PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 45, Issue 5, October 2018

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2018, 45(5): 932–947. RESEARCH PAPER

Progress and development of volume stimulation techniques

XU Yun1, 2, *, LEI Qun1, 2, CHEN Ming3, WU Qi2, 4, YANG Nengyu4, WENG Dingwei1, 2, LI Deqi5, JIANG Hao1
1. Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina, Beijing 100083, China;
2. The Key Laboratory of Reservoir Stimulation, PetroChina, Langfang 065007, China;
3. China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China;
4. PetroChina Exploration and Production Company, Beijing 100007, China;
5. PetroChina Zhejiang Oilfield Company, Hangzhou 310023, China

Abstract: Based on the theoretical study and field application of volume stimulation in horizontal wells over the past 10 years, the core
connotation of volume stimulation was further interpreted. The implementation methods, design models and key issues were analyzed,
and the future development direction was put forward. The research shows that the multi-cluster limited entry technique can achieve ho-
mogenous growth of multiple fractures. The hybrid stimulation of “breaking by rock gel stimulation + carrying proppant by slick water”
plus small-particle proppant can reduce the fracture complexity near the well bore and increase stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) in the
far-field. The requirement of fracture conductivity in unconventional formations can be met by shear-sustained fractures and prop-
pant-transporting slick water. The optimum well spacing between a child well and a parent well should be determined by the stimulation
modes, injection volume and pressure drawdown. Reconstructing seepage field, stress field and stimulation targets is crucial for improv-
ing the stimulation results in a horizontal well. Reducing cluster spacing and well spacing is the basis for establishing development modes
of fracture-controlled reserves. Fracturing-design decision system based on “spatial-mode stimulation” and geology-engineering integra-
tion is an important research direction for volume stimulation techniques.

Key words: volume stimulation; multi-cluster limited entry; shear fracture; small particle size; tight spacing; spatial-mode stimulation;
restimulation of horizontal wells

Introduction
Volume stimulation in horizontal well has become a key tech-
nology for effective development of unconventional oil and gas
reservoirs[13]. Better understanding on the theory of volume
stimulation technology has important significance for optimiz-
ing design and application of fracturing in the field. In this study,
we explain the core connotation, summarize the research re-
sults and key technologies and look into the future development
direction of volume stimulation based on the theoretical study
and field application of this technology. The ultimate goal is
to promote the application of this technology in a wider range.
1. Overview
1.1. The origin and core theory of this technology
In 2002, through micro seismic monitoring, Maxwell[4]
found that the fractures generated in the staged fracturing of
horizontal well showed a complex network propagation ge-
ometry in the plane and longitudinal direction, rather than the
two-wing symmetric fractures stated by the traditional frac-
turing theory. This discovery was the starting point for the
development of volume stimulation technology. In 2006,
Mayerhofer[5] first proposed the concept of “stimulation of
reservoir volume (SRV)”, followed by an in-depth analysis of
SRV in 2010 but did not include technical aspects[6]. In 2008,
our research team first proposed the concept of “fracture net-
work” fracturing technology in the industry. After one year of
research and practice, an article[7] was published in 2009 to
elucidate the technology and its application effect. In January
2009, the author officially proposed the concept of “volume
stimulation” technology in PetroChina. After more than one
year of research and summary, the first article was published
in 2011[1], which clearly stated that volume stimulation tech-
nology is a major technological breakthrough. In 2013, the
theory and design method of volume stimulation technology
were initially established.
Generally speaking, the volume stimulation technology is
the general fracturing technology under modern theory. The
“fracture network” is the fracture geometry pursued by vol-
ume stimulation, and the “fracture network” fracturing tech-

Received date: 09 Mar. 2018; Revised date: 26 Jun. 2018.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: xuyun69@petrochina.com.cn
Foundation item: Supported by the China National Science and Technology Major Project (2016ZX05023).
Copyright © 2018, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina. Publishing Services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Com-
munications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947

nology is an expression of volume stimulation technology.

The volume stimulation technology invented by the author’s
research team is an interpretation of the classic Darcy’s law
from different perspectives in the field of unconventional oil
and gas exploration and development. Its core theory mainly
includes the following points: (1) one method: “breaking up”
the reservoir to form network fractures and artificial perme-
ability; (2) three connotations: the maximum contact area
between the fracture wall and the reservoir matrix, the shortest
flow distance of fluid from the matrix to the fracture, and the
minimum pressure difference for the fluid flow to the fracture;
and (3) three functions: to increase single well production,
improve oil recovery, and maximize the producing degree of
reserves. Studies by researchers at home and abroad have
shown that[810], for seepage of oil and gas in unconventional
reservoir matrix, whether considering non-Darcy flow, start-
ing pressure flow or multi-scale flow, its model of non-Darcy
flow is still in the expression form of Darcy’s law, and the
difference is that the model is modified by using different
parameters, but the seepage characteristics are still controlled
by the seepage area, flow distance, and driving pressure dif-
ference. These studies have confirmed theoretically rationality
of the core idea of volume stimulation technology, that is “the
maximum contact area, the shortest flow distance, the smallest
pressure difference”. Therefore, it can be argued that Darcy’s
law is the theoretical basis for establishing volume stimulation
technology, and “the maximum contact area, the shortest flow
distance, the smallest pressure difference” is a new expression
of Darcy’s law in the field of reservoir stimulation. Volume
stimulation technology can be applied not only to unconven-
tional reservoirs, but also to the development of low-satura-
tion reservoirs, heavy oil reservoirs, and even conventional
reservoirs. Volume stimulation technology is also applicable
to deep unconventional reservoirs. The main technical bottle-
necks are the technical capability and level of deep well op-
eration, the pressure resistance of wellheads and equipment,
and greater investment. Therefore, how to reduce cost and
increase efficiency is an important research direction for ef-
fective development of deep shale gas reservoirs.
Since the emergence of volume stimulation technology, it
has not only been widely used in PetroChina, but foreign re-
searchers[11] also agree that it is the future development direc-
tion of fracturing technology to “break up” the rock near the
wellbore through multi-cluster and large-scale fracturing.
Pearson et al.[12] compared the fracturing effects obtained by
using different tools and techniques in the Bakken Basin and
found that volume stimulation using bridge plug, clustering
perforation and slick water in large-scale and large displace-
ment has the best result. Romanson et al.[13] verified the gen-
eral applicability of volume stimulation technique by moni-
toring the complex fractures formed by the volume stimula-
tion in the Bakken Basin through microseismic monitoring
(Fig. 1).
 933 
Fig. 1. Microseismic monitoring results of horizontal well
volume stimulation in Bakken Basin.
1.2. The theoretical essence of the new progress of
volume stimulation
In recent years, the new progress of volume stimulation
technology is mainly reflected in the continuous reduction of
well spacing and cluster spacing, the use of three-dimensional
volume stimulation in multi-layer or thick-layer reservoirs,
and the significant cost reduction and improvement of Esti-
mated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) of ultra-long horizontal
wells.
Microseismic monitoring and well test analysis show that
the actual length of the hydraulic fracture is much smaller
than the range of the microseismic event[1415]. Under the con-
dition of large well spacing (such as 400 m), the length of the
artificial fracture is not enough to cover the interwell reservoir
fully, so the reserve utilization rate is limited and stimulation
efficiency is not maximized. So, reduction of well spacing is
taken in North America[1618], with well spacing shortened
from 400 m in 2009 to less than 200 m, and the minimum well
spacing being just 76 m[19]. Reducing the well spacing can
reduce the fracture length designed and make field operation
easier. By strengthening the support ability of proppant to the
fractures in distal end of formation, the fractures can fully
control the reserves between two adjacent wells, thus greatly
reducing the volume of unstimulated reservoir far from the
wells. In addition, while reducing the well spacing, it is often
necessary to reduce the cluster spacing, they are closely re-
lated to each other. At present, the cluster spacing of horizon-
tal well stimulation in unconventional reservoirs in North
America has been reduced from 2030 m[20] to 510 m[21].
Under the condition of small cluster spacing, it is not neces-
sary to form network fractures between clusters. The seepage
distance between oil and gas and fractures in the matrix within
two fractures is only a few meters. For micro- and nano-scale
permeability reservoirs, the driving pressure difference re-
quired for fluid to flow into the fracture in the matrix has been
greatly reduced, which means that the oil and gas recovery in
the matrix is basically no problem. “All” recovery is the core
and ultimate goal of the volume stimulation technology.
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
Increasing the producing degree of longitudinal sections of
layered or thick unconventional reservoirs has always been an
important research topic in the field of reservoir stimulation.
Multi-layer fracturing with packer sliding sleeves and coiled
tubing hydraulic sand blasting in vertical well, and multi-la-
teral horizontal well fracturing are effective technical methods.
With the development of drilling technology, the drilling
speed has been greatly improved. For example, in the Eagle
Ford block, for typical wells 4 853 m deep and 2 198 m long
in horizontal length, it only takes 6.02 d to finish drilling from
spud-in. Drilling costs have fallen from 60%80% of the cost
of completion to 21%34%. The speed of drilling has
prompted the development of spatial-mode volume stimula-
tion technology (Fig. 2)[22], that is, a horizontal well is drilled
separately for each target layer, and multi-lateral horizontal
wells are no longer used. Compared with multi-lateral wells,
multi-layer horizontal wells are simple in operation, high in
efficiency, low in risk, and low in overall cost. This technol-
ogy applies the concept of “breaking up” reservoirs from
plane to vertical direction by volume stimulation. With refer-
ence to the horizontal well development model in the wellpad
mode, the horizontal sections are stacked in the longitudinal
direction, the fractures are placed in a staggered pattern, so
network fractures can be created by the interference of effec-
tive stress generated in the longitudinal direction by the frac-
tures height propagation to greatly increase the reserve utili-
zation rate of the longitudinal reservoirs. Farhan et al.[22]
found that when the Wolfcamp block was developed using
three stacked multi-layer horizontal wells, 78% of the wells
with production were of multi-layer completion. Field practice
in the blocks of Eagle Ford and Niobrara shows that poor
reservoirs with no economic value of development interpreted
by the logging data, can reach development result similar to
good reservoirs after using reservoir simulation technology[23].
Utra-long horizontal well fracturing technology has been
attempted in North America since 2013, with the horizontal
Fig. 2. Sketch diagram of separate horizontal wells in spatial
development.
 934 
section increasing from 1 900 m at first to 5 700 m in 2016.
For example, the company of Eclipse successfully imple-
mented ultra-long horizontal well fracturing in Well Purple
Hayes1H in the Utica block[24]. The well has a depth of 8 244
m, horizontal section length of 5 562 m, and vertical depth of
2 307 m. It took 17.5 d to finish its drilling, and 23.5 d to fin-
ish its fracturing. The fracturing had 124 stages, with each
stage being 45.72 m. 5.3 stages with 5 clusters per each stage
were fractured per day. After the fracturing, the well had a
natural gas production of 14.16×104 m3/d and condensate
production of 190.8 m3/d. According to the production data,
the EUR for 3 years would reach 2.76×108m3. The ultra-long
horizontal well can reduce the drilling and completion cost
per meter, improve the economic indicators of the well, re-
duce the cost of fracturing and drilling by 20%30%, and
increase the profit by 35%70%, compared with the short
horizontal well. By increasing the number of fractures cutting
matrix and the contact area between fractures and matrix, the
ultra-long horizontal well can maximize the recovery rate of
reserves in the horizontal section, so as to delay the decline of
the production, greatly increase the EUR, reduce cost and
increase profit.
How to understand and apply volume stimulation technol-
ogy, North America gives its own answer, that is, “tight spac-
ing, multi-dimension, super long horizontal well”, the core of
that is to further shorten the seepage distance of fluid in the
matrix to the fracture, greatly reduce the driving pressure dif-
ference, and increase the contact area between the matrix and
the fracture. Volume stimulation has evolved from a two-di-
mensional plane to a multi-dimensional space, surpassing the
idea of “breaking up” the reservoir on the plane only. Accord-
ing to the theory of volume stimulation technology, Tuha Oil-
field has carried out tests in other types of reservoirs, and
achieved good results, which is also a practice and proof for
the “maximum contact area, shortest distance, and smallest
pressure difference” of core theory of volume stimulation.
2. Methods of achieving volume stimulation
2.1. Multi-cluster limited entry technique in horizontal wells
Multi-cluster perforation is the key to the application of
volume stimulation. When multiple clusters (3 clusters or
more) are used for each stage, the key to ensure the initiation
and growth of each cluster under constant injection rate is to
limit the perforation numbers in each stage. If the total perfo-
ration number can ensure sufficient entry resistance, all the
perforation clusters can be initiated[3]. In this case, it is not
necessary to use the temporary blocking technique to activate
the unopened clusters. Due to the influence of reservoir het-
erogeneity and the phase of perforation hole, how to realize
the uniform stimulation of all clusters needs to be studied and
analyzed from the aspect of multi-fracture propagation (Fig.
3).
When the fracture expands, the energy from the injected
liquid is converted into the strain energy and fracturing energy
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of propagation of multi-cluster
fractures.
of the rock, the energy that overcomes the far-field stress and
interactive stress, the perforation friction and the energy con-
sumed by the fluid flow in the fracture[25]. Considering the
case of N clusters of fractures in each stage, the energy bal-
ance equation for each fracture can be expressed as:
pw,i Qi  U +W0 +WI +Wp +Wf  Wc (i=1, …, N) (1)
Assume that the interactive stress of ith fracture caused by
the jth fracture is σI,i,j, meanwhile as the hydraulic fractures
are largely viscosity-dominated fractures[26], Wc can be negli-
gible, so the equation (1) can be simplified as:
N
 0.810 6  
pw,i Qi  U  Qi h   Qi I,i , j   2 4 2  Qi3  Wf
j 1, j  i  ni Di C 
(2)
According to equation (2), for the propagation of multi-
cluster hydraulic fractures, two kinds of cases could occur, the
cases dominated by stress interference and cases dominated
by perforation friction. When the stress interference effect is
much larger than the perforation friction, the stress interfer-
ence would dominate the energy consumption. Now, the equa-
tion (2) can be converted into:
N fractures and increase of SRV.
pw,i Qi =U +Qi h  
j 1, j  i
Qi I,i , j
Under the influence of the interaction stress between the
fractures, the fractures in a cluster need to overcome more
stress work from other fractures in the cluster. Since the hy-
draulic fractures would propagate in the least energy-con-
suming manner, less amount of fluid would get into interior
fractures and more injected fluid would go into exterior frac-
tures. Consequently, the amount of fluid entering the fractures
won’t be even, and the propagation of the fractures inner the
cluster will be insufficient than the fractures in the outer side
of the cluster.
When the perforating friction is much greater than the in-
teraction stress, the perforating friction would dominate the
energy consumption. In this case, the equation (2) can be
converted into:
 0.810 6  
pw,i Qi =U  Qi h   2 4 2  Qi3  Wf
 ni Di C 
According to equation (4), there is no difference in energy
dissipation between different fractures in each cluster. At this
time, the amount of liquid injected can be evenly distributed
into the fractures of each cluster, thereby achieving uniform
propagation of fractures in each cluster.
The above analysis shows that in the volume stimulation of
horizontal well, uniform stimulation of each cluster can be
achieved by multi-cluster limited entry technique. This con-
clusion has been proved by Lecampion and Wu et al.[2728]
through numerical simulation. The extreme limited entry
(XLE) perforating technique proposed by Somanchi et al.[29]
can achieve multi-cluster simultaneous opening and uniform
expansion by a greater degree of multi-cluster limited entry.
The technology was tested in the Montany block, where with
3 clusters per stage and 2-3 perforation holes per cluster, the
fracturing was done at the injection rate of 5 m3/min and per-
foration entry resistance of 8.3 MPa. Optical fiber diagnosis
shows that the technology results in more balanced amount of
sand per cluster and the efficiency of perforation clusters 33%
higher than conventional limited entry perforating. Weddle et
al.[30] reported the effect of XLE in the Bakken block: the
horizontal section of the wells were 4 313 m long, and were
fractured in 40-50 stage, with 12-15 perforation clusters in
each stage and 2 holes in each cluster; the holes in the same
cluster were perforated at 180° phase angle; the fracturing was
done at the sand adding rate of 0.981.51 t/m, injection rate of
12.7 m3/min, and the perforating entry resistance of 1014
MPa. Post-fracturing gamma logging shows that the effi-
ciency of XLE is 80% to 90%, while the efficiency of limited
entry perforating is often only 30% to 80%. However, the
injection rate of XLE is lower, mainly because the number of
holes is too few, which leads to excessive entry resistance and
great increase of the injection pressure at the wellhead. But,
lower injection rate often results in lower net pressure in the
fractures, which is not conducive to the formation of complex
(3) Usually, perforation tunnels are subject to erosion by the
sand carrying fluid during fracturing, which would lead to
increase in the radius and reduction in the friction of perfo-
rated holes. Therefore, in the optimized design, the number of
tunnels should be appropriately reduced according to the cal-
culated entry resistance to ensure the effective opening of
each cluster. In addition, it is necessary to quickly increase the
injection rate during fracturing, to establish the bottom-hole
pressure to ensure sufficient entry resistance for opening of
each cluster, the even entry of fracturing fluid into fractures in
each cluster, and effective propagation of multi-cluster frac-
tures.
2.2. Complexity control technology for fractures near and
far from wells
The main purpose of volume stimulation is to increase the
(4) complexity of fractures far from well[31]. The near-well frac-
tures should be as simple as possible in shape to avoid distor-
tion or multiple fractures which may cause smaller fracture
width and subsequently sand plugging at the perforation tun-
 935 
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947

nel or near the well. Therefore, directional perforation, equal

hole size perforation and other techniques can be taken to
make the perforation phase as consistent as possible with the
direction of the maximum principal stress, to effectively avoid
the distortion of near-well fractures[3233]. In staged fracturing
from horizontal wells, the perforation spacing of the same
perforation cluster should generally be less than 4 times the
diameter of the wellbore[34] to ensure that the fractures at dif-
ferent tunnels are single.
Beugelsdijk et al.[35] studied the fracture geometry in natu-
rally fractured formations, and pointed out that the product Qμ
was the key factor affecting the natural fracture propagation
and fracture propagation geometry. When Qμ was 8.3×108
N·m, the liquid would flow along the natural fracture and no
main artificial fracture would be generated; and when Qμ was
8.3×106 N·m, main artificial fractures would be created and
the natural fracture would not open. The study also showed
that the change rate of injection rate had a significant effect on
the fracture initiation, if the injection rate was increased
slowly, the pressure curve would have no signs of breakdown,
Fig. 4. Sectional view of fracture propagation under different
the injected liquid may lose along the natural fracture, causing products of Qμ.
multiple fractures near well to open (Fig. 4a); when the injec-
between fractures and the natural fractures[38]. During the
tion rate was increased quickly, the pressure curve would
on-site fracturing, the clustering perforation can be used to
show obvious breakdown, in this case the natural fracture
improve the complexity of fractures in far from wellbore by
would not open, only a single hydraulic fracture would be
making use of the superposition of inter-cluster stress inter-
created (Fig. 4b). The experiments of Fu Haifeng et al.[36] ver-
ference and the diverting technique in fractures[7]. In addition,
ified the function of product Qμ; Lecampion et al.[37] also
reducing the cluster spacing can make multi-cluster fractures
found that for reservoirs with natural fractures near the well-
deflect away from each other, thus increasing the complexity
bore, rapid increase of injection rate to establish bottom-hole of fractures and the lateral stimulation range[39]. For reservoirs
pressure could avoid initiation of multiple fractures, thereby with natural fractures susceptible to sand plugging near well-
reducing the complexity of fractures near wellbore. bore, a combination of “breaking up rock by gel + carrying
Beugelsdijk et al.[35] studied the difficult degree of main proppant by slickwater” can be considered to reduce the risk
fracture diverting and opening of natural fractures and con- of sand plugging and improve the complexity of fractures far
cluded that the diverting ability of artificial fractures should from wellbore.
be determined by dimensionless net pressure (ratio of net
pressure to horizontal stress difference). The greater the di- 2.3. Small particle size proppant and slickwater carrying
mensionless net pressure, the easier the fracture will deviate sand technology
from the direction of the main fracture and form complex From the perspective of proppant migration, the smaller the
fractures. He also introduced a dimensionless horizontal stress particle size of the proppant, the slower the setting rate, the
difference coefficient to characterize the open ability of natu- farther the proppant will move in the fractures, and the better
ral fracture: the placement effect of proppant will be. The equation for the
H h proppant settlement within the fracture can be expressed as:
kh  (5)
h
v
 
g  p  f d p2
(6)
Under the condition of the same stress difference, the larger 18
the minimum horizontal principal stress, the smaller the kh, According to the equation (6), when the particle diameter of
and the smaller the opening degree of the natural fracture, the the proppant is reduced to 1/2 of the conventional particle
more difficult it is for the fluid to lose in the natural fracture. diameter, the setting speed of the proppant will be reduced to
Therefore, the dimensionless horizontal stress difference coef- 1/4 of the setting speed of the conventional particle size
ficient reflects the ability of the fluid to enter the natural frac- proppant. At present, the clusters in a fracturing stage of hori-
ture and has nothing to do with the diverting ability of the zontal well volume stimulation are going up from 3 to more
hydraulic fracture. than 10[30], so the injection rate in each cluster is greatly re-
The extended shape of the fracture away from wellbore is duced. Since the injection rate cannot be increased indefi-
mainly affected by the far field stress, the stress interference nitely to increase the fracture width, and the limit dynamic
 936 
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
fracture width to avoid sand screenout should ideally be 2 to 3
times the proppant particle size[40], so it is sensible to select
small particle size proppant to reduce the risk of sand screen-
out and increase the migration distance of proppant in the
fracture.
Since slickwater volume stimulation is likely to create
complex fractures, the small particle size proppant would not
only settle in the main fractures, but also enter the branch
fractures and micro fractures in the forms of corner support
and single particle support. This type of placement manner
conforms to the early research consensus, that is: “Proppant
setting in single layer has the best conductivity”[41], which is
an important reason why the complex fracture network has
better conductivity. Ely et al.[42] compared the production of
the Eagle Ford and Bakken blocks, and found that the
small-size quartz sand worked better than the large-size quartz
sand in fracturing. At present, the field test of smaller particle
size proppant was carried out in Grassland block of Texas,
North America[4344]. In the test, 11 horizontal wells were
stage fractured with 3 clusters in each stage at an average in-
jection rate of 8.6 m3/min. The concentration of proppant of
0.150 mm (100 mesh) and 0.425/0.212 mm (40/70 mesh)
were both 300 kg/m3, and that of 0.045 mm (325 mesh) mi-
cro-size silt was 12 kg/m3. Fracturing with the above method,
the cumulative gas production per well over 210 days in-
creased by 20%30%. Through experiment and numerical
simulation, Dahl et al.[43] pointed out that injecting small par-
ticle size proppants could increase the micro-fracture perme-
ability of shale and enhance production.
In the application of volume stimulation technology, slick
water is generally used to expand the sweeping volume be-
cause of its low viscosity. In this method, large fracturing
fluid volume is made use to supplement the energy, and large
injection rate is used to carry sand to the distal end of the
fracture. The follow-up proppant migration and placement by
slickwater in the fracture is shown in Fig. 5. The proppant
continuously settles with the liquid migration, and gradually
spreads from the bottom of the fracture in the longitudinal
direction to form a support for dynamic fractures. After the
completion of the fracturing, it is not recommended to do
rapid flowback or shut-in, as at a lower flowback rate, frac-
turing fluid retained will support and stop the fracture
Fig. 5. Sand-carrying setting mode of slick water slug frac-
turing.
 937 
from closing. The proppant that continues to settle only in-
creases the height of the sandbank under the condition of the
fracture width created by the stacking, which makes the dy-
namic fracture width generated by the large injection rate ba-
sically the support fracture width, that is the reason why the
slick water fracturing doesn’t need to pursue the higher sand
concentration. If a small particle size proppant or a small par-
ticle size proppant with low density is selected, the proppant
can be transported further in the fracture, which is more con-
ducive for improving the stimulation effect.
3. Design models for volume stimulation
3.1. Traditional fracturing model
The design of hydraulic fracturing relies on theoretical
models and calculation methods. The early classic models
included mainly PKN, GDK models etc.[45], and later Settari
and Palmer et al.[4647] developed them into a pseudo-three-di-
mensional model. The model considers the influence of the
inter-layer stress difference, but the fracture height equation
does not consider the vertical flow and the interlayer me-
chanical properties. Therefore, when the thin interbed and
perforation segments are high-stress layers, the fracture height
predicted by this model would have larger error. A full
three-dimensional model established by Lee and Carter et
al.[4849] doesn’t use the fracture height equation but obtains
the fracture width and the fluid pressure in the fracture by
coupling the two-dimensional flow equation of the fluid in the
fracture with the three-dimensional linear elastic mechanics
model. In addition, the fracture boundary is determined by the
stress intensity factor of the discrete grid element to work out
the fracture length and height.
3.2. Fracturing model for unconventional reservoirs
In recent years, the application of volume stimulation
technology has driven the development of unconventional
fracturing models. Although the unconventional fracturing
model is still based on the theory of linear elastic fracture
mechanics, the problem solved is more complicated, such as:
the propagation of multi-cluster fracture, shear fracture and
bedding weak interface, as well as interaction between artifi-
cial fracture and natural fracture. The unconventional fractur-
ing model mainly means to solve two key problems: (1) the
description of natural fractures, including its geometric char-
acteristics, petrophysical and mechanical parameters, etc.; (2)
the propagation simulation of complex fractures, which in-
cludes the propagation form of artificial fractures after en-
countering natural fractures, as well as the propagation of
tensile fractures and shear slip fractures. At present, there are
four main types of propagation simulation solutions for com-
plex fractures: finite element, extended finite element, bound-
ary element and discrete element.
Hossain et al.[50] first proposed a method of modeling natu-
ral fracture networks inversely based on fractal theory. The
model considers the propagation of shear fractures and can be
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
used for the analysis and design of slick water fracturing in
the formation with natural fractures. The accuracy of the
model has been verified by micro-seismic monitoring results.
Robert et al.[51] proposed a method based on discrete frac-
ture network model (DFN) and productivity data to model the
natural fracture network of the formation inversely. The model
is mainly used for the morphological interpretation of frac-
tures after fracturing and is not suitable for design analysis
before fracturing.
Olson[52] established a boundary element model for multi-
cluster fracture and natural fracture propagation. The model
considers the shear and tensile breaking of natural fractures
and can simulate the propagation of complex fracture under
the condition of stress interference. Later, Wu et al.[53] ex-
tended the model to consider the effect of perforation and
wellbore friction. Dahi-Taleghani et al.[54] studied the interac-
tion between hydraulic fractures and a single natural fracture
based on the extended finite element method and established a
method to evaluate the difficulty of natural fracture and rock
matrix failure using energy release rate. Moreover, they also
studied the extended morphology of fractures created by the
stimulation in formations where natural fractures with differ-
ent length and angle are evenly distributed[55]. The model can
be used to simulate the fracturing of reservoirs with natural
fractures.
Meyer et al.[56] used the orthogonal fracture model to de-
scribe the natural fracture network. The model assumes the
shape of the fracture to be an orthogonal fracture ellipsoid
only, which is different from the actual situation. In the same
year, Maxwell et al.[57] proposed a method to model the ge-
ometry of natural fractures based on micro-seismic modified
model. This model combines micro-seismic events obtained
from monitoring in horizontal well fracturing with geological
modeling and 3D seismic data and pioneered the research of
geological-engineering integration.
Kresse et al.[58] proposed an unconventional fracture model
(UFM). Based on the pseudo-three-dimensional model, the
model can be used to predict the intersecting pattern of the
hydraulic fracture with natural fracture based on the hydraulic
fracture tip stress field established by Gu et al.[59]. Later a
semi-analytical intersection criterion[60] considering the injec-
tion rate and viscosity was introduced into the model. At pre-
sent, the UFM model considers the stress interference of
multi-cluster fracture propagation and the transport of prop-
pant in the fractures. It can be combined with micro-seismic
monitoring to correct the results of fracture propagation, thus
realizing numerical simulation of fracture propagation in
staged multi-cluster fracturing of multi-layer reservoirs[61].
Xu et al.[6263] proposed an extended model of multi-cluster
fracturing in horizontal wells. The model considers the effects
of stress interference and friction between the fractures and
can be used for fluid-solid coupling simulation of three-di-
mensional fracture propagation in multi-layer reservoirs.
However, without considering natural fractures, it cannot be
 938 
used to simulate fracture propagation in strata with natural
fractures.
Nassir et al.[64] advanced a fluid-solid coupling model for
hydraulic fracturing in reservoirs with natural fractures. The
model uses the elastoplastic constitutive equation to describe
the shear and tensile deformation characteristics of natural
fractures and predicts the stimulated reservoir volume based
on the tensile failure and the molar Coulomb shear failure
criterion in three-dimensional space. Considering factors such
as stratigraphic heterogeneity and elastoplastic deformation of
natural fractures, the model can be used for numerical simula-
tion of fracture propagation in the formation with natural
fractures.
Profit et al.[65] developed a staged multi-cluster fracturing
simulator for tight gas reservoirs. The simulator achieves full
coupling of geomechanics and fluid flow through adaptive
mesh simulation technology. Considering fracture tensile,
shear or mixed failure modes, the model can simulate multi-
phase flow of fluid.
Alfataierge[66] put forward a 4D/9C (four-dimensional/nine-
component) microseismic interpretation method for analyzing
the effectiveness of hydraulic fractures, and proposed a geo-
logical engineering integration simulation method by com-
bining 4D delayed multi-component seismic technology, mi-
croseismic interpretation and 3D hydraulic fracture simulation
technology in 2018. This method combines 3D geomechanical
model with 3D fracture propagation simulator and can be used
to correct the simulation results of fracture propagation by
seismic technology and microseismic interpretation[67]. Based
on the study of the Niborara strata in the Wattenberg gas field
in Colorado, the effective length of the fracture is 60180 m,
which deviates from the locations of the micro-seismic events
to some extent. Therefore, the authors believe that the initial
stimulation of the Niborara formation is insufficient, which
means that the fracture spacing and well spacing need to be
further optimized by using the geological engineering integra-
tion model.
Chinese researchers have also carried out research on frac-
ture propagation models. Chen Mian[68] deduced the control-
ling equations for hydraulic fracture activation and diverting
in three-dimensional space and established an extended model
of two-dimensional natural fractures. Zeng Qinglei et al.[69]
worked out a fluid-solid coupled finite element algorithm for
multi-cluster fracture propagation. His model considers per-
forating friction and wellbore friction. Wang Lixiang et al.[70]
proposed a finite element and discrete element hybrid method
for two-dimensional hydraulic fracture propagation and simu-
lated the fracture propagation pattern of multi-cluster fractur-
ing in the formation with natural fractures. Guo et al.[71] in-
troduced a pore elastic bonding unit and established a two-di-
mensional fluid-solid coupling finite element fracture propa-
gation model. He also studied the effect of natural fractures on
the hydraulic fracture propagation morphology. Zou et al.[72]
developed a finite element/discrete element model based on
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
the random distribution of natural fractures in the formation
and studied the fracture propagation pattern of shale forma-
tions. Xu Yun et al.[39] established a boundary element model
for multi-cluster fracture propagation and examined the de-
flection law of multi-cluster fracture propagation. Chen Ming
et al.[7374] further discussed the factors controlling the deflec-
tion of fractures and how to create multi-fractures. Zhao Jin-
zhou et al.[75] proposed a pseudo-three-dimensional multi-
cluster hydraulic fracture extension boundary element model
and a perforation optimization method based on PKN model.
Wu Qi et al.[76] expounded the application of geological-en-
gineering integration technology in shale gas development
and demonstrated the promising application prospect of this
technology. However, the current fracture propagation simula-
tion in China is mainly based on two-dimensional model, and
there is no three-dimensional model. The research on geo-
logical-engineering integration mainly relies on foreign soft-
ware. Our research team is carrying out relevant research with
the help of national research projects and is expected to
strengthen the construction of the volume stimulation optimi-
zation design platform for the geology-engineering integration
of unconventional reservoirs in China, so as to promote the
advancement of China’s unconventional reservoir simulation
technology.
The research progress at home and abroad tells us that: on
the one hand, the volume stimulation design model can accu-
rately describe the strata with natural fractures, characterize
the relationship between artificial fractures and natural frac-
tures to ensure the matching between main fractures, branch
fractures and network fractures; on the other hand, it is also
able to efficiently and accurately calculate the tensile-shear
propagation of complex fractures. The integration of geome-
chanical modeling, microseismic monitoring and hydraulic
fracture simulation is an important development direction for
future model research, while fractal damage mechanics is the
basis for studying fracture initiation and constructing new
fracturing mechanics theory.
4. New progress and key issues of volume
stimulation technology
4.1. Volume stimulation methods for greatly increasing
utilization rate of reserves
4.1.1. Tight spacing mode and optimization of fracturing
volume
Early studies[77] believed that the best cluster spacing
should be 2030 m in the case of multiple-cluster perforation
in horizontal wells. If three clusters are used, the length of
each fracturing stage is generally 60 to 90 m. However,
Mayerhofer et al.[5] argued that when the reservoir permeabil-
ity was as low as 0.000 1×103 μm2, if the fracture spacing
was 8 m, the production could be greatly increased and the oil
recovery improved. Zhu et al.[21] found through study that
reducing the cluster spacing could greatly improve the ulti-
 939 
mate recovery of the reservoir. Years of field practices have
proved the tight cluster spacing can greatly shorten the dis-
tance of fluid seepage in the matrix, thus realizing volume
stimulation of the reservoir with strong plasticity and large
stress difference that is difficulty to form complex fractures.
At present, the cluster spacing has been gradually reduced
from 20 m to 4.6 m[78] in North America, and the small cluster
spacing has been widely used in horizontal well staged frac-
turing of all unconventional reservoirs, rather than reservoirs
hard to form fracture network only.
The reasonable matching of tight cluster spacing and well
spacing is the key to the volume stimulation of well groups
from wellpad. In 2017, Pioneer[78] reduced the fracture cluster
spacing and stage length of its horizontal wells; for horizontal
wells with the same length, if the well spacing is constant,
tight spacing will lead to an increase in single well injection
volume and sand addition (Fig. 6). Although the amount of
injected fracturing fluid volume and sand addition of a well
increased, the ratio of proppant to injection volume did not
change much and was between 95.4 and 110.9 kg/m3. Taking
fracturing with two clusters in one stage as an example, if the
injected fluid volume is 2 000 m3, the amount of fluid injected
per fracture is 1 000 m3; if the number of clusters is increased
to 4, the injected fluid volume of each fracture is 500 m3,
which will lead to insufficient length of the created fractures,
large area not fractured between the two wells, and reduction
of the utilization rate of reserves, this goes against the original
intention of fully fracturing the reserves. Therefore, the tight
spacing mode requires shortening the well spacing, deploying
infill wells, or increasing the injected fluid volume.
Similarly, increasing the number of clusters will result in an
increase in proppant of single stage, assuming that the length
of a stage is 60 m, each stage has three clusters with the clus-
ter spacing of 20 m, and the injected proppant is 120 t, then
the proppant per fracture is 40 t. If tight spacing is used, the
clusters of each stage would increase to 6 with a cluster spac-
ing of 10 m. According to the arithmetic comparison, then this
stage requires 240 t of proppant, which seems to be the major
reason behind the increase of proppant usage in each stage in
foreign countries. However, when the cluster spacing is re-
duced from 20 m to 10 m, the amount of oil and gas con-
trolled by each fracture will be reduced by half, and the re-
quired fracture conductivity should be changed. Whether the
Fig. 6. Parameters of horizontal well volume stimulation of
Pioneer Company.
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
amount of proppant per cluster should be 40 t or 50 t needs to
be optimized by simulation research and field practice. Al-
though the use of quartz sand instead of ceramic beads in
North America has achieved significant cost reduction, exces-
sive increase of sand volume would still increase material and
transportation costs, and even increase equipment wear and
tear. We believe that learning the North American model can-
not simply calculate the times of increment sand added per
meter, but the factors such as the increase in the number of
clusters and the reduction of well spacing should be consid-
ered comprehensively. It is more scientific to use the amount
of sand added per cluster to characterize the fracturing scale
than the amount of sand added per meter.
The characteristics of tight spacing can be summarized as
follows: (1) The well spacing is constant, the number of clus-
ters is increased, and the required fracture length is constant,
which means that the injected fluid volume and sand volume
must increase. (2) If the well spacing is reduced, the number
of clusters is constant, the required fracture length will be
shorter, which means the amount of injected fluid and sand
will reduce. (3) If the well spacing is reduced, the number of
clusters is increased, the required fracture length will be
shorter, which means the injected fluid volume will reduce (or
unchanged), and the amount of injected sand will increase.
The change of well spacing and cluster number is the basic
factor determining the increase or decrease of injected fluid
volume and sand volume. Good understanding of the essence
of "less fluid and more sand" in North America is the key to
the application of tight spacing technology.
4.1.2. Fracture height control and spatial-mode stimulation
Field practice and research have shown that the hydraulic
fractures can intersect with bedding surfaces (Fig. 7) in sev-
eral ways, including passing, terminating, slipping, and com-
municating high-angle fractures. Slipping is the main mecha-
nism controlling fracture height propagation. When the frac-
turing fluid is lost along the bedding surface, the pressure in
the fracture would reduce and the bedding slippage causes the
flow friction of fluid to increase, both of which would make
artificial fracture fail to pass through the bedding, limiting the
fracture propagation in height. Similarly, in slick water frac-
turing, the proppant continuously settles along the direction of
fracture height and rapidly deposits at the bottom of the frac-
ture to prevent the fracture from expanding downward. Moni-
toring shale gas horizontal wells with inclinometer, Xiu Nail-
ing et al.[14] found that vertical fracture volume makes up 90%
of the total fracture volume at most, but for some sections,
this is only 50% to 60%. The artificial fracture system consists
of vertical and horizontal fractures, indicating that the artifi-
cial fractures have the characteristics of extending in the hor-
izontal bedding. The shale gas field data of PetroChina (Table
1) shows that the position of the horizontal well section in the
high-quality reservoir is closely related to the stimulation
effect, and the propagation of the fracture in the height
 940 
Fig. 7. Intersection patterns between hydraulic fractures and
bedding surfaces.
Table 1. Tunnel position and post-pressing effect of shale gas
horizontal well in Changning block, Sichuan Basin.
Distance from the bottom of the Average test
Wells
Wufeng Formation/m production/104 m3
38 10 24.69
815 14 22.22
1520 5 16.38
>20 7 8.73
direction is limited, which overthrew the traditional fracturing
theory that the fracture height isn’t limited and prompted peo-
ple to study the effects of horizontal bedding and weak sur-
face on fracture propagation[7980]. Finding new ways to im-
prove the effective utilization rate of vertical reserves has
become an important research direction at present and in the
future.
The faster drilling in North America has made the drilling
cost drop significantly. Many companies have begun to ex-
plore spatial stimulation development model, seeking to break
the limitations of well trajectory and fracture height, thus im-
proving the stimulation effect on reservoir profile. Carrizo has
implemented a spatial stimulation project in the Niobrara
formation[23]. The projected included 47 wells with horizontal
section of 1 426 m and horizontal section space of 90100 m.
The wells are arranged in 3 layers, Fig. 8 shows a side view of
the horizontal wells stacked in three layers (i.e. toe end posi-
tion of horizontal section of each horizontal well). The wells
of layers A and C are in the same façade in the vertical direc-
tion, and the wells in layer B are misplaced, we called this as
three-dimensional staggered zipper fracturing technology. The
order of fracturing is from left to right: C1—C2—B1—A1—
C3—B2—A2—A3—…… The method can make the first
fracturing well generate an additional stress field at the bot-
tom. Due to the dislocation fracturing of different layers, the
additional stress generated by the fracturing can increase the
complexity of the adjacent layer fractures, thereby improving
the stimulation effect of the longitudinal small layers.
Energen[81] applied the same volume stimulation technology
to the Wolfcamp formations in Delaware and Midland Basin.
In the second quarter of 2017, they placed 8 and 10 wells on
two vertical layers respectively in their own block. These
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram for the fracturing section of the horizontal wells in the Niobrara Formation.
wells with horizontal section of 2 2813 210 m were fractured
at 45 m a stage and the cluster spacing of 9 m, with the
amount of injected proppant of 2.5 to 3.0 t/m and injected
fluid volume of 6.47.1 m3/m. The maximum production of
the 18 wells 30 days after fracturing reached 300 t/d.
Although the current drilling in China speed is low in speed
and high in cost, making it hard to implement spatial stimula-
tion, this technology is an effective means for the develop-
ment of tight reservoirs of multi-layer systems in Sichuan,
Changqing and Xinjiang and is an important development
direction in the future. Especially in the context of limited of
mineral right area and the shortage of undiscovered high-
quality reserves, this technology is the best choice for tapping
potential and improving utilization rate of existing proven
reserves. Xinjiang Oilfield has designed a two-layer spatial-
mode development well pattern and carried out pilot test,
which will provide useful experience for China to further ex-
plore and promote the application of this technology.
4.2. Key factors in optimizing design
4.2.1. Shear fractures can greatly improve the conductivity
of fractures
Many researchers at home and abroad have studied the re-
lationship between shear fracture and conductivity. A study by
Ramurthy et al.[82] showed that the number of fractures per
meter was logarithmically proportional to the increase in per-
meability, and the high-hardness rock can maintain high
self-supporting fracture conductivity; on the basis of the for-
mation of self-supporting fractures, hydraulic fracturing
should pursue high complexity of fractures rather than high
conductivity of the main fractures. Sharma et al.[83] analyzed
the fluid loss characteristics, interwell pressure and productiv-
ity, and concluded that fracturing of unconventional reservoir
would form a large number of self-supporting shear fractures.
Shear fractures allow the nano-darcy level reservoir to have
sufficient conductivity, which will help increase production.
Through numerical simulation, Weng et al.[84] studied the
permeability of shear fracture induced by hydraulic fracturing.
They found that shearing could significantly improve the
conductivity of natural fractures, and the conductivity of shear
fractures could reach 600×103 μm2cm. Wu et al.[85] per-
formed a shear fracture conductivity experiment on rock sam-
ples from the Eagle Ford Basin. The experimental results
show that when the closure stress is 28 MPa, the conductivity
of the shear fracture is 3×103 μm2·cm. Through the fracture
 941 
diagnosis test, Wang et al.[86] found the conductivity of the
self-supporting fracture under the closed stress of 15 MPa was
(1070)×103 μm2·cm. In addition, Sierra et al.[87] concluded
that increasing the seepage area was the key to increasing the
productivity of shale gas reservoirs with a matrix permeability
of less than 500×109 μm2.
In recent years, the conductivity experiments conducted by
PetroChina Research Institute Petroleum Exploration and
Development show that (Fig. 9): under the same conditions,
the conductivity of tensile fracture is the lowest and most af-
fected by the closure stress; the shear fracture has a high con-
ductivity due to the support of the rough surface of the frac-
ture; under the 20 MPa closing stress, the conductivity of the
shear fracture is about two orders of magnitude higher than
that of the tensile fracture. Characterized by permeability, the
non-proppant shear fracture permeability is 25.18×103 μm2 at
a closure stress of 50 MPa, which is significantly higher than
the shale reservoir with nano-darcy level permeability. There-
fore, no proppant fractures are still effective fractures. Simi-
larly, in the conductivity experiment of fractures supported
with proppant, we reached a similar conclusion: the conduc-
tivity of shear fracture is the highest when the same concen-
tration of proppant is added.
If the three stresses of the reservoir meet the conditions for
the formation of shear fracture (σH>σv>σh), or the shear slip
can be induced by large injection rate of slick water, and con-
sidering the support effect of the fracturing fluid on the frac-
tures under the low flowback rate, the proper reduction of the
amount of proppant in the optimization design can reduce
costs and increase profit.
Fig. 9. Relationship between conductivity and closure stress of
different fractures.
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947

4.2.2. No need to pursue high conductivity of the main

fractures during volume stimulation

The difficulty in effectively developing unconventional

reservoirs is the extremely low matrix permeability, and the
main purpose of reservoir stimulation is to reduce the seepage
resistance of the matrix. Cipolla et al.[88] found through study
that when the reservoir permeability was lower than 0.01×103
μm2, the contribution rate of secondary fracture network to
production was about 40%; and when the reservoir permeabil-
ity was less than 0.000 1×103 μm2, the contribution of sec-
ondary fracture network to production was about 80%. It can
be seen that the productivity of micro-Nano-darcy-level res-
ervoirs are controlled by the fracture morphology rather than
by the conductivity of main-fracture. It is generally consid-
ered that the critical dimensionless conductivity of tight res-
ervoirs is generally 10 to 50[89], and that of shale gas reservoir
is around 30[90]. Gu et al.[90] pointed out that when fractures
had branches, the dimensionless conductivity of shale or tight
gas reservoirs would reduce by 15 to 25, which further dem-
onstrates that complex fracture patterns can reduce the re-
quirement on conductivity.
The classical study has shown[91] that when the dimen-
sionless conductivity of a hydraulic fracturing well is higher
than that of critical dimensionless conductivity, further in-
crease in dimensionless conductivity would not increase pro-
duction. The dimensionless conductivity can be expressed as:
K f wf
FCD  (7)
K m Lf
According to the equation for calculating permeability of
the supported fracture, it can be known that:
f wf2
Kf  (8)
12
According to the equations (7) and (8), the relationship
between the fracture width and the dimensionless conductivity
can be obtained as follows:
1
 12 FCD K m Lf  3
wf    (9)
 f  is the infill well, which is drilled in between existent wells
Assuming that the half length of the fracture is 200 m, the
porosity of the supporting fracture is 5%, and the tortuosity is
2, the fracture width required to achieve different critical di-
mensionless conductivity is calculated (Fig. 10). Studies show
that for reservoirs with a matrix permeability of (100 to 1 000)
× 109 μm2, the fracture width required for the dimensionless
conductivity to reach 30 is 0.13 mm, and a width of 0.16 mm
is required to reach 50. It can be seen that the volume stimula-
tion does not require too high sand volume added to meet the
effective development of unconventional reservoirs.
In view of the current concept of “less fluid and more sand”
in the fracturing circle of China, this paper focuses on two key
factors in the optimization design of stimulation, to make it
clear that the ultimate goal of the unconventional reservoir
volume stimulation is to maximize the SRV and greatly re-
Fig. 10. Fracture width required for different dimensionless
conductivity and matrix permeabilities.
duce the seepage distance of the fluid in the matrix by form-
ing complex fractures or tight spacing, so as to achieve max-
imum control and “full” recovery of reserves. Studies have
shown that shear fractures and complex fractures can reach
the conductivity required for development under moderate
sand adding conditions, while the “high sand adding” mode
that pursues the high conductivity of the main fractures (such
as the traditional gel fracturing) does not conform to the idea
of volume stimulation.
4.3. Optimization of well spacing between the child-well
and parent-well
Unconventional oil and gas development in North America
is usually limited by the area of leased blocks. Infill wells are
usually used to maintain or increase the production of blocks.
At present, the infill wells of several basins such as Eagle
Ford, Bakken and Haynesville have exceeded the wells de-
ployed in the new blocks[92]. According to the timing of the
production of adjacent wells in the platform, in the North
America, the child-well is defined as a new well put into pro-
duction one year later than the adjacent well, and the par-
ent-well is an old well with a production time of no less than
one year[92]. Usually, the child-well appears in two forms: one
when the well spacing was too large. This mode would form a
pressure drop zone on both sides of the infill well; the second
is well drilled from a new wellpad, the well in the outer side
of new wellpad is a child-well for the old well in the outer
side of the adjacent parent-wellpad, in this case, the pressure
drop is a single-sided mode, for the child-well, the asymmetry
of fractures may occur in the fracturing, and even “attracted”
by the parent-well, the fracturing could be insufficient in the
other side[93].
Gakhar et al.[94] showed that only when the distance be-
tween the child-well and the parent-well in the Eagle ford
basin was over 243 m, could the child-well have the same
cumulative production as the parent-well (Fig. 11). The results
were normalized by the length of the horizontal stage and the
amount of proppant, and did not consider the completion

 942 
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
Fig. 11. Comparison of well spacing and production of child-
well and parent-well.
method, number of fracturing stages, type and size of the liq-
uid, injection rate, and updip or downtilt of the wellbore tra-
jectory. Gakhar thought that the poor fracturing effect of the
child-well was caused by the fracturing size of the child-well
and the insufficient fracture length.
When the two wells are fractured in staggering fracture ar-
rangement, the penetration ratio would be 0.85 and the frac-
ture length 207 m. If the fractures are arranged symmetrically,
the penetration ratio would be 0.45 and the fracture length 109
m. At this time, the production of the child-well and the par-
ent-well are comparable, which indicates that the length of the
fractures generated during the fracturing of the parent-well
does not reach the resolution of the microseismic, and the
reserves between the two wells are not fully utilized. The well
spacing (243 m) only reflects the fracturing state of the par-
ent-well and the extent of the pressure drop, but is not neces-
sarily the optimal well spacing. If the well spacing is 122 m,
the child-well production is only 70% of the parent-well. As-
sume that the fractures propagate symmetrically along both
sides of the wellbore, and the reserve utilization rate contrib-
uted by the artificial fracture of the parent-well to the
child-well is only 30%, which indicates that under the control
of such short fractures (the length of the fractures is 61 m), the
matrix seepage is still insufficient, there is still a large amount
of reserves not produced. Therefore, the optimization of the
well spacing should be dominated by the reduction of the well
spacing, and then by assessing the fracturing scale of the par-
ent-well and the range of pressure drop caused by the cumula-
tive production, and the differences between the parent and
child-wells in terms of fracturing mode and scale, etc, and
comparing the development results of the child-well and par-
ent-well, the optimal well spacing can be selected at last.
We hold that reducing the well spacing is an inevitable
choice to greatly increase the utilization rate of reserves, and
also the technical direction to achieve efficient development
for unconventional reservoirs. Since the current well spacing
of domestic shale gas and tight oil and gas reservoirs is gener-
ally large, in order to avoid the deployment of infill wells, the
shortcomings in North American well spacing optimization
 943 
research can be set aside for now, their experience and the
concept of reducing well spacing can be learned, which com-
bines with tight spacing, can realize the full use of reserves
with one-time development, to greatly reduce development
costs.
4.4. Three “reconstructions” of refracturing in horizontal
wells
Usually, after the mother-well is produced for a period of
time, a pressure drop zone would gradually form in the range
of the fracture. The energy deficit would change the geostress
field, and even cause stress reversal, which could make the
artificial fractures created by the repeatedly fracturing of the
parent-well approach the pressure drop zone and deflect[9596].
The fracturing of child-well could also be affected by the “at-
traction” of the reversal stress, approaching the fracturing
zone of the parent-well or even ending in fracture hit (Fig.
12a), and thus unsatisfactory fracturing effect. In order to
prevent the fractures of the child-well from getting close to
the fluid deficit zone (the stimulated zone of the parent-well),
North America proposed a protective fracturing measure for
the parent-well[97]. The specific implementation method is that
before the child-well fracturing, the parent-well is refractured
and doesn’t immediately flow back (Fig. 12b). This can su-
percharge the energy storage of the initial fractures and in-
crease the in site stress in the fluid deficit area to achieve re-
construction of the stress field. In this way, the fractures of the
child-well can be prevented from deflecting to the stimulated
area, effectively improving production of the new wellpad
group and the infill well[84].
Since the flow follows the principle of minimum resistance,
when the pressure drop zone makes the stress reverse, the
main flow direction of the fluid would also change accord-
ingly, that is the oil and gas in the matrix between the two
wells flow to the low stress zone. Especially after the forma-
tion of the mainstream channel, the change of seepage field is
particularly obvious. For example, in the Wangyao Oilfield of
Changqing, after 20 years of water flooding, a detection well
Fig. 12. Fracture propagation pattern of child-well in wellpad
groups.
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
was drilled 50 m away from an oil well, and the analysis of
cores taken from the well showed that the reservoirs still had
the original oil saturation. The conclusion was that the propor-
tion of unflooded reservoirs reached 48%. Therefore, to tap
the potential of unutilized reserves by repeated re-fracturing
of old wells, it should be ensured that the injected fracturing
fluid of the child-well uniformly spread on both sides of the
horizontal section, to this end, reconstructing the seepage field
is crucial. In the fracturing of the mother well, large injection
rate and large liquid storage energy repeated fracturing, mul-
tiple rounds of water injection to supplement the energy of the
formation, or temporary plugging diverting technology can be
adopted. In the fracturing of child-well, water injection and
volume stimulation can be selected to change the main seep-
age direction and improve the stimulation effect of the not
stimulated area. The Well Group 56-101H in the Santanghu
Block of the Tuha Oilfield adopted the well group model, in
which the synergy effect of the well group has rendered high
production of the fracturing wells in the old area, benefit to
the adjacent wells, and good development effect. The oil pro-
duction after fracturing was 63 t/d, which was 3.5 times high-
er than that of the adjacent well. At the same time, four old
wells in the well group were benefited, and their daily
production nearly doubled (from 13.8 t to 25.8 t). Therefore,
according to the cumulative production of the parent-well,
calculating the deficit volume and pressure drop range of the
reserve, determining the scale of the storage liquid, and re-
constructing the stress field and the seepage field with the
corresponding technology, can reduce the “traction” effect of
the parent-well on the fractures of the child-well, so as to pro-
tect the parent-well and improve the stimulation effect of the
child-well.
How to achieve effective segmentation is the biggest pro-
blem in the current horizontal well re-fracturing. Double-
packer fracturing tool and coiled tubing fixed-point fracturing,
difficult to increase injection rate, are limited in working
range, making it unable to meet the needs of volume stimula-
tion. Whereas the re-fracturing by ball dropping or temporary
plugging agent can’t achieve effective sealing and thus realize
the reconstruction of the stimulation object, so they all belong
to the general fracturing category. At present, the main
method for re-fracturing the wellbore is the expansion tube
technology[98], in which the horizontal section is completely
sealed by the expansion tube, and then re-fractured. This
method has certain advancement. However, this technology
still has the problem of new fractures propagating towards old
fractures. Therefore, the authors proposed an idea of re-frac-
turing: First, the seepage field and the stress field were
changed by means of energy storage, so that the direction of
the new fractures would not be affected by the old fractures;
the second was to inject degradable high-intensity temporary
plug agent into the formation, the agent would completely seal
the old fractures, realizing the re-fracturing of the wellbore.
When the re-opened expansion fracture encounters the old
fracture, since the old fracture is blocked by high-strength and
 944 
high-plastic material, the fracture would find a new opening
and extending path, thereby realizing the stimulation of the
un-fractured area. Moreover, domestic high water cut oilfields
can be re-fractured by similar technique.
Re-fracturing in the form of volume stimulation is to re-
build the seepage field, stress field, and stimulated object to
tap the potential of the old well and improve the benefit of the
well group.
5. Conclusions
Volume stimulation technology has experienced nearly 10
years of development and practice since it was proposed for-
mally. Combining the latest theoretical research progress and
application status, as well as the authors’ research and field
practice experience in the past years, this article explains the
essence of horizontal well volume stimulation, and makes it
clear the “maximum, shortest, smallest” stimulation mecha-
nism is the key to volume stimulation technology and the ba-
sis for the application of this technology in a wider range of
fields. Meanwhile, the tight spacing and spatial-mode stimula-
tion is the expansion and sublimation of the application of the
volume stimulation technology. In the future, through the
technical methods of tight spacing and decreasing well spac-
ing, the development model of “fracture-controlled” recover-
able reserves will be established, overthrowing the fixed ideas
of traditional well-controlled reserves calculation and devel-
opment, and guiding the effective application of volumetric
re-fracturing technology to achieve the recovery of unutilized
reserves. This will be an important direction for the future
development and application of volume stimulation technol-
ogy, and it is also an important technical guarantee for sus-
tainable development.
Nomenclature
C— correction factor, ranging from 0.56 to 0.89;
Di— perforation diameter corresponding to the ith fracture, mm;
dp— particle diameter of proppant, m;
FCD— dimensionless conductivity;
g— gravity acceleration, m/s2;
Kf, Km— permeability of fractures and matrix, mm2;
kh— dimensionless horizontal stress difference coefficient;
Lf — half length of the fracture, m;
N— number of fractures;
ni — number of perforations for the ith fracture;
pw,i — the bottom hole pressure of the ith fracture, Pa;
Q0— injection rate in fracturing, m3/min;
Qi — injection rate of the ith fracture, m3/min;
U — rock strain energy per unit injection time, J/min;
v — settling rate of proppant, m/s;
W — rock fracture energy per unit time, J/min;
c
Wf — energy consumed by the flow friction in the fracture per unit
time, J/min;
WI — overcoming the energy of additional stress generated by
other fractures per unit time, J/min;
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
Wp — energy consumed by perforating friction per unit time, J/min;
W0 — energy to overcome the far field stress per unit time, J/min;
wf — fracture width, mm;
x,y—rectangular coordinate system, m;
μ — fluid viscosity, Pa·s;
ρ — density of liquid or sand carrying liquid, kg/m3;
ρf — fluid density, kg/m3;
ρp — proppant density, kg/m3;
σH, σh — maximum and minimum horizontal principal stress, Pa;
σv — overlying rock pressure, Pa;
σI,i,j — the ith fracture interfered by the stress caused by the jth
fracture, Pa;
τ — the tortuosity of the proppant filling fracture, dimensionless;
 f — fracture porosity, %.
References
[1] WU Qi, XU Yun, WANG Tengfei, et al. The resolution of res-
ervoir stimulation: An introduction of volume stimulation.
Natural Gas Industry, 2011, 31(4): 7–12.
[2] WU Qi, XU Yun, WANG Xiaoquan, et al. Volume stimulation
technology of unconventional reservoirs: Connotation, opti-
mization design and implementation. Petroleum Exploration
and Development, 2012, 39(3): 352–358.
[3] WU Qi, XU Yun, ZHANG Shouliang, et al. The core theories
and key optimization designs of volume stimulation technol-
ogy for unconventional reservoirs. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2014,
35(4): 706–714.
[4] MAXWELL S C, URBANCICT I, STEINSBERGER N, et al.
Microseismic imaging of hydraulic fracture complexity in the
Barnett shale. SPE 77440, 2002.
[5] MAYERHOFER M J, LOLON E P, YOUNGBLOOD J E, et
al. Integration of microseismic fracture mapping results with
numerical fracture network production modeling in the Bar-
nett shale. SPE 102103, 2006.
[6] MAYERHOFER M J, LOLON E P, WARPINSKIN R, et al.
What is stimulated reservoir volume?. SPE 119890, 2010.
[7] LEI Qun, XU Yun, JIANG Tingxue, et al. Fracture network
stimulation technique for improving post-stimulation perfor-
mance of low and ultra-low permeability reservoirs. Acta Pe-
trolei Sinica, 2009, 30(2): 237–241.
[8] KARNIADAKIS G E, BESKOK A. Microflows and nano-
flows: Fundamentals and simulation. Berlin: Springer, 2005.
[9] ZHU Weiyao, QI Qian. Study on the multi-scale nonlinear
flow mechanism and model of shale gas. SCIENTIA SINICA
Technologica, 2016, 46(2): 111–119.
[10] ZHU Weiyao, YUE Ming, GAO Ying, et al. Nonlinear flow
model and productivity of stimulated reservoir volume in tight
oil reservoirs. Journal of China University of Minning &
Technology, 2014, 43(2): 248–254.
[11] ALCOSER L A, OVALLE A, PARSONS M. The Bakken:
Utilizing a petroleum system based analysis to optimally ex-
ploit one of the world. SPE 158918, 2012.
[12] PEARSON M, GRIFFIN L, WEIJERS L. Breaking up is hard
to do: Creating hydraulic fracture complexity in the Bakken
central basin. SPE 163827, 2013.
[13] ROMANSON R, PONGRATZ R, EAST L, et al. Multistage
 945 
stimulation processes can help achieve and control branch
stimulation and increase stimulated reservoir volume for un-
conventional reservoirs. SPE 142959, 2011.
[14] XIU Nailing, YAN Yuzhong, DOU Jingjing, et al. Fracture
monitoring by surface tiltmeter in horizontal-well A pad in
Changning, Sichuan. Petroleum Geology and Engineering,
2016, 30(5): 124–126.
[15] CIPOLLA C, WALLACE J. Stimulated reservoir volume: A
misapplied concept?. SPE 168596, 2014.
[16] SHELLEY R, SHAH K, UNDERWOOD K, et al. Utica well
performance evaluation: A multiwell pad case history. SPE
181400, 2016.
[17] JOSEPH Y, THOMAS D, CRISS V, et al. Influencing fracture
growth with stage sequencing. SPE 184057, 2016.
[18] THEERAPAT S, AZRA N T. Evaluation of multistage hydrau-
lic fracture patterns in naturally fractured tight oil formations
utilizing a coupled geomechanics-fluid flow model: Case
study for an Eagle Ford shale well pad. In: 50th U.S. Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. Houston, Texas: Ameri-
can Rock Mechanics Association, 2016.
[19] AGHARAZI A. Determining maximum horizontal stress with
microseismic focal mechanisms: Case studies in the Mar-
cellus, Eagle Ford, Wolfcamp. URTEC 2461621, 2016.
[20] BAZAN L W, LARKIN S D, LATTIBEUDIERE M G, et al.
Improving production in the Eagle Ford shale with fracture
modeling, increased fracture conductivity, and optimized stage
and cluster spacing along the horizontal wellbore. SPE 138425,
2010.
[21] ZHU J, FORREST J, XIONG H J, et al. Cluster spacing and
well spacing optimization using multi-well simulation for the
lower Spraberry shale in Midland basin. SPE 187485, 2017.
[22] FARHAN A, RAJ M, ROHANN J, et al. Stacked pay pad de-
velopment in the Midland Basin. SPE 187496, 2017.
[23] Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. Wells Fargo 2015 Energy Symposium.
(2015-12-08) [2018-03-09]. https://s22.q4cdn.com/193387661/
files/doc_presentations/12- 8-15_Wells_Fargo_conference.pdf.
[24] Halliburton. Halliburton teams up with eclipse resources to
complete longest lateral well in the U.S.. (2016-03-31)[2018-
03-09]. http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_
release/2016/halliburton-teams-up-to-complete-longest-lateral-
well-in-us.html.
[25] BUNGER A P. Analysis of the power input needed to pro-
pagate multiple hydraulic fractures. International Journal of
Solids & Structures, 2013, 50(10): 1538–1549.
[26] DETOURNAY E. Propagation regimes of fluid-driven frac-
tures in impermeable rocks. International Journal of Geome-
chanics, 2004, 4(1): 35–45.
[27] LECAMPION B, DESROCHES J, WENG X, et al. Can we
engineer better multistage horizontal completions? Evidence
of the importance of near-wellbore fracture geometry from
theory, lab and field experiments. SPE 173363, 2015.
[28] WU K, OLSON J E. Mechanisms of simultaneous hydraulic-
fracture propagation from multiple perforation clusters in hori-
zontal wells. SPE 178925, 2015.
[29] SOMANCHI K, BREWER J, REYNOLDS A. Extreme lim-
ited entry design improves distribution efficiency in plug-n-
perf completions: Insights from fiber-optic diagnostics. SPE
184834, 2017.
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
[30] WEDDLE P, GRIGGIN L, PEARSON C M. Mining the Bak-
ken II: Pushing the envelope with extreme limited entry per-
forating. SPE 189880, 2018.
[31] CIPOLLA C L, WARPINSKI N R, MAYHOFER M J. Hy-
draulic fracture complexity: Diagnosis, remediation, and ex-
ploration. SPE 115771, 2008.
[32] ABASS H H, MEADOWS D L, BRUMLEY J L, et al. Ori-
ented perforation: A rock mechanics view. SPE 28555, 1994.
[33] CUTHILL D, YANG W B, HARDESTY J. Improved hy-
draulic stimulation perforation efficiency observed with con-
stant entry hole and constant penetration perforating system.
SPE 184878, 2017.
[34] RABAA W E. Experimental study of hydraulic fracture ge-
ometry initiated from horizontal wells. SPE 19720, 1989.
[35] BEUGELSDIJK L J L, PATER C J, SATO K. Experimental
hydraulic fracture propagation in a multi-fractured medium.
SPE 59419, 2000.
[36] FU Haifeng, LIU Yunzhi, LIANG Tiancheng, et al. Laboratory
study on hydraulic fracture geometry of Longmaxi Formation
shale in Yibin area of Sichuan Province. Natural Gas Geo-
science, 2016, 27(12): 2231–2236.
[37] LECAMPION B, ABBAS S, PRIOUL R. Competition be-
tween transverse and axil hydraulic fractures of horizontal
wells. SPE 163848, 2013.
[38] WU K, OLSON J E. Numerical investigation of complex hy-
draulic fracture development in naturally fractured reservoirs.
SPE 173326, 2015.
[39] XU Yun, CHEN Ming, WU Qi, et al. Stress interference cal-
culation model and its application in volume stimulation of
horizontal wells. Petroleum Exploration and Development,
2016, 43(5): 780–786..
[40] VALK P, ECONOMIDES M J. Hydraulic fracture mechanics.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
[41] DARIN S R, HUITT J L. Effect of a partial monolayer of
propping agent on fracture flow capacity. SPE 1291, 1960.
[42] ELY J W, FOWLER S L, TINER R L, et al. “Slick water frac-
turing and small proppant” The future of stimulation or a slip-
pery slope?. SPE 170784, 2014.
[43] DAHL J, NGUYEN P, DUSTERHOFT R, et al. Application of
micro-proppant to enhance well production in unconventional
reservoirs: Laboratory and field results. SPE 174060, 2015.
[44] CALVIN J, GRIESER B. Enhancement of well production in
the SCOOP Woodford shale through the application of micro-
proppant. SPE 184863, 2017.
[45] ADACHI J, SIEBRITS E, PEIRCE A, et al. Computer simula-
tion of hydraulic fractures. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences, 2007, 44(5): 739–757.
[46] SETTARI A, CLEARY M P. Three-dimensional simulation of
hydraulic fracturing. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1982,
36(7): 1177–1190.
[47] PALMER I D, CARROLL H B. Numerical solution for height
and elongated hydraulic fractures. SPE 11627, 1983.
[48] LEE T S, ADVANI S H, LEE J K. Three-dimensional model-
ing of hydraulic fractures in layered media: Part I: Finite ele-
ment formulations. Journal of Energy Resources Technology,
1990, 112(1): 1–9.
[49] CARTER B J, DESROCHES J, INGRAFFEA A R, et al. Sim-
ulating fully 3D hydraulic fracturing. New York: John Wiley
 946 
Wiley & Sons, 2000: 525–557.
[50] HOSSAIN M M, RAHMAN M K, RAHMAN S S, et al.
Volumetric growth and hydraulic conductivity of naturally
fractured reservoirs during hydraulic stimulation: A case study
using Australian conditions. SPE 63173, 2000.
[51] ROBERT W, ROSALIND A, BILL D. Integration of seismic
anisotropy and reservoir performance data for characterization
of naturally fractured reservoirs using discrete feature network
models. SPE 84412, 2005.
[52] OLSON J E. Multi-fracture propagation modeling: Applica-
tions to hydraulic fracturing in shales and tight gas sands//The
42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (USRMS). San Fran-
cisco: American Rock Mechanics Association, 2008.
[53] WU K, OLSON J E. Simultaneous multifracture treatments:
Fully coupled fluid flow and fracture mechanics for horizontal
wells. SPE 167626, 2015.
[54] DAHI-TALEGHANI A, OLSON J E. Analysis of multis-
tranded hydraulic fracture propagation: An improved model
for the interaction between induced and natural fractures. SPE
124884, 2009.
[55] DAHI-TALEGHANI A, OLSON J E. Numerical modeling of
multi- stranded hydraulic fracture propagation: Accounting for
the interaction between induced and natural fractures. SPE
Journal, 2011, 16(3): 575–581.
[56] MEYER B R, BAZAN L W. A discrete fracture network mod-
el for hydraulically induced fractures: Theory, parametric and
case studies. SPE 140514, 2011.
[57] MAXWELL S C, POPE T, CIPOLLA C, et al. Understanding
hydraulic fracture variability through integrating microseismi-
city and seismic reservoir characterization. SPE 144207, 2011.
[58] KRESSE O, COHEN C, WENG X, et al. Numerical modeling
of hydraulic fracturing in naturally fractured formations. U.S.
Rock Mechanics, 2011, 15(5): 516–535.
[59] GU H, WENG X W. Criterion for fracture crossing frictional
interfaces at non-orthogonal angles. Salt Lake City, Utah: 44th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.-Canada Rock
Mechanics Symposium, 2010.
[60] CHUPRAKOV D, MELCHAEVA O, PRIOUL R. Injection-
sensitive mechanics of hydraulic fracture interaction with dis-
continuities. Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering, 2014,
47(5): 1625–1640.
[61] COHEN C, KRESSE O, WENG X W. Stacked height model
to improve fracture height growth prediction, and simulate in-
teractions with multi-layer DFNs and ledges at weak zone in-
terfaces. SPE 184876, 2017.
[62] XU G S, WONG S W. Interaction of multiple non-planar hy-
draulic fractures in horizontal wells. IPTC 17043, 2013.
[63] LONG G, XU G S. The effects of perforation erosion on prac-
tical hydraulic-stimulation applications. SPE 185173, 2017.
[64] NASSIR M, SETTARI A. Prediction of SRV and optimization
in tight gas and shale using a fully elasto-platic coupled ge-
omechanical model. SPE 163814, 2013.
[65] PROFIT M L, DUTKO M, YU J. Developing a framework to
simulate the hydraulic stimulation of tight gas reservoirs based
on integrative adaptive remeshing and combined finite/dis-
crete element approach. In: 49th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geo-
mechanics Symposium. San Francisco: ARMA, 2015.
[66] ALFATAIERGE A. 3D modeling and characterization of hy-
 XU Yun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(5): 932–947
draulic fracture efficiency integrated with 4D/9C timelapse
seismic interpretations in the Niobrara formation, Wattenberg
field, Denver basin. Colorado, USA : Colorado School of
Mines, 2017.
[67] ALFATAIERGE A, MISKIMINS J L, DAVIS T L, et al. 3D
hydraulic fracture simulation integrated with 4D time-lapse
multicomponent seismic and microseismic interpretation,
Wattenberg field, Colorado. SPE 189889, 2018.
[68] CHEN Mian. Re-orientation and propagation of hydraulic
fractures in shale gas reservoir. Journal of China University of
Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science), 2013, 37(5): 88–94.
[69] ZENG Qinglei, ZHUANG Zhuo, LIU Zhanli, et al. Fully cou-
pled modeling for multiple clusters growth of hydraulic frac-
tures in shale. Chinese Journal of Computational Mechanics,
2016, 33(4): 643–648.
[70] WANG Lixiang, TANG Dehong, LI Shihai, et al. Numerical
simulation of hydraulic stimulation by a mixed method in two
dimensions. Chinese Journal of Theoretical and Applied Me-
chanics, 2015, 47(6) : 973–983.
[71] GUO J C, ZHAO X, ZHU H Y, et al. Numerical simulation of
interaction of hydraulic fracture and natural fracture based on
the cohesive zone finite element method. Journal of Natural
Gas Science & Engineering, 2015, 25: 180–188.
[72] ZOU Y S, MA X F, ZHANG S C, et al. Numerical Inve-
stigation into the influence of bedding plane on hydraulic
fracture network propagation in shale formations. Rock Me-
chanics & Rock Engineering, 2016, 49(9): 3597–3614.
[73] CHEN Ming, XU Yun, WENG Dingwei. Calculation method
for multi-fracture propagation geometry of multi-stage stimu-
lation in horizontal wells. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics
& Engineering, 2016(S2): 3906–3914.
[74] CHEN Ming, XU Yun, WU Qi, et al. Algorithm for multi-
fracture propagation morphology in horizontal well volume
stimulation: Investigation on different fracture distribution
patterns. Natural Gas Industry, 2016, 36(8): 79–87.
[75] ZHAO Jinzhou, CHEN Xiyu, LI Yongming, et al. Numerical
simulation of multi-stage stimulation and optimization of per-
foration in a horizontal well. Petroleum Exploration & Devel-
opment, 2017, 44(1): 117–124.
[76] WU Qi, LIANG Xing, XIAN Chenggang, et al. Geoscience-
to-production integration ensures effective and efficient South
China marine shale gas development. China Petroleum Ex-
ploration, 2015, 20(4): 1–23.
[77] MODELAND N, BULLER D, CHONG K K. Statistical anal-
ysis of the effect of completion methodology on production in
the Haynesville shale. SPE 144120, 2011.
[78] Pioneer Natural Resources Company. Pioneer Natural Re-
sources Q3 2016 Earnings. (2016-11-02) [2018-03-09]. https://
wowza.earningscast.com/events/765ab27c4f3ee1c58398017c
83295cc3/materials/15319/secured_download/eb88f8bc64a987
bc49c886acf00721dd346fcb53.
[79] GU H R, SIEBRITS E, SABOUROV A. Hydraulic fracture
modeling with bedding plane interfacial slip. SPE 117445,
2008.
[80] CHRUPRAKOV D, PRIOUL R. Hydraulic fracture height
containment by weak horizontal interfaces. SPE 173337,
2016.
 947 
[81] Energen Corporation. Energen’s Gen 3 wells continue to
deliver outstanding results. (2017-11-08)[2018-03-09].
http://ir.energen.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=
94826&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2315268.
[82] RAMURTHY M, BARREE R D, KUNDERT D P, et al. Sur-
face-area vs. conductivity-type fracture treatments in shale re-
servoirs. SPE Production & Operations, 2011, 26(4): 357–367.
[83] SHARMA M M, MANCHANDA R. The role of induced
un-propped (IU) fractures in unconventional oil and gas wells.
SPE 174946, 2015.
[84] WENG X W, SESETTY V, KRESSE O. Investigation of
shear-induced permeability in unconventional reservoirs. In:
49th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. San
Francisco: ARMA, 2015.
[85] WU W W, KAKKAR P, ZHOU J H, et al. An experimental
investigation of the conductivity of unpropped fractures in
shales. SPE 184858, 2017.
[86] WANG H Y, SHARMA M M. Estimating unpropped fracture
conductivity and compliance from diagnostic fracture injec-
tion tests. SPE 189844, 2018.
[87] SIERRA L, MAYERHOFER M. Induced fracture complexity,
when is it really required in unconventional reservoir stimula-
tion?. SPE 168976, 2014.
[88] CIPOLLA C L, WARPINSKI N R, MAYERHOFER M J, et
al. The relationship between fracture complexity, reservoir
properties, and fracture treatment design. SPE Production &
Operations, 2010, 25(4): 438–452.
[89] MAYER B R, JACOT R H. Pseudosteady-state analysis of
finite- conductivity vertical fractures. SPE 95941, 2005.
[90] GU M, KULKAMI P, PAFIEE M, et al. Optimum fracture
conductivity for naturally fractured shale and tight reservoirs.
SPE 171648, 2016.
[91] CINCO-LEY H, SAMANIEGO-V F. Transient pressure anal-
ysis for fractured wells. SPE 7490, 1981.
[92] MILLER G, LINDSAY G, BAIHLY J, et al. Parent well res-
timulation: Economic safety nets in an uneconomic market.
SPE 180200, 2016.
[93] LINDSAY G, MILLER G, XU T, et al. Production perform-
ance of infill horizontal wells vs. pre-existing wells in the ma-
jor US unconventional basins. SPE 189875, 2018.
[94] GAKHAR K, SHAN D, RODIONOV Y, et al. Engineered
approach for multi-well pad development in Eagle Ford Shale.
SPE 2431182, 2016.
[95] BERCHENKO I, DETOURNAY E. Deviation of hydraulic
fractures through poroelastic stress changes induced by fluid
injection and pumping. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics & Mining Sciences, 1997, 34(6): 1009–1019.
[96] ROUSSEL N P. Stress reorientation in low permeability res-
ervoirs. Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin, 2012.
[97] COURTIER J, GRAY D, SMITH M, et al. Legacy well pro-
tection refrac mitigates offset well completion communica-
tions in joint industry project. SPE 181767, 2016.
[98] Enventure. Enventure global technology and vorpal energy
solutions announce a strategic collaboration focused on the
refract market. (2015-08-31)[2018-03-09]. http://www.en-
venturegt.com/en/news-resources/news/enventure-global-tech-
nology-and-vorpal-energy-solutions-announce-strategic.