SPE-184855-MS

Application of Moving Reference Point MRP Method to Cotton Valley and

Travis Peak Sand Fracturing Treatments

H. M. Al-Husain, Saudi Aramco; M. Y. Soliman, University of Houston; N. A. Stegent, Halliburton Services

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

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

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The main objective is to extend the Moving Reference Point (MRP) application to hydraulic fracturing
treatments in the Cotton Valley and Travis Peak formations at east Texas. The ability to make corrective
decisions to the pumping schedule, as the treatment is ongoing, is one of the advantages of this
kind of analysis. An understanding of the treatment pressure-time trend as a diagnostic tool can
significantly improve the efficiency of future hydraulic fracturing treatments and enhance field development
optimization.
The MRP technique was developed by Pirayesh et al. (2013) as an improvement compared to the Nolte
and Smith (1981) method, which identifies in progress fracture propagation behavior during pumping.
Both works are based on the original power-law fracture propagation theory developed by Perkins and
Kern (1961) and refined by Nordgren (1972). Unlike Nolte-Smith, the MRP technique uses Cartesian-type
plot and treatment pressure-time record, assumes that the fracture goes through cycles of dilation, fracture
propagation, and height growth, and includes in its workflow a MRP that makes identification of the pressure
change mode easy and more reliable.
The results show the viability of the MRP technique in five wells completed across the Cotton Valley
and Travis Peak formations. The disadvantages in the Nolte-Smith method, in terms of closure pressure
(Pc) requirement and log-log scale, are compensated for by the MRP method through using the treating
pressure and a Cartesian-type plot. Unlike the net pressure (Pnet)-time log-log plot, the fracture behavior/
mode can be easily visualized by the e-time Cartesian plot. As suggested by the MRP method, the results
indicate that the fracture experiences alternating cycles of dilation, fracture extension, and height growth
during the pumping period because of the formation complexity, rather than continuous fracture propagation
as proposed by the Nolte-Smith model. The MRP reference point enables better handling of treating
pressure fluctuation and simplifies pressure change mode identification. Difficulties relating the fractures
physical description to the formation geology were encountered because of the unavailability of the wells
completion and petrophysical information. Subsequently, the results revealed the formation complexity,
and observations and recommendations were made to optimize future fracture designs, mainly through
early sanding out detection, fluid efficiency recognition, and larger treatment suggestions, and showing the
geological parameter's impact on the fracture behavior.
2 SPE-184855-MS

This paper is focused on the future fracture design improvement and what if the MRP was used
while pumping. It shows the advantages of using such a technique as a reliable pressure-time diagnostic
tool. The previous publications about the MRP discussed mainly the methodology and the fracture mode
physical description. This paper offers suggestions to ultimately enhance the Cotton Valley and Travis Peak
formations development and helps operators to make proper decisions on the fly during fracture treatments.

Introduction
The application of the Moving Reference Point (MRP) method as a fracture pressure diagnostic tool is
limited to vertical plain fractures. It is desired for a fracture to extend deeply into the formation to increase
the reservoir contact area, thereby increasing the productivity index. Of course, according to Economides
and Nolte (2000), the depth of penetration design should be controlled by the rock productivity. For vertical
fractures to penetrate the rock, they must be confined by top and bottom barriers. The fracture width has an
elliptical shape across the fracture height, Fig. 1, which neglects the slippage effect. In this case, the fracture
propagating pressure is in an increasing trend with time, as Perkins and Kern (1961) presented, which is in
line with most field observations. This concept is improved by Nordgren (1972), concluding that the Pnet of
Newtonian fluids increases proportionally to time raised to an exponent, as shown in Eq. 1:
(1)

Figure 1PKN fracture geometry sketch.

