&/La
Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its
Application in Oilfield Operations
Ben A. Eaton, SPJA41ME, Continental Oil Co.
Introduction
The subject of many discussions and technical papers
in the last 20 years has been the prediction of the well-
bore pressure gradients that are required to induce
or extend fractures in subsurface formations. The sub-
ject merits this attention because of the frequently
recurring problems that arise from an inabtity to
predict fracture pressure gradients.
Encountered in several common types of opera-
tions in the oil indust~ are problems associated with
the prediction of formation fracture pressure gradi-
ents. When wells are being drilled in both new and
old fields, lost circulation is often a very troublesome
and expensive problem. Complete loss of circulation
has been disastrous in some cases. Many times, such
disasters could have been avoided if techniques for
calculating fracture pressure gradient had been em-
ployed in the well plans, and if casing strings had been
set, and mud weight plans had been followed accord-
ingly. In areas of abnormally pressured formations,
the prediction of fracture gradients during the well-
planning stage is extremely important. In fact, it is as
important as the prediction of formation pressure
gradients, which has received a great deal of attention
in recent years.
There are several published methods used to deter-
mine fracture pressure gradients. However, none of
these methods appears to be general enough to be
used with much reliabdity in all areas. In 1957, Hub-
bert and Willis published a classical paper that in-.
eluded the development of an equation used to predict
In arriving at a new method of predicting formation fracture gradients, it wasfound that
overburden load, Poissonsratiofor rocks, and pressure gradients vary withdepth.
Although the method wasdeveloped specificallyfor the Gulf Coast, it should be highly
reliable for all areas, provided that the variables reflect the conditions in the specifi
area being considered.
OCTOBER, 1%9
the fracture extension pressure gradient in areas of
incipient normal fauMng.* Overburden stress gradi-
ent, formation pore pressure gradient and Poissons
ratio of rocks were the independent variables that
were shown to control fracture pressure gradient, the
dependent variable.
In 1967, Matthews and Kelly pubIished another
fracture pressure gradient equation that is different
from that of Hubbert and Willis in that a variable
matrix stress coefficient concept was utilized.8 Later
tie same year, Costley wrote about a similar idea.5
Goldsmith and Wilson used a least-squares curve-
fitting technique and field data from the Gulf Coast
aree to correlate fracture pressure gradient with for-
mation pore pressure gradient and formation depth.4
They noted that the fracture pressure gradient in-
creased with increasing depth while the pore pressure
gradient remained constant+
In each of these cases, the problem for which a so-
lution was sought was to determine the bottom-hole
pressure gradient required to initiate or extend a frac-
ture. Results of the previous work show that fracture
pressure gradient is a function primarily of overbur-
den stress gradient, pore pressure gradient, and the
ratio of horizontal to vertical stress. There is argu-
ment for a fourth variable in that in many cases break-
down fracture pressure gradient is greater than the
fracture extension pressure gradient. However, if the
fracturing fluid is able to penetrate the formation
through the pores or existing cracks, there is very little
13s3
difference in the two fracturing pressure gradients. data of Figs. 1A and 1B. Note that pW/D increases
Therefore, since field data are used here and since it only when p/D increases. Similarly, the log data for
is not possible to know for certain whether or not a Well B were used with Fig. 1B to determine the pres-
wellbore contains natural fractures or faults, this dif- sure gradient of Well B. The results make up Curve 1
ference will not be discussed further. of Fig. 5. Curve 2 of Fig. 5 shows the fracture gradi-
One independent variable that partially controls the ent computed by the Hubbert and WMis equation.
fracture pressure gradient is the formation pore pres- The same behavior is to be observed as in the first
sure gradient. Formation pressure gradients may be example. However, experience has shown that P./D
calculated from logs or determined by bottom-hole increases with depth, regardless of the pressure be-
pressure bombs. Since formation pore pressure is not
the subject of this paper, it is assllmed that accurate
0
formation pressure data are available to use in the
fracture pressure gradient calculaticms.
I
Another important variable is the overburden stress
gradient. Overburden stress gradient is normally as-
2
sumed to be 1.0 psi/ft, But this is a high average
value for a nonconstant variable, and one should real- 3
ize that it may be seriously in error in some areas,
such as on the Gulf Coast at shallow depths. 4
The amount of horizontal stress caused by the ver-
tical stress (n~t overburden) is a function of Poissons 5
ratio of the rocks in question and is arother important
variable. The horizontal-to-vertical stress ratio has
been considered to be constant with depth in many
cases, and equal to one-third, This corresponds to a
Poissons ratio equal to 0.25. However, this frequently
used average value for Poissons ratio for rocks may
well be in error. Values from laboratory experiments
vary from well under to well over 0.25, but are never
greater than 0.50.7
Several authors have questioned the foregoing as- 10

