SPE-201666-MS

Successful Overflushing of Hydraulic Fractures Using Crosslinked Fluids

in Conventional Permeability Reservoirs: Theoretical Basis for a Paradigm
Shift with Field Results

Sanjay Vitthal, Shell Exploration & Production Co; Dmitry Chapylgin, Salym Petroleum Development; Xin Liu, Shell
International Exploration and Production; Damir Khamadaliev, Salym Petroleum Development; Phillip Fair, Shell
International Exploration and Production

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition originally scheduled to be held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5 – 7
October 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 26 – 29 October 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were
published online on 21 October 2020.

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
During hydraulic fracturing of low to moderate (0.1 – 50 md) permeability reservoirs using crosslinked
gel fluids, the final proppant stage displacement is designed to leave some volume of proppant slurry
above the perforated interval. This practice of underflushing is based on a paradigm that considers the
overdisplacement of proppant past perforations to be a major risk to well productivity. The theory behind
this paradigm is investigated and finds that it relies on several physically unrealistic assumptions. Numerical
simulations were performed to understand the impact of a fracture overflush on well productivity. A new
methodology was developed for overflushing fractures that enables significant cost/time savings without
impacting well productivity. A multi-well field trial in a 2-20 md reservoir was conducted andcompared
well performance from overflushed crosslinked gel fractures to underflushed fractures. Some of the trial
results have been reported by the authors (Chaplygin et. al. (2019)) and are further updated/analyzed in
this work. The analysis confirmed that the managed overflush fractures have equivalent performance to
underflushed fractures. The analysis also confirmed multiple benefits from the managed overflush wells
including reductions in completion costs/time and an improved HSSE risk profile. The results challenge the
validity of this decades old paradigm.

Introduction
Successful economic production from a hydraulic fracture treatment requires good connectivity between
the hydraulic fracture and the wellbore. It is commonly believed that any connectivity loss will lead to
major reductions in well productivity and the EUR. This is of particular concern in conventional reservoirs
(permeability > 0.1 md), since well production is often dependent on a single fracture or a very limited
number of fractures.
In conventional reservoirs, the ‘flush’ volume used to displace proppant out of the wellbore is commonly
designed (Figure 1) to leave a few barrels of proppant slurry above the top perforation. This is driven by
2 SPE-201666-MS

the belief that a flush volume large enough to displace proppant slurry any distance from the perforations
(Figure 2), will lead to fracture/wellbore connectivity loss and a major reduction in wellbore productivity/
EUR. For decades, underflushing has been an essential practice for fracturing conventional permeability
reservoirs. Particularly when using crosslinked gel and large proppant.

Figure 1—Underflush: Flush volume is designed to leave a small amount

of proppant slurry above the top perforation. Typical value is 3-5 bbl.

Figure 2—Overflush Paradigm: Overflush causes fracture to

disconnect from perforations and a significant well productivity loss

The fracture underflush process leaves proppant in the wellbore that must be cleaned out prior to putting
the well on production. When fracturing multiple zones in a single well, a cleanout trip might be needed after
completing each fracture stage. These cleanout time and costs can be a significant part of the total completion
cost. Cleanouts also increases the HSSE risk/exposure since they must be performed at high pressures and
increase the potential for hydrocarbon release. However, conventional thought regards a proppant overflush
to be a killer risk to well productivity that must be prevented. Therefore, the risks and costs associated with
underflushing are considered as a ‘necessary evil’ to ensure well productivity.
Over the last decade, overflushing has become a standard practice for fracturing unconventional
reservoirs. Overflushing of each fracture stage by as much as 50-100+ bbls is not uncommon. Additionally,
100's of bbls of fluid are used to pump down plugs and perforation gun systems for the next stage. The rates
required for the pump down process are above the critical fracture initiation rate and result in additional
overdisplacement of the fracture. Although some early studies noted a potential impact to productivity,
most shale operators believe that overflushing does not impact well productivity and certainly helps in the
reduction of proppant flowback. Ugueto et. al. (2018) noted that perforation clusters which were active at
the end of the fracture treatment (i.e. most overflushed) had much higher production (Figure 3) than the
clusters which terminated earlier and were not overflushed. Some shale operators have espoused the opinion
that large overflush volumes can be beneficial to well productivity.
SPE-201666-MS 3

Figure 3—Producton from overflushed full treatment fractures stages versus

underflushed partial treatment fractures stages. Ref: Uguetto at. al. (2019)

The absence of any productivity loss from overflushing is often attributed to certain mitigating factors
that many believe are due to the fracturing process in shales and does not apply to conventional fracturing
using crosslinked gels. These include:
i. use of low viscosity slickwater fluids with poor proppant settling characteristics. As a result, an
immobile proppant bank is built that preserves connectivity despite the overflush
ii. Fractures in shales have complex shapes with multiple sites where proppant can get trapped and
provide conductivity.
iii. Unpropped fractures do not close perfectly and have a residual conductivity. The magnitude of the
unpropped conductivity is very small (Wu et al 2019) but still meaningful relative to the matrix
permeability (nano to micro Darcy) of the shale.
The above mechanisms are expected to be of negligible impact when fracturing conventional (i.e. > 0.1
md) formations using crosslinked fluids and large ceramic proppant. Crosslink gels have high viscosity and
are unlikely to create a large settled proppant bank at the wellbore. The matrix permeabilities of conventional
reservoirs are 102−105 times higher than those of unconventional reservoirs and any flow contribution from
unpropped natural fractures will be insignificant.
The contrasting beliefs on overflush practices for unconventional and conventional permeability
fracturing are illustrated in Figure 4. Operators involved in fracturing conventional permeability reservoirs
believe an underflush is essential to maintain well productivity. Unconventional shale practitioners believe,
based on empirical data, that even large overflush volumes pose no risk to well productivity. The authors
suggest a 3rd possibility shown by the blue curve, that the impact may be a non-linear function where
reasonable volumes of overflush have a negligible impact on productivity. However very large overflush
volumes, pumped at high rates, cause some degree of productivity loss.

Figure 4—Competing views on impact of fracture overflush for unconventional and conventional reservoirs
4 SPE-201666-MS

Fracture overflush has been an important enabler for the widely documented reduction in unconventional
well completions costs. The deployment of pump down perforating gun systems, bridge plugs, or ball drop
sleeve systems would not be possible without overflushing. Otherwise these systems would have to be
conveyed using slower/more expensive methods such as coiled tubing and increase the possibility of an
additional cleanout trip after each fracture treatment. The use of overflush in horizontal unconventional
wells has:
i. enabled use of pump down technology for wireline conveyance of guns and other systems
ii. increased the operational success for landing balls on seat. It has also allowed for closer sleeve
spacing and more fracs/well thereby increasing EUR.
iii. eliminated the need/cost for multiple cleanout trips between fracture stages. A 10 bbl underflush in
4.5" pipe would deposit proppant over # 600 ft of length (i.e. length of 2 frac stages) in a typical
completion. This would need to be cleaned out prior to fracturing that stage.
iv. reduced number of people on location versus underflushed wells
v. reduced the number of operations, the total completion time, and completion costs.
vi. enabled completion of longer laterals for higher EUR and improved profitability
vii. significantly reduced the volume of produced proppant during clean-up and production operations.
Despite these possible benefits, underflushing remains the accepted best practice for fracturing
conventional permeability reservoirs. The reluctance to overflush is attributed mainly to the decade's old
paradigm regarding its expected impact on well productivity.
A literature search turned up a limited number of studies with field data (Roy et. al. (2016), Rahim et.
al. (2017)) to support that overflushing is a killer risk for well productivity in a conventional permeability
reservoir. This is especially surprising given how long this paradigm has been in existence and its
widespread acceptance. Both these studies have very limited data sets with multiple variables (subsurface
and completion) that can make it difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions. However, both studies
show that the overdisplaced fractures still have significant production contribution which implies that the
overdisplacement is not a killer risk. Chaplygin et. al. (2019) reported the results from a multi-well field
data set where overflushed well performance was compared to underflushed wells. Their analysis found
that overflushed wells had equivalent performance to underflushed wells.

Production Response from a Well with an Unplanned Overflush

This section discusses the production results from a multi-fractured horizontal well where several fractures
were overflushed due to operational issues. The well is in a relatively thin (25-50 feet). sandstone reservoir
with permeabilities in the range of 0.1 to 1 md. The # 1400 m open hole horizontal well (Figure 5) was
completed using an uncemented liner with 7 frac sleeves and open hole packers in between to isolate each
sleeve. The fracture design for each sleeve used a 35 lb/Mgal borate crosslinked gel and 20/40 ceramic
proppant pumped at 25-30 bpm.

Figure 5—Open hole horizontal well with 7 frac sleeves in 0.1-1 md gas reservoir
SPE-201666-MS 5

Multiple operational issues resulted in 3 of the 7 fracture stages getting overflushed by meaningful
amounts. The stages were Stage 1, 4 and 6 with overflush volumes of 147 bbls, 171 bbls, and 38.8 bbls
respectively. These overflush volumes ranged from 30 to 160 bbls and, assuming plug flow, displaced
proppant 65 to 200+ ft away from the wellbore. Two other stages were overflushed by smaller volumes in
the range of 2 to 4 barrels.
A unique water-soluble tracer was pumped in each fracture stage. Tracers from all the stages are detected
the 10 day flowback period as shown in Figure 6a. It should be noted that since each tracer is injected into
a fracture at a different concentration, the measured values should not be used for any relative indication of
flow. However, the flowback response shows that tracers from all the stages are present. This indicates that
even the stages with large overflush are still connected to the wellbore and contributing to flow. Furthermore,
all the responses, after the first few days, have a stable trend. The overflushed stages do not exhibit a faster
decline indicating any ‘pinching’ of the fracture.

Figure 6—(a) Water soluble tracer response during flow back (b) long term production data for the well

Longer term production data is shown in Figure 6b. The production rate is fairly constant at 25-30
MMscf/day while the tubing pressure declines due to depletion. The data suggests that all the fractures
are contributing since it would be very unlikely to achieve the measured production rates if only the
underflushed fractures were contributing to production.
The FTHP also shows a normal decline trend with time. If the overflushed fractures had pinched off
with time or stopped contributing, then the FTHP should have shown a sudden drop or a faster decline
rate. Given the small number of fractures, the loss of three fractures should have been clearly visible.
Unfortunately, no production logs were run and there are no offset wells with similar completions for
comparison purposes. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn regarding underflushed versus overflushed
well performance. However, the production results do not appear to support the paradigm that overflush is
a killer risk to productivity.
A few other wells with overflushed crosslinked gel fractures in conventional reservoirs were found and
analyzed. These wells had very limited data but did not indicate that the overflush was a killer risk to well
productivity.

Review of Assumptions Necessary for Productivity Loss from Fracture Overflush

The well results discussed in the previous section led to an investigation of the theory and physics behind
the overdisplacement paradigm. As illustrated in Figure 2, productivity impairment by an overflush requires
that the proppant be displaced away from the perforations leading to a complete loss of wellbore to
fracture connectivity. The analysis identified 5 assumptions that are necessary for this to occur. This section
discusses the validity of these assumptions for conventional reservoirs that are hydraulically fractured using
crosslinked gels and large ceramic proppant.
Assumption #1: The fracture has relatively smooth walls where proppant cannot get lodged or stuck in
the near wellbore region. Fracture connectivity loss requires that proppant must be displaced away from
6 SPE-201666-MS

the perforations. This implies that a fracture must have smooth and reasonably parallel walls (Figure 7) with
no sharp corners where proppant trapping can occur. Figure 8a illustrates that even for a simple elliptical
geometry, Poiseuille flow will cause most of the flush to go through the widest part of the fracture and
potentially leave unswept proppant behind. Most formations consist of sand/silt/shale layers with different
geomechanical properties and a variable width profile is only to be expected. In such cases, the flush fluid
will preferentially enter the widest areas (Figure 8b) and leave proppant behind in unswept regions. The
post flush fracture connectivity may be sufficient to maintain good well productivity.

Figure 7—Picture showing smooth wall fracture

Figure 8—Schematics of likely flow channels for overflush in irregularly shaped

fracture. a) Elliptical, b) Irregular, and c) Tall interval with high density proppant slurry.

Figure 8c attempts to illustrate that a flush fluid may not easily displace a viscous crosslinked gel proppant
slurry from the bottom of the fracture due to hydrostatic density differences. Crosslinked gel/proppant slurry
will have a higher density than the flush fluid and an excess pressure will be required to fully displace
proppant from the bottom section of the fracture. Consequently, the flush will preferentially enter the top
part of the fracture leaving the bottom section with proppant that is connected to the wellbore. Although the
hydrostatic pressure difference is small (10's of psi), it will need to be exceeded before the flush can fully
displace proppant from the bottom of the perforated interval.
As discussed earlier, fracture connectivity loss requires that proppant cannot get trapped or bridged near
the wellbore. Trapped proppant will help to maintain proppant connectivity despite the overflush. Field and
lab data suggest that fractures, particularly at the wellbore, are likely to have highly irregular geometries.
Pictures of mined hydraulic fractures (Branagan et al, 1997) show that hydraulic fractures can have very
tortuous channels (Figure 9), particularly near the wellbore. Laboratory experiments (Huckabee, 2020)
indicate that fractures can have non-planar offsets (Figure 10) as they approach and propagate through sand/
shale interfaces. These offsets act as locations for proppant trapping or deposition.
SPE-201666-MS 7

Figure 9—Results from Mineback experiment. Figure on left shows the structure of the hydraulic fracture
(dyed blue) at the wellbore (white grout with plumb line). Figure on right shows the far-field fracture geometry.

Figure 10—Fracture propagation through sand/shale interfaces. Fracture

has complex shape with creation of offsets where proppant can bridge.

Assumption #2: Overflush fluid displaces crosslinked gel/proppant slurry in plug flow. Even if fractures
were to have smooth walls, another requirement is that the flush fluid displaces the crosslinked gel/proppant
from the perforated interval (Figure 2) in plug flow. Experiments by Safffman et al showed that a lower
viscosity fluid cannot easily displace a higher viscosity fluid as plug flow in a channel. Viscous instabilities
cause the lower viscosity fluid to form fingers or channels through the viscous fluid. The degree of viscous
fingering depends on the viscosity contrast. For high contrasts (viscosity ratios > 10), viscous fingering
becomes the dominant mechanism for displacement.
Crosslinked gels have viscosities in the range of 300-1000+ cP. The viscosities of the flush fluid, typically
linear gels, are 1-2 orders of magnitude lower at 10-30 cP. Figure 11 shows a snapshot from a series
of experiments conducted at the University of Texas at Austin where a crosslinked gel (clear fluid) was
displaced by a linear gel (blue) in a parallel plate model to simulate fracture flow. Viscous fingering of the
linear gel through the crosslinked gel is clearly demonstrated. The experiments suggest that an overflush by
a lower viscosity fluid will leave some crosslinked gel/proppant slurry near the perforations that will help to
maintain fracture connectivity. The physics of viscous channeling is not incorporated into most commercial
fracture design simulators. These simulators typically assume plug flow and will overestimate the degree
of proppant displacement at the wellbore.
8 SPE-201666-MS

Figure 11—Viscous fingering phenomenon. Displacement of a crosslinked

gel (clear fluid) by a linear gel (blue). Courtesy University of Texas at Austin

Assumption 3: The over flushed (or unpropped region) remains unpropped at the time of fracture closure.
Productivity loss due to overflush requires that the fracture is disconnected from the perforations at the
time of fracture closure and not just at the end of pumping. During fracture closure, proppant settling due
to gravity will occur. Furthermore, as the proppant settles from the crosslinked gel and enters the region
occupied by the linear gel overflush, its settling velocity will increase due to the lower viscosity of the linear
gel. The proppant settling may lead to the fracture reconnecting with the perforations.
A simple single layer model with a 2 ft perforated interval was used to understand the behavior of an
overflushed fracture treatment. The model does not include the physics of viscous fingering or account for
any proppant holdup near the wellbore due to near wellbore complexity. A short perforated interval length
was chosen to add a degree of conservatism to the results (i.e. a small possibility for fracture to connect to
wellbore). The model was run in 3D mode using a fine grid size (7×7 ft) for improved accuracy.
Results for a typical fracture treatment followed by a 25 bbl overflush are shown below. At the end of
pumping, the overflush (Figure 12) has displaced all proppant more than 20 ft away from the perforations.
Figure 13a shows that 3 minutes after the end of pumping, sufficient proppant settling has occurred to just
reestablish connectivity to the 2 ft perforated interval. By the time the fracture closes, proppant settling has
reestablished full connectivity to the perforations (Figure 13b).

Figure 12—25 bbl. excess overflush volume at end of shut-in. Void

region extends for # 25 ft laterally and 30 ft above perforations
SPE-201666-MS 9

Figure 13—a) 3 minutes after shut-in. b) at closure, perforations are fully connected to fracture. Void is at top of fracture.

Therefore, even under the conservative assumptions of smooth fracture walls and no viscous fingering,
proppant settling can reestablish fracture connectivity to the perforations by the time of fracture closure.
The expected behavior of an overflushed fracture in a horizontal well will be similar to these results since
a horizontal well is equivalent to fracturing via a small perforation interval.
Assumption 4: The closed fracture in the over flushed region near the wellbore has no conductivity.
Another key assumption, as shown in Figure 14, is that there is no fracture conductivity in the overflushed
region. McClure et. al. (2014) looked at fracture compliance from DFIT's and suggest that the changing
compliance/post closure linear flow behavior is caused by the fact that unpropped fractures do not seal
perfectly and instead have some residual conductivity fractures at closure. The unpropped conductivity, if
high enough, may be sufficient to maintain fracture connectivity in some reservoirs. Several investigators
(Wu et. al. (2019)) have experimentally measured unpropped fracture conductivity for different shales and
reported values in the range of 10−1 to 10−3 md-ft. These conductivity values can be meaningful in shales
due to their ultra-low permeability but are unlikely to offer any benefit in higher permeability (> 0.1 md)
reservoirs.

Figure 14—Closed fracture in overflushed region near wellbore. Region is back to matrix permeability

An alternate mechanism, that would result in high near wellbore conductivity even in the absence of
proppant, is proposed in this paper. This mechanism, while applicable to all types of formations, may
be more relevant for unpropped conductivity in higher permeability formations. A horizontal well in an
unconventional tight reservoir that was completed using an uncemented liner with sleeve system. Treatment
design used a slickwater fracturing fluid with 40/70 sand proppant and an overflush. A downhole video
camera, which could be rotated by 90 degrees, was run after the treatments.
Figure 15 shows pictures of the hydraulic fractures that were visible through two of the sleeves. In both
cases, the fractures appear to be open, and have retained aperture, despite the absence of any proppant for
support.
10 SPE-201666-MS

Figure 15—Picture of overflushed hydraulic fractures. Fractures appear to be open despite lack
of any visible proppant for support. Horizontal well with uncemented sleeve type completion

The authors propose that the open fracture is the result of mechanical erosion of the fracture channel
caused by abrasive action from the proppant. During the pumping of the treatment, the proppant slurry must
exit the tubing at the sleeve ports and then converge to enter the narrow 0.2-0.3" wide fracture. It appears
unlikely that all proppant would smoothly enter the fracture without impinging on the formation and fracture
face. For a 6.5" wellbore, the expected impingement velocity is in the range of 50-90 mph (Figure 16). The
ability of proppant to increase perforation hole size via erosion of steel is well known. The abrasive impact
of proppant impinging on the formation grains at the fracture face is likely to be significant. The authors
propose that this abrasive action results in removal of formation grains and an ‘etching’ of the fracture face
near the wellbore. Consequently, at the time of fracture closure, an open fracture can exist at the wellbore
since the rock material required for the fracture to fully seal has been removed. The conductivity of the open
channel can be very high depending on its width. In some cases, it can be potentially higher than that of a
fully propped fracture. The distance over which fracture face erosion will occur is unknown but likely to
be short (i.e. in the order of feet rather than 10's of feet) since the fluid velocity drops radially with distance
from the wellbore.

Figure 16—Proppant impact velocity at the fracture face for a 6.5" wellbore. Open Hole versus Cased and Perforated

Assumption 5: Disconnecting the fracture from the perforated interval will cause a major loss in
productivity. A final assumption, as shown in Figure 14, is that if the fracture is completely disconnected
from the perforations it results in almost complete loss of any production uplift from the fracture. This may
SPE-201666-MS 11

not always be true since the fracture, even if disconnected, still exists in the reservoir. The fracture treatment
results in the creation of a very high conductivity channel that also has dimensions in the 100's of feet. The
fracture still connects multiple sand/shale layers and increases the near wellbore region Kv/Kh to # 1. The
presence of this channel, even if disconnected from the wellbore, should still offer some productivity uplift.
As a thought experiment, it seems unlikely that a disconnected hydraulic fracture located only 1 foot away
from the wellbore would offer not significant uplift. Therefore, this assumption may not always be true and
will be dependent on many parameters including the distance of the disconnected fracture from the wellbore.

Modelling Overflush Fracture Design and Performance

As discussed earlier, proppant settling during closure can lead to re-establishment of the fracture/wellbore
connectivity. These simulations were conducted using an ideal single layer with uniform properties. In
order to assess the application to more realistic situations, an actual well in a conventional permeability
reservoir was selected. The selected well had been fractured using crosslinked gel and ceramic proppant with
underflush. The well had a full set of geomechnical data, post fracture production history, and a pressure
buildup test for calibration.
The design workflow is shown in Figure 17. A commercial fracture simulator is used to determine the
fracture geometry. The estimated fracture geometry is then input into a commercial reservoir simulator. The
reservoir simulator is used to calculate the expected production response and the buildup.

Figure 17—Workflow for predicting production response using fracture design and reservoir simulators

Fracture Modelling. The fracture design deployed a typical crosslinked gel fluid and intermediate strength
proppant and is shown in Table 1. A 25 bbl (4.5 m3) overflush of linear gel was added to the end of the
typical treatment. The results of the simulation are discussed below. The perforated interval is 6 m to match
the real well.

Table 1—Fracture design for simulations. 4.5 m3 (# 25 bbl.) overflush stage.

Rate (m3/
Fluid Volume (m3) Proppant Conc (Kg/m3) min) Fluid Proppant

60.0 0 3 30 lb. Crosslinked Gel 16/20 Intermediate Strength

14.1 200 3 30 lb Crosslinked Gel 16/20 Intermediate Strength

13.3 400 3 30 lb Crosslinked Gel 16/20 Intermediate Strength

12.6 600 3 30 lb Crosslinked Gel 12/18 Intermediate Strength

11.9 800 3 30 lb Crosslinked Gel 12/18 Intermediate Strength

10.9 1000 3 30 lb Crosslinked Gel 10/14 Intermediate Strength

10.4 1200 3 30 lb Crosslinked Gel 10/14 Intermediate Strength

4.5 0 3 Linear Gel

12 SPE-201666-MS

At the end of pumping, the over flushed region (Figure 18) spans the entire perforated interval and there
is a complete loss of fracture connectivity to the perforations. This is likely to be a conservative case, as
noted earlier, since the model assumes no proppant holdup and no viscous fingering effects. The evolution
of the overflushed region until fracture closure is show below.

Figure 18—25 bbl. overflushed volume directly across perforated interval at end of pumping/start of fracture closure.

Figure 19—Overflush region has migrated to top of perforations 6 minutes after shut-in. Fracture still not closed.

Proppant settling establishes a connection between the fracture and the perforations within 6 minutes after
the end of pumping. The perforated interval is fully reconnected to the fracture (Figure 20) by the time the
fracture closure and the overflushed region is located just above the perforated interval. The results suggest
that the concern that an overflush will result in a complete loss in fracture connectivity may be overstated as
it assumes proppant does not settle during fracture closure. Properly designed overflush volumes are likely
to maintain fracture connectivity. The quality of the connection will depend on
a. Reservoir properties
b. Volume of overflush
c. Perforation interval length and location
d. Fracture design

Figure 20—Overflush region is above perforations at closure.

SPE-201666-MS 13

A short discussion of the interactions between overflush volume, perforation interval length, and
perforation interval location is given in Appendix 1.
Reservoir Simulations of Over flushed Fracture Performance. Although fracture models can be used to
predict the location of the overflush region, their predictive accuracy is likely to be low given the many
variables involved. The impact of the ‘void’ area (size and location) on wellbore productivity was regarded
as an unknown and its impact was evaluated as part of this study. The perforated interval is 6 m. The fracture
is approximated as a thin high permeability layer with dimensions from the fracture simulator results. The
fracture conductivity is assumed to be a constant. Some of the inputs used for the simulation are given in
Table 2.

Table 2—Input parameter for well test design

Property Value

H (m) 23

Porosity 0.16

B (bbl./stb) 1.0725

Viscosity (cp) 2.4

Ct (1/psi) 7.2128e-6

Pi (psi) 3200

Rw (ft) 0.328

K(md) 5.36

Kfracture (md) 560,000

Fracture Width (in) 0.018

Net to gross 0.8087

kv/kh 0.1

Figure 21—Schematic of Hydraulic Fracture in Reservoir Simulator (side view and top view)

An added concern was the need to understand the pressure buildup response of an overdisplaced fracture.
A pressure build up test had been proposed as part of the evaluation of the planned field trial. A literature
review established that the PTA signature for an overflushed fracture had not been investigated prior to this
study and would need to be developed. A first step was to calibrate the model using the pressure buildup
data for the underflushed hydraulic fracture. A match of both the buildup and the derivative was considered
essential for calibration and greater confidence in the predicted buildup/production response of the over
flushed fracture. Figure 22 shows the match between the model (blue) and buildup data (red). A reasonable
agreement was obtained for both the pressure and its derivative. The fracture half-length was determined
to be 35 meters.
14 SPE-201666-MS

Figure 22—History match of calibrated fracture model (blue) with measured pressure buildup data (red) for an
underflushed hydraulic fracture. Match shows good agreement with both the pressure history and the derivative.

For the well test simulations, the well is assumed to produce at 600 bbl/day for 252 hrs and then shut-
in for 1000 hours (Figure 23). The flow rate and duration were chosen based on standard buildup design
for the area.

Figure 23—Simulation model schedule: 250 hours of a constant rate draw down followed by about 1000 hours of build-up.

A necessary step for evaluating overflushed fracture performance is to understand the expected best
and worst case response. The worst-case scenario is that the overflush paradigm is correct and there is a
complete loss of fracture connectivity to the perforations. The expected response will be the same as that
of an unfractured well with a limited perforated interval (Figure 24a). The reservoir model for this scenario
predicted an apparent skin of 16.3 when compared to a well perforated over the entire interval. The high
positive skin is due to partial penetration flow effects since the perforation interval only spans #25% of
the interval.

Figure 24—a) Worst Case: 6 m perforated interval and no fracture and (b) Best
Case or Scenario 0: 6 m perforated interval with underflushed fracture and no void
SPE-201666-MS 15

The best case scenario, Figure 24b, is if the overflushed fracture behaves identically to an underflushed
fracture. The calibrated underflushed well results were used and predicted a skin of −5.1. The best case is
also referred to as Scenario 0 or base case in this study.
An overflushed region was created in the Scenario 0 reservoir model to understand its impact on
productivity. The size of the over-displaced zone is assumed to be a 5m × 17.5m rectangle. Within the
over-displaced region, we assume no fracture conductivity and its permeability is the same as the matrix
permeability.
A number of scenarios were constructed to understand the impact of overflush region location on well
productivity. Scenario 1 assumes that the fracture model is accurate i.e. all the perforations are fully
connected to the fracture and the overflush region is above the perforations. Scenario 2 and 3 are variations
of Scenario 1 and consider the possibility that the fracture simulations are optimistic i.e. all the perforations
are not fully connected to the fracture. Scenario 2 assumes that only 50% of the perforations are connected
while Scenario 3 assumes that only 5% of the perforations are connected to the fracture. The scenarios are
shown in Figure 25a–c.

Figure 25—(a) Scenario 1: Overflushed region migrates and is above perforated interval. Fracture is
connected to the full perforation interval. (b) Scenario 2: Overflushed region remains over 50% of the
perforated interval (c) Scenario 3: Overflushed region remains over 95% of the perforated interval.

Two additional scenarios were built and represent variations on the ‘overflush is a killer risk’ paradigm
model as illustrated in Figure 2. Scenario 4 (Figure 26 a) assumes that overflushed void covers the entire
perforation interval. The height and half length of the over-displaced zone is 6m. Scenario 5 (Figure 26 b)
considers a more severe case where the overflush region size and location are similar to those at the end of
the pumping. This scenario essentially assumes no proppant settling by gravity after the end of pumping.
Both the height and the half length of this over-displace zone are17.5m

Figure 26—(a)Scenario 4. Overflushed void region covers the entire perforated interval and extends 19 ft. Permeability
of void region same as reservoir (b)Scenario 5: Overflushed void region covers the entire perforated interval and
extends #57 ft on all sides. Permeability of void region same as reservoir. Note that the scale of x and y axis are 8 to 1

Simulation results. The simulator output for the different scenarios was input into a commercially available
pressure transient analysis model and used to analyze the expected buildup response for the different
scenarios. The diagnostic response of the draw down for scenarios 0, 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Figure 27
and the total apparent skin values are shown in Table 3. For the purposes of this paper, a zero skin value is
16 SPE-201666-MS

referenced to radial flow of an undamaged, fully penetrating vertical well. The terminology ‘total apparent
skin’ includes all geometric skins of partial perforation interval and fracture geometries.

Figure 27—Diagnostic plot of draw down period for different scenarios.

Table 3—Different total apparent skin obtained from different over displacement scenarios.

Case Total apparent skin

Scenario 0 (base) −5.1

Scenario 1 −4.85

Scenario 2 −4.48

Scenario 3 −3.6

Scenario 4 14

Scenario 5 16

Worst Case Scenario. No fracture, partial penetration (Geometrical) skin 16.3

Several insights can be gained from these results. Scenarios 1 and 2 show almost no impact to effective
skin and productivity versus the best case of Scenario 0. Some impact is seen for Scenario 3 (only 5%
of the perforated interval is connected) but the skin is still a low negative number. The high fracture
permeability explains why Scenario 1 and 2 show virtually no impact to well performance even when
only 50% of the interval is connected. The slightly increased skin for Scenario 3 (−3.6 versus −5.1) is due
to flow convergence and non-Darcy flow in the fracture. The simulations indicate that even a small 1-2
foot connection to the perforations is sufficient to deliver most of the benefit from the fracture. Figure 27
also indicates that it may be very to distinguish between Scenarios 1,2, and 3 from buildup data since the
differences only show up in the very early stage of the draw down (or build up). Wellbore storage effects
may impede the capability of using a build-up test to distinguish these scenarios.
A comparison of the perforated but unfraccced skin value of 16.2 against the best case scenario skin
of −5.1 shows that the fracture can mitigate partial penetration skin effects without the need to perforate
the entire interval. This is because the production is coming via the fracture which has a high permeability
and Kv/Kh of 1. Therefore, a large perforation interval is not required for fracturing most low to moderate
permeability formations and a few feet is often sufficient. In a high permeability reservoir, it is generally
desirable to have a large perforation interval since production rates are very high and flow through
SPE-201666-MS 17

a small perforated interval creates significant non-Darcy pressure losses and reduced productivity. In
unconventional reservoirs, the production rate is very low and only a few perforations per fracture are
sufficient. The optimum length of perforation interval for a hydraulic fracture will depend on factors such as
the reservoir permeability, geomechanical properties, stress field orientation, and well inclination/azimuth.
Scenarios 4 and 5 look at the case where the fracture is completely disconnected from the well and
the fracture is some distance away from the perforations. The simulations for these scenarios reached the
minimum bottom hole pressure very quickly when produced at the 600 bbl/day flowing rate and could not
be sustained. These simulations were rerun at # 80 bbl/day. The total apparent skin value are very high
and shown in Table 3. The diagnostic plots for the draw down period for Scenarios 4 and 5 are shown in
Figure 28.

Figure 28—Diagnostic plot of the draw down period of scenarios 4 and 5. The base case is also included here for reference

Unlike previous scenarios, Scenario 4 or 5 show a large loss in productivity compared to Scenario 0. The
skin for Scenario 5 is very close to the worst case scenario skin of 16.3 and the performance is dominated by
partial penetration skin effects. The Scenario 4 skin of 14 is an improvement to the worst case scenario skin
and suggests that the fracture offers some small uplift even when it is 6 m from the perforation. This raises
the possibility that a fracture only a few feet away from the perforations might still provide a meaningful
production uplift even if it is disconnected from the perforated interval.
These scenarios show that the overflush paradigm can be real if the overflush truly causes the fracture
to be completely disconnected from the perforations and the proppant is located some distance away from
the wellbore. The results provide a basis for determining if the overflush paradigm is true from a properly
designed field trial. If an overflushed well has a large positive skin, i.e. Scenario 4 or 5, then the overflush
paradigm is true. However, if the skin is negative and the buildup response is similar to the underflushed
well, then the fracture must be connected and the overflush paradigm is false.

Overflush Field Trial

A field trial was designed to compare well performance of over flushed fractures vs underflushed fractures
in a conventional permeability reservoir. The trial looked at performance of vertical and horizontal wells.
This paper will primarily discuss the vertical well performance results.
A successful overflush technique for hydraulic fractures in conventional reservoirs can reduce completion
costs and deliver other benefits. However, the loss of well productivity can easily outweigh any cost benefits.
Therefore, a successful overflush treatment must meet certain criteria for success:
18 SPE-201666-MS

1. The well productivity, over both the short and long term, should be similar to wells with underflushed
fractures.
2. The technique must be operationally robust and repeatable. Small deviations to the operational
procedures should not have a significant impact on expected results.
3. The overflush technique should deliver cost savings and other benefits.
4. Technique should work for hydraulic fractures using crosslinked gels and large proppant in
conventional reservoirs. The overflush design must be easily executable by field personnel. It should
not require any special equipment or major changes to existing practices.

Introduction to Salym Oilfield

The Salym oilfields located in Western Siberia, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, 120 kilometers south-
west of Surgut city. The West Salym oil field was discovered in 1987 and was brought on stream in 2004.
The reservoirs vary from fluvial/deltaic to shallow marine deposits.

Figure 29—Location of Salym Oil Field

The Salym oilfields structure is a dome elevation. The main reservoir is the AS11 unit (the lowest part
of the Cherkashin formation), which can be roughly split into three sub-units: AS11.1, AS11.2 and AS11.3.
Each reservoir includes its own oil-water contact (OWC). Several other reservoirs groups present at the
oilfields which is not a subject of this scope of work.
The general sedimentary model for Cherkashin formation on the Salym oilfield consists of fluvial-
dominated delta and an incised valley formation. The West Salym North area is in the amalgamation of
shallow marine depositional settings and fluvial deltaic sandstone bodies deposited in a lower delta plain.
SPE-201666-MS 19

Figure 30—Cherkashin formation overview

The Salym oil field was chosen for the trial since the field has a large number of hydraulically fractured
vertical well producers in a single formation. Salym has a very capable technical staff with extensive design/
operational expertise and a history of innovation. All wells have been fractured using crosslinked gel with
large proppant and underflushed. Each well has an ESP which allows for continuous downhole evaluation
of well productivity using the ESP downhole pressure gauge.

Candidate selection and production analysis

Pad 1 was selected for the first field trial and well № OF1 as the first vertical well overflush candidate. Wells
№ UF2, № UF3 and № UF10 were the nearest offset wells. Figure 31 shows the layout of the wells on the
pad and Figure 32 shows a comparison of the vertical log sections. All hydraulic fracturing treatments were
performed using a similar design to that shown in Table 1. All the UF wells were fractured and underflushed.
For the OF1 well, an additional overflush volume of 3 m3 (# 20 bbl.) was pumped at the end of the main
fracture treatment. The overflush volume was designed using the workflow described in an earlier section.
Although a smaller volume could be pumped operationally and posed less risk, the volume was chosen to
arrive at an unambiguous conclusion regarding the overflush paradigm. The 20 bbl overflush volume was
large enough, in theory, to displace all proppant at least 20-30 feet away from the wellbore and completely
disconnect the fracture from the perforations. The larger volume also served to test the robustness of the
technique i.e. if a higher overflush volume is pumped accidentally, it will not affect productivity.
20 SPE-201666-MS

Figure 31—Layout for Pad 1. OF1 is overflushed well. UF wells are underflushed offsets.

Figure 32—Log Sections for wells in Pad 1

Vertical Well Execution and Workflow

The treatment was pumped according to design and is shown in Figure 33. After the treatment, the workover
crew tagged the bottomhole and confirmed that there was no residual proppant for some distance below the
bottom perforation. This confirmed that the overflush was successful in delivering one of the criteria for
success: No need for proppant cleanout trip prior to the putting the well on production

Figure 33—Well OF1 Fracture Treatment Chart with 20 bbl overflush

SPE-201666-MS 21

Horizontal Well Execution and Workflow

Two nearly identical open hole horizontal wells were also completed using an uncemented sleeve/packer
system. Each stage in well HOF1 was overflushed and well HUF1 was underflushed. A more detailed
description is provided in Chaplygin et. al. (2019).

Table 4—Horizontal well comparison. HOF 1 is overflushed horizontal well. HUF1 is underflushed horizontal well

Lateral
Number Permeability, Zone Proppant,
Well Name Length
of Sleeves md Height, m tons
(m)

HUF1 6 3.6 11 510 346

HOF1 6 3.9 12 550 355

Well HUF1, with all underflushed fractures, required post fracture cleanouts to remove underflushed
proppant left in the wellbore. Following the cleanout, the well was put on production. For well HOF1
with the overflushed fractures, no clean-out operations were performed before putting it on production.
This was a deliberate decision and used to determine if overflushing without a cleanout would deliver the
benefits without impacting well productivity. Any sand plugging or poor productivity would be visible in
the production results of HOF1 versus HUF 1.

Production Results and Discussion

Vertical Wells. The OF1 well buildup is shown below and indicated an effective skin value #-5.2.

Figure 34—Diagnostic plot of the OF1 Buildup data and model match.

The performance of the over flushed well was also compared to PBU's on underflushed wells (UF2
and UF10) in the same pad. A more detailed discussion is provided in Chaplygin et al and is summarized
here for completeness. The comparison of the buildups (Figure 35) shows very similar behavior and the
interpretation results are summarized in Table 5.
22 SPE-201666-MS

Figure 35—Pressure buildup of over flushed well (OF1) and 2 underflushed wells in the same pad

Table 5—Summary of buildup analysis. Overflushed well (OF1) versus underflushed wells in Pad 1

Well number OF1 UF2 UF10

Transmissibility 32 46 41
kH/□ (md-m/ cP)

Productivity Index 0.7 0.5 0.6

PI, (m3/ (day
atm))

Fracture 75 25 97
Conductivity,
(mD*m)

Fracture Half 39 21.5 31.1

Length (m)

Table 5 shows that the over flushed well is in an area of slightly lower reservoir quality as compared
to the offsets but still has the highest Productivity index (PI) and effective fracture length. The estimated
fracture conductivity is in between the 2 underflushed wells.
The initial skin of OF1 was also compared to the baseline for underflushed well performance. The
baseline was built by analyzing all available pressure buildups in the area with a downhole shutin. Only
those wells which had reached radial flow were used to construct the baseline. Figure 36 plots the effective
skin for a well against its reservoir transmissibility (kh/μ) in an effort to normalize for any non-Darcy flow
effects. The skin of OF1 (red dot) lies on trend with the skin of the underflushed (grey dots) wells. The OF1
well skin value of −5.26 is amongst the lowest skins in the data set and clearly confirms that overflushing
had no impact on the well's performance. A second buildup on OF1 well (Chaplygin et al) was performed
to confirm the skin value. The second PBU gave identical results and indicated that the overflushed well
had no short term degradation of the fracture wellbore connection.
SPE-201666-MS 23

Figure 36—Skin versus Reservoir Transmissibility. Overflushed well (red) against underflushed wells (grey)

A comparison of the OF1 well buildup against the expected responses for overflush scenarios 1 through
5 is also useful to understand the results. Scenarios 4 and 5 (fracture completely disconnected from
the perforations) can be immediately ruled out as they would predict that the well should have a large
positive skin and a completely different PBU signature (Figure 28) than observed in OF1. The well results
conclusively prove that a managed overflush does not result in a fracture that is disconnected from the
wellbore.
The OF1 buildup signature is closer to the simulated buildups for Scenarios 0-3. The wellbore storage
effects make it harder to determine which scenario represents the best match with the data. The derivative
behavior between 1 to 4 hours, i.e., the transition period out of the wellbore storage flow regimes, was
investigated to see if more insight could be gained. The derivative on Scenario 3 has a negative slope for
some time which is not observed in the OF1 and therefore Scenario 3 can be ruled out. It is difficult to
determine if the well is closest to Scenario 0, Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. The derivative of the OF1 well has
some similarities to Scenario 2. However, OF1 is most similar to the derivatives of the underflushed wells
which indicates that they have similar connection quality. Furthermore, the PI of OF1 is the highest of the 3
wells despite being in slightly lower reservoir quality. Both these facts would suggest that the OF1 behavior
has a high quality connection and is likely to be closer to Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 than the other scenarios.
The well results clearly show that despite a large overflush which should have caused a complete loss in
fracture/perforation connectivity, the fracture is still very well connected to the perforations. The explanation
lies in the various physical mechanisms (viscous channels, irregular fracture geometry, etc.) that mitigate
the effect of overdisplacement.
Longer term performance
The performance of the over flushed well remains identical to its peers over a 2-year period (ref Chaplygin
et al.) and is shown below
24 SPE-201666-MS

Figure 37—Production Rate versus time for OF1 versus its underflushed offsets

Figure 38—Cumulative Production versus Time. Overflushed Well performance versus underflushed peers

Following the success of the OF1 well, over 20 vertical wells have been completed using the managed
overflush process. The wells have been completed in different reservoirs within the Salym complex and also
show comparable performance to their underflushed offsets. Figure 39 shows the productivity index (PI m3/
bar) versus time for 2 over flushed wells (red) versus underflushed (grey) on the same well pad. Figure 40
shows the performance across multiple pads in the same reservoir.
SPE-201666-MS 25

Figure 39—PI versus time for overflushed wells (red) versus underflush wells (grey) in Pad 1

Figure 40—Productivity Index (PI) comparison of overflushed wells (red) versus

underflushed wells (grey) performance across multiple wells in the same field

An alternative way to compare the long-term performance is to look at the PI at the end of 6 months of
production. A cumulative distribution of the 6-month PI was generated and show in Figure 41. The chart
shows that the none of the over flushed wells are in the bottom quartile (0-25%) of the PI distribution and
most are in the 3rd or 4th quartile. The absence of over flushed wells in the bottom quartile strongly suggests
that the managed overflush process does not lead to lower productivity wells. Although the data seems to
imply that over flushed wells have higher productivity than underflushed wells the authors do not believe
that this conclusion can be made given the limited number of wells. A larger data set will be needed to
determine if that is true.
26 SPE-201666-MS

Figure 41—Cumulative Distribution of 6 months PI for over flushed versus

underflushed wells. No over flushed wells are in bottom quartile for performance.

Horizontal Wells with Overflushed Hydraulic Fractures. The production and cumulative production from
the horizontal wells are comparable after over 17 months of production, as illustrated by Figure 42 and
Figure 43. These results again confirm that overdisplacement does not affect well productivity. The HOF1
overflushed well, has also not experienced any issues with proppant flowback and unexpected shutdowns
related to the overdisplacement. The elimination of the coiled tubing cleanout has had no adverse impact
on the well productivity or its operational reliability.

Figure 42—Production data comparing overflushed horizontal well (HOF1) against offset underflushed horizontal well (HUF1)
SPE-201666-MS 27

Figure 43—Cumulative production comparison for overflushed versus underflushed horizontal well

Since the first field trial, the use of managed overflush has become standard practice in Salym for
vertical and horizontal wells. The application of managed overflush has eliminated the need for post fracture
cleanout trips in both vertical and horizontal wells. This has significantly reduced total completion time
and costs. The managed overdisplacement process has also produced other benefits such as faster time to
production, reduced HSSE risk exposure, reduced number of people on location, and lower GHG emissions.

Discussion and Conclusions

The results from the field trials offer conclusive evidence that the paradigm regarding overflush as a killer
risk to productivity for conventional permeability reservoirs is false. The managed overflush technique
described in the paper is believed to be applicable to a broad range of reservoirs and is the subject of ongoing
investigation. One clear situation where this technique should not be used is in ‘soft’ formations which have
low cohesion (i.e.UCS values of a few hundred psi) and require a traditional gravel pack. For these can be
applied to a broad range of reservoirs. The main conclusions are as follows:
1. A critical review of the paradigm that overflushing is a killer risk to the productivity of hydraulically
fractured wells in conventional reservoirs was undertaken. The review found that that the paradigm
relies on physically unrealistic assumptions.
2. A managed overflush design process has been developed for application in conventional reservoirs.
The technique is operationally simple and robust.
3. The results from the first well, in which proppant was deliberately overflushed to be over 20 ft from
the perforations, showed it has comparable performance to offset underflushed wells. This has been
validated through repeat PTA's on the well and by longer term production data.
4. Well performance for a large data set of follow-up vertical and horizontal well completions with
overflush practices are compared to offset wells in the same reservoirs are presented.
5. The well comparison shows that overflushed wells performance is equivalent to the underflushed
wells. These results challenge the validity of the overflush paradigm.
6. The application of the managed overflush technique offers significant benefits for cost reduction,
reducing number of operations, improving profitability, and safety.
7. The PBU/PTA patterns for an overflushed fracture flowing are presented here. The impact of the
quality of the fracture/perforation connection are shown. The PBU/PTA patterns for a fracture that
28 SPE-201666-MS

is completely disconnected from the wellbore were also developed and are presented. These help to
understand the expected response of an overflushed well.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Salym Petroleum Development and Shell Exploration and Development
Co for their support of the field trials. We would like to thank Maarten Poort and Ed Shumilak for their
support of the project. We are also grateful to Paul Huckabee, Cris O'Brien, and Quin Guang Qu for the many
productive discussions and information sharing. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Mukul Sharma
and the University of Texas for permission to use pictures and videos from their experiments.

Nomenclature
PBU Pressure Build Up
FTHP Flowing Tubing Head Pressure
EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery

References
Branagan, P. T., Peterson, R. E., Warpinski, N. R., Wolhart, S. L., & Hill, R. E. (1997, January 1). Propagation of a
Hydraulic Fracture into a Remote Observation Wellbore Results of C-Sand Experimentation at the GRI/DOE M-Site
Project. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/38574-MS
Chaplygin, D., Khamadaliev, D., Yashnev, V., Gorbachev, Y., Chernyshev, A., Vitthal, S., & Fair, P. S. (2019, October 22).
Hydraulic Fracturing Overflush on Conventional Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/196967-
MS
Huckabee, P. (2020, January) Private Communication
McClure, M. W., Blyton, C. A. J., Jung, H., & Sharma, M. M. (2014, October 27). The Effect of Changing Fracture
Compliance on Pressure Transient Behavior During Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/170956-MS
Rahim, Z., Al-Kanaan, A., Kayumov, R., Al-Jalal, Z., & Viswanathan, A. (2017, June 1). Optimizing Hydraulic Fracturing
Design by Analyzing Reservoir, Completion, and Stimulation Parameters and Their Influence on Post-Fracturing Gas
Rates. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/188091-MS
Roy, A., Casero, A., Nicolaysen, A., Al Alawi, K., Al Shabibi, M., Albrecht, K., & Dawson, W. (2016, November 7).
Design and Execution of BP's First 15K Open Hole Multi Stage Completion System in the Sultanate of Oman. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/183247-MS
Saffman, P. G.; Taylor, G. (1958). "The Penetration of a Fluid into a Medium or Hele-Shaw Cell Containing a more Viscous
Liquid". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A. 245 (1242): 312–329. Bibcode:1958RSPSA.245.312S.
doi:10.1098/rspa.1958.0085.
Ugueto C., G. A., Wojtaszek, M., Huckabee, P. T., Reynolds, A., Brewer, J., & Acosta, L. (2018, August 9). Accelerated
Stimulation Optimization via Permanent and Continuous Production Monitoring Using Fiber Optics. Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference. doi:10.15530/URTEC-2018-2901897
Wu, W., Zhou, J., Kakkar, P., Russell, R., & Sharma, M. M. (2019, May 1). An Experimental Study on Conductivity of
Unpropped Fractures in Preserved Shales. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/184858-PA
SPE-201666-MS 29

Appendix 1
The effect of perforations location and stress profile on final over-flush location was discussed by Chaplygin
et al and are shown again for reference (Figure 44). The over flushed region, for the figure on the left,
remains at the perforation interval since the perforations are located at the top of the interval. However, if
the perforations are located at the bottom, the fracture has a greater likelihood for reconnection with the
perforations.

Figure 44—Overflush region location with (a) perforated interval at top of the zone versus (b) bottom of the zone.

The impact of perforation interval size and overflush volume is also important. The use of a very large
overflush volume may not be advisable for a very small perforated interval located at the top of the zone.
Figure 45 shows final fracture conductivity for an underflushed fracture treatment pumped through a 2 ft
perforation interval located at the very top of the interval. Figure 46 shows the same after a 40 bbl. overflush.
The height of void region is # 15 ft and covers the entire perforation interval.

Figure 45—Proppant Distribution for typical underflushed fracture. 2 ft perforated interval at top

Figure 46—40 bbl. overflush for a 2 ft perforated interval located at the top of a zone.
30 SPE-201666-MS

Alternative solutions for this scenario are to change the length/location of the perforated interval as
well as the volume of the overflush. Figure 47 shows the final location of the void region for a 10 bbl.
overflush pumped through a 20 ft perforated interval. The height of the void region is reduced to 4 ft leaving
substantially all of the perforated interval connected. This suggests that moving the perforated interval down
by 5-10 ft, along with a smaller overflush, will be sufficient to maintain connectivity.

Figure 47—10 bbl. overflush through a 20 ft perforated interval.

Figure 46 and Figure 47 overestimate the scale of the overflushed region since they imply that no proppant
is present in the ‘void’ region. Figure 48 shows a zoomed in view of the void region in Figure 47 with a
different proppant concentration scale. This shows that most of the ‘void’ region is above 0.2 lb/ft2 and will
also have some residual conductivity.

Figure 48—Zoomed view of the void region on Figure 47 at 2 different scales. Very
small part of the overflushed region is below critical proppant conductivity of 0.2 lb/ft2.

Use of a smaller overflush, such as 5 bbl, substantially eliminates the leads the void region as shown in
Figure 49 and requires only a minor change to the perforated interval location and length.

Figure 49—5 bbl. overflush leads to elimination of the void region