Later, Nolte (1979) generalized the boundary for the power-law fluid (such as fracturing fluid) in Eq.
2, as follows:

(2)

where n is a fracturing fluid flow behavior index and generally between 0.5 and 1. For Newtonian fluids,
the value of n is equal to 1.
The main assumptions of the Perkins, Kern, and Nordgren (PKN) fracture model, Fig. 1, are as follows:
1. The vertical fracture is contained across the target zone (bounded with barriers from top and bottom),
which means a constant fracture height.
2. The target zone is a homogenous elastic formation with no slipping effect.
3. The fracture treatment is conducted at a constant rate. Therefore, any pressure change is a result of
a fracture geometry change.
4. The fracture has two symmetrical wings created by a power-law fluid.
5. The fracture extends horizontally and continuously during pumping.
SPE-184855-MS 3

Nolte and Smith (1981) consider the previous assumptions. They use a log-log plot for fracture mode
identification; therefore, the e value in Eq. 1 is defined as the slope of any straight line formed in the Pnet-
time plot. A logical probable explanation of the pressure-time trend is proposed based on the relationship
between the fluid flow, Eq. 3, and continuity, Eq. 4:

(3)

where K = power-law coefficient (related to fluid viscosity), qi = flow rate, L = fracture length, h = fracture
height, and C = fracture compliance = b/Pnet where b is the average fracture width.
(4)
where qi = total injected rate, ql = sum of the fluid loss rate, and Vf/t = fracture volume change with time.
Nolte and Smith (1981) conclude, Fig. 2, that if the slope is between 0.13 and 0.25, the fracture is behaving
in normal confined height extension, as suggested by the PKN model. When the slopes are equal to 0, 1, or
negative, the physical description indicates high leakoff resulting from the opening of fissures/fractures or
controlled fracture height growth, the fracture acting as a fluid storage (dilation), or a rapid height growth
into the adjacent barriers, respectively.

Figure 2Nolte-Smith modes illustration chart.

MRP Technique Development

The MRP method by Pirayesh et al. (2013) was based on the Nolte-Smith technique. The inclusion of basic
testing technology made fracturing pressure analysis easier and more reliable because less information was
required; it also expedited decision making process in the field because a different plot type was used. The
MRP method requires only the treatment pressure-time records; the use of bottom-hole pressure (BHP)
measurement is advised to eliminate pipe friction effects. Unlike the Nolte-Smith, the assumption is that
the fracture undergoes cycles of dilation, fracture extension, and height growth. The Nolte-Smith reference
point refers to when the treatment started (ti = 0), whereas the MRP is moving but began at the moment
of fracture growth. A stationary reference time (time = 0) makes the identification of changes of pressure
mode difficult or even impossible, unless the change occurs over a long period of time.
4 SPE-184855-MS

The basic MRP form of the power-law equation (Eq. 5) includes the reference point parameters (Pi, ti)
as follows:
(5)
After a few logical steps, the mathematical expression to calculate e is achieved in Eq. 6:

(6)

Pirayesh et al. (2013) suggest an interpretation of the e-time curve trend. An e value of approximately
0.25 is an indication of normal fracture extension. An e value of approximately 1 is an indication of dilation,
which is accompanied with a low rate of fracture extension. In cases where the e value drops below zero,
the physical description is rapid height growth. When the e value is approximately zero, the explanation is
that fluid loss resulting from a fissure opening or controlled fracture height growth regulates the fracturing
pressure.

MRP Technique Application

This study involves five hydraulic fracturing treatments that were performed in vertical wells located in
east Texas, USA four in the Cotton Valley and one in the Travis Peak sand formations. The MRP was
tested with encouraging results in several fracpack and shale formation treatments. This study represents
an effort to expand the MRP application.
Jennings and Sprawls (1977) report a general map of the Cotton Valley that is well accepted and involves
the depositional trend and areas of interest. Holditch et al. (1987) describe the Travis Peak sand formation
as a complex spreading system and shows a stratigraphic cross-section of the lateral deposition.
Because of the lateral and vertical complexity of both formations, the following cases are not unique to
them. Therefore, the analysis is expected to be varied from one area to another. Before showing each MRP
analysis case, a geological brief related to its respective reservoir will be discussed.

