SPE-184816-MS

Improving Hydraulic Fracture Design; a Key to Achieving a Higher Level of

Multi-Fractured Horizontal Well Performance

Robert Shelley, PE; Koras Shah, Brian Davidson, Stan Sheludko, and Amir Nejad, StrataGen

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.

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
Drilling horizontally and hydraulic fracturing is proving to be the well type of choice for low and ultra-
low permeability shale. However, due to the extreme complexities encountered, determining the specifics
of a completion and hydraulic fracture design that will result in the highest economic return on investment
is problematic. The subject of this paper are results from detailed evaluations performed by experienced
engineers with reservoir knowledge for the purpose of evaluating completion effectiveness and improving
economics for shale and other low permeability formations.
Detailed engineering evaluations were performed to estimate reservoir and frac characteristics for a multi-
well Utica pad. These evaluations consisted of (1) performing production history matching on all production
phases with a numeric reservoir simulator, (2) estimating conditions within the fracture over time as the
wells are produced and (3) calibration of a 3-D frac model by frac pressure matching. The methods used to
perform these evaluations are not new, however they currently are underutilized by the industry today
The evaluations performed indicate that completion, frac design, operational and production issues can all
significantly influence multi-fractured horizontal well production and economics. In addition the findings
show that in many cases the hydraulic fractures are not very effective1-9. This ineffectiveness is due to
the stranding of large portions of the propped fracture area which consequently do not contribute to well
performance. This condition results in loss of productivity, recovery and return on investment. Experience
shows that improvements to the frac treatment design can mitigate some of this inefficiency and improve
the economics of multi-fractured horizontal completions.

Background
Three wells were drilled from the same pad in the Utica/Point Pleasant formation located in eastern Ohio.
The Utica Shale is described as a calcareous black shale with total organic carbon (TOC) content of up to
3.5% and a carbonate content of approximately 25%. The calcareous organic rich Point Pleasant Formation,
with is directly below the Utica, is the horizontal drilling target for these three wells11. The Point Pleasant
formation has roughly 40 to 60% carbonate content with up to 5% TOC. As can be seen in Figure 1, all 3
wells are drilled in the same Azimuth direction with Well B interior located in between Wells A and C. The
types of data and information used to evaluate the performance of these wells include:
2 SPE-184816-MS

Daily Production Data

Daily Operation Report Logs

Completions Procedure Reports

Post Frac Reports

Mechanical Properties Log

Geo-steering Charts

Digital Fracture Treatment Data

Stimulation Invoices

Figure 1Relative Position of Horizontal Wellbores A, B and C

Table 1 summarizes the completion and frac designs for the three direct offset wells. All of the wells used
a similar hybrid fluid design, with the exception of the later stages of Well C where some borate crosslink
fluid was used. Well A had the shortest lateral length and all the frac stages were completed as designed.
The number of stages completed for Wells B & C varied from planned due to adverse stimulation pressure
response. This was especially the case for Well C.

Table 1Completion and Frac Summary

Fluid Volume
Well Prop Description Prop Wt. (MMLb.) Lateral Length (ft.) Frac Stages
(MMgal.)

A Resin Coated Sand (RCS) - Sand 10.3 9.3 5,800 24

B Ceramic (LWC) - Sand 11.5 10.3 6,100 24

C Ceramic (LWC) 7.1 8.8 6,200 21

SPE-184816-MS 3

Table 2 contains additional stimulation treatment detail. One of the differences between the wells is the
average treatment rate. The average rate for Well C is significantly lower than the average rate for the other 2
wells. As mentioned earlier, this was due to the higher injection pressures encountered during the treatment
of Well C. The average pressure/average rate is calculated for each well. A higher value indicates relatively
more difficulty in treating the well.

