PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 41, Issue 6, December 2014

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2014, 41(6): 810–816. RESEARCH PAPER

Field test of volume fracturing for horizontal wells in

Sulige tight sandstone gas reservoirs, NW China
MA Xu1,2,*, HAO Ruifen1,2, LAI Xuan’ang1,2, ZHANG Yanming1,2, MA Zhanguo1,2, HE Mingfang1,2,
XIAO Yuanxiang1,2, BI Man1,2, MA Xinxing1,2
1. Oil & Gas Technology Research Institute of PetroChina Changqing Oilfield Company, Xi’an 710018, China;
2. National Engineering Laboratory for Exploration and Development of Low-Permeability Oil & Gas Fields, Xi’an 710018, China

Abstract: Based on the development degree of natural micro-fractures, rock brittleness and two-direction stress and other geological
conditions of the Sulige gas field, the feasibility of using volume fracturing to increase production was analyzed and verified by field test.
The Sulige gas field, a typical tight sandstone gas reservoir, has developed natural micro-fractures, with fracture complex index of
0.3−0.5, rock brittleness index distribution in the 36−52 and two-direction stress heterogeneity factor of 0.17. From the development ex-
periences of unconventional gas reservoirs abroad, the geological conditions in the Sulige gas field is suitable for volume fracturing.
Through lab experiments and pilot field tests, a volume fracturing technology for horizontal wells has been developed, which features
“fracturing with low-viscosity liquid, carrying proppant with high-viscosity liquid, combination of multi-scale proppants, and massive
fracturing at a high injection rate”. The technique had been applied in 42 wells of the Sulige tight gas field by the end of 2013. The initial
production of wells treated by this approach is 1.2 times that of the adjacent wells treated by conventional fracturing, indicating that the
technique can enhance the production of the horizontal wells in the Sulige gas field substantially.

Key words: Sulige gas field; tight sandstone; volume fracturing; natural fracture; brittleness; horizontal well; microseismic monitoring

1 Background
Sulige gas field is located in Ordos city of Inner Mongolia,
where the Permian Shihezi Formation is the main pay with a
porosity of 5%−12% and permeability of (0.01−2.00)×10−3
μm2. It is a typical tight sandstone gas pool, with multi-stage
sands stacking vertically, strong lateral heterogeneity and low
pressure coefficient, posing great challenge to development.
Horizontal well field trial started from 2002, and horizontal
well multi-stage fracturing was tested in 2008. In 2010 and
2011, with the scale deployment of horizontal wells, progress
had been made constantly in multi-stage fracturing, promoting
the establishment of two major fracturing technologies, sand
jet staged fracturing[1−2] and open hole staged fracturing. The
pumping rate reached about 4.0 m3/min, and fracturing stages
reached 15 stages per well. As a result, the production of ho-
rizontal wells amounted to (3.0−5.0)×104 m3/d, 3 to 5 times
the production of near vertical wells. The significant effect in
production enhancement promoted the large scale application
of horizontal wells there. However, some wells in Sulige gas
field have low production, especially tight sandstone in the
east part has high lateral heterogeneity, small thickness, and
small drainage area. Therefore stimulation on both vertical
and horizontal wells still cannot meet the demand of effective
development, and there is a crying need for effective tech-
nologies to enhance single well production.
Horizontal well drilling technology, volume stimulation
technology and micro-seismic real-time diagnosis technology
have become three key technologies in North America to re-
alize the “shale gas revolution”. The major domestic oil and
gas fields have drawn lessons from foreign successful experi-
ence and launched researches on tight reservoir explora-
tion[3−4]. After studying from foreign experience on unconven-
tional gas reservoir fracturing abroad, Changqing oil field
carried out pilot test of volume fracturing in tight gas and oil
field in 2012. The average daily production of seventeen ver-
tical wells treated by volume fracturing was 46% higher than
that of the adjacent wells in the oilfield after half a year of
production. The 6 horizontal wells have a daily production of
6t higher than the conventional wells. The 6 vertical wells in
Sulige gas field treated by mixed water volume fracturing[5−6],
had a daily gas production of 1.4×104 m3, significantly higher
than the comparative wells (Table 1). The result of volume
fracturing pilot test shows volume fracturing works well in
tight oil and gas fields.

