SPE

fkK=140f~~

SPE 14085
An Overview of Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology
by R.W, Veatch Jr,and Z,A, Moschovidis,Amoco Production

Co.

SPE Members

~~t

1SSS.
society
ofPetroleum
Engineers

This
paper
waspresented
atthe
SPE19S6
Imernational
MssIiwl
onPelroieum
Ewin-iwhewInSeiiing,
China
March
17-20,
1986.
Them=!erial
is
S@jSCI
10oorracrbn
bythe
author.
Permiesbn
tocopy
iarestricted
10anSbStrSCt
ofnot
more
than
300words.
Write
SPE,
P.O.
Sox833S.36,
Richardson,
Texas
7WS%SS3S.
Telex:
7S0SSS
SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
There have been significantadvancee in the
application and developmentof hydraulic fracturing
technology in the past several years. Thi9 paper
piesents an overview of some of these advances to
provide the reader with a perspectiveof the current
fracturing state of the art. The discussion
addressee economic design considerations;fracturing
material behavior (pt~ppingagents? fracture conductivity, fluid loss, fluid rheology and proppant
trang~rt); field acquired fracture design. diagnostic and analysis technology (in-situ stresses and
stress profiling,downhole fracturing pressure and
pressure decline analysis, real-time on-site monitoring and control, and fracture mapping); and
three-dimensionalfracture propagationsimulation.
A ccaprehemsivebibliographyis provided s a
resource for in-depth perusal of each area by the
interested reader.
INTRODUCTION
In 1982 at the InternationalMeeting on PetroLeum Engineering in Beijing, China, Veatchl presented an overview of the status of hydraulic
fracturing treatmentand design technology. Uany of
the facets of this paper were updated in a subsequent paper in 1983.2

is a rather general overview of the recent advancements in technologyand the applicationby the
industry. For the sake of continuity,many of the
referencescontained in the previous papers are
of recent work. This
included along with refertinces
provides the interestedreader a rather comprehensive resource to a more in-depth explorationof the
technologyof fracturing.
The work presented here primarily covers
treatmentapplicationsand
hydraulic fracturing
design. There is minimal reference to the reservoir
performanceanaLysis technologyassociated with
fracturing. The discussion emphasizes (1) economic
design considerations;(2) fracturingmaterial
behavior includingpropping gents and fracture conductivity,fluid loss, fluid rheology, proppant
transport,nd new data on feastedfracturing fluids;
(3) field acquired data for fracture design
includingin-situ stress data and profiling,diagnostic data from downhole fracturingpreasurea anl
from pressuredecline, real-timeon-site monitoring
and control capabilities,and fracturemapping tl:chnology; and (4) three-dimensionalfracture prop#gation simulationmodels.
FRACTURINGECONOMICOPTIMIZATION

During the past 2-3 years, fracturingtechnology and its applicationthroughout the industry
have made significantprogress. This paper focuses
on many of the recent advancementswhich have developed since the previous papers were published. It
attempts to provide the reader with a perspectiveof
the current state of the art of fracturing. The
discussion surveys the many aspects of fracturing,
touching onLy briefly on each. It is outside the
scope of the paper to present an in-depth coverage
of all the detaiLs of the technology. What is given

Tlteconcept af optimizing fracturingtreatment

designs, generally speaking, has three basic steps:
The first (upper left portion of Fig. 1) is to evaluate the increasedincome which might be expected
from oil or gas producing performanceresulting ~rom
various fracture lengths and conductivities;the
second (lower left portion of Fig. 1) is to determine the costs required to achieve the various
Lengthsand conductivitiea;and the third (right
side of Fig. 1) is to evaluate the net revenue
(i.e., income minui costs) versus fracture length to
determine the treatmentdesign that yields the maximum net revenue, i.e., the optimum design. The
specificproceduresused for determiningthe optimum

References and illustrationsat end of paper.

.
421

-- ---

..

AN OVERVIEW OF RECEWT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

14085

fracturingtrestmentdesign for a given formation

may not always conform precisely to these conceptual
steps. But they will always involve some type of
balance between treatmentcosts and revenue> generated from the prduction response associatedwith a
treatment.

fracture penetrationapproaches the drainage

boundary (i.e., 1320 ft); at heights on the order of
600-700ft (183-213m), the optikm lengths were
300-400 ft (91-122 m). This suggests that one may
need to invest;,ateI:heeconomics for closer welt
spacing for su..hsituat ons.

It has been generaLLy recognized that the fracture Length ~equirementsdepend greatly on reservoir
permeabilityand fracture conductivity,such aa is
shown by Elkins3 in Fig. 2. Here, we see that
extremely Low permeabilityformations (k =
0.000md) may require half-Lengthsas long as
3500-4500ft (see shaded area). However? Length and
condueti~itymay not be the only parameterswhich
affect fracturingdesign optimization. This is
sometimesnot obvious in parametric fracturing
studies where the primary focus is on formation
permeability,fracture penetrationand conductivity
requiremeri:s.In some cases, other factors (e.g.,
net pay, fracture height, etc.) can become important
considerationsin fracturingeconomics. Their
incrementaleffects can be very significant. For
of net pay on fracture
example, consider the effect
penetrationrequirementsto optimize the net present
worth of a treatment (i.e., the present worth of the
hydrocarbonproduction for the fractured formation
minus the present worth of the hydrocarbon production for the unfracturedformation minus treatment
costs). The results of an example case, as shown in
Fig. 3, depict the percent increase in net present
worth (i.e., net present worth for the fractured
case expreesed s a percent of the unfracturedcase
preeent worth) versus fracture penetration for net
pays which rmge from 2 to 100 ft (0.6 to 30.6 m) in
conduc~ivity is
a 5-redformation. Here, fracture
6000 md-ft (1829 red-m)nd the wells re on
160 acres/wellspacing. Figure 3 shows that the
optimum fracture penetration(i.e., the penetration
at which the maximum net present worth increase
occurs) gets longer s net pay increases. The
results for this case and two other formation permeability levels (1 and 10 md) are sunsnarizedin
Fig. 4 which shows the optimum fracture penetration
pLotted versus net pay. Here we see optimum fracture lengths which range from 200 to 1320 ft for the
5- and 10-md formations,and an almost constant
optimum length for the l-redformation. This shows
that optimum lengths can vary widely for a givc~
permeabilityand fracture conductivity,depending on
the net pay magnitude.

Waremlvurgfet al. 4 ~resentedan economic

study on three examples and addressed severaL other
importantfactors that :hould be considered for
op~imizing treatmentdesigns. These included:
(1) the tiurationof the productionforecast from
which net present worth is calculated, (2) the net
discounted productionrevenue, and (3) the amouct of
investmentrequired to achieve the design option.
Other factcrs, such as hydrocarbonprice, interest
(discount)factors, tech.lology
~eveL and risk as
discussed by Rosenberg, et al,, and Brashear,
et al.,s have also been shown to play a critical
role in economic optimization.

Addressing fracture height from an economic

standpointreinforcesthe need for having reliable
height data when designing treatments. In addition
to the obvious increase in costs, fracture height
can have a significantimpact on optimum economic
penetration,which in turn could affect well spacing
requirements. As an example, cases were run for a
1 md formationwith 10 ft (3.0 m) of net pay, a
2000 md-ft fracture,and 160 acres/well spacing.
Fracture heights from 180 to 720 ft (55 to 219 m)
were investigated. The resulting optimum fracture
lengths and treatment volume requirementsare shown
in Fig. 5. The optimum values were those which
yielded the maximum net present worth for each given
height. As can be seen, the optimum treatment
volume requirementsdid not change dramaticallyover
the wide range of fracture heights, but the optimum
Lengths did. At a height of 180 ft, the optimum

PROPPING AGENTS AND FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY

.
There has been considerableprogress in the
developmentof intermediatestrength propping agents
(sometimescalled intermediatedensity proppants,
IDP) to supplementsintered bauxite for high in-situ
stress applications. Various supplemental industry
tests on a,wide spectrum of propping agents (sands,
intermediates,sintered bauxites, resin-coated
sands, etc.) and recent investigationson fracture
conductivityhav~ considerablyextended previously
publishedwork. 1s
Studies by Philli s and Anderson,16 Larsen and
Smith,17 8ecq, et al.,!8 and Norman, et al.,19 plus
recent comprehensivedati!sets published by the stimulation sa~~ie companit!sand propping agent manufacturers,
provide m extensive resource for
fracture conductivitylaboratorytest results.
Phillips and Anderson deamnstrate a method to
modify the traditionalconductivityversus closure
stress data to include the cost for various types of
proppantsas is shown by the curves in Fig. 6.
These represent the cost/unit fracture area/unit of
conductivity($/ft2/Da~cy-ft)over a wide range of
closure stresses. They account for a proppant pack
damage factor of approximately20-25%. The authors
suggestedprescribingdamage factor values to adjust
laboratorytest data to representa more realistic
estimate of in-situ field performance. Graphs such
as these can be constructed for a given fracturing
fluid from current proppant price schedules, laboratory conductivitytest data, and estimates of proppant pack damage factors for a given fluid. When
constructingthese graphs, one is cautioned to use
proppant performancedata tested by consistent
proceduresfrom one teeting laboratorybecause data
from different sources may not be accurately compared.
There has been some work conducted on proppant
pack damage and plugging. Kim, et al.,26 conducted
proppant pack damage tests on 20/40 mesh sand for
different fracture fluids eve* a wide range of cLosure stresses and at different temperatures. The
results showed that fracture conductivitiescould be
reduced by 40-60 percent just from plugging by the
gel residue. Cheung2 reported that various concen-

.
RALPH W. VEATCH. JR. AND ZISSIS A. MOSCHOVIDIS

14085

trationsof HCL/HF acid solutionscan dissolve a

significantamount of proppant and this would reduce
conductivity. Unpublishedwork sponsoredby
Norten-AltoCompany suggests that highly siliceous
proppantsmay degrade seversly in brines at high
temperatures. Almond and Bland28 reported on various ways that break temperatureand breaker
mechanism (i.e., oxidizsrs,enzymes,etc.) play an
importantrole in 20/40 m?.ehsand proppant pack flow
impairmentfrom guar, deri~atizedguar, and cellulose basad fluids. To mitigate water blocking problems, Phillips and Wilsons showed that using a
solvent in the pad fluids with a surfactantin the
rest of the fluid reduces water blocking in the
fractureand significantlyenhances fracturingfluid
recovery and production.
A comprehensivefracture conductivity/reservoir
performancestudy by Britt30 addressesoptimiz~!tion
conductivityfor an oil reservoir under.
of fracture
both primary and secondarydepletion. It showed the
economic benefits of high conductivitysh~rt fractures for moderatelypermeable (i.e., 1-10 md) formations. The results depicted in Figs. 7 and 8 show
the impact of different fracture Lengths and conductivitie:on incrementalpresent worth. By developing curves such as these, one can determine the
appropriatefracturec..nductivity/length
reLationship required to maximize economic returns for a
given reservoir.
Studiee by Slbe131 and Hontgomaryand
Steanson32address methods for using reservoir performance type curves and computerizedsimulatorsto
determine the appropriatefracturecmductivity
design requirementsfor various reservoirpermeability levels. Elbel supports previous findinge by
Bennett, et al.33 that a varying conductivityin the
fracture from the wellbore to the tip can significantly affect productionrates. Studies such as
these can be very importantwhen determiningproppant placementand schedulingprograms for a treatment design to assure that the ppropriate
distributionof conductivityin the fracture is
achieved.
FLUID LQSS
lluchof the recent interest in fluid loss has
focused on (1) dynamic fluid loss behavior,
(2) in situ measurements,and (3) fluid loss control
for naturally fractured formations. Recent laboratory and field studies have extended the findings af
34-41 for both static and
previous investigators
dynamic fluid loss behavior.
Recent dynamic fluid loss, studies by Gu~gis,42
;:;:,a::

:~ii4: lndlcated
:nny t
aL*24
~odhar:
and
that
dynamic
fluid loss
tests can yield different results than static tests
do and that shear rate and shear history can affect
the tests significantly. Figure 9 shows a typical
flow system with the fluid loss cells, rheology Loop
and heating capabilitiesused by most of the investigators. Figure 10 shows the different fluid Loss
behaviors observed by Culbis for different shear
rates, shear histories and temperatures. These
tests were run on the same fluid, i.e., a Hydroxypropyl.Cuar (HPG) fluid, crosslinkedwith a titanium
compound. The test conditions shown in the legend

of Fig. 10 are given in TabLes 1 and 2. The results

demonstratethe significanteffect that dynamics can
for fluids flowing in a
have on fluid LOSS behavior
fracture. The studies by Roodhart and by Harris and
Penny also showed that fluid loss (i.e., both spurt
Loes and fluid loss coefficient)behavior is
affected by fluid flow dynamics.
Some ~ther interestingobservationshave been
reported. Roodharts tests demonstrateda significant effect of pressure differentialon wall
building fluid loss coefficient,C . This is shown
in Fig. 11 for both a crosslinked~PC fluid with a
5% diesel and a hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) based
fluid with silica flour. Here we see a significant
increase in C at higher pressure differentials.
w
Harris and Penny observed an ~ffect of
increasedviscosity in the flowing fluid due to
dehydrationfrom fluid loss. This phenomenonis
shown in Fig. 12, by the continually increasingviscosity for a test in a radial flow cell (Fig. 9)
where fluid loss is occurring. It suggests that the
gel is thickeningbecause of fluid loss. The other
curve shows that viscositydecreases from shear and
temperaturedegradationwhen fluid leakoff is prevented by replacing the core with an impermeable
blank. Observationssuch as these emphasize the
need for a better understandingof in situ fluid
Loss behavior and its effects on rheologyand proppant transport. This is particularlyimportant
becauae of the significantrole that fluid loss
plays, being one of the more dominant parameters
controllingthe fracturingprocess.
.

Culbis work indicatedthat at shear rates

below 80 sec1, dynamic and static fluid loss
behavior was similar. Observationsby Penny, et
al., showed correspondingresults at shear rates
below 40 see-l. However, at high she~54rates,they
loss follows a
suggeated that fluid
trend
1}2
rather than the consnonlyobserved t
for static
tests.
Work by the previouslymentioned invescigaturs42-40all supported earlier studies which showed
that a hydrocarbonphase (e.g., 5% diesel) could
significantlyreduce fluid Loss, especially if mixed
with siLica flour (or other fine mesh particulate)
and a surfactant. This was especiallyeffective in
fracturedcores as is shown by the example in
Fig. 13. Culbis reported that the effects of the
hydrocarbonphase/silicaflour additiveson reducing
fluid loss were Less pronounced in dynamic tests
than in the static ones.
Fluid Loss From Field Data: Several investigatorahave supplementedthe literaturewith methods
to infer fluid ioss from field data since Nolte37
introducedthe pressure decline method in 1979.
Nierode47 proposed a different approach for
determiningfluid loss using measurementsof
increasinginstantaneousshut-in pressure (ISIP)
data during the treatment. This work is based on
the relationship

AN OVERVIEW OF RECSNT ADVANCES IN HYDIUWLIC FSACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

FG(t2) = FG(t1)[l+A(C~~8]

............(1)

C++i++r
*******

where FC(t) is the ISIP fracturegradient (ISIP/

depth) at time t (psi/ft); tl is the time.of firs!
shut-in pressuremeasurement,(Mins); t
shut-in pressure measurement,?::s;e:z
of later
fit constants;and C is the fluid
B are empirical
loss coefficient(ft/Jmin).

and Williams, et al., proposed the form

Ct =

Nierode proposed the values A = 0.19C43 and B =

0.46767 for a Kristianovich-Geertsma-de
Klerk, KGD
(sometimescalled Kristianovich-Zfaltov,
KZ4s) shaped
fracture;and A = 0.20233 and B = 0.47850 for a
49*5O pm, shaped fracture.
Perkins-Kern-Nordgren,
These values served as the basis for deve~oping the
curves shcwn in Fig. 14 for using ISIP increase and
pumping time since the first shut-in to estimate
fluid loss coefficient.
Cooper, et aL.,sl presentedthe results of a
comprehensivefield study comparing the rtethodsof
Nolte and Nierode with theoreticalexpressionsof
Smith52 and of Williams, et al.41 The theoretical
expressionsemploy the three types of linear flow
leakoff mechanisms:

[1

II

= 0.0374Ap

0.5
: .................(2)

r]
1$k Cf

...(6)

+(C*112C17+4C11
%C12+C111 2))o*5
CICIII

The results of Cooper, et al., are given in Table 3.

In general, it ap eared that the theoretic~lvalues
[Eqs. (5) and (6)7 were lower than those computed by
either NoLtes or Nierodes methods. There were
several cases where close agreement was obtained for
some of the other
the 0.1 md formations. However,
data exhibited a wide divergence;and if one ;S
faced with this dilemma (and it cannct be statistically remedied), it may be necessary to conduct sensitivity studies using a wide range of leakoff
the impact that the different
values to investigate
values will have on a fract~re treatment design.

Theologicalcharacterizationof crosslinked
fracturingfLuids remains a difficult and elusive
challenge. However, some additional insightshave
been developed to extend the work of previous investigators.3 9 Studies by Cuillot and Dunand80 and
Prudhonsme61
have demonstratedthe use of Laser Ane&mstry to observe velocity profiLes for investigating wall slip phenomena. GuiLlot and Dunand,
using a circular cross-sectionalflow apparatus
reported that at low shear rates aqueous HPG solutions exhibited velocity profiles much different
than what known power Law parameter calculations
would indicate. Prudhonmeswork in a coaxial cyLinder apparatus exhibited behavior anomalous to conventionallyknown flow models. Further work is
necessary to resolve or expLain the occurrenceof
these anomalies.

(2) reservoir fLuid compressibilitycontrolled

coefficient,

2CICIICIII

FRACTURING FLUID RHEOLOCY

(1) fluid viscosityand permeabilitycontrolled

coefficient

Ap@k
C1 = 0.0469
P

14085

5
; .............(3)

Fo

(3) wall building controlledcoefficient,

CIII

=0.0164~

. .......0.....0..........(4)

In Eqs. (2)-(4),Ap is the bottomholefracturing

pressureminus reservoir pressure, (psi); $ is the
formationporosity, (fraction);k is the formation
permeability,(Darcies);p is the fracturing fluid
.
is the reservoir fluid compressi:;:;;;;t~p:;~i;;c
is the reservoir fluid visb
cosity, (cp); m isF?he slope of the fluid loss
versus square root of time plot, (cc/~min);and a is
the area of the fluid Loss paper or core, (cm*).
To compute a total fluid loss coefficient,Ct,.
Smith combined the terms in the form

424

Laboratory studies using oscillatoryviscomend by KnoLl,u2 provided insight

ters by Prudhousne
into methods for investigatinggel structure,wall
slip, and the significantrole that mixing procedures play in testing of crosslinked fLuids.
Figure 15 shows a schematic of Knolls apparatus.
It included a RheometricsPressure Rheometer (RPR)
which is capable of both steady and oscillatory
shear. Per discussionsby Prudhommeand Knoll.,the
physical nature of fluids can be demonstratedexperimentallyby oscillatoryshear measurementswhich
evaluate the elastic and viscous behavior of a fLuid
or gel.
The elastic or storage modulus, C, as
deveLoped from classical network theory of macromolecules, is indicativeof crosslink density. The
viscous or loss modulus, G, describes polymer
behavior for these materials. By determiningC and
G behavior as a function of strlm (deformatix?)
and frequency (rate), the structure of a material
can be analyzed. Thus, it was possibLe to investigate the viscoelaaticnature of a fluid. The RPR
apparatus waa also capable of dynamic mixing and

RALPH U. VEATCH, JR. AND ZISSIS A. ilOSCHOVIDIS

14085

crosslinkingof polymer. FiSure 16 shows the

differencesin Elastic Flodulus(C) and Viscous
140dulus(c), s measured on the RPR? for an
uncroaslinkedHPG solutionand an MPG gel crossLinkedwith a titanium based crosslinker. The independenceof G to oscillatoryfrequency,observed
for the crosslinkedHPC, suggests a threedimension-l,gel-like structure where the material
cannot relax over any time period within the frequency range of the tests. This is not observed for
the uncrosslinkedfluid. Test proceduressuch aa
those conducted by Knoll and by Prudhonsna
have shed
considerablelight on investigatingthe conditions
under dhich gels will form and their degree of
crosslinking.
Knoll also demonstratedthe variationsone
might expect to observe between tests on blender
preparedgels with those which are dynamicallypreAn example
pared (i.e., crosslinkedwhile flowing).
in Fig. 17 shows the different stresses for various
shear rates that resulted from using different preparation procedures. This supports reports of many
of the previouslyreferencedinvestigatorswho made
similarObservatima and emphasizesthe complex
nature of charactetiizing
fracturingfluid rheology.
Recent studies in pipe flow or capillary equipment by Prudhomne,Royce, et al. 63 Shah and Watters,64and Gardner and Eikerts,g have yielded
additionaldata on the effects of shear, temperature
and time for different fluids and crosslinkingsystems. It has been well recognizedfrom previous
invsstigatorsthat a high shear environmentcould
after
destroy a gel if it was sheared severely
crosalinking. Observationsby Gardner nd Eikerta
indicate that high levels of shear prior to crosaon overall performance,
linkinghave little effect
and that temperaturewill activate the crosslinking
mechaniam. Figure 18 shows the compositeof a
series
of their tests on HPO and carboxymethyl- HPG
(CliNffi)
systems croasLinkadwith zirconium co!apound. Curve C shows the improvaisant
in viscosity
performanceof a delayed system over that of comparable nondelayed systems (e.g., Curves A and S).
Other investigationshave supported similar phenomena. As a result of such findings the industry
is moving to the use of delayed crosslink systems
the fluid has
which are formulatedto activate after
::,~wn
the tubulars and through the perfobeen pumped
rations. This has been one of the significant
developmentsin current fracturing fluid technology.
Warpinski86conducted experimentson fluid flow
through actual in-situ fractures created at the
Departmentof Energys Nevada Test Site. The fracture was instrumentedfrom a tunnel at a depth of
1400 ft (427 m). Theoreticalfriction factors (fth)
were computed by Eq. (7)?
64 Pa
f
th= DHvp

.. . ....... . ... .........(7)

These values were compared with measured friction factors

(fm) computed by Eq. (8) from measured
pressure Leases,

lt3h;

W3

fm .

Ap

(8)
;*****.********
**********
64PQ2AX

where
h ia the fracture height; w is the fracture
width$ & ia the volumetric flow rate; and Ap/Ax is
the pressure gradient. The results given in Table 4
show that pressure losses long the fracture were
much larger
than what would be predicted by viscous
theory which is currently used in most of the aimulation models throughoutthe industry. The causes
for this are not identifiedto the degree that one
can do more than make empirical corrections. They
are thought to result from tortuosity,secondary
flow, multiple fracture strands, sharp turns (corners), etc., due to the irregularityof the fracture
faces.

PROPPANT TRANSPORTAND PROPFANT SETiLINC

There have been several studies recently to
supplegentthe technology of previous investigators67 77 in the area of proppant transportandsettling for both power law and viacoelasticFracturing
fluids.
Biot and Hedlin7s and ?ledlin,et l.,79 conducted a comprehensivetheoreticaland experimental
investigationon proppant transport in thin
(uncrosslinked)fluids. In the apparatua shown in
Fig. 19, they observed four regions of transport
phenomena, as depicted in Fig. 20. Here Region I is
a settled bank where the concentrationia function
of the proppant packing characteristics;Region 11,
called the bad Load, is fluidized layer of reLatively small height; Region III ia zone of viscous
drag transportwhere the proppant concentrationis
more or leas constant;and Region IV is a zone of
through which the concentration
turbulent transport
Their theoreticalapproaches
declines to zero.
closely modeled experimentalfindings and their conelusions indicate that nearly all transport for thin
fluids is by viscous drag.
Wcrk by Roodhartaoand Acharya81 addreased
proppan-.transportand settling in flowing viscoeLastic fv~cturingfluids; and Kirkby and RockefelLer82 luvestigatedsettling in nonflowing
slurries of both viscous and viscoelaaticfluids.
Both Roodhart and Acharya used vertical parallel
plate type equipment somewhat similar to Hediins
apparatus. And both developed theoreticalexpressions for aettLing velocitiesunder different flow
conditions. Some of the conclusionsof Acharyas
work are paraphrasedbelow.
1. Correlationswere developed for proppant settling rate in inelastic (power law) and viscoelastic fracturingfluids for Low and
intermediateReynolds number (NRe) flow
regimes. They are as follows:

where pa is the apparent fluid viscosity;DH is the

hydraullcdiameter of the fracture; v is the fluid
velocity;and p is the fluid density.

..-..4d3

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

(a) For NRe < 2,

A(Um/d );b-n)

*+1
l/n
(pp-~)g
[1

Wi =

dp

u=
mINEL
where

F(n) = [~(3*-3)/21

[ 4*2(n+l) (*+2) (2n+l)

....(10)

(b) For 2 < NRe < 500,

3p
24F(n)
{y
4 (pP-p) gd
Re
[
P

f2(n)
+ )

f3(n)

N
R
e

-1/2

..........(11)

where: f2(n) = 10.5n - 3.5

f3(n) = 0.32 n - 0.13

(c) For 2 < NRe < 500

u
WE

= mINEL

{1-(S(NRe

Wi)B]-12..(12)

where a =0.18; B = 0.19; d is the particle

diameter; g is the gravity ~cceleration;n is
the pseudoplasticityindex of power law fluid;
p is the particle density; p is the fluid dens!ty;
Um ia the terminal settling veLocity; the
particle Reynolds number for Newtonian fluid is

dllp
e
NRe =
p

;....................(~3A)

and for non-Newtonianfluids

~dn u@(2-n)pl
P
NRe =
;9.00..o...*(13B)3B)
K

and

..............(14)

2.

In the intermediateReynolds number region

(2<NR <500), a power Law model would not be
adequ%e for viscoelasticfluids.

3.

No pubLished normal stress data exist for viscoelastic characterizationof commonly used
fracturingfluids (both crosslinkedand
uncrosslinked). Such normal stress data will
have to be measured before Eq. (12) can be used
for the purpose of fracturedesign.

, 33n5-63n4-lln3+97n2+16n

u
mINEL =

is the Weissenberg number. where A and b are

material parameters,and K is the consistency
index for pover law fluids.

..........(9)

18K F(n)

14085 -

Roodhart1s80work substantiatedthe need for separate expressions for different Jhear rate regimes.
His expressionsincorporateterms involvingvalues
of viscositiesextrapolatedto zero and infinite
shear, and apparent yield stresses to describe proppant settling.
Studies in a cylindricalapparatus by Kirkby
and Rockefeller**on proppant settling under
stagnant conditions (such as might be occurring
during shut-in after pumping a fracturingtreatment)
showed a strong dependenceon concentrationof the
proppant. The results shown in Fig. 21 include both
croeslinkedand uncrosalinkedfluids as listed in
Table 5. Here one can see the effects that proppant
clusteringhaa on increasingsettling velocity with
concentration up to 0.1-0.2 vol/voL. At higher
concentrations,hindered settlingmay occur which
reduces velocity. Also, ~ne can observe the much
lower settling velocities for the viscoelastic
fluids. Recent work by Clark, et al.,*3 using
equipment very similar to Kirkby and Rockefellerts
yielded results that indicated improved proppant
suspensionwith Xanthan gundhydroxypropylguar
mixtures over that achieved with HPG alone. Dunand
and Soucemarianadin84investigatedboth single
particle
and suspension sattling in quiescent
fracturing fluide. Their obaervationaindicatemore
rapid settling for suspensionsin HPG solutionsthan
would be computed for Newtonian fluids.
Cottschling,et al.,85 conducted proppant
transport experimentsunder simulated fractureconditions using onty nitrogen gas as the transport
medium. Some of the results shown in Fig. 22 depict
the proppant bank for various injection rate and
equilibriumbanking conditions. Field fracturing
treatmentswere conducted in the Devonian shale formetions where nitrogen would alleviate clay swelling
or migration, or oil-water emulsion problems which
might occur with aqueous fLuids. Although production informationto date is not sufficientto evaLuate if nitrogen gas/sand treatmentsare better than
other types, it was found that nitrogen gas at high
enough rates would effectivelycreate a fracture and
transport 20/40 mesh sand into it efficiently.

14085

RALPH W. VEATCH, JR. AND ZISSIS A. UOSCHOVIDIS,

FOAMED FRACTURINGFLUIDS
There has been considwable interest in the use
of foamed fracturingfluids in the past 3-4 years.
Several
laboratorieshave constructedequipment
especiallyfor teeting foam rheology and fluid loss.
Results of recent tests from these various sources
have significantlyextended the database established
Se-ss In particular,work
by previous~nvestigators.
1 Reidenbach,
by Herris,sg 90 Harris and Reidenbach,
et al.,2 Watkins, et al. 93 Wendorff and Earl,g
have shown foams to have
and Craighead,et al., s48
extremelygood theologicaland fluid loss performante under a fairly wide range of conditions. Most
of the Laboratorysystems used to test foams are
similar to the one described by Wendorff and Earl.
Basicallythey are high-pressuresystems with foam
generators,foam viewing chambers,heated rheology
loops, inline fluid loss cells, and fracture simulation chambers,and are quite similar to the equipment depicted in Fig. 9.
Harrisag recently conducted a comprehensive
study to investigatehow foam texture relates to
rheology. Some of the conclusionsresulting from
this work are as follows: (1) foams are shear hisof foam is
tory dependent fluids; (2) the viscosity
determinedprimarily by its quality and liquid phase
extent by
properties,and is influencedto a lesser
its texture; (3) higher surfactantconcentrations
produce finer texture foams; (4) viscosity measurements at low pressure may not adequately simulate
field usage at high pressure; (5) the chemical type
of the liquid phase influencestexture; and (6) the
larger bubbles of hydrocarbonand methanol foams
result in sensitivityto degradationat high shear
rates.

high proppant concentrationsin the final gas/liquid

mixture. However, recentLy developed technologyof
csing proppant concentratorshas alleviated this
problem to some degree.
IN-SITU STRESS MEASUREMENTAND PROFILING
There has been significantprogress in the
of in-situ stresses to
measurementand profiling
extend the technology introducedb
tigators.97-102
Recently,
Teufel To!:;::ous nvesBlanton,lOsBlanton and Teufel,1069107 and Teufel
-log have enjoyed some success in deterand Warpinskl
mining both the magnitude and direction of in-situ
stresses using anelastic strain recovery data from
oriented cores. Host of the success has been
related to the directionalaspect. The work pertaining to magnitude has been Less fruitful.
Figure 27 shows an example of the type of test
results recorded by their metho.is. Maximum and minimum horizontal stresses are computed as proposed by
Blanton, i.e.,

(l-~~a)A&x+(~i+u~a)A&+(1+VI)P2ACZ
Ux=aUz

(l+Pl)[(l-Pl)A&z+~2a(A&x+A&y)]

(15)

and

Oy=ao
z

Laboratorytests have shown that both nitrogen

nd CO* foam
xhibit good theologicaland fluid
loss propertiesover a relativelywide range of conditiona. Bxamples of the effects of foam quality
nd gel concentrationon apparent viscosity during
tests by Harris and Reidenbach91are shown in
Figs. 23 nd 24. Here we see very good viscosities
even at high temperaturesfor high quality foams
with 40-60 lbs/1000gal gel concentrations. Typical
foamar concentrationsrequired to maintain a stable
foam with these good viscositiesat different temperaturesare shown in Fig. 25. Note that the
requirementsare not too severe even at high temperature. Data from dynamic fluid Loss tests by Watkins, et al., such as those in Fig. 26 show that in
low permeabilityformations,leakoff coefficients
for some foams can be Lower than those of crossLinked a ueous fracturing fluids. Craighead,
et al.,91 conducted proppant settliwg studies on a
foam generated with delayed crossLinkedgels. They
found that the setting rate in foamed crosslinked
gel was almost two orders of magnitude higher than
in foamed Linear (uncrossLinked)gel. They also
found that foamed crosslinkedgels were less
affected by changes in foam quality.
Foam has developed a definite pLace in fracturing applications. It is particularlyadvantageous in low-pressureformationswhere there is
limited reservoirenergy available t~ clean up a
well after fracturing. One disadvar.tage
that
remains with foams is the limitationon achieving

(1-u~a)AS+(ul+v~a)A&x+(l+u)V Ac
1 2 z (16)
(l+vl)[(l-ul)A&z+v2a(A&x+A&y)]

where a = D2(t)/Dl(t);Dl(t) nd D*(t) are transversely isotropiccreep compliance; t is time; Acx,

AS , and A& re differentialprincipal strain
re~overies;zVland V* are transverselyisotropic
Poissons ratios; and Ox, o , and u are in-situ
principal stress magnitudes? The r~suLts of severaL
of these tests have been compared to in-situmeasurements from small volume pump in tests (either
pump-in/shut-inor pump-in/flow_back). Teufe1104
concludes that, in general, the technique is reliable for estimating the direction,but not as reliable as pump-in tests for determiningthe magnitude
of principle stresses.
Pump-in methods (pump-in/shut-inpressure
decline, ISIP, pump-in/flow-back,step rate tests
and etc.) have essentiallybecome the most prevalent procedures for measuring in-situ stresses.
Techniques such as those proposed by Warpinski,
et al.,lOg have refined the method to yieLd relatively reliable results. Figure 28 shows an example
of the wellbore downhole closure tools they used for
testing. 6y pumping small vclumes (e.g., 1-2 bbLs)
and seatint!tbe CRC mandrel* in the GRC nippLe* with
the HP pressure gauge* (* - patented equipment
names) below the mandrel, it is possible to shut-in
the welL downhoLe to minimize wellbore voLume
effects and improve the potential for definitive
measurements. Another method tested by Amoco as an
alternate to downhol.eshut-in equipment uses a constant rate flow-back control device at the surface
to improve in-situ stress measurementsfrom the
pump-in/flow-backmethod. Daneshy, et al.jl10

.
427

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY
reportedon a techniquefor conducting in-situ
stress measurementsduring drilling operation.
This method employs a packer in the openhole section
very near the bottom of the hole. In addition to
strese data, oriented cores from the formation immediately below the fracturedopenhoLe eection also
provide informationabout the azimuthal tendencies
of a fracture.
It has become apparent that in-situ stresses
can vary significantlybetween adjacent formations.
Data by Warpinski,at al., depicted in Fig. 29, show
in-situ stress differencesof more than 2000 psi
occurringover relativelysmall vertxcal intervals
(e.g., less than 100 ft). Large stress differences
have also been observedby Amoco in the Eaat Texas
Cotton Valley (ETCV),Wyoming Hoxa Arch, and
ColoradoWattenberg tight formationgas plays. In
view of the major effect that in-situ stress profiles have on fracturepropagationgexnetry, it is
very important to have methods to r~liably determine
them. There have been some successf~lefforts using
acousticalwavetrain (i.e., shear and compreasional
velocity)measuremanteto profile in-situ stresses.
l.,112 Newbarry,
Laborat~~~work by Lin,lll Mao, et
et al.,
and field data from Johnson and
Albright114have verified that these type methods
have a relativelygood potential for use in in-situ
atrees profiLing. In-situ str=sses are estimated
from observationsof acousticalvelocity changes
resultingfrom stress than es on cores. some
results obtained by Aaocolf5 using long-spaced
digital sonic (LSDS) logs (i.e., acoustical wavetrain data) corroboratedwith pump-in stress tests
showed a good correlationbetween these two methods.
Figure 30 shows comparisonof stresses calculated
frcm acousticalwavetraindata obtained with a
long-spaceddigital sonic (LSDS) log versus those
tests. These data
measured by pump-in stress
include results from both sanda nd shales in the
Hoxa Arch formations,and the Blocker, Carthage, and
Woodlawn fields in the ETCV play. The excellent
correlat.ione
observed here may partially result from
some inherent geologicalsimilaritybetween these
particulartight gag formation. Uarpinaki, et al.,
did not observe aa close an agreement in studies of
the Colorado MesaverdeGroup formationswhich are
shown in Fig. 31. Here frac gradients meaaured from
pump-in teets were compared to chose calculated from
LSDS logs. However, it still appears that acoustical wavetrain measuremantahave high potential
as a useful method for inferring in-situ stress profiles for many applications. For reliable use, they
will probably have to be developed for each particular field or geologicalhorizons in a given area.

A relativelycomprehensiveinvestigationof the
effect of the in-situ atress profile on vertical
fracture
growth in the Mission Canyon Ratcliffe
formationa in North Dakota was conducted by Begnaud,
et al.116 Their paper discusses several teeting
technique used to determine that vertical fractures
are not confined within the pay zone during both
Hission Canyon and Ratcliffe fracture treatments.
They presented severalmethods of determininghorizontal stress differencesbetween the pay zones and
their bounding formations. These included in-situ
maasurementa(using cid treatments,mini-frac, and
pump-in/flowbacks),differentialstrain curve analyees, conventionalcore analyses, and LSDS logs.

.
14085

Their study demonstratedgood agreement between

field techniquesand theoreticalcalculationsus~d
in vertical fracture growth analysis.
FRACTURE NAPPING
A number of relatively significantinvestigations have enhanced the work of previoue investigators117-123 for mapping the azimuthal trends of
hydraulicallyinduced fractures. These included:
(1) the De artment of Energy lfultiwellExperiment
(~)124,1~S in the Piceance Baein near Rifle,
Colorado; (2) the experim~~t primarily funded by the
Gas Research Institute (GRI) and jointl~ conducted
with Dowell/Schlumbergerand Amoco1261 7 at AMOCOS
Mounds Test Site near Tulsa Oklahoma;
(3) investigationsby Lacy1*8 from multiple wells in
several fields in East Texas and Alaska; and
(4) studies by Griffin12g in the Kuparuk River Formation on the Alaskan North Slope. The large number
of tests have provided the opportunity to compare a
wide variety of azimuth mapping methods.
The results of the methods used in the NWX azimuth study re eurmmarizedin Table 6. The analysis
of the borehole seismic in the Paludal zone are
shown in Figs, 32 and 33 which depict the azimuth
growth tendencies,respectively.
trends and vertical
The relativelyclose agreement between the borehole
seismic and the oriented core strain recovery data
in Table 6 are encouragingfor the potential of
these two methods.
The tests at Hounds consisted of employing
aeven fracture mapping methods in a 1000-ft (320-m)
deep sandstone formation. The results of these
testa are suzszarizedin Table 7.127 Here the
uthora concluded that the true fracture azimuth
was W95E as suggestedby borehole televisioncamera
observations, surface
tiltmeters,and strain relaxation measurements. The differing results from the
DifferentialStrain Curve Analysis (DSCA) and DifferentialWave Velocity Analysis (tHiVA)data were
attributed to paleostresaregimes combined with current
strese regimaa. Caliper logs and remote
eeismic sensing did not yield definitive results.
Lacy:a work included active seismic measurefrom tiltmeteraand triaxial borehole
seismic (TABS) tool plus predictivemethods of
stress relief, thermal expansion,and sonic velocity
maasurementson oriented sandstone cores. Test
depths ranged from 8500 ft (2590 m) to 12,000 ft
(3660 m). The results indicatedgood comparisonsof
azimuth trends between the tiltmeters,TABS, and
stress relaxationdata. Figure,34 shows an example
of tiltmeter data and Fig. 35 the TABS results on
the same well. Note in Fig. 34 how much the
interpretationimproved by increasingthe number of
tiltmaters from 8 to 18 in an array.

mants

Griffin investigatedazimuth measurementsfrom

welLbore ellipticity,on site core strain relaxation, differentialstrain curve anaLysis, differeatial wave velocity analysis, TABS, impression
packers, and borehole televiewer studiee. The
results indicated that all of the methods yielded
azimuth information;however, in theee tests the
and
TABS method waa preferred from botha definitive
economical standpoint.

.
14085

RALPH U. VEATCH, JR. AND ZISSIS A. HOSCHOVIDIS

Other investigatorshave reported the results

of azimuth studies usifi
mentations tiltmeter!ll~On?
and
borehole
~~ky
ne
type Ofseismic
itl~t.rllte~hniques.134$13s All have obtained definitive
signal responses from their instrumentationwhich
yielded azimuth interpretations. From all of the
work to date, it appears that techniquesare now
availablewhich can provide azimuth information.
However,
in view of the uncertainty involvedwith
any single given method, one should employ a sufficient number of differentmethods to corroborate
results.

FRACTURINGTREATMENT DIAGNOSTICSAND DESIGN

significantadvances in
There have been several
fracturingtreatmentdiagnostic and desi~..technolog t~ extend the work of previous investiga~or8.~3s 144 ~uch of this work relates to the
interpretationof downhole fracturingpressures
(DFPs) while pumping and the analysis of shut-in
decline pressuresafter pumping is stopped. It
includesmethods applied both to minifrac calibration treatmentsand to stimulationtreatments.

for the general case over a wide range of

dimensionlesstimes (tD) and dimensionlesstime reference values (t*) where type curves are given for
the dimensionlesspressure differencefunction,
c(tD,qp.
The functionG correspondsto the pressure difference function,Ap(tD,tfi)which is computed by
Ap(tD,t~) = p(t~) - p(tD) ................(17)

Dimensionlesstime, tD, is computed by

t - to
D=~

**.******.*...***...*.*
.....(18)

where t is the time after shut-in,to is the pumping

time, and tfiranges from 0.05 CO 2.0.

Inl~~ area of treating pressures,Conway,

et al.,
suggested that five basic types of fracbehavior could be identifiedfrom downhole
ture
fracturingpressures (DFPs) during pumping. A
large
number of treatmentpressure charts were evaluated, grouped by similar behavior, and correlated
design models or propagationmodes.
with various
The five types were designated s follows:
(I) Khristianovich- Geertsma - de Klerk (KGD),
(II) Perkins-Kern-Nordgren(pKN),
(III) Penny-Shaped,(IV) Medlin and Fitch, and
(V) liolteand Smith. Ty es II and V have been documented in previous work.~3642s144 The others are
described on the basis of net DFP (i.e., DFP inus
closure stress) versus pumping time plots on Logarithmic scale. Type I exhibits a constant net DFP or
declines with a SLOPS of 0.05. Type 111 declines
steadily and then increasesrather rapidly with a
2:1 slope. Type IV behavior, investigatedby Medlin
and Fitch,14s is characts ized by large pressure
increases
early in the treatmentand usually
approaches a screenoutmode by tha time viscous
slurry reaches the formation resulting in very
Little proppant entering the fracture. Consequently, well performanceis relativelypoor.
Figure 36 depicts typical behavior of plots for log
of net DFP versus log of time. The Type I, II, 111,
and IV curves are arranged in order of screenout
tendencies,with Type I being the lowest and Type IV
the highest. Conway, et al., suggest the importance
of identifyingcharacteristicDFP behavior patterns
early in the life of a fracturing treatment program
to improve design nd execution of future treatments. tlethodshave been investigatedfor estimating DFP from surface pre$sure data.
In the area of post-treatmentpressure decline
for determining fracturingtreatmentdesign parameters, Nolte147 extended his original
type curve
pressure decline analysis37 for general application*
This covers a wide range of conditions from high
leakoff formations,as addressed by Smith,140 to the
very low leakoff tight gz..s
formations. The analysis
was also developed fe .de with either the PKN, KCD,
or Penny fracturingmodels. Figure 37 can be used

429

By plotting t versus the decline pressure

functionjAp (tD,t~),on the same logarithmicscale
as the type curve scale, and finding the type curve
decline match pressure, p*, one can use Eq. (19) for
any of the three models (i.e., PKN, KCD, or Radial)
to calculate the desired fracturedesign parameters
(i.e., C, rp, E, orhf,L,R)

PKN

II
f

c = rp<

E p

32L

CD.

**(19)

dlaL

where C is fluid loss coefficient;p* is the type

of permeabLe to
curve match decline; r is the ratio
fracture areas; E is ?ha plane-strainelastic
modulus: B is the ratio of average to wellbore net
pressure; h is the vertical fractureheight (PKN);
L is the fricture length, tip to tip (KCD): R is the
fracture radius (Radisl);and Ap(tD,t#) is the
decline pressure function.
Martins and Harper 14s developeda type curve
approach for a fracture in long perforated
interval where it ia assumed that the fracture
evolves
as a family
of confocal ellipses and the
created fracture length is on the same order of magnitude as the perforated interval. Leeig also
developed type curves specificallyfor the KGD and
Radial geometry models. These conform closely with
those
presentedby Nolte.
Using concepts similar to those presented pre:~:~1~~
Barrington, et aL.,150 and Harrin~tonfind
method was developedby NoLtels for
using pressuredecline data to design proppant and
treatments
using
fluid schedules for fracturing
fluid volume efficiencies,as expressed in Eq. (20):

AW UVEKVIBW UF ltlZGfiN1
AuVANbna lm
TECHNOLOGY

10

f=

*..****.,**. . . . . 0.0....0.

,.00

(20)

Figure 38 is used to estimate ef frOM dimensionless closure time (i.e., the closure timef
pumping time ratio, tc/ti). Then, Eq. (21) is used
to compute the required pad pumping time/treatment
pumping time ratio

2
(1 - e )
f=

fi2...................21)

(E)

=&

J?

. . . . ..0.0

tlt.-f
~-;

where:

6=

and

t =time(t>ft,)

. . . . . . . ..0...0

,...OO.

eooooO(Z

14G85

In the area of fracture design, several investigators have presented res~~~e of special design
concluded it may be
applications. Kim, at al.,
possible to use fracturingpressure, pressure
decline data, and poet-fracturingtemperaturesurveys to speculate inferences of fracture orientation
relative to the azimuth of a deviated wellbore in
certain areas. Other investigation have discussed
special designsl:~rgeothermal reservoirs,1.58frac180 and
soft unf~f~~~2formations,
ture acidizing,
multiple zone stimulation.

for a selected treatment,where t is the pad

pumping time, t. is the total tre~tment pumping
time, and g2 islche loss ratio. Uith this method
curves such as those shown in Fig. 39 can be constructed wnich optimize proppant concentration.
Here dimensionlessslurry concentration,C , is the
~
ratio of the pumping slurry concentration~othe
slurry concentrationin the fracture,Cs/C , and iq
ie, ~,.~y
related to dimensionlessslurry pumping t~

CD

rmnu~uumu

for-mce testing. Features of the MNX incLude:

(1) three closely-spacedwells (115-215 ft, 35-66 m)
for reservoir characterization,interference
testing,well-to-wellgeophysicalprofiling, and
placementof diagnostic instrumentationadjacent to
the fracture treatment;(2) complete core taken
through the formationsof interest; (3) a comprehensive core analysis program; (4) an extensive logging
program with conventionaland experimentalLogs;
(5) determinationof,in-situ stresses in sands and
bounding shales; (6) use of various seismic surveys
and sedimentologicalanalyses to determine Lens morphology and extent; (7) use of seismic, electrical
potential,and tilt diagnostic techniquesfor
hydraulic fracturecharacterization;and (8) a
series of stimulationexperimentsto address key
questions. Many of the techniquesdeveloped from
this experimentare being incorporatedinto practice
throughoutthe industry.

where f is the fracture volume, V2 iS the 10ss

volume, and ef is fluid efficiency for the slurry.

t
f =:=
i

nxunAuLIAb

REAL-TINE MONITORINGAND CONTROL EQUIP14ENT

. . . . ..(22)

One of thf~more significant recent advancements

in fracturingtechnologyhaa been the developmentof
on-site data gathering and monitoringequipment,and
treating equipment which is designed for computer
control.

3)oooo0(Z3)

An example of the results for applying this

method is shown in Fig. 40 where we eee very close
greement between optimizing proppant schaduleswith
this techniqueas compared to those derived from
computer simulatormodels for three types of geometry (i.e., constant height, growing height, and
radial growth), This approach enables one to design
proppant schedules from field inifrac pressure
decline data with very little a priori knowledge of
the fracture geometry. Note that a better greement
with computer simulatedresults may be obtained by
increasingf by 0.05. This paper also proposes a
method for estimatingexposure time to reservoir
temperature,and this can provide guidance in schedulingfluid gellin~agents and additives. Previous
work by Crawfordls also discusses the impact of
fluid efficiencyon proppant scheduling for treatment deeign.
A very comprehensiveand compLete set of diagnostic tests is being conducted ac the Department of
Energy Multiwell Experiment (IIUK)Site near RifLe,
Colorado. The experiment is still in progress.
Findings to date are discussed in recent docume~~~tion by Northrop, et al.,1S4 Warpinski, et al.?
and Sattler, et al.1S6 AS stated by Northrop~
et al., one of the purpoees of the work is to investigate the effectivenessof stimulationtechnology
with diagnostic instrumentationand productionper)
430

Coo er, et al.,163 Hannah, et ai.?164 and Harringtonlisdeecribe some of the on-site computerized
pLotting nd analysis capabilities,nd monitoring
systems.
These capabilitiesinclude an on-site,
field durable, transportablecomputer system; software for real-timeanalysis and graphi.al display of
both fracturing~pumping and post-shut-indecline
pressure data; nd an on-site rheology test system
interfacedwith the computer for determiningtheological flow data pertinent to the treatment.
Figure 41 shows one example of the type of realtime, on-site data displays which are now available
industrywidefrom the fracturingservice companies,
and treatment monitoring service companies.
There has been even more significantprogress
enhancing these capabilitiessince the presentations
by the above authors were published. Enhancements
and advancementsin computer hardware, software,
microprocessor,servo-controLof blending equipment,
proppant densitometers,and on-site theologicaltest
equipment have significantlyimproved the design and
execution of fracturingtreatments. The computer
age has truly come for fracturing!
FRACTURE PROPAGATIONSItlULATION
MODELS
There have been some vety significantadvancements in the area of hydraulic fracture propagation
modeling. Recent developmentsof working three-

14085

LA

RALPH U. VEATCH, JR. AND ZISSIS A. MOSCHOVIDIS

dimensionalcomputer codes have

4%WM?d::
he
work of previous investigators.
this section, the theory behind 3D simulationis
summarizedand some examples of actual fieLd case
studies using a 3D model are presented. Some
emphasis is given to the assumptionsfor the
governing equationsand to the numerical techniques
used in the models.
The hydraulic fracturingmodels presented in
the literatureare numerousand of diverse complexity. They may be classified,accrrding to their
trtltmentof the general fracturingequations and
fracturegeometry capabilities,into the following
categories: (a) simple geometrygeneral models,
(b) lumped parametermodels, (c) two-dimensional
(2D) models, (d) pseudo three-dimensional(P3D)
models, and (e) three-dimensional(3D) planar fracture models. Detailed descriptionof these models
lies beyond the scope of this paper. However, an
excellent treatmentof their main features is given
b~ Hendelsohn.1811s2
The basic elements of fracturingmodels are
(1) a crack opening model, (2) a fluid flow model,
(3) a crack propagationcriterion,and (4) (when
numerical soLutionsare performed)a fracturingpropagation algorithm. It is the fracture propagation
algorithm that combines the fluid flow and fracture
opening interactioninto a highly nonlinear coupled
problem which satisfiesthe fracture propagation
criterionwhile furnishinga numerical solution. I
All models treat the fractureprocese in a
quasi-staticsense, meaning that inertial terms
are neglectedboth in the fractureopening and fluid
momentum equations. The formation is assumed to be
linearlyelastic and the fracturingcriterion is
formulatedusing Giffiths183184pproach in terms
of the formationfracture toughness (i.e., critical
strese intensityfactor, K )~ For meet eiodels,flow
ineide the fracture is app~oximetedwith equatione
ior laminar flow of Newtonian or Power Law fluid
between parallel plates. Leak-off is usually
consideredas ona-dimeneionaland perpendicularto
the surface of the fracture. Leak-off velo;~gy, VL,
is assumed to be given by Carters formula.
and pore pressure
Recently, temperatureeffects
effects on closure streae have aleo been estimated
using simple one-dimensionalmodels, such as those
suggestedby Keck, et al.86 The great majority of
models ssume that the fracture ie planar and
remains planar during propagation. The general
problem of a curved hydraulic fracture in a layered
formation ( full 3D model) is computationally
intractableat the present time. However, some
models with curved fractures in the sense of
two-dimensionaLelasticityhave been presentedl~{
Ingraffea,et al.1a7 and Narendranand Cleary.
Crack Opening: Formulationand solutionof the
general crack opening problem can be done using
finite element (FE) or boundary integral equation
(BIE) techniques. The FE method can be applied to
determine fracturewidth for any shape of fracture
(planar or curved) and for both homogeneousor inhomogeneous (layered)formations. It has been successfullyapplied in a 3D plar,arfra;$~remodel
without fluid flow by Morita, et al.
and in a
model for curved 2D hydraulic fractureswith
branches (in the 2D elasticitysense) by Ingraffea,

et al.187 However, FE methods are generally

computationallydemandingas compared to BIE
methods.
The BIE method is based on the influence function (Greens function)approach and reduces the
problem to singular integralequations on the ptane
of the fracture.lgOlgl These equations can be
solved numericallyby discretizationo~9:h~9jomain
or
of the fracture by FE,173 collocation,
finite difference (FD) methods. The BIE method can
be practicallyapplied for homo eneous formations
for which the Greens functionlt3 is wellkfiown. It
has been employed for the majority of the fracturing
models both two-dimensional[simple1g4and tomplex:88) and 3DO;73S191S192 The foLlowin
equation (derivedfrom dislocation theory?9Mlr:;
elastic potentialtheorylgO1g7lgsis commonly
used:

p(Xi*X~)

J{+

(xl-xi)

aw
+ (X2

Xfi)

1 dxl dx2 *.*....(24)

where

0=*

and
R2 x (xl-~i)2+ (x2-x;)2 ,

and where S is the domain of the crack on th: X1-X2

coordinateplane; p(x ,X2) ia the excess fluLd pressure; (x,x~) ie n 0&servationpoint on S; w is
the fraciure width; and p and V re the shear
modulus and Poissonsratio of the formation,
respactivety. A different BIE formulationhas also
been used by Mastrojannis,et al.;lgl199however,
this model does not have fluid flow and uses hydrostatic pressure to calculatecrack opening.
Efforts to model crack opening behavior in l.ayered inhomogeneousformationsusing EXE methodology
have also been undertaken. A combinationof the BIE
and FE methods, refarredto as the surface integral
finite
element hybrid (SIFEH)200method, is being
investigated. Recently,the Greens function for
two jointed half spaces of different elastic properties has been derived by J. C. Lee and L. N. Keer
(Studyof a Three-DimensionalCrack Terminatingat
an Interface,to be published in the Journal of
Applied t4echanics).This function can be applied to
obtain a first-orderapproximationfor the elastic
fields of a crack in a Layered formation. Such an
approach has been presented by Clifton,201 where a
numericalevaluationof the above Creene function
was used. SimilarLy,the two jointed half space
Greens functionscan be used in the SIFEH method.
A simpler, Less rigorousapproach to obtain crack
openings,by superpositionof the deformationsof a

r...

. .

. . .

--

-.

--...

. . .

. .

. .

..-

---

. ----------

-------------

14085

TECHNOLOGY

12

half space due to a point load perpendicularto its

202 ~e
surface,has been presented by Barree.
formation
layers
elastic propertiesof the various
were introduceddirectly in this fundamentalsolution which is integratedover the fracture area to
obtain the crack opening due to a given excess
pressuredistribution.

K(p~SftRf, ...)~K ~ ,..*.*.*.*........t..(26)

Fluid Flow: The consnonapproach to fluid flow

as related to hydraulic fracturingis to integrate
the continuityand momentum equationsacross the
width of the fracture and derive two-dimensional
equations in the plane of the fracture. This
approach is necessary to make the problem tractable.
Such an approach is valid because fracture width is
smell relative to the fracture area dimensions.
Fluid pressure and density do not vary appreciably
across the fracturewidth. Fluid velocity vertical
to the fracture faces is small and has a zero
average value over the fracturewidth. The velocity
components in the plane of the fractureare assum~d
have a known dist.:ibution
over the fracture width.
This can be approximatedby the velocity profile for
Laminar flow of a Newtonian or Power Law fluid
between parallel plates. Using such an integration
procedure,203and neglecting inertial terms and
terms involvingveLocity2~~adients,the following
equation can be derived:

P ,a + rl(v/w)n-lva/w2 = p fa , a=

1,2 ...(25)

for a stable crack. The notation here en,phasizes

that the stress intensity factor depends on excess
pre:sure p, fracture shape S , position on the crack
front R , and ... denotes iny other dependence on
meteriaf properties,inhomogeneityboundaries, etc.
Although the above criterion (when violated) determines the Locationsof the crack front that propagate, it does not provide informationabout the
velouity of crack propagationv (defined as the
craf,kfront displacementnormaleto the crack front
during a time step). The functionalrelationship
betw?en K, Kc and VC cannot be obtained from analytical ~onsiderations,but must be determined expezimentally. However, since mass balance dominates the
fracturingprocess, most reasonableassumptions199
can be made without significantlyaffecting the
final results.
A simple, yet effective way, to enforce a criticaL stress intensity factor at the crack front is
to estimate a critical crack opening w at a given
distance behind the crack front. The ~ctual crack
opening for a stabLe crack should not exceed this
estimate [relationanalogous to Eq. (26)]. Values
for w can be estimated in terms of K from twodimensionalcrack displacements,20sb$ Eq. (27),

where

=4(1-v)(Kc/@~~\

.................(27)

where r is a specific distance behind the crack

front and V,U are the Shear modulus and the Poissons ratio of the medium.

q = 2K(4+2/n)n ?
and tensorialnotation is employed. Here v is the
fluid velocity; v is the fluid velocity meg~itude;
due to body forces; p is the
f is the acceleration
f~uid pressure;p is the fluid density; w is the
fractureopening; and K and n are the consistency
index and flow behavior index of the fracturing
fluid.
Eq. (25) is the momentum equation used in
hydraulic fracturing. This form or simplified forms
for one-dimensionalflow are used in all fracturing
models. Numerical solution of Eq. (25) can be
obtained either with FE or FD methods. The FE
f?r 3D simulaand stmpler
ones in which onedimensionalflow (sireLe geometry, lumped and P3D
models) is assumed.20E The FD method is more comdimensional fluid flow
~~~~s~!g~ied for one-

~E~~3:$f6;f!ii~$4b0th

Fracture PropagationAlgorithm: Virtually all

crack propagationalgorithms are iterative in nature
employingan implicit or explicit FD approximation
of time derivatives. Time step and crack advancement are usually related by a crack propagationcriterion expressed from Linear fracturemechanics as

Applicationof 3D Model to Field Cases: The

applicationof 3D simulators is primarily important
for complex reservoir
conditions, i.e., where there
are multiple zones with varying elastic properties
and leak-off characteristicsand where closure
stress profiles dictate complicatedfracture geometries. For such in-situ conditions,the fraccure
shape is unknown priori and, depending on in-situ
parameters,can be drasticallydifferent than2;~e
shape the P3D simulators (Settari and Clear
286
Palmer an{ Craig,zoa pal~r and Luiskutty9 ~
210
212
Advani,et
al,,
213
Thiercelin,
Ueyer,
.215) can predict. For these
et al.,214 and Settarl
complex types of simulations,a 3D fracturingmodel
is required. Abou-Sayed and Sinah218 and AbouSayed, et al.217 presenteda case study using such a
3D model (the Terra Tek, Inc. TerraFrac model) that
quantified the influenceof various in-situ conditions on fracture geometry. In the remainder of
this section, two examples of unconfined fracture
growth, simuLatedwith a version of the same 3D
model.,are discuesed.
The two examples are from an actual field case
prostudy. Figure 42 shows the two closure stress
files and the other field parametersused in the
study. They were derived from our best estimates
of the in-situ conditions. Case A represents the
base case; Case B has a 200 psi lower cloeure stress
in the T-zone relative ts Case A (attributedto a

432

14085

RALPH U. VEATCH, JR. AND 21SS1S A. ?lOSCHOVIDIS

pressuredraw down scenarioafter production)and a

50 psi higher closure stress in the dense streak
(Dense-zone)at the upper portion of the U zone.
The elaatic properties are the same for all zones
(E = 1.26 x 106 psi, and v = 0.4), The perforations
are locateddirectly below the Dense-zone. A constant pumping rate of 15 bbl/min was maintained
during the treatment. Other data used are: fluid
viscosity90 cp (18.8 x 10-4 lb s/ft2): fluid density 1.3 g/cm3 (81*4 lb/ft3 = 0.563 psi/ft); reser6275 psi at the perforat~ons:and
voir pressure
formation
toughness 100C psi~in.
Completionexperiencein the field had established that the target zone (T-zone)should not be
directly perforatedbecause of severe solids production problems. The U-zone located directly below
the T-zone is perforatedinstead. Treatments initiated in the U-zone have the dual purpose of stimulating the U-zone and also consnunicating
with
the T-zone. Fracture height growth was not
expected to be confined to the U-zone, and complex
fractureshapes were expected to evolve because of
the in-situconditions. In the past, it had been
the practice to design such fracture treatments
ueing a Radial (penny-shaped)model for lack of a
better
alternative. However,with the advent of a
3D model, it was possible to determine fracture
shape and study the effects of closure stress profile, actual closure stress gradient, leak-off
variation,and position of perforations. It is this
capabilitythat makes a 3!)model so useful for
fields where no significantconfining barriers exist
or where special fracturingtreatments t interfaces
need to be designed.
Figure 43 shows the fracture shape evolution
for Case A for injectedvolumes ranging from
113-1338bbls. The fracture was initiatedas a
small penny of 10 ft radius Located at the center
of the perforationa(i.e., 8366 ft), which is the
origin of the vertical Y-axis. Note that the fracture ssentiallyremains approximatelya penny,
although some confinementcan be observed at the
S-zone/T-zone
interface.

13

the perforations(i.e. at 0.0 ft) are plotted versus

the total injectedvolume. In case A we see no significantdifferencebetween these two values. They
both increasewith the treatment volume, In case B
the maximum width occurs in T-zone and increases
with the volume injected s xpected. However, the
width at the perforationsinitially increases(while
the fracture is still a penny) and subsequently
decreasesat about 200 bbls, to remain constant at
approximately0.10 in. for the remainingof the
treatment. For Case 8 in-situ conditions,an
increasedpad volume does not diminish the danger of
screen-out. A higher viscosity fluid and small
proppantmay be required to pump the fracturing
treatmentsuccessfullywithout experiencingan undesirable screenout. Note that the width at perforations can actuallydecrease during pumping of the
treatment,especiallywhen unconfined,unsynszatric
fracturegrowth occurs. This was in fact observed
in simulatedcases with no closure stress discontinuities but which had a steeper closure stress graclientof 0.85 psi/ft, and a fluid density of
= 0.364
psi/ft) with the
0.84 g/cm3 (52.5 lb/ft3
remainingconditionsbeing the same. An intuitive
explanationfor constant or decreasingwidth at the
perforationswith increasingpumped volume is that
the fracture becomes locally stiffer at the perforations and pushes the fluid towards more flexible
vocationsnear the center of the fracture. Such
behavior can be quantified only through a 3D fracture simulation.
The width history plot may be used to estimate
the pad volume and the total treatmentvolume so
that proppant is introducedwhen the fracturehas
attained sufficientwidth. The maximum proppant
size may also be estimated. For example, case B
proppant with a maximum propallowa at most 20/40
pant diameter of 0.0331 in. to be pumped.
of the downhole pressure behavior
The character
the two casea is leo different as shown in
Fig. 47. The maximum pressure in the fractureand
the pressure at the perforationsare plotted versus
the total injectedvolume. Note that the pressure
values plottad are in excess of a reference pressure
of 7084 psi. Due to hydrostaticpressure the maximum pressure occurs below the perforations. Case A
during
demonstratesa typical pressure decrease
pumping which is characteristicof unconfined fracture growth of a penny shaped fracture. Case B
shows a more complicatedpressure behevior t the
early pumping stages. This ia due to the presenceof
the pressure barrier in the Dense-zone. The
pctentialtouse the pressure plot as a closure
stress
diagnostictool (by comparing the simulated
pressurewith the actual pumping pressure during a
mini-frac test) exists but has not been utilized in
this study. In many simulated cases the pressure
profile may not be smooth, as in these cases, but
may have several spurious spikes. Such spurious
pressure spikes can be correlated to relativelybig
volume balance errors, and thus are easily identifiable.
for

Figure 44 shows the fracture shape evolution

for case B where injectedvolumes ranged from 87 to
1424 bbls. The fracturewas initiatedas a 10-ft
radial crack at the center of the perforations. The
resultingshape is drasticallydifferent than that
The
fracture
grows
mainly in the
of Case A.
T-zonewhere closure stress is low. This type of
behaviorcan only be quantifiedby numerical simulation and representsa delicate balance between insitu values of closure stress, closure gradients,
leak-off,location of the perforations,and fluid
rheology.
Figure 45 compares the fracturewidth profiles
along the well-bore for both cases A and B. In case
A, the wximum fracturewidth occurs close to the
perforations. In case B the fracturegrows unaymmetricallywith respect to the perforationsand a
point of reduced width develops there, referred to
as a width pinch point. Width pinching near the
perforationsmay cause an undesirablescreen-out
during the earLy stages of the treatment. Figure 46
shows the fracture width history for both cases.
The maximum fracture width and the fracture width at

433

Figure 48 showe the evolution of the fracture

dimanaions,i.e., maximum fracture Length, fracture
height above the perforations,fracture depth below
the perforations,and maximum fracture height are
plotted versus the total volume injected. In Case A

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FWCTURING

TECHNOLOGY

14

the fracture propagates in both che horizontaland

is
verticaldirections. In case B the fracture
essentiallyconfined height-wiseand grows lengthwise in the T-zone. An estimate of the total
fracture treatment volume may be made from this
plot, based on the desired dimensions of the fracture.
In conclusion, 3D simulatorsare very valuable
for many aspects of hydraulic fracturinganalysis
and design. They can be used to: (a) determine the
fracture shape for given in-situ and pumping conditions; (b) estimate proppant size, pad volume, and
treatmentvolume from the fracturewidth and fracture dimension histories; (c) study the effect of
the location of the perforationsand the associated
problems of width pinching;and (d) diagnose in-situ
closure stress features by comparing the actual
mini-frac pressure with simulated pressure.
REFERENCES
Introductlon

14085

8a. Cooke, C. E. Jr.: Effects of FracturingFluid

on Fracture Conductivity,~. ~.
~.
(Ott. 1975) 1273-82.
Fracturingwith a High
8b. Cooke, C. E, Jr.:
Strength Proppant,~.
Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1977)
~, 1222-26.
9. Neal? E.,.A.,Parmley, J. L., and Colpays, P.
J.: Ox~de Ceramic Proppants for Treatment of
Deep Well Fractures,paper SPE 6316 presented
at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand
Exhibition,Denver, Oct. 9-12.
10. Sinclair,A. R. and Graham, J. U.: A New
Proppant for Hydraulic Fracturing,paper presented at the 1978 ASME Energy TechnologyConference, Houston, Nov. 5-9.
11. Cutler, R. A., et ai.: New Proppantsfor Deep
Gas Well Stimulation,paper SPE 9869 presented
at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low-PermeabilityGas Reservoirs Symposium,Denver, Hay 27-29.

1. Veatch, R. W.: Current Hydraulic Fracturing

Treatment and Design Technology,paper
SPE 10039 presentedat the 1982 SPE/CPS Insernational Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,Beijing, March 19-22.

12. Almond, S. W.: Factors AffectingGelling

Agent Residue Under Low TemperatureConditions, paper SPE 10658 presentedat tile1982
SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,Lafayette, March 24-2S.

2. Veatch, R. W.: Overview of Current HydrauLic

Fracturing Design and Treatment Technology,~.
pet. Tech., Part 1 (ApriL 1983), 677-&7S Part 2
@iy 1983), 849-64.

13. Callanan,M. J., CipoLLa, C. L., and Lewis, P.

E.: The Applicationof a New SecondGeneration High-StrengthProppant in Tight Gas
Reservoirs,paper SPE 11633 pr?sentedat the
1983 SPE/DOE Symposiumon Low Permeability,
Denver, March, 13-16.

Economic FracturingOptimization
3. Elkins, L. E.: Western Tight Sands Major
Research Requirements,paper presented at the
1980 InternationalGas Research Conference,
Chicago, June 9-12.
4. Warembourg, P. A., Klingensmith,E. A., Hodges,
J. E., Jr., and Erdle, J. E.: Fracture StimuLation Design and Evaluation,paper SPE 14379
presentedat the 1985 SPE AnnuaL TechnicaL Conference and Exhibition,Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
5. Rosenberg,J. I., OShea, P., Mercer, J.,
Morra, F. Jr., and Brashear, J. P.: A Sensitivity AnaLysis of the NPC Study of Tight Gas,
paper SPE 11645 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Low Permeability,Denver,
March 14-16.
6. Brashear, J. P., Rosenberg, J. I., and Mercer,
J.: Tight Gas Resource and Technology
Appraisal: SensitivityAnalyses of the
NationaL Petroleum Council Estimates,paper
SPE 12862 presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRI
UnconventionalGas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, M~y L3-15.
ProppingAgents ana Fracture Conductivity
TM
7. The Fracbook Design/DataManuaL for
Hydraulic Fracturing,HalliburtonServices,
Duncan, OK (1971).

14. Cutler, R. A., Ennias, D. O., Jones, A. H., and

Carroll, H. B., Comparisonof the Fracture
Conductivityof ConsnerciaLly
AvailabLeand
ExperimentalProppantsat Intermediateand High
Closure Stresses,tpaper SPE 11634 presented at
the L983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low Permeability,
Denver$ March, 14-16.
15. ReconsnendedPractices for Testing Sand Used in
HydrauLic FracturingOperations,RP 56, API>
DaLLas (1983).
16. PhiLlipa, A. M. and Anderson, R. W.: Use of
Proppant Selection Models to Optimize Fracturing Treatment Designs in Low-Permeability
Reservoirs,paper SPE 13855 presentedat the
1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, May 19-22.
17. Larsen, D. G. and Smith, L. J.: New Conductivity Found in Angular BLet?dsof Fracturing
Sand, paper SPE 13814 presentedat the 1985
SPE ProductionOperations Symposium,Oklahoma
City, March 10-12.
18. Becq, D. F., Roque, C., and Sarda, J. P.:
High-StrengthProppants Behavior Under Extreme
Conditions,paper SPE 12487 presentedat the
1984 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Bakersfield,Feb. 13-14.
19. Norman, H. E., Cipolla, C. L., and Webb, M. L.:
The Applicationof ManufacturedProppants in

14085

RALPH W. VEATCH, JR. AND 21SS1S A. HOSCHOVIDIS

33. 8ennett,C. O., Rosato, N. D., Reynolds, A. C.,

and Raghavan, R,: Influenceof Fracture Heterogeneityand Wing Length on the Response of
VerticallyFractured Wells, paper SPE 9886
presentedac the 1981 SPE/DOE Low-permeability
Gas ReservoirsSymposium,Denver, May 27-29.

Moderately PermeableOil Reservoirs,paper

SPE 12357 presentedat the 1983 SPE Production
Technology Symposium,Lubbock, Nov. 14-:5.
20. Holditch, S. A.: Criteria for Propping Agent
Selection, 2nd Edition, Norton Alcoa Proppants,
~984
).
21. Proppants, 2nd Edition, The Western Company of
North America, Research and Development,Fort
Worth (1984).

22. Propped Fracture Flow Capacity, TechnicalNewsLetter, The Western Company of North America,
Research and Development,Fort Worth (1985).

Fluid Loss
34. Hall, C. D. Jr., and Dollarhide,F. E.: Fracturing FLuid-L.oss
Agent PerformanceUnder
Dynamic Conditions,J.
Pet. Tech. (July 1968)
763-68.
35. Harris, P. C.: Dynamic FLuid-LossCharacteristics of Foam FracturingFluids, paper
SPE 11065 presentedac the 1982 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29.

23. Proppants, Permeabilityand Conductivity,Data

Book, BJ-Hughes,Inc., Arlington Laboratory,
(May 20, 1983).

36. McDaniel, R. R., Dey~arkar.A. K., and CaiLanan, M. J.: An Improved Method for Measuring Fluid Loss at Simulated Fracture
Conditiona,paper SPE 10259 presentedat the
1981 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.

24. Proppant SelectionGuide, Dowell Schlumberger,

Tulsa (Sept. 1985).
25. The Technical Literature File, Carborundum
Proppants Division,SOHIO Carborundum,Dallas.
26. Kim, C. H. and Losacano, J. A.: FractureConductivity Damage Due to Crosslifiked
Gas Residue
and Closure Stress on Propped 20/40 Mesh Sand,
paper SPE 14436 presentedat the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Las
Vegas, Sept. 22-25.

37. NoLte, K. C.: Determinationof Fracturing

Parametersfrom Fracturing Pressure Decline,
paper SPE 8341 presentedat the 1979 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.

27. Cheung, S. K.: Effect of Acids on Gravels and

Proppants,paper SPE 13842 presentedat the
1985 SPE CaliforniaRegional Meeting, Bakersfield, March 27-29.

38. Penny, G. S.: NondamagingFluid Loss Additives for Use in Hydraulic F:-,.cturing
of Gas
Wells, paper SPE 10659 presentedat the 198?
SPE FormationDamage Control Symposium,Lafa,ette, Uarch 24-25.

28. Almond, S. W. and Bland, W. E.: The Effect of

Break Mechanism on Gelling Agent Residue and
Flow Impai~nt in 20/40 Hesh Sand, paper
SPE 12485 presentedat the 1984 SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield,
Feb. 13-14.

39.

I
29. Phillips, A. M. and Wilson, W. J.: Improved
Drainage of Sand Pack Enhsnces FracturingFluid
Recovery and Increase %oduction, paper
SPE 12924 presentedat the 1984 SPE Rocky llountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Hay 21-23.

30. Britt, L. K.: OptimizedOil Well Fracturing

of Moderate PermeabilityReservoirs,paper
SPE 14371 presentedat the 1985 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.
31. Elbel, J. L.: Considerationsfor Optimum
Fracture Geometry Design, paper SPE 13866 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas
Reservoirs Symposium,Denver, May 19-22.
32. Montgomery, C. T. and Steanson, R. E.: Proppant Selection - The Key to SuccessfulFracture
Stimulation (Revised),paper SPE 12616 presented at,the 1984 SPE Deep Drilling and Production Symposiumand Technical Exhibition,
AmarilLo, April 1-3.

15

435

Settari,A.: A New General Model of Fluid

Loss in Hydraulic Fracturing,paper SPE 11625
presentedat the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposiumon Low
Permeability,Denver, March 14-16.

40. Williams. B. Bti Fluid Loss From Hydraulically Induced Fractures,Trans., ~IME
(1970)
249L882-88.
41. Williams, B. B., Gidley, J. L. and
Schechter,R. S.: Acidizing Fundamentals,
Society of PetroLeum EngineersMonograph,
Vol.
6 (1979).
42. GuLbis, J.: Dynamic Fluid Loss of Fracturing
Fluids, paper SPE 12154 presentedat the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,
San Franciaco,Oct. 5-8.
43. Harria, P. C., and Penny G. S.: Influenceof
Temperatureand Shear History on Fracturing-
Fluid Efficiency,paper 14258 presentedat the
1985 SPE 60th AnnuaL TechnicaL Conferenceand
Exhibition,Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
44. Penny, C. S., Conway, Il.W., and Lee, W. S.:
The Control and Modeling of Fluid Leakoff
During Hydraulic Fracturing,paper SPE 12486
presentedat the 1984 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,Bakersfield,Peb. 13-14.

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

16

..
45. Rcmihart,L. t.: FracturingFluid, Fluid Loss
MeasurementsUnder Dynamic Conditions,paper
SPE 11900 presentedat the 1983 SPE Offshore
Europe Conference,Aberdeen, Sept.

1.4085

TheologicalSehavior of Cross-LinkedFluid
Systems,J.
-Pet, Tech. (Feb. 1983).
56. Craigie, L. J.: A New Method for Determining
the Rheologyof CrossLinkedFracturing Fluids
Using Shear History Simulation,paper
SPE 11635 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low Permeability,Denver, March 14-16.

46. Zigrye, J. L., WhitfilL, D. L., and Sievert, J. A.: Fluid Loss Control Differences
of CrossLinkedand Linear FracturingFluids,
paper 12153 presentedat the i983 SPE Annual
TechnicaLConferenceand Exhibition,San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.

57. Gardner, D. C. and Eikerts,J. V.: The

Effects of Shear and Proppanton the Viscosity
of Cross-linkedFracturingFluids, paper SPE
11066 presentedat the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,New Orleans,
Sept. 26-29.

47. Nierode, D. E.: Comparisonof Hydraulic Fracture Design Methods to Observed Field ResuLts,
paper SPE 12059 presentedat the 1983 SPE
Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,San
Francisco,Oct. 5-8.

58. Lescarboura,J. A., Sifferman,T. R., and

Wahl, H. A.: Evaluationof Fracturing Fluid
StabilityUsing a Heated, Pressurized Flow
Loop, paper SPE 10962 presentedat the 1982
SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,
New Orleans, September 26-29.

48. Khristianovitch,S. A., and Zheltov, P.: Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly
Viscous Fluids, Proc. of the Fourth World
PetroleumCongress,VOL. II (1955) 579.

59. Rogers, R. E., Veatch, R. W. Jr., and

Nolte, K. G.: Pipe ViscometerStudy of Fracturing Fluid Rheology,paper SPE 10258 presentad at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical
Conferenceand Exhibition,San Antonio,
Oct. 4-7.

49. Perkins,T. K. and Kern, L. R.: Widths of

HydraulicFractures,~. Pet. ~.
(Sept. 1961) 937.

50. Nordgren,R. P., Propagationof a Vertical

HydraulicFracture,SPE
. J. (Aug. 1972) 306.

60. Guillot, D. and Dunand, A.: TheologicalCharacterizationof FracturingFluids Using Laser

Anemometry,paper SPE 12030 presented at the
