63(

3URSSDQW6HOHFWLRQIRU+\GUDXOLF)UDFWXUH3URGXFWLRQ2SWLPL]DWLRQLQ
6KDOH3OD\V
0HL<DQJ&DGUH3URSSDQWV 0LFKDHO-(FRQRPLGHV8QLYHUVLW\RI+RXVWRQ

&RS\ULJKW2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Lexington Kentucky, 86$3-5 October 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the
Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engi neers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Proppants are essential to the success of most hydraulic fractures and often account for the overwhelming cost of the
treatment. Both the mass of proppant and the selection of the right type of proppant are important elements in gaining the
highest Net Present Value (NPV).

It has been generally believed that in the lower closure stress environment (below 6,000 psi, i.e., shallow reservoirs), natural
sands such as Brady and Ottawa are appropriate as proppants and, for the same mesh size, they provide essentially the same
permeability. A commonly accepted notion is that manmade proppants (such as ceramics) should be applied at higher closure
stress environments, invariably, deeper reservoirs.

The characteristics of most shale plays are very different, mainly as regards to the rock stiffness, exemplified by the Young’s
Modulus, stress anisotropy/isotropy and the existence of natural fracture network. Fracture strategies in shale formations are
very different. This study presents fracture designs based on three types of proppants for shale formations: Brady sand,
Ottawa sand and ceramic. Permeability tests and crush tests under certain pressure range are done to determine
experimentally the dimensioned fracture conductivity. A fracture optimization p-3D model is used to maximize well
performance by optimizing fracture geometry, including fracture half length, width and height. Reduced proppant pack
permeability is compensated by larger width. Non-Darcy effects in the fracture are also considered for gas reservoirs. Post-
treatment well performance is then estimated, using the optimized well geometry, leading to cumulative production over the
well life. NPV analysis is employed as the criterion to select the best proppant for the job. Finally, the completion and
production data from example wells will be analyzed for comparison purpose.

In this work, we try to correct the prejudice that natural sand proppants cannot be applied to deeper reservoirs by showing
NPV study results that are superior to those of manmade proppants. Keeping stimulation costs down, natural sands proppants
have a much larger range of applicability than previously thought.

Introduction
From the beginning of fracturing in the late 1940’s natural materials such as mined sand particles have been used to prop
open created hydraulic fractures. “Proppants” such as Ottawa and Brady sands represent approximately 90% of the
fracturing sand used in the petroleum industry (Halliburton, 2005). Over the past twenty years and, increasingly, after high-
permeability fracturing became a relatively widespread well completion technique, synthetic proppants such as manufactured
ceramics and higher strength proppants such as sintered bauxite have been employed. There have been several published
analyses of the applicability of proppants as in Economides and Martin (2007). Furthermore, proppant pack permeability data
at elevated stresses (i.e., depth) and using different fracturing fluids, which result in some residual “damage,” are part of all
fracturing service company data. In general, fracturing natural sand is presumed to be used to its greatest advantage at net
closure stresses below 6,000 psi (i.e., a depth of about 7,000 ft in shale gas formations) and manmade proppants are used at
higher closure stresses.
Other than considering technical information (mainly crush resistance, permeability) and other issues (availability,
logistical, proppant and chemical costs) of these three types of proppants, this work employed systematic design and
optimization procedures for hydraulic fracturing, using two-dimensional (2D) (with constant fracture height) and pseudo
2 63(

three dimensional (p-3D) models (Pitakbunkate et al., 2011) to maximize well production by optimizing fracture geometry,
including fracture height, half-length and width.

Proppants Summary
Brady sand is mined from the Hickory formation which outcrops near Brady, Texas. Brady sand is dark in color; hence, the
name "Brown Sand" is often used when referring to Brady sand. Brady sand is high-quality frac sand which meets or exceeds
the ISO or API specifications for sands to be used in hydraulic fracturing. Brady sand does tend to have angularity and the
deposits themselves contain impurities, such as feldspars and clays, but the sands are washed thoroughly during processing to
create a high purity and consistent product.
Ottawa is the general name for fracturing sands mined from deposits found in the northern portion of the United States.
"White Sand" and “Northern" sands are other names used to identify Ottawa sand. Ottawa sands are mined primarily from the
Saint Peter formation near Ottawa, Illinois, and the Jordan formation in south central Minnesota. To a lesser extent, the
Galeville and Ironton formations in Wisconsin are used as sources of Ottawa sand.
Ceramic proppant is manmade, with high strength and uniform size and shape. This type of proppant provides higher
performance than other types of proppant at elevated stresses (Vincent, 2002).
Sand as proppant must adhere to strong rules and requirements as stipulated by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO 13503-2 for crush resistance test and ISO 13503-5 for long-term conductivity) or by the American
Petroleum Institute (API). Appropriate proppant should have less than 10% fine percentage at the elevated stress, while a
permeability and conductivity is seeking as well.