Received date: 23 Jul. 2013; Revised date: 11 Jul. 2014.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: mx_cq@petrochina.com.cn
Foundation item: Supported by the the PetroChina Science and Technology Program (2010E-23).
Copyright © 2014, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
 MA Xu et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(6): 810–816

Table 1 Results of volume fracturing test wells in the east section of Sulige gas field
Absolute open Daily pro-
Well Reservoir Porosity/ Permeability/ Gas satura- Proppant Pumping rate/ Injection fluid
Number flow (QAOF)/ duction /
type thickness/m % 10−3 μm2 tion/% volume/m3 (m3⋅min−1) volume/m3
(104 m3⋅d−1) (104 m3⋅d−1)
Tested well 6 5.8 10.7 1.0 63.2 33 5.5 946 9.00 1.4
Compara-
11 4.5 10.9 1.0 65.0 26 2.8 534 7.33 0.9
tive well

According to Sulige gas field tight sandstone reservoir plexity in hydraulic fracturing with Fracture Complex Index
permeability, natural micro-fracture development situation, (FCI), and reflects the effect of volume fracturing. The FCI is
rock brittleness, bi-axial stress and some other geological the ratio of the width (Xn) to the length (2Xf)[10] of the fracture
conditions, the feasibility of increasing production with vol- network in hydraulic fracturing monitored by micro seismic,
ume fracturing in Sulige gas field was analyzed, on the basis that is
of understandings obtained from pilot test, volume fracturing FCI=Xn/2Xf (1)
experiment has been carried out to improve the production in The bigger the FCI value, the more complex and richer the
tight gas reservoirs and make clear the study direction of ho- fractures and the bigger the reservoir stimulation volume and
rizontal well staged fracturing. the better the stimulation effect will be. Well Sudong 1-1 is a
volume fracturing horizontal well in Sulige gas field. The FCI
2 Geologic conditions in Sulige gas field
calculated by substituting the facture width and half-length
Breaking the traditional production improvement mecha- monitored by micro seismic into the formula (1) mainly falls
nism, volume fracturing shifts the target from improving arti- in between 0.3 and 0.5, which indicates the fractures after
ficial fracture drainage area to expanding the gas reservoir volume fracturing in Sulige gas field are quite complex by
volume contacted by fracture, crushing the reservoir, and re- comparing the FCI of gas well fractures created by volume
alizing artificial permeability, greatly improving the single fracturing abroad[10] (Fig. 2).
well production and enhancing the ultimate gas well recov-
2.2 Horizontal stress
ery[7].
Through systematic analysis of the Barnett shale gas geo- We used two dimensional stress heterogeneity factor (Kh,
logic characteristics and volume fracturing pattern, we have defined as the ratio of the difference between maximum hori-
learned that the natural fracture, differential stress between zontal principal stress and minimum horizontal principal
maximum horizontal principal stress and minimum horizontal
principal stress, and rock brittleness are the key factors af-
fecting volume fracturing[8]. Communication of natural and
artificial cracks can significantly increase the complexity of
fracture. And the differential stress of two horizontal stresses
is one of the main control factors affecting communication of
natural and artificial cracks. Smaller differential stress is fa-
vorable for fracture diverting and bending, making it easier to
form complex fractures. Conversely, it’s hard to form complex
fractures. In addition, high rock brittleness is the key to keep
flow conductivity of complex fractures. The higher the elastic
modulus of the rock, the harder the rock, the higher the brittle
index, the more easily the shear failure will occur, forming
maintaining open state and certain flow conductivity of shear
fractures and rough joints [9].

2.1 Nature fracture

The reservoirs in east section of Sulige gas field can be di-

vided into three kinds according to pore types: intergranular
pore-dissolution pore, dissolution pore- intracrystalline pore,
and intracrystalline pore, some reservoirs have high-angle
(Fig. 1) natural fractures and rich cross beddings which are
the basis to form complex fracture network, and can facilitate
the creation of relatively complex fractures in volume frac-
turing.
Cipolla C L[10−11] described the fracture type and its com- Fig. 1 Fracture imaging of Shihezi Formation in Well Su1-1
− 811 −
 MA Xu et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(6): 810–816

Fig. 4 The stress-strain experiment analysis of H8 member

sandstone core from Well Su1-3 (confining pressure 20)

ruptures at small deformation under pressure in lithomechan-

Fig. 2 FCI of fractures created by volume fracturing at home
and abroad
Fig. 3 Two dimensional stress heterogeneity factor and fracture
morphology
stress to minimum horizontal principal stress) to describe the
fracture morphology. According to the results of physical
modeling experiment and simulation: when Kh is greater than
0.2, single crack is likely to occur (Fig. 3), and when Kh is
between 0 and 0.2, fractures or reticular cracks with certain
complex are likely to occur after fracturing. We conducted
stress experiment on 48 pieces of cores from Shihezi Forma-
tion H8 member collected from different blocks in Sulige gas
field, the results (Table 2) show that the Kh value of H8 mem-
ber sandstone in eastern Sulige is 0.169, that in central Sulige
is 0.170, which means the sandstone of Shihezi Formation H8
member in Sulige gas field can form relatively complex frac-
tures.
2.3 Rock brittleness
ics. Rock is divided into three categories in engineering: brit-
tle rock which is less than 0.03 in axial strain when fracturing,
semi-brittle rock which is 0.03−0.05 in axial strain, and plastic
rock which is greater than 0.05 in axial strain[12]. The
stress-strain indoor experiment on the cores collected from H8
member sandstone reservoir in eastern Sulige gas field shows
that the sandstone axial strain before fracturing is between
0.010−0.015 (Fig. 4), less than 0.03, indicating brittle rock.
Rock brittleness index is an index to judge if the reservoir
is good for fracturing obtained from the North American shale
gas development. When its value is greater than 40, rocks tend
to form complex. The higher the brittleness index of shale, the
more complex the fracture network is likely to be after frac-
turing[13]. The formula to calculate rock brittleness index is[13]
EBRIT = [(Ec−Ecmin)/(Ecmax−Ecmin)] ×100 (2)
υBRIT = [(υc−υcmax)/(υcmin−υcmax)] ×100 (3)
BRIT= (EBRIT + υBRIT)/2 (4)
where, EBRIT is brittleness index calculated by using the com-
prehensively measured elastic modulus, dimensionless; υBRIT
is brittleness index calculated by using the comprehensively
measured Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless; Ec is comprehen-
sively measured elastic modulus, MPa. Ecmax, Ecmin are the
maximum and minimum value of comprehensively measured
elastic modulus (Ec), MPa. υc is comprehensively measured
Poisson’s Ratio; υcmin, υcmax are the maximum and minimum
value of comprehensively measured Poisson’s ratio(υc); BRIT
is rock brittleness index, dimensionless.
The rock brittleness index of H8 member sandstone in Su-
lige gas field calculated by using (2)-(4) formulas distributed
in the 36-52 (Fig. 5).

The rock brittleness is defined as the property that rock 2.4 Reservoir permeability

We built a horizontal well numerical model based on geo-

Table 2 Core stress analysis result of H8 member sandstone in
logic conditions, production performance, and the complex
Sulige gas field
fracture shape induced by volume fracturing in Sulige gas
Vertical Maximum hori- Minimum hori- Differ-
field. The model 2000 m×800 m×15 m in size has a grid step
Block earth stress/ zontal principal zontal major ence/ Kh
of 20 m×20 m×5 m, the horizontal section length of 1 200 m,
MPa stress/MPa stress/MPa MPa
Eastern
12 fractures, main fracture length of 440 m, cluster spacing of
59.45 51.14 43.76 7.38 0.169 20 m, secondary fracture spacing of 20 m, flow conductivity
block
Central of main fractures of 40 μm2·cm, and flow conductivity of
63.48 55.88 47.76 8.12 0.170
block secondary fractures of 4 μm2·cm. We set different permeabili-
− 812 −
 MA Xu et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(6): 810–816

