTP are caused by the
variations in rate. The general offset of the data is probably caused by incorrect input data in the
fracture monitoring package (in this case FracRT ).
Figure 16.7d compares the gauge BHTP with the calculated BHTP. In this plot, we can see a significant
variation between the actual BHTP and the calculated value. This plot is included to make an important
point – be aware that any data you receive can contain errors. In this case, it looks as though the fracture
monitoring software had the wrong data entered. If the calculated BHTP data had been used by itself, it
would have indicated a large amount of tortuosity (note the large drop in pressure at ISIP ). Remember that
there is no step down test to corroborate this. In fact, as we can see from the gauge BHTP, there is very
little near wellbore friction.
9,000 0
8,900 -100
Derivative dBHTP/dT
Gauge BHTP, psi
8,800 -200
8,700 -300
8,600 -400
8,500 -500
14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.7c – Minifrac example 2 pressure decline with derivative.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 263
9,000 0
8,900 -1000
Derivative dP/dT0.5
Gauge BHTP, psi
8,800 -2000
8,700 -3000
8,600 -4000
8,500 -5000
3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5
Figure 16.7f – Minifrac example 2 pressure decline square root time plot, with derivative.
Figure 16.7e shows the pressure decline for minifrac example two, together with it’s derivative. There are
two clear features to be noted on this plot. First, there appears to be an immediate pressure loss at ISIP
of +/- 60 psi, which is probably due to tortuosity. Second, the derivative plot shows a clear change in
gradient at about t = 16.1 minutes, giving a closure pressure of +/- 8725 psi (which corresponds closely
with the fracture extension pressure from the SRT). Note that this closure pressure would have been very
difficult to spot without the derivative plot.
Figure 16.7f shows the same pressure decline, but this time against the square root of time. Once again,
the derivative is included. This plot seems to indicate similar results to the previous plot (Figure 16.7e),
with the fracture closure happening perhaps a little more quickly and at a slightly higher pressure.
Pressure Match
The pressure match was performed using Pinnacle Technologies’ FracProPT fracture simulation software
package. The first step in the process was to merge the surface data (collected in this case by FracRT )
with the bottom hole data. This was performed using the data merging, conversion and editing functions of
the software.
Once this had been accomplished, the model was run with the “run from database data” option selected.
Table 16.7a shows the initial formation data used to produce the initial fracture design and to provide a
basis for the design of the minifrac. As we can see, the reservoir is very layered, with lots of thins beds of
different strata. In reality it is often not necessary – or practical – to use this much definition when
designing a fracture. However, it is included in this example to illustrate the detail that can be used if
necessary.
Leakoff Young’s Fracture

Depth Stress Poisson’s
Lithology Coefficient Modulus Toughness
ft psi -05 6 Ratio 0.5
ft/min psi x 10 psi.in
0 Shaley Sand 7120 0.0024 3.75 0.225 1500

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 264
10220 Shaley Sand 7154 0.0024 3.75 0.225 1500
10278 Sandstone 6372 0.0024 3.5 0.2 1000
10284 Shale 7712 0 6.0 0.25 2000
10312 Sandstone 6393 0.0024 3.5 0.2 1000
10320 Shale 7740 0 6.0 0.25 2000
10342 Sandstone 6412 0.0024 3.5 0.2 1000
10368 Shale 7776 0 6.0 0.25 2000
10386 Sandstone 6439 0.0024 3.5 0.2 1000
10420 Shaley Sand 7294 0.0024 3.75 0.225 1500
10430 Sandstone 6467 0.0024 3.5 0.2 1000
10456 Shale 7842 0 6.0 0.25 2000
10477 Sandstone 6496 0.0024 3.5 0.2 1000
Figure 16.7g shows the initial pressure match, using the original input data. As we can see, there is a
large difference between the actual data and the simulated data, especially with regard to the stress data.
Offshore Vietnam
Initial Pressure Match
Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

20.00 Simulated Net Pressure (psi) Observed Net (psi)
5000 5000
16.00 4000
4000
12.00
3000
3000
8.00
2000 2000
4.00 1000
1000
0.00
0
0 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00
Time (mins)
Figure 16.7g – Initial pressure match for minifrac example 2.
The first step is to increase the stresses in the formation to produce an approximate match at ISIP . Once
this has been done, the match looks better, but is still not complete (see Figure 16.7h).

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 265
Offshore Vietnam
Interim Pressure Match

1000 1000
16.00 800
800
12.00
600
600
8.00
400 400
4.00 200
200
0.00
0
0 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00
Time (mins)
Figure 16.7h – Interim pressure match after the stresses have had a first approximate adjustment. In this
case, the stress gradient for the sandstone was increased from 0.62 to 0.68 psi/ft, and then 1300 psi was
added to each stress. Note that the pressures are on a larger vertical scale than in figure 16.7g.
From this, there are some important points to be noted:-
From the decline curve analysis, we know that the fracture closes at t = +/- 16 minutes at a bottom
hole pressure of +/- 8725 psi. In Figure 16.7h, the simulated net pressure shows fracture closure at
+/-16.5 minutes. This is close to reality. However, we must remember that this will change as we alter
other variables.
The shape of the simulated curve is close to the actual data to start with, but then deviates from the
gauge data. Variables such as Young’s modulus, fracture toughness and stress will be changed for all
formations in order to match this.
Remember that changes in leakoff coefficient will affect the shape of the curve as well.
From the decline analysis, we observed +/- 60 psi tortuosity/near wellbore friction. This should be
remembered when matching the pressures. It should also be remembered that this may not be
constant throughout the treatment.
When pressure matching, it is essential to be able to differentiate between short term variations, and
long term trends. In this example, it will be hard to adjust the model so that the pressure will rise after
+/- 7 minutes, as the actual data does. This point corresponds to the time when the wellbore fluid has
been completely displaced with crosslinked fluid, and this fluid now starts to enter the formation. This
could be a function of tortuosity – which is very sensitive to fluid viscosity – or it could be a sign that
the fracture has now started to extend at a relatively higher rate.
Given that we have a decrease in pressure after +/- t = 10 minutes, it is possible that the rise and then
fall in pressure is due to near wellbore effects. However, the Frac Engineer should closely examine
the fluid samples and question both the blender tender and the lab technician, as this variation could
be due to a change in crosslinked fluid properties (i.e. loss or reduction of crosslinker and/or buffer).
Figure 16.7i shows the final pressure match, after all the adjustments have been made to the simulator
model.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 266
Offshore Vietnam
Final Pressure Match

1000 1000
16.00 800
800
12.00
600
600
8.00
400 400
4.00 200
200
0.00
0
0 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00
Time (mins)
Minifrac Example 2
Figure 16.7i – Minifrac example 2 final pressure match
Note that in Figure 16.7i, it proved very difficult to model the observed net pressure after the crosslinked
fluid entered the formation. As discussed previously, this is almost certainly due to near wellbore and/or
tortuosity effects. Note also that the pressure decline after shut down does not have the same curve as
the observed net pressure. However, it does have the same closure pressure and closure time, implying
that the fluid must be leaking off at the same rate.
Table 16.7b – Final simulator data after pressure match.

Leakoff Young’s Fracture
Depth Stress Poisson’s
Lithology Coefficient Modulus Toughness
ft psi -05 6 Ratio 0.5
ft/min psi x 10 psi.in
0 Shaley Sand 8530 0.0015 6.0 0.225 1500
10220 Shaley Sand 8720 0.0015 6.0 0.225 1500
10278 Sandstone 8550 0.0033 1.5 0.2 500
10284 Shale 8780 0 1.0 0.25 2000
10312 Sandstone 8480 0.0033 1.5 0.2 500
10320 Shale 8690 0 1.0 0.25 2000
10342 Sandstone 8480 0.0033 1.5 0.2 500
10368 Shale 8730 0 1.0 0.25 2000
10386 Sandstone 8510 0.0033 1.5 0.2 500
10420 Shaley Sand 8740 0.0015 6.0 0.225 1500
10430 Sandstone 8540 0.0033 1.5 0.2 500
10456 Shale 8790 0 1.0 0.25 2000
10477 Sandstone 8590 0.0033 1.5 0.2 500
In the actual pressure matching process, it became apparent that fracture only penetrated the top five

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 267
formations, as described in Table 16.7b, above. Therefore, the only changes that made any difference to
the simulation where those made to formations 1 through 5. In fact, as far as the simulation was
concerned, the bottom 8 formations didn’t need to be in the simulator at all. Figure 16.7j shows the
estimated fracture profile, as produced by the now-calibrated fracture simulator. As we can see, the
fracture grows preferentially upwards.
Stress Profile Fracture Profile

10200
10220
10240
10260
Depth (ft)
10280
10300
10320
10340
10360
10380 Permeability
Low High
10400
8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100
Closure Stress (psi) Propped Length (ft) Hydraulic Length (ft)
Figure 16.7j – FracProPT estimated fracture dimensions for minifrac example 2.
In order to get the pressure match, 60 psi of tortuosity was used. This was kept constant, throughout the
simulation. However, it is possible that some of the changes in observed net pressure are due to changes
in near wellbore friction (NWF), rather than the response of the formations themselves. Using a modern
fracture simulator like FracProPT means that the NWF, and especially the tortuosity, can be adjusted on a
continuous basis. As a result, the simulated net pressure can be made to fit any pressure match, just be
adjusting NWF. This is one of the disadvantages of using these advanced models. Because they have so
many factors that can be adjusted, it is possible to make the simulator match any pressure profile desired.
However, it is up to the user to be able to understand which changes to the model are realistic, and which
are not. A certain level of expertise, in both frac theory and in the way the model itself works, is required
before the simulator can be use reliably. These are definitely not “expert” systems.
After the treatment was redesigned, the job was pumped successfully and 100,000 lbs of 20/40
CarboProp was paced in the fracture. Post-treatment DST testing showed an increase in PI of between 4
and 7 times – the uncertainty being due to a leak in the DST string.
Subtopics
16.10 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 268
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 269
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:
16.8 Minifrac Example 3 - Problems with Tortuosity

This well, which is located in the same field as Minifrac Example 1 (although in a different, slightly deeper
formation), had a completely different response to the minifrac. Severe problems were encountered with
the formation’s response to the minifrac. Although efforts were made to mitigate this, resources and
expertise on location were limited, and the job eventually screened out about two thirds of the way through
the treatment.

Reservoir Type: Oil
Perforations: 1121 m (3678 ft) to 1130 m (3707 ft)
Liner: 7”, 23#
Treating String: 3.5”, 9.3# tbg
Packer set at: 1105 m (3625 ft)
End of Tubing: 1115 m (3658 ft)
Top of Formation: 1121 m (3678 ft)
Bottom of Formation: 1157 m (3796 ft)
Permeability: 30 mD
Porosity: 20%
Treatment Data
Wellbore Fluid: Produced Fluids
(SpectraFrac G 4500)
3
3
3
Treatment Rate: 3 m /min (18.8 bpm)
Figure 16.8a shows the treatment plot for this minifrac. This is a well executed minifrac. There is a slight
spike in the rate, as it is being increased initially, but this is not significant. The major point of interest,
however, is the large pressure drop in the gauge BHTP just as the pumps are shut down. This is shown in
Figure 16.8b, which displays more detail of the BHTP at shut down.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 270
5,000 25
4,000 Slurry Rate 20
Gauge BHTP
3,000 15
Pressure, psi
Rate, bpm
Surf. Press.
2,000 10
1,000 5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time, mins
Figure 16.8a – Minifrac example 3 treatment plot.
3,500
3,200 A
Gauge BHTP, psi
2,900 B
E
2,600
D
2,300 C
2,000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time, mins
Figure 16.8b – Minifrac example 3, detail of post-treatment pressure decline.
Figure 16.8b shows 5 main points of interest, labeled A to E as follows
A. Initial pump shut down.

B. Note how the pressure drops immediately by 400 to 500 psi as soon as the pumps shut down. This is
due entirely to near wellbore friction. A step down test would be required to tell for sure if this was due
to perforation friction or tortuosity, but this was not performed. However, as the zone had been
re-perforated just prior to the minifrac, it is likely that this pressure drop is due to tortuosity. This

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 271
pressure drop is very large and is an immediate cause for concern.
C. This point shows a clear change in gradient at +/- 2350 psi and is almost certainly fracture closure.
D. This area of the plot is unusual. It is rare (but not unknown) to see a post treatment pressure decline
of this shape – especially as the decline actually increases for a short period of time. This area of the
plot is probably caused by poor communication between the fracture and the wellbore, and is
potentially another sign of tortuosity.
E. Point E, obtained by extrapolating the straight line pressure decline back until it gets to the point at
which the pumps were shut down, is probably a good approximation for the true ISIP. A G function
plot will be used to confirm this.
A post treatment pressure decline like Figure 16.8b should set alarm bells ringing in the head of any
experienced Frac Engineer. It is obvious that there is a severely restricted flow path in the near wellbore
area. This means that the net pressure, which initially appears to be +/- 900 psi, is in fact probably less
than half of this. This in turn means that the fracture is substantially smaller than it initially appears to be.
In addition, the restricted flow paths between the fracture(s) and the wellbore, will make it very difficult to
place even moderate concentrations of proppant.
Figure 16.8c shows the square root of time pressure decline plot. This plot shows a high degree of
similarity with the pressure decline plot in Figure 16.8b. On this plot, with a slightly expanded vertical
scale, the closure can be seen to be around 2320 psi.
3,200
3,000
2,800
Gauge BHTP, psi
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Figure 16.8c – Minifrac example 3, square root time pressure decline plot
Figure 16.8d shows the Horner plot for the pressure decline. This plot is a little ambiguous, with potentially
two or three different gradients and y-axis intercepts. Consequently, this plot will only be used if the other
plots prove to be unreliable.
In order to help verify both the closure pressure and the true ISIP , a G function plot is used, as shown in
Figure 16.8e. Obviously, to do this we must assume a 2-D geometry. In this case, radial geometry was
assumed. However, the fact that the plot is based on 2-D geometry does not detract from its ability to pick
the true ISIP , and the closure pressure will also be reasonably reliable.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 272
2,800
2,600
Gauge BHTP, psi
2,400
2,200
2,000
1,800
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Horner Time
Figure 16.8d – Horner plot for minifrac example 3. Note that several lines may be fitted to the final slope on
the LHS of this plot. In fact, the reservoir pressure is substantially lower than that indicated on the plot (as
the well is produced by ESP’s), so all of these lines may be unreliable.
3,000
2,800
Gauge BHP, psi
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
G Function
Figure 16.8e – G Function plot for minifrac example 3. Note the true ISIP of +/- 2730 psi, and the closure
pressure of +/- 2320. These values are in agreement with the value obtained from other plots, such as the
pressure decline and the square root time plots.
Pressure Match with MFrac 3-D Fracture Simulator

After the data was imported into the MFrac 3-D fracture simulator, via the data collection programme

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 273
MView , an initial run was performed to see how close the initial, pre-minifrac fracture model was. The
results are shown in Figure 16.8f, above.
4500
Bottomhole Treating Pressure 20
4000 BHTP 16
Measured BHTP
Measured Surface Rate
BHTP (psi)
Rate (bpm)
3500 12
3000 8
2500 4
2000 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (min)
Figure 16.8f – MFrac output showing the initial pressure match before any adjustments were made. There is
very little agreement between the predicted and actual BHTP’s.
As can be seen in Figure 16.8f, to begin with there is very little agreement between the initial fracture
model and the actual response of the formation. Remember also that the BHTP is from a gauge. We can
see that the slope of the pressure decline is significantly different, indicating (in this example), that the
actual fluid loss rate was somewhat faster than predicted. In addition, the pressures predicted whilst
pumping are completely different both in magnitude and in the trend that they follow. Clearly, this model
needed significant adjustment. This is why we perform minifracs.
The effects of tortuosity also manifest themselves on this plot. We can see that, because of the huge
pressure drop as the pumps shut down, the model predicts lower pressures whilst pumping and higher
pressures during the decline.
Obviously, some allowance needs to be made in the model for the tortuosity. It is at this point that
experience and intuition start to take over. The fact is, tortuosity is not necessarily constant throughout the
treatment. The fall in measured BHTP that we see whilst pumping could be due entirely to a continuous
decrease in near wellbore tortuosity. Or it could be due to a reduction in perforation friction as more
perforations are opened up. Worse still, it could be due to a combination of tortuosity, perforation friction
and fracture geometry effects.
However, three other factors help the Frac Engineer. Firstly, we need to remember that we have pumped
no proppant and we have kept the rate constant. Changes in tortuosity are usually (but not always)
associated with either a change in rate, or the action of the proppant. Secondly, changes in tortuosity
(other than those associated with rate) tend to produce rapid changes in the BHTP (“spikes” and “dips”),
rather than slow, smooth changes. Lastly, the zone had just been re-perforated prior to the treatment, and
probably had very low perforation friction (although this cannot be guaranteed – perforating does go wrong
occasionally). Therefore, it is probably a reasonable assumption that – in this case - the pressure loss due
to tortuosity is relatively constant. However, the Frac Engineer must be aware that this is not necessarily
the case.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 274
4000
Bottomhole Treating Pressure 20
3500 15
BHTP
Measured BHTP
BHTP (psi)
Rate (bpm)
Measured Surface Rate
3000 10
2500 5
2000 0
0 10 20 30 40
Time (min)
Figure 16.8g – Final MFrac output, after the model has been adjusted.
In Figure 16.8g, we can see the results of the pressure match. The match is not perfect, but is pretty
close. At the beginning of the treatment, the initial pressure spike has not been matched. Later on, at the
start of the pressure decline, matching the shape of the curve proved to be very difficult. In this area, the
general trend has been matched, whilst the curve has not. The effects of the poor communication
between the fracture(s) and the wellbore are very difficult to model mathematically. The changes made to
the model are listed in Table 16.8a.
Property Formation
Upper Shale Sandstone Lower Shale
Before After Before After Before After
Stress Gradient, psi/ft 0.75 0.62 0.70 0.62 0.75 0.62
6
Young’s modulus, psi x 10 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3
Poisson’s ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
1/2
Fracture Toughness, psi in 1000 1000 1000 7500 1000 1000
-1/2
Leakoff Coefficient, ft min 0.0004 0.0004 0.007 0.015 0.0001 0.0001
Tortuosity ∆P , psi na na 0 550 na na
Table 16.8a - Changes made during the pressure matching process
Treatment Results
The fact that we now have a reasonable pressure match does not alter the fact that it will be very difficult
to place the treatment. The pressure drop due to tortuosity is very large. This means that it will be very
difficult to place proppant inside the fracture – it will almost certainly bridge off in the near wellbore area.
Therefore, the tortuosity needs to be removed. The processes for doing this were described in Section
10.1, and were originally detailed by Cleary et al in SPE 25892 and Køgsball et al in SPE 26796.
In fact, the normal process to cure tortuosity – such as pumping a series of proppant slugs – were not an
option in this instance. The well was drilled in a remote location and the expertise necessary for such an
operation was not available on location. In addition, the operating company was not willing to go through
the potentially lengthy processes needed – the economics of the situation demanded low cost treatments,
in order for them to be justifiable.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 275
In the end, it was decided to place a +/- 6 ppa proppant slug in the middle of the pad, and observe what
happened as it went into the formation. If a significant pressure rise was observed, the plan was to shut
down and re-assess the situation.
In fact, the well screened out as soon as the proppant slug hit the perforations.
However, once the pressure had fallen and more fluids had been mixed, it was possible to break down the
formation again and re-start the treatment. This time, the well treated at a significantly lower pressure –
indicating that the proppant slug may have helped to remove some of the tortuosity.
As it turns out, not all of the tortuosity was removed. The treatment screened out at 8 ppa, with 35,000 lbs
of the planned 50,000 lbs placed in the formation. The rapid pressure rise associated with the screenout
indicated a near wellbore event. However, the operator considered this a success – given the
circumstances – and the production increase more than justified the expense of the treatment.
Subtopics
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 276
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:
16.9 Minifrac Example 4 - Perforation Problems

This minifrac was carried out on a well in New Zealand, using an oil-based fracturing fluid. Oil-based
fracturing fluids are harder to pressure match, as there is less data available on items such as the
wall-building coefficient and tubing friction. The properties of these fluids are highly dependent upon the
hydrocarbon used as the base for the fluid. Even fluids mixed with diesel show a marked variation in
properties, when using with different sources of diesel. Pre-job testing is essential.
Luckily, on this treatment, bottom hole pressure gauges were used, allowing uncertainties due to tubing
friction to be eliminated.
New Zealand, as far as the fracturing industry is concerned, is a remote location and the success or
failure of these treatments depended as much upon the logistics and organisation of the operations, as it
did upon the formation or the skill of the crew.

Reservoir Type: Gas
Reservoir Temperature: 185 F
Reservoir Pressure: 5200 psi
Perforations: 3397 m (11,145 ft) to 3407 m (11,178 ft)
Casing: 7”, 23#
Treating String: 3.5”, 9.3# tbg to 3342.6 m (10,966 ft)
2⅞”, 6.5# tbg to 3379 m (11,086 ft)
Packer set at: 3343 m (10,968 ft)
End of Tubing: 3379 m (10,966 ft)
Top of Formation: 3397 m (11,145 ft)
Bottom of Formation: 3407 m (11,178 ft)
Permeability: 12 mD
Porosity: n/a
Treatment Data
Original Wellbore Fluid: Formation water and gas
Treatment Fluid: Crosslinked gelled diesel
(Super Rheogel 500)
3
Displacement Fluid: Diesel + surfactant
3
3
Treatment Rate: 2.4 m /min (15 bpm)
First Step Rate Test

The first step rate test was pumped using diesel with surfactant. Initially, a wellbore volume was pumped
ahead, to ensure that no gas remained in the well. Then the pumps were shut down for 15 minutes, to
ensure that the effects of this injection did not cloud the results of the step rate test.
It should be remembered that on location, the first step rate test was followed immediately by the minifrac,
and neither where analysed until later on, after the BH gauge data had been retrieved. Therefore, the

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 277
results of the step rate test were not available before the minifrac was pumped. The significance of this
will become apparent as we progress.
Figure 16.9a shows the job plot for the first step rate test, Figure 16.9b shows the step up crossplot and
Figure 16.9c shows the step down crossplot.
12000 12
10000 10
Gauge BHTP
8000 8
Slurry Rate, bpm

Pressure, psi
6000 6
Slurry Rate
4000 4
2000 Surface Pressure 2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.9a – Job plot for Minifrac Example 4, Step Rate Test 1
11000
10000
Gauge BHTP, psi
9000
Fracture Extension at +/- 9100 psi
8000
7000
6000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 16.9b – Step up crossplot for Step Rate Test 1. Fracture extension seems to be at +/- 9100 psi

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 278
The step rate test was executed reasonably well, except for one mishap when bringing an additional pump
in line, when going for 10 bpm. The results from the analysis of the step up crossplot, indicate a fracture
extension of 9100 psi. This gives an extension gradient of 0.82 psi/ft – high, but not exceptionally so.
However, the real problems show themselves in Figure 16.9c – the step down crossplot. This plot clearly
shows the characteristic shape of perforation friction.
10500
10200
Gauge BHTP, psi
9900
9600
9300
9000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 16.9c – Step down crossplot. Note the concave shape of the best fit curve, indicating that the near
wellbore friction is dominated by the perforations.
Minifrac

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 279
12000 18
Gauge BHTP
10000 15
Rate, bpm & Proppant Conc, ppa

8000 12
Surface Pressure
Pressure, psi
6000 9
Slurry Rate
4000 6
2000 3
Proppant Conc
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.9d – Minifrac Example 4 job plot.
The minifrac was pumped directly after the step rate test, before any analysis was carried out on the step
rate test data. Initially, the minifrac was programmed at 8 bpm and without a proppant slug. However,
previous experience had shown that these formations were subject to tortuosity, and so it was decided to
include the proppant slug, to assess how conductive the near wellbore region was. Figure 16.9e shows
what happened when the proppant slug arrived at the formation. Note that this plot shows bottom hole
proppant concentration.
10000 20
9600 Slurry Rate 16

Gauge BHTP
9200 +/- 400 psi Pressure Rise 12

Pressure, psi
as Proppant Reaches Perfs
8800 8
8400 Bottom Hole 4

Proppant Conc
8000 0
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.9e – Detail of job plot showing bottom hole proppant concentration, gauge BHTP and slurry rate,
as the proppant slug enters the formation. Note the +/- 400 psi rise in pressure.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 280
From Figure 16.9e, we can see a +/- 400 psi pressure rise as the proppant enters the formation. This is
not good, and indicates that we will not be able to get even moderate proppant concentration slurries into
the formation.
9500
9200
+/- 650 psi Near Wellbore Friction

Gauge BHTP, psi
8900
8600
Fracture Closure at +/- 8350 psi (0.75 psi/ft)
8300
8000
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.9f – Minifrac pressure decline, showing +/- 650 psi near wellbore friction and a closure pressure of
+/- 8350 psi.
8800
8600
Gauge BHTP, psi
8400
Fracture Closure at +/- 8230 psi (0.74 psi/ft)
8200
8000
7800
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
0.5
Square Root Time, mins
Figure 16.9g – Square root of time plot for the minifrac pressure decline. This gives a slightly lower closure
pressure than figure 16.9f, at +/- 8230 psi.
Figure 16.9f show the ISIP and pressure decline after the minifrac. As we can see, this also does not look
good. Immediately, we can see a +/- 650 psi pressure drop as the pumps are shut down. This can only be

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 281
due to near wellbore friction, as we are using gauge bottom hole treating pressure. This result, together
with the result from the step down test, indicates that this well has severely restricted perforations. As a
result of this analysis, the decision was made to re-perforate and run another step rate test. We can also
see a closure pressure of +/- 8350 psi, which is slightly different from the closure seen in Figure 16.9g, the
square root of time pressure decline plot. This gives a lower closure pressure of +/- 8230 psi. These
closure pressures translate to gradients of 0.748 and 0.739 psi/ft (16.9 to 16.7kPa/m) respectively.
10000 20
Gauge BHTP
8000 16
Surface Pressure
6000 12
Pressure, psi
Rate, bpm
4000 8
2000 Slurry Rate 4
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.9h – Job plot for second step rate test.
9400
9200
Gauge BHTP, psi
9000
8800
8600
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slurry Rate, bpm
Figure 16.9i – Step down crossplot for the second step rate test.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 282
The second step rate test was performed after the well was re-perforated. Originally, the intent had been
to re-perforate the entire 10 meter section of (original) perforations. However, on entering the well, the
wireline operators indicated that there was some kind of fill in the well, sufficient to block access for the
perforating guns to the lower 7 meters of perforated interval. The decision was made on location to shot
holes in the upper 3 meter section only.
After perforating the upper 3 meters of the zone, the BH pressure gauges were re-run into the well, and
the second step rate test was performed. Figure 16.9h shows the job plot for this, whilst Figure 16.9i
shows the step down crossplot.
By comparing Figures 16.9c and 16.9i, we can see that the near wellbore situation has changed
dramatically:-
1. The slope of the best fit curve as changed from concave (perforation dominated) to convex (tortuosity
dominated).
2. The overall bottom hole pressure has dropped significantly. At 8 bpm, the first step rate test shows a
BHTP of +/- 9950 psi, whereas at 8 bpm in the second step rate test, the BHTP is +/- 9270 psi.
So, as a result of the re-perforation, the restricted perforations have been removed (actually, by-passed)
and the overall level of near wellbore friction appreciably reduced.
Minifrac Pressure Match

The minifrac was performed before the well was re-perforated, and so still includes the effects of the
restricted perforations. MFrac was used for this pressure match. Figure 16.9j shows the predicted and
actual bottom hole treating pressures before the pressure match was performed, whilst the post pressure
match pressures are shown in Figure 16.9k.
This treatment was difficult to pressure match, largely due to the dynamic nature of the restricted flow path
in the near wellbore. As we can see fromFfigure 16.9k, the early part of the treatment, at the lower rate,
was not matched. In fact, the only part of the treatment that could be matched was after the proppant slug
had entered the formation.
Consequently, because of the unreliable nature of the data and the analysis, the final design had to be
pretty cautious.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 283
Figure 16.9j – Minifrac Example 4 BHTP plot before pressure matching.
Figure 16.9k – Minifrac Example 4 pressure match using MFrac .
In order to make the pressure match – even for just the last section of the treatment – some substantial
changes had to me made to the initial model.
Stresses All the formations’ stresses had to be significantly increased.

