Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Design & Optimization

Using Fracpro

REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
by
NAME ROLL NO.
ADIT SONI 19BPE005
DHARMIK LAVINGIA 19BPE027
HARSHISH ZAVERI 19BPE046
JAYDEVSINH CHUDASAMA 19BPE060
MANAV G. PATEL 19BPE078
SOBAN MEMON 19BPE125
WILSON KITANDU 18BPE123

Under the guidance of

Dr. Maunish Shah

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PANDIT
DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY
GANDHINAGAR - 382007, GUJARAT - INDIA
DECEMBER, 2022
 Approval Sheet

This report entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Design & Optimization Using
Fracpro” by Adit Soni (19BPE005), Dharmik Lavingia (19BPE027), Harshish Zaveri
(19BPE046), Jaydevsinh Chudasama (19BPE060), Manav G. Patel (19BPE078), Soban
Memon (19BPE125), Wilson Kitandu (18BPE123) is recommended for the degree of Bachelor
of Technology in Petroleum Engineering.

Examiners

Supervisors

Chairman

Date:
Place:
 Student Declaration

We, Adit Soni (19BPE005), Dharmik Lavingia (19BPE027), Harshish Zaveri (19BPE046),
Jaydevsinh Chudasama (19BPE060), Manav G. Patel (19BPE078), Soban Memon
(19BPE125), Wilson Kitandu (18BPE123) hereby declare that this written submission
represents my ideas in our own words and where others’ idea or words have been included, we
have adequately cited and referenced the originalsources. We also declare that We have adhered
to all principles of academic honestly and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated
or falsified any idea / data / fact / source inour submission. We understand that any violation of
the above will be cause for disciplinary action by the PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY
UNIVERSITY and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have thus not been
properly cited or from whim proper permission has not been taken when needed.

(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)

Adit Soni Dharmik Lavingia

(19BPE005) Harshish Zaveri
(19BPE027) (19BPE046)

(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)

Jaydevsinh Manav G.
Chudasama Soban Memon
Patel
(19BPE060) (19BPE078) (19BPE125)

(Signature)

Wilson Kitandu
(18BPE123

Date:
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the report entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Design &
Optimization Using Fracpro” by Adit Soni (19BPE005), Dharmik Lavingia (19BPE027),
Harshish Zaveri (19BPE046), Jaydevsinh Chudasama (19BPE060), Manav G. Patel
(19BPE078), Soban Memon (19BPE125), Wilson Kitandu (18BPE123) in fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Petroleum
Engineering, from School of Energy Technology, Pandit Deendayal Energy University,
Gandhinagar was carried out under my guidance and supervision. No part of this dissertation
has been submitted for the award of any degree or otherwise elsewhere to the best of my
knowledge.

Dr. Maunish Shah

Assistant Professor
Department of Petroleum Engineering
School of Energy Technology
Pandit Deendayal Energy University
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Maunish Shah, Assistant Professor, Petroleum
Engineering Department, School of Energy Technology for his care, valuable time and scholarly guidance
for the on-going B.Tech. Project. We are grateful for histimely directions and encouragement that helped
us to improve and learn so much in such a brief time.

We would also like to thank Dr. Anirbid Sircar, Director, School of Energy Technology, Pandit Deendayal
Energy University for motivation and support for the project. We are thankful to Mr. Hitendra Patel in spite
being busy with his work, took time to guide us for the project until now. We are also grateful of School of
Energy Technology, PDEU for rendering us the podium through which we were able to work in the
workshops and other laboratories. We would also like to express our gratitude and obligation to all
associated with our project directly or indirectly for their guidance and encouragement.

Last but not the least, we are thankful to all team members for participating and associating themselves
for performing and sharing the responsibilities on their parts individually and collectively for successful
completion of the project.

Adit Soni (19BPE005)

Dharmik Lavingia (19BPE027)

Harshish Zaveri (19BPE046)

Jaydevsinh Chudasama (19BPE060)

Manav G. Patel (19BPE078),

Soban Memon (19BPE125)

Wilson Kitandu (18BPE123)

B.Tech. 4th Year,

Petroleum Engineering,
School of Energy Technology,
Pandit Deendayal Energy University,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
 ABSTRACT

Hydraulic fracturing is a well-stimulation technique that is most suitable to wells in low- and
moderate-permeability reservoirs that do not provide commercial production rates even though
formation damages are removed by acidizing treatments. A hydraulic fracturing job is divided into
two stages: the pad stage and the slurry stage. In the pad stage, fracturing fluid is injected into the
well to break down the formation and create a pad. During the slurry stage, the fracturing fluid is
mixed with sand/proppant in a blender and the mixture is injected into the pad/fracture. This
chapter presents a description of hydraulic fracturing treatments covering formation fracturing
pressure, fracture geometry, productivity of fractured wells, hydraulic fracturing design &
optimization, and post-frac evaluation.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Chapter Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION 2
2 LITERATURE SURVEY 3
3 METHODOLOGY 8
4 CONCLUSION 12
5 REFERENCE 13
 1. INTRODUCTION

Oil and natural gas are major industries in the energy market and play an influential role in the global
economy as the world's primary fuel sources. The emergence of shale gas and light tight oil (collectively
called “unconventionals”) is the biggest change the oil and gas industry has seen in decades. This is all
because of rise of hydraulic fracturing technology. Experts believe 60 to 80 percent of all wells drilled in
the United States in the next ten years will require hydraulic fracturing to remain operating. Hydraulic
fracturing has become a massive economic force in the energy sector. Fracturing allows for extended
production in older oil and natural gas fields. It also allows for the recovery of oil and natural gas from
formations that geologists once believed were impossible to produce, such as tight shale formations having
ultra-low permeability (ranging from less than 0.1 md to 10 md).

The increasing unavailability of easy oil, growing demand for longer lateral services, stabilizing rate of
drilled but uncompleted well inventory are some of the factors driving the hydraulic fracturing market.
Opposed to these, environmental concerns and lack of capital market & incentives are restraining the
market growth.
 2. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this project is to understand impairment of the well productivity and to overcome it using
Hydraulic Fracturing. This project discusses about the hydraulic fracturing technology design and
treatment optimization.
In this design part special emphasis are given to selection of candidate such as proppant, type of fluid to
be used, determine the maximum allowable treatment pressure, select fracture propagation model, select
treatment size (fracture length and proppant concentration) also checking the compatibility with the
formation.
After completion of this data will be simulated in the simulation software available for fracturing after
doing the simulation result will be observed for changing the various parameters for best suitable design
that can be made according to the formation.

CURRENT SCENARIO

Globally, the hydraulic fracturing market is on track to reach a total value of $68 billion by 2024. According
to a comprehensive research report by Market Research Future (MRFR), “Hydraulic Fracturing
Market Analysis by Well Type, By Technology, by Application, and by Region - Forecast till 2030” valuation
is poised to reach USD 34800 million by 2030, registering an 14.2% CAGR throughout the forecast period
(2022–2030).
• North America will dominate the market across the globe in the future, with the majority of the
demand coming from the United States and Canada.
• Hydraulic fracturing combined with the horizontal drilling technique makes it favorable for drilling in
thin shale gas beds.

• The U.S. has benefited the most from the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
The shift from vertical to horizontal wells is the most important change to occur over the last decade,
allowing for greater formation access, while only incrementally increasing the cost of the well.
Criteria For Selecting a Candidate Well for Hydraulic Fracturing

The subject of candidate selection is of crucial importance when an operation is to be

conducted in any fields of engineering. This is due to the fact that better results and
outcome are always more favorable. Many problems may occur as a result of selecting
fracturing purposes. poor candidates These include unfavorable propagation of the
fracture to upper and lower layers, high fracture initiation pressure, loss of fracture
conductivity due to high in-situ stresses on fracture faces, unfavorable leak off of fracturing
fluid, etc.

There are some certain considerations which facilitate the process of candidate selection:
• Reservoir Permeability

• Reservoir Skin factor (Extent of damage)

• Production History of the Well

• In place Volume, Hydrocarbon Saturation and Reservoir Pressure

• Fracture Containment

• In-situ Stress Profile

• Reservoir Permeability
There is not an exact range of reservoir permeability in the literature which is most suitable for
hydraulic fracturing. This differs from field to field depending on such factors as reservoir lithology,
treatment design, available equipment, etc.

Type of Reservoir Range of permeability

OIL 1 md or less 1 md

GAS 0.1 or less 0.1 md

• Reservoir Skin factor

+VE Skin Necessarily HF needs

-VE Skin No need of HF

 • Production History of the Well

i. One of the applications of hydraulic fracturing is to bypass the damaged near wellbore
region due to its high positive skin factor. An indication of the development of a high
positive skin is reduction in well production.

ii. A significant decline in well’s productivity in a course of time justifies hydraulic fracturing
of the well provided that other more important criteria approve it as well. A good idea is
to consider the productivity of some of the offset wells too.

iii. When the production history curve of the candidate well is compared with those of the
offset wells, a better conclusion productivity decline of the candidate well may be
reached.

• In Place Volume, Hydrocarbon Saturation and Reservoir Pressure

i. The whole purpose of stimulation is to increase the value of the producing property
through an accelerated production rate or increased recovery, economics should be the
driver in deciding whether to conduct the stimulation, what type of stimulation to do and
which various aspects of the treatment to include.

ii. Hydraulic fracturing is the expensive method of stimulation so well must have sufficient
amount of hydrocarbon present in situ.

iii. There are not exact Fig.s for the oil/gas in place volume, hydrocarbon saturation and
reservoir pressure in the literature, but these values should be as such to justify that
hydraulic fracturing of the well is economically beneficial and increases the property.

Parameter Oil Reservoir Gas reservoir

Hydrocarbon saturation > 40 % >50 %

Water cut < 30 % <200bbl/MMSCF

Reservoir Pressure < 70 % depleted Twice abandonment pressure

Gross reservoir height > 10 m >10 m

Table 1. Typical values for these parameters.

 • Fracture Containment
For given injection conditions, the inter-bed should act as a barrier, to contain the fracture
in the reservoir. The poor containment of a fracture has always negative consequences on production,
the worst case being when the fracture creates communication with a water bearing level. A crack
always propagates following a path perpendicular to the smallest normal stress.

Fig. 1 -Effect Of in-situ stress contrast on fracture containment

• In-situ Stress Profile

An accurate knowledge of the in-situ stress field or more specifically the in-situ minimum horizontal
stress is highly beneficial when designing a hydraulic fracture. The in-situ minimum horizontal stress
calculated using the data from dipole sonic logging and correlate them with the results obtained from
micro-frac test and static core measurements.
Typical rock mechanical log analysis programs apply a linear-elastic, homogeneous, isotropic stress
model and a certain failure criterion to evaluate the stress field around the borehole in terms of axial,
radial and tangential stress. The industry-standard method for calculating the in-situ minimum
horizontal stress is based on the following equation
 3. LITERATURE REVIEW

➢ Mahawar et al. (2017) examined the Pressure driven Breaking (HF) treatment of the Andimadam
Sandstone development of Periyakudi field of India. HF treatment in close gas Sandstone laid such
countless difficulties. Development breakdown, succeeding least rate expected for cracking and
accomplishing high proppant focus during position with crosslinking gel under very exhausting
functional circumstances and tension constraints were a portion of the significant difficulties.
Postponed cross-connected gel was utilized to limit tubing rubbing pressure. Dealing with the
siphoning rate with pressure restrictions during HF treatment was one of the significant difficulties.
Execution of the treatment with low siphoning rate brings about excitement of little volume of rock
nearly. This large number of limits were overcome by legitimate work planning, advancement of
cracking liquid and investigation of pre-frac medicines. A significant measure of breaking liquid and
proppant put into the development keeping up with all security principles. Acceptable stream back of
frac liquid with gas was noticed and high stream back tension at surface was noted.

