SPE

SPE 14379
Fracture Stimulation Design and Evaluation
by P. A. Warembourg,* Dowe// Schlumberger, E. A. Klingensmith, F/opetro/ Johnston Schlumberger,
I K
w. k.
untima.
, , ~,
.1.
J. ,
ITnwdl
-.. ,,
Sphltfmharnar
, ,, ,,,- r~.., ,,
and
-., -
.1
-.
F
-.
Frrik
-. -.-,
Flnnetrnl
..vr - -------
Inhnstcm
. . -----
~~hi~rnberger

Member SPE

CoWriiht 1985, society of Petroleum Engineers

ThiQ
. ... namw
r--- was nrm-y~~~ for n~fisantation
.. -.-r r --- a! the LMh AMUM Technical Conference and Exhibition of the So@ety of Petroleum Engineers held in Lea
Vegas, NV September 22-25, 1985.

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, as praeertted, have not been reviewed by tha Sodety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presentad, does not neceeeerily reflect any position of the Seciefy of Petroleum Engineera, ita officers, or members. Papem
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permieeien to copy k
reatricfed to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Sox 833836, Richardson, TX 750S3-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL,

ABSTRACT these variables (as opposed to general estimates) is

extremely important for realistic treatment design,
Stimulation treatments have been difficult to execution of the treatment and the final production.
design and evaluate because of the numerous vari-
ables involved. A successful treatment has too long Although the Industry has known the importance
been defined as one where the treatment was pumped of having accurate data for optimization, the tools
without problems. A successful treatment should be and technology available to obtain these data have
defined as one that provides the production pre- not been utilized. The cost associated with identi-
dicted by the design process. fying the critical variables may have been a concern
in the past; however, current conditions now make it
The conditions associated with stimulation attractive to obtain accurate values for these vari-
results and a method to design an optimum treatment ables. Other reasons that have contributed to the
with more accurate, predicted results are present- lack of optimization include the following.
ed. The method combines both old and new technology
associated with well performance testing (pressure Methods to determine certain critical variables
transient testing and production systems analysis), in situ were not available in the past.
pump-in tests to obtain certain critical variables
in situ, and compilation of the obtained data to Treatments providing acceptable results (not
design an economically optimum stimulation that will necessarily optimum for the reservoir and produc-
provide predicted results. The method is used to ing system) become the standard, and the design
optimize the design prior to spending any money for for those treatments becomes repetitive.
stimulation treatments. This optimization allows
important economic decisions to be made and a treat- Change is difficult when we assume the stimula-
ment design that is based on those economics. The tion results in a given area are the best avail-
method also allows the evaluation of post-treatment able.
results.
o Evaluation of treatment desian and Post-treatment
results does not command as- much time as other
INTROOUCTION production duties.

The Industry spends millions of dollars each Optimization is possible with proper identifi-
year for fracture stimulation treatments. The cation and utilization of accurate critical vari-
majority of these treatments cannot optimize produc- ables in the design process.
tion because realistic values for the critical vari-
ables used in the treatment design process have not
been properly identified. Critical variables are CRITICAL VARIABLES
defined as those variables that have the largest
impact on the production obtained from any stimula- The critical variables needed to optimize stim-
tion treatment. Obtaining an accurate value for ulation results can be grouped into three cate-
gories. Each category contains variables that are
needed to determine specific design criteria. The
three categories are (1) reservoir and producing
system variables that determine production response
RQfWfMCgS and illustrations at end of oaDer=
~r from the well; (2) stimulation design variables that
 ------------ .... . . . . . . ------ . . .
2 I-KACWRE STIMULAr IUN D IGN AND EVALUATION SPE 14379

determine achievable fracture geometry; and (3) fects of these variables are determined by using
economic variables that determine the optimum treat- available models to describe fluid flow through
ment. The specific variables are listed below. perforations, tubulars, flowlines, chokes, separa-
tors and artificial lift systems.23Q Combining
- mesenuol
D--..-..-*-
. ..A nA.._4.._ #?. . ..4. ~~e au! Iauc
~,fi~~~ ~~Gre plulllullly
....-63.-... ..1 , .. ..l.a-.. ,.s=,..+.
ellcul,s
.w.f~~ ~~e
w am rJ-wucmny ayau.um

reservoir sandface production gives a total system

. Effective Transmissibility (kehn/u) woduction forecast. Altering any part of the total
. Effective Mobility (kc/v) moducing system, either in the reservoir or in the
~lumbing system, can have a dramatic effect on the

Effective Permeability (ke) stock tank or sales line production rates.

