SPE 71657
When Fracturing Doesn’t Work
Alfred R. Jennings, Jr., Enhanced Well Stimulation, Inc.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.
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, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Well stimulation by hydraulic fracturing is one of the most
unique of the commonly used oilfield practices. In spite of the
fact that the treatments are relatively expensive and substantial
permanent changes are induced in a fractured well, most of
today’s fracturing treatment applications are based on
theoretical engineering relationships. For a treatment to be
effectively ‘designed’, a myriad of treatment parameters must
be considered using sophisticated fracture modeling software.
For those not experienced with fracturing, the development of
a successful treatment approach may seem quite confusing.
How does one know the ‘best’ or the ‘optimum’ fracturing
treatment approach? Several related questions arise
concerning candidate selection and methods to evaluate the
effectiveness of the treatment.
The success of well stimulation by fracturing is readily
observable through well response. Most often the response
can be seen just hours after the treatment. Throughout its
history, sufficient success has been achieved with fracturing
that it has become one of the most widely used techniques for
improving well productivity.
There are many instances where fracturing has not worked, or
at least has not provided desired improvement in well
productivity. Failure with fracturing always carries an
economic impact whether it involves a single well or
influences the feasibility of developing an entire field.
The purpose of this paper is not to provide an analytical
treatise into all the reasons why fracturing treatments may fail.
Rather, two approaches will be taken to address the topic
“when fracturing doesn’t work”. The first will deal with the
historical perspective and pertinent improvements in
fracturing over the last 50 years will be discussed. Secondly, a
series of common reasons for fracturing failures will be
described. Finally, suggestions will be offered to provide
further improvements in the success of application of
hydraulic fracturing.
Historical Perspective
Since the early days, a fracturing treatment has been generally
considered successful if the well produces significantly better
after the treatment. Conversely, a treatment is considered a
failure if there is little change in well productivity (or
injectivity) after fracturing. Throughout 50 years of
development, the understanding of fracturing has increased
substantially but the rules for definition of success (or failure)
have remained relatively unchanged.
Substantial incremental progress in fracturing technology is
usually made when existing technology, techniques, or
processes must be extended to match candidate well
conditions. This typically occurs when a particular fracturing
application doesn’t work, or at least it hasn’t worked as well
as expected.
A historical overview of the following areas of hydraulic
fracturing will be beneficial to this discussion:
• Modeling
• Fluids
• Proppants
• Equipment
• Perforating
• Interpretation and Optimization
Fracture Modeling
From the first commercial fracturing treatment in 1949 until
the late 1960’s, almost all induced hydraulic fractures were
believed to be horizontal in orientation and all fracture
calculations were based on the geometry of a single horizontal
fracture1. Fracture initiation pressure was defined as the
2 ALFRED R. JENNINGS, JR.
fracture parting pressure indicating the pressure necessary to
open the hydraulic fracture. Since most early treatments were
conducted in oil wells producing from sandstone formations,
formations were believed to “break down” in a depositional
layer in the sandstone and the fracture would propagate
horizontally from that point.
Fracture geometry was described in terms of fracture radius
and fracture area. With fracture area a function of the square
of the radius, incremental increases in fracture extension
required substantial amounts of additional fracturing fluid.
Proppant concentrations for the early treatments began at 0.25
lbs/gal and were increased incrementally in 0.25 lb increments
to 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 lbs/gal. The proppant concentration
was typically referred to as Cp max to designate concentration at
the pumps. The very low proppant concentrations were
specifically selected as part of the “design” of the horizontal
treatment to provide a partial monolayer of proppant.
Monolayers and multilayers of proppant were undesirable
since the fracture permeability was thought to be much less
than that achievable with a partial monolayer based on
laboratory fracture conductivity tests.
As hydraulic fracturing applications spread, the input and
results of several investigators became very important.
Although the viewpoint was very controversial when
introduced to many of the fracturing experts of the day,
sufficient field data and technical arguments were offered to
cause a 90o change in fracture orientation from horizontal to
vertical2,3,4. This critical change is an excellent example of
when fracturing concepts no longer work, theories and
processes are developed to more closely fit applications.
