You are on page 1of 69

HF2D F

HF2D FRAC RAC


D
DESIGN ESIGN
S
SPREADSHEET PREADSHEET
April 2001
(Updated May 30, 2006)
Dr Peter P. Valk
Associate professor
Harold Vance Department Petroleum Engineering
HF2D Page 1 1
Texas A&M University
HF2D Page 2 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTVE !UMMA"#............................................................................................$
2 DATA "E%U"EME&T...............................................................................................'
3 CA(CU(ATED "E!U(T!..........................................................................................)
$ T*E+"ETCA( ,"ACTU"E PE",+"MA&CE......................................................10
' !U--E!TED DE!-& P"+CEDU"E .A!ED +& +PTMA( P!EUD+/!TEAD#
!TATE PE",+"MA&CE.........................................................................................20
6 !AMP(E "U&!........................................................................................................20
&+ME&C(ATU"E....................................................................................................36
CA!E !TUDE!........................................................................................................3)
HF2D Page 3 3
E EXECUTIVE XECUTIVE
S SUMMARY UMMARY
The HF2D Excel spreadsheet is a fast 2D design package for the 2D design of traditional (moderate
permeability and hard rock) and frac&pack (higher permeability and soft rock) fracture treatments
!urrently it contains the follo"ing "orksheets#
Traditional design "ith $%& ($erkins'%ern'&ordgren) model
T() (tip screen'out) design "ith $%& model
Design "ith !D* (!ontinuum Damage *echanics) +ersion of the $%& model
The uni,ue feature of this design package is the logic it is based on The design starts from the amount of
proppant a+ailable Then the optimum dimensions of the fracture are determined Finally- the treatment
schedule is found "hich "ill reali.e the optimum proppant placement /f the constraints do not allo"
optimum placement- a sub'optimal placement is designed
The results include fluid and proppant re,uirements- in0ection rates- added proppant concentrations (that
is the proppant schedule) and additional information on the e+olution of the fracture dimensions

HF2D Page 4 4
DATA DATA
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT
The follo"ing table contains the description of the input parameters
Input Parameter Remark
Proppant mass for (to ings!" la# T$is is t$e single most important decision varia#le of t$e design procedure
%p grav of proppant material (ater&'! (or instance" )*+, for sand
Porosity of proppant pac- T$e porosity of t$e pac- mig$t vary it$ closure stress" a typical value is .*/
Proppant pac- permea#ility" md 0etained permea#ility including fluid residue and closure stress effects" mig$t #e
reduced #y a factor as large as '. in case of non1Darcy flo in t$e frac 0ealistic
proppant pac- permea#ility ould #e in t$e range from '."... to '.."... md for in1situ
flo conditions* Values provided #y manufacturers suc$" as ,.."... md for a 2$ig$
strengt$3 proppant s$ould #e considered it$ caution*
Max prop diameter" Dpmax" inc$ (rom mes$ si4e" for ).56. mes$ sand it is .*./, in*
(ormation permea#ility" md Effective permea#ility of t$e formation
Permea#le (lea-off! t$ic-ness" ft T$is parameter is used for Productivity 7ndex calculation (as net t$ic-ness! and in
calculation of t$e apparent lea-off coefficient" #ecause it is assumed t$ere is no lea-off
(and spurt loss! outside t$e permea#le t$ic-ness*
8ell 0adius" ft 9eeded for pseudo s-in factor calculation
8ell drainage radius" ft 9eeded for optimum design* (Do not underestimate t$e importance of t$is parameter:!
Pre1treatment s-in factor ;an #e set 4ero" it does not influence t$e design* 7t affects only t$e <folds of increase< in
productivity" #ecause it is used as #asis*
(racture $eig$t" ft Usually greater t$an t$e permea#le $eig$t* =ne of t$e most critical design parameters*
Mig$t come from lit$ology information" or can #e ad>usted iteratively #y t$e user" to #e on
t$e order of t$e frac lengt$*
Plane strain modulus" E? (psi! Defined as @oung modulus divided #y one minus sAuared Poisson ratio* EB&E5('1
)
! 7t is
almost t$e same as @oung modulus" and it is a#out tice as muc$ as t$e s$ear
modulus" #ecause t$e Poisson ratio $as little effect on it* (or $ard roc- it mig$t #e
'.
+
psi" for soft roc- '.
,
psi or less*
HF2D Page 5 5
%lurry in>ection rate (to ings" liAC prop!" #pm T$e in>ection rate is considered constant* 7t includes #ot$ t$e fracturing fluid and
t$e proppant* T$e more proppant is added" t$e less t$e calculated liAuid in>ection
rate ill #e* A typical value is /. #pm*
0$eology" D? (l#f5ftE)!FsEn? Poer la consistency of t$e fracturing fluid (slurry" in fact!
0$eology" n? Poer la flo #e$avior index
Gea-off coefficient in pay layer" ft5min
.*,
7n general" t$e lea-off coefficient outside t$e pay layer may #e less" t$an in t$e
pay* Hence a multiplier is used outside t$e pay" see #elo*
%purt loss coefficient" %p" gal5ft
)
T$e spurt loss in t$e pay layer* =utside t$e permea#le layer t$e spurt loss for
out of pay is considered 4ero* %ee t$e remar- a#ove*
(luid loss multiplier for out of pay layer 7f t$is multiplier is set 4ero" t$ere is no lea-off and spurt loss outside t$e pay
layer* 7t is more realistic to use a multiplier #eteen 4ero and one" say .*,*
Max possi#le added proppant concentration"
l#m5gallon fluid (ppga!
T$e most important eAuipment constraint* %ome current mixers can provide
more t$an ', l#m5gal neat fluid* =ften it is not necessary to go up to t$e
maximum tec$nically possi#le concentration*
Multiply opt lengt$ #y factor T$is design parameter can #e used for su#1optimal design* 7f t$e optimum lengt$
is too small (and t$e fracture idt$ is too large!" a value greater t$an t$e one
used* 7f t$e optimum lengt$ is too large (and t$e fracture idt$ is too small! " a
fractional value mig$t #e useful* T$is possi#ility of user intervention is
advantageous to investigate t$e pros and contras of departing from t$e tec$nical
optimum* T$e default value s$ould #e '* %ee more on t$is issue in t$e text*
Multiply pad #y factor 7n accordance it$ 9olte?s suggestion" t$e exponent of t$e proppant
concentration sc$edule and t$e pad fraction (relative to t$e total in>ected volume!
are ta-en to #e eAual* T$is $appens if t$is design parameter is at its default
value" $ic$ is at '* T$e user may experiment it$ ot$er values* 7t ill $ave t$e
effect of s$ortening or elongating t$e pad period t$at is $aving less or more
conservative design* T$e program ad>usts t$e proppant sc$edule accordingly" to
ensure t$e reAuired amount of proppant is in>ected*
HF2D Page 6 6
1dditional input parameters
T%= criterion 8dry58et T$is design parameter appears only for T%= design* 7t specifies t$e ratio of dry
idt$ (assuming only t$e <dry< proppant is left in t$e fracture! to et idt$
(dynamically ac$ieved during pumping!* According to our assumptions" t$e
screen1out $appens $en t$e ratio of dry to et idt$ reac$es t$e user specified
value* 8e suggest a num#er #eteen .*, and .*H,*" #ut t$e #est met$od is
gradually cali#rate t$is parameter in t$e field #y evaluating successful T%=
treatments*
HF2D Page 7 7
CALCULATED CALCULATED
RESULTS RESULTS
The results contain the optimum fracture dimensions- follo"ed by the fracture dimensions achie+ed
taking into account the constraints (max possible added proppant concentration) The constraints may or
may not allo" to achie+e the technical optimum fracture dimensions 1 red message "ill tell "hether the
optimum dimensions could be achie+ed
The main fracture dimensions- such as half'length- a+erage "idth- areal proppant concentration determine
the performance of the fractured "ell- "hich is gi+en in terms of dimensionless producti+ity index and
also as pseudo'skin factor
The fluid and proppant re,uirements are gi+en in cumulati+e terms and the in0ection rate of the fluid and
the added proppant concentration are presented as functions of time
HF2D Page 8 8
The results include#
t" min time elapsed from start of pumping
AiIliA" #pm liAuid in>ection rate (for to ings!
cum liA" gal cumulative liAuid in>ected up to time t
cadd" l#m5gal added proppant to one gallon of liAuid" in ot$er ords ppga
cum prop" l#m cumulative proppant in>ected up to time t
xf" ft $alf1lengt$ of t$e fracture at time t
ave" in* average idt$ of t$e fracture at time t
ave 5 Dpmx t$e ratio of average idt$ of t$e fracture to t$e maximum proppant diameter" s$ould #e at least /
dry 5 et t$e ratio of dry to et idt$*
During pumping t$e actual et idt$ is ) to '. times larger t$an t$e dry idt$" t$at ould #e necessary to
contain t$e same amount of proppant it$out any fluid and pac-ed densely* Usually it s$ould #e less t$an a
prescri#ed num#er" suc$ as .*) for avoiding screen1out during t$e >o#*
T$e T%= criterion in t$e T%= version of t$e design spreads$eet is formulated in terms of t$is output varia#le*


HF2D Page 9 9
T THEORETICAL HEORETICAL F FRACTURE RACTURE P PERFORMANCE ERFORMANCE
The fracture design should be based on sound principles of fluid flo" in porous media 2e start the
description of the fractured "ell performance "ith the pseudo'steady state $roducti+ity /ndex /t is "ell
understood that in tight gas the transient regime might last for a considerable time therefore "ell
production is affected by the transient process &e+ertheless- it is impossible to understand the "ell
beha+ior "ithout first considering the pseudo'state flo" regime
2e consider a fully penetrating +ertical fracture in a pay layer of thickness h- see Fig 3 for notation
Fig. 1. Notatio !o" !"a#t$"% &%"!o"'a#%
&ote that in reality the drainage area is neither circular nor rectangular 4sing re or xe is only a matter of
con+enience The relation bet"een re and xf is gi+en by
2 2
e e
x r A = = ................................................(1)
"here A is the drainage area
HF2D Page 10 10