Young’s Modulus All the formations’ moduli had to be significantly decreased.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 284
Leakoff The only way the leakoff could be matched to allow significant fluid loss through
the shale formations above and below the zone of interest.
Perforations The initial model had 170 x 0.3” perforations. Obviously, with 7m of the 10 m
covered by fill, this number had to be reduced. However, in order to get a
pressure match, the perforations had to be modeled as 1 x 0.07”! This was the
only way that the BHTP during the change in rate at t = 46 minutes could be
matched.
Total NWB Friction In addition to the restricted perforations, an extra 600 psi in near wellbore friction
had to be added, in order to match the pressure drop as the pumps were shut
down.
It is unlikely that the perforations had been reduced to the equivalent of one 0.07” diameter perforation.
For one thing, the average grain diameter of 20/40 Carbolite (the proppant used in the proppant slug) is
730 microns or 0.029” (from manufacturer’s data). Thus, the perforation opening is less than 2.5 times the
median grain diameter. It is probable that a 4 ppg proppant slug would have blocked this off.
The simulator results also show that the overall near wellbore friction figure is probably a result of a
combination of poor perforations and tortuosity.
This illustrates the two sides of using simulator. On one hand it is clear that we have very restricted
perforations and that something should to be done about this. (However, we probably could have worked
this out without the simulator, based on the step down test and the pressure drop at the end of the
minifrac.) On the other hand, the extent to which the perforations are blocked is probably exaggerated by
the simulator. Good engineering judgement, based on experience and knowledge of the underlying
theories, needs to be applied in order to decide what is realistic and what is not.
As a consequence of the restricted near wellbore situation, and the fact that the well was re-perforated,
much of the data used to produce the pressure match is not relevant to the main treatment design. Only
the fluid leakoff data and – to a lesser extent – the stresses and moduli – can be used. For modeling the
final treatment, the perforation data was re-set to fifty 0.3” diameter holes, and the total near wellbore
friction reduced to 200 psi (based on the second step rate test). In an ideal world, where the Frac
Engineer has a free hand with regard to technical issues, the minifrac should have been repeated. In
reality, it was not repeated, for a variety of reasons.
Main Treatment
Although the re-perforating had dramatically improved the near wellbore situation, it was clear that there
were potentially still some problems with tortuosity. Without a minifrac, complete with proppant slug, it was
difficult to assess just how bad this problem was. Consequently, the main treatment was designed with
three proppant slugs in the pad.
1. 100 mesh sand at 1 ppa.

2. 20/40 Carbolite at 4 ppa.
3. 20/40 Carbolite at 6 ppa.
These stages were spaced out so that the effect of each one could be assessed before the next one
arrived at the perforations. Based on the response of the formation to these stages, the treatment would
be redesigned on the fly.
Figure 16.9l shows the main treatment job plot and Figure 16.9 m shows a detail of the bottom hole sand
concentration as the 3 proppant slugs arrive at the formation.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 285
10000 25
Calculated BHTP
8000 20

Slurry Rate
6000 15
Pressure, psi
Surface Pressure
4000 10
2000 Proppant 5
Concentration
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.9l – Job plot for the main treatment for Minifrac Example 4. Note the proppant concentration is
measured at the surface.
As we can see, there was very little response from the formation as these three stages went through the
perforations. On the basis of this, it was decided to continue with the treatment as planned. As the job
progressed, it became apparent that the proppant was entering the formation very easily. Originally, the
treatment had been planned for 107,000 lbs of proppant, pumped at 1 to 6 ppa. After assessing the well’s
response to the proppant slugs, and watching the early proppant stages, it was decided to extend the
treatment. 130,000 lbs of proppant was placed, by extending the 4 and 5 ppa stages.
8000 25
7600 20
7200 15
Pressure, psi
Slurry Rate
6800 10
Surface Pressure
6400 5
BH Proppant
Concentration
6000 0
25 30 35 40 45 50
Elapsed Time, mins
Figure 16.9m – Detail of the main treatment for Minifrac Example 4, showing the formation’s response to the
proppant slugs. Proppant concentration is bottom hole.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 286
Subtopics
16.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 287
Fracturing Manual
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Section:
16.10 References
Texas (1989).
Nolte, K.G.: “Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline”, paper SPE 8341,
1979.
Dempsey, Brett.: “Competing with G Function Analysis”, BJ Services’ Engineering News , Vol. 12, No 1,
Winter 2001
Nolte, K.G.: “A General Analysis of Fracture Pressure Decline With Application to Three Models”, paper
SPE 12941, SPEFE , p. 571-583, 1986
FracRT Version 4.6 User’s Manual , BJ Services, 1995
Cleary, M.P, et al .: ”Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs to Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic
Fractures with Adequate Proppant Concentration”, paper SPE 25892, presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver CO, April 1993.
Køgsball, H.H., Pits, M.J., and Owens, K.A.: “Effects of Tortuosity in Fracture Stimulation of Horizontal
Wells – A Case Study of the Dan Field”, paper SPE 26796, presented at the Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen, UK, Sept 1993.
FracproPT Version 9.0 onwards on-line Help, Pinnacle Technologies/Gas Research Institute, July 1999
onwards.
MFrac III Version 3.5 onwards on-line Help, Meyer and Associates Inc, December 1999 onwards.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 288
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 289
Fracturing Manual
Section:
As previously discussed, different types of formation require different types of fracture. For instance, a
high permeability formation requires more fracture conductivity than a low permeability formation. This
section of the manual contains important tips on which fracture characteristics the Engineer should be
designing for, and how to go about achieving them.
As a quick rule-of-thumb, the following guidelines may be used:
i. Skin bypass fracturing is for when eliminating the effect of the skin or extremely low cost are the
primary goals.
ii. High permeability fracturing is when maximising fracture conductivity is the primary goal.
iii. Low permeability fracturing is when maximising fracture inflow area is the primary goal.
iv. Frac and pack fracturing is when fracture conductivity and sand control are the dual primary goals.
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.2 Designing for Skin Bypass
17.3 Designing for Tip Screen Out
17.4 Designing for Frac and Pack
17.5 Designing for Tight Formations
17.6 Designing for Injection Wells
17.7 Designing for CBM Treatments
17.8 Designing for Coiled Tubing Fracturing
17.9 Unified Fracture Theory and Proppant Number
17.10 Net Present Value Analysis
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 290
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 291
Fracturing Manual

Section:
17.1 General
At its most basic level, every fracture is designed to do the same thing – increase the productivity (or
injectivity) of the fractured interval. At the limit, all a fracture has to be is more conductive than the skin
damage around the wellbore in order to do this. This is a relatively easy thing to accomplish, which is why
skin bypass fracture treatments are very low cost and are also easy to perform.
However, often simply bypassing the skin is not enough – bigger production gains are needed to
economically justify the treatment or to efficiently develop the reservoir. In such cases, the fracture has to
be significantly more conductive than the formation. When this happens, it is easier for the formation fluids
to flow down the fracture, than it is to flow through the formation and into the perforations, and the
productive interval will have a negative skin. True stimulation has occurred, rather than just simple
damage removal or elimination. The best way to assess if the fracture is more conductive is to calculate
the relative or dimensionless conductivity, C fD as previously discussed in Section 10.3:
k p wave
C fD = (10.1)
xf k
where k p is the permeability of the proppant, w ave is the average fracture width, x f is the fracture half length
and k is the permeability of the formation. Generally, if the C fD is greater than 1, then the fracture is more
conductive than the formation.
This seems easy enough to calculate, but there are two important points which can often make estimates
of C fD unreliable:
1. The proppant permeability is often not easy to find, nor indeed is it a constant. The permeability of the
proppant will vary with closure pressure. As the reservoir pressure drops (or the drawdown is
increased), the closure pressure on the proppant will change, possibly producing more fines and a
permanent drop in permeability. If the proppant or sand is at the upper limit of its closure stress range,
a drop in reservoir pressure can produce a significant drop in fracture conductivity. In addition, high
rate wells (especially gas wells) can experience non-Darcy flow through the proppant pack, which can
dramatically decrease the effective permeability. Lastly, multi-phase and/or non-Darcy flow can also
significantly reduce the proppant pack’s permeability. Therefore, the value used for k p needs to be an
effective permeability, under a given set of production conditions. The Frac Engineer should also be
aware of how these production conditions can vary over the life of the well and design for this. Recent
information published by proppant vendors and the StimLab consortium, provides detailed information
for the effective permeability of different proppant types under many different conditions.
2. The effective width has to be estimated from a fracture model or simulator. The width generated by
these models (which will vary from model to model, even when the same formation and treatment
parameters are used), is highly dependent upon the Young’s modulus and closure pressure of the
formation. These two parameters are often unknown and may even (as in the case of Young’s
modulus in certain formations) be variable.
Therefore it is important to realise that a fracture must be designed with a safety margin built into the
fracture conductivity, to allow for all these uncertainties. It is therefore recommended that the Frac
Engineer design for a minimum C fD of 20 to 40% greater than theoretically required (see Section 17.9)
Finally, the Frac Engineer should be aware of the upper limits for fracture conductivity. As the conductivity

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 292
increases, the contrast in conductivity between the formation and the fracture will increase as well.
Eventually, a point will be reached at which the formation is delivering reservoir fluids to the fracture as
fast as it can. Further increases in fracture conductivity (or the conductivity contrast) will therefore produce
no subsequent further increase in production. This is the so-called infinite conductivity situation, where the
fracture behaves as if it has an infinite conductivity compared to the formation. Making a fracture this
conductive is simply a waste of proppant, as the same production increase can be achieved for a reduced
propped width. Generally, therefore, it is often not cost effective to design a treatment to produce a C fD of
greater than 10, unless the formation permeability is very low.
Subtopics
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 293
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Skin bypass fractures are the easiest fractures to design. Operationally, they are simple to execute and
have a relatively low probability of screening out early. This is because they are relatively insensitive to
inaccuracies in formation data.
Often, the two biggest factors influencing the design of the skin bypass frac, are not formation- or
perforation-related. In fact, the biggest influences are the volume of fluid already in the wellbore (which
acts as additional pad fluid) and the volume of fluid and proppant that can be pre-pared and pumped on
often very limited or remote locations. (Remember that skin bypass fracs are very low cost treatments,
and that performing workovers or similar operations - allowing the wellbore volume to be reduced or
eliminated - are often unfeasible.)
The volume of fluid in the wellbore is often significantly greater than the desired pad volume. This means
that the size of the actual fracture created is usually out of the control of the Frac Engineer, and the only
factor that can be controlled is the volume of proppant pumped into the fracture. This in turn is often
limited by the available equipment or deck space. However, it should be noted that highly effective skin
bypass fracs can be placed with very small volumes of proppant, provided the effective pad volume can
be minimised (so that the proppant doesn’t get too dispersed in the fracture).
This inability to control either minimum pad volume or maximum proppant volume, actually makes
designing skin bypass fracs very simple, as the number of variables available for the Frac Engineer to
alter are greatly reduced.
Skin bypass fracs should really be thought of as an alternative to acidising. Consequently, they should be
designed to be cost-effective, as compared to a matrix acid treatment. Relative to other types of fracturing,
this means that low cost and ease of operation are the biggest single considerations. These treatments
should be cheap, relatively low-tech and easy to pump.
The following equation describes the production increase that can be expected from a skin bypass
treatment, as described in Section 12 (after SPE 56473):
J
=
[
In re / (rw .e − s ) ] (17.1)
[
J O In 4 / (C fD .x fD ) ]
This equation provides a more realistic measure of the effectiveness of the fracture than methods based
solely on assessing the C fD, as it takes the skin factor into account.
Given that the dimensionless fracture half length, x fD, is defined as follows:-
xf
x fD = (17.2)
re
Then the lower part of the RHS of equation 17.1 can be reduced as follows:-
k p wave x f
C fD . x fD = (17.3)
xf k re

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 294
k p wave
= (17.4)
re k
For skin bypass fracturing, it seems that the production increase is largely independent of propped
fracture length per se . However, it must not be forgotten that as average width is a function of fracture
length, (and vice versa ). In this case, w ave is the average propped fracture width, not the average created
fracture width. This is a significant difference that helps to reinforce the concept that skin bypass fracture
effectiveness is much more dependent upon average propped fracture width than it is upon fracture
length. This is why skin bypass fracs can be so cost effective and easy to perform – almost any kind of
pad will suffice, as long as the proppant is kept near the wellbore at a sufficient concentration.
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 295
Fracturing Manual

Section:

The tip screenout (or TSO), as previously described in Section 10.4, is a technique used to artificially
induce increased fracture width, whilst at the same time limiting fracture half-length and height. In order to
obtain the tip screenout, proppant has to be forced into the tip of the fracture. Once sufficient proppant has
been forced into the tip, the fracture fluid is no longer able to maintain a positive net pressure at the tip,
and the fracture stops propagating.
At this point, the fracturing fluid is still being pumped into the fracture at a rate substantially greater than
the leakoff rate. This means that the fracture volume has to increase somehow. As the treatment has
artificially stopped the fracture from increasing length or height, the width has to increase. In order for the
width to increase, extra net pressure (i.e. energy) is required to further compress the formation either side
of the fracture. This is why a TSO is characterised by a steady increase in net (and hence surface)
pressure from the point at which the TSO initiates until the end of the treatment.
Obviously, the TSO must not happen too early. If this happens, the fracture may not achieve the required
vertical coverage of the formation. In addition, it must be remembered that the longer the fracture is, the
easier it is to produce width. Therefore, if the TSO occurs early, the treatment may not be able to produce
sufficient width before the maximum surface treating pressure is exceeded – a screenout.
In order to generate a TSO at the correct point in the treatment, it is necessary to pump a pad, sized such
that it will have leaked off completely at the point at which the TSO must occur. In order for the proppant
following the pad stage to produce the TSO, all of the pad fluid has to leak away, otherwise the proppant
will not get into the fracture tip.
Therefore, in order to achieve a TSO, a formation must have a relatively high fluid leakoff rate. It is
generally not possible to produce a TSO on very low permeability formations. This is generally not a
problem however, as TSO’s are usually only required on high permeability formations.
In order to be able to predict (and hence control) the point at which the TSO occurs, it is therefore
essential to know the rate at which the pad fluid is leaking off. This can only usually be achieved if a
minifrac has been pumped prior to the treatment (unless there is a considerable history of fracturing a
particular formation, and the characteristics of this formation have been shown to be reliable). In addition,
it is essential to retain uniform frac fluid characteristics throughout the minifrac and main treatment. If the
fluid characteristics change, the leakoff rate will almost certainly change.
The minifrac is also essential for determining the Young’s modulus of the formation. This has a big
influence on a TSO treatment, as it determines how much net pressure is required to produce a given
fracture width. It is the Young’s modulus that determines whether or not the required width can be
achieved without exceeding the maximum surface treating pressure.
Therefore, the two key points to designing a successful TSO treatment are the fluid leakoff and the Young’
s modulus. Every effort should be made to determine accurate values for these variables.
Subtopics
17.1 General

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 296
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 297
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Frac and Pack treatments contain all the elements described in Section 17.3 (above) for a TSO design,
plus some extra elements specific to the completion being installed.
Frac Pack
Slurry
Blank Pipe
‘Packed’ Gravel
or Proppant
Figure 17.4a – The diagram on the LHS illustrates the position of the slurry and the ‘pack’ at screenout – with
the top of the ‘packed’ proppant at the top of perforations, and the annular space between the completion
and the wellbore full of slurry, up until the crossover ports. The RHS shows the position of the pack after all
the proppant has been allowed to settle.
Figure 17.4a illustrates a schematic of the frac and pack completion, complete with the setting tool
(assumed to be in the squeeze position). Towards the end of the treatment – as with any TSO design –
the formation will screenout, preventing the pumping of any further slurry into the formation. However, the
frac and pack treatment is designed with an extra volume of slurry on the end of the final stage. This stage
is added so that the annular space between the completion and the casing can be filled with proppant.
When the completion is made up, sections of “blank pipe” (usually regular P-110 tubing) are added above
the screens. This produces extra distance between the crossover ports (the point at which the slurry
enters the annulus) and the screens. This extra distance provides an extra volume of slurry in the annulus
after the screenout, so that once all the proppant has settled down onto the pack, the height of the pack is
significantly above the top of the screens.
So - basically - the frac and pack treatment is a TSO treatment, designed with some extra slurry on the
final stage, so that the annular space is completely packed to above the height of the screens. This is
verified after the treatment by pumping a circulation test (also referred to as re-stressing). By comparing

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 298
the results of these with a similar pre-frac test, the height of proppant in the annulus can be calculated, as
follows:-
(P final − Pinitial )k p A 2
H= (17.5)
(1279 µ q A) + (4.63 ρ q 2 k p 0.45 )
In Equation 17.5, P initial is the surface pressure for the pre-frac circulation test (psi), P final is the surface
pressure for the post-frac circulation test (psi), k p is the proppant permeability (darcies), A is the annular
3
capacity between the casing and the blank pipe (ft /ft), µ is the viscosity of the fluid being circulated (cp), q
is the flow rate (bpm) and ρ is the density of the fluid (ppg). H is the height of proppant above the screens
in feet. Use the same fluid, pumped at the same rate, for both the pre- and the post-frac tests. The above
relationship is based on the Forcheimer equation (Equation 10.4) and so allows for inertial flow effects.
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 299
Fracturing Manual

Section:
17.5 Designing for Tight Formation

In general, tight formations have low permeability, hard rock and require some form of stimulation in order
to be economic. Normally, these formations require a completely different approach to the treatments
described in the previous sections. These previous treatments have relied upon the bypassing of skin
damage and on the conductivity of the fracture to produce the production increase. This is not true of tight
formations, in which the skin factor is usually relatively low, and it is easy to obtain a fracture that is many
times more conductive than the formation.
In fact, for the purposes of fracture stimulation, it is possible to define a tight formation as one in which the
most important fracture characteristic is not propped width, but propped length.
When defining a tight formation, it is also useful to think in terms of mobility , rather than simple
permeability. Mobility, m , is defined as follows:-
k
m= (17.6)
µ
where k is the permeability of the formation to the produced fluid and µ is the viscosity of that fluid at
reservoir conditions. This allows us to see that a tight oil formation has considerably greater permeability
than a tight gas formation.
In the case of a tight formation – especially a tight gas formation – it is relatively easy to produce a fracture
of essentially infinite conductivity (i.e. a fracture so conductive that any further increase in fracture
conductivity produces no subsequent increase in production). In such a situation, the factor limiting the
potential production increase is the ability of the formation to deliver hydrocarbons to the fracture. This is
controlled by the permeability of the formation and by the inflow area of the fracture. Obviously, increasing
the permeability of the entire formation is beyond the abilities of stimulation engineering. However,
maximising inflow area – by increasing the size of the fracture faces – is relatively easy.
Therefore, fractures in tight formations are designed to produce maximum size, with a minimum
necessary proppant concentration.
Of course, there are diminishing returns on increasing fracture size – doubling the fracture length will
increase the fracture area by approximately 4 times (as the height will increase at the same relative rate
as the length). This means that the proppant volume (which is spread over the entire area of the fracture)
is also increased by a factor of 4. As the fracture height increases, an increasingly greater proportion of
the fracture will be outside the zone of interest (unless a “massive” formation is being fractured).
Therefore, an increasing proportion of the proppant will be placed out of zone (i.e. it is wasted). In addition,
the fluid volume required will increase by between 4 to 8 times. Thus, doubling the length – which at best
can only double the production – will can increase the cost of the treatment by 4 to 6 times.
Whilst fracture conductivity is not the most important consideration for tight formation fracturing, it is
important to remember that some fracture conductivity is required. Remember that the proppant pack will
lose permeability due to factors like residual polymers, non-Darcy flow and multi-phase flow, and also that
the pack may lose permeability as the reservoir pressure depletes (i.e. as the closure pressure increases).
Therefore, when designing a tight formation fracture treatment, it is important to carefully define the
minimum fracture conductivity, and to ensure that the produced fracture always remains above this.
Tight formations – especially tight gas formations – tend to have the following characteristics:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 300
i. Low permeability and hence low fluid leakoff
ii. High Young’s modulus and hence;
iii. Low fracture toughness
Because of the often extremely low fluid leakoff, it is possible to treat these formations with very low pad
volumes. Often, it is not necessary to crosslink the pad and a linear gel is used (a "hybrid" frac). In some
formations, it is even possible to frac without any pad whatsoever – the formation can be fractured with the
first slurry stage.
Because of the very low fluid leakoff, these fractures can take a long time to close after the treatment is
finished (work by Cleary et al suggests that some fractures may take 24 hours to close). Therefore, it is
important to design the fracturing fluid with very good proppant transport characteristics, so that it is
capable of supporting the proppant for as long as it takes the fracture to close.
Another major issue for tight formations, especially tight gas formations, is fluid recovery. In many cases,
extra care and attention must be paid to the design of the fracturing fluid to ensure that it does not form
fluid blocks in the formation. This is usually done by adding surfactants to reduce the surface tension of
the fluid system. It is also important to break the fluid to as low a viscosity as possible. Dry gas reservoirs
may be sensitive to fluids or any type – water or hydrocarbon. These can cause extensive damage due to
changes in relative permeability. In such formations, it is common practice to perform treatments using N2
or CO2 foams (or with binary foams), to reduce the liquid content to a minimum. Alternatively, it is also
common practice to treat dry gas wells with methanol-based fluids, as these are very easily recovered
after the treatment.
Tight gas fracturing is probably the single most common form of hydraulic fracturing. In many areas of the
world, tight gas reservoirs can only be produced economically because of hydraulic fracturing. In these
places, fracturing has become the accepted method of completing wells and whole reservoirs are
developed using this technique.
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 301
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 302
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Injection wells are basically fractured in the same way as production wells, although there are a number of
minor points which must be observed:-
i. Take careful note of the closure pressure after the treatment. When the well is placed back on
injection, on no account must this pressure be exceeded, as this will open up the fracture and
(potentially) allow the proppant to fall downwards.
ii. Remember that the build-up of pressure in the near wellbore area (caused by the injection) may act to
reduce the local closure pressure.
iii. Clean up the well after the fracture as much as possible before placing the well on injection. Any
polymer residue or proppant fines left in the proppant pack will act to block the formation permeability
and will not be produced back from the formation.
iv. When fracturing existing injection wells, fluid leakoff will often be much higher than in offset producing
wells, due to the higher than normal water saturation of the formation.
v. Do not use surfactants that leave the formation water-wet. These will act to reduce the injectivity of the
water.
vi. When fracturing a new well, remember that water injection – and the control of where the water goes
– is an important part of reservoir management. Select the zone to be fractured carefully and always
in consultation with the Reservoir Engineer. Be aware of the consequences of fracturing into high
permeability and/or low pressure formations.
vii. Consider using polymer-free fracturing fluids (e.g. visco-elastic fluids or brine with LiteProp ). Such
fluids have very low permeability once broken and no polymer residues. Consequently, they do not
have to be flowed back - simply place the well back onto water injection once the fluid has broken.
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 303
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 304
Fracturing Manual