Table 2Frac Rate and Pressure Summary

Parameter (Unit) Well A Well B Well C

Avg. Prop Conc. (ppg) 1.5 1.4 1.4

Avg. Rate (bpm) 81.0 76.0 63.0

Rate/Cluster (bpm) 16.2 15.2 14.1

ISIP (psi) 7,650 7,690 7,610

Pressure/Rate
128 132 151
(psi/BBL/min)

Completion Evaluation
As discussed earlier, while evaluating the treatment data for the 3 wells, it was obvious that Well B and
Well C experienced more treatment issues than Well A. Figure 2 was generated to visually illustrate the
difficulties in performing the individual treatments for the wells. Each frac stage is represented by a vertical
bar. The bar color defines the four treatment difficulty categories used in this analysis. A description for
each category are listed below:

Completed; No Issues

Treatment went very well with limited pressure issues during the treatment. Rate didn't need to
be adjusted and the design amount of proppant was pumped into formation.
Completed: Pressure Increasing

Treatment was pumped to completion with all design proppant placed into the formation. During
the treatment there were issues with higher pressure, or pressure spikes, which would cause the
design to be altered in order to place the proppant.
Completed; Screen Out

These stages were completed however the treatment screened off.

Not Completed; Minimal Proppant Placed

High initial injection pressure limited proppant placement. No significant proppant volume or
concentration was placed into the formation.
4 SPE-184816-MS

Figure 2Treatment Pressure Response Summary

One of the differences between the wells were the proppants used in the treatments. Table 3 summarizes
a breakdown of the proppants placed in zone for each well. Well A was primarily completed with half white
sand and half resin coated sand (RCS). Well B utilized the most proppant which was approximately half
white sand and half lightweight ceramic proppant (LWC). While Well C used primarily LWC although with
a significantly lower total proppant amount compared to Wells A and B.

Table 3Frac Proppant Details

Parameter (Unit) Well A Well B Well C

100 mesh (lbs) 540,000 510,000 140,000

30/50 White (lbs) 4,700,000 5,200,000 40,000

40/70 RCS (lbs) - - -

30/50 RCS (lbs) 4,070,000 - 420,000

20/40 RCS (lbs) 1,020,000 - 88,000

30/50 LWC (lbs) - 5,110,000 5,080,000

20/40 LWC (lbs) - 700,000 1,450,000

% Designed Prop Placed 98.6% 80.7% 78.1%

Figure 3 shows the difference in sieve distributions and median particle diameters for the proppants used.
As can be seen, the ceramic proppants were approximately 10% larger for the 30/50 size, and 20% larger for
20/40. In summary the median diameters are slightly larger for the LWC vs. the sand and resin coated sand
(RCS) for the same mesh size classification. Although there are differences in the proppant diameter used
between the wells, this issue does not fully explain the aborted frac treatments on wells B and C as high
treatment pressure issues were experienced before any of the proppant reached the formation. Tortuosity
associated with fracture initiation and propagation provides a reasonable explanation for this10. In retrospect,
we believe well C would have benefited from initial sand stages of smaller proppant to condition the fracture,
SPE-184816-MS 5

a more viscous frac fluid to mitigate these apparent tortuosity issues and/or increasing the treatment rate
per perforation cluster.

Figure 3Proppant Particle Size Chart

Fracture Modeling
All of the treatments were modeled using a 3-D Fracture Model. To set up the model a mechanical properties
log was analyzed and used to build the earth model. The same model and parameters were used consistently
on all 3 wells. Fracture propagation from each cluster from every stage was then evaluated and modeled.
Once a pressure match was achieved the fracture geometries were estimated for each cluster. The frac
geometry along the lateral for the 3 wells are visually displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 43-D Fracture Wellbore Diagram

When looking at Figure 4 two things stand out; first the treatments in Well A have very uniform geometry.
The second is that the treatments in Well C, and to a lesser extent Well B, have varying geometries along
the lateral and numerous sections without any propped fractures. Based on this information, the number of
6 SPE-184816-MS

