FrcSkl No.

Well History
FrcSkl No. 1 was drilled as an infill producing well to a deeper horizon. RFT reservoir pressure
data, however, showed the planned completion interval to be in a fault block already drained by at
least two offset wells. Plans are thus being considered to complete a relatively low permeability gas
sand at ≈ 5,300 feet. This gas sand has been seen while drilling other wells, and appears to be
continuous over a wide area. For completion purposes, the well will be re-permitted as an explora-
tion well on a 640-acre (2.6 km2) drilling block (drainage radius, re, of 2,640 feet or about 800 m).
Log Data
The attached material shows a calculated log section for the potential completion interval. In
addition, a long-spaced sonic log (which has not been fully interpreted) over the section showed the
sand to have a compressional wave sonic travel time of ≈ 55 microseconds per foot (travel time over
the shale was erratic, but an average value was about 53, slightly faster than the sand). Maximum
bottomhole temperature recorded over this interval during logging was 170° F (77° C).
(Note that despite the apparently high water saturation, very little water was produced during
the flow test discussed below. Also, a temperature log run over the interval near the end of the flow
period suggested some production from at least 70 feet of the interval.)
Reservoir Data
Reservoir pressure is unknown, though deeper horizons in the area have generally had "normal"
pressure (e.g. ≈ 0.43 psi/foot of depth). The well was drilled through the potential gas sand with a
mud weight of 9.5 lb/gal (equivalent hydrostatic head of 0.5 psi/foot) with no significant gas shows.
Assuming a normal pressure gradient gives reservoir pressure ≈ 2,300 psi at a depth of 5,300 feet.
The well was perforated at 2 shots/foot, 60° phasing, as indicated on the log, and a cased hole
drill stem test was run; flowing about 520 MSCFD of dry gas after 24 hours. Gauge failure de-
stroyed a subsequent build-up test. However, ASSUMING “0” skin, the approximate "PI" equation,
∆p k h ∆p k h
Q= ≈ , where
141.2 B µ [ln(re / rw ) − 3 / 4 + s ] 141.2 B µ [7]
Q …………. . Flow Rate (MSCFD) ∆p .......... drawdown (psi)
k ................ permeability to gas (md) h .......... TVD net pay thickness (feet)
µ ................ gas viscosity (cp) T .......... Reservoir temperature (°R = °F + 460)
re ................ drainage radius (feet) (or “radius of investigation” for a well still in
infinite acting transient radial flow)
rw ................ wellbore radius (typically a value of about 0.35 feet, 0.10 m, might be used)
(ideally this equals the caliper measured openhole wellbore radius)
B ................ Formation Volume Factor (Reservoir Barrel/MSCF)
for gas wells: B ≈ (178.1 z i T p sc ) / ( p i Tsc )
zi ................ Gas “z” factor at formation temperature and pressure
psc ................ Pressure at Standard Condition (typically 14.5 psia)
pi ................ Reservoir pressure (psi)
Tsc ................ Temperature at Standard Condition (typically 530° R)
shows this rate is consistent with an average formation permeability to gas of about 0.10
md (assuming a net pay thickness of 70 feet and assuming a “0” skin).

Page 1 of 14
Reservoir Fluid Data
Assuming a gas gravity of 0.7, fluid property correlation data gives the following values at
2,300 psi and 170° F:
Gas viscosity = 0.016 cp, Z-Factor = 0.84, Gas Compressibility = 440x10-6 1/psi.
Core Data
Two pieces of core data are available from an exploration well core drilled several years ago.
These two samples showed clean sandstone, with porosity of 11.2 and 14.7%, and air permeability
(apparently tested on dry core with no confining stress) of 0.28 and 0.45 md. It is expected that
actual in situ permeability would be significantly less than these values, with the pre-frac flow rate
POSSIBLY indicating an average permeability of about 0.10 md (net height of 70 feet).
Future Production Conditions
Compressors are readily available in the area, and it expected that any gas production would
quickly be put on compression; giving a surface producing pressure of about 100 psi with a
bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP) of about 200 psi. The well was completed with 5-½” casing,
with 2-7/8" tubing landed at 5130 feet.
GR Sw φ
0 160 100 0 25 0
TVD
(feet)