Section:

The vast majority of the coal bed methane fracturing that takes place in the US in 9 or 10 major basins in
the US, Australia and in China. In addition, CBM fracturing also takes place in a number of locations,
including the UK, the Middle East and Russia. In all of these places, each particular coal field or basin
tends to be dominated by a single operating company.
Each of these basins has its own particular characteristics, in terms of the age and maturity of the coal,
the reservoir pressure, the fines mobility, the water production and the mechanical characteristics of the
coal seams and their surrounding rock layers. As a result of this, each operating company has developed
its own particular method for producing the gas, and when this involves fracturing, they have developed
their own method for this as well.
CBM fracturing remains to this day very difficult to simulate on a computer. Conventional models cannot
be applied to the coal, due to the extensive cleat systems that exist in the seams, the extremely plastic
nature of the coal and the shear decoupling that exists between the coal and the over- and under-lying
rock strata. Without the aid of reliable fracture models, Engineers have developed a number of “rules of
thumb” for CBM fracturing, most of which are specific to a particular basin.
In short, operating companies that are successfully producing coal bed methane, are those which have
been prepared to experiment, to try out a few different methods and to except a few failures along the
way.
Completions
i. There are many different completions being used, from open hole to multiple perforated monobores.
There is very little agreement over which is ideal, although a cemented and perforated completion is
best when fracturing is being considered.
ii. Formations tend to be several thin seams, rather than a single large seam. As such, most
completions contain several sets of perforations.
iii. In such cases, it is essential that each set of perforations is broken down before the fracturing
operation. This usually involves using a straddle packer (or packer and bridge plug) positioned over
each set of perforations in turn. The breakdown is achieved by pumping small quantities of acid
(usually formic) into the zone. Some companies prefer to do this with water.
iv. The breakdown can also be achieved using ball sealers, but this is less reliable.
v. Without the breakdown of each individual zone, it is likely that most of the perforated intervals will
receive no stimulation during a treatment, whilst the other zones will receive everything.
Fluid Systems
i. All sorts of different fluid systems are still being used, including foams, fresh water, slick water and
crosslinked gels.
ii. Slick water and fresh water have the advantages that they are very cheap and potentially
non-damaging to the coal seam. Their major disadvantage is that their low viscosity makes it difficult
to carry proppant deep into the cleat system. This can also lead to pre-mature screenouts. However,
neutral density proppants could potentially revolutionise this type of treatment, although the cost of the
proppant may be uneconomic.
iii. Foams have good proppant transport characteristics, and are very good for placing the proppant in
the wider cleats and not in the narrower channels. Foam is also very good for unloading the well after
the treatment. However, foam is very expensive to use, requiring a lot of additional specialised

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 305
equipment on location for the treatment.
iv. The best fluid system to start out with seems to be a cheap, reasonably low polymer loading
crosslinked borate guar or guar derivative. This is a standard water-based fracturing fluid, reduced to
the minimum necessary to carry proppant into the cleat system. Polymer loading would be 25 to 30
lbs/mgal. It is essential that an enzyme breaker be used, as it has been shown that oxidizing breakers
can seriously damage the cleat faces.
Proppant Selection
i. Generally, it is best to pump as large a proppant grain size as possible. This is for two main reasons:
First, the larger the proppant grain, the higher the proppant permeability and the less susceptible the
proppant is to embedment in the cleat faces; Second, the larger proppant grains allow the coal fines to
past through, rather than collect and gradually plug up the conductivity.
ii. The recommended proppant size is 12/20 Sand, although sometimes this can be hard to obtain.
iii. Some operators like to pump a fine grain sand (such as 100 mesh) in the early stages of the
treatment (in the pad). The purpose of this is to block up the narrow cleats, and force the fracture and
the larger main proppant grains into the wider cleats.
iv. Proppant volume ranges from 3,000 to 10,000 lbs per vertical ft of net height. Some operators claim to
be able to place 15,000 lbs/ft, but this is not confirmed. A good starting point is to aim to place 5,000
lbs per vertical ft of coal. If this is placed without any problems, the proppant volume can be gradually
increased on subsequent treatments.
Fracture Geometry
i. Although it is very difficult to predict the geometry of the fracture(s), it is still possible to divide the
fractures into two main regimes.
ii. The first regime occurs when the fracture penetrates up and down into the over- and under-lying rock
strata. Fractures tend to have an overall radial or elliptical geometry, although the actual shape of the
fracture(s) within the coal seam will be very complex. This regime is characterised by a moderate to
low frac gradient (0.5 to 0.7 psi/ft), as the fracture is pushing against the minimum horizontal stress.
iii. The second regime occurs when the coal seam shears relative to the over- and under-lying rock
strata, so that the fracture does not penetrate out of the coal seam. This results in the famous T and I
–shaped fractures, where the fracture grows horizontally between the coal seam and the confining
rock strata. This regime produces better stimulation, as all of the proppant is placed in the coal seam.
However, pressures tend to be much higher, with the frac gradient being 1.0 psi/ft or greater, as the
fracture has to lift the overburden in order to propagate. Also, it is important not to confuse the high
pressures of this type of frac, with the high pressures produced by near wellbore friction (see below).
Notes on Job Design

i. In addition to breaking down each set of perforations individually, it is also worthwhile performing a
full-scale minifrac. This involves pumping into the formation at the anticipated treatment rate, using
the actual treating fluid but no proppant. This allows the frac engineer to assess the overall fracture
geometry (from the frac gradient) and the level of near wellbore friction (from the difference between
the BHTP and the ISIP ).
ii. Surface facilities should be designed to cope with fines production. All treatments, regardless of the
fluid used and the additives mixed into the fluid, will cause the production of coal fines. These fines
should be produced back to the surface and handled there. If they are not produced back to surface,
they will block up the proppant pack and cause a loss in production that will increase with time.
iii. Treatment pump rate should be 1.0 to 1.5 bpm per vertical ft of coal. Treatments using fresh or slick
water are usually pumped at higher rates. This is because the fluid has no proppant transport
characteristics, and so it is essential to keep the proppant moving within the cleat system.
iv. Pad volume should be 20 to 25% of the overall treatment volume, although this is an area that varies
considerably – some treatments use only 5% or even less.
v. Proppant concentration should be 6 to 8 ppg (lbs per gal) for the crosslinked fluid and foam. Slick and
fresh water systems are only capable of carrying proppant up to about 2 ppg.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 306
vi. If significant near wellbore friction is present, then it is likely that 6 to 8 ppg will cause a premature
screenout. If this friction is detected, the maximum proppant concentration should be reduced to 4
ppg. If this happens, more fluid will be required to place the same volume of proppant.
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 307
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Coiled tubing fracturing is really a method for placing the fracture treatment, rather than a specific method
of treating a type of formation. Any of the types of treatment previously described can be placed with
coiled tubing.
The advantages of using coiled tubing have already been explained in Section 3.6. To summarize, they
are as follows:-
i. Isolation of completion.
ii. Isolation of individual zones.
iii. Rapid turn around between multiple treatments.
iv. Use of coil to gas lift the well back to production.
The main problem with fracturing through CT is the narrow diameter of the tubing itself. This means that
the most important factors in designing CT fracs are the friction pressure of the fracturing fluid and the
maximum allowable pressure that can be imposed on the CT.
BJ’s Circa Coiled Tubing Simulator can be used to predict the maximum allowable injection pressure, for
any given CT string. However, it must be remembered that the CT string will be static when the treatments
are pumped. The maximum injection pressure usually generated by CT simulators assumes that the CT is
either moving in or moving out of the hole. This means that the CT is being continuously plastically
deformed, as the internal pressure is applied. However, if the CT is static – and hence it is not being
plastically deformed – the CT will be able to withstand much greater internal pressures. For instance,
normal maximum injection pressures for CT are in the region of 5,000 to 6,000 psi. However, during static
fracturing operations, treatments have been pumped at pressures up to 13,000 psi.
However, in spite of this, the friction pressure of the frac fluid (and the subsequent surface treating
pressure it produces) will still dominate the design of the treatment. It is often necessary to use very low
friction pressure fluids (i.e. low polymer loading gels or visco-elastic surfactant-based fluids) in order to be
able to maintain the desired rate. These fluids are often significantly more expensive than their
conventional alternatives.
Notwithstanding the increased allowable internal pressure and a possibly reduced friction pressure, even
with large diameter CT strings (2” or greater), the Frac Engineer will still be rate limited to between 5 and
12 bpm. This can often significantly limit the size of treatment that can be placed in the formation.
Obviously, the shorter the string, and the larger the ID, the greater the maximum rate. However, it should
also be noted that generally with CT, the larger the ID, the smaller the maximum allowable pressure
(unless so-called heavy-walled CT is used).
Therefore, the Frac Engineer has to balance the need for rate against the desire for a cheap fluid and the
maximum allowable injection pressure. Usually, the requirements of the treatment take precedence over
the cost of the fluid, allowing the Frac Engineer more freedom to design a suitable pumping schedule.
CT fracturing has found niche applications in a number of areas, most notably southern Alberta. However,
it remains economically viable only in areas where there are relatively shallow multi-zone formations, and
where the cost of a workover is expensive.
Subtopics
17.1 General

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 308
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 309
Fracturing Manual

Section:

In 2002, Economides, Oligney and Valkó, published their principles of Unified Fracture Design, and
introduced the concept of a dimensionless proppant number, or N p. This was defined as follows:-
2x f
Np = C fD (radial flow system ) (17.7)
re π
2x f
Np =
xe
(
C fD square reservoir , area = xe
2
) (17.8)
Rearranging and substituting in equation 10.1 gives the following result, for a radial flow system:-
2k p wave
Np = (17.9)
re k π
According to the theory, for each value of N p there is a corresponding optimum value of C fD, which
produces the maximum production increase. Therefore, this theory allows the Frac Engineer, for any
given reservoir and proppant combination, the optimum balance between average proppant width (w ave)
and proppant fracture half length (x f), as illustrated in Figure 17.9a.
Figure 17.9a also shows us that for N p values less than 0.1 the optimum value of C fD is 1.6. This gives the
Frac Engineer a very powerful tool – for medium to high permeability fracturing (i.e. N p < 0.1) the fracture
should always be designed for C fD = 1.6. For low permeability fracturing, the relationship is not so
simplistic and specific values for N p have to be calculated for each proppant-reservoir-fracture
combination.
As can be seen from Equation 17.9, proppant number varies inversely with formation permeability. It can
therefore be thought of as a measure of the effectiveness of the proppant, as a transport medium, relative
to the formation. Whilst very low values of N p are easy to obtain, in practice it is hard to get values higher
than 10 (as r e is limited).
Under most circumstances, the changeover from N p < 0.1 to N p > 0.1 occurs in the range of 0.5 to 5 mD
formation permeability. Obviously, the exact value is highly dependent upon the effective proppant
permeability (allowing for the effects of multi-phase and non-Darcy flow).

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 310
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD 100
10
C fD = 1.6 for N p < 0.1
Medium to High Permeability Low Permeability
0.1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Proppant Number, N p
Figure 17.9a – Optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity against dimensionless proppant number (after
Economides et al , 2002).
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 311
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 312
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Net Present Value (NPV) analysis is a method for comparing one treatment to another, on a cost basis, to
determine which treatment is the most cost effective. It allows one treatment to be compared to another
on economic grounds. NPV takes into account the cost of the treatment, the revenue generated and the
customer’s requirements. When comparing treatments, the option that produces the greatest NPV should
be selected. Within the constraints of equipment, materials, completion and cost, the Frac Engineer
should design for maximum NPV.
A more detailed explanation of NPV analysis, together with an example, is contained in Section 13.1.
Subtopics
17.1 General
17.11 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 313
Fracturing Manual

Section:
17.11 References
Gidley, J.L., et al : Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing , Monograph Series Vol 12, SPE, Richardson,
Texas (1989).
Bradley, H.B. (Ed): Petroleum Engineer's Handbook , SPE, Richardson, Texas (1987)
Jiang, T., Shan W.W., Ding, Y.H., Wang, Y.H. and Wang, Y.L.: “Systematic Fracturing Technology and its
Application in Development of Low Permeability Reservoir”, SPE 50910, presented at the SPE
international Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, November 1998.
Phillips, A.M. and Anderson, R.W.: “Use of Proppant Selection Models To Optimize Fracturing Treatment
Designs In Low-Permeability Reservoirs”, SPE/DOE 13855, presented at the SPE/DOE 1985 Low
Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, Colorado, May 1985.
Voneiff, V.W., and Holditch, S.A.: “A Economic Assessment of Applying Recent Advances in Fracturing
Technology to Six Tight Gas Formations”, SPE 24888, presented at the 67th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, October 1992.
Yong Fan, and Economides, M.J.: “Fracture Dimensions in Frac&pack Stimulation”, SPE 30469,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1995.
Rae, P., Martin, A.N., and Sinanan, B.: “Skin Bypass Fracs: Proof that Size is Not Important”, SPE 56473,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 1999.
O’Driscoll, K.: Middle-East Region Coal Bed Methane Fracturing Manual , BJ Services, 1995.
Gavin, W.G.: “Fracturing Through Coiled Tubing – Recent Developments and Case Histories”, SPE
60690, presented at the 2000 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, April 2000.
Cramer, D.D.: “The Unique Aspects of Fracturing Western US Coal-beds”, SPE 21592, presented at the
Petroleum Society of CIM/Society of Petroleum Engineers International Technical Meeting, June 10-13,
1992, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Nimerick, K.H., et al : “Design and Evaluation of Stimulation and Workover Treatments in Coal Seam
Reservoirs”, SPE 23455, presented at the Petroleum Society of CIM/Society of Petroleum Engineers
International Technical Meeting, June 10-13, 1990, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G.: Petroleum Engineering – Principles and Practices , Graham and Trotman,
London (1986).
Wong, G.K., Fors, R.R., Casassa, J.S., Hite, R.H., and Shlyapobersky, J.: “Design, Execution and
Evaluation of Frac and Pack (F and P) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand Formations in the Gulf of
Mexico”, SPE 26563, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston TX,
Oct 1993.
Tiner, R.L., Ely, J.W. and Schraufnagel, R.: “Frac Packs – State of the Art”, SPE 36456, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver CO, Oct 1996.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 314
Economides, M.J., Oligney, R.E. & Valkó, P.P.: Unified Fracture Design , Orsa Press, Alvin, TX, 2002.
Subtopics
17.1 General
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 315
Fracturing Manual
Section:
Thanks to the advent of electronic data gathering systems, personal computers and efficient, reliable
fracture simulators, it is now possible to actually model the fracture as the treatment progresses. This
process, known as Real-Time Monitoring , allows the Frac Engineer to actually re-design the treatment
on-the-fly.
The more traditional form of on-site redesign is when data from a step rate test and/or minifrac is used to
redesign the main treatment. This is usually carried out on-site, with the whole of the frac spread and frac
crew waiting for the Frac Engineer to produce the new frac design.
Subtopics
18.1 Real-Time Data Gathering
18.2 On-Site Redesign
18.3 Real-Time Fracture Modeling
18.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 316
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Pressure
Transducers
Voltage
Bottom Hole
Pressure Data
Flowmeters
Frequency 3600 or ASCII Data

Isoplex JobMaster
Selected
ASCII Data
Frequency
Frac Model
Nuclear
Densometers
Redesigned
Frac
Treatment
Engineer
Schedule
Figure 18.1a – Process loop for real-time fracture modeling and redesign
With a modern frac spread, it is now possible to measure, record and monitor every single treatment
parameter, including items such as liquid additive rates, sand screw rpm’s and annulus pressure.
However, for the Frac Engineer, there are three main variables which are required:- bottom hole pressure,
proppant concentration and slurry rate. It is useful and often necessary for a whole range of data to be
recorded during the treatment, but it is only these three variables which will be needed for the redesign.
Often it is useful for the Frac Engineer to use surface treating pressure, in order to calculate BHTP or pipe
friction data. Also, is it sometimes quite helpful for the Frac Engineer to record stage number, in order to
keep track of which stage is at the perforations (especially if there are tortuosity problems).
Data is recorded using three basic types of measuring devices; pressure transducers, nuclear
densometers and flow meters (as illustrated in Figure 18.1a).
Flow Meters
Flow Meters come in three main types:- turbine, magnetic and inertial or mass flow meters.
Turbine flow meters are the most commonly used, as they are easy to employ, require no external power
supply and are cheap. They can also be used in high pressure flow lines. Fluid flow is measured by a

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 317
single turbine, which is positioned in the centre of the flow stream. This turbine rotates when fluid passes
through the flowmeter. The faster the fluid flow, the faster the turbine spins. A magnetic pick up measures
how fast the turbine is rotating, sending an output in the form of a frequency to the control centre.
The turbine flowmeter has several disadvantages. It is easily obstructed or damaged by debris in the frac
fluid. This means that the flowmeter needs to be checked and potentially re-dressed after every treatment.
The turbine flowmeter requires a separate calibration factor for each different fluid type (i.e. linear gels,
gelled acids, gelled oils etc). The turbine flowmeter also has a relatively high flow rate threshold, below
which the turbine will not rotate. This means that for 2 or 3 different turbine flow meters are usually
required for measuring over a wide range of flow rates. Turbine flow meters can only be used for liquids.
Magnetic flow meters (often referred to as mag flowmeters ) rely of the physics of generating electrical
current. This states that it you have motion and a magnetic field, then you will get current flow, provided
there is a conductive path. The magnetic flow meter provides the magnetic field, the fluid provides the
motion and a current is generated. The magnitude of the current is proportional to the flow rate. These
flow meters are easy to use (once they have been set up) and very reliable, requiring little maintenance
(they have no moving parts or restrictions). The main disadvantages of these flow meters are that they
require an external power source, they are expensive and they can only be used for measuring conductive
fluids (so they cannot be used for measuring gelled hydrocarbons or gases).
Inertial or mass flow meters (such as the MicroMotion flowmeter) work by using two flow loops. As the
fluid enters the flow meters, it is split into two loops of equal diameter. One loop measures the density of
the fluid, whilst the other loop measures the mass flow rate. Volumetric flow rate is obtained by dividing
the mass flow rate by the density.
Density is measured by forcing the flow around a loop that is vibrating. This vibration is produced by a
calibrated agitation system, which always provides the same force, at the same frequency. A measuring
system compares the known “input” agitation with the vibration of the flow loop. Generally, as the mass of
the flow loop + fluid increases, the frequency with which the loop vibrates will slow down. As the mass and
volume of the flow loop is known, the density of the fluid can be quickly calculated.
Mass flow rate is measured by the second flow loop. This loop is offset slightly from the main direction of
flow, so that the inertia of the fluid as it flows causes the loop to twist slightly. The amount of twist is
measured by a number of strain gauges placed along the flow loop. The force causing the flow loop to
twist (and hence the reading on the strain gauges) is directly proportional to the mass flow rate.
This type of flow meter has several advantages. Most types of fluids can be measured by this method,
including gases, hydrocarbons and cryogenic fluids. The flow meter can also be used to output density,
eliminating the need for a separate densometer. If the pressure differential across the flow meter is
carefully measured, the apparent viscosity of the fluid can also be obtained. Unfortunately, this flowmeter
also has several disadvantages. Because the fluid flow is forced around two flow loops, it cannot be used
for abrasive fluids (the flow loops are quickly abraded until they fail). These flow meters are quite large
and heavy. They are expensive. Finally, because of the sensitive measuring apparatus inside the flow
meter, these devices are also quite fragile.
The above listed three methods are all direct methods of measurement. However, it should also be noted
that flow rate is often measured indirectly, by reading the rpm's of an input shaft powering a pump (often
referred to as a "stroke counter"). Basically, the computer reading the rpm's has a calibration factor which
converts rpm's to flow rate, a quickly and easily calculation. Whilst these flowmeters are very easy to use
and also very mechanically reliable, they suffer from 2 main drawbacks. First, no pump is 100% efficient,
and so the stroke counter has to be calibrated to allow for this. Second, if the pump loses prime (or
doesn't have prime to start with), then the stroke counter will give a false reading. It is therefore advisable
to use a direct flow rate measurement as the primary source of flow rate measurement, using stroke
counters only as a back up.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 318
Nuclear Densometers
Nuclear densometers (or densimeters, or densiometers) all work on the same basic principal. A
radioactive source is held on one side of the flow stream, whilst a detector on the opposite side of the flow
stream measures the radioactivity that passes through the flow stream, in counts per second. Basically,
the higher the density of the fluid, the lower the number of counts per second.
Nuclear densometers vary in the type of output they provide. The basic densometer has no data
processing capabilities, and outputs a frequency signal (the same frequency as the number of counts per
second being received by the detector). A separate data processing facility (such as a PC) is required to
turn the basic data into a density or a proppant concentration. It is this type of densometer that is most
commonly used in the fracturing industry. More sophisticated densometers come complete with data
processing, and can output density, SG, proppant concentration or acid %.
137
The radioactive source used in the densometer is usually Caesium 137 (or Ce). This metal is a medium
energy beta and gamma radiation emitter, with a half-life of 30 years. This means that the radioactive
source gradually gets weaker with time – after 30 years it is only half as radioactive as it initially was.
Consequently, all radioactive densometers have to be regularly calibrated, to allow for the fact that the
source is gradually producing less and less radiation. Therefore, the data processing facility (usually a PC,
an Isoplex or a 3600 , but sometimes also a box on the side of the densometer) has to have this calibration
installed, in order that density can be output.
Proppant concentration is easily calculated from the overall bulk density of the fluid, using the following
formula:
(ρ sl − ρ gel )
PC = (18.1)
(1 − [p sl pp ])
where PC is the proppant concentration in ppa (see below), ρsl is the slurry density in lbs per gallon (ppg),
ρgel is the base fluid (usually gel) density in ppg and ρp is the proppant density, also in ppg. Proppant
density is often also quoted as an absolute volume in gals/lb. This is simply the reciprocal of the density in
ppg.
Proppant concentration is measured in ppa or Pounds of Proppant Added. This is the number of pounds
of proppant that have been added to 1 gallon of clean base fluid (which is how the blender adds the
proppant – it measures the clean flow rate in gallons per minute, and calculates how many lbs per minute
of proppant need to be added). Sometimes, proppant concentrations are also quoted in ppg – meaning
pounds of proppant per gallon of clean fluid. The use of these units should be avoided for proppant
concentrations, as they can get easily confused with fluid or slurry densities.
Pressure Transducers
Pressure transducers are the simplest of the measuring devices used in fracturing. The transducer is
consists of a strain gauge, that is mounted so that as pressure is applied, the strain gauge is compressed.
As the strain gauge is compressed, its electrical resistance will increase slightly. The higher the applied
pressure, the greater the increase in resistance.
The pressure transducer is connected, via a transducer cable, to a special measuring circuit known as a
Wheatstone’s Bridge. This is an electrical circuit consisting of three known electrical resistances and an
unknown electrical resistance (the transducer + cable). Because of the nature of the circuit, if the potential
difference (or voltage drop) across the bridge circuit is known, the values of the three known resistances
can be used to calculate the value of the unknown resistance, to a high degree of precision. Therefore, if
the resistance of the cable is known, the resistance of the pressure transducer can be obtained. So in

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 319
order to measure the pressure applied to a transducer, the voltage drop must be measured.
Pressure transducers are regularly calibrated by applying a known pressure to them, usually via a dead
weight tester. This calibration produces a relationship between resistance and pressure, so that if the
resistance is known, the pressure can be quickly obtained.
Because a large increase in pressure produces only a relatively small change in electrical resistance, it is
important to have good quality cables that are well looked after (as the circuit measures the resistance of
the cable at the same time). This also means that the cables must be of a fixed length, producing a limit to
how far the control cabin can be away from the pressure transducer. Transducer cables cannot be
spliced, repaired or re-used if they are damaged.
Processing the Data