➢ Parker et al. (2012) introduced new proppant for hydraulic fracturing that improve well performance
and decrease environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing operations. Break conductivity was
impacted by the convergence of the stuffed proppant in the crack. Higher focuses yield higher
conductivity by ethicalness of a more extensive crack. In any case, there were commonsense limits to
how much proppant that can be put into a specific repository, and thusly creation is many times
conductivity restricted. A substitute way to high conductivity was accomplish by making a break by
setting very much dispersed, low-thickness particles described by a proppant focus under 0.1 lbm/ft2.
Low molecule focuses brought about cracks that had high porosity and were in a general sense unique
in relation to breaks with pressed beds of ordinary proppants.

➢ Nizamuddin et al. (2010) has presented fracturing program and the main treatment’s actual execution
in the paper. Operational issues are also discussed. One-hundred mesh sand was used to minimize the
risks associated with pressure dependent leakoff (PDL) into natural hairline fractures seen on the FMI
log. Post-fracture well-testing data was recorded and analyzed. The results were used to quantify the
fracture effectiveness. The detailed job design, fracture modeling, pre-frac production model
calibration, and sensitivities to treatment size were discussed. A series of fracture designs was
developed to evaluate the uncertainty in fracture geometry predictions. The successful stimulation of
a low-permeability gas reservoir dictated placing a long conductive fracture.

➢ Bohra et al. (2022) reviewed the frac and completion design on account of challenges faced during
fraccing and unplanned downtime during production operations. Critical observations that prompted
a change in completion and frac technology. To mitigate the identified risks, the design change
incorporated measures to address post fracturing production problems related to high treating
pressures as well as optimize number of frac stages and stage spacing. Uniform proppant distribution
with lesser number of stages was targeted by utilizing limited entry technique to help in distributing
treatment pressures and proppant in multiple clusters as well as limit net pressure build up in each
frac. It would help prevent rock shattering and better retention of proppant after frac closure.

➢ Gupta & Carmon (2011) developed a new fluid system compatible for HPHT well conditions. They
reported the use of associative polymers as an additional component to VES-foam based fluid. They
used PAM based gel with AMPS. It is used to remove the constrain of thermal stability of VES-foam
 based fluid. This system maintains viscosity at high temperature with less polymer loading compare to
conventional Zr crosslinking fluids &also friction reduction occurs due to less gel loading. Fluid was able
to maintain the viscosityof 150 cp at 260 °F at 100 sec¯¹. This system crosslinks at low pH making it
compatible with formation, acetic acid & sodium acetate at 5 pH used as buffer. This system is
responsive to sodium bromate as breaker. It can also maintain stable foam above 300 °F while
conventional low pH guar crosslinked fluids were compatible with CO2 at maximum 250 °F.

➢ Driweesh et al. (2014) discussed the successful application of the enhanced fracturing fluid in HT and
tight gas wells of Saudi Arabia along with its post-treatment evaluation comparing dimensionless
productivity index between fracture treatments with new and conventional fracturing fluids. To
overcome challenges like, lower permeabilities and higher temperatures, the conventional borate
crosslinked gels are no longer the choice of fracturing fluids for extreme bottom-hole conditions. An
improved, salt-compatible, low-polymer, organometallic crosslinked-gel (CMHPG) as fracturing fluid
had been introduced for high-temperature (HT) wells. The novel HT fluid provided excellent proppant
transport capabilities at temperatures ranging from 60 to 375 °F, while using fracture fluid required
less base polymer that resulted in less formation damage and higher retained conductivity of the
propped fracture.

➢ Tudor et al. (2009) demonstrated process using 100% liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) had quick and
complete fracture fluid recovery, significant production improvements and dramatically longer
effective fracture lengths. The process gelled the LPG for efficient fracture creation and proppant
transport. With that there was no compromise in the fracture treatment placed when compared to
conventional treatments. However, once the fracture treatment was complete and the viscosity of the
gelled LPG was broken, the unique properties of LPG created an ideal fluid for complete cleanup.
Removal of LPG fluid from the invaded zone was easily achieved; relative permeability effects,
irreducible saturation behavior and capillary pressure demands were eliminated. Complete recovery
of the LPG was consistently demonstrated.

➢ Abaa et al. (2012) have used FracproPT simulator software with 3D shear-decoupled model for
hydraulic fracturing simulation in Almond sandstone having shale-sandstone layers. It is a ultratight
gas formation having permeability of 0.001 mD. Reservoir pressure & temperature are 5800 psi and
200 °F. They input the initial data in simulator for fluid selection as to obtain 200 cp apparent viscosity
at 40 s-1 after 1 hour of exposure to the reservoir temperature. Simulator provided slickwater & Linear
HPG gel of 10 to 60 pptg concentration. After simulating and comparing each fluid they got the result
that Optimum fracture width is obtained at a gel loading of 50 pptg, Maximum propped fracture length
is obtained at 60 pptg for any proppant size. At lower gel loading (20 pptg), increasing the injection
rate does not significantly increase fracture length. At higher gel loadings (40 pptg), increasing the
injection rate significantly increases the fracture width. They used 50 pptg linear HPG gel as final fluid
having 42 cp viscosity at res. Temperature.

➢ Medavarapu et al. (2012) demonstrates how successful hydraulic fracturing operations turned Gamij
as one of the promising producing fields. Poor reservoir characteristics, thin pay zones, presence of
coal layers, shallow depths and low reservoir temperatures were the main challenges for hydraulic
fracturing. Numerous lab studies carried out and fracturing fluids were customized for good rheological
capabilities and postfrac gel cleanups. Frac job sizes were optimized based on sensitivity analysis
carried out using frac simulators. Large size jobs were carried out in suitable candidate wells. Pre and
Post frac temperature logs were taken to ascertain the fluid intake and frac confinements. Activation
methodologies developed so as to bring the wells on production in minimum time.

➢ Das et al. (2017) illustrated about optimization of fracturing technique for successful exploitation of
tight gas reservoirs of mandapeta field. 20/40 mesh high strength proppant was used in these
treatments and maximum job size pumped was 151MT. Hybrid frac treatment was carried out in an
exploratory location which resulted in impressive gas gain paving a way to further development of
 field. Pre-frac acid treatments improved the well bore connectivity to the reservoir thereby enabling
the higher proppant concentrations to pump during the treatments. Chemical compositions addressed
the surface tension and mobility concerns of the fracturing in gas reservoirs which resulted in faster
cleanup and gas production. Recent successes of fracturing made a way forward to aggressive
fracturing campaigns in this field.

➢ Othman et al. (2018) presented the analysis of hydraulic fracturing treatments in 56 vertical and
horizontal wells in the Wolfcamp and Spraberry formations of the Permian Basin in West Texas.
Intrinsic treatment strategies and operational methodologies used by different operators in the Basin
were evaluated with the goal of extracting and deducing insights into criteria that characterizes
operational virtuosity. The evaluation focused on: proppants types and amounts, fluid types and
volumes, treatment rates, well productivity and treatment cost. The second part presented the
application and integration of these best practice concepts in the re-designing of hydraulic fracture
treatments in a case study well already stimulated with available treatment data.

➢ Abba et al. (2012) reviewed a dataset of reservoir properties, petrophysical properties, and fracture
treatment parameters has been developed based on a complete review of published geological and
engineering data of ultra-tight gas reservoir. Then based on numerical parametric studies, the effect
of pertinent design factors on hydraulic fracture propagation and geometry is quantified with a
fracture simulator. The factors investigated include volumetric injection rate, gel loading and proppant
size. Parametric variation of seven different injection rates, seven different fracture fluids, and three
different proppants was studied.
➢ Martinez et al. (1994) described the hydraulic fracturing technologies that had been applied to San
Andres formation over the past two years. The use of known fracturing technologies that had been
applied include minifrac analysis, fluid quality control, and the use of resin coated proppant to control
proppant flowback. In addition, the application of real-time fracture analysis and the use of point-
source perforating were discussed.

➢ Elturki et al. (2021) explained about role of placement of proppant in fractures in conductivity of
fractures and well productivity. Three were focused on in this paper: proppant transport, the use of
carbon dioxide (CO2) foam fracturing fluid, and the use of low specific weight versus higher specific
weight. FracPro was also used to simulate the results of using a low specific gravity value of 1.9, a
medium value of 2.7, and a high value of 3.5. The concentration of CO2 was also varied in each
condition; concentrations of 30, 50, and 70% were used. After running investigating these scenarios,
some unexpected results were obtained. Notably, a lower specific gravity should produce a longer
effective proppant length; however, our data indicates shows the opposite.

➢ Brannon H. et al. (2011) developed new Borate crosslinked system having less gel loading to reduce
the residue damage. The proposed fluid had Borate crosslinker & high pH buffer of 0.5- 1.25 gpt
compared to conventional gel system of 0.75-2 gpt. It also uses breaker (0.25-5 pptg) in higher
concentration to make it slickwater like fluid in formation to get complex fracture networks in shale
formation. Simulated results shows that propped area by new fluid system is double of the slickwater
treated area and also 50% more than conventional borate crosslinked gel.

➢ Deng et al. (2018) reported the results of laboratory experiments on hydraulic fracturing in poorly
consolidated sandstones. Cylindrical samples of poorly consolidated sandstones were prepared by
mixing silica sand and clay together and compacting the mixtures with confining pressures of 10 MPa.
The particle size distributions of the sand-clay mixture were the same as those of typical poorly
consolidated sandstone found in Bohai oil field. The size of the samples were 10 mm in diameter and
12 mm in height, while the permeability of the samples were either about 900 mD or about 60 mD.
Insights obtained from the experiments in this paper are expected to be helpful in developing
reasonable modeling techniques for hydraulic fracturing in poorly consolidated sandstones.
➢ Klaudia Wilk (2019) compared foambased fluid with non-foaming fluid using FracPRO 3D shear-coupled
model. Author used 50% N2 Foam based gel fluid to compare with normal guar gel. Viscosity of foam
fluid observed to be 4 times at reservoir temperature (60 °C) at 100 sec¯¹ shear rate [15 cp of non-foam
fluid while 62 cp of foaming fluid]. Leakoff coefficient also observed lower for foam-based fluid. The
treatment was simulated on Rotliegend tight (k = 0.14-0.16 mD) sandstone formation having anhydrite
(water sensitive) of Poland and almost similar fracture treatment was observed. So, in low pressure &
water sensitive formation foam-based fluid can be used having good rheological properties with 50%
water reduction.

