9

Well Stimulation - Fracturing

Introduction
Design of a fracture treatment
Hydraulic fracturing
Fracturing pressure
Fundamental modes of fracture propagation
Rock stresses
Fracture geometry
Fracture length
Fracture area
Fracture width
Fracture fluid efficiency
Fracture fluids
Proppants
Operational Procedures

9.1 Introduction
There are three main reasons to fracture a well:

1. Homogenisation of a reservoir – fractures provide a means of communication of

reservoir fluids between isolated zones. To illustrate this, consider Fig. 9.1

Shale Isolated oil/gas sands

Heterogeneous Reservoir

Shale

Fractures connecting isolated zones

Fig. 9.1 – Fractures connecting isolated zones in a heterogeneous reservoir.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 343

1. Increased recovery from low permeability layers – most reservoirs have a non-
uniform distribution of permeability. Fracturing may increase the production from
layers of low permeability. Figure 9.2 illustrates this:

High-Permeability Sandstone Fracturing in low

permeability zone to
increase production

Low-Permeability Standstone

Fig. 9.2 – Fracturing in low permeability zone enhances production from that zone.

2. Longer field life – most wells are abandoned when the flow rate is no longer
economical. Fracturing may prolong the operating life of a well. This is illustrated
from an actual case in Fig. 9.3

INCREMENTAL PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION (BOPD)

DUE TO FRACTURING

PRE-FRAC
POST-FRAC PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION

TIME

Fig. 9.3 – Increased well life due to fracturing of reservoir.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 344

9.2 Design of a Fracture Treatment

There are several variables that are considered when designing a fracture job. Some of
these variables are briefly described:

• ½ fracture length, xf – the length of a fracture gives us an indication of the

penetration into the formation.

• Fracture conductivity, kfw – this is a measure of how much reservoir fluid will
be carried through the fracture. Obviously, it is desirable to have a high
fracture conductivity, because it means more reservoir fluids can flow and a
higher rate of production results. (kf = fracture permeability; w = fracture
width)

• Formation permeability, k – this is a measure of the ease at which fluids flow

through a reservoir. This means that a low-permeability reservoir will have
lower rates of production than a reservoir with high permeability.

There are other variables that influence design, such as well spacing, fracture azimuth,
fracture height, and transient flow conditions.

Because every reservoir is unique, so is the nature of the fracture job required for a
particular reservoir. It is not always the case that longer fracture lengths increase
productivity. For example, there is no point in fracturing beyond the limits of a
reservoir because we do not gain any additional production from beyond the reservoir.
Also it should not be taken that high permeability formations cannot gain from
fracturing – it may be the case that smaller, fatter fractures are required and the length
of fracture is less important.

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity

All of the variables described above can be summarized into one variable – the
dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD. The relationship is given below:

kfw
FCD = (9.1)
kx f

We shall see that this variable is important in the design of a fracture treatment
process.

Effective Wellbore Radius

When a fracture is introduced into a formation, it is analogous to making the wellbore
larger. The effective wellbore radius ( rw' ) is a parameter which measures this effect.
Figure 9.4 illustrates the effect:

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

 Chapter 9 – Fracturing 345

Actual wellbore

Vertical planer
fracture

Theoretical or equivalent wellbore

which produces the same effect as the
fracture

Fig. 9.4 – Effective wellbore radius.

Infinitely Conductive Fractures

So how do we find the effective wellbore radius? There are two cases to be
considered. The first case is an infinite conductivity fracture. Figure 9.4 above
illustrates such a fracture – the entire flow area of the long planer, vertical fracture is
exposed to the bottomhole flowing pressure (light gray region). The darker gray
region represents the conceptual increase in borehole radius due to the presence of
this fracture. If we equate the total surface area of the fracture to the surface area for
the equivalent borehole which produces the same effect as the fracture, we can derive
an expression for the effective wellbore radius:

A fracture = 2 ( 2 x f ) h
A eqborehole = 2π rw' h
A fracture = A eqborehole
∴ 2π rw' h = 4 x f h
i.e. , rw' = 0 . 64 x f

Thus for an infinite conductivity fracture, the effective wellbore radius is given as:

rw' = 0.64 ⋅ x f (9.2)

The above relation however, is a bit optimistic. In industry, the following relation is
used and is stated without proof:

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 346

rw' = 0.5 ⋅ x f (9.3)

This will give us a more reasonable determination of effective wellbore radius. It is

important to remember that these two equations apply only to infinitely conductive
fractures at steady state or pseudo-steady state flow condition.