Raw data from the transducers, flow meters and densometers is not usable by the monitoring computers.
It has to be converted to a digital form by an analogue to digital converter. Once the data has passed
through this, it can be processed to give the actual treatment parameters.
For instance, the turbine flowmeter is actually measuring the number of times a turbine blade passes the
magnetic pick up, rather than a volumetric flow rate. Every time a blade passes the pick up, electrical
current is generated, reaching a peak as the blade is directly opposite the pick up. As the blade moves
away from pick-up, the current drops off. This means that the output from a turbine flow meter is cyclic –
the higher the frequency of these cycles, the faster the turbine blades are rotating and the faster the fluid
is flowing. The cyclic analogue input is the converted to a digital output, by the analogue to digital
converter. A digital output simply means that the converter is sending the computer a number – in this
case the number of cycles per second, or frequency.
As stated, the output from the analogue to digital converter is passed on to a computer for processing.
This computer can be a PC, an Isoplex or a 3600 . Whatever form it comes in, the processing computer
converts (in the case of the turbine flow meter) a number of cycles per second, into a flow rate, by
applying a calibration. This calibration is user input, and will vary according to the type and size of
flowmeter, and the fluid being used.
For pressure transducers, the analogue to digital converter measures the voltage across the bridge circuit,
and outputs this as a number. For the nuclear densometer, a similar process is carried out as for the
turbine flow meter, in which a frequency is converted into a number. The processing computer will contain
a calibration algorithm for each of these devices, converting the numerical output from the analogue to
digital converter, into psi or ppa as appropriate.
Displaying and Analysing the Data

Most treatment monitoring set ups employ two computers – one for processing the raw data and
displaying the basic treatment parameters, and a second one for actually analysing the data and
displaying various job plots.
Usually the Frac Operator or an electronics technician will run the JobMaster computer. This computer will
display all the parameters being monitored by the system, and is the primary source of information for the
person actually running the treatment. The Frac Operator usually has the option to run several different
displays, so that unprocessed data can be displayed (such as real-time pressure, rate and proppant
concentration), along with parameters that have been processed on the fly, such as calculated BHTP ,
cumulative volumes and of course the Nolte plot.
The Frac Engineer usually operates the second computer. This machine receives selected data from the
first computer, almost always in ASCII format. The Frac Engineer will use a specialised treatment
monitoring programme or fracture simulator to display and analyse this data.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 320
The Frac Engineer’s computer is usually capable of receiving ASCII data from more than one source. The
primary source of data will almost always be the JobMaster computer. This data usually comes in via the
COM 1 serial port. However, if a second COM port is fitted to the Engineer’s computer, it is possible to
receive data from a second source (such as a bottom hole pressure gauge) and merge it with the primary
data, real time, so that it can be displayed and analysed. Computers fitted with USB ports can use
adapters to allow several COM ports to be used simultaneously.
During the treatment, most of the people in the control centre will be watching the displays controlled by
the JobMaster computer.
Numerical
JobMaster Displays
Display
Figure 18.1b – Inside of a typical frac control van, showing the numerical display and some of the displays
being run by JobMaster .
Remote Data Transmission

On Location Office
Data Satellite or Data

Modem Cellular Modem
Phone Line
Data
Link
Voice Satellite or
Cellular
Link Phone Line

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 321
Figure 18.1c – Remote data transmission schematic
Remote data transmission is a specialised service which allows the customer and the Frac Engineer to
remain in the office, whilst the treatment is carried out. Provided there is someone on location to look after
the fluids, run JobMaster and handle the data transmission process (this will usually be a junior Engineer),
then the only reason that the senior Engineers are required on location is for data analysis.
If the data can be transmitted to a separate location, then the customer and service company Engineers
do not have to be on location. They can remain back at the office. This has particular advantages when
the treatment is being carried out in remote locations (such as offshore). Instead of the Engineers being
tied up for (sometimes) several days, remote data transmission means that they are only directly involved
in the treatment for a few hours – the time taken for the step rate test and minifrac to be pumped, for the
redesign to be carried out in the office and for the main treatment to be performed.
Data transmission is carried out real time, using software packages like JobMaster , which have been
specifically designed to carry out this process as part of its capabilities. Both the transmitting and receiving
computers run JobMaster , coordinated so that receiving computer is expecting the same channels that the
transmitting computer is sending. The voice link is an essential part of the process, so that the data link
can be properly coordinated and also so that the on-site Engineer and keep the office-based Engineer’s
fully informed of developments and as they happen.
Thanks to modern communications, it is a relatively easy task to transmit the data real time. Data
transmission is usually pretty reliable, but interruptions can sometimes happen. In this case, the software
package should be set up so that transmission can be easily resumed, and that data that is not
transmitted during the break in communications is stored for transmission as soon as communication is
re-established.
The latest versions of the remote data transmission systems actually use internet-based communications.
Each control cabin or frac van has it's own web address, and broadcasts the treatment onto the internet.
Anyone with the job-specific password can log onto to monitor a treatment, from any computer that has
internet access.
It is also useful to have a separate file transfer programme or internet access for e-mail installed on both
computers, allowing quick and easy transmission of data files between computers.
Subtopics
18.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 322
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 323
Fracturing Manual

Section:

On site redesign is the science and art of redesigning a fracture treatment after the step rate test and
minifrac. Usually it is done on location (or - via remote data transition – back in the office) whilst the frac
crew and equipment are waiting. Consequently, there is usually a reasonable amount of pressure on the
Frac Engineer during this process, which may take several hours. For example, in the offshore
environment, were the rig may be costing over $300,000 per day, every hour spent redesigning (which is
usually down time for the rig), costs the customer over $12,000.
However, this down time is usually money well spent. The Frac Engineer should take as much time as is
necessary and must not produce a hasty, poorly designed treatment. The object of the fracturing exercise
is to maximise production increase, after all. Minimising rig time is obviously highly desirable, but it should
not take precedence over the main objective.
One way to minimise down time is to restrict the number of Engineer’s involved in the redesign process. It
is not exaggeration to state that the time taken for the redesign is proportional to the square of the number
of Engineer’s involved.
On site redesign is something that improves with practice and experience.
Figure 18.2a shows a process flow chart for the redesign process. The process starts with the collection of
the raw data. This includes not only the minifrac and step rate data (collected either real-time or from
separate files), but also other items such as wireline logs, completion diagrams, tracer surveys,
temperature logs, BHTP gauge data, data from previous fracs on offset wells and so on. Once all this has
been collected, the Frac Engineer can start to analyse the data from the step rate test(s) (see Section 15)
and the minifrac (see Section 16). As discussed previously, this process can often take some time and
can sometimes be carried out under quite stressful conditions. Nevertheless, once this process has been
completed, the Frac Engineer should have been able to tune the fracture model, so that what is in the
computer is a reasonable representation of what is in the formation.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 324
Raw Data
CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS
Minifrac
PRESSURE MATCHING
Analyser
Fracture
Simulator
Closure
ISIP
Pressure
Match
Fracture
Model
Formation
Properties
Required Revised Materials &

Fracture Treatment Equipment
Properties Schedule on Location
Fracture
Simulator
Fracture No
Meets
Requirements?
Yes
No
Customer
Approval?
Yes
Final
Treatment
Schedule
Figure 18.2a – On-site redesign process flowchart

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 325
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 326
Once this has been achieved, the hardest part of the redesign process has been completed. However, the
Frac Engineer still has to produce the final treatment design. In order to do this, the Engineer has to
design a treatment schedule based on two important parameters:-
1. The objectives of the treatment. Usually, the objective of the treatment is to place a frac in the
formation, with a certain geometry, and relative conductivity. These objectives are usually set up
before arriving on location. Usually, these objectives will remain unchanged after the calibration tests
(step rate test and minifrac). However, the results of these tests may change the specifics of how this
is achieved. For instance, if the minifrac shows the permeability of the formation to be significantly
different from that anticipated, the optimum fracture geometry will have to be altered in order to meet
the C fD requirements.
2. The available equipment and materials. Usually, the Frac Engineer has to work within the limitations
for the equipment available for the treatment, in terms of tank volumes, maximum pumping rates etc.,
so that the Engineer is producing the optimum treatment design the frac spread is capable of
pumping. In remote locations (where materials cannot be “hot-shotted” out to location), the Engineer
can also be restricted by the quantity of materials available on location (volume of gel that can be
mixed and the volume of proppant).
Working within these restrictions (and also remembering the maximum allowable pumping pressure), the
Frac Engineer must produce the optimum possible frac design. This is not just a question of producing a
production increase – for a lot formations, this is relatively easy to do. The Frac Engineer must also
maximise the production increase, to meet or exceed the economic criteria for the treatment, as there is
usually a significant cost associated with fracturing, and a small production increase may not be sufficient.
Subtopics
18.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 327
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Some fracture simulators, such as MFrac, FracPro and FracproPT , have a facility that enables the
fracture to be modeled real-time. This is a very powerful tool that - under the right conditions - can enable
the Frac Engineer to redesign the main treatment on-the-fly, as it is being pumped.
The modeling computer is set up to receive data from either the data processing computer or the Frac
Engineer’s computer, usually in ASCII format. The user then runs the fracture model, selecting the “real-
time data input” option. The user enters the relevant formation data and treatment schedule, which can be
loaded from a previously created data file. The treatment starts, and the computer starts to collect the
data. As the treatment progresses, the simulator models the created fracture. The model will take fluid,
proppant, formation and wellbore characteristics from the input model, and will take the pump rate,
pressure and proppant concentration from the real time data. Using this data, the simulator will model the
fracture that has already been created, constantly updating as more data is collected. This enables the
user to perform two separate operations:
1. The Frac Engineer can perform a pressure match with the data that has already been collected by the
simulator, until the net pressure predicted by the computer matches up with the actual net pressure.
2. The Frac Engineer can instruct the simulator to run the job until completion, predicting the
characteristics of the fracture, based on the ongoing pressure match. For the treatment schedule, the
simulator will use the actual treatment data as far as possible, and then project forward until the end of
the job using the remaining input treatment schedule. This allows the Engineer to predict the fracture
characteristics, based on the most accurate data possible. This process can be taken one step
further, as the Engineer can alter the remaining treatment schedule, and predict the fracture
characteristics based on this revised schedule. Thus the Engineer can redesign the treatment
schedule on-the-fly. This capability is limited to FracPro and FracproPT .
Limitations of Real-Time Modeling

This ability to redesign on the fly – whilst usually not very popular with the frac crew – is a very powerful
tool, provided the Frac Engineer is aware of the following:-
1. Do not over-react to short term trends. All fracture simulators treat formations as homogenous
materials with uniform rock mechanical properties throughout. In reality this is usually not the case.
The fracture is constantly propagating through rock with varying properties, producing unpredictable
variations in the net pressure plot. In fact, what the Frac Engineer should be doing is trying to find an
“average” value for each of these properties, such that the simulator’s predicted net pressure curve
follows the trend (and “average” value) of the job plot, but does not necessarily follow every minute
rise and fall in pressure.
2. However, the Frac Engineer must be able to react quickly when a short term trend has become a long
term trend. When this happens, it’s time to start adjusting some of the formation properties.
3. Real-time modeling is only effective on long treatments, where the Engineer has time to spot the long
term trends, adjust the model, and still be able to make changes to the treatment schedule in time for
them to have some effect. If the job is too short, the crew can be pumping the displacement before
the Frac Engineer has finished the pressure match.
4. The problem outlined in Point 3 (above) is exacerbated if the wellbore volume represents a significant
part of the treatment. If this is the case, the treatment can be close to displacement before the
proppant has even passed into the fracture. In such cases, there is little point in modeling the fracture
real-time.
Subtopics

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 328
18.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 329
Fracturing Manual

Section:
18.4 References
Standard Practices Manual, BJ Services, January 2001 onwards
Equipment and Technology Catalogue, BJ Services, 1990 onwards
Texas (1989).
Johnson, D.E., Wright, C.A., Stachel, A., Schmidt, H., and Cleary, M.P.: “On-Site Real-Time Analysis
Allows Optimal Propped Fracture Stimulation of a Complex Gas Reservoir”, paper SPE 25414, presented
at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 1993.
FracPro Version 8.0+ On-Line Help, RES/Gas Research Institute, March 1998 onwards.
FracproPT Version 9.0+ On-Line Help, Pinnacle Technologies/Gas Research Institute, July 1999 onwards.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 330
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 331
Fracturing Manual
Section:
The Frac Engineer’s job is not over once the treatment has been pumped. Aside from monitoring fluid
samples and preparing a post job report, the Engineer also needs to evaluate exactly what has happened
in the formation. This is essential if the operating company plans to do more than one frac in a formation.
The simplest method for assessing the effectiveness of the treatment is to compare before and after
production. However, this does not really tell us much. In order to increase the effectiveness of future
treatments, we need some idea of the size and shape of the fracture that was actually produced.
Some of the methods described below – such as pressure matching - are relatively easy for the Frac
Engineer to perform. However, other methods, such as tiltmeters and microseismic, require considerable
expenditure and planning by the operating company. This means that plans for post-treatment evaluation
must be made when planning for the treatment itself.
Subtopics
19.2 Well Testing for Fracture Evaluation
19.3 Other Diagnostic Techniques
19.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 332
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Pressure matching is part science and part art. In order to perform a quick and efficient pressure match, it
is essential to have a good knowledge of the fracturing process, an understanding of the various rock
mechanical properties, an understanding of fracture mechanics and, ideally, a reasonable idea of how the
fracture simulator works. In spite of this need for an understanding of the physics behind the fracturing
process and the fracture simulation, there is still an art to pressure matching. Some Frac Engineers have
a feeling for this process, and some do not.
Pressure matching is a very powerful tool that allows the Frac Engineer to “tune” the fracture simulator to
the formation. The idea being that once the simulator has been tuned, further fracture simulations can be
performed with a high degree of accuracy.
The Process of Pressure Matching

Pressure matching is all about making the simulator predict the same pressure response as the reaction
actually produced by the formation. This is illustrated in Figure 19.1a, as shown below:-
Before After
Net Pressure
Net Pressure
Actual Net Pressure Actual Net Pressure

Calculated Net Pressure Calculated Net Pressure
Job Time Job Time

Figure 19.1a – Pressure matching. The variables in the simulator are adjusted to make the calculated net
pressure match the actual net pressure.
With reference to Figure 19.1a, before the pressure match (LHS), the net pressure predicted by the
fracture simulator does not match the actual net pressure in any way. After the pressure match has been
performed (RHS), the computer predicts a very similar pressure response to that of the actual treatment
data. Now - according to the theory - the simulator has been “tuned” to the formation. This allows the Frac
Engineer to input any desired treatment schedule, and the simulator will be able to predict the fracture
geometry with a reasonable degree of precision.
There is no doubt that the advent of pressure matching has greatly improved the success rate and
effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing. Modern fracture simulators equipped with this facility have gradually
made the process increasingly user-friendly, helping to reduce the “black art” associated with frac
engineering, as more and more Engineers feel capable of designing a fracture treatment.
However, there are some definite limitations to this process:-

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 333
1. Garbage In = Garbage Out. The computer model of the formation generated by this process is only
as good as the data used to create it. Poor data on items such as permeability, net height, fluid
properties (both formation and fracturing fluids) and perforations can make an otherwise perfect
pressure match almost irrelevant. Another major source of errors is the use of surface pressure data
to calculate BHTP . In order to calculate BHTP , the model first needs to calculate the fluid friction
pressure, something that is notoriously difficult to do for a crosslinking fluid. Variations in fracturing
fluid properties (such as those caused by problems with liquid additive systems, or varying gel
properties) can also be very difficult to account for. Therefore, the Frac Engineer should do everything
possible to get reliable bottom hole pressure data, such as that from a gauge or dead string.
2. No Unique Solution. The process of pressure matching involves adjusting four major variables
(Young’s modulus, stress, fracture toughness and leakoff) and many other minor variables, for each
rock strata affected by the fracture, until the pressure response predicted by the model matches the
actual pressure response of the formation. This means that the Frac Engineer may have 30 or 40
variables available for adjustment. It is therefore quite possible for two Frac Engineers to get good
pressure matches, but with significantly different sets of variables.
3. The Fracture Model. At the end of the day, the results of the pressure match are only as good as the
fracture model itself. Without a doubt, modern fracture simulators are tremendously advanced – the
product of more than 20 years of innovation, experimentation and inspiration. However, the fact
remains that different fracture simulators will predict different fracture geometries for the same input
data. Which one is right? Probably they are all wrong – so the correct question to ask is which one is
closest to the Truth? This is difficult to say, and the subject of considerable debate in the fracturing
industry. The popular conception is that one fracture simulator is good for a certain type of formation,
whilst another is good for a different type. The debate continues.
It should also be remembered that in general (GOHFER excepted) the widely used frac models all predict
a single eliptically-shaped fracture, either side of the wellbore, symmetrical around the wellbore. In reality,
the fracture is probably much more complex than this. It is highly unlikely that the fracture - or more likely
fractures - behaves in such a regular and predictable manner. What the fracture simulators do is predict a
simplified fracture that behaves, on average, in a similar fashion to a much more complex reality.
The Four Main Variables

There are four main variables that the Frac Engineer should be adjusting in order to achieve the pressure
match – that is to say, four main variables in each formation affected by the fracture. These variables are
Young’s modulus, stress, fracture toughness and fluid leakoff. So even for the most basic formation
lithology, the Frac Engineer will have to be able to keep track of a minimum of 12 variables (the zone of
interest, plus the formations above and below)..
Of course, each fracture simulator comes complete with a whole plethora of variables that the user can
adjust. In fact there are so many, that it could be possible to vary several hundred parameters for a
complex reservoir with several rock strata. This is for fracture simulator and rock mechanical experts only.
Unless there is a really good reason, the Frac Engineer is advised to stick to the four variables listed
below.
Whilst pressure matching, the Frac Engineer should be aware of the fact that the process works the
opposite way around to designing a treatment. In pressure matching, the bottom hole treating pressure is
fixed, whereas it is a variable in fracture design. For example, an increase in in-situ stress will have the
effect of decreasing the net pressure in the pressure matching process, whilst in the fracture design
process, this net pressure will remain constant and the bottom hole treating pressure will increase. In
pressure matching, the Frac Engineer adjusts unknown formation properties to match a known pressure.
In treatment design, these formation parameters are (hopefully) already known, and the process instead
involves seeing the effect they produce for a given treatment schedule.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 334
Fracture Toughness, K 1c
Strictly speaking, K1c is the critical stress intensity factor for failure mode 1 (see Section 9, Fracture
Mechanics). However, it is commonly referred to as the Fracture Toughness and is a measure of how
much energy it takes to propagate a fracture through a given material. In hydraulic fracturing, where the
energy needed to propagate the fracture comes in the form of fluid pressure, fracture toughness tells us
what proportion of the available energy is used to physically split the rock apart at the fracture tip. As
pressure is essentially energy per unit volume, K1c tells the Frac Engineer how much net pressure is
required to propagate the fracture.
Generally speaking, soft plastic formations will have high fracture toughness, whilst hard brittle formations
will have low fracture toughness. There is also an approximate inverse relationship between Young’s
modulus and fracture toughness – hard formations tend to have a high E and a low K1c , and soft
formations tend to be the other way around. For the Frac Engineer, increasing the value of fracture
toughness will tend to make it harder for a fracture to propagate through the rock. Therefore, an increase
in fracture toughness will generally make the fracture shorter and wider. However, an increase in fracture
toughness for just one formation will tend to divert the fracture into an adjacent formation. For example, if
the K1c is increased in the perforated interval, the fracture will grow into the adjacent formations, above and
below. This has the effect of limiting the fracture length and increasing the fracture height. In soft
formations, do not be afraid to use quite large values for this property, even several times the default
values included in the simulator
Fracture toughness is a material property and cannot be altered by anything under the control of the Frac
Engineer. It is also a property that is very difficult to measure. There are several laboratory methods for
determining K1c , but these are limited in their reliability, as fracture toughness is highly dependent upon
down hole conditions and the overall geometry of the fracture. However, if core samples are available,
fracture toughness can be estimated from laboratory measurements of yield stress and Young’s modulus,
provided this is determined under tri-axial loading, at bottom hole temperature and pressure.
Remember that some fracture models (e.g. FracPro and FracproPT ) have moved away from the concept
of Fracture Toughness and instead model non-linear elastic effects at the fracture tip as being more
significant. In such models, variations in Young’s modulus and in-situ stresses are far more significant.
Young’s Modulus, E
In order for the fracture to propagate it must obtain width, to a greater or lesser extent. In order to do this,
the rock on either side of the fracture has to be compressed. As discussed in Section 7 (Rock Mechanics),
Young’s modulus defines how much energy is required to perform this compression. Rocks with a high
Young’s modulus will require a lot of energy (a.k.a. net pressure) to compress. In these formations,
fractures tend to be relatively thin, and the rock is referred to as “hard”. Similarly, rocks with a low Young’s
modulus require relatively little energy to produce width. In these formations, fractures tend to be relatively
wide, and the rock is referred to as “soft”.
Young’s modulus is a fundamental material property and, like the fracture toughness, cannot be altered by
anything under the Frac Engineer’s control. It can be measured from core samples, provided these tests
are carried out under tri-axial load conditions, at bottom hole temperature and pressure. In some
formations (especially weak or unconsolidated rocks), Young’s modulus may not be constant.
Fracture mechanics, rock mechanics and fracture simulation require the use of the static Young's
modulus. This is the Young’s modulus measured under static - or relatively static – conditions, such as
those that occur whilst fracturing. Another form of Young’s modulus, the dynamic Young’s modulus (the
Young’s modulus measured under dynamic conditions), can be measured by so-called “stress logs”.
These logs, generated by a dipole sonic wireline tool (also called a sonic array), measure dynamic Young’

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 335
s modulus and Poisson’s ratio by measuring the transit time of both shear and compression sonic waves.
However, there can often be a significant difference between dynamic and static values, which renders the
actual values reported on stress logs to be unreliable. This is covered in more detail in Section 7.10.
However, stress logs can accurately report contrasts in Young’s modulus, which are almost as important
as the absolute values themselves.
An increase in Young’s modulus makes it harder for the fracturing fluid to produce width. Therefore,
increasing this variable will make the fracture thinner, higher and longer, and vice versa . Increasing E only
in the perforated interval will have the effect of forcing the fracture out of the zone of interest – i.e.
increasing fracture height. A decrease in E has the opposite effect.
In-Situ Stress, σ
In-situ stress (often referred to as confining stress or horizontal stress) is the stress induced in the
formation by the overburden and any tectonic activity. Put simply, it is pre-loading on the formation, the
stress that has to be overcome (or pressure that has to be applied) in order to actually start pushing the
formation apart. The actual bottom hole fracturing pressure is the pressure required to overcome these
in-situ stresses, plus the pressure required for propagating the fracture (as a consequence of fracture
toughness) and the pressure required to produce width.
As previously discussed in Section 7, fractures will tend to propagate perpendicular to the minimum
horizontal stress (i.e. along the line of least resistance). So the in-situ stress of a formation is the minimum
horizontal stress of the formation, plus any tensile strength the rock may posses, and less any effects due
to reservoir pressure.
As the horizontal stress only exists because of the overburden (ignoring tectonic effects), it is highly
dependent upon the Poisson’s ratio of the formation, as illustrated in equation 7.18. At the limit, a Poisson’
s ratio of zero means that the horizontal stresses are equal to zero, plus the effects of pore pressure. This
is a theoretical minimum – in practice no material will ever have a Poisson’s ratio of zero. At the other limit,
the maximum theoretical value for Poisson’s Ratio is 0.5 – at this value, the horizontal stresses will be
equal to the overburden, plus the effects of pore pressure.
So-called “stress logs” actually measure the dynamic Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the
formation. Therefore, if the overburden is known (derived from a density logs and the TVD of each
formation), the approximate in-situ stress can be calculated. However, the stresses generated from this
procedure are derived from the dynamic (rather than static) Poisson’s ratio. Therefore, any stresses
generated by this method are unreliable. The absolute value of these stresses cannot be trusted –
however, stress contrasts between formations can be used as an indication of potential fracture height
containment.
In the pressure matching process, an increase in σ means a reduction in net pressure (for a fixed BHTP ).
This means that the fracturing fluid has less energy available to fracture the formation, and so the width,
the height and the length of the fracture are all decreased. This in turn means that the volume of the
fracture has decreased. However, the same volume of fluid has been pumped into the formation, so an
increase in σ also has the effect of increasing leakoff rate and decreasing fracture efficiency. The opposite
effect applies for a decrease in in-situ stresses.
Fluid Leakoff Rate, QL

The fluid leakoff rate can be controlled by altering a number of variables, depending upon the fracture
simulator being used, and the fluid leakoff model being employed:-
Pressure differential (fracturing fluid pressure minus pore pressure)