propped fractures for each well was estimated based on frac pressure response and was taken into account
for production history matching and frac modeling.
Typically for frac and reservoir modeling consistency, we assume that all the clusters are accepting an
equal amount of treatment volume, 100% cluster efficiency. It is our experience that this assumption is
reasonable when evaluating wells without operational/completion issues and each frac stage has normal
and similar treating pressures and injection rates. However, several of the fracture treatments did have
problems placing only a small amount of proppant and others screened off early. Reservoir anisotropy,
fracture interference (stress shadowing), and other parameters in fracture and reservoir modeling adds layers
of complexity and uncertainty with few constraints. Therefore, if the proppant volume was less than 10K
lb. per cluster, the fracture size was very small and that frac stage was not considered to be contributing a
significant volume to production. The treatments which screened out early were assigned a reduced cluster
efficiency. On these stages the cluster efficiency was estimated to be 60%, which effectively reduced the
number of fractures propagated. The number of effective clusters has been discussed extensively in the
literature varying from 30% to 60%12-15. Therefore a 60% cluster efficiency seemed reasonable and was
assumed for these problem stages.
The average fracture geometries for all of the contributing clusters are summarized in Table 4. Well B
has highest average conductivity due to the proppant type, amount, and concentration. Well C has lessor
conductivity than Well B while Well A had the lowest. Figure 5 contains the baseline conductivities for the
proppants used in the treatments for each of these wells. This figure shows a wide range of conductivity
which is dependent on proppant type and stress environment. The modeled propped fracture height and
half-length are based on 0.20 lb/sqft bed concentration (default value). It is generally accepted that these
lengths and heights are optimistic. It should be noted that the conductivity numbers are calculated using
a 90% damage factor which matched the initial conductivities from the reservoir modeling and dynamic
proppant modeling software. This damage factor is consistent with other studies at similar conditions.

Figure 5API Baseline Conductivity for Propping Agents

Table 4Fracture Geometry Summary

Created Propped
Conductivity Created Propped Number of
Avg. Characteristics Half- Half-
(md-ft) Height (ft) Height (ft) Fractures
Length (ft) Length (ft)

Well A 6.3 650 540 310 200 120

Well B 13.9 730 630 290 190 114

Well C 8.2 680 530 330 190 94

SPE-184816-MS 7

Fracture Degradation Effects

We know from Rock Mechanics that the stress placed on the proppant by the formation is dependent on the
formation closure stress and the well's bottomhole flowing pressure. Theoretically the maximum stress that
the proppant could be exposed to is the closure stress which would occur at a bottomhole flowing pressure
of zero at time zero before any significant reservoir pressure depletion has occurred. In practice the stress on
the proppant will increase over time due to decreasing bottomhole flowing which is dependent on how the
well is produced. A practical relationship between formation closure stress, bottomhole flowing pressure
and stress on proppant is defined in the following expression16, 17:
Stress on Proppant=Formation Closure Stress-Bottomhole Flowing Pressure
An estimate of the stress on the proppant over production time for Well B is shown in the Figure 6. As can
been seen, early time stress on proppant is about 2,000 psi. However as the production time approaches 200
days the stress on proppant exceeds 7,000 psi due to drawdown from production and decreased bottomhole
flowing pressure. We know from proppant conductivity measurements made in the laboratory that changes
in stress of this magnitude have a profound effect on proppant permeability. This concept is important
because hydraulic fracture theory supports the premise that a reduction in fracture conductivity (proppant
permeability) in turn also would reduce fracture effectiveness in terms of effective fracture length and area.

Figure 6Well B Production Time vs. Well Flowing Pressure and Calculated Stress on Proppant

Laboratory measurements of various proppant conductivities at different stresses along with estimates
of stress on proppant over time were used to construct Figure 7. As can be seen all proppant types have
significantly reduced conductivity after 100 days of production. This conductivity degradation continues
as more stress is applied although at 200 days degradation occurs at a much lessor rate. The magnitude of
these effects, which exceed a 90% reduction in conductivity, support incorporating fracture degradation in
the production history matching process. It is interesting to note that at 100 days of production the ceramic
materials have similar conductivity to the time 0 conductivity of sand.
8 SPE-184816-MS