Fig. 6 Relationship between permeability and production in-

crease times

Fig. 5 Brittleness index evaluation results for H8 member in
Well Su1-2
ties to simulate and compare the production increase times
after horizontal well production for 10 a (the ratio of volume
fracturing horizontal well productivity and conventional frac-
turing horizontal well productivity). The simulation results
show that the volume fracturing produced a fracture network
with certain complexity, increasing the effective contact area
of reservoir, resulting in gas discharge area much larger than
conventional staged fracturing. As the permeability decreased,
the production increase times of horizontal well volume frac-
turing increased sharply. When the permeability was (0.1−1.0)
× 10−3 μm2, production increase times reached 1.175−1.500
(Fig. 6). The permeability of H8 member in eastern Sulige gas
field is (0.018−0.320) × 10−3 μm2, so we can see volume frac-
turing has a certain production improvement room.
fracturing[14−15].
In 2012, without changing the well structure, volume frac-
turing was used in a horizontal well with an open hole com-
pletion diameter of 152.4 mm in Sulige gas field. The volume
fracturing job was carried out with 114.3 mm open hole pack-
ers at pumping rate of 6−10 m3/min. The stage number
reached 23.
Horizontal well volume fracturing effects with different
types of pad fluid were compared. When the pad was 100 m3
slick water and 140 m3 base fluid and the pumping rate was 8
m3/ min, fracture monitoring result shows that the fracture is
nearly EW, perpendicular to the minimum principle stress
direction of H8 member in Sulige gas field. The fractures are
asymmetric, the northwest wing is 205 m long, 170 m wide
and 79 m high. The calculated reservoir stimulation volume is
about 485×104 m3. When the pad fluid only contained 230 m3
of base fluid and the pumping rate was 10 m3/min, the north-
west wing of the fracture is 220 m long, 55 m wide, and 48 m
high. The calculated reservoir stimulation volume is about
156×104 m3. Fracture monitoring shows that the fracture cre-
ated by using slick water and base fluid as pad fluid is wider
and more complex than that created by using base fluid only
(Figs. 7 and 8).
Fig. 7 Micro-seismic monitoring chart of fracturing with a pad
of slick water and base fluid in Well Su1-6

3 Volume fracturing design

3.1 Fracturing technology
The main characteristics of tight oil and gas reservoir vol-
ume fracturing abroad are high pumping rate, large amount of
fluid, low proppant concentration, and small proppant size,
and the fracturing process adopted mainly includes open hole Fig. 8 Micro-seismic monitoring chart of fracturing with base
packer staged fracturing and fast drillable bridge plug staged fluid only as pad in Well Su1-6
− 813 −
 MA Xu et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(6): 810–816

Table 3 Comparison of volume fracturing and conventional fracturing parameters in Sulige horizontal wells
Stimulated reservoir
Horizontal sec- Gas reservoir Stage Proppant Pumping rate/ Injection vol- QAOF/
Fracturing technology volumn (SRV)/
tion length/m length/m number volume/m3 (m3⋅min−1) ume/m3 (104 m3⋅−1)
104 m3
Volume fracturing 1 000.0 8 562 6.0−10.0 5 494 1 035 45.98
Conventional fracturing 944.2 93.0 7 249 2.4−3.5 1 937 272 15.03