2r
e
x
e

2x
f

2x
f

"
"
h
Productivity 7ndex
The pseudo'steady state producti+ity index relates production rate to pressure dra"do"n#
D
wf
J
B
kh
p p
q
J

3
2
=

=
..........................................(2)
"here JD is called the dimensionless producti+ity index- k is the formation permeability- h is the pay
thickness- B is the formation +olume factor- is the fluid +iscosity and 3 is a con+ersion constant (one
for a coherent system)
For a "ell located in the center of a circular drainage area the dimensionless producti+ity index reduces
to
s
r
r
J
w
e
D
+
=
5
6
ln
3
............................................(*)
/n the case of a propped fracture there are se+eral "ays to incorporate the stimulation effect into the
producti+ity index )ne can use the pseudo'skin concept#
f
w
e
D
s
r
r
J
+
=
5
6
ln
3
............................................(+)
or the e,ui+alent "ellbore radius concept#
5
6
7
ln
3

=
w
e
D
r
r
J
..............................................(,)
or one can 0ust pro+ide the dimensionless producti+ity index as a function of the fracture parameters#
JD = function(drainage-volume geometry, fracture parameters )
1ll three options gi+e exactly the same results (if done coherently) The last option is the most general
and con+enient- especially if "e "ish to consider fractured "ells in a rectangular drainage area
HF2D Page 11 11
*any authors ha+e pro+ided charts and correlations in one or another form for special geometries-
reser+oir types- etc 4nfortunately- most of the results are less ob+ious to apply in high permeability
en+ironment 1lso there are ,uite large discrepancies as sho"n for instance on Fig 32'36 of 8eser+oir
(timulation 6
rd
edition- 2999 Therefore "e pro+ide a fresh look at the partly kno"n results
Proppant 9um#er
For a +ertical "ell intersecting a rectangular +ertical fracture "hich penetrates fully from the bottom to
the top of the rectangular drainage +olume the performance is kno"n to depend on the x'directional
penetration ratio#
e
f
x
x
x
I
2
= ..................................................(-)
and on the dimensionless fracture conducti+ity#
f
f
fD
kx
w k
C =
.................................................(.)
"here xf is the fracture half length- xe is the side length of the s,uare drainage area- k is the formation
permeability- kf is the proppant pack permeability- and w is the a+erage fracture "idth
The key to formulating a meaningful technical optimi.ation problem is to reali.e that penetration and
dimensionless fracture conducti+ity (through "idth) are competing for the same resource# the propped
+olume )nce the reser+oir and proppant properties and the amount of proppant are fixed- one has to
make the optimal compromise bet"een "idth and length The a+ailable propped +olume puts a constraint
on the t"o dimensionless numbers To handle the constraint easily "e introduce the dimensionless
proppant number#
const
kx
w x k
C I N
e
f f
fD x prop
= = =
2
2
5
...................................(/)
&ote that only that part of the proppant counts into the propped +olume- that reaches the pay /f for
instance the fracture height is three times the net pay thickness- then the :prop can be calculated as the
bulk +olume of one third of the in0ected proppant- if it is closely packed
HF2D Page 12 12
The Dimensionless $roppant &umber- &prop- is nothing else but the ratio of t"o +olumes# the propped
+olume in the pay di+ided by the reser+oir +olume in the pay- both +olumes "eighted by their
permeability- respecti+ely (/n addition- a factor of t"o is used in front of the propped +olume) 1s "e "ill
see- the proppant number is the most important parameter in fracture design
1 con+enient algorithm to calculate JD is a+ailable
3
Fig. 2 sho"s JD represented in a traditional manner-
as a function of dimensionless fracture conducti+ity- CfD- "ith Ix as a parameter (imilar ;producti+ity
increase< graphs are numerous in the published literature
2-6

3
:alk=- $ $ and Economides-*># ;Hea+y !rude $roduction from (hallo" Formations# ?ong Hori.ontal 2ells
:ersus Hori.ontal Fractures-< paper SPE @9523- 3AAB
2
*cCuire- 2> and (ikora- :># ;The Effect of :ertical Fractures on 2ell $roducti+ity-< Trans AIE (3AD9) 23A-
593'59@
6
(oliman- *E# ;*odifications to $roduction /ncrease !alculations for a Hydraulically Fractured 2ell-< JP! (>an
3AB6) 3F9'3FB
HF2D Page 13 13
.
.*,
'
'*,
)
.*.' .*' ' '. '.. '... '....
Dimensionless (racture ;onductivity" ;
fD
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

i
n
d
e
x
"

J
D
I
x
= 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.01
)x
f
x
e
y
e
& x
e

Fig. 2. Ca0#$0at%1 1i'%2io0%22 &"o1$#ti3it4 i1%5 a2 a !$#tio o! 1i'%2io0%22
!"a#t$"% #o1$#ti3it4 a1 &%%t"atio
Fig 2 is not +ery helpful to sol+e the optimi.ation problem in+ol+ing any fixed amount of proppant For
this purpose in Figs 6 and 5 "e present the same results- but the indi+idual cur+es correspond to JD at a
fixed value of the proppant number- Nprop
Fig 6 a and Fig 6 b emphasi.e the importance of the proppant number
HF2D Page 14 14
Fig. *a. Di'%2io0%22 &"o1$#ti3it4 i1%5 a2 a !$#tio o! 1i'%2io0%22 !"a#t$"%
#o1$#ti3it4 a1 &"o&&at $'6%" (!o" N&"o& 7 8.1)
Fig. *6. Di'%2io0%22 &"o1$#ti3it4 i1%5 a2 a !$#tio o! 1i'%2io0%22 !"a#t$"%
#o1$#ti3it4 a1 &"o&&at $'6%" (!o" N&"o& 9 8.1)
HF2D Page 15 15
.*,
.*6
.*/
.*)
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

J
D
'.
16
'.
1/
'.
1)
'.
1'
'.
.
'.
'
'.
)
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, C
fD
9
p
&.*..'
9
p
&.*../
9
p
&.*..+
9
p
&.*...'
9
p
&.*.'
9
p
&.*./
9
p
&.*.+
9
p
&.*.../
9
p
&.*...+
I
x
=1
X
e
2X
f

e
X
e
=
e
9
p
&.*'
)*.
'*,
'*.
.*, D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

JD
.*' ' '. '.. '...
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, C
fD
9
p
&.*'
9
p
&.*/
9
p
&.*+
9
p
&'
9
p
&/
9
p
&+
9
p
&'.
9
p
&/.
9
p
&+.
9
p
&'..
X
e
2X
f

e
X
e
=
e
I
x
=1
Fig. +.a Di'%2io0%22 &"o1$#ti3it4 i1%5 a2 a !$#tio o! &%%t"atio "atio a1
&"o&&at $'6%" (!o" N&"o& 7 8.1)
Fig. +.6 Di'%2io0%22 &"o1$#ti3it4 i1%5 a2 a !$#tio o! &%%t"atio "atio a1
&"o&&at $'6%" (!o" N&"o& 9 8.1)
HF2D Page 16 16
.*6,
.*6.
.*/,
.*/.
.*),
.*).
.*',
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

J
D
'.
1/
'.
1)
'.
1'
'.
.
Penetration !ate, I
X
9
p
&.*...'
9
p
&.*.../
9
p
&.*...+
9
p
&.*..'
9
p
&.*../
9
p
&.*..+
9
p
&.*.'
9
p
&.*./
9
p
&.*.+
9
p
&.*'
X
e
2X
f

e
X
e
=
e
'*K
'*+
'*6
'*)
'*.
.*K
.*+
.*6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

J
D
.*.' .*' '
Penetration !ate, I
X
9
p
&.*'
9
p
&.*/
9
p
&.*+
9
p
&'
9
p
&/
9
p
&+
9
p
&'.
9
p
&/.
9
p
&'..
X
e
2X
f

e
X
e
=
e
1s seen from Figs 6 a and b- for a gi+en +alue of Nprop - that is for a fixed amount of a+ailable proppant-
there exists an optimal dimensionless fracture conducti+ity- representing the optimal compromise bet"een
the ability of the fracture to conduct the flo" into the "ellbore and its ability to get inflo" from the
formation
Figs 5 a and 5 b sho" the performance as a function of penetration ratio The large >D +alues (abo+e
>D G 9B) correspond to streamlines parallel to the y axis in pseudo'steady state- a highly desirable- but
extremely difficult (if not impossible) to achie+e situation
/t is important to understand that Figs 6 a and 5 a are e,ui+alent- and their correct use should lead to the
same results (imilarly- Figures 6 b and 5 b carry e,ui+alent information
)ne of the main result seen from the figures is- that at Hlo"H proppant numbers (lo" proppant +olume
andIor high formation permeability)- the optimal compromise occurs at CfD G 3D The beha+ior at large
Nprop is as anticipated because "e kno" that the absolute maximum for JD is DI G 3A9A (this +alue is the
producti+ity index for a perfect linear flo" in a s,uare reser+oir
2hen the propped +olume increases- the optimal compromise happens at larger dimensionless fracture
conducti+ities because the penetration cannot exceed unity Figure 2b sho"s this effect clearly
/n ;medium and high< permeability formations- that is abo+e @9 md- it is practically impossible to
achie+e a proppant number larger than 93 For Frac'and $ack typical proppant numbers range bet"een
99993 and 993 Therefore- for mediumIhigh permeability formations the optimum dimensionless
fracture conducti+ity is al"ays !fDopt G 3D
/n ;tight gas< it is possible to achie+e large dimensionless proppant numbers- at least in principle /f one
calculates the proppant number "ith a limited drainage area and does not ,uestion "hether the proppant
really reached the pay layer- dimensionless proppant number 3 or e+en @ can be calculated Ho"e+er- the
personal belief of this author is that proppant numbers larger than one are impossible to reali.e The
reason is that for large treatments there is a great uncertainty of "here the proppant goes both in
hori.ontal and in +ertical direction )ne has to be +ery optimistic to belie+e that the proppant in0ected
remains in the pay layer +ertically and also remains contained in the lateral direction "ith respect to the
targeted drainage area
HF2D Page 17 17
For large treatments the drainage area is oftentimes dynamic in the sense that the extreme fracture length
causes increase of the drainage area "ith respect to the originally targeted or e+en "ith respect to the
existing "ell spacing
This authorJs opinion is that a dimensionless proppant number larger than 9@ is rarely reali.ed-
because the proppant can not be contained in the pay and "ithin the drainage area
4nfortunately- in case of regular "ell'spacing the proppant extending laterally outside the drainage area
can be totally discounted /t does not contribute to the proppant number and to the performance
The situation is more complex in case of an indi+idual "ell in a larger area Then the large fracture length
tends to increase the drainage area and hence the proppant number decreases 4ltimately- the large
fracture is beneficial- but the approximate upper limit (9@) on the reali.able proppant number still
remains +alid
The maximum possible dimensionless $roducti+ity /ndex for &prop G 9@ is >D G 9F@ The
dimensionless $roducti+ity /ndex of an undamaged +ertical "ell is bet"een 932 and 935 depending on
the "ell spacing and assumed "ell radius Therefore- there is a realistic maximum for the ; folds of
increase< of the pseudo'steady state producti+ity ("ith respect to the .ero skin case) and it is gi+en by
9F@ I 936 K D 1ny hope to achie+e larger folds of increase (raised mostly by the simplicistic +ie"#
;e,ui+alent "ellbore radius e,uals xfI2<) ultimately has to face reality )f course- much larger folds of
increase can be achie+ed "ith respect to an originally damaged "ell ("here the pre treatment skin factor
is positi+e)
1nother common misunderstanding is connected "ith the existence of the transient regime /n transient
regime the $roducti+ity /ndex (and hence the production rate) is larger than in pseudo'steady state 2ith
this ,ualitati+e picture in mind it is easy to discard the pseudo'steady state optimi.ation procedure and to
;shoot< for +ery high dimensionless fracture conducti+ity andIor to anticipate much more folds of
increase in the transient period /n reality- the existence of the transient period does not change the
pre+ious conclusions on optimal dimensions and should not induce too high anticipations )ur
calculations sho"- that there is no reason to depart from the optimum compromise described abo+e- e+en
if the "ell "ill produce in transient regime for a considerable time (se+eral months or e+en years)
HF2D Page 18 18
S SUGGESTED UGGESTED D DESIGN ESIGN P PROCEDURE ROCEDURE B BASED ASED
ON ON O OPTIMAL PTIMAL P PSEUDO SEUDO: :STEADY STEADY S STATE TATE
P PERFORMANCE ERFORMANCE
To exploit the potentials of a iven proppant num!er one has to place the proppant optimally "or near
optimally#$ Therefore% the optimal desin of a fracture treatment consists of two steps$ The first one is to
make a decision on si&e "in fact on proppant num!er#$ The second one is to desin the treatment in such a
way that we make maximum use of the potential of the reali&ed proppant num!er$ These issues are
discussed in the followin section$
%i4ing
(pecify the goal of the treatment in form of amount of proppant reaching the target layer (Denote it by
:prop G 2:f ) !alculate the proppant number- from that the maximum possible pseudo'steady state
$roducti+ity /ndex can already be computed
The target proppant number has to be at least 99993- other"ise there is no stimulation effect /t seems
reasonable to select &propG 9999@ ' 9993 as a target for many high permeability formations- because that
"ould pro+ide a >D about 92 (ince "ells in high permeability formations are often damaged (the pre'
treatment skin is a large positi+e number) most of the economic benefit comes from bypassing the
original damage To increase the >D significantly beyond 92- one "ould need order of magnitude larger
proppant numbers- that is economically (and sometimes e+en technically) not feasible
/t is the experience of this author that for tight gas it seems reasonable to select a target proppant number
in the range bet"een &prop G 93 to 9@ or sometimes around 3
The ma0ority of formations are- ho"e+er- not tight and neither of extreme high permeability For those
;medium< reser+oirs the &prop G 93 seems to be a reasonable target
HF2D Page 19 19
)f course- the abo+e suggestions should be taken only as starting point The actual si.ing process should
consider a "hole range of proppant numbers including and e+aluate the options by &et $resent :alue
analysis
The most important thing to remember about the proppant number is that it has to be calculated "ith the
proppant placed into the pay layer and "ith the representati+e in'situ conducti+ity of the proppant pack
The first problem re,uires the understanding of the layered structure of the reser+oir and of the stress
situation controlling fracture height containment (if any) /n this respect- fracture propagation (6D or $6D
modeling) plays an important role- but one has to be a"are ho" the fracture dimensions "ill affect the
final performance- and oftentimes in reality- this effect is less than that the literature and common belief
suggest The reason is that once the amount of proppant reaching the pay is already fixed- the actual
fracture shape (especially the length) has limited effect on the final performance To put it in simple
"ords# the real ,uestion is not ;"hat the length "ould be< but rather ho" much proppant "ould be placed
into the target layer< )ne of the most important concepts of the design procedure is the percentage of
proppant reaching the target layer(s) /f- for instance- se+eral shale layers are imbedded bet"een the pay
layers- the actual proppant reaching the target might be less than @9 L- e+en "ith perfect height
containmentM
The other important issue is the actual proppant pack permeability The proppant number (and
dimensionless fracture conducti+ity) ha+e to be calculated "ith the in'situ representati+e permeability of
the proppant pack For instance- a proppant manufacturer may report @99 Darcy or e+en 3999 Darcy
nominal permeability of the proppant at the estimated closure stress /n reality- ho"e+er- because of the
residue from the fluid- the actual retained permeability can be- for instance- 39 times less /f t"o phase
flo" is in+ol+ed (gas "ith significant "ater- for instance) an other effect "ill dramatically decrease the
effecti+e (or apparent) permeability of the propped fracture That effect is often referred to as non'Darcy
flo" /n the t"o'phase flo" situation the origin of the additional energy loss in the fracture is due to the
periodic acceleration and deceleration of the li,uid droplets This effect may be detrimental and may call
for an additional factor of @ or 39 to obtain a representati+e apparent permeability of the proppant pack
The understanding of the in'situ proppant permeability (conducti+ity) is therefore another important issue
in fracture design There is a large amount of information a+ailable on the actual in'situ conducti+ity of
the proppant packs and it should be of primary concern of e+ery design 1ny other factor (such as +ertical
stress profile and +ariation of the $oisson ratio- dilatancy andIor apparent fracture toughness- "all
building andIor radial leakoff- shear thickening andIor +iscoelasticity- 0ust to mention a fe") should be
considered after the si.ing has been done correctly- taking into account the main issues such as# net pay
HF2D Page 20 20
thickness- formation permeability- percentage of proppant reaching the pay- apparent proppant
permeability
/n the si.ing phase of the fracture design "e make a decision on the dimensionless proppant number to
reali.e This determines the maximum possible $roducti+ity /ndex and the optimum fracture dimensions
are those reali.ing this ;best< performance

=ptimum fracture dimensions
The optimum design represents the best compromise bet"een "idth and length )nce "e kno" the
+olume of the propped one'"ing in the pay layer- :f (note that this is half of the propped +olume in the
pay layer # :f G :prop I2 and- naturally- much less than half of the proppant +olume in0ected) then "e can
use the definition of dimensionless fracture conducti+ity to obtain the optimum "idth and length#
2 I 3