Cotton Valley Sand Fracturing Treatments

According to Liu et al. (2011), the Cotton Valley formation in east texas is consolidated fine sandstone
laminated with mudstone, siltstone, and carbonate sheets. The gas sand reservoirs are within various
geological depositions, such as stacked shoreface/barrier bar, tidal channel, tidal delta, and inner shelf and
back-barrier.
Brown and Forgotson (1980) consider the Cotton Valley sand "tight", therefore, massive hydraulic
fractures and commingling as many layers as possible are needed to economically produce the gas wells.
The producing zones in this formation have porosity and permeability ranges of 8% to 12% and 0.005 md
to 0.05 md, respectively.
Case 1 MRP Method Analysis. The provided data, dated July 1999, included calculated BHP, surface (SRF)
proppant concentration, and slurry rate, Fig. 3. The fracture propagation stabilizes at approximately 112
min at a constant injection rate of 20 bbl/min. At approximately 136 min, proppant (20/40-mesh sand) was
pumped in a rampup schedule to a maximum concentration of 8 lbm/gal. The total amount of the injected
proppant was approximately 274,800 lbm. The e values were calculated and similarly to how Pirayesh et
al. (2013) smoothed the data, a default strandline of a 200 period-point moving average of the calculated
e values is presented in Fig. 4. The green region indicates that the fracture propagates normally, while the
red region signifies dilation or sanding out. Negative e or zero values indicate rapid height growth or severe
fluid loss, respectively.
SPE-184855-MS 5

Figure 3Case 1 treatment chart in the Cotton Valley formation.

Figure 4Case 1 MRP method e-time plot of the treatment in the Cotton Valley formation.

As shown Fig. 4, two cycles of uncontrolled fracture height growth occurred between 117 and 135 min.
During this period of time and after the first cycle, the fracture extended normally for approximately 3
min. Subsequently, the fracture propagated normally at various extension rates for approximately 15 min.
After that, the fracture experienced phases of severe fluid loss in which the fracture dimensions did
not change significantly and fracture extension between 152 to 171 min. Subsequently, the e values
increased dramatically to the red region, which indicates sanding out, and then the treatment was aborted
at approximately 187 min.
Fig. 3 indicates that the sanding out process was observed by the operators at 184 min. The well was over
flushed for approximately 4 min. The e-time plot indicated the sanding out symptoms when the e values
increased sharply above the green area at approximately 173 min. It was an advantage to identify such a
fracture mode more than 10 min earlier than previous techniques allowed.
Unfortunately, the openhole logs and well schematics, including the perforation intervals, were not
available. Accurate e-time trend interpretation related to the Cotton Valley geology was not possible. Even
if multiple perforation intervals were created, a valid assumption is that the first fracture was initiated across
the most relatively permeable and brittle layer. From Fig. 4, it appears that the fracture was created across
a thin layer; therefore, the boundaries capacity was exceeded quickly because the fracture height grew
at the beginning of the treatment, as demonstrated by the two cycles of negative e values. Subsequently,
the fracture propagated normally at various extension rates for approximately 15 min. Boundaries with
6 SPE-184855-MS

high clay content probably confined the fracture. After that, the fracture could intersect with the carbonate
formation dominate system, which was the cause of the fluid loss mode for approximately 18 min followed
by sanding out.
From the data analysis and without much knowledge of the treatment schedule, the treatment could be
improved by reducing the pumping rate below the boundary layers capacity, revisiting the fracturing fluid
design to be more efficient in the carbonate system, and reducing the proppant concentration because of
high leakoff, leading to sanding out. It is likely that an earlier overflush would have enhanced the treatment
efficiency unless it was intended to keep pumping to obtain a wider fracture near the wellbore for better
well production.
Case 2 MRP Method Analysis. The provided data, dated January 1995, included calculated BHP,
SRF proppant concentration, and slurry rate, Fig. 5. The recorded pressure fluctuated at the beginning
of the treatment because of variable pumping rate. Then, the injection rate stabilized at 25 bbl/min. At
approximately 150 min, the pumping of proppant (20/40-mesh sand) was started in a rampup schedule,
reaching a maximum concentration of 5 lbm/gal at the end of the treatment. The total amount of the injected
proppant was approximately 526,700 lbm. The e values were calculated and then the default strandline was
plotted against the corresponding time, Fig. 6. After the pumping rate stabilization, analysis is presented
and started at around 150 min.

Figure 5Case 2 treatment chart in the Cotton Valley formation.