Formation permeability
Formation porosity

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 336
Formation compressibility
Formation fluid viscosity
Fracturing fluid filtrate viscosity
Fracturing fluid wall-building coefficient
Spurt loss.
A lot of these variables are difficult to measure or determine. However, the Frac Engineer should
remember the ultimate objective of determining fluid leakoff – to calculate the volume of the fracture. To
this end, the simulator has to be able to accurately calculate the volume of fluid lost through each unit area
of the fracture face. Whether or not this is achieved by varying the permeability or the wall building
coefficient is almost irrelevant. On top of this, fluid leakoff can be dramatically complicated by fracture fluid
flow into fissures or natural fractures, the geometry of which can vary with the net pressure.
In most cases, the Frac Engineer will have reasonable data for some of these values – and will have to
guess at others. Therefore, a good strategy is to fix those values that have reasonable data, and vary the
others, until the desired leakoff is obtained.
Fluid leakoff is a loss of energy from the fracturing fluid, as the total energy available for propagating the
fracture is equal to the net pressure multiplied by the fracture volume. High leakoff means low fracture
volume, and vice versa . Therefore, and increase in fluid leakoff will tend to decrease width, height and
length. The opposite applies for a decrease in leakoff.
Summary of the Effects of the 4 Main Variables
The basic effect of each of these variables – when applied to a fracture in a single formation – can be
summarised in Table 19.1a, below:-
Effect of an Increase in Selected Variable

Variable
Height Length Width Net Pressure
Fracture Toughness, K1c Decrease Decrease Increase Increase
Young’s Modulus, E Increase Increase Decrease Increase
In-Situ Stress, σ Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease
Fluid Leakoff Rate, QL Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease
Table 19.1a – The effects of an increase in each of the four, main pressure matching variables. Note that
these are the overall effects when the change is taken in isolation (i.e. no other changes take place). It also
assumes that the fracture is unaffected by boundary layers above and below.
This table should be used with caution, as it applies only when the fracture is confined within a single
formation. If the fracture propagates into separate formations above and below the productive interval,
then an increase in (for instance) fracture toughness will make it harder for the fracture to propagate
through the main formation, forcing the fracture up and down. So, in this instance, an isolated increase in
a property in just one formation, can actually increase the fracture height.
The Effect of Poisson’s Ratio

Poisson’s ratio is at the same time both important and largely irrelevant to pressure matching. It is
important, because it has a major effect of defining the horizontal stresses in a formation. However, in
most cases, the Frac Engineer will be determining these stresses form pressure data, not from Poisson’s
2
ratio data. In most fracture simulators, Poisson’s ratio is used in the form (1 - ν ) to modify Young’s

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 337
2
modulus (i.e. E /(1 - ν ) – the plane strain Young’s modulus). This means that a large change in Poisson’s
2
ratio, say from 0.25 to 0.35, only produces a change in (1 - ν ) from 0.9375 to 0.8775 (so that a 40%
2
increase in ν produces only a 6.4% decrease in(1 - ν ).
Therefore, the Frac Engineer should not spend too much time varying Poisson’s ratio during the pressure
match. Input what seem to be reasonable values, and then ignore it.
Tips for Pressure Matching

1. “The Fundamental Interconnectedness of Everything” *
The Frac Engineer must be aware that the fracture is a continuous, dynamic entity. It is not composed of a
number of discrete pieces, functioning independently of each other. This means that any change to any
single variable will affect the whole of the fracture, to a greater or lesser extent. This can sometimes be
very discouraging for the Frac Engineer, as a change to match one part of the pressure curve can alter a
match already achieved in another part of the curve. However, remember that in reality, a pressure match
that only matches a limited part of the plot is not really a pressure match at all.
This means that the Frac Engineer should try to change only one variable for each simulator run. This can
be time consuming, but is essential if the Engineer intends to keep track of how individual changes affect
the overall simulation.
* - Acknowledgement to Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency
2. Ignore Short-Term Trends
Fracture simulators model a formation as a homogenous material, whose properties are uniform
throughout the material. In reality, this is not the case. Real rock formations will tend to have variations –
large and small – throughout their structure. These will produce any number of short-term pressure spikes
and drops during the treatment. Do not even attempt to model them.
In practice during the pressure match, try to use average values for formation properties that will produce
a good “overall” value. Thus, the ideal pressure match will produce a relatively smooth curve that closely
follows the trend of the real data, but does not match every single variation (see Figure 19.1a).
In particular, most treatments see a “break down” pressure, right at the beginning of the treatment. This
generally means a large pressure spike, followed by a lower, more stable pressure. This pressure spike is
caused by near wellbore effects and should not be matched.
3. Watch Out for Tortuosity
Tortuosity can seriously affect the bottom hole treating pressure. Remember that even if the Frac
Engineer has access to bottom hole gauge pressure data, this data will be from inside the wellbore, not
inside the fracture. Tortuosity can often vary significantly during a treatment. In particular, an increase in
proppant concentration can often produce a pressure rise if tortuosity is present.
The various methods for identifying and quantifying tortuosity have been discussed in earlier sections of
this manual. If these methods are used it is possible – to a certain extent – to allow for these effects.
Another thing to be careful of is an overuse of the tortuosity tables in the fracture simulator. The latest
versions of the main models allow different pressure drops to be entered for different periods during the
pumping. By putting enough detail and enough stages into these tables, it is possible to get the simulator
to predict virtually any net pressure profile imaginable. The Frac Engineer must have a grasp of what is
realistic and what is not. This mainly comes with experience.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 338
4. Start with the Pressure Decline
The best place to start the pressure match is with the post-treatment pressure decline. This is because
the fluids are stationary and effects such as pipe friction, perforation friction and tortuosity are eliminated.
It is also often possible to identify the closure pressure on the decline curve. This value is equal to the
in-situ stress for the formation next to the perforations. Once this value has been obtained, the end of
treatment net pressure is defined (the difference between the ISIP and the closure pressure). The four
main variables should be adjusted to produce this net pressure and to match the shape and length of the
pressure decline between ISIP and closure.
This gives the Frac Engineer a good starting point. Obviously, as the pressure match continues and the
Engineer alters variables to match the rest of the treatment, the pressure match for the pressure decline
will be altered. So further changes have to be made to bring this back into match. Which in turn will affect
the rest of the pressure match, and so on. This is a part of pressure matching – the process of gradually
making smaller and smaller changes to the variables until all the seemingly contradictory requirements are
met.
5. Early Time vs Late Time
At the start of the treatment the fracture is relatively small, and will be confined to the formations at, or
near to, the perforations. Therefore, during this “Early Time” period, there is little point in altering the
properties of formations that are away from this area. However, as the treatment progresses into “Late
Time”, the fracture will become increasingly influenced by the properties of formations vertically further
away from the perforations.
Therefore, if the first stage in the pressure match process is to match the pressure decline, the next stage
is to match the Early Time fracture. At this point, there will be fewer variables to alter. Once an Early Time
match has been obtained, match the Late Time section. Then keep repeating until the match has been
achieved.
6. Remember Nolte Analysis
In spite of the fact that Nolte analysis is based on PKN 2-D fracture modelling, the basic principals can be
very helpful when pressure matching. For instance, a gradual rise in the next pressure plot indicates
fracture containment, whilst a decline probably means a preferential height growth and possibly a radial
fracture (or GDK fracture geometry, sometimes found when fracturing coal seams).
Subtopics
19.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 339
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 340
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Well testing is sometimes used both to assess the effect of the treatment and to help determine the size
and shape of the fracture. To do this, well tests have to be performed both before and after the treatment.
Data that is collected before the treatment is used to help evaluate the fracture geometry afterwards.
Both pre- and post-treatment tests should be performed at constant rate (or as near as possible), rather
than at constant drawdown, and should be followed by a shut in (or pressure build-up) period, lasting for at
least as long as the flow time. In practice, it is possible to monitor the pressure build-up real-time and see
when the build-up can be terminated. The post-treatment well test can take some time, as treatment fluids
must be recovered first, and the well must reach some kind of relatively steady flow.
Figure 19.2a illustrates the basic anatomy of a drawdown / build-up well test.
Pi
∆t)
Pws(tp+∆
∆Pdrawdown
BHP
∆Pbuild-up
Pwf(t)
∆t = 0)
Pwf(tp ) = Pws(∆
CONSTANT RATE DRAWDOWN BUILD-UP
0 tp
t ∆t
Figure 19.2a – Anatomy of a drawdown / build-up well test (after Agarwal, 1980)
In Figure 19.2a, there are several variables that are often referred to in well test analysis, which can be
broken down into two groups – time and pressure. All pressures refer to BH pressure. At the start of the
well test t = 0, and the BHP = Pi , which ideally will be the reservoir static pressure. Sometimes this is not
the case, if the well has not been left static for a long enough period. However, this can be allowed for in
well test analysis. As the well is produced at a constant rate, the length of time the well has produced for is
called t and the flowing BHP is referred to as Pwf . Because this variable is dependent upon t (the longer the
well is produced, the lower the BHP), it is said to be a function of t , and so the notation Pwf (t ) is used to
denote this. The difference between the initial pressure (Pi ) and the actual flowing pressure (Pwf (t )) is
referred to at the drawdown, or ∆P drawdown. The well is flowed at a constant rate (which may require the
varying of chokes) until it is shut in. At this point, t is said to equal the producing time, tp (which is a
constant, for any given test). After the well is shut in, the nomenclature ∆t is used to describe the shut in
time, such that at the point of shut in t = tp and ∆t = 0. Thereafter, time is described as tp + ∆t , with tp fixed

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 341
and ∆t increasing as the build-up progresses. At the point of shut in, the BHP pressure is referred to as Pwf
(tp ) – well flowing wellbore pressure at tp – or as Pws (∆t = 0), the static wellbore pressure at ∆t = 0. These
two pressures are identical. After shut in, during the pressure build-up, the now static BHP is referred to as
Pws (tp +∆t ) – this means that the wellbore static pressure (Pws ) is a function of shut in time (t p+∆t ). Finally,
the difference between the shut in pressure (Pwf (tp ) or Pws (∆t =0)) and the wellbore static pressure (Pws (tp +∆t
)) during the build-up is referred to as the build-up pressure, or ∆P build-up.
Figure 19.2a illustrates the most basic type of well test, the constant rate drawdown and static build-up
test. This type of test can be applied to the well both before and after the treatment, as discussed below.
There are many other and more complex types of well test performed, designed to get more accurate data
under specific circumstances. A full discussion on the current state of well testing and well test data
analysis is beyond the scope of this manual and the reader is invited to consult the references for further
information.
Infinite or Finite Conductivity Fractures

From a pressure transient analysis perspective, propped hydraulic fractures fall into two categories, infinite
conductivity and finite conductivity. The pressure transient behaviour of these two types of fracture is
significantly different.
Infinite Conductivity fractures have no significant pressure drop as the fluid passes down the fracture.
Therefore, pressure transients happen outside of the fracture, either in the wellbore or in the formation.
With this type of fracture, the productivity of the well-fracture-formation system is limited by the ability of
the formation to deliver formation fluids to the fracture, rather than by the ability of the fracture to transport
the fluids. This type of fracture is typical of low permeability and/or tight gas fracturing.
Finite Conductivity fractures have a significant pressure drop as the fluid passes down the fracture.
Therefore pressure transients occur inside the fracture, as well as in the wellbore and the formation. With
this type of fracture, the productivity of the well-fracture-formation system is limited by the ability of the
fracture to transport formation fluids to the wellbore, i.e. by the fracture conductivity. This type of fracture is
typical of high permeability fracturing.
Pressure Transient Analysis

When a well is flowing, it can be in one of three states – Steady, Pseudo or Transient. The difference
between these three states was discussed in Section 12 of this manual. During well testing, the flow is
usually in the transient state, which is the most complex of all to analyse, and occasionally in
pseudo-steady state. Put basically, steady state flow behaves as per Darcy’s equation, with a constant re
and Pi , whilst transient flow behaves like there is no outer boundary to the reservoir (so that the radius of
investigation, rd , is continually increasing). Pseudo-steady state is halfway between the two, with a
constant re and reservoir pressure that declines with production (i.e. a bounded reservoir). In reality,
steady state Darcy radial flow very rarely exists. The difference between transient and pseudo-steady
state can be seen from constant rate drawdown and pressure build-up tests, as shown in Figure 19.2b.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 342
Constant Rate Drawdown Pressure Build Up
Transient
Pseudo-Steady State
BHP
BHP
Transient
Pseudo-Steady State
t t
Figure 19.2b – Graphs illustrating the deviation from transient flow caused by a reservoir boundary (i.e. the
change to pseudo-steady state flow)
The basic equation for pressure transient analysis is relatively easy to comprehend (although its derivation
is very complex).
  φµcr 2


 
 q BO µ    4 kt 


Pi − Pr ,t =  
 1− e
 
(19.1)
 4 π kh   
 
where Pi is the static reservoir pressure, Pr, t is the pressure at radius r after time t , q is the stabilised flow
rate, Bo is the oil formation volume factor (a factor used to correct surface volumes to bottom hole
volumes) in rbbls/stb, µ is the viscosity of the produced fluid or fluids (at bottom hole conditions), k is the
permeability, h is the net height, φ is the porosity of the formation and c is the overall compressibility of the
formation and fluids (also called ct ).
Under constant rate drawdown Equation 19.1 can be simplified to:
 q B µ  kt 
Pi − Pwf =  O log e + 0 . 809  (19.2)
 4 π kh  φµcrw 2 
-1
In field units (pressure in psi, flow rate in bbls per day, viscosity in cp, distances in ft, compressibility in psi
, permeability in mD, time in hours and porosity expressed as a fraction):
 162.6 q BO µ  kt 
Pi − Pwf =  log10 + 3.23 (19.3)
 
2
 kh φµ crw

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 343
So for transient flow, during a constant rate drawdown, a plot of P wf against log t will produce a straight line
of gradient equal to (162.6q µ /kh ). From this, if the flow rate, viscosity, volume factor and net height are all
known, the permeability can be evaluated by measuring the gradient of the straight line portion of the
curve, as shown in Figure 19.2c. This is a very common method for evaluating permeability, but is
dependent upon the well being produced at a constant – or nearly constant - rate. The permeability value
produced by the test is much more useful for Frac Engineers than permeability derived from log or core
analysis. First, this value is an "average" figure for the whole net height being produced. Second, well test
analysis is the only investigative method that penetrates deep into the reservoir and so the results are not
influenced by irrelevant near wellbore effects.
162.6 q Bo µ
slope =
kh
Pwf
log10 t
Figure 19.2c – Constant rate drawdown semi-log plot. The straight line section can be used to evaluate the
permeability. The deviation from the straight line at late time, is due to boundary effects of the reservoir, as
the transient flow changes to pseudo-steady state flow.
The radius of investigation of the test, rd , can be evaluated using equation 19.4. This allows the distance at
which a boundary is observed (see Figure 19.2b) to be estimated, by setting the value of t (in hours) to be
when the drawdown semi-log plot starts to deviate from the straight line.
0.00105 kt
rd = (19.4)
φµc
After shut-in, the pressure in the well starts to build up, as illustrated in Figure 19.1a. The equation
defining the behaviour of the pressure is as follows, in field units:-
 162.6 q BO µ   t p + ∆t 
Pi − Pws (t p + ∆t )=   log10   (19.5)
 kh   ∆t 

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 344
P* (Transient)
162.6 q Bo µ
slope = m =
∆t)
Pws(tp+∆ P* (Pseudo-
kh
Steady State)
INCREASING ∆t
0 tp + ∆t
log10
∆t
Figure 19.2d – Example Horner plot, showing extrapolation of the straight line portion to obtain P *, the
average static reservoir pressure. Once again, deviation from the straight line is caused by a change from
transient flow to pseudo-steady state flow.
Therefore, a plot of Pws (tp +∆t ) against log10[(tp +∆t )/∆t ] will produce a straight line for transient flow, which will
have a slope equal to (162.6q µ /kh ). This plot is often referred to as a Horner plot and is a widely used tool
in pressure transient analysis. An example is illustrated in Figure 19.2d. Note that as ∆t tends towards
infinity, (tp +∆t )/∆t tends to 1 and hence log10[(tp +∆t )/∆t ] tends to 0. Therefore, by extrapolating the Horner
plot back to where the x-axis equals zero, an estimate for the static reservoir pressure can be made. This
means that the pressure build-up portion of the well test can be more useful than the drawdown phase,
and that the well does not need to be shut in for a long time prior to the well test, in order to get an
accurate figure for Pi .
So from the drawdown test, we can get reliable data for average reservoir pressure and k (or often, kh , as
the net height may be unknown). We can also get the skin factor S (see Section 2.5) from the build-up
data by applying the API Skin Factor equation, in field units:
 Pws (∆t ≅ 1) − p wf (t p ) k 
S = 1.151  − log 10 + 3 . 23  (19.6)
 m φµcrw 2 
where Pws (∆t = 1) is the static wellbore pressure 1 hour after the well is shut in, and m is the slope from the
Horner plot, as shown in Figure 19.2d.
Once the skin is known, the pressure drop due to the skin, ∆P skin can easily be calculated:-
 q BO µ 
∆Pskin = 141.2   S ( field units ) (19.7)
 2πkh 
Which can be worked back into equation 19.3:
(19.8)

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 345
 16.26 q BO µ    kt  
Pi − Pwf =   log 10  2
 − 3.23 + S 
 kh   φµcrw  
Diagnostic Plots
Diagnostic plots are standard plots used to determine the characteristics of the reservoir. Usually, the
diagnostic plot will consist of a log-log plot of the change in wellbore pressure, ∆P , against shut in time, ∆t ,
for the pressure build-up. Sometimes, semi-log plots (∆P plotted against log ∆t ) are also used.
In addition, the derivative of the pressure build-up, ∆P ’, is also plotted alongside the pressure data. This is
a slightly different derivative than that used in minifrac pressure decline analysis, and is generally
calculated as follows:
 ∂∆P 
∆P' = ∆t   (19.9)
 ∂∆t 
Usually, this will produce a very noisy derivative plot, and it is common practice to use some kind of
smoothing or averaging algorithm to produce a clear derivative trend. Modern computer-based analysis
makes this easy.
Example diagnostic plots for fractured and non-fractured wells are shown in Figures 19.2e to 19.2h, below
(after Economides et al , 1994):-
∆P ∆P
∆P'
∆P'
log10 t log10 t
Figure 19.2e – Log-log diagnostic plot with derivative Figure 19.2f – Log-log diagnostic plot with derivative
for the pressure build-up of an infinite-acting reservoir for the pressure build-up of reservoir with a partial
(i.e. no boundaries and no pseudo-steady state flow). boundary (e.g. a sealing fault).

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 346
∆P
∆P
∆P' ∆P'
log10 t log10 t
Figure 19.2g – Log-log diagnostic plot with derivative Figure 19.2h – Log-log diagnostic plot with derivative
for the pressure build-up of an infinite conductivity for the pressure build-up of a finite conductivity
fracture fracture
Gas Well Testing

Gas well testing is an order of magnitude more complex than oil/water well testing, due to the fact that the
above theory assumes that the produced fluid is incompressible. Obviously, this is not the case for gas
wells. To compensate for this, Equation 19.8 is modified as follows:
 1639 Q µ i z i TB g   kt  
Pi − Pwf = 
2 2
log 10   − 0.351 + 0.87 S  (19.10)
  φµ cr 2 
 kh   i w  
This equation is in field units, were Q is the gas flow rate in scf/d, µi is the gas viscosity at static reservoir
conditions, zi is the z-factor at static reservoir conditions (the z-factor is a dimensionless factor used to
correct the ideal gas equation to allow for real gas behaviour, and is calculated or measured for each
reservoir), T is the reservoir absolute temperature in rankine and Bg is the gas formation volume factor
(this is a factor used to correct surface volumes to reservoir volumes, with units of cuft/scf).
Usually, this equation is rearranged so that it is more conveniently used:
( )=  1639khQTB
m (Pi ) − m Pwf
2 g 
(log10 t D − 0.351 + 0.87 S ) (19.11)
 
where
Pi
2 (19.12)
m(Pi ) =
µ i zi
2
Pwf
m(Pwf )= (19.13)
µ i zi
and
(19.14)

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 347
2.634 x 10 −4 kt
tD =
φµ i crw 2
Note that in Equation 19.14, rw is in feet. m(P) is referred to as the gas pseudo-pressure.
By using Equation 19.11 for the drawdown, similar techniques can be used as for oil well testing.
However, this time m(P wf ) is plotted on the y-axis, and the slope of the straight line portion is equal to 1639
QTB g/kh .
For the pressure build-up, the transformation from incompressible to compressible is similar:-
 1639 QTB g   t + ∆t 
m(Pi ) − m(Pws ) =   log10  p  (19.15)
 kh   ∆t 
For the Horner plot, the x-axis remains unchanged, but the y-axis plots m(Pws ). The straight line portion
can be extrapolated back to where the x-axis = 0, to give m(Pi ).
Type Curve Matching

10 2
S = 20
S = 10
S =5
10 CD = 0 S =0
S = -5
PwD
10 2
10 3
1
10 4
=
=
D
D
C
10 5
D
C
=
D
C
10 -1
10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8
tD
Figure 19.2i – Type curves for a single well in an infinite reservoir, with wellbore storage and skin damage
(after Agarwal, Al-Hussainy and Ramey, 1970).
Type curve matching is a technique that involves matching field generated data curves to experimentally
or numerically derived type curves. The field data is moved over the type curve, until the type curve that
most closely matches the field data is found. This technique has become very popular recently, as it is

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 348
very easily performed by computers.
Usually, there will be several different type curves available, for wells with different characteristics such as
skin, wellbore storage (see below), number of wells and reservoir boundaries. A typical set of type curves
is shown in Figure 19.2i, which is for a single well in an infinite system (i.e. no boundaries), with wellbore
storage and skin damage.
Where PwD is dimensionless pressure:-
kh (Pi − Pwf )
PwD = (Oil Wells ) (19.16)
141.2 qBO µ
PwD =
[
kh m(Pi ) − m(Pwf )]
(Gas Wells ) (19.17)
1424 Q B g T
and tD is as defined in equation 19.14.
Wellbore Storage
Wellbore storage is a measure of how much the volume of liquid and gas contained in the wellbore effects
the flow of the well. For instance, the pressure transient theory outlined above, assumes that there is an
instantaneous change from flowing to not flowing, when the well is shut in and vice versa . This assumption
is probably valid for a drill stem test (DST), where the valve being opened and closed is located downhole.
However, for most well tests, the controlling valve will be at the surface. When the well is shut in, there will
be some flow from the reservoir into the wellbore, otherwise the pressure in the wellbore would not rise.
The only way this can happen is if the wellbore expands. Similarly, when the well is opened, and the
pressure drops, the wellbore contracts. This storage effect is greatest when the wellbore volume is largest
(i.e. flow through casing) or when the fluids are compressible (i.e. gas wells or wells with significant
associated gas production).
The wellbore storage coefficient, C , is defined as follows, with volume measured in bbls and pressure in
psi:-
∆V
C= (19.18)
∆P
So that C is a measure of how much change in volume is produced for a given change in pressure.
Dimensionless wellbore storage, C D, as used in the type curves, is defined as follows:-
5.6146C
CD = 2 (19.19)
2πφchrw
Type Curve Matching
Type curve matching is performed as follows.
1. Select a set of type curves which most closely suit the well and reservoir situation, based on items
such as reservoir boundaries, skin factor, wellbore storage, number of wells and whether or not the
well has a hydraulic fracture.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 349
2. Produce a log-log plot of ∆t against ∆P (or ∆m(P ) for gas wells) for the well test data. This can be for a
constant flow rate drawdown, a constant drawdown flow or for a build-up. An example is illustrated in
Figure 19.2j. When constructing this plot, make sure the axes are of the same scale as the axes used
in the type curves. This is a critical component of the type curve matching process, and is made very
easy by computer-based methods.
3. Move the log-log plot of the test data over the type curves, until the data matches up with one of the
type curves. This process can often be very difficult – especially if the data is noisy - as several type
curves may have very similar shapes. Once the curves have been matched, the type curves will yield
(as in the case of Figure 19.2i) the dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient and the skin factor.
4. The final step is to obtain the match pressure and match time. With the test data curve still positioned
at its curve match, pick a point on the test data plot. This can be any point, and does not necessarily
have to be anywhere near the data. In fact, it is often easier to pick a point where two major axes
cross. Note the value of ∆t and ∆P at this point (these values are referred to as ∆t M and ∆P M). Then
note the corresponding values for this point on the type curve, to give t DM and P wDM, the dimensionless
match time and pressure. This process is more easily visualised if we imagine we have two hard
copies of the plots. The type curve plot is on paper, whilst the test data log-log plot is on a
transparency. The transparency has been moved over the type curve to obtain the match. Then, we
have selected a point on the test data plot, and pushed a pin through both plots to make a small hole
in each. ∆t M and ∆P M are the coordinates of the pin hole in the test data plot, and t DM and P wDM are the
coordinates of the pin hole in the type curve plot.
5. The match pressures and times can now be used to obtain reservoir data. The match pressures are
substituted into Equations 19.16 and 19.17, in order to determine the permeability-thickness (kh or
conductivity) of the formation, as shown in Equations 19.20 and 19.21. If the net height is known, the
permeability can easily be found.
P 
kh =141.2qBO µ  wDM  ( for oil wells ) (19.20)
 ∆PM 
 P 
kh = 1424 QB g T  wDM  ( for oil wells ) (19.21)
 ∆m(P )m 

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 350
103
102
∆ P (psi)
10
1
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
∆t (hours)
Figure 19.2j – Example of a log-log plot of ∆t against ∆P, used for type curve matching
109
108
∆ m(P) (psi2/cp)
1
4 Slope
107
106
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
∆t (hours)
Figure 19.2k – Post-treatment log-log plot of well test data for a finite conductivity fracture in a gas well. An
infinite conductivity fracture would have a half slope.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 351
Similarly, Equation 19.14 can be re-arranged to yield the porosity-compressibility product, which is another
variable that will be useful in future analysis:
 2.637 x10 −3 k  ∆t M
φc =  2

t (19.22)
 µ rw  DM
Post-Treatment Well Testing

Once the well has been fractured, and the fracturing fluid has been recovered, the well can be tested
again, to assess the performance of the fracture. Usually, this test will consist of a shut in for one hour, a
constant rate flow period of about 24 hours and finally a shut-in period of about 48 hours. These numbers
are typical for oil wells. Gas wells are a little more complex, as the flow is much more affected by
non-Darcy flow in the fracture and wellbore storage. For gas wells, it is advisable to rely on previous
experience, and where that is not available, be prepared to change the well test plan on location.
Basically, for a fractured gas well, the log-log plot of the test data should look something like Figure 19.2k.
With reference to this figure (which is also applicable to oil wells, with ∆P as the vertical axis), flow from a
fractured well should fall into 5 distinct regimes, in chronological order:-
Wellbore storage dominated flow.

