SPE 167038

Effects of High Pressure-Dependent Leakoff (PDL) and High Process-Zone

Stress (PZS) on Stimulation Treatments and Production
Muthukumarappan Ramurthy, Halliburton; Brian F. Towler and H. Gordon Harris, University of Wyoming; Robert
D. Barree, Barree & Associates

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition-Asia Pacific held in Brisbane, Australia, 11–13 November 2013.

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
Hydraulic fracturing continues to be the primary mechanism to produce hydrocarbons out of unconventional reservoirs like
tight gas sands, tight coals and shale reservoirs. Over the last few decades it has been studied extensively. However, all the
issues that arise during a stimulation treatment have not been understood correctly, yet, leading to costly trial and error
approaches to fix them. Assuming that a majority of the perforations (or sleeves) are open and there are no issues with the
stimulation fluids, screen-outs and/or pressure-outs during stimulation treatments in any type of reservoir can be attributed to
either high pressure-dependent leakoff (PDL) or high process-zone stress (PZS). With high PDL the end result will be a
screen-out if it is not addressed properly. However, with high PZS, it is the first indicator and in conjunction with fracture
gradient and local stress environment one can understand the reasons for pressure-outs or screen-outs. With high PZS
pressure-outs are more common than screen-outs. The objective of this work is to clearly explain and quantify these
reservoir-related issues and once identified present solutions such that screen-outs and pressure-outs can be avoided in re-
fracture and new well treatments. The effect of damage zone and the fluid lag or negative net stress zones and their
contribution to the fracture tip effects will be presented. This work will also clearly show that zones that exhibit high PZS
(greater than 0.20 psi/ft), irrespective of the formation type, are economically poor producers.
The tools for identifying these reservoir-related parameters include a diagnostic fracture-injection test (DFIT) and a
grid-oriented fully functional 3D fracture simulator with shear decoupling. The relationship between high PZS and the local
stress environments and their contribution to issues during a stimulation treatment are presented based on the analysis of
3000 plus DFIT’s from the Rockies. Coal, tight gas sand and shale formations are part of the 3000 plus DFIT dataset
presented in this work. Examples from coal and shale formations presented earlier by the author are referred in this work.
Finally, guidelines (Ramurthy 2012) are presented such that stimulation treatments in high PZS zones that contribute to poor
production can be avoided and high PDL zones that lead to good production can be optimized, thereby saving completion
costs.

Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing has been an integral part of the oil and gas industry for decades. The recent surge in the unconventional
reservoir completions would not have been possible without hydraulic fracturing. The horizontal well development in very
low permeability shale plays like the Niobrara, Eagle Ford and Mancos are dependent upon hydraulic fracturing to be
economical. However, optimization of these hydraulic fracturing treatments to avoid screen-outs and achieve maximum
proppant pack conductivity to tap these hydrocarbons is an ongoing process. One of the common problems hindering this
optimization process is the lack of understanding about pressure dependent leakoff and its effects and the focus on the
fracturing fluids to find a solution for screen-outs. Additionally, consistently (and incorrectly) blaming near wellbore issues
for high treating pressures before diagnosing the issues also impedes the optimization of stimulation treatments to achieve
maximum recovery. The basic concepts behind hydraulic fracturing and understanding its deficiencies can help explain
fracture tip effects (i.e. process zone stress) better as well as explain the reasons behind the fracture models under predicting
the net pressures.
The early work on modeling hydraulic fractures was derived using the theory of linear elasticity and linear elastic
fracture mechanics (Mack and Warpinski 2000). The initial fracture models were developed by Khristianovich and Zheltov
(Khristianovich and Zheltov 1955) and Perkins and Kern (Perkins and Kern 1961) to calculate fracture geometry (mainly
2 SPE 167038

fracture width) for a specified length and flow rate. However, these models did not account for volume balance in the
fracture. This issue was addressed by a model that was developed by Carter (Carter 1957). In the process of addressing the
volume balance, the Carter model, however, assumed a constant, uniform fracture width. The Carter model was used by
obtaining more realistic width profiles from these two geometry models. This approach became outdated when Geertsma and
de Klerk (Geertsma and de Klerk 1969) and Nordgren (Nordgren 1972) developed extensions to the Khristianovich and
Zheltov and Perkins and Kern models. These two basic models, also known as KGD and PKN models were the first to
predict fracture width and address volume balance. Both these models use the Sneddon linear crack solution for plane-strain
crack as shown in Equation 1 (Sneddon et al. 1946). Because of its simplicity the Sneddon solution has found its way into all
the 2-D and pseudo 3D models in use now.

2(1−𝜈2 )𝑝
𝑢=
𝐸
�𝑐 2 − 𝑦 2 ...................................................................................................................... (1)

Where, u is the displacement, υ is the Poisson’s ratio, E is the Young’s modulus, p is the net internal pressure, c is
the distance from the fracture center to each tip and the origin of the y-axis is at the fracture center. The main difference
between these two models is the orientation of the assumed ellipse. In the KGD model (Fig. 1) the ellipse is assumed to be in
a horizontal plane and the characteristic length is the tip-to-tip fracture length. The vertical fracture walls are assumed to be
parallel and freely slipping at the top and bottom of the fracture height. This would mean that shear failure occurs at the target
bed boundaries which provide primary height containment. As the fracture grows in length the treating pressure drops or the
width becomes large. Thus, this model is insensitive to fluid rheology because of the larger predicted width, shorter length
and smaller pressure gradient along the fracture length. The solution is commonly written using the fracture half-length from
wellbore to tip and is shown in Equation 2. This model predicts that the pressure required to maintain a constant width
decreases as the fracture length grows.

KGD Geometry

Fig. 1-KGD Geometry

The fracture width at midpoint (y = 0) for the KGD geometry is given by the Sneddon’s equation as follows, where
the crack half-length (c) is given by L (Barree 2004):

4(1−𝑣 2 )𝐿𝑝
𝑤 = 2𝑢 = .................................................................................................................................................... (2)
𝐸

In the PKN geometry (Fig. 2) the ellipse is in the vertical plane and the characteristic length is the total fracture
height. Assuming the fracture height is reached, the only way fracture width can increase in this geometry is for the pressure
to increase. This pressure that drives the width increase is assumed to come from the viscous pressure drop of the fluid along
the increasing fracture length. The excess net pressure that is usually present at the fracture tip to force the extension is
generally ignored in this model. Hence the PKN model is highly dependent on fluid rheology. The fracture width at midpoint
(y = 0) for the PKN geometry is given by Sneddon’s equation as follows, where the total fracture height (hf) is 2c (Barree
2004):
SPE 167038 3

2(1−𝑣 2 )ℎ𝑓 𝑝
𝑤 = 2𝑢 = ................................................................................................................................................. (3)
𝐸

PKN Geometry

Fig. 2-PKN Geometry

These two models require the user to specify the total (and constant) fracture height thereby giving rise to the terminology “2-
D” model, since only length and width are calculated while the height remains fixed. While a 2-D model is focused on
determining the fracture width and length by assuming a constant height the pseudo-3D and 3D models attempt to predict
fracture height along with length and width. The pseudo-3D models still rely on the previous formulation of the KGD and
PKN models, use the same plane-strain width solution but allow for variable fracture height. The main issue with the 2-D,
pseudo-3D and some 3D models is that the deformation is based on linear elastic fracture mechanics and stress intensity
fracture tip conditions. Linear elastic models assume that deformations occur over the entire surface of the elastic material in
response to a load applied at any point and that the deformation will phase out slowly with distance. The total displacement at
any point is the resultant superposition of displacements caused by all applied loads on the surface. Thus, an applied load at
any point can cause deformation of the entire surface based on this assumption. This can also be referred to as elastically
coupled displacement (Barree 2004). Barree (Barree 1983) developed a 3D shear decoupled model to overcome this
deficiency. These two models are shown below in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

Point Load

Rock surface

Fig. 3-Elastically Coupled Displacement Model

Point Load

Fig. 4-Shear-Slip Model (shear decoupled model)

4 SPE 167038

He showed that the distribution of stress in the fracture tip zone does not affect the fracture width profile or the
maximum fracture width substantially. He concludes that using net pressure and width measurements alone it might be
difficult or even impossible to determine the reasons for the fracture tip effects and so ends up characterizing it as an apparent
tensile stress representing an “average” condition of the tip zone. Thus, the majority of the models that concentrate on
obtaining the fracture widths, lengths and height more accurately still don’t have a good handle on the fracture tip effects and
as a result high treating pressure
According to Shlyapobersky (Shlyapobersky et al. 1988), the reason for the high net fracture propagation pressures
(NFPP) in the field can be attributed to higher-than-expected friction in the fracture (especially near the tip), higher fracture
toughness (than measured in the lab samples) caused by the creation of scale and field-dependent cracks at the fracture tip,
creation of multiple fracture strands instead of one dominant fracture, and finally the presence of fluid’s non-penetrating
region (i.e. fluid lag) at the fracture tip. Other tip phenomena that can cause high net pressure are nonelastic rock deformation
near the fracture tip and tip plugging with fines (Smith and Shlyapobersky 2000). The term “Process Zone” was introduced
by Jacob Shlyapobersky et al. (Shlyapobersky et al. 1988; Shlyapobersky and Chudnovsky 1994) to describe these fracture-
tip effects. Further research (Shlyapobersky et al. 1988; Shlyapobersky and Chudnovsky 1994; Conway et al. 1997) has
shown that it is impossible to propagate two parallel competing fractures if an excessive pressure is involved because they
either coalesce into a single fracture or one quits propagating. Hence, it has been concluded that the contribution to high
NFPP from this effect is minimal (Shlyapobersky et al. 1988; Shlyapobersky and Chudnovsky 1994; Conway et al. 1997).
That leaves us with the tip effects and frictional-pressure effects from perforations and near-wellbore region. During any
pumping, contributions from these friction and tip effects are present and can vary. However, the contribution from
perforation and near-wellbore friction effects that are present during such injection can be quantified using step-down tests
and separated from the tip effects. Thus, during shut-in, when the frictional effects are very minimal, we can safely assume
that the high net pressure observed in the field can be attributed to process-zone tip effects (or apparent fracture toughness)
(Shlyapobersky et al.1988). Pressure Dependent Leakoff (PDL) on the other hand is caused by the presence of fractures or
fissures. Castillo (Castillo 1987) defined the influence of pressure dependent leakoff on fracture pressure decline and then
Barree (Barree et al. 1996; Barree 1998) presented an explicit way to identify and quantify PDL.
A comprehensive review of coalbed methane literature on hydraulic fracturing has shown that to optimize hydraulic
fracture treatments in coal one needs to account for the following: (a) high treating pressures, (b) creation of multiple
fractures, (c) high leakoff associated with the creation of multiple fractures, (d) coalfines plugging the tips of fractures, (e)
shear failures around the hydraulic fracture and (f) placement of perforations and control of fracture height growth. A careful
investigation of these factors will show that (excluding the last one) they can be categorized either into high PDL or high
PZS. It is evident that the creation of multiple fractures and the high leakoff associated with it are the primary reasons for
high PDL while coalfines plugging the tips of fractures and shear failures around the hydraulic fracture can contribute to high
PZS. Assuming that a majority of the perforations are open and there are no fluid issues, high treating pressures can be
associated with high PZS. The elongated fracture-geometry observation provided by the Perkins and Kern (PKN) model,
which defines that tip effects dominate the early part of the treatment and the viscous effects dominate the later part of the
treatment (Smith and Shlyapobersky 2000), is not valid. A case history from a Mancos shale fracture treatment (Ramurthy et
al. 2009) where high pressures were observed throughout the treatment exhibited high PZS (from history match) indicating
that tip effects can dominate the later part of the treatment as well. It has been found that the lessons learned from coals apply
to all reservoirs. The following sections will describe PDL and PZS in detail.

Pressure Dependent Leakoff (PDL)

PDL has been explained in detail by Castillo (Castillo 1987) and Barree (Barree et al., 1996; Barree 1998) in earlier
publications. The induced hydraulic fracture propagates perpendicular to the minimum horizontal in-situ stress and any
transverse natural fractures or fissures are held closed by the action of the maximum horizontal stress (see Fig. 5). When the
increasing treating pressure approaches the maximum horizontal stress, these natural fractures/fissures dilate leading to an
exponential increase in the leakoff coefficient (Barree et al. 1996). Nolte’s (Nolte 1979) conventional analysis of the pressure
decline assumes that the leakoff coefficient is a pressure independent constant which is valid only when the leakoff is
controlled by a compressible filter cake.

Fig. 5-Pressure Dependent Leakoff (PDL) Description

SPE 167038 5

According to Castillo (Castillo 1987) when the leakoff is controlled by filtrate viscosity or by reservoir permeability
and compressibility, the leakoff coefficient is pressure dependent. In such cases, the direct application of Nolte’s analysis is
not correct and the exponential increase in leakoff caused by PDL needs to accounted for. The identification and quantifying
the magnitude of PDL has already been presented by Barree (Barree et al. 1996; Barree 1998).

PDL Effects on Stimulation Treatments and Production

Assuming the leakoff type is PDL, the critical fissure opening pressure can be determined from the G-function derivative
analysis plot. Above critical fissure opening pressure, the overall leakoff co-efficient is given by (Barree 1998):

C P = CO exp[C PDL ∆P ] ........................................................................................................................................................ (4)

where CP = overall PDL coefficient; CO = original leakoff coefficient; CPDL = estimated PDL coefficient, and ∆P =
fluid pressure - critical fissure opening pressure. Thus, above critical fissure opening pressure, the overall leakoff rate is
assumed to increase exponentially with ∆P. The estimated PDL coefficient is a formation component and is fixed. However,
an increase in ∆P can be indirectly controlled by adjusting the injection rate. When the leakoff increases exponentially the
primary induced fracture width becomes smaller and so pumping sand at higher concentrations or increasing the injection rate
are not recommended and could lead to near-wellbore screen-outs. In such a scenario the use of larger mesh proppant is also
not recommended. The use of 100-mesh sand at low concentrations has worked well to bridge off the transverse fissures so
that the primary induced fracture could be extended. The use of 100-mesh sand does not guarantee that one can pump higher
proppant concentrations; instead, it allows us to move to the next level or stage. For example, if the formation had screened
out at 2 ppg and PDL was identified as the cause then running 100-mesh sand in the pad stages would probably help us pump
3 ppg. The use of 100-mesh sand in coals is not recommended due to poor production and instead it was replaced by 20/40
mesh sand at very low concentrations.
In the coal example (Well-A) at a depth of 904-to-970 ft presented by the author (Ramurthy et al., 2007 and 2009),
the stimulation treatment was designed to pump 54,000 lbm of 16/30-mesh proppant with the low gel-loading hybrid fluid
system at a rate of 35 bpm. However, the job screened out when the 2-ppg sand reached downhole with only 8,300 lbm of
proppant placed. Since a DFIT was not available in the subject well the job was history matched (Fig. 6) using the data from
a representative well DFIT. The history match analysis revealed that only 28% of equivalent holes were open at the start of
the job with a discharge coefficient of 0.80. The perforations were not broken down prior to the job and so this was not a
surprise. More importantly, a PDL value of 0.011 psi-1 was derived from the history match analysis. A default value of 0.002
psi-1 is usually considered very high and the S9 coal discussed here had a value approximately one order of magnitude higher
(Ramurthy et al. 2009) resulting in a screen-out.

T ubing Pressure (psi) A Slurry Rate (bpm) B

Bott omhole Proppant Conc (lb/gal) C Slurry Proppant Concentration (lb/gal) C
GOHFER Surface Pressure (psi) A GOHFER Slurry Rat e (bpm) B
A GOHFER Bot tom Hole Prop Conc (lb/gal) C GOHFER Surface Prop Conc (lb/gal) C B C
5000 40 3.0

35
2.5
4000
30

2.0
25
3000

20 1.5

2000
15
1.0

10
1000
0.5
5

0 0 0.0
15:25 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 15:50
6/9/2005 6/9/2005
Time

Fig. 6-Well-A, S9 Coal Fracture Treatment History Match Analysis (Ramurthy et al., 2009)

The job was initially designed for a lower rate and the designed proppant was 20/40-mesh sand. The increased
injection rate and the larger mesh sand that was pumped did not help in the case of high PDL resulting in a screen-out. The
per-well average gas production in this field was between 90-100 Mscf/d (Ramurthy et al., 2006). However, the production
from Well-A even with only 8,300 lbm of proppant placed in the S-9 coal is much higher than the per-well average in this
field and is shown in Fig. 7. The second S-9 coal example (Well-B) perforated at a depth of 1026-to-1031 ft presented by the
author (Ramurthy et al., 2007) screened out when the 2.5-ppg sand reached downhole with only 12,400 lbm of 16/30-mesh
6 SPE 167038

proppant placed. The job was initially designed to place 30,000 lbm of proppant. The job was history matched and a PDL
value of 0.011 psi-1 was derived from the history match analysis. The production from Well-B as shown in Fig. 8 is also
much higher than the per-well average in this field.

Fig. 7-Well A, Production w/High PDL

After eight years of production these two wells with high PDL are still producing higher than the per-well average in
this field indicating that high PDL has a positive correlation to production.

Fig. 8-Well B, Production w/High PDL

Process Zone Stress (PZS)

In this section, the theory behind fracture-tip effects or PZS is explained. According to the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
(LEFM) theory, which most fracture models are based on, the distribution of tensile stress (σ) around the tip of the crack and
SPE 167038 7

Fig. 9-Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) Assumptions

normal to the plane of the crack decreases as the inverse square-root of the distance (r) from the crack tip as shown in Fig. 9
(Barenblatt 1959). Then the stress at any distance from the tip of the crack multiplied by r0.5 should be a constant value and is
referred to as the stress intensity factor (K). The stress intensity factor for singular stress distribution of this type with stresses
generated from pure tension can be defined as (Barree 1998):

𝐾𝐼 = 𝑙𝑖𝑚�𝜎𝑦 (2𝜋𝑟)0.5 � 𝑎𝑠 𝑟 → 0 ......................................................................................................................... (5)

As the tensile stress is increased the stress intensity factor increases until a critical value (KIC) is reached when the
sample fractures. At stresses less than this value the crack does not open. Thus, for any material that behaves in linearly
elastic manner the stress intensity factor cannot exceed the critical value, referred to as the fracture toughness of the material.
The assumption of linear elasticity requires that the tensile stress distribution around the fracture tip be singular with stress
approaching infinity at the fracture tip. In summary, with LEFM the local crack-tip fields are characterized by a single
macroscopic parameter referred to as the stress intensity factor (K) which is then related to the corresponding material
parameter called fracture toughness (KIC) to determine the critical conditions for crack initiation in a body (Li and Chandra,
2003). Unfortunately singularities are not commonly found in nature and hence LEFM model does not adequately describe
the stress distribution near the fracture tip and additional factors that clearly define the physical details near the crack tip need
to be considered.
In any laboratory sample, when measuring the critical stress intensity factor it is generally assumed that microscopic
cracks do exist and if these cracks are planar and circular then the stress intensity factor can be calculated from:

2
𝐾= 𝜎√𝜋𝑎 .................................................................................................................................................................... (6)
𝜋

where a is the radius of the crack. Assuming the crack size is known, the equation can be rearranged to show that the sample
tensile strength is related to the stress intensity factor.

𝐾𝑄
𝜎𝑡 = 0.886 ................................................................................................................................................................. (7)
√𝑎

Laboratory measurements of fracture toughness show a significant variation in results depending on the sample size
and geometry used. The variations have been as much as 14 fold when measurements were made on the same material by
different investigators while variations of less than 20% were reported within the data sets of each (Barree 1998). The main
reason for the variance is that the researchers are “force fitting” the observations from specific sample geometries to a theory
that does not represent the physical reality. Basically the stress distribution in rocks is not singular and can be better
represented by a nearly constant stress distributed over some finite distance called a “process zone” (PZ). Barenblatt
(Barenblatt 1959 and 1962) proposed the concept of this alternate cohesive process zone or fracture process zone approach to
the conventional fracture mechanics based physically unacceptable singular stress field near the crack tip. It has been argued
that the size of the process zone affects the measured value of fracture toughness in the laboratory (Barree 1998). The process
zone as shown in Fig. 10 is an area of induced micro-cracking which extends certain distance ahead of a propagating fracture.
8 SPE 167038

Fig. 10-Process Zone Description

The size of this zone has been given by (Barenblatt 1962, Saouma 2011):

1 𝐾 2
𝑃𝑍 = � � ..................................................................................................................................................................... (8)
2𝜋 𝜎𝑡

The size of the process zone is proportional to the square of the ratio of the plane strain fracture toughness and the
material tensile strength. The size of the damage zone or process zone relative to the crack size affects the experimental
results in the laboratory unless the damage zone is small. Thus, the size of the process zone is a critical factor if the zone is
not very small when compared to the critical flaw size of the sample. Direct measurements of fracture width and pressure by
Warpinski (Warpinski 1985) indicate that a process zone length on the order of ten feet or one tenth of the fracture size may
exist. Barree (Barree 1998) states that based on a relatively large body of indirect evidence a large process zone (10-30 feet)
may exist around typical fractures. The data presented by Warpinski (Warpinski 1985) also brings to light another interesting
point about the nature of hydraulic fracture process zone. The process zone may consist of two parts: a) the damaged or
micro-crack zone ahead of the fracture tip and b) a zone of negative stress with positive fracture width. The fluid pressure in
this area is less than the total closure pressure and may equal the formation pore pressure, which allows the fracture tips to
close smoothly without the existence of a stress singularity. The existence of this fluid lag region or negative net stress zone
has been confirmed by direct observation by Warpinski (Warpinski 1985) and in the laboratory by Medlin and Massé
(Medlin & Massé, 1984) as shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11-Laboratory Results Showing Fluid Lag Region Behind Fracture Tip
SPE 167038 9

Their data show that the dry zone may occupy 10-20% of the total crack length. If this zone is included as part of the
process zone then the size of the overall zone can reach 20% or more of the fracture length depending on the rock strength
and the amount of energy dissipation ahead of the crack tip (Barree 1998). This negative net stress or fluid lag zone is caused
by the balance between fluid leakoff rate through the newly opened fracture surface area and the rate at which fluid can be
delivered to the tip through a restricted fracture width. The laboratory work by Medlin and Massé also clearly exhibited that
the size of the zone decreased with increasing confining stress (Medlin & Massé, 1984). The process zone stress effects in the
fracture model used in this work accounts for both the damage zone effects as mentioned by Barenblatt (Barenblatt 1959 and
1962) and the fluid lag zone as described by Warpinski (Warpinski 1985) and Medlin and Massé (Medlin & Massé, 1984). A
description of the process zone stress effect containing both the damage zone and the fluid-lag negative net stress zone is
shown below in Fig. 12.

Fig. 12-Description of Process Zone Stress Showing the Damage Zone and the Fluid Lag Zone

For process zones consisting of both damage zone of length (Pz) and a fluid lag region of length (Lf), the correct
apparent tensile strength (σta) for a given node size (A) in the fracture model, that includes both the lag-zone and damage
zone can be estimated from (Barree 1998):

𝜎𝑡𝑎 𝐴0.875 = 𝜎𝑁 𝐿0.875

𝑓 + 𝜎𝑡 𝑃𝑍0.875 ....................................................................................................................... (9)
where, σN is the net closure stress and σt is the material tensile strength.

Fig. 13-Tensile Strength for Different Node Sizes in the Fracture Model
10 SPE 167038