With the introduction of theoretical concepts to calculate
vertical fracture width3,5,6,7, fracture area8, and proppant
transport9, early computer models were developed for the
design of fracturing treatments. These relatively simple 2D
frac designs based on constant frac height models were ‘state-
of-the art’ in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Fracture
design input during this time consisted of well data and
fracturing parameters keypunched onto a large stack of
computer cards. The keypunched cards were then fed into a
large mainframe computer (IBM 1120, for example) that
would crank out the design in about 20 minutes. The entire
frac design process took 2-3 hours for a single design run (i.e.
treatment volume and injection rate). Once the initial design
was calculated, the simplicity of the initial frac design
programs, however, could be demonstrated by the fact that
doubling the fracture volume would double the fracture length
accordingly!
With the continued efforts of major operating companies,
service companies, and universities, modeling of vertical
fractures became more realistic. Gradually, the 2D frac
models were replaced with the pseudo-3D models in use
today10,11,12,13. Developments and improvements continue
SPE 71657
with fracture modeling continue to be driven by the expansion
of successful applications in other areas such as frac pack
applications14 and acid fracturing15.
It is important to note that the different 3D models available
commercially today all provide different calculated fracture
geometries for a given set of input data. However, each of the
models has been used to design very successful fracturing
treatments throughout the world. This fact demonstrates that
hydraulic fracturing has a very high probability of success
when properly (and strategically) applied even with the
current variance in the theoretical “design” concepts.
Fracturing Fluids
Since the early days of fracturing, laboratory testing has been
used to help provide measurements of certain parameters
known to be critical to the outcome of the treatments.
Measurements of fracturing fluid leak-off and of fracture
conductivity using formation core samples are examples of the
early tests. Fracture fluid viscosity during the treatment has
also been an ongoing concern. Viscosity and other rheological
properties were also determined for available fracturing fluids.
For fracturing treatments in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s,
fracturing fluids were a primary concern. Only oil wells were
considered fracturing candidates and only oil-based fluids
were used to ensure compatibility of the fracturing fluid with
the oil-producing formations. With the very limited database
for the new technology, early failures with fracturing
influenced its further applications significantly. For example,
for years it was thought that carbonate formations would not
be responsive to hydraulic fracturing because of the the
inability of two small volume propped frac treatments to
provide production increase in carbonate wells (Hugoton) that
had been extensively acidized prior to fracturing.
Fracturing fluid development provides other examples of
progress that can be made in fracturing technology when
fracturing doesn’t work. As described by Jennings16,
limitations of the early oil-based fluids led to the development
of water-based fluid systems that allowed many advances in
fracturing applications. Water-based fluids have the
advantages of availability, safety, and flexibility with polymer
chemistry that greatly improved the early applications of
fracturing.
When well depths and reservoir temperatures led to screen-
outs and treatment failures because the early linear guar gels
were not stable, temperature-resistant polymers were
introduced to the industry. In the late 1960’s, methods were
developed to chemically retard hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC).
Although several wells were successfully fractured using this
type of linear gel system, pad volumes using 120 lbs HEC per
1,000 gallons were used in the 30 to 40% pad volumes to treat
wells with reservoir temperatures of 300-350o F. It was
possible to achieve production increase values of 5 to 10 fold
SPE 71657 WHEN FRACTURING DOESN’T WORK
in some wells using these high polymer systems. (Fracture
conductivity tests studying the effects of polymer residue on
fracture conductivity under reservoir conditions had not been
performed at that time).
Crosslinked fluids were introduced in 1968 primarily to save
costs in fracturing treatments (less polymer loading could be
used to effectively transport proppant). Early treatments did
not work consistently because up to 80 lbs of polymer per
1000 gallons were used for the first treatments. Also,
sufficient gel breaker was not used and improvements were
also needed in the available breaker systems to effectively
breakdown the crosslinked fluids in the fracture. The
evolution of crosslinked fluids to those in use today was
catalyzed by failures with fracturing when contemporary fluid
systems did not provide consistent results.
