SPE 114173

Stimulating Unconventional Reservoirs: Maximizing Network Growth while

Optimizing Fracture Conductivity
N.R. Warpinski, SPE, M.J. Mayerhofer, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies; M.C. Vincent, SPE, Carbo Ceramics; C.L.
Cipolla, SPE, and E.P. Lolon, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference held in Keystone, Colorado, U.S.A., 10–12 February 2008.

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
Unconventional reservoirs such as gas shales and tight gas sands require technology-based solutions for optimum
development. The successful exploitation of these reservoirs has relied on some combination of horizontal drilling, multi-
stage completions, innovative fracturing, and fracture mapping to engineer economic completions. However, the
requirements for economic production all hinge on the matrix permeability of these reservoirs, supplemented by the
conductivity that can be generated in hydraulic fractures and network fracture systems. Simulations demonstrate that ultra-
low shale permeabilities require an interconnected fracture network of moderate conductivity with a relatively small spacing
between fractures to obtain reasonable recovery factors. Microseismic mapping demonstrates that such networks are
achievable and the subsequent production from these reservoirs support both the modeling and the mapping. Tight gas sands,
having orders of magnitude greater permeability than the gas shales, may be successfully depleted without inducing complex
fracture networks, but other issues of damage and zonal coverage complicate recovery in these reservoirs. As with the shales,
mapping has proved itself to be valuable in assessing the fracturing results.

Introduction
Unconventional reservoirs provide a significant fraction of gas production in North America and increasing amounts in some
other regions of the world. Such reservoirs include tight gas sands, coalbed methane (CBM), and gas shales; in 2006 these
reservoirs provided 43% of the US production of natural gas (Kuuskra1). Because of their limited permeability, which is
foremost among many other complexities, some type of stimulation process (and/or dewatering in the case of CBM) is
required to engender economic recovery from wells drilled into these formations.
The focus of this paper is on gas shales, with particular emphasis on how these reservoirs perform relative to tight gas
sands. The important role of natural fractures in both the stimulation and production processes, the importance of
conductivity in the developed fracture or fracture system, and the critical influence of the matrix permeability are investigated
using both mapping and modeling results.
Gas shales, such as the Barnett, Fayettville, and Woodford in North America, are relatively recent plays, but gas
production from shales has occurred since the early 1900’s from the Devonian shales of eastern North America and more
recently from the Antrim shale and others. These shales2 typically contain a relatively high total organic content (e.g., the
Barnett has a total organic content of 4-5%) and are apparently the source rock as well as the reservoir. The gas is stored in
the limited pore space of these rocks (a few per cent, including both matrix and natural fractures) and a sizable fraction of the
gas in place may be adsorbed on the organic material. Matrix permeabilities of these shales are extremely difficult to
measure because they are so low, but various approaches to determine their value have yielded permeabilities on the order of
1-100 nanodarcies. Clearly, economic production cannot be achieved without an enormous conductive surface area in
contact with this matrix, either through existing natural fractures or the development of a fracture “network” during
stimulation. Economic production would then also rely on the existence or development of sufficient conductivity within this
network.
Tight gas sands, and particularly lenticular deposits typically developed in the western US basins, have somewhat higher
permeabilities relative to the shales. While conventional core analyses of these types of rocks generally yield permeabilities
on the order of tens of microdarcies, detailed special core analyses funded by DOE and GRI in the 1980’s showed that the in
situ permeabilities for gas flow were much lower.3 The combined effects of confining stress and water saturation typically
caused about a two order of magnitude reduction in gas permeability from the conventionally measured value, resulting in
2 SPE 114173

effective gas-flow permeabilities of 0.1 to 1.0 microdarcies in most of these reservoirs. However, most of the producing
reservoirs are at least marginally naturally fractured and the natural fractures appear to be an important factor for economic
gas production, although they provide complications for the stimulation. In such a reservoir, a large, single-plane fracture
with sufficient conductivity can effectively drain the reservoir, particularly if the well spacing is correctly planned based on
fracture lengths, drainage widths, and reservoir compartmentalization.
The overriding importance of the matrix permeability in development of these reservoirs can be demonstrated with a
reservoir simulator. Although these simulations include many simplifying assumptions (homogeneous reservoirs without
lenticular discontinuity, planar fractures of constant width, symmetric networks, uniform vertical properties, etc.), they can
effectively describe the impact of reservoir permeability upon depletion. Three cases, including one tight sandstone and two
horizontal-well shale environments, were modeled. The sandstone simulation assumes a permeability of 1.0 μd, a spacing
between hydraulic fractures of 300 ft (either from fractures in separate vertical wells or in multi-stage horizontal wells), and a
relatively high hydraulic-fracture conductivity (50 md-ft). The two shale cases assume matrix permeabilities of 0.1 and
0.01 μd, network fracture spacings of 300 ft (an orthogonal fracture system), and a moderate fracture conductivity (5 md-ft)
throughout the network. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the pressure depletion that would occur after three months from
each of these systems, and the geometric configuration for each of the cases. In a microdarcy tight sandstone reservoir,
closely-spaced planar fractures would provide efficient drainage of the reservoir. After three months, a 1000-psi drawdown
occurs approximately 50 ft into the reservoir. However, the lower permeability shale reservoir shows limited depletion of the
matrix, even with a fully interconnected fracture network. Here, a 1000-psi drawdown only extends 20 and 5 ft, respectively.
Figure 2 illustrates the gas recovery factor obtained with long-term production of these reservoirs. In 15 years, the recovery
factors could reach 80-90% in the tight gas reservoir, if it were developed with closely spaced fractures and if there is no
compartmentalization. For the tighter shales, only 25-50% recovery could be expected, even with the development of a
complex network.
Planar Fractures Network Fractures; Low k Network Fractures; Ultra-Low k

k=1.0 μd k=0.1 μd k=0.01 μd

Spacing=300 ft Spacing=300 ft Horizontal Spacing=300 ft
kfw=50 md-ft kfw=5 md-ft Well kfw=5 md-ft
Figure 1 Example calculations of shale versus tight gas reservoir performance after 3 months of production.

Tight Gas

Shale Gas

Figure 2 Gas recovery factors for example shale and tight gas reservoir performance.
SPE 114173 3

Simple calculations such as these demonstrate the importance of developing a conductive fracture network that fits the
requirements of the particular reservoir. For gas shales in particular, the integration of fracture network size and spacing,
fracture conductivity and continuity, and matrix permeability should be primary design concern for optimization. Other
factors such as height growth, nearby wet zones, horizontal versus vertical wells, types of completions, damage and cleanup
are obviously important and should not be minimized. These reservoirs have a well-deserved reputation for being
“technology plays”, that is, those fields that cannot be developed without new or creative drilling, completion, and
stimulation technology.

Fracturing Behavior
As typical of most technology plays, the development of reservoirs such as the Barnett shale and lenticular tight gas sands
has benefited tremendously from hydraulic fracture mapping results4-10 that provide definitive information regarding the
created hydraulic fracture. It is worthwhile to begin by reviewing what we know about fracturing these reservoirs based on
published mapping results.

Gas Shale Fracturing

Although little mapping information has been published from recent gas shale plays other than the Barnett, fracturing
results in shales are believed to comprise the full spectrum from a network fairway to a fairly simple fracture typically
envisioned in some sandstone reservoirs. Based on mapping results, the Barnett shale should be a good proxy for the end
case of a complex network fracture. Current exploitation practices in this shale include multiple-stage light-sand fracture
treatments11 in horizontal wells to stimulate and access large volumes of the reservoir. These fractures treatments often
overlap and interact – frequently by design – and develop quite complicated fracture networks.
Evaluation of network behavior is somewhat simpler to decipher from the earlier waterfracs in vertical wells, avoiding
any complications of multiple fracture initiation and interaction from a horizontal well, cement quality, or completion tools.
Figure 3 shows two examples from Fisher et al4 of microseismic maps of vertical well stimulations conducted in the Barnett
shale using ~20,000 bbl light-sand fracture treatments (waterfracs). These examples show the wide swath of microseismic
activity that is generated by a waterfrac in these reservoirs. Fractures created in the Barnett with waterfracs are complex,
often-anisotropic, show many cross-cutting linear features, and often show activity as much as 1,000 ft laterally from the
predominant N45°E fracture azimuth in the Wise county region.