Finite conductivity fractures

To determine the effective borehole radius for finite conductivity fractures, it is often
convenient to use a chart rather than a mathematical approach. The work of Prats and
Cinco-Ley led to the development of a chart which relates effective wellbore radius to
FCD. The chart is shown in Fig. 9.5.

Fig. 9.5 – Cinco-Ley chart relating effective wellbore radius to FCD2.

From the chart we notice that as FCD approaches infinity, i.e. as the fracture becomes
infinitely conductive, the ratio of effective wellbore radius rw' to ½ fracture length xf
approaches 0.5. This is the same result we would expect for infinitely conductive
fractures, i.e. rw' = 0.5 xf.

Folds of Increase
The folds of increase (FOI) is a measure the improvement in production due to
fracturing. It is simply the ratio of the production after fracturing to the production
before fracturing, i.e.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 347

r 
ln e 
FOI =
Q fractured
=  
rw
(9.4)
Q unfractured
r 
ln e' 
 rw 

Obviously, the higher the FOI is, the more attractive a fracture job looks. But all this
comes at a cost. The final stage in the design process is to consider the economics
associated with well stimulation.

Economic Considerations in Well Stimulation

As with all projects in the petroleum industry, economics plays a crucial role in any
decision made. Figure 9.6 below illustrates the economic design process for a fracture
job. A reservoir simulator can be used to determine and predict production rates and
recoveries from range of conductivities and fracture lengths. This information can in
turn be used to determine the optimal parameters for the fracture job.

Fig. 9.6 – Economic based fracture design process2.

Cost/revenue information can then be calculated and a decision can be made based on
a suitable economic indicator. A commonly used economic indicator is the
Discounted Return On Investment (DROI):

FutureValue−Costs
DROI = (9.5)
Costs

The optimal design is based on the scenario that gives the best DROI.

FRACTURE DESIGN SUMMARY

The design process for a fracture job can be briefly summarised:

1. Get field data for k, rw, re.

2. Assume a value for kfw, xf (this can be obtained from a reservoir simulator).

3. Calculate a value for FCD.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 348

4. Use value from charts/empirical data to determine rw' /xf ratio (eg., Cinco-Ley
chart).

5. Calculate rw' .

6. Calculate FOI.

7. Apply all calculated information to economic reservoir model, i.e. calculate

DROI.

8. Repeat steps 1 – 7 until optimal economic scenario is reached (i.e. the best
DROI).

The design process can easily be modelled in reservoir simulator. The design process
described above is very useful for steady-state and pseudo-steady-state reservoirs.
FOI must be used with extreme caution in the cases of transient flow reservoirs, as the
results may lead to erroneous conclusions. Fracture geometry and azimuth also must
be considered in the design process.

9.3 Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting fluids into a formation at very high pressures.
As the fluid pressure is increased, it eventually exceeds the rock tensile strength, and a
fracture is created. As fluid is continually injected at high pressure, the fracture will
penetrate the formation and continue to grow. For the design of a fracture treatment,
several concepts must be understood. We shall now look at the key concepts involved
in the design process of a hydraulic fracture treatment.

9.3.1 Fracturing Pressure

The pressure behavior of a fracture treatment is illustrated in the Fig. 9.7 below:

BREAKDOWN
PRESSURE
BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE

FRACTURE PROPAGATION
PRESSURE

INSTANTANEOUS SHUT-IN
PRESSURE

PUMPING TIME

Fig. 9.7 – Idealized pressure behaviour during fracturing.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 349

As fluids are injected into the reservoir with increasing pressure, three stages in the
pressure profile can be identified:

1. Breakdown pressure – this is the pressure required to initiate a fracture in the

formation.