Proppants
As mentioned the design of early frac treatments was based on
the idea that partial monolayers of proppant (in the expected
horizontal fractures) were desirable. Early laboratory testing
with sand showed that mixtures of particle sizes (e.g. 20, 30,
and 40 mesh, or 20/40) provided better fracture permeability
(and resistance to crushing) than single-sized particles.
Aluminum pellets and rounded walnut hulls were used in
fracturing treatments at this time because these materials were
malleable and did not crush. Although many of the early
treatments were deemed successful, several of these wells also
became prime re-frac candidates when vertical fracturing
became well established.
As fracturing treatments were conducted in deeper wells, the
need arose for proppants stronger than sand. Since proppant
provides the fracture permeability, its ability to endure various
stresses during pumping as well as withstand closure stresses
in the formation is critical to the longevity of the fracture
stimulation.
The first high strength proppants used were hardened glass
beads (trademarked by Union Carbide as UCAR® Props).
Many “successful” treatments were conducted using these
materials. The manufacturing process for the tiny glass
spheres rendered proppant that had extremely high single
particle strengths compared to similar size sand grains. Glass
beads were originally developed to compete with aluminum
pellets and walnut shells for applications in partial monolayers
in horizontal fractures.
When it was determined (and generally accepted) that
fractures were usually vertical and that proppant deposition
occurred in multilayers, it became popular to mix sand and
glass beads (usually 75-80% sand and 20-25% glass beads).
The mixtures were stronger than sand and were more
economical than using glass beads alone. Laboratory fracture
flow capacity tests (conducted at room temperature) also
showed the mixtures had good fracture conductivity to closure
3
pressures approaching 10,000 psi. Several deep wells were
stimulated using the sand/ UCAR® Props mixtures in the
early 1970’s. (Many of these wells were also treated using the
high temperature HEC system containing 120 lbs of
HEC/Mgals!). Although many of the wells indeed responded
favorably to such treatments, there were also disappointments.
In 1973, Cooke17 presented information demonstrating the
susceptibility of various proppant to the effects of the high
temperatures and stresses encountered with deep well
fracturing. In Cooke’s experiments, proppant packs were
exposed to high temperature test fluid (300o F) fairly quickly
and heat-up of the proppant was rapid. Nevertheless, Cooke’s
work showed that the hardened glass beads failed drastically
under the test conditions and his work paved the way for the
introduction of early versions of high strength bauxite
proppant.
The verified need for high strength proppant led to the
introduction of resin-coated sand grains that were not as
expensive (nor as strong) as bauxite but were considerably
stronger than uncoated sand. These early advancements
allowed for the competitive development by suppliers of the
improved high-strength proppants available today for a variety
of high temperature, high closure stress applications.
Another significant development in the improvement in
quality of fracturing sand occurred in the early 1970’s. With
the increased usage of hydraulic fracturing for well
stimulation, larger treatments were used in the exploitation of
tight gas sands. With the larger treatments came the need for
more sand for proppant, and high quality sand for fracturing
was in short supply. At the time there were only general
guidelines for fracturing sand and these early guidelines were
stretched to the limit. Large volume fracturing treatments in
some areas would create minature dust storms from the fines
present in the proppant. This led to the rapid formation of an
API Subcommittee on Proppant to develop the existing API
Guidelines for Proppant Used in Fracturing. With the co-
operations of sand suppliers and service companies,
improvements in sand quality were soon achieved.
Equipment
The earliest fracturing treatments were conducted using
available pumping and mixing equipment. Because oil well
cementing was an established technology and high pressure
pumps were used to inject cement slurries downhole, these
positive displacement pumps were modified to pump batch-
mixed slurries of proppant for the first fracturing treatments.
Because only a few sacks of sand were used, the proppant was
batch mixed into the fluid in small ribbon blenders.
The significance of hydraulic pressure to fracturing was
realized and early treatments were monitored using pressure
recorders with circular pressure charts that were also used to
provide pumping pressure information during cement jobs.