sumptions. Hence, it seems worthwhile to review and

compare the various techniques used to calculate II

fracture Pressure gradients. To do so, the data of Figs,

12
1A and 1B were used to calculate the fracture pres-
sure gradient by several methods.
13

Previous Methods of Predicting

14
Yracture Pressure Gradient
Hubbert and Willis showed the fracture pressure
gradient to be a function of overburden stress gradi-
ent, formation pressure, and stress ratio.1 This leads
to Eq. 1: Fig. lALog data from Frio formation,
Nuaces County, Tex?

When the assumptions are made that S/D = 1.0 and

v = 0.25, Eq. 1 reduces to

s=(oo+w->-- s - 2)
which k known as the Hubbert and WNis equation.
Under these conditions, the fracture gradjent k cal-
culated to be a constant with increasing depth for all
normally pressured formations. This is known to be
untrue for many cases in the Gulf Coast. Actually,
Eq. 2 predicts values that are usually too !OWcom-
pared with values from field data. However, this does
not mean that Eq. 1 is invalid. It is more probable
that the assumptions used to obtain Eq. 2 are in error. -LO 1.s 20 3.0 4.0 5.0
Eq. 2 was used for comparative purposes to calculate NORMAL
R,,II,/OBSERVl?D
R,,tI,

Curve 2 of Fig. 2, using the pressure gradient curve Fig. lB-Relationship betwean shaie resistivity parameter
data (Curw.1 nfll,g,. 2] as determined from the.log .. ....... RMtM/R.wMand reservoirfiuid pressuregradient.
1354 JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOI.0t3Y


havior, until the abnormal pressure section is trav- load is 1.0 psi/ft. To calculate a fracture gradient by
ersed. Then pJD may decrease as shown by the this method one must use the following procedure.
other curves in Figs. 2 and 5. 1. Obtain the formation pore pressure.
Matthews and Kellyg presented a fracture gradient 2. Determine the effective stress, u = 1.0 D p.
equation similar to Eq. 1. However, they introduced 3. Determine the depth D{ for which the matrix
the concept of a variable horizontal-to-vertical stress stress u would be the normal value:
ratio. Fig. 3 is a reproduction of their curves showing
the variable stress ratio as a function of depth for two pi = .
areas. Again one must assume that the overburden 0.;35
4. Use the value of Dt from the preceding step with
o- Fig. 3 to determine K~.