1500

1000 1000

500 500
Northing (ft)

0 0 Observation
Well
Northing (ft)

-500 -500
Frac Well

-1000 -1000

-1500 -1500 Frac Well

Observation Well

-2000 -2000
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Easting (ft) Easting (ft)
6
Figure 3 Example microseismic maps of Barnett fractures in vertical wells (from Fisher at al ).
4 SPE 114173

Figure 4 shows the results from the same well as the left-hand map in Figure 3, but it is split into two time periods to help
distinguish the aligned features that commonly develop. The early time plot on the left shows how northwestward
development starts early in the treatment, but further growth becomes more northeasterly. The aligned features are often easy
to discern early in time before the huge numbers of microseisms begin to obscure any details. Typically, both northeast and
northwest features are observed, and it is believed that these features are related to the hydraulic fractures (NE) and opening
of natural fractures (NW and NE).

1500 1500
Early In The Stimulation All Microseisms

1000 1000

500 500

Frac

Northing (ft)
Well
Northing (ft)

0 0

Frac
Well -500
-500

Possible
Aligned Possible
-1000 -1000
Features Aligned
Features
-1500 -1500

Observation Well Observation Well

-2000 -2000
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Easting (ft) Easting (ft)

Figure 4 Development of aligned microseismic features that are indicative of possible activated natural fractures.

We also know that fracture treatments in these wells will load up nearby producing wells (lateral distances of 500-1000 ft)
with the fracturing fluid (Fisher et al4), so the microseismic
activity is indicative of actual fluid movement and not just
1200
stress effects. The distance that fluid can move in a fracture
12
in a given treatment time can be estimated from
Distance Fluid Moves (ft)

1000
2 k ΔP t 100 min
y= , 200 min
ϕμ 800 300 min
where k is the permeability of the fracture while pumping, ΔP 400 min
is the treatment pressure minus the reservoir pressure, t is the 600 500 min

treatment time, ϕ is the fracture porosity, and μ is the fluid

viscosity. Figure 5 shows the estimated distance of water 400
movement as a function of permeability for several treatment
times and a pressure differential of 2,000 psi. The obvious 200
conclusion is that the lateral permeability of the network
(orthogonal to the maximum stress azimuth) must be on the 0
order of tens to hundreds of darcies while pumping in order to 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
have fracture fluid intercept offset wells at the observed Permeability (md)
lateral distances. These high permeabilities are only realistic
if the lateral fractures are dilating, that is, behaving like Figure 5 Calculation of lateral fluid movement as a function
hydraulic fractures during the treatment. Such behavior also of time and fracture permeability.
implies that the stress bias – the difference between the
maximum and minimum horizontal stresses – is very low.
SPE 114173 5

The actual opening of the lateral fractures is also supported by tiltmeter data (Fisher et al4). Tiltmeter measurements of
surface deformation induced by these fracture system frequently show a 60%-40% split in volume between the major fracture
orientation (NE, for the Wise county area of the Barnett) and the conjugate orientation (NW). This split is also reflected in
the shape of the surface deformation, which instead of being a trough with two adjacent humps, can approach a bowl shape
that reflects the dual fracture orientations.
Since vertical or horizontal wells drilled into the Barnett shale do not produce any significant gas prior to stimulation, it is
evident that the waterfracs generate or activate the network fracture system to induce an economically viable effective
permeability. Most cores and imaging logs have also indicated that natural fractures in the Barnett are mostly healed when
the wells are drilled. Mapping results have shown that a much more limited network is obtained using cross-linked gel
systems13, so clearly the waterfracs are an important element of the process. It is envisioned that the low viscosity fluid in a
waterfrac can penetrate into the natural fractures (assuming some residual permeability) and begin dilating them. The
increased dilation results in more permeability and greater penetration into the natural fracture. At some point, there is
sufficient pressure in the natural fractures to begin “jacking” them open, which also requires a low stress bias. Once opened,
they continue to propagate as orthogonal hydraulic fractures as long as the fluid supply supports them. Multiple natural
fractures can be opened in this way, thus creating the fracture network. Microseismic events, which are shear events, are a
natural result of having various interconnecting fracturing planes with different pressures, since this configuration generates
large amounts of shear transmitted through the matrix blocks. The brittleness of the shales is also regarded as an important
factor for developing a large fracture network that maintains conductivity upon production drawdown. Softer shales are
likely to be more challenging when trying to achieve large conductive networks.
The process described above produces an interconnected fracture network that has very high permeability at the time of
fracturing. However, all of the fractures will close after pumping stops unless supported by proppant or by shear offset.
Shear offset is a natural part of this process and the microseismic activity usually found in Barnett stimulations suggest that
considerable large scale movement occurs, but it is not well known how much permeability/conductivity can be generated by
shear offset alone. Proppant transport into the network is more complicated and will be discussed in a later section.

Tight Gas Fracturing

Hydraulic fractures performed in tight gas sands are generally thought to be near the other end of the fracturing spectrum,
representing relatively simple, planar features. Most published results of fractures in tight sands7-10, 14-19 tend to support this
assumption, as shown for example in data from a Piceance basin test (Wolhart et al10) in Figure 6. Nevertheless, there is a
wide variation in microseismic behavior observed in such tests. Some tests have been published that show faults inducing
some geometric complexities (Wolhart et al16), while a stimulation experiment at M-Site (Warpinski et al19) showed
interesting fracturing behavior that indicated activation of some natural fractures fairly early in the fracture treatment, as
shown in Figure 7. Additionally, some of the mapping tests showed fairly wide microseismic zones (Cipolla et al14 and
Shemeta et al18) that might also be indicative of fluid movement into natural fractures in some zones, although much of the
1500
width may also be due to uncertainty in event locations
since fracturing tests in these reservoirs often generate
smaller microseisms that cannot be detected as clearly. In
general, however, the relatively high length-to-width ratio
1000 of the microseismic cloud dimensions would suggest more
planar fracturing in these reservoirs with some likely fissure
Frac Wells
opening in specific situations.
South-North (ft)

500
600
AFTER 15 MIN MWX-3 Fault
Planes
500
0
Observation Well 400
Hydraulic
Northing (ft)

Fracture
300 Azimuth
-500
200 MWX-2

MONITOR
100
5-LEVEL
-1000 MONITOR WELL FRAC 6C
-1500

-1000

-500

500

1000

0
-700 -500 -300 -100 100 300 500
West-East (ft) Easting (ft)

Figure 6 Example fracturing results in lenticular tight gas

16 Figure 7 M-Site example showing activation of fracture planes
sands at Grand Valley, CO (Wolhart et al ). 19
during a stimulation (Warpinski et al ).
6 SPE 114173

Figure 8 shows a schematic of the types of

fractures that can be envisioned in these types of
reservoirs (adapted and modified from Fisher et al.4). Simple Fracture Complex Fracture
It is highly unlikely that the simple planar fracture
ever is achieved in geologic materials, but some level
of planarity does appear to occur in many reservoirs,
albeit with roughness, waviness, corners and
stranding.7,8,12 Fissure opening is probably common,
but may be difficult to recognize in microseismic
maps because the open length orthogonally may not be
much greater than the normal width of a microseismic
cloud. It is expected that the “normal” width of a
microseismic cloud is due to a combination of the
accuracy of the microseisms (tens of feet) and the
distance at which stress effects from the hydraulic
fracture are large enough to induce shear slippage
(approximately equal to the height of the fracture). Complex Fracture Complex Fracture
Network fractures can often be distinguished With Fissure Opening Network
(particularly in the Barnett shale) because of the Figure 8 Schematic diagrams of levels of fracture complexity
aligned microseismic events over very wide areas, but 4
(adapted and modified from Fisher et al ).
also because of the fluid loading of offset wells.
Fracturing treatments in tight gas sandstones consist of a wide range of light-sand fracs, hybrid fractures, gel fractures,
and various energized treatments that are intended to create and adequately prop a single fracture plane. The primary
fracture-design issues are obtaining sufficient fracture length and height in contact with reservoir rock, optimizing
conductivity within the hydraulic fracture to promote fluid cleanup, minimizing damage to the hydraulic fracture and the
natural fractures, determining the optimum number of stages (if it is a typical fluvial lenticular reservoir), avoiding water, and
coordinating well locations for maximum drainage efficiency based on fracture azimuths and lengths. The fracturing process
itself is likely to be much less complicated than in shales and the design requirements are more straightforward. The
selection of fracturing treatments in tight gas sands will depend on actual permeability, pore pressure, liquid yield,
temperature, and stress magnitudes.