Figure 6Case 2 MRP method e-time plot of the treatment in the Cotton Valley formation.
SPE-184855-MS 7

As shown in Fig. 6, the fracture was propagating normally in a confined fracture-height mode. The rate
of fracture extension slowed as the fracture grew wider when the e-time curve increased above the green
area at approximately 237 min. This plot suggests that the fracture design was performed properly and the
treatment could be extended for a longer time to achieve a larger half-length fracture. In addition, the fracture
behavior indicated that the Case 2 area of the Cotton Valley formation is less complex than that of Case 1.
Case 3 MRP Method Analysis. The provided data, dated May 1994, included calculated BHP, SRF
proppant concentration, and slurry rate, Fig. 7. The recorded pressure clearly fluctuated during the
entire treatment, but generally in an increasing trend, because of entry issues related to perforations and
wellbore tortuosity. The injection rate was erratic at approximately 16 bbl/min. At approximately 122
min, the pumping of proppant (20/40-mesh sand) was started in a rampup schedule, reaching a maximum
concentration of 6.5 lbm/gal at the end of the treatment. The total amount of the injected proppant was
approximately 556,000 lbm. The near-wellbore complexity affected the treatment smoothness. Despite
the uncertine results, the e values were calculated and then the default strandline was plotted against the
corresponding time, Fig. 8. Results indicated that the MRP was capable of managing the fluctuating pressure
during the treatment because of the innovative MRP process imbedded in the MRP technique's workflow.

Figure 7Case 3 treatment chart in the Cotton Valley formation.

Figure 8Case 3 MRP method e-time plot of the treatment in the Cotton Valley formation.

Because of the pressure fluctuation, it was difficult to obtain a precise interpretation. A shown in Fig. 8,
the fracture experienced cycles of normal propagation mode and severe leakoff, which was accompanied
with limited fracture height growth. This plot suggests that the treatment could be extended for a longer time
8 SPE-184855-MS

to achieve a larger half-length fracture if the general increasing trend of the treating pressure is considered
and if the sudden pressure drops were ignored. Slugs of sand could have been pumped to mitigate the near
wellbore tortuosity prior the main job to smooth the treatment. The fracture behavior indicated that the Case
3 area of the Cotton Valley formation is similar to the Case 2 area and less complex than that of Case 1.
Case 4 MRP Method Analysis. A minifrac was conducted before the main treatment of Case 3 discussed
previously and an injection test followed, which is used as Case 4. Fig. 9 shows the treatment chart, which
includes the calculated BHP and slurry rate. Analysis started when a stabilized condition was established at
93 min after the formation breakdown. The pumping time at an average rate of 15 bbl/min was approximately
19.3 min total of 290 bbl pumped followed by a shut-in time of approximately 58 min. The treating
pressure was observed to decrease significantly at 100 min. According to the operator, the injected fluid
was changed from crosslinked gel to linear gel at that time; therefore, the pressure decrease was caused
by pipe friction loss. The significant pressure decrease of approximately 1,900 psi after shutting in the
well confirmed the pipe friction loss, which indicated that the installed tubing was underdesigned for
fracturing purposes; however, a low expected production rate may have governed this choice to avoid liquid
loading. Subsequently, a significantly long pressure oscillation was observed, indicating a moderate to low
permeability formation.

Figure 9Case 4 treatment chart in the Cotton Valley formation.

Although changing the injection fluid properties violated a primary assumption of the PKN model, the
e-time curve was calculated and then the default strandline was presented, Fig. 10, showing an interesting
result. The fracture propagated normally using the crosslinked gel, but when the fluid was changed to linear
gel, severe fluid loss occurred, indicating low fracturing fluid efficiency. This result illustrates that the
crosslinked gel (lower leakoff) was more viable in the area of this well than the linear gel.
SPE-184855-MS 9

Figure 10Case 4 MRP method e-time plot of the treatment in the Cotton Valley formation.

