SPE 133456

Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned?

George E. King, Apache Corporation

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September 2010.
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 Engineers 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
Although high gas flow rates from shales are a relatively recent phenomenon, the knowledge bases of shale-specific
well completions, fracturing and shale well operations have actually been growing for more than three decades and
shale gas production reaches back almost one hundred ninety years. During the last decade of gas shale
development, projected recovery of shale gas-in-place has increased from about 2% to estimates of about 50%;
mainly through the development and adaptation of technologies to fit shale gas developments. Adapting technologies,
including multi-stage fracturing of horizontal wells, slickwater fluids with minimum viscosity and simultaneous
fracturing, have evolved to increase formation-face contact of the fracture system into the range of 9.2 million m2 (100
million ft2) in a very localized area of the reservoir by opening natural fractures. These technologies have made
possible development of enormous gas reserves that were completely unavailable only a few years ago. Current and
next generation technologies promise even more energy availability with advances in hybrid fracs, fracture complexity,
fracture flow stability and methods of re-using water used in fracturing. This work surveyed over 350 shale completion,
fracturing and operations publications, linking geosciences and engineering information together to relay learnings that
will identify both intriguing information on selective opening and stabilizing of micro-fracture systems within the shales
and new fields of endeavor needed to achieve the next level of shale development advancement.
Introduction
The first lessons from this study are:
No two shales are alike. Shales vary aerially and vertically within a trend, even along the wellbore.
Shale fabric differences, combined with in-situ stresses and geologic changes are often sufficient to require
stimulation changes within a single well to obtain best recovery.
Understanding and predicting shale well performance requires identification of a critical data set that must be
collected to enable optimization of the completion and stimulation design.

There are no optimum, one-size-fits-all completion or stimulation designs for shale wells.
Although gas shale completions literature is developing rapidly, the history of gas shale research offers a starting point
that can help explain many phenomena seen in shales world-wide. To this point, many of the efforts in gas shale
developments have been sheltered within a handful of companies that have pushed their own gas-shale learning
envelopes as a competitive advantage. There are, however, many solid advances in shale that have been reported in
the technical literature. Of the 350+ references reviewed for this report and the 250 included, >60% have been written
in the last 36 months and learnings are increasing rapidly. This paper seeks to report and define many of these
advances. Information from SPE, AAPG, consultant reports, academic and government work have been reviewed to
establish a history of what we, as an industry, have done and hopefully provide commentary on what enabling
technologies need to be developed and refined. In this spirit, discussion on geology, geochemistry and seismic have

SPE 133456

been briefly reported to lay a foundation for the fracturing discussion.

This work is not about any single shale; rather, it focuses on characteristics within shale that can be addressed with
completion, stimulation and production technology to create opportunities for increasing gas recovery. The objective of
this paper is to compile, explain and link as much usable information as possible on topics of completion, frac and
production behaviors.
Production from gas shales in the US began in the 1820s, and has grown as shale gas technology has been
developed (Drake, 2007). Technology has made many shale gas resources widely possible only in the last few years
(Boyer, 2006; Bowker, 2003; Bowker, 2007). Gas shale advancements have led to increasing recovery of initial gasin-place (GIP) from an initial 2% recovery (circa 1998, Barnett Shale, Mitchell Energy) to a report of over 50% recovery
of initial GIP (EOG, five well simultaneous frac, Barnett Shale, Fowler Lease, Johnson County, TX, 2008). The
expected ultimate recovery (EUR) of GIP for most modern shale gas wells is believed to be in the 15 to 35% range,
depending on the shale, completion technique and operator. Gains in EUR have been driven by shale-specific
technology adaptations in horizontal wells and fracturing technology. One problem with shale EURs is the projected life
of the well. Although many operators use 50 years as a life projection, there is little net calculated present value (NPV)
beyond the first few years. The issue is also consistent for tight-gas developments as continuous well production
improvements have pushed economic well life past 50+ years (Amoco data on Red Oak field, Oklahoma). One
unaddressed and very significant challenge is the ability to keep these older wells producing and de-liquefied at the
expected late-life low gas rates.
Decline curves for shale wells exhibit early sharp declines as the easily accessed free gas and fluids in the fractures
are produced. From reports on long term production, early decline may be hyperbolic, followed by a transition to
relatively stable production that may be exponential, with many companies and reserve auditors reporting n factors
above 2. Flow paths through the small formation pores and unpropped natural fractures are the dominant gas
production route for tight gas sands, but recent work on flow paths in shales have identified interconnected pores in the
kerogen and organic carbon materials that may dominate the matrix component of both free gas storage and fluid
movement (Wang, 2009, Schieber, 2010). Adsorbed gas will begin to support the produced gas volume in some
shales as reservoir pressure is reduced. This assumes that sufficient production engineering is applied to maintain
and maximize fluid recovery after the frac and minimize natural fracture closure. Since shale gas wells have been
known to flow at very low rates for over 40 years, current economics, in addition to developing technology, must enter
into any discussion of practical shale gas recovery numbers (Hartman, 2008; Bustin, 2006; Bustin 2008; Kundert,
2009; Walser, 2007; Bartenhagen).
Discussion
Technology developments in the North American Devonian shale during in the late 1970s and proceeding into the
90s, chiefly from a loose alliance of the US Department of Energy (DOE), the Gas Research Institute (GRI) and
numerous operators, combined to collectively produce several breakthroughs in understanding shale gas
developments. These early Devonian shale technology adaptations included horizontal wells, multi-stage fracturing
and slick water fracturing. Although interesting and well proven, these adaptations did not catch on with shale gas
operators until they were further refined, enlarged in scope and applied in the Barnett shale. Technology
improvements were and continue to be the main drivers of the increase in gas recovery from the late 1990s through
2010.
The four basic technology applications that have fueled this shale gas recovery include:
Slickwater fracturing (SWF), using very few additives (ultra low viscosity), replaced gel, gas and foam fracs in
many shales. SWF lowered fracturing cost, penetrated and enlarged natural fractures and significantly increased
the undamaged fracture contact area with many shale formations, but propping ability suffered (Britt, 2006;
Grieser, 2003; Ely; 2009; Schein, 2004; Fontaine, 2008).
Horizontal Wells predominantly replaced vertical wells. The newer horizontals, usually transverse to the fracture
direction, commonly with toe-up lengths of 750 m to over 1600 m (about 2500 ft to over 5000 ft) are usually either
cased and cemented or isolated with packers to enable multi-stage fracturing (Crafton, 2008; Brannon, 2009,
Cipolla, 2009; Fisher, 2004; Grieser, 2009; Wiley, 2004).

SPE 133456

Ten to twenty or more fracture stages increased fracture contact with the formation and produced high initial rates
and improved recovery (Grieser, 2009; Watson, 2008; Durst, 2008, Custaneda, 2010).
Simultaneous or sequential fracturing uses real-time stress changes created by fracs in an offset well to divert
fractures in an adjacent well into unprocessed part of the rock (Warpinski, 1989), producing significant
improvements in productivity over a single well fracture treatments (Grigg, 2008; Mutalik, 2008; Waters, 2009;
King, 2008).

These methods are not novel, but have been adapted to shales as our understanding of reservoir development and
flow path construction has progressed. The first three technologies were applied in Devonian shales ten years before
being used in the Barnett shale (Yost, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993; Ameri, 1987; Komar 1979; Overby 1988;
Salamy 1987, 1991; Shaw, 1989; Zammerilli, 1989; Zuber 1987). As we learn more about what increases shale gas
recovery, technology will undoubtedly continue to evolve. Use of technology reduces well count to develop a resource
while achieving more complete recovery of hydrocarbon reserves.
Six additional technology advances, closely aligned with stimulations and production operations in gas and oily shales,
are beginning to deliver improved reserve recovery and/or ensure that shale development is environmentally
acceptable:
The first major need is identifying and obtaining critical information sufficient to select, optimize and place
completions and stimulations that will economically produce the reservoir (Sondergeld, 2010; Rich, 2010). This
critical data set may include 3D seismic, geologic mapping, core, petrophysical study, open hole logs, DFITs,
FETs, frac microseismic, tracers, stimulation behavior, flowback information and production response. All this
information may not be available at once, particularly on the early wells, but the challenge is to rapidly obtain,
verify and incorporate the information in a way that allows efficient learning. Use of vertical wells to explore shale
geology, gather information and test completion techniques and production response is a common theme in most
new plays.
Increasing fracture-to-shale contact area; referred to as complexity or networking, could benefit from 20+ fracture
stages. Using adequately propped primary fractures as a starting point, highly developed and stable complex
fracture networks are possible and contact areas of as much as 9 million m2 (~100+ million ft2) has been estimated
from microseismic (Warpinski, 2007). Increasing wellbore lengths and refining fracture initiation points makes this
stage increase practical (Chipperfield, 2007; Maxwell, 2002; Palmer, 2007; Cipolla, 2008; Maxwell, 2009; Olson,
2009).
Improving development, placement and longevity of the small fractures (fissures, micro-cracks, or opened
laminations, etc.) should enhance and stabilize production (Grieser, 2007; Cipolla, 2009; Olsen, 2009; Coulter,
2004). Although improvements in fracture complexity address the opening of these small fractures, it may not
ensure that the cracks remain viable flowpaths. Improved methods of propping the small fractures and methods of
recovering more of the load water are being addressed (Penny, 2005, 2006; Kaufman, 2008; Pursley 2007;
Paktinat , 2006, 2006, 2007), but more advances are needed with proppant specifically developed for propping
shale natural fractures and microcracks. Buoyant proppant, smaller proppant and prop formed in situ have been
discussed.
Although slick water fracturing has proved itself in many shales, there are many cases where SWF has not
provided sufficient propped flow capacity to develop a gas or oil productive shale. For these cases, a hybrid fluid
using SWF to open the fissures and a more viscous fluid to place the main body of the proppant may be
warranted.
Evolving shale gas production techniques are needed, including frac flowback and keeping the wells from loading
up with produced or condensed water. (Crafton, 2009; Rimassa, 2009; Asadi, 2008; Willberg, 1998; Woodroof,
2003; Yang, 1997; Woodroof, 2003; Townsend, 2005).
Developing methods of treating / reusing frac flowback water and use of higher saline frac source waters will
minimize dependence on fresh water for slickwater fracturing (Burnett, 2009; Horn 2009; Gupta, 2009) and
minimize disposal needs.

SPE 133456

Early shale developments required many years of trial and error work before scientific work pinpointed the
characteristics and variables that influence and control shale behavior. Rees (2009) documents the impact of some of
the advances by looking at the EURs over years in the Barnett. In this work, in a time period from 2002 to 2007,
average lateral length increased from 400 m (about 1300 ft) to over 900 m (about 3000 ft) and the P-50 estimated
ultimate recovery (EUR) of Barnett shale Tier 1 wells went from about 37 x 106 m3 (1.3 bcf) to over 74 x 106 m3 (2.6
bcf) roughly proportional to length but with cost savings through reduction of well count. Recovery increases were
driven by increases in frac stages and optimization of frac fluid volumes. Ventura (2009) showed impact of 2006 to
2009 completion design changes on production from the Marcellus shale, where average normalized IP increased
from 5.7 x 103 m3/d to (0.2 mmscf/d) in 2006 to over 42.4 x 103 m3/d (1.5 mmscf/d) in 2009. During this time, the frac
design increased per-frac proppant from 418,000 kg (920,000 lb) to 1.8 x 106 kg (four million lb), fluid volume from
8,300 m3 (53,000 bbls) to 13,000 m3 (81,400 bbls) and frac stages from 3 to 8 or more.
There is no universal shale stimulation, although elements of fracture designs are often similar. Water fracs dominate,
but gel fracs may be best for ductile shales where proppant and flow capacity development are more critical than in
brittle shales (Britt, 2009; Parker, 2009). Candidate selection and stimulation optimization needs are apparent when
viewing the range of shale well performance (Chong, 2010).
Horizontal wells have been accepted as a standard in completion of the shale wells, but there are cases created by
reservoir limitations, layered formations or lease boundaries that may require vertical or deviated wells. In many cases,
core, logs and stimulation experience from a cheaper vertical well may be the better approach to evaluate shale play
(Ely, 2008; Miskimins, 2009; Patterson, 2009).
Basic Elements of Selecting a Candidate for a Shale Gas Completion
Dozens of variables have been used to evaluate prospect shale to produce commercial quantities of gas, but few of
these variables are either total qualifiers or disqualifiers.

Figure 1: Importance of a shale characteristic will depend on the cost and technical ability to overcome the challenge
posed for gas production. The most important producing limits are often economic.

SPE 133456

For every definition of productive shale, there is usually at least one example of a successful shale outside the limits
described by a strict set of candidate criteria. Figure 1 is a compilation of candidate criteria grouped by importance and
manageability. Characterization routines are available (Kale, 2010). Tables 1 and 2 (Sondergeld, 2010) are a forced
selection outline for candidate selection and guides to the data sources.

Gas-In-Place Total gas is a calculated value that includes free gas, adsorbed gas and absorbed gas. The accuracy
depends on prediction accuracy of effective porosity, shale thickness, area and gas saturation at bottom-hole
conditions (Hartman, 2008; Jarvie, 2004; Bustin, 2006; Ferworn 2008). In shales with regional fractures and faults,
there often is a component of the free gas that is more mobile, thus the first wells in such an area may have higher IP
rates than later wells.
Natural Fractures - Presence and ability to open and maintain flow in primary and secondary natural fracture systems
are keys to shale gas production. Detecting location of natural fractures and optimizing their response to fracturing
treatments are primary concerns. Natural fracture flow systems are a highly anisotropic package, Figure 2, which
depends on induced linkage of the natural fractures with the hydraulic fracture (Barton, 2002; Gale 2007; Gale, 2008,
Warren, 1962; Gaskari, 2006; Bennett, 1982).

Figure 2: Dense natural fracture systems may negate

some importance of matrix permeability if the
natural fractures can be opened and stabilized,
producing both free gas and adsorbed gas
production.

Development of the flow paths (natural fractures) adjacent to the main hydraulic fracture, for instance, will act as
leakoff that limits outward fracture extension growth unless frac injection rate is increased at the proper time in the job.
Knowing how the natural fracture system will react as it is stressed makes possible a frac design that maximizes both
frac development and proppant placement.

SPE 133456

Higher pressure increases the amount of free gas stored in pores and fractures, and increases amount of gas
adsorbed on organic materials. Different gases have different adsorption and desorption isotherms, thus the produced
gas composition may change over time as pressure is drawn down. High pressure shale wells may experience delays
in recovery of adsorbed gas, but the higher pressure provides significant free gas and positive early economics (Myer,
2008; Walls, 1985; Walsh, 1981).
Maturation To geologically evolve viable Kerogen sources into producible hydrocarbon, the suitable organics must
be altered by time at temperature (plus possibly other influences). Dry gas reservoirs with 7056 kcal/m3 (1000
BTU/mcf) gas are usually found where Vitrinite reflectance maturities are greater than 1.4 to 2.0, with some reservoirs
requiring Vro of about 2.2 to reach the 7056 kcal/m3 (1000 BTU/mscf) level. If the shale is less mature, (Vro < 1.4),
gas energy values may be in the range of 7761 to 9173 kcal/m3 (1100 to 1300 BTU/mscf) and hydrocarbon liquids will
be present and relative permeability problems can sharply reduce total flow except where rock permeability is
significantly higher (Reed; Cluff, 2004; Jarvie, 2004).
Thickness Increasing total and net thickness of a shale increases its total gas storage sites and makes it more likely
that the frac treatment can be contained within the shale.
Diagenesis Maturation appears to provide a second benefit in shales with development of porosity through either
carbonate dissolution or a geochemical reaction, creating porosity around some kerogen and carbonate fragments,
Figure 3 (Schieber, 2010; Wang, 2009).
Figure 3. Ion
milled shale secondary porosity
generated around
dolomite (far left)
SPE 132370 and
Kerogen (left) SPE
124253.

In-situ Stresses and Anisotropy Accurate geomechanical information about the rock and its variation through the
shale is important since stresses along the wellbore can control fracture initiation and frac development (Abouseiman,
2007; Barree, 2009; Britt, 2009; Xu, 2009). Stresses along the wellbore are driven by tectonic forces, depth of burial,
formation thickness, uplifts, changes in rock fabric and stresses generated by fracturing and/or production. Size of the
frac and where the volume of water goes may be leading causes of stress changes in the reservoir. Microseismic
measurements suggest real-time stress changes along the wellbore during fracturing, often enough to change frac
direction and greatly influence production.
Mineralogy and brittleness Shales with high Youngs Modulus and low Poissons Ratio are brittle (usually because of
increased silica and sometimes detridal calcite) and may be more easily fractured, opening flow paths that may remain
stable (even when largely unpropped) after fracturing pressure is released and gas starts to flow (Grieser, 2007; Britt,
2009; Mullen 2009; Rickman, 2008; Britt, 2009 - SPE 125525). Ductile shales may require more proppant and deeper,
hotter shales may exhibit loads outside the norm (LaFollette, 2010). Britt (2009) reported a comparison between
dynamic (log derived) and static (core derived) Youngs Modulus that shows a strong correlation between the
prospective gas shales and clastic tight-gas sandstone reservoirs, Figure 4. Shales that do not fit the model are
mostly high clay content formations that have not yet proved to be commercial gas producers. This fits well with the
actual description of gas shales as very fine grained sandstones or siltstones with the description of shale being
assessed only as a particle size indicator.

SPE 133456

Figure 4: Correlation
between Static (cores) and
Dynamic (logs) Youngs
modulus. Note that the
gas productive shales
group with the tight
sandstone clastics while
the non-productive shales
have a low static modulus
and scattered dynamic
modulus.