Unified Fracture Design

In 2002, Valkó and Economides (Economides et al., 2002) introduced the concept of Unified Fracture Design (UFD) for the
purpose to find the optimum fracture geometry that offers the maximum fractured well performance. This can be represented
by the dimensionless PI (JD). The Proppant Number (Np) is used as a correlating parameter, which in turn provides the
maximum dimensionless PI. The Proppant Number is given by:

( )

where the penetration ratio (Ix) and the dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD, are, respectively:
( )

( )
The Proppant Number can be rewritten as:
( )

where the propped fracture volume in the pay zone (Vp) is:

( )

Under the assumption of the pseudo steady-state flow regime, the maximum dimensionless PI and the optimum
dimensionless fracture conductivity according to the given amount or mass of proppants (Mp) are functions of the Proppant
Number:

{ ( )
[ ]
 63(

( )
( ) [ ( )
] ( )

Once the optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity is known, the optimum fracture dimensions, i.e., propped fracture
half length ( ) and propped fracture width ( ), are set:

√ ( )

√ ( )

Fracture Height Calculation

UFD is a technique to determine the optimum propped fracture half length and width that offer the maximum productivity
index based on a given amount of proppant. Fracture height ( ) is the other fracture geometry variable which is essential to
the fracture design. A p-3D model(Pitakbunkate et al., 2011, Yang et al., 2012) employed the fracture equilibrium height
concept to consider the fracture height grown in the propagation.

Elongated Reservoirs
UFD was extended to drainage areas other than square by Daal and Economides (2006) This is an essential element in the
design of multiple transverse fractures in horizontal wells where the drainage aspect ratio can be 1 by 20 or greater.

Turbulence Effect in Gas Wells

Gas wells require some additional steps in designing/sizing fractures (Economides et al., 2002b; Gidley, 1990). First, a
Reynolds Number in the fracture is assumed, and the effective proppant pack permeability becomes

( )

With this proppant pack permeability, the design procedure follows the one outlined for oil. However, in this case the
expected production rate must be calculated by an expression of the form (in this case for pseudo steady state)

( )

where the flow rate in Equation 11 is in standard conditions.

The downhole rate must then be calculated by using the formation volume factor (Bg) and the gas density ( ):

( )

where Bg is in rescf/scf, T is in ºR, pwf is in psi, is the gas gravity (to air=1) and in kg/m3 (to be used for the Reynolds
Number calculation).
The expected gas velocity in the fracture, v can then be calculated by dividing the volumetric flow rate by the fracture
cross-sectional area of flowing. Using unit conversions:

⁄
( )
4 63(

where Bg is in rescf/scf, qg is in Mscf/d, w in inches, hf in ft and v in ft/s.

The Reynolds Number for non-Darcy flow is then

( )

where kf, is the nominal proppant pack permeability in m2,  is in 1/m, v is the gas velocity at reservoir conditions in m/s,  is
the gas viscosity at reservoir conditions in Pa.s and  is the gas density in kg/m3. The value of  is obtained from

 ( )

where a and b, for different proppant mesh sizes are given in Table 1(Cooke, 1993).

Table 1 Constant for Equation (15)

Proppant Size, mesh A B

8 to 12 1.240 17,423
10 to 40 1.340 27,539
20 to 40 1.540 110,470
40 to 60 1.600 69,405

If the calculated Reynolds Number from Equations 14 and 15 does not match the one assumed at the beginning of the
iteration the procedure is repeated until a reasonable convergence is achieved.
The natural gas procedure will invariably result in a lower to far lower effective proppant pack permeability compared to
the nominal value. This would lead to the need for a much larger fracture width, to the extent that may require unrealistic net
pressure during execution. A net pressure constraint is then used:
, ( )

where , . n´ is the rheological power law exponent, E is the Young’s modulus in psi, E´ is the plane
strain modulus in psi, ν is the Poisson’s ratio, and w is the created (not propped) width obtained from a fracture propagation
model. A limit (typically 1,000 psi) is set for this constraint.
If the calculated net pressure exceeds the constraint (or if the fracture width is less than a minimum, such as three
proppant diameters) it becomes necessary to adjust the optimum fracture length, multiplying by a factor (larger than 1 to
elongate the fracture; less than 1 to shrink the fracture).