4 ALFRED R. JENNINGS, JR.
Much credit should be given to the early frac crews for their
creativity and the patience required to monitor the early
treatments. Limitations to the early small volume “cookie-
cutter” treatments were soon realized, however, with mixed
results from fracturing reported in even the earliest papers1.
Development of fluid proportioning equipment with eductors
(predecessors to the blenders currently used) and introduction
of reliable triplex pumps facilitated the increase in the size and
number of fracturing treatments. In addition to greatly
improving the ability to mix various oil and water-base fluid
systems, the blenders allowed the addition of solid proppant
directly to the fracturing fluid continuously during the
treatment. As mentioned, early treatments using these
blenders involved starting sand at 0.25 lb/gal and increasing to
1.5 or 2.0 lb/gal by the end of the treatment. As with the fluid
systems and proppants, significant equipment development
was required to improve fracturing treatments.
All aspects of fracturing applications have influenced
improvements in the equipment used to perform the
treatments. Many of these developments occurred more or
less simultaneously. For example, improvements in the
monitoring and interpretation of fracturing pressures18 led to
improvements in the blending and pumping of frac fluids and
proppant slurries.
More accurate measurements and increased attention to the
quality of fracturing fluids and materials19 quickly pointed out
the need for more efficient gel mixing and proppant addition.
Significant developments have also been made with pumps
and pump capacities. Pumps have been developed that can
sustain high rates for hours at 15,000 to 20,000 psi surface
pressure. Higher capacity pumps led to the development of
wellhead isolation tools to protect lower rated wellhead
equipment and to make possible the expansion of high
pressure fracturing.
Advances in computers, computer software, and electronics
have allowed the development of mobile air-conditioned
treatment monitoring stations. The communications and
treatment control methods available today represent a
significant contribution to the improvement of success with
hydraulic fracturing.
Perforating
In addition to the misinterpretation of fracturing behavior,
fluid problems, proppant failure, and equipment breakdown,
another contributor to disappointments with fracturing can be
attributed to perforations. Until the early 1950’s, wells were
perforated with bullet guns. The adaption of military shaped-
charge technology to perforating began in 1946-1948 using
technology developed in World War II. The shaped charges
were generally shown to be superior to the bullet guns and
soon became widely used in perforating.
SPE 71657
With the increase in well completions and the demand for
perforating deeper and hotter wells, the limits of perforating
technology were made apparent when fracturing treatments
were attempted through incomplete perforations. In addition,
the limited perforation densities (2 shots per foot typically
used for fracturing in the late 1970’s and even fewer
perforations for limited entry, e.g.) exacerbated the problem
when perforation efficiency was not as high as it should have
been.
Surface tests using concrete blocks and outcrop samples and
wellbore investigations using impression packers and borehole
televiewers emphasized the need for improvements in industry
standards for perforating in the early 1980’s20. Joint industry
efforts were initiated and with the participation of the
perforating service companies, drastic improvements have
been implemented into the perforating technology available
today. Oriented perforating, for example, with perforations
aligned with the plane of the induced fracture, is proving
beneficial in both vertical and horizontal wells.
The increased charge efficiency and deeper penetrating
charges now likely contribute to tortuosity and multiple
fractures in hard, low permeability formations. Since multiple
fractures can limit effective placement of the fracturing
treatment (and growth of the primary fracture), measures have
been required (pumping proppant slugs in the pad or orienting
perforations) to improve fracturing success.
Interpretation and Optimization
It is logical that the better the interpretation of a fracturing
treatment the closer the fracturing theory should match actual
events. This challenge presents itself to us just as much today
as it did with the early pioneers in fracturing applications. In
attempts to optimize early treatments, production increase
relationships were developed for horizontal wells. Fields were
developed using fracturing treatments designed from these
relationships.
Today, much progress has been made in the understanding and
interpretation of vertical fractures in vertical wells:
• Warpinski and others21 have provided inroads into
the actual measurement of propped fractures.
• Wright and others22 have made contributions
demonstrating the complexities of actual fracture
azimuth and fracture propagation.