2 .
1~ CURVEL FO:~fl:NmPRESSURE

2HUBBERT AftD WILLIS

5. With the resulting data, calculate the fracture
gradient using the Matthews and Kelly fracture gra-
FRAOTUREGRAOIENT
WITH v = 0.2s
dient equation, which folIows:
XS#$E,AS;iEXCEPT
~=Ki ~ ++, . ...00(3)
4, MATTHEWSAROX2LLY
FRACTURE(4RAOIENT ()
8.130LOSMITNANDWILSON
6 FRAOTUREQRAOIENT
(Note: Matthews and Kelly call this the breakdown
/ 6. NEWMETHOOWITH
VARIASLE v gradient and say that it is higher than the fracture
extension gradient. )
E 1~ 2.\ #s 6. Plot the fracture gradient as a function of depth.
: \ \\ In this manner, Curve 4 of Fig. 2 and Curve 3 of
g 0 Fig. 5 were generated. The effect of depth and forma-
U
a tion pressure is readily evident. However, there ap-
1
12 - pear to be two weaknesses in the approach, one of
I
I which is the assumption that the overburden stress is
I equal to 1.0 psi/ft of depth. The other weakness is
14
I
I that the stress ratio used in calculating the fracture
I
I gradient in abnormally pressured formations is that
I
16 i of the deepest normally pressured formation. The
I
I I
I fj; Matthews and Kelly approach represents a significant
I advancement in fracture gradient technology, and the
Ie 8 variable stress ratio concept is quite valid when coxn-
I / L
sj, lII!~T$* 1?, I# pared with field data analysis.
20.
0 .2 .4 6 .s Lo 12 1.4
Recently, Goidsmith and Wllson4 found that the
PRESSl~flEQRAOIENT- @/ft presently existing techniques for calculating fracture
Fig. 2Formaticm and fracture pressuregradients. gradients were inadequate. Using a great deal of data
on lost circulation and squeeze pressure, they devel-
oped empirical equations, using least-squares curve-
2 fitting, that appear to predict very well the fracture
gradients for a localized area. The equations are long
and somewhat difficult to use, but this technique was
employed in calculating Curve 5 of Fig. 2. The vast
4
SOUTH TEXAS GULFOOAST disagreement of these techniques is well illustrated.
Costley5 recently uublished yet another technique
that is similar to the Matthews and Kelly method. The
same basic assumptions are involved; therefore, the
e
method will not be discussed f%rther. Nevertheless,
* \
z
\ the data published by Costley were used with other
o
Q data to develop the mtxlmd that follows.
&
1-
a A Revised Approach
g 12

LOUISIANA OULFCOAST
Throughout the remainder of this work, it is postu-
lated that the assumptions leading to Eq. 1 are valid
and that all of the independent variables are functions
16
of depth. The problem is to determine the relationship
of overburden stress, pore pressure, and Poissons
ratio with depth. Since it is accepted here that abnor-
i mal formation pressure gradients may be determined
from logs, that aspect of the problem is solved. The
20
0,3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.s i .0 next steps are to assume that the overburden stress
MATRIX STRESS COEFFICIENT- Ki gradient is 1.0 psi/ft, then to solve Ea. 1 for the stress
Fig.3-Matrix stress coefficient?
OCTOBER,1969
 a

Pw
. P
DD
(4)
l: V= Sad
D ft iriterval and averaged step by step downward to
and to evaluate Eq. 4 with field data.
A great deal of data from the analysis of hydraulic
fracturing treatments in West Texas was published by
Critkndon. These data were used to develop the left
curve of Fig. 4. It can be seen that for the producing
formations of the West Texas area, the assumptions
S/D = 1.0 and v = 0.25 are valid.
Data given by Costley were used to back-calculate
the middle Poisson ratio curve of Fig. 4. Note the
curvature of the trend of Poisson ratio vs depth for
the Gulf Coast area. This is caused by the sediments
being younger and more compressible near the sur-
face, but less compressible and more plastic with
depth. For this reason the curve approaches 0.5 as an
upper limit. This limit is the Poisson ratio of an incom-
pressible material in the plastic failure environment,
Example results of fracture pressure gradient cal-
culations using the middle Poisson ratio curve of Fig.
4 and Eq. 1 are included for comparative purposes.
These are shown by Curve 6 of Fig. 2 and Curve 4
of Fig. 5.
From the preceding calculations it becomes evident
that the variation of overburden stress with well depth
must be determined where formations are compressi-
ble, such as in the Gulf Coast area. A composite
group of density logs from many Gulf Coast wells was
available. These logs were used to plot bulk density
vs depth, which is shown in Fig. 6. The values for
bulk density were read at the mid-point of each 1,000-
20,000 ft of depth. In this manner, the overburden
stress curve of F]g. 7 was produced. The wdue of
overburden stress read from the curve at any depth
represents the real average overburden gradient at
that specific depth. Further averaging need not be
done.
The same procedure was used for similar data from
wells in the Santa Barbara Channel. Bulk densities
from logs and the resulting overburden stress gradient
curve are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively, with
the results being similar to those given in Figs. 6 and
7. It was concluded that variable overburden stress
gradient curves, as determined from density logs of
good quality, are far superior to any assumed constant
number.
Based on Eq. 4, the same field data, and Fig. 7,
the Poisson ratio trend for the Gulf Coast area was
back-calculated and plotted on the right side of Fig.
4. Note that this curve approaches the middle curve
at greater depths where the overburden stress gradi-
ent does approach 1.0 psi/ft. It was concluded that
Figs. 4 and 7 could be used with formation pressure
data and Eq. 1 to predict accurately the fracture gra-
dients in the Gulf Coast. The same method will apply
in other areas, provided that the overburden stress
gradient and Poisson ratio curves are determined from
good data.