➢ Cohen et al. presented the results of a parameter study which included the proppant size, fracturing
fluid viscosity, volume of treatment, pumping rate, proppant concentration and injection sequence in
the fracturing treatment to predict the production. They found that smaller proppants enable

➢ slower decline of the production rate in the long run, while larger proppants maximize the initial
production rate and a combination of different proppant sizes optimizes the production.

➢ Raba’a et al. (2005) provided summary of the reservoir and fracture treatments focusing particularly
on the fracture design, execution, fracture modeling, and post-treatment production analysis from the
recently completed wells. A comprehensive data set of logs, pre- and post-fracture pressure buildup
tests (PBU's), drill stem tests (barefoot and cased hole DST), and detailed fracture modeling were
presented to demonstrate the fracture performance in this complex eolian dune reservoir
environment. He showed that understanding reservoir quality and characteristics, using focused
reservoir studies, leads to successful completion results and optimum development. The study
identified the dominant flow unit, eliminated unnecessary perforation intervals, determines
stimulation treatment type and size and optimizes cost for overall field development.

➢ Aries et al. (2008) used the VES with CO2 as an emulsion type of fluid in hydraulic fracturing in
Wyoming. They used fluid to transport the proppant at 5-6 ppg concentration. They also observed 30%
increase in gas production in the well compared to linear guar gel over 6 months production.
 4. METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Hydraulic fracturing is a particularly complicated enterprise. The purpose of hydraulic fracturing

is the placement of an optimum fracture of a certain geometry and conductivity to allow maximum
incrementalproduction (over that of the unstimulated well) at the lowest cost. Until recently, the majority
of wellbores have been vertical and designed to produce from a single production string. Other types of
completions that can be planned and performed are deviated wells, horizontal wells, multiple
completions or multiple laterals.The choice of the type of completion should account for all considerations,
ranging from drilling to productionto abandonment. (Nolte, 2000)
For hydraulic fracturing design and optimization, we need to consider some of the factors and
parameters such as, effects of well completion, selection of fracturing fluid and proppant, selection of
fracturemodel, fracture geometry, calculation of maximum treatment pressure, selection of treatment
size and productivity of fractured wells. Also, to carry out simulation we need some numerical models for
treatment and software (such as FRACPRO) to run the simulation.
Fracturing fluid provides the means by which the hydraulic fracturing process can take place. All
applications of well stimulation by fracturing must include selection of fracturing fluid in the initial phases
offracture design and treatment planning.

Fracturing fluid has two important purposes: (1) to provide sufficient viscosity to suspend and
transport proppant deep into the created fracture system and (2) to decompose, or break, chemically to
a low viscosity to allow flowback of a major part of the fluid to the surface for fracture cleanup after the
treatment is completed. (Jennings Jr., 1996)
Proppant is used to keep hydraulic fractures open and to maintain the conductivity of the fracture. This
helps operators produce the well economically. In making the proper proppant selection, a number of
factorsmust be considered. When selecting natural sand, one must consider roundness, silica purity,
feldspars and clay containments, crush factors at elevated closure stress, embedment in the formation,
and long-term conductivity. Consideration must also be given to the initial production rate, fold of
increase of production, completion costs, production decline, possible proppant flow back and effective
closure stress over the depletion of the well. (Yang et al, 2013)
The first mathematical model that an engineer could use to design a fracture treatment was
publishedin the year 1955 by Howard and Fast (which was 2D model). This model assumed the fracture
width was constant everywhere, allowing the engineer to compute fracture area on the basis of fracture
fluid leakoff characteristics of the formation and the fracturing fluid. In 2D model, one of the parameters
(normally fracture height) was kept constant and then it calculated the width and the length of the
fracture. This way it was usedfor decades with reasonable success. But due to availability of high-powered
computers, today the engineers use 3D model. 3D models are better than 2D models for most situations
because the 3D model computes the fracture height, width, and length distribution with the data for the
pay zone and all the rock layers above andbelow the perforated interval.
Pump scheduling includes the pad volume necessary to create the desired fracture penetration,
along with acid or proppant scheduling to achieve the desired post fracture conductivity. For propped
fracturing, pump scheduling includes fluid selection, proppant selection, pad volume, maximum proppant
concentrationto be used and a proppant addition schedule. After the design goals and variables are
defined, the proppant addition schedule is usually obtained by using a fracture simulator. (Nolte, 2000)
Fracpro Software Overview

The Fracpro system is specifically designed to provide engineers with the most comprehensive tools for
hydraulic fracture treatment design and analysis. More than just another hydraulic fracture simulator,
practical utilization of actual treatment data is the central theme that separates Fracpro from competing
products. The use of real data offers engineers much better understanding of their well's response, with
resulting procedures that reflect the reality of what is occurring in the reservoir, before, during, and after
hydraulic fracture treatments.

Fracpro was developed for Gas Technology Institute's Gas Supply Program. It is being used in many
commercial applications on gas, oil, and geothermal reservoirs throughout the world. The lumped-
parameter 3D hydraulic fracture model (which should not be confused with so-called pseudo-3D models)
adequately represents the level of complexity and reality of hydraulic hydraulic fracturing.

Fracpro was developed to implement the insight gained from observing actual hydraulic fracture
treatments, as well as results obtained from properly scaled laboratory models. It uses lumped-parameter
functional coefficients determined from these sources to solve reliably and efficiently for hydraulic fracture
dimensions, proppant placement, and net hydraulic fracturing pressure.

Different modules of Fracpro

There are four modes of operation on the Main Screen - F2 screen providing hydraulic fracture treatment
design and analysis functions coupled with reservoir simulation. These modes are described in detail in
their respective sections in the Help documentation.
 Relationship between Fracpro operation modes.

• Fracture Design: This mode automatically generates a propped-fracture treatment schedule. The
program helps you select the proper fluids and proppants, and then the proper pump schedule to
achieve the required dimensionless conductivity (if possible) and hydraulic fracture half-length.

• Fracture Analysis: This mode provides access to three 2D and various 3D hydraulic fracture models,
including the default Fracpro 3D Model choice. You can run any of the models from job-design data
(that is, a treatment schedule), Fracpro database data, or real-time data. Fracpro's acid fracturing
model is also available for use in this mode. You can conduct minifrac analysis, rate stepdown test
analysis and net pressure history matching in the operating mode.

• Production Analysis: This mode gives the user the tools to analyze a well's past, present and future
production response from an economics point of view, both with and without a propped-fracture
present. This option runs ReservoirPT, which is the interface module connecting Fracpro with different
reservoir simulation models. Currently, the 2-D FraPSreservoir simulators is supplied with Fracpro.

• Economic Optimization: In this mode the hydraulic fracture simulator and the reservoir simulator are
alternately run automatically in order to determine the economically optimal size for the reservoir.
Fracture Design and Optimization

Our main focus is fracture treatment design

• Selecting fluids and proppants

• Selecting flow rate and treatment size

• Determining proppant schedule

Following are the steps for fracture design and optimization:

Step 1: Load Input File

Load file from the respective folder.

Step 2: Review Necessary Inputs

This file does not have to be set up from scratch. If the design module is not familiar, the easiest method to
find way around is by using the Next button at the bottom of every screen. Starting point is to select the
Fracture Design button on the Main Screen - F2 screen. We have already filled out some of the vital
information in the following screens:

• Wellbore and Treatment Information - F3

• Fracture Design Options - F4

you can select 3D Calibrated or 3D User Defined model settings here, which allow you to import a
certain type of hydraulic fracture growth behavior that may be typical in a certain area. Please
select the 3D Shear-Decoupled (Default) model.

• Wellbore Configuration - F7

• Reservoir Parameters - F9 (Lithology Based)

Showing a simple shale-sand-shale sequence on the Layer tab. we have estimated a 0.1 psi /ft
stress gradient contrast between the sands and the shales, visible in the Rock Properties tab. Also,
from direct hydraulic fracture diagnostics in this area that hydraulic fracture height growth is more
confined than based on stress contrast only, so there is also a Composite Layering Effect of 10 set
in the zones outside the pay zone on the Rock Properties tab.

Step 3: Selection of Fluid and Proppant

Once these input screens are filled out, select the appropriate fluids and proppants for this design. Highlight
the row with the HYBOR G fluid and Add Fluid to Selected Fluids list. The selected fluid will now be
highlighted in yellow. If a fluid is selected that does not qualify to the selection criteria, for example when a
fluid is added manually from the library, the property that does not qualify will be highlighted in red.

Change to the Fluid and Proppant Selection - F5 screen, Proppant Selection tab. We are expecting that
multiphase and non-Darcy flow issues play some role in production response, as the well will not only
produce oil, but also a small amount of gas. Select the Proppant Perm Damage function where you can
specify non-Darcy and multiphase flow effects. If we assume gel damage of about 50%, the Total Damage
Factor, which includes apparent damage from non-Darcy effects, is as high as 20% depending on the selected
proppant. Back to the Proppant Selection tab, the table with Proppant Selection Results shows a number of
proppant choices. Highlight this proppant and click Add to move it to the Selected proppant list.

Step 4: Treatment Selection

The next step in the design process is to select an appropriate pump rate. Based on the selected fluid and
other settings, Fracpro can calculate wellbore friction and expected surface pressures to automatically select
the maximum feasible pump rate. After entering this information, select the Determine Rate button, and
Fracpro suggests a maximum Injection Rate of 14 bpm to stay within this surface pressure limitation.

We will now determine the treatment size versus length in 25-foot Fracture Half-Length Increments. Set
FcD Goal to 1.6 for the main hydraulic fracture. Leave the Max Proppant Concentration at 14 ppg and the
Max TSO Net Pressure Increase at 1,000 psi. After selecting the Determine Treatment Size versus Length
button, the table on the top half of the screen is populated. You will see that it is impossible to obtain the
required FcD for this high perm well once the hydraulic fracture becomes very large, despite the fact that we
have selected the highest conductivity proppant for this case and have used a high maximum proppant
concentration at the end of the treatment and an aggressive tip screen-out design. Fracpro lists the highest
possible FcD's that can be achieved under these circumstances in this well.

Now look at the various plots that are generated, most notably the hydraulic fracture Geometry plot, and see
that the hydraulic fracture will grow into the water-bearing sand when the hydraulic fracture exceeds a certain
size. Now, various criteria can be set to determine the required hydraulic fracture length. As the first
criterion, select NPV under Select Size using Criteria to obtain the treatment size for maximum NPV.
Secondly, select a criterion that Mother Nature is imposing on our design to avoid hydraulic fracture growth
into the water-bearing sand.

Now, we can Select Size Using Criteria, and if the economics have not been evaluated before, it will be
necessary to select the Economic Analysis button first.

