GOHFER Variable Sensitivity

BASE MATCH OF SIMULATED DATA

Actual Data Dashed Lines
Simulated Data Solid Lines

35# HPG w/ 20/40 Badger Sand

BASE FRACTURE GEOMETRY

PRESSURE COMPARISON - WIDTH EXPONENT = 2.8

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Less pressure gain because of higher flow capacity in fracture.

Lower pressure drop down the fracture makes the final ISIP lower
than the base case. (appropriate for gelled treatments)

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON DECREASE IN WIDTH EXPONENT

Base Fracture Geometry

The created fracture geometry has less width because of the lower net pressure, and
generates longer length as the fluid can move more easily.

PRESSURE COMPARISON - WIDTH EXPONENT = 3.2

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Increased pressure drop down the fracture makes the

pressure trend upward through the job and results in a
higher ISIP. (appropriate for slickwater treatments)

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN WIDTH EXPONENT

Base Fracture Geometry

The higher net pressure increases the fracture width and reduces length.

PRESSURE COMPARISON TORTUOSITY = 100

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Increase in observed treating pressure due to high near wellbore

pressure loss. Tortuosity erodes linearly with the mass of proppant
pumped. Early time treating pressure is more affected. ISIP has no
change as the tortuosity pressure drop disappears on shut-in.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN TORTUOSITY

Base Fracture Geometry

No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON CD = 0.5

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Lower perforation entry coefficients (less efficient perforations)

leads to early increase in observed treating pressure. Addition of
proppant through perfs will increase coefficient. No change in ISIP.
A much lower CD will generate a more rapid and almost exponential
decrease in treating pressure.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON DECREASE IN COEFFICIENT OF

DISCHARGE

Base Fracture Geometry

No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON CD = 0.9

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Higher perforation entry coefficients (more efficient perforations)

leads to early decrease in observed treating pressure. Addition of
proppant through perfs will increase coefficient. No change in ISIP.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN COEFFICIENT OF

DISCHARGE

Base Fracture Geometry

No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON MODULUS STIFFNESS = 0.001

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Increase in the rate of modulus change when the rock yields nonlinearly results in an increase in the slope of the treating
pressure with time, once CFOP is exceeded. .

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN MODULUS STIFFNESS

Base Fracture Geometry

Higher modulus leads to higher stress and fracture pressure. Fracture may grow out of
zone resulting in lower average width and proppant concentration.

PRESSURE COMPARISON MODULUS STIFFNESS = -0.001

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Decrease in the rate of modulus change when the rock yields

non-linearly results in an decrease in the slope of the treating
pressure with time, once CFOP is exceeded.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON DECREASE IN MODULUS

STIFFNESS

Base Fracture Geometry

Lower modulus leads to lower stress and fracture pressure. Fracture width grows larger
and possibly shorter resulting in higher average proppant concentration.

PRESSURE COMPARISON CXSP = 4 (DEFAULT - 2)

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Higher pipe friction associated with the addition of proppant in

the pipe leads to increase in observed treating pressure. No
change in ISIP.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN SAND EXPONENT

Base Fracture Geometry

No impact on fracture geometry

PRESSURE COMPARISON PHOLD = 1.7 (DEFAULT 1.2)

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Increase in proppant holdup proppant results in additional proppant

being held-up by interference with the fracture walls. Proppant is
traveling at a slower velocity compared to the fluid. Increase in
observed treating pressure but no screenout in this case.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN PHOLD

Base Fracture Geometry

Higher PHOLD results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant concentration due to
more proppant being deposited near the wellbore.

PRESSURE COMPARISON PHOLD = 2.2

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Additional increase in proppant holdup proppant results in

earlier pressure increase and premature screenout (all
perforations blocked with proppant).

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON LARGER INCREASE IN PHOLD

Base Fracture Geometry

Larger increase in PHOLD results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant
concentration due to more proppant being deposited near the wellbore and a screenout.

PRESSURE COMPARISON PHOLD V/H FACTOR = 1.5

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Increase in PHOLD vertical to horizontal anisotropy (V/H)

increases the proppant holdup vertically across layers resulting
in early pressure increase and premature screenout.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN PHOLD V/H FACTOR

Base Fracture Geometry

Increase in PHOLD V/H Factor results in shorter fracture and higher average proppant
concentration due to more proppant being deposited (and distributed vertically) near the
wellbore and a screenout.

PRESSURE COMPARISON PZS V/H FACTOR = 1.2

Actual Data Dashed Lines

Simulated Data Solid Lines

Increase in PZS vertical to horizontal anisotropy increases the net

fluid pressure over the PZS to grow vertically compared to
horizontally. May result in increased observed treating pressure
due to higher fracture pressure.

FRACTURE GEOMETRY COMPARISON INCREASE IN PZS V/H FACTOR

Base Fracture Geometry

Increase in PZS V/H Factor may result in longer more contained fracture. Negligible affect
on this example.