(Blasingame) SPE 110187

SPE 110187
Evaluating the Impact of Waterfrac Technologies on Gas Recovery Efficiency: Case

Studies Using Elliptical Flow Production Data Analysis
D. Ilk, SPE, Texas A&M University, J.A. Rushing, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.,
R.B. Sullivan, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., and T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M University
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 1114 November 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper presents results from an evaluation of water-based
hydraulic fracture stimulation treatments (or "waterfracs")
performed in the Bossier tight gas sand play in the East Texas
Basin. The primary objectives of our study were to not only
assess stimulation effectiveness, but also to compare recovery
efficiencies of various waterfrac technologies. Our primary
evaluation tool is a set of new decline type curves developed
specifically for the analysis of production data acquired from
the elliptical flow period commonly observed in hydraulicallyfractured wells completed in tight gas sands [Amini et al
(2007)].
In this study we evaluated 12 gas wells from three Bossier
tight gas fields located in Freestone County, Texas. Stimulation treatments for the wells in this study include water-based
hydraulic fracture stimulation treatments with little or no sand,
cases with large sand concentrations, as well as "hybrid waterfracs." "Hybrid waterfracs" are defined as fracture stimulation treatments where water is pumped initially to create the
fracture geometry (i.e., width and length), followed by sandladen gels to transport and place sand in the fracture (presently
low concentration gels are used as opposed to large concentration gels used in the 1980s).
Results from our study confirm that "hybrid waterfracs" yield
longer, more conductive hydraulic fractures and are more
effective at recovering gas-in-place for a given well spacing.
Although less expensive to implement, small "waterfracs"
(with little or no sand/proppant) are less efficient at gas
recovery which suggests more wells may be required to
maximize gas recovery when "waterfracs" are employed.
Introduction
The practical goal for oil and gas operators exploiting any type
of hydrocarbon resource is to maximize economic returns by

optimizing field development activities. More specifically, the
key to effective exploitation of tight gas sands is to develop
the field at a sufficiently dense well spacing that maximizes
gas recovery while avoiding drilling more wells than is
necessary (i.e., establishing the optimum well spacing as early
as possible during field development).
In addition, significant reductions in capital expenditures may
be achieved by optimizing well stimulation treatments. Most
wells completed in tight gas sands require some type of
stimulation (i.e., hydraulic fracturing) to achieve economic
production. Depending on the type and size of stimulation
treatment, hydraulic fracturing may be very expensive
often representing a significant portion of the total well
completion costs.
In the past, hydraulic fracture treatments utilized polymer gels
combined with large proppant volumes in an attempt to create
long, conductive fractures. Although gels are very efficient
for transporting proppant, these gels often damage the fracture, are difficult to clean-up (i.e., remove from the formation), and often yield high net fracturing pressures and are
expensive. Under these conditions, minimal effective stimulation was achieved, sometimes resulting in sub-economic or
even uneconomic wells.
"Waterfrac" technologies were developed in the 1980s as less
expensive alternatives to gel treatments. Waterfracs initially
ranged from low fluid volume treatments with little or no sand
to larger treatments with higher sand concentrations. The
industry has recently demonstrated considerable success using
hybrid waterfrac technologies that combine advantages of both
large gel and waterfrac treatments. Although slightly more
expensive, field evidence indicates that hybrid waterfracs
generate longer, more conductive effective fractures than
smaller water-fracs [Rushing and Sullivan (2003)].
Published case histories make evident the relationship between
stimulation effectiveness and gas recovery i.e., wells with
longer, more conductive fractures recover more gas over a
larger drainage area. This concept seems obvious, but from a
practical (i.e., economic) standpoint, this issue must be
revisited continuously particularly at present, as more and
more marginal plays (tight gas/shale gas) are exploited.
As the economic viability of tight-gas-sand fields depends
(almost exclusively) on minimizing drilling and completion
D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, R.B. Sullivan, and T.A. Blasingame
costs, it is crucial that we find the proper balance between well

spacing, stimulation treatment selection, and gas recovery
efficiency. To that end, we have evaluated the production
performance for wells in the Bossier tight gas sand play where
different types of stimulations were used including:
small waterfracs with no proppant.

small waterfracs with 20/40 or 40/70 proppant.
large waterfracs with 20/40 or 40/70 proppant.
hybrid waterfracs.
Specifically, we provide 2 example analysis cases for each

well type (total of 12 examples). We have employed decline
type curves developed specifically for the case of an elliptically bounded reservoir system with a finite conductivity
vertical fracture (this model is characteristic of hydraulicallyfractured wells completed in tight gas sands) [Amini et al
(2007)]. During transient flow, elliptical flow occurs as a
transitional flow regime between the end of bilinear/formation
linear flow periods and the onset of pseudoradial flow. The
model we have used considers the entire range of flow
regimes but imposes an elliptical flow geometry to ensure the
most appropriate representation for the performance of a
fractured well in a bounded, tight gas reservoir.
The elliptical flow period is important since it represents the
time period when both reservoir and effective hydraulic
fracture properties affect the production response. Our choice
of an elliptical flow geometry over, say, a circular or
rectangular flow geometry was based on our objective of
obtaining the best estimate of contacted gas-in-place. Results
from evaluations based on the elliptical flow model allow us
to correlate drainage area (and gas recovery efficiency) with
created hydraulic fracture properties.
In this work, gas recovery efficiency is quantified in terms of
the elliptical boundary characteristic parameter (0) (which
relates the drainage area (dimensions of the ellipse) and the
fracture half-length), while stimulation effectiveness is quantified specifically in terms of the effective fracture half-length
and fracture conductivity.
Waterfrac Technologies: An Historical Perspective
As we noted earlier, water fracturing technologies were
developed as a less expensive alternative to conventional gel
treatments. Water fracturing or "waterfracs" were initially
designed to generate hydraulic fractures by injecting water
with little or no proppant. "Slick-water fracs" added linear
gels or friction reducers to the water. Previous studies have
suggested that, when compared to conventional gel treatments,
waterfracs can generate similar or sometimes better production
responses (refs. 1, 4-7, 10). Furthermore, even when conventional gel treatments generate longer propped fracture lengths
than a waterfrac, the presence of damaging gels may adversely
affect well performance (refs. 6-7, 10).
Microseismic imaging has shown that waterfracs may generate
very long fractures during treatment [Mayerhofer et al
(2000)]. However, the propped or effective fracture halflengths may vary significantly depending on both proppant
concentration and placement effectiveness. The use of little or
no proppant in a waterfrac may (and probably will) result in
low to very low fracture conductivities. Recent laboratory
SPE 110187
studies [Fredd et al (2000, 2001)] have shown fracture