5220

5240

5260
20 feet
5280

5300

5320

5340

5360

5380

5400

5420

5440

5460

5480

5500

Page 2 of 14
1) Stresses – Estimate Stress/Pressure
Estimated Overburden Stress (psi) __________________________________________________________
Estimated Reservoir Pressure (psi) __________________________________________________________
Estimated Closure Stress (psi) ______________________________________________________________
Estimated BHFP (psi) _____________________________________________________________________
Estimated Proppant Stress (psi) ____________________________________________________________
Assume a total in situ proppant coverage of 1.0 lb/ft2. Assume damage factors (retained per-
meability factors) of 0.3 for sand and 0.5 for stronger proppant types. Assume 0.2 lb/ft2 of proppant
is “lost” to gel filter cake, embedment, etc. Determine the in situ proppant conductivity for 20/40
Ottawa (or Jordan) sand and 20/40 ISP (Intermediate Strength Proppant).
API Test Data @ 2 lb / ft 2
In Situ k f w = × Effective In Situ lb / ft 2 × Damage Factor
2
In Situ kfw (20/40 Ottawa Sand) (md-ft) _____________________________________________________
In Situ kfw (20/40 ISP) (md-ft) ______________________________________________________________

2) Folds-of-Increase – Determine Proppant Conductivity and Find FOI

Determine the potential “FOI” for fracture ½ lengths, xf, of 200, 500, and 800 feet (for a drainage
area of 640 acres, re of 2,640 feet and a wellbore radius, rw, of 0.35 feet). Assume pre-frac “skin” of 0.

Proppant Kfw (md-ft) Xf (feet) Fcd Rw’ / xf Rw’ FOI

20/40 Ottawa 200
500
800
20/40 ISP 200
500
800
Is fracture length important? _______________________________________________________________
Will fracture height growth be important? ___________________________________________________
Does the higher cost (ISP) proppant look to have an advantage? _______________________________

5
FOI

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Xf (feet)

Page 3 of 14
 Notes:

3) Transient Flow – Is Transient Flow Important?

2 φ µ Ct x f
2
2.634 x10 −4 k (md ) t (hrs )
t Dxf = = 2, t (hrs ) = = time to start pseudo − radial flow
φ µ (cp) Ct (1 / psi ) x f ( ft )
2
2.634 x10 − 4 k
Assume xf = 600 feet, time (months) to start of pseudo-radial flow ? ____________________________
Is transient flow important ? _______________________________________________________________

4) Fracture Geometry – Estimate Initial Fracture Height, Stress, Stress Differences, …

Is fracture height confinement an important concern? ________________________________________
Is there any potential for in situ stress differences and thus confinement? ______________________
If so, what is the estimated “initial” fracture height, HO (feet)? _____________________________

5) Treatment Volumes – Initial Estimates, Job Volumes, Proppant Type Selection, …

Assume some nominal future frac design will yield in situ proppant concentrations of about
1 lb/ft2, of which about 0.2 lb/ft2 will be “lost”. For various volumes of 20/40 Intermediate Strength
Proppant (Damage factor = 0.5), and 20/40 Ottawa Sand (Damage Factor = 0.3), find the
corresponding fracture conductivity, kfw; frac ½ length, xf; and potential propped fracture "Folds-of-
Increase". Plot "FOI" versus Proppant Volume for each proppant type.
Is there a clear maximum proppant volume __________________________________________________
Does higher strength proppant have any potential application for this relatively low permeability
formation _________________________________________________________________________________

6) Modulus - Estimate Young's Modulus

Estimated Modulus (millions of psi) _________________________________________________________
"Basis" for Estimate _______________________________________________________________________

7) Fracture Height – Estimate Required Sand/Shale ∆σ

Using estimated values above for “Height” and “Modulus”, use 2-D fracture geometry calculations
to estimate the in situ sand/shale stress difference required to confine a fracture to the estimated
height.
Estimated Sand/Shale ∆σ required (psi) _____________________________________________________
Is this a reasonably possible value? _________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 14
8) Fluid Loss - Estimate 'C' and Spurt Loss
A 30 or 40 LB Cross Linked Gel has been recommended as a treatment fluid, and for a relatively
low permeability formation, liquid hydrocarbon (e.g. diesel) is generally a good fluid loss additive.
One service company's data for wall building fluid loss coefficient is seen in the attached plots.
Calculate values for CI, CII, and determine CIII (or Cwall) from the lab data. Find the first estimate for
overall, or total, fluid loss coefficient, CT, and spurt loss.
At reservoir temperature, fluid property data shows water with a viscosity of about 0.5 cp.
CI (ft/√min) _______________________________________________________________________________
CII (ft/√min) _______________________________________________________________________________
CIII (ft/√min) ______________________________________________________________________________
CT (ft/√min) _______________________________________________________________________________
Spurt Loss (gal/100 ft2) _____________________________________________________________________