Horizontal Wells with Transverse Fractures

In the case of transverse fracturing with multiple treatments in horizontal wells, the flow regime from the reservoir into the
fracture is linear. However, inside the fracture, the flow regime is converging radial. This geometry results in an additional
pressure drop that can be accounted for by a skin effect, denoted as “choke skin,” sc, and quantified by means of (Mukherjee
and Economides, 1991):
( )

Then, the dimensionless productivity index of a single transverse fracture intersecting a horizontal well can be obtained
by (Wei and Economides, 2005):
( )

where JDV is the dimensionless productivity index of the fractured vertical well.
Finally, assuming that the total flow in the well is only through the fractures, the cumulative dimensionless productivity
index of a horizontal well with n transverse fractures would be simply:
 63(

( )

In case of transverse fractures in gas reservoirs, the non-Darcy effects increase significantly because the flow area
required in the Reynolds Number iteration is just

( )

where rw is the wellbore radius and w is the fracture width at the wellbore.

NPV Analysis
For a given investment I, then the net present value NPV, is defined as

∑ (21)

where N is the time span, i is the discount rate. Rn is the annual revenue (after payment of royalties and taxes and accounting
for depreciation) for each year of the n years. It is governed by

(22)

where VH is the incremental cumulative volume of hydrocarbons (difference between fractured and unfractured
configurations production) produced in the reference year (in barrels or in Mscf), $H is the unitary revenue for the produced
hydrocarbon (in USD/barrels or in USD/Mscf), fr is the fraction of gross cash flow due to the lease owners, fo is the fraction
of gross cash flow to be allocated as operating expenditures and ft is the fraction of gross cash flow due as taxes in the relative
fiscal regime.
Table 2 and Table 3 present all the economic parameters. These parameters have been selected with minimum
information available, and some of them may need to be adjusted for specific wells.

Table 2 Required Inputs for the NPV Calculations

Economic Parameters Value
Discount time year 0
Discount rate 15%
Project time span, years 3
Revenue for produced oil, $/STB 80 (no escalation applied)
Revenue for production gas, $/MMBTU 4
Taxes, $ 50% of annual revenue

Table 3 Capital Investment Considered for the NPV Calculations

Capital Expenditure Value
Pumping charges , $ 100,000
Mob/Demob, $ 70,000
Proppant (Brown Sand) cost, $/lbm 0.159
Proppant (White Sand) cost, $/lbm 0.182
Proppant (Ceramic) cost, $/lbm 0.6
Fracturing fluids (40 lb/1000gal X-linked gel) cost, $/gal 0.37

Basin and Shale Play Analysis

An analysis of recent hydraulic fracturing activities in three different petroleum basins with large levels of activities provides
significant information on the range of applicability and the economic desirability of natural proppants. Data from a large
number of wells, accessible through public sources have been used for this analysis. Table 4 provides a summary depths,
pressures and lists of proppants used in the past.
6 63(

Table 4 Play Lithology and Proppants

Basin Permian, Midland1 Barnett, Mississippian2 Eagle Ford, Oil Window3
TVD, ft 2,500 - 10,000 5,000 - 8,000 7,500 - 11,000
Closure Stress, psi/ft 0.54 - 0.73 0.54 0.63 - 0.7
p values, psi 1,350 - 7,300 2,700 - 4,320 4,725 - 7,700
Thickness, ft 600- 1,100 50- 350 200- 400
12/20 Mesh Sand
16/30 Mesh Sand 16/30 Mesh Sand
20/40 Mesh Sand 20/40 Mesh Sand 20/40 Mesh Sand
Proppants 4 30/50 Mesh Sand 30/50 Mesh Sand 30/50 Mesh Sand
40/70 Mesh Sand 40/70 Mesh Sand 40/70 Mesh Sand
100 Mesh Sand 100 Mesh Sand 100 Mesh Sand
Ceramics Proppant Ceramics Proppant Ceramics Proppant