conductivity may be either proppant- or asperity-dominated
depending on proppant concentration, proppant size and
strength, and the rock mechanical properties.
Under asperity-dominated conditions, the fracture conductivity is a function of fracture face asperities created when the
rock is fractured. High conductivity waterfracs can be generated in the absence of proppant only when rock displacement
creates ample surface roughness to provide sufficient fracture
width. Similar observations were made with low-strength
and/or low-concentration proppants [Fredd et al (2000, 2001)].
As a result, effective fracture conductivities are often difficult
to predict when little or no proppant is used. These
experimental studies also suggest that proppant-dominated
conditions could be achieved more consistently using high
proppant concentrations.
Hybrid waterfracs were developed to improve small waterfrac
effectiveness (i.e., increase both effective fracture conductivity
and length) while still maintaining the low costs. The hybrid
technology uses slick water to generate fracture width and
length while keeping net pressures low. Following creation of
the fracture geometry, gels with relatively low proppant
concentrations are used to transport proppant down the
fracture more effectively. Lower settling rates associated with
the gels also allow a more uniform and consistent distribution
of proppant placement prior to fracture closure.
Bossier Tight Gas Sand Stimulation Practices
Stimulation practices in Anadarko's Bossier tight gas sand
play have progressed since initial field development activities
began in the early-1990s. Wells were initially drilled on a
spacing of 80 acres during the primary field development
period. Following detailed production performance analyses,
Anadarko initiated an infill drilling program during which
well spacing was reduced to 40 acres per well in most areas.
Initially the sand stimulation treatments used for the Bossier
tight gas play consisted of high polymer-loading, cross-linked
fluids carrying large proppant volumes. Typical guar concentrations ranged from 40-50 lbs. polymer (HPG) per 1000 gal
fluid. These fluids were cross-linked with zirconate and
usually contained several hundred thousand pounds of 20/40
sand proppant.
The objective of these early treatments was to create optimal
conductivity by packing the fracture and creating tip screenouts. Unfortunately, the stimulated well performance, as
measured by initial production and decline rates, was
periodically disappointing. We attribute the poor results to
short effective fracture half-lengths which is probably a
result of both uncontrolled fracture height growth and gel
damage. These treatments were also very expensive.
In an effort not only to reduce stimulation costs but also
improve well performance in the Bossier tight gas sand play,
Anadarko initially applied the same "waterfrac" technologies
that were being employed in one of Anadarko's tight gas sand
fields in Oklahoma. Initially, Bossier waterfrac treatments
were composed of 5,000 to 10,000 bbls of water with friction
reducers but (typically) no proppant. These slick-waterfracs
were significantly less expensive than the cross-linked gel
SPE 110187
Evaluating the Impact of Waterfrac Technologies on Gas Recovery

Efficiency: Case Studies Using Elliptical Flow Production Data Analysis
treatments, and initial gas production rates were often as high

as wells stimulated with conventional gel treatments. Well
performance analyses for Bossier cases indicated that we had
generated fractures with effective half-lengths of 30 to 60 ft
and an effective conductivity on the order of 10 md-ft.
The next progression of stimulation treatments in the Bossier
sands continued to be slick-waterfracs, but included some
20/40 sand at low concentrations. Because of the limited
fracture widths generated with the slick water treatments, only
20,000 to 40,000 pounds of 20/40 proppant could be placed in
the formation. Although we generally observed higher initial
production rates than the slick-waterfracs with no proppant,
we continued to seek improvements in particular to improve the effective fracture lengths being generated by the
stimulation treatment.
In the next phase of sand-laden waterfrac treatments, we used
even larger proppant volumes (greater than 100,000 lbs), but
we also began experimenting with smaller proppant/sand
sizes. In particular, we found 40/70 proppants were very
effective. The use of smaller proppant sizes allowed a much
larger quantity (often exceeding 200,000 lbs.) of proppant to
be placed with the slick water. Not only did we observe a
significant increase in the initial production rates, but the
production performance behavior suggested we had generated
longer, more effective fracture half-lengths. Well performance analyses indicated that effective fracture half-lengths
ranged from almost 100 ft to as much as 230 ft. We did not,
however, observe a significant increase in effective fracture
conductivity.
wfkf, etc.) dominate the reservoir performance. The study of

elliptical flow has an important history in the petroleum
engineering literature (see our Reference section for Well
Performance Aspects of Elliptical Flow).
We recently developed and validated a series of "type curve"
solutions for a system consisting of a hydraulically fractured
well in a bounded elliptical shape reservoir [Amini et al
(2007)]. The type curves are generated from the (constant
rate) pressure solution which was obtained by using an
analytical technique. The type curves were generated for
different values of fracture conductivity and as a function of
elliptical boundary characteristic parameter (0).
The elliptical boundary characteristic parameter (0) is a
variable that correlates all the aspects of the drainage area and
the fracture half-length. The schematic of the elliptical reservoir model is provided in Fig. 1.
Figure 1
Schematic of the elliptical reservoir model (Amini

et al, 2007)
The objective of the most recent phase of Bossier sand

stimulation treatments was to increase both effective fracture
conductivity and half-length using a hybrid stimulation
technique. This hybrid technology uses slick water to
generate fracture width and length, while keeping net
pressures low. Following creation of the fracture geometry,
gels with relatively low proppant concentrations are used to
transport proppant down the fracture more effectively. Lower
settling rates associated with the gels also allow a more
uniform and consistent distribution of proppant placement
prior to fracture closure. The typical Bossier sand hybrid
treatments include pumping slick water initially to create
fracture geometry and followed by relatively low (30-35 lbs.
per 1000 gals) borate cross-linked gel carrying 20/40, 40/70,
or a mixture of proppant sizes for increased fracture length
and conductivity.
The elliptical outer boundary is assumed to have the same

focal length as the hydraulic fracture length which allows
us to write the following equations (where these relations
correlate all aspects of the drainage area into a single parameter (0)):
Overview of Decline Type Curves for Evaluating

Elliptical Flow
For our work, we utilize type curve solutions in terms of the

equivalent constant rate case in "decline" form (i.e., qD and its
auxiliary functions qDi and qDid versus tDA). We have
previously provided diagnostic examples [Amini et al (2007)
and Ilk et al (2007)] to demonstrate the value of the elliptical
boundary model.
It is well-known from pressure transient testing concepts that

elliptical flow patterns exist for hydraulically fractured wells
in low permeability and ultra-low permeability formations.
The elliptical flow period is regarded as a transitional flow
regime which takes place between linear and/or bilinear
formation flow and the beginning of pseudoradial flow, but as
can be shown in modeling, elliptical flow is "universal" for
low/ultra-low permeability formations. Specifically, elliptical
flow represents the phase when the reservoir properties (k, xf,
a = x f cosh( 0 ) ................................................................ (1)

b = x f sinh( 0 ) ................................................................. (2)
Area = ab =
sinh(2 0 ) x 2f ............................................ (3)
Drainage Aspect Ratio =
Penetration Ratio =
xf
a
a
= coth( 0 ) ............................. (4)
b
= cosh( 0 ) 1 ............................... (5)
In this work, our approach goes beyond diagnostics in

addition to diagnostics, we estimate the relevant reservoir
properties (i.e., k, xf, FE, G, A) using the type curve solutions
we have generated for the case of an elliptically-bounded
reservoir. As a reference, we follow similar diagnostic and
analysis procedures as those given by Pratikno et al [Pratikno
et al (2003)]. We again note that we use qD versus tDA format

for elliptical flow cases.
Estimation of Reservoir Properties:
The following reservoir properties are estimated using the
"decline type curve analysis" (type curve matching) approach:
Contacted gas-in-place (G):
G=
1 1 (t mbg ) MP (q g /pp ) MP
................................ (6)
c gi 2 (t DA ) MP
(q D ) MP
Reservoir drainage area (A):