Step 5: Define Economics

The next step in the design process is to define treatment cost and production revenues. First, hydraulic
fracture treatment cost can be defined in the Optimization Economic Data - F8 screen. Costs are already
provided for all entries on this screen. Select Next to advance to the Well Production - F6 screen Production
Constraints tab. To populate the Production Constraints table, set the Total Production Time to 730 days, the
Maximum HC Rate to 10,000 bbl/day and the Minimum Pressure to 500 psi and select the Set Up Table
button. For high perm well, economics are typically evaluated over a relatively short time period, for example
2 years. The Maximum HC Rate is set rather high using the assumption that the wellbore tubulars impose
no significant limitation on production response for very large hydraulic fractures. Select Next to advance
to the Optimization Control - F10 screen.

This screen shows almost the same table as the previous Treatment Selection - F8 screen, but various
columns have been added to show economic criteria. Fracpro will populate the values in these columns after
you select the Run Simulator button. After all economic indicators have been calculated based on the defined
cost and revenues from the forecasted production response, Select Size Using Economic Criterion to NPV,
and the treatment with maximum NPV will be selected for a hydraulic fracture half-length of 225 ft.

Now select the Treatment Selection button to return to the Treatment Selection - F8 screen for a final
reconciliation of the most favorable economic hydraulic fracture half-length and avoiding growth in the
water-bearing zone.
Step 6: Creating the Final Treatment Design

Use the Select Size using Criteria button again, and now that the economics have been evaluated, Fracprowill
select the hydraulic fracture half-length that honors both economics and growth limitations imposed by
Mother Nature. This results in an optimum hydraulic fracture half-length of 225 ft, so the hydraulic fracture
half-length with the best economics for our assumptions still remains below the water-bearing zone.

The selected yellow line illustrates what approximate treatment size is required to obtain the correct proppant
conductivity at the wellbore. The last step is to determine the rest of the schedule to obtain the ideal
conductivity profile along the entire hydraulic fracture length. Select a Standard profile and set Max Error
to 15% and set the number of iterations to 15 (or less, depending on patience). Have Fracpro next Fit
Conductivity Profile by selecting that function, and Fracpro will iterate to get a proppant profile that fits the
ideal schedule in the best way. You have now created a design requiring about 1000 bbl of fluid and 250,000
lbs of proppant, and this is the time to view work using Generate Report.

Once this is done, select Next to go to the Treatment Schedule - F6 screen to check the design treatment
stages and totals.

We can now also run the model for this schedule by going to the Main Screen - F2 screen, selecting Fracture
Analysis, and then running the model in that mode.

4.1 TREATMENT DESIGN

4.1.1 Effects of Well Completion

Until recently, the majority of wellbores have been vertical and designed to produce from a single
production string. Other types of completions that can be planned and performed are

• Deviated wells
• Horizontal Wells
• Multiple Completions
• Multiple Lateral Wells

• Deviated Completions (S-Shaped)

Fracture initiation from wellbores that are not aligned with one of the principal stress
directions can be complex. Misalignment may lead to the initiation of either multiple near-wellbore
fractures or fractures that that are forced to twist and change direction to ultimately reorient and align
with the far-field minimumhorizontal stress. Potential problems can affect the geometry and productivity
of the fractures; there may be limited fracture communication with the wellbore, and the fracture width
profile at or near the wellbore may be restricted. Planning for an S-shaped completion in this case is
generally advisable.
The connectivity of a well and fracture is always important. Here, tortuosity is a problem
that affects all fractures during production and execution. Thus, deviated wellbores with limited perforated
intervals may provide attractive fracture treatments. Thus, it is suggested that the wellbore orientation
should coincidewith the fracture orientation.
The wellbore orientation can be either vertical or horizontal. In the horizontal mode, the
wellbore must be placed to have either longitudinal or transverse fractures. If transverse fractures are
created, multipletreatments will have to be performed that will require proper zonal isolation.
 • Horizontal And Multilateral Completions

Specific completion procedures of horizontal wellbores are required for effective stimulation.
Horizontal completions must address the problems associated with treatment placement into or along the
zone or zones of interest.

Zonal isolation for each individual treatment must be part of the completion design. This includes
cementing the entire liner, using external casing packers, placing permanently installed selective zone
mechanical tools and/or using retrievable zonal isolation tools.

Coiled tubing is commonly used to place and operate zonal isolation tools in deviated and
horizontalwells and multilateral completions.

The main advantage of multilaterals is, they can provide better reservoir drainage and
management. Laterals could conceivably replace the need for fracturing in some cases.

• Slimhole And Monobore Completions

The main thing that we use slimhole and monobore completions are that, it can lower
drilling andcompletion costs. Slimhole completions can result in production casing sizes as small as 2 inches.
These small diameters can prohibit the use of special stimulation tubulars, which in turn may limit treating
pressures.
But, when seeing the cons of this type of completion, we can observe that the small
tubulars used inslimhole and monobore completions can limit the application of simulation. Because of the
reduced wellbore diameters, surface treating pressures are increased owing to excessive friction pressures.
This decreases the rate and size of treatments that can be pumped. This reduces the effectiveness of the
stimulation treatment. (Small tubulars also limit the application of downhole tools; e.g., the stimulation of
multiple zones is prevented because zonal isolation tools cannot be applied)

• Other Methods of Completion

The Plug-Stimulate-Perf (PSP) method involves cemented completions and limited entry,
segmentedfracturing using through-tubing bridge plugs to isolate between fracturing intervals inside the
completion assembly. This is a mechanical isolation and the bridge plugs are pumped down using wire line
or coiled tubing (CT). The casing and cement provide the required zonal isolation outside the completion.
Coiled Tubing Fracturing has been identified as the preferred completion strategy in the
shallow gas reservoirs in Western Canada. The primary candidates in this case are low permeability,
multiple zone wellbores with commingled gas production after the fracturing operation. Constraints in this
method is Frictional Pressure Losses, High Surface Pressures and Low Injection Rates. Some of the
advantages of thismethod is, it is economical, no rig required and reduced workover time.

• Zonal Isolation

In a wellbore that has been drilled, there are several potential producing zones penetrated
by a wellbore that must be hydraulically fractured. To make sure that each zone is stimulated effectively,
these intervals must be separated or isolated from one another. Several isolation methods have proved to
be effective. These methods can be used only when the various formations and intervals are isolated from
eachother behind the casing with cement.
 • Importance of Cement Sheath:
The cement sheath must provide zonal isolation during both production and stimulation
operations.For a producing well, the cement seal between the pipe and formation must be tight to prevent
fluids from flowing through the annular area. If the cement does not bond perfectly to either the pipe or
the formation and a small channel remains, the effective cement permeability can be significantly
increased. Large permeabilities may result from channel widths that are quite small. (For example, a
channel width of only 1.4 × 10-4 in. is sufficient to create an effective cement permeability of 1000 md.
Channel permeabilities ofthis order may allow significant crossflow between zones)

Fracture Placement Control:

The most reliable method of controlling the placement of fracturing fluids is to limit
perforations to asingle zone. When several zones of a well are to be stimulated, the individual zones can
be isolated from oneanother and stimulated individually. This can be accomplished through progressive
perforation and stimulation.

• Sand Plugs:
A similar method of isolation can be achieved by using sand plugs after the fracturing
treatment. Thevolume of sand necessary to cover the perforated interval is added to the casing. The sand
plug is tested by applying pressure to the casing, and then the next zone is perforated and stimulated. Once
all zones have been fracture stimulated, the sand can be circulated out of the wellbore by using either
conventional or coiled tubing.
The amount of sand required above the top perforations is generally small and can be calculated
byapplying Darcy’s law to linear flow.

• Bridge Plugs and Packers:

When completion practices do not allow the progressive order of fracturing to proceed
from the lowest zone of interest up to higher intervals, bridge plugs must be used in conjunction with
packers. Using the combination of a bridge plug and packer to straddle an interval provides an extremely
reliable method ofisolation.
These are retrievable tools so that they be can easily moved to cover any interval, provided the
unperforated casing is sufficiently long to provide a packer seat. However, caution should be taken when
open perforations are present above a packer because of the possibility of proppant entering into the
annular area if the fracture reaches the open perforations. Small quantities of proppant on top of a
retrievable packercan stick the tool string.
 • Limited Entry:
"Limited entry" is a term for the practice of limiting the number of perforations in a
completion interval to promote the development of the perforation friction pressure during the
stimulation treatment.This effect creates excess pressure in the casing, allowing the stimulation entry of
fracturing fluid into multiple zones of varying in-situ stresses.
The total flow of fluid entering a given zone is restricted by controlling the size and number
of perforations in that interval. The high pressure drops at the perforations forces fluid to go to another
zone. This diversion technique has proved popular because of its simplicity and economics. The diversion
does notrequire expensive tools, and it does not require running and retrieving tools or making cleanout
trips. The only cost for applying this type of diversion is the excess hydraulic horsepower required to pump
the treatment at higher pressure.
The final parameter with significant impact on the successful placement of fractures using
the limited-entry technique is fluid leak-off. The size of the zone and the rate the fluid is pumped into the
zone directly impact the fluid efficiency and hence the fracture penetration. With several zones accepting
fluid atone time, the total pump rate into any one interval may be quite low. Zones with the lowest pump
rates generally have poor fluid efficiency.

• PERFORATION

Perforating provides the means of communication between the wellbore and the reservoir, and
during a stimulation treatment, the perforation is the fluid conduit between the fracture and the wellbore.
The choice of the perforating parameters can have a significant effect on the quality of the subsequent
fracturing or matrix-stimulated treatment. Perforating parameters are as follows:

• Gun orientation

• Size and type of gun

• Type of charge

• Shot density

• Shot phasing

• Interval length
The objective of perforating for fracturing is to choose perforating parameters that minimize near
wellbore pressure drops during both the fracturing operation and production. These includes perforation
friction, micro-annulus pinch points from gun phasing misalignment, multiple competing fractures and
fracture tortuosity caused by a curved fracture path.
For any type of well treatment, there are two additional perforation-related parameters that may
also affect the choice of perforating system:

• Integrity of the cement after perforating

• Residual fractured sand grains in the perforation cavity (particularly for a matrix treatment)
 • Perforation Considerations for Fracturing

• Penetration Depth
Perforation penetration beyond 4 to 6 in. into the formation is not required for fracturing
because fracture initiation from a perforation generally begins near the sand face and propagates toward
the preferred fracture plane. Gun performance for penetration should be compromised in favor of casing
hole size. The general requirement is that the minimum casing hole diameter exceeds 6 times the proppant
diameter.

• Shot Density and Hole Diameter

Minimum shot density is determined by the diameter of the perforation casing hole,
injection rate per perforation, desired perforation friction and fluid properties. The perforation friction
(∆ppf) in psi for non-crosslinked fluids is

where ‘ρ’ is fluid density in lb./gal, ‘qi’ is injection rate in bbl/min/perforation, ‘Cd’ is the
dimensionless discharge coefficient, and ‘D’ is the perforation casing diameter in inch. Lord (1994) provided
tables of Cd for different perforation sizes and fluid types plus an additional pressure drop for crosslinked
gels.
Following Fig. shows the injection pressure drop versus casing hole diameter for water,
where Cd is where, μ is the viscosity in cp.

