SPE 152595

Optimizing Hydraulic Fracture Spacing in Unconventional Shales

Jonathan C. Morrill, Marathon Oil Company and Jennifer L. Miskimins, Colorado School of Mines

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 6–8 February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
"Stress shadowing," where the stress field around an induced hydraulic fracture reorients from its far field directions by up to
90 degrees, is a major factor in designing and executing multiple hydraulically fractured, horizontal well completions. This
is especially true as the number of hydraulic fractures increase for a given lateral length. Often the number of fracture stages
is determined by well analogues without considering how stress shadows alter fracture properties. In this paper, the main
objective is to determine what properties are most important in determining the minimum distance needed between hydraulic
fractures to avoid stress interference. A finite element model of a horizontal wellbore with a transverse hydraulic fracture is
constructed in order to perform numerical simulations of the stress around the fracture. The model is used to perform
sensitivities on various mechanical and reservoir properties to investigate how and why the stress field changed.
The simulation results show that the ratio of minimum to maximum horizontal stress is the most important parameter to
know in order to determine the optimal fracture spacing. Changes in this ratio show an exponential change in fracture
spacing, affecting spacing requirements by up to 81%. Poisson's ratio, Biot's parameter, and net fracture pressure were also
important.
It can be concluded that fracture spacing cannot be determined by looking only at one or two properties. The fracture
spacing must be determined by looking at all the important variables and identifying those that are most variable for the
reservoir in question. The sensitivity of the "stress shadow" to various properties is an indication that obtaining good data is
key to proper completion design.

Introduction
This paper investigates the transverse hydraulic fracture spacing necessary in horizontal wellbores to avoid stress field
interactions and allow for predictable fracture geometries and conductivities in shale gas wells. Horizontal wells are being
used as the primary method of draining unconventional shale reservoirs. These reservoirs must be hydraulically fractured in
order for any meaningful flow of fluids to occur. Since each hydraulic fracture has a finite drainage radius, unconventional
shale wells can be fractured multiple times along their path in order to obtain a large contact area. Since each hydraulic
fracture creates an envelope of high stress around itself, if a subsequent fracture is placed too close to the original, the
initiation pressure, propagation, and conductivity of that subsequent fracture can be greatly modified. This concept is known
as "stress shadowing" and is a major concern when dealing with multiple, tightly-spaced hydraulic fractures. The spacing
necessary to avoid this issue is investigated in this paper.
"Stress shadowing," more directly defined, is a phenomenon where the stress envelope created by the placement of a
hydraulic fracture changes the local minimum/maximum horizontal stress ratios and directions for a subsequent hydraulic
fracture. This shadowing effect can eventually cause the direction of minimum and maximum horizontal stresses to fully
reorient and any new fracture to propagate perpendicular to the original in-situ maximum horizontal stress direction.
In addition to the alteration to fracture direction, Fisher et al. (2004) described two other consequences of the stress
shadowing phenomenon:
• The increased compressive stress caused by the first fracture acts to naturally divert fractures. In cases where the
perforations for each fracture are too close together, fracture growth is limited, especially in the mid-section of the
wellbore.
• The increase in the local minimum horizontal stress lowers the min/max stress ratio and promotes orthogonal
fracture growth. This can be seen in areas where fracture directions have been observed as uniform.
2 SPE 152595