A = 5.6148
GB gi
h (1 S wi )
.................................................... (7)
Formation permeability (k):

k = 141.2
B gi gi ( q g /pp ) MP
h
(q D ) MP
........................................ (8)
Fracture half-length (xf):
2A
1
xf =
sinh(
2
)
0
0.5
.................................................. (9)
The dimensionless fracture conductivity (elliptical boundary

model) (FE) is estimated based on the specific type curve used
to perform the analysis i.e., for the construction of the
elliptical flow type curves, only a single FE-value is used for
any particular type curve. The pseudopressure (pp) and
pseudotime (tmbg) functions, as well as all of the variables used
in this work are defined in the Nomenclature section.
SPE 110187
good. This performance is generally due to the quality (or accuracy of the pressure data).
Table 1
Example field cases based on the fracture

stimulation method.
Example
Cases
Well SW1
Well SW2
Well SW3
Well SW4
Well SW5
Well SW6
Well LW1
Well LW2
Well LW3
Well LW4
Well HW1
Well HW2
Fracture
Stimulation Method
Small Water (No Proppant)
Small Water (No Proppant)
Small Water (20-40 Proppant)
Large Water (20-40 Proppant)
Hybrid Water
Hybrid Water
This "four plot" process is designed to ensure that we consider

data quality and diagnostic observations at every step. Our
goals are to establish the most appropriate well/reservoir
model and to compare this model to the production data
functions in several different ways to ensure uniqueness (if
possible) in the diagnosis/analysis process.
Ex. 1 Well SW1: Small Waterfrac (No Proppant)
Example 1 is a "small waterfrac (no proppant) case and the
plots for this case are presented in Figs. 2-5. In Fig. 2 we note
some disparity in the production rate and pressure functions,
the character of which suggests modest liquid loading effects.
Field Examples
As mentioned earlier, we have utilized the type curves for a
bounded elliptical flow system with a hydraulic fracture for
the evaluation of 12 wells from three different Bossier tight
gas sand fields. Our study includes waterfracs with little to no
sand, waterfracs with large sand concentrations, and hybrid
waterfracs. We provide two example wells for each type of
waterfrac treatment for a total of 12 example cases, where
these cases are itemized in Table 1 and the details on the each
water fracture treatment (e.g., volume of sand, volume of
fracturing fluid, etc.) are presented in Table 2. Our evaluation
mechanism does not solely depend on "type curve" analysis
results in addition to this work, we also verified our results
using numerical simulation.
In the remainder of this section we provide the following plots
for each example:
Production history plot qualitative diagnostic plot used for
assessing the flowrate and pressure data. Used in this work to
identify liquid-loading or other production problems.
Diagnostic log-log plot diagnostic "pre-analysis" plot used to
characterize the performance of the well/reservoir and to establish a base model from which we begin the analysis process.
Elliptical boundary decline type curve match primary analysis plot for this work, matches the production performance the
presumed well/reservoir model.
Production history plot with model match compares the
"matched" well reservoir model to the entire production history.
As a general comment, the "rate" matches are typically good to
excellent; while the "pressure" matches range from poor/fair to
Figure 2 Ex. 1 (Gas Well SW1) Production history plot.
The "diagnostic" functions for this case are presented in Fig. 3

and except for some minor variations in the first couple of
months of data (where well clean-up and liquid loading appear
to be most influential (see Fig. 2)), we note good to excellent
diagnostic data functions. In particular, we can clearly
observe the character of a fractured well with boundary effects
in Fig. 3.
The "analysis" plot for this case is presented in Fig. 4 (type
curve match), where we also note some minor discrepancies
between the model and data functions at early times (as
diagnosed in Fig. 3). Otherwise, we can and should consider
the match shown in Fig. 4 to be very good (approaching
SPE 110187

excellent), and we should conclude that this interpretation is

both reasonable and accurate.
The model/data history comparison for this case is shown in

Fig. 5. As we suggested earlier, we will most likely see a very
good match of the flowrate history, but not necessarily for the
pressure history this conjecture is confirmed in Fig. 5 as we
note an excellent match of the rate function, but only an
acceptable (or fair) match of the pressure history. This observation is typical of the wells considered in this study, and the
most likely culprits with regard to the pressure data are: liquid
loading, the accuracy of the measured surface pressure, and (to
a lesser degree) the surface-to-bottomhole pressure conversion
algorithm.
Ex. 2 Well SW2: Small Waterfrac (No Proppant)
Example 2 is also a "small waterfrac (no proppant) case and
the plots for this case are presented in Figs. 6-9. The production history plot (Fig. 6) also shows apparent well clean-up
effects at early times, and considerable distortion caused
(presumably) by liquid loading throughout most of the production history.
Figure 3 Ex. 1 (Gas Well SW1) Diagnostic log-log plot

(dimensionless rate decline integral functions).
The "diagnostic" functions for this case are presented in Fig.

7. We note that the diagnostic functions are well-defined, and
we observe the character of a fractured well with boundary
effects.
Figure 4 Ex. 1 (Gas Well SW1) Elliptical boundary decline
type curve match [FE=10 (moderate conductivity),
0=2.0 (near-circular drainage geometry)].
Figure 5 Ex. 1 (Gas Well SW1) Production history plot

with model match [excellent flowrate match, acceptable pressure match].

In Fig. 8 we present the type curve match for this case. We

consider the "weak" match of the model and data at earliest
times to be an "artifact" of the well clean-up effects. We note
a very good match of the "rate" functions (black symbols
(data) and black line (model)) in Fig. 8, and suggest that we
could have matched the "integral" (blue data/line) and
"integral-derivative" (red data/line) trends better with some
judicious editing, but this was not our objective. Based on the
"rate" functions, this case suggests (and the model match
confirms) the character of a high conductivity vertical fracture.
SPE 110187
We believe that these two cases (Examples 1 and 2) are

sufficient to represent the behavior of the "no proppant" cases,
and in Examples 3-6 we do consider "proppant" as a component of the "small waterfrac" cases.
Ex. 3 Well SW3: Small Waterfrac (20/40 Proppant)
In Example 3 we again present a "small waterfrac" case, but
now we consider the influence of proppant (sand). The
diagnostic and analysis plots for this case are presented in
Figs. 10-13. In Fig. 10 we note very smooth and consistent
character in production rate and pressure functions liquid
loading (if it exists) appears to be limited to the latter portion
of the data (2200-2700 days).

type curve match [FE=100 (high conductivity),
0=3.0 (circular drainage geometry)].
The model/data history comparison for this case is shown in

Fig. 9, where we again note a good match of the model and
the rate history, but a fair (to poor) match of the pressure
history. As with Example 1 (see Fig. 5), we believe that liquid
loading is the primary reason behind this poor correlation of
the model and pressure history.
The diagnostic (rate and pressure) functions are presented in

Fig. 11, and we note excellent performance of these functions
suggesting (in advance) that we will obtain a good match of
the model and data functions. We will qualify our enthusiasm
for this case by noting that the erratic nature of the pressure
data at early times (Fig. 10) where this behavior has (apparently) yielded an artifact in the data functions (at early
times (Fig. 11). Regardless, we expect a good match at late
times and further, we should also expect a good match of
the flowrate and pressure histories with the well/reservoir
model (again, due to the consistent character of the flowrate
and pressure histories as seen in Fig. 10).

with model match [good flowrate match, fair/poor
pressure match].
Although other "small waterfrac (no proppant)" cases were

reviewed and analyzed, we present these particular cases due
to the consistency of the data and the clarity of the analyses.