A plot (Fig. 13) of apparent tensile strength representing the tensile stress required at the boundary, times node size raised to
the 0.875 power against node size, yields a constant value of the scaling product within 2% over the node size range of 2-to-
30 feet. This would mean that the tensile stress required at the boundary nodes scales almost linearly with node size or the
width of the distributed stress zone representing the process zone. Data presented by Yew et al. (Yew 1993) suggest that the
length of the dry zone varies inversely with the strength of the rock. This would mean that the majority of the apparent tensile
strength will be contributed by the dry zone for weak rock and by the damage zone for strong rock. This could explain the
surprisingly high net pressures commonly seen in “frac-pack” operations in the Gulf Coast in the unconsolidated sand. The
fluid lag zone will substantially affect the stress distribution at the fracture tip in these conditions.
A good starting point for determining PZS comes from a DFIT (i.e., BH_ISIP – Closure). The reason it is a good
starting point and not the absolute measure is because during fracture propagation the contribution to PZS from each of the
components described earlier vary depending on whether the fracture tip is moving or stationary at each point along the
perimeter at that time (Ramurthy et al., 2009). In coals and similarly fractured media the observed treating pressure minus
closure stress may not represent the actual net pressure causing fracture opening and rock deformation. Invasion of the cleats
and fractures by fluid pressure results in a much lower than expected differential pressure across matrix blocks near the
primary fracture face. The net effect is high observed treating pressure, or apparent net pressure, interpreted as high PZS,
along with smaller than expected primary fracture widths and increased bulk stiffness (modulus) of the formation. A measure
of the near-wellbore (NWB) and perforation friction pressures can be obtained by performing a step-down test at the end of a
high rate DFIT. This will help us determine the contribution from NWB effects and separate it from the tip effects during
pumping.

PZS Effects on Stimulation Treatments and Production

One of the key indicators of high PZS is that the treating pressures would be very high right from the start of the injection
even at very low rates. This assumes that all or majority of the perforations are open and there is minimal near-wellbore
friction. Pressure-outs are more common with high PZS than screen-outs (Ramurthy et al., 2007). The issues during
stimulation treatments when faced with high PZS may vary depending on the fracture gradient. This has been recently
confirmed by Potocki (Potocki 2012). To understand these effects, a total of 3090 DFIT’s from the Rocky Mountain region
were analyzed to obtain PZS gradients. These are single injection tests that were performed in various formations including
sandstones, coals, carbonates chalks and marl layers. Also, these tests originated from both vertical and horizontal wells. Out
of these 3090 DFIT’s, 91.7% (2832 DFIT’s) of them had a PZS gradient lower than 0.20 psi/ft and 258 (8.3%) had PZS
values higher than 0.20 psi/ft. The reason it was used as a cutoff value is because it has been found that reservoirs with PZS
gradient greater than 0.2 psi/ft are economically poor producers (Ramurthy et al., 2009). While it is evident from the
examples provided by the author in the earlier publication (Ramurthy et al., 2009) that zones with high PZS (> 0.20 psi/ft) are
poor producers the factors contributing to such poor production are still being analyzed and is a research topic by itself. The
plot below (Fig. 14) exhibits the range of PZS gradients from these 3090 DFIT’s when the fracture gradient is plotted against
the closure gradient. In order to understand the plot better, if the fracture gradient is 1.0 psi/ft and the closure gradient is 0.6
psi/ft then the PZS gradient would fall in the line 0.4 psi/ft. The PZS gradients above 0.20 psi/ft are shown in red and
correspond to the red values in Fig. 15.

Fig. 14-Fracture Gradient vs. Closure Gradient Showing the PZS Distribution
SPE 167038 11

Figure 15 shows the distribution of the PZS gradients obtained from these tests when compared against the closure gradients.

Fig. 15-PZS vs. Closure Gradient

As mentioned earlier, in addition to the high PZS gradient there may be other factors like frac gradients and local stress
environments that need to be considered when deciding whether issues will arise during a fracture treatment. To understand
this further, the PZS gradients from these DFIT’s were plotted (Fig. 16) against the difference between closure pressure and
pore pressure gradients (also referred to as net horizontal stress, NHS).

Fig. 16-PZS Gradient vs. NHS Gradient Plot

The data points with PZS gradients higher than 0.20 psi/ft are plotted in red. This plot shows that with increasing
NHS the PZS decreased and according to Potocki (Potocki 2012) this means that the dataset falls under foreland and strike-
slip/thrust type environment. It can be safely said that almost all Rockies basins from where the DFIT’s originated would fall
under this category. The question then with regard to PZS is what would cause issues when stimulating a zone. The DFIT
from the Gothic shale zone provided by the authors in an earlier publication (Ramurthy et al., 2009) exhibited a PZS gradient
of 0.36 psi/ft and frac gradient of 1.19 psi/ft but the zone did not cause any problems during the stimulation treatment.
12 SPE 167038

However, one of the Mancos examples presented in that same publication exhibited a PZS gradient of 0.21 psi/ft from history
match analysis and an extension gradient higher than 1.01 psi/ft, but was difficult to stimulate. As per Potocki’s assessment
(Potocki 2012), the Gothic shale zone should fall under the problematic complexity but the zone treated without any issues.
So, the high PZS gradient (especially if it is very high) is just a good start and needs to be verified with other factors like
local stress environment, frac gradient and reservoir pressure to determine if any potential problems could arise during a
stimulation treatment.
The one thing that stands-out in all this is that all zones that exhibit high PZS (greater than 0.20 psi/ft) have been
economically poor producers. This can be used as a grading tool to identify potential stimulation candidates. The following
summary from the examples provided by the author in earlier publications (Ramurthy et al., 2007 and 2009) confirms it. The
CBM well example mentioned in the summary table that had very high PZS has been plugged and abandoned.

Table 1-High PZS and Related Production

PZS
Production
Gradient
(MCFD)
(psi/ft)

Mancos Well - Well B

0.21* 251***
SPE 123581 (4 stages)

Paradox Basin Well-

Well A, SPE 123581
(3 stages)
Gothic 0.36 0**
Lower Hovenweep 0.31 0**
Main Hovenweep 0.33 0**

San Juan Basin - CBM

1.14* 0**
Well-A SPE 107971
*-From GOHFER HM analysis
**-The well has been P&A'd due to no production

***-Average 6 month production before Mesaverde

zones were comingled

Stimulation Guidelines for High PDL Zones

This topic was addressed by the author earlier (Ramurthy et al., 2009) when dealing with coal reservoirs. The lessons learned
from such complex and fractured reservoirs can be applied to other reservoirs too. If high PDL was identified as the main
reason for placement issues during a stimulation treatment then it can be addressed by optimizing the stimulation treatment
design as follows (Ramurthy 2012):
• design for lower but optimum injection rates to avoid exponential increase in leakoff;
• include 0.25~0.5-ppg100-mesh sand stage to bridge the transverse components and extend the induced fracture
(with coals replace 100-mesh sand with either 40/70-mesh or 20/40-mesh sand);
• if possible, use smaller mesh proppant to allow placement in the smaller fracture widths created as a result of high
PDL and
• avoid designs with higher proppant concentrations

Stimulation Guidelines for High PZS Zones

The guidelines for treating high PZS zones was also presented by the author earlier (Ramurthy et al., 2009) when stimulating
coal reservoirs. The lessons learned in coal reservoirs can be applied to other reservoirs. It has been shown that zones that
exhibit high PZS (greater than 0.20 psi/ft) have been economically poor producers. This can be verified or confirmed at a
reasonable cost in wellbores with single or two zones. However, in vertical wells with multiple intervals or horizontal
wellbores with multiple stages it can be expensive to verify this. Until such verification can be made economically, it would
be a difficult proposition for the industry to skip stimulating zones with high PZS. So, if one wants to stimulate a zone that
exhibits high PZS then the fracture treatment design can be optimized as follows (Ramurthy 2012):
• first, it is important to clearly verify that the zone has high PZS and not high tortuosity or near-wellbore friction
issues because PZS as explained earlier is associated with fracture-tip effects;
• high PZS zones do not react well with high initial injection rates and so design for an injection rate that is sufficient
to achieve limited-entry diversion and gradually increase the rate to the design rate rather than starting at the high
SPE 167038 13

design rate;
• do not pump an extended pad stage and hope to see a declining pressure trend;
• instead pump an extended 0.25~0.5 ppg 100 mesh or 40/70-mesh sand stage until the pressure shows a declining
trend (use crosslinked fluid instead of linear gel if the pressure is very high);
• avoid pumping higher sand concentrations until the pressure shows a declining trend and
• higher design rates can be achieved only after the pressure shows a declining trend.

Conclusions
1. Issues caused during a stimulation treatment (assuming that a majority of the perforations are open and there are no
fluid or near wellbore issues) can be attributed to either PDL or PZS.
2. Clear explanation and methods to identify and quantify PZS and PDL are provided.
3. Specific guidelines for stimulating zones with high PDL and high PZS are provided so that costly trial and error
approach can be avoided.
4. Relationship between zones that exhibit high PDL and job complexity is clearly established; however, the
relationship between high PZS zones and job complexity is not clearly established.
5. A correlation exists between high PDL zones and good production
6. The existence of a PZS cutoff for economic production has been clearly demonstrated.
7. Using this cutoff potential stimulation candidates can be selected.

Acknowledgements
The authors also would like to thank University of Wyoming and the management of Halliburton and Barree & Associates
for their permission to publish this paper.

References
Barenblatt, G.I. 1959: “The formation of equilibrium cracks during brittle fracture. General ideas and hypothesis. Axially symmetric
cracks”. February 1959, PMM Vol. 23, No. 3, pp 434–444.
Barenblatt, G.I. 1962: “Mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks formed in Brittle Fractures”, Advances in Applied Mechanics, vol. 7.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 55–125, 1962.
Barree, R.D. 1983: “A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three-Dimensional Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Media,” paper SPE
12273, presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, California, USA, 15-18 November.
Barree, R.D., and Mukherjee, H. 1996: “Determination of Pressure Dependent Leakoff and Its Effect on Fracture Geometry”, paper SPE
36424 presented at the 71st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 6-9 October
Barree, R.D. 1998: “Applications of Pre-Frac Injection/Falloff Tests in Fissured Reservoirs-Field Examples”, paper SPE 39932 presented
at the 1998 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA 5-8
April.
Barree, R.D. 1998: “Fracture Tip Effects”, an internal class given to Stim-Lab, Inc and Marathon Oil Company, April.
Barree, R.D. 2004: “Predicting Fracture Geometry”, Fundamentals of Hydraulic Fracturing, an internal class given to Halliburton Energy
Services by Barree & Associates. March.
Castillo, J.L. 1987: “Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff”, paper SPE 16417 presented at
the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA 18-19 May.
Conway, M.W., Barree, R.D., Hollingshead, C.W., and Farrens, M. 1997: “Characterization and Performance of Coalbed Methane Wells in
Drunkards Wash, Carbon County, Utah,” Paper ICBMS 9736 presented at the 1997 International Coalbed Methane Symposium,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA, 12–16 May.
Carter, R.D. 1957: “Derivation of the General Equation for Estimating the Extent of the Fractured Area,” Appendix I of “Optimum Fluid
Characteristics for Fracture Extension,” Drilling and Production Practice, G.C. Howard and C.R. Fast, New York, New York, USA,
American Petroleum Institute, 261–269.
Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F. 1969: “A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulic Induced Fractures,” paper SPE 2458,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (December) 21, 1571–1581.
Khristianovich, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P. 1955: “Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid,” Proc., Fourth World
Pet. Congress, Rome, 2, 579–586.
Li, H and Chandra, N. 2003: “Analysis of crack growth and crack-tip plasticity in ductile materials using cohesive zone models”,
International Journal of Plasticity, vol. 19, pp 849-882.
Mack, M.G., and Warpinski, N.R. 2000: Reservoir Stimulation, 3rd ed. Michael J. Economides and Kenneth G. Nolte, Chapter 6. West
Sussex: Wiley and Sons.
Medlin, W.L. and Massé, L. 1984: “Laboratory Experiments in Fracture Propagation”, paper SPE 10377, SPE Journal (June), vol. 24, No.
3, pp 256-268.
Nolte, K.G. 1979: “Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline Analysis”, paper SPE 8341 presented at the
1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 23-26 September.
Nordgren, R.P. 1972: “Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture,” paper SPE 7834, SPE Journal (August) 12, No. 8, 306–314.
Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R. 1961: “Widths of Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 89, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September) 13, No.
9, 937–949.
Potocki, D. 2012: “Understanding Induced Fracture Complexity in Different Geological Settings Using DFIT Net Fracture Pressure”, paper
SPE 162814 presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference in Calgary, Canada, 30 October - 1 November.
14 SPE 167038

Ramurthy, M., Lyons, B. and Magill, D.P. 2006: “Hybrid Fracture Stimulation in Underpressured Coals”, paper SPE 100588 presented at
the 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15-17 May.
Ramurthy, M. and Lyons, B. 2007: “Lessons Learned From Modeling Hydraulic Fracture Treatments in Coals Using a Fully Functional
Three Dimensional Fracture Model in a San Juan Basin Project”, paper SPE 107972 presented at the 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil
& Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA 16-18 April.
Ramurthy, M., Lyons, B., Hendrickson, R. B., Barree, R. D. and Magill, D. P. 2009: “Effects of High Pressure-Dependent Leakoff and
High Process-Zone Stress in Coal-Stimulation Treatments,” Paper SPE 107971, pp 407-414, Vol. 24, Number 3, SPE Production and
Operations, August.
Ramurthy, M., Barree, R. D., Broacha, E., Longwell, J. D., Kundert, D. P. and Tamayo, C. 2009: “Effects of High Process-Zone Stress in
Shale Stimulation Treatments,” Paper SPE 123581 presented at the 2009 SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference,
Denver, Colorado, USA 14-16 April.
Ramurthy, M. 2012: “Effects of Pressure Dependent Leakoff and Process Zone Stress on Hydraulic Fracture Treatments and Production”,
Ph. D., Dissertation, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Wyoming, December.
Saouma, V.E. 2011: “Fracture Mechanics”, Lecture Notes, Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University
of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428
Shlyapobersky, J and Chudnovsky, A. 1994: “Review of recent developments in fracture mechanics with petroleum engineering
applications,: Paper SPE 28074 presented at the Eurock SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference, Delft, The
Netherlands, 29–31 August.
Shlyapobersky, J., Wong, G. K. and Walhaug, W. W. 1988: “Overpressure Calibrated Design of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulations,” Paper
SPE 18194 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 2–5 October.
Smith, M.B. and Shlyapobersky, J. 2000. Reservoir Stimulation, 3rd ed. Michael J. Economides and Kenneth G. Nolte, Chap. 5. West
Sussex: Wiley and Sons.
Sneddon, I.N. and Elliot, A.A. 1946: “The Opening of a Griffith Crack Under Internal Pressure,” Quarterly of Appl. Math. 4, 262–267.
Warpinski, N.R. 1985: “Measurement of Width and Pressure in a Propagating Hydraulic Fracture”, paper SPE 11648, SPE Journal
(February), vol. 25, No. 1, pp 46-54.
Yew, C.H. and Liu, G.F. 1993: “Fracture Tip and Critical Stress Intensity Factor of a Hydraulically Induced Fracture”, paper SPE 22875,
SPE Production & Facilities (August), vol. 8, No. 3, pp 171-177.