Fracture linear flow, in which the flow is dominated by liner flow down the fracture to the wellbore. This
is usually characterised by a half slope on the log-log test data plot. This period of flow will also not
last very long.
Bilinear flow, in which fluid flow along the fracture and through the formation perpendicular to the
fracture faces are both significant. This flow regime is characterised by a quarter slope on the log-log
plot and should be a prominent feature of the test, if the treatment has been successful. This is the
most useful portion of the test data.
Formation linear flow, where the test data is dominated by linear flow through the formation,
perpendicular to the fracture faces.
Pseudo-radial flow. This flow regime comes last and is characterised by a combination of linear flow
perpendicular to the fracture faces, and by radial flow from the formation beyond the fracture tip.
For a gas well, the test should continue until significant data has been obtained for the bilinear flow data,
whether for drawdown or build-up. The best way to assess this is to plot the log-log plot real time and
watch for the quarter slope.
A typical set of post-treatment type curves is shown in Figure 19.2l.
In Figure 19.2l, the x-axis variable is the fractured well dimensionless time, defined as follows:
2.634 x10 −4
t Dx f = (19.23)
φµ cx f 2
Where xf is the fracture half-length. It should be noted that this style of type curve is only valid if the
fracture half-length is significantly less than the reservoir’s radial extent.
Matching the test data log-log plot to the type curve is easier than for the pre-fracture test. When the
match is performed, the quarter slope portion of the test data log-log plot is matched within the shaded
area of Figure 19.2l. As all the variables for the dimensionless pressure are already known, the type curve
match is used to obtain the dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD , and the match times. The match
times are used to find the fracture half length, as follows in Equation 19.24.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 352
10
1
CfD =
0.1
PwD
0.5
1.0
10-1
5.0
10 Region of Bilinear Flow
50
100
500
10-2
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1
tDxf
Figure 19.2l – Type curves for a well with a finite conductivity, vertical fracture (after Agarwal et al,
1979 and Economides et al, 1987).
 2634 x10 − 4 k   ∆t 
xf =   M  (19.24)
 µφc   t Dx m 
  f 
As k and φc where obtained in the pre-fracture well test, the fracture half-length can be quickly
determined. Once xf has been found, the value for dimensionless fracture conductivity can be used to
obtain the fracture conductivity from Equation 10.1.
Taking this one step further, if the permeability of the proppant, kp is known (remembering to allow for
proppant damage, non-Darcy flow and multi-phase flow), then the average width of the fracture can also
be obtained.
Quarter Slope versus Half Slope

According to the theory, as the well starts to flow the system passes through five distinct phases of flow:-
wellbore storage; fracture linear flow; bilinear flow; formation linear flow; and finally pseudo-radial flow. In
practice, wellbore storage occurs at very early time, and fracture linear flow only occurs for a very short
period of time. For the majority of the well test period, the data will be dominated by bilinear flow or
formation linear flow.
If the fracture has a finite conductivity, the flow will spend a considerable amount of time in the bilinear
flow regime, as characterised by a quarter slope on the plot of Log ∆P against Log ∆t (the log-log plot).
However, if the fracture has infinite conductivity, then the flow quickly moves from bi-linear to formation
linear, which has a half slope on the log-log plot. In fact, often the quarter slope section will not be
detected.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 353
Spotting the difference between the two is easy. Bi-linear flow (finite fracture conductivity) produces a
0.25
straight line on a plot of ∆P (or ∆m(P) ) against ∆t , whilst formation linear flow (infinite fracture
conductivity) produces a straight line on a plot of ∆P (or ∆m(P )) against √∆t . Useful information regarding
the fracture dimensions can be obtained from these plots, as follows:-
Finite conductivity fracture (field units):
2
 44.1qBµ  1
k p wave =   (oil wells ) (19.25)
 hm  φµct k
 bf 
2
 44.8q z i T  1
k p wave =   ( gas wells ) (19.26)
 hm  φµ ct k
 bf 
Infinite conductivity fracture (field units):
 4.064 qB  µ
xf =  (oil wells ) (19.27)
 h m  kφc
 lf  t
 40.925 q ziT  µ
xf =  ( gas wells ) (19.28)
 h m  kφc
 lf  t
0.25
where mbf is the slope of the straight line portion of the bi-linear flow plot (i.e. ∆P against ∆t ), whilst mlf
is the slope of the straight line portion of the linear flow plot (i.e. ∆P against √∆t ). Therefore, by using these
plots, the average propped fracture width (wave) can be found for finite conductivity fractures, and propped
fracture half length (xf ) can be found for finite conductivity fractures, provided an accurate proppant
permeability is known, under the producing conditions.
A Word of Caution
Type curve methods for obtaining the fracture geometry from well test data are notorious for being
non-unique. A glance at Figure 19.2h will show that all the curves in the bilinear flow area have similar
gradients. Additionally, the analysis is very sensitive to the quality and reliability of the data obtained.
Formation permeability, for instance, is not a constant. It will change with fluid saturations, so if the well
shows a change in GOR, GLR or WOR between the pre-and post-treatment tests, the permeability will be
suspect. Therefore, be aware of the limitations and risks associated with relying entirely upon this type of
analysis.
Subtopics
19.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 354
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 355
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Tiltmeters
Tiltmeters are extremely sensitive devices for measuring changes in orientation from the vertical. Surface
and downhole tiltmeters are used to measure the azimuth and geometry of the fracture versus time, as
illustrated in Figure 19.3a.
Surface tiltmeters measure the deflection of the earth at the surface. Usually, they are placed in 30 to 40 ft
deep bore holes, and placed around the wellbore, from a distance of as little as 100ft, to as great as half a
mile. These tiltmeters are used to measure the fracture azimuth, or the direction of the fracture relative to
north. Because the determination of fracture azimuth can often be performed on a qualitative basis, the
accuracy of the data required is less than that for determining fracture geometry. Therefore, fracture
azimuth can be quite reliably determined from these devices, if used correctly. However, surface tiltmeters
cannot provide any useful data regarding the fracture geometry, as they are usually too far away from the
fracture and located on the wrong plane. Subsurface tiltmeters are placed in wells adjacent to the well
being treated, at the same vertical depth. Because they are often much closer to the fracture than the
surface tiltmeters, and they are located perpendicular to the most likely plane of fracture propagation, it is
possible to obtain fracture height, width and length from them, against time.
The accuracy of fracture geometry determination is controlled by a number of factors. The most important
factor is the number of tiltmeters used, which in turn is controlled by the number of available observation
wells. Obviously, the fewer the number of tiltmeters, the less accurate the analysis is. Unfortunately, many
candidate wells do not observation wells conveniently positioned, or else the operator is unwilling to shut
these wells in for the duration of the set up, treatment and rig down (sometimes several days). Another
major factor affecting the quantitative analysis required in order to obtain fracture geometry, is the quality
of the data on the rock mechanical properties of the affected formations. The tiltmeter is basically
measuring the angular deflection of the rock at a particular point. The magnitude of this deflection will
depend upon the distance between the fracture and the tiltmeters, and upon the mechanical properties of
the rock between them (chiefly Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio). If these rock properties are
unknown – or worse still if the formations are heterogeneous – then the accuracy of the measurements
will be significantly reduced.
Fracture-induced Surface tiltmeters

surface trough
Depth
Fracture
Downhole
tiltmeters in
offset wells

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 356
Figure 19.3a – The principle of tiltmeter fracture diagnostics (after Cipolla and Wright, 2000).
Microseismic
Microseismic fracture diagnostics rely on the use of several highly accurate seismographs, similar in
principle to the seismographs used to detect and measure earthquakes. Essentially, as the fracture
propagates through the earth’s surface, it does not grow in a smooth, homogenous fashion. Instead, the
fracture will tend to propagate in short bursts, each one of which produces a small seismic shock wave
that can be detected and measured. As these microseismic events occur mostly at the fracture tip, it is
possible, by using 3 or more microseismographs positioned in 3-D space around the well, to map the
position of each of the microseismic events and hence the position of the fracture tip against time. It
should be remembered that the fracture tip encompasses the entire perimeter of the fracture, and that the
fracture (or fractures) could well be propagating all the way along this perimeter. Therefore, the technique
can measure fracture height, length and the overall shape of the fracture.
As with tiltmeters, this technique requires the use of measuring devices positioned in observation wells. If
there are no suitable observation wells, then the technique cannot be applied.
It should be remembered that any seismic device measures time, not distance. In order to convert time
into distance, the velocity of the shock wave through the rock formation(s) must be known. This can often
be obtained from acoustic logs, but is highly dependent upon the formation bulk density, which in turn is
dependent upon the porosity and the relative saturations of liquids and gases. These factors, coupled with
heterogeneity in the formation, tend to limit the resolution and accuracy of the results. However, provided
enough suitably located measuring devices are used, this technique can be used to give a good overall
idea of the fracture geometry and to detect multiple fractures.
Radioactive Tracers
Radioactive tracers are soluble radioactive isotopes that are added to the fracturing fluids during the
treatment, on the fly. After the treatment, the well is logged using a tool fitted with a Geiger-Müller detector
that can identify and quantify the presence of the isotope. The idea behind this is to see where the
fracturing fluid has gone.
The capabilities of this technique are further enhanced by the use of three different radioactive isotopes,
46 124 192
Scandium-46 ( Sc), Antimony-124 ( Sb) and Iridium-192 ( Ir). These are run at different times during
the treatment. By logging the well with a tool that can tell the difference between the isotopes, it is possible
to see if different sections of the treatment went in different directions.
Using radioactive tracers has a couple of drawbacks:
1. Storage and transportation of the radioactive materials, even these low activity isotopes, is governed
by strict regulations in most areas and can often be more trouble than this information is worth. This is
especially true if the isotopes have to cross a national frontier or go offshore.
2. The rocks in the formation reduce the count measured by the detector. Therefore it is very difficult to
tell the difference between a low level of radioactivity close to the wellbore, and a high level of
radioactivity some distance away from the wellbore. This means that whilst the technique can be used
to see where the fracture is located at the perforations, and to a certain extent which perforations took
fluids at which time during the treatment, it cannot be used to detect fracture height or width.
Temperature Logs
Temperature logs are used to detect where the treatment fluid has gone. By running a temperature log
right after a treatment, and measuring the temperature of the well against depth, it is possible to see
where the cold treating fluid cooled down the hot formation as it entered. The center of this zone is the
point of fracture initiation, as illustrated in Figure 19.3b.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 357
DEPTH Section of Perfs
that is actually
taking fluid
Perforated
Interval
TEMPERATURE
Figure 19.3b – Generic temperature log illustrating that the treating fluid has entered only a small portion of
the perforated interval. The fracture will have initiated in this small interval. However, this does not
necessarily mean that this is the center of the fracture.
Subtopics
19.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 358
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 359
Fracturing Manual

Section:
19.4 References
Johnson, D.E., Wright, C.A., Stachel, A., Schmidt, H., and Cleary, M.P.: “On-Site Real-Time Analysis
Allows Optimal Propped Fracture Stimulation of a Complex Gas Reservoir”, paper SPE 25414, presented
at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 1993.
FracPro Version 8.0+ On-Line Help, RES/Gas Research Institute, March 1998.
FracproPT Version 9.0+ On-Line Help, Pinnacle Technologies/Gas Research Institute, July 1999.
Hagel, M.W., and Meyer, B.R.: “Utilizing Mini-Frac Data to Improve Design and Production”, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology , March 1994, pp. 26 – 35.
MFrac III Version 3.5+ On-Line Help, Meyer and Associates Inc, December 1999.
Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A.: “Diagnostic Techniques to Understand Hydraulic Fracturing: What? Why?
and How?”, paper SPE 59735, presented at the SPE/CERI Gas Technololgy Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, April 2000.
Economides, M.J, Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C.: Petroleum Production Systems , Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1994
Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: “An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin
Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept 1970); Trans., AIME,
249.
Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D. and Pollock, C.B.: “Evaluation and Performance Prediction of
Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing”, paper SPE 6838, JPT , 362-372,
March 1979.
Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D. and Pollock, C.B.: “Type Curves for Evaluation and Performance Prediction of
Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing”, paper SPE 8145, JPT , 651-656,
May 1979. (Published as an accompaniment to SPE 6838, above).
Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G. and Carter, R.D.: “Combined Analysis of Post Fracturing and Pressure Buildup
Data for Evaluating an MHF Gas Well”, paper SPE 8280, presented at the SPE 54th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 1979.
Agarwal, R.G.: “A New Method to Account for Producing Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves are
Used to Analyze Pressure Buildup and Other Test Data”, paper SPE 9289, presented at the SPE 55th

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 360
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, September 1980
Crafton, J.W.: “Oil and Gas Well Evaluation Using the Reciprocal Productivity Index Method”, paper SPE
37409, presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 1997.
Cramer, D.D.: “Evaluating Well Performance and Completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically Fractured
Low-Permeability Gas Wells”, paper SPE 84214, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 2003
Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G.: Petroleum Engineering Principals and Practices , Graham & Trotman,
London, 1986.
Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering , Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1978
Cipolla, C.L. and Mayerhofer, M.J.: “Understanding Fracture Performance by Integrating Well Testing and
Fracture Modelling”, paper 74632, SPEPF, November 2001.
Arihara, N., Abbaszadeh, M., Wright, C.A. and Hyodo, M.: “Integration of Fracturing Dynamics and
Pressure Transient Analysis for Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation”, paper SPE 36551, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 1996.
Horne, R.N., Modern Well Test Analysis – A Computer-Aided Approach , 2nd Edition, Petroway Inc, Palo
Alto CA, 2002.
Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A.: “State-of-the-Art in Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics”, paper SPE 64434,
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, October
2000.
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 361
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 362
Fracturing Manual
Section:
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Subtopics
20.1 Horsepower Requirements
20.2 Flow Lines
20.3 High Pressure Pumps
20.4 Intensifiers
20.5 Blenders, Gel Hydration and Liquid Additives
20.6 Proppant Storage and Handling
20.7 Treatment Monitoring
20.8 Wellhead Isolation Tool
20.9 The Frac Spread – How it Fits Together
20.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 363
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:

Working out horsepower requirements is a relatively easy thing to do, provided you know the expected
treating pressure and slurry rate:
HHP = STP * Slurry Rate / 40.8 (20.1)
where STP is in psi and Slurry Rate is in bpm. The 40.8 is simply a conversion factor for the units (in the
SI system, pumping power – in kW – is directly equal to pressure (kPa) multiplied by rate (m3/sec)). This
formula will tell you how many pumps of what size you need on location. Remember to have at least 20%
excess horsepower on location and - as a minimum - mobilise at least one spare pump. This excess
capacity is required in case of pump failure or higher than expected treating pressures.
It is also worthwhile looking at the set of curves supplied with each pump – called “pump curves”. These
curves show the maximum rate and pressure that the pump can run at in each gear. Correctly speaking,
these curves are showing maximum torque from the engine. Remember that it is quite possible to be
limited by torque, rather than by horsepower. In such a situation, the pump may not be able to run at a
given rate and pressure, even though it is within the pump’s rated horsepower. Remember also that the
reduction ratios between the engine and transmission, and between the transmission and the pump, will
affect the final torque available. In reality, “pump curves” are in fact “pump-transmission-engine” curves.
Figure 20.1a shows an example.
If a treatment is going to be close to the maximum power for a given pumping unit, it is recommended that
the pump curves be consulted in order to confirm that the pump can actually do the treatment.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 364
Figure 20.1a – Typical pump curves. This set is for a 30-16-6 frac skid, with a 16V92TA engine, a CLBT8962
transmission and a pacemaker pump with a 4.5 inch fluid end. Nominal rating of the pump skid is 700 HHP
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 365
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 366
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:
20.2 Flow Lines

This section is intended as a guideline only. Full details on requirements for high and low
pressure flow lines can be found in the BJ Services Standard Practices Manual , and it is
recommend that this should be consulted before any rig-up is designed.
Suction Hoses
It is essential that sufficient suction hoses be used between the tanks and the blender. The only force
available to move the fluid to the blender is the suction of the inlet pump and hydrostatic pressure from a
difference in fluid levels. This is not much. In order to ensure that the suction pump receives fluid at
sufficient rate, a simple rule applies;
One 4” diameter 10’ suction hose will carry up to 10 bpm of gel
If 20 bpm is required, then two hoses will be needed, and so on. In addition, longer hoses will carry less
rate. For instance, 20’ of 4” diameter hose will only carry half as much rate, i.e. 5 bpm. So if 20 bpm were
required from tanks which were 20’ away, 4 x 4” flow lines would be required.
From this it is easy to see why the blender is usually placed as close as possible to the frac tanks, and
why the frac tanks are often manifolded together with 8” (or larger) diameter lines.
Also consider the comparative diameter of manifolds and suctions hoses. For instance:-
An 8” manifold has a flow are of 50.26 sq inches. This corresponds to the same flow area as 4 x 4 inch
hoses (50.24 sq inches). Therefore, there is little point in building an 8” manifold and then using only 3 x 4”
suction hoses.
Finally, remember that there is a difference between suction and discharge hoses. Suction hoses need to
be rigid, otherwise the suction pump of the blender can suck them flat. Discharge hoses, which generally
do not have to carry suction, are often made from non-rigid hoses, which collapse flat when there is no
fluid in them. This makes for easier storage and makes the hoses easier to carry. As a general
rule-of-thumb, suction hoses can be used for the discharge (provided they have the correct pressure
rating) but discharge hoses cannot be used on the suction.
Discharge Hoses
The discharge hoses run from the blender to the high pressure frac pumps. Generally, one discharge
hose is required from the blender to each pump. These hoses do not need to be rigid (see above
comments on suction hoses) but must have sufficient pressure rating. They must also have crimped
connections (similar to high pressure hydraulic hose connections) and not the old-style clamps. Discharge
hoses should also be fitted with "whip-checks" at each connection.
For rates below 5 bpm per pump, a single 3" discharge hose is required for each pump. At rates above 5
bpm, a single 4" hose should be used - although at very high rates (15 bpm +), more than one hose may
be required.
High Pressure Flow Lines

When pumping abrasive fluids – such as a frac gel with proppant – down a high pressure treating line,

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 367
there is a limit to how fast it is advisable to pump. Above this pump rate, seals on chiksans, swivels and
hammer unions start to wash out. It is generally accepted in the industry that the velocity of the frac fluid
-1
should not exceed 40 ft sec . Therefore:
Qmax = 2.33 d 2 (20.2)
where Qmax is the maximum flow rate down any single high pressure line, in bpm, and d is the inside
diameter of the line, in inches.
Important Points
1. The actual inside diameter of high pressure flow lines is often significantly less than the nominal
diameter. Equation 20.2 should be used with the actual diameter. This is illustrated in Figure 20.2a.
2. HP flexible lines, such as Coflexip hoses, have separate guidelines. For these, follow the
manufacturer’s instructions.
Velocity Chart
Figure 1502 HP Iron
120
100
1.5"
2"
Fluid Velocity, ft sec-1
80
3"
60 4"
40
40 ft sec-1 Max Velocity for Abrasive Fluid
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fluid Rate, bpm
Figure 20.2a – Chart showing fluid velocity against fluid rate for various nominal
diameters of Figure 1502 high pressure iron.
Subtopics
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 368
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 369
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:

Most high pressure pumps used in hydraulic fracturing are of the triplex variety, although quintuplex
pumps are becoming more popular. Triplex means that there are three pistons acting to pump the fluid,
quintuplex means that there are five. These pistons are driven by a rotating crankshaft, as illustrated in
Figure 20.3a.
Power End Fluid End
Figure 20.3a – Schematic diagram of a generic frac pump
Figures 20.3b and 20.3c show what happens whilst the pump is operating. Figure 20.3b shows the suction
or inlet stroke of the cycle. As the plunger moves back towards the power end, fluid is pushed through the
suction valve by the blender. The spring acting to close this valve requires 20 to 40 psi just to lift it up, so
the blender must provide a boost pressure significantly greater than this in order to quickly fill the fluid end.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 370
Discharge Valve
Plunger
Suction Valve
Figure 20.3b – Generic frac pump, suction stroke
Figure 20.3c shows the power or discharge stroke. As the plunger moves away from the power end, the
increased pressure in the fluid end causes the suction valve to close, and once this pressure is high
enough, the discharge valve to open.
Figure 20.3c – Generic frac pump, discharge stroke
Frac pumps are usually powered by diesel engines, although some have been built with electric motors
and even gas turbines. For diesel powered units (which includes all of BJ’s frac pumpers), there will be a
transmission and a drive shaft in between the pump and the engine. The transmission allows the pump
operator to select which gear the pump is in. Low gear is for high pressure/low rate, whilst high gear is for
low pressure/high rate. The transmission usually includes a torque converter, which amplifies the torque
coming from the engine, for a corresponding drop in rpm’s. The pump curves supplied with each pump will
tell the operator what the maximum rate and pressure is for each gear. These curves include the
engine/transmission gear ratio, which is the ratio for the torque converter. For instance a 2:1 engine
transmission gear ration means that the torque converter reduces the input rpm’s by a factor of 2, and
increases the input toque by a factor of 2

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 371
Also included on most pumpers is a lock-up device. This is a mechanism that allows slip between the
engine and the transmission. In the event of the pump stalling, this can prevent serious damage to the
transmission and engine. In order to make this device “lock up” (which means that there is no “slip” in the
lock up device), the engine needs to be turning at a reasonable rate (usually 1700 to 1800 rpm). Below
this speed, the torque converter is not locked up. The pump is still working, but there is slippage between
the engine and transmission. It is possible to run a pumper out of lock up, but the transmission will quickly
overheat if this is maintained for too long.
Frac pumpers come in a variety of sizes, ranging from 350 HHP to 2700 HHP. Bigger pumps are more
cost effective for big treatments, but are very expensive and can be difficult to move on roads and onto
location. Smaller pumps may require more operators, more maintenance (per horsepower – maintenance
per pump unit is not significantly effected by size) and take up more space on location. Figures 20.3d to
20.3g illustrate some of BJ’s fleet of frac pumpers.
Figure 20.3d – Skid mounted 16V 92T pump unit (700 Figure 20.3e – Two views of a trailer-mounted Gorilla
HHP). Skid splits into two parts. pump unit (2700 HHP)
Figure 20.3f – Body-load Kodiak pump unit (2200 HHP) Figure 20.3g – Skid-mounted 1200 HHP pump unit
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References
Related Topics