Through a large number of lab experiments and vertical stimulation volume increases as pumping rate increases (Fig.
well field pilot tests, constant optimization of fracturing pa- 10). When pumping rate of volume fracturing reaches 6−10
rameters and process, we have come up with the volume frac- m3/min (3−4 m3 in conventional fracturing), its reservoir sti-
turing process for horizontal wells in Sulige gas field featur- mulation volume reaches (400−906)×104 m3, which is more
ing low viscosity fluid breaking open fracture, high viscosity than two times of the stimulation volume of conventional
fluid carrying proppant, combination of proppant in different fracturing. Under the same proppant volume and pumping rate,
sizes, and high pumping rate and large injection volume. reservoir stimulation volume increases as the total injection
volume increases (Fig. 11). When total injection rate reaches
3.2 Key parameters of volume fracturing
700−1 500 m3 in volume fracturing, reservoir stimulation
Reservoir stimulation volume refers to the total reservoir volume amounts to (400−900) ×104 m3. So increasing pump-
volume reached by the complex fractures created by volume
fracturing. In conventional low permeability reservoir stimu-
lation, the fractures designed are single long fractures with
two symmetric wings, and the fracture design focuses on the
optimization of fracture conductivity and length; while vol-
ume fracturing focuses on the design of fracture network
aiming at increasing stimulation volume.
Different fracturing methods were used on horizontal wells
with similar physical properties in the same block in Sulige
gas field (Average porosity 8.5%, average permeability 0.51×
10−3 μm2, and average gas saturation 57.3%). The treatment
parameters are listed in Table 3. Downhole micro-seismic Fig. 9 Top view of micro-seismic monitoring chart of volume
fracture monitoring shows conventional fracturing in hori- fracturing and conventional fracturing
zontal wells produced fractures 120−240 m in half- length,
65−165 m in band width, 34−54 m in height, and that is a
reservoir stimulation volume of about 272.0×104 m3; while
volume fracturing technology created fractures 180-390 m in
half- length, 100−310 m in width, 42−79 m in height, that
means a reservoir stimulation volume of about 1 035.0×104
m3. Thus it can be seen volume fracturing resulted in longer,
wider and higher fractures than conventional fracturing (Fig.
9), and the stimulation volume is more than three times of that
of conventional fracturing.
On this basis, four more horizontal wells with target zone Fig. 10 Relationship between SRV and pumping rate
similar in physical properties in eastern Sulige were tested
(average porosity 7.9%, average permeability 0.41×10−3 μm2,
and average gas saturation 56.5%). Downhole micro-seismic
fracture monitoring was employed to analyze the effect of
proppant volume (30 m3, 40 m3, 50 m3, 70 m3 and 100 m3)
and total injection volume (300 m3, 400 m3, 500 m3, 600 m3,
700 m3, 800 m3, 1 000 m3, 1 500 m3 were used) on the stimu-
lation volume. Different groups were tested at different pump-
ing rates of 3.5 m3/ min, 4.0 m3/ min, 6.0 m3/ min, 8.0 m3/ min,
and 10.0 m3/ min. The comparison study shows: under the
same proppant volume and same injection volume, reservoir Fig. 11 Relationship between SRV and injection volume