SPE 110187

The type curve model/data match is shown in Fig. 12 and

as we noted, we do observe a discrepancy at early times. We
did match this case with a lower conductivity (FE-value) but
this caused more of a mismatch in the rate/pressure match
(Fig. 13). We believe that the well/reservoir model as matched to the data in Fig. 12 is appropriate, and we note that the
overall match for this case could likely be improved, but this
would come at the expense of "fitting the errors" in the pressure history.

In Example 4 we present another "small waterfrac" case with
20/40 (large size) sand. The diagnostic and analysis plots for
this case are presented in Figs. 14-17. The production history
plot is presented in Fig. 14 and as a comment; we note that the
flowrate and pressure functions appear well-correlated (with
the exception of the pressure (increasing) for the first 100 days
(well clean-up effects)).
In Fig. 15 we present the log-log diagnostic plot for this case

and note that only the early portion of the data (perhaps the
first log cycle) appears affected by well clean-up effects.
As noted above, we are satisfied with the well/reservoir model

match presented in Fig. 12 (in type curve format) as well as in
Fig. 13 (raw flowrate and pressure data matched with the
well/reservoir model). In Fig. 13 we note an excellent match
of the flowrate history and a good (actually very good) match
of the pressure history. This case represents a "balance" of
analysis between the diagnostic functions (Fig. 12) and the
production history (Fig. 13) we utilize this "balanced approach" for each case considered in this work.

The "type curve" match for this case is presented in Fig. 16,
and we note a good match of the "rate" functions (black
data/line) but a weaker match of the "rate integral" (blue
data/line) and "rate integral-derivative" (red data/line) functions at early times (due, as we believe, to well cleanup effects).

with model match [excellent flowrate match, good
pressure match].
As with Example 3, we have some mismatch at early times on

the type curve match (Fig. 16), but as shown in Fig. 17, we
obtain a very good match of the flowrate and pressure history
with the well/reservoir model. These comparisons confirm the
validity of our "balanced" approach to matching both the diag-
SPE 110187
nostic functions (use type curves) and the "history match" of

the production history (flowrate and pressure data).



with model match [excellent flowrate match, very
good pressure match].

In Example 5 we consider another "small waterfrac" case, but
now 40/70 (small size) sand is used. The smaller sand size is
used to assess an economic issue (smaller size sand is cheaper
than larger size sand). We have no expectation of smaller
sand being better or worse in performance than larger size
sand as this is a function of many variables, not the least of
which is the efficiency of the fracture treatment. Our goal is
to assess the well performance, not make recommendations as
to one sand sizing over another.
The history plot for this case is presented in Fig. 18, and we
immediately note a high degrees of liquid loading in the rate
and pressure history (the erratic "noise" in the flowrate data
are indicative of liquid loading). In addition, the pressure
history shows a "jumping" character (1300-2700 days) that is
indicative of remediation (plunger lift, soaping, surging, etc.).

0=1.75 ("fat" elliptical drainage geometry)].
The main issue with the character of the pressure data at late
times is not the cause, but the effect specifically, this be-
SPE 110187

havior casts doubt on the accuracy of the pressure history

during that time. We can (and do) address this issue with
editing of the diagnostic functions (see Figs. 19 and 20), but
we suspect (and confirm) that it will be difficult to match the
pressure history with the reservoir model at late times (see
Fig. 21).
In Fig. 19 we note an extraordinary character in the diagnostic
functions, this is small part to some judicious data editing (of
the base "rate function" (black symbols), not the production
history itself) but, we believe that this strong signature for a
fractured well of moderate conductivity is unique. Carrying
forth to the type curve analysis (Fig. 20), we note an extraordinary match of the data and well/reservoir model functions,
this is, perhaps, the best match in this work.

with model match [excellent flowrate match, good/
acceptable pressure match].
As noted above, the "history match," shown in Fig. 21 is

excellent for the flowrate function (factoring in that the model
trend is an average within the spectra of the effects of liquid
loading on the flowrate history). The pressure history match is
good at early times and "acceptable" at later times (where the
remediation for liquid loading is evident).


Example 6 is our second "small waterfrac"/small sand size
case and we should (logically) expect very similar performance to the previous case (Example 5). The production history
plot is presented in Fig. 22 and we note very similar
performance to that of the previous case (see Ex. 5, Fig. 18),
albeit the liquid loading effect is distributed a bit differently
for this case. In particular, as seen in Fig. 22, the flowrates
appear to be most distorted in the 700-1200 day timeframe,
while the pressure data appear to be most affected in the 200400 and 1000-1700 day timeframes.
We (again) address the liquid loading issue by careful editing
(beforehand) of the "rate" function shown on the diagnostic
plot, Fig. 23. Having done this, we note an excellent set of
diagnostic data trends in Fig. 23, and we expect (and confirm)
an excellent model match on the type curve plot (Fig. 24) of
which is the efficiency of the fracture treatment.

type curve match [FE=100 (high conductivity),
0=1.75 ("fat" elliptical drainage geometry)].
10
Our final task in this example is to assess the "history match"

of the flowrate and pressure functions with the well/reservoir
model. In Fig. 25 we note an extraordinary match of the flowrate data, and a fair match of the pressure history (poor at late
times due to the uncorrelated pressure/rate behavior after
1700 days).
SPE 110187
The diagnostic plot for this case is presented in Fig. 27 and we

note a very strong signature of high fracture conductivity (1/2
slope during transient flow on the all of the diagnostic "rate"
functions. This is an extraordinary case one which confirms our conjecture that a large fracture stimulation treatment
with a large sand volume will yield a long and conductive
hydraulic fracture.

with model match [excellent flowrate match, fair
pressure match].
As closure for Examples 1-6, these were all "small waterfrac"

cases general expectations would be that small fracture
half-lengths are achieved and that (relatively) small drainage
volumes are accessed. The complete suite of results for all
analyses is presented in Table 3, and we note that we do
confirm the expectations given above.
Ex. 7 Well LW1: Large Waterfrac (20/40 Proppant)
Starting with Example 7, we begin our review of the "large
waterfrac" cases where Example 7 is a "large" sand size
case (20/40). In this case we will expect large fracture penetrations (half-lengths) and high fracture conductivities.
Figure 27 Ex. 7 (Gas Well LW1) Diagnostic log-log plot

The "type curve analysis" plot for this case is presented in Fig.
28 and we note, as suggested earlier, that the data are matched
with a very high (essentially infinite) conductivity vertical
fracture solution. Further, despite the liquid loading issues
discussed in Fig. 26, we note (via judicious editing of the base
"rate" function (black symbols)) excellent data trends for all
"rate" functions, which match the well/reservoir model
uniquely and consistently (see Fig. 28).
The production history plot for Example 7 is presented in Fig.

26. The most obvious feature in Fig. 26 is the effect of liquid
loading in the flowrate data for the period of about 100-500
days the pressure data are less-affected, and the calculated
bottomhole pressure profile is more or less constant over the
life of the well.
Figure 28 Ex. 7 (Gas Well LW1) Elliptical boundary decline

type curve match [FE=1000 (very high conductivity), 0=1.5 (elliptical drainage geometry)].
Figure 26 Ex. 7 (Gas Well LW1) Production history plot.
In Fig. 29 we present the "history match" plot for this case,

where the production data and well/reservoir model responses
are compared directly. We note an excellent match of the
SPE 110187

flowrate data and a very good match of the pressure data.

There are minor discrepancies in both matches the rate
model provides an "average" trend that (certainly) does not
match the liquid loading-affected flowrate data at early times;
nor does the well/reservoir model match the pressure data
during the first 2 months of production. However, this case
remains an extraordinary example of the clarity and uniqueness of data diagnostics and model-based analyses (i.e., the
type curve and history matches).
11
expect a very good to excellent type curve match using an

elliptical flow model with a high fracture conductivity.

Figure 29 Ex. 7 (Gas Well LW1) Production history plot

with model match [excellent flowrate match, very
good pressure match].

Example 8 is similar to Example 7 in terms of the production
histories as it is presented in Fig. 30. The obvious feature in
this plot is the erratic pressure and rate data which are observed from 600-1200 days (according to the well completion
report, a workover was performed to remedy a "tubing or
packer leak," which resolved this behavior). We also note significant well clean-up effects in the pressure data during the
first 2 months of production.
The type curve match for this case is presented in Fig. 32, and
we note that the match is excellent, with only minor deviations
at very early times in the "rate integral-derivative" function
(i.e., the red data/trends). This early time issue does not affect
the overall match, and we are confident that this match is
unique and appropriate.

type curve match [FE=1000 (very high conductivity), 0=1.5 (elliptical drainage geometry)].
In Fig. 31 we present the diagnostic data functions for this

case as with Example 7, we note a strong transient flow
signature which suggests high fracture conductivity. In
addition to the transient signature, we also note a good
boundary-dominated flow signature in the "rate" function (i.e.,
the black symbols). Given the strength of these signatures, we
The overall history match for this case is shown in Fig. 33,
and we observe an excellent match of the flowrate history with
the well/reservoir model. The pressure history match is good
overall, with the exception of a period from 100 to 700 days,
where this could be due to an issue with the well completion.
It is noted in the well file that there was a "tubing or packer"
leak during this time, so the surface pressure data (as measured) may not be representative of the bottomhole condition.
12

pressure match].

Example 9 is a "large waterfrac" case that employs small size
sand as proppant (40/70 sand). The production history for this
case is presented in Fig. 34. The pressure profile shown in
Fig. 34 appears to be consistent and there is little evidence of
liquid loading. On the other hand, the flowrate profile is affectted (sometimes severely) by liquid loading, and as this
behavior is not reflected in the pressure data, this is cause for
(minor concern). The primary issue is the character of the
data, which appears to be good.
SPE 110187


0=1.5 (elliptical drainage geometry)].
The diagnostic data functions for this case are presented in

Fig. 35, and somewhat as expected (due the use of small
sand), the transient signature suggests a moderate to low
conductivity vertical fracture. There is also a strong boundary-dominated flow signature, so we should expect a good
type curve match for this case.
In Fig. 36 we present the "type curve match" for this case, and
as noted, we find the best match to be that of a well with a
low/moderate conductivity vertical fracture in an ellipticallybounded reservoir. The match as shown in Fig. 36 suggests
that the conductivity (FE) should probably be lower than 10,
but this is the "nearest" type curve that we have to match this
particular case.

pressure match].
SPE 110187

The final history match for this case is shown in Fig. 37. We
note an excellent (albeit average) match of the flowrate history
with the prescribed well/reservoir model. The pressure history
match is also good, with the exception being the period from
200-800 days, but this is also a period where the model
solution also over predicts the flowrate history. We believe
that these features confirm that our fracture conductivity value
may be slightly high (as we noted for the type curve analysis
match (Fig. 36).
13
In Fig. 40 we present the "type curve match" for this case, and
as expected, we achieve our best match of these data functions
using the well/reservoir model for the case of a well with a
vertical fracture of low (to very low) conductivity in an
elliptically bounded reservoir system. In short, Fig. 40 illustrates an excellent (if not extraordinary) match of the data
and the well/reservoir model.

Example 10 is the second "large waterfrac with small size
sand" (analogous to Example 9). The production history for
this case (flowrates and pressures) is presented in Fig. 38, and
we note very good rate and pressure correlation, with little
(apparent) mismatch. That is, virtually all features observed in
the flowrates are also observed in the pressures.
Figure 40 Ex. 10 (Gas Well LW4) Elliptical boundary decline type curve match [FE=1 (low conductivity),
The diagnostic data functions for this case are presented in

Fig. 39 and we observe very strong data trends in particular, the transient signature suggests a low (to very low) fracture conductivity for this case. The late-time data confirm the
boundary-dominated flow signature. Based on these observations, we can expect a very good to excellent match of these
data functions on the appropriate type curve.
The final "history match" for this case is presented in Fig. 41,
and the most striking feature is the poor pressure match at
early times. This was not expected based on the "type curve
match," but close inspection of the early time flowrate match
on Fig. 41 also indicates an under prediction of the flowrate
during this time. We suspect that a slight increase in the
fracture conductivity should improve this match. Except for
this early-time discrepancy, the remainder of the flowrate and
pressure history match is acceptable.

with model match [very good flowrate match, acceptable pressure match].
14
Ex. 11 Well HW1: Hybrid Waterfrac