Travis Peak Sand Fracturing Treatments

Holditch et al. (1987) investigated the effectiveness of hydraulic fracture treatments in the Travis Peak
formation in east Texas and north Louisiana using many field cases. This formation consists of both
lenticular and sandstone sheets with a gross thickness of 1,500 ft to 2,000 ft. Most of the sand layers have low
permeability; some are high permeability intervals. Holditch et al. (1987) distinguished and characterized
the following four types of sandstone layers:

Type I: "A tidal channel or prograding tidal flat in a shallow marine embayment. It is a fining
upward sequence grading into siltstone and mudstone. The unit has fair lateral continuity and
generally represents a low grade reservoir rock."
Type IA: "Generally, is a Type I sand with numerous shaly interbeds, which account for the
irregular gamma ray log. The highest permeabilities were found in this unit; however, the areal
distribution of permeability is fairly limited as significant thinning and increased shale bedding
occurs in nearby offset wells."
Type II: "A high energy tidal flat, which prograded rapidly over the underlying shale. Typified by
sharp upper and lower boundaries, this sand is one of the more laterally continuous reservoirs
in this study. Very high permeabilities were measured from this sand, but it is generally very thin
(only 2 ft to 5 ft)."
Type III: "A tidal flat but with more mixed lithology. The sand is characterized by ripple
crossbedding, burrowing and stringers of siltstone and mudstone. Increased mud content accounts
for the very low grade of reservoir rock."
Case 5 MRP Method Analysis. The provided data, dated October 1997, included calculated BHP, bottom-
hole proppant concentration, and slurry rate, Fig. 11. The fracture propagation stabilized at approximately
70 min because the recorded pressure became consistent. The pumping rate fluctuated approximately 8.5
bbl/min. At approximately 115 min, proppant (20/40-mesh sand) was pumped in a rampup schedule but was
interrupted at approximately 140 min. The total amount of injected proppant was approximately 82,855 lbm.
Results showed that the MRP was capable of managing the fluctuating pressure during the treatment. The e
values were calculated and then the default strandline was plotted against the corresponding time, Fig. 12.
10 SPE-184855-MS

Figure 11Case 5 treatment chart in the Travis Peak formation.

Figure 12Case 5 MRP method e-time plot of the treatment in the Travis Peak formation.

The behavior of the e-time curve shown in Fig. 12 is similar to a case reported by Soliman et al. (2014),
which was a fracture treatment in the Eagle Ford shale (Stage 9). They reported three major natural fractures
that were identified because of the occurance of three major cycles of severe fluid loss interpreted rather
than fracture height growth followed by dilation. In the present case, a similar behavior appeared because
the Travis Peak formation includes layers of shale. Unfortunately, the openhole logs and the well completion
were not available. Multiple perforation intervals were created; a valid assumption is that the initial fracture
was initiated first across the most permeable layer (Type II) and/or the most brittle layer because of low
clay content (Type I). Two major fracture height growths through shale systems/barriers (Type IA) could be
recognized by two cycles of fracture height growth in addition to the severe fluid loss because of opening
natural fracture followed by dilation between time 80 min and 120 min, due to high fluid efficiency and
shale ductility. Subsequently, a long period 28 min of rigorous leakoff was observed, which could
be interpreted as intersecting with minor fracture systems. This may not be accurate because the proppant
schedule was interrupted between 139 min and 155 min followed by sanding out as the BHP increased
dramatically. Therefore, a precise fracture behavior interpretation after 139 min could not be obtained.
With respect to the treatment quality, the treatment appeared consistent until the proppant rampup
schedule was interrupted. At 150 min, the proppant concentration began to increase at a high rate, which
caused the sanding out. If the proppant plan was conducted properly, the fracture treatment could be
extended and a longer fracture half-length achieved.
SPE-184855-MS 11

Although low viscosity fluid is often used in tight sand and shale formations, the Travis Peak formation
includes high permeability streaks within the Type IA and Type II layers. The high permeability streaks
may be the reason for the observed zero e values after each dilation and height growth or natural fracture
intersection. The high permeability contrast between the layers probably affected the fracture behavior. In
addition, the fluid loss mode time period could be the filter cake building time. Therefore, adjusting the
fluid viscosity design was appropriate and may improve the treatment.