Data source: 1 Steve Metcalf, Permian Basin Wolfberry: Stimulation Evolution, Jan 2011, SPE Gulf Coast Section
Permian Basin Study Group
2
AAPG Bulletin April 2007
3
Hart Energy Databank December 2011, HIS, REPSI, EOG February
4
FracIntel.com , 2012
According to FracIntel, data from the Railroad Commission of Texas and FracFocus( a joint project between the Ground
Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission), among the 16,300 completed wells since
2011 Sept, 7,400 wells targeted to formations shallower than 8,000 ft TVD, a portion of 65%. By using 6,000 psi closure as a
cut off and using the reference closure pressure as Table 5 , wells TVD up to 8,000 ft have a maximum closure pressure
5,500 psi for sand formation or oil windows ( Green rectangle area in Table 5). Shale or gas wells with depths up to 6,000 ft
are corresponding to the cut off closure pressure (Red rectangle area in Table 5). See Table 5 for the well TVD distribution
and other important information on these wells. In those low closure stress reservoirs, proppant selection will be in favor of
low cost natural sand.
Table 5 Texas Well True Vertical Depth Distribution
Reference Closure Pressure Gradient, psi/ft
TVD Gas Oil Total Percentage Sand, Oil Window Shale, Gas Window
0.54 0.73 0.9 1.1
1K ft- 6 424 430 3% 270 365 450 550
1K ft ~ 2K ft 25 353 378 2% 810 1,095 1,350 1,650
2K ft ~ 3K ft 57 721 778 5% 1,350 1,825 2,250 2,750
3K ft ~ 4 K ft 89 432 521 3% 1,890 2,555 3,150 3,850
4K ft ~ 5 K ft 105 1,825 1,930 12% 2,430 3,285 4,050 4,950
5K ft ~ 6 K ft 222 1,120 1,342 8% 2,970 4,015 4,950 6,050
6K ft ~ 7 K ft 858 1,156 2,014 12% 3,510 4,745 5,850 7,150
7K ft ~ 8 K ft 1,142 2,037 3,179 19% 4,050 5,475 6,750 8,250
8K ft ~ 9 K ft 556 1,331 1,887 12% 4,590 6,205 7,650 9,350
9K ft ~ 10 K ft 303 500 803 5% 5,130 6,935 8,550 10,450
10K ft ~ 11 K ft 354 907 1,261 8% 5,670 7,665 9,450 11,550
11K ft ~ 12K ft 448 442 890 5% 6,210 8,395 10,350 12,650
12K ft + 751 152 903 6% ----
Total 4,916 11,400 16,316 100% ----

Figure 1 is the TVD distribution in the top eighteen most active Texas counties, “G” stands for Gas wells and “O” stands
for oil wells. The purple bars correspond to depth up to 8,000 ft and the green ones are for wells deeper than 8,000 ft. As
shown in Figure 1, 74% wells (5,850 out of 7,930) are shallower than 8,000 ft in these 18 counties, which are mainly oil
producers with the exception of Dimmit and La Salle counties. And the development of oil reservoirs is definitely the leading
activity in 2011 and first two quarters of 2012. This trend is going to be maintain or even more strict.
63( 7

1600
12K ft + 11K ft ~ 12K ft 10K ft ~ 11 K ft 9K ft ~ 10 K ft 8K ft ~ 9 K ft
1400 7K ft ~ 8 K ft 6K ft ~ 7 K ft 5K ft ~ 6 K ft 4K ft ~ 5 K ft 3K ft ~ 4 K ft
2K ft ~ 3K ft 1K ft ~ 2K ft 1K ft-
1200

1000

800
Number of Wells

600

400

200

0
G O O O G G O G O G O G O G O G O G O G O G O G O O G O O G O
AndrewsMartinEctorTarrantMidlandGlasscock Upton Ward Karnes Reagan Dimmit Gaines Webb JohnsonHowardLa Salle Milam Wise

County
Figure 1 Well True Vertical Depth Distribution in the Top Active 18 Texas Counties

Figure 2 lists the most drilled formations in Texas counties, where the Barnett and Eagle Ford are shale formations and
the rest are mostly tight sands and carbonates.
As fracturing technology advances and especially as the number of stages per well increase with the horizontal well with
multiple transverse fractures the well architecture of choice, fracture job sizes have been increasing in size.