In this example and the next we consider the case of a "hybrid
frac" which combines the slick water fracture initiation with a
low concentration gel for the placing the proppant. In theory,
these cases should show the highest production potential in
practice, the reality may be different.
SPE 110187
The "type curve match" for this case is provided in Fig. 44 and
we note an excellent (if not extraordinary) match of the
diagnostic data functions with the imposed well/reservoir
model.
The production history for Example 11 is presented in Fig. 42

we observe (immediately) the erratic nature of the flowrate
profile. Based on the nature of the "noise" i.e., the flowrate
data oscillate about a mean trend, we strongly believe that this
is a liquid loading affect. Unfortunately (as with some of our
previous examples), the liquid loading features observed for
the flowrate data are not well-correlated with the pressure
data.
Figure 44 Ex. 11 (Gas Well HW1) Elliptical boundary

decline type curve match [FE=1000 (very high
conductivity), 0=1.0 ("thin" elliptical drainage
geometry)].
Figure 42 Ex. 11 (Gas Well HW1) Production history plot.
Despite the severity of the liquid loading observed in the

flowrate data shown in Fig. 42, we do obtain (via some
judicious editing of the "rate" function (black symbols) shown
in Fig. 43), very clear diagnostic data trends in Fig. 43. From
the trends observed in Fig. 43, we suggest that this case will
be matched very well by the solution for a well with a high
conductivity vertical fracture producing in a bounded elliptical
reservoir.
The production "history match" for this example is presented

in Fig. 45. The flowrate match is very good, and the pressure
match is fair. The surprising aspect of this history match is
that the model flowrate response actually corresponds quite
well with the observed flowrate data. This is most likely due
to the measured pressures being "better" than they appear.
The pressure match is not as poor as it may seem given the
very erratic nature of the rate function (which is used in the
model to produce the model pressure response).
Figure 45 Ex. 11 (Gas Well HW1) Production history plot

with model match [very good flowrate match, fair
pressure match].
Figure 43 Ex. 11 (Gas Well HW1) Diagnostic log-log plot

In closing, this example has some contradiction in the type

curve and the production history matches however; most of
the discrepancies can be attributed to the liquid loading. The
type curve analysis methodology is very "error tolerant"
(based on the plotting functions) and is less affected by "data
SPE 110187

15
noise." The production history match (which is generated

using numerical simulation tuned by the "type curve" match)
is less tolerant to errors, each flowrate or pressure data has an
impact on the modeled solution responses.
Ex. 12 Well HW2: Hybrid Waterfrac
Example 12 is the second "hybrid waterfrac" case and the
production data for this case are shown in Fig. 46. These data
appear to be quite consistent, with some liquid loading effects
(primarily exhibited by the flowrate data).
Figure 48 Ex. 12 (Gas Well HW2) Elliptical boundary

decline type curve match [FE=1 (low conductivity),
Figure 46 Ex. 12 (Gas Well HW2) Production history plot.
The diagnostic plots for this case are shown in Fig. 47 and it is
apparent that this well has a low (or very low) fracture conductivity. We also note a strong boundary-dominated flow
signature, so we should expect a good match of these data
functions on the elliptical boundary type curve.
The "history match" for this case is presented in Fig. 49. The
match of the flowrate data and the well/reservoir model is
excellent, one of the best cases we have had in this work.
Similarly, the pressure match is also good better than most
of the cases that we have considered in this work. We note
that even the early-time pressure match is better than expected
(but certainly not perfect).
Figure 49 Ex. 12 (Gas Well HW2) Production history plot

pressure match].
Figure 47 Ex. 12 (Gas Well HW2) Diagnostic log-log plot
The "type curve match" for this case is shown in Fig. 48, the
match is very good (if not excellent), except at very early
times. This weak performance at early times is almost certainly an artifact due to the "clean-up" effects evident in the
production pressures during the first 100 days of production
(see Fig. 46). Perhaps the most important aspect of the type
curve match is that it confirms our conjecture (based on Fig.
47) that the fracture is of low conductivity.
Discussion of Results
We compile the results from the previous section as shown in
Table 3. A superficial review of the data in this table confirms what one would expect higher reservoir permeabilities (k) correlate (or should correlate) with higher contacted
gas-in-place (G) estimates. Plotting these data (G versus k) as
shown in Fig. 50, we observe a strong correlation for the
"large waterfrac" and the "hybrid waterfrac" cases, while the
"small waterfrac" cases are clearly off-trend (with a couple of
noted exceptions).
16
The high contacted gas-in-place "on-trend" point for the

"small water-frac" case (Fig. 50) is a "high" permeability case
(and also has the shortest fracture half-length observed in this
study). It is not surprising that this case correlates as well it
does (i.e., the effectiveness of the fracture is less of an issue
than for the other cases).
SPE 110187
In Fig. 52 we show another correlation in this case we

compare the permeability (k) and the drainage aspect ratio
(0). We note a clear correlation of increasing permeability
with increasing values of the drainage aspect ratio. In
particular, small waterfracs exhibit the highest values of
permeability which is probably a consequence of field
development strategies, as the small waterfrac wells are the
oldest wells in our study, and would (presumably) be located
in the best part(s) of the reservoir.
Figure 50 Correlation of results G versus k.
The low contacted gas-in-place "on-trend" point for the "small

water-frac" case (Fig. 50) is the lowest permeability case
but it has a good estimate of fracture half-length and fracture
conductivity. In other words, this case is likely just a coincidence the low permeability nature of this case dominates
the behavior of this well.
As another correlation of these results, we present Fig. 51
where the contacted gas-in-place (G) is plotted versus the fracture half-length (xf). In this case we note an extraordinary
correlation of G with xf, regardless of the effectiveness/efficiency of the fracture stimulation treatment. In short, Fig.
51 confirms the concept that "the fracture defines the reserves"
in low permeability gas reservoirs.
Figure 52 Correlation of results k versus 0.
In Fig. 53 we present our correlation of results for the fracture

half-length (xf) compared to the drainage aspect ratio (0).
Figure 53 Correlation of results xf versus 0.
Figure 51 Correlation of results G versus xf.
Similar in form to the k versus 0 data (Fig. 52), but opposite

in trend, we note that the xf versus 0 data provide very strong
evidence of an inverse correlation of xf versus 0. Fig. 53 suggests that we can envision the dimensions of the ellipse boun-
SPE 110187

17
dary from the fracture half-length which is logical and

consistent with our other observations.
lyzed so far. We continue to evaluate more cases to validate

our claim.
Summary and Conclusions
Conclusions:
Summary: In this work we have demonstrated the application