Fracture Requirements For Shale Stimulation

If it is assumed that fracturing of shales can generate anything from planar fractures to very large networks depending on the
reservoir conditions and the treatment parameters, then it is imperative that reservoir conditions be adequately assessed and
that treatments be designed appropriately for the given conditions. A planar fracture in a nanodarcy reservoir will only
recover a small fraction of the gas in place in any reasonable time period, and even a network fracture with rather wide
fracture spacing will have a poor recovery factor. In the Barnett shale, development of network fracture systems is further
complicated by reservoir features such as karsts and faults that may have detrimental effects on the fracturing; 3D seismic
surveys are routinely used to map out and avoid such features.
At the present time, there is no method to predict the network generation capability of a given reservoir for any treatment;
instead, fracture complexity is directly observed via mapping. Even the best current mapping services provide only a general
idea as to the network that has been created, such as information on the volume of reservoir rock stimulated by the treatment
(the SRV or Stimulated Reservoir Volume13), the intensity of the microseismicity as a possible indicator of the degree of
fracturing, and the development of clear linear trends in microseismicity which probably highlight major fluid pathways
during fracturing. Unfortunately, current mapping technologies do not provide adequate resolution to precisely determine the
wellbore to fracture intersection of the details of the fracture geometry on a small scale. However, all information gathered to
date helps develop an understanding of the complexity of the fractures and assists in the development of models to simulate
the process.

Reservoir and Fracture Influence on Production

The ultra-low permeability of the gas shale reservoirs places a stringent requirement on the fracture treatment design.
Mayerhofer et al20 have conducted a series of numerical calculations to assess the effect of SRV, fracture density, network
conductivity, and other factors in initial and long-term production from these reservoirs.
Figure 9 shows example calculations that illustrate the pressure depletion (left side plots) that occurs for two different
fracture spacings and the significant variation in gas recovery factor (right side plot) that results, even after 15 years of
production. It is evident that ultra-low permeability gas shales need to be fractured in blocks that are less than 100 ft on edge
in order to recover most of the gas in place.
SPE 114173 7

20
Figure 9 Example calculations showing effect of fracture density in gas shale recovery (after Mayerhofer et al ).

Using this same approach, the effect of the size of the stimulated volume (SRV) was evaluated and is shown in Figure 10
for the case of 400-ft fracture spacing. Using a shale thickness of 300 ft, a SRV of 600x106 ft3 corresponds to an area of
2,000,000 ft2 (about 46 acres), or a network that is 1,000 ft by 2,000 ft. Doubling the size of the SRV (essentially 2,000 ft by
2,000 ft) yields an increase of 1.3 BCF of production over 15 years. Interestingly, increasing the size of the SRV again by
the same amount only nets another 0.7 BCF, recoverable in 15 years, which demonstrates the effects of limited conductivity
in the stimulated natural fracture system.

ΔG=0.7 BCF

ΔG=1.3 BCF

20
Figure 10 Effect of reservoir volume on gas recovery factor (after Mayerhofer et al ).

The influence of conductivity in the fracture system is evident during all phases of production, as can be seen in Figure
11, also from Mayerhofer et al20. Increased conductivity has clear benefits up to at least 20 md-ft, although it may not be
possible to generate such high conductivity with waterfracs in gas shale reservoirs. Nevertheless, any incremental
improvement in conductivity adds value in terms of increased production over shorter time periods.
8 SPE 114173

20
Figure 11 Effect of fracture conductivity on gas recovery factor (after Mayerhofer et al ).

In their calculations, Mayerhofer et al20 also demonstrated that higher near-wellbore conductivity could add value, that
unstimulated areas would reduce production essentially equivalent to the volume missed, and that fracture skin damage was
insignificant unless the damage was
Shale Gas Production- Log-Log Plot
greater than a 95% loss in
permeability. Along with modeling 10000

of a measured fracture network, they

also showed how measured SRV’s
correlated with early-time production.
Figure 12 shows the actual
production history of a typical shale Bi-linear Flow (1/4-slope)- Low Conductivity Fracture Network
gas well on a log-log diagnostic plot,
Gas Rate, Mcf/d

which is used to identify various

producing flow regimes. Flowing 1000
Cleanup
pressures were fairly constant
throughout most of the production
period prior to liquid loading. The
initial month of production is
significantly influenced by fracturing
fluid cleanup, followed by an almost Liquid Loading
2-year period of bi-linear flow
indicating a low conductivity fracture 100
1 10 100 1000 10000
network as illustrated in Figure 11. Time (Days)
The later part of the production data is
Figure 12 Log-Log diagnostic plot of actual shale gas production
strongly impacted by liquid loading
showing the presence of a low-conductivity fracture network.
effects.

Conductivity and Proppant Transport in Light Sand Fracture Treatments

Proppant transport and the resulting conductivity in light sand fracture treatments are challenging issues. Since these
treatments are essentially conducted with water (often slickened with linear gel or friction reducer to reduce friction in the
tubing/casing), and given that proppant concentrations are generally quite low, the settling of proppant particles are often
predicted using the relatively simple Stokes’ Law’

Vs =
( )
ρ p − ρ f gd 2
18μ
where Vs is the particle settling velocity, ρp is the density of the particle, ρf is the density of the fluid, g is the acceleration of
gravity, μ is the fluid viscosity, and dp is the diameter of the particle
This form of the equation has many simplifying assumptions which are violated in actual slickwater treatments. Stokes’
Law in this form predicts the terminal settling velocity of spherical particles in stagnant Newtonian liquid without wall
effects, and without particle interaction. In actual treatments, realistic power-law fluids are highly turbulent near wellbore,
irregularly shaped particles settle at a velocity adequate to generate wakes requiring corrections for inertia, particles
agglomerate (draft) and interact (hinder), while rough and/or inclined fracture faces complicate settling. Although Stoke’s
Law has been deemed to be “grossly inadequate”21 for describing proppant placement, the general relationships are valid:
• With low viscosity (μ) fluids – proppant settling will be rapid,
• settling can be slowed with reduced pellet density (ρp), and most poorly recognized,
SPE 114173 9

• when particle diameter is reduced, settling velocity reduces exponentially.

Although more sophisticated mathematical treatments have been proposed to describe proppant settling,21,22 a predictive
tool is not available to provide a precise description of the created fracture geometry, and the hindrance of particle movement
by rough, inclined, stair-stepping fractures. Those concerns notwithstanding, Figure 13 presents the predicted settling rate for
several common proppants, corrected for proppant settling Reynold’s Number. From Figure 13, it is apparent that most
proppants will settle through slickwater at 5 to 30 feet per minute. Since many frac treatments require several hours to
implement, it is clear that most injected proppants will fall into a settled bank and will not remain suspended until fracture
closure.