Notes:

Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 14
9) Fluid Viscosity - Find Apparent Viscosity in Centipoise
The following fluid viscosity data has been supplied by a service company. The fluid tested for
this data includes an amount of normal, 'SP', breaker designed for a "6 to 8 hour break" (e.g. broken
to a viscosity of < 5 cp).
Fluid Type – 40# Cross Link Gel w/Breaker
n’ K’
At Surface Temperature 0.45 0.1590
At Reservoir Temperature for 0 hours 0.52 0.0771
At Reservoir Temperature for 1 hours 0.58 0.0310
At Reservoir Temperature for 2 hours 0.66 0.0108
At Reservoir Temperature for 4 hours 0.78 0.0022
At Reservoir Temperature for 8 hours 0.90 0.00021

Assuming a pump time of 4 hours, will this fluid give sufficient proppant transport (e.g. does it have
50 cp viscosity at 170 SEC-1) ________________________________________________________________
Use the data at 2 hours as representing an average fluid rheology; for an in situ shear rate of
40 SEC-1 and a sand concentration of 5 PPG (LB of sand per fluid gallon), the Average Slurry In
Situ Apparent Viscosity (cp) is ______________________________________________________________

Page 7 of 14
Notes:

Page 8 of 14
10) Fracture Pressure Data - Closure Stress Tests
A gel mini-frac was pumped with the goal of determining fracture height growth and fluid leak-
off characteristics. However, prior to this mini-frac, a series of injection (and injection/flowback)
tests were conducted to accurately measure formation closure pressure. For these tests (and the
subsequent gel mini-frac), bottomhole treating pressure was measured with a surface readout, wire-
line gauge set at 5,465 feet. All recorded pressure data are corrected to a mid-perforation depth of
5,375 feet. The closure stress tests were conducted with 2% KCl water with 10# HPG gel (10 lb poly-
mer per 1000 gallons of water) for friction reduction. This data is used to find the fracture closure
stress, and possibly to give an estimate of reservoir pressure.

The closure stress tests consisted of:

1) Injection/Shut-In-Pressure-Decline-Test - conducted by injecting about 25 bbl of KCl water
at 10 BPM (injection time of 2.5 minutes), and then recording the pressure decline as seen below.
Injection Shut-In Decline Stress Test
Injection Time = 2.5 minutes, Inject KCl water at 10 BPM
Shut-In Tim e √Shut-In Time Horner BHP Shut-In Time √Shut-In Time Horner BHP
(min) (min) Tim e (psi) (m in) (min) Time (psi)
0.00 0.00 4030.0 5.00 2.24 2.12 3519.00
0.25 0.50 6.00 3918.0 6.00 2.45 2.02 3470.00
0.50 0.71 4.54 3870.0 7.00 2.65 1.94 3410.00
0.75 0.87 3.89 3830.0 8.00 2.83 1.88 3335.00
1.00 1.00 3.50 3803.0 9.00 3.00 1.83 3265.00
1.50 1.22 3.04 3750.0 10.00 3.16 1.79 3200.00
2.00 1.41 2.77 3710.0 11.00 3.32 1.75 3140.00
3.00 1.73 2.44 3640.0 12.00 3.46 1.72 3080.00
4.00 2.00 2.25 3570.0 13.00 3.61 1.69 3020.00

4,000
3,800
3,600
Pressure

3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
1 2 3 5 10 20
Horner Time

Estimated Reservoir Pressure (psi) __________________________________________________________

Page 9 of 14
 4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
Pressure

3,700
3,600
3,500
3,400
3,300
3,200
3,100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
√Shut-Time (min)
Fracture Closure Pressure (psi) _____________________________________________________________