− 814 −
 MA Xu et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(6): 810–816
Table 4 Comparison of parameters between volume fracturing and conventional fracturing in H8 member sandstone, Sulige gas field
Fracturing Well Horizontal sec- Effective Fracturing Proppant Pumping rate/ Injection QAOF/
technology number tion length/m length/m stage volume/m3 (m3⋅min−1) volume/m3 (104 m3·d−1) tion/104 m3
Volume
42 1 282 878 9.3 523.0
fracturing
Conventional
73 1 233 802 8.8 389.0
fracturing
Fig. 12 QAOF of horizontal wells in east Sulige gas field
ing rate and injection volume can effectively enhance reser-
voir stimulation volume.
4 Field test and evaluation
By the end of 2013, volume fracturing had been applied to
42 wells in Sulige tight gas field with the average injection
volume of 5 510.0 m3 and pumping rate of 8.0−12.0 m3/min.
The average QAOF of these wells was 62.9×104 m3/d, that is
1.5 times that of conventional fracturing, the initial daily pro-
duction was 6.2×104 m3/d, 1.2 times that of conventional
fracturing (Table 4).
Horizontal well volume fracturing has been tested in 9
wells in eastern Sulige gas field, with the average stage num-
ber of 8.5, the maximum proppant volume of 1 091.0m3 and
the maximum injection volume of 10 791.0 m3. Fracture mon-
itoring shows the reservoir stimulation volume is more than
2−4 times that of conventional fracturing. In 2013, the aver-
age open flow potential of volume fracturing was 44.7×104
m3/d, 1.8 times that of conventional fracturing (Fig. 12). The
initial daily production was 5.2×104 m3/d, 1.7 times that of
conventional fracturing. It can be seen volume fracturing sig-
nificantly raised the production of tight gas horizontal wells in
eastern Sulige gas field.
5 Conclusions
The study on permeability, natural fracture development,
rock brittleness and principal stress of Sulige tight sandstone
reservoirs shows that Sulige gas field has the geological con-
ditions for volume fracturing.
According to the characteristics of tight sandstone reser-
voirs in Sulige gas field, the volume fracturing process fea-
turing “low viscous fluid breaking open fractures, high vis-
cous fluid carrying proppant, combination of proppant in dif-
Daily produc- Casing pres-
sure/MPa
8.0−12.0 5 510.0 62.9 6.2 (37wells) 19.4
3.2−5.0 3 868.0 41.0 5.0 (46 wells) 20.3
ferent sizes, and high pumping rate and large injection vol-
ume” has been establish and applied successfully in Sulige
gas field. Fracture monitoring results show horizontal well
volume fracturing has formed fractures with certain complex-
ity, increasing the reservoir stimulation volume.
By the end of 2013, volume fracturing had been applied to
42 wells in Sulige tight gas reservoirs. The initial daily pro-
duction of these wells was 1.2 times that of conventional
fracturing wells.
The effectiveness of open hole packoff has an effect on the
result of volume fracturing. The study next step is to carry out
tests of bridge plug staged multi-cluster fracturing in ce-
mented wells, to explore new ways of enhancing production
with volume fracturing.
References
[1] Xu Yonggao, Zhao Zhenfeng, Wang Yajuan, et al. Hy-
dra-jetting staged horizontal completion via multiple sliding
sleeve in Changqing sandstone tight gas reservoir. SPE
156181, 2012.
[2] Mu Lijun, Ma Xu, Zhang Yanming, et al. Evaluation of
multi-stage fracturing by hydrajet, swellable packer, and
compressive packer techniques in horizontal openhole wells.
SPE 153328, 2012.
[3] Wu Qi, Xu Yun, Wang Xiaoquan, et al. Volume fracturing
technology of unconventional reservoirs: Connotation, opti-
mization design and implementation. Petroleum Exploration
and Development, 2012, 39(3): 352–358.
[4] Du Jinhu, Liu He, Ma Desheng, et al. Discussion on effective
development techniques for continental tight oil in China. Pe-
troleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(2): 198–205.
[5] Li Xianwen, Zhang Kuangsheng, Fan Fengling, et al. Study
and experiment on volumetric fracturing in low pressure tight
formation of Ordos Basin. Journal of Oil and Gas Technology,
2013, 35(3): 142–146.
[6] Wang Xiaodong, Zhao Zhenfeng, Li Xiangping, et al. Mixing
water fracturing technology for tight oil reservoir in Ordos
Basin. Oil Drilling & Production Technology, 2012, 34(5):
80–83.
[7] Wu Qi, Xu Yun, Liu Yuzhang, et al. The current situation of
stimulated reservoir volume for shale in U S and its inspiration
to China. Oil Drilling & Production Technology, 2011, 32(2):
1–7.
[8] Nobakht M, Clarkson C R, Kaviani D. New and improved
methods for performing rate-transient analysis of shale gas
− 815 −
 MA Xu et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(6): 810–816
reservoirs. SPE 147869, 2012.
[9] Britt L K, Schoeffler J. The geomechanics of a shale play:
What makes a shale prospective. SPE 125525, 2009.
[10] Cipolla C L, Warpinski N R, Mayerhofer M, et al. The rela-
tionship between fracture complexity, reservoir properties, and
fracture-treatment design. SPE 115769, 2008.
[11] Chong K K, Grieser B, Jaripatke O, et al. A completions
roadmap to shale-play development: A review of successful
approaches toward shale-play stimulation in the last two dec-
ades. SPE 130369, 2010.
− 816 −
[12] Chen Mian, Jin Yan, Zhang Guangqing, et al. Petroleum pro-
ject rock mechanics. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 2011: 6.
[13] Rickman R, Mullen M, Petre E, et al. A practical use of shale
petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: All shale
plays are not clones of the Barnett Shale. SPE 115258, 2008.
[14] Wu Qi, Xu Yun, Wang Tengfei, et al. The revolution of res-
ervoir stimulation: An introduction of volume fracturing.
Natural Gas Industry, 2011, 31(4): 7–12.
[15] Mayerhofer M J, Pinnacle E P, Lolon N R, et al. What is sti-
mulated reservoir volume?. SPE 119890, 2010.