Fig. 2: Injection
rate vs.

perforation
(Source: Reservoir Stimulation, M. Economides, K. G. Nolte)
Unless a perforating gun is centralized, the perforation casing hole diameter is a function of gun phasing.
An average perforation diameter can be calculated using following expression.

where n is the number of effective casing holes.

The number of perforations in contact with the fracture determines the average injection rate per
perforation. For 0° and 180° phased guns, all perforations should contribute to the fracture. For a 120°
phased gun, only two-thirds of the perforations will probably communicate with the fracture, and for a 60°
phased gun, only one-third of the perforations will likely be effective. For a vertical well, a misaligned 0°
phased gun is the least acceptable whereas 60° or 120° phased guns provide the least tortuous path.

4.1.2 Fracturing Fluids and Proppants

The main purposes of fracturing

fluid are to extend fractures, add
lubrication, change gel strength,
and to carry proppant into the
formation. There are two methods
of transporting proppant in the
fluid – high-rate and high-viscosity.

Fig. 3. Fracture geometry

High-viscosity fracturing tends to cause large dominant fractures, while high-rate (slick water) fracturing
causes small spread-out micro-fractures. Water-soluble gelling agents (such as guar gum) increase viscosity
and efficiently deliver proppant into the formation.

Fluid is typically a slurry of water, proppant, and chemical additives. Additionally, gels, foams, and
compressed gases, including N2, CO2 and air can be injected. Typically, 90% of the fluid is water and 9.5%
is sand with chemical additives accounting to about 0.5%. However, fracturing fluids have been developed
using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and propane. This process is called waterless fracturing.

The proppant is a granular material that prevents the created fractures from closing after the fracturing
treatment. Types of proppants include silica sand, resin-coated sand, bauxite, and man-made ceramics.
The choice of proppant depends on the type of permeability or grain strength needed. In some formations,
where the pressure is great enough to crush grains of natural silica sand, higher-strength proppants such
as bauxite or ceramics may be used. The most commonly used proppant is silica sand, though proppants
of uniform size and shape, such as a ceramic proppant, are believed to be more effective.
The fracturing fluid varies depending on fracturing type desired, and the conditions of specific wells being
fractured, and water characteristics. The fluid can be gel, foam, or slickwater-based. More viscous fluids,
such as gels, are better at keeping proppant in suspension; while less-viscous and lower-friction fluids, such
as slickwater, allow fluid to be pumped at higher rates, to create fractures farther out from the wellbore.
Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals and 3 - 12 additive chemicals are used per fracturing.

Types of Fracturing Fluids

Main types of hydraulic fracturing fluids have been in use are: water-based fluids (slickwater, linear gel,
crosslinked gel), oil-based fluids, acid-based fluids, multiphase fluids and, more recently, high viscosity
friction reducers.

1. Slick Water Frac is composed of water, a clay control agent and a friction reducer. Sometimes a water
recovery agent (WRA) is added to try and reduce any relative permeability or water block effects.
Theoretically, they increase the complexity of the created fracture and improve reservoir-to-wellbore
connectivity.
➢ The main advantage of using a “Water Frac” is the low cost, ease of mixing and ability to recover and
reuse the water.
➢ The main disadvantage is the low viscosity which results in a narrow fracture width. Because the
viscosity is low the main proppant transport mechanism is velocity so water fracs are typically pumped
at very high rates (60 to 120 bpm). Fluid loss is controlled by the viscosity of the filtrate which is close
to that of water.

2. Linear Gel is composed of water, a clay control agent and a gelling agent such as Guar, HPG or HEC.
Because these gelling agents are susceptible to bacteria growth a bactericide is also added. Guar
derivatives are made by exposing guar powder to high pH water at high temperature for a period of
time to swell the powder. Chemical breakers are also added to reduce damage to the proppant pack.
Water recovery agents are also sometimes used.
➢ The main advantage of a liner gel is its low cost and improved viscosity characteristics. Fluid loss is
controlled by a filter cake which builds on the fracture face as the fluid loses fluid to the formation.
➢ The main disadvantage is the low viscosity which results in a narrow fracture width. The main
disadvantage when compared to a slick-water is that because the returned water has residual breaker
so the water is not reusable. These breaker-generated residues reduce the conductivity of the
proppant pack. It takes a couple of hours to a few days for precipitates to develop.

➢ Crosslinked Gels are composed of the same materials as a linear gel with the addition of a crosslinker
which increases the viscosity of the linear gel from less than 50 cps into the 100’s or 1000’s of cps
range. Polymer based fracturing gels are crosslinked by one of two major types of crosslinker. Borate
& Metallic crosslinkers such as zirconium and Titanium. The higher viscosity increases the fracture
width so it can accept higher concentrations of proppant, reduces the fluid loss to improve fluid
efficiency, improves proppant transport and reduces the friction pressure. This crosslinking also
increases the elasticity and proppant transport capability of the fluid. Fluid loss is controlled by a filter
cake which builds on the fracture face as the fluid loses fluid to the formation.

3. Oil Based Fluids are used on water-sensitive formations that may experience significant damage from
contact with water-based fluids. The first frac fluid used to fracture a well-used gasoline as the base
fluid, Palm Oil as the gelling agent and Naphthenic Acid as the crosslinker i.e., Napalm.
➢ There are some disadvantages in using gelled oils. Gelling problems can occur when using high viscosity
crude oils or crude oils which contain a lot of naturally occurring surfactants. When using refined oils
such as diesel the cost is very high and the oil must be collected at the refinery before any additives
such as pour point depressants, engine cleaning surfactants etc. are added. Also, there are greater
concerns regarding personnel safety and environmental impact, as compared to most water-fluids.

4. Multiphase fluids are fluids that are composed of a material that is not miscible with water. This could
be Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide or a hydrocarbon such as Propane, diesel or condensate.
➢ Growing interest in tight and ultra-tight unconventional formations with high clay contents has led
several researchers to develop energized systems with large fractions of gas and small water fractions.
These fluids are very clean, have very good fluid loss control, provide excellent proppant transport and
break easily simply via gravity separation.

5. Poly Emulsions are formed by emulsifying a hydrocarbon such as Condensate or Diesel with water
such that the hydrocarbon is the external phase. The viscosity is controlled by varying the
hydrocarbon/water ratio.

6. Foamed fluids made with Nitrogen or Carbon dioxide is generally 65 to 80% (termed 65 to 80 quality)
gas [minimum 52%] in a water carrying media which contains a surfactant based foaming agent.
Sometimes N2 or CO2 are added at a lower concentration (20 to 30 quality) to form “Energized Fluids”.
➢ This is done to reduce the amount of water placed on the formation and to provide additional energy
to aid in load recover during the post-frac flow back period. Nitrogen can dissipate into the reservoir
quite quickly so fluids energized with N2 should be flowed back as soon as the fracture is closed. CO2,
under most conditions, is in a dense phase at static down hole conditions (prior to the well being placed
on production), so is less susceptible to dissipation.CO2 does dissolve in crude oil so will act to reduce
the crude viscosity which improves cleanup and rapid recovery.
➢ The main disadvantage of these fluids is safety i.e., pumping a gas at high pressure or in the case of
poly-emulsions and gelled Propane, pumping a flammable fluid. CO2 has an additional hazard in that
it can cause dry ice plugs as pressure is reduced. These fluids are generally also more expensive and
the gases may not be available in remote areas.

7. Viscoelastic Surfactant based fluids (VESs) are made of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic group that self-
associate in order to protect their nonpolar regions and prevent them from contacting with the
aqueous phase. When dissolved in water, these surfactants form micelles that increase viscosity in the
absence of a crosslinker. The rod-shaped structure swells and ultimately breaks into smaller spherical
micelles, resulting in a loss of fluid viscosity when exposed to organic and hydrophobic fluids like oil
and gas. They are preferred in water-sensitive formation as they reduce the surface tension of fluid
allowing the removal of water from pore spaces of rocks.
➢ The main advantage of VES based fluids is no additional breaker is required for these systems. They
are viscous under shear so they also don’t require crosslinker and leave minimal to no residues.
➢ The disadvantages of this system are High fluid leakoff volumes due to the absence of wall-building,
high cost, and undesirable viscosity reduction at high temperature.

8. High viscosity friction reducers (HVFRs) have emerged as one of the latest fracturing fluid trends
replacing linear or crosslinked guars for three main reasons.
➢ Firstly, HVFRs can reduce the chemical costs through the lower loading potential of the fluid while
reducing operational costs due to the higher friction reduction which leads to lower pumping
requirements.
➢ Secondly, these authors conducted laboratory experiments and have shown that the use of HVFRs led
to a higher retained conductivity, explained by the enhanced microstructure of the fluid which could
lead to lower loading potential when compared to linear gels.
➢ Thirdly, the industry has slowly shifted towards a higher fracture density requiring less proppant
transport into the rock formation. This shift has resulted in a higher fractured surface area with shorter
 fracture length, leading to the use of HVFRs along with diverter technology to increase the hydraulic
fracturing treatment efficiency.
➢ This fluid behavior in different conditions is still not clear due to lack of research on it but could be a
good aspect to analyze in the near future to further optimize hydraulic fracturing
treatments.

Types of Proppants

1. Sand, is the lowest-strength proppant and is highly available and reasonably priced (it is the cheapest).
➢ Sand can typically handle closure pressure of up to 6000 psi (closure pressure is the pressure at which
the fracture closes).
➢ Two of the major sands used in hydraulic fracturing are known as Ottawa and Brady sands. Ottawa
sand (also known as Jordan, White, and Northern) is the type of proppant used in many shale plays.
➢ The specific gravity of sand is typically 2.65.

2. Precured Resin-Coated Sand, Resin-coated sand is considered to be an intermediate-strength

proppant.
➢ PRCS has a hard coating around the sand grains, which causes this sand to have higher conductivity
as compared to uncoated sand.
➢ This type of sand is used in formations with a closure stress of between 6000 and 8000 psi

3. Curable Resin-Coated Sand, has very similar properties to PRCS.

➢ One of the main applications for this type of sand is controlling the flowback.
➢ This type of sand, just like PRCS, typically has a crush resistance of 6000– 8000 psi.

4. Intermediate-Strength Ceramic Proppant, is the best-quality proppant and has a higher quality than
resin-coated sand, is called ceramic proppant.
➢ It can withstand closure pressure of between 8000 and 12,000 psi.
➢ The specific gravity of intermediate-strength proppant is 2.9–3.3.

Table 1. Proppant comparisons

5. Lightweight ceramic proppant (LWC) is not as strong as intermediate strength proppant.

➢ This type of proppant can withstand closure pressure of 6000–10,000 psi
➢ The specific gravity of LWC is typically 2.72 and can be as close as the specific gravity of regular sand.
➢ It provides better conductivity because of better sphericity and sieve distribution and also has uniform
size and shape and is thermally resistant.
6. High-Strength Proppant is high-strength sintered bauxite, which is the strongest type of proppant used
in the industry.
➢ It can handle a closure pressure of up to 20,000 psi and is used in deep high-pressured formations
where closure pressure exceeds 10,000 psi.
➢ Intermediate-strength bauxite can typically handle closure pressure of 15,000 psi while high-strength
bauxite can handle closure pressure of up to 20,000 psi. Sintered bauxite typically has a specific gravity
of 3.4 or greater.