Figure 13 Reducing particle diameter and/or particle density will reduce settling rates. However, most commonly used particles
settle at an adequate rate that they will likely form a settled bed unless the frac fluid is densified or viscosified (LWC = light-weight
proppant; ULWP = ultra-light-weight proppant).

However, the maximum distance that particles will be transported with slickwater is not exclusively a function of
suspension time. Instead, in slickwater fractures, the main mode of lateral transport is likely to be saltation, or bed transport
as proposed by Kern, Perkins, and Wyant23, Patankar24 and shown in recent laboratory videos by Stim-Lab25 and others. The
observed behavior for this type of flow is shown in Figure 14. Particles with a density greater than the fracturing fluid
quickly fall to the base of the created frac, but are eroded from the settled bed and progressively transported along the bed
and deposited at the end – effectively achieving propped length. By this manner, laboratory observation and theoretical
modeling demonstrate that even very large, dense particles may be transported to enormous lengths given adequate water
velocity and time.

23 24
Figure 14 Proppant Transport in Slickwater (from Kern, Perkins, Wyant, and Patankar )
10 SPE 114173

Field validation of proppant transport is somewhat limited. With cross-linked fluids in the Bakken formation, 20/40 sand
has been pumped to surface in offset wells 2200 feet away from the treatment wells26. With slickwater fluids, Leonard et al27
have reported tracer surveys indicating radioactive traced sand being identified in offset wells at distances of 500 feet with
40/70 mesh sand. In mineback observations of coalbed methane (CBM) treatments, Diamond and Oyler28 report a sand filled
fracture observed 110 feet from the treatment well. The well was treated with 20/40 and 80/100 sand with water as the
carrying fluid. The sand-filled frac was primarily horizontal at the top of the coal section. Other CBM treatments with 70-
quality N2 foams confirmed sand was transported as far as 400 feet in vertical and complex fractures as proved by subsequent
minebacks. Diamond and Oyler reported that the fracture geometry in CBM was frequently complex, with vertical,
horizontal, and stair-stepping fractures. Fractures were not laterally homogeneous – fractures would vary in width,
trajectory, and orientation, providing many pinch points which would restrict flow beyond what is predicted in uniform
models. In 22 government sponsored minebacks in six states, it appeared that new fractures were seldom created in CBM,
but rather that naturally occurring planes of weakness (cleats, joints, bed boundaries) were dilated and widened to varying
degrees by the fracturing treatment. It is not clear whether lessons learned in CBM minebacks will directly translate to
deeper shale reservoirs, but it does corroborate that fracture geometry and proppant transport are more complex than
explained by most models.
In addition, most production models and published conductivity data presume that fractures are linear, planar, of uniform
width, have smooth fracture faces and are not damaged by gel. However, more realistic testing conducted on narrower
fractures subjected to realistic flowrates of liquid and gas subjected to cyclic stress and gel damage may show 50 to 100 times
higher pressure losses, as reported by Palisch et al.29
Fredd et al30 tested flow capacity of fractures between split core from the Cotton Valley sandstone formation, as indicated
in the diagrams and photos in Figure 15. Unpropped and partially propped fractures were compared to evaluate potential
waterfrac cases.

30
Figure 15 Testing of flow capacity of fractures created from split core instead of standard honed core [from Fredd et al ].

As shown in Figure 16, unpropped fractures from split core retain some conductivity at low stress. However, at stresses
above 3000 psi, these fractures were observed to heal and provide essentially zero flow capacity. If fracture faces were
displaced (perhaps simulating tectonic stress in the reservoir allowing shifting of the fracture faces) some degree of flow
capacity was provided even with unpropped fractures. However, in all fracture conditions, adding 0.1 lb/sq ft of white frac
sand increased the conductivity by 10 to 100 fold. Substituting a strong bauxite in place of frac sand increased the
conductivity by another 100-fold at stresses below 4000 psi. While no operators consider bauxite at stress conditions of only
4000 psi, these results suggest that conventional proppants are not strong enough to withstand closure stress when placed in a
partial monolayer, and the use of higher strength proppants should be evaluated despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.
It is unclear that dense particles can be placed in a partial monolayer within an actual propped fracture. However, it appears
highly likely that the proppant distribution within actual fractures is irregular, with proppant pillars adjacent to poorly
propped areas, and stress concentration upon proppant is certainly greater than the ideal conditions normally evaluated within
the lab and echoed by most production models.
SPE 114173 11

100x difference in
flow capacity
between sand and
bauxite at 4000 psi
when partially
propped

30
Figure 15 Comparison of Waterfracturing cases 1 through 4 by Fredd et al indicated that proppant strength is much more
important in partial monolayers than in fully packed fractures.

A large concern with production models and “rules of thumb” for required conductivity is the implicit assumption that
fractures are of uniform width vertically and laterally. However, all physical evidence (minebacks, core-throughs, block
studies) indicate some degree of complexity to fracture geometry and continuity. Although in the laboratory it is possible to
place a uniform proppant bed, carefully leveled with a spatula, in actual wells it is highly unlikely that we are able to fill
fractures many hundreds of feet vertically and laterally with uniform concentrations of proppant. More likely, there are
regions of higher stress that serve as width restrictions, and areas of the fractures where proppant pillars and/or unpropped
areas will provide flow restrictions.
For gas shales, a second important question relates to the conductivity of the fractures that are oriented orthogonal to the
primary hydraulic fracture azimuth and whether the conductivity is generated substantially by shear offset during fracturing
or by transport of proppant into these fractures. Shear offset, essentially the sliding of the two rough surfaces of a fracture
over one another so that they cannot close in their original location, is a ubiquitous process that has been demonstrated in all
materials with rough fracture surfaces. Although many methods exist for estimating the permeability of rough natural
fractures and the effect of variable closure stress as the reservoir depletes (e.g., Walsh31, Barton and Bandis32), the amount of
conductivity that is retained is unclear, primarily because of the unknown condition of the fracture faces.
There is no reason why proppant would be unable to enter any orthogonal fractures opened during the creation of the
network, but the distance that the prop would be transported and the amount of conductivity generated remain unanswered
questions. The orthogonal fractures should be narrower because of at least slightly higher stress levels, and they would also
have much lower flow rates due to the wide distribution of fluid into many network fractures, both suggesting that proppant
transport would be considerably less in these fractures. However, it is also possible that the principal benefit of 40/70 and
100 mesh sand used in most shale waterfracs is diversion so that more fractures are created and the reservoirs are more
extensively broken apart.
All of these issues are open questions that need extensive investigation to find answers that can further help to optimize
stimulations in these reservoirs. What is clear is the necessity of maintaining conductivity to efficiently and effectively drain
the reservoir. As shown in the previous reservoir modeling, increased conductivity improves initial production rates and adds
reserves. However, methods to add conductivity while maximizing network development have not been clearly formulated
and need to be investigated.
Many fracture optimization “rules of thumb” suggest that the required conductivity of a fracture can be optimized by
simply knowing the reservoir permeability and fracture half-length – for instance trying to reach a dimensionless conductivity
of 30, where FCD = (khf w) / (k * xf). This approach may not always apply in horizontal wells, as it does not consider the
intersection between the wellbore and fracture and the associated flow convergence. Dedurin et al33 and Besler et al26 have
demonstrated that transverse fractures have entirely different conductivity requirements compared to longitudinal fractures.
If longitudinal fractures are successfully propagated along uncemented laterals, the intersection between the wellbore and
fracture is extensive, allowing very low fluid velocity within the fracture, as shown in Figure 17. Also, the oil/gas only
travels approximately half the pay height within the proppant pack. In this geometry, almost any proppant would provide
essentially infinite conductivity. However, with transverse fracs, the oil/gas may travel many hundreds or thousands of feet
within the proppant pack, and exceedingly high fluid velocities are expected due to flow convergence near the wellbore.
Even in low productivity wells, very high pressure losses are expected within the propped fracture, and any improvements to
fracture width or proppant permeability are expected to generate significant production gains.
12 SPE 114173

Figure 17 Longitudinal fracs with uncemented liners provide excellent communication between the fracture and wellbore.
Transverse fracs provide an extremely small intersection – the circumference of the wellbore

With more complicated networks, the degree of interconnection between the various fracture wings is unclear. In the
CBM mineback experiments previously described (Diamond and Oyler28) very little interconnection was observed between
horizontal and vertical fractures, potentially implying that longitudinal growth along a wellbore will not necessarily provide
the much-needed connectivity to transverse fracture components. In an ideal world, complex fractures could be designed to
place less expensive proppant in the longitudinal components, and reserve the high conductivity proppant for near-wellbore
transverse elements. Unfortunately, at this time it appears that the sequence of fracture propagation is not entirely
predictable. It is possible that future developments will allow that optimization.
Some of the previous considerations are in stark contrast to conventional wisdom of fracture conductivity requirements in
microdarcy and nanodarcy formations. A light sand frac generally has the goal of cheaply fracturing the reservoir with a
minimally damaging fluid and a sufficient quantity of proppant to establish reasonable conductivity. Although intuition often
suggests that any fracture will provide infinite flow capacity compared to the formation, the immense surface area of propped
fractures requires fluid to move hundreds of thousands, or even millions of times faster within the propped fractures than
within the matrix.33 Therefore, conductivity of proppant packs remains critical, both for cleanup of frac fluid and subsequent
gas production.34,35 More research and direct observations of proppant transport phenomena will hopefully shed more light
on this important topic in the future.

Optimizing the Fracture Network

Probably the most agreed upon element of gas-
shale stimulation is the need to densely fracture the 1000
10, 27 Frac Well
reservoir, which is the driving reason for the Monitor Well Later Stages Are
variety of stimulation practices that can be found in Shifted Away
the Barnett shale. Simultaneous fractures, closely 0 From Earlier Ones
spaced fracture stages, and sequential fractures in one
or more adjacent wellbores are designed to impart
Northing (ft)

large amounts of energy into a limited region of the -1000

reservoir with the hope of extensively fracturing and
interconnecting that volume. While no microseismic
maps of such stimulations have been published yet, -2000
the general conceptual idea can be gleaned from the
behavior of multi-stage stimulations in horizontal
wells (Fisher et al6). The successive stimulations of a -3000
Previous Stages
multi-stage treatment often show a significant
Stage 4 Perfs Stage 4
influence of the prior stage, including what might best
be called “charging” of the reservoir, as indicated in -4000
Figure 18. The fluid from the previous stage remains -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
at somewhat elevated pressure, pushing subsequent
Easting (ft)
stages away due to the increased stress generated by
the volume of pressurized fluid.
The reservoir charging potentially can be Figure 18 Example of “charging” effects due to previous stages
6
(Fisher et al ).
harnessed in some way by (1) conducting multiple
fractures from close offset wells at the same time, or
(2) conducting quick sequential fracture stages in one well or in several closely spaced wells. The interaction of the fluid
from the different fractures might provide some additional energy to enhance the intensity of fracturing, either through higher
net pressures or forced diversion of the fluids as they contact other fluid-filled fractures. Figure 19 shows an example of the
much more rapid drainage and pressure depletion that would occur if the rocks could be more finely fractured. This approach
also may enhance conductivity by increasing the shear offset induced by the fracturing. Many of the blocks of rock are likely
to have fluid at significantly different pressures on the various sides, thus resulting in larger shear stresses to shift the rocks.
SPE 114173 13

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
200 ft Fracture Spacing

100 ft Fracture Spacing

Horizontal Wells
Figure 19 Example calculation of depletion in offset horizontal well fracture networks.

It is possible that such enhanced fracturing might be

reflected in the microseismic activity, either through greater 2000
numbers of microseisms or larger amplitude events induced 1
2
by large-scale block movements. One approach to 3
categorizing fracture intensity through microseisms was 4 Frac
1000 5 Well
suggested by Maxwell et al36 and involved computing a 6
seismic moment density and observing its distribution. The 7
8 Observation
North

seismic moment is a measure of the intrinsic strength of the Well

0
microseismic event that corrects for distance and attenuation
(removes any viewing bias). Areas that are more intensely
fractured or have undergone larger-scale movement should
show a greater moment density. Figure 20 shows an example -1000
seismic moment density map for two stages of a stimulation
of a horizontal well in the Barnett shale. The hotter colors
represent areas of higher moment density. Although greater -2000
moment density was found to correlate well with production
when combined with areal extent, this approach has not yet
been applied to simultaneous or sequential fracture treatments -3000
(no published data sets). -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
East
Figure 20 Example seismic density map for two stages of a
36
Barnett shale stimulation (Maxwell et al ).

Modeling Unconventional Fracturing

Modeling of fracture treatments in any of these reservoirs is complicated by a poor understanding of the processes that
occur during the treatment, but probably just as much from the lack of data to input into the models. The lack of data is
particularly evident for treatments in tight sands, where the most important information – the stress in the various layers – is
not measured. Proxy information, mainly from dipole sonic logs,37 are routinely used to compute stress profiles based on
clearly inappropriate assumptions of rock mass behavior, amounting to a situation where the stresses are guessed based upon
lithology. The basic assumptions of (1) linearly elastic behavior even though all rocks are fractured (and most apparently in
an incipient failure state38) and (2) vertical dynamic property measurements along a relatively competent wellbore to
represent horizontal rock properties through heterogeneous materials are indefensible under any scientific methodology, yet
they continue to be used and believed. The reason why calibrated models (models based on mapping results) are so
necessary and so useful is probably more attributable to the widespread use of log-derived stress data than any other factor.
14 SPE 114173

Similar, but less severe, problems arise when attempting to use log-derived elastic moduli and some correlation of dynamic-
to-elastic moduli. Luckily, other important quantities such as the closure stress and the leakoff coefficient can actually be
measured during the fracturing process and accurate values can readily be obtained.39-42
For the gas shales, unfortunately, even good quality input data would not suffice to allow accurate modeling. The
complexity of the process makes it very difficult to formulate algorithms to describe the fundamental mechanistic behavior,
and the asymmetry observed in many mapping tests suggest that various combinations of rock, stress, and natural fracture
features also have a major influence on the development of the fracture network in an areal sense in addition to the well-
recognized layered effects. At this time, there are no known design models for network shale fracturing. A reasonable model
would need to account for the primary hydraulic fracture that connects to the wellbore and the activation and opening of the
network of fractures that are connected to it. Fluid flow and proppant transport within such an interconnected network will
require new formulations to account for the complexity and the interaction.

Flowback and Load Recovery

Figure 21 gives a simulation result showing the potential effect of cleanup on the pressure distribution and production
from a fracture network in a horizontal shale well. A typical treatment volume of water was injected into the network and
then produced together with the gas. Relative permeability curves in the fracture and matrix were adjusted to achieve roughly
40% load recovery after one year of production (consistent with observations in the Barnett shale of load recoveries of about
30% to 40%). The graph shows that cleanup will delay drainage from the network, resulting in lower cumulative production
even after 5 years. In reality, portions of the fracture network may never efficiently cleanup since the pressure drop and
fracture network conductivity are insufficient to remove the water from the far reaches of the network, especially through
junctions of orthogonal sets of fractures where conductivity is potentially even lower. The diminishing returns of very large
SRV’s as shown in Figure 8 are evident for just gas production as a result of low fracture conductivity and will be even
further aggravated by the inability to move water through a complex network. These considerations have a major impact on
optimum treatment sizes and well spacing to ensure optimum drainage and recovery factors. In addition, one may postulate
that rapid fluid cleanup with a high percentage of load recovery (more than 50%) may actually be an indication that a
significant fracture network was not generated and only a simple fracture was created that acts like a “balloon” and deflates
quickly back into the wellbore with very little leakoff into a “super-tight” matrix.

Cleanup Effect Single Phase

1800 ft

1800 ft 1200 ft Lateral

10% difference

50% difference initially

Figure 21 Effect of cleanup on pressure distribution and production

SPE 114173 15

An additional topic is fluid cleanup along the horizontal well. Many shale reservoirs require horizontal wells that are
several thousands of feet long with multiple fracture stages. Most staged fractures are not flowed back individually but are
commingled once the last stage has been finished at the heel. It is unclear if all stages clean up uniformly and there are
especially concerns that the toe stages cannot clean up as efficiently as the heel-side stages. Chemical tracers have been
employed to quantify the relative cleanup of all fracture stages,27 and they often show poorer load recovery from the toe
region. In addition, many operators drill the laterals at a slight incline to facilitate the removal of water from the lateral.

Mapping Unconventional Fractures

The surest way to begin to understand the complexities of the unconventional systems is to perform mapping and diagnostics
– that is, gather data – and then find methods to correlate net pressure behavior and production results with what is observed
during the mapping. Mapping of fracture networks in gas shales is currently performed using downhole microseismic
receiver arrays to detect and locate the very small earthquakes (microseisms) that occur as a result of the fracturing
process.43,44
Other diagnostic technologies can provide some limited information on the fracturing processes. Surface tiltmeters can be
used to calculate how the volume of fluid is distributed between the primary fracture azimuth and other fractures planes that
open, thus providing a measure of complexity. In addition surface tiltmeters can also provide information on where a
fracture is occurring along the length of a horizontal well, although there are limits on resolution based on the depth of the
fracture. Radioactively tagged proppant can be used to assess the completion behavior and cement quality in horizontal
wells, and chemical tracers can distinguish interconnections between wells and flowback percentages for the various stages.
As always, pressure diagnostics prior to, during, and after fracturing are useful for assessing fracturing behavior. In tight gas
sands, downhole tiltmeters can be employed in vertical wells to assess height growth and zonal coverage, both in offset wells
and treatment wells. Similarly, in tight gas sands radioactively tagged proppant is often employed to evaluate proppant
placement.
While all of these other technologies have widespread usefulness when applied to the horizontal well stimulations in the
gas shales, it is the downhole microseismic technology that has provided the information about the detailed structure of the
network fracturing process. High quality microseismic mapping data can be essential to understand completion and
stimulation behavior. Obtaining a successful microseismic monitoring test is largely a matter of proper viewing conditions
for the microseismic array. The important factors are (1) distance to the events, (2) size of the event, (3) attenuation,
(4) noise levels in the monitor well, and (5) an accurate velocity model through the region of observation.
Having an acceptable monitoring distance is primarily a matter of placement of the observation well, but in most cases
existing wells are used for monitoring and it is a matter of finding an appropriately situated one. For monitoring long
horizontal laterals, it may be necessary to have two monitor wells, depending on the viewing distance. The maximum
distance at which microseisms can be accurately detected depends on factors 2-4. Small events can only be observed short
distances, attenuating media (such as diatomite) reduce viewability, and high noise levels can overwhelm many or all of the
microseisms.
There are now sufficient published
mapping tests in numerous formations 0
that it is possible to assemble plots Faults West Texas
illustrating viewing conditions. Figure -0.5 Barnett
22 shows a plot of measured moment Alberta
magnitudes as a function of distance for -1 Utah
five different reservoirs in North Colorado
Moment Magnitude

America. The moment magnitude is -1.5

similar to the Richter magnitude of large
earthquakes, except it is not based on -2
any particular instrument; it is a
magnitude (log) scale representation of -2.5
the seismic moment of the microseismic
events, which are calculated from shear -3
amplitudes and distance. There are
several important elements of this plot. -3.5
First, it is clear that larger magnitude Viewing Limit Line
events can be seen at much larger -4
distances. A magnitude -4 event is
probably only visible within ~200 ft of -4.5
the monitor well, whereas a magnitude - 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
2 event can be observed from several Distance (ft)
thousand feet. A bounding line can be
drawn on the lower edge of the event
Figure 22 Viewing distance plot for various locations.
distribution that will indicate the viewing
16 SPE 114173

distance for that reservoir and receiver conditions. It is generally very difficult to make sense out of any microseisms below
this limit, primarily because the P-wave energy is too low to detect through the noise. Most of the reservoirs have very
similar viewing conditions based on this magnitude calculation, except for the Utah data that was obtained with a stacked
geophone array to enhance the signal strength.18
In the Barnett and some other reservoirs where microseisms can be detected at large distances, the event magnitudes
generally range from -2.5 to -3.5. In many tight gas sands, the events are more typically -3 to -4. However, in all cases it is
possible to generate very large amplitude events (>-1) when the hydraulic fractures intersect and activate large faults. These
events can often be seen >4,000 ft, but this is also a danger since the faults are often very different from the fractures in
azimuth and in height. If a monitor well is placed too far away, then the only events that might be seen are the ones
associated with the faults, potentially giving an erroneous picture of fracture behavior. This is also a danger with trying to
view microseisms from the surface.
Since the size of the microseism is obviously one of the main parameters controlling the viewing distance of any test, it is
worthwhile to speculate on what factors influence the size response. From experience, it is observed that higher rates and
larger volumes generate more microseismic events. In the Barnett shale, the containment provided by the Viola shale in the
“core area” around Wise County allows for high injection rates that generate large microseisms that can be detected at great
distances. In the outer areas of the Barnett development, the lower rates used in an effort to avoid breaking into Ellenberger
water have the effect of generating fewer and smaller microseisms. Not many microseisms are observed at any reasonable
monitoring distance when rates drop much below 15 bpm or volumes are less than 100 bbl, probably because so little energy
is imparted to the formation under low rate and small volume conditions. Since the amplitude of the event also depends upon
how far the rocks slip and the size of the fault plane, large amplitude events are expected in thick sequences where fracture
planes can become extensive, which is a likely reason why such large events occur in these thick shale reservoirs. It is also
another possible reason why microseisms in the fringe areas of development are smaller, since the Barnett is thinner there.
Noise may become a limiting factor when treatment and observation wells are located on the same drilling pad –
equipment noise can easily couple into the monitor wellbore. In network fractures, noise can overwhelm microseismic
signals if the fracture breaks into the observation well or a fracture network connected to it; this type of noise problem is a
fairly common occurrence. Other noise sources are nearby drilling rigs and seismic surveys, production operations, and
wind.
Finally, the velocity structure is a very important factor in obtaining an accurate event map. Dipole sonic logs are a good
starting point for determining layers and initial velocity estimates for calibration procedures, but dipole-log vertical velocities
are often significantly different than the horizontal velocity appropriate for downhole monitoring. Similarly, vertical seismic
profiles (VSP) also provide the wrong velocity. Perforation timing45 and procedures similar to joint hypocentral
determinations46 need to be employed to obtain correct velocities from the fracture well to the monitoring positions.
Assuming all of the factors above can be appropriately handled, the resulting map can then provide significant
information on fracture development and the final stimulated reservoir volume (SRV). Linear features, which most likely
indicate the opening of fracture planes, can be identified and mapped. Height growth and entry into faults (identification of
large magnitude events) can also be discerned, as well as interaction between stages and wells and complications with
completion tools or cement quality. However, it is very important to understand the uncertainty of individual events in order
to make proper use of the mapping data. A careful review of event uncertainty and data quality are necessary for reliable
evaluation.47