2) Step-Rate-Injection-Test - Immediately at the end of the pressure decline, a step-rate injection

started consisting of pumping KCl water at rates of 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 15 BPM for
about 2 minutes at each rate. The rates (and fluid volumes pumped), and the pressure at the end
of each rate step, are tabulated below.
Step-Rate Injection Test
Inject KCl for 2 minutes at each rate 4,000
Time BHP Rate 3,800
(min) (psi) (bpm)
22.00 2555.00 0.50 3,600
Pressure

24.00 2835.00 1.00

3,400
26.00 3185.00 2.00
28.00 3435.00 3.00 3,200
30.00 3530.00 4.00
32.00 3625.00 5.00 3,000
34.00 3685.00 7.00 2,800
36.00 3845.00 10.00
38.00 3905.00 12.00 2,600
40.00 4030.00 15.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Rate (bpm)
Fracture Extension Pressure (psi) ___________________________________________________________
Based on this extension pressure, closure pressure is expected to be (psi) ____________________

Page 10 of 14
3) Flow-Back-Test - Shortly before the end of the final (15 BPM) rate step, injection rate was
increased to 17 BPM, while simultaneously starting a flow-back rate of 2 BPM - e.g., downhole
rate was kept reasonably constant at 15 BPM. Injection was then shut-in and the flow-back rate
held constant at 2 BPM while recording the resulting pressure decline as seen in the data below.
Flow-Back Test
Flow-Back at 2 BPM at end of step-rate test
Flowback Time BHP Flowback Time BHP
(min) (psi) (min) (psi)
0.00 4030.0 7.00 3482.0
0.50 3894.0 7.50 3475.0
1.00 3810.0 8.00 3455.0
1.50 3760.0 8.50 3440.0
2.00 3718.0 9.00 3418.0
2.50 3680.0 9.50 3397.0
3.00 3650.0 10.00 3365.0
3.50 3625.0 10.50 3340.0
4.00 3599.0 11.00 3310.0
4.50 3587.0 11.50 3280.0
5.00 3558.0 12.00 3240.0
5.50 3532.0 12.50 3200.0
6.00 3519.0 13.00 3140.0
6.50 3500.0 13.50 3050.0

4,100
Bottomhole Pressure

4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
3,600
3,500
3,400
3,300
3,200
3,100

2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Flowback Time (min)

Fracture Closure Pressure (psi) _____________________________________________________________

Final Solutions:
Fracture Extension Pressure (psi) ___________________________________________________________
Based on this extension pressure, closure pressure is expected to be (psi) ____________________
Fracture Closure Pressure (psi) _____________________________________________________________

Page 11 of 14
Reservoir Pressure (psi) ____________________________________________________________________

Gel Mini-Frac Data –Viscous Gel Mini-Frac Data Used for Frac Geometry/Fluid Loss
A gel mini-frac was pumped by injecting 38,000 gallons of 40 lb/1000 gallon cross linked frac-
turing fluid down tubing at an average rate of about 35 BPM (gel pump time of 26.7 minutes), and
then flushing the well with 2% KCl water. This data, via Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis is used
to determine the overall “type” of fracture geometry (i.e., reasonable height confinement, PKN, or
Radial, or ?) and to calculate a revised value for fluid loss coefficient, ’C’. Injection pressure (and
pressure decline) data are plotted and tabulated below. Data is included in FRCSKL1.STP file.