Reservoir Pressure (psia)
Fracture stimulation is one alteration that can

Net Producing Interval (hn) dramatically increase production. The hydraulic
!=I,I+A
DI.AnaF.+ic.e
fracturing process creates propped fracture width
*VUSU r,vp=,tia=a
~nd length. The resulting conductivity (propped

Reservoir Behavior fracture width x proppant permeability at effective
:losure pressure) is one factor that determines the

Surface and Wellbore Plumbing Configurations rate at which fluid will flow through the propped

Operating Conditions fracture to the wellbore. Effective fracture length
Increases the reservoir surface area connected with

Stimulation Parameters the wellbore. The magnitude of the effect length
~ cs.s4.+anwfi c+4m9..l.+;* fine<
md conductivity have on production must be evalu-
. I S-.-UU = .w-*muaubuvmn mamyam
ated in conjunction with the total producing
system. The term fracture half-length (xf) is
Created Fracture Height (hg)
Jsed when making calculations and comparisons.
Fracture Half-Length (xf) racture half-length is the distance from the well-
m- , - L ,,.,., ]ore to the tip of the fracture: Figures 1 and 2
rroppeo Fracture wlarn (w) are sensitivity plots illustrating how cumulative
Fluid Loss (ft/~) ]roduction can be influenced by some of the vari-
ables previously discussed. Knowing how production
Closure Pressure on Proppant (psia) dill be affected prior to the stimulation expendi-
Propping Agent Permeability (kf) ture is extremely important.
Design Models
Gross fracture height created during the frac-
turing treatment
..- is one Qf the m~~t imnortant.
------- -_..-, but
....r-.
@ Econodcs
Ieast known, variables influencing the process to
:reate fracture geometry. Optimizing fracture
Production Forecasts
length and other critical variables such as fracture
Net Discounted Production Revenue per BBL or conductivity and fracturing fluid efficiency (fluid
MSCF loss) cannot be determined without knowing gross
Fracture height. Figure 3 illustrates the relation-
Cost of Stimulation Options
ship of proppant volume, gross fracture height and
Fracture half-length. The volume of fluid required
to maintain the optimum fracture length in the net
Influence of Critical Variables on @timization lay interval increases as the created gross fracture
Ieight increases. Therefore, the anount of proppant
Transmissibility, mobility, permeability and to obtain the required conductivity also increases
pressure affect the producing capability of the ]ecause the total square feet of fracture area has
reservoir. In most cases, these variables cannot be increased.
altered and will be governing factors that influence
certain stimulation design variables such as frac- Proonant
-rr_..- wlection. , hQth mesh ~i~e and t~PQ9 is
--.--- .-..
ture half-length, width and proppant selection. A an important part of any fracture stimulation
properly designed and conducted pressure transient iesign.56 The fracture closure pressure is used to
testl is the most accurate means of obtaining the select the propping agent that fits the conductivity
reservoir variables. Transmissibility and mobility required for the optimum design. Figure 4 is an
are unit terms as obtained from pressure transient ?xample of a chart coimnonly used to select propping
analysis. Obtaining transmissibility and mobility igents. The permeability vs closure obtained from
as unit terms is important for accurate production this type of chart is probably always optimistic
forecasting at the sandface. A knowledge of fluid ~ecause the degree of proppant permeability damage
properties (viscosity, v; fotmation volume factor, From placement, fines generation and embedment is
6; etc.) and identification of the net producing Jnknown. The proppant permeabilities obtained from
thickness are necessary to obtain mobility and per- this type of chart should be reduced 50% to 90%
meability from the pressure transient analysis. mior to use in stimulation design, depending on
Fluid properties are best obtained from PVT data, Formation properties or data available from rock
although published fluid property correlations are nechanics testing. The relationship and importance
normally acceptable. Net producing thickness can be of proppant permeability, fracture width after clo-
obtained frcm log analysis. sure, effective formation permeability and fracture
length are understood and well documented in the
To accurately forecast production at the stock literature.789
tank or sales line, the effects of the surface and
wellbore plumbing configuration, as well as the Fluid efficiency, as a percent, describes how
operatinq conditions, must be determined. The ef- effective a specific fracturing fluid will be in
SPE 14379 P. A. WAREMBOURG, E. A. KLINGENSMITH
creating the desired fracture geometry. (For exam-
ple: if 100,000 gal (378,500 L) of fracturing fluid
was used in a treatment and at the end of the treat-
ment only 40,000 gal (151,400 L) remained in the
fracture, then the fluid efficiency would be 40%.
The other 60,000 gal (227,100 L) of fracturing fluid
was lost through leakoff.) Fluid efficiency 1s
dependent on fracturing fluid properties, injection
rate, reservoir characteristics, area and any fluid-
10SS additives used. The term that is probably most
often used to describe leakoff, and is more specific
to the fluid, is fluid-loss coefficient. The
larger the value of the fluid-loss coefficient, the
less efficient the fracturing fluid system will be,
i.e., a fluid-loss coefficient of 1.5 E-3 is more
efficient than a coefficient of 3 E-3. Fluid-loss
coefficients are usually obtained from laboratory
testing on cores or other permeable media. Fluid-
10SS coefficients obtained in the laboratory will
usually be a different number from the one actually
representative of the reservoir. Laboratory tests
simply cannot account for the total leakoff charac-
teristics in the reservoir, such as natural frac-
tures, faults, joints or reservoir permeability
variations. The fluid-loss coefficient is a criti-
cal variable and should be the total fluid-loss
coefficient for design purposes. Figure 5 illus-
trates the relationship between fluid loss, fracture
length and volume of fracturing fluid required.
Obtaining Variables
Closure pressure can be determined from an
instantaneous shut-in pressure by assuming that the
closure is equal to bottom-hole fracture pressure.
This can also be obtained from a step-rate test.l
The step-rate test data are obtained by pumping a
thin, ungelled fluid (such as water) at matrix con-
ditions. The rate is gradually increased in steps
until the formation fractures and the pressure sta-
bilizes.
Monitoring pressure decline (caused by fluid
leakoff) after injection can be used to determine
the minimum stress in the formation. A pump-in
flowback procedure can also be used in formations
where leakoff is extremely low and pressure decline
would require too much time. Using the flowback
procedure, the well is opened up through a special
valve and the pressure decline is plotted.
The total fluid-loss coefficient and fluid
efficiency are obtained in situ by performing a very
small injection test using the same fracturing fluid
and injection rate proposed for the actual propped
fracture treatment. This small treatment does not
use any propping agent because proppant can inter-
fere with the pressure decline and affect the calcu-
lation for the fluid-loss coefficient.
The volume of fluid required for this test is
usually determined from previous experience. Injec-
tion should continue until pressure data indicate
that gross fracture height is stable. It is recom-
mended that the fluid used in the injection treat-
ment contain radioactive tracer material other than
sand : Fract~rQ heiaht l~gs are also a valuable
.._.=.._ - - tool
for gross fracture height prediction.11
Gross fracture height can be determined b
running a ganwna ray survey. Temperature surveysl3
can also be used but are more difficult to inter-
J. E. HOOGES, JR. AND J. E. ERDLE 3
pret, especially in determining fracture growth
below the perforations. Temperature surveys should
have several runs with sufficient time between runs
to pick up the subtle changes necessary for accurate
interpretation. Results from tracer and temperature
surveys assume that all of the fracture height is ifl
contact wtn the wellbore.
The last variable dealing with stimulation
design is the fracture geometr{ mo$el. Basically,
there are two design models131 wi h many modifica-
tions to handle fluid loss and other variables. The
models are also well documented in the literature,
but generally for an identical set of conditions the
Khristianovich and Zheltov model (KZ) calculates
less fracture length than the Perkins and Kern model
(PK). Choosing the correct model for designing an
optimum fracture stimulation treatment is very ire-.
portant. Using accurate input data (critical vari-
ables) with previous history and evaluation allow
verification or modifications that are applicable to
a specific formation in a specific location or
field. Figure 6 illustrates the sensitivity of
propped fracture length and fracturing fluid volume
to geometry models.
Accurate identification of critical variables
allows a realistic economic optimization of the
fracture stimulation, plumbing system and operating
condition design. The economic optimization is the
culmination of the totai design process. Economic
optimization compares the revenue potential to the
cost of the stimulation treatment, plumbing system
and operating condition options.
Production system modeling techniques provide a
production forecast that accounts for the effect
each design option will have on the total system
production potentiai. As the design options change
(i.e., fracture length, fracture conductivity, arti-
ficial lift methods, etc.), the total system produc-
tion potential will also change. Production fore-
casts are synonymous with revenue potential, if the
net revenue per hydrocarbon unit is known. The
present value of the revenue forecast can be calcu-
lated provided a revenue discount factor is deter-
mined. It is a simple process to calculate net
present value after establishing the cost of each
stimulation treatment, plumbing system and operating
condition design option (Net Present Value = Dis-
counted Revenue - Investment). The economic optimum
design for the total system is the one that provides
the largest net present value. Evaluating the net
present value of each design option uses very simple
economic engineering practices and the end result is
the most cost-effective design.
Three other variables that affect the economic
optimum design are (1) the duration of the produc-
tion forecast from which net present value is calcu-
lated, (2) the net discounted production revenue,
and (3) the amount of investment required to achieve
the design option. Figures 7, 8 and 9 show the
effect each of these variables has on optimization.
The optimization process assumes the design
parameters will be achieved. There is always a
possibility that the desired design will not be
achieved; however, better values for the critical
variables minimize the risk.
 4 FRACTURE STIMULATION D IGN AND EVALUATION SPE 14379

M3HOD FOR CPTINIM FRACTURE STIMULATION DESIGN Step 4. Pump and Monitor the Desired Fracture Stim-
ulation Treatment
Step 1. Forecast Production for Various Fracture
Stimulation, Pl~bing System and Operating Condition Procedure
Designs
. Use a treatment monitor vehicle (on location) to
procedure assure the job is pumped as designed (ail data
stored for future reference and analysis).
Design, conduct and interpret a pressure tran-
sient test to determine critical reservoir vari- . Monitor and plot real-time fracture growth data.
ables (transmissibility, mobility, permeability,
reservoir pressure). Step 5. Evaluate the Fracture stimulation Results

Choose plumbing system design options (tubing Procedure

size, shot density and type, flowline size and
length, artificial lift). . Compare post-fracture production to the prefrac-
ture production forecast.
Choose operating condition options (wellhead
pressure, separator pressure). The system is operating properly and the stimula-
tion treatment is successful, if the forecast
Choose fracture stimulation design options (frac- production and actual production are the same.
ture half-length, fracture conductivity). (The production forecast must incorporate the
current plumbing system and operating conditions
e Use production s.vstem modelin~ techniques to for the comparison to be valid.)
forecast productio~ for the tot>l system design
....... c--- c -.-4-- *L. R-_Ll
*= *L- ,,-1
*
Vpl.lurla. X.ep w. ueuxulne we rrwl~ lr me well fS iiOt

Perfoming as Forecast
Step 2. Detensine Achievable Fracture Stimulation
Iksion
--- .=.. htiinnc
~- -----
Dr.nt-ad,,wfi
, , ..=, .=

Procedure Check the total producing system for any unde-

sired conditions (example: proppant fill-up,
Conduct injection tests to determine closure scale, paraffin, collapse, leaks).
....#.
..-
prcasuie
.. alw
.-4 IrIIIIIIIIUiU
-..-:----- -4----
>r,r.e>s.

Review the fracture stimulation treatment data.

Conduct small, nonpropped, fracture treatment to
determine total fluid-loss coefficient and fluid Design, conduct and interpret a post-fracture
efficiency. pressure transient test to determine the effec-
tive fracture length and conductivity in place.
Conduct surveys to determine gross fracture
height. 9 Update the production forecast to reflect any new
condition.
Use computerized, on-location, treatment monitor
vehicle to model fracture geometry. Determine Step 7. Establish Desiun Criteria for Future Frac-
~~~ ,#nl ,mnla~f F*>.-+,,n+nm
v , ,,, = t,.ab!,u, ,I,y
f~~~~ ~fi~ pruppaIIL
. . . . . ...-4.
R-
4-----
Lul-e
9?*:-..*
a.luulab[un
.4.4-- l---.&---*-
Ir-caummbs
*-
In
*L-
t.ne
m---
m-ee

quired to create the lengths and conductivities

used in the production forecasts. Procedure

Step 3. Economically l@timize Fracture Stimulation Use various models and simulators to construct a
Treatment Lksign new fracture geometry model, if necessary.

Procedure CASE HIST(N?IES

e Use the production system forecast to determine
cumulative production vs time for each of the
tentative fracture stimulation designs.
o Calculate the present value of the production
using net revenue per hydrocarbon unit and an
appropriate discount factor.
Determine the investment required to achieve each
of the realistic fracture stimulation design
options.
e Calculate the net present value for each of the
design options (Net Discounted Revenue - Invest-
ment).
The economic, optimum fracture,
treatment design has the largest
value.
Three case histories are presented to demon-
strate same of the key points presented in this
paper. Case No. 1 illustrates a situation that
frequently occurs when all of the critical variables
used in the fracture design are not accurately de-
termined. Case No. 2 illustrates a fracture stimu-
lation treatment that follows the procedure pre-
viously listed in Methad for Optimum Fracture Stim-
ulation Design. Case No. 3 shows the results of
using the data from Case No. 2 on an offset well.
Case No. 1
A pressure transient test was performed to
determine how the well would respond to fracture
stimulation. Production system modeling techniques
stimulation were used to provide the production forecast shown
net present in Figure 10. Table 1 lists the reservoir and pro-
ducing system data used in the forecast.
 A fracture half-length of 1,000 ft (304 m) was
chosen, based on the data provided in the fore-
cast. A fracture stimulation treatment was then
designed for this 1,000 ft (304 m). However, the
values for several critical variables (gross frac-
ture height, fluid efficiency, closure pressure)
necessary for realistic stimulation design were not
accurately determined. A gross fracture height of
60 ft (18 m) was assumed for the stimulation de-
sign. Figure 11 shows the sensitivity of fracture
half-length and stimulation job cost to gross frac-
ture height for this well. The effect of increasing
the assumed gross fracture height by 20 ft (6 m) is
also shown.
The treatment was designed to use 52,000 gal
(196,800 L) of fracturing fluid to place approxi-
mately 100,000 lb (45,360 kg) of 20/40-mesh sand.
Estimated time to pump the treatment was 28 min.
The treatment did not go to completion and had to be
terminated after only 14 min of pumping because of a
screenout. Figure 12 shows this treatment as de-
signed and as pumped.
Approximately 19,000 lb (8,620 kg) of proppant
was in the fracture at the time of screenout. The
cause of this screenout is difficult to evaluate
without knowing gross fracture height and in-situ
fluid loss. A post-fracture stimulation pressure
transient test was conducted to determine the effec-
tive fracture half-length and conductivity. The
production forecast was updated to reflect the post-
fracture half-length, conductivity and the operating
conditions of the well. Post-fracture production
matches the updated production forecast. Figure 13
shows the updated discounted revenue forecast in
comparison to the original forecast and revenue
potential lost after one year from not creating the
originally desired fracture length.
Case Mo. 2
Production system modeling was used to deter-
mine how the well would respond to fracture stimula-
tion. Reservoir variables were obtained from pres-
sure transient testing and analysis. Figure 14
shows cumulative production vs fracture half-length
and time. Table 2 lists the variables and data used
in the forecast. Fracture half-lengths of 300 to
1,000 ft (92 to 304 m) provided approximately the
same cumulative production after one year. The
fracture half-length contemplated by the operator
prior to this production system modeling was 2,100
ft (640 m) (80% of the drainage radius).
Step rate tests, a small nonpropped fracture
treatment, and surveys were performed. These tests
determined closure pressure, fluid-loss coefficient
(fluid efficiency) and gross fracture height. The
originally estimated gross fracture height, prior to
testing, was 50 ft (15 m). The actual gross frac-
ture height was 358 ft (109 m), created by pumping
crosslinked elled water at an injection rate of 15
~p~ (~.~g ~! /mj~)e The fp~~.~~~ nruna+ P mrwial c
YGwrgl--wJ --vu-v-
were rerun using the new variables obtained from
testing and surveys. Figure 15 shows the relation-
ship between fracture half-length, proppant volume
and two gross fracture heights (50 and 358 ft (15
and 109 m)). Fracture geometr simulations indicate
Gross Height = 50 ft
that if the original design t
(15 m)) would have been pumped, a screenout would
Using the production forecast data and the new
fracture geometry, the economic optimum fracture
half-length was determined to be 500 ft (152 m).
Figure 16 illustrates fracture half-length vs net
present value.
The fracture stimulation treatment, designed
for 500 ft (152 m) of fracture half-length and a
conductivity of 485 md-ft (145 ~m2-m), was performed
and monitored in real time. The proposed treatment
schedule vs the actual is illustrated in Figure
17. The treatment design schedule was adjusted
during the actual treatment because the calculated
bottom-hole treating pressure plot indicated a po-
tential screenout at the tip of the fracture. How-
ever, flush was completed and no proppant was left
in the tubulars. Using calculated bottom-hole frac-
ture pressure to make these decisions vs actual .
bottom-hole fracture pressure (from a static tubing
string or a bottom-hole gauge), is debatable.
Modeling the treatment as actually pumped gave
a calculated fracture conductivity of 300 md-ft (90
um2-m). This conductivity was used to construct a
new production forecast. Actual production rates
did not match the forecast production. A post-frac-
ture pressure transient test was conducted to deter-
mine the effective fracture half-length and conduc-
tivity. A restriction was found in the tubing when
the electric line gauge was run. No restrictions
were encountered during prefracture electric line
runs. This pressure transient test was successfully
conducted, however, and the calculated effective
fracture half-length was 490 ft (149 m) with a con-
ductivity of 346 md-ft (104 ~m2-m). Figure 18 shows
the actual production from this well vs the original
forecast (500 ft Xf, 485 md-ft). Also shown is the
forecast with the restriction. The operator will
remove this restriction in the near future.
Case Ho. 3
Reservoir and treatment design data obtained
from Case No. 2 were used to design a fracture stim-
ulation treatment for an offsetting well. The frac-
ture stimulation treatment design on the offsetting
well was identical (i.e., 500 ft (152 m) and 485 md-
ft (145 um2-m)). The treatment was successfully
pumped to completion. Figure 19 illustrates the
prefracture production forecast vs the actual post-
fracture production for the offset well.
CONCLUSIONS
. A successful fracture stimulation treatment
should be defined as one that provides the pro-
duction predicted by the design process.
o The critical variables interact, and accuracy is
extremely important for production forecasting,
stimulation design and economic optimization.
* ?~~ ..
met ~0 rletenn<ne... . . . .
--. rn~~~ ~CCgT~~~ y~~~~S for
the critical variables is usually a very small
percent of the total well cost. Early optimiza-
tion will prevent repetitive errors from occur-
ring in the designs for future wells.
. The economic optimum can be determined prior to
any expenditure for a fracture stimulation treat-
6 FRACTURE STIMULATION 01 IGN AND EVALUATION SPE 14379

The success of a fracture stimulation treatment the 1984 SPE Deep Drilling and Production Sym-
can be quantified in exact terms, regardless of posium, Amarillo, April 1-3.
the volume of fluid and proppant actually pumped.
6. Holditch, S. A.: Criteria of Propping Agent
Selection, prepared for the Norton Company,
Much of the technology used in optimizing frac- Dallas (Jan. 1979). .
ture stimulation is not new. Using all of the
tools available, in a logical engineering method, 7. Elbel, J. L.: Considerations for Optimum Frac-
will decrease the risk associated with anv stimu- ture Geometry D~h&gn, paper SPE/DOE
lation treatment and the production resul~s. 13866presented at 1985 SPE/DOE Joint
Symposium on Low-Permeability Reservoirs,
-1-1.. R______ ..... ,A ma
e Ille 11-.,-..-4----
cape!-lellceS.-A--
Iact.ur.,
II Wl[nnun[y
--..-1 ..--4 c--
Useu rur de- waver, may LY-LL.
signing fracture stimulation treatments for fu-
ture wells, will be accelerated and enhanced. 8. Veatch, R. W. Jr.: Current Hydraulic Fractur-
ing Treatment and Design Technology, paper SPE
10039 presented at the 1982 SPE International
ACKNOULE06MENT Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium,
Beijing, China, March 18-26.
The authors express their ameciation to the
management of Dowell Schlumberger and Flopetrol 9. Agarwal, R. G., Carter, R. D., and Pollock,
Johnston Schlumberger for permission to publish this C. B.: Evaluation and Performance of Low-Per-
paper. meability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hy-
draulic Fracturing, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1979)
362-372.
REFERENCES
10. Nolte, K. G.: Fracture Design Considerations
1. Erdle, J. C.: Current Drillstem Testing Prac- based on Pressure Analysis, paper SPE 10911
tices: Design, Conduct and Interpretation, presented at the 1982 SPE Cotton Valley Sympo-
paper SPE 13182 presented at the 1984 SPE sium, Tyler$ May$ and 1983 SPE Production Oper-
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, ations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Feb.
Houston, Sept. 16-19.
11. Newberry, B. M., Nelson, R. F., and Ahmed, U.:
2. Meng, H. Z., Proano, E. A., Buhidma, I. M., and Prediction of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture
Mach, J. M.: Production Systems Analysis of Migration using Ccinpressional and Shear Wave
Vertically Fractured Wells, paper SPE/DOE Slowness, paper SPE/DOE 13895 presented at the
10842 presented at the 1982 SPE/DOE Unconven- 1985 SPE/DOE Joint Symposium on Low-Permeabil-
tional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May ity Reservoirs, Denver, May 19-22.
6-18.
12. Dobkins, T. A.: Improved Methods to Determine
3. Brown? K. B., and Beggs, H. D.: The Technology Hydraulic Fracture Height, J. Pet. Tech.
of Artificial Lift Methods, Volumes 1-4, (April 1981) 719-726.
PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1977).
13. Perkins, T. K. and Kern, L. R.: Widths of
4. McLeod, H.: The Effect of Perforating Condi- Hydraulic Fractures, J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
tions on Well Performance, J. Pet. Teci. (Jan. 1961) 937-949; Trans., AIME, 222.
1983) 31-41.
140 Khristianovich. S. A. and Zheltov. Y. P.: For-
5* Montgomery, C. T. and Steanson. L E.: ProD- mation of Vertical Fractures by M~ans of-Highly
pant-Selection -- The Key to ~uccessful Fra~- Viscous Liquid, Proceedings of the 4th World
ture Stimulation, paper SPE 12616 presented at Pet. Congr., Rome (1955).

S1 KntIC CONVERSION FACTORS

cp x O.001* = Pa-s
(Oc s &)~~.~ ~ o~
\,
ft x 0.3048* = m
gal x 3.785 412 E-03 = m3
in. x 2.54* = cm
lbm x 0.453 5924 = kg
10-3PM2
md X 0.9869 =
2
urn-m
md-ft/cp x 0.308 E-4 =
Pans

psi x 6.894 = kPa

*Conversion is exact.
 TABLE 1
*
CASE NO. 1

Kg = 0.127 md (0.125 Urnz)

m = 86.89 md-ft/cp (0.0261 um2-m/Pa*s)

9
Pi = 5,357 psia (36,935 kPa)

hn = 13 ft (3.9 m)

= 0.019 cp (0.19 E-4 Pa*s)

9
Y- = ~,~~~
9
BHST = 271F (133C)

Tubing ID = 2.441 in. (6.2 cm)

Tubing Length = 9,800 ft (2,987 m)

Wellhead Pressure = 900 psig (6,205 kPa)

TABLE 2

CASE ~. 2

ge~~~ ~ In 09-I .,...2\

K=
o
\u.0.J/ IJlll-j

Kohn
. 64.7 md-ft/cp (0.0195 ~m2-m/Pa.s)
o
Pi = 6,100 psia (42,058 kPa)
hn = 26 ft (7.9 m)

MO = 0.341 cp (3.41 E-4 Pa*s)

B. = 1.55 RVB/STB

GOR = 1,172 SCF/STB

GLR = 1,172 SCF/STB

BHST = 247F (120C)

Tubing ID = 2.441 in. (6.2 cm)

Tubing Length = 12,527 ft (3,818 m)

Wellhead Pressure = 1,000 psig (6,895 kPa)

 Operating Condition,Pumped Off

..._... -. .... -.. .. P, = 3,464 psia $

I
hn = 10 ft
J. Jo=0.41 Cp
k =5md
~o= 1.7 RVB/STB
kfw = 1,000 mdft
#
~~. ------------------------------
Me

--- kfw = 1,500 mdft

kfw = 1,000 mdft
------- kfw = 500 mdft

I
..
.._..--. ..

------------------------ : 1k =Imd

15,000 ...._ ....-.----= k

-- = 0.1 md
.-------------
a}

t
L 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I
00 200 400 600 800 1,000
FRACTURE HALFLENGTH (Xf,ft)

Figure 1. Example of the effect matrix permeability and fracture conductivity have on
cumulative production (Pi = 3,464 psig, P = 0.4 Cp, B= 1.7 RVB/STB, hn = 10
ft, pumped-off operating conditions).

37,000 -
P. = 3,464 psia
hn = 10 ft
po= 0.41 Cp
A = 1.7 RVB/STB
34,000 -
kfw = 1,000 md-ft

31,000 -

28,000 -

25,0001

22,000

40 nnn
I 2,UUU
t

[
I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I
16,000~
200 400 600 800 1
FRACTURE HALF-LENGTH, (Xf, ft)

Figure 2. Example of the effect operating conditions and the plumbing system configu-
ration have on cumulative production.
 20/40 Ottowa Sand
O. Z-in. Average Fracture Width

I -. ,. . . . ... . .. . . 1

t mcum
gr/ 7 7 7 Y Y l-.
2,000

1,000 [
/////A;( 0
0

4
%,7s0
v
/;i/>>>>Y
1/////////
J /.,,.4,
17,500
/

PROPPANT
./

VOLUME
J, ,44
175,000
(lb)
1.750.000
d
I
Figure 6.
TREATMENT VOLUME _

The sensitivity of propped fracture

1ength and fracturing fluid volume to
geometry models. -
Figure 3. The relationship of proppant volume,
gross fracture height and fracture
half-length.

F
-- Bauxite
--- Intermediate Strength
Precured ResinCoated Sand
-- ResinCoated Sand
Otbwo Sand
1 ,ooo~ ,
t

.-
IL -J
.=---e.--s=.-=. -
-_-_
I I I

D
\___ -- -- 8 yr
- 4 yr

..-. -----
L
lyr

100 - i
-
I
!
v 1

,o~
FRACTURE HALFLENGTH (f
*
I Figure 7. The effect time has on the detertn{na-
tion of the optimum economic stimula-
6,000 8,000 10.000 [psi) tion design.
120 160 200 240 280 i%+
CLOSURE (d Temperature)

Figure 4. Example of commonly used chart to aid

in proppant selection.
~ .
__
..
j)I
I
m
I Higher Net Operating

al
I Revenue
or MSCF
per BBL

Ecanamic Optimum I
<
>: =q
+C
z:
I
Wa
ul~
w
/
I
E= ,=-r----
rL
+ 0 I k.,
+C /
W3 I
ZCJ I \ 1
:+<, , ~ / / Ecanernic
Optimum _
I
I Lawer Net Operating
n I
Revenue per SBL
/ I
I or MSCF
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3
FRACTURE HALF-LENGTH
FRACTURE LENGTH (X,,ft)
Figure 8. The effect net discounted revenue has
Figure 5. The relationship between fluid loss, on the determination of the optimum
fracture half-length and fracturing economic stimulation design.
fluid volume.
 ----------------------- Scheduled Prappont
- Scheduled Fluid
Actual Pracmant Pummsd
------------- -------Actual fluidPumped
100,000) P
vl
Q
/
~
75,000 -
Lb-
~w
Oz
f ~ ~ 50,000 -
20
<>
t n
n Screenout ------- ---=
25,000 -
o
w
, I
a
I
FRACTURE HALFLENGTH (ft) 15 20 25 :

Figure 9. Two gross fracture

the effect
heights illustrate
the anount of investment
I Fiwre 12.
PUMPING TIME (rein)

Case No. 1: Comarison of the desired

required to achieve the desird design fracture stimulation treatment vs the
has on the determination of the optimum actual treatment schedule.
economic design.

Original Frocture Oesign = 1,000 ft

-- x, = 1,300 ft Wellheod Pressure = 900 psig
---- x, = 1,000 ft ------- Actuol Frocture Achieved = 150 ft
x,= 700 ft Wellheod Pressure = 900 psig
............. X? = 500 ft
....- x, = 300 ft
z
o

WW
250~

I
7501
:!
-e-c.
:[ /
v / ~z...-
_=--- -----$-9;0:000
Revenue Potential
I I i I I 1
!30 100 150 200 250 300 350 4 )
TIME (days)

)
Figure 13. Case No. 1: Canwarison of discounted
TIME (days)
I revenue potential.

Figure 10. Case No. 1: Prefracture stimulation

production forecast used to determine
how the well should respond after frac-
ture stimulation.

300,000
Gross Frocture Height
/80
s
- 200,000 - z/6C
1-
~ - Scheduled Treotment
v
g 100,000 . s 130,000 /
7

r -. I PRODUCTION TIME (days)

oo~
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1, o
Figure 14. Case No. 2: Prefracture stimulation
FRACTURE LENGTH (Xf, ft)
production forecast used to determine
how the well should respond after frac-
Figure 11. Case No. 1: Sensitivity of fracture ture stimulation.
half-length and stimulation job cost to
gross fracture height.

WE 1437,9
 1,8C

Gross Fracture Height

o _ Design
0 000 Actual
:- 1,20
x
w
z
3
-1
0
>
+
z
<
L 60
R
c)
x
1
/ 50 ft

0,/~
o 600 1,200 1,800 2,4C
FRACTURE HALFLENGTH (ft)

Figure 15. Case No. 2: The relationship between PUMPING TIME (rein)

fracture half-length, proppant volume

and two gross fracture heights. Figure 17. Case No. 2: Desired treatment design
schedule vs actual.

1,500[

I Forecast
Actual

% 00* With Restriction

Actual Pmductim ,
00 100 200 300 4C
TIME (days)

I ! ---
rlgure ii% Case No. 2: Actuai production vs fore-
I
~ .5 I 1 I cast: with and MCthQUt the ra<trirtinn.
. -- -. . - , ,. .
o 500 1,20J3 1,800 2,4I
FRACTURE HALFLENGTH (ft)

Figure 16. Case No. 2: Fracture half-length vs

net present value.

SPE 14379
 Production Wellhead
Pressure = 1,000 psig

a
Production
I
Curtoiied
1 1
1 f)n 9Arl -ten A
, z .-r. d.. T

TIME (days)

Figure 9. Case No. 3: Prefracture production

forecast vs actual production.

WE ]4379