Recommendations
For gas shale development, the main objective is to obtain a large, highly fractured network that can produce from the ultra-
low permeability rock. To achieve this, multi-stage horizontal wells with large waterfracs are currently being used with good
success in many areas, and large volumes of fluid and proppant are required. It is not envisioned that any new developments
are going to significantly change this basic concept. What can be investigated further are the numbers of perforation clusters
per stage, the separation between stages, the total length of the horizontal well, the spacing between wells, the sequence of
fracturing operations for single well and multi well stimulations, the type and quantity of proppant introduced to achieve
diversion and for improved conductivity, methods to optimize the volume of fluid and proppant per stage, and any new
technologies to improve the transport of proppant, fluid cleanup, and the efficiency of the operations. Evaluation of the
success of changes to the current practice will ultimately rest on long-term production data, but mapping information can be
used immediately to evaluate the overall network development and hopefully provide a suitable proxy for assessment
purposes.
In more challenging areas, such as the fringes of the Barnett and the Woodford shale, the prevalence of faults and karsts,
proximity to water, significant regional dip, potentially larger stress bias, thinner sections, and potentially different natural
fracture conditions can reasonably be expected to require different completion and stimulation strategies to adequately slice
up the reservoir into producible units. It is unfortunate that mapping is also more difficult in many of these areas because of
the smaller microseisms generated by lower rate and volume stimulations and other factors, but adequate mapping tests can
be accomplished with proper design, planning and equipment.
SPE 114173 17

Conclusions
Unconventional reservoirs offer myriad challenges for successful completion, stimulation and production. The extremely
low permeability of gas shales requires some type of network connectivity for economic production, either through existing
permeable natural fractures or through the development of an engineered fracture system. The technology for engineering a
connected reservoir system has evolved into the use of horizontal wells fractured with light sand fracs in multiple stages,
often in conjunction with fracture treatments in other offset wells. This technology works well in the Barnett shale where the
apparent low stress bias allows the creation of such a network, but there is no guarantee that it is applicable in other shale
reservoirs. It is only through mapping technology – primarily microseismic – that such networks have been discovered and
are beginning to be optimized. Other reservoirs will most likely require different strategies, but mapping will be a principal
component of any effort to understand and optimize the development strategy, targeting not just the treatment size and
implementation, but also the optimal well spacing.
Tight gas sands can rely on other development strategies when improved matrix permeabilities allow reasonable drainage
of the reservoir volume. Network fractures are not as likely to develop (or at least have not been documented yet), so
maximizing drainage efficiency probably involves minimizing damage of any (usually marginal) natural fracture system by
the treatment fluids, which is the direct opposite of the approach in gas shales. Understanding the fracture azimuth and
length, usually through mapping, allows for positioning of wells to optimally fit the drainage ellipses. Perhaps the most
difficult problems are optimizing the number of fracture zones per well to intersect the largest possible gas sands volume
with the minimum of treatment materials and operations, and providing adequate conductivity to effectively clean up the
fracturing fluids.
It is clear that many of the rules of thumb, tools, and intuition applied in our industry do not adequately describe the
hydraulic fractures that are the key to development of unconventional tight gas and shale gas reservoirs. Fractures are rarely
(never?) single planar features of constant width and uniform proppant distribution. Proppant is not deposited within
fractures as predicted by Stoke’s Law or other transport models. Gas flow within fractures does not obey Darcy’s Law.
Fracturing fluid is non-Newtonian and requires a certain yield stress to be overcome before gas production can begin.
Commonly published crush and conductivity data for proppants are for conditions that do not even approximate reality – with
pressure losses perhaps a hundred times higher than suggested from these ideal test conditions. Our industry has been
mathematically obliged to describe fractures as linear, smooth channels of uniform width. However, real fractures are rough,
tortuous, branching, - hydraulically non-ideal. It is much harder to recover gel (or convey gas) through a complex network
than a simple fracture. While reservoir contact is improved, hydraulic continuity is poorer and in some cases may be the
limiting factor in productivity gains.
Improved understanding of our fractures via fracture mapping and development of calibrated tools will improve our
ability to describe and alter the fracture complexity via operational changes to the well design and treatment implementation.
Increased effort to evaluate production and ultimate recovery from these fractures will be necessary to understand the long-
term performance of fractures in unconventional reservoirs. In these unconventional reservoirs, it is clear that hydraulic
stimulation is the key to unlocking the reserves. However, the fracture is by far the most poorly understood feature of the
entire exploration, drilling, and completion process. Unconventional reservoirs are technology plays – if history is a guide,
increased use of technology will be key towards making the next steps to efficiently and effectively produce these resources.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the behind-the-scenes support of numerous technical personnel at Pinnacle and
CARBO who actually acquire and process the data that we rely on for these analyses and papers.

Nomenclature
ASG = apparent specific gravity
d = particle diameter, L
FCD = dimensionless conductivity
g = gravity, L/T2
k = permeability, L2
khf = hydraulic fracture permeability, L2
t = time, T
VS = settling velocity, L/T
w = fracture width, L
xf = hydraulic fracture wing length, L
y = distance fluid penetrates into a natural fracture or fissure, L
ΔP = pressure drop, specifically treating pressure minus reservoir pressure, M/LT2
μ = fluid viscosity, M/LT
ρf = fluid density, M/L3
ρp = particle density, M/L3
ϕ = porosity
18 SPE 114173