\ 2. FRACTUREGRAOIENT

!im
tymmgT a WILLIS

3. FRAGTUREGRAOIENT
MATTHEWSa KELLY
4. FRAGTUREQRAOIENT
PRESENT METHOO

=
88
g
t
~ \
b 10
n

Is.

16
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 o.e 1.0 1,2 I .4
(3RAOIENT- @ft

Fig. 4-Variation of Poissonsratio with depth. Fig. S-Well B, East Cameron.

Fracture pressuregradient comparison.

13S6 JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

 .
.

The preceding discussion illustrates a method according to the curve of Fig. 7. However, all that
whereby all three variables that control the fracture must be done to arrive at the correct fracture gradient
pressure gradient are determined from well data. A curve is to use Fig. 7 and interpolate between the
nomograph for solving Eq. 1 to predict fracture pres- various gradients of Fig. 9. The interpolation is shown
sure gradients is shown, with an example calculation, as the correct fracture gradient curve on Fig. 9. Note
in Fig. 12. that near the surface, the curve is between the 0.8 and
0.9 curves, and at the 4,000 ft mark it crosses the 0.9
How to Apply the New Techuique curve and approaches the 1.0 curve with depth. This
To demonstrate better how to apply this method of illustrates somewhat elaborately the effect of over-
predicting fracture gradients, an example follows, burden stress gradient on fracture pressure gradient.
showing how the technique should be employed in However, in actual practice only the true fracture
drilling well plans. gradient should be used.
1. Fig. 8 shows a plot of resistivities for a well in 3. The casing points can be selected by making use
the East Cameron area. Data from Fig. 8 are used of the formation pressure gradient curve (minimum
with Fig. ) B to produce the formation pressure curve mud weight curve) and the true fracture gradient
of Fig. 9. Mud weights for this area should be deter- curve. In the example of Fig. 9, surface pipe was set
mined in this manner during the well planning stage. at 3,100 ft. If we assume that minimum mud weights
The mud weight scale at the bottom of Fig. 9 and the were used during drilling, a protective string of pipe
formation pressure gradient curve dictate the mini- must be set at no deeper than 10,400 ft. A vertical
mum mud weight program. line from the pressure gradient curve at 10,400 ft
2. The next step is to determine and plot fracture extends upward to a point slightly above that repre-
gradient vs depth. (This is illustrated in Fig, 9, which senting the surface pipe shoe. In this case, break-
shows five fracture gradient curves. ) It is assumed down and lost circulation would not occur. However,
that the overburden gradient averages 0.8 psi/ft all if drilling were to continue to 11,000 ft before a pro-
the way down. The graphic solution of Eq. 1 shown tective string is set, breakdown would occur. A verti-
by Fig. 12 is used with the variable Poissons ratio cal line from the pressure gradient curve at the 11,000
curve (right-hand curve of Fig. 4) to find the fracture ft mark extends up and intersects the fracture gradient
gradient vs depth. The process is repeated for assumed curve at the 5,000 ft mark. Breakdown would occur
overburden stress gradients of 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 psi/ft, anywhere between 5,000 and 3,100 ft of depth. This
These four fracture gradient curves are not correct, is simply to say that casing points should be selected
because the overburden gradient varies with depth by using both the formation pressure and the fracture

o o
v

2 2

\
* *
\ !

6 6
\

\
= 8

ii
ij:
j! 10
&
w
o 1, z
*
1

\ \
w
o
12
\ 12

\\\ \
1
14 14
\
\

\ \,

16 \
16
\

\
\

18 te

20 2.6 1,00 1.08

) 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 0.70 0.76 0.60 0.85 Oslo 0.s6
BULK OENSITY-GM/OC OVERBURDEN STRESS QRADIEtJT ( ml/fl )

Fig. 6-Composite bulk density curvefrom density log Fig.7-Composite overburdenstressgradient for all
data for the Gulf Coast. normally compacted Gulf Coast formations.