2. Fracture propagation pressure – this is the pressure to be maintained to allow

the fracture to grow.

3. Instantaneous shut-in pressure – this is the pressure to be maintained to just

hold the fracture open.

The pressure profile described above is highly idealistic. Different formations may
exhibit different pressure profiles for fracturing. The profiles will be governed by a
number of underlying factors. For example, if the formation was stimulated before,
there may little or no difference at all between the breakdown pressure and the
propagation pressure.

If the instantaneous shut in pressure (pISIP) is the pressure required to just hold open a
fracture at the surface, then the bottomhole shut-in pressure (pBISIP) can be calculated:

p BISIP = p ISIP + ρgD (9.6)

From the bottomhole shut-in pressure, we can find the fracture gradient (FG) which is
defined as:

p BISIP
FG = (9.7)
D

where ρ = fluid density (lb/ft3)

g = gravitational constant = 32.174 ft/sec2
D = depth (ft)

9.3.2 Fundamental Modes of Fracture Propagation

There are three fundamental modes in which a fracture will propagate. These are
illustrated in Fig. 9.8.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 350

MODE III –
MODE II – In-planer Anti-planer shear
MODE I - Tensile shear dilation dilation
Fig. 9.8 – Fundamental modes of fracture propagation.

These are termed Mode I (tensile), Mode II (in-plane shear dilation), and Mode III
(anti-plane shear dilation). As will be discussed in the following section, a fracture
will propagate in the direction normal to the plane of least compressive stress.

Mode II- and Mode III-type fractures are at present impossible to initiate using
existing stimulation technology. However, Mode II and Mode III fracturing may
occur naturally in areas of high tectonic activity. We may, in future, develop the
technology to take advantage of these natural in-situ fractures. In subsequent
discussion, the focus of this course will be primarily on Mode I fractures.

9.4 Rock Stresses

The orientation of a fracture is governed by the principal stresses in the formation
(Fig. 9.9). A fracture will open and propagate in the direction in which the least
amount of work is required. Thus, to determine the direction in which a fracture will
propagate, it is first necessary to investigate the stress regimes in the rock itself.

σz

σx

σy z

Fig. 9.9 – Rock fracture shown perpendicular to the direction of least stress.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 351

The nature of stress regimes in the subsurface is extremely complex and is governed
by depth and tectonic activity in the region. There are several theories used to
simplify and predict the nature of stress in the subsurface. One approach is the elastic
theory of materials:

v (9.8)
σ i − p = 2G (∈i + e)(i = x, y , z )
1 − 2v

where σi = compressive stress in principal direction i,

p = formation pressure,
∈i = strain in principal direction i,
v = Poisson’s ratio,
G = modulus of rigidity and
e = decrease in unit volume per unit volume of rock.

These variables are defined by the following equations:

E
G=
2(1 + v)
e = ∈x + ∈ y + ∈z

where E = Young’s modulus of elasticity.

To really understand the stress regimes in the subsurface, one must get into a serious
study of the mechanical properties of rocks, tectonics and geology of the region of
interest. The fact that these areas are still subjects of active research (e.g., Mode II and
Mode III shear dilation) is testament to their complexity and is far beyond the scope
of this course. However, the parameters in the equations above can be found from
core samples and knowledge of tectonics and geology for a given region. Further
simplifications and assumptions can be made to find the compressive stresses in the
principal directions. Once the principal stresses have been identified, we can
determine the plane of least stress. Since a fracture will propagate normal to the plane
of least stress, we can predict the direction in which fracturing will occur.

In general, it is reasonable to assume that the stress regime will be governed primarily
by overburden stresses – and hence the depth of burial. This means that vertical
compressive stresses are usually greater than the horizontal stresses – unless there is
significant tectonic activity in the region which contributes to an increase in
horizontal compressive stresses. This implies that most fractures will be vertically
oriented and, in general, this is the case.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 352

9.5 Fracture Geometry

An important design parameter for a fracture treatment process is the geometry of the
fracture itself. It is important to take into consideration the shape a fracture will take,
although we have no control over it. The geometry of a fracture can be defined in
terms of the following parameters:

• Fracture length
• Fracture area
• Fracture width

The determination of the fracture geometry stems from the continuity equation:

Volume Pumped = Volume of Fracture + Volume Lost (9.9)

Individual components of Eq. (9.9) can be expressed as follows:

Volume Pumped = qt p
Volume Lost = (3CH p L) t p + 2 S p H p L
Volume of Fracture = w HL

where q = pump rate (ft3/min),

tp = total pump time (min),
Hp = permeable or “leak off” height of the fracture(ft),
H = total height of the fracture (ft),
w = average width of the fracture,
L = tip-to-tip length of the fracture,
C = fluid loss coefficient (ft.min-½), and
Sp = spurt loss (cc/cm2 or ft3/ft2) and it is found experimentally.

9.5.1 Fracture Length

It can be shown that the length of the fracture can be expressed as:

qt p
L= = Tip- to -Tip Length (9.10)
3CH p t p + 2 S p H p + w H

Often, H = Hp and the height of a fracture govern the length. The height of a fracture
is extremely important to consider – especially when the fracture treatment is near oil-
water or oil/gas contacts. Under these conditions, if a fracture is allowed to grow
vertically, it may gain access to gas/water zones which may be undesirable from a
production point of view. Hence, if we know the height restrictions for a given
reservoir, we can establish the length which would give the desired height.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 353

9.5.2 Fracture Area

There are many equations that could be used to estimate the fracture area. These are
two that are often used in the industry:

Carter area equation:

qw  x 2 2x 
A= 2 
e erfc( x) + − 1
4πC  π  (9.11)
πt
where x = 2C
w

Harrington/Nolte area equation – which is an excellent approximation to the

Carter area equation (and much easier to use):

qt p
A= (9.12)
3C t p + 2 S p + w

Like the equation for length, these equations are derived from the continuity
equation. It will be shown that the fracture area combined with the average
fracture width help to define the fracture fluid efficiency.

9.5.3 Fracture Width

In general, there are three fracture width models used in industry:

1. Perkins & Kern (PKN)

2. Geertsma deKlerk (GdK)
3. Radial Model

These models are illustrated in Fig. 9.10 below:

ELLIPTICAL CROSS
SECTION

AREA OF LARGEST
xf = L/2 FLOW RESISTANCE
xf

R = L/2

H
H

PERKINS & KERN (PKN) GERTSMA DEKLERK (GDK) RADIAL

L>H L<H L=H

Fig. 9.10 – Fracture width models.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 354

If a slit inside a rock formation is opened by internal pressure, a “slit” will open up to
an elliptical cross section, as shown in Fig. 9.11 below.

2d ( P − σ c )
w=
E'
d W
σC d = characteristic dimension (length or height)
P E' = plane strain modulus (≅ E, Young' s modulus)
P − σ c = net pressure

Fig. 9.11 – Basic mathematical solution for fracture width.

The characteristic dimension “d” in the mathematical model above is length, height,
or radius and is dependent on the fracture width model used. Table 9.1 gives a
general summary of the relations used in 2-D fracture geometry models.

Table 9.1 – Fracture width relations for 2-D fracture geometry models.

PKN GDK RADIAL

d (ellipse) H L R

w (width) (µQL/E')1/4 (µQL2/E'H)1/4 (µQR/E')1/4

P - σC (pressure) E' (µQL/E')1/4 E' (µQL2/E'H)1/4 E' (µQR/E')1/4

H L π

Note here that Pnet = (p – σc), where σc = compressive stress.

9.6 Fracture Fluid Efficiency

If the fracture area and its average width, and the volume injected are known, we are
in a position to derive an expression to define the fracture fluid efficiency:

qt p w w
Aw = = qt p
3C t p + 2S p + w 3C t p + 2S p + w
Aw = V FRACTURE , qt p = V INJECTED (9.13)
w
∴ V FRACTURE = V INJECTED
3C t p + 2S p + w

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 355

We define the fracture fluid efficiency (ef) as:

w
ef = (9.14)
3C t p + 2 S p + w

This is an important parameter in the design process as it can help determine the
volume of fluid required to complete a fracture treatment.