• Nolte and Smith18,23 have influenced essentially every
aspect of interpretation of fracturing pressure with
their work concerning net pressure behavior and
other factors of fracture growth.
Success with fracturing can be achieved for a wide range of
reservoir conditions. However, one can still ask, “What is a
SPE 71657 WHEN FRACTURING DOESN’T WORK
successful fracturing treatment for a given well?” and “How
effective is this treatment compared to another that could have
been conducted on the well?” Therefore, well performance
“before fracturing” and “after fracturing” remain foremost in
considerations related to fracture optimization.
Fracture optimization continues to be difficult for the
following reasons:
• Sufficient pre-frac well performance data (stabilized
flow rate, pressure buildup/falloff data, etc.) is
usually not available.
• After-frac well performance analysis depends on
relationships involving input frac length and fracture
conductivity and therefore solutions are not “unique”.
• Significant assumptions must be made in the
analytical process itself involving reservoir properties
and fracture geometry.
Realistically, it is proposed that when most fracturing
treatments “fail”, it is because inordinate expectations exist for
after-frac well performance. It has been taught repeatedly by
several (Holditch et al24) that determination of pre-frac well
performance is critical for the correct interpretation of
fracturing success. It is very important that well potential be
defined whenever a well is selected as a candidate for
hydraulic fracturing.
When after-frac well performance is measured, the lack of
initial (pre-frac) well performance can cloud the definition of
success. For example, treatments devised to overcome
significant wellbore skin are considerably different than
treatments used to place high conductivity fractures deep into
low-permeability producing formations with little or no
wellbore skin. It may be also be difficult to effectively
address both issues with a single treatment.
Even when a treatment is deemed “highly successful”,
interpretation frequently depends on the proper balance
between fracture conductivity (FC) and fracture length (L) to
match a given performance model. Assumptions must also
made about the impact of phase changes on relative
permeability, heterogeneity of the producing interval, etc.
concerning the sustained productivity of the fractured well.
Other Reasons for Fracture Failure
Pertinent topics have been addressed involving improvements
in the early fracturing concepts and practices to those in use
today. It should again be emphasized that even from the first
treatments, well stimulation by hydraulic fracturing generally
works. It has also been emphasized that when the limits of
existing technology are reached (often made apparent by
disappointments with fracturing), drastic evolutionary
improvements in fracturing have been made in the industry.
5
However, in spite of the advances in the understanding of
hydraulic fractures, there remain reasons why fracturing may
not work, or if it does work, the results may be less than
anticipated.
Most real fracturing failures can be attributed to the following:
• Wellbore problems
• Fracturing materials and equipment
• Fracture mechanics
• Reservoir properties
Wellbore Problems
For successful fracturing, it is imperative that the wellhead,
tubing, and well completions (packer or polished bore
receptacle [PBR] assembly) be able to withstand the rigors of
the fracturing treatment. For this reason, all maximum
working pressure limitations and stress/strain conditions
should be established for all components of the well
completion in the candidate well as part of the planning
process for the treatment. Both the selected service company
and the operating company should participate in establishing
these criteria.
If necessary, the wellhead should be protected by a wellhead
isolation tool. The tubing and casing should be sufficiently
sound to allow pressurization of the annulus during the
fracturing operations to help protect the tubing and annulus.
The effects of the downward and upward stresses to be
induced on the tubing and downhole completion equipment
during fracturing (and also during production after fracturing)
should be ascertained. These issues are very important in
preventing costly workovers and well cleanup after fracturing.
Fracturing Materials and Equipment
Because of the variety of formations effectively fractured
today, the chemistry of fracturing fluids is necessarily
complex. The benefits of an effective Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Program have been well
documented19. Unbroken fracturing gels have left a trail of
disappointments with fracturing. In addition, it is important
that all aspects of the fracturing fluid (stability under varying
shear and thermal conditions, viscosity characteristics, and
breaker concentrations) be monitored during fluid preparation
and during the treatment. The quality of the proppant used
should also meet or exceed established API guidelines. It
must also be remembered that the success ratio of remedial
treatments to “clean up” poorly used fracturing materials in a
fractured well is not high.
The ability to sustain (or effectively change) the injection rate
with reliable equipment during a fracturing treatment is also
very important. Maintenance of injection rates without having
6 ALFRED R. JENNINGS, JR.
to shut down or to abort the entire treatment are critical to
fracturing success.
Fracture Mechanics
How the fracture grows in a producing formation is highly
dependent upon the rock properties of the producing
formation. These properties and insitu stresses influence the
growth of the created fracture. Fracture mechanics dictate
fracture height growth, propagation of the fracture, near-
wellbore fracture turning, tortuosity, fracture azimuth and
orientation, and fracture closure behavior. The potential
impact of all these factors on fracturing success must be
considered to minimize fracturing failures.
Because rock properties and fracture mechanics influence
every fracturing treatment, they are frequenly blamed for
fracturing failures. Fracture growth out of zone, anomalous
fracture behavior (e.g. fracture turning), and fracture closing
behind overflushed proppant are frequently offered as possible
reasons for lack of success.
Although many measurements are available to help define
fracture behavior (stress logs, radioactive tracers, rock
properties measurements on formation core, etc.), developing
techniques to solve fracture mechanics problems make take a
few treatments in the field to adequately define the problem
and to improve fracturing success15.
Reservoir Properties
The most important reservoir properties influencing fracturing
success are formation flow capacity (kh) and reservoir
pressure. The kh is important for transporting hydrocarbon
into the fracture system and it is the kh that is most critical in
providing sustained productivity after fracturing. Of course
for kh to be effective, there must be sufficient ∆P to drive the
hydrocarbon from the fractured formation into the wellbore
and sufficient propped fracture conductivity to handle the
produced hydrocarbon for sustained periods of time.
For several years, fracturing was designated primarily as a
means of well stimulation to increase productivity in wells that
could not produce at economic levels. During the Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing (MHF) treatments of the mid- to late-
1970’s, repeated applications to poorer and poorer wells
resulted the development of a bad reputation for fracturing in
some areas. It is important that in spite of some of these
misapplications that fracturing continued to work sufficiently
well that its technology advanced and its use has broadened.
It has been shown that good success with fracturing can be
extended to the stimulation of wells with high
deliverability24,25,26. Of course, fracturing cannot work in a
particular application or formation if it is never given a chance
to do so. In spite of all the improvements in drilling and well
SPE 71657
completions techniques over the past several years, there still
exists opportunities in high deliverability oil and gas wells for
production improvement with properly designed hydraulic
fracturing treatments.
Conclusions
Significant points made in this paper include the following:
• In the early applications of fracturing, many
treatments were deemed successful with good well
response in spite of the fact that basic fracturing
mechanics were not completely understood.
• With the advancements in fracturing, significant
progress has been made in the development of
fracture models, fracturing fluids, proppant,
equipment, perforating, and in interpretation. These
improvements have worked together to allow more
extensive applications of hydraulic fracturing.
• Even with a more complete understanding of
fracturing, fracturing failures still occur. These
disappointments can be primarily attributed to
wellbore problems, fracturing materials and
equipment, fracture mechanics, and reservoir
properties.
• Important progress in fracturing continues with
primary advancements now being made in the areas
of applications to high performance wells.
Acknowledgment
This paper is dedicated to those who see the potential of the
fracturing process and who continually meld materials,
equipment, and theory to render hydraulic fracturing more
widely useful for well stimulation.
References
1. Clark, J.B.: “A Hydraulic Process for Increasing
Productivity of Wells”, Trans., AIME (1949), 186, 1-
8.
2. Hubbert, M.K. and Willis, D.G.: “Mechanics of
Hydraulic Fracturing”, Trans., AIME (1957), 210,
153-166.
3. Khristianovic, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P.: “Formation of
Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous
Liquid”, Proc., Fourth World Pet. Cong., Rome
(1955) Sec. 2, 579-586.
4. Anderson, T.O. and Stahl, E.J. Jr.: “A Study of
Induced Fracturing Using an Instrumental
Approach”, JPT (Feb., 1967), 261-267.
5. Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R.: “Widths of Hydraulic
Fractures”, JPT (Sept. 1961), 937-949.
6. Nordgren, R.P.: “Propagation of a Vertical
Hydraulic Fracture”, SPEJ (Aug. 1972), 306-314.
SPE 71657 WHEN FRACTURING DOESN’T WORK 7

7. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: “A Rapid Method of 23. Nolte, K.G.: “Fracturing Pressure Analysis for Non-
Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Ideal Behavior”, JPT (Feb. 1991), 210-218.
Induced Fractures”, JPT (Dec. 1969), 1571-1581. 24. Jennings, A.R. Jr.: “Good Wells Make the Best
8. Carter, R.D.: “Derivation of the General Equation Candidates for Well Stimulation”, SPEPE (Nov.
for Estimating the Extent of the Fractured Area”, 1991), 371-376.
Appendix to: “optimum Fluid Characteristics for 25. Smith, M.B. and Hannah, R.R.: “High Permeability
Fracture Extension” by G.C. Howard and C.R. Fast, Fracturing: The Evolution of a Technology”, JPT
Drill. And Prod. Prac. (1957), 261-270. (July 1996), 628.
9. Daneshy, A.A.: “On the Design of Vertical 26. Jennings, A.R. Jr.: “Strategic Well Stimulation: A
Fractures”, JPT (Jan. 1973), 83-93. Key to Reservoir Management”, JPT (March, 2000),
10. Meyer, B.R.: Frac Model in 3D –1: “New Simulator 62.
Makes Fracture Design Routine”, Oil & Gas Journal
(June 17, 1985), 87.
11. Cleary, M.P., Kavvadas, M., and Lam, K.Y.:
“Development of a Fully Three-Dimensional
Simulator for Analysis and Design of Hydraulic
Fracturing”, SPE 11631 presented at the 1983
SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symposium, Denver,
Mar. 14-16.
12. Barree, R.D.: “A Practical Numerical Simulator for
Three-Dimensional Fracture Propagation in
Heterogeneous Media”, SPE 12273, presented at the
1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San
Franscisco, Nov. 15-18.
13. Smith, M.B. and Klein, H.H.: “Practical
Applications of Coupling Fully Numerical 2-D
Transport Calculation with a PC-Based Fracture
Geometry Simulator”, SPE 13273, presented at SPE
ATCE, Dallas, Texas, Oct. 22-25, 1995.
14. Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K., and Haga, J.: “Tip
Screen-Out Fracturing: A Technique for Soft,
Unstable Formations”, SPEPE (May 1987), No. 2,
95-103.
15. Qahtani, M.Y.: “Optimization of Acid Fracturing
Program in the Khuff Gas Condensate Reservoir of
South Ghawar Field in Saudi Arabia by Managing
Uncertainties Using State of the Art Technology”,
SPE 70521 presented at the SPE ATCE in New
Orleans, Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2001.
16. Jennings, A.R. Jr.: “Fracturing Fluids – Then and
Now”, JPT (July 1996), 604-611.
17. Cooke, C.E. Jr.: “Effect of Fracturing Fluids on
Fracture Conductivity”, JPT (Oct. 1975), 1273-1282.
18. Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B.: “Interpretation of
Fracturing Pressures”, JPT (Sept. 1981), 1767-1775.
19. Ely, J.W.: Stimulation Engineering, PennWell
Books, 1994.
20. Bell, W.T., Sukup, R.A., and Tariq, S.M.:
Perforating, SPE Monograph, Vol. 18, 1995.
21. Warpinski, N.R., Engler, B.P., Young, C.J., Peterson,
R.E., Branagan, P.T. and Fix, J.E.: “Microseismic
Mapping of Hydraulic Fractures Using Multi-Level
Wireline Receivers”, SPE 30507 presented at SPE
ATCE, Dallas, Oct. 22-25, 1995.
22. Wright, C.A.: “Unraveling the Mysteries of
Hydraulic Fracturing”, 2000-2001 SPE Distinguished
Lecture Series, March 20, 2001, Tyler, Texas.