Table 6 shows the well number distribution with fracture job sizes larger than 1 million pounds. Of 19,271 investigated
wells, 5,456 had fracture jobs larger than 1 million pounds, as shown in Figure 3. Eagle Ford, Permian and Barnett, as shown
in Table 4, are thick formations and good candidates for large fracture jobs.

4,500 4098
3958
4,000
3,500
2847
3,000 2688
2525 2513 2446
2,500 2376
2072
2,000
1458
1155
1,500 1246
1200
1060
1079
1,000 764 752
634 576 575
500
0
YATES
STRAWN

PETTIT
DEAN

ATOKA
EAGLE FORD

CLEARFORK

MARBLE FALLS
WOLFCAMP

QUEEN

PECAN GAP
BARNETT SHALE
AUSTIN CHALK

SAN ANDRES

CANYON
TRAVIS PEAK
GRAYBURG

BONE SPRING
ANACACHO
SPRABERRY

Figure 2 Top 20 active formations in Texas

 63(

where Bg is in rescf/scf, qg is in Mscf/d, w in inches, hf in ft and v in ft/s.

The Reynolds Number for non-Darcy flow is then

( )

where kf, is the nominal proppant pack permeability in m2,  is in 1/m, v is the gas velocity at reservoir conditions in m/s,  is
the gas viscosity at reservoir conditions in Pa.s and  is the gas density in kg/m3. The value of  is obtained from

 ( )

where a and b, for different proppant mesh sizes are given in Table 1(Cooke, 1993).

Table 1 Constant for Equation (15)

Proppant Size, mesh A B

8 to 12 1.240 17,423
10 to 40 1.340 27,539
20 to 40 1.540 110,470
40 to 60 1.600 69,405

If the calculated Reynolds Number from Equations 14 and 15 does not match the one assumed at the beginning of the
iteration the procedure is repeated until a reasonable convergence is achieved.
The natural gas procedure will invariably result in a lower to far lower effective proppant pack permeability compared to
the nominal value. This would lead to the need for a much larger fracture width, to the extent that may require unrealistic net
pressure during execution. A net pressure constraint is then used:
, ( )

where , . n´ is the rheological power law exponent, E is the Young’s modulus in psi, E´ is the plane
strain modulus in psi, ν is the Poisson’s ratio, and w is the created (not propped) width obtained from a fracture propagation
model. A limit (typically 1,000 psi) is set for this constraint.
If the calculated net pressure exceeds the constraint (or if the fracture width is less than a minimum, such as three
proppant diameters) it becomes necessary to adjust the optimum fracture length, multiplying by a factor (larger than 1 to
elongate the fracture; less than 1 to shrink the fracture).

Horizontal Wells with Transverse Fractures

In the case of transverse fracturing with multiple treatments in horizontal wells, the flow regime from the reservoir into the
fracture is linear. However, inside the fracture, the flow regime is converging radial. This geometry results in an additional
pressure drop that can be accounted for by a skin effect, denoted as “choke skin,” sc, and quantified by means of (Mukherjee
and Economides, 1991):
( )

Then, the dimensionless productivity index of a single transverse fracture intersecting a horizontal well can be obtained
by (Wei and Economides, 2005):
( )

where JDV is the dimensionless productivity index of the fractured vertical well.
Finally, assuming that the total flow in the well is only through the fractures, the cumulative dimensionless productivity
index of a horizontal well with n transverse fractures would be simply:
63( 9

Red: Gas Wells

Green: Oil Wells

Service Company:

Baker Hughes

Halliburton

Schlumberger

Weatherford

Others

Figure 3 Million-Pound Frac Job Size Distribution (Texas)