Figure 7Conductivity of Various Proppants vs Producing Time

Production History Matching

A production history match (PHM) was performed on the 3 offset wells using a numerical simulator.
The philosophy on production history matching is to approximate the long term production on daily rates
of all phases using what information we know about the reservoir and completion. Once the reservoir
properties are anchored by the good match long term, then other iterations are performed only to change
frac parameters. So essentially all phases are matched simultaneously over the entire production history
of the well.
The actual cumulative Gas-Oil Ratio [GOR (scf/stb)] implies this reservoir is classified as dry gas.
Daily bottomhole flowing pressures were calculated using 200+ days of production history, surface flowing
pressures, production tubular internal diameter (I.D.), well-bore architecture, reservoir temperature and
assumed pressure volume temperature (PVT) data. These estimated pressures will be used as a constraint
for the production history match process. To reduce non-uniqueness of the solution, an initial estimate
on pore pressure, and permeability of the producing zone were obtained from experience in the area
and measurements made during horizontal drilling. The thicknesses were estimated from geosteering
interpretation and nearby well log analysis. The connate water saturation and porosity of all zones were
determined from geologic data. Relative permeability of all phases were calculated using exponent value 2.
PVT model for reservoir fluids were determined using correlations in the absence of actual PVT data.
The initial fracture geometry values were obtained from the treatment net pressure history matching
process which was performed on all fracture stages. Varying fracture geometry and fracture conductivity
are then averaged over the entire well and used as input for the first iteration. The number of active clusters
were determined from net pressure match and the treatment pressure behavior as discussed previously. The
model production schedule was set up to reflect actual production starting from day one.
A single well bottomhole flowing pressure constraint in the production history match model was
configured with large drainage boundaries to avoid any boundary interference effects. A center point
logarithmic gridding pattern is utilized in the horizontal direction with a logarithmic vertical refinement. A
history match could not be achieved with a single set of fracture parameters through the entire production
SPE-184816-MS 9

period. Therefore the production history was divided into multiple flow periods with decreasing fracture
parameters (fracture degradation).

Results Discussion
Adequate production history matches were obtained on all 3 wells using comparable reservoir parameters.
The rate and cumulative gas production matches are shown in figures 8, 9 and 10. Daily gas rates are on
left hand corner and Cumulative Gas production on right hand corner. The red color dots represent actual
data and the black color dots represents the model data.

Figure 8PHM Gas Rates, Cumulative and Flowing Pressures: Well A

Figure 9PHM Gas Rates, Cumulative and Flowing Pressures: Well B

10 SPE-184816-MS

Figure 10PHM Gas Rates, Cumulative and Flowing Pressures: Well C

As previously mentioned, it was necessary to use multiple flow periods (FP) with reduced fracture
dimensions to obtain the production history matches. Three flow periods were used for Wells A and B
while two flow periods for Well C. These evaluations indicate slightly higher reservoir permeability for
Well A. A consistent pore pressure gradient was used for all three wells. An effective fracture area (EFA)
was calculated for each flow period which is defined as the product of the production history match total
fracture length, height and the number of fractures. An EFA reduction of 65% and 80% reduction in effective
fracture conductivity is estimated for Well A. For Well B, a 60% reduction in EFA and 72% reduction in
effective fracture conductivity. While Well C has a 44% reduction in EFA and 46% reduction in effective
fracture conductivity. Table 5 contains the reservoir characteristics and Table 6 the frac characteristics used
to obtain the production matches for each well.

Table 5PHM Reservoir Parameters: All Wells

Parameter (Unit) Well A Well B Well C

Pore Pressure (psi) 9,061 9,074 9,074

Pore Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) 0.85 0.85 0.85

Reservoir Permeability (md) 0.0038 0.0035 0.0035

Porosity (%) 6.0 6.0 6.0

Water Saturation (%) 40 45 42

Table 6PHM Completion Parameters: All Wells

Well A Well A Well A Well C Well C

Parameter (Unit) Well B (FP1) Well B (FP2) Well B (FP3)
(FP1) (FP2) (FP3) (FP1) (FP2)

Effective Fracture
150 90 75 170 135 100 165 100
Half-length (ft)

Effective Fracture
85 85 60 110 75 75 65 60
Height (ft)

Effective Fracture
10 5 2 11 6 3 15 8
Conductivity (md-ft)