9.7 Fracture Fluids

The fluid system used in any fracture job is of vital importance from both economic
and design perspectives. The most basic fracturing fluid system is simply a sand-
water slurry. Other fracture fluid systems involve the use of “gelling agents” which
are added to control the fluid viscosity and water loss. A gelling agent is basically a
water-soluble polymer – fracture fluids of this type are often referred to as “linear
gels”. Other types of gelling agents are “cross-linked” – these are fracture fluid
additives.

The key properties of a fracture fluid are its viscosity, fluid loss, and its ability to
transport and hold proppant.

Viscosity
Generally, viscosity plays two important roles in a fracturing process:

1. Provide carrying capability to transport proppant from the wellbore to the

fracture tip.

2. Provide sufficient fracture width to ensure proppant entry into the fracture.

It is important not to overestimate the viscosity requirements for a fracture fluid.

Excessive viscosity increases costs and treating pressure, and may cause undesired
height growth of a fracture. The chemical additives used to increase the viscosity
may leave residue which can be damaging to the proppant.

Fluid Loss
Fluid loss is an extremely important variable in the design of a fracture treatment
process. It is measured by a fluid loss coefficient (C), which is a function of
formation permeability, reservoir temperature, and the “wall building
characteristics” of the fracturing fluid. Typically, values of C range between
0.0005 to 0.003 ft.min-½. Assuming that linear flow dominates, fluid loss can be
determined using the following equation:

CA
qloss = (9.15)
t −τ

where qloss = volume of fluid lost to the reservoir (ft3)

A = fracture area (ft2)
t = time since the area A was first exposed to fracture (min)

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 356

τ = time at which fracture was created (min)

C = total fluid loss coefficient (ft.min-½)

Fracturing Fluid Additives

Additives are used in fracturing fluids to control viscosity and fluid loss. In
general, there are two types of additives:

1. Gelling agents – examples are water-soluble polymers, guar, cross-linked

guar gum, cross-linked HPG, HEC and CMHEC. These are additives
which help control the viscosity of the fluid system.

2. Fluid loss additives – these are used to improve the wall-building

properties of a fluid system, and thus reduce the fluid loss. The addition of
5% hydrocarbons is an effective fluid loss technique for gelled water
cross-linked fluid systems in low permeability formations. The addition of
hydrocarbons effectively reduces the relative permeability to the water in
the filter cake on the fracture face. Solid additives are also used for
control of fluid loss.

Fluid additives must be used with extreme caution. Care must be taken so that the
use of additives has minimal effect on the conductivity of the fracture.

An ideal fluid system would have the following characteristics:

1. Low pumping friction – to minimise surface pressure and hydraulic

horsepower costs.

2. Stable viscosity – to minimise the need for using various fluids to achieve a
desired viscosity over the entire fracture length.

3. Perfect proppant transport – without excessive viscosity. The use of very

high viscosity to achieve perfect transport increases net treating pressure and
thus increases the chance of fracture height growth.

4. Good fluid loss control – to minimise the fluid volume required.

5. Sufficient “life” – to maintain the proppant in suspension until the fracture

closes.

6. Short breaking time – to minimize the shut in time (after the fracture closes)
before the fluid viscosity “breaks” to a lower viscosity and the well can flow.

7. Low or no residue – to minimize proppant pack damage.

Of course not all fluids satisfy these desirable qualities. There are always
compromises made due to economic and design constraints.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 357

9.8 Proppants
After a fracture has been created, it must be supported to hold it open when the
instantaneous shut-in pressure is removed – this is the role of proppant. The proppant
provides support to fractures by filling up the fracture volume, for this reason the
proppant must have high permeability so that the fluid conductivity remains high
through the fracture. To address these needs, there are industry set guidelines for
suitable proppants and selection. Some important physical properties are listed based
on API recommended practices:

1. Grain size and grain-size distribution – will have an effect on the fracture
conductivity. Proppants with larger grain sizes provide a more permeable pack.
However, their use must be evaluated in relation to the formation that os propped
and the increased difficulties encountered in proppant transport and placement.
Larger grain sizes can be more difficult to use in deeper wells because of greater
susceptibility to crushing. Figure 9.12 illustrates the effect of grain size at
increasing closure stresses.