Selection of Fracturing Fluid

The formulation and properties of hydraulic fracturing fluids vary greatly in response to
performance requirements that are set by constraints on the surface and downhole. The choice of
fracturing fluid is largely set by reservoir properties, which are strongly variable across different reservoirs.
Thus, a complex design of the base fluid must be performed for each job. This design is largely empirical
and is guided by return on experience.
The major technical factors that influence the choice of fracturing fluid in any design include
viscosity fluid loss, fluid friction loss, gel damage, and compatibility with reservoirs. Others such as cost
and availability are economic factors that also receive attention once the fluid meets the technical
requirements for a particular stimulation job (Gidley et al. 1989)

This choice system continues when it comes to selecting the appropriate fluid system for fracturing
treatment. The considerations include:

• The material for the base fluid should be inexpensive, easy to source, of constant quality and
harmless environmentally.

• It should be easy to mix on the fly and to pump, and should exhibit a low friction pressure in a pipe
in turbulent regime, as it goes down the wellbore.

• When it hits the perforations in front of the rock to be stimulated, it should transport proppant
through these perforations.

• After going through the perforations, which behave like jets, it should recover viscosity thinned in
the high-shear perforation to create fracture width.

• It should suspend proppant both in dynamic and static conditions, and exhibit low leakoff into the
formation.

• After pumping has stopped, it should allow the fracture to close quickly and prevent proppant
from settling.

• After the fracture has closed, it should flow back to the surface easily, without impairing the flow
of hydrocarbons either through the matrix where it had previously leaked off or through the
proppant pack.

➢ It begins with choosing the pad volume where one must consider what and how much pad is required
to create the desired fracture geometry.
➢ This is followed by choosing how much viscosity the fluid needs to have to:
• Provide sufficient fracture width to ensure proppant entrance into the fracture.

• Provide a desired net pressure to either treat some desired height growth or prevent
breaking out into some undesirable zone for example water.

• Provide carrying capability to transport proppant from the wellbore to the fracture tip.

• Control fluid loss. In cases where a gel filter cake cannot form the fracturing fluid viscosity
may be the main mechanism for fluid loss control.

➢ Initially emphasis will be placed on fluid viscosity and compatibility with rock formation. These two
factors are the most important in selection of a fluid before other factors are considered. They are also
the controllable parameters that determine the initial selection of fracture fluids that meet design
criteria in the reservoir.

• Viscosity:

➢ The viscosity of a fracture fluid affects the width and length profile of the created fracture as well as
the proppant distribution in the fracture. In most designs, moderate or high viscosity fluids are used
because of their ability to create sufficient fracture width and proppant carrying capacity. The use of
low viscosity fluids such as slickwater is the predominant trend because of their low cost and
availability.

➢ At fracture flow conditions, proppants will be fully suspended if the fluid viscosity along the fracture is
at least 50–100 cp during pumping (Gidley et al. 1989). On exposure to the reservoir after pumping,
the fluid can lose its viscosity allowing the proppant to settle before closure of the fracture, resulting
in a partially propped fracture and loss in effective fracture conductivity.

➢ Gidley et al. (1989) presented a fluid selection process based on viscosity (Gidley et al. 1989). It involves
the following steps:

1. Select a fluid that meets the viscosity requirement for full proppant suspension after a
specified time of exposure to the reservoir before closure of the fracture.
2. Reduce the viscosity of the fluid by decreasing the gel loading to achieve less than
complete suspension yet placing the treatment successfully.
3. Test lower viscosity fluids to form equilibrium banks if wider fractures are needed.

❖ Reservoir compatibility:

➢ Many reservoir rocks are sensitive to fluids and additives present in fracture fluids. Therefore, the
sensitivity of the formation and formation fluids must be considered before the selection of a fracture
fluid.

➢ Clay containing formations are easily hydrated by water and swell. The use of aqueous-based fluids
can cause swelling of clay. The swelling of claying can lead to an unstable wellbore, stuck pipe and
damage of the fracture by migration of fines. Fracture fluids should be selected to minimize the
swelling of clay. The use of 2 % KCl in water-based fluids and other chemicals can prevent clay swelling.
➢ Another factor is the precipitation of minerals, especially of iron in contact with fracture fluids.
Chemical additives should be used when this is known. Oil-based fluids/foam-based fluid should be
used if formation is sensitive to water composition.

➢ Economides et al. (2000) fluid selection chart largely helps in selection of optimum fracturing fluid for
fracturing treatment. The fluid selection in a gas well & oil well is shown in following Fig. 4

Fig. 4: Fracturing fluid selection Chart in GAS & OIL WELL

(Source: Economides et al. (2000))

Mechanical properties of the formation also help us in selecting appropriate fluid for fracturing
process. Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio are used in part to determine the geometry and
dimensions of hydraulic fractures. These parameters are also used to classify shale as brittle and
ductile.

• Ductile shales typically have high Poisson’s Ratio and low Young’s Modulus while brittle shales
typically have low Poisson’s Ratio and high Young’s Modulus.

• The complexity of hydraulic fracture network increases from ductile shales to brittle shales.

• Secondary fractures often are often observed for brittle shales.

• In unconventional geomechanics literature, the brittleness index is a widely used concept
although there are different definitions and several models to determine this index.

➢ Fig. 5 shows how the brittleness index is a practical parameter used in the hydraulic fracturing fluid
selection
➢ Brittle formations are suggested to use higher volumes of lower viscosity slickwater, linear gel, or a
hybrid treatment pumped at higher rates to create a fracture network.

Fig. 5: Fluid selection based on brittleness index

(Source: Chong K. at el. 2010)

➢ Ductile formations, on the other hand, should use lower volumes of higher viscosity crosslinked fluids
or frac pacs in the more ductile formations (Chong at el. 2010).

4.1.3 Selection of Proppant

Ideally, proper proppant selection will lead to the lowest completion cost without sacrificing
production, or increasing production for the same completion cost.
Proper proppant selection is critical to the success of well completion. In making the proper
proppant selection, a number of factors must be considered as listed below:

• Roundness & Sphericity

• While selecting natural sand as proppant, silica purity, feldspars and clay containments must
be considered.

• Crush factors at elevated closure stress

• Embedment in the formation

 • Long-term conductivity

• Initial production rate and fold of increase of production

• Completion costs

• Production decline

• Possible proppant flow back and effective closure stress over the depletion of the well.

Rather than basing proppant selection on any of these single factors, the final decision should be
made on optimal Net Present Value (NPV). Some of the key parameter for proppant selection are described
below:

4.1.4 Calculation of Maximum Treatment Pressure

Understanding pressure is one of the key aspects of a safe and successful frac operation. One
of the most important concepts is the calculation of surface-treating pressure (STP), which is used for
production casing design by completion engineers.
Casing design is very important in new exploration areas because some operators are not able
to successfully initiate hydraulic fracturing due to underestimating the expected STP and using a low-
burst casing pressure size and grade.
In this section, a special emphasis is placed on determining the STP by discussion of pre-
treatment diagnostics that are often incorporated with fracture treatments.

Microfracture Tests

➢ The microfracture stress test (“microfrac”) determines the magnitude of the minimum principal
in-situstress of a target formation.
➢ The test usually involves the injection of pressurized fluid into a small, isolated zone (4 to 15 ft, 1.2 to
4.6m) at low injection rates (1 to 25 gal/min, 0.010 to 0.095 m3/min).
➢ The minimum principal in-situ stress can be determined from the pressure decline after shut-in
or thepressure increase at the beginning of an injection cycle.
➢ The fracture closure pressure and fracture reopening pressure provide good approximations
for theminimum principal in-situ stress.

Minifrac Test

➢ The most important test on location before the main treatment is known as a “minifrac,” or a
fracture calibration test. The minifrac is a pump-in/shut-in test that employs full-scale pump rates
and relatively large fluid volumes, on the order of thousands of gallons.
➢ Information gathered from a minifrac includes the closure pressure, Pc, net pressure, entry
conditions (perforation and near-wellbore friction), and possibly evidence of fracture height
containment.
➢ The falloff portion of the pressure curve is used to obtain the leak-off coefficient for a given fracture
geometry. Fig.-1 illustrates the strategic locations on a typical pressure response curve registered
duringthe calibration activities.
➢ A minifrac design should be performed along with the initial treatment design. The design goal for
the minifrac is to be as representative as possible of the main treatment. To achieve this objective,
 sufficient geometry should be created to reflect the fracture geometry of the main treatment and to
obtain an observable closure pressure from the pressure decline curve.
➢ The most representative minifrac would have an injection rate and fluid volume equal to the main
treatment, but this is often not practical. In reality, several conflicting design criteria must be

balanced, including minifrac volume, created fracture geometry, damage to the formation, a
reasonable closure

➢ At LOP the pressure in the wellbore must be sufficient to propagate the fracture far enough from the
wellbore to increase system volume enough to affect the rate of wellbore pressurization. Thus, there
mustbe a hydraulic fracture propagating away from the wellbore, perpendicular to the least principal
stress in the near-wellbore region, once there is a noticeable change in the pressurization rate. Thus,
a clear LOP (adistinct break-in-slope) is approximately equal to the least principal stress although the
wellbore pressuremay also reflect some near-wellbore resistance to fracture propagation.
➢ If the hydrofrac is being made through perforations in a cased and cemented wellbore (as is the case
in mini- or micro-fracs), the tortuosity of the perforation/fracture system may cause the pressure to
increasein the wellbore above the least principal stress. The same is true if the injection rate is high or
if a relativelyhigh viscosity fluid is used.
➢ The peak pressure reached during LOT or mini-frac is termed the formation breakdown pressure (FBP)
and represents the pressure at which unstable fracture propagation away from a wellbore occurs
(fluid flows into the fracture faster from the wellbore than the pump supplies it; hence the pressure
drops).