=
hk C
k '
x
fDopt
f f
f
.............................................(;)
2 I 3

=
f
f fDopt
hk
k ' C
w ..........................................(18)
)nce "e kno" the proppant number- the optimum dimensionless fracture conducti+ity can be read from
Fig 6 a or b or calculated from suitable correlations built into the HF2D spreadsheet *ost often the
optimum !fD "ill be 3D- but the program can do the optimi.ation for +ery large proppant numbers as
"ell- "here the optimum dimensionless fracture conducti+ity "ill be largergher
The fracture dimensions obtained from E,s A and 39 "ill reali.e the pre+iously determined maximum
possible $roducti+ity /ndex
)f course- the abo+e half'length and "idth are meant as ;e,ui+alent length< and ;e,ui+alent a+erage
propped "idth<- because the performance model represents the +ertical fracture by a crude
approximation as a rectangular fracture "ith constant "idth
The actual shape of the fracture might be different but that can bring only minor de+iations from the
results presented here (The most difficult thing in petroleum engineering is the separation of the really
important effects from the lots parameters of secondary importance )
HF2D Page 21 21
Pumping %c$edule
)nce the target length and "idth is kno"n- one can proceed "ith the actual design of the treatment The
design includes the determination of the in0ection time- the necessary maximum added proppant
concentration and the detailed proppant schedule reali.ing the optimum dimensions The basic algorithm
is described in the 1ppendix
/f technical constraints do not allo" the reali.ation of the ;optimum placement<- one has to make a
departure from it- but only to the extent it is really necessary For instance- in +ery lo" permeability
formations the optimum "idth might be less than t"o or three proppant diameters Then "e ha+e to put a
constraint on the minimum "idth and modify the target "idth and length accordingly (still pro+iding the
target proppant number) /t can be sho"n "ith the presented cur+es that such a departure N if done only to
the necessary extent ' causes a loss of producti+ity that is "ithin reasonable limits and most often not
important at all
/t is important to note that#
o There is no theoretical difference bet"een lo" and high permeability fracturing /n both cases
there exists a technically optimal fracture- and in both cases it should ha+e a dimensionless
fracture conducti+ity depending solely on the proppant number 2hile in a lo" permeability
formation this re,uirement results in a long and narro" fracture- in high permeability formations-
a short and "ide fracture "ill pro+ide the same dimensionless conducti+ity
o /ncreasing the +olume of proppant or the permeability of the proppant pack by a gi+en factor (for
example- 2 ) has exactly the same effect on the producti+ity if other"ise the proppant is placed
optimally
o To achie+e the same post'treatment skin factor in a lo" and a high permeability formation the
+olume of proppant placed to the pay layer should be increased by the ratio of the formation
permeabilities- pro+ided all the other formation and proppant parameters are the same
HF2D Page 22 22
o (ince not all proppant "ill be placed into the permeable layer- the optimum length and "idth
should be calculated "ith the effecti+e +olume- subtracting the proppant placed in the non'
producti+e layers
o /n high permeability formations- the indicated fracture length might not be enough to bypass the
damaged .one- therefore a minimum length should be applied
o !onsiderable fracture "idth can be lost because of proppant embedment into soft formations For
gas "ells- non'Darcy effects may create a dependence of the apparent permeability of the
proppant pack on the production rate itself These issues are best handled by using proper
effecti+e "idth and effecti+e peremeabilities in the conducti+ity expression (both in the proppant
number and in the dimensionless proppant conducti+ity)
)f course it is possible that the technical constraints (first of all maximum possible proppant
concentration in the slurry) does not allo" optimal placement /n case of conflict the design engineer has
se+eral options# eg choosing another type of fluid andIor e,uipment- but for higher permeability
formations most likely a tip screenout (T()) design has to be considered
The T() design differs from the abo+e procedure in one basic feature# it uses a T() criterion to separate
the lateral fracture propagation period from the "idth inflation period /n our design model this criterion
is based on ;dry to "et< a+erage "idth ratio The ;T() criterion< specifies the ratio of dry "idth
(assuming only the HdryH proppant is left in the fracture) to "et "idth (dynamically achie+ed during
pumping) 1ccording to our assumptions- the screen'out happens and fracture propagation stops "hen the
ratio of dry to "et "idth reaches the user specified critical +alue 1fter the T() is triggered- only the
"idth is inflated- as far as additional slurry is in0ected /t is possible to schedule the proppant to such that
the critical dry to "et "idth ratio is reached at that moment "hen the fracture length arri+ed at the desired
distance 2ith T() design- practically any "idth can be achie+ed- at least in principle 2e suggest a
number bet"een 9@ and 9F@ for the ;T() criterion# dryI"et "idth< parameter- but there is no good
theoretical model behind this suggestion
(4nfortunately- if the formation does not allo" it- it might be impossible to arrest fracture propagation
(the rock is not soft enough- the elasticity modulus is too high- the leakoff is too high- etc) There is no
clear procedure to predict if a T()'type "idth inflation "ill be possible in the gi+en formation or not
Engineering intuition and pre+ious experience are of crucial importance in making that 0udgment)
HF2D Page 23 23
&ote that "e use the "ord ;optimum< for placing a gi+en amount of proppant the best possible "ay into
the formation The determination of the optimum amount of proppant is called si.ing For optimum si.ing
one needs to kno" the costs and re+enues The costs increase "ith proppant number in a "ell defined
manner The re+enues also increase "ith proppant number- and that can be calculated kno"ing the
targeted $roducti+ity /ndex There is no need to do a detailed fracture design in order to si.e a treatment
(/n fact si.ing and detailed design should be separated )ptimum si.ing should be done exclusi+ely by the
operator and not by the ser+ice company)
/n case of conflict the design engineer may consider using another type of fluid andIor consider using
e,uipment pro+iding a higher maximum proppant concentration- andIor tip screenout design
There are se+eral other checks the design engineer has to conduct For instance- at the end of the pad
in0ection the current hydraulic "idth should be large enough to accommodate proppant that is "et "idth
per dry "idth should be at least 6
The T() design differs from the abo+e procedure in one basic feature# it uses the T() criterion (critical
ratio of "et "idth per dry "idth) to separate the lateral fracture propagation period from the "idth
inflation period
/t is possible that the design does not re,uire a tip screenout This is indicated by a message and then the
user is suggested to run a traditional design "ithout T()
/f the constraints do not allo" the best placement of the proppant- the traditional $%& algorithms still
pro+ides a design- but the created fracture "ill be suboptimal 2arning messages indicate suboptimality
and possible modification of in0ected proppant /n modifying the re,uirements the program takes the easy
road- that is it reduces the amount of proppant placed (ometimes this is acceptable- but more often you
should explore other options
The first thing to look at is to use +arious fluids (that is changing rheology and leakoff)- changing the
in0ection rate or assuring larger maximum possible added proppant concentration by selecting a better
e,uipment
)ften the optimum proppant placement can be reali.ed by a tip'screenout design- and in such case the
user should use the $%&'T() method The T() design is not a "ell established procedure- because the
prediction of the tip screen'out point is not based on sound physical principles /n our model a T()
criterion is used to trigger T() and this criterion has to be selected carefully That design parameter is
HF2D Page 24 24
only for T() design /t specifies the ratio of dry "idth (assuming only the HdryH proppant is left in the
fracture) to "et "idth (dynamically achie+ed during pumping) 1ccording to our assumptions- the screen'
out happens "hen the ratio of dry to "et "idth reaches the user specified +alue 2e suggest a number
bet"een 9@ and 9F@- but there is no good theoretical model behind this suggestion
4nfortunately- T() treatment can be impossible- if the formation does not allo" it (the rock is not soft
enough- the leakoff is too high- etc) There is no clear procedure to predict if a frac&pack type "idth
inflation "ill be possible in the gi+en formation or not Engineering intuition and pre+ious experience are
of crucial importance in such case
/f the gi+en amount of proppant can not be placed optimally by a traditional design and you can not apply
a T() design (because the high leakoff- andIor high elastic modulus- andIor consolidated rock make it
impossible) the traditional $%& design procedure should be used "ith an additional design factor that
becomes especially important /n the spreadsheet it is called ;multiply opt length by a factor<
)nce you see the error message ;)ptimum placement of proppant is not possible< and you ha+e tried all
other options you ha+e to make a decision on "hich design goal to relax /f you still "ant to place the
originally specified amount of proppant- you ha+e to depart from the optimum length /n such case you
specify a factor of 2- 6- or e+en 39 to multiply the theoretically optimum lenth 2ith large enough factor
used- you "ill be able to place all the proppant into the formation The resulting suboptimal design "ill
yield a reduced $/ (compared to the optimum one) 1t this point you ha+e to decide "hether it "as a
good idea to stick "ith the original amount of proppant (/t is possible that the ans"er is &) 1s you "ill
find- often a fraction of the original amount of proppant- O4T $?1!ED )$T/*1??E- gi+es almost the
same $/ as the large (4O)$T/*1? treatment "hile the cost of a small treatment is- of course-
considerably less)
HF2D Page 25 25
S SAM AM
PLE PLE R RUNS UNS
HF2D Page 26 26
1) Traditional PKN design
/nput
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm 3@9-999
(p gra+ of proppant material ("aterG3) 2D@
$orosity of proppant material 96B
$roppant pack permeability- md D9-999
*ax prop diameter- Dpmax- inch 9963
Formation permeability- md 9@
$ermeable (leakoff) thickness- ft 5@
2ell 8adius- ft 969
2ell drainage radius- ft 2399
$re'treatment skin factor 99
Fracture height- ft 329
$lane strain modulus- E7 (psi) 299EPD
(lurry in0ection rate (t"o "ings- li,P prop)- bpm 29
8heology- %7 (lbfIftQ2)RsQn7 993B9
8heology- n7 9D@
?eakoff coefficient in permeable layer- ftIminQ9@ 999599
(purt loss coefficient- (p- galIftQ2 993999
Fluid loss multiplier outside the pay 9

*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgal
neat fluid
32
*ultiply opt length by factor 3
*ultiply &olte pad by factor 3
HF2D Page 27 27
$art of )utput
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 9233
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 9@D
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3F
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft DD33
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 93
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf 'D66
Folds of increase of $/ 5@F
Constraints allow optimum placement
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) 3@9-999
$roppant number- &prop 92333
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9@D
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3F
Half length- xf- ft DD33
$ropped "idth- "- inch 933
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf 'D66
Folds of increase of $/ 5@F
HF2D Page 28 28
Treatment details
Efficiency- eta- L 663
$umping time- te- min B5@
$ad pumping time- te- min 52@
Exponent of added proppant concentration- eps 9@92A
4niform proppant concentration in frac at end- lbmIftQ6 5FB
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 9A
*ax added proppant concentration- lb per gal clean fluid A9
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 2D2@
HF2D Page 29 29
2) PKN-TSO design
/nput
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm @9-999
(p gra+ of proppant material ("aterG3) 2D@
$orosity of proppant material 96B
$roppant pack permeability- md D9-999
*ax propp diameter- Dpmax- inch 9963
Formation permeability- md 3@
$ermeable (leakoff) thickness- ft 5@
2ell 8adius- ft 969
2ell drainage radius- ft 2-399
$re'treatment skin factor 99
Fracture height- ft F@9
$lane strain modulus- E7 (psi) 299EP9@
(lurry in0ection rate (t"o "ings- li,P prop)- bpm 3@9
8heology- %7 (lbfIftQ2)RsQn7 993B9
8heology- n7 95@
?eakoff coefficient in permeable layer- ftIminQ9@ 999D99
(purt loss coefficient- (p- galIftQ2 992999
Fluid loss multiplier outside the pay 9
*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgallon
fluid 3D
*ultiply opt length by factor 3
TSO criterion !et"dr# 9F
*ultiply pad by factor 3
HF2D Page 30 30
$art of )utput
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 9996B
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 92D
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3D
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft BA3
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 95
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '562
Folds of increase of $/ 235
)ptimum placement
T() criterion was achieved
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) @9-999
$roppant number- &prop 9996B
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 92D55
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3D5
Half length- xf- ft BA3
$ropped "idth- "- inch 956F@
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '562
Folds of increase of $/ 235
HF2D Page 31 31
Treatment details
$ad pumping time- min 96F
T() time- min F3
Total pumping time- min 3D2
*ass of proppant in frac at T()- lbm 36-D2B
1dded proppant concentration at T()- ca- lbmIgal li, 59
Half length at T()- xf- ft BA3
1+erage "idth at T()- inch 9D
&et pressure at T()- psi 693
*ax added proppant concentration at end- lbmIgal'li, 3D9
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 3F
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi FA
HF2D Page 32 32