Fig. 9.12 – Effect of particle size distribution on fracture conductivity1.

2. Roundness and sphericity – can have a dramatic effect on fracture conductivity.

Roundness is a measure of the relative sharpness of grain corners, or of grain
curvature. Sphericity is a measure of how close the grain approaches the shape of
a sphere. These parameters can be measured visually from a chart. API
recommends a value of 0.6 for both sphericity and roundness. The chart is shown
here in Fig. 9.13.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 358

Fig. 9.13 – Chart for visual estimation of roundness and sphericity.

3. Turbidity – is a measure of the presence of silt, clay and any other fine particle
contaminants.

4. Acid solubility – is a measure of non-quartz minerals present in the proppant. API

recommends less than 2% solubility when exposed to a 12-3 M HCl-HF acid
mixture.

5. Crush resistance – is a measure of the proppant strength. Dependent on the mesh

size, a proppant is exposed to stress loading and the API recommendation is for
the maximum percentage of fines generation. This varies from 6% - 20%
depending on the mesh size being tested.

Proppant selection should be based on maximizing return on investment. Proppants

should be tested in laboratory and variables such as dimensionless fracture
conductivity should be determined. Once this information is known, it can be utilised
in the economic design of the fracture treatment.

9.9 Operational Procedures

Treatment Scheduling

1. Selection of pad volume

2. Selection of slurry volume to follow pad
3. Proppant addition schedule specifying proppant concentration to be used

Treatment is dependent on the type of fracture fluid used. As an example, a high

viscosity cross-linked gel will have very little proppant settling out. Conversely, a
low-viscosity linear gel may have a significant amount of fluid settlement. Thus, there
are two approaches to treatment scheduling, one is applied to perfect support fluids,
and the other which is applied to “banking” fluids.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 359

Required Pad Volume

A pad is an unsupported fracture, i.e. one without any proppant packing. Fracture
treatment basically involves firstly setting up a pad, and then injecting the proppant to
support the fracture. The required pad volume can be calculated from:

f = (1 − e 2 ) + f (9.16)
p f c

where fp = fraction of the total job to be pumped as pad, and

fc = a correction factor equal to 0.05 for most cases
(0 < fc < 0.05, otherwise).

The term ef in Eq. (9.16) is the fracture fluid efficiency as defined by Eq. (9.14).

Perfect Support Fluids

Fluids that maintain apparent viscosity of 40 to 50 cp throughout the fracture are
considered perfect support fluids. A perfect support fluid will carry the proppant in
suspension throughout the length of the fracture.

Banking Fluids
Fluids with viscosity less than 40 cp are termed banking fluids. Banking fluids do not
have a high enough viscosity to suspend solids, therefore the proppant will settle as
the pad is being replenished. This practice is illustrated below:

PAD

Replenished PAD

Fig. 9.14 – Banking fluid.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003

Chapter 9 – Fracturing 360

The goal of this procedure is for the proppant to settle near the wellbore. Thus, the
final conductivity is a function of fracture width and proppant settling rate, and less
dependent on the final proppant concentration.

The two general types of fracture treatment schedules are illustrated in Fig. 9.15:

Fig. 9.15 – Fracture treatment schedules

V1 and V2 are the pad volumes for a tip screenout and standard fracture treatment
respectively.

REFERENCES
1. Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G., 1989: “Reservoir Stimulation”, 2nd Edition.
Schlumberger Educational Services, Houston, TX.

2. “Hydraulic Fracturing” training manual by NSI Technologies. Inc. 2nd Edition, 1992.

3. Morse, R.A., and Von Gonten, W.D., JPT, 24 (1972) 807.

4. Ramey, H.J., and Cobb, W.M., JPT, 23 (1971) 1493.

School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW Open Learning - 2003