Conclusions
The results show the viability of the MRP technique in wells completed across the Cotton Valley and Travis
Peak formations in east Texas. The disadvantages in the Nolte-Smith method, in terms of Pc requirement and
log-log scale, are compensated for by the MRP method through using the treating pressure and a Cartesian-
type plot. Unlike the Pnet-time log-log plot, the fracture behavior/mode can be easily visualized by the e-
time Cartesian plot. As suggested by the MRP method, the results indicate that the fracture may experience
alternating cycles of dilation, fracture extension, and height growth during the pumping period because of
the formation complexity, rather than a continuous fracture propagation as proposed by the Nolte-Smith
model. The MRP enables better management of treating pressure fluctuation and simplifies changes in
pressure mode identification.
The main lessons learned from applying the MRP method to analyze the fracture treatment pressure-time
data include the dollowing:

From Case 1, using the MRP method enabled the indentification of sanding out more than 10 min
earlier, which was an advantage, than monitoring the increasing treating pressure at the surface
equipment, unless a longer pumping time was intended to obtain a wider fracture near the wellbore
for better well production.
From Case 1, revisiting the fracturing fluid design is advised to handle the carbonate system
embedded in the Cotton Valley formation properly.
From Cases 2 and 3, the MRP method showed that extending the fracturing treatment for a longer
time was possible in the area of the well of the Cotton Valley formation to achieve a longer fracture
half-length.
From Case 4, using a linear gel was not efficient for creating a fracture across the Cotton Valley
formation at the well location. Instead, the use of a cross-linked gel is preferable.
From Case 5, because of the high clay content in some of the Travis Peak layers, the fracture dilation
was similar to that in shale formations. This might mislead an operator with a limited geological
background to terminate the fracturing treatment early. Analysis showed that it would be better to
continue pumping as planned or until the surface pressure equipment limit is reached.
From Case 5, the high permeability streaks (in Type IA and II layers) may account for the
observed zero e values after each dilation and height growth or natural fracture intersection. The
high permeability contrast between the layers probably affected the fracture behavior. Therefore,
modifying the fluid viscosity design could improve the treatment.

Acknowldgment
The authors of this paper thank Saudi Aramco and Halliburton for allowing this work to be published.

Nomenclature
b Average fracture width, in
C Constant
e Time exponent
12 SPE-184855-MS

h Fracture height, ft
K Power-law coefficient related to fluid viscosity
L Fracture length, ft
n Flow behavior index
Pnet Net pressure, psi
Pc Closure pressure, psi
P Surface or bottomhole pressure, psi
Pi Pressure of begin a new period, psi
qi Injection/flow rate, ft3/min
ql Leak-off rate, ft3/min
t Time, min
ti Time of begin a new period, min
Vf Fracture volume, ft3

References
Brown, R.O. and Forgotson, J.M. 1980. Predicting the Orientation of Hydraulically Created Fractures in the Cotton Valley
Formation of East Texas. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 21
24 September. SPE-9269-MS. doi:10.2118/9269-MS.
Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G. 2000. Reservoir Stimulation, third edition. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Holditch, S.A., Robinson, B.M. and Whitehead, W.S. 1987. The Analysis of Complex Travis Peak Reservoirs in East
Texas. Presented at the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 1819 May. SPE-16427-MS.
doi:10.2118/16427-MS.
Jennings, A.R. and Sprawls, B.T. 1977. Successful Stimulation in the Cotton Valley Sandstone A Low-Permeability
Reservoir. J Pet Tech 29 (10): 12671276. doi:10.2118/5627-PA.
Liu, S., Spain, D.R., Devier, C. et al. 2011. Integrated Petrophysical Study of a North America Tight Gas Sand:
Cotton Valley Formation, East Texas. Presented at the SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, 1418 May. SPWLA-2011-D.
Nolte, K.G. 1979. Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline. Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2326 September. SPE-8341-MS. doi:10.2118/8341-MS.
Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B. 1981. Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures. J Pet Tech 33 (09): 17671775. SPE-8297-
PA. doi:10.2118/8297-PA.
Nordgren, R.P. 1972. Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture. SPE J 12 (04): 306314. SPE-3009-PA.
doi:10.2118/3009-PA.
Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R. 1961. Widths of Hydraulic Fractures. J Pet Tech 13 (09): 937949. SPE-89-PA.
doi:10.2118/89-PA.
Pirayesh, E., Soliman, M.Y. and Rafiee, M. 2013. Make Decision on the Fly: A New Method to Interpret Pressure-
Time Data During Fracturing Application to Frac Pack. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September2 October. SPE-166132-MS. doi:10.2118/166132-MS.
Soliman, M.Y., Wigwe, M., Alzahabi, A. et al. 2014. Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Data in Heterogeneous Shale
Formations. Hydraulic Fracturing Journal 1 (2).