ISIP
Bottomhole Pressure

4,200

4,000

3,800

3,600
Gel On Perfs
3,400

3,200

20 40 60
Time (min), Time "0" When Start Pumping
Time Shut-In √Shut-In BHP Rate Tim e Shut-In √Shut-In BHP Rate
(min) Time Time (psi) (bpm ) (m in) Tim e Tim e (psi) (bpm)
0.00 3045.0 0 27.50 0.80 0.89 4175.0 0
0.25 3620.0 35 27.75 1 .05 1.02 4169.0 0
0.50 3630.0 35 28.00 1 .30 1.1 4 4163.0 0
0.75 Gel On Perfs At 3648.5 35 29.00 2.30 1.52 4143.0 0
1.00 Approximately 3665.5 35 30.00 3.30 1.82 4098.0 0
1.50 1.2 minutes 3892.2 35 31.00 4.30 2.07 4084.0 0
2.00 3972.0 35 32.00 5.30 2.30 4064.0 0
2.50 4002.0 35 33.00 6.30 2.51 4039.0 0
3.00 4013.8 35 34.00 7.30 2.70 401 9.0 0
3.50 4021.0 35 35.00 8.30 2.88 401 0.0 0
4.00 4027.7 35 36.00 9.30 3.05 4005.0 0
5.00 4047.8 35 38.00 11 .30 3.36 3985.0 0
6.00 4070.4 35 40.00 13.30 3.65 3940.0 0
7.00 4075.5 35 42.00 15.30 3.91 391 1.0 0
8.00 4084.4 35 44.00 17.30 4.16 3889.0 0
9.00 4095.5 35 46.00 19.30 4.39 3868.0 0
1 0.00 4105.6 35 51.00 24.30 4.93 3806.0 0
1 1.00 411 4.3 35 56.00 29.30 5.41 3765.0 0
1 2.00 4123.0 35 61.00 34.30 5.86 3704.0 0
1 3.00 4132.6 35 66.00 39.30 6.27 3670.0 0
1 4.00 4138.4 35 71.00 44.30 6.66 3632.0 0
1 5.00 4146.6 35 76.00 49.30 7.02 3594.0 0
1 6.00 4154.6 35 81.00 54.30 7.37 3551 .0 0
1 7.00 4161.7 35 86.00 59.30 7.70 351 0.0 0
1 8.00 4167.4 35 91.00 64.30 8.02 3493.0 0
1 9.00 4173.8 35 96.00 69.30 8.32 3431 .0 0
20.00 4179.9 35 101.00 74.30 8.62 3396.0 0
21 .00 4185.5 35 106.00 79.30 8.91 3340.0 0
22.00 4190.1 35 1 11.00 84.30 9.18 3305.0 0
23.00 4194.0 35 116.00 89.30 9.45 3277.0 0
24.00 4197.6 35 121.00 94.30 9.71 3221 .0 0
25.00 4203.2 35 126.00 99.30 9.96 3194.0 0
26.00 4205.6 35 136.00 109.30 10.45 3105.0 0
26.70 0.00 0.00 4205.0 35 146.00 119.30 10.92 301 6.0 0
27.00 0.30 0.55 4193.0 0 156.00 129.30 11 .37 2948.0 0
27.25 0.55 0.74 4184.0 0 166.00 139.30 11 .80 2880.0 0
27.50 0.80 0.89 4175.0 0 176.00 149.30 12.22 281 1.0 0
Page 12 of 14
11) Fracture Pressure Data - Gel Mini-Frac Injection Data for Frac Geometry
Plot the net pressure (bottomhole pressure minus closure pressure minus any downhole fraction)
versus time on log-log scales (Nolte-Smith Plot). This analysis plot is used to qualitatively determine
the fracture geometry, and to determine the final net pressure, ps.

2,000
Net Pressure (psi)

1,000

500

200

100
Nolte-Smith Plot
50
1 2 3 5 10 20 30 50
Pump Time
(Time "0" When Gel On Formation)
NOTE: Data is also found in FRCSKL1.STP StimPlan file.

What is the overall fracture geometry? ______________________________________________________

(reasonable height confinement - PKN, or Radial, or “tall, short” KGD fracture)
Is there any evidence of height growth, natural fracture fluid loss, etc.? ________________________
Can we estimate shale/sand stress difference? (psi) ∆σ is at least (psi) ? ________________________
What is the final net pressure, PS ? (psi) _____________________________________________________