Dimensionless
5.6 4.7 2.2 5.9 4.0 2.7 8.3 7.3
Conductivity [FcD]

Continued on next page

SPE-184816-MS 11

Well A Well A Well A Well C Well C

Parameter (Unit) Well B (FP1) Well B (FP2) Well B (FP3)
(FP1) (FP2) (FP3) (FP1) (FP2)

Effective Fracture
25,500 15,300 9,000 37,400 20,250 15,000 21,450 12,000
Area (sq ft)

L eff / L prop 0.28 0.17 0.14 0.27 0.21 0.16 0.31 0.19

Well Effective Fracture

3.06 1.84 1.08 5.9 4.0 2.7 2.02 1.13
Area (million sq ft)

Estimating Fracture Efficiency

Fracture effectiveness is the amount of fracture area which contributes to well production. This effective
fracture area can be calculated from the fracture characteristics estimated from the production history match.
If this effective fracture area is compared to the fracture characteristics estimated from frac modeling a
fracture efficiency can be determined by dividing the effective area determined from the production history
match by the frac model propped area. Based on the 8 flow periods from the three wells, the fracture
efficiencies ranged from a high of about 13% to a low of 4%.
Figure 11 shows a comparison of the production history match fracture conductivity to fracture efficiency
for the 8 matched flow periods. As can be seen, there is a strong correlation which indicates that for each
of these wells, fracture efficiency is dependent on fracture conductivity. Also note that all of the data fall
on the same trend line with the early production data plotting on the upper right and later data on the lower
left. The data from these wells supports the hypothesis that fracture conductivity directly impacts not just
fracture efficiency but also fracture effectiveness.

Figure 11Comparison of fracture conductivity to fracture efficiency

Forecasting Production for Alternative Frac Designs

The information derived from the analysis of the 3 wells can be used to forecast production for alternative
frac designs. Of interest are a frac design similar to that performed on well A (RCS-Sand); a frac design
similar to that utilized on Well B (LWC-Sand); a low cost design with the same volume as Well A
(Sand) and a much larger volume frac design (Large-Sand). For consistency, the reservoir and completion
characteristics from Well A will be used for forecasting production for all frac design scenarios. Frac
12 SPE-184816-MS

modeling was performed to estimate propped area, length, height and conductivity for the 4 hypothetical
frac designs. Table 7 contains a summary of the stage treatment volumes and frac modeling results.

Table 7Frac Model Characteristics

Frac Stage Volume Frac Model Geometry

Perf
Proppant/ Propped Conductivity
Case Volume/Stage (gal) Clusters/ Propped Half-length (ft)
stage (lb) Height (ft) (md-ft)
Stage

RCS-Sand 388,000 429,000 5 537 202 31.7

LWC-Sand 450,000 504,000 5 610 220 70.0

Sand 388,000 429,000 5 555 200 18.2

Large-Sand 681,000 886,000 5 726 287 23.0

The correlation in Figure 11 along with other scaling factors determined from production history and
frac pressure matching are used to estimate effective fracture characteristics from the frac model geometry.
This was done for each of the hypothetical frac design for production forecasting. Table 8 shows the scaling
factors used and the resulting effective fracture characteristics for the 4 frac design scenarios.

Table 8Scaling Factors and Frac Characteristics used for Production Forecasting

Scaling Factors Effective Fracture Geometry

Effective Cond./ Conductivity

Case A eff/ A prop L eff/ L prop Half-length (ft) Height (ft)
Frac Model Cond. (md-ft)

RCS-Sand 0.0390 0.1362 0.063 73 58 2.0

LWC-Sand 0.0617 0.1790 0.063 109 76 4.4

Sand 0.0310 0.1211 0.063 67 51 1.1

Large-Sand 0.0338 0.1265 0.063 92 77 1.5

Using a 5,800 ft lateral length completed with 24 frac stages with 5 perforations clusters per stage,
production forecasts were made for the four hypothetical frac designs. As can been seen in figure 12, the
LWC-Sand type frac design produces the most gas, 7.25 BCF, after 5 years of production. This is followed
by the large volume sand treatment at 6.76 BCF. The smaller volume sand treatment will produce the least
amount of gas, 5.62 BCF in 5 years. These results suggests that well recovery can be significantly improved
with more effective frac designs that result in greater effective frac area. In the case of the LWC-Sand
frac design, frac effectiveness and efficiency is improved though greater proppant permeability. While the
Large-Sand treatment achieves improved frac effectiveness through increased propped frac width and area
resulting in more effective stimulation.
SPE-184816-MS 13