1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco,Oct. 5-8.

510 Cooper, G. D., Nelson, S. G., and

Schopper,M. D.: Comparisonof Hethods for
DeterminingIn-Situ Leakoff Rate Based on Analysis With an On-Site Computer, paper SPE 13223
presentedat the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston, Sept. 16-10.

61. Prudhonmte,
R. K.: TheologicalCharacterization of FracturingFluids, PRAC Project 45
Final Reports 82-45 (April 1984) and 84-45
(Aug. 1985), American petrole~ Institute.

52. Smith. J. E.: Design of Hydraulic Fracture

Treat&nts, paper S~E 1286-presentedat the
1964 SPE Annual Fall Mesting, Denver, Oct.
I

FracturingFluid Rheology
53. Saumgartner,S. A., Parker, C. D., Williams, D.
A., and Woodroof, R. A.: High Efficiency
FracturingFluids for High-Temperature,LowPermeabilityReservoirs,paper SPE 11615 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposiumon Low
Permeability,Denver, March 14-16.
54. Cloud, J. E. and Clark, P. E.: Stimulation
Fluid Rheology III. Alternativesto the Power
Law Fluid Hodel for CrosslinkedGels, paper
SPE 9332 presentedat the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Dallas,
Sept. 21-24.
55a. Suechley,T. C. and Lord, D. L..: Hydraulic
FracturingFLuid Hechanics - State of the Art,
AICllE~. (1973) v.
69, n.
135, 199-200.

-.

62. Knoll, S. K.: Wall Slip Evaluation in Steady

Shear Viscosity t4easurements
of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 13904 presented at
the 1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs
Symposium,Denver, Flay19-22.
and Rickards, A. R.:
63. Royce, T. N., Beck, L. III.,
TheologicalCharacteristicsof Adjustable
Cross-LinkedFracturingFluids,*paper SPE
13178 presentedat the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston,
Sept. 16-19.
64. Shah, S. t?.and Watters, L. T.: Time and
Shear Effects Upon TheologicalPropertiesof
CrosslinkedFluids - An Evaluation Method,
paper SPE 12923 presentedat the 1984 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Fleeting,Casper, May 21-23.

55b. Conway, M. W. and Harris, L. W.: A Laboratory

and FieLd Evaluation of a Technique for
HydraulicFracturingStimulationof Deep
Wells, paper SPE 10964 presentedat the 1982
SPE tnnual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,
New Orleansl Sept. 26-29.

65. Gardner, D. C. and Eikerts, J. V.: Theological Characterizationof Crosslinked and

Delayed CrosslinkedFracturingFluids Using a
Closed-LoopPipe Viscometer,paper SPE 12028
presentedat the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conand Exhibition,San Francisco,
ference
Oct. 5-8.

55C. Conwav.
. . M. W.. Almond. S. W.. Briscoe. J. E.
and Hart;z.,L. it.: Chemical Model for the

66. Waroinski.N. R.: Measurementof Width and

Pre~sure in a PropagatingHydraulic Fracture,

-436 --------- ---- -,------- ------------

..-

RALPH W. VEATCH, JR. AND 21SS1S A. MOSCHOVIDIS

14085

78. 8iot, H. A. and Medlin, U. L.: Theory of Sand

Transport in Thin Fluids, paper SPE 14468 presented at the 1985 SPE 60th Annual Technical
Conferenceand Exhibition,Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.

paper SPE 11648 presentedat the 1983 SPE/DOE

~wposi~ on Low Permeability,Denver,
March 14-16.
Proppant Transportand ProppantSettling

79. Kedlin, W. L., Sexton, J. H. and Zumwalt,C.

L.: Sand Transport Experimentsin Thin
Fluids, paper SPE 14469 presentedat the 1985
SPE Annual TechnicalConferenceand Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.

67a. Babcock, R. E., Prokop, C. L. and Kehle, R. O.:

Distributionof ProppinSAgents in Vertical
Fractures,Drill. and
Prod. Prac. (1967) API.
67b. Kern, L. R., Perkins, T. K. and Wyant, R. E.:
The Mechanics of Sand Movement in Fracturing,
J. ~.
Tech. (July 1959) 403-5.
67c.

17

80. Roodhart, L. P.: proppanc Settling in NonNewtonian FracturingFluids, paper SPE 1390S
presentedat the 1985 SPE/DQE Low Permeability
Gas ReservoirsSymposium,Denver, May 19-22.

Swanson,V. F.: The Developmentof Formula

for Direct Determinationof Free Settling
Velocity of Any Size Particle,Trans., SHE
(June 1967) 160-66.

81. Acharya, A.: Particle Transport in Viscous

and ViscoelasticFracturingFluids, paper
SPE 13179 presentedat the 1984 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston,
Sept. 16-19.

68. Govier, C. W. and Aziz, K.: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York City (1972).

82. Kirkby, L. L. and Rockefeller,H. A.: Proppant Settling Velocities in Nonflowing Slurries, paper SPE 13906 presentedat the 1985
SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas ReservoirsSymposium, Denver, Hay 19-22.

69. Barnea, E. and Hlednick,R. L.: Correlations

for Minimum FluidizationVelocity,Trans.,
Inst. Chem. Engrs. (1975)
53, 278-81.
70. Novotny, E. J.: ProppantTransport,paper
SPE 6813 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Denver,
Oct. 9-12.

83. Clark, P. E., Halvaci, M., Ghaeli, H., and

Parkp, C. F.: Proppant Transport by Xanthan
and Xanthan-tlydroxypropyl
Guar Solutions:
Alternativesto CroeslinkedFluids,~paper
SPE 13907 presentedat the 1985 SPE/DOE Low
PermeabilityGas ReservoirsSymposium, Denver,
thy 19-22.

NumericalSolution of Sand
71. Daneshy, A. A.:
Transport in Hydraulic Fracturing,~.
Pet.
Tech. (Jan. 1978) 132-40.
72. Barrington,L. J., Hannah, R. R. and Williams,
Do: Dynamic Experimentsand Proppant Settling
in CrosslinkedFracturingFluids, paper
SPE 8342 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Lee Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.

84. Dunand, A. and Soucermarianadin,A.: Concenon the Settling Velocitiesof

tration Effects
Proppant Slurriee,paper SPE 14259 presented
at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand
Exhibition,Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
85. Gottschling,J. C., Royce, T. N., and Shuck, L.
z.: NitrogenGas and Sand - A New Technique
for Stimulationof the Devonian Shale, paper
SPE 12313 presentedat the 1983 SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting, Champion,Nov. 9-11.

73. Zanker, A.: NomographyDetermine Settling

Velocitiesfor Solid-LiquidSystems, Chem.
~.
(Kay 19, 1980) 147.
74. Clark, P. E. and Quadir, J. A.: Proppant
Transport in Hydraulic Fractures: A Critical
Review of Particle SettlingVelocity Equations, paper SPE 9866 presentedat the 1981
SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityCaa Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 27-29.

Foamed FracturingFluids
86. King, G. E.: Factors Affecting Dynamic Fluid
Leakoff with Foam FracturingFluids, paper
SPE 6817 presentedat the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Denver,
Oct. 9-12.

75. Zigrang, D. J. and SyLvester,N. D.: An

Explicit Equation for Particle Settling Velocities in SoLid-LiquidSystems,AXChE J. (Nov.
1981) ~, 1043-44.

87. Harrie, P. C.: Dynamic Fluid Loss Characteristics of Foam FracturingFluids, paper
SPE 11065 preeentedat the 1982 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29.

76. Shah, S. N.: Proppant Settling CorreLationa

for non-NewtonianFluids Under Static and
Dynamic Conditions,SPE
- J. (April 1982)
164-70.

88. Ainley, B. R. and Charles, G. J.: Fracturing

Ueing a StabilizedFoam Pad, paper SPE 10825
presentedat the 1982 SPE/DOE Unconventional
Gas Recovery Symposium,Pittsburgh,Nay 16-18.

77. Clark, P. E. and Guler, N.: Proppant Traneport in Vertical Fractures: Settling Velocity
Correlations,*
paper SPE 11636 presented at the
1983 SPE/DOE Sympoeium on Low-Permeability,
Denver, Harch 14-16.

89. Harrie, P. C.: Effects of Texture on Rheology

of Foam FracturingFluids, paper SPE 14257

18

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

In-Situ Stress Contrasts,paper SPE 8937

presentedat the 1980 SPE/DOE Unconventional
G.ssRecovery Symposium,Pittsburgh,Hay 18-20.

presentedat the 1985 SPE Annual Technical

Conferenceand Exhibition,Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.
90. Harris, P. C.: Dynamic Fluid-Loss Characteristics of COZ Foam FracturingFluids, paper
SPE 13180 presentedat the 1984 SPE Annual Fall
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston,
Sept. 16-19.

101. Koerperich,E. A.: Shear-WaveVelocitiesDetermined from Long- and Short-SpacedBorehole

AcousticalDevices,
SPE. J. (Oct. 1980)
317-26.
102. Teufel, L. U.: Determinationof In-Situ
Stress from Anelastic Strain Recovery Heasurements of Oriented Cores, paper SPE 11649 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposiumon Low
Permeability,Denver, March 14-16.

91. Harris, P. C. and Reidenbach,V. C.: HighTernperature

TheologicalStudy of Foam Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 13177 presented at
the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand
Exhibition,Houston, Sept. 16-19.
92. Reidenbach,V. G., Harris, P. C., Lee, Y. N.,
and Lord, D. L.: TheologicalStudy of Foam
FracturingFluids Using Nitrogen and Carbon
Dioxide, paper SPE 12026 presented at the 1983
SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition,
San Francisco,Oct. 5-8.
93. Watkins, E. K., Wendorff, C. L., and Ainley, B.
R.: A New CrossLinkedFoamed Fracturing
Fluid, paper SPE 12027 presented at the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco,Oct. 5-8.
94. Wendorff, C. L. and EarL, R. B.: Foam Fracturing Laboratory,paper SPE 12025 presented
at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
5-8.
Exhibition,San Francisco,Oct.

103. Teufel, L. W.t Predictionof HydraulicFracture Azimuth from Anelastic Stain Recovery
Measurementsof Oriented Core, in Proc. 23rd
U.S. National Rock Mechanics Symposium (1982)
238-46.
104. Teufel, L. U.: In-Situ Stress State in the
Mounds Test Well as Determinedby the Anelastic
Strain Recovery Hethod, paper SPE 13896 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas
ReservoirsSymposium, Denver, Hay 19-22.
105. 8Lanton,T. L.: The Relation Setween Recovery
Deformationand In-Situ Stress Magnitudes,
paper SPE 11624 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE
Symposiumon Low Permeability,Denver,
March 14-16.
106.

95. Craighead,)4.S., Iiossaini,M., and Watson,

R. W.: Foamed Anhydroust4ethanolStimulation, paper SPE 12315 presented at the 1983
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Champion,
Nov. 9-11.
96. Craighead,M. S., Hossaini, M., and Freeman, E.
R.: Foam FracturingUtilizing Delayed Crosslinked Gels, paper SPE 14437 pre.!en~edat the
1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
In-Situ Stress Profilingand tleasurement
97. Aron, J. and Murray, J.: Formation Compressional and Shear IntervalTransit-TimeLogging
by Heans of Long Spacings and Digital Techniques, paper SPE 7446 presented at the 1978 SPE
Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhitlition,
Houston, Oct. 1-4.
98. Rosepiler,III.
H.: Dete-minetionof Principal
Stresses and the Confinementof Hydraulic Fractures in Cotton Valley, paper SPE 8405 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical
Conferenceand Exhibition,Laa Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.
99. Fertl, W. H.: Evaluationof Fractured Reservoir Rocks Using GeophysicalWell Logs, paper
SPE 8938 presentedat the 1980 SPE/DOE UnconventionalGas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh,
Kay 18-20.
M. D. and Jones, A. H.: A Wireline
100. VoegeLe,
Hydraulic FracturingTool for Determinationof

..-

14085

Blanton,T. L. and Teufel, L. W.: A Field

Test of the Strain Recovery Method of Stress
Determinationin Devonian Shale, paper
SPE 12304 presented at the 1983 SPE Eastern
RegionalMeeting, Champion, Nov. 9-11.

107. Blanton,T. L. and Teufel, L. W.: In-Situ

Stress Determinationfrom Wellbore Elongation
Measurements,paper SPE 13877 presentedat the
1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs
Symposium,Denver, May 19-22.
108. Teufel, L. W. and Warpinski,,N. R.: Determination of In-SituStress from Anelastic Strain
Recovery Measurements of Oriented Core: Comparison to Hydraulic Fracture Stress Ueasurements in the Rollins Sandstone,Proc. 25th
U.S. Symposiumon Rock Uechanics, Evanston
(June 1984) 176-185.
109. Warpinski,N. R., Branagan, P. and Wilmer, R.:
In-Situ Stress Measurementsat DOEs Hultiwell
ExperimentSite, Mesaverde Croup, Rifle,
Colorado,paper SPE 12142 presentedat the
1983 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition, San Francisco,Oct. 5-8.
110. Daneshy, A. A., Slusher, G. L., Chisholm,
P. T., and Magee, D. A.: In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling, paper SPE 13227 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical
Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston,
Sept. 16-19.
111. Lin, W.: Ultrasonic Velocities and Dynamic
Elastic Moduli of tlesaverdeRocks, report
UCID-20273,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Nov. 1984).

.438.- ----

1408s

RALPH U. VEATCH, JR. AND ZISSIS A. IIOSCHOVIDIS

112. Mao, N-H., Sweeney, J. J., Hanson, J. U., and

Costantino,M. S.: Using a Sonic Technique to
Estimate In-Situ Stresses,paper SPl?12850
presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRIUnconventional Gas Recovery Symposium,Pittsburgh,
Hay 13-15.
!:3. Newberry, B. M., Nelson, R. F. and Ahmed, U.:
Predictionof Vertical Hydraulic Fracture
Uigration Using Compressionand Shear Wave
Slowness,paper SPE 13895 presenl:edat the
1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs
Symposium,Denver, May 19-22.
114. Johnson, P. A. and Albright, J. N.: In-Situ
Physical PropertiesUsing Crosswell Acoustic
Data, paper SPE 13881 presentedat the 1985
SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 19-22.
115. ilmocoProductionCompany, in-house reports and
data by R. E. Dutton, J. H. Heidt,
A. C. Hojnik, W. K. Miller, B. W. Schlottman
and R. W. Veatch.
U. J. and Claiborne.E. B. Jr.: Ver116. Beznaud.
-,
tical FractureGrowth Considerationsin the
Hission Canyon/RatcliffeFormations of the
North AlexanderArea, paper SPE 14375 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
Fracture Happing
117. Wood, N. D., Pollard, D. D., and Raleigh, C.
B.: Determinationof In-Situ Geometry of
HydraulicallyGenerated Fractures Using Tiltmeters, Paper SPli6091 presentedat the 1976 SPE
Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition?New
Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
118. Smith, M. B., Holman, C. B., Fast, C. R., and
CoLvin, R. J.: The Azimuth of Deep Penetrating Fractures in the Uattenberg FieLd, ~.
Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1978) 185-93.

119. Schuster, C. L.: DetectionWithin the Wellbore of Seismic Signals Created by Hydraulic
Fracturing,paper SPE 7448 presented at the
1978 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-4.
120. Smith, M. B., Logan, J. M., and Wood, M. D.:
Fracture Azimuth - A Shallow Experiment,
Trans., ASME (June 1980) 102, 99-105.
121. Hanson, J. H. and Owen, L. B.: Fracture
OrientationAnalysis by the Solid Earth Tidal
Strain t4ethod,paper SPE 11070 presented at
the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition,New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.

19

paper SPE 11612 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE

Symposiumon Low Permeability,Denver,
March 13-16.
124. Teufel, L. W., Hart, C. M., Sattler, A. R., and
Clark, J. A.: Determinationof Hydraulic
FractureAzimuth by Geophysical,Geological,
and Oriented-CoreMethods at the Hultiwell
ExperimentSite, Rifle, Colorado, paper
SPE 13226 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston,
Sept. 16-19.
125. Hart, C. F!.,Engi, D., Fleming, R. P., and
Morris, H. E.: Fracture DiagnosticsResults
for the Hultiwell ExperimentsPaludal Zone
Stimulation,paper SPE 12852 presentedat the
1984 SPE/DOE/GRIUnconventionalGas Recovery
Symposium,Pittsburgh,May 13-15.
126. Fitz-Patrick,R. P., Karr, G., and OShea,
P. A.: A ComprehensiveFracture Geometry and
ProppantHapping Experiment: Part I - An Overview, paper SPE 13893 presented at the 1985
SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 19-22.
127. Smith, M. B., Ren, N.-K., Sorrells,G. G., and
TeufeL, L. W.: A ComprehensiveFracture Diagnostics Experiment: Part II - Comparisonof
Seven Fracture Azimuth Measurements,paper
SPE 13894 presentedat the 1985 SPE/DOE Low
PermeabilityGas Reservoirs Symposium,Denver,
May 19-22.
128. Lacy, L. L.: Comparisonof Hydraulic Fracture
OrientationTechniques,paper SPE 13225 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Houston, Sept. 16-19.
129. Griffin, K. W.: Induced Fracture Orientation
Determined in the Kuparuk Reservoir,paper
SPE 14261 presentedat the 198S SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.
130. Davis, P. M.: Surface DeformationAssociated
with Dipping Hydrofracture,~. Geophy. &.
(1983)
88, 67, 5826.

131. Evans, K.: On the Developmentof Shallow

Hydraulic Fractures as Viewed Through the Surface DeformationField: Part 1 - Principles,
J. .
Pet. Tech., Q, (1983) 406.
132. Evans, K. and Holzhausen,C.: On the Development of Shallow Hydraulic Fracturesas Viewed
Through the Surface DeformationField:
Part i - Case Histories,J.
Pet. Tech., ~,
(1983) 411.

122. Clark, .7.A.: The Predictionof Hydraulic

Fracture Azimuth Through Geological,Core, and
Analytical Studies, paper SPE 11611 presented
at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low Permeability, Denver, March 14-16.

133. Holzhausen,G. R., Card, C. C., Raisbeck,

J. M., and Dobecki, T. L.: Hydraulic Fracture
Growth During Steam Stimulation in a SingLeWell Test, paper SPE 13619 presentedat the
1985 SPE California ReEional Meeting.
..- Bakersfield, March 27 29.
-

123. Wood, N. D. et aL.: Fracture Proppant MapDing

Using Surface Superconducting14agne~ometers;
-

134. Dobecki, T. L.: Hydraulic Fracture Orientation Using Passive Borehole Seismics, paper

----439

-----

------

20

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,San
Francisco,Oct. 5-8.

SPE 12110 presentedat the 1983 SPE Annual

TechnicalConferenceand Exhibition,San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.

14085 -

135. Ba~chelor,A. S., Baria, R., and Hearn, K.:

llonitoring
the Effects of HydrauLicStimulation by !iicroseismic
Event Location: A Case
Study, paper SPE 12109 presentedat the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,
San Francisco,Oct. 5-8.
FracturingTreatmentDesign and Diagnostics
136. Nolte, K. G. and Smith, H. B.: Interpretation
of FracturingPressures,~. ~.
~.
(Sept.
1981) L767-75.

147. Nolte, K. G.; A General AnaLysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline,paper SPE L2941 submitted for publicationFeb. 1984.
148. Martins, J. P. and Harper, T. R.: Mini-Frac
Pressure Decline AnaLysis for Fractures
Evolving from Long PerforatedIntervalsand
Unaffectedby ConfiningStrata, paper
SPE 13869 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low
PermeabilityGas ReservoirsSymposium,Denver,
May 19-22.

137. Dobkins,T. A.: Improved Methods to Determine

Hydraulic FractureHeight, ?. ~.
~.
(Apr.
1981) 719-26.

149. Lee, W. S.: PressureDecline AnaLysis with

Christianovichand ZeLtov and Penny-Shaped
Geometry Model of Fracturing,paper SPE 13872
presentedat the 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability
Gas Reservoirs Symposium,Denver, May 19-22.

138. Abou-Sayed.A. S., Ahmed, U., and Jones, A.:

SystematicApproach to Massive Hydraulic Fracturing TreatmentDesign, paper SPE 9877 presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low-PermeabilityGas
ReservoirsSymposium,Denver, Hay 27-29.

150. Barrington,L. J., Whitsitt,N. F., and Hannah,

R. R.: Predictionof the Location and Movement of Fluid Interfacesin a Fracture, 1973
SouthwesternPetroleumShort Course Association, Lubbock, April 26-27.

139. White, J. L. and Daniel, E. F.: Key Factors

in MHF Design,g. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1981)
,
1501-12.

i51. Barrington,L. J. and Hannah, R. R.: FracturifigDesign Using Perfect Support Fluids for
Selected Fracture ProppantConcentrationsin
Vertical Fractures,paper SPE 5642 presented
at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand
ExhibitionFleeting,Dallas, Sept. 28 - Oct. 1.

140. Smith, M. B.: StimulationDesign for Short

Precise HydraulicFractures - HHF, paper
SPE L0313 presentedat t%e 1981 SPE Annual
TechnicalConferenceand Exhibition,San
Antonio,Oct. 5-7.
141. Schlottmen,B. W., t4ilLer,W. K. II, and
Lueders,R. K.: Massive Hydraulic Fracture
Design for the East Texas Cotton Valley Sands,
paper SPE 10133 presented at the 1981 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,San
Antonio,Oct. 5-7.
142. Nolte, K. C.: Fracture Design Considerations
Based on PressureAnalysis, paper SPE 10911
presentedat the 1982 SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, Tyler, May 20.
143. Smith, M. B., Rosenberg, R. J., and Ilowen,J.