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 372
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 373
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:
20.4 Intensifiers
Intensifiers are devices that are used for pumping frac treatments for extended periods at high pressure
and rate. They reply on conventional frac pumps to power them, and work on the principle that at constant
power, high rate and low pressure is the same as low rate and high pressure. BJ Services no longer
supplies intensifiers.
At the power fluid end of the intensifier, the frac pumps supply power fluid at high rate and (relatively) low
pressure. This acts to displace a large diameter piston down the power end. At the other end of this piston
is a smaller diameter piston, which is mounted inside the downhole fluid end. This acts to pump the frac
fluid at high pressure and (relatively) low rate, as illustrated in Figure 20.4a.
Suction Stroke – Hydraulic fluid is forced behind the power fluid piston to force the piston back. This
allows the downhole fluid end to fill with frac fluid from the blender.
Power Stroke – The pressure on the hydraulic fluid is released. At the same time, the inlet valve from the
frac pumps is opened, allowing the power end to fill with power fluid. This forces the piston down the
power fluid end. At the other side of the intensifier, the frac fluid is forced out of the downhole fluid end at
high pressure.
2 2
One important parameter for each intensifier is the intensification ratio. This is equal to D /d (see Figure
20.4a). This defines by how much the intensifier converts high rate-low pressure into low rate-high
pressure. For instance, with an intensification ratio of 2.5, the fluid pressure going downhole will be 2.5
times the power fluid pressure, whilst the fluid rate going down hole will be 2.5 times less than the power
fluid rate.
Figure 20.4b shows how the intensifier is rigged up with the other equipment, whilst Figures 20.4c and
20.4d show intensifiers on location.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 374
TO POWER
FLUID UNIT
OPEN D
d
SUCTION
STROKE
CLOSED FROM
BLENDER
HYDRAULIC
FLUID IN
CLOSED TO WELL
POWER
STROKE
OPEN
HYDRAULIC
FLUID OUT
FROM FRAC
PUMPS
Figure 20.4a – Schematic diagram of a generic intensifier
BLENDER
FRAC PUMP
INTENSIFIER
FRAC PUMP
FRAC PUMP
COOLER
BOOST TO
RESERVOIR WELL
PUMP
POWER FLUID UNIT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 375
Figure 20.4b – Schematic diagram of the intensifier hook-up.
E D
A
C B
Figure 20.4c – Intensifier worksite. Each intensifier (A) is hooked up to three frac pumpers (B), which are
pumping the power fluid. Power fluid is handled by the power fluid unit (C). Intensifiers are rigged into a
manifold (D). Note that whilst there are three intensifiers and 9 power fluid pumpers on location, there are
also an additional two frac pumpers (E) rigged up to the downhole line to provide extra horsepower.
Figure 20.4d – Detail of an intensifier. In the foreground, on the RHS, is the downhole fluid end. In the
background, on the LHS, is the power end, complete with high pressure iron rigging it to the frac pumpers.
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 376
20.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 377
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:
20.5 Blenders, Gel Hydrations and Liquid Additives

The blender is the heart of the fracturing operation. Although modern blending equipment is often highly
automated, the blender operator (or Blender Tender) still retains one of the most critical positions on any
location. Figure 20.5a shows a generic schematic diagram of a frac blender.
DRY
LIQUID ADDITIVE TANKS ADD.
PROPPANT SILO
BIN
LA METERING
PUMPS
BLENDER
TUB SLURRY SIDE
FLOW METER
TO HIGH PRESSURE PUMPS

DISCHARGE MANIFOLD
RADIOACTIVE
SUCTION MANIFOLD
FROM FRAC TANKS
DENSIMETER
SUCTION
PUMP
CLEAN SIDE
FLOW METER
DISCHARGE
TO FRAC TANKS
PUMP
RECIRCULATION LINE
Figure 20.5a – Generic flow diagram for a frac blender. Note that on a blender fitted with a Condor tub (such
as BJ’s Cyclone I & II blenders), the functions of the blender tub and the discharge pump are combined into
a single unit.
The blender performs the following functions:-
i. Pre-gelling tanks.
ii. Blending liquid and dry additives on the fly.
iii. Blending proppant on the fly.
iv. Providing supercharge for the high pressure pumps.
v. Metering and recording a variety of job critical parameters.
Figures 20.5b to 20.5e show some of BJ’s fleet of frac blenders.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 378
Figure 20.5b – 125D Frac blender, capable of 125 bpm Figure 20.5c – Body-load mounted Cyclone II blender,
and 35,000 lbs/min proppant rate capable of 25 bpm
Figure 20.5d – Skid mounted Cyclone blender Figure 20.5e – LFC hydration unit
When pumping a treatment the frac spread can be set up to either gel the frac tanks before the treatment
- so that all the fluids are prepared beforehand – or to mix the gel on the fly.
Treatments with Pre-Gelled Tanks

When carrying out a treatment with tanks that are pre-gelled, considerable time and effort has been
invested into gelling a number of frac tanks filled with water. During this process, the blender will be used
to circulate the tanks (via the suction manifold, suction pump, blender tub, discharge pump and
recirculation line – see Figure 20.5a), whilst adding the necessary ingredients to produce the required gel.
Advantages of Pre-Gelling Tanks:

i. Intense quality control can be carried out on the gel, prior to each tank being accepted. If necessary, a
tank or poor quality gel can be rejected, disposed off and then re-blended.
ii. Fewer additives need to be mixed on the fly.
iii. No need for an LFC Hydration Unit
Disadvantages of Pre-Gelling Tanks:-

i. Considerable time can be taken up by blending the gel.
ii. Gel properties cannot be varied on the fly.
iii. Approximately 5% of the gel will be wasted as tank bottoms.
iv. Bactericide must be blended with the fracturing fluid to prevent sulphate-reducing bacteria from
breaking down the gel.
Mixing Gel on the Fly

Mixing the frac gel on the fly requires less pre-job preparation, but involves the use of more equipment

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 379
and the extra cost of the LFC or XLFC (Liquid Frac Concentrate – see Section 5). LFC is an oil-based
slurry of the polymer, usually mixed so that there is 4 lbs of polymer per gallon of slurry. The LFC is added
to the water on the fly, allowing the gel to be prepared as it is needed. This requires an LFC hydration unit
(see Figure 20.5e). This piece of equipment consists of an LFC storage tank, a metered LFC additive
pump (usually progressing cavity type), a hydration tank and a boost pump. Water is supplied to the LFC
hydration unit, which meters in the LFC at a controlled ratio, to provide the required gel strength. The
hydrating LFC/water mix passes into the hydration tank, which is large enough so that the gel spends 3 to
4 minutes in there, before it is transferred to the blender by the boost pump. This 3 to 4 minute hydration
time allows the polymer to hydrate. Some LFC Hydration units are supplied with a QC system – consisting
of a viscometer and a pH probe – to provide real time gel QC information.
Advantages of Mixing on the Fly:

i. No wasted gel. Only the amount of gel required is blended, so that there is no wastage from tank
bottoms or if the treatment ends prematurely.
ii. Gel properties may be varied on the fly.
iii. Less time and effort required for job preparation.
iv. No need to use a bactericide.
Disadvantages of Pre-Gelling Tanks:

i. Extra cost of using LFC, rather than dry powder.
ii. Extra cost of LFC Hydration Unit.
iii. Loss of gel properties if the LFC Hydration Unit has an equipment problem.
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 380
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 381
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:

Proppant has to be stored on location, ready for use. It has to be kept clean and dry, and must be
delivered to the blender smoothly and quickly. Figure 20.6a shows frac sand being delivered to the hopper
of a blender:
Figure 20.6a – Frac sand being delivered from a Sand

King to the hopper of a blender. Note that there are
two blenders in this picture – one is on standby as a
backup in case of equipment failure.
There are two main methods for ensuring the smooth flow of proppant from the storage bin to the blender.
The first method is to use a gravity-feed system, which relies on the proppant being stored in a bin which
is higher than the blender hopper. A gate valve is used to control the sand rate. This can be done with
either large vertically mounted bins (Figure 20.6b) or from a dump truck (Figure 20.6c):
Figure 20.6b – Vertically mounted, gravity feed Figure 20.6c – Trailer mounted sand dumper
proppant bins
The second method is to use a conveyor system to move the proppant from the bin or dumper, to the
blender hopper. This method is typically used on larger frac jobs, as there is usually insufficient space
around the blender hopper for all the bins to be positioned. Usually, BJ’s first option for storing large
volumes of proppant is the Sand King, as shown in Figure 20.6d:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 382
Figure 20.6d – BJ Services Sand King
The Sand King is designed to be hauled to location empty, and then filled up with proppant. BJ has two
models, one with 250,000 lbs capacity and one with 400,000 lbs capacity. The proppant is held in several
separate bins along the length of the Sand King. During the treatment, gates – positioned at the bottom of
the hoppers – are opened to allow proppant to fall onto a conveyor. This conveyor runs along the bottom
of the entire length of the Sand King, and will transport the proppant to the blender hopper. When a very
large treatment is planned, such that several Sand Kings have to be used, a separate Sand Belt Conveyor
is used, as shown in Figure 20.6e:
Figure 20.6e – Sand belt conveyor
This device allows several Sand Kings to be placed on either side of the belt, each one feeding onto the
main belts of the Sand Belt Conveyor. This, in turn, feed the proppant to the blender hopper.
During the treatment, it is important that the proppant system can produce a smooth, uninterrupted flow of
proppant to the blender, often at quite high rates. It must also be able to keep the proppant dry, as wet
proppant can cause the blender’s proppant screws to seize up.
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 383
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 384
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:

On a modern frac spread, almost every parameter can be measured, displayed and recorded. The place
at which this data is displayed and recorded is the Treatment Monitoring Centre, which is usually either a
van or a container, as illustrated in Figures 20.7a and 20.7b, below:
Figure 20.7a – External view of BJ’s Stimulation Van 1800
Figure 20.7b – External view of a treatment monitoring container
The fracturing treatment will be controlled from this facility. The Frac Supervisor, the Frac Engineer, the
Pump Operator and the Company Man can sit in relative comfort and quiet, making treatment-critical
decisions, based on the data that is being collected and displayed.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 385
Figure 20.7c – Two internal views of treatment monitoring vans
Most modern treatment monitoring facilities also include the capability to transmit the treatment data real
time back to a specially set up remote data monitoring computer. This can be located either in BJ’s office
or in the customer’s. With this facility, Engineers no longer have to waste productive time on location or
travelling to and from the location. This is especially significant offshore, where the costs of mobilising
personnel can be significant. With the remote data transmission, the Engineers get the same data
displayed via similar software (typically JobMaster ), with only a second or two delay. Typically, there is
also a voice link so that the on-site Engineer can discuss various items or pass on instructions.
One other feature of most treatment monitoring containers or vans is a field lab. This will be a compact
QC/QA facility, designed to ensure the quality of the fluids and proppants. On larger frac spreads this may
even be a separate piece of equipment. Sometimes these are fitted with a fluid rheology and pH flow loop,
allowing real time viscosity and pH data to be displayed and recorded.
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 386
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 387
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:

The Wellhead Isolation Tool (WIT), often referred to as a ”Tree Saver”, is a device that allows treatments
to be pumped at a STP higher than the maximum pressure rating of the wellhead. This allows treatments
to be pumped at much higher rates than would normally be possible. The WIT does this by completely
isolating the wellhead from the treating fluid, as illustrated in Figures 20.8a, b, c, and d.
The tool is used in the following manner:
Prior to the treatment, the WIT operator obtains data for the type and size of wellhead top flange
connection, the distance from the top flange to the tubing hanger, the tubing size and the tubing
weight. This allows the WIT operator to assemble the stinger and seal assembly to match the
wellhead.
The wellhead master valve is closed, and any pressure between the master valve and the top flange
is bled off.
The WIT is assembled to the top flange, as illustrated in Figure 20.8a. Some WIT’s are fitted with a
master valve above the stinger (below the Tee section), whilst others require additional valves to be
fitted.
The WIT operator applies hydraulic pressure to the lower connection on the master cylinder, to ensure
that the tool is fully extended, or stung out of the wellhead.
The valves at the top of the WIT are closed and the tool is pressure tested.
The wellhead master valve is opened and the WIT is exposed to wellhead pressure.
The tool is stroked down by pumping hydraulic fluid into the top connection on the master cylinder.
The stinger and the seal assembly are sized so that the seal assembly stings into the top of the
tubing, at the point when the stinger is fully stroked into the well.
The upper section of the WIT and the master cylinder are clamped together, so that hydraulic
pressure is no longer required to keep the tool stung into the tubing.
The WIT tool can be extremely useful, as it can be operated on a live well. This then eliminates the need
killing the well and replacing the wellhead. Use of the WIT on a live well is a very specialised process,
requiring a trained operator. The tool can be very dangerous if not assembled or operated correctly.
The WIT is generally available in two main sizes, big and small. The small size is used for stinging into
most tubing sizes, from 2-3/8” up to 4” or larger. The large sized tool is used for stinging directly into
casing, with no tubing in the well.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 388
Hydraulic
Valve
Master Cylinder
Hydraulic Lines Wellhead
Isolation Tool
Seal Assembly
Wellhead
Swab Valve
Sub Master Valve
Master Valve
Tubing Hanger
Figure 20.8a – Generic wellhead isolation tool rigged up to wellhead. The WIT is connected to the wellhead
via the wellhead’s top flange. At this point the wellhead master and sub master valves are closed,
maintaining control of the well and allowing the frac lines and WIT to be pressure tested.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 389
In Clamp
Hydraulic
Fluid
Out
Figures 20.8b (left) and 20.8c (right) – Once the WIT has been connected to the wellhead and pressure
tested (Fig 20.8a), the next stage is to close the valves of the frac lines (not shown – note that some WIT’s
have their own master valves) and open the masterand sub master valves on the wellhead. One the wellhead
is open, the stinger is stroked down into the top of the tubing by pumping hydraulic fluid into the master
cylinder.
Figure 20.8d – Wellhead isolation tool rigged up on

location. Note the two 3” frac lines connected to
either side, plus the remote actuated 4” plug valve.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 390
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 391
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:
20.9 The Frac Spread - how it Fits Together
Treatment
Monitoring
Frac Pumps
LFC Hydration
Blender
Fluid Tanks
Frac Pumps
Annulus Pump
Proppant
Low Pressure Lines
High Pressure Lines
Control/Data Cables
Figure 20.8a – Schematic diagram of a frac spread
Figure 20.8a illustrates how all the various components of the frac spread fit together. All frac spreads will
basically look like this, although the size and number of components may vary. Some treatments will not
use an LFC hydration unit, as the gel will be batch mixed prior to the treatment. Some treatments may use
intensifiers, whilst some treatments (“batch” fracs, or Liquid Proppant fracs) may not have separate
proppant handling equipment.
However, the basic process is the same, no matter what kind of treatment is being performed. Fluid
(usually water) is moved from the storage tanks and is usually blended with gelling agents to increase its
viscosity. It is then blended with the proppant and pumped down the well.
Figures 20.8b to 20.8f, below, show some typical frac spreads:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 392
Figure 20.8b – Large scale treatment, carried out on several low permeability zones simultaneously. Note the
number of Sand Kings and frac tanks on location, as well as the use of two blenders (one for backup in case
of equipment failure). This frac spread features a separate mobile field lab (bottom left) and a third blender,
just for gelling up the tanks and for pumping fluid from the tanks that are located a significant distance from
the blender (located just above the bottom left hand row of frac tanks).
Figure 20.8c – The MV Blue Ray , a Gulf of Mexico frac boat, designed primarily for high permeability, frac and
pack treatments.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 393
Figure 20.8d – Skin Bypass Frac spread, using the “batch” frac method. The two frac pumps are positioned
opposite each other, just below the wireline mast (the small read and yellow derrick). A third pump (with
“BJ” painted on its roof) is being used as an annulus pump. The two vertical stainless steel tanks on the
RHS are for fluid storage. The two batch mixers (each with two round batch tanks - the blue batch mixer is 2
x 50 bbls, whilst the red one is 2 x 40 bbls), used to batch mix the proppant into the gel, are located at the
bottom of the picture.
Figure 20.8e – Coiled tubing frac spread. The wellhead is positioned directly below the CT injector (center of
picture), with the reel on the RHS. On the LHS are two nitrogen tankers. The main part of the frac spread is
positioned behind the injector, with the sand dump truck being the most prominent feature.

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 394
Figure 20.8f – The MV Thanh Long . This was a boat put together for a single fracturing treatment, for a
customer operating offshore Vietnam. The aft deck holds the following equipment:- 4 x 1200 HHP frac
pumps, Cyclone II blender, 2 x 640 cu ft proppant bins, treatment monitoring container c/w field lab, 4 x 165
bbls tanks and a 100 bbl vertical tank.
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
20.10 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 395
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 396
Fracturing Manual
20.0 EQUIPMENT
Section:
20.10 References
Standard Practices Manual, BJ Services, January 2001 onwards
Corporate Safety Standards and Procedures Manual , BJ Services, January 2001 onwards
Equipment and Technology Catalogue, BJ Services, 1990 onwards
Bradley, H.B. (Ed): Petroleum Engineers Handbook , SPE, Richardson, Texas (1987)
Texas (1989).
Subtopics
20.2 Flow Lines
20.4 Intensifiers
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 397
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 398
Fracturing Manual
Section:
The single biggest influence on the feasibility of the hydraulic fracturing process is the design of the well,
including its completion and perforations. The influence of perforations and how they can be designed to
maximise the effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing, has been discussed in Section 14. In this section, we
will discuss the philosophy and impact on well planning and design of the hydraulic fracturing process. On
a wider scale, we shall discuss the influence hydraulic fracturing can have on field development, whilst on
the smaller scale we shall discuss how to plan individual wells for fracturing.
Subtopics
21.1 How Many Wells do I Need to Drill?
21.2 The Best Wells are the Best Candidates for Fracturing
21.3 Designing Wells for Fracturing
21.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 399
Fracturing Manual

Section:

The answer is, not nearly as many as you think.
Very few operating companies outside of North America plan a field development with stimulation in mind.
Hydraulic fracturing is the most effective form of stimulation, but it is also the type is most often restricted
by the design of a well. Fracturing is often perceived by Engineers who do not have first hand experience
with the process, as a high risk operation. Consequently, the Engineers who design the development of a
field are either not aware of the benefits of fracturing, or not aware of the chances of a successful
treatment.
If a well is planned with hydraulic fracturing in mind, it is relatively realistic to expect at least double the
production from the treated well, compared to the untreated well. In many cases, fracturing will produce a
production increase significantly greater than this. In addition, often production targets can be met at
significantly lower drawdowns, which can have a tremendous impact on reservoir management and can
often prevent or significantly delay the onset of water production from a WOC or gas production from a
gas cap.
So if an operating company can produce at least twice as much oil from a given well, what does this mean
for reservoir development plans?
It means that the operating company needs to drill fewer wells, which can result in tremendous cost
savings - especially offshore, where the need for fewer wells may even eliminate the need for entire
platforms. Obviously, in highly faulted reservoirs, each “pool” will need at least one well, but in reservoirs
that would ordinarily require several wells, it is not unreasonable to expect to eliminate up to half of these.
Injection wells can also be fractured very effectively. An additional benefit to fracturing is that each zone in
an injection well can be individually treated, allowing a specific fracture, of a specific conductivity, to be
placed in each zone. This allows the Reservoir Engineer to custom design the injectivity profile of an
injection well, to meet the requirements of long term pressure maintenance.
Traditionally, the only sector of the industry that has a profound understanding of what can be achieved by
fracturing, is the tight gas sector. Most tight gas wells have to be fractured - otherwise they would not be
economic. In a lot of cases, these wells have to be fractured or they would not produce at all. In these
areas, the tight gas operating companies are totally dependent upon the hydraulic fracturing process for
the success or failure of their field developments. Yet companies keep drilling wells, keep developing tight
gas fields and keep fracturing them – so the process must be successful.
If it works for tight gas wells, why not for oil wells or even high permeability gas wells? After all, the basic
process is the same, the equipment is the same, the proppants are the same and the fluids are the same.
The only thing that varies from well to well is the amount of each of these items we use and the relative
quantities in which they are used. Obviously, the potential percentage production increase from fracturing
a tight gas well is much greater than for fracturing a high permeability oil well. However, which generates
the most revenue – increasing the production from a tight gas well from 50 mscfpd to 500 mscfpd, or
increasing the production of an oil well from 5,000 bopd to 10,000 bopd? Both of these production
increases are realistically achievable.
Subtopics
21.4 References

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 400
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 401
Fracturing Manual

Section:
Too often, hydraulic fracturing is seen as a last-try-process, used because the company has a bad well
and needs to do something with it. Unfortunately, in most circumstances, hydraulic fracturing cannot turn a
bad well into a good well, unless the only reason for the low production is a large skin factor. In all cases,
the reservoir must have some potential in order for the full benefits of the fracturing process to be realised.
In the late 1980’s, a company operating in the Danish sector of the North Sea, began developing a new
field. The oil was held in the highly same highly productive chalk formations, which were responsible for
the huge Ekofisk development, just across the border in the Norwegian sector. The traditional way to
develop these reservoirs was to drill deviated or S-shaped wells through the chalks and then perform an
acid frac. However, the operating company – and its partners (which included some major US operating
companies) - realised that this may not be the best method.
Over a series of wells and a number of years, the operating company perfected a method for developing
their reservoirs that involved drilling long horizontal wells, each of which would have between 8 and 15
fracs placed along its length, depending upon the length of the productive section. Each of the horizontal
liners was cemented in place – a bold new approach in itself – and selectively perforated to control the
point of fracture initiation (see Section 13). These wells were also fitted with a special completion, which
allowed individual access to each of these perforated intervals.
Then, over a period of 4 to 8 weeks, each of these zones would be hydraulically fractured. As time
progressed and the technology improved, this time decreased, but still took weeks, rather than days, to
frac each well. In one well, the company successfully pumped over 13 million lbs of proppant, a record for
a well that has only recently been passed.
How much did this cost? A lot. Each well drilled and completed in this fashion typically cost 3 times what a
conventional well would cost, in a part of the world where drilling costs were already huge. However, each
well was also producing between 4 and 6 times what the typical conventional well was producing. In
addition, the conventional acid fractured wells had to have the acid fracture repeated every 18 months to 2
years, as the highly plastic chalk formations slowly deformed into the fractures. However, this was not the
case with the propped fractures, resulting in greatly reduced future expenditure.
The point of this story is that good wells are the best candidates for fracturing. The industry should not be
limited to remedial and low-productivity applications. When selecting candidates for fracturing look for the
good wells first.
Subtopics
21.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 402
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 403
Fracturing Manual

Section:

The best time to fracture a well is right after it has been drilled and cased – before the completion has
been run. This is another reason why it is important to consider the implications of fracturing whilst
planning the well. In general, completions act to restrict what can be done with a treatment, and can often
eliminate the fracturing option entirely.
Completions can limit fracturing operations for the following reasons:-
i. Pressure limitations. Fractures are created by pressure, and as a result abnormally high pressures
can be generated by the treatment. Often, completions are not designed to withstand this loading.
Although it is often possible to reduce this effect by placing pressure on the annulus, many are
completed with two or more packers, eliminating the effectiveness of annulus pressure.
ii. Temperature limitations.
limitations. The pumping of a cool frac fluid will cause the completion to shrink.
Sometimes, the completion can shrink so much that the tubing can sting out of packers. The effect of
the extra pressure acts to make this effect even worse.
iii. Completion jewelry.
jewelry Items such as sub-surface safety valves, gas lift mandrels and sliding side doors
can often take significantly less differential pressure than the actual completion itself.
It should be noted that the above three limitations can be eliminated by the use of coiled tubing in the
fracturing process.
iv. Multiple zones.

zones. Often, wells are completed with multiple sets of perforations. Whilst it is possible to
treat multiple zones at the same time, it is generally a much more complex process, which requires
more equipment and more materials (treating two identical zones requires twice the pump rate, and
twice the volume of proppants and fluids. It may require significantly more than twice the hydraulic
horsepower, as the friction pressure will rise by significantly more than this factor ).
In short, if the well can be fractured before it is completed, all the limitations imposed by the completion
can be eliminated. However, doing this requires a degree of forward planning, faith in the fracturing
process and increased up-front expenditure.
Fracturing before completion allows the perforate-stimulate-isolate method to be employed:-
1. Perforate The individual zone is perforated, allowing each zone to be fractured with the optimum
treatment. By carefully positioning the perforations, the point of fracture initiation can be
controlled.
2. Stimulate The fracture treatment is pumped either down the casing or through a frac string.
3. Isolate The zone is isolated by setting either a sand fill or a bridge plug .
Repeat steps 1 to 3 as often as necessary, moving from the bottom to the top of the well.
Obviously, this process can take a lot longer than the conventional drill and complete process. However,
the extra cost is more than offset by the substantially increased production from these wells.
If the well cannot be fractured prior to completion, then the completion should be designed with fracturing
as a potential scenario. Packers and tubing jewelry should be designed to withstand the pressures of
fracturing. Seal assemblies should be long enough to cope with the cooldown. Zones should be as
isolated as possible.
Of course, all this requires substantial extra investment, which has to be justified purely on the basis of

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 404
faith in the fracturing process. However, in case after case, field development after field development, this
initial expenditure has proved its worth.
Subtopics
21.4 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 405
Fracturing Manual