Permeability The importance of shale permeability depends on whether matrix or fracture permeability is a topic of
debate. Natural fractures dominate early flow and remain the predominant flow path in production. Matrix perm
influences the produced gas decline and ultimate recovery. The lower the matrix perm, the more hydraulic fracture
contact area is needed (Bello, 2008). Fracture permeability, when present, dominates the effective gas delivery
permeability of the formation. Natural fractures, even when closed and partially to nearly fully mineralized, are
normally one to three or more orders of magnitude higher permeability than shale matrix perm. In considering the
contribution of shale matrix permeability, some petrophysicists conditionally derate the importance of matrix
permeability of gas shale, explaining that the pore throats in most shales are too small to act as effective flow paths for
methane in conventional flow mechanisms within economic time, while others defend matrix perm as necessary
(Lewis, 2010; Cui, 2009; Walls, 1985; Walsh, 1981; Willberg, 1998; Zelenev, 2009; Barton, 2002; Cramer, 2003;
Newsham, 2009; Soeder, 1988; Wang, 2009). When present, higher matrix permeability (>>100nD) is undoubtedly
very beneficial to shale gas production.
There are wide variances in many characteristics within specific shale, both top to bottom and across the shale. There
may also be several formation members in layers, some of which are production enablers like sand bodies while other
members, such as ductile shales, may be barriers to flow and fractures. Each may have different properties and
responses to fracturing. Since many of the shale properties are interconnected, hard rules about minimums and
maximums for specific values are difficult to make based on the published literature. Each author reviewed appeared
to favor a different list of characteristics for shale characterization, but a short list of variables nearly always included:
gas in place, presence of natural fractures, pressure, maturity and pay thickness. In any shale, accuracy in core
property measurements is critical, but samples must be representative of the formation (Franz, 2005; Jacobi, 2008;
Mullen, 2009; Myers, 2008; Britt, 2009; Grieser, 2007; Slatt, 2008; Dube, 2000; Parker, 2009; Rushing 2008; Jarvie,
2004, 2005, 2007; Jenkins, 2008).
Selecting the Frac Point
Fracture initiation points are usually selected by dividing the wellbore into equally spaced zones. This produces a
significant waste of fracturing capital since the formation is not homogeneous. As shale testing becomes more widely
valued and practiced, methods of selecting optimum frac initiation points can focus on the most productive parts of the
pay. A few methods are mentioned here gas composition from mud logging, rate of penetration (ROP) of drilling,
modulus and stress variation from sonic logs, water saturation of the shale, mineralogy of the cuttings and other
petrophysical valuations. Mud logging indicates level of release of methane and slightly more involved tests shows
both methane and ethane. Methane and ethane gasses have different adsorption isotherms on shale. Initially, the
methane component of the gas will be higher and the ethane components will increase (via desorption) as the

SPE 133456

pressure is drawn down. Comparison of total methane and methane-to-ethane ratios along the lateral could be a clue
to type of gas storage method, and/or presence of increased porosity or natural fractures (Schettler, 1989). Sonic
logging may be useful for identifying modulus variation. Other logging methods for identification and location of natural
fractures in shale gas wells have described (Moreland, 2010; Kubik, 1993; Overbey, 1988; Quinn, 2008; Heddleston,
2009) and ability to preferentially propagate at least starter fracs through the natural fracture systems are
encompassed by the work of Gale (2008). Carbon isotopes of gas in shale and linkage to flow routes may also be
useful (Ferworn, 2009; Curtis, 2010).
Increasing water saturation in the shales is viewed as a detriment but a moderate amount of Sw is commonly present
in all known gas shales. Water molecules are slightly smaller that methane molecules, and can possibly create
blockages in smaller pores. In formations with high Sw, effective matrix perms might be non-existent and fracturing
may not be productive.
Minerals, specifically silica, calcium, dolomite and clays are keys to brittleness and increased calcite presence as
streaks in cuttings may be an indicator of fracture fill (Mullen, 2009; Britt, 2009; Rickman, 2008). In general,
prospective shales have limited clay constituents (usually less than 40%), static Youngs Modulus in excess of 3.5 x
106 psi, dynamic-to-static Youngs Modulus ranges consistent with clastic reservoirs (not ductile or high clay content
shales), and sufficient brittleness to flow gas at effective confining conditions through an un-propped crack at reservoir
stresses.
Hydraulic Fracture Intersection with Natural Fractures
Regular patterns of primary and secondary fractures, when present, increase possibility for complex fracturing
producing significant formation contact area. Natural fracture density may vary from a few cracks in a large area to
densities of millimeters apart. Primary, secondary and tertiary natural fracture sets have been photographed in
outcrops (Engelder and Lash, 2008; Lash 2008). Shear fracture event patterns (characteristic of opening multiple,
orthogonal natural fractures) are seen on microseismic records of hydraulic fracture treatments in many gas shales.
Interestingly, few vertical well cores from shales show significant incidences of natural fractures. This may have
slowed understanding of gas shales.
Natural fractures are present in nearly all gas productive shales but are very rarely productive in even a small way until
opened and connected with a hydraulic fracture treatment. Whether the fractures are simply closed or mineralized
and plugged, they offer a plane of weakness in the rock (Jacobi, 2008; Gale 2008). Lab work places the width of these
fractures in the range of less than 0.05 mm (about 0.002). Bonding strength of calcite fill in the natural fractures is very
low because the calcite grows over non-carbonate grains without chemical bond, thus there is no significant strength to
keep the fracture from re-opening. Closed and mineralized fracture breakdown pressures have been measured by
some researchers at 50% of initial breakdown of non-naturally fractured rock (Gale, 2008). This finding is confirmed
repeatedly in Barnett shale, where microseismic imaging and mapping of hydraulic fractures show the fractures
intersecting and traveling along primary, secondary and sometimes tertiary natural fracture networks (Maxwell, 2002).
When extensive natural fracturing in a brittle shale (high Youngs modulus and low Poissons Ratio) produces both
horizontal and vertical fractured sections (gas chimneys), the potential for unstimulated gas flow increases (Engelder
and Lash, 2008).
Preferential opening of the natural fracture systems have been described by Overbey, 1988; Yost, 1988; Nearing,
1988; Yost, 1989, Gale, 2007, 2008, 2009. These authors observed that increasing rate in small steps would often
preferentially open the natural fracture system, while higher rates would form more planar hydraulic fractures through
the shale. This fracture opening behavior is an early fracture development control variable with pad size, pad
viscosity, rate and rock fabric sensitivities.
The development and growth of a hydraulic fracture through the natural fracture systems of shale is probably more
complex than can be described here, but may be somewhat predictable if the fracture system and the development of
stresses (and how they affect in-situ stresses) can be explained. Fracture mapping with seismic, tilt meters and
downhole seismic indicate many areas of a fracture in shale may be growing at once. The result is that the pressure
dependent leakoff produces enlargement of the natural fractures without significant loss of fluid into the pores of the
shale. This sharply increases insitu stresses.

SPE 133456

Completion Design
Completion design is covered here because of the enormous impact it has on ability to effectively place multiple
fractures and increase fracture complexity suited to shale gas development. Completions for shale gas production
have evolved over time and with respect to reservoir character, stimulation requirements, production equipment needs,
and local restrictions. Barnett shale completions arguably produced the first high rate shale gas wells using a
progression of completions that started with vertical wells with single gel fracs and progressed to long-reach horizontal
wells, utilizing multiple stages of fractures produced with millions of gallons of fresh water and millions of pounds of
sand as proppant. Horizontal wells with multiple stages of fracs are the norm for many shale gas completions.
Vertical wellbore placement in the pay zone depends on the formation characteristics and need to control downward
frac growth.
The lengths of the horizontals began with well lengths on the order of 2000 ft and have increased as confidence in the
drilling phase has grown, to 3000 to 4000 ft+ (Pope, 2009; Schweitzer, 2009). Longer well lengths usually deliver
lower cost per foot if frac stages are increased to effectively break up the shale formation exposed by the extended
wellbore reach.
Specifics on the selection of perforating charges and guns are fairly well defined, but there are few absolutes. A
normal selection is deep penetrating charges with 60o phased guns, focusing on reaching a entrance hole size of at
about 1cm (0.4 inch) with gun lengths < 4 wellbore diameters (Ketter, 2008; Reigle, 2007; Ceccarelli, 2010). Reactive
liner charges (Bell, 2009) and abrasive (McDaniel, 2008) are also suitable in wells for special requirements.
Cased and Cemented or Open-Hole?
Completions in a shale formation can be open hole or cased and perforated using a number of different methods for
selective zone entry. Cased and cemented completions are usually cluster perforated but actuated valves, even in
cased and cemented completions, have also been proposed (Rylewski, 2006). Simple open-hole systems have
advantages of economy but multiple fractures and selective frac initiation points are problematic. Newer open-hole
systems using packers and valves have solid advantages in time, but drawbacks in size of pipe and mechanical
complexity (Alexander, 2008).
Cased and cemented completions in the horizontal wells are the most common completion method in the Barnett and
have been used in the Fayetteville (Alexander, 2008) and Marcellus (plus other Devonian shales). A good cement job
(Ilsend, 2005; Nelson, 2009; Gottschling, 2009) in this type of completion is important for isolation of the frac stages
and development of complexity in the frac. Cemented completions are common, but some authors caution that cement
invasion can cause severe damage in formations where the natural fractures are open during completion. Acid soluble
cement has been proposed and used to enable at least some removal capability (Luke, 2008). Other concerns in
cementing are to prevent breakdown of the zones, both from a cement loss problem and to make sure the cement top
is brought up high enough to meet pressure and corrosion control needs (Gottschling, 2009; Nelson, 2009). Light
weight cement blends are recommended in some areas (Kulkarni, 1999).
Open-hole systems use packers for isolation and shiftable valves to open and close access to the zones to be
fractured. The advantages are savings in casing/cementing cost and time, plus ball drop ease of opening the next
zone during fracturing, saving about two hours of time between fracs (per frac) and the cost of pump-down perforating.
The drawbacks in some systems include restricted pumping diameter through the pay zone and there is no practical
way to control the frac initiation point within the open-hole frac interval. Additionally, work to predict stress effects
produced by mechanical and inflatable packers has shown a preference for fracs to initiate at the set point of the some
of the packers; depending on setting force exerted on the borehole wall (Roundtree, 2009).
Impact of Completion Design
There is a long running argument between toe-up and toe-down well paths. Most of this argument is about how best
to keep the well unloaded from liquids that enter the wellbore with the gas or condense from the gas before passing
the wellhead. The longer horizontal appear to favor a toe-up design with a low point near the heel of the well to assist

10

SPE 133456

with lift placement. Other factors include wellbore deviation, formation tilt, amount of liquids and gas rate. Wellbore
undulation with multiple low points (undulating or porpoising wellbore) can incite flow slugs and should be avoided
(Crafton, 2009).
Selecting the Tubulars
Tubular selection for shale wells is similar to many other classes of wells except for the need to pump slick water at
very high rates (and pressures) and to endure up to 20+ staged frac treatments. Casing sizes of 4-1/2 and 5-1/2 are
common. The size, weight and grade are selected for fracturing rate and pressures. In areas with thermogenic gas
(typically very low CO2), many operators use N-80 or L-80, with some selecting P-110 for higher pressure frac work. In
areas with significant bacterial origin (biogenic) gas generation (higher CO2), 13-Chrome tubulars may be required for
wetted areas of flow.
The events during a frac in shale may be somewhat different than fracs in most conventional formations (Palisch,
2008; Schein, 2009; Ely, 2009, Grieser, 2003; Handren, 2007; Kaufman, 2008; Britt, 2009; Coulter, 2006; Evans, 2002;
Fisher, 2002; Fisher, 2004; Curtice, 2009). Treating pressures involved in the shale fracs usually involve a low rate
formation breakdown, but rise as rate is ramped up to target rates that may surpass 16 m3 (100 bpm). When the
effects of abrasion from sand loadings of 120 to 360 kg/m3 (1 to 3 lb/gal) at 13 to 16 m3/min (80 to 100+ bpm) are
considered, pressure and abrasion loads on casing must be considered. Pressure limits are generally easily
calculated and selection of materials to meet corrosion, abrasion and thermal loads are possible so long as the design
data is accurate. Velocity of the fluid in well casing may see linear flow rates exceeding 23.5 m/sec (77 ft/sec) for
fracturing in casing (16 m3/min or 100 bpm in 139.7 mm or 5-1/2 casing), however, significant erosion in casing from
the frac has not been reported where the flow path is not partially obstructed.
Well Orientation, Well Spacing and Fracture Spacing
Spacing of horizontal wells across a pad site in shale gas developments can be influenced, maybe even dominated, by
how fractures are started and propagated (Lolan, 2009; Ketter, 2008; Dunek, 2009; McDaniel, 2007). The best
completions for maximizing recovery take into account the following considerations, all of which are specific to the
shale being developed:
1. Knowledge of the frac direction and optimum wellbore direction, Dahaghi, 2009; Samuel, 2009.
2. Sufficient rock mechanics knowledge experience to effectively break down perforation clusters and develop
dominant fracs and maximum frac complexity (King, 2008, Le Calvez, 2007; Cipolla, 2008).
3. Knowledge of maximum practical frac-to-frac interference, both from the same wellbore and from adjacent
wellbores.

4. Knowledge of whether simultaneous fracturing increases production, Mutalik, 2008; Waters, 2009.
Ultimately, the optimum spacing of wells and fractures along each well is controlled by a choice between more wells to
drain the target reservoir area with low tech fractures vs. the cost of more high tech fractures to drain the area with
fewer wells. To be able to make this decision requires:
1. Calculating a value balance of cost/benefit of extra frac stages vs. cost/benefit of extra wells.
2. Ability to reliably propagate and stabilize fractures in close proximity in desired areas.
3. Generation of shale-specific production engineering approaches to maximize gas recovery.
The first consideration is wellbore orientation, which must be worked out even before the pads are platted to ensure
that transverse fractures are possible. Findings from Barnett shale wells show that in core areas where frac barriers
were present, orientation of the wellbore may be important but may not be critical to economic success. In other
areas, particularly around geological hazards and fringes of the field, wellbore orientation and even consideration of
the secondary frac direction to the orientation can make a significant difference in production. The main fracture
direction is usually near perpendicular to minimum horizontal stress. Primary natural fracture orientation and induced
or hydraulic fracture growth directions in a field are usually similar, although local stress variances may create
exceptions.

SPE 133456

11

An increasing trend in shale completions is the number of frac stages (Venture, 2009; Reynolds, 2010). Direct
comparisons of production enhancement and frac evaluations (Cipolla, 2009) have shown increased complexity,
productivity and recovery with higher number of frac stages. The average frac stage length has decreased from the
full 3000 to 4000 ft wellbore in 2002 Barnett fracs to frac sections of 250 to 350 ft with perforations clustered in short
intervals in cased and cemented completions and the number of perforations limited to make use of hydraulic
diversion. Thinner shales may require more numerous, smaller volume frac stages to avoid zone breakouts, while
thicker shales may need slightly fewer stages if a higher frac injection rate can promote complexity and frac height
growth in the pay.
Although initial stress differential has been invoked as a control of fracture direction by many authors and frac model
builders, the stresses created during hydraulic fracturing in low permeability shales, as literally hundreds of fractures
open and widen, will induce local stress fields that may eclipse all but the highest-order prefrac in-situ stresses.
In open-hole completions with transverse fracturing, initiating true transverse fracs would result in a sharp departure of
the frac from the wellbore with minimum wellbore contract. Radioactive tracer profiles of this occurrence are known,
but other logs show some transverse fracs to initiate as longitudinal frac before it is turned by in-situ forces into a
transverse frac as mapped by microseismic and tilt meters (, Leonard, 2007, Siebrits, 2000; Wolhart, 2002). This
behavior would increase contact area with the wellbore, but the total effect of the tortuosity as the fracture changes
shale and direction is unknown (Powell, 2007). The reason for the longitudinal initiation is related to the effects of the
hoop stress, which can be a dominating force and far exceed the maximum and minimum horizontal stresses.
Longitudinal or axial fracs may be the easiest frac to initiate since breakout is usually at the top and bottom of the
wellbore, has minimum friction from tortuosity and may grow along the wellbore. Away from the wellbore (maybe 2 to
4 wellbore diameters), the hoop stress very quickly drops off and fracture growth is more affected by far-field formation
stresses or frac related real-time stresses.
Fracture Initiation Points
Optimum gas production in shales depends on establishing the largest possible contact area between the shale and
the fracture system for the economic investment. Ideally, shale completion methods are directed towards dividing the
volume inside the shale drainage area into billions of small blocks surrounded by micro-cracks capable of transporting
gas towards the wellbore. To generate this level of complexity without having a whole reservoir of micro-cracks and
the resistance to that type of flow, it is necessary to start from the wellbore with many larger, dominant fractures and
then branch out into the reservoir by opening natural fractures to form a feeder system. The challenge is initiating
fractures at many points, and being able to control formation of a dominant fracture from each frac initiation point. The
requirement in shales is to determine, initially from rock mechanics and finally in the field, how far apart that fractures
can be initiated and developed. In general, initiating a fracture depends on the stresses around the wellbore both
from the geologic produced tectonic effects and from the changes in stresses produced by the growth of fractures.
Fractures are difficult to initiate where total rock stresses are very high. When there is significant difference between
minimum and maximum stress, a planar fracture is typical, but when minimum and maximum stresses are similar,
fracture growth along both primary and secondary fractures may be possible.
Frac injection rate is the first critical element to consider. Most operators have found that, where frac effective barriers
are present, frac rates should be high to accomplish maximum complex fracturing. Although low frac rates (15 to 20
bpm) in shales have been successful in opening natural fractures, low frac rates have not been successful in
developing lasting gas rates even with large frac volumes.
The highest stresses affecting fracture initiation are noticed at close frac spacing, but fall off rapidly with separation of
fractures. Waters (2009), exhibiting data on stress changes vs. hydraulic fracture spacing, points out that at 30 cm (1
ft) spacing, stresses would be about 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi); clearly enough to stop a second fracture from initiating
close to the first. At 25 ft between perf clusters, the high modulus rock would exert an 800 psi stress difference on a
starting fracture while the lowest modulus rock would have only a 170 psi stress difference. Interestingly, somewhere
in this mid distance, the decreasing stresses may not act to truncate all but one frac, and may allow two or more small
fractures to start growing before width problems are felt; this may make early screenouts a certainty, even when the
fracture(s) was successfully broken down. This may explain early screenouts where blanket perforating (perfs not
grouped as clusters) was used. To understand this better, consider two small fractures 25 ft apart, growing from a very
thin width frac during the pad and increasing width to a point wide enough to admit proppant (frac width of 3x to 7x

12

SPE 133456

largest proppant). Early bridging in either frac would drive stresses up sharply and a screenout would rapidly ensue,
probably in both fracs.
In applying these findings across the shale spectrum, there are limits imposed by the Modulus, fracture width, and
indirectly by depth of burial. For most cases, however, the data suggests that short perforation clusters, spaced 35 to
75 ft or more apart, would lower the risk of failure to initiate a frac in each cluster, particularly when initial hydraulic
diversion could be used to generate sufficient differential pressure to drive the frac. One conclusion (Ketter, 2008 and
Reigle, 2007) was to limit the perf cluster length to < 4 wellbore diameters (22 of 31 problem wells had a perf cluster
length greater than 4 wellbore diameters). Reigle (2007) ranked the approaches to consider if frac initiation failed,
centering on: application of acid, cross-linked gel, sand slugs and reperforating the zone.
The number of perforations used in a frac stage is a function of the open interval and the expected treating rate. In a
typical frac interval of 200 to 300 ft with a 1 to 2 ft cluster of perforations at 4 to 6 shots per foot, every 35 to 75+ ft, this
approach results in about 4 to 7 perf clusters. The perf clusters may be selected by a simple mathematical spacing or
may be matched to natural fracture locations, depending on how much is known about the stresses along the wellbore
in the shale and the behavior of the frac. Fracs appear to initiate easier in areas of low stresses and in most areas of
natural fractures. Mine-back experiments (Jeffery, 2009) have indicated that natural fractures with a wide range of
orientations likely contributed to the pressure dependent leakoff and that sand was widely placed where sufficient
fracture width was generated. This type of leakoff increases the importance of placing perforations to access the
natural fractures, but also raises a caution flag to properly correlate injection rate to leakoff and fracture development
requirements. Work in other shales has proved the benefits of perforating multiple entry points in sharply reduced
failure-to-frac studies. The total number of perforation holes controls the amount of hydraulic diversion during the frac
pad at full injection rate. Diversion by perforations involves the number, diameter and flow efficiency of the
perforations (Crump, 1988; Eberhard, 1995; Wiley, 2004; Grieser, 1999). The general rule is that perforation friction is
first seen when the ratio of rate to perfs reaches 0.5 bpm/perf, but real diversion does not begin until the rate reaches
at least 1.0 bpm/perf. Conway (2008) has stated that the most effective diversion is probably in the range of 2.0 to
2.5+ bpm/perf. Once the sand slurry starts through the perforations, however, downhole camera pictures from
WellTec and Expro in Canada have shown very rapid perf area enlargement by erosion.
Erosion or etching of the fracture walls near the perfs has been credited with reducing resistance and increasing flow
into a fracture that begins taking fluid and proppant. Opinions differ on whether sand proppant is actually creating
erosion or diverting fluid. What may be occurring, especially when using smaller sands such as 100 mesh, is bridging
of small fractures that are part of the pressure-dependent leakoff, keeping more of the frac fluid in the main fracture.
This is supported by the faster width build in these same areas by the gelled fluids that are higher viscosity and more
effective fluid loss agents.
The use of acid as a frac breakdown aid has been demonstrated in most shales, even when there was little or no acid
reactivity in the formation. Using acid in an area where calcite cementation or fill is common in the fractures is well
recognized but can lead to plugging problems with excessive amounts of calcite cement and acid (Broacha, 2009). In
other areas, the ability to inject any aqueous fluid into a rock may lower its strength and promote fracturing. This is a
commonly-known rock mechanics fact: wet rock is weaker than dry rock. Although most shales have at least
moderate water saturations, adding water, regardless of salt content, seems to reduce rock strength. Hydrochloric
acid is commonly used at 10% to 15% concentration as a breakdown tool because it is inexpensive, works wells and
spends gradually on acid soluble material. However, acid may not be needed in every case.
Selection of Frac Materials and Methods
Although slick water fracs have dominated shale fracturing applications, they should not be assumed to be the frac
fluid of choice, particularly where proppant needs are proven. If the candidate shale characteristics favor a slickwater
frac, then consider if slickwater frac technology from the Barnett is appropriate. Slickwater frac materials and principles
for the Barnett gas shale have been largely developed in the 8,000 wells of the Barnett shale in 17 counties of North
Central Texas from the late 1980s to 2009 (Steinsberger, 2009; Ely, 2009; Handren, 2008; Palisch, 2008; Grieser,
2003; Matthews, 2005; Britt, 2009).

SPE 133456

13

Slickwater fracs are fairly simple fracturing treatments with minimum polymer and a lower sand carrying capacity than
either linear or crosslinked gels. Slickwater fracs are not ideal for every shale and may be the wrong choice for some
shales. The choice of slickwater, gelled fracs, gas-assisted or hybrid fracs should be made based on individual shale
characteristics and requirements for stable production. The choices depend on increasing shale contact area, meeting
proppant placement needs and achieving production results. In short, slickwater fracs can breakdown the fissures,
micro-cracks, natural fractures and bedding boundaries in shale, opening up very large shale face contact areas, but
waterfracs also carry low sand concentrations and have rapid proppant settling, thus fracture flow capacities can be
limited. Failure to create conductivity over the full fracture height can sharply limit productivity from some formations.
In some cases with high modulus, the upper part of an unpropped fracture in low stress environments (like the Barnett)
may still have sufficient total flow capacity to flow gas into the lower, propped area of the fracture but may not have the
flow capacity to flow much gas horizontally along the unpropped fracture.
Britt (2006) published a definitive work on the limitations of water fracs with the emphasis on tight sands. His
guidelines were supported by both geomechanical measurements and a modern frac simulator in a bi-wing fracture
and offered as a starting place for slickwater frac selection. In shales with a high degree of complexity, however, biwing fracturing may not be preferred over short individual frac lengths and development of natural fractures into flow
paths (complexity). Other factors involved in fluid selection include relative expense of the fracs (cleanup and time to
saleable gas), fracture-to-wellbore communication and effect of damage by any of the fluid components. Previous
cross-linked gel frac technology using high polymer loading and metal ion cross linkers were significantly more
damaging than most borate cross-linked gels of considerably less polymer loading. Details of each of these guidelines
are explained in SPE 102227 (Britt, 2009). There have been many other fluids proposed or trialed in the shales such
as foam (Brannon, 2009), straight nitrogen (Evans, 1982), liquefied gelled gas (Byrd, 2009), cryogenic nitrogen
(Grundmann, 1998), propellants (Cuthill, 2001; Cuderman, 1986), liquefied natural gas (Tudor, 2009), liquefied CO2,
surfactant gels, etc.
Base Fluids and Additives
Normal chemicals in the water for shale gas fracturing may include friction reducer (poly acrylamide at 0.01 to 0.1%)
and biocide (e.g., quaternary amine 0.005 to 0.1%) (Fitchter, 2008; Kaufman, 2008), oxygen scavenger and/or scale
inhibitor (e.g., phosphonates, phosphate esters or polymers). Friction reducers such as polyacrylamide or other
polymer are required in high rate fracturing (e.g., > 8m3/min or 50 bpm in 5.5 casing) to reduce friction pressure and
horse power costs. The biocides are required in slick water fracturing, especially when using recycled waters to
prevent souring of the well (sulfate reducing bacteria or SRB) and/or corrosion from acid producing bacteria (APBs). A
broad spectrum bactericide is typical, but advances on zero residual bacteria controls such as ultraviolet light and
chlorine dioxide are making bacteria control less of an ecological threat (Sharrock, 2010; Tichler, 2009). Oxygen
scavengers (mechanical or chemical) may be added for corrosion control and a standard scale inhibitor such as
phosphate esters or polymers can be used where scale is a problem.
Some specialty additives are beginning to be tested in shale gas applications. The purpose is to recover water faster
and to minimize damage from phase trapping or water blocks (Bannion, 1995; Holdich, 1999; Crafton, 2009, 123289;
Crafton, 2009, 125248; Kaufman, 2008; Penny, 2005; Pursley, 2007; Paktinat, 2006; Paktinat, 2007; Zelenev, 2009;
Ferguson, 2009). In addition, some companies are adding EOR chemicals to the frac to attempt to both recover more
reserves and establish more conductive pathways (Berry, 2009; Shehbaz, 2009). Total chemical additive usage in a
slickwater frac is on the order of 0.01% to 0.05% of the total volume of fluid pumped (Modern Shale, 2009). The
majority of the chemicals additives are thought to be adsorbed or absorbed in the formation and very little are
recovered (King, 1988; King, 1989).
Fracturing Fluids
More common frac methods in gas shales include foam fluids with and without proppant (MacDonald, 2002;
MacDonald, 2003; Brannon, 2009; Komar, 1979, Locke, 1988), both CO2 (Yost, 1993) and nitrogen gas (without
proppant) (MacDonald, 2002; MacDonald, 2003; Evans, 1982), gels, viscoelastic gels (Curtice, 2009; Boyer, 2005;
Fredd, 2004), slickwater fracs, reactive fluids (Grieser, 2007) and a variety of hybrid fracs (Coulter, 2006; Fairchild,
1998; Tudor, 2009). In most cases, proppant was needed to maintain production after the first month (with exception of
highest permeabilities formations). Carbon dioxide in the liquid or dense phase (carrying sand) has been used on

14

SPE 133456

Devonian shales (Yost, 1994). In this specific area of the Devonian shale, the production response from the gelled CO2
fracs outperformed the nitrogen fracs by two fold and the foam fracs by about five fold.
Although gas and foam fluids would seem to be ideal fluids for shale, they have not compared well to production of
wells stimulated by slickwater fracs. Part of this problem is in the inability to easily load foams with much proppant, but
another problem appears linked to the need to invade and enlarge the shale natural fracture systems and to contact as
much area as a slick water frac. Foam has a natural leakoff control through its increased viscosity and the Jamin
effect of hindering flow by bubble deformation toughness. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide gas fracs can invade the shale
structure but lack the ability to carry any significant proppant while in the gas phase. Gelled hydrocarbon gas fracs
using propane or butane may be a breakthrough technology where shales are sensitive to water (Byrd, 2009).
Initial Barnett fracs were all with gel or foams until about 1999, when Nick Steinsberger used a slick water frac for
Mitchell Energy delivering good results at about a 35% savings over the more expensive gel fracs. Figure 5 highlights
the results of a slickwater refrac following a foam fracturing treatment and a gel refrac. Part of the production increase
created by the slickwater frac was probably damage by-pass but some issues of refracturing address fracture and
fissure closure issues. Note the tripling of production rate from the refrac in a well that had been on line for nearly 18
years.
Figure 5: Refracs of the
Mitchell Energy
discovery shale well
for the Barnett Shale.

Slick water fracs (SWF) have been used throughout the industry for a great many formations (Grieser, 2003), but have
proved themselves very valuable particularly in shales. Success of SWF in some gas shales appears to be based
around a short list of matched characteristics:
Shale can have thousands of microfractures and laminations - Minimizing frac fluid viscosity increases leakoff into
these crevices and enlarges the channels for flow.
Increased contacted area is produced by very large volumes of water and low matrix permeability that keeps the
vast majority of the water in the fractures (Warpinski, 2009).
Sand carrying capacity, which is very low in SWF, usually less than 2 to 3 lb/gal, is less important in brittle shales.
There appears to be little currently measurable damage in most gas shales from short term contact with water
fresh or saline. Use of more saline frac source water would probably be beneficial in the longer term contact
areas.

SPE 133456

15

Other points of slickwater fracturing that are worth review:

1. One of the biggest concerns with slickwater fracturing is proppant transport away from the wellbore and placement
into the smaller secondary fractures. As frac fluid carrying capacity (roughly equated to viscosity) decreases, the
settling velocity increases, thus for slickwater fracs, the sand settling may occur soon after entering the fracture,
building up to a height related to the velocity of the water moving into the frac across the top of the dune. The first
sand used in the job probably ends up closest to the wellbore, while the last sand pumped ends up farthest from
the wellbore (Palisch, 2008; Handren, 2007)
2. Slickwater fracs produce narrower fracs during pumping than gelled fracs. However, proppant transport in the
slickwater frac is dune development and the propped part of a slickwater frac may not close or lose much width as
pressure is released (as opposed to gel fracs).
3. Vertical coverage of the hydraulic frac with proppant is critical to transport, but may not occur due to proppant
settling that forms dune formation (Britt, 2006). This adds a dimension to the slick water fracs of effective (or
effectively propped) vs. hydraulic measurements for: width, height, and length before discussion of secondary
fracture effectiveness even begins. In short, modeling and prediction of the water frac is probably more complex
that we imagine, mainly due to the nearly infinite proppant arrangement possibilities (Palisch 2008 and Brannon,
2004). Fracture conductivity of primary slickwater fracs can be substantial, considering the previous points, only if
correctly propped. Fracture conductivity of the secondary fracs created in the natural fracture systems is a more
difficult question. Discussion and theories abound, but most production responses indicate a well propped primary
fracture and poorly propped secondary fractures.
Leakoff in nearly all prospective gas shales will be predominantly pressure dependent leakoff. Even though the shale
matrix is nearly impenetrable in the short time span of a frac, the volume spent opening and enlarging secondary fracs
is still leakoff. While the true matrix leakoff is low, the fracture is extended, probably along the primary and secondary
fracture networks and into microcracks and shale bedding laminations. Whether proppant is carried in the very
complex flow path is less likely (Dayan, 2009, Cipolla, 2009). This is a technology gap and may be the next barrier to
crack in the search for the technology that will significantly increase both gas and oil recovery from shales.
The selection of a fracturing fluid for shale depends on the formation properties. In general, the choice of water or
gelled fluids is made according to leakoff control necessity and fracture conductivity. Rock sensitivities may force the
addition of salts to the water to control clay swelling, although this need is rare in low permeability rocks (Jones, 1980).
Ungelled or slickwater fluids are an initial consideration where the rocks are brittle, low clay and generally non reactive.
Gelled fluids are noted to be useful in lower ductility shales, in higher permeability rocks (where a larger amount of
proppant is needed), for sweeps and to assist in fluid loss control in rare instances (Pope, 2009). More saline fluids are
also perfectly acceptable to most shales, although some early chemical additives such as friction reducers did not work
well above 30,000 ppm TDS, a problem that has now been resolved. In lower clay content gas-shale rocks, (on the
order of less than 30% clays), fresh to moderately saline (~30,000 ppm) fluids are normally a first choice and higher
salinity waters that match the formation water salinity (normally 50,000 to 70,000 ppm) will likely work, but chemical
compatibility and rock sensitivity tests are recommended (Jones, 1964). Liquefied gases such as propane and butane
have been used as frac fluids with a focus on removing liquids from the natural fracture systems and preserving
conductivity.
A very wide range of overflush volumes using base frac fluid (no sand) have been tested. Volumes as low as 20 bbls
over the casing volume to the lowest perfs have demonstrated little or no sand blocking in the wellbore on post-frac
pump-down operations, while very large volumes of post flush have not shown any advantage over the smaller
volumes in reported studies. Regardless of the volume used, the rate of displacement should be the same as the frac.
Stimulated Reservoir Volume
In Figure 6, Cipolla (2009), presents a comparison of the stimulated reservoir volume, SRV, (calculated by fracture
mapping) created with a slickwater frac and a cross-linked gel frac in the Barnett shale. The data (from Warpinski,
2005) shows a microseismic slickwater frac covering approximately 140 acres. If the microseismic events are
connected, then the fracture network connects millions of square feet of reservoir surface to the fracture system.

16

SPE 133456

Figure 6 Some isolated microseismic points may

not be hydraulically connected to the body of the
frac; but caused instead by transmitted rock
stresses. Tensile fracturing is not recorded by
microseismic methods, but it can be tracked by
tilt meters.

The increase in stimulated reservoir volume, SRV, from an estimated 430 million ft3 with a cross-linked gel to an
estimated 1.4 billion ft3 with a slickwater frac, is approximately validated by gas production rates from the slickwater
fraced well at over twice that of the cross-linked gel frac. SRV is also linked strongly to production increases in many
cases as shown by Fisher (2002).
Figure 7 Work with salinity, specific ions in near-by
water zones, chemical tracers in the backflow and
monitoring of offset wells for tracer appearance are
used to confirm hydraulic connection

Actual conformation of hydraulic connection of complex fracturing was provided by Fisher, 2004, when the extremely
complex fractures predicted in the Barnett fraced into and temporarily killed five of the surrounding six wells in this
vertical well pattern.
Figure 8: The five wells
surrounding the well being fractured
were temporarily killed by the frac.
Interestingly, wells that are
fractured into very commonly come
back with higher than before-kill
production. This increased
production occurrence was also
documented by Leonard (2007).

Clouds of microseismic events in a general area of the frac are generally a good sign of complex fracturing, but this is
usually only confirmed by additional information sources such as tracer flowback, production logs and actual water and
gas production.

SPE 133456

17

Proppant
Proppant type, amount and placement control the flow capacity of the main fractures and influence some of the smaller
fractures. The proppants used in the majority of shale gas fracs are sands of various qualities. The evolution of shale
fracturing proppant type, size and loading has been worked by a number of authors (Coulter, 2004; Cipolla, 2008;
Olsen, 2009; Rickman, 2008; Cramer, 2008). Sand has been found to be adequate for many shale reservoirs,
particularly in the smaller size ranges like 100 mesh (nominal of -70 to +140 US mesh). Some of the larger sizes,
notably 40/70, 30/50, and 20/40 have been used where conductivity is important, but field observations link larger
proppant with increased downward movement of the fracture in brittle shales without lower frac barriers (Murchent,
2008). As deeper shales are investigated, sand proppant may not give adequate conductivity at the higher stresses
and may give way to higher strength proppants and more high-tech fracturing designs for placement.
One-hundred mesh sand has been used in fracturing to stop downward fracture growth, particularly when the size of
the pad (no sand) is curtailed and the rate is reduced. It has also been used in mixtures with other sands to bridge-off
larger fractures (King, 2008). The mechanism behind reducing downward frac growth may have many explanations,
but is general thought to form a wedge with 100 mesh sand slugs in the fracture, preventing excessive downward or,
sometimes, outward growth.
The loading or ramping of sand in a shale gas frac job is very shale play dependent. Frac width and the amount of
open natural fractures are primary controls on bridging potential in the near wellbore part of the fracture. Width
depends on rate, fluid viscosity, formation brittleness, local stresses and presence of effective frac barriers. Typically,
an initial loading of 24 to 40 kg/m3 (0.2 to 0.25 lb/gal) is a starting point with common increase steps of 40 kg/m3 (0.25
lb/gal) possible after pressure stabilizes. Upper limit on the proppant concentration in the slick water depends on the
proppant size (both carrying capacity and frac width limited), and is often in the 300 kg/m3 g/m3 (2.5 lb/gal) range for
100 mesh sand and 240 kg/m3 (2 lb/gal) for 40/70 mesh. Actual ranges will vary with application. Application of slugs
of proppant for control of leakoff is an older technique brought to both oil-rich shale and gas shale fracturing (Wiley,
2004; King, 2008). A typical slug is 60 to 180 kg/m3 (0.5 to 1.5 lb/gal) over the programmed sand loading level and
continues for 16 to 24 M3 (100 to 150 bbls). The effect of the slugs may not be seen immediately but are often noticed
a few minutes after the slugs hit the perforations.
Alternative proppants (non-sand) have included small mesh bauxite for creation of erosion on the formation and
bottom barrier formation, medium-strength man-made proppants and light-weight proppants (Doty, 2009; Brannon,
2009; Kendrick, 2005).
Size of the frac fluid stages depend on the application (shale thickness, amount of natural fracs, presence of frac
barriers, etc.); common range is about 1300 to 2400 m3 (~8,000 to 15,000 bbls) per stage and proppant amount varies
from about 36,000 to over 140,000 kg (~80,000 to over 300,000 lb) per stage. The amount of sand used in most slick
water fracs in gas shales has been steadily increasing throughout the industry. Although in certain areas of the shale
with low differential stresses and high Youngs Modulus the total amount of the fluid pumped is arguably more
important than the amount of the proppant, frac performance in many shales have indicated proppant quantity is as
important as the total fluids (Coulter, 2004). Problems that remain unresolved include success of proppant placement
in the smaller fissures and effectiveness of proppant over the life of the well.
Rate
In the most general terms, the frac injection rate produces the pressure to drive the type of fractures needed in a
completion, but to drive fractures from multiple initiation points requires some thought around how to both initiate and
drive a fracture. If only a single fracture was created, the design would be much simpler. However, multiple initiation
points needed for increased fracture complexity require carefully spaced cluster perforating, and sufficient rate to
initiate and drive fractures. In some cases, 20 bpm per perf cluster is used as a minimum, but as the fracture grows
and leakoff increases, any injection rate will reach a point where the injected fluid is completely lost in leakoff and the
fracture no longer grows (Alexander, 2009).

18

SPE 133456

Frac Design and Modeling

Completion/Frac designs require establishing a completion that allows the frac to make the best possible connection
between the reservoir and the wellbore. The specifics of the frac include:
1. How to initiate a primary frac from each stage.
a. How to locate the clusters in optimum sites, not just mathematical points.
b. Spacing of the clusters to achieve minimum stress interference from adjacent fracs, but still allow fracture
complexity development.
c. Optimizing the number of perf clusters to take advantage of design rate (matching clusters to rate).
d. Establishing a fracture in each cluster during rate ramp up, even when the rate is still below the best
hydraulic diversion rate.
2. How to drive the frac outward, creating a frac of optimum length when using pad locations and well patterns, but
retaining ability to fill in the areas between the staged fracs with a network of effective and open natural fractures.
Some variables:
a. Optimum rate ramp-up and when and how to stage a job for proppant ramp-up
b. Optimum spacing of offset wells.
c. Thickness of net and gross pay (and brittle and ductile shale how each behaves).
d. Frac boundaries and how to avoid activities that breach these boundaries.
e. Presence, location, density and opening pressure of primary, secondary and even tertiary natural
fractures.
f. Geological hazards and/or boundary interferences
There are many good fracture simulators developed primarily for sandstones with reasonably constant leakoff from a
planar frac, however, shale frac leakoff is into fissures and cracks, and therefore the stresses created by enlarging
these fissures places an entire different and constantly changing stress state on the shale. This inflation of the
reservoir, especially to a volume created by injection of 15,000 to 60,000 m3 per well (4 to 12 million gallons), appears
to transmit stresses in a different manner than is seen in porous and permeable formations. The bulk of information
derived from fracturing in the shales indicates that the fractures often follow the natural fracture systems, branching
when stresses, friction, internal frac diversion or other factors create higher than normal fluid flow friction and offer an
alternate path down a crack at a different angle to the stresses. The fracture may switch from the primary natural
fracture system to the secondary natural fracture system and back again very quickly and very frequently. In viewing
microseismic real-time from the on-site treating van, several active fracture growth patterns have been recognized as
occurring simultaneously in a single fracture stage.
Some parts of very anisotropic rocks fracture at a much lower pressure than other parts, thus the frac will have a
preferential path through the shale fabric (Warpinski, 1987). The impact of anisotropic rock fabric and the flow paths
that they create is one of the major unknowns for any shale. Even fracs on shale with extensive natural fracture
systems have shown preferential fracture development that is traceable from well to well. In addition to the natural
fracture systems, regional fractures and faults also play an important role in both frac development and production
capacities.
Whereas the upper fracturing rate limit may not have been found yet, Warpinski (2008, SPE 114173) observes that
frac surface injection rates on the order of 15 bpm or less do not trigger many microseismic signals. Low productivity
following low rate slick water fracs has also been documented in well-to-well comparisons in the Gothic Shale of
southwest Colorado (Broacha, 2009).
As more and more fissures are opened, rate will need to be raised to sustain some level of fracture development. At
some point of the fracture treatment, the rate available through the perforation cluster will be so dispersed in the
fracture network that the velocity is reduced and a screenout may occur at multiple points along in the flow path. If this
happens in the primary fracture system near the wellbore, the pressure rise will be quick. If multiple small screenouts
occur at a few of the growing tips, pressure rise may be slow and relatively constant, with lateral growth in areas of
natural fracture density along the primary frac. This effect may be seen as semi-steady net surface pressure rise, or a
sharp pressure rise depending on how many blockages are formed, where they are, and if enough unopened and

SPE 133456

19

optimally oriented natural fractures remain in the area of the frac to act as a pressure relief valve. Short experiments
with rate changes early in the frac may give useful answers to whether the formation has had all it will take or
whether more frac area can be accessed.
Depending on the number of the blockages formed and the stresses produced, the microseismic activity may rise, fall
and rise again during the job as the fluid is concentrated, then spreads out and is re-concentrated by the blockages.
Accurate prediction of stimulated reservoir volume using microseismic may not be feasible in some cases since both
hydraulic and mechanical forces are generating the in-situ stresses that create the events. Analyzing the fracture
performance, even using something as simple as surface pressure reaction to injection rate and proppant loading can
be useful when examined as trends and where other factors, such as chemicals, are kept as constant as possible.
Some operators found that ramping up frac rate too quickly in the Barnett shale (in areas without the lower frac barrier)
could actually drive the fracture out of zone in the first minute of pumping (Dobkins, 2005), whereas a slow ramp up of
rate could help keep the frac in zone. King (2008) documented this finding with a set of experiments that showed that
a low breakdown rate followed by 5 or 10 bpm increase steps during ramp-up kept many fracs in zone and increased
complexity in the frac. Several fracs in the Devonian shales in the 1980s documented that low rate fracturing tended
to open natural fracture pathways while higher rates were more likely to create hydraulic fractures (Yost, SPE 17759).
This indicates a way to build fracture complexity in the near well area, and then increase rate gradually in a way that
can increase complexity as deep in the reservoir as hydraulic connection and available rate will allow. It is also a most
valuable tool to hold a fracture in zone (King, 2008) when there is a brine zone below the shale. Further work with rate
changes during fracturing and small volume slugs of sand slurry were often sufficient to modify the growth areas of the
fracture. In a few shales with low in-situ stresses, the shale frac is so dynamic that there is little chance of creating a
job-ending screenout. In higher stress environments, however, screenouts caused by fracture-induced stress
increases are a problem. This discussion does not account for the breakdown and screenout problems with the first
stages (the toe stages) of many horizontal wells with multi-staged fracs. Toe stages are special cases where
completions debris (pipe dope, mud residue, mill scale, etc.) are known to be perf plugging problems.
Experience in specific areas of the Barnett shale produced combinations of pressure limits, rate ramp-ups and sand
slugs that could even alter frac direction. These experiences were documented with comparisons of the well behavior
with the frac pumping conditions (pressure, rate and sand loading), both chemical and radioactive tracers (Leonard,
2007; Woodroof, 2003 - SPE 82221 & SPE 84486; Townsend, 2005; Munoz, 2009; Silber, 2003; Sullivan, 2004;
Munoz, 2009; Vincent, 2009), microseismic (Warpinski, JPT, 2009; Reyes-Montes, 2009; Baihly, 2006; Fisher, 2002;
Fisher, 2004; Warpinski, 2009, SPE 125239; Muhrer, 2007, Maxwell, 2002 & 2009; Mahrer, 2007; ), production logs
(Heddleston, 2009), water production rate after frac flowback and well production stabilization.
Fracture Complexity
Complexity or network fracturing is a combination of establishing main fractures with high conductivity and adding
immense contact areas created by opening and stabilizing natural fractures in the rock (Warpinski, 1991; Warpinski,
2008; Warpinski, 2009; Cipolla, 2008, SPE 115771 & 115769; Cramer, 2008; Fisher, 2002; King, 2008). Cipolla (2008,
SPE 115769) drew schematics of several fracture styles and described an orderly complex or network fracture system.
Figure 9 Theoretical concepts of complex
fracture systems possible with formations
with primary and secondary fractures.

20

SPE 133456

How orderly the network may be is in doubt since local and regional stresses and post depositional modifications will
strongly influence which fractures open and in what order. Cipolla (2008, SPE 115771) goes further with results from a
mine-back fracture pattern that shows an irregular pattern of fracture growth and opening.
Only a few formations, mostly shales and coals, have shown significant fracture complexity development on a regular
basis. Warpinski, 2009, states that the entire premise for the success of waterfracs in the Barnett is the ability of the
low viscosity fluid of a water frac to activate, dilate and shear offset natural fractures. Complexity appears related to
use of slickwater fracs and influenced by rate and injection pressure. The leakoff through the shale fractures is largely
a subset of pressure dependent leakoff; however, some diffusion appears to be occurring in the early stages of the frac
(Cipolla, 2008). Olson (2009, SPE 119300) illustrated the pressure behavior as multiple fractures were breaking down
with slick water increasing pressure during fracturing. Increasing fracture complexity or networking in gas productive
shales is commonly viewed as necessary to economically increase the amount of area effectively drained by a fracture
treatment. Hundreds of microseismic monitored frac jobs have now been pumped and frac understanding is improving
the level of fracture complexity and conductive fracture linkages.
Olsen, 2009, lists four conditions that make frac complexity in the Barnett a desired and possible outcome: orthogonal
regional tensile fractures, low horizontal stress and stress anisotropy, low Poissons Ratio, and extremely low matrix
permeability. Without these conditions, other shales may not be able to capitalize on Barnett completion techniques.
Proppant transfer through the complex fracture network is one of the most difficult elements to predict or investigate.
Small scale pumping simulators and even mine-back experiments have helped to understand basic concepts, but the
greatest variables are probably the anisotropic nature of the formation itself and the changing stress states during
fracturing.
Cipolla, (SPE 115769) defined frac complexity by comparing the total width of the microseismic cloud with its length,
defining a fracture complexity index (FCI) as the ratio of width to length. The example plot follows and shows
differences between Barnett horizontal completions and several other completions in shales and sands with respect to
the ability to form fracture complexity index.

Figure 10 Fracture Complexity Index comparisons of several

formations show the localized grouping of Barnett wells with
sandstones. The total width is the enhanced fracture flow path
width, not the actual planar frac width. The oval contains
many of the Barnett wells.

Much of the Barnett shale is actually a relatively brittle, fine-grained siltstone with a high Youngs modulus and a
moderately low Poissons ratio. These formations are more easily fractured with slick water than the more ductile
shales. The Barnett horizontal well data reflect completions that are cased and cemented with multiple short
perforation clusters spaced to assist in developing complexity in the fracture. The silica-rich parts of the shale have a
high Youngs modulus and a low Poissons ratio. Fractures opened in these zones tend to remain open, at least
initially after stimulation, increasing the effective permeability of the shale and the potential for gas recovery.
Brittleness may have a linkage to factors contributing to production. In Figure 11, whether the more brittle rock is a
hydrocarbon generator comparable to its production capacity is not stated, but the storage capacity for free gas in a
highly brittle rock is likely higher than a more ductile rock with considerably more clays and organics and less
interconnected matrix and frac porosity.

SPE 133456

21

Figure 11 The graph shows a linkage of

thermal maturity to gas flow projections
from several shales and cross-plots a
measure of rock brittleness linked to those
wells (Jarvie, 2007).

The goal of increasing fracture complexity is increasing recovery of the gas in place in the shale. Optimizing the
recovery, especially in ultra-low permeability shales, requires generating both extensive reservoir contact to access the
natural fractures and keeping the fracture pathway open after fracturing stresses have been released. If the fractures
are unpropped, the matrix permeabilities of 100 to 200 nD (0.0001 to 0.0002 md) and the permeability of the healed
natural fractures (variable perms) are simply too low to feed much gas into the main fractures. As has been found in
lower permeability reservoirs, large areas of the reservoir are often largely undrained with wells on conventional
spacing. In most of these reservoirs, infield drilling has tapped largely virgin pressures and previously stranded
reserves. In shales with the possibility of fracture complexity, opening and increasing linkage of natural fractures can
achieve the same result with a smaller surface footprint of fewer wells. By combining a hybrid approach of rate
variation and sand slugs, it may be possible to custom build a complex network that selectively drains specific parts
of the rock. This would be a benefit in any initial stimulation as well as remedial (refrac) stimulations.
Pressure Changes and Net Pressure Rise in Complex Fracturing
Net pressure rise during fracturing has been linked with increasing fracture complexity in some shales (Palmer, 2007)
and pressure changes during the job are used by some appliers as an indicator of frac quality (King, 2008; Wiley,
2004; Jordan, 2003; Cramer, 1992). The effect of net pressure rise is not agreed upon over the whole frac spectrum.
Those that use the indicator argue a net pressure rise of about 700 to 1000 psi net (corrected for fluid slurry column
density and friction) is an indicator of a frac that is building complexity in zone. A number of tests have arrived at
general conclusions that increasing frac pressure and complexity may be related (Warpinski, 2008). In frac experience
in the Barnett shale, a modest net pressure rise of 1 to 5 psi per minute has been correlated with an increase in
complex fracture development (a width over length complexity development ratio), fracs staying in zone without a
lower frac barrier and solid production increases compared to offset wells of high tech operators (King, 2008). A more
rapid net pressure rise of 8 to 15 psi per minute has been linked to what appear to be potential screenouts and some
cases of breaking out of zone following the sharp pressure rise (King, 2008).
Palmer (2007) describes complexity events as shear failures on planes of weakness outside the path of the main
fracture plane (the events are marked by microseisms). The complexity is created by shear and/or tensile fractures
and describes a failed reservoir volume (FRV) that implies a higher potential gas rate. In low matrix permeability
formations such as shale, the developing shear (and tensile) failures typically produce a pore pressure increase in and
transmitted by the natural fracture system. This pressure transmission along with increasing difficulty of generating
more fracture volume in these complex fractures leads to increasing net pressure during the frac. A weak linkage of
this net pressure increase to productivity was shown by Coulter (2004), Figure 12. Linkage of net pressure rise to
staying in zone was presented by King (2008). This discussion of net pressures in shale fracs uses calculated net
pressures, thus a potential source of error is introduced in the absence of bottom hole pressure measurements. Nonshale areas have mixed reviews on the importance of net pressure to fracture effectiveness. Olsen produced a plot of
closure pressure rise in a shale frac that shows the relationship of closure pressure to the stresses added during a frac
by injection of fluid, Figure 13.

22

SPE 133456

Figure 12 Calculated net

pressure increase vs. 90 day
cumulative production.

Figure 13 Closure pressure (in

a contained zone) increases
with total fluid pumped. This is
an indication of stress changes
during this frac.

Surface injection pressure may change during a job for many reasons: opening up a new area of the rock, initiating a
new fracture from the wellbore, encountering a plane of weakness (laminations or fault), or fracturing out of zone.
Surface pressure records are often the only data available on a frac, so experience with pressure trends are important,
although measured bottom hole pressures are much preferred over calculated bottom hole pressure values, the reality
of reliably obtaining bottom hole pressures in a multi-stage frac makes gauge BHP an elusive target.
Fracture intersection with natural fractures can create very complex occurrences in conventional rocks, but in
unconventional reservoirs, natural fracture interaction may be a primary stimulation. Knowing how a frac will behave
when it encounters a group of natural fractures that are either open or can be easily opened; and, what actions to take,
makes frac work in shales a hands-on activity. Natural fractures are not just leakoff sites but serve as alternate frac
pathways and can build quick stress points in the formation. Because they are linked in behavior, frac induced
stresses and natural fracture opening must be considered jointly. First, there is a large bank of information in the
literature that deals with the behavior of frac and natural fracture intersection, much of it specifically aimed at shales:
Blanton, 1986; Barton, 2002; Chipperfield, 2007; Caramancia, 1994; Gale, 2007; Gaskari, 2006; Hopkins, 1998; Kubik,
1993; Overbey, 1988; Potluri, 2005; Yost, 1988. Second, the geomechanical stress references often explain why
fractures behave as they do: Britt, 2009; Abousleiman, 2007; Bartenhagen; Dunek, 2009; Higgins, 2007; LeCompte,
2009; Palmer, 2007; Ramakrishnan, 2009.
Influence of Geologic Discontinuities on Fracs
Vulgamore, 2007, in a series of fracturing experiments in the Woodford shale, observed that the intersection with local
structural features (faults, fracture swarms) had a significant effect on fracture treatment geometry. These features
can completely dominate fracture growth as subsequent stages may continue to grow into the previously intersected
fault or frac system (Warpinski, 1987). This can prevent the full length of the lateral from being stimulated and cause
the well to underperform. Asymmetric fracture growth was noted by microseismic modeling (King, 2008) in complex
fracture networks and complexity had the tendency to grow up-dip. In other cases, fracturing into faults led to water
production or a general loss of frac efficiency. In a few cases, fracturing into faults had no significant effect on
production. Fracturing into a fault often produces the highest magnitude microseismic events according to Warpinski
(2009, SPE 125239).
Microseismic amplitude reflects the seismic moment, which is proportional to the amount of shear movement and the
area of surface that is slipping. Using the moment magnitude as a measure of the strength of the microseism, fractureto-fault intersection should generate very large amplitude signals.

SPE 133456

23

Figure 14 - Magnitude of the microseismic

events when a fault is entered are some of the
stronger signals in a microseismic record, but
are still significantly below the magnitude of
even the smallest surface-felt earth tremor.

In some cases, intersection of a developing fracture with a fault will be marked by a sharp surface injection pressure
drop that usually stays decreased rather than building back up unless the fault volume is low or the fault is sealed.
Actual frac pressure behavior depends upon the stresses and pressure of the fault. Rate, volume and communication
into and within the fault will determine the length of time that the injection pressure stays decreased. Some faults are
very detrimental to production and some do not appear to have any significant influence.
Simultaneous and Sequential Fracturing
Fracturing of multiple parallel wells has proven useful by using stresses created by fracturing one stage to divert
another frac stage direction and even increase complexity development in subsequent fracturing stages. The effect
was reported by Warpinski (1989) as altered stress fracturing where a frac direction was modified by a previous frac in
the area. Simultaneous fracturing has been successfully used in a number of shale developments (Mutalik, 2008;
Grigg, 2008; Waters, 2009). Two to five parallel wells have been fractured at once by one frac unit (blender and
pumps) for each well. Perhaps the most famous Barnett shale simultaneous fracs are the EOG Resources Fowler
fracs in the Barnett shale in northeast Johnson County. Five wells were fractured with five frac equipment sets. The
total initial production rate for these five wells at 114 m (375 foot) well-to-well spacing was nearly 962x103 m3/day (34
mmscf/d). EUR was projected as 894x106 m3 (31.6 BCF) and EOG estimated ultimate recovery of the gas in place
was 54% - more than double the normal GIP recovery expectation
Candidate requirements for simultaneous or sequential fracture operations are not well defined. Most companies that
have used the processes in the shales have indicated good production responses, however, the distances between
most of the paired wells have been on the order of 300m (1000 ft) or less with extreme cases of 450 m (1500 ft)
separation. The maximum distance will probably depend on the time between the fracs, the specific formation, the
initial and after-frac stresses, and the job related or fracture induced stresses that may be linked to volume of fluid,
pump rates and diverting methods. Simultaneous fracturing requires exceptional coordination between the frac crews
and equipment. Large pads, often multiple pads, are a necessity.
Grigg, 2008, looked at several wells and calculated that the production uplift from a simultaneous or sequential frac
averages about 30% for a 2-well simul and 30%+ for a 3-well simul. The success of the simultaneous frac will likely
depend on how the stresses in the rock are modified by the frac, which in turn depends on individual shale
characteristics and local stresses existing before the frac. Brittleness of the shale likely has some control on the
success of simultaneous fracturing. There does not appear to be much difference between simultaneous fracturing
and sequential or zipper fracturing.
In a zipper or sequential frac, there is only one fracture pumping spread, with the frac job alternated between closely
spaced parallel wells. In theory, up to three wells could be zipper fractured although no documentation could be found
on more than two zipper fracs at a time. Holding full shut-in pressure on the wellbore of one well while the other is
being fractured does not appear to be a necessity, but backflow should be limited. In the fracs described by King
(2008), for example, the well not being fractured was concurrently being perforated by pump down perforating guns at
somewhat less than final shut-in (post- frac) pressure while the offset well was being fractured. Results on this
approach were within the bounds of increase described for simultaneous fracturing.

24

SPE 133456

Refracturing
Refracs of shale wells have been spectacularly successful when compared to refracs in conventional reservoirs
(Moore, 2006) for two proposed reasons (shale specific):
1. Initial gel fracs, common in the Barnett, were probably damaging and did not appear to develop the type of
fracture complexity in shale gas reservoirs that is necessary to improve recovery.
2. Propping of the smaller fractures and micro-fractures in shales is not effective production losses over time do
not appear totally related to flush production depletion and may be linked to fracture closing, poor cleanup or
poor production practices.
Poor water recovery from fracturing may be linked to capillary pressure blocking in the small fractures and even in the
sand pack (Penny, 2006). A non-shale specific criteria was advanced by Hopkins (1993) to separate poor
completions from poor geology before progressing towards a restimulation.
Most reported refracs where production numbers are available have been re-stimulations of wells that were initially
fractured with gelled fluids or foam fluids (Wolhart, 2002; Dozier, 2003; Lantz, 2007; Potapenko; 2009; Phillips, 2007;
Siebrits, 2000). Slickwater refracs of wells that are initially fractured with polymer gels most probably capitalize on
three things: removing or bypassing the polymer damage from gels; opening the small fractures and micro-cracks that
gelled fluids could not invade; and extending the frac system because of the much larger volume of the SWF. Refracs
of even good wells increased the recovery and re-established near initial production rate. Increasing stimulated
reservoir volume should increase both the IP and the EUR. When new areas of the shale are exposed in a refrac,
there should also be a gain in reserves (Warpinski, 2008). Increases in stimulated reservoir volume could be
accomplished by opening many of the micro-cracks and laminations within the undisturbed matrix blocks in the initial
drainage are that were left unstimulated by previous fracturing attempts. Re-opening of natural and hydraulic fractures
that had closed due to overburden and confining stress created by depletion would re-establish matrix area contact.
Conventional sandstone fracturing beliefs are that fractures are driven towards depleted zones. Whether fractures in
shales behave in this manner is open for discussion. Fracturing technology for shales is constantly improving and
refracs may slowly fade from common use as the frac designs for shale wells are optimized. Until optimal fracs are
achieved and production engineering is optimized, however, refracs will have a place in shale stimulation.
Wolhart, 2002, studied Barnett shale wells and evaluated refrac candidates. Criteria for the refracs were that the well
was underperforming with respect to its offsets. Refracturing in shales may produce a re-orientation of the fracture
away from the initial frac direction. If the fracture reorientation captured by the following tilt meter record of a Mitchell
Energy well (Wolhart, 2002; Waters, 2009) can be reliably repeated in the shales, then refracs have enormous
potential. Production and recovery gains and even repeated refracs are possible (Steward, 2008).
A simple series of tests using microseismic or tilt meters to track the frac growth at different frac rates may be
adequate to explain the behavior. A second area of discussion is that refracturing is actually providing significantly
more fracture complexity than occurred in the initial stimulation a factor with significant support in microseismic
records of refracs. An example from Waters (2009), Figure 15, illustrates the refrac reorientation behavior.
Figure 15: A refrac of a shale
well in the Barnett produced a
fracture that Tilt meters
tracked at 90o to the
orientation of the initial frac.