OCTOBER,1%9 1357
. o

tl

12

14

.1 .2 .3 .4 .8.6 .8 Lo 2,0 3.0 4.05.0

R,h

Fig. S-Log data, WellC, EaatCameron.

-2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 ES 2.6 S.7

BULK OENSITY - GM/CG

Fig. 10-Bulk density curve from density logs,

Sante Barbara Channel.

1
o

2
2

3
- FRAGTURE
4 -
PRES6URE

4
6

+
&
08
f *
ii
76
E \
& 10 h
w E
o \ w
FORMATION
o
PRESSURE - \, 7
Ii?
\

e
\
I4 $
\
t,
s
I6

30UlVALENTl#UD:E10~ LS#OA L
9 10 II II* I7 19 1B 10
t ,
r 0.76 o.e o.e5 0.9 0.s5 IQ h s
0.3 0.4 0.6 0s 0.7 Os o~ Lo
OVERBURDEN LOAD - PS1/FT
ORADIENT- ml/ft
Fig.9-Fracture gradient with va.iableoverburdenand fig. 11--overburdan stress gradiant,
Poissonsratio inciuded,Well C, East Cameron. Santa Barbara Channel.

1358 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

 >

gradient plots. All of the foregoing serves to illustrate

the application of fracture gradient prediction tech-
niques in drilling well plans.
Other Applications
A knowledge of fracture gradient prediction methods
is extremely useful in such everyday operations as
cementing, sand consolidating, matrix and fracture
acidizing, and hydraulic fracturing.
Another important application is in secondary re-
covery. In most injection operations, it is desirable to
stay below the fracturing pressures to prevent chan-
neling from injector to producer. Of course, in the
event that such vertical fractures all line up parallel
with lines of injectors, good linear sweep patterns
result. In such cases, the general direction of the frac- q -bbl/doy x iO_*
tures should be determined and injection and pro- Fig. 13Fracture gradient of a West Texas
ducing wells should be lined up to take advantage of water iniection well,
induced fractures.
In many cases, injection is started in old wells that
have been producers for years. Here the formation
pressures are usually very low in the surrounding for-
mation. Low formation pressures cause low fracture
pressure, much the same as high formation pressures
cause high fracture pressures. Eq. 1 predicts this be-
havior. However, more vivid proof is given in Fig. 13,
in which the results of a pressure-rate test are shown.

sl~ y
D
0.9 ~

0.8- .

0.7- -
\< .

VD
0.6 L 1s.0 1.0

0.0
!8.0 I
\ :1 ;
0.90
0.4

EXAMPLE: DETERMINE FRACTURE GRADIENT AT 12,000 WITH

FORMATION PRESSURE OF 0.67 PS1/FT. AT ,12,000
OVERBURDEN LOAD IS 0.96 AND POISSON S RATIO
is 0.46. FROM NOM0t3RAPH FRACTURE GRADIENT
10.0
IS 0.91 PS1/FT OR 17.5 PPG. -i 0.8

Fig. 12Fracture gradient nomograph.