Model Construction
In order to investigate the parameters most important for proper fracture spacing, coupled simulations need to be designed
that can easily have their properties modified. In order to facilitate this, it is necessary to have the ability to couple porous
media flow with rigorous geomechanical stress analysis. A commercial finite element modeling (FEM) software package
was employed to do this. Finite element modeling is a common method for simultaneously solving the differential equations
involved in this type of analysis.
The petrophysical properties for the model were taken from logs in the Barnett shale. The logs were upscaled in order to
make a simpler modeling grid. The log data was obtained from a pilot hole that was drilled trough the Barnett section before
the horizontal was kicked off. The modeled fractures are transverse with a half-length of 300 feet and a width of 0.2 inches.
Fracture height was set constant at 300 feet.
The well and fracture data were used to create a 3D grid around the wells, and log data was used to develop rock matrix
and PVT properties. The bounding zone for the grid encompassed the entire horizontal and vertical wellbores, as well as the
entire hydraulic fracture, with a 500 foot border that allowed for stresses to be seen a good distance from the fracture system.
In order to add resolution near the fracture, local grids were added to the model (see Figure 1). These grids allowed for one
constant sized grid around the fracture as well as a gradual grid refinement near the fracture face. Additionally, the shape of
the grid cells was set to be more conducive to seeing the stresses near the fracture face.
The simulator was setup to dynamically generate far field stresses in the reservoir during the simulation process. Base
parameters were defined and are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1. Local grid refinement around the hydraulic fracture. The refined grid is limited to the productive zone and is centered on
the hydraulic fracture. The red arrow indicates the location of the hydraulic fracture. The blue trace is the vertical well from which
log data was used. The green trace shows the location of the horizontal wellbore.

Table 1. Base Model Parameters

Parameter Base Value
Net Fracture Pressure, psi 3,500
6
Young’s Modulus, psi 3.9 x 10
Poisson’s Ratio 0.20
Min/Max Stress Ratio 0.97
Biot’s Parameter 1.00

Sensitivity Simulations
The fracture model was checked against the published analytical solution for the additional stress around a fracture (Sneddon
and Elliott, 1946). The stress profile normal to the fracture was compared. The stress in the direction parallel to the fracture
shows a proper negative net stress round the tip of the fracture as seen in the analytical solution. The initial stresses were
calculated using simple vertical stress and plane-strain equations.
SPE 152595 3

In order to confirm that the fracture strain was being properly accounted for, the fracture width was increased to two
inches. While increasing the fracture width by an order of magnitude does not reflect a real-world scenario it does allow for
the model strain calculations to pass a common sense check. The resulting strains were, expectedly, an order of magnitude
higher than those found in the base model.
Real-world confirmation of the model results can be found throughout the literature. Fisher et al. (2004) presented a
typical microseismic response for a cemented Barnett well (Figure 2). The third fracture stage can be seen to curve away
from the second fracture stage. This is the same response that would be expected given the stress field created in the model
and the altered direction of the maximum horizontal stress.
In order to determine the most important parameters for fracture spacing, various parameters were altered in order to
determine the model sensitivity. The results of these initial sensitivities helped to determine if any properties needed to be
looked at with additional simulations as well as show which parameters are key factors in determining fracture spacing.
Sensitivity parameters are listed in Table 2, where the base model values are in bold.
A key component in the sensitivity analysis is an assumption that the minimum spacing needed to avoid stress
shadowing problems will be the distance from the first hydraulic fracture to a portion of the reservoir where the direction of
maximum horizontal stress is altered by five degrees (5˚) or less along the length of the fracture. It is important to note that
this is an arbitrary criterion, but the same process could be repeated with a different criterion with similar results.

Figure 2. Plan view of a typical microseismic response in a cemented Barnett well. The third fracture stage (red squares) shows a
curvature trend away from the second fracture stage (green diamonds), especially on the left-hand side of the wellbore (From Fisher
et al., 2004).

Table 2. Summary of Model Sensitivities

Modified Parameter  Case Sensitivities 
Net Fracture Pressure, psi  2,750  3,000  3,250  3,500  3,750   
6
Young’s Modulus, x10  psi  1.9  2.9  3.9  4.9  5.9   
Poisson’s Ratio  0  0.15  0.20  0.25  0.30  0.35 
Min/Max Stress Ratio  0.80  0.85  0.90  0.94  0.97  0.99 
Biot’s Parameter  0.80  0.85  0.90  0.95  1.00   
Base model values are in bold. Each sensitivity changes only one parameter.

Net Fracture Pressure

In this scenario the net pressure inside the fracture is varied. The base value of 3,500 psi is an approximate value seen in
Barnett shale fracturing (Siebrits, et al., 2000). The base case of 3,500 psi showed that at 267 feet the maximum horizontal
stress was altered less than five degrees (5˚) from the far-field North-South direction (Figure 3). This means that a fracture
that is initiated 534 feet (267 x 2) feet from the previous fracture should see little to no interference in propagation direction.
The necessary horsepower and fracture pressure may change, but this can be accounted for in the well completion design and
the surface equipment. When the pressure in the fracture was increased to 3,750 psi the minimum fracture spacing increased
to 586 feet. The pressure was then reduced to 3,250 psi, 3,000 psi, and 2,750 psi. The corresponding minimum fracture
spacings were 486 feet, 458 feet, and 434 feet, respectively. The overall decrease in the stress field propagation with
decreasing net pressure is significant. The tabular data of the results can be seen in Table 3, and the decreasing trend in
Figure 4.
4 SPE 152595

Figure 3. Direction of maximum horizontal stress for a net fracture pressure of 3,500 psi. The direction of maximum horizontal
stress rotates from the far-field North-South direction to the East-West direction as the value of induced stress from the hydraulic
fracture exceeds the value of the in-situ maximum horizontal stress. As a result, the direction of maximum horizontal stress has
reoriented 90 degrees near the fracture. At a distance from the fracture of 267 feet the reorientation of maximum horizontal stress is
down to five degrees (5˚) (shown by the black line). The well location is marked as “A1H”.

Table 3. Net Pressure Sensitivity Results

Net Pressure, psi Minimum Fracture Spacing, feet

2,750 434
3,000 458
3,250 486
3,500 534
3,750 586

3,900
3,700
Net Pressure (psi)

3,500
3,300
3,100
2,900
2,700
2,500
400 450 500 550 600
Minimum Fracture Spacing (feet)

Figure 4. Net pressure sensitivity trend. The minimum fracture spacing is defined by twice the distance from the fracture to a point
where the maximum horizontal stress direction is altered by five degrees (5˚) or less.
SPE 152595 5

Young’s Modulus
Young’s modulus relates tensile stress to tensile strain. The relationship is given in Equation 1. Common sense would
dictate that the higher the value of Young’s Modulus, the smaller the distance from the fracture would need to be to fit the
five degree criteria.

/
∆ / (1)

The model results match the expected prediction. Young’s modulus was set to 1.9 x 106 psi and then 1 x 106 psi was
added to each of the next five simulations. Table 4 shows the tabular results, which indicate that the change in fracture
spacing difference spans only three feet and clearly represents slight simulation error. This indicates that Young’s modulus is
not overly important for the parameters from the Barnett shale used in the work. It is important to note that the change in
each increment of Young’s modulus was small so the overall change in spacing was also small. As with any property,
extreme values should not be discounted and require extra analysis.

Table 4. Young's Modulus Sensitivity Results

Young’s Modulus, psi Minimum Fracture Spacing, feet

6
1.9 x 10 536
6
2.9 x 10 534
6
3.9 x 10 536
6
4.9 x 10 534
6
5.9 x 10 531

Poisson’s Ratio
Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of vertical to horizontal deformation. As Equation 2 shows, Poisson’s ratio is a dimensionless
material property.

(2)

Adjusting values of Poisson’s ratio in the reservoir will alter the amount of the stress applied normal to the fracture face
that will translate to stress parallel to the fracture. A lower Poisson’s ratio should translate to a larger altered stress zone
along the direction of the wellbore. Modeling results confirm this prediction. As the Poisson’s ratio is increased in the
model, the stress envelope shrinks parallel to the horizontal well. Of particular interest is the elliptical nature of the altered
stress field when Poisson’s ratio equals zero (Figure 5). This fits given that none of the fracture pressure normal to the
fracture face is being transferred to the parallel direction. Additionally, the results from setting Poisson’s ratio to 0.35 shows
that at that value there is no longer a complete reversal of the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses (Figure 6). The
“ballooning” effect, where the stress field is altered, near the fracture tip can easily be seen. Overall, changing the Poisson’s
ratio between 0.00 and 0.35 changed the minimum fracture spacing needed for no fracture interference by 404 feet. The
tabular data for this sensitivity can be seen in Table 5. The Poisson’s ratio trend is shown in Figure 7 and shows slight noise
as a result of the grid cell resolution. The overall trend, however, is clear.
Changing Poisson’s ratio, as shown, modifies the stress field around the hydraulic fracture significantly. Poisson’s ratio
is also important in the calculation of the horizontal stresses. For this model the global stresses are calculated before the
Poisson’s ratio change is made. If this was not the case, the horizontal stresses for a Poisson’s ratio of zero would also be
zero. Initializing the stresses beforehand circumvents this problem.
6 SPE 152595

Figure 5. Direction of maximum horizontal stress for a Poisson’s ratio of 0.00. The direction of maximum horizontal stress rotates
from the far-field North-South direction to the East-West direction as the value of induced stress from the hydraulic fracture exceeds
the value of the in-situ maximum horizontal stress. As a result, the direction of maximum horizontal stress has reoriented 90
degrees near the fracture. At a distance from the fracture of 369 feet the reorientation of maximum horizontal stress is down to five
degrees (5˚) (shown by the black line). The well location is marked as “A1H”.

Figure 6. Direction of maximum horizontal stress for a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35. The direction of maximum horizontal stress rotates
from the far-field North-South direction to the East-West direction as the value of induced stress from the hydraulic fracture exceeds
the value of the in-situ maximum horizontal stress. As a result, the direction of maximum horizontal stress has reoriented almost 90
degrees near the fracture. At a distance from the fracture of 167 feet the reorientation of maximum horizontal stress is down to five
degrees (5˚) (shown by the black line). The well location is marked as “A1H”.

Table 5. Poisson’s Ratio Sensitivity Results

Poisson’s Ratio Minimum Fracture Spacing, feet

0.00 738
0.15 586
0.20 534
0.25 486
0.30 382
0.35 334
SPE 152595 7

0.40

Poisson's Ratio
0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
300 400 500 600 700 800
Minimum Fracture Spacing (feet)

Figure 7. Poisson's ratio sensitivity trend. The minimum fracture spacing is defined by twice the distance from the fracture to a
point where the maximum horizontal stress direction is altered by five degrees (5˚) or less. The slight "noise" is due to grid
instability in the model.

Min/Max Horizontal Stress Ratio

The difference between the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses in a given reservoir has been known to be a major
factor in hydraulic fracture growth. The stress field changes can be clearly seen in the sensitivity results. The stress reversal
region in this sensitivity does not appear until the model has a stress ratio of 0.94 (Figure 8). Near the fracture tip, however,
the direction of maximum horizontal stress is altered significantly even with low stress ratios. In the case of having a stress
ratio of 0.99 the stress reversal region becomes almost circular (Figure 9). This reversal refers to the zone where the direction
of maximum horizontal stress is fully perpendicular to the far-field direction. The tabular data is listed in Table 6 and spans a
minimum fracture spacing of 808 feet, from 158 feet to 966 feet, over stress ratios of 0.80 to 0.99. When the maximum
horizontal stress is high, a small reduction in the stress ratio is huge. The trend shown in Figure 10 shows that the fracture
spacing increases close to logarithmically.

Figure 8. Direction of maximum horizontal stress for a minimum/maximum stress ratio of 0.94. The direction of maximum horizontal
stress rotates from the far-field North-South direction towards the East-West direction as the fracture stress field approaches the
maximum horizontal stress. The reorientation bases from the fracture tip and moves down the length of the fracture as the stress
ratio increases. At a distance from the fracture of 205 feet the reorientation of maximum horizontal stress is down to five degrees
(5˚) (shown by the black line). The well location is marked as “A1H”.
8 SPE 152595

Figure 9. Direction of maximum horizontal stress for a minimum/maximum stress ratio of 0.99. The direction of maximum horizontal
stress rotates from the far-field North-South direction to the East-West direction as the fracture stress field surpasses the in-situ
maximum horizontal stress. In this case the horizontal stresses are very close to isotropic, creating an almost circular stress
reversal region. At a distance from the fracture of 483 feet the reorientation of maximum horizontal stress is down to five degrees
(5˚) (shown by the black line). The well location is marked as “A1H”.

Table 6. Stress Ratio Sensitivity Results

Stress Ratio Minimum Fracture Spacing, feet

0.80 158
0.85 206
0.90 282
0.94 410
0.97 534
0.99 966

1.00
Minimum/Maximum Stress 

0.95
0.90
0.85
Ratio

0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Minimum Fracture Spacing (feet)

Figure 10. Stress ratio sensitivity trend. The minimum fracture spacing is defined by twice the distance from the fracture to a point
where the maximum horizontal stress direction is altered by five degrees (5˚) or less. The trend is very close to logarithmic.
SPE 152595 9

Biot’s Parameter
Biot’s parameter is a dimensionless value that represents the fraction of the reservoir fluid pressure that affects the rock stress
(Bailin, 2001). It was originally introduced by Maurice Biot in 1957 (Biot and Willis, 1957). The most common definition
of Biot’s parameter, α, is presented in Equation 3 (Bailin, 2001), where cr is grain compressibility and cb is bulk
compressibility.

1 (3)

Equation 3 is commonly used, but Biot’s parameter has been shown to be based additionally upon permeability, grain
sorting, and confining pressure (Laruent et al., 1993; Klimentos et al., 1998). It has been shown in experimental results that
Biot’s parameter is often non-homogeneous (Vincké et al., 1998). This parameter is treated as isotropic in this modeling,
however, because the simulation software used was unable to handle the component form.
The model sensitivity dealt with reducing Biot’s parameter from 1.00 to 0.85. The treating pressure was left constant for
all variations. The results show that the lower the value of Biot’s parameter, the smaller the stress field. This fits because the
lower Biot’s parameter translates to higher overburden derived horizontal stresses. The tabular data can be found in Table 7
which shows a reduction of fracture spacing from 546 feet to 382 feet when Biot’s parameter is reduced from 1.00 to 0.80.
The trend (Figure 11) shows a linear reduction of fracture spacing which is expected given the plane-strain solution for
horizontal stress shown in Equation 4 (note this assumes that ).

1 (4)

Table 7. Biot’s Parameter Sensitivity Results

Biot’s Parameter Minimum Fracture Spacing, feet

0.80 382
0.85 426
0.90 458
0.95 506
1.00 534

1.10
1.00
Biot's Parameter

0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
350 400 450 500 550
Distance from Fracture (feet)

Figure 11. Biot's parameter sensitivity trend. The minimum fracture spacing is defined by twice the distance from the fracture to a
point where the maximum horizontal stress direction is altered by five degrees (5˚) or less. The trend is linear because of the linear
plane-strain equation for minimum horizontal stress changes linearly.

Discussion
The sensitivities show that net fracture pressure, Poisson’s ratio, minimum/maximum stress ratio, and Biot’s parameter were
the most important factors when determining minimum fracture spacing. Since the sensitivity of Biot’s parameter showed
that the fracture spacing is greatest when Biot’s parameter is equal to 1.00, it will be assumed to be 1.00 for the remainder of
this analysis. This is not to say Biot’s parameter is not important or that correct determination of Biot’s parameter is not
necessary. An accurate value for Biot’s parameter is vital to proper hydraulic fracture design as well as reservoir simulation.
Additionally, as stated earlier, Biot’s parameter is often anisotropic. This anisotropic case has not been analyzed and no
conclusions should be made for such a case.

Importance of Horizontal Stress Ratios

Sensitivities showed that the most variability in the minimum fracture spacing occurred when the minimum/maximum
10 SPE 152595

horizontal stress ratio changed. This is important because stress ratios in shale plays can be very close to one (Roussel and
Sharma, 2010). If the ratio is not accounted for it is very easy to design a hydraulic fracturing strategy that places fractures in
zones of reoriented maximum horizontal stress. Fractures initiated in such zones will open orthogonal to the wellbore before
eventually changing direction to match the in-situ maximum horizontal stress direction. This adds unwanted tortuosity to the
fracture path and increases the likelihood of bridging proppant in the fracture body as it tries to move around the curved
fracture.
The logarithmic, or exponential depending on how the data is plotted, nature of the minimum fracture spacing trend fits
with the way the fracture stress dissipates away from the fracture face. We know from Equation 5 that the higher the
minimum/maximum horizontal stress ratio, the higher the pressure that must be applied to initiate a fracture. When there is a
high minimum/maximum horizontal stress ratio it means that less net pressure is needed to surpass the magnitude of
maximum horizontal stress, but in the same case the necessary applied pressure must be higher to initiate a fracture. These
conditions combine to make the reoriented stress field grow exponentially as the stress ratio approaches one. As a result, it is
clear that the required fracture spacing would analogously grow.

3 (5)

Importance of Poisson's Ratio

The value of Poisson's ratio is one of the most important parameters in determining the minimum fracture spacing for the
cases studied. While the trend shows the change in minimum fracture spacing to be linear, the magnitude of the change is
large. Accounting for Poisson's ratio is straightforward, but it is very important that the determined value be accurate. The
simulation results showed that a 0.1 difference in Poisson's ratio can change the minimum fracture spacing by over 70 feet.
In reservoirs like the Barnett and Bakken shales, where lots of contact area is necessary, fractures are placed very close
together. An incorrect value for Poison's ratio can easily result in fractures being placed inside the "stress shadow" of a
previous fracture or spaced so widely that reservoir is left unstimulated.

Coupled Variables
The simulation sensitivities reported thus far each isolate a single reservoir parameter. In reality, however, not all parameters
change independently. It is important to examine the change in properties as they exist together. For example, reasonable
Young’s modulus changes do not, in themselves, show a major change in minimum fracture spacing. If you consider that a
high Young’s modulus is indicative of a lower Biot’s parameter, however, the change is significant. Figure 12 shows the
stress field for a reservoir with a Young’s modulus of 1.00 x 107 psi and a Biot’s parameter of 0.80. The lower Biot’s
parameter is an indirect result of the higher Young’s modulus. The fracture spacing is reduced by 17% from the base model.
If the opposite case exists, where Young’s modulus is low and Biot’s parameter is high, a similar result as the base case is
found. Figure 13 shows an example of this. The Young’s modulus in this case is 1.00 x 105 and the Biot’s parameter is
1.00. This result is expected since the value of Biot’s parameter is the same as the base model. This speaks to the need to
ensure that the relationship between reservoir parameters is accounted for when applying this methodology to completion
design.

Conclusions
The conclusions that can be taken away from these simulations are aimed at helping to enhance horizontal well completion
designs in unconventional reservoirs. The following conclusions can be made from the simulation results:

• For the scenarios evaluated in this work, the minimum/maximum horizontal stress ratio has the most impact on the
extent of the "stress shadow" zone. The closer the ratio is to one, the wider (along the wellbore), and more circular
the stress reversal region becomes. This directly correlates to higher minimum fracture spacings as the stress ratio
increases and can be as high as 81%. The increase is exponential in nature because of the competing nature of
increased fracture initiation pressure and smaller difference between minimum and maximum horizontal stress
(Figure 10).
• This research establishes a workflow for determining the "stress shadowing" behavior of transverse hydraulic
fractures in horizontal wellbores. The model has the ability to be easily applied to multiple fractures, various
reservoirs, and multiple production scenarios.
• Poisson's ratio has a predictable linear effect on the minimum fracture spacing. A small change, however, has a
significant impact on the stress reversal region, up to 38% in this research.
• Many reservoir properties, such as in-situ stress ratios and Poisson's ratio, have an impact on the size of the "stress
shadow" region created by placing a hydraulic fracture. It is impossible to correctly determine the size of the altered
stress region by looking only at one property. The reality of coupled variables cannot be discounted.
• It can be concluded that minimum fracture spacing is greatest for a Biot's parameter of one, when it is isotropic.
This implies that simplified models will not error on a minimum fracture spacing that is too small.
SPE 152595 11

• Realistic Young's modulus changes have little effect on the minimum fracture spacing. If the Young's modulus
changes in a degree of magnitude the change would be significant and require additional analysis. Additionally, it is
important to also consider the indirect relationship between Young’s modulus and Biot’s parameter.
• Overall, the sensitivity of the "stress shadow" to changes in properties is a sign of the need for good data. It is not
adequate to assume that the properties are homogeneous or are constant throughout a field. Likewise, the properties
and combinations of properties need to be evaluated for individual situations.

7
Figure 12. Direction of maximum horizontal stress for a Young’s modulus of 1.00 x 10 psi and a Biot’s parameter of 0.80. While the
higher Young’s modulus has been shown to not have a significant direct impact on the reoriented stress field, it implies a lower
Biot’s parameter. This decreases the minimum fracture spacing from 534 feet to 446 feet. The well location is marked as “A1H”.

5
Figure 13. Direction of maximum horizontal stress for a Young’s modulus of 1.00 x 10 psi and a Biot’s parameter of 1.00. The lower
Young’s modulus is indicative of a high Biot’s parameter. As with the Young’s modulus sensitivities presented earlier, the minimum
fracture spacing shows little change since the base model also had a Biot’s parameter value of 1.00. The well location is marked as
“A1H”.
12 SPE 152595

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Fracturing, Acidizing, Stimulation Technology (FAST) Consortium at the Colorado School of
Mines for supporting this work and Tom Bratton and Schlumberger for providing the software packages used.

Nomenclature
= Cross-sectional area
= Biot’s parameter
= Horizontal Biot’s parameter
= Vertical Biot’s parameter
= Bulk compressibility, 1/psi
= Grain compressibility, 1/psi
= Young’s modulus, psi
= Tensile strain, in/in
= Axial strain, in/in
= Lateral strain, in/in
= Applied force, lbf
= Poisson’s ratio
=  Element length, inch 
∆   =  Chance in element length, inch
= Fracture initiation pressure, psi
= Reservoir pressure, psi
  =  Rock tensile strength, psi
= Stress, psi
= Maximum horizontal stress, psi
= Minimum horizontal stress, psi
= External Stress, psi
= Stress in the vertical direction resulting from overlaying rock, psi

References
Bailin, W. 2001. Biot’s Effective Stress Coefficient Evaluation: Static and Dynamic Approaches. Paper ISRM ARMS2-2001-082.
Biot M. and Willis, D.G. 1954. The Elastic Coefficients of the Theory of Consolidation. Journal of Applied Mechanics: 594-601.
Fisher, M.K., Heinze, J.R., Harris, C.D., Davidson, B.M., Wright, C.A., and Dunn, K.P. 2004. Optimizing Horizontal Completion
Technologies in the Barnett Shale Using Microseismic Fracture Mapping, Paper SPE 90051 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September.
Klimentos, T., Harouaka, A., Mtawaa, B., and Saner, S. 1998. Experimental Determination of the Biot Elastic Constant: Applications
in Formulation Evaluation (Sonic, Porosity, Rock Strength, Earth Stresses, and Sanding Predictions). SPE Res Eval & Eng: 57-
63. SPE 30593.
Laruent, J., Bouteca, M.J., Sarda, J.P., and Bary, D. 1993. Pore-Pressure Influence in the Poroelastic Behavior of Rocks: Experimental
Studies and Results. SPE Form Eval. SPE 20922.
Roussel, N. P. and Sharma, M. M. 2010. Optimizing Fracture Spacing and Sequencing in Horizontal Well Fracturing. Paper SPE
127986 presented at the International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 10-
12 February.
Siebrits, E., Elbel, J.L., Hoover, R.S., Diyashev, I.R., Griffin, L.G., Demetrius, S.L., Wright, C.A., Davidson, B.M., Steinsberger, N.P.
2000. Refracture Reorientation Enhances Gas Production in Barnett Shale Tight Gas Wells. Paper SPE 63030 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 1-4 October.
Sneddon, I.N. and Elliot, H.A. The Opening of a Griffith Crack Under Internal Pressure. Quarterly Applied Mathematics, 4, pages
262-267.
Vincké, O., Longuemare, P., Boutéca, M., and Deflandre, J.P. 1998. Investigation of Poromechanical Behaviors of the Shales in the
Elastic Domain. Paper SPE 47589 presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock ’98, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July.