Case Studies-- Proppant Amount Chosen and Proppant Type Analysis
Eagle Ford Shale is a soft rock formation with stress anisotropy (in contrast to e.g., the Barnett Shale), and this allows for
more planar-type fractures. It has low Young’s Modulus, indicating that the rock is relatively soft and prone to proppant
embedment. Therefore, high proppant concentrations of large-mesh proppant placed using hybrid fluid systems are
recommended to overcome proppant embedment and multiphase flow. Core analysis indicates that the Eagle Ford reservoir
rock might not have a lot of visible natural fractures, but micro fractures can be present.(Stegent et al., 2010).
The following case studies demonstrate the manner of choosing a proppant agent type and amount. NPV is employed as
the key to judge if a combination of proppant type and proppant amount is optimum.
The initial production (IP) rate is estimated from the p-3D model described above. IP is estimated to be half after the first
year production and further degrades to a quarter of IP after two years of production, according to a typical production
decline curve. Three-year production period is used in the NPV analysis with the parameters from Table 2 and Table 3.
Two case scenarios were researched in this study with an oil reservoir case and a gas one. The oil reservoir has
permeability of 0.05 md at a closure pressure of 5,000 psi. The gas reservoir has a permeability of 0.005 md, with a closure
pressure of 6,000 psi. Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 contain reservoir and fracture treatment parameters and the design variables
used in this study.
As concluded by Porcu et al. (2009) , propped fractures are essential to all vertical gas wells not only for stimulation but
also for reducing turbulence effects in higher permeability reservoirs. However, for horizontal wells they concluded that at
relatively moderate permeability gas reservoirs (i.e., 0.5 md) horizontal wells with multiple transverse fractures are not
appropriate because of very large performance reduction from the enhanced turbulence effects inside the fracture. This is the
result of the very small cross-sectional area of flow from the fracture into the horizontal well. It may take ten treatments in
the horizontal well to equal the performance of one vertical well with fracture. In such case vertical wells are preferable. (All
can be studied with simple economic calculations).
However, for lower permeability reservoirs a horizontal well with multiple transverse treatments is a far better well
architecture than a vertical fractured well, again as can be demonstrated by both physical and economic optimization. The
following analysis shows that the NPV follows the same trends as well. It must be emphasized here that these findings are for
North American operations and costs. They are by no means general in nature and, in fact, these conclusions cannot be
applied to most other countries.
Table 7 General Design Variable Values
Reservoir and Rock Properties
Well horizontal lateral length, ft 6,000
Drainage area, A, acre 80
10 63(

Net pay thickness, h, ft 100

Gross pay thickness, hg, ft 200
Reservoir porosity, ɸ 0.3
Bottom hole flowing pressure, pwf, psi 1,000
Fracture toughness of bounding layers, KIC, psi-inch0.5 1,000
Leak-off coefficient, CL, ft/min0.5 0.01
2
Spurt loss coefficient, Sp, gal/ft 0.01
Treatment Fluid Variables
Number of fracture stages 20
Injection rate, qi, bpm 60
Rheology consistency index, K', lbf-sn/ft2 0.4
Rheology flow behavior index, n' 0.26
Calculation Constraints
Maximum possible proppant concentration, ppa 12

Table 8 Reservoir Pressure and Temperature Properties

True vertical depth, TVD, ft 5,500 6,600 7,800
Reservoir pressure, p, psi 2,400 2,900 3,400
Min. in-situ stress of target layer, σmin, psi 5,000 6,000 7,000
Reservoir temperature, T, ˚F 200 220 250

Table 9 Additional Reservoir Properties

Reservoir and Rock Properties
Reservoir permeability, k, md 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.1
Young's modulus, E, psi 3.5×10 2.5×10 2×106
6 6
1.5×106

Table 10 Additional 30/50 Mesh Proppant Information at Closure Pressure

Proppant and Proppant Properties Brown Sand White Sand Ceramic
Proppant specific gravity, SGp 2.56 2.56 3.56
5,000 psi 52,000 75,000 160,000
Proppant pack permeability, kf, md
6,000 psi 45,000 60,000 150,000
under closure stress
7,000 psi 30,000 40,000 115,000

Table 11 Fluid Properties

Fluid n' k' ( lbf.sn/ft2) mu(cp) Pump time, hr
35 lb/1000 gal cross-linked gel, high Temp. 0.16 0.47 470.2 1
40 lb/1000 gal cross-linked gel, high Temp. 0.2 0.478 574.9 0.5