Section:
21.4 References
Nagel, W.B, et al .: “An Integrated Team Approach for Improving Company-Wide Stimulation Design and
Quality Control”, paper SPE 26142, presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, June
1993.
Cipolla, C.L., Bernsten, B.A., Moos, H., Ginty, W.R., and Jensen, L.: “Case Study of Hydraulic Fracture
Completions in Horizontal Wells, South Arne Field Danish North Sea”, paper SPE 64383, presented at the
SPE Asia-Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, October 2000.
Owens, K.A., Pitts, M.J., Klampferer, H.J., and Kreuger, S.B.: “Practical Considerations for Well Fracturing
in the ‘Danish Chalk’”, paper SPE 25058, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference,
Cannes, France, November 1992.
Schubarth, S.K., Yeager, R.R., and Murphy, D.W.: “Advanced Fracturing and Reservoir Description
Techniques Improves Fracturing in......”, paper SPE 39777, presented at the SPE Permian Oil Basin Oil
and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland TX, 1998
Voneiff, G.W., and Holditch, S.A.: “An Economic Assessment of Applying of Applying Recent Advances in
Fracturing Technology to Six Tight Gas Formations”, paper SPE 24888, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC, October 1992.
Stewart, B.R, et al .: “Economic Justification for Fracturing Moderate to High Permeability Formations in
Sand Control Environments”, paper SPE 30470, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, October 1995.
Conway, M.W., et al .: “Expanding Recoverable Reserves Through Refracturing”, paper SPE 14376,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, October 1985.
Church, D.C., and Peters, B.A.: “Improved Fracturing Technique Yields Increased Production Potential”,
paper SPE 17045, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, October 1997
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 406
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 407
Fracturing Manual
Section:
Subtopics
22.1 Frac Job Flow Chart
22.2 Example Treatment Schedules
22.3 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 408
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 409
Obtain Well data:
Logs, DST’s, Mud Logs,
Production History
(if any), PVT Data,
Completion Diagram,
Previous Treatments
Use Nodal
Analysis or
Similar
History Match
Production Data
Establish Base
Case Production
IN OFFICE
Input Speculative Fracture

Geometry into Production
Simulator
Run Production
Simulation with Fracture
Optimum No
Fracture
Geometry?
Yes
Design Treatment for

Optimum Fracture Geometry
Using Fracture Simulator
Preliminary SRT Schedule

Treatment 1 Minifrac Schedule
Schedule

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 410
Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 411
Figure 22.1a – Frac job process flow diagram

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 412
The design and execution of a frac job can be broken down into 5 major steps:
1. Data Collection
Collect as much data as possible for the well and for previous treatments carried out on offset wells. This
data includes, but is not limited to:-
i) Wireline logs. Useful for spotting boundaries between formations, high and low permeability and
porosity, and also for spotting fluid contacts. Specialised logs can also give dynamic Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio, stresses and the quality of the cement bond. Get summary or
evaluated logs whenever possible – there is no point in doing a full log analysis when somebody
else has already done this. Also – if you are not confident with logs - a good first step is to mark
where the perforations are, as these will be the productive intervals.
ii) Well test data. Useful for obtaining values such as reservoir pressure, permeability and skin
factor. Again, get the report with the analysis already done. No one will expect you to be an expert
well test analyst. These reports may also contain calculated data for, porosity, viscosity, fluid
saturation and compressibility.
iii) Completion diagram. Essential, as this will contain all the details you will need on the
perforations, depth and sizes of tubing and casing strings etc.
iv) Wellhead diagram. Usually, all the Frac Engineer needs from this is a description of the top
connection, so that the crew can have the appropriate crossover when they rig up to the wellhead.
However, if a wellhead isolation tool is being used, a detailed diagram will be required.
v) Deviation survey. If the well is not vertical, the Frac Engineer will need to know MVD vs TVD for
all formations, perforations and tubulars.
vi) Core data. If the well has been cored, this report may contain useful data on porosity,
permeability and fluid saturation. In addition, the report may contain rock mechanical data and
mineralogy (useful if the formation is suspected to be “water-sensitive”).
vii) Core samples. If core samples are available, get hold of them and have them tested for Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio.
viii) Reservoir fluid samples. It is important to carry out compatibility testing between the frac fluid
and the reservoir fluids. Problems are rare, but when they do occur they can ruin a well.
ix) Production data. Production data is useful for two reasons. First, this data is the basis for post
treatment production forecasts. Secondly, a qualitative analysis should be performed to check for
items such as water or gas coning and fines migration.
x) Produced sand samples. Essential if a frac and pack treatment is being designed, as a sieve
analysis will be required to find the correct proppant size. However, getting a representative
sample can be difficult. Surface samples tend to have a higher proportion of fines, as these are
more easily carried out of the well. Bottom hole samples tend to be the other way around – high
proportions of the fines have been carried away out of the well.
xi) Offset treatment data. Often, this is the most important and reliable source of data. Perform a
complete analysis of these treatments, including a pressure match, if the data is available. If the
data is reliable enough, this may even eliminate the need for a minifrac and step rate test.
xii) Location diagram. The Frac Engineer needs to know what size the location is, to ensure that all
the equipment can be placed. If not, a smaller treatment needs to be designed. Especially
important offshore, where additional factors such as crane maximum lift and deck loading must
also be considered.
xiii) Other information, such as production logs (i.e. spinner surveys), temperature logs, caliper logs,
mud logs, stress surveys, core flow testing, workover reports and drilling records can all provide
useful information.
2. Preliminary Design
This stage uses all the data gathered in step 1 to produce a preliminary frac design. The initial step is to
analyse the reservoir and production data and derive the optimum fracture geometry required. This step is
best accomplished using nodal analysis. Then the fracture simulator is used to design a treatment to
produce this fracture. Often, this design has to be tempered by considerations such as cost, mobilisation

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 413
and equipment availability, so that the Engineer may go back and forth between the nodal analysis and the
simulator several times.
Unless the Engineer has good data from offset treatments, a step rate test and a minifrac will be required.
The step rate test is pretty much standard for any well and an example is included below. The minifrac
needs to be designed on a well by well basis. It should be pumped at the same rate as the preliminary frac
design, using the same fluid and then displaced at the same rate using slick water. The volume of the
minifrac should be at least equal to the anticipated pad volume. The minifrac fluid volume should be large
enough to contact every formation that the actual frac will contact. This means that for tip screen out
designs, the minifrac should be the same size as the pad, whereas for tight gas fracturing it must be
considerably larger. Remember – it is much better to pump too much fluid than too little.
The minifrac is exactly what its name suggests – a small frac. In fact, it should be as close as possible to
the actual treatment, in order to produce data as relevant as possible.
Remember that if minifrac and step rate tests are being performed, there is no point in doing too detailed a
design at this stage. The real design work will be done on location after these calibration tests. At this
stage, what is required are reasonable estimates for the expected production increase, the quantity of
materials and equipment that must be mobilised and the cost of the treatment.
Preliminary design work also includes designing the frac fluid. This often involves the use of Fann 50 (or
similar) HPHT rheometers in order to ensure that the frac fluid has the right combination of stability and
break.
3. Calibration Tests and Redesign

Finally, the frac spread and crew gets mobilised and is rigged up on location. The next major step in the
design and execution process is to perform the calibration tests (minifrac and step rate test). It is vitally
important to get good data from these. Whenever possible, get bottom hole pressure data, either from a
gauge or from a dead string.
For the step rate test, remember the following points:-
i) Get as many low rate steps as possible. Ideally, this means 4 steps below 2 bpm, although this is
not always easy with big frac pumps. However, the more steps that can be taken before the frac
starts to initiate, the better the results will be.
ii) Don’t fiddle with the rate. When moving from one step to another, change the rate and then leave
it alone. Getting a stabilised pressure is difficult enough without someone fiddling with the
throttles. As long as the rate is approximately what it should be, that is good enough.
iii) Use the step rate test procedure as a guideline only, especially with regard to volumes. Getting a
stabilised rate and pressure for each step is what we are after. Once this has been achieved,
move on to the next step.
iv) It is important that the step rate test (step up variety) is performed on an unfractured formation. So
either do the step rate test before the minifrac, or wait for a significant period of time after the
minifrac is finished.
v) The opposite is true for the step rate test. An open fracture is needed before the step down
begins, and the fracture must be open throughout the entire test. It is common to combine the two
tests – step up and then step down again.
vi) Remember that the well must be full of fluid before the step rate test commences. If the well has
to be filled up, do it at low rate to ensure no fracture forms.
For a minifrac, the following points are important:-
i) Keep the rate constant, even if this means pumping at a different rate than programmed. This
makes the analysis easier and more reliable.
ii) Keep the fluid quality constant, again to make the analysis easier and more reliable. If necessary,

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 414
gel up a couple of frac tanks, rather than mixing on the fly.
iii) Understand the wellbore fluid. Know its fluid properties and it’s volume. Remember that this fluid
will be injected into the fracture ahead of your carefully prepared fracturing fluid. So if you don’t
know the wellbore fluid, the careful preparation of the frac fluid is wasted. If necessary, circulate
the well to completion fluid, or something similar before pumping the minifrac.
iv) Monitor the pressure decline. During this period, don’t let the frac crew do anything, except drink
coffee. It is all too easy for a silly mistake to ruin data collection. The Frac Engineer can also do
his part by zero-ing out the rate on the fracturing monitoring computer – so that any fluid pumping
by the blender does not show up as an erroneous downhole rate. Remember also to collect data
for long enough – if data collection stops before closure (or closures) has happened, then the
minifrac will have lost at least half of its value.
Finally, don’t forget the primary objective of the exercise – to produce a good frac design. Other objectives
– such as minimising rig time or trying to get the job in the ground before nightfall – are desirable, but
secondary. The customer should be aware of the fact that a redesign can sometimes take several hours.
4. Job Execution
After all the planning and preparation has taken place, the actual treatment can sometimes take a
surprisingly short period of time. During this period, the fate of the treatment no longer rests in the hands
of the Frac Engineer. It is now up to the Supervisor and the rest of the frac crew to put the job in the
ground as closely as possible to the revised treatment design.
Of course, on longer treatments, real-time redesign may be performed. In which case, the Frac Engineer
may still have some influence on the treatment. However, usually it is time for the Engineer to sit back and
let the crew get on with their job. Some Frac Engineers like to run the monitoring computer or check the
fluid samples – both these occupations are useful and need to be performed. It is also important that the
Frac Engineer stays in close contact with the Supervisor, just in case something unexpected happens.
5. Post Treatment Analysis

There is no such thing as the perfect frac job. Every job has room for improvement, however slight. This
applies to the Frac Engineer’s job as well and the post treatment analysis is the way to find out what could
have been done better.
Post treatment analysis comes in two parts:-
i) Analysing the pressure and rate data from the job. The best way to do this is with a pressure
match, although don’t spend too much time on this if you have no downhole pressure data.
Results obtained from this will improve the success rate of future treatments.
ii) Assessing the production increase. Sometimes it is easy to loose sight of the objective of the
entire process – to increase production. It is vitally important to keep track of the production of
fractured wells. Remember that production over the first few days doesn’t really count – we should
be looking at the stabilised production several weeks after the treatment is performed. If
production does not meet or exceed expectations, then the following three questions must be
satisfied; Was the well a good candidate (i.e. reserves and pressure)? Was the optimum fracture
placed in the formation? And were the post treatment expectations realistic?
Subtopics
22.3 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 415
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 416
Fracturing Manual

Section:

Whilst BJ Services is not at liberty to publish confidential data, the example treatments were actually
pumped and all of them produced significant production increases for our customers. These designs are
included so that the reader can gain some idea of the size and scale of fracturing treatments.
However, remember that each treatment must be designed individually for each well – these schedules
are for guidance only and are not meant as “ready-to-use” frac designs.
Typical Step Rate Test Schedule

Rate Time Volume
bpm secs gals
0.7 120 + 15
1.0 30 21
1.5 30 32
2.0 30 42
3.0 30 63
5.0 30 105
7.0 30 147
9.0 30 189
11.0 30 231
15.0 120 315
12.0 15 126
9.0 15 95
6.0 15 63
3.0 15 32
Total Volume (gals) 1476
The maximum rate can be raised if desired, but this will probably not be necessary for most treatments.
However, remember to hold the maximum rate for a few minutes to ensure that the fracture is of sufficient
volume. If the fracture is too small, it may close before the step down portion can be completed.
Tight Gas Fracturing

Stage Fluid Rate Clean Vol Prop. Conc.
Type bpm gals ppa
1 (Pad) Linear 40 20,000 0
2 XLink 40 20,000 1
3 XLink 40 40,000 2
4 XLink 40 40,000 3
5 XLink 40 100,000 4
6 (Flush) Sl/Water 40 8,300 0

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 417
Notes Linear = Linear gel (i.e. base gel with no crosslinker)
XLink = Crosslinked gel
Sl/Water = Slick Water
Linear gel 2.5 gpt VSP

3
20,000 gals (75.7 m ) total
Crosslinked gel Vistar 20

3
200,000 gals (757 m ) total
Slick Water 2 gpt VSP

3
8,300 gals (31.4 m ) total
Proppant 20/40 CarboLite

600,000 lbs (272 tonnes) total
Treating Pressure 5,100 psi

(352 bar, 35.2 MPa)
Pumping Capacity +/- 5,000 HHP

(3,730 kW)
Frac and Pack

Fluid Rate Clean Vol Prop. Conc.
Stage
Type bpm gals ppa
1 (Pad) XLink 15 1,200 0
2 XLink 15 1,250 1
3 XLink 15 600 3
4 XLink 15 800 5
5 XLink 15 1,000 7
6 XLink 15 1,250 9
7 XLink 15 1,850 11
8 XLink 15 2,000 12
Crosslinked gel 35 ppt Viking 1D

3
9,950 gals (37.6 m ) total
Slick Water 4 gpt XLFC-1 in CaCl2 brine

3
7,830 gals (29.6 m ) total
Proppant 20/40 EconoProp

70,000 lbs (31.8 tonnes) total
Treating Pressure 6,300 psi (maximum)

(434 bar, 43.4 MPa)
Pumping Capacity +/- 2,300 HHP

(1,716 kW)
Skin Bypass Fracturing

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 418
Fluid Rate Clean Vol Prop. Conc.
Stage
Type bpm gals
1 (Pad) XLink 8 4,000 0
2 XLink 8 1,300 2
3 XLink 8 1,100 5
4 XLink 8 1,050 8
Crosslinked gel SpectraFrac G 3500 HT

3
7,500 gals (28.4 m ) total
Slick Water 4 gpt XLFC-1

3
2,540 gals (9.6 m ) total
Proppant 20/40 CarboLite

16,500 lbs (8.1 tonnes) total
Treating Pressure 900 psi

(62.0 bar, 6.2 MPa)
Pumping Capacity +/- 200 HHP

(149 kW)
Subtopics
22.3 References
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 419
Fracturing Manual

Section:
22.3 References
Texas (1989).
Subtopics
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 420
Fracturing Manual
Section:
23.0 NOMENCLATURE
a = fracture half length (Griffith crack) or variable used in Nolte G time analysis.
A = Area, annular capacity
A = Total area of fracture (usually both wings, but for a single wing in Nolte
f
G-Function analysis).
AR = aspect ratio
Bg = gas formation volume factor
Bo = oil formation volume factor
BHA = bottom hole assembly
BHP = bottom hole pressure
BHTP = bottom hole treating pressure
c = total reservoir compressibility (also called c t)
C = wellbore storage coefficient
CI = viscosity controlled leakoff coefficient
CII = compressibility controlled leakoff coefficient
CIII = wall building controlled leakoff coefficient
cb = bulk reservoir compressibility (i.e. with porosity)
CC = compressibility controlled leakoff coefficient
CD = dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
Ceff = effective or combined leakoff coefficient
cf = fracture compliance, formation compressibility
CfD = dimensionless fracture conductivity (new API notation)
cr = zero porosity reservoir compressibility (i.e. rock compressibility)
ct = total compressibility (also called c )
Cv = viscosity controlled leakoff coefficient

Cw = wall building controlled leakoff coefficient
d = diameter, diameter of plastic zone at fracture tip
dp = proppant grain diameter
DCF = discount factor
E = Young’s modulus
E’ = plane strain Young’s modulus
Ed = dynamic Young’s modulus
f = Fanning friction factor
F = force
Fc = fracture conductivity
Fcd = dimensionless fracture conductivity (old - now CfD )
2 2
g = acceleration due to gravity (= 9.81 m/s or 32.18 ft/s )

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 421
g (∆ tD ) = dimensionless loss-volume function (Nolte minifrac analysis)
g (∆ tcD ) = g (∆tD ) at fracture closure

G = shear modulus, or elastic energy release rate
G (∆ tD ) = Nolte G time
Gc = critical elastic energy release rate or Nolte G time at fracture closure
G1c = critical elastic energy release rate – failure mode l
Gd = dynamic shear modulus
gf = frac gradient
GOR = gas oil ratio
GLR = gas liquids ratio
h = height
hf = fracture height at wellbore
H = depth, fracture height at wellbore
HD = dimensionless fracture height
HH = hydrostatic head
HHP = hydraulic horsepower
Hξ = characteristic length (MFrac )
ISDP = instantaneous shut-down pressure (= ISIP )
ISIP = instantaneous shut-in pressure
IPR = inflow performance relationship
J = original (pre-stimulation) productivity index with skin
J0 = undamaged productivity index
Jf = post-fracturing productivity index
K = bulk modulus
K’ = power law consistency index
K’’ = Herschel-Buckley consistency index
K1 = stress intensity factor, failure mode 1
K1c = critical stress intensity factor – failure mode 1, or fracture toughness
k = permeability
Kd = dynamic bulk modulus
kf = formation permeability, permeability to frac fluid filtrate
kp = proppant permeability
kr = permeability to reservoir fluid
KZD = Kristianovich, Zheltov, Daneshy – 2 dimensional frac model
L = tubing of casing length, fracture half length (also xf )
m = mobility, gradient of curve
m(P ) = real gas pseudo-pressure
N = viscometer spring factor
n’ = power law exponent
n’’ = Herschel-Buckley exponent
Np = dimensionless proppant number (or simply proppant number)
NPV = net present value

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 422
NRe = Reynold’s number
p, P = pressure
P* = average reservoir pressure from well test analysis
P ’ = pressure derivative (usually δP / δt )
Pb = breakdown pressure
Pclosure = closure pressure or Pc
Pext = fracture extension pressure
Pfinal = post-frac surface circulation pressure (frac and packs)
Pfrict = friction pressure (usually ∆Pfrict )
Pi = static reservoir pressure
Pinitial = pre-frac surface circulation pressure (frac and packs)
Pm = match pressure (Nolte minifrac analysis)
Pnet = net pressure
Pnwb = near wellbore friction pressure (usually ∆ Pnwb )
Pob = pressure due to overburden
Pperf = perforation friction pressure (usually ∆ Pperf )
Pr = pressure at a distance r from the wellbore
Pr, t = pressure at a distance r from the wellbore, after a time t .
Pres = reservoir pressure (also Pi )
Pv = plastic viscosity (Bingham plastic fluids)
Pwb = wellbore pressure (usually bottom hole)
PwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure
PwDM = dimensionless wellbore match pressure
Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure
Pws = static wellbore pressure
PC = proppant concentration
PKN = Perkins, Kern, Nordgren – 2 dimensional frac model
q = pump rate, average pump rate, liquid flow rate
Q = pump rate, average pump rate, gas flow rate
QL = fluid leakoff rate
Qmax = maximum pump rate
R = frac radius (esp. radial model)
rd = radius of investigation or disturbed radius
re = reservoir radial extent
rp = radius of plastic zone at fracture tip or ratio of fracture area in permeable
formation over total fracture area (i.e. net to gross fracture area ratio) for
2-D fracture models.
rw = wellbore radius
rw' = effective wellbore radius
S = skin factor
Sp = spurt loss coefficient

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 423
SG = specific gravity
SGf = specific gravity, fluid
SGp = specific gravity, proppant
STP = surface treating pressure
t = time
tD = dimensionless time
tDM = dimensionless match time
tDxf = fractured well dimensionless time
tDxfM = fractured well dimensionless match time
tHorner = Horner time
tma = rock matrix compression wave transit time
tp = pump time, producing time, compression wave transit time
tsma = rock matrix shear wave transit time
ts = shut in time (also ∆t ), shear wave transit time
T = tensile strength, or temperature
TVD = true vertical depth
U = energy
U fluid = energy in the fracturing fluid
U& = energy per unit time, work, horsepower
v = velocity
vprop = fraction of fracture volume occupied by proppant
V = volume
Vi = total volume injected into fracture
Vs = spurt loss volume
W, w = fracture width
W ave, wave = average fracture width
Wmax = maximum fracture width
WOR = water oil ratio
x, y, z = mutually perpendicular directions, distances
2
xe = length and width of a square reservoir (such that area = xe )
xf = fracture half length
xfD = dimensionless fracture half length ( = xf /re )
Yp = yield point (Bingham plastic fluids)
z = gas z-factor
zi = gas z-factor at static reservoir conditions
α = poroelastic constant (Biot), Nolte analysis boundary variables
β = flow capacity factor (Forcheimer equation) or shape factor (LEFM)
βs = ratio of average to wellbore net pressures (Nolte minifrac analysis)
γ = shear rate, proppant specific gravity, or shape factor (MFrac )

∆m(P ) = real gas pseudo-pressure differential
∆m(P )M = real gas pseudo-pressure differential match pressure

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 424
∆P = pressure differential, drawdown
∆P = drawdown (= Pi – Pwf )
drawdown
∆P build-up = build-up pressure ( = Pi – Pws )
∆P frict = pressure drop due to fluid tubing friction
∆P M = test data log-log plot match pressure
∆P nwb = pressure drop due to near wellbore friction
∆P perf = pressure drop due to perforations
∆P skin = pressure loss due to skin damage
∆t = change in time, time since shut-in or shut down.

∆ tD = change in dimensionless time a.k.a. delta Nolte time
∆ t cD = delta Nolte time at closure
∆t M = test data log-log plot match time
ε = strain
ε1 = strain in the vertical direction
ε 2,3 = strains due to the principle horizontal stresses, σ2 and σ3
ε x, y, z = strain in the x-, y- and z-directions
η = fluid efficiency, fracture efficiency

θ = angle, viscometer dial reading
µ = viscosity
µi = viscosity at static reservoir conditions
µ app = apparent viscosity
µf = viscosity of frac fluid filtrate
µr = viscosity of reservoir fluid
ν = Poisson’s ratio
νd = dynamic Poisson’s ratio
π = Pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to it’s radius (= 3.1415926....)

ρ = density
ρb = proppant bulk density, formation bulk density
ρgel = gel or base fluid density
ρp = proppant absolute density
ρsl = slurry density
σ = stress
σ1,2,3 = principle (i.e. mutually perpendicular) stresses
σc = critical stress
σH = horizontal stress
σH, max = maximum horizontal stress
σH, min = minimum horizontal stress
σv = vertical stress
σ xx, yy, zz = principle stresses in the x-, y- and z- directions

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 425
σ = yield stress
y
τ = shear stress
τ’o = initial or threshold shear stress (Herschel-Buckley fluids)
Φ = porosity
Φp = proppant bulk porosity
ω = length of unwetted part of fracture (FracPro, FracproPT ), angular velocity,
viscometer rotor speed
Related Topics
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4.0 FLUID MECHANICS
5.0 FLUID SYSTEMS
6.0 PROPPANTS
7.0 ROCK MECHANICS
16.0 THE MINIFRAC
20.0 EQUIPMENT
23.0 NOMENCLATURE

Printed: 19/06/2010 Page: 426

Fracturing Manual

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fracturing Manual

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fracturing Manual

© Copyright BJ Services Company 2010 CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed.

In 1940, Torrey recognized the pressure-induced

Today, thousands of these treatments are pumped

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

Pressure – and stress – is stored energy, or more accurately

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

Tony Martin, Singapore, June 2005.

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

2.0 BASICS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

2.1 The Basic Process

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

2.0 BASICS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

HH = 0.433 γ TVD (2.1)

Bottom Hole Treating Pressure – BHTP or P BHT

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

BHTP = STP + HH − ∆Pfrict (2.2)

As there are always uncertainties with the calculation of ∆P frict

Pnet = BHTP − ∆Pnwb − Pclosure (2.4)

Pnet = STP + HH − ∆Pfrict − ∆Pnwb − Pclosure (2.5)

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

2.0 BASICS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

2.3 Basic Fracture Characteristcs

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

2.0 BASICS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

2.4 Fluid Leakoff

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

The three components can then be combined to produce C eff

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

2.0 BASICS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

2.5 Near Wellbore Damage and Skin Factor

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

2.0 BASICS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

3.0 TYPES OF FRACTURING

3.1 Low Permeability Fracturing

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

3.0 TYPES OF FRACTURING

3.2 High Permeability Fracturing

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

3.0 TYPES OF FRACTURING

3.3 Frac and Pack Treatments

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

3.0 TYPES OF FRACTURING

3.4 Skin Bypass Treatments

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

3.0 TYPES OF FRACTURING

3.5 Coal Bed Methane Fracturing

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003

CONFIDENTIAL - Uncontrolled document when printed . © Copyright BJ Services Company 2003