➢ If pumping continues at a constant rate, the pumping pressure will drop after the FBP to a relatively
constant value called the fracture propagation pressure (FPP). This is the pressure associated with
propagating the fracture away from the well.
➢ In the absence of Perforation friction pressure = appreciable near-
wellbore resistance mentioned above (i.e., if
the flow rate and fluid viscosity are low enough), the FPP is very close to the leastprincipal. Hence, the
FPP and LOP values should be similar.
➢ An even better measure of the least principal stress is obtained from the instantaneous shut-in
pressure (ISIP) which is measured after abruptly stopping flow into the well, because any pressure
associated withfriction due to viscous pressure losses disappears.
➢ If a viscous frac fluid is used, or a frac fluid with suspended proppant, FPP will increase due to large
friction losses. In this consideration for friction pressure should be made.
➢ Because of the high-rate injection needed to create sufficient pressure to fracture the rock and to
propagate hydraulic fractures deep into the reservoir, the frictional pressure drop caused by
fracturing fluids is veryimportant.
➢ Friction pressures during a frac job are pipe friction pressure, perforation friction pressure, and
tortuositypressure. Total friction pressure during treatment is given by,

Total friction pressure = Pipe friction pressure + Perforation friction pressure + Tortuosity

➢ The following approximation may be used for the frictional pressure drop in well calculation
(Economidesand Nolte, 2000):

➢ Perforation friction pressure can be calculated as,Where,

Q = Flow rate (bpm)

ρ = Fluid density (ppg)

Cd = Discharge coefficient

Dp = Perforation diameter (in)

N = Numbers of perforations (holes)

D = Tubing diameter (in)

H = Tubing length (ft)
➢ The maximum treatment pressure is expected to occur when the formation is broken down. The
bottom- hole pressure is equal to the formation breakdown pressure and the expected surface
pressure can be calculated by:
Psi = Pbd + Pfric

Where,
Psi = Maximum surface injection pressure
Pbd = Formation break down pressure measured at surface
Pfric = Total friction pressure

4.1.5 Selection of Fracture Model

A model of a process is a representation that captures the essential features of the process in a mannerthat
provides an understanding of the process (Starfield et al., 1990). The construction of the model depends
on the type of question it is required to answer. The three main types of models are physical, empirical and
mechanistic (or analytic). Each has advantages and disadvantages, which are outlined in the following.

➢ Physical models are scale models of actual processes. The primary advantage of such models is that,
by definition, they incorporate the correct assumptions of material behavior.
➢ Empirical models are developed by observation. Typically, laboratory or field data are gathered and
combined to create design charts or empirical equations, which can then be used to predict or design
future cases.
➢ Analytical models are mathematical representations of a physical reality in which the governing
mechanicsare stated in the form of equations. The equations typically define both physical laws, such
as conservation ofmass, and constitutive laws, such as elasticity.
➢ Our important reasons for developing and using models of hydraulic fracture treatments are to:
 • Perform economic optimization (i.e., determine what size treatment provides the
highest rate ofreturn on investment)
• Design a pump schedule
• Simulate the fracture geometry and proppant placement achieved by a specified pump
schedule
• Evaluate a treatment (by comparing the predictions of a model with actual behavior).

As we are using the Fracpro Software for simulation purposes. This Fracpro software can incorporated
with P-3D model.So, we include the mathematical workflow of this P-3D model here.

Fracture Geometry Models

All model stake into account the three events(simultaneously)

➢ Opening of the fracture:

W = f (p, rock properties, other dimensions)

➢ Pressurizing of the treatment fluid:

P = f (Q, fluid prop., geometry…)

➢ Leak off of fracture fluid:

Leak off vol. = f (rock prop., fluid prop., A, time)

• Assumptions
1. Reservoir rock is homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic
2. In-situ stresses, reservoir pressure, and rock properties do not change horizontally
3. Fluid flow in fracture is laminar
4. Fracture fluid is incompressible (except foams)
5. Stresses induced by fluid leak off and temperature differences can be ignored
6. Rock anisotropy or discontinuity does not affect the fracture path. Fractures are planes
parallels to theleast stress

• Types of models

• Type 1: 2-D models or the constant height models

• Type 2: Pseudo 3D models
• Type 3: 3D models

Model Assumptions Shape Application

PKN Fixed Height, Elliptical Cross Section Length »Height

Plain Strain in vertical direction
 KGD Fixed Height, Rectangle Cross Length «Height
Plain Strain in horizontal
direction Section
Radial Propagate in a given plane, Circular Cross Section Radial
Symmetrical to the wellbore

Table 2 Comparison between traditional 2D hydraulic fracture models

• 3D Model
In addition to both 2D models, a number of 3D models have been developed and improved over
the past decades. While striving to achieve the most accurate predictions, optimization in terms of time
and cost are still highly regarded. Some examples of 3D models, summarized from Weng et al. (2015) and
Adachi (2007), are as follows.

• Planar 3D Model
A moving boundary element mesh (Fig. 9) was used by Clifton and Abou-Sayed (1981) in their
planar 3D model. The fracture plane is discretized into triangular elements using an automated grid
generation scheme. At each time step, the mesh is regenerated as the fracture shape evolves.

Fig. 9: Planar 3D with moving grid (Source: Adachi et al. 2007).

• Pseudo-3D Models
In a cell-based P3D model (Fig.10), based on the concept originated by Settari and Cleary (1982),
the fracture is divided into several elements. They can have different heights. Plane- strain assumption is
made for each vertical cross section to simplify the elastic equation.

Fig. 10: Cell-based Pseudo-3D model (Source: Adachi et al. 2007)

Treatment size
If it is assumed that the fracturing fluid and injection rate were selected by considering proppant transport,
fluid loss, and horsepower and pressure limits, the other major design considerations are treatment size,
type of proppant and proppant scheduling. A general statement can be made that the greater the propped
fracture length and the greater the proppant volume, the greater the production. Limiting effects are
imposed by factors such as the size of the production string, limit of achievable fracture conductivity and
fracture height growth, in addition to well spacing. Within these constraints the size of the treatment
should ideally be based on the optimum fracture penetration determined by the economic considerations
discussed earlier. A plot of NPV versus propped penetration is shown in Fig. 11 for a premium ISP and sand
at concentrations of 10, 14 and 16 ppg. The NPV is less for sand at 10 ppg and the 1-year optimum is
achieved at 500- to 600-ft penetration. The more permeable premium proppant at 16 ppg with a
penetration of 900 ft increases the NPV by 35%. Although the maximum NPV is achieved for a specific

penetration, additional penetration results in more production—but at a higher cost.

Fig. 11 Net present value versus penetration for various proppant concentrations and types

The role of fracturing fluid viscosity and leakoff characteristics is generally well known for fracture
propagation and the placement of the propping agents; however, other properties must also be
considered. The selected fracturing fluid should correctly balance the following, usually conflicting,
properties and features:

• adequate fluid-loss control

• viscosity stability during placement for adequate proppant transport
• compatibility with the formation rock and reservoir fluids
• low friction loss in the pipe
• minimal damaging effects on proppant permeability
• controlled breaking and cleanup properties
• ease in mixing
• minimum disposal problems
• operational safety
• environmental safety
• economical price

❖ Proppant Scheduling

➢ Given the total pumping time and slurry volume, a stepwise pump schedule (more specifically, a
proppant addition schedule, or just proppant schedule) is still needed that will yield the designed,
 propped fracture geometry.
➢ Fluid injected at the beginning of the job without proppant is called the “pad.” It initiates and opens
up the fracture. Typically, 30 to 60 percent of the fluid pumped during a treatment leaks off into the
formation while pumping; the pad provides much of this necessary extra fluid. The pad also generates
sufficient
fracture length and width to allow proppant placement.
➢ Too little pad results in premature bridging of proppant and shorter-that-desired fracture lengths. Too
much pad results in excessive fracture height growth and created fracture length.
➢ For a fixed slurry volume, excessive pad may result in a final propped length that is considerably shorter
than the created (desired) fracture length.
➢ Even if the fluid loss were zero, a minimum pad volume would be required to open sufficient fracture
width to admit proppant. Generally, a fracture width equal to three times the proppant diameter is
felt to be necessary to avoid bridging.
➢ After the specified pad is pumped, the proppant concentration of the injected slurry is ramped up step
by-step until a maximum value is reached at end of the treatment.

Beginning of proppant
distribution during pumping

Evolution of slurry proppant distribution during

pumping

Proppant concentration in the

injected slurry
➢ 1st Fig. conceptually illustrates the proppant distribution in the fracture after the first proppant carrying
stage. Most fluid loss occurs in the pad, near the fracture tip. However, some fluid loss occurs along
the fracture, and in fact, fluid loss acts to dehydrate the proppant-laden stages.
➢ 2nd Fig. shows the concentration of the initial proppant stage climbing from 1 up to 3 lbm of proppant
per gallon of fluid (ppg) as the treatment progresses.
➢ 3rd Fig. completes the ideal sequence in which the pad is depleted just as pumping ends and the first
proppant stage has concentrated to a final designed value of 5 ppg. The second proppant stage has
undergone less dehydration, but also has concentrated to the same final value.
➢ The concentration of the initial proppant stage climbing from 1 up to 3 lbm of proppant per gallon of
fluid (ppg) as the treatment progresses.
➢ Later stages are pumped at higher initial proppant concentrations because they suffer less fluid leakoff
(i.e., shorter exposure time and reduced leakoff rates near the well).
➢ If done properly, the entire fracture is filled with a uniform proppant concentration at the end of the
treatment.
➢ If proppant bridges in the fracture prematurely during pumping, a situation known as a “screen-out,”
the treating pressure will rise rapidly to the technical limit of the equipment. In this case, pumping
must cease immediately (both for the safety of personnel on location and to avoid damaging the
equipment), effectively truncating the treatment before the full proppant volume has been placed.
➢ Making things worse, the treatment string is often left filled with sand, which then requires
incremental rig time and expense to clean out.
➢ TSO designs for highly permeable and soft formations are specifically intended to screen out. In this
case, it is often possible to continue pumping and inflate the fracture width without exceeding the
pressure limits of the equipment because these formations tend to be highly compliant.
➢ While more sophisticated methods are available to calculate the ramped proppant schedule.
➢ One additional parameter must be specified: Ce, the maximum proppant concentration of the injected
slurry at the end of pumping.
➢ The physical capabilities of the fracturing equipment being used provides one limit to the maximum
proppant concentration, but rarely should this be specified as the value for Ce.

4.1.6 Economic Optimization

Economic optimization of hydraulic fracture treatments allows the production engineer to design a
fracture treatment that optimizes the production rate and reserve recovery from a well to maximize
well profitability. In addition, a good understanding of the key parameters for the fracture treatment
can be developed from the optimization study. For example, Fig. 12 is a plot of 1-year NPV versus the
productive fracture half-length xf in a 0.01-md formation. This Fig.
shows the relationship among length, conductivity and profitability. For penetrations from 200 to 600
ft, about the same NPV is produced by proppant concentrations of 6 to 14 ppg. However, the net
production—and therefore cash flow—will be higher with the higher concentrations. At 1000-ft
penetration, concentrations from 10 to 14 ppg yield about the same NPV and are significantly greater
than when using 6 ppg. Increasing the fracture length improves the profitability of a well in this
reservoir but also requires increasing fracture conductivity for most penetrations. To estimate the cost
of a fracturing treatment, the variable costs can be added to some fixed cost not directly associated
with treatment size:
• variable fluid cost = $/unit × units of fluid
The unit cost includes
– fracturing fluid plus additives
– mixing and blending charges
– transportation, storage and disposal charges
(Commonly included in other fixed costs).

• variable proppant cost = $/unit × units of proppant

The unit cost includes
– proppant
– proppant transportation to location and storage
– proppant pumping charges.

Fig. 12 Net present value versus productive fracture half-length for a 0.01-md formation.