FractureWidth - Design Vs. Measurement,
F.:
paper SPE 10965 presented at the 1982 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
144. Veatch, R. W. Jr. and Crowell, R. F.: Joint
Research-OperationsPrograms AccelerateMassive
HydraulicFracturingTechnology,~. ~.
T~re.
(tkSC.
1982) 2763-75.

152. Nolte, K. G.: Determinationof Proppant and

Fluid Schedules from Fracturing,paper
SPE 13278 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston,
Sept. 16-19.
153. Crawford, H. R.: Peoppant Schedulingand Calculation of Fluid Lost During Fracturing,SPE
Paper 12064 presented at the 1983 SPE 58th
Annual TechnicaL Conferenceand Exhibition,San
Francisco,Oct. 5-8.
154. Northrop, D. A., Sattler,A. R,, Mann, R. L.,
and Frohne, K. H.: Current Status of the MuLtiwell Experiment,paper SPE 12868 presented
at the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRIUnconventionalGas
Recovery Symposium,Pittsburgh,@lay13-15.
155.

Warpinski, N. R., Branagan,P. T., Sattlerj

A. R., Lorenz, J. C., Northrop, D. A., Uann,
R. L., and Frohne, K. H.: Fracturingand
Testing Case Study of Paludal, Tightt Lenticular Gas Sands, paper SPE 13876 presentedat
the 1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 19-22.

145.,Conway, M. D., McGowen, J. M., Gunderson, D.

W., and King, D. G.: Predictionof Formation
Response from Fracture Pressure Behavior,
paper SPE 14263 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual TechnicaL Conference and Exhibition,Las
Vegas, Sept. 22-25.

156. Sattler, A. R., Raible, C. J., and Call, B. R.:

Integrationof Laboratoryand Field Data for
Insight on the Hultiwell ExperimentPaludal
Stimulation,paper SPE 13891 presentedat the
1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs
Symposium,Denver, Hay 19-22.

146. Hedlin, W. L. and Fitch, J. L.: AbnormaL

Treating Pressures in MHF Treatments,paper
SPE 12108 presentedat the 1983 SPE AnnuaL

157. Kim, C. N., Champion, J. H., and Cooper, G. D.:

Evaluationof FracturingResults in Deviated
Wellbores Through On-Site Pressure Measurement

440

RALPH W. VEATCH, JR. AND 21SS1S A. MOSCHOVID15

,, -- .

14085

and Post-FractureTemperatureSurvey, paper

SPE 14373 presentedat the 1985 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.
158. Rowley, J. C., Pettit, R. 1..,Hendron, R. H.,
Sinclair,A. R., and Nicholson, R. W.: Fracturing Opera~.ionsin a Dry Geothermal Reservoir, paper SPE 12100 presentedat the 1983
SPE Annual TechnicalConferenceand Exhibition,
San Francisco,Oct. 5-8.
159. 8ailey, D. E. and Wickham, J. F.: Sand Fracturing Vs. FractureAcidizing,paper SPE 12898
presentedat the 1984 SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting, Casper, May 21-23.
160. Smith, M. 8., Miller, U. K. II, and Haga, J.:
Tip ScreenoutFracturing: A Technique for
Soft, Unstable Formations,paper SPE 13273
presentedat the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Houston, Sept. 16-19.
161. Ahmed, U., Newberry, B. U., and Cannon, D. E.:
HydraulicFractureTreatment Oesign of Wells
Uith 14ultipleZones, paper SPE 13857 presented
at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs Symposium,Denver, May 19-22.

170. Daneshy, A. A~: On the Design of Vertical

Hydraulic Fractures,~.
Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1973)
84-97.
171. Ceertsma, J./and Haafkens, R.: A Comparison
of TheoriesforPredictingHidth and Extent of
Vertical HydraulicallyInduced Fractures,
Trans., ASHE (1979) 101. 8-1!.1.
172. Settari, A.: Simulationof Hydraulic Fracturing Processes,SPE
. J. (Dec. 1980) 487-500.
173. Clifton, R. J., and Abou-Sayed,A. S.: A VariationalApproach to the Predictionof the
Three-DimensionalGeometry of Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE 9879 presented at the 1981
SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas ReservoirsSymposium. Denver, May 27-29.
174. Palmer, I. D., and Darrell, C. D. Jr.: 3D
Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in the Presence
of Stress Variations,paper SPE 10849 presented at the 1982 SPE/ DE UnconventionalGas
Recovery Symposium,Pittsburgh,May 16-18.
17S. Palmer, I. D., and Carroll, H. 8. Jr.: fNumerical Solution for Height of ElofigatedHydraulic
Fractureswith Leakoff, paper SPE 11627 presented at the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low
Permeability,Denver, March 14-16.

162. A1-Khatib,A. PI.,King, A. R., and Uilson, M.

s.:
HydraulicFracturingDesign and Evaluation: A Case History, paper SPE 12482 presented at the 1984 SPE CaliforniaRegional
Pleeting,Long Beach, April 11-13.

176. Cleary, I!.P., Kavvadas, III.,

and Lam, K. Y.:
A Fully Three-DimensionalHydraulic Fracture
Simulator,?
paper SPE 11631 presented at the
1983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low Permeability,
Denver, March 14-16.

Real-Time Monitoringand Control Equipment

163. Cooper, G. D., Nelson, S. C., and Schopper,M.
D.: Im:rovingFracturingDesign Through the
U9e of an On-Site Computer System, paper
SPE 12063 presentedat the 1983 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.

177. Wheeler, J. A.,:

AnalyticalCalculationsof
Heat Transfer From Fractures,paper SPE 2494
presented at the 1969 SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium,Tulsa, A- :1 13-15.

164. Hannah, R. R., Barrington,L. J., and Lance, L.

c.:
The Real-Time Calculationof Accurate
FracturingPressure from Surface Measurements
Using Measured Pressuresas a Base, paper
SPE 12062 presentedat the 1983 SPE Annual
Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
165. Barrington,L. J.: ComputersatidMicroprocessors - Valuable Tools in Well Completions,The
Oil Man, 1985 Offshore Europe Exhibition,Ab~
deen, Sept. 10-13.
Fracture PropagationSimulationModels
166. Sneddon, 1. N.: The Distributionof Stress in
the Neighborhoodof a Crack in an Elastic
SoLid, Proc., Royal Sot. (1946) 187. 229.
167. Barenblatt,C. I.: MathematicalTheory of
EquilibriumCracks, Advances in AppLied
Hechanics (1962) ~, 55.
168. Ceertsma, J., and deKlerk, F.: A Rapid Method
of PredictingWidth and Extent of Hydraulically
Induced Fractures,*
~.
Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1969)
1571-81.

.441
,.

169. Howard, C. C. and Fast, C. R.:

~-~
nono:raPh ser~es$ SPE* Dallas

,-.21

178. Whitsitt, N. F. and Dysart, C. R.: The Effect

of Temperatureon StimulationDesign, ~. Pet.
Tech. (April 1970) 493-502, Trans.
AIME, 2=

179. Sinclair,A. R.: Heat Transfer Effects in

Deep Well Fracturing,<. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1971) 1484-92,Trans.,
AIM~251

180. Barrington,L. J., Hannah, R. R., snd Beirute,

R.: Post-FracturingTemperatureRecovery and
Its Implicationfor StimulationDesign, paper
SPE 7560 presentedat the 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition,Houston,
Oct. 1-4.
181. Mendelssohn,
D. A.: A Review of Hydraulic
Fracture Hodeling - Part I: General Concepts,
2D Ilodels,140tivationfor 3D Modeling,J.
Energy Resources~.
(Sept. 1984) ~,
369.
182. Uendelsohn,D. A.: A Review of Hydraulic
Fracture Modeling - Part 11: 3D Modeling and
Vertical Crowth in Layered Rock, ~. _
ResourcesTech. (Dec. 1984)
106, 543.

22

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES

TECHNOU3CY

The Phenomena of Rupture and

183. Griffith, A. A.:
Flow in Solids, Phil. Trans. Royal Sot. London
22H63-98.
(1920) Ser. A, .
184. Griffith, A. A.: Fracture Dynamics, in Frac(A Seminar
on the Fra~uring
turing of Metals
of Metals), Amer. Sot. for Metals, (1948)
147-66.

185. Carter, R. D.: Appendix I to paper by

G. C. Howard and C. R. Fast: Optimum Fluid
Characteristicsfor Fracture Extension,presenced at the 1957 ASME ;pring Meeting, HidContinent District, Division of Production,
Tulsa, April.
186. Keck, R. G., Clear, H. P., and Crockett, A.:
A Lumped Numerical Model for the Design of
Hydraulic Fractures,paper SPE 13862 presented
at the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRIUnconventionalGas
Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh,May 13-15.
,
187. Ingraffea,A. R., Shaffer, R. J., and Heuze,
F. E.: FEFFLAP: A Finite Element Program for
Analysis of Fluid-DrivenFracture Propagation
in Jointed Rock, UnconventionalGas Program
Reports UCID-20368 and UCID-20369 (March 1985).

IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
14085

196. Hirsh and Lothe, Theory of Dislocations,

McGraw-Hill,1968.
197. Kossecca,E.: Defects as Surface Distributions cf Double Forces,
Arch. t4ech.(1971) ~,
481-94.
198. Bui, H. D.: Applicationdes potentials eLastique a Letude des fissures planes de forme
arbitraireen milieu tridimensionnel,
Cencre
Res. Acad. Sci. Ser. A280, (1968) 1375,
m7-m.

199. Mastrojannis,E. N., Keer, L., and Mura, T.:

%rowth of Planar Cracks Induced by Hydraulic
Fracture,Int. ~. Numerical
Methods .
En~. ~,
41-54, (198~
200. Annigeri, B. S. and Cleary, M, P.: Surface
Integral Finite Element Hybrid (SIFEH) Method
for Fracture Mechanics, Int. J. Numerical
Methods ~.
~, 869-885 ~84~.
201. Clifton, R. J.: Recent Advances in the
Three-DimensionalSimulationof Hydraulic Fracturing, 19th MidwesternMechanics Conf.,
Columbus, Sept. 1985.

188. Narendran,V. H. and CLeary, H. P.: Analysis

of Growth and Interactionof Multiple Hydraulic
Fractures,t
Report 82-11, MIT Resource Extraction Laboratory (November 1982) also SPE 12272
(1983).

202. 8arree, R. D.: A PracticalNumerical SimuLater for Three-DimensionalFracture Propagation in HeterogeneousHedia, paper SPE 12273
presentedat the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium,San Francisco,Nov.

189. Horita, N., Whitfill, D. L., and Wahl, H. A.:

Stress Intensity Factor and Fracture CrossSectional Shape Predictions from 3D Hodel for
HydraulicallyInduced Fractures,paper
SPE 14262 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.

203. Nemat-Nasser,S. and Ghtsubo,H.: Fluid Flow

and Heat Transfer Through HydraulicallyInduced
Fractures in Hot, Dry Rock Hasses, ~. Pressure
Vessel
Tech. (Aug. 1978) 100, 277-284.

190. Bui, H. D.: An Integral Equationst4ethodfor

Solving the Problem of a Plane Crack of Arbitrary Shape, ~. Uech. ~.
Soiids, (1977) ~,
29-39.
E. N., Keer, L. H., and Hura, T.:
191. Ifastrojannis,
Stress Intensity Factor for a Plane Crack
Under Normal Pressure,
Int. ~. Fracture (June
1985) 15, ~,
192. Lam, K. Y. and Cleary, H. P.: Developmentof
a Fully Three-DimensionalSimulator for Analysis and Design of Hydraulic Fracturing,f
MIT
UFRAC Project Report, Resource ExtractionLaboratory, (June 1985).
193. Hura, T.: Micromechanicsof Defects in Solids,
tlartinusNijhoff Publishers (1982).
194. Cleary, H. P., et al.: Theoreticaland Laboratory Simulation of UndergroundFracturing
Operations,HIT-UFRAC First Annual Report,
Aug. 1981.
195. Hura, T.: The Continuum Theory of DisLocaAdvances in klaterialsResearch, 3,
tions,
H. Herman (cd.), IntersciencePublishers, 1968.

204. Clifton, R. J. and Abou-Sayed,A. S.: On the

Computationof the Three-DimensionalGeometry
of Hydraulic Fractures,paper SPE 7943 presented at the i979 SPE Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs,Denver, Hay 20-22.
205. Advani, S. H., Lee, K. J., Hamid, M. S., Gurdogan, O., and Khattab, H.: Fluid Flow,
Structural,and Fracture Mechanics Modeling
Associatedwith Hydraulic StimulationOperations, paper SPE 10846 presented at the 1982
SPE UnconventionalGas Recovery Symposium,
Pittsburgh,May 16-18.
206. Broek, D.: ElementaryFracture Mechanics,
Sijhoff and Noordhoff Publishers,1978.
207. Settari, A. and Cleary, H. P.: Development
and Testing of Pseudo-Three-Dimensional
Model
of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry (P3DH), paper
SPE 10505 presented at the 1982 SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium,New Orleans, Jan. 30 Feb. 2.
208. Palmer, 1. D. and Craig, H. R.: Modeling of
Axisyusnetric
VerticaL,Crowthin Elongated
Hydraulic Fractures and Applicationto First
MUX Stimulations,paper SPE 12879 presented at
the 1984 SPE/DOE/CRIUnconventionalGas
Recovery Symposium~ Pittsburgh,Hay 13-15.

,
23

RALPH W. VEATCH, JR. AND 21SS1S A. MOSCHOVIDIS

14085

209. Palmer, 1. 2 and Luiskutty,C. T.: A Model

of the Hydraulic FracturingProcess for Elongated Vertical Fracturesand Comparisonsof
Results with Other modeLs, paper SPE 13864
presentedat the 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability
Gas ReservoirSymposium,Denver, May 19-22.

CI

= fracturingfLuid viscosity
FLC

= reservoirfluid compressibilitycontrolled FLC

CII

= wall building controlledFLC

CIII

210. Meyer, B. R.: Frac Model in 3D-1: New Simulator Makes Fracture Design Routine,TechGas J., 87.
nolo~ (June 17, 1985) Oil
and .

211. Meyer, B. R.: Frac 140delin 3D-2: Proppant

PlacementAnalyzed,Technolog
y (JuLY 1, 1985)
Oil and
Gas J., 65.

cc

total combined FLC

cc

fracture-widthcompliance

wall building FLC

Cf

212. Meyer, B. R.: Frac Model in 3D-3: Hydraulic

FracturingSimulatorsCapabilitiesExamined,
Cechnolo
Gas J., 65.
gy (July 22, 1985) Oil
and

controlled

.= reservoirfluid compressibility,psz 1
.= hydraulicdiameter of the

fracture

Dl(t),D2(t)= transverselyisotropiccreep compliance

213. Advani, S. H., Khattab, H. and Lee, J. K.:

HydraulicFracture G* .netryModeling, Prediction, and Comparisons paper SPE 13863 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas
ReservoirsSymposium,Denver, Hay 19-22.

particlediameter

P
E

214. Thiercelin,M. J., Ben-Naceur,K., and LemSimulationof Threeanczyk, Z. R.:

DimensionalPropagationof a Vertical Hydraulic
Fracture,paper SPE 13861 presented at the
1985 SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs
Symposium,Denver, May 19-22.
215. Settari, A.: QuantitativeAnalysis of Factors
InfluencingVertical and Lateral Fracture
Growth, paper SPE 13862 presented at the 1985
SPE/DOE Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Hay 19-22.
216. Abou-Sayed,A. S. and SinhaV K. P.: Evaluation of the Influenceof In-Situ ReservoirConditions on the Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures
Using a 3D Simulator: Part 1 - Technical
Approach,paper SPE 12877 presented at the
1984 SPE/DOE/GRIUnconventionalGas Recovery
Symposium,Pittsburgh,May 13-15.
217. Abou-Sayed,A. S., Clifton, R. J., Dougherty,
R. L., and Morales, R. H.: Evaluationof the
Influenceof In-Situ ReservoirConditionson
the Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures Using a 3D
Simulator, Part 2 - Case Studies, paper
SPE 12878 presentedat the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRI
UnconventionalGas Recovery Sump>sium, Pittsburgh, May 13-15.

elastic modulus
E/(1-P2)

plane-strainelastic

modulus
f

fluid efficiency for the slurry

pad pumping time/totaltreatment

pumping time ratio

fa

gravity accelerationcomponent (a= 1,

2)

FG(t)

fracturegradient at time t, psi/ft

f
th

theoreticalfriction factor

measured friction factor

G(tD,t;)

dimensionlesspressure difference
function

gravity acceleration

fluid elastic moduLus

fluid viscous modulus

vertical fractureheight

consistencyindex of power Law fluid

Eq. (14)

stress intensityfactor (SIF)

Kc

critical stress intensityfactor

formationpermeability,Darcy

fracture Length, tip to tip

slope of fluid loss versus square root

of time plot, cc/Jmin

NOMENCLATURE
A

= empirical fit constants Eq. (1)

= material parameter,Eq. (14)

= area of fluid loss paper or core, cm2

Eq: (4)

= D2(t)/Dl(t),Eqs.

= empirical fit constor; Eq. (1)

.
f

= fluid loss coefficient FLC)

(16) ?nd (17)

Re

..m
44a

= (d U#)/I.I= particle ReynoLds number

fu? Newtonian fluid

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

24

= [d; U~2-n~]/K = particle

Reynolds
nu ber for non-Newtonianfluid

Re

Greek

= pseudoplasticityindex of power law

fluid

Eq. (24)

p (xl, x2)

= excess fluid pressure,

P*

= type ccrve

= volumetric flow rate

= fracture radius (Radial)

14085

= constant,Eq. (14)

= constant,Eq. (14)

= ratio of average
sure,
Eq. (18)

= formationporosity,fraction

A*

= 10ss ratio

= fracturingfluid viscosity, cp

= shear modulus, Eq. (23)

IJa

= apparent fluid viscosity

to wellbore net pres-

match decline

= position on the crack front

distance from a crack front

= ratio of permeableto fractureareas

P
=

= fluid density

Pp

= particle density

ax,a ,0
yz

= in-situ principal stress magnitudes

= fracture shape

f
c

= time

= time after

t
c

= fracture closure time

shut-in, Eq. (17)

AEX,AEY,AE

= dimensionlesstime

D
t
o
E*
D

= pumping time

t.
L

= total treatmentpumping time,

t
P
tl

= pad pumping time,

= differential

principal strain recov-

cries

Ap

= bottomhole

Ap/Ax

= pressuregradient

fracturingpressure minus
reservoir pressure,psi, Eq. (3)

Ap(tD,t~) = pressure differencefunction

= time of first shut-in pressuremeasurement, reins

= time of later shut-in pressuremeasurement, reins

Um

= terminal settlingvelocity

isotopicPoissonsratio

V;,V*

= transverselyisotropicPoissons
ratios

= fra:ture volume

= loss volume

2
v

= fluid velocity

v
a

= fluid velocity component (a = 1, 2)

v
c

= crack propagationvelocity
= Leak off velocity

= A(U /d )(b-n)/K= Weissenbergnumber

=P
= fracture width

Wi
w

= critic~: crack opening width

xl?

= reference tD values

t*

= reservoir fluid viscosity, cp

Fo

fracture surface domain

X2

cartesian coordinateson S
....

444

TA6LE
PI&d

COSDITI-S

TABLS 2

PDS DYNASIC FLUID W9S

(CULSIS**)

FLUIO RHSOtdKY FTIS FLUID LOSS TS2TS

(CUL61S2)

1SS2S

shear
Shear
Before

Delisnation
120

1)
2)

c
c

1)
2)

Shear

History
Ueac irm

see t

250

Sec
see

t 33s0
c
250

sac-
9--1

2W

,.C

mC-l

34
240

sac
,CC

1690
.C
120

120

After
60

See-l

17
120

sec

at

250

see-l

(see

1)

1-

** C-

2.s

24

s*c-l
S*C

2.5

24

see-
SeC-

120

C!C

120

120
120

s~c
ecc

t
t

120
120

21t-XL

66

(150)

0.50

0.13

1.02

0.48

TN-XL

93

(200)

0.41

0.15

o.a5

0.34

160

24.9

160

t 250
250

Sate

in%11 *1I

26.9
24.9

sec
sac

60
60

S*C:
*c

Velocity
in Cell
(rdsec)

History
Bestin#

13

TM-XL

93

(200)

s*

0.59

0.026

o.za

0.15

14

TS-KL

66

(150)

0.47

0.0s1

0.56

0.25

see Table
~ Pascal-see
Ts-XL =

1
= 1000 cp
-tal-crossl

trmwit
ion

1),

2)

- Shur
cell
Cell

inked

tbeorder

Ciut
re 1 isted
in
1 = Fluid flow
in 1.27
2 . fluid
flows in 0.64

they
occur.
u
hola
through
core.
cm wide uuhr
8pace

round

core.

mma

C01tPARISOS8 OF HAIIO-2J3SS ~FICISST

VALUSS OSTAIUI!O FWl TSSCWTICAL,
ANDC&SOLTS FSSSWSS 0FZL2~,
ASD UI~E
I SIP AMALYSI S
(Coo?ss,
ST Af.~*)

2he0rmt
Fe-t

Almond
Cotton
Valley
J-Ssnd
Mission
CayOn
COccon Valley
SeSer Sand
apriqer
Send
&rem
Kupmuk

(bum)

(Upper)

- 40 lbm $el/10DO
2 = 50 1arl/lmO
3 = hisb
cu~rac.re
4 = 50 lb
gel/lmO

*1

county. State

ion

t luid
lx

%eetwater,
US
Cherokee,
n
Adms,
co
lkKenxie,
WJ
Penola,
22
Usshim,
OX
Cddo,
0s
Kamuha,
WV
Sarth
Slope.
AK

-l
SA1
40
aal

Pamcsbilicy
(d)

1
2
3
5~a
4,a
2
6
7

::
1s.0
40.0

crosslinked
SFC
delsyed
crossl
inked WC
!k
~dllom
d crcwslinlmd
crosslinked
WC

t Final
ISIP lower
than initial
IsIp
F Taken frm
ISIPS during
the -in
prqpnt
S Screenout
problem
based
on theoretical

fracture
Ct , SIbercas

Cdftlwtt]
!!9dQ
m
.00231
.00063
.D@S6
.om30
.om92
.00091
.0019s
.00119
.00114

.01
.1
.1
.1
.1

UK

treatment
designs

ical

5
6
7
8

.m194s
.00050
.00051s
.rnom
.mo79s
.mos6
.m2a6
. mesa
.m336

*
=
=
=

*0-SOICR
AUwQd.
.00321
.00040
.00161
.M042
.m315
.00031
.m359
.m]za
.m179

Uierode
ISIP Analysis
ct[fc/hinl
Pxm
Xco

.0049s
.00040
.~+29
.DD395F
.om44
.oola2F
.00203
t

.m513
.mo40
t
.mo29
.m414F
.mo44
.mla6F
. m209
t

high
te~erat.re
50 lb
gel IIDDD gal crossl
25 1ael/10m
ad
uncrosslinbed
klm
10 ad
Sallins
a6enc/10m
ad
hydroc~rbon,
PIUS 52 hydrocarbon

follwing
mimifrac
based
on pressure
decline

Cc were

wccessf.1.

(x2)

inked

HPG

crosslinked

IAUJ!

LX#FAKI~
FsIcTIOS

TABLE 6

OF SSSULTS OF OIFFSSSST M!TISM)S PUS DSTESklIMIk12

UYOSAULIC FSACTUKi2 A211Uf7U AS A FUSCTMS OF OSFTfl Al TIM
DOE SULTISSLL KXPSSIHSST SITE
lfXh.S,
MfKJSAM
SIMIARY

OY sSASURED VESSlfS TflStMiTfICAL

FACNM
IN A UYOSAULIC PSACTORE

(IAASPINSKIse)

CTSUFSL,

Apparent

F1OW Sate
gp
(ttalsec)

Fluid

rcsc

Viscosity
Cp

MeiSht
fc (m)

fmlf ~h

10

( .00063)

so

(3.0)

1.0

1.39

20

(.0013)

12

(3. T)

1.0

2.45

30

( .0019)

12

(3.7)

1.0

2.15

Uater

zone
@xh

Interval

Upper Fluvial
1330-1565

(=!

water

40

(.002s)

15

(4.6)

3.11

1.0

50

lb

cel

20

(.0013)

20

(6.1)

20

2.15

10

50

lb

Sd

60

(.0025)

20

(6.1)

22

2.16

11

50

lb

zel

20

(.0013)

20

(6.1)

45

1.48

Directions

= Msmred

friction

= theoretical

factor

friction

[see

Eq.

factor

[see

(8)1
Eq.

Obmrvat

Cocstal

Paludal

Marine

H7tilo0
SSDW5
N74UH1

+
+
+

b1701Ailo0
klmsN5
M74k7!11

fl?awl

ki7SVt7

1171W0
sf191A

I162UM3
sA

s6Sklf9
u751A

k175Sflo0
M66uH3

k151ti21
N5911t220

Sk.41&14e
~

~~~

ions

+

+

n7sut7

In*itU

i0it8

SCYRSS OirQct

Stress

Oi rations

Strees

Core

Oirecc

ions

--

tial

ysit

ss2ui12*
-

7kl lbore

S66UMCI
ssxml

Caliper
fags
Telcviever
In-Situ

- Oriented

ss6vt15
SS5kl

Sredcoucs
m4Ui9
k17SkfH2

- Computer

Model ins

of

TOPPgrqhi

c Loadin#

974%
tla7u

s75kl
W33W

Smw
1179u

S2skl
ff73kl

IA65kl
sA9kl

SA

HA

--SA

SAm*a

sA

Fracture
sA

klA

5A

t150-700u

S0 Tectonic
Stress
Tectonic
Screls
of (1170kA)
TAMS

CeOlOBic

li70uilo
ssoUt15
I176U*11

Im-Si tu
(7)]

SON1
Faults
Surface
Fractures
Oriented
Core
Fractures
Cdcit*
Strain
hly8is

Strain
Iecovery
Oifferenci*l
Strain
Aaaly*i*

f th

Lower Fluvial
15s5 -1%35

FKSOICT2VK nsTnoDs
Paleo-Stress

f=

ST AL.[2)

5
OSSUVAT1lW lkETlfDOS

FLUIDS 4s0
(KIftK5Y

Pluid

nd POIP

0.4S2

by wt

fufmfdnxssFOSfee.
AM

socftmm.f.ss

21

-z,

Geopbyaical
Mapping
SOrebOle
Sei a-i c
t Lou

Biteologv

r Lmdins

shear

openhole

&t*8

bpresaion

Hydrmyprapylcur

O. 72% by

wt

Hydrorpropylgtur

O. 1S

by

wt

Sorate

0.302

by

wt

2anclutI

(ffFC)
(WC)

Searly

Ssvtnnim

Sesrly

Sewtonian

tlydrsul ic
Packer

TASLS
Crossl

inked

WC

Viatodastic;

Yield

SIMAKY
Cu=

Yield

Stres8

n3usDs

0S A21HUTH RSSULTS
TEsT

(SMI171,
E

0.4S2

by

C-

Uigb

Yield

wt

Mtbm

ut

Folyacrylmide

FsewdOpl*scic

Strass
SITS,

oKLAfmlu

ST AL.27)

Stress
Procedure

0.4S% by

Propriet&ry

Fluid

A-1

Vi coelascic;

Pmtudopla*t

Ii

Proprietary

Fluid

A-2

Viscoelmtic;
Stress

Very

Uigt.

ic
Yield

Tcue

~LE
fLICS
Dotmhole
Television
-liper
tqs

fA95k!

TILTNSTESS
Tilt8eters
cOSE ASALFSIS
Amlascic
Strain
Recovery
Laboratory
Core Analysis
Oi f ferent id
Strain
Curve
Differential
Uave Velocity

SEISHIC SLNITOSWC
Borehole
Seis-ic
SWte
Seismic

Azimuth

U95E

S66E
N30S
(DSCA
(DUVA)

WOE
--

3 -

F?*.

2 -

1/2 Length

of

MD

Ooo1

Micro

,1

,
I
,0s.1
.001006,01
1.0 10.0 100,
1
5 10 aoloo 1000 10,000100,000
InSituGas Pormotbili~

D#rclos
m
*k,

1-$tlChW

8tillwhtlWl

~-101#

.2911ccPI
IOF0@fltlW0,1041,
VMC)I.

2-ouk4d

tr8cwm Iuit.hmths

#m Onfmwlf

f&nutwr

!?mmiw8#
Irivm.

10(
160 Acres/Well
(re= 1320feet)
5(

150

2C

10

k=lmd
b

~
0

200

400

603

600

1000

12LIU

1600

Moo

OptimumEconomicFracture
Length(ft)

nupr8cwd9101tlr w. fmwn~
fOnnm&n,

..:.L ,
..
K
:..~

Legend

1600

!400

z
m

1200

m Fracture
Penetration
u Treatment
.- Volume

...
,:

.j

600

.,
i..

00

800

600

s
400

400

200
200

200

400
Fracture

500

600

700

200
)

Heigh(
(ft)

*M.6-mmOtlm
ctwhcwfmOF umumfruFmpwubnmdrm
tmml
m 1**,
*#~,
~

Froch,c
Penetrctkn
(ft)
F19.3-6rfu901n8t
wy0mpma!4kluvmln
rim, f0rm6.w
md.Rhulln01ns4.md

200

w01ulmfa@2,mo*n

CLOSURE STRESS, (1OUOS

psi)
cM9@flklNw, ~-~.s

FIo. s-61tut et PMwcc4tw4wI

447

200

EE!!!ml

150

100

I!EsE.1
5 o!
p

50

3000
2000
1000
FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY

4000
(kfw)

-1

5(

50
w

---..
kL_l
200
150
250
FRACTURE HALF LENGTH (ft)

100

a-h18Mmld Pm3mu Win-mn. h3cwdnn.h112Qhrmh

mw*~Muntr0m
7mln3710n
pmnsmwy. Eln3.
=

300

350

5a0105.mad47, s,e.n14

S.<

/ ..-

,..

60

y,y:,mm~,

/./4

/,+~

-/HH--

,,,,

,.,

/
20 ,
,

~-/

/---

40

..

.0

TM.XL ,8,- 034 Pa,eLas179*C ,

------- lM.XL ,13,- 0 15P**,,, 170m
,
--
IM.,L,
,, - 102P. XC ,,17SU

103024

TM

&

T,rne

Ho. lo-~~slw

XL ,14, -O%

---

,~

P*tec ,,37SU

607050

flnm)

m9u IlhlLwyDnd Imnpumumall dpladc

71UM
IOu.

,...;

lo-

lo-

DIFFERENTIAL
FIQ. 11Ltioll

=Odlkki)t.

C.,

OIIICIIMId lb

,03

,02

10

PRESSURE
veuwm

(bar)

di77uenlMl m

lb

WI-

-.

RIIMM$I
.

w
I
Q

14f185

-60lb HPG, 80F

70-

/
200 OCCURRING

~~ -

ti
G
~

30 -

20

z~

OCCURRING IN
FLUID LOSS CELL

FLUID LOSS

z
$
>

100 50 lb SILICA FLOURZ+

5% DIESEL

50 lb SILICA FLOUR *
5% DIESEL

01
0
20

40

60

100 120 140 160 160200220

S0

TIME (MINUTES)
Pia.12.-sffd OsPMdlmamlhm vl0whylna~
aPPmmvlaCOanYd
w. Ummd IaakOfl, Mad

ffti

240260

Wkmn*m@uMfOnbeQ

Parmy.~

. .

TEST CHAWER

FluidLoss

JD!!VES

mu

QS!!MSM

1.14k

.015

3!!.
I

&

flwlSOo

ma.11khamatk d dmlamk IluM wawraNm

mdHOwW0u9hrhdaay taaSeha!nkKnU1.
il

PUMPING TIME SINCE FIRST SHUTIN (MINUTES~

Paa. M-cummmdluPln
mma01wd4c+

8amaklml,

wamda.-

40 Lbs./1000 Gal, HPG/Tlte

After 30 Min. at 170 See-l
150F

511sec-1

10.0

1.0

lW

Blender Repared Gel

40 Lbs,/1000 Gal. HPG /T@nate Gel

After 30 Min. At l;,ia:l%c
100% Strain
AA

A&AAAAAAAA&AAAA4b AAAA~b
CFOSSLINKED

i!

170 Sec -1

AAAA

oo~~

400
Time (Sec.)

Pla. 17-WIUA d IMd pap+mlm ona!mrawaaam$onaa

~
MM wI. KnoK.

aEv*8*arf.laa

300
Tamwahraa1200F
Tawwfawaat
S50f

.
250 A
-

.A
AA4
A
AA

40 Lbs./ 1000 Gal. HPG Solution

Ambient Tarnparalure
100% Stiain

.o1oFRhJENCY

(RADISEC)

449

r =

Ol

300

----

. 250

1408. ~

30

TURBULANT TRANSPORT
-t

.,0 .

ig
*5

SETTLED BANK

1
.1

.2

.3

.4

SAND CONCENTRATION (SAND/SLURRY

.5
VOLUME)

Plexglass
Fracture Model

A -

U2Tlll==

B -

Expected

Proppant

Bank

D -

for Actual Fii

FrtMWring Case

Eal

Lzsdl

C -

t
o

PROPPANT

0.3

0.2

0.1

CONCENTRATION

maw~-!

~-

Frac Height > Equilibrium

Banking Height

(Volume Fractii)

Note: Dashed portions of curves Wkate

F*. il-earms VCkaew
* aon~

0.35

High Pwforation
Velocity Test

Frac Height < Equilibrium

Banking Heght

u-

uncertain behwx
~

--.

141-

PERMEABILITY

450

(*IO

W171

u wsAoOLs

d*AsmsMmsmMw

Mcssas

.l,oo,o~x
SHALE@

SHALE

~ND~ND
SHALE
SHALE
/
u

~Goao

SHALE
SHAL

g
o
&j

7W0 -

SAN

s
Z6000

~0

MOM
ARCH FRONTIER
CARTHAGE, (ETCV)
WCQDLAWN, (ETCV)

&
5000 1
t
5ooo6000700060ao
LSDS

kFmlm
16

pm

16

2022
8

1.1

LOG

CALCULATED

STRESS (PSI)

kftilm

{ 24

16

0.7
0.7

0.9

0.8

1.0

MWX-S

m,:

&.
A STC?

.:
I

Ala
08oo:oa49;cJm9
0
%:0 :?%
0%
0

RATC/FLOW

9 MIMIFRAC

41

c MINIFRAC

.u;qoo~
ACK

I
:

7170 H (21ssm)

~
TY;E
I
I

14u85

IV

I
I

I
I
I
,
I

I
I
I

I
>,,

til
&

.HVJ

i
I

TYPE

.n

LEAKOFF DOMINATED
STORAGE DOMINATED

2. -

t;=l.o
0s
0.2

m.

//

1. -p

I
I
I

!
4
I

.edue&F1us

mlwlala

~hscswm~
pss4mm, C.m!aq 01*. **

lwcl,

lclnNOfdw

u. ffl.adwfncnnu

OlsswmOut

:
0.5

1.0

0.8

o.2
i

ai-

;
/,

0. 1-

i~l;
0.0 5

I
0.05

01

0.5

0.2

to
I
1.

5.

2.

0,20 W*
00.050,1

,
k

c,

(Cd=l)

:;
I

Pad
~Tme,
0

E
~
m

slurry-d
t

fti

. 0

4-/

,0

0.2

t
/
:

Radial
e, =0.18

Computy Model

(f=d

--(

+0.05)

f=Q*

QSO.82
1
\ I

ti
jpl

02

i4
Injection

452
I

:+=;:::,/

0608

~c

Height

06 .::::

0.4

5.0 10.0

2.0

Constant
. H~ht

$-0<8
g

1.0

1.0

I
I

0.5

0.2

Time,

th

YE
r

a
g

$2W

1 1 I 1

14f185

... ... ... ..-..-..-..-....

..-....~.
...
-..-.. . ..
?

175
150.

... ..
........ ...

;.,, ;...

:*. (~@2qlE..

> :.

125,.;::
loo::!::~:

1?24 Ml

gg:Ty:,
*

}KH

DENSEZONE

-;.:.,;::;:
-50 ~
-10o

-6Zfm-

c-o

S-ZUIE

,&~i

5oloo150m
X(FEET)

150
125 . .
100

FoRMATnM
moP.

::lO:XIO%A
FLulovlscOs17Y
p.wzql
FwPlffi RA7E
,.,0 = 1S bblhmn

-8300.
1-

(
~mm

$
:-~-

C=o.lmfzl,.

U-ZONE

C. OJYJZtu . m

#J
&

&

:%

ES 6S
: #x&&E&e

-6s0w
C.o.ooz RI .%lfi
\l

-woo
6700

7@10

6&l

6h0

7100

hMIISEIUS

~811d0131U

gi

7ZO0

ti3WZ0MW4M0110i

&16c,nsmdks

Amd

B.

ILzbi

-A
-40
-60.

~-zmE

)be!

Ibbl

%
20

_.
d

163
lg

0,5

0 *O

140
u

CLOSURE
PRES6URE- PSl
W.42-Z%EWWM

005 c$foA

WIDTH (INCHES)

0.66 pm
L-ZONE

B
E3
%4

pERFORATIONS

-1oo
-125
-wow

FERFORATIWS

~
0

250

0.00

DENSEZONE

4?,4

PERFORATIONS

CASE B

(J.05 0.100.150.20

WIDTH (INCHES)

-75
-1oo
-125
x (FEET)

453

0.25

0.251

0.05 *b
O.OOO

:CABEA;

~ MAX, FRAc. WIDTH :

x WIDTH AT PERFB
;
10

~
ml
1500 2000
TOT. VOL. INJECTED (BBL)

0.30]

o.~~ti

CABEB

,m

.q-

,m

TOT. VOL. INJECTED (BBL)

400

CABEA

400800120016W
TOT. VOL. INJECTED (BBL)

300

200

100
-:d

+-...-.L.--.J
1000

500

TOT. VOL. INJECTED

600-

1500
(BBL)

- ~~ij~B

400

. ..

200
/
/.16

,,

---

TOT, VOL. INJECTED (BBL)

uma19h8.ca8t Adm.
Fb.UU81ud00d lmemum

2000