Page 13 of 14
12) Fracture Pressure Data - Gel Mini-Frac Decline Data for Fluid Loss
Use the √Shut-In Time and/or ‘G’ Plot to determine the “time-to-close” and Effc, then use the Type
Curve and/or ‘G’ Plot to determine ∆P* and Ef. Finally, use ∆P* to calculate ‘CT’.
Table for Pressure Decline Type Curve Analysis, Pump Time = 25.5 minutes
Shut -In Shut -In ∆P ∆P ∆P
Tim e Tim e δ BHP δ - start = _____ δ - start = _____ δ - start = _____
(m in) (m in) (psi)
26.70 4205.0
27.00 0.25 0.50 0.010 4193.0
27.25 0.50 0.71 0.020 4184.0
27.50 0.75 0.87 0.029 4175.0
27.75 1.00 1.00 0.039 4169.0
28.00 1.25 1.12 0.049 4163.0
29.00 2.25 1.50 0.088 4143.0
30.00 3.25 1.80 0.127 4098.0
31.00 4.25 2.06 0.167 4084.0
5.10 2.26 0.200 4067.0
32.00 5.25 2.29 0.206 4064.0
33.00 6.25 2.50 0.245 4039.0
34.00 7.25 2.69 0.284 4019.0
35.00 8.25 2.87 0.324 4010.0
36.00 9.25 3.04 0.363 4005.0
38.00 11.25 3.35 0.441 3985.0
12.75 3.57 0.500 3951.3
40.00 13.25 3.64 0.520 3940.0
42.00 15.25 3.91 0.598 3911.0
44.00 17.25 4.15 0.676 3889.0
46.00 19.25 4.39 0.755 3868.0
51.00 24.25 4.92 0.951 3806.0
25.50 5.05 1.000 3795.8
56.00 29.25 5.41 1.147 3765.0
61.00 34.25 5.85 1.343 3704.0
66.00 39.25 6.26 1.539 3670.0
71.00 44.25 6.65 1.735 3632.0
76.00 49.25 7.02 1.931 3594.0
81.00 54.25 7.37 2.127 3551.0
86.00 59.25 7.70 2.324 3510.0
91.00 64.25 8.02 2.520 3493.0
96.00 69.25 8.32 2.716 3431.0
101.00 74.25 8.62 2.912 3396.0

√Time Time-to-Close (min) __________________________ Effc _________________________________

‘G’ Plot Time-to-Close (min) _________________________ Effc _________________________________

Final Net Pressure, pS (psi) _________________________________________________________________

Type Curve Match Pressure, ∆P* (psi) ________________ Ef __________________________________
‘G’ Plot Match Pressure, ∆P* (psi) ____________________ Ef __________________________________

‘C’ (ft/√min) _______________________________________________________________________________

Page 14 of 14
13) Pressure History Matching - Refine H, E, C Estimates
Using the QUIK Simulator, determine values for 'H', 'E', and 'C' which are internally consistent
with the treating pressure (e.g. the final net treating pressure, ps = ISIP minus closure pressure,
and the pressure decline behavior (e.g. the match pressure, ∆P*, and the time-to-close or efficiency)
measured after the mini-frac. It is generally best to start by matching the final net pressure, ps.

Initial Estimate Final Value

Fracture Height (feet)
Modulus (106 psi)
Fluid Loss Coefficient (ft/√min)

14) Economics - Select Proppant / Refine Job Size Estimate

Some very simple economics can be used to start refining treatment design. Assume a constant
rate of 500 MSCFD with a net gas price of $1.00 (USD)/MSCF after royalty, excise tax, etc. This
gives a gross income of $182,500/year, and, assuming an operating cost of $1,000/month, a net
revenue of $170,500/year. At a discount rate of 12%, this constant production would give a three
year PW12 of $450,000. This value will be used as the Present Worth, or Future Value (e.g., no costs
deducted), for an un-stimulated well.
Drilling and completion costs not including any stimulation treatments are estimated to be on
the order of $500,000. Propped fracture treatment costs are estimated from a service company bid,
and are broken down as follows:

Fluid ............................... $ 1.20 / US Gallon

Proppant ........................ Sand $0.15 / lb , ISP $1.00 / lb
Setup Charges ............... $120,000.00

Use the QUIK Simulator along with the "refined" estimates of 'H', 'E', and 'C" to design several
frac treatments. First, select a desired proppant concentration (perhaps 6 or 8 PPG) and proppant
type (20/40 Ottawa Sand or 20/40 Intermediate strength). Then select a range of fracture lengths
(½lengths) to consider based on the initial "FOI" computations. Finally, use the QUIK Model (in
DESIGN model) to determine the proppant/fluid volumes needed to create these fracture lengths,
and to determine the resulting fracture conductivity, Fcd, and FOI. Estimate a "Total Well Future
Value" by multiplying the 3-year figure above ($450,000) by the FOI; determine the Net Present
Value (NPV), DROI, etc., for the table below.

Fracture Design Goals:

Xf (feet) __________________________________________________________________________________
Proppant Concentration (PPG) _____________________________________________________________
Proppant Volume (M-LBS) _________________________________________________________________
Fluid Volume (M-GAL) _____________________________________________________________________
Proppant Type ____________________________________________________________________________

Page 15 of 14