References
1. Kuuskraa, “Unconventional Gas – 1”, Oil & Gas Journal (Sept 3, 2007) 35.
2. Montgomery, S.L., Jarvie, D.M., Bowker, K.A., and Pollastro, R.M., “Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, North Central
Texas: Gas-Shale Play with Multi-Trillion Cubic Foot Potential,” AAPG Bulletin, 89 (Feb 2005) 155.
3. Morrow, N.R., Buckley, J.S., Cather, M.E., Brower, K.R., Graham, M., Ma, S., and Zhang, X., “Rock Matrix and Fracture Analysis of
Flow in Western Tight Gas Sands”, US DOE Report DOE/MC/21179-2853, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
(February 1990).
4. Fisher, M.K., Davidson, B.M., Goodwin, A.K., Fielder, E.O., Buckler, W.S., and Steinberger, N.P., “Integrating Fracture Mapping
Technologies to Optimize Stimulations in the Barnett Shale”, paper SPE 77411 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 29-October 2.
5. Maxwell, S.C., Urbancik, T.I., Steinsberger, N.P. and Zinno, R., “Microseismic Imaging of Hydraulic Fracture Complexity in the
Barnett Shale” paper SPE 77440 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
September 29-October 2.
6. Fisher, M.K., Heinze, J.R., Harris, C.D., Davidson, B.M, Wright, C.A., and Dunn, K.P., “Optimizing Horizontal Completion
Techniques in the Barnett Shale Using Microseismic Fracture Mapping”, paper SPE 90051 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, September 26-29.
7. Warpinski, N.R., Wright, T.B., Uhl, J.E, Engler, B.P., Drozda, P.M., Peterson, R.E., and Branagan, P.T., “Microseismic Monitoring of
the B-Sand Hydraulic Fracture Experiment at the DOE/GRI Multi-Site Project”, paper SPE 36450 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 6-9.
8. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E., Fix, J.E., Uhl, J.E., Engler, B.P., and Wilmer, R., “Microseismic and Deformation
Imaging of Hydraulic Fracture Growth and Geometry in the C Sand Interval, GRI/DOE M-Site Project”, paper SPE 38573 presented
at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, October 5-8.
9. Rutledge, J.T. and Phillips, W.S., “Hydraulic Stimulation of Natural Fractures as Revealed by Induced Microearthquakes, Carthage
Cotton Valley gas field, east Texas”, Geophysics, 68, Issue 2, (March-April, 2003) 441.
10. Wolhart, S.L., Odegard, C.E., Warpinski, N.R., Waltman, C.K., and Machovoe, S.R., “Microseismic Fracture Mapping Optimizes
Development of Low Permeability Sands of the Williams Fork Formation in the Piceance Basin”, paper SPE 95637 presented at the
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 9-12.
11. Coulter, G.R., Benton, E.G., and Thomson, C.L., “Water Fracs and Sand Quality: A Barnett Shale Example,” SPE 90051, SPE
ATCE, Houston, TX, Sept. 26-29, 2004.
12. Warpinski, N.R. and Teufel, L.W., “Influence of Geologic Discontinuities on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation”, JPT (Feb 1987) 209.
13. Warpinski, N.R., Kramm, R.C., Heinze, J.R., and Waltman, C.K., “Comparison of Single- and Dual-Array Microseismic Mapping
Techniques in the Barnett Shale”, paper SPE 95568 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, October 9-12.
14. Cipolla, C.L., Peterman, F., Creegan, T., McCarley, D., and Nevels, H., “Effect of Well Placement on Production and Frac Design in
a Mature Tight Gas Field”, paper SPE 95337 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
October 9-12.
15. Mayerhofer, M.J., Bolander, J.L., Williams, L.I., Pavy, A., and Wolhart, S.L., “Integration of Microseismic Fracture Mapping,
Fracture and Production Analysis with Well Interference Data to Optimize Fracture Treatments in the Overton Field, East Texas”,
paper SPE 95508 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 9-12.
16. Wolhart, S.L., Harting, T.A., Dahlem, J.E., Young, T.J., Mayerhofer, M.J., and Lolon, E.P., “Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics Used to
Optimize Development in the Jonah Field”, paper SPE 102528 presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 24-27.
17. Griffin, L.G., Sullivan, R.B., Wolhart, S.L., Waltman, C.K., Wright, C.A., Weijers, L., and Warpinski, N.R., “Hydraulic Fracture
Mapping of the High-Temperature, High-Pressure Bossier Sands in East Texas”, paper SPE 84489 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 5 – 8.
18. Shemeta, J.E, Maxwell, S.C., Warpinski, N.R., Quimby, S., Riebel, T, Phillips, Z., Kinser, J.R., Hinds, G., Green, T.W. and Waltman,
C.K., “Stacking Seismograms To Improve Microseismic Images”, paper SPE 108103 presented at the 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil
and Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, Colorado, April 16-18.
19. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E., Wolhart, S.L., and Uhl, J.E., “Mapping Hydraulic Fracture Growth and Geometry
Using Microseismic Events Detected by a Wireline Retrievable Accelerometer Array”, paper SPE 40014 presented at the 1998 Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 15 – 18.
20. Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.P., Youngblood, J.E., and Heinze, J.R., “Integration of Microseismic Fracture Mapping Results with
Numerical Fracture Network Production Modeling in the Barnett Shale”, paper SPE 102103 presented at the 2006 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 24-27.
21. Sharma, M. M., “Advanced Fracturing Technology for Tight Gas: An East Texas Field Demonstration”, DOE Report DE-FC26-
01NT41326 (March 2005).
22. Chien, S., “Settling Velocity of Irregularly Shaped Particles”, SPEDC (Dec 1994).
23. Kern, L.R., Perkins, T.K., Wyant, R.E., “The Mechanics of Sand Movement in Fracturing”, Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 216,
(1959) 403.
24. Patankar, N.A., Joseph, D.D., Wang, J., Barree., R. Conway, M. And Asadi, M., ”Power Law Correlations for Sediment Transport in
Pressure Driven Channel Flows. International Journal of Multiphase Flow”, 28, (2002) 1269.
25. Stim-Lab research consortium. (1986-2006).
26. Besler, M.R., Steele, J.W., Egan, T., and Wagner, J., ”Improving Well Productivity and Profitability in the Bakken – A Summary of
Our Experiences Drilling, Stimulating, and Operating Horizontal Wells”, paper SPE 110679 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Anaheim, CA, Nov 11-14.
SPE 114173 19

27. Leonard, R., Woodroof, R., Bullard, K., Middlebrook, M. and Wilson, R., “Barnett Shale Completions: A Method for Assessing New
Completion Strategies”, paper SPE 110809 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
California, November 11-14.
28. Diamond, W.P., and Oyler, D.C., “Effects of Stimulation Treatments on Coalbeds and Surrounding Strata – Evidence from
Underground Observations”, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations #9083 (1987).
29. Palisch, T., Duenckel, R., Bazan, L., Heidt, H.J., and Turk, G.,“Determining Realistic Fracture Conductivity and Understanding its
Impact on Well Performance – Theory and Field Examples”, SPE 106301 presented at the 2007 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, College Station, TX, Jan 29-31.
30. Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England, K.W., ”Experimental Study of Fracture Conductivity for Water-Fracturing
and Conventional Fracturing Applications”, SPE Journal (Sept 2001).
31. Walsh, J.B., “Effect of Pore Pressure and Confining Pressure on Fracture Permeability”, International Journal of Rock Mechanics,
Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstracts, 18 (1981) 429.
32. Barton, N., Bandis, S., and Bakhtar, K., “Strength Deformation and Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints”, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstracts, 22 (1985) 121.
33. Dedurin, A.V., Majar, V.A., Voronkov, A.A., Zagurenko, A.G., Zakharov, A.Y., Palisch, T. and Vincent, M.C., “Designing Hydraulic
Fractures in Russian Oil and Gas Fields to Accommodate Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow – Theory and Field Examples,” paper
SPE 101821 presented at the 2006 Russian Oil and Gas Conference, Moscow Oct 3-6.
34. Vincent, M.C., “Proving It – A Review of 80 Published Field Studies Demonstrating the Importance of Increased Fracture
Conductivity”, paper SPE 77675 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
September 29-October 2.
35. Vincent, M.C., “Field Trial Design and Analyses of Production Data from a Tight Gas Reservoir: Detailed Production Comparisons
from the Pinedale Anticline”, paper SPE 106151 presented at the 2007 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station,
Texas, January 29-31.
36. Maxwell, S.C., Waltman, C.K., Warpinski, N.R., Mayerhofer, M.J. and Boroumand, N. “Imaging Seismic Deformation Induced by
Hydraulic Fracture Complexity”, paper SPE 102801 presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, September 24-27.
37. Newberry, B.M., Nelson, R.F., and Ahmed, U., “Prediction of Vertical Fracture Migration Using Compression and Shear Wave
Slowness”, paper SPE/DOE 13895 presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado,
May 19-22, 459.
38. Thiercelin, M.J. and Plumb, R.A., “A Core-Based Prediction on Lithologic Stress Contrasts in East Texas Formations”, paper SPE
21847 presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, April
15-17, 1991, 429.
39. Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B., “Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures”, JPT (September 1981) 1767.
40. Wright, C.A., Minner, W.A. and Snow, D.M., “Robust Technique for Real-Time Closure Stress Determination” SPEPF (August
1996) 150.
41. Mayerhofer, M.J. and Economides, M.J., “Fracture Injection Test Interpretation: Leakoff Coefficient vs. Permeability Estimation”,
SPEPF (November 1997) 231.
42. Wright, C.A., “On Site Step Down Test Analysis Diagnoses Problems and Improves Fracture Treatment Success” Hart’s Petroleum
Engineer International (1997).
43. Warpinski, N.R., Wolhart, S.L., and Wright, C.A., “Analysis and Prediction of Microseismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing”
SPE Journal (March 2004).
44. Palmer, I., Moschovidis, Z. and Cameron, J., “Modeling Shear Failure and Stimulation of the Barnett Shale after Hydraulic
Fracturing”, paper SPE 106113 presented at the 2007 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, Texas, January
29-31.
45. Warpinski, N.R., Sullivan, R.B., Uhl, J.E., Waltman, C.K., Machovoe, S.R., “Improved Microseismic Fracture Mapping Using
Perforation Timing Measurements for Velocity Calibration “, SPE Journal, pp. 14-23, March 2005.
46. Block, L.V., Cheng, C.H., Fehler, M.C. and Phillips, W.S., “Seismic Imaging using Microearthquakes Induced by Hydraulic
Fracturing,” Geophysics, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 102-112, January 1994.
47. Zimmer, U., Maxwell, S., Waltman, C., and Warpinski, N., “Microseismic Monitoring Quality Control (QC) Reports as an
Interpretive Tool for Nonspecialists”, paper SPE 110517 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Anaheim, California, November 11-14.