• variable hydraulic horsepower (hhp) cost = $/hhp × injection rate × surface

treating pressure/40.8 × standby hhp factor

• other fixed costs

– mobilization
– personnel
– well preparation (workover rig, etc.)
– cleanup costs (coiled tubing, disposal if not included as a fluid unit cost, etc.).
CONCLUSION

Hydraulic fracturing can significantly improve productivity from low permeability

reservoirs. It involves applications of engineering, rock and flid mechanics, operations and
different types of fluid and proppant. Fracture design and optimization in Fracpro can assist
in the optimum and desired fracture geometry, it also allows to economically optimize the
fracture parameters. Combining these all fracture treatment can be carried out, which will
aid in the production performance of the respective well by increasing flowrate and
cumulative production.
REFERENCE

➢ Montgomery, C. 2013. Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, chapter 1.

Fracturing Fluids, 3–24. InTechOpen.
➢ Economides MJ, Nolte KG (2000) Reservoir stimulation, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
➢ Rassenfoss, S. 2017. Getting More from Fracturing with Diversion. Journal of
Petroleum Technology,69(06): 42–47.
➢ Economides, Michael J. (2002) Unified fracture design: bridging the gap between theory
and practice /Michael Economides, Ronald Oligney, Peter Valkó. Orsa press, Texas.
➢ Sun, H., DeBenedictis, F., Zhou, J., Cutler, J., Royce, T., Nelson, S., and Qu, Q. 2013.
Field Case Histories of a Non-Damaging Guar Alternative for Linear Gel Application
in Slick-water Fracturing.SPE-165130-MS.
➢ Barati R., Jenn-Tai Liang. (2014) Review of Fracturing Fluid Systems Used For
Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells. Journal of applied polymer science. DOI:
10.1002/app.40735
➢ Alexander C, Barbati., Jean Desroches, Agathe Robisson, and Gareth H. McKinley.
“Complex Fluids and Hydraulic Fracturing.” Annual Review of Chemical and
Biomolecular Engineering 7, no. 1 (June 7,2016): 415–453.
➢ Rae P.; Lullo G. Fracturing Fluids and Breaker Systems—A Review of the State-of-the-
Art, Presented inSPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, 1996.
➢ Fonseca E., Farinas M. (2013) Hydraulic fracturing simulation case study and post frac
analysis inHaynesville Shale. SPE 163847.
➢ Abaa K., John Wang, Ityokumbul Mku. (2012) Parametric study of Fracture Treatment
Parameters forUltratight Gas Reservoirs. SPE 152877.
➢ Brannon H. & Charles Bell. (2011) Eliminating Slickwater Compromises for improved
ShaleStimulation. SPE 147485.
➢ Temoor Muther · Muhammad Jawad Khan· Muhammad Hanif Chachar · Hassan Aziz.
A Study ondesigning appropriate hydraulic fracturing treatment with proper material
selection and optimized fracture half-length in tight multilayered formation sequence.
SN Applied Sciences (2020) 2:886 |https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2729-9
➢ Ghalambor, A and Boyun Guo, “Petroleum Production Engineering”, Hydraulic
Fracturing,Elsevier Science & Technology Book, ISBN: 0750682701 (2007) (252- 265)
➢ M.J.Economides, A.D. Hill and C.Ehlig-Economides, ”Petroleum Production
System”,Parentice Hall, ISBN: 0-13-628683
➢ Heriot-Watt university, “Production Technology”,Hydraulic Fracturing
➢ Gerald.H.Coulter, ”Hydraulic Fracturing-New Developments” JCPT 76-04-03, OCT-
DEC,1976, Montreal
➢ Bu-Khamseen, R.H., Khakimov, A., Sierra, et al. 2010. First successful Tight Gas
Reservoir completion and Fracture Stimulation in Sarah formation, Saudi Arabia.
 Presented at SPE Deep gas conference and exhibition, Manama, Bahrain. 24-26 January,
2010. SPE 130722-MS.
➢ Klaudia Wilk , 2019. Experimental and Simulation Studies of Energized
➢ Fracturing Fluid Efficiency in Tight Gas Formations. Published in Energies Journal.
doi:10.3390/en12234465
➢ Chen Y., Pope T.L., and Lee, J.C. (2005) Novel CO2-emulsified viscoelastic surfactant
fracturing fluidsystem. Presented at SPE European formation damage conference, The
Netherlands. 25-27 May 2005. SPE-94603-MS.
➢ Arias, R.E., Nadezhdin, S.V., Hughes K., et al. 2008. New Viscoelastic Surfactant
Fracturing Fluids now compatible with CO2 drastically improves gas production in
Rockies. Presented at SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Louisiana, USA. 13-15 February. SPE- 111431-MS.
➢ Funkhouser G.P., Holtsclaw, J., and Belvins J., 2010. Hydraulic Fracturing under
extreme HPHT conditions: Successful Application of a new synthetic fluids in South
Texas Gas wells. Presented at at SPE Deep gas conference and exhibition, Manama,
Bahrain. 24-26 January, 2010. SPE 132173-MS.
➢ Gupta, D.V.S., and Carman P.S. 2011. Fracturing Fluid for extreme Temperature
conditions is Just as easy as the rest. Presented at SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, The Woodlands, Texas,USA. 24-26 January. SPE-140176-MS
➢ Temoor Muther · Muhammad Jawad Khan· Muhammad Hanif Chachar · Hassan Aziz,
A Study ondesigning appropriate hydraulic fracturing treatment with proper material
selection and optimized fracture half-length in tight multilayered formation sequence.
SN Applied Sciences (2020) 2:886 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2729-9
➢ Abaa K, Wang JY, Ityokumbul MT (2013) Parametric study of fracture treatment
parameters for ultra- tight gas reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and
Production Technology volume 3, pages159–168(2013)
➢ Gidley JL, Holditch SA, Nierode DE,Veatch Jr RW (1989) Recent advances in hydraulic
fracturing.Society of petroleum engineers monograph 12, Richardson
➢ Economides MJ, Nolte KG (2000) Reservoir stimulation, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
➢ Chong, K. K., Grieser, W. V., Passman, A., Tamayo, C. H., Modeland, N., and Burke,B.
2010. A Completions Guide Book to Shale-Play Development: A Review of Successful
Approaches Towards Shale-Play Stimulation in the Last Two Decades. CSUG/SPE-
133874-MS.]
➢ A comprehensive review on proppant technologies Feng Liang a, , Mohammed Sayed
a, Ghaithan A.Al-Muntasheri a , Frank F. Chang b , Leiming Li a
➢ Proppant Selection: The Key to Successful Fracture Stimulation C.T. Montgomery.
SPE, DowellSchlumberger, R.E. Steanson, SPE, Dowell Schlumberger
➢ Proppants Selection Based on Field Case Studies of Well Production Performance in the
Bakken Shale PlaKyle Hu, SPE, Rainbow Ceramics; Jianlei Sun, SPE, Texas A&M
 University; Joe Wong, Rainbow Ceramics; and Bobby E. Hall, SPE, Energy and
Environmental Services SPE-169566-MS
➢ “Reservoir Stimulation”, 3rd Edition by Michael J. Economides and Kenneth G. Nolte.
➢ Nolte, K.M., “Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline”,
SPE 8341, presented at the 54th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 1979.
➢ K.G. Nolte, “A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline with Application to
Three Models”,SPE 12941, SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1986.
➢ M.Y. Soliman and A.A. Daneshy, “Determination of Fracture Volume and Closure
Pressure from Pumpin/Flowback Tests”, SPE 21400, 1991.
➢ Nolte, K.M. and Smith, M.B., “Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures”, JPT, September,
1767-1775,1981.
➢ Hareland et al., “Hydraulic Fracturing Design Optimization”, SPE 26950, presented at
1993 Eastern Regional Conference & Exhibition held in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A., 2-4
November 1993.
➢ H. Z. Meng and K. E. Brown, “Coupling of Production Forecasting, Fracture Geometry
Requirementsand Treatment Scheduling in the Optimum Hydraulic Fracture Design”,
SPE 16435, presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held
in Denver, Colorado, May 18-19, 1987.
➢ Muther et al., “A Study on designing appropriate hydraulic fracturing treatment with
proper material selection and optimized fracture half-length in tight multilayered
formation sequence”, SN Applied Sciences (2020) 2:886,2020.
➢ Ai et al., “Hydraulic fracturing treatment optimization for low permeability reservoirs
based on unifiedfracture design”, Energies 2018, 11, 1720; doi:10.3390, 2018.
➢ Vinit Sharma and Anil Negi, “First successful massive hydraulic fracturing treatment
unlocks reservoir potential 4 fold: Case study from tight gas HPHT field in southern
India”, SPE-194901-MS, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 18-21 March 2019.
➢ Nguyen Huu Truong, “Optimisation of hydraulic fracturing design in lower Oligocene
reservoir”, Kinhngu trang oilfield, Journal of Marine Science and Technology; Vol. 18,
No. 3; 2018: 323–337, DOI: 10.15625/1859-3097/18/3/10678, 2017.
➢ Mauricio Farinas and Ernesto Fonseca, “Hydraulic fracturing simulation case study and
post fracture analysis in the Haynesville shale”, SPE 163847, presented at the SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show andConference held in Manama, Bahrain, 18-21 March
2019.
➢ Dingwei et al., “Case study: Massive hydraulic fracturing in volcanic gas, China”, SPE
141543, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in
Manama, Bahrain, 18-21March 2019.
➢ Hareland et al., “Hydraulic Fracturing Design Optimization”, SPE 26950, presented at
1993 Eastern Regional Conference & Exhibition held in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A., 2-4
November 1993.
➢ “Reservoir Stimulation” (3rd Edition) by Michael J. Economides & Kenneth G. Nolte
➢ M.M. Rahman and M.K. Rahman, “A Review of Hydraulic Fractures Models and
developments of anImproved Pseudo-3D model for Stimulating Tight Oil/Gas sand” ,
Energy Source, DOI: 10.1080/15567030903060523, The Petroleum Institute , Abu
Dhabi , UAE, JUNE 7,2010
➢ “Geo mechanical Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology” by Julius Bankong
Arop, University ofNigeria Nsukka, 2011
➢ Abdolnaser Yousefzadeh and Qi Li, “Comparison of PKN, KGD ,P-3D, AND
DIFFUSIVITY Models for hydraulic Fracturing of the Horn River Basin Shale Gas
Formation Using Micro seismic Data”, SPE-185057-MS, SPE Unconventional
Resources Conference in Calgary, Canada, 15-16 February 2017.
➢ “An Integrated reservoir modelling sensitivity studies for the Hydraulic fracturing
optimization in theEagle Ford and Niobrara formations” by Vincent A. Rignol (2020)
➢ D.A. Mendelson, “A Review of Hydraulic Fracture Modeling- Part I: General Concepts.
2D Models, Motivation for 3D Modeling”, Department of Engineering Mechanics, Ohio
State University, February28,1984.
➢ Geir Hareland, Paul Rampersad, Jirapong Dharaphop and Sunthan Sasnanad,
“Hydraulic Fracturing Design Optimization”, SPE 26950, Eastern Regional Conference
& Exhibition, November 2-4,1983.2)