1. Case Study Eagle Ford Shale, Oil Well

Darcy/$ and NPV

For the given completion cost, it is important to check the proppant cost and effect ratio, permeability/cost, Darcy/$, where
both the unit price and the proppant pack nominal permeability vary, with the choices among Brown Sand, White Sand and
Ceramics Proppants. However, this check is not sufficient enough. Due the variation of the formation: Young’s Modulus,
Poison’s ratio, TOC, porosity and permeability, etc, the fracture design should vary to achieve an optimal production rate in
the well life. The ultimate goal is maximizing Net Present Value (NPV), which embraces the cost of fracture completion and
the outcome from a well.
While Darcy/$ is cost- effective term engineers consider, NPV should be employed to judge the optimal design strategy
from others; not the other way around. Figures 3 and 4 are employed to illustrate the difference. At closure pressure 5,000
psi, the Darcy/$ value of White Sand is the best, which is a sign of optimal proppant candidate. However, it does not
guarantee that it generates the best NPV value. Figure 4 shows that the optimal fracture job should be completed with Brown
63( 11

Sand, 40,000 lbm per stage to achieve a maximum NPV of $22 Million. This is expected since proppant conductivity is
critical but the optimal fracture design has to consider production rate, amount of proppant and fluid amount used. Darcy/$
cannot be the only determine term when proppants are chosen to achieve an optimal job.

450
White Sand
400 Brown Sand
Ceramic
350
Darcy/ $

300

250

200

150
4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500

Closure Stress, psi

Figure 4 proppants’ cost and permeability comparison

22.5
22 Brown Sand
NPV, Million Dollars

21.5 White Sand

21 Ceramic

20.5
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mass of proppant, Mlbm
Figure 5 NPV Analysis of 0.05 md oil horizontal well with 5000 psi closure pressure using Brown Sand, White Sand and
Ceramic proppant

2. Case Study Eagle Ford Shale, Gas Well

Figure 6 is an example comparison of proppant type selection and mass for a shale gas horizontal well (Yang et al. 2012).
The optimal proppant mass corresponding to the maximum NPV is 200,000 lbm per stage, totally 20 stages. In this case,
Brown Sand is the best candidate among the three checked options. This result is not surprising since the cost of big frac jobs
in low permeability reservoirs is not trivial, compared with high permeable reservoirs.
12 63(

10

NPV, Million Dollars

9

6
Brown Sand
5 Ceramic
White Sand
4
- 100 200 300 400

Mass of proppant, Mlbm

Figure 6 NPV Analysis of 0.005 md gas horizontal well with 6000 psi closure pressure using Brown Sand, White Sand and
Ceramic proppant

Conclusions
This study shows the current fracturing status in Texas shale plays. Formations, well depth and fracture job sizes are
specifically focused upon. When discussing proppant selection, other than the cost issue, the formation lithology should also
be involved.
Using a coherent design procedure such as UFD and a reasonable production forecast, NPV is employed as the criterion
to judge if the fracture job is an optimal design or not. This study shows that natural proppants, especially Brown sand, are
good candidates for wells with closure pressure less than 6,000 psi.

Acknowledgement
We wish to express our appreciation to Cadre Proppants for the opportunity to prepare and present this paper.

Reference
Cooke, C.E., Jr., Conductivity of Proppants in Multiple Layers, JPT (Sept. 1973) 1101-1107.

Daal, J.A., and Economides, M.J., 2006 Optimization of hydraulically fractured wells in irregularly shaped drainage areas. Paper SPE
98047,

Demarchos, A. S., Chomatas, A. S., and Economides, M. J., 2004, Pushing the Limits in Hydraulic Fracture Design, Paper SPE 86483

Economides, M.J., Oligney, R.E., and Valko, P.P. 2002. Unified Fracture Design: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice. Orsa
Press, Alvin, TX

Gidley, J.L., 1990, A Method for Correcting Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity for Non-Darcy Flow Effects. Paper SPE 20710

Halliburton, 2005. Choosing Frac Sand to Optimize Perm Achieved vs Cost-OttawaBrady.

Metcalf , S., Permian Basin Wolfberry: Stimulation Evolution, Jan 2011, SPE Gulf Coast Section Permian Basin Study Group

Pitakbunkate, T., Yang, M., Valko, P.P. and Economides, M.J., 2011. Hydraulic Fracture Optimization with a p-3D Model, SPE
Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.

Porcu, M.M., Wang, X. and Economides, M.J., 2009. Delineation of Application: Physical and Economic Optimization of Fractured Gas
Wells, SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Stegent, N.A., Wagner, A.L., Mullen, J. and Borstmayer, R.E., 2010. Engineering a Successful Fracture-Stimulation Treatment in the
Eagle Ford Shale, Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Vincent, M.C., 2002. Proving It - A Review of 80 Published Field Studies Demonstrating the Importance of Increased Fracture
Conductivity, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas.
63( 13

Yang, M. , M. J. Economides, P. Valko, Hydraulic Fracture Production Optimization with a Pseudo-3D Model in Multi-layered Lithology,
SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, SPE 150002, 20-22 March 2012

Yang, M. , M. J. Economides, Natural Proppants for Hydraulic Fracture Production Optimization Eagle Ford Shales, SPE Western North
American Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, SPE 153811, 21-23 March, 2012

Yang, M. , Hydraulic Fracture Production Optimization with a Pseudo-3D Model in Multi-layered Lithology, SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, SPE 149833, 15-17 Feb 2012

Yang, M. ,M. J. Economides, Revisiting Natural Proppants for Hydraulic Fracture Production Optimization, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, Woodlands, SPE 151934, 6-8 Feb, 2012
14 63(

Nomenclature
A = drainage area
Ar = aspect ratio
Bg = gas volume factor
CA = Dietz’ shape factor
CfD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
CfD,0.1 = dimensionless fracture conductivity at Np = 0.1
CfD,opt = optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity
CfD,opt(Np) = optimum dimensionless fracture conductivity as a function of Proppant Number
CL = leak off coefficient
E = Young’s modulus
E’ = plane strain Young’s modulus
fr = fraction of gross cash flow due to the lease owners and/or to the foreign nation governments as royalties
fo = fraction of gross cash flow as operating expenditures
ft = fraction of gross cash flow due as taxes in the relative fiscal regime
h = net height
hf = fracture height
hp = permeable height
i = discount rate
I = investment
Ix = penetration ratio
J = productivity index
JD = dimensionless productivity index for unstimulated well
JDTH = transversely fractured horizontal well dimensionless productivity index
JD,total = total dimensionless productivity index for multiple fractured well
JDV = dimension productivity index for fractured vertical well
JDmax = maximum possible dimensionless productivity index for unstimulated well (i.e. when S = 0)
Jf = fractured well productivity index
JD = fractured well dimensionless productivity index
JDlongit = longitudinal fractured horizontal well dimensionless productivity index
JD,max = maximum theoretical fractured well productivity index
JD,max(Np)= maximum fractured well dimensionless productivity index, as a function of Proppant Number
JfD,v = vertical fractured well dimensionless productivity index
k = reservoir permeability
kf = fracture or proppant permeability
kf,e = effective fracture or proppant permeability
kf,n = nominal fracture or proppant permeability
KIC = Fracture toughness of bounding layers
K’ = rheology consistency index
L = length
m(pres) = gas pseudo pressure at average reservoir pressure
m(pwf) = wellbore flowing gas pseudo pressure
Mp = proppant mass
n = number of fractures
n’ = power law fluid exponent
N = time span
Np = proppant number
NPV = Net Present Value
NRe = Reynolds number
pnet = net pressure
pres = reservoir pressure
pwf = bottle hole flowing pressure
qg = gas flow rate
qi = injecting rate
Rn = annual revenue
rw = wellbore radius
sc = skin facture due to constricted flow or “choke skin”
sp = spurt loss
SGp = proppant specific gravity
T = temperature
63( 15

v = velocity
VH = incremental cumulative volume of hydrocarbons
Vp = proppant bulk volume or fracture volume (in net pay)
Vres = volume of reservoir being drained by the wellbore
wf =fracture width
wp,opt =propped fracture width
xe = drainage dimension parallel to the fracture
xf = fracture half length
xf,opt =propped fracture half length
ye = drainage dimension perpendicular to the fracture
yeD = dimensionless direction in the y-direction
Z = gas correction factor
 = turbulent flow correction factor (or “beta factor”)
 = gas specific gravity
 = viscosity
 = Poisson’s ratio
 = density
  gas density
prop = proppant density
= proppant porosity
= unitary revenue
= minimum in-situ stress of target layer

SPE Metric Conversion Factors

bpm x 2.649 788 E – 03 = m3/s
°F (°F – 32)/1.8* = °C
ft x 3.048* E – 01 = m
gal x 3.785 412 E – 03 = m3
inch x 2.54* E – 02 = m
lbs x 4.535 924 E – 01 = kg
ppg x 1.198 264 E + 02 = kg/m3
psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
* - conversion factor is exact