N NOMENCLATURE OMENCLATURE
Bo * oil formation volume factor% +B,(TB
CfD *dimensionless fracture conductivity
C- *leakoff coefficient% ft,min
.,/
h *pay thickness% ft
hp *net pay thickness% permea!le thickness% ft
hf *fracture heiht% ft
Ix *penetration ratio% calculated for a square drainae area
J *productivity index% B)0D,psi
JD *dimensionless productivity index
12 * plain strain modulus% psi
k *effective formation permea!ility% mD
kf *effective proppant pack permea!ility% mD
32 *0ower law consistency index % l!f,"ft
/
4sec#
n2 *0ower law flow !ehavior index
Nprop * proppant num!er
p
*averae reservoir pressure% psi
pwf *flowin !ottomhole pressure% psi
q *oil flow rate% (TB,D
qi *fluid in5ection rate% !pm
rp * permea!le to total area ratio
rw * well!ore radius% ft
HF2D Page 33 33
r2w * equivalent well!ore radius due to fracture% ft
+f * created fracture radius% ft
sf * pseudo skin factor due to fracture
te * pumpin time% min
'i * in5ected volume% ft
6
'p * propped volume of the two win contained in the pay layer% ft
6
'r * drainae volume7 net heiht !y drainae area% ft
6
xf * fracture half lenth% ft
xe * si&e of study area in x4direction
ye * si&e of study area in y4direction
w * propped fracture width% ft
. * conversion factor "for field units 889$//#

