HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Presented By:

Amro Shawky Abd-rabou

For
Dr. Eissa Shokir
Well Stimulation
Phd - Summer 2020/2021
CONTENT:

 Introduction
 Reservoir Candidates for Hydraulic Fracturing
 Formation Evaluation
 Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Operation
 Fracture Initiation Geomechanics
 Fracture Stress Shadowing
 Fracture Propagation Models
 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids
 Proppants and Fracture Conductivity
 Treatment Design and Field Calculations
 References

2
INTRODUCTION
 WHAT IS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING?
 TYPES OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
 TIP SCREEN OUT FRACTURING

3
WHAT IS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING?

 It is the process of injecting pressurized fluid into a formation until the formation rock cracks due to tensile
failure, then extending the fracture by continued fluid injection.
 A fracking fluid is used to apply a sufficient force to the formation rock until reaching a point where the rock
breaks in tension and cracks develop outwards guided by a set of internal rock stresses. This increases the contact
between the well and the formation natural fractures and billions of tiny pores within the rock.
 A solid proppant is injected into the fractured formation to prevent the fracture from closing. This creates a high
permeability flow path for reservoir fluids to be rapidly produced
 Applications of hydraulic fracturing:

1. Access crude oil and natural gas trapped in

impermeable and hard-to-reach formations
2. Increase oil production by overcoming near-
wellbore formation damage and increasing
formation permeability
3. Evaluation of reservoir transmissivity
Figure 1: General hydraulic fracturing process. [1]
4
TYPES OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

 Hydraulic fracturing can be categorized into 3 groups according to the process applied to the target formation to
induce the fracture [2] :
1. Hydraulic Fracturing:
• Low rate of pressure loading
• Bidirectional fracture oriented perpendicular to the minimum principal rock stress
• Fracture penetration or reach can be extensive (hundreds of feet)
2. Explosive Fracturing:
• Rapid pressurization of formation
• Results in highly fractured zone around the wellbore in a radial pattern
• Small penetration or reach (approximately 10 feet)
• Peak pressure exceeds both minimum and maximum horizontal in situ stresses
• Near-wellbore stimulation is the primary objective

5
TYPES OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (CONT.)

3. Pulse Fracturing [3] :

• Radial fracture pattern
• Peak pressure exceeds both maximum and minimum horizontal in situ stresses
• Results in multiple vertical fractures extending radially from the wellbore
• Penetration or reach is approximately 10 to 20 feet
• Can be used for the purpose of evaluating the transmissivity and storativity of tight reservoirs

6
TIP SCREEN OUT FRACTURING

 What is Tip Screen Out (TSO)?

• Tip screen out is a phenomenon that occurs during hydraulic fracturing
operations where the first proppant injected in the proppant slurry arrives at
the fracture tip and forms a bridge or a proppant plug.
• This proppant plug has a relatively high pressure drop across it compared to
the fracture which reduces the fluid pressure acting on the fracture tip. This
stops the fracture length growth and allows fracture width growth to provide
extra fracture volume instead.
• This can be observed as an increase in pressure (Formation Propagation
Pressure) since the fracture is no longer increasing in length.
 What is Tip Screen Out Fracturing?
• It is when an early TSO is forced during a hydraulic fracturing treatment
operation by early injection of the proppant slurry during the fracturing
treatment compared to conventional hydraulic fracturing. Figure 2: TSO fracturing.
[2]
• This kind of fracturing produces smaller length fractures and is used in the
stimulation of medium to high permeability formations.
• This kind of fracturing is popular in Frac-and Pack completions
7
TIP SCREEN OUT FRACTURING (CONT.)

 Comparison between conventional and TSO fracturing:

Fracture Type Conventional Tip Screen Out

Long and thin with Short and fat with

Description
lower conductivity higher conductivity

Width (in.) > 0.25 0.25 – 1.5

Length (ft.) 500 – 1000 50 - 500

Proppant
Concentration 0.5 – 2.0 4 – 12 Figure 3: Comparison between
(lb/ft2) Conventional and TSO hydraulic
fracturing. [2]
8
TIP SCREEN OUT FRACTURING (CONT.)

 Applications of TSO Fracturing:

1. Sand control by combing fracturing with gravel packing into a single
operation called frac-and-pack.
2. Alternative to matrix acidizing to bypass near-wellbore damage.
Unlike matrix acidizing which requires identification of the nature of
the skin damage, TSO fracturing success is independent of the type of
formation damage.
3. Reserve increase in laminated sands where perforation densities are
not sufficient for the well to make contact with all hydrocarbon-
bearing sand lenses.
4. Production of medium viscosity oil from lower permeability
formations.
5. Fines migration and sources of formation damage induced by
formation pressure reduction or increased flow velocities can be Figure 4: TSO fracturing connecting all
avoided due to improved well flow and reduced flow velocities. hydrocarbon bearing zones separated by
impermeable shale laminations. [2]

9
RESERVOIR CANDIDATES FOR HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
 RESERVOIR CANDIDATES
 UNCONVENTIONAL RESERVOIR CANDIDATES
 CONVENTIONAL RESERVOIR CANDIDATES

10
RESERVOIR CANDIDATES

 Hydraulic fracturing reservoir candidates are ones with a substantial volume of OOIP
and/or OGIP that might:
• Suffer from low permeability
• Suffer from reduced flow rates due to near-wellbore damage
• Require a connection between natural fractures and/or cleats in the formation and the producing
well
• Require reduction in pressure drop around the wellbore to reduce sand production
• Require reduction in pressure drop around the wellbore to minimize problems with asphaltenes and/
or paraffin deposition
• Increase the drainage area around the wellbore by increasing contact with the reservoir

11
RESERVOIR CANDIDATES

 Other favorable characteristics of a candidate reservoir

include:
• Fracture toughness: if the formations above and below the
targeted pay zone have higher values of fracture toughness, then
it is more difficult for the induced fracture to extend to
neighboring formations and is more likely to stay within the pay
zone. The greater the stress contrast the better.
• Minimum horizontal in situ stress: neighboring formations with
higher values of minimum horizontal in situ stresses than the pay
zone, then it is more difficult for the induced fracture to
propagate in those zones.
Figure 5: Hydraulic fracture
• Leak-off: fracture propagation is reduced in zones with high fluid
propagation relative to
leak-off due to high rates of fluid loss to the formation and minimum in situ stress
reduced pressure required for fracture propagation. magnitudes. [2] 12
RESERVOIR CANDIDATES

 Reservoirs in need of hydraulic fracturing can be categorized into conventional and unconventional reservoirs.
• Conventional reservoirs are those in which wells can be drilled so that oil and natural gas can be produced at economic flow
rates without large stimulation treatments or any special recovery process. [4]
• On the other hand, unconventional reservoirs are those that cannot be produced at economic flow rates or that does not
produce economic volumes of oil and gas without the assistance of massive stimulation treatments or special recovery
processes and technologies. [4]

Conventional Reservoirs Unconventional Reservoirs

Contain hydrocarbons that can flow naturally Low permeability retard hydrocarbon flow
Hydrocarbons migrated from source rock Hydrocarbons do not migrate from the source since the
reservoir rock is the source itself
Examples: Examples:
1. Sandstone reservoirs 1. Shale oil/gas
2. Limestone reservoirs 2. Tight reservoirs
3. Dolomite reservoirs 3. Coalbed methane
4. Tar sands
5. Methane hydrates
13
UNCONVENTIONAL RESERVOIR CANDIDATES

 Tight Oil/Gas Reservoirs:

• Type of reservoirs where the oil/gas deposits are found in formations lacking in the permeability of
conventional reservoirs required for fluids to flow without stimulation at economic rates
• Tight reservoirs could be shale (mudstones or siltstones), sandstone or carbonate reservoirs with permeability
in the range of millidarcies or even microdarcies [2]
• Tight shale and sand reservoirs require hydraulic fracturing to produce reservoir fluids at economic rates, but
carbonate reservoirs are preferably subjected to acidizing treatments using HCL or other acid mixtures to
dissolve carbonates and clean out scale and other debris in the reservoir [2]
• Limitations of low permeability reservoirs are overcome by a combination of:
 Horizontal well drilling to increase contact area and effective thickness of the formation with respect to the wellbore
 Hydraulic fracturing to increase formation permeability and producing radius of the wellbore
 Micro-seismic monitoring and computer simulations to ensure the fracture network doesn’t extend to adjacent non-
hydrocarbon producing formations

14
UNCONVENTIONAL RESERVOIR CANDIDATES (CONT.)

 Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Reservoirs:

• Gas reservoirs where natural gas is trapped within low permeability coal deposits (0.1 – 30 mD)
• Natural gas found in coal seams is adsorbed to the coal rather than contained within pore spaces or structurally trapped in the
formation and it is exceptionally pure compared to conventional natural gas (over 90% methane gas in composition) [5]
• Natural gas found in coal seams is a result of thermogenic alteration of coal or biogenic action of indigenous microbes on the
coal
• Coal beds are generally weak and highly fractured thus have a high secondary permeability
• Hydraulic fracturing enlarges the pre-existing natural fractures in addition to creating new ones which creates a large network
of inter-connected fractures for easy CBM extraction
• Not all coal beds are good candidates for hydraulic fracturing due to coal beds being weak in strength which makes them
unable to support extensive hydraulic fracturing. Also, several coal beds are located at shallow depths and could be
underground sources of drinking water, thus hydraulic fracturing these reservoirs can cause major environmental and health
issues.

15
CONVENTIONAL RESERVOIR CANDIDATES

 Reduced permeability reservoirs:

• Hydraulic fracturing can also be used to
bypass formation damage, re-establishing or
improving production in wells where
permeability has been reduced through in situ
damage
• Damage can occur in the form of:
 Skin or reduction in near-wellbore permeability
 Precipitation of scales within the formation (e.g.
Calcium Carbonate precipitation)
Figure 6: Permeability comparison between
 Closing of natural fractures due to in situ stress conventional and unconventional reservoirs. [2]
changes brought about by prolonged fluid
production

16
FORMATION EVALUATION
 FORMATION EVALUATION PARAMETERS
 WELL LOGGING ANALYSIS
 WELL TESTING
 CORE SAMPLE ANALYSIS

17
FORMATION EVALUATION PARAMETERS

 To select a good reservoir candidate for

hydraulic fracturing treatment, it is
required to create a comprehensive study
using computer simulation programs that
model both the fracturing operation and
predict whether the resulting production
outcome is economic or not.
 These sophisticated models require a lot
of input data. The more sophisticated the
model the more data and the higher
quality of data is required for accurate
modeling. Figure 7: Fracture model sophistication vs. calibrated data quality.
[1]

18
FORMATION EVALUATION PARAMETERS (CONT.)

 Petrophysical data required for candidate selection and hydraulic fracture modeling
can be obtained by integrating data from drilling information, well testing, core
sample testing and well logging data analysis. [6]
 This data can be divided into two groups.
1. Controllable parameters: mostly related to well design and injection of proppant laden fracture
fluid and they include well landing zone, well orientation, fracture spacing, well completion,
perforation design, fracture fluid and proppant type and volume selection, pump rate, proppant
concentration, etc…
2. Uncontrollable parameters: has the greatest effect on the hydraulic fracturing operation and
includes reservoir geology, in situ stress magnitudes and orientations, formation pressure, natural
fractures, etc…

19
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS

  Formation porosity: [1]

• Can be determined by density/neutron logs
• Density logs use the matrix bulk density to determine the formation porosity. This porosity must be calibrated and
compensated for the natural gamma ray emission by clay minerals in the formation.

Where: is the matrix density

is the formation fluid density
is the bulk density
• Neutron logs record the amount of neutron absorption by hydrogen atoms in the formation. The greater the absorption, the
greater the porosity.

• True formation porosity is determined using porosity values from both neutron and density logs

20
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

  Saturation and clay content: [1]

• Gamma ray logging detects and records gamma rays emitted by radioactive elements which are commonly
found in clays
• Borehole-corrected gamma ray logs can be used to calculate the shale volume:

• To calculate the water saturation of formations, we can use the total resistivity readings obtained from
resistivity logs

• Where is the formation resistivity factor of clean sand and is the saturation exponent.

21
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

  Natural

Fracture Characteristics: [1]
• Existence of natural fractures in a reservoir add to the complexity of hydraulic fracture modeling. Natural
fractures affect well log interpretation, the geometry and propagation of hydraulic fractures and fluid leak-off
calculations
1. Estimating fracture departure width using dual laterolog data and mud filtrate resistivity (): [7]

• and indicate shallow and deep resistivity values, respectively.

22
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

2.  Fracture
 orientation can be determined using
data from dipmeter and image logs: [8]

Where: is the amplitude of the sinusoid

is the wellbore radius

Figure 8: Natural fracture intersecting well appears as a sinusoid on

an unwrapped image. [1]

23
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

3.  Fracture permeability can be calculated using aperture width:

 [9]

Or using fracture frequency from core sampling analysis:

4. Fracture porosity can be calculated using integration of data from well testing results, image log processing and
core data analysis: [10]

Where: is the fracture storativity

is the matrix compressibility
is the fracture compressibility
is the matrix porosity

24
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

  Dynamic

Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio:
• To create a continuous profile of the rock elastic properties along the length of the
region of interest, first, we need to calculate the rock dynamic elastic properties
• They can be calculated using correlations that utilize data from acoustic logs like
the correlations shown below: [11]

• The values of dynamic elastic properties are then calibrated by correlating them
with static dynamic elastic properties obtained from core sample analysis to
provide us with accurate and realistic information
25
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

  In Situ Stress Magnitudes:

1. Overburden stress:
• The overburden stress represents the weight of the overlaying rocks with the saturating fluid inside and, in most cases, it
represents the vertical stress).
• It is estimated by the integration of formation bulk densities from surface to the depth of interest (z)

Where: is the bulk density

is the true vertical depth
is the gravitational acceleration

• For offshore areas with water depth, you must consider the air gap and water depth, so the overburden stress will be:

26
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

2.  Maximum and Minimum Horizontal In Situ Stresses:


• To create a continuous stress profile of the horizontal in situ stresses along the length of the desired formations, the
poroelastic horizontal strain model can be used. It calculates the minimum and maximum horizontal in situ stress in terms of
the combined effects of the overburden pressure, formation elastic properties, pore pressure and tectonic strain effects
• Data from this model must be calibrated to actual data from well testing operations to get accurate stress values

• The tectonic strains in the minimum and maximum horizontal stress directions ( and ) are calculated by the following
equations:

Where:

• and are calculated using minimum horizontal stress values from LOT or mini-frac tests from at least two depth intervals
(depth I and depth i+1), then we find the average of the values and .
27
WELL LOGGING DATA ANALYSIS (CONT.)

 In Situ Stress Orientation:

• Can be determined by observing wellbore failures
using caliper logs and borehole imaging tools
• In a vertical well, when mud weight is increased
beyond a certain threshold, the formation will undergo
tensile failure in the form of hydraulic fracturing in
the maximum horizontal in situ stress direction
• On the other hand, reducing the mud weight below a
certain threshold can result in compressive failure in
the form of breakouts in a direction parallel to the
minimum horizontal in situ stress direction
Figure 9: Breakout detection using
an ultrasonic borehole televiewer. [1]
28
WELL TESTING

 Diagnostic Fracture Integrity Tests (DFIT):

• The best way to measure the minimum horizontal in situ stress magnitude and estimate of the fluid leak-off properties of a
fluid at a pay zone is through well testing approach. This includes DFIT, step-rate/flowback tests and step down tests.
• DFITs are conducted by injecting specific volumes of fluid at low injection rates and monitoring and recording the pressure
versus time.
• Once the pumps are activated, the bottom hole pressure rises and continues to rise until reaching the Fracture Initiation
Pressure (FIP) at which the fracture is initiated. After which, the pressure drops rapidly to the Fracture Propagation Pressure
(FPP) at which the fracture starts to grow.
• The pumps are stopped when the desired fluid volume of fluid has been pumped and fracture propagation stops. The pressure
immediately drops to the Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure (ISIP). At the ISIP, the fracture is still open and fluid leak-off
continues until the pressure drops as the fracture closes. This is known as the Fracture Closure Pressure (FCP) and is equal to
the minimum horizontal in situ stress.
• Reopening of the fracture during a second pump cycle will normally occur at a lower value than the FIP. Often the pressure
hump does not occur and the FPP is observed immediately.

29
WELL TESTING (CONT.)

Figure 10: Bottomhole pressure recorded

versus time during a DFIT or mini-frac test. [4]  Figure 11: Closure pressure analysis to calculate . [4]
30
CORE SAMPLE ANALYSIS

 Static
  Young’s Modulus and Poisson Ratio:
• Static Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio can be obtained by
performing triaxial compression tests on core samples
• A cylindrical core sample with a 2:1 ratio of length to diameter
is loaded axially at a constant confining pressure which presents
the in situ stress conditions
• The axial stress, axial and lateral strains are measured and
recorded during the test and used to calculate the static Young’s
modulus and Poisson ratio
• The static values are then used to calibrate dynamic Young’s
modulus and Poisson ratio obtained from well logging data to
create a continuous rock elastic properties profile along the
length of the formations of interest
 Brittleness Index: [12]
• It is calculated using data from triaxial compression tests on
core samples Figure 12: Triaxial compression test apparatus.
[13]
31
CORE SAMPLE ANALYSIS (CONT.)

 Fracture
  Toughness and Critical Stress Intensity Factor: [1]

• It is a parameter that controls the magnitude of the pressure drop at the tip of a fracture
• Fracture toughness can be determined based on the principle of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) which assumes that
when the stresses near the crack tip exceed the material fracture toughness, the crack will grow.
• The crack tip stress field is a function of the location, loading, and geometry
• The fracture toughness or critical stress intensity factor is material specific and can be obtained by experiments performed on core
samples of known crack length
• If the stress intensity factor () is equal to or greater than the critical stress intensity factor (), the crack is reinitiated and the
fracture grows

• As the critical stress intensity factor increases, the pressure required for fracture propagation also increases

Where: is the difference between the pressure inside the fracture and the closure pressure
is a coefficient which depends on the fracture geometry
is the fracture radius
32
CORE SAMPLE ANALYSIS (CONT.)

 Formation Damage: [1]

• A fluid sensitivity or clay-swelling test can be useful in helping design the fracture fluid to be used in the hydraulic fracture
treatment. It is conducted by placing a 1 inch diameter by 2 inch long core plug into a Hassler-type sleeve core holder.
• Confining pressures and formation temperature similar to field conditions are applied to the core sample and the permeability
is measured by flowing a non-damaging brine through the core once to establish a baseline condition.
• Permeability measures are then made using various KCl or other salt brines solutions at different concentrations and range of
pH.

Figure 13: Fluid sensitivity testing of a core sample. [1] 33

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TREATMENT
OPERATION

34
STAGES OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TREATMENT OPERATION

1. Pre-pad or Pre-flush Stage:

• The operation begins by rigging up a high pressure flow line from high pressure fracturing pumps to the well,
then pressure testing the equipment for safety.
• The next step is to pump a thin fluid head of 10-15% HCl solution to clean the wellbore and perforations and
remove near-wellbore damage. Injection of a drag or friction reducer in low concentrations can help reduce
friction pressure.
• The stage ends with the initiation of a crack in the formation.
2. Pad Stage:
• Large volume of a special-designed fracture fluid is injected into the reservoir at a sufficient injection rate to
cause formation breakdown and fracture propagation.
• This volume of fluid is called the “Pad” and typically comprises about 20% of the total fluid volume. The pad
is pumped to create the desired fracture width and dimensions to accept the proppant particles in later stages.

35
STAGES OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TREATMENT OPERATION (CONT.)

3. Proppant-Laden Stage:
• The proppant solids are mixed into additional fracturing
fluids and the resulting slurry is pumped into the reservoir
to prop open the created fracture. This can be divided into
several sub-stages with each one having a different
proppant concentration.
4. Flush Stage:
• A specific volume of flush fluid is pumped to clear the
tubulars of proppant and the pumps are shut off.
• Well pressure is bled off to allow the fracture to close on
the proppant.
• After the proppants are set in place, thin fluids with vis-
breakers are injected to reduce the viscosity of the pumped
fluids to allow them to flow.
• Recover the injected fluids by flowing or lifting the well
(load recovery) Figure 14: Stages of hydraulic fracturing.
36
FRACTURE INITIATION GEOMECHANICS
 OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS
 CASED AND PERFORATED COMPLETIONS

37
FRACTURE INITIATION GEOMECHANICS

  A formation fractures when the pressure applied by the mud weight is too high resulting in tensile failure. This
pressure is known as the Fracture Initiation Pressure (FIP).
 Tensile failure occurs when minimum effective stress around the wellbore becomes tensile (negative) and when
this tensile stress is greater than or equal to the formation tensile strength.

 Condition for tensile failure:

Where: is the minimum effective principal stress

is the minimum principal stress
is Biot’s constant
is the pore pressure
is the rock tensile strength
Figure 15: Mohr Circle showing tensile
failure.
38
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS

  Horizontal Fractures:
• Horizontal fractures occur in shallow formations
where the overburden stress is the minimum
principal stress

• For horizontal fractures to initiate, the bottom

hole pressure must be greater than the minimum
effective principal stress (effective overburden
stress) and formation tensile strength

• The resulting fracture propagates perpendicular

to in the horizontal stress direction

Figure 16: In situ stress magnitudes around a horizontal fracture. [14]

39
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

 Vertical Fractures:
• According to the tensile strength criterion, the fracture initiates at the wellbore wall when a principal tensile
stress exceeds the tensile strength of the rock.
• Vertical fractures occur when the minimum principal stress is horizontal and the maximum principal stress is
vertical. Calculating the principal stresses acting on the wellbore wall, first, requires performing a stress
analysis of the induced forces acting on the wellbore wall in the cylindrical (polar) coordinate system.

Figure 17: Transformation of in situ stresses into polar coordinate system. [15]
40
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

  Inclined Wellbores:
• To calculate the induced stresses, Kirsch Elastic solution is used which assumes that the rock is homogeneous and exhibits
linear elastic behavior.
• First step is to express the in situ stresses in the Cartesian Coordinate System:

Figure 18: Transforming the in situ stress state

into the Cartesian coordinate system [15]
41
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

 Next,
  the induced stresses are expressed in the polar coordinate system:

Where: is the mud weight

is the radial stress
is the tangential or hoop stress
is the axial stress
is the tangential stress in the axial and tangential plane
Figure 19: Transforming the in situ stress state
is the angle measured from direction or the high side of a deviated
into the Cartesian coordinate system [16]
wellbore
42
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

  Finally, we calculate the principal stresses using the calculated induced stresses in the polar coordinate system:

 Thus, the tensile failure criteria now becomes:

 Substituting the values of , and calculated previously using Kirsch equations into the above equation and solving
for , we can obtain the mud weight or FIP required to initiate a fracture for an inclined wellbore. [16]
 The general equation of the fracture initiation angle () is:

43
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

  From the previous tensile failure criteria equation,

it is obvious that the value of is directly
proportional to the .
 is dependent on the value of which is the angle
measured from the maximum principal stress
direction for vertical wells (or high side of the
hole for deviated and horizontal wells)
 From the figure to the right, it can be seen that the
lowest values for are at = 0º and 180º which in
turn produces the lowest or most tensile values of
 Thus, to calculate the pressure required to initiate
the fracture, it is possible to express the failure Figure 20: Variations of axial, tangential and
criteria in terms of called radial stresses around the wellbore circumference.
[14]

44
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

  Vertical Wellbores:

• For vertical wellbores, the FIP can be expressed in term of the minimum (most tensile) tangential stress “”
which occurs perpendicular to the minimum horizontal in situ stress direction ( [17]
• Assuming the reservoir is impermeable and no fluid penetration into the formation, the FIP is expressed as:

• Assuming the reservoir is permeable: [17]

Where:

• The fracture induced will be a vertical fracture propagating

Figure 21: In situ stress magnitudes
perpendicular to the minimum horizontal in situ stress around a vertical fracture. [14]
direction
45
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

  Horizontal Wellbores:

• Because the overburden stress is now aligned along the x-axis direction, the general solution for FIP is:

• The angle is measured from the high-side of the wellbore

1. For horizontal wells drilled in the minimum horizontal in situ stress () direction, the angle which gives the
minimum FIP depends on the faulting stress regime:
a) For normal faulting stress regime, the condition (high-side of the wellbore) provides the smallest FIP required to
fracture the formation. This produces transverse fractures which will propagate in a direction perpendicular to the
minimum horizontal in situ stress () direction. FIP is calculated as follows:

b) For strike slip or reverse faulting stress regimes, the condition gives the minimum FIP required to initiate horizontal
fractures in the maximum horizontal stress direction is:

46
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

2.  For horizontal wells drilled in the maximum


horizontal in situ stress () direction, longitudinal
fractures are created instead and the FIP also
depends on the faulting stress regime:
a) For normal faulting stress regime, FIP is
calculated as follows:

b) For strike slip or reverse faulting stress

regimes, the FIP is:

3. For horizontal fractures drilled in a direction

between the maximum and minimum horizontal
in situ stresses, the fracture orientation will be
oblique and the fracture is known as an oblique Figure 22: Transverse, longitudinal and
fracture. [18] oblique fractures in normal faulting stress
regime. [18]
47
OPEN HOLE COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

 Transverse fractures are believed to be more

effective in draining low permeability
reservoirs compared to longitudinal fractures
because of the increased contact area with the
reservoir. [19]
 Longitudinal fractures are preferred in high
permeability reservoirs as they have a longer
connection with the wellbore. [19]
 Oblique fractures are not recommended as
they result in lower production due to smaller
stimulated reservoir volume and increase in Figure 23: Comparison between fracturing in
drilling risk due to having a narrow mud vertical and horizontal wells with different
window. [20] azimuths in normal faulting stress regime. [20]

48
CASED AND PERFORATED COMPLETIONS

 The effect of perforations on FIP is modeled by assuming the

following: [17]
1. There is a perfect hydraulic communication between the
wellbore and the perforation tunnel and they have the same fluid
pressure.
2. A micro-annulus exists between the cement sheath and the
formation prior to the fracture initiation.
3. The perforated wellbore is treated as the orthogonal intersection
of two holes of different sizes.
 The tangential stress can then be derived by superimposing
the stress concentrations at the base of the perforation. [17]

Figure 24: Geometric model of a

perforated wellbore and the
redistributed stress system. [17]

49
CASED AND PERFORATED COMPLETIONS (CONT.)

  For vertical wellbores, the wellbore axis aligns with the overburden stress and the two orthogonal
stresses align with the maximum and minimum horizontal in situ stresses.

 Assuming the perforation angle is aligned with the minimum in situ stress direction, the tangential
stress can be calculated at (and is called the longitudinal tangential stress ) as well as at (called the
transverse tangential stress ) at the base of the perforation of the wellbore.
 Under these conditions, a longitudinal fracture is expected, thus is expected to initiate the anticipated
fracture:

Where:

50
FRACTURE STRESS SHADOWING

51
FRACTURE STRESS SHADOWING

  When a well undergoes a hydraulic fracturing stimulation, multiple fractures are created along the length of the
producing zone to maximize the stimulated reservoir volume. Thus, it is important to consider the fracturing-
induced changes to the in situ stresses around the wellbore
 The induced changes in the near-wellbore in situ stresses are known as stress shadow effect and they are
considered to be the primary cause of complex interactions between multiple hydraulic fractures and/or
interactions between hydraulic fractures and natural fractures within the reservoir. [21]
 Fracture spacing is a key parameter in controlling the stress shadow effect. Narrow spacing between hydraulic
fractures creates larger stress perturbations resulting in increased and values and a higher FIP.
 The increase in the minimum horizontal in situ stress ( ) is at a greater scale than that of the maximum horizontal
in situ stress (.
 Strong fracture interaction is possible if the stress perturbation () is greater than the horizontal in situ stress
anisotropy ().

52
FRACTURE STRESS SHADOWING (CONT.)

  By measuring the stress perturbation () and stress anisotropy, we can construct a model that relates the fracture
spacing with stress anisotropy to determine the spacing required between multiple fractures as shown in the graph
below.

Figure 25: Parameters impacting fracture growth pattern. [21]

53
FRACTURE PROPAGATION MODELS
 2-D FRACTURE MODELS
 3-D FRACTURE MODELS
 FRACTURE GEOMETRY MODELING DURING PUMPING

54
2-D FRACTURE MODELS

  Perkin-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) Model:

• Model Assumptions:
1. Fracture length has to be at least 3 times the fracture height
2. The maximum fracture width at any position along the fracture length is proportional to the net pressure at that position
3. Assumes a fixed fracture height and an elliptical cross-section in the vertical plane
4. Does not consider fluid loss and storage effects
5. Fracture width evolves with increasing fracture length
• Net pressure can be defined as the difference between the pressure inside the fracture itself and the minimum
horizontal in situ stress (or closure pressure)

• Formations with higher Young’s Modulus require a higher net pressure to achieve the same fracture
dimensions then ones with lower Young’s Modulus assuming all other variables remain unchanged

55
2-D FRACTURE MODELS (CONT.)

  Later versions of the PKN model were adjusted to account for fluid loss and storage effects.
 The storage dominated approximation of the PKN model: [22]

Fracture width:
Fracture half-length:
 High leak-off approximation of the PKN model: [22]

Fracture width:
Fracture half-length:

Figure 26: Fracture shape according to the PKN Model. [22]

56
2-D FRACTURE MODELS (CONT.)

  Kristanovic-Geertsma-De Klerk (KGD) Model:

• Assumptions:
1. Fracture height is fixed
2. The periphery of the fracture is rectangular and the shape of the
fracture is elliptical
3. The fracture height is greater than the fracture length
4. The pressure in the majority of the fracture body could be
approximated as a constant except for a small region at the tip
where the fluid pressure is zero
5. Fracture width evolves with increasing fracture length
Fracture width:
Fracture half-length:
Figure 27: Fracture shape according to the KGD Model. [22]

57
2-D FRACTURE MODELS (CONT.)

  Radial Model:
• Assumes that a radial or penny-shaped crack
occurs when the fracture is horizontal or when
there are no stress barriers constraining height
growth of a vertical fracture
• Assumes that the length of the fracture is equal
to its height
• Assuming constant pressure, the width of a
static circular fracture of radius “R” is
expressed as:

Figure 28: Fracture shape according to the Radial Model. [22]

58
2-D FRACTURE MODELS (CONT.)

  Equationsfor the maximum fracture width calculation during field fracture calculation/design
via 2-D models: (2-D Plane Strain Solution) [23]
 PKN Model:

 KGD Model:

Where: is the bottomhole treating pressure

is the fracture height (with maximum height being equal to pay zone thickness)
is the fracture half length

59
3-D FRACTURE MODELS

 Pseudo 3-D (P3D) Models:

• Unlike 2-D models, the P3D model can calculate vertical fracture height growth across various formation
layers with different minimum horizontal in situ stress values and rock properties
• There are two types of P3D models: Cell-based and Lumped-parameter models

1. Cell-based Model:
• The fracture length is divided into cells along the length of the fracture
but the fracture shape is not redefined
• The model assumes that the fracture’s vertical extension is slow and the
vertical fluid flow is ignored
• It also assumes that fracture half length is much greater than fracture
height
• The cross-sectional fracture geometry is determined using the net
pressure (e.g. the fracture height at any point of the fracture cross- Figure 29: Fracture shape
section is calculated using the pressure in that cell) according to the Cell-based Model.
[22]
60
3-D FRACTURE MODELS (CONT.)

2. Lumped-Parameter Model:
• Fracture shape is assumed to consist of two half ellipses of
equal horizontal extent but different vertical extent
• The model can calculate the fracture height, length and
width under the condition of slow vertical spreading
• Fluid flow is generally assumed as streamlines from the
perforated interval at the wellbore to the edge of the fracture
• Fracture half-length and the lower and upper fracture heights
are calculated at every time-step based on lumped
parameters

Figure 30: Fracture shape according

to the Lumped-Parameter Model. [22]

61
3-D FRACTURE MODELS (CONT.)

 Planar 3-D Model:

• Incorporates elastic deformation equations, mass conservation equations and momentum conservation
equations to simulate fracture propagation
• Assumes 2-D flow within the fracture and linear fracture mechanics for fracture propagation calculation
• The geometry of a fracture is determined using the width at each grid block, such that the width distribution
and geometry change as a function of time depend on the pressure distribution and fluid flow mechanics within
the fracture

62
FRACTURE GEOMETRY MODELING DURING PUMPING

  The Nolte-Smith pressure analysis technique is a technique to interpret the fracture geometry created during
pumping by analyzing the pressure response.
 It is based on the expected pressure response of the 2-D fracture models and then predicts the pressure response
when certain pressure behavior takes place.
 For example, the PKN model assumes that the net pressure is directly proportional to the fracture geometry which
is directly proportional to the root of time

 Thus, on a log-log plot, the relationship between the net pressure and time is a straight line with a slope of
 If the pressure behavior deviates from this ideal case, other types of fracture growth can be identified

63
FRACTURE GEOMETRY MODELING DURING PUMPING (CONT.)

Figure 31: Net pressure response based on Nolte-Smith Analysis. [22]

Net Pressure Response Modes Based on Nolte-Smith Analysis

Growth Mode Slope Behavior
1
1 No
No height
height growth.
growth. Propagation
Propagation according
according to
to PKN
PKN model.
model.
II 0 Height growth or increased fluid loss possibly due to fissure dilation
II 0 Height growth or increased fluid loss possibly due to fissure dilation
III-a 1 Unit slope. is directly proportional to time. This usually indicates tip screen-out
III-a 1 associated with width growth.
III-b Screen-out, probably occurring near the wellbore because of very rapid pressure rise.
III-b Screen-out, probably occurring near the wellbore because of very rapid pressure rise.
IV Negative Unrestricted and rapid height growth.
IV Negative Unrestricted and rapid height growth.
64
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS
 FLUID SELECTION CRITERIA
 TYPES OF FRACKING FLUIDS
 FRACKING FLUID ADDITIVES

65
FLUID SELECTION CRITERIA

 Optimum fracturing fluid design and selection is governed by the following criteria:
1. Viscosity should be high enough for achieving desired fracture dimensions, proppant transportation and fluid-
loss control
2. Cleanliness after flowback to produce the maximum post-fracture conductivity
3. Compatibility with reservoir fluids to avoid creating emulsions or slugs that would plug the formation
4. Surface pump pressure and friction pressure considerations
5. Compatibility with other materials such as resin coated proppants
6. Safety and environmental concerns
7. Cost-effective, stable and easy to produce
8. Compatible with reservoir rock (no swelling of clays or fines migration)

66
TYPES OF FRACKING FLUIDS

Base Fluid Fluid Type Composition Uses

Short fractures, low

Linear Guar, HPG, HEC, CMHPG
temperatures

Cross-linker with Guar, Long fractures, high

Water-based Cross-linked
HPG, CMHPG temperatures

Moderate length fractures,

Micellar Electrolyte and surfactant
moderate temperatures

Water-based Foamer with N2 or CO2 Low pressure formations

Foamer with N2 Low pressure carbonate

Foam-based Acid-based
formations
Foamer with N2 and Low pressure, water-
Alcohol-based
Methanol sensitive formations

67
TYPES OF FRACKING FLUIDS (CONT.)

Base Fluid Fluid Type Composition Uses

Short fractures, water-

Linear Gelling agent
sensitive formations

Gelling agent and cross- Long fractures, water-

Oil-based Cross-linked
linker sensitive formations

Moderate length fractures,

Water emulsion Water, oil and emulsifier
good fluid-loss control
Short fractures, carbonate
Water-based Guar or HPG
formations
Cross-linker and Guar or Longer, wider fractures,
Acid-based Acid-based
HPG carbonate formations
Moderate length fractures,
Oil emulsion Acid, oil and emulsifier
carbonate formations

68
FRACKING FLUID ADDITIVES

 Summary of fluid additives:

69
PROPPANTS AND FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY
 TYPES OF PROPPANTS
 FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY
 PROPPANT TRANSPORT MODELING

70
TYPES OF PROPPANTS

 An ideal proppant should be strong, resistant to crushing, resistant to corrosion, has a low density and readily available
at low costs.
 There are 3 types of proppants that generally fit those criteria:
1. Silica Sand:
• Obtained from sand mining and tested to ensure it has the necessary compressive strength for fracture operations
• Considered the cheapest per pound compared to the other types
• Generally used to prop fractures open in shallow formations
2. Resin Coated:
• Stronger than silica sand and used where higher compressive strength is required to minimize crushing and permeability reduction
• It is a manufactured proppant and not naturally occurring and is more expensive than sand but with a lower effective density
3. Ceramic Proppants:
• Consist of sintered bauxite, intermediate strength proppants (ISP) and lightweight proppants (LWP)
• The strength of this proppant is directly proportional to its density and cost with sintered bauxite being stronger and more expensive than ISP
and LWP
• It is an engineered and manufactured proppant and can be used to stimulate deep wells where large in situ stress values exist
71
TYPES OF PROPPANTS (CONT.)

 Silica Sand:

Figure 32: West Texas Dune Sand Figure 33: Canadian Glacial Sand Figure 34: Arkansas River Sand
[1] [1] [1]
72
TYPES OF PROPPANTS (CONT.)

 Resin Coated Proppants:

Figure 35: Curable resin coated Figure 36: Curable resin coated
proppant at standard conditions. [1] proppant under reservoir conditions. [1]
73
TYPES OF PROPPANTS (CONT.)

 Ceramic Proppants:

Figure 37: High strength ceramic [1] Figure 38: ISP ceramic Figure 39: LWP ceramic
[1] [1]

74
FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY

  The main function of a proppant is to maintain a conductive, post-operation propped fracture to provide an
effective connection between formulation and wellbore
 The potential benefit of the propped fracture depends on the capacity of the formation to deliver fluids to the
fracture and the capacity of the fracture to deliver fluids to the well
 This relationship can be quantified using the dimensionless fracture conductivity () parameter:

Where: is the formation permeability

is the fracture permeability
is the fracture width
is the fracture half-length

75
FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY (CONT.)

 Fracture conductivity of the propped fracture decreases with time as the well is put on production due to the
increase of the effective stress acting on the proppant
 The effective stress acting on the proppant is defined as the difference between the in situ stress and the flowing
pressure in the fracture
 As the well continues to produce over time, the flowing bottomhole pressure will decrease which in turn increases
the effective stress

Figure 40: Effective stress Figure 41: Effect of stress on fracture

on the propping agent [4] conductivity from common propping agents. [4] 76
PROPPANT TRANSPORT MODELING

  Proppant properties such as density and size (diameter) must be considered carefully when choosing the
appropriate propping agent fro the job, since they play an important role in proppant transportation and settling in
the fracture besides fracturing fluid viscosity
 Proppant transport modeling is represented by:
1. Proppant settling: represents the movement of the proppant grains within the fracture fluid system. It can be expressed by
Stoke’s Law for settling velocity for different Reynold’s numbers:

Re < 2 2 > Re > 500 Re > 500

Where: is the proppant specific density

is the fluid specific density
is the dynamic viscosity
is the proppant particle radius
77
PROPPANT TRANSPORT MODELING (CONT.)

2.  Proppant
 convection:
• Represents the mechanism of differential
movement of different treatment stages because of
the density differences and fluid viscosity.
• Higher proppant loadings in later slurries result in
higher slurry densities which may displace lighter
slurries already placed in the fracture

Where: is the maximum specific density of

slurry pumped
is the minimum specific density of
slurry pumped
Figure 42: Typical proppant profile development
is the fracture shape factor during a hydraulic fracturing treatment. [23]
78
TREATMENT DESIGN AND FIELD CALCULATIONS
 PRESSURE CALCULATIONS
 PERFORATION DESIGN
 PROPPANT CONCENTRATION TREATMENT SCHEDULE
 SLURRY CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS

79
PRESSURE CALCULATIONS

  Fracture Gradient (FG):

Where: is the hydrostatic pressure at reservoir depth

is the total vertical depth

 Bottomhole Fracturing Pressure (BHFP) or Bottomhole Treatment Pressure (BHTP):

 Total Friction Pressure Loss ():

80
PRESSURE CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

  Friction Pressure Loss at perforations ():

Where: is the flow rate, bpm

is the fluid density, ppg
is the discharge coefficient
is the perforation diameter, inch
is the number of perforations

 Friction Pressure Loss due to tortuosity ():

Where: is the near-wellbore friction coefficient

is the Power Law exponent
81
PRESSURE CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

  Closure Pressure ( or ):
• It is the minimum required pressure to keep the fracture open
• Can be assumed to be equal to the minimum in situ horizontal stress ()

 Net Pressure () or Fracture Propagation Pressure (FPP):

or:

Where: is the Young’s Modulus

is the fracture height
is the total fracture length
is the pressure at the fracture tip

82
PRESSURE CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

  Pressure at the fracture tip ():

Where: depends on the fracture tip geometry

is the fracture radius

 Surface Injection Pressure ():

 Hydraulic Horse Power required ():

Where: is the surface treatment rate, bpm

83
PERFORATION DESIGN

  In designing the number of perforations per stage for unconventional reservoirs, the practice of limited entry
design is often used
 Limited entry involves limiting the number of perforations in a completion design to increase the perforation
friction pressure and create a choking effect
 The choking effect encourages the simultaneous entry of the fracturing fluid into multiple zones of varying in situ
stress states to increase perforation efficiency and the success of the hydraulic fracturing stimulation
 Limited entry can be achieved through the following steps:
1. Choose the of a single perforation (usually recommended to be chosen between 200 and 300 psi)
2. Once the friction pressure is chosen, calculate the rate per perforation ():

84
PROPPANT CONCENTRATION TREATMENT SCHEDULE

1.  Assume a fracture half-length () to achieve and an injection rate () to pump. Calculate the fracture width () using a

selected fracture propagation model (e.g.: KGD model).
2. Based on material balance, solve for the injection fluid volume () from the following equation:

Where:

is the spurt loss

85
PROPPANT CONCENTRATION TREATMENT SCHEDULE (CONT.)

  Since the fluid loss multiplier () depends on the fluid efficiency () which is unknown in the beginning, a numerical
iteration procedure is required.

86
PROPPANT CONCENTRATION TREATMENT SCHEDULE (CONT.)

3.  Generate proppant concentration schedule using:



Where: is the final proppant concentration, ppg

4. Proppant weight requirement () in ppg and total weight of proppant required () in pounds:

5. Proppant placement concentration () in lb/ft 2 and propped fracture width () in inches:

 The propped fracture width depends directly on the slurry proppant concentration (.

87
 PROPPANT CONCENTRATION TREATMENT SCHEDULE (CONT.)

Figure 43: Table of proppant concentration injection schedule. Figure 44: Graph of proppant concentration schedule
[22]
during a hydraulic fracturing treatment. [22]

88
SLURRY CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS

  Absolute Volume Factor (AVF):

• It is the absolute volume that a proppant solid occupies in water or fluid
• Measured in gallon/pound

Where: is the fluid density in ppg

is specific gravity of the proppant
 Dirty Slurry vs. Clean Fracture Fluid:
• Dirty slurry volume means that water, chemicals and sand make up the volume of the fracture fluid
• Clean fracture fluid volume means that only water and chemicals make up the volume of the
fracture fluid

89
SLURRY CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

  Clean Fluid Rate (bpm):

 Dirty Slurry Density (ppg):

 Stage Dirty Slurry Volume (bbl):

 Stage Proppant Weight (lbs):

90
SLURRY CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

  Sand per Foot: is the amount of sand per foot calculated on stage and well levels; measured in lb/ft

 Water per Foot: is the amount of water used per foot calculated on stage and well levels; measured in bbl/ft

 Sand to Water Ratio: is the total sand divided by the total water per stage; measured in ppg

 Stage Time Calculation:

 Pad Volume Percentage Calculation:

91
SLURRY CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

Figure 45: Table of slick water injection schedule before calculations. [22]
92
SLURRY CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

Figure 46: Table of slick water injection schedule after calculations. [22]
93
REFERENCES

94
1. Miskimins, J. L. (2019). HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: Fundamentals and Advancements. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
2. Speight, J. G. (2016). Handbook of Hydraulic Fracturing. Wiley.
3. Walter, G. R., & Thompson, G. M. (1982). A Repeated Pulse Technique for Determining the Hydraulic Properties of
Tight Formations. Ground Water, 20(2), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1982.tb02749.x
4. PetroWiki. (2016, March 22). Unconventional resources of oil and gas from a geologic perspective. PetroWiki.
https://petrowiki.spe.org/Unconventional_resources_of_oil_and_gas_from_a_geologic_perspective#Unconventional_
Resources_Classification_and_Distribution.
5. Donaldson, E. C., Alam, W., & Begum, N. (2014). Hydraulic Fracturing Explained: Evaluation, Implementation, and
Challenges (Gulf Drilling) (1st ed.). Gulf Publishing Company.
6. Wong, S. W. (2019). Hydraulic Fracture Modeling and Design - A Perspective on How things have Changed from
Conventional to Unconventional Reservoirs. Day 2 Wed, March 27, 2019. Published. https://doi.org/10.2523/iptc-
19405-ms
7. Maeso, C., Ponziani, M., Le Nir, I., Kherroubi, J., Quesada, D., Dubourg, I., Luthi, S., Slob, E., Fisher, K., Honeyman,
L., Brown, R., & Zenned, O. (2014). Fracture Aperture Calculations From Wireline and Logging While Drilling
Imaging Tools. All Days. Published. https://doi.org/10.2118/170848-ms
8. Kim, G. Y., & Narantsetseg, B. (2014). Fractures and Breakouts Analysis from Borehole Image Logs: Preliminary
Results for Interpretation of Stress History andIn SituStress State. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 33(6),
579–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119x.2014.954179 95
9. Zhang, T., Li, Z., Adenutsi, C. D., & Lai, F. (2017). A new model for calculating permeability of natural fractures in dual-
porosity reservoir. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 1(2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.26804/ager.2017.02.03
10. Bahrami, H., Rezaee, R., & Hossain, M. (2012). Characterizing natural fractures productivity in tight gas reservoirs. Journal of
Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-012-0026-x
11. Darvishpour, A., Seifabad, M. C., Wood, D. A., & Ghorbani, H. (2019). Wellbore stability analysis to determine the safe mud
weight window for sandstone layers. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 46(5), 1031-1038. doi:10.1016/s1876-
3804(19)60260-0
12. Rickman, R., Mullen, M. J., Petre, J. E., Grieser, W. V., & Kundert, D. (2008). A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for
Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale. All Days. Published.
https://doi.org/10.2118/115258-ms
13. Wikipedia contributors. (2020, August 10). Triaxial shear test. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triaxial_shear_test
14. Donaldson, E. C., Alam, W., & Begum, N. (2013). Hydraulic Fracturing Explained: Evaluation, Implementation, and
Challenges (Gulf Drilling) (1st ed.). Gulf Publishing Company.
15. Aadnøy, B. S., & Looyeh, M. R. (2011). Petroleum rock mechanics: Drilling operations and well design. Oxford: Gulf
Professional.
16. Zhang, J. J. (2020). Applied Petroleum Geomechanics. Gulf Professional Publishing
17. Hossain, M., Rahman, M., & Rahman, S. (2000). Hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation: roles of wellbore trajectory,
perforation and stress regimes. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 27(3–4), 129–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0920-4105(00)00056-5
96
18. Yang, L., Cao, J., Tao, Z., Wang, S., Yang, J., & Dong, B. (2020). Fracture Propagation Characteristics in
Horizontal Wells. Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils, 56(3), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10553-
020-01151-5
19. Economides, M. J., and T. Martin. 2007. Modern Fracturing - Enhancing Natural Gas Production. Energy
Tribune.
20. Wutherich, Kevin, Lili Xu, Kirby Walker, Walter Sawyer, and Isaac Aso. 2013. “Quantifying the Effect of Drilling
Azimuth in Shale Gas Reservoirs.” SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in pittsburgh, Pensylvania, USAS, 20-22
August 2013. SPE 165672.
21. Wong, S. W. (2019). Hydraulic Fracture Modeling and Design - A Perspective on How things have Changed from
Conventional to Unconventional Reservoirs. Day 2 Wed, March 27, 2019. Published. https://doi.org/10.2523/iptc-
19405-ms
22. Guo, B., Liu, X., & Tan, X. (2017). Petroleum Production Engineering. Elsevier Gezondheidszorg.
23. Zhang, J. J. (2019). Applied Petroleum Geomechanics (1st ed.). Gulf Professional Publishing.

97