Figure 12Forecasted Production

The results of an economic analysis based on the forecasted production for the four hypothetical designs
are shown in figure 13. As can be seen, the most effective of the four frac designs, LWC-Sand and Large
Sand are the most expensive with the LWC-Sand costing about $130,000 more for the well.

Figure 13Forecasted Economics

These results however indicate that the LWC-Sand treatment well will produce 0.5 BCF more gas and
generate $1,270,000 more value after 5 years of production than the Large-Sand frac. In addition due to
smaller treatment volume it has a significantly lower impact on the environment using 34% less water and
14 SPE-184816-MS

43% less proppant. It must be noted that these economic evaluations use current market frac cost estimates,
a discount rate of 10%, net gas price of $3.00/MCF and a water disposal cost of $5.00/BBL.

Conclusions
The well performance evaluations performed on a 3 well pad indicate that there is opportunity to improve
well production and economics from formations like the deep Utica with the use of more effective frac
designs. Factors that contribute to more effective frac treatments include: treatment volume, proppant
selection, fracture spacing, perforation cluster efficiency, and treatment rate. The following is a summary
of findings:

Major portions of the propped fracture area appear to be stranded and do not contribute
to well production.

Selection of more permeable proppant can result in greater effective fracture area.
Higher fracture conductivity contributes to better frac efficiency (effective to propped
fracture area ratio) and frac effectiveness.

Increasing treatment proppant and fluid volumes can result in greater effective fracture area.

Improved conductivity due to wider propped frac width and larger propped area
contributes to better fracture effectiveness.
Proppant placement difficulties decrease fracture effectiveness and well production.

Frac treatments that sand out and/or experienced excessive net pressure build appear to
be less effective than fracs with more neutral pressure response. These effects reduced the
performance of Well C, had a lesser effect on Well B and had minimal impact on Well A.
Lower treatment rate or fracture interference may lead to reduced perforation cluster
efficiency.
Reduced proppant and fluid volume placed in the formation.

For the cases evaluated in this paper, the proppant placement issues encountered appear
to be primarily formation related.
High treatment pressure before proppant reached the formation.

This data indicates that a hydraulic fracture's effectiveness degrades over time. To obtain
the production history matches, it was necessary to reduce the effective fracture dimensions
and conductivity over production time.

It appears that pressure drawdown due to production which increases the stress on
proppant reduces fracture conductivity and fracture effectiveness.
The more conductivity constrained a fracture is, the greater the apparent impact of this
effect.
Thes information derived from this evaluation are consistent with laboratory conductivity
measurements and frac mechanics.

Nomenclature
$ US Dollar
BBL Barrel
BCF Billion Cubic Feet
ft Feet
SPE-184816-MS 15

FcD Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity

gal Gallon
k Formation Permeability
kprop Proppant Permeability
lb Pound
Leff Effective Fracture Half Length
Lprop Propped Fracture Half Length
LWC Light Weight Ceramic Proppant
Mcf/d Thousand Cubic Feet per Day
MCF Thousand Standard Cubic feet
md MilliDarcy
md-ft Millidarcy-feet
min Minute
MMgal Million gallons
MMlb Million Pounds
MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
NPV Net Present Value
ppg Pounds per Gallon
psi Pounds per Square Inch
RCS Resin Coated Sand Proppant
ROI Return on Investment
TVD True Vertical Depth