OCTOBER,1%9 1359

Fracturing occurred when a gradient of 0.57 psi/ft
was reached, as shown by the sudden change in slope
at about 700 B/D injection. New in-fill wells in the
same area are hydraulically fractured with gradients
of O68 to 0.70 psi/ft. The relatively low fracture
gradients of old producers are due to low formation
pressures. Many old producing wells are fractured
unintentionally when converted to injection wells.
The pressure in the producing formation is so low
that it cannot withstand even the gradient of fresh
water.
One more example of the effect of formation pres-
sure on fracture gradient is that three pressure-rate
tests were run on a California injector on Dec. 13,
1961; June 11, 1962; and Dec. 3, 1962. Fracture
pressure gradients were determined at sudden changes
in slope of pressure-rate plots. These gradients were
0.748, 0.864, and 0.993 psi/ft on their respective
dates, These data illustrate how the fract-urepressure
gradient is affected by changes in formation pressure
around a wellbore.
How to DeveIop the TecIndque
for Other Areas
The data necessary to develop this method for other
tectonically relaxed areas of the earth are as follows:
1. Overburden stress gradient vs deuth, Such data
can be derived from bulk densities taken from logs,
seismic data or shale density measurements. A plot
of bulk density vs depth can then be converted to a
plot of average overburden stress gradient vs depth,
2, Actual fracture pressure gradients for several
depths. These can be lost-circulation or squeeze data
or actual fracturing data.
3, Formation pressures that apply to the data in
Item 2. (Irl Items 2 and 3, the depths must corre-
spond.)
With these data and Eq. 4, the Poissons ratio curve
for the area can be back-calculated and plotted vs
deuth. The result will be a curve similar to those of
Fig. 4 and a curve similar to that of Fig, 7. Whh these
curves and Fig. 12, fracture gradients can be pre-
dicted quite easily and quickly. These values can be
plotted as a function of depth and the resulting curves
can be used in all t.k operations previously described,
Conclusions
In summary, several conclusions have been drawn.
1, In drilling well plans, well stimulation plans, and
secondary recovery plans, fracture pressure gradient
should be considered.
2. Poissons ratio for rocks increases with depth in
the Gulf Coast area.
3, The Poissons ratio trend, which can be back-
calculated using field data, will not be exactly the same
for data from different areas.
4. In the Gulf Coast area, the average overburden
stress gradient does not equal 1.0 psi/ft, but instead
is about 0.85 psi/ft near the surface and increases
1360
smoothly to 1.0 psi/ft at about 20,000 ft of depth. A
similar trend has been established for the Santa Bar-
bara Channel area.
5. The present method is a modification of the Hub-
bert and Willis approach, using a variable Poisson
ratio and a variable overburden stress gradient with
depth. The method will predict the fracture gradient
for the Gulf Coast area with as much accuracy as the
log-derived pressure gradient,
6. Using this approach and field data, the same
method can be developed for other areas.
7. The method is very simple, and Fig. 12 maybe
used as a working chart for any area.
NomencIatnre
D = depth, ft
Di = equivalent depth of lowermost normally
pressured formation, ft
Ki = matrix stress coefficient
P,, wellbore pressure, psi
=
P = formation pressure, psi
S = overburden stress, psi
u = net effective overburden stress, u = S p,
psi
v = Poissons ratio
Acknowledgments
I should like to express appreciation to the manage-
ment of Continental Oil Co. for permission to publish
this oaper. Special thanks are given to C. H. Hefner
for his preparation of the nomograph, Fig. 12.
References
1. Hubbert, M. King and Willis, D. (3,: Meehanics of Hy-
draulic Fracturing, Tram., AIME (1957) 210, 1S3-166.
2, Howard, G. C. and Scott, P. P.: An Analysis and the
~lntr;; of Lost Circulation, Trans., AIME (1951) 192,
-.
3. Matthews, W. R. and Kelly, John: How to Predict Forma-
tion Pressure and Fracture Gradient, Oil and Gas J.
(Feb. 20. 1967).
4. Goldsmith, R. and Wilson, G.: staff engineers, Rodu~ii~n
Engineering Serviees, Continental Oil Co., Hm.sston, Tex.,
private communication.
5. Costley, R. D.: Hazards and Costs Cut by Planned Drill-
ing Programs, World Oil (Ott., 1967 ) 92.
6. Crittendon, B. C.: The Mechanics of Design and Inter-
pretation of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments, J. Pet. Tech
(Oct., 1959) 21-29.
7. Wuerker, R. G,: Annotated Tables of Strength and Prop-
ert ies of Rocks, Drilling, SPE Petroleum Transactions
Reprint Series No. 6 (1963) 23-45.
8. Hottman, C. E. and Johnson, R. K.: Estimation of For-
mation Pressures from Log-Derived ShaIe Properties,
1. Pet. Tech. (June, 1965) 717-722. iJWT
Original manuscript receivad In Socfety of Petroleum Err@neara
office July 2, 1968. Revised manuscript received June 26, 1969.
Paper (SPE 2163) was presented at SPE 43rd Annual Fall Meetln~
held in Houston, Tex., Sept. 29.Ott. 2, 196% end at SPE FifUI Annual
Eastern ReftIonal Meeting held Irr Charleston, W. Vs., Nov. 7.6,
1968. @ Copyright 1969 Amarlcen Institute of Mlnlng, MatallurgL
cal, and Petroleum Enslneere, Inc.
This paper will be printed In Traneactiona volume 246, which
will cover 1969.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY