SPE Paper 125525

The Geomechanics Of A Shale Play: What Makes A Shale Prospective!

Larry K. Britt and Jerry Schoeffler, Britt Rock Mechanics Laboratory

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, West Virginia, USA, 23–25 September 2009.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Many shale plays are being successfully developed throughout North America. These shale plays are being evaluated based
on a number of criteria, but primarily through typical unconventional and tight formation gas reservoir characteristics.
Prospective shale plays share several interesting characteristics such as mineralogy, rock mechanics, and geomechanics. It is
the intent of this paper to highlight and demonstrate the interrelationship of these characteristics, and to show their importance
on completion and stimulation design and more importantly to the very prospectivity of an unconventional shale play.
This paper will first show, through an analysis of the mineralogy, that shale plays are made up of mostly silica and
carbonate material and have few clay constituents. In other words, the prospective shales are actually fine-grained clastics and
not shale!Second, prospective shales tend to be brittle, with the static Young’s Modulus generally in excess of 3.5 x 106 psi. Of
course, this brittleness is related to the lack of clay constituents that make up these rocks. In addition, prospective shales tend
to satisfy clastic correlations of dynamic to static Young’s Modulus. They do not behave like typical shales, but more like fine-
grained isotropic (on a core scale) clastics!
Finally, gas can flow through induced fractures or natural fissures under effective stress conditions in these shale plays. As
a result, water-frac treatments are the stimulation of choice! However, proppant is still necessary in at least the near wellbore
vicinity to provide a conductive pathway to the wellbore.This paper focuses on three key elements (mineralogy, rock
mechanics, and geomechanics) of prospective shale plays and benefits the petroleum industry by:
1. Integrating the laboratory core work with multi-disciplinary data to develop a shale and unconventional reservoir
prospectivity evaluation tool,
2. Illustrating how this multi-disciplinary dataset influences completion and stimulation design, execution, and well
performance, and
3. Demonstrating how this multi-discipline dataset can be used to identify and mitigate well completion and stimulation
risks in these unconventional reservoirs.

Introduction
There are a number of important parameters and technical disciplines that need to be addressed to understand the viability
of an unconventional gas reservoir. Unconventional gas reservoirs are somewhat unique, in that they require “good” reservoir,
completion, and fracture stimulation for success. Failure of any one of these key disciplines means a marginal or uneconomic
well, and success in all three may not guarantee a successful well as they are extremely price/cost sensitive.
On the reservoir side, Gunter1-2 and Newsham and Rushing3-4 correctly tied the geology, petrophysics, and reservoir
engineering to develop an integrated work flow for tight and unconventional gas reservoirs. The four stage model included: (1)
large scale geologic architecture, (2) description of the rock and fluid systems, (3) definition of flow units through formation
evaluation, and (4) calibration of the geologic and petrophysical models through reservoir simulation. Geomechanics was
addressed throughout their workflow. Stage 1 of their work addressed the large scale structural components of the geologic
model such as faults, in-situ stresses, and fissures, Stage 2 addressed the stress dependent properties and anisotropy of the
rocks, and stages 3 and 4 addressed the hydraulic fracture and natural fissure orientations and effects on well performance.
Slatt5 et al. developed a workflow for unconventional gas shales that included (1) characterization of multi-scale
sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy, (2) relating stratigraphy to log response, (3) seismic response, (4) petrophysical and
geomechanical properties, and (5) organic geochemistry. In this work, the geomechanics of the prospect are brought in through
step 4 and, although not discussed in any great detail, a relationship between mineralogy and geomechanics is suggested.
Further, the authors recommend that additional attention be given to the lithologic properties of the shale and the brittleness or
ductility.
2 [SPE