References
1. Cipolla, C. L., & Mayerhofer, M. (1998). Understanding Fracture Performance by Integrating
Well Testing & Fracture Modeling. SPE Paper 49044. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 27-30 September, New Orleans, Louisiana. 1998.
2. Cipolla, C.L., Lolon, E. P., Mayerhofer. M. J. (2008). "Resolving Created, Propped and Effective
Hydraulic Fracture Length," ITPC Paper 12147. International Petroleum Technology Conference.
Kuala Lumpur, 3-5 Dec 2008.
3. Palisch, T.T., Duenckel, R.D., Bazan, L., Heidt, J., Turk, G. (2007). "Determining Realistic
Fracture Conductivity and Understanding Its Impact on Well Performance - Theory and Field
Examples," SPE Paper 106301. Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station,
TX, 29-31 January 2007.
4. Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E., Veach, R.W., JR. (1990) "Recent Advances in
Hydraulic Fracturing," Monograph volume 12, SPE Henry L. Doherty Series.
5. Blackwood, K., Flowers, J., Handren, P., Pope, C., Palisch, T., Chapman, M., Godwin, J. (2011).
"Evaluating the Long Term Benefits of Improved Fracture Treatments," SPE Paper 147436.
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 30 October 2 November 2011.
6. Mayerhofer, M.J., Richardson, M.F., Walker, R.N. Jr., Meehan, D.N., Oehler, M.W., Browning,
R.R. Jr., (1997) "Proppants? We Don't Need No Proppants," SPE Paper 38611, originally
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8
October, 1997.
7. Grieser, W.V., Shelley, R.F., Johnson, B.J., Fielder, E.O., Heinze, J.R., Werline, J.R.. (2006) SPE
Paper 100674, "Data Analysis of Barnett Shale Completions."
16 SPE-184816-MS

8. Shelley, R., Shah, K., Guliyev, N., Mohammednejad, A., Stanislav, S., (2015). "Is Pumping
Large Volume Sand Frac Treatments Sustainable?" SPE Paper 174863. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 28-30 Sept Houston TX 2015.
9. Crafton, J.W., Noe, S.L., (2013). "Factors Affecting Early Well Production in Six Shale Plays,"
SPE Paper 166101. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
Sept 30 - Oct 2 2013.
10. Davidson, B.M., Saunders, B.F., Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A., "Analysis of Abnormally High
Fracture Treating Pressures Caused by Complex Fracture Growth" SPE Paper 26154. SPE Gas
Technology Symposium Calgary Alberta 28-30 June 1993.
11. A Geologic Play Book for Utica Shale Appalachian Basin Exploration, Published July 1, 2015,
Utica Shale Appalachian Basin Exploration Consortium, Coordinated by: Appalachian Oil &
Natural Gas Research Consortium at West Virginia University, Published July 1, 2015)
12. Ingram, S. R., Lahman, M., & Persac, S. (JPT 2014, April 1). "Methods Improve Stimulation
Efficiency of Perforation Clusters in Completions. Society of Petroleum Engineers".
13. Bunger, A., Jeffrey, R. G., & Zhang, X. (2014, August 1) SPE 163860 "Constraints on
Simultaneous Growth of Hydraulic Fractures from Multiple Perforation Clusters in Horizontal
Wells"
14. Buller, D., Hughes, S. N., Market, J., Petre, J. E., Spain, D. R., & Odumosu, T. (2010, January 1).
SPE 132990, "Petrophysical Evaluation for Enhancing Hydraulic Stimulation in Horizontal Shale
Gas Wells"
15. Miller, C., Waters, G., and Rylander, E. 2011. Evaluation of Production Log Data from
Horizontal Wells Drilled in Organic Shales. Paper SPE 144326 presented at the SPE North
American Unconventional Gas Conference, The Woodlands, TX, 14-16 June.
16. Sookprasong, P. A. (2010, January 1). SPE 136338, Presented at the SPE Tight Gas Completions
Conference San Antonio 2-3 November 2010, In-Situ Closure Stress on Proppant in the Fracture:
A Controversial New Thinking. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/136338-MS
17. Schubarth, S. K., Cobb, S. L., & Jeffrey, R. G. (1997, January 1). SPE 37489, Understanding
Proppant Closure Stress. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/37489-MS