of a rigorous model for the diagnosis and analysis of well
performance data specifically the bounded elliptical reservoir solution applied as "decline type curves" to data from
hydraulically fractured gas wells where the stimulation treatment method was considered as a variable. All of the cases
considered (12 examples) were successfully analyzed using
the elliptical boundary model, and we were also able to
correlate the influence of the stimulation treatment on the
results.
For example, the hybrid and the large waterfracs were shown
to be the most effective treatments in terms of fracture halflength and conductivity delivered to the formation. This study
was performed to provide a quantitative assessment of the influence of the type/size of hydraulic fracture treatment on the
formation and well performance, and we believe that the
results support the conjecture that a "better fracture treatment
yields better recovery."
On the basis of the 12 cases evaluated to date, the results
suggest that the value of the drainage aspect ratio tends to decrease with more effective stimulation treatments, i.e., as effective fracture half-length and conductivity increase. Decreasing drainage aspect ratios (i.e., 0 approaching 0) indicates the dimensions of the fracture are approaching the dimensions of the ultimate drainage area, thus maintaining formation
linear flow and elliptical drainage geometry for long time periods. Conversely, increasing drainage aspect ratios (i.e., 0
approaching 3) indicates smaller fracture dimensions relative
to the ultimate drainage area. These larger drainage aspect
ratios are also characterized by relatively short formation linear flow periods and the onset of pseudoradial flow (i.e, more
of a circular drainage area shape) much sooner in the well's
productive life.
We should note that the drainage area size and shape have
implications for the optimum well spacing. Wells with smalller drainage aspect ratios will ultimately recover a larger percentage of the gas-in-place, thus requiring fewer wells to develop a field, while wells with larger drainage aspect ratios
will be less efficient at gas recovery.
Another conclusion that may be put forward based on the
cases analyzed to date is the relationship between proppant
size and effective fracture properties for the same type of
stimulaition treatment. The results shown in Table 3 suggest
that we can, in general, achieve longer, more conductive fractures with 40/70 rather than 20/40 proppant. For example, the
average effective fracture half-length for the small waterfracs
with 40/70 proppant was 170 ft while that for small waterfracs
with 20/40 proppant was 135 ft. These observations seem to
be validated with the values of drainage aspect ratios which
range from an average of 1.75 to 2.00 for small waterfracs
with 40/70 and 20/40 proppant, respectively. We should note
that this conclusion is based on a limited number of cases ana-
1. Large waterfracs tend to deliver very good fracture halflengths and excellent fracture conductivities.
2. Hybrid waterfracs tend to consistently provide the largest
fracture half-lengths, and good fracture conductivity.
3. Small waterfracs (with or without proppant) tend to provide
the smallest fracture half-lengths and the lowest fracture
conductivities.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our thanks to Anadarko Petroleum
Corp. for their permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
Field Variables
a
= Major axis of the ellipse, ft
A
= Area of the ellipse/reservoir drainage area, ft2
b
= Minor axis of the ellipse, ft
Bgi
= Gas formation volume factor at pi, RB/MSCF
cgi
= Gas compressibility at pi, psi-1
= Porosity, fraction
G
= Contacted gas-in-place, MSCF
h
= Pay thickness, ft
k
= Formation permeability, md
kf
= Fracture permeability, md
g
= Gas viscosity, cp
gi
= Gas viscosity at pi, cp
pi
= Initial reservoir pressure, psia
= Initial reservoir pseudopressure, psia
ppi
= Pseudopressure function, psia
pp
pp = (ppi-ppwf) = Pseudopressure difference, psi
pwf
= Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
ppwf = Flowing bottomhole pseudopressure, psia
qg
= Gas flowrate, MSCF/D
= Wellbore radius, ft
rw
Swi
= Gas compressibility at pi, psi-1
t
= Time, D
tmba = Gas material balance time, D
= Fracture width, ft
wf
xf
= Fracture half-length, ft
z
= Gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
zi
= Gas compressibility factor at pi, dimensionless
Dimensionless Variables
= Elliptical fracture conductivity, dimensionless
FE
qD
= Dimensionless flowrate, dimensionless
= Dimensionless rate integral, dimensionless
qDi
qDid = Dimensionless rate integral derivative, dimensionless
= Dimensionless time (drainage area), dimensionless
tDA
0
= Elliptical boundary characteristic variable, dimensionless
Mathematical Functions
coth = Hyperbolic cotangent function
cosh = Hyperbolic cosine function
sinh = Hyperbolic sine function
Gas Pseudofunctions:
pp =
gi iz i
t mbg =
pi
gi c gi
qg (t )
pbase
g z
dp
qg (t )
g ( p) c g ( p)
dt
18
References
Hydraulically Fracturing:
1. Craddock, D.L., Goza, B.T., and Bishop, J.C.: "A Case History Fracturing the Morrow in Southern Blaine and Western Canadian
Counties, Oklahoma," paper SPE 11567 presented at the 1983
SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
February 27-March 1.
2. Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England, K.W.:
"Experimental Study of Fracture Conductivity Demonstrates the
Benefits of Using Proppants," SPE paper 60326 presented at the
2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, March 12-15.
3. Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England, K.W.:
"Experimental Study of Fracture Conductivity for WaterFracturing and Conventional Fracturing Applications," SPE
Journal, v. 6, no. 3 (September 2001) 288-298.
4. Kundert, D.P. and Smink, D.E.: "Improved Stimulation of the
Escondido Sandstone," paper SPE 7912 presented at the 1979
SPE Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, CO, May 20-22.
5. Mack, D.J. and Myers, R.R.: "Proppants: Is Bigger Better or Is
Placement The Key?," paper SPE 72381 presented at the 2001
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, OH, October 17-19.
6. Mayerhofer, M.J., Richardson, M.F., Walker, Jr., R.N., Meehan,
D.N., Oehler, M.W., and Browning, Jr., R.R.: "Proppants? We
Don't Need No Proppants," paper SPE 38611 presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, October 5-8.
7. Mayerhofer, M.J. and Meehan, D.N.: "Waterfracs-Results from
50 Cotton Valley Wells," paper SPE 49104 presented at the 1998
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
LA, September 27-30.
8. Mayerhofer, M.J., Walker, Jr., R.N., Urbancic, T., and Rutledge,
J.T.: "East Texas Hydraulic Fracture Imaging Project: Measuring Hydraulic Fracture Growth of Conventional Sandfracs and
Waterfracs," paper SPE 63034 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 1-4.
9. Rushing, J.A. and Sullivan, R.B.: Evaluation of a Hybrid WaterFrac Stimulation Technique in the Bossier Tight Gas Sands Play,"
paper SPE 84394 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, October 5-8.
10. Walker, R.N., Hunter, J.L., Brake, A.C., Fagin, P.A., Steinsberger, N.: "Proppants, We Still Don't Need No Proppants - A Perspective of Several Operators," paper SPE 49106 presented at the
1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, September 27-30.
Well Performance Aspects of Elliptical Flow:
11. Amini, S., Ilk, D. and Blasingame, T.A.: "Evaluation of the
Elliptical Flow Period for Hydraulically-Fractured Wells in Tight
Gas Sands Theoretical Aspects and Practical Considerations,"
paper SPE 106308 presented at the 2007 SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, TX, January
29-31.
12. Hale, B.W.: Elliptical Flow Systems in Vertically Fractured Gas
Wells, M.S. Thesis, U. of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming (1991).
13. Kuchuk, F., and Brigham, W.E.: "Transient Flow in Elliptical
Systems," SPEJ (December 1979), 401-10, Trans., AIME, 267.
14. Liao, Y.: Well Production Performance and Well Test Analysis
for Hydraulically Fractured Wells, Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas
A&M U., College Station, Texas 1993).
15. Obut, S.T., and Ertekin, T.: "A Composite System Solution in
Elliptic Flow Geometry," SPEFE (September 1987), 227-38.
16. Prats, M.: "Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior
Incompressible Fluid Case," SPEJ (June 1961), 105-18; Trans.,
AIME, 222.
SPE 110187
17. Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., Strickler, W.R.: "Effect of Vertical

Fractures on Reservoir Behavior Compressible Fluid Case,"
SPEJ (June 1962), 87-94; Trans., AIME, 225.
18. Riley, M.F.: Finite Conductivity Fractures in Elliptical
Coordinates, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., Stanford, California
(1991).
19. Stanislav, J.F., Easwaran, C.V., and Kokal, S.L.: "Analytical
Solutions for Vertical Fractures in a Composite System," J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. (September-October 1987), 51-6.
20. Stanislav, J.F., Easwaran, C.V., and Kokal, S.L.: "Elliptical Flow
in Composite Reservoirs," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (December 1992),
47-50.
Production Data Analysis:
21. Pratikno, H., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Decline
Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Fractured Wells," paper
SPE 84287 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 05-08 October.
22. Ilk, D., Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, N., Amini, S., and Blasingame,
T.A.: "Application of the -Integral Derivative Function to
Production Analysis," paper SPE 107967 presented at the 2007
Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, Denver,
CO, 16-18 April.
SPE 110187

19
Table 2 Details on the Types of Waterfrac Treatments.
Example
Well
SW1
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
LW1
LW2
LW3
LW4
HW1
HW2
Proppant
Quantity & Size
(lbs)
9,264
None
9,512
None
7,745
33,000 (20/40)
17,147
63,000 (20/40)
8,539
50,200 (40/70)
4,915
48,000 (40/70)
7,743
206,900 (20/40)
7,300
247,500 (20/40)
9,439
181,460 (40/70)
12,545
254,600 (40/70)
2,082 + 4,827 510,140 (20/40)
7,750 + 15,959 98,000 (20/40)
Volume
(bbl)
Fracture Type
Fluid Type
Small Water (No prop)

Small Water (20-40)
Small Water (20-40)
Small Water (40-70)
Small Water (40-70)
Large Water (20-40)
Large Water (20-40)
Large Water (40-70)
Large Water (40-70)
Hybrid Water
Hybrid Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water
Slick Water + X-link Gel
Slick Water + X-link Gel
Table 3 Results for Elliptical Flow Type Curve Analyses.
Example
Well
SW1
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
LW1
LW2
LW3
LW4
HW1
HW2
Fracture Type
Small Water (20-40)
Small Water (20-40)
Small Water (40-70)
Small Water (40-70)
Large Water (20-40)
Large Water (20-40)
Large Water (40-70)
Large Water (40-70)
Hybrid Water
Hybrid Water
Permeability
(md)
0.0093
0.0157
0.0097
0.0125
0.0075
0.0030
0.0021
0.0039
0.0053
0.0118
0.0030
0.0235
Gas-inPlace
(BSCF)
1.92
3.27
1.28
1.63
1.68
1.62
1.46
3.31
1.66
2.97
1.60
3.65
Fracture
Half-Length
(ft)
163
69
129
142
195
145
134
184
193
212
200
290
Fracture
Conductivity
(dimensionless)
10
100
10
10
10
100
1000
1000
10
1
1000
1
Aspect
Ratio (0)
(dimensionless)
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.75
1.75
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
Drainage
Area
(acre)
26.26
34.45
16.45
20.05
22.85
12.61
6.51
12.21
13.44
16.28
5.25
30.43

(Blasingame) SPE 110187

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Blasingame) SPE 110187

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE 110187

Evaluating the Impact of Waterfrac Technologies on Gas Recovery Efficiency: Case

of hydrocarbon resource is to maximize economic returns by

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, R.B. Sullivan, and T.A. Blasingame

costs, it is crucial that we find the proper balance between well

small waterfracs with no proppant.

Specifically, we provide 2 example analysis cases for each

studies [Fredd et al (2000, 2001)] have shown fracture

Evaluating the Impact of Waterfrac Technologies on Gas Recovery

treatments, and initial gas production rates were often as high

wfkf, etc.) dominate the reservoir performance. The study of

Schematic of the elliptical reservoir model (Amini

The objective of the most recent phase of Bossier sand

The elliptical outer boundary is assumed to have the same

Overview of Decline Type Curves for Evaluating

For our work, we utilize type curve solutions in terms of the

It is well-known from pressure transient testing concepts that

a = x f cosh( 0 ) ................................................................ (1)

sinh(2 0 ) x 2f ............................................ (3)

Drainage Aspect Ratio =

= cosh( 0 ) 1 ............................... (5)

In this work, our approach goes beyond diagnostics in

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, R.B. Sullivan, and T.A. Blasingame

et al (2003)]. We again note that we use qD versus tDA format

Reservoir drainage area (A):

Formation permeability (k):

Fracture half-length (xf):

The dimensionless fracture conductivity (elliptical boundary

Example field cases based on the fracture

This "four plot" process is designed to ensure that we consider

Figure 2 Ex. 1 (Gas Well SW1) Production history plot.

The "diagnostic" functions for this case are presented in Fig. 3

Evaluating the Impact of Waterfrac Technologies on Gas Recovery

excellent), and we should conclude that this interpretation is

The model/data history comparison for this case is shown in

Figure 3 Ex. 1 (Gas Well SW1) Diagnostic log-log plot

Figure 6 Ex. 2 (Gas Well SW2) Production history plot.

The "diagnostic" functions for this case are presented in Fig.

Figure 5 Ex. 1 (Gas Well SW1) Production history plot

Figure 7 Ex. 2 (Gas Well SW2) Diagnostic log-log plot

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, R.B. Sullivan, and T.A. Blasingame

In Fig. 8 we present the type curve match for this case. We

We believe that these two cases (Examples 1 and 2) are

Figure 10 Ex. 3 (Gas Well SW3) Production history plot.

The model/data history comparison for this case is shown in

The diagnostic (rate and pressure) functions are presented in

Figure 9 Ex. 2 (Gas Well SW2) Production history plot

Although other "small waterfrac (no proppant)" cases were

Figure 11 Ex. 3 (Gas Well SW3) Diagnostic log-log plot

Evaluating the Impact of Waterfrac Technologies on Gas Recovery

The type curve model/data match is shown in Fig. 12 and

Ex. 4 Well SW4: Small Waterfrac (20/40 Proppant)

Figure 14 Ex. 4 (Gas Well SW4) Production history plot.

In Fig. 15 we present the log-log diagnostic plot for this case

As noted above, we are satisfied with the well/reservoir model

Figure 15 Ex. 4 (Gas Well SW4) Diagnostic log-log plot

Figure 13 Ex. 3 (Gas Well SW3) Production history plot

As with Example 3, we have some mismatch at early times on

D. Ilk, J.A. Rushing, R.B. Sullivan, and T.A. Blasingame

nostic functions (use type curves) and the "history match" of

Figure 18 Ex. 5 (Gas Well SW5) Production history plot.

Figure 16 Ex. 4 (Gas Well SW4) Elliptical boundary decline

Figure 19 Ex. 5 (Gas Well SW5) Diagnostic log-log plot