SPE 133456

25

The direction of this refrac is initially perpendicular to the original frac azimuth and in the same orientation (90o to
primary frac) as the tilt meters indicate for the secondary frac direction. This suggests secondary fractures may be
opened by very small pressure differential or even sand slug diverting. This data is encouraging for enhancing
recovery in gas shales. The reorientation of the frac away from a partially depleted zone, however, is in disagreement
to conventional formation fracturing theory. An alternate explanation for the initial growth direction along the wellbore
may be that of axial fracture initiation followed by turning of the frac to a new direction. This theory does not account
for the new frac direction being 90 degrees to the frac direction of the initial stimulation. What may be occurring is the
depletion mechanism in the shale does not provide a single depleted zone or the fractures are closing and diverting to
the secondary direction.
Production enhancements of the two Barnett shale wells Wolhart studied are shown in Figures 16 and 17. Both wells
were previous gel fracs that were refractured with slick water fracs with proppant (Siebrits, 2000).

Figure 16 Slope of the initial

decline in the refrac is similar to a
slickwater frac in a new Barnett
well, thus new rock has obviously
been contacted.

Figure 17 This frac is an unusual response

that shows apparent efforts to stabilize the
well through production optimization. Lift
and flow cycling have been trialed with
mixed results. Liquid loading is seen as
the most common production problem.

Figure 17s production decline pattern is very unique in that the gas rate is actually increasing over a four month time
period. No explanation was provided on the unusual rate behavior. Part of the production behavior may be related to
loading and unloading of the well with produced water, although a second possibility is that the formation is unloading
water from the frac, interval-by-interval. One unanswered question for refrac success is to determine if fractures that
close during production can be re-opened easier than opening new fractures.
The most positive refrac results have been on vertical wells (Figure 18 and 19), although horizontal well refracs are
known to be successful, especially when new zones were perforated and fractured.

26

SPE 133456

Figure 18 Steward, 2008, showed a Barnett

well with two refracs both of which restored
rate. The final refrac with water took the
production higher than the initial rate.

Of the vertical wells studied by Cipolla, many of the cross-linked gel treatments in vertical wells exhibited production
signatures of a high conductivity primary fracture connected to a low conductivity fracture network. Cipollas
explanation is that high viscosity cross-linked fluids and the large proppant volumes created a high conductivity
primary fracture in a very low permeability shale and that, whether by damage or high viscosity, the fluids did not
create a complex fracture environment.

Figure 19 Cipolla (SPE 124843)

provides examples of production data
from refracs for both vertical and
horizontal wells.

Flowback and Fracture Load Recovery

The amount of fracture fluid recovery in gas shales varies with the shale character, the frac design and the type of fluid
as the main drivers (Sullivan, 2004; Soliman, 1985; Crafton, 2007 & 2009). Fractures that are more conventional with
long reach and minimum complexity often flow back quickly and the percentage of frac fluid recovered is high. In shale
fracs where extensive complexity is developed or the shale is mildly reactive, the amount of fluid recovered may be on
the order to 10 to 50% of the total pumped and the time for fluid recovery may stretch over several weeks. This
relationship depends on system energy and closure stresses. Controlling back pressure to use available formation
gas energy to most efficiently remove the load water from the frac may have significant benefits.
Smaller natural fractures that are the source of fracture complexity may be the main cause of delays in water
recovery. Relative permeability effects in the narrow fractures, related wetting phenomena, and the tortuous path from
the far reaches of the frac fluid penetration are the main causes of these delays. Stimulated reservoir volume, SRV
(Mayhofer, 2008), may not be the same as failed reservoir volume, FRV (Palmer, 2007) or the outer extent of frac fluid
penetration. This difference may be that much of the load water that is not recovered from a frac is probably still in the
smaller natural fracs and is effectively blocking part of the flow path (Penny, 2006). As reservoir pressure in the shale
fractures declines over time, there is even less possibility that water in these small fractures will be displaced.
The flowback techniques and results discussed here deal mainly with slickwater fracs. Gelled fracs have an entirely
different dependency on cleanup as shown by Willberg (1998). Wells fraced by gels may benefit in some cases by

SPE 133456

27

forced closure methods and liquid recovery rates as fast as 6 bpm if proppant is not moved out of the fracture,
however, this technique is not a universal suggestion for shale fracs, particularly those using slickwater fracs. Forced
closure may not be optimum for removal of water from microfractures. Slower water recovery has increased IP in
some cases (Leonard, 2007; Crafton, 2010).
For slick water fluids, capillary pressure is an often overlooked problem as permeabilities decline. As permeability
decreases, capillary pressure increases, often by orders of magnitude (Penny, 2006). As seen in Figure 20, the barrier
to removal of the liquids is in the smallest pores and smallest fractures. Other factors such as fluid saturations have a
major impact. Water saturation in pores of a gas shale is often 25 to 45%, but the after-frac water saturation on the
smaller natural fractures is probably much higher initially, at least until a bit of gas moves through and raises the gas
saturation and the capillary pressure. This may serve as at least a piece of explanation for the rapid decline rates of
gas shale wells after fracturing. The total pressure to initiate flow is significant. The amount of pressure needed to flow
is the capillary end effect, which is the capillary pressure plus the additional pressure for fluids to exit the pore or
fracture.
Figure 20 Capillary pressure threshold (the pressure to
overcome the capillary force and initiate flow), is shown
for three orders of permeability magnitude. The diameter
of a water molecule is slightly smaller than the methane
molecule diameter of 3.6 Angstroms, but in the same
relative size range. Methane has a lower viscosity than
water so slippage and fingering of the gas through the
water during recovery are expected.

Reducing these pressures will enable frac fluids to be recovered more easily, increasing the ability to produce gas
(Penny, 2006). The Pcap or capillary pressure increases as the initial frac load water is recovered and the saturation
of water in the pore (or micro-crack) decreases. Capillary pressure increases sharply in smaller pores and fractures.
Effects of capillary forces will be less for fractures than pores but will still be a factor limiting water recovery from a
highly fractured flow system. Surface tension lowering by surfactants or other chemicals is only effective if the
materials are not lost by preferential adsorption in the formation.
Barnett shale cores with effective permeabilities as high as 0.001 to 0.002 md would have a capillary end effect of
1500 to 3000 psi just to return fluids from the reservoir to the wellbore. The addition of a material such as
microemulsion to the water would lower the Pcap to about 300 psi. Although permeability of the shales is dominated by
natural fractures, these fractures still have an effective pore radius and capillary forces. Penny, (2006, SPE 100434)
showed that there was a threshold water saturation to initiate gas flow that increased with decreasing permeability.
Reducing insitu water saturation by 10% allowed a two-fold increase in permeability to gas.
Multifractured horizontal wells, by their very nature, make backflow analysis difficult where the need is to differentiate
production performance or flow from a specific fracture over times ranging from initial after-frac flow to stable
production. The standard methods of tracing frac flowback performance are volume and salinity of the fluids
recovered. Production logging tools are becoming popular to track origins of recovered of fluids and produced
hydrocarbons (Heddleston, 2009).
Tracers
Field measurements that enable understanding hydraulic frac behavior and the water recovery include microseismic
monitoring while fracturing, radioactive tracers to mark frac entry points, chemical tracers that allow tracing of fluid
return efficiency for different stages, quantitative records of water volumes, salinity, solids, gas rates and pressures,
and finally, tools that can qualitatively differentiate the type of fluid entering the well on backflow, the relative rates of
return and the entry points.
Chemical and radioactive isotope tracers are useful in both gas shale stimulation and tracing fluid flowback (Curry,
2010; Munoz, 2009; Silber, 2000; Leonard, 2007; Woodroof, 2003; Yang, 1997; Sullivan, 2004; Townsend, 2005).

28

SPE 133456

Chemical tracers are used throughout the treatment and return as they load water is recovered. By combining the
timing of the volumes of marked load recovery, a picture begins to emerge of stage-by-stage load fluid backflow and
water input from other formation-fed sources of water. Tracing the timing, volume and contamination of the frac fluid
return in a stage-by-stage manner can assist in differentiating the performance of the frac and the ability of a section of
the formation to return fluids. In addition, monitoring the dilution of the tracer in a mass balance model can improve
understanding of fracture fluid breakout, confirm effect of frac barriers and directly measure flowback efficiency of each
frac stage. Variability in the rate of return of fluids may be caused by gel damage, relative perm effects, the complexity
of the fracture system, frac behaviors that strand fluids (fracture closure) and other factors (Crafton, 2010).
Radioactive tracers (tagged proppant) are used to mark frac points, diagnose shallow fracture and cement isolation
problems and can be useful in determining vertical wells frac height (Silber, 2003).
Production Operations in Gas Shales
Production from shales requires recognition and handling of factors that must be optimized to maximize production.
Valko (2009) covered production events using a database of 7000 Barnett wells. The maximum daily production is
reached early, during the end of the cleanup. Over the two year history of production, there are many events that
shape the production life of the well and impact both the daily rate and the ultimate production from the well. Shut-ins,
for example, are often followed by peak rates, indicating recharging. Daily production variance can be due to testing,
servicing, fluctuations in the gathering grid or pipeline take-away system, and mechanical problems that restrict
production.
After tracking microseismic responses during a frac treatment, Mattar (2008, SPE 119897) hypothesized:
1. Much shale fracturing is not localized in a bi-wing frac, but rather distributed along the network of fissures.
2. Fissures pre-existed and were healed and hydraulic fracturing re-opened them, creating perm.
3. Reopening of fractures is accompanied by local dislocations. This often keeps them propped open and
maintains permeability.
4. The effective reservoir exists only as far as the fracture extends.
Many of these conclusions had been reached by Cipolla, Maxwell, Mayhofer, Warpinski and others.
Decline Curves
Decline curves may be stylized over several years, Figure 20, (McClendon, 2009; Venture, 2009) or have the actual
data where an average is drawn for all wells in an area. Both approaches have merits and drawbacks.
Figure 21 A model curve of a shale gas
well decline showing very large IP rates in
the early time and a first year decline
approaching 75% before flattening off.

In Figure 22, Rees (2009) went further, plotting the individual decline curves from over a dozen wells and the average
of one hundred and seven wells in the Barnett shale gas window in a single slide. The EURs range from 0.3 to 3.6
Bcf, and the curves show a very wide range of production trends, even for wells in close proximity. His conclusion is
there may not be a typical well.

SPE 133456

29

Figure 22 Rees comments extended to the

common practice of estimating EUR from
IP30 rates. The bottom line from his work
was how much production time was needed
to draw representative curve. This will
undoubtedly be a concern for projecting
economic recovery in developing and
qualifying shale plays.

Frac Flowback and Produced Water Treating and Reuse

Water availability, water supply costs, disposal costs, environmental responsibility and government regulations have
triggered a number of advances in treating and reuse of frac flowback and produced water. The cost effective and
reasonable approaches to water recycling must consider several points:
1. Water returns vary significantly during the flowback, forcing a decision of whether to build treating facilities for peak
rates and be underloaded during the later time of the flowback or build for an average rate and use competent
storage to contain peak volumes until treating capacity is available. Portable equipment for peak load may be an
alternative.
2. Flowback water compositions change during time with fresher water and higher chemical load in the early flow,
then salt concentrations rise to levels as high as 80,000 to 100,000 ppm in later flow. Salt load dictates the best
treating approach, while chemical removal requirements dictate the type of complexity of filtration or other
separation methods. Flexibility in permanent equipment and mobile units for peaks and special needs are a good
starting point in design.
Blauch (2009, 2010) presents a very interesting analysis of materials in the flowback water from fracs in the Marcellus
and general findings for produced water reuse. The total amount of dissolved constituents increased as flowback
progressed, even as some frac-specific additives disappeared. It is very common for produced water volumes to
continually decrease for as long as a year. The end of frac fluid load recovery is often difficult to pinpoint unless a
marker ion or tracer is in the frac water. Other papers include: Asadi, 2008; Crafton (SPE 125248, SPE 123289, SPE
119894, SPE 110851); Rimassa, 2009; Walls, 1985, Yang, 1997; Willberg, 1998.
During flowback, decrease in sulfate ion is common as calcium, strontium and barium increases, confirming that initial
frac water is a sulfate source. Presence of sulfate ion often increases natural scaling tendency. Other constituents in
back-flowed waters depend on the development, pay maturity, initial additives and debris from the wells and lines
(Blauch, 2010: Gaudlip, 2008). Whether returning solid and fluid components have to be removed prior to reuse, or if
they must be routed to disposal depends on the formation sensitivities. In general, organics, scaling ions, biological
contamination and salt levels above the levels of chemical sensitivities must be resolved before effective reuse of the
recovered water.
The demands on fresh water supplies in an area where a full field shale gas development using slickwater fracturing
can be moderately significant and highly visible (Modern Scale; Arthur, 2009, 2009). The necessity of fresh water for
the shale fracs was established early in the development of the Barnett shale, when the basic chemicals, particularly
friction reducers, surfactants and scale inhibitors had performance difficulties when mixed in brines with salinities more
than about 20,000 to 30,000 ppm. With recent developments of classes of chemicals that can operate in brines of
75,000+ ppm, the field of recycling fracture back flow and produced waters has grown rapidly (Gupta, 2009;). Some
remixing possibilities always existed when fresh water could be added to bring the returning fluid TDS levels into

30

SPE 133456

acceptable ranges, however, the large variation of salinity content, often in ranges of 35,000 to 110,000 ppm, makes
reblending/dilution challenging.
One of the most severe threats in recycling waters for fracs is the control of bacteria (Tischler, 2009), including sulfate
reducing bacteria (SRBs) and other forms such as acid producing bacteria (APB), iron fixing bacteria and slime
formers. SRBs have created souring of some conventional reservoirs from injection of waters, both produced and
semi-fresh, which have established a presence in the reservoirs and create H2S gas and iron sulfide problems. Local
well fouling problems are common where SRBs are spiked into the formation from drilling or completion fluids. This
type of H2S occurrence may cause local corrosion, but not usually a problem for conventional reservoirs in the
absence of water flooding. In shale, however, the effect of uncontrolled bacteria is a general unknown, given the
extremely large volumes of surface water used in slick water fracturing. For this reason, recycling of the water may
seed all waters with bacteria and/or concentrate the bacteria; thus bacterial control is a necessity. Promising
developments of no-residual biocides include trials using ultraviolet light (Sharrock, 2010) and chlorine dioxide
(Tischler, 2009).
Return chemicals may include trace quantities of friction reducer (normally a polyacrylamide molecule or a guar in a
few cases) and a very small amount of biocide in the first part of the flowback (the last fluid pumped). Most added frac
chemicals with surface active nature adsorb in the formation (King, 1988) and will not usually return in significant
quantities. Polymer debris may be present, although often highly diluted. Salt levels, however, are often seen to rise
(Blauch, 2009) since many shales have formation water salinities of 35,000 to 50,000+ ppm TDS and often have a
highly saline neighboring formation. Frac water recovery percentage is a factor that may increase in importance as
shale operating technology increases. Currently, percent of frac load fluid recovered ranges from 30 to over 50% in
the Barnett by a sampling of operators in Tier 2. Although operators did not give this low frac fluid recovery much
thought in early jobs, evaluations of productivity and flowback recovery are beginning to link the frac water that
remains in the formation to possible problems with capillary blocking in microfractures and the proppant packs.
Toxicity testing on recycled water, Table 3, from Blauch (2010) on treated flowback water indicates that many of these
recycled frac and produced fluids are becoming more environmentally suitable.

Subsurface disposal is common in some areas but the use of this option may decrease in necessity with better
processing ability, since subsurface water disposal may not be the best economic approach. Disposal costs range
from a low of $1 to $2 per barrel (Barnett area) to as much as $6 to $10 per barrel from reported work in the Marcellus
(Hart DUG forum, 19 October, 2008).

SPE 133456

31

Treating produced water may include removal of suspended solids, gas and liquid hydrocarbons, treating H2S and CO2
in a few areas and bacterial control. Treating flowback ion levels to prevent potential scaling and processing the water
to a TDS level at which the chemical additives will operate effectively are in formative stages. Efficiency in treating
flowback and produced waters has reduced the total make-up fluid levels to 25% to 50% of previous use and has
minimized dependence on fresh water for fracs in some areas. Gupta (2009) outlines successful reuse of water
including attractive economics on a 50 well recycle project. Minimizing chemicals definitely is an advantage to water
reuse projects.
Treating methods include crystallizing units (Horn, 2009), evaporation ponds, selective ion membranes (Rimassa,
2009), filters, chemical flocculants, reverse osmosis and various other methods (Barrufet, 2009; Gaudlip, 2008;
Burnett, 2009, SPE 119297). Filtration as a pre-treatment is used to remove polymers such as polyacrylamide friction
reducers that will foul separation membranes. Filters also remove suspended solids, oil and some contaminates that
can be flocculated or complexed into very large macro-molecules. Other articles on water treating include: Arthur, 2009
(SPE 121038, SPE 122931); Blauch, 2009; Gaudlip, 2008; Gupta, 2009; Leiming, 2009; Rimassa, 2009; Soeder,
2008; Tischler, 2009, Barrufet, 2009. Horn (2009) discusses use of an advanced oxidation process using ozone and
ultrasonic transducers to oxidize heavy metals, soluble and insoluble organics. When combined with RO (Reverse
Osmosis) treating, flowback can be turned to a frac water source. A small fraction of the initial flowback may need to
be disposed of as waste water in very higher salinity cases. Cost to operate on a per barrel basis is less than the
disposal cost of the water in some places. Evaporation systems concentrate the salts into a smaller volume of water by
evaporation (natural or heated). Evaporative recovery systems can obtain a 4:1 reduction in waste brine volume and
are 70% efficient with 75,000 ppm TDS brine (Gaudlip, 2008) but forced evaporation costs may be prohibitive if easier
and cheaper alternatives are available. Higher TDS brines have lower yields of usable (recovered) fluids for most
separation and recovery systems and larger amounts of reject concentrate.
Scale deposition potential may be indicated when ions such as barium, strontium and calcium are available in the
flowback water and sufficient bicarbonate or sulfate ions are present to create super saturation in the liquids.
Preventative treatments to block scales are highly reliable when monitoring systems are in place. Ion compositions can
also lend value to predict increases in corrosion, entry of extraneous water, and other production problems such as
NORM scale.
Water management issues for produced and back flowed water can often be at least simplified by a few actions that
segregate water by contaminant or level of treating difficulty. Early flowback water volumes after a frac job are most
often lower total dissolved salt content fluids. Sending these waters of lower salinity to reprocessing plants for reuse is
a simple operation and usually meets with little resistance. Medium salinity waters can be diluted with the recycled
fresher waste water to meet frac specs or treated for re-use. High salinity waters are difficult to freshen without large
energy input.
Environmental Risk from Fracturing
Downhole environmental risks to fresh water supplies from fracturing in shale development greater than 500 ft below
the water sand is literally as close to zero as can be established from engineering analysis using the reported and
documented results available from at least 10,000 shale wells covered by the literature and searched for this paper.
Fracture height growth, even at high injection rates is limited by leak-off of the injected frac fluid into fractures or matrix
and quickly reaches a point where the leakoff rate equals the injection rate and the fracture simply cannot grow farther.
Most commonly, the major stimulation difficulty is getting total frac heights to even reach 400 ft above the perforations,
a limit that requires significant cost to place more fractures to make sure the pay zone is fully stimulated. Additionally,
development of effective fracture complexity sharply self-limits fracture extension or fracture height growth, as has
been documented by thousands of passive microseismic monitoring recordings during fracturing in a dozen shale
plays.

32

SPE 133456

Observations
The available information on shale completions and fracturing is a highly developed resource stretching back more
than thirty years. This work examined only a small part of that literature and has provided a starting place for
development of a very large energy resource.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Apache Corporation for permission to publish this review. The author also thanks Craig Cipolla,
Dick Leonard, Murray Grigg, Earuch Broacha, Norm Warpinski, Matt Mavor and many others for their information and
assistance.
References
Abousleiman, Y., Tran, M., Hoang, S., Bobko, C., Ortega, A., Ulm, F.J.: Geomechanics Field and Laboratory
Characterization of Woodford Shale: The Next Gas Play, Paper SPE 110120, presented at 2007 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11-14 November.
Alexander, Tom, presentation at the Canadian Shale and Unconventional Gas Symposium in Calgary, March 2008, on
completion results in the Fayetteville shale.
Allison, D., Folds, D., Harless, D., Howell, M., Vargus, G., Stipetich, A.: Optimizing Openhole Completion Techniques
for Horizontal Foam-Drilled Wells, Paper SPE 125642, presented at 2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston,
WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Ameri, S., Aminian, K., Yost II, A.B.: Data Base for Eastern Gas-Bearing Formations: Development and Application,
Paper SPE 17065, presented at the 1987 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 21-23 October.
Arthur, J.D., Bohm, B., Coughlin, B.J., Layne, M.: Evaluating Implications of Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Gas
Reservoirs, Paper SPE 121038, presented at the 2009 SPE Americas Environmental and Safety Conference, San
Antonio, TX USA, 23-25 March.
Arthur, J.D., Bohm, B, Cornue, D.: Environmental Considerations of Modern Shale Developments, Paper SPE
122931, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Asadi, M, Woodroof, R.A., Himes, R.E.: Comparative Study of Flowback Analysis Using Polymer Concentrations and
Fracturing-Fluid Tracer Methods: A Field Study, May 2008, SPE Production & Operations, pp 147.
Augustine, J., Meijs, R.: What Do the Surface Pressures Tell Us During Shale-Fracturing Operations?, SPE 127821,
Presented at 2010 International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La., USA, 10-12
February 2010.
Baihly, J., Laursen, P, Ogrin, J., Le Calvez, J.H., Villarreal, R., Tanner, K., Bennett, L.: Using Microseismic Monitoring
and Advanced Stimulation Technology to Understand Fracture Geometry and Eliminate Screenout Problems in the
Bossier Sand of East Texas, Paper SPE 102493, presented at 2006 SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, USA, 24-27 September.
Bannion, D.B.: Water and Hydrocarbon Phase Trapping in Porous Media, Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment, CIM
95-69, 46th Petroleum Society ATM, Banff, Canada, May 1995.
Barree, R.D., Gilbert, J.V., Conway, M.W.: Stress and Rock Property Profiling for Unconventional Reservoir
Stimulation, Paper SPE 118703, presented at 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, TX, USA, 19-21 January.

SPE 133456

33

Barree, R.D., Fisher, M.K., Woodroof, R.A.: A Practical Guide to Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics Technologies, Paper
SPE 77442, presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 29
September 2 October.
Barrufet, M.A., Mareth, B.C.: Optimization and Process Control of a Reverse Osmosis Treatment for Oilfield Brines,
Paper SPE 121177, presented at Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena de
Indias, Colombia, 31 May 3 June 2009.
Bartenhagen, K. Wireline Evaluation Techniques of Shale Gas Reservoirs, Schlumberger presentation.
Barton, C.A., Zoback, M.D.: Discrimination of Natural Fractures From Drilling Induced Wellbore Failures in Wellbore
Data Implications for Reservoir Permeability, SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, June 2002, pp 249-254.
Bell, M.R.G., Hardesty, J.T., Clark, N.G.: Reactive Perforating: Conventional and Unconventional Applications,
Learnings and Opportunities, Paper SPE 122174, presented at 2009 8th European Formation Damage Conference,
Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 27-29 May.
Bello, R.O., Wattenbarger, R.A.: Rate Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE
114591, presented at 2008 CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
16-19 June.
Bennett, C.O.: Analysis of Fractured Wells, PhD Thesis, University of Tulsa, 1982.
Berry, S.L., Smith, K., Cutler, J.L., Kalfayan, L.: Improved Oil Recovery From Combining Well Stimulation With Novel
Surfactant Technologies, Paper SPE 124215, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA,
USA, 4-7 October.
Blanton, T.L.: Propagation of Hydraulically and Dynamically Induced Fractures, Paper SPE 15261, presented at the
1986 SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, KY, USA, 18-21 May.
Blauch, M.E., Myers, R.R., Moore, T.R., Houston, N.A.: Marcellus Shale Post-Frac Flowback Waters Where is All
the Salt Coming From and What are the Implications?, Paper SPE 125740, presented at the 2009 SPE Regional
Meeting, Charleston, WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Blauch, M.E.,: Developing Effective and Environmentally Suitable Fracturing Fluids Using Hydraulic Fracturing
Flowback Waters, SPE 131784, presented at 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 23-25 Feb.
Boyer, C., Kieschnick, J., Suarez-Rivera, Lewis, R., Waters, G.: Producing Gas from its Source, Oilfield Review,
Autumn 2006, p36-49.
Boyer II, C.M., Glenn, S., Claypool, B., Weida, S.D., Crain, C.D.: Application of Viscoelastic Fracturing Fluids in
Appalachian Basin Reservoirs, Paper SPE 98068, presented at the 2005 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Morgantown, WVA, USA, 14-16 September.
Bowker, K.A.: 2003 Recent Developments of the Barnett Shale Play, Fort Worth Basin, West Texas Geological
Bulletin, v. 42, no. 6, p.4-11.
Bowker, K.A., 2007, Barnett Shale Gas Production, Fort Worth Basin, Issues and Discussion, AAPG bulletin, 91, p
522-533.

34

SPE 133456

Brannon, H.D., Kendrick, D.E., Stipetich, A., Luckey, E.: Multistage Fracturing of Horizontal Shale Gas Wells Using
>90% Foam Provides Improved Production, Paper SPE124767, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Brannon, H.D., Starks, T.R.: The Impact of Effective Fracture Area and Conductivity on Fracture Deliverability and
Stimulation Value, Paper SPE 116057, presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, CO, USA, 21-24 September.
Brannon, H.D., Malone, M.R., Rickards, A.R., Wood, W.D., Edgeman, J.R., Bryant, J.L.: Maximizing Fracture
Conductivity with Proppant Partial Monolayers: Theoretical Curiosity of Highly Productive Reality? Paper SPE 2004
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 26-29 September.
Brannon, H.D., Kendrick, D.E., Luckey, E., Stipetich, A.: Multi-Stage Fracturing of Horizontal Wells Using Ninety-Five
Quality Foam Provides Improved Shale Gas Production, SPE 124767, presented at 2009 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, Charleston, VA, USA, 23-25 September.
Britt, L.K., Smith, M.B., Haddad, Z., Lawrence, P., Chipperfield, S., Hellman, T.: Water-Fracs: We do Need Proppant
After All, Paper SPE 102227, presented at 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
USA, 24-27 September 2006.
Britt, L.K., Smith, M.B.: Horizontal Well Completion, Stimulation Optimization, and Risk Mitigation, Paper SPE
125526, presented at 2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Britt, L.K., Schoeffler, J.: The Geomechanics of a Shale Play: What Makes a Shale Prospective!, Paper SPE 125525,
presented at 2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Broacha, E., Conversation, Bill Barrett Corp., November 2009 and January 2010.
Burnett, D.B.: Program for the Beneficial Use of Oilfield Water, Abstract SPE 125268 and slide presentation,
presented at 2009 SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 15-17 June.
Burnett, D.B., Yu, O., Schubert, J.J.,: Well Design for Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems: Using a Graduate
Student Drilling Class Team Challenge to Identify Options for Reducing Impacts, Paper SPE 119297, presented at the
2009 SPE/IADC Drilling conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 17-19 March.
Bustin, R.M., Ross, D., Chalmers, G.: Rethinking Methodologies of Characterizing Gas in Place in Gas Shales,
Search and discovery.com/doc/2006/06088houston.absbustin.htm.
Bustin, A.M.M., Bustin, R.M., Cui, X.: Importance of Fabric on the Production of Gas Shales, Paper SPE 114167,
presented at the 2008 SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, CO, USA, 10-12 February.
Bustin, R.M., Bustin, A.M.M., Cui, X., Ross, D.J.K., Pathi, V.S.M.: Impact of Shale Properties on Pore Structure and
Storage Characteristics, Paper SPE 119892, presented at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Ft.
Worth, TX, USA, 16-18 November.
Byrd, A.: Fracturing Horizontal Wells Using Liquefied Petroleum Gases, presentation at 2009 SPE Horizontal
Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA, USA,17-18 November.
Caramanica, F.P., Hill, D.G.: Spatial Delineation of Natural Fractures and Relation to Gas Production, Paper SPE
29170, presented at 1994 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston. WVA, USA, 8-10 November.

SPE 133456

35

Castaneda, J.C., Castro, L., Craig, S., Moore, C., Myatt, J,: Coiled Tubing Fracturing: An Operational Review of a 43Stage Barnett Shale Stimulation, SPE 130678, presented at the 2010 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention
Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 23-24 March.
Chipperfield, S.T., Wong, J.R., Warner, D.S., Cipolla, C.L., Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.P., Warpinski, N.R.: Shear
Dialation Diagnostics: A New Approach for Evaluating Tight Gas Stimulation Treatments, Paper SPE 106289,
presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, College Station, TX, 29-31 January.
Chong, K.K., Grieser, B., Jaripatke, O., Passman, A.: A Completions Roadmap to Shale-Play Development: A Review
of Successful Approaches Towards Shale-Play Stimulation in the Last Two Decades, SPE 130369, presented at the
CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 8-10 June 2010.
Cipolla, C., Warpinski, N.R., Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.P., Vincent, M.C.: The Relationship Between Fracture
Complexity, Reservoir Treatment and Fracture Treatment Design, Paper SPE 115769, presented at the 2008 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 21-24 September.
Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P., Mayerhofer, M.J., Warpinski, N.R.: Fracture Design Considerations in Horizontal Wells
Drilled in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE 119366, presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 19-21 January.
Cipolla, C.L., Warpinski, N.R., Mayhofer, M.J.: Hydraulic Fracture Complexity: Diagnosis, Remediation, and
Exploitation, Paper SPE 115771, presented at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Perth Australia, 20-22 October.
Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P., Mayerhofer, M.J., Warpinski, N.R.: The Effect of Proppant Distribution and Un-Propped
Fracture Conductivity on Well Performance in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE 119368, presented at the
2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 19-21 January.
Cipolla, C.L.: Modeling Production and Evaluating Fracture Performance in Unconventional Reservoirs, SPE 118536,
Distinguished Author Series, Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp 84-90, September 2009.
Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P., Dzubin, B.: Evaluating Stimulation Effectiveness in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs, Paper
SPE 124843, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Cluff, R.M..: Methane Storage in Gas Shales, presentation, 14 Nov. 2006.
Cluff, R.M., Shanley, K.W., Miller, M.A.: Three Things We Thought We Understood About Shale Gas But Were Afraid
to Ask, Poster Presentation. 2008.
Conway, Mike, Conversation on hydraulic diversion by perforations, 2008.
Coulter, G.R., Benton, E.G., Thomson, C.L.: Water Fracs and Sand Quality: A Barnett Shale Example, Paper SPE
90891, presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept 26-29.
Coulter, G.R., Gross, B.C., Benton, E.G., Thomson, C.L.: Barnett Shale Hybrid Fracs One Operators Design,
Application and Results, Paper SPE 102063, presented at 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX, USA, 24-27 September.
Crafton, J.W., Penny G., Bourkett, B.: The Effect of Micro-Emulsion on High and Low GOR Gas Wells, Paper SPE
125248, presented at the 2009 SPE Tight Gas Completion Conference, San Antonio, 15-17 June 2009.

36

SPE 133456

Crafton, J.W., Penny, G., Borowski, D.M.: Micro-Emulsion Effectiveness for Twenty-Four wells, Eastern Green River,
Wyoming, Paper SPE 123289, presented at the 2009 SPE Rocky Mountain Technology Conference, Denver, CO,
USA, 14-16 April.
Crafton, J.W.: Modeling Flowback Behavior or Flowback Equals Slowback, Paper SPE 119894, presented at 2008
SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Ft. Worth, TX USA, 16-18 Nov.
Crafton, J.W., Gunderson, D.: Stimulation Flowback Management,: Keeping a Good Completion Good, Paper SPE
110851, presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11-14 November.
Crafton, J. W.: Flowback Performance in Intensely Naturally Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs, SPE 131785,
presented at 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 23-25 Feb.
Cramer, D.D.: Stimulating Unconventional Reservoirs: Lessons Learned, Successful Practices, Areas for
Improvement, Paper SPE 114172, 2008 SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, CO, USA, 10-12
Feb.
Cramer, D.D.: Evaluating Well Performance and Completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically Fractured, Low
Permeability Gas Wells, Paper SPE 84214 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
5-8 Oct.
Cramer, D.D.: Treating Pressure Analysis in the Bakken Formation, Published 1992, SPE JPT, Vol. 44, No. 1,
January.
Crump, J.B., Conway, M.W.: "Effects of Perforation Entry Friction on Bottom Hole Treating Analysis," J.P.T., Aug 1988.
Cuderman, J.F., Northrom, D.A.: A Propellant-Based Technology for Multiple-Fracturing Wellbores to Enhance Gas
Recovery: Application and Results in Devonian Shale, SPE 12838, SPE Production Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 2., March
1986, pp 97-103.
Cui, X., Bustin, A.M.M., Bustin, R.M.: Measurements of Gas Permeability and Diffusivity of Tight Reservoir Rocks:
Different Approaches and Their Applications, Geofluids 2009.
Curry, M., Maloney, T., Woodroof, R., Leonard, R.,: Less Sand May Not Be Enough, SPE 131783, presented at 2010
SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 23-25 Feb.
Curtice, R.J., Salas, W., Paterniti, M.: To Gel or Not To Gel: Paper SPE 124125, presented at 2009 SPE Annual
Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Cuthill, D.A.: Propellant Assisted Perforating An Effective Method for Reducing Formation Damage When
Perforating, Paper SPE 68920, presented at the 2001 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague,
Netherlands, 21-22 May.
Dahaghi, A.K., Mohaghegh, S.D.: Economic Impact of Reservoir Properties and Horizontal Well Length and
Orientation on Production from Shale Formations: Application to New Albany Shale, Paper SPE 125893, presented at
the 2009 SPE Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Daniels, J., Waters, G., LeCalvez, J., Lassek, J., Bentley, D.: Contacting More of the Barnett Shale Through an
Integration of Real Time Microseismic Monitoring, Petrophysics and Hydraulic Fracture Design, Paper SPE 110562,
presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11-14 November.

SPE 133456

37

Dayan, A., Stracener, S.M., Clark, P.E.: Proppant Transport in Slickwater Fracturing of Shale-Gas Formations, Paper
SPE 125068, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Dobkins, T.A., conversation about frac rates, 2006.
Doty, R., communication about light weight proppant, October 21, 2009.
Dozier, G., Elbel, J., Fielder, E., Hoover, R., Lemp, S., Reeves, S., Siebrits, E., Wisler, D., Wolhart, S.: Refracturing
Works, Oilfield Review, Autumn, 2003, p38-53.
Drake, S.: Unconventional Gas Plays, AAPL, Southwest Land Institute, April 12, 2007.
Dube, H.G., Christiansen, G.E., Frantz, J.H., Fairchild Jr., N.R., Olszewski, A.J., Sawyer, W.K., Williamson, J.R.: The
Lewis Shale, San Juan Basin: What We Know Now, Paper SPE 63091, 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 1-4 October.
Dunek, K.L., Walser, D.W., Astakhov, D.M.: Far-Field Volumetric Distribution of Fracturing Fluids Away from an
Uncemented Horizontal Liner in the Bakken Formation, Paper SPE 115826, presented at the 2009 SPE Rocky
Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 14-16 April.
Durst, D.G., Harris, T., Contreras, J. D., Watson, D.R.: Improved Single-Trip Multistage Completion System for
Unconventional Gas Formations, Paper SPE 115260, presented at 2008 SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference,
San Antonio, TX, USA, 9-11 June.
Eberhard, M.J., Schlosser, D.E.: "Current Use of Limited Entry Fracturing in the Codell/Niobrara Formation - DJ
Basin," Paper SPE 29553, presented at 1995 SPE Rocky Mountain Meeting, Denver, CO., USA, 20-22 March.
Elmer, W.G., Elmer, S.J., Elmer, T.E.: New Single Well Standalone Gas Lift Process Facilitates Barnett Shale
Fracture Treatment Flowback, Paper SPE 118876, presented at the 2009 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 4-8 April.
Ely, J.W.: Waterfracs: A Perspective of 8+ Years of Intense Study and a Review of 60+ Years of Field Experience
Conducted Throughout the World, Abstract SPE 125263 and presentation slides, presented at the 2009 SPE Tight
Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 15-17 June.
Ely, J.W.: Source Rock: The New Wave for Stimulation and Production, Presentation and slides, presented at 2008
IOGA 62nd Annual Convention, Evansville, IN, USA, 6 March.
Engelder, T., Lash, G.G.: Marcellus Shale Plays Vast Resource Potential Creating Stir in Appalachia, The American
Oil and Gas Reporter, May 2008.
Evans, K., Holzhausen, G., Wood, D.M.: The Geometry of a Large-Scale Nitrogen Gas Hydraulic Fracture Formed in
Devonian Shale: An Example of Fracture Mapping with Tiltmeters, SPE 8933, SPE Journal, Vol. 22, No. 5, October
1982, pp755-763.
Fairchild, N.R., Williamson, J.R.: Application of Advanced Stimulation Technologies in the Appalachian Basin: Field
Case Study of Well Performance Several Years Later, Paper SPE 51047, presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 9-11 November.
Ferguson, M.L.: Comparing Friction Reducers Performance in Produced Water From Tight Gas Shales, SPE
Technology Update, J.P.T., November 2009, pp 24-27.

38

SPE 133456

Ferworn, K., Zumberge, J., Brown, S.: Gas Isotopes in Shale Gas Systems: The Haynesville Shale: Where It Is and
What It Is, Geomark Research, Houston, TX.
Fisher, M.K., Davidson, B.M., Goodwin, A.K., Fielder, E.O., Buckler, W.S., Steinsberger, N.P.: Integrating Fracture
Mapping Technologies to Optimize Stimulations in the Barnett Shale, Paper SPE 77441, presented at the 2002 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, September 29 3 October.
Fisher, M.K., Heinze, J.R., Harris, C.D., McDavidson, B.M., Wright, C.A., Dunn, K.P.: Optimizing Horizontal
Completion Techniques in the Barnett Shale Using Microseismic Fracture Mapping, Paper SPE 90051, presented at
the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 26-29 September.
Fichter, J.K., Johnson, K., French, K., Oden, R.: Use of Microbiocides in Barnett Shale Gas Well Fracturing Fluids to
Control Bacterial Related Problems, NACE 08658, 2008.
Fontaine, J., Johnson, N., Schoen, D.: Design, Execution and Evaluation of a Typical Marcellus Shale Slickwater
Stimulation: A Case History, Paper SPE 117772, presented at the 2008 SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section
Joint Meeting held in Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-15 October 2008.
Frantz, J. Williamson, J., Sawyer, W., Johnson, D., Waters, G., Moore, L., MacDonald, R., Percy, M., Ganpule, S.,
March, K.: Evaluating Barnett Shale Performance Using an Integrated Approach, Paper SPE 96917, presented at
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 9-12 October.
Fredd, C.N., Olsen, T.N., Brenize, G., Quintero, B.W., Bui, T., Glenn, S., Boney, C.L.: Polymer-Free Fracturing Fluid
Exhibits Improved Cleanup for Unconventional Natural Gas Well Applications, Paper SPE 91433, presented at 2004
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, USA, 15-17 September.
Gale, J., Holder, J.: Natural Fractures in Shales and Their Importance for Gas Production, 2008, Tectonics Studies
Group Annual Meeting, La Roche-en-Ardenne, Belgium, 8-10, January.
Gale, J.F.W., Reed, R.M., Holder, J., 2007, Natural Fractures in the Barnett Shale and their importance for hydraulic
fracture treatments, AAPG Bulletin, 91, p. 603-622.
Gale, J.F.W., Laubach, S.E.: Natural Fracture in the New Albany Shale and Their Importance for Shale-Gas
Production, 2009, Fracture Research and Application Consortium, Funded by RPSEA.
Gaskari, R., Mohaghegh, S.D.: Estimating Major and Minor Natural Fracture Pattern in Gas Shales Using Production
Data, Paper SPE 104554, presented at 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, OH, USA, 11-13 October.
Gatens III, J.M., Lee, W.J., Watson, A.T., Stanley, D.K., Lancaster, D.E.: Analysis of Eastern Devonian Shales
Production Data, SPE J.P.T., Vol 41., No. 5, May 1989, pp 519-525.
Gaudlip, A.W., Paugh, L.O., Hayes, T.D.: Marcellus Water Management Challenges in Pennsylvania, Paper SPE
119898, presented at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Ft. Worth, TX, USA, 16-18 November.
Gottschling, J.C.: Horizontal Marcellus Well Cementing in Appalachia, Paper SPE 125985, presented at the 2009
SPE Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Grieser, B., Shelley, B., Soliman, M.: Predicting Production Outcome from Multi-Stage, Horizontal Barnett
Completions, Paper SPE 120271, presented at the 2009 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
OK, USA, 4-8 April.

SPE 133456

39

Grieser, B., Bray, J.: Identification of Production Potential in Unconventional Reservoirs, Paper SPE 106623,
presented at 2007 SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 31 March 3 April 2007.
Grieser, B., Wheaton, B., Magness, L.P., Blach, M., Loghry, R.: Surface Reactive Fluids Effect on Shale, Paper SPE
106815, presented at the 2007 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 31 March 3 April.
Grieser, B, Hobbs, J., Hunter, J., Ables, J.: The Rocket Science Behind Water Frac Design, Paper SPE 80933,
presented at 2003 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 22-25 March.
Grieser, B., Wiemers, T., Hill, B.: Fluid Frictional Diversion Technique for Sequential Multistage Horizontal
Stimulation, Paper SPE 55615, presented at 1999 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Gillette, WY, USA, 15-18
May.
Grigg, Murray, conversation on simultaneous fractured shale wells and production uplift, 2008.
Grundmann, S.R., Rodvelt, G.D., Dials, G.A., Allen, R.E.: Cryogenic Nitrogen as a Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in the
Devonian Shale, Paper SPE 51067, presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 9-11
November.
Gupta, D.V.S., Hildek, B.T.: Frac Fluid Recycling and Water Conservation: A Case History, Paper SPE 119478,
presented at 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 19-21 January.
Hall, M., Kilpatrick, J.E.: Surface Microseismic Monitoring of Slick-water and Nitrogen Fracture Stimulations, SPE
132371, presented at 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 23-25 Feb.
Handren, P. Palisch, T.: Successful Hybrid Slickwater Fracture Design Evolution: An East Texas Cotton Valley Taylor
Case History, Paper SPE 110451, presented at 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
CA, USA, 11-14 November.
Hartman, R.C., Lasswell, P., Bhatta, N.: Recent Advances in the Analytical Methods Used for Shale Gas Reservoir
Gas in Place Assessment, Search and Discovery Article #40317 (2008), posted to the internet 30 Oct 2008. Adapted
from AAPG presentation, San Antonio, April 20-23, 2008.
Heddleston, D.: Horizontal Well Production Logging Deployment and Measurement Techniques for US Land Shale
Hydrocarbon Plays, Paper SPE 120591, presented at 2009 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
OK, USA, 4-8 April.
Higgins, S., Goodwin, S., Donald, A., Bratton, T., Tracy, G.: Anisotropic Stress Models Improve Completion Design in
the Baxter Shale, Paper SPE 115736, presented at 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
CO, USA, 21-24 September.
Holdich, S.A.: Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas Flow from a Hydraulic Fractured Gas Well, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (Dec 1999).
Hopkins, C.W., Rosen, R.L., Hill, D.G.: Characterization of an Induced Hydraulic Fracture Completion in a Naturally
Fractured Antrim Shale Reservoir, Paper SPE 51068, presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 9-11 November.
Hopkins, C.W., Jochen, J.E., Fink, K.J.: A Comparison of Two Devonian Shale Wells: Why is One Well Better Than
the Other? Paper SPE 26918, presented at the 1993 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 2-4 November.

40

SPE 133456

Horn, A.D.: Breakthrough Mobile Water Treatment Converts 75% of Fracturing Flowback Fluid to Fresh Water and
Lowers CO2 Emissions, Paper SPE 121104, presented at 2009 SPE Americas E&P Environmental & Safety
Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 23-25 March.
Houston, N., Blauch, M., Weaver III, D., Miller, D.S., OHara, D.: Fracture-Stimulation in the Marcellus Shale-Lessons
Learned in Fluid Selection ad Execution, Paper SPE 125987, presented at the 2009 SPE Regional Meeting,
Charleston, WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Hunt III, W.C., Shu, W.R.: Controlled Pulse Fracturing for Well Stimulations, Paper SPE 18972, presented at the
1989 SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 6-8 March.
Ilsing, J.R., Hoskins, L.R., Hughes, D.A., Matthews, H.L., Fuller, G.A., Pronger, D., Ravi, K.: Should Horizontal
Sections Be Cemented and How to Maximize Value, SPE 94288, presented at 2005 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 17-19 April.
Jacobi, D., Breig, J., LeCompte, B., Kopal, M., Mendez, F., Bliven, S., Longo, J.: Effective Geochemical and
Geomechanical Characterization of Shale Gas Reservoirs from Wellbore Environment: Caney and the Woodford
Shale, Paper SPE 124231, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Jacobi, J., et.al.: Integrated Petrophysical Evaluation of Shale Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE 114925, presented at
2008 CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium Joint Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 16-19 June.
Jarvie, D., et.al.: Evaluation of Hydrocarbon Generation and Storage in the Barnett Shale, Ft. Worth Texas, Special
BEG/PTTC presentation, 2004.
Jarvie, D.M., Hill, R.J., Pollastro, R.M.,: Assessment of the Gas Potential and Yields from Shales: The Barnett Shale
Model, in B. Cardott, ed., 2005 Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 110: Unconventional Gas of the southern Mid
Continent Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 31-March 3 April.
Jarvie, D.M., Hill, R.J., Ruble, T.E., Pollastro, R.M.,, 2-007, Unconventional Shale-Gas Systems: The Mississippian
Barnett Shale of North Central Texas, as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment, AAPG Bulletin, 9, p475499.
Jeffrey, R.G., Bunger, A.P., Lecampion, B., Zhang, X., Chen, Z.R., Van As, A., Allison, D.P., deBeer, W., Dudley, J.W.,
Siebrits, E., Thiercelin, M., Mainguy, M.: Measuring Hydraulic Fracture Growth in Naturally Fractured Rock, Paper
SPE 124919, presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7
October 2009.
Jenkins, C., Boyer II, C.M.: Coalbed and Shale-Gas Reservoirs, SPE J.P.T., February 2008, pp 92-99.
Jones, F.O.: Influence of Chemical Composition of Water on Clay Blocking Permeability, J.P.T., April 1964, pp 441446.
Jones, F.O., Owens, W.W.: A Laboratory Study of Low_Permeability Gas Sands, J.P.T., September 1980, pp 16311640.
Jordan, J.S., Harkrider, J.D., Anthony, W.L., DeLong, W.L., Martin, R.F.: The Relationship Between Net Pressure
Development During Hydraulic Fracture Treatments and Productivity in Fruitland Coal Completions, Paper SPE
84819, presented at the 2003 SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting, Pittsburg, PA, USA, 6-10
Sept.

SPE 133456

41

Kale, S.V., Rai, C.S., Sondergeld, C.H.: Petrophysical Characterization of Barnett, Shale, SPE 131770, presented at
2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 23-25 Feb.
Kaufman, P., Penny, G.S., Paktinat, J.: Critical Evaluation of Additives Used in Shale Slickwater Fracs, Paper SPE
119900, presented at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Fort Worth, TX, 16-18 November.
Kendrick, D.E., Puskar, M.P., Schotterback, S.T.: Ultra lightweight Proppants: A Field Study in the Big Sandy Field of
Eastern Kentucky, Paper SPE 98006, presented at the 2005 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WVA,
USA, 14-16 September.
Ketter, A.A., Heinze, J.R., Daniels, J.L., Waters, G.: A Field Study in Optimizing Completion Strategies for Fracture
Initiation in Barnett Shale Horizontal Wells, SPE Production and Operations, August 2008, p373-378.
King, G.E., Haile, L. Shuss, J, Dobkins, T.A.: Increasing Fracture Path Complexity and Controlling Downward Fracture
Growth in the Barnett Shale, Paper 119896, presented at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Fort
Worth, TX, 16-18 November.
King, G.E., Lee, R.M.: Adsorption and Chlorination of Mutual Solvents Used in Acidizing, SPE Production
Engineering, Cvol.3, No. 2, May 1988, pp 205-209.
King, G.E., Warden, S.L.: Introductory Work in Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Performance: Core Tests and Field Results,
Paper SPE 18485, presented at 1989 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, USA, 8-10
February.
Komar, C.A., Yost II, A.B., Sinclair, A.R.: Practical Aspects of Foam Fracturing in the Devonian Shale, Paper SPE
8345, presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 23-26
September.
Kubik, W., Lowry, P.: Fracture Identification and Characterization Using Cores, FMS, CAST and Borehole Camera:
Devonian Shale, Pike County, Kentucky, Paper SPE 25897, presented at the 1993 SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 26-28 April 1993.
Kulkarni, S.V., Hina, D.S.: A Novel Lightweight Cement Slurry And Placement Technique for Covering Weak Shale in
Appalachian Basin, Paper SPE 57449, presented at the 1999 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition,
Charleston, W.V., 21-22 October.
Kundert, D., Mullen, M.: Proper Evaluation of Shale Gas Reservoirs Leads to a More Effective Hydraulic-Fracture
Stimulation, Paper SPE 123586, presented at 2009 SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver,
CO, USA, 14-16 April.
LaFollette, R., Carman, P.S.,: Proppant Diagenesis: Results So Far, SPE 131782, presented at 2010 SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 23-25 February.
Lantz, T., Greene, D., Eberhard, M., Norrid, S., Pershall, R.: Refracture Treatments Proving Successful in Horizontal
Bakken Wells; Richland Co. MT, Paper SPE 108117, 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Technology
Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 16-18 April.
Lash, G.G.: The Upper Devonian Rhinestreet Shale: An Unconventional Reservoir in Western New York State,
SUNY, Fredonia, NY,

42

SPE 133456

Le Calvez, J.H., Klem, R.C., Bennett, L., Erwemi, A., Craven, M., Palacio, J.C.: Real-Time Microseismic Monitoring of
Hydraulic Fracture Treatment: A Tool To Improve Completion and Reservoir Management, Paper SPE 106159,
presented at 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, TX, USA, 29-31 January.
LeCompte, B., Franquet, J.A., Jacobi, D.: Evaluation of Haynesville Shale Vertical Well Completions With a
Mineralogy Based Approach to Reservoir Geomechanics, Paper SPE 124227, presented at 2009 SPE Annual
Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Leiming, L., Eliseeva, K, Eliseev, V., Bustos, O.A., England, K., Howard, P.R., Boney, C.L., Parris, M.D., Ali, S,A.:
Well Treatment Fluids Prepared with Oilfield Produced Water, Paper SPE 124212, presented at 2009 SPE Annual
Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Leonard, R., Woodroof, R.A., Bullard, K., Middlebrook, M., Wilson, R.: Barnett Shale Completions: A Method for
Assessing New Completion Strategies, Paper SPE 110809, presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11-14 November.
Lewis, A.M., Hughes, R.G.: Production Data Analysis of Shale Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE 116688, presented at
2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 21-24 September.
Locke, C.D., Overbey, W.K., Yost ii, A.B.: Field Measurements of Dynamic Pressure and Seismic Activity During
Foam Fracturing, Paper SPE 18555, presented at the 1988 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WV, USA, 14 November.
Lolon, E.P., Cipolla, C.L., Weijers, L., Hesketh,, R.E., Grigg, , M.W..: Evaluating Horizontal Well Placement and
Hydraulic Fracture Spacing/Conductivity in the Bakken Formation, North Dakota, Paper SPE 124905, presented at
2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Luke, K., Soucy, K.: Test Method to Optimize Acid-Soluble Cement for Unconventional Gas Completions, Paper SPE
114759, presented at 2008 CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 16-19 June 2008.
MacDonald, R.J., Frantz, J.H., Merrian, G.W., Schlotterbeck, S.T.: Comparing Production Responses from Devonian
Shale and Berea Wells Stimulated with Nitrogen Foam and Proppant vs. Nitrogen Only, Pike Co., KY, USA, Paper
SPE 77464, presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 29 September
2 October.
MacDonald, R.J., Frantz, J.H., Schlotterbeck, S.T., Adams, B., Sikorski, D.: An Update of Recent Production
Responses Obtained from Devonian Shale and Berea Wells Stimulated With Nitrogen Foam (with Proppant) vs.
Nitrogen Only, Pike Co. KY, Paper SPE 84834, presented at the 2003 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA,
6-10 September.
MacDonald, R.J., Frantz, Jr., J.H., Merriam, G.W., Zyglowicz, P.A.: Application of Innovative Technologies to
Fractured Devonian Shale Reservoir Exploration and Development Activities, Paper SPE 84816, 2003 SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 6-10 September.
Mahrer, K.D., Zinno, R.J., Bailey, J.R.: Simultaneous Recording of Hydraulic-Fracture-Induced Microseisms in the
Treatment Well and a Remote Well, Paper SPE 106025, presented at 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, College Station, TX, USA, 29-31 Jan 2007.
Mattar, L., Gault, B., Morad, K., Clarkson, C.R., Freeman, C.M., Ilk, D., Blasingame, T.A.: Production Analysis and
Forecasting of Shale Gas Reservoirs: Case History-Based Approach, Paper SPE 119897, presented at the 2008 SPE
Shale gas Production Conference, Ft, Worth, TX, USA, 16-18 November.

SPE 133456

43

Matthews, H.L., Schein, M., Malone, M.: Stimulation of Gas Shales: Theyre All the Same Right? Paper SPE
106070, presented at the 2005 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 29-31 January.
Maxwell, S.C., Waltman, C.K., Warpinski, N.R., Mayerhofer, M.J., Boroumand, N.: Imaging Seismic Deformation
Induced by Hydraulic Fracture Complexity, SPE 102801, Published in SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, Feb
2009, pp 48-52.
Maxwell, S.C., Urbancic, T.J., Steinsberger, N., Zinno, R.: Microseismic Imaging of Hydraulic Fracture Complexity in
the Barnett Shale, Paper SPE 77440, 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 29
September 2 October.
Maxwell, S.C., Le Calvez, J.: Horizontal vs. Vertical Borehole Based Microseismic Monitoring: Which is Better, SPE
131780, presented at 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 23-25 February.
Mayhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.P., Warpinski, N.R., Cipolla, C.L., Walser, D., Rightmire, C.M.: What is Stimulated Reservoir
Volume? Paper SPE 119890, presented at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Fort Worth, TX, 16-18
November.
McBane, R.A., Campbell, R.L., Truman, R.B.: Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for Selecting Completion Intervals in
Devonian Shale Wells, Paper SPE 15948, SPE J.P.T., Vol 40, No. 2, February 1988, 187-196.
McClendon, A.: DUG East: Developing Unconventional Gas, Presentation with Slides, Hart Developing
Unconventional Gas Making the Marcellus Pay, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 19 October, 2009.
McDaniel, B.W., Rispler, K.: Horizontal Wells with Multistage Fracs Prove to be Best Economic Completion for Many
Low Permeability Reservoirs, Paper SPE 125903, presented at 2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston,
WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
McDaniel, B.W., Surjaatmadja, J.B.: Horizontal Wellbore Placement Can Significantly Impact Hydraulic Fracturing
Stimulation Results, Paper SPE 105185, presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference,
College Station, 29-31 January.
McDaniel, B.W., Marshall, E.J., East, L.E., Surjaatmadja, J.B.: CT-Deployed Hydrajet Perforating in Horizontal
Completions Provides New Approaches to Multistage Hydraulic Fracturing Applications, SPE 100157, presented at
2008 SPE/ICOTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition,
Miskimins, J.L.: Design and Life-Cycle Considerations for Unconventional Reservoir Wells, Paper SPE 114170, 2009
SPE Production and Operations, Volume 24, No. 2, May.
Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer April 2009, Groundwater Protection Council and All
Consulting, DOE, DE-FG26-04NT15455,
Moore, L.P., Ramakrishnan, H.: Restimulation: Candidate Selection Methodologies and Treatment Optimization, SPE
102681, presented at 2006 SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 24-27 September.
Moreland, P., Gothic Shale Mass Spec FMI Comparison, AAPG-RMS presentation, Durango, CO, USA, 14-15
June 2010.
Mullen, M., Rickman, R., Petre, E., Grieser, B., Kundert, D.: A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation
Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett (or are they?), Halliburton Slide Presentation,
2009.

44

SPE 133456

Munoz, A.V., Asadi, M., Woodroof, R.A., Morales, R.: Long-Term Post-Frac Performance Analysis Using Chemical
Frac-Tracers, Paper SPE 121380, presented at 2009 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Cartagena, Colombia, 31 May to 3 June 2009.
Mutalik, P.N., Gibson, B.: Case History of Sequential and Simultaneous Fracturing of the Barnett Shale in Parker
County, Paper SPE 116124, presented at 2008 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 2124 September.
Myers, R.R.: Stimulation and Production Analysis of Underpressured (Marcellus) Shale, Paper SPE 119901, 2008
SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Ft. Worth, TX, USA, 16-18 November.
Nearing, T.R., Startzman, R.A.: Shale Well Productivity, Paper SPE 18553, presented at the 1988 SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting, Charleston, WV, 1-4 November 1988.
Nelson, S.G., Huff, C.D.: Horizontal Woodford Shale Completion Cementing Practices in the Arkoma Basin,
Southeast Oklahoma,: A Case History, Paper SPE 120474, presented at 2009 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 4-8 April 2009.
Newsham, Kent, Conversation on the importance of shale matrix permeability as a necessity in shale gas production.
2009.
Olsen, T.N., Bratton, T.R., Thiercelin, M.J.: Quantifying Proppant Transport for Complex Fractures in Unconventional
Formations, Paper SPE 119300, presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, TX, 19-21 January.
Olsen, T.N., Gomez, E., McCrady, D.D., Forrest, G., Perakis, A., Kaufman, P.: Stimulation Results and Completion
Implications From the Consortium Multiwell Project in the North Dakota Bakken Shale, Paper SPE 124686, presented
at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Overbey, W.K., Yost II, A.B., Wilkins, D.A.: Inducing Multiple Hydraulic Fractures From a Horizontal Wellbore, Paper
SPE 18249, 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA 2-5 October 1988.
Overbey, W.K., Yost, L.E., Yost II, A.B.: Analysis of Natural Fractures Observed by Borehole Video Camera in a
Horizontal Well, Paper SPE 17760, presented at the 1988 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, TX, USA, 13-15
June.
Paktinat, J., Pinkhouse, J.A., Williams, C., Clark, G.A., Penny, G.S.: Field Case Studies: Damage Preventions
Through Leakoff Control of Fracturing Fluids in Marginal/Low-Pressure Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE 100417,
presented at 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada, 15-17 May.
Paktinat, J., Pinkhouse, J.A., Johnson, N., Williams, C., Lash, G.G., Penny, G.S., Goff, D.A.: Case Study: Optimizing
Hydraulic Fracturing Performance in Northeastern United Stages Fractured Shale Formations, Paper SPE 104306,
presented at 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, Ohio, USA, 11-13 October.
Paktinat, J., Pinkhouse, J.A., Fontaine, J., Lash, G.G., Penny, G.S.: Investigation of Methods to Improve Utica Shale
Hydraulic Fracturing in the Appalachian Basin, Paper SPE 111063, presented at the 2007 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, Lexington, KY, USA, 17-19 October.
Palisch, T.T., Vincent, M.C., Handren, P.T.: Slickwater Fracturing-Food For Thought, Paper SPE115766, presented
at 2008 SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 21-24 September.