1
* pad fraction

2
* Nolte exponent
p * proppant pack porosity% fraction
* openin time distri!ution factor% dimensionless
* formation fluid viscosity% cp
* fluid "slurry# efficiency% fraction
HF2D Page 34 34
CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES
Ta$le 1 O%er%ie!
&edium Permea$ilit# Formation &PF Standard &PF'1
Pus(ing t(e limit &PF'2
Proppant )m$edment &PF'*
Non-+arc#
Fracture ,ace skin
-ig( Permea$ilit# Formation -PF Standard &PF'1
).treme -ig( &PF'2
/o! Permea$ilit# Formation /PF /o! Permea$ilit# 0tig(t gas) /PF'1
HF2D Page 35 35
A.1 A T4&i#a0 P"%0i'ia"4 D%2ig< M%1i$' P%"'%a6i0it4 Fo"'atio=
MPF81
/n the remaining part of this chapter "e "ill illustrate the design logic incorporated in the 4nified
Fracture Design 2e "ill intentionally consider cases- "here only limited data are a+ailable
Table 2 sho"s a+ailable data for a ;medium< permeability formation ("ith permeability 3F md and net
pay of FD ft) The input data contains the "ell radius and the drainage radius (calculated from 59 acre
spacing) These important reser+oir parameters should not be missed
1 preliminary si.ing decision is that A9-999 lbm proppant should be in0ected
1t the closure stress anticipated (@999 psi) the selected resin coated 29I59 mesh sand "ill ha+e an in'situ
permeability of D9-999 md /n this number "e already incorporated the effect of some proppant crushing
and the decrease of proppant pack permeability due to imperfect breaking of the gel )b+iously- this is
one of the key parameters of the design- and the design engineer has to do e+erything in herIhis po"er to
make this estimate as rele+ant as possible (Ouying an expensi+e 6D program "ith +endor pro+ided
proppant data and clicking the name of the proppant is ob+iously not enough)
The plane'strain modulus (that is basically the Eoung modulus) is 239
D
psi *inifrac tests in the same
formation "ith the same fluid usually result in a leakoff coefficient 999@ ftImin
3I2
and some spurt loss is
also anticipated (&ote that these +alues are "ith respect to the pay layer /t is assumed- that outside the
pay there is no leakoff) The fluid rheology parameters are pro+ided by the ser+ice company and (because
of pressure limitations in this case) the in0ection rate is 29 bpm
HF2D Page 36 36
Ta$le 2. Input +ata For &PF'1
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm A9-999
(p gra+ of proppant material ("aterG3) 2D@
$orosity of proppant pack 96B
$roppant pack permeability- md D9-999
*ax propp diameter- Dpmax- inch 9963
Formation permeability- md 3F
$ermeable (leakoff) thickness- ft FD
2ell 8adius- ft 92@
2ell drainage radius- ft F5@
$re'treatment skin factor 99
Fracture height- ft
$lane strain modulus- E7 (psi) 29EP9D
(lurry in0ection rate (t"o "ings- li,P prop)- bpm 299
8heology- %7 (lbfIft
2
)s
n7
99F
8heology- n7 95@
?eakoff coefficient in permeable layer- ftImin
3I2
999@
(purt loss coefficient- (p- galIftQ2 9939
The input data are summari.ed in Table 2 The line of fracture height is still left empty 2e kno" that the
gross pay is 399 ft- that is the distance bet"een the top and bottom perforations is 399 ft 2ithin this
inter+al- only FD ft is pay- though 1 preliminary estimate of fracture height should be minimum 399 ft-
but the actual height "ill be related to se+eral other factors
1 reasonable assumption N in the a!sence of any relia!le data on stress contrast N is- that the aspect ratio
of the created fracture is 2#3 /n other "ords- "e "ill find the fracture height- hf- by ad0usting it to the
target length- according to hf * xf $
HF2D Page 37 37
1t this point "e put a starting estimate of hf G399 ft into our design spreadsheet and "e specify the
follo"ing operational constraintIparameters- as sho"n in Table 6#
Ta$le *. 1dditional Input For &PF'1
*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgal neat fluid 32
*ultiply opt length by factor 3
*ultiply &olte pad by factor 3
The maximum a+ailable proppant concentration in ppga (lbm proppant added to 3 gallon of neat
fracturing fluid) is 32 according to the ser+ice company The other t"o parameters are fixed at their
default +alue
The output of the first run of our design spreadsheet contains three parts /n the first part a ;"ish'list< is
sho"n
Ta$le 2. T(eoretical Optimum ,or &PF'1-1
)utput
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 96@@2
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 9D@
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3B
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 2A52
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 92
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@F2
Folds of increase of $/ 5F5
/t states that the proppant number is 96@ and "ith the proppant placed optimally "e could achie+e a
dimensionless producti+ity index of 9D@ that is a skin factor as negati+e as N@F2 The Folds of increase
HF2D Page 38 38
in producti+ity ("ith respect to the .ero skin situation "e fixed in line 39 of the input as the basis of
comparison ) is 5F5
1 red "arning message is- ho"e+er- indicating- that our "ish'list could not be reali.ed#
(uboptimal placement "ith constraints satisfied
*ass of proppant reduced
The actual placement- the design program "as able to produce is some"hat disappointing- as sho"n in
Table @#
Ta$le 3. 1ctual placement ,or &PF'1-1
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) @B-@93
$roppant number- &prop 9269A
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9@F
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 32
Half length- xf- ft 2A52
$ropped "idth- "- inch 932
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@@9
Folds of increase of $/ 53@
/n other "ords- the design program can assure only the placement of @B-@99 lbm proppant The reason
for this "ill be discussed later 1t this point "e should not pay too much attention to it- because our
specified fracture height (399 ft) "as not realistic
To approach our re,uired aspect ratio# hf *xf "e increase the fracture height to 299 ft The calculated
theoretical optimum target length is no" hf G 23D ft 1 third ad0ustment to hf G233 ft "ill finally establish
the re,uired aspect ratio
HF2D Page 39 39
Ta$le 4. T(eoretical Optimum ,or &PF'1-* 0 "f 5 211 ,t )
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 93DB5
Dimensionless $/- >dopt 9@6
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3D
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 2333
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 93
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@6F
Folds of increase of $/ 6B@
2e see that the proppant number is significantly less# 93DB- than pre+iously 2hy did this happenS
Oecause the increase in fracture height decreases the +olumetric proppant efficiency- that is the part of
proppant ;"orking for us< The optimum length corresponding to this proppant number is 233 ft- and that
means that our fracture N if it can be reali.ed N "ill ha+e the desired 2#3 aspect ratio Out can it be
reali.edS
The red message#
C123trai2t3 all14 1pti565 pla7e5e2t
sho"s that yes- the optimum placement can be reali.ed
HF2D Page 40 40
Ta$le 4. 1ctual Placement &PF'1-* 0 "f 5 211 ,t )
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 93DB5
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9@6
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3D
Half length- xf- ft 2333
$ropped "idth- "- inch 932
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@6F
Folds of increase of $/ 6B@
2e found that the A9-999 lbm proppant can be safely placed into the "ell &ot all of the proppant "ill be
placed into the pay layer- though
The part of the proppant reaching the pay "ill represent a proppant number Nprop G 93DB- and the
optimum half length corresponding to it is 233 ft The treatment "ill establish a dimensionless
producti+ity index- JDact G 9@6 in other "ords a negati+e e,ui+alent skin- sf G '@6F "ill be created
&ote that the "hole design logic is based on the proppant number concept 2e do not specify an arbitrary
length- rather "e obtain the optimum length and the design process makes sure that the desired length is
reali.ed and the desired amount of proppant is placed uniformly
(ome details of the treatment are sho"n in Table F
HF2D Page 41 41
Ta$le 6. Some +etails o, t(e 1ctual Placement &PF'1-* 0 "f 5 211 ,t )
Treatment details
Efficiency- eta- L 65@
$umping time- te- min 595
$ad pumping time- te- min 3AF
Exponent of added proppant concentration- eps 95BF3
4niform proppant concentration in frac at end- lbmIftQ6 @F@
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIft
2
39
*ax added proppant concentration- lb per gal clean fluid 33B
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 362@
*ore details can be found by running the spreadsheet
A.2 P$2>ig t>% 0i'it< M%1i$' P%"'%a6i0it4 Fo"'atio= MPF82
For illustrati+e purposes "e "ill consider *$F93 as our base case /n this section "e ask the ,uestion#
can "e place 3@9-999 lb proppant in a similar mannerS /f yes- "hat good "ill it do for the "ell
producti+ityS
The reader is no" able to do the design so "e "ill not sho" the detailed ;iteration<- only the main results
Ta$le 7. Some +etails o, t(e Input &PF'2-* 0 "f 5 227 ,t )
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm 3@9-999
T
Fracture height- ft 25B
T
HF2D Page 42 42
Ta$le 8. T(eoretical optimum ,or &PF'2-* 0 "f 5 227 ,t )
)utput
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 926BF
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 9@B
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3F
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 25B9
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 93
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@@5
Folds of increase of $/ 526
The first thing "e should note that the increase of proppant and corresponding increase of proppant
number "ill result N e+en if e+erything goes "ell N only a marginal impro+ement in producti+ity This
should make us think "hether it is "orth ;pushing the limit< E+en more food for thought is pro+ided by
the message#
(uboptimal placement "ith constraints satisfied
*ass of proppant reduced
and by the next output#
Ta$le 1'. 1ctual placement ,or &PF'2-* 0 "f 5 227 ,t )
HF2D Page 43 43
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) 36D-AD@
$roppant number- &prop 923B9
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9@F
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3@
Half length- xf- ft 25B9
$ropped "idth- "- inch 936
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@5A
Folds of increase of $/ 532
Treatment details
Efficiency- eta- L 6D3
$umping time- te- min @B9
$ad pumping time- te- min 2F2
Exponent of added proppant concentration- eps 95DA5
4niform proppant concentration in frac at end- lbmIftQ6 @B2
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 33
*ax added proppant concentration- lb per gal clean fluid 329
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 322A
1s "e see the design program had to reduce the amount of proppant placed into the formation 2ith this
reduction the actual folds of increase is hardly more than "hat "e can achie+e "ith A9-999 lb proppant
and it is ob+ious that ;pushing the limit< in this case is not "orth the effort and money
Out is it really ob+iousS (e+eral ser+ice companies "ould rather suggest a better e,uipment capable to do
as high proppant concentration as 3D ppga
Ta$le 11. 1ctual placement ,or &PF'2-2 0 "f 5 227 ,t9 ma. possi$le conc: 14 ppga )
HF2D Page 44 44
*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgal neat fluid 3D
The message is no" encouraging#
C123trai2t3 all14 1pti565 pla7e5e2t
Ta$le 12. 1ctual placement ,or &PF'2-* 0 "f 5 227 ,t9 ma. possi$le conc: 14 ppga )
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) 3@9-999
$roppant number- &prop 926BF
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9@B
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3F
Half length- xf- ft 25B9
$ropped "idth- "- inch 935
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@@5
Folds of increase of $/ 526
Treatment details
Efficiency- eta- L D59
$umping time- te- min 62F
$ad pumping time- te- min F2
Exponent of added proppant concentration- eps 923A3
4niform proppant concentration in frac at end- lbmIftQ6 D6F
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 32
*ax added proppant concentration- lb per gal clean fluid 36A
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 322A
The increase in the maximum possible proppant concentration did the trick /t is no" possible to place the
re,uired ,uantity of proppant (because larger concentration allo"s to put more proppant into the same
HF2D Page 45 45
"idth) /n fact "e did not e+en use all the capabilities of the e,uipment- a 35 ppga maximum proppant
concentration "ould be enough
1lso it is clear that our actual design no" reali.es the ;"ish'list< originally stated in Table A The
,uestion- "hether it is "orth doing the larger treatment or not- is ho"e+er- still open )nly careful
economic calculations can tell if it is "orth doing the larger treatment- that "ill be about @9 L more
expensi+e- but "ill reali.e a post treatment skin of N@@5 instead of the N@@9 calculated for our base
case- *$F93'6 (ince the difference is clearly in the ;error margin< it is difficult to belie+e that a
manager "ould decide on the more expensi+e (and more risky) larger treatment
A.* P"o&&at E'6%1'%t< MPF8*
/t is "ell'kno"n- that in softer formations a considerable part of the in0ected proppant might be ;lost<
because it is embedded into the formation "all (ome estimates talk about 69 L loss of "idth because of
embedment (?acy- 3AA5)
?et us assume that the rock mechanics lab measured a 666 L embedment for the gi+en formation and
closure stress Ho" can "e incorporate this into the designS
The easiest "ay is to say that the proppant pack permeability (no" D9-999 md) "ill apparently be reduced
to 59-999 md
!hanging one input line of case *$F93'6- that is putting
$roppant pack permeability- md 59-999
HF2D Page 46 46
Ta$le 1*. T(eoretical Optimum ,or &PF'*-* 0 "f 5 173 ,t )
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 932B9
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 9@9
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3D
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 3B@2
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 92
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@26
Folds of increase of $/ 6D9
1s "e see- no" the maximum possible dimensionless producti+ity index is less- only 9@9- but e+en this
can not be reali.ed as the error message indicates#
(uboptimal placement "ith constraints satisfied
*ass of proppant reduced
Ta$le 1*. T(eoretical Optimum ,or &PF'*-* 0 "f 5 173 ,t )
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) D@-2B@
$roppant number- &prop 99A2A
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 95D
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 32
Half length- xf- ft 3B@2
$ropped "idth- "- inch 933
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@9D
Folds of increase of $/ 663
HF2D Page 47 47
/n fact only D@-699 lb proppant can be placed because the "idth at 3B@ ft is less than it "as at 233 ft and
because "e need more "idth to compensate for the loss of conducti+ity (due to embedment)
To make the design possible "e "ill depart from the optimum by multiplying the theoretical optimum
length by a factor /n this case "e select the factor to target 2@9 ft for length- so "e change the height to
2@9 ft (remember- "e still use the 2#3 aspect ratio as most probable) and then "e ha+e to find a factor
resulting in the half length 2@9 ft This +alue is 3@B#
Ta$le 12. -eig(t and ;onstraint ,or &PF'*-2
Fracture height- ft 2@9
*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgal
neat fluid 32
*ultiply opt length by factor 3@B
*ultiply &olte pad by factor 3
Ta$le 13. First Part o, Output ,or &PF'*-2
)utput
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 99A5F
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 95D
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3D
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 3@BA
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 93
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@9B
Folds of increase of $/ 665
HF2D Page 48 48
The message sho"s that the sub'optimal placement "ith the re,uired modification can be reali.ed#
(uboptimal placement "ith constraints satisfied
?ength modified
Ta$le 14. 1dditional Output ,or &PF'*-2
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 99A5F
Dimensionless $/- >dact 955
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 9F
Half length- xf- ft 2@39
$ropped "idth- "- inch 99B
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '5AB
Folds of increase of $/ 63A
&o" "e can place all the A9-999 lb proppant but "e ha+e to depart from the theoretical optimum
placement The ;success< is- ho"e+er- ,uestionable- because "ith all the A9-999 lb proppant placed "e
still create only a ' 5AB e,ui+alent skin- "hile the D@-699 lb N placed according to *$F96'6 N actually
creates a better skin# '@9D
Oy no" the reader might feel "hy "e call our approach ;4nified Fracture Design< The systematic use of
the proppant number and the optimality criterion makes the decisions more transparent
A.+ No:Da"#4 F0o? i t>% !"a#t$"%
For high'rate gas "ells- "here a certain percentage li,uid content of the gas is ine+itable- the concept of
proppant pack permeability deser+es special attention 2hen the gas'li,uid mixture flo"s in the propped
fracture "ith high +elocity- the li,uid droplets collide "ith the proppant grains and the result is a
HF2D Page 49 49
significant dissipation of energy (loss of pressure) 1s a result- the nominal permeability contrast (in the
fracture +s in the formation) is not representati+e for the relati+e magnitude of pressure losses The
fracture beha+es- as if its apparent permeability "ere much less- than the nominal +alue measured at
single phase flo" conditions There is an extensi+e literature a+ailable describing this non'Darcy flo"
effect in the fracture (>in and $enny- 2999- !ikes- * 2999- *ilton'Tayler- 3AA6- Cidley- 3AA9- Cuppy et
al- 3AB2) From our point of +ie" it is enough to understand- that at actual flo" conditions the proppant
pack can be described by an apparent permeability N or if "e "ish N a correction factor multiplying the
nominal permeability Depending on the actual +elocity of the gas- the li,uid content and the droplet si.e
distribution- in addition to the proppant ,uality- the correction factor can be as lo" as 93
The treatment of this phenomenon "ithin the 4nified Fracture Design is relati+ely simple 4sing an
estimate of the correction factor- the apparent proppant permeability should be reduced- for instance from
D9-999 md to 39-999 md From the calculated maximum producti+ity index N corresponding to the
corrected proppant number N a better estimate of the anticipated gas +elocity can be obtained (For this
calculation a dra"do"n has to be assumed and the properties of the gas N li,uid mixture ha+e to be
kno"n) 2ith the impro+ed estimate of gas +elocity- an impro+ed estimate of the non'Darcy flo"
correction factor can be obtained and the design can be continued using the corrected proppant number
For instance- in our pre+ious example the proppant number calculated "ith a nominal permeability#
D9-999 md "as obtained as Nprop G 99A@ /n the presence of significant non'Darcy effect- this number
should be reduced to Nprop G 99@ or N in extreme cases N to Nprop G 993 /f "e "ant to compensate for the
loss of producti+ity- "e ha+e to increase the amount of proppant placed into the pay by the same factor
A., Co'&%2atig !o" !"a#t$"% !a#% 2@i
/n a certain reser+oir it is suspected that the fracturing fluid filtrate "ill interact "ith the formation and an
estimated fracture face skin sff G 3 "ill be created 2hat is the effect of this phenomenon on the
producti+ity of the "ell and ho" can "e compensate for itS 1ssume the proppant number of the suggested
treatment is about Nprop G 93
2e recall- that the maximum of the dimensionless producti+ity index that can be achie+ed "ith Nprop G 93
is (see !hapter 6)#
5F 9
ln @ 9 AA 9
3
max
=

=
prop
D
N
J
(B)
HF2D Page 50 50
/f there is a fracture face skin sff G 3- (and "e assume the simple case of uniform influx) then the actual
producti+ity "ill be
62 9
3 ln @ 9 AA 9
3
=
+
=
prop
actual D
N
J
(A)
The fracture face skin causes a considerable decrease in producti+ity From the e,uation it is seen that
approximately e
2
G F5 times more proppant "ould compensate for the loss of producti+ity caused by a
fracture face skin of one

A.- F"a#t$"% D%2ig !o" Hig> P%"'%a6i0it4 Fo"'atio< HPF81
/n high permeability formations the optimality criterion "ill result in a short and "ide fracture To ha+e a
basis for comparison- "e "ill use the pre+ious data set except for the follo"ing +ariables# permeability-
plane strain modulus- spurt loss and leakoff coefficient
HF2D Page 51 51
Ta$le 16. Input +ata For &PF'1
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm A9-999
(p gra+ of proppant material ("aterG3) 2D@
$orosity of proppant pack 96B
$roppant pack permeability- md D9-999
*ax propp diameter- Dpmax- inch 9963
Formation permeability- md @9
$ermeable (leakoff) thickness- ft FD
2ell 8adius- ft 92@
2ell drainage radius- ft F5@
$re'treatment skin factor 99
Fracture height- ft
$lane strain modulus- E7 (psi) F@EP9@
(lurry in0ection rate (t"o "ings- li,P prop)- bpm 299
8heology- %7 (lbfIft
2
)s
n7
99F
8heology- n7 95@
?eakoff coefficient in permeable layer- ftImin
3I2
993
(purt loss coefficient- (p- galIftQ2 992
The line of fracture height is still left empty 2e kno" that the gross pay is 399 ft- that is the distance
bet"een the top and bottom perforations is 399 ft 1 reasonable assumption for high permeability
fracturing N in the a!sence of any relia!le data on stress contrast N is- that extensi+e height gro"th "ill
not occur as far as the target length is less than half of the height 1t this point "e put a starting estimate
of hf G399 ft into our design spreadsheet and "e specify the follo"ing operational constraintIparameters-
as sho"n in Table 3B#
HF2D Page 52 52
Ta$le 17. 1dditional Input For -PF'1
*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgallon fluid 3D
*ultiply opt length by factor 3
*ultiply pad by factor 3
Ta$le 18. T(eoretical optimum ,or -PF'1-1
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 99323
Dimensionless $/- >dopt 963
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3D
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft @DF
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 9A
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '59@
Folds of increase of $/ 22F
From the first design attempt "e see that the proppant number is &prop G 9932 This is a typical situation
for high permeability formations# not e+en a considerable amount of proppant and "ell contained fracture
height "ill produce large proppant numbers The message says that
(uboptimal placement "ith constraints satisfied
*ass of proppant reduced
HF2D Page 53 53
Ta$le 2'. 1ctual placement !it(out TSO design: -PF'1-1
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) 39-F92
$roppant number- &prop 99935
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 923
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 92
Half length- xf- ft @DF
$ropped "idth- "- inch 933
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '2@9
Folds of increase of $/ 3@6
/n fact only 39-F99 lbm proppant can be placed into the formation- if the target length is @DF ft (uch a
treatment "ould reali.e a +ery lo" proppant number and an e,ui+alent skin of N2@- that is usually not
satisfactory- especially because other factors can decrease further the stimulation effect
The problem is- that the "idth of the fracture (e+en though this is a relati+ely ;soft< formation) created
during normal fracture propagation is not enough to accept more proppant (&ote that "e ha+e already
increased the maximum possible proppant concentration to 3D ppga- but that is still not enough)
The solution to the problem is to design a T() treatment %no"ing that the formation is ;soft< and
relati+ely unconsolidated- "e intentionally arrest fracture propagation at the target length (@DF ft) and
inflate the fracture from there on
For the T() design "e use exactly the same input as pre+iously- the only additional parameter is#
T() criterion 2dryI2"et 9F
The meaning of this parameter is- that "e anticipate the fracture to stop propagating if N because of fluid
loss- in other "ords dehydration N the ;dry "idth< is already near to the ;"et "idth< The dry "idth is
defined as the "idth of the fracture after all fluid ha+e leaked off- "hile the "et "idth is the "idth during
HF2D Page 54 54
the treatment "hen still part of the proppant carrying fluid has not leaked off 2e use the critical +alue
of 9F- but depending on the actual fracture shape and proppant type the +alue might +ary
Ta$le 21. 1ctual placement !it( TSO design: -PF'1-TSO
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 99323
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9632F
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3D5
Half length- xf- ft @DF
$ropped "idth- "- inch 9A2B2
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '59@
Folds of increase of $/ 22F

From the output "e see- that "ith T() "e could place all the proppant into the @F'ft long fracture This is
achie+ed by (internally) ad0usting the proppant schedule to reach the critical proppant concentration in the
fracture "hen the lateral extension reaches the target length
HF2D Page 55 55
Ta$le 22. 1ctual placement !it( TSO design: -PF'1-TSO
Treatment details
$ad pumping time- min 953
T() time- min FA
Total pumping time- min 25B
*ass of proppant in frac at T()- lbm 33-9D@
1dded proppant concentration at T()- ca- lbmIgal li, 29
Half length at T()- xf- ft @DF
1+erage "idth at T()- inch 32
&et pressure at T()- psi B33
*ax added proppant concentration at end- lbmIgal'li, 3D9
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 36
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 5B2
/n fact 33-999 lb proppant is placed into the fracture in a usual manner in less than B minutes 1fter that
the fracture length remains constant and only the "idth inflated


Fig. * Fluid9 proppant sc(edule and net pressure ,orecast ,or t(e TSO treatment
The net pressure is considerable- almost @99 psi at the end of the treatment This is anticipated- because
the optimum placement calls for an almost 3'inch propped fracture "idth
HF2D Page 56 56
.
,
'.
',
).
),
. , '. ', ). ), /.
P65pi28 ti5e, 5i2
(
i
9
6
i
d

i
2
:
e
7
t
i
1
2

r
a
t
e
,

;
p
5
.
)
6
+
K
'.
')
'6
'+
'K
7
a
,

l
;
5

p
r
1
p

a
d
d
e
d

t
1

8
a
l
l
1
2

l
i
9
6
i
d
.
'..
)..
/..
6..
,..
+..
. , '. ', ). ), /.
P65pi28 ti5e, 5i2
&
e
t

p
r
e
3
3
6
r
e
,

p
3
i
A.. E5t"%'% Hig> P%"'%a6i0it4< HPF82
/n naturally fractured formations se+eral hundred md permeabilities are not uncommon To in+estigate
this territory "e repeat the design "ith the same input- except for
Formation permeability- md @99
Ta$le 2*. T(eoretical optimum ,or: -PF'2
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 99932
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 926
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3D
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 3FA
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 2A
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '2A9
Folds of increase of $/ 3DF
1s "e see- the target length is no" 3B ft /n fact the design program can produce a T() design for this
case also#
HF2D Page 57 57
Ta$le 22. First attempt ,or -PF'2
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 99932
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 922AA
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3D5
Half length- xf- ft 3FA
$ropped "idth- "- inch 2A6@3
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '2A9
Folds of increase of $/ 3DF
but the design cannot be accepted- because it "ould result in an extremely high net pressure- as seen from
Table 2@
Ta$le 23. First attempt ,or -PF'2
Treatment details
$ad pumping time- min 99D
T() time- min 32
Total pumping time- min 3BD
*ass of proppant in frac at T()- lbm 2-6@6
1dded proppant concentration at T()- ca- lbmIgal li, 69
Half length at T()- xf- ft 3FA
1+erage "idth at T()- inch @5
&et pressure at T()- psi @5@
*ax added proppant concentration at end- lbmIgal'li, 3D9
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 9A
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 2352
HF2D Page 58 58
(e+eral parameters ha+e unrealistic +alues in the results of the first attempt The extremely short fracture
N e+en if it could be reali.ed N "ould not be necessarily useful- because the near "ellbore damage might
be still dominating at such distances 1 reasonable design "ould call for longer fracture From an
operational point of +ie"- net pressure limitation is the most important constraint in high permeability
fracturing 1 maximum allo"able net pressure should be specified from safety considerations 1 typical
+alue "ould be for instance 3999 psi Therefore "e "ill modify our design in order to satisfy this
limitation
2e ha+e se+eral options
)ne possibility is to depart from the optimum length- that is multiplying it by a factor 1 realistic design
"ould try to keep the 3#3 aspect ratio- therefore "e select
*ultiply opt length by factor 6
That "ould gi+e us a placement
Ta$le 24. -PF'2 !it( modi,ied lengt(
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 99932
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 929@B
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 93B
Half length- xf- ft @6B
$ropped "idth- "- inch 9AFB5
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '26A
Folds of increase of $/ 35A
HF2D Page 59 59
Treatment details
$ad pumping time- min 96B
T() time- min F2
Total pumping time- min 252
*ass of proppant in frac at T()- lbm 39-69B
1dded proppant concentration at T()- ca- lbmIgal li, 23
Half length at T()- xf- ft @6B
1+erage "idth at T()- inch 36
&et pressure at T()- psi FAF
*ax added proppant concentration at end- lbmIgal'li, 3D9
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 36
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi @23
(uch a treatment already satisfies the net pressure constraint The calculated design calls for starting the
addition of proppant almost from the beginning of the treatment 4nfortunately- the design depends
hea+ily on the selected T() criterion and on the accuracy of the leakoff description /n reality- it is
difficult to predict the T() "ith such an accuracy The art of arresting fracture propagation but still
a+oiding a near'"ellbore screenout (that "ould cause us to stop the treatment) often re,uires the intuition
and experience of the fracturing engineer The operator company may increase the chance for success by
reducing the risks associated "ith the treatment That leads us to another possibility# to reduce the amount
of proppant and multiply the optimum length by a factor- at the same time#
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm 5@-999
*ultiply opt length by factor 5
HF2D Page 60 60
Ta$le 26. -PF'2 !it( less proppant and modi,ied lengt(
$roppant number- &prop 9999D
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) 5@-999
$roppant number- &prop 9999D
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 93B5F
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 939
Half length- xf- ft @9F
$ropped "idth- "- inch 9@3BA
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '3B5
Folds of increase of $/ 365
Treatment details
$ad pumping time- min 965
T() time- min D@
Total pumping time- min 359
*ass of proppant in frac at T()- lbm A-@26
1dded proppant concentration at T()- ca- lbmIgal li, 23
Half length at T()- xf- ft @9F
1+erage "idth at T()- inch 9D
&et pressure at T()- psi FB3
*ax added proppant concentration at end- lbmIgal'li, 3D9
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 32
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 26A
HF2D Page 61 61
The important thing to note is- that there is little to lose "hen "e reduce the proppant number from
99932 to 9999D /n this proppant number region the dimensionless producti+ity index is less sensiti+e to
the amount of proppant or to the departure from the optimum length- as a matter of fact )nly a
moderately negati+e e,ui+alent skin factor can be reali.ed at such lo" proppant numbers This explains
the "idely accepted +ie" that in extremely high permeability formations the most important issue is ;to
get behind the damage< and create a pack (;halo<) around the screen The actual fracture length has less
significance *any high permeability fracturing treatments use only @9-999 lbm or less proppant

A./ Lo? P%"'%a6i0it4 F"a#t$"ig< LPF81
To maintain consistency "ith our pre+ious examples "e consider a lo" permeability formation "ith most
of the input parameters similar to our base case#
Ta$le 27. Input ,or /PF'1
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm A9-999
(p gra+ of proppant material ("aterG3) 2D@
$orosity of proppant pack 96B
$roppant pack permeability- md D9-999
*ax D2rop diameter- Dpmax- inch 9963
Formation permeability- md 9@
$ermeable (leakoff) thickness- ft FD
2ell 8adius- ft 92@
2ell drainage radius- ft F5@
$re'treatment skin factor 99
HF2D Page 62 62
Fracture (eig(t9 ,t
$lane strain modulus- E7 (psi) 299EP9D
(lurry in0ection rate (t"o "ings- li,P prop)- bpm 299
8heology- %7 (lbfIftQ2)RsQn7 99F9
8heology- n7 95@
?eakoff coefficient in permeable layer- ftIminQ9@ 99929
(purt loss coefficient- (p- galIftQ2 99939
*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgal neat fluid 32
*ultiply opt length by factor 3
*ultiply &olte pad by factor 3
1gain "e "ill start the design by specifying hf G 399 ft
Ta$le 28. T(eoretical optimum assuming 1'' ,t ,racture (eig(t: /PF'1
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 329FF
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 39D
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 2A
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 5269
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 93
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf 'D69
Folds of increase of $/ FDD
HF2D Page 63 63
The proppant number is large- because of the large contrast in permeabilities 1t such large proppant
number the indicated fracture half length is already near to the ;side length< of the drainage area (this is
"hy the optimum dimensionless fracture conducti+ity is significantly more than 3D)
/f such a fracture could be reali.ed- an extremely large dimensionless producti+ity index "ould be
established 4nfortunately- there is little chance that a fracture "ith aspect ratio B#3 could be created
"ithout height increase /t is more likely that an aspect ratio of about 2#3 "ill be obtained
Therefore "e base our design on the assumption of aspect ratio 2#3 !hanging the fracture height to
699 ft- the theoretical optimum +alues become more realistic- because the decrease of +olumetric
proppant efficiency reduces the proppant number
Ta$le 28. T(eoretical optimum assuming *'' ,t ,racture (eig(t: /PF'1-1
)ptimum placement "ithout constraints
$roppant number- &prop 9592D
Dimensionless $/- >Dopt 9DB
)ptimal dimensionless fracture cond- !fDopt 3B
)ptimal half length- xfopt- ft 69A5
)ptimal propped "idth- "opt- inch 93
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@FB
Folds of increase of $/ 5A2

HF2D Page 64 64
Ta$le 28. 1ctual placement assuming *'' ,t ,racture (eig(t $ut unc(anged leako,, coe,,icient:
/PF'1-2
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 9592D
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9DB
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3B
Half length- xf- ft 69A5
$ropped "idth- "- inch 99D
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@FB
Folds of increase of $/ 5A2
Treatment details
Efficiency- eta- L DF3
$umping time- te- min @2F
$ad pumping time- te- min 395
Exponent of added proppant concentration- eps 93ADD
4niform proppant concentration in frac at end- lbmIftQ6 22D
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 9@
*ax added proppant concentration- lb per gal clean fluid 6@
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 336F
2hile the design is no" more realistic- one +ariable deser+es special attention The fluid efficiency
increased to DF L 2hy did this happenS The reason is that- according to our definition- leakoff happens
only in the pay layer ("ith net thickness FD ft) &o"- that the actual fracture height is taken as 699 ft- only
one ,uarter of the total surface contributes to leakoff and the efficiency is +ery high /n reality it is not
likely- that perfectly non'permeable shale is surrounding the pay Therefore it is "ise to reconsider the
leakoff (and spurt loss) parameters once a significant change in fracture height has been introduced
HF2D Page 65 65
8epeating the design "ith correspondingly ad0usted leakoff and spurt loss coefficients#
?eakoff coefficient in permeable layer- ftIminQ9@ 999@9
(purt loss coefficient- (p- galIftQ2 9992@9
"e obtain the results in Table 69
Ta$le *'. 1ctual placement assuming *'' ,t ,racture (eig(t and ad<usted leako,, and spurt loss
coe,,icients: /PF'1-*
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 9592D
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9DB
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD 3B
Half length- xf- ft 69A5
$ropped "idth- "- inch 99D
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@FB
Folds of increase of $/ 5A2
Treatment details
Efficiency- eta- L 6B2
$umping time- te- min A2B
$ad pumping time- te- min 53@
Exponent of added proppant concentration- eps 955F@
4niform proppant concentration in frac at end- lbmIftQ6 22D
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 9@
*ax added proppant concentration- lb per gal clean fluid 6@
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 336F

HF2D Page 66 66
The fluid efficiency is more realistic no"- but the final fracture length and propped "idth is exactly the
same as pre+iously Ho" is it possible that such a large change in the leakoff parameters does not affect
the final resultsS The ans"er to this ,uestion re+eals the main difference bet"een simulation and desin
/n our design procedure the target length and target propped "idth are deri+ed from the reser+oir and
proppant properties The leakoff parameters (and other +ariables) determine ho" "e achie+e our final
goal- but the goal is the same- "hether there is intensi+e leakoff or not The change in the leakoff
parameters sho"s up in the actual proppant schedule &o" "e ha+e to pump for a considerably longer
time
Experienced fracturing engineers "ould probably not accept the design yet The point is that the indicated
propped fracture "idth is only 99D inch- that is less than 6 grains of the 29I59 mesh proppant 1 good
design ensures a certain minimum "idth (or a certain minimum areal proppant concentration)
1t this point "e either increase the amount of proppant or depart from the indicated optimum length- no"
multiplying it by a factor less than one The ad+antage of creating a shorter fracture sho"s up also in the
+olumetric proppant efficiency# in other "ords keeping the aspect ratio 2#3 "e "ill ha+e less proppant
;a+oiding< the pay The rele+ant lines of the input are sho"n in Table 63
Ta$le *1. Final design: /PF'1-2
$roppant mass for (t"o "ings)- lbm A9-999
T
Fracture height- ft 2999
T
?eakoff coefficient in permeable layer- ftIminQ9@ 999@9
(purt loss coefficient- (p- galIftQ2 9992@
*ax possible added proppant concentration- lbmIgal neat fluid 32
*ultiply opt length by factor 9@@
*ultiply &olte pad by factor 3

HF2D Page 67 67
Ta$le *2. 1ctual placement: /PF'1-2
1ctual placement
$roppant mass placed (2 "ing) A9-999
$roppant number- &prop 9D96A
Dimensionless $/- >Dact 9DF
Dimensionless fracture cond- !fD DF
Half length- xf- ft 3AB6
$ropped "idth- "- inch 936
$ost treatment pseudo skin factor- sf '@FD
Folds of increase of $/ 5B@
Ta$le **. Some +etails o, t(e 1ctual placement: /PF'1-2
Treatment details
Efficiency- eta- L 6B6
$umping time- te- min 6B@
$ad pumping time- te- min 3F2
Exponent of added proppant concentration- eps 955@F
4niform proppant concentration in frac at end- lbmIftQ6 @56
1real proppant concentration after closure- lbmIftQ2 33
*ax added proppant concentration- lb per gal clean fluid 39B
&et pressure at end of pumping- psi 3DD5
&ote that targeting the smaller fracture allo"ed us to reduce the assumed height as "ell Therefore- the
design can utili.e more efficiently the A9-999 lbm proppant The post'treatment dimensionless
producti+ity index and e,ui+alent skin factor are basically the same as in the case of ?$F93'6 The final
design- ?$F93'5- is more practical and certainly easier to carry out
HF2D Page 68 68

A.; S$''a"4
/n this 1ppendix "e sho"ed some examples of practical fracture design The concept of proppant
number and dimensionless producti+ity index helped us to make important decisions "ithout going into
unnecessary details The design spreadsheet "as used extensi+ely to consider "hat'if scenarios and
in+estigate options /n hydraulic fracture design- "here the reliability of the a+ailable input data is al"ays
limited and the process itself is inherently stochastic- it is extremely important to proceed in an
e+olutionary manner- continuously impro+ing the design process The simple spreadsheet does not
substitute the sophisticated ;6D< fracture simulators 8ather- it pro+ides a flexible tool to make the basic
decisions before the final design

HF2D Page 69 69