SPE 133456

45

Palmer, I., Moschovidis, Z., Cameron, J.: Modeling Shear Failure and Stimulation of the Barnett Shale After Hydraulic
Fracturing, Paper SPE 106113, presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, College Station, TX, 2931 January.
Parker, M., Buller, D., Petre. E., Dreher, D.: Haynesville Shale Petrophysical Evaluation, Paper SPE 122937,
presented 2009 SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 14-16 April 2009.
Patterson, C.; Barnett vs. Marcellus, A Comparison of Two Shale Gas Giants, Fort Worth Business Press Shale
Symposium, June 18, 2009.
Penny, G., Pursley, J.T.: The Application of Microemulsions in Drilling and Stimulation Results, Paper SPE 94274,
2005 SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 17-19 April.
Penny, G.S., Pursley, J.T., Clawson, T.D.: Field Study of Completion Fluids to Enhance Gas Production in the Barnett
Shale, Paper SPE 100434, presented at 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada, 15-17 May.
Phillips, Z.D., Halverson, R.J., Strauss, S.R., Layman, J.M., Green, T.W.: A Case Study in the Bakken Formation:
Changes to Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Treatments Result in Improved Oil Production and Reduced Treatment
Costs, Paper SPE 108045, 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, CO., USA, 1618 April.
Pope, C.D., Peters, B., Benton, T., Palisch, T.: Haynesville Shale: One Operators Approach to Well Completions in
This Evolving Play, Paper SPE 125079, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 47 October.
Potapenko, D.I., Tinkham, S.K., Lecerf, B., Fredd, C.N., Samuelson, M.R., Gillard, M.R., Le Calvez, J.H., Daniels, J.L.:
Barnett Shale Refracture Stimulations Using a Novel Diversion Technique, Paper SPE 119636, presented at 2009
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 19-21 January.
Potluri, N., Zhu, D., Hill, A.D.: The Effect of Natural Fractures on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation, Paper SPE 94568,
2005 SPE Formation Damage Conference, Sheveningen, The Netherlands, 25-27 May.
Powell, A., Bustos, O., Kordzeil, T., Olsen, T., Sobernheim, D., Vizurraga, T.: Fiber-Laden Fracturing Fluid Improves
Production in the Bakken Shale Multi-Lateral Play, Paper SPE 107979, presented at 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain
Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 16-18 April.
Pursley, J.T., Penny, G., Benton, J., Northlander, G., McDougall, M., Green, D., Crafton, J.W.: Field Case Studies of
Completion Fluids to Enhance Oil and Gas Production in Depleted Unconventional Reservoir, Abstract SPE 107982
and slides, presented 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 16-18 April,
2007.
Quinn, T.H., Dwyer, J., Wolfe, C., Morris, S., Coope, D.,: Formation Evaluation Logging While Drilling (LWD) in
Unconventional Reservoirs for Production Optimization, Paper SPE 119227, presented at 2008 SPE Eastern
Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting, 11-15 October 2008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-15 October.
Ramakrishnan, H., Waters, G., Boratko, E., Latifzai, A., Bentley, D., Kelley, J.: Application of Downhole Injection
Stress Testing in Barnett Shale Formation, Paper SPE 124147, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Rees, S.: Creating Value in the Marcellus Under the New SEC Rules,, Presentation with Slides, Hart Developing
Unconventional Gas Making the Marcellus Pay, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 19 October, 2009.

46

SPE 133456

Reigle, Eric, Goodrich Petroleum, at Energy Forum 2007.

Reyes-Montes, J.M., Pettitt, W.S., Hemmings, B., Haycox, J.R., Andrews, J.R., Young, R.P.: Application of Relative
Location Techniques to Induced Microseismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing, Paper SPE 124620, presented at 2009
SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Reynolds, M.M., Munn, D.L.: Development Update for an Emerging Shale Gas Giant Field Horn River Basin, British
Colombia, Canada, SPE 130102, presented at 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2325 February.
Rich, J.P., Ammerman, M.: Unconventional Geophysics for Unconventional Plays, SPE 131779, presented at 2010
SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 23-25 Feb.
Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B., Kundert, R: A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation
Design Optimization: All Shale Plays are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale, Paper SPE 115258, presented at the 2008
SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 21-24 September.
Rimassa, S.M., Howard, P.R., Blow, K.A.: Optimizing Fracturing Fluids From Flowback Water, Abstract SPE 125336
and slides, presented at 2009 SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 15-17 June.
Roundtree, R., Eberhard, M., Barree, R.: Horizontal, Near-Wellbore Stress Effects on Fracture Initiation, Paper SPE
123589, presented at the 2009 SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 14-16
April 2009.
Rushing, J.A., Newsham, K.E., Blasingame, T.A.: Rock Typing Keys to Understanding Productivity in Tight Gas
Sands, Paper SPE 114164, presented at 2008 SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, CO, USA, 1012 February.
Rylewski, G.L., Cook, J.M.: A Study of Fracture Initiation Pressures in Cemented Cased-Hole Wells Without
Perforations, Paper SPE 100572, presented at 2006 Gas Shale Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
15-17 May 2006.
Salamy, S.P., Saradji, B.S., Okoye, C.O., Mercer, J.C., Yost II, A.B.,: Recovery Efficiency Aspects of Horizontal Well
Drilling in Devonian Shale, Paper SPE 16411, presented at the 1987 Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, CO, USA, 18-19 May.
Salamy, S.P., Aminian, K., Koperna, G.J., Locke, C.D.: Pre- and Post-Stimulation Well Test Data Analysis From
Horizontal Wells in the Devonian Shales, Paper SPE 23449, presented at the 1991 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Lexington, KY, USA, 22-25 October.
Samuel, R., Liu, X.: Wellbore Tortuosity, Tortuosity, Torsion, Drilling Indices and Energy: What do They have to do
with Well Path Design, Paper SPE 124710, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA,
USA, 4-7 October.
Schein, G.: The Application and Technology of Slickwater Fracturing, Distinguished Lecturer Presentation, SPE
108807, presented 2004-2005.
Schettler Jr., J.D., Parmely, P.D., Juniata, C.: Gas Composition Shifts in Devonian Shales, SPE Reservoir
Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, August 1989, pp 283-287.
Schettler, P.D., Parmely, C.R., Juniata, C., Lee, W.J.: Gas Storage and Transport in Devonian Shales, Paper SPE
17070, SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 3, September, 1989, pp 371-376.

SPE 133456

47

Schieber, J.: Common Themes in the Formation and Preservation on Intrinsic Porosity in Shales and Mudstones
Illustrated With Examples Across the Phanerozic, SPE 132370, presented at 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas
Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 23-25 February.
Schweitzer, R., Bilgesu, H.I.: The Role of Economics on Well and Fracture Design Completions of Marcellus Shale
Wells, Paper SPE 125975, presented at the 2009 SPE Regional Meeting, Charleston, WVA, USA, 23-25 September.
Sharrock, M.: UV Technology for Bacteria Control, EOG and Halliburton Case Study, presentation, HART DUG
conference, FT Worth, TX, 29 March 2010.
Shaw, J.S., Gatens III, J.M., Lancaster, D.E., Lee, W.J., Avary, K.L., Terry, D.P.: Reservoir and Stimulation Analysis
of a Devonian Shale Gas Field, SPE Production Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, November 1989, pp 450-458.
Shehbaz, S., Todd, B.T.: CO2 Flooding the Elm Coulee Field, Paper SPE 123176, presented at 2009 SPE Rocky
Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 14-16 May.
Shelly, B., Grieser, B., Johnson, B.J., Fielder, E.O., Heinze, J.R., Werline, J.R.: Data Analysis of Barnett Shale
Completions, SPE Journal, September 2008, pp366-3373.
Siebrits, E., et. al.: Refracture Reorientation Enhances Gas Production in Barnett Shale Tight Gas Wells, Paper SPE
63030, presented at 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 1-4 October.
Silber, R., Martin, J., Willis, S., Kozera, G.: Comparing Fracture Simulation Design to Radioactive Tracer Field
Results: A Case History, Paper SPE 84842, presented at 2003 SPE Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting
held in Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 6-10 September.
Slatt, R.M., et. al.: Workflow for Stratigraphic Characterization of Unconventional Gas Shales, Paper SPE 119891,
presented at 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 16-18 November.
Soeder, D.J.: Possible Water Resource Impacts from Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling, in the Delaware Basin, slides,
USGS, 2008.
Soeder, D.J.: Porosity and Permeability of Eastern Devonian Shale, SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988.
Soliman, M.Y., Hunt, J.L.: Effect of Fracturing Fluid and Its Cleanup on Well Performance, Paper SPE 14514,
presented at 1985 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, PA, USA, 6-8 November.
Sondergeld, C.H., Newsham, K.E., Comisky, J.T., Rice, M.C., Rai, C.S.: Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating
and Producing Shale Gas Resources, SPE 131768, presented at 2010 SPE Unconventional Gas Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 23-25 February.
Steinsberger, N.: The Barnett Shale and the Evolution of North American Shale Plays, Presentation and Slides,
presented at 2009 SPE GCS Westside Study Group.
Steward, D., Mitchell, G.P.: The Barnett Shale Play, Phoenix of the Forth Worth Basin, A History, Presentation and
slides, Sipes Luncheon, Houston, TX, USA, 16 October 2008.
Sullivan, R., Woodroof, R., Steinberger-Glaser, A., Fielder, R., Asadi, M.: Optimizing Fracture Fluid Cleanup in the
Bossier Sand Using Chemical Tracers and Aggressive Gel Breaker Deployment, Paper SPE 90030, 2004 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 26-29 September.

48

SPE 133456

Tischler, A., Woodworth, T.R., Burton, S.D., Richards, R.D.: Controlling Bacteria in Recycled Production Water for
Completion and Workover Operations, Paper SPE 123450, presented at the 2009 Rocky Mountain Petroleum
Technology Conference, 14-16 April.
Townsend, A., Anderson, K., Gunderson, D.: Using Chemical Tracers and Production Analysis for Early-Time
Assessment of Stimulation Effectiveness and Reservoir Quality for Barnett Shale Completions, Paper SPE 94290,
presented at 2005 SPE Production & Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 17-19 April.
Tudor, E.H., Nevison, G.W., Allen, S., Pike, B.: Case Study of a Novel Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid that Maximizes
Effective Fracture Length, Paper SPE 124480, presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition,
New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Valko, P., P.: Assigning Value to Stimulation in the Barnett Shale: A Simultaneous Analysis of 7000 Plus Production
Histories and Well Completion Records, Paper SPE 119369, presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 19-21 January.
Ventura, J.: Developing Unconventional Gas East, Presentation with Slides, Hart Developing Unconventional Gas
Making the Marcellus Pay, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 19 October, 2009.
Vincent, M.C.: Examining Our Assumptions Have Oversimplifications Jeopardized Our Ability to Design Optimal
Fracture Treatments, Paper SPE 119143, presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference,
19-21 January 2009, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 19-21 January.
Vulgamore, T., Clawson, T., Pope, C., Wolhart, S, Mayerhofer, M., Machovoe, S., Waltman, C.: Applying Hydraulic
Fracture Diagnostics to Optimize Stimulations in the Woodford Shale, Paper SPE 110029, 2007 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11-14 November.
Walls, J.D., Amaefule, J.O.: Capillary Pressure and Permeability Relationships in Tight Gas Sands, Paper SPE
13879, presented at 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 19-22 March.
Walser, D.W., Pursell, D.A.: Making Mature Shale Gas Plays Commercial, Paper SPE 110127, presented at 2007
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KY, USA, 17-19 October.
Walsh, J.B.: Effect of Pore Pressure and Confining Pressure on Fracture Permeability, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining and Geomechanics Abstracts, (Jan 1981) vol. 18. Pp 429-435.
Wang, F.P., Reed, R.M.: Pore Networks and Fluid Flow in Gas Shales, Paper SPE 124253, presented at the 2009
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Warpinski, N.R.: Microseismic Monitoring: Inside and Out, SPE Distinguished Author Series, J.P.T., November 2009,
PP-80-85.
Warpinski, N.R., Kramm, R.C., Heinze, J.R., Waltman, C.K.: Comparison of Single- and Dual-Array Microseismic
Mapping Techniques in the Barnett Shale, Paper SPE 95568, presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 9-12 October.
Warpinski, N. R.: Integrating Microseismic Monitoring with Well Completions, Reservoir Behavior, and Rock
Mechanics, Paper SPE 125239, presented at the 2009 SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, TX,
USA, 15-17 June.

SPE 133456

49

Warpinski, N.R., Mayhofer, M.J., Vincent, M.C., Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E.P.: Stimulating, Unconventional Reservoirs:
Maximizing Network Growth While Optimizing Fracture Conductivity, Paper SPE 114173, presented at the 2008
Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, Colorado, 10-12 February.
Warpinski, N.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing in Tight Fissured Media, Paper SPE 21054, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(Feb. 1991) 43, No. 2, pp. 146-152 and 208-209.
Warpinski, N.R., et.al.: Altered Stress Fracturing, Paper SPE 17553, JPT, September, 1989, pp990-997.
Warpinski, N.R., Waltman, C.K., Du, J., Ma, Q.: Anisotropy Effects in Microseismic Monitoring, Paper SPE 124208,
presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Meeting and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.
Warpinski, N.R., Tuefel, L.W.: Influences of Geologic Discontinuities on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation, SPE J.P.T.,
February, 1987, pp 209-220.
Warren, J.E., Root, P.J.: The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPE 426, paper presented at the 1962 Fall
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 7-10 Oct.
Waters, G., Dean, B., Downie, R., Kerrihard, K., Austbo, L., McPherson, B.: Simultaneous Hydraulic Fracturing of
Adjacent Horizontal Wells in the Woodford Shale, Paper SPE 119635, presented at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 19-21 January.
Watson, D.R., Durst, D.G., Harris, T., Contreras, J.D.: One-Trip Multistage Completion Technology for Unconventional
Gas Formations, Paper SPE 114973, presented at 2008 CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 16-19 June.
Wiley, C., Baree, B., Eberhard, M., Lantz, T.: Improved Horizontal Well Stimulations in the Bakken Formation, Paper
SPE 90697, presented at 2004 SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 26-29 September.
Willberg, D.M., Steinsberger, N., Hoover, R., Card, R.J., Queen, J.: Optimization of Fracture Cleanup Using Flowback
Analysis, Paper SPE 39920, presented at 1998 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium and Exposition, Denver, CO USA, 5-8 April.
Wolhart, S.: Hydraulic Fracture Restimulation, SPE 101458, 2002 SPE Distinguished Lecturer Presentation.
Woodroof, R.A., Asadi, M., Warren, M. N.,: Monitoring Fracturing Fluid Flowback and Optimizing Fluid Cleanup Using
Frac Tracers, Paper SPE 82221, presented at 2003 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 13-14 May.
Woodroof, R.A., Asadi, M., Leonard, R.S., Rainbolt, M.: Monitoring Fracturing Fluid Flowback and Optimizing
Fracturing Fluids Cleanup in the Bossier Sand Using Chemical Frac Tracers, Paper SPE 84486, presented at 2003
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 5-8 October 2003.
Xu, W., Calvez, J.L., Thiercelin, M.: Characterization of Hydraulically-Induced Fracture Network Using Treatment and
Microseismic Data in a Tight-Gas Formation: A Geomechanical Approach, Abstract SPE 125237 and slides,
presented at 2009 SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 15-17 June.
Xu, W., Thiercelin, M.J., Walton, I.C.: Characterization of Hydraulically Induced Shale Fracture Network Using an
Analytical/Semianalytical Model, Paper SPE 124697, presented at 2009 SPE Annual Technical Meeting, New
Orleans, LA, USA, 4-7 October.

50

SPE 133456

Yang, B.H., Flippen, M.C.: Improved Flowback Analysis to Assess Polymer Damage, Paper SPE 37444, presented at
1997 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 9-11 March.
Yost II, A.B., Overbey, W.K., Salamy, S.P., Okoye, C.O., Saradji, B.S.: Devonian Shale Horizontal Well: Rationale for
Wellsite Selection and Well Design, Paper SPE 16410, presented at the 1987 Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 18-19 May.
Yost II, A.B., Gehr, J.B.: CO2/Sand Fracturing in Devonian Shales, Paper SPE 26925, presented at the 1993 SPE
Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2-4 November.
Yost II, A.B., Mazza, R.L., Remington, R.E.: Analysis of Production Response to CO2/Sand Fracturing, Paper SPE
29191, presented at the 1994 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WV, USA, 8-10 November.
Yost II, A.B., Carden, R., Muncey, J.G., Stover, W.E., Scheper, R.J.: Air Drilling and Multiple Hydraulic Fracturing of a
72 Degree Slant Well in Devonian Shale, Paper SPE 21264, SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, OH, USA, 31
October 2 November.
Yost II, A.B., Overby Jr., W.K.: Production and Stimulation Analysis of Multiple Hydraulic Fracturing of a 2,000-ft
Horizontal Well, Paper SPE 19090, presented at 1989 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, TX, 7-9 June.
Yost II, A.B., Overby, W.K., Carden, R.S.: Drilling a 2,000-ft Horizontal Well in the Devonian Shale, Paper SPE
16681, presented at the 1987, SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 27-30 September.
Yost II, A.B., Overbey Jr., W.K., Wilkins, D.A., Locke, C.D.: Hydraulic Fracturing of a Horizontal Well in a Naturally
Fractured Reservoir, Gas Study for Multiple Fracture Design, Paper SPE 17759, presented at the 1988 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Dallas, TX, USA, 13-15 June.
Yost II, A.B., Javins, B.H.: Overview of Appalachian Basin High-Angle and Horizontal Air and Mud Drilling, Paper
SPE 23445, presented at the 1991 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KY, USA, 22-25 October.
Zammerilli, A.M.: A Simulation Study of Horizontal, High Angle, and Vertical Wells in Eastern Devonian Shale, Paper
SPE 18998, presented at 1989 SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 6-8 March.
Zelenev, A.S., Ellena, L.B.: Microemulsion Technology for Improved Fluid Recovery and Enhanced Core Permeability
to Gas, Paper SPE 122109, presented at the 2009 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen,
The Netherlands, 27-29 May 2009.
Zuber, M.D., Lee, W.J., Gatens III, J.M.: Effect of Stimulation on the Performance of Devonian Shale Gas Wells, SPE
14508, SPE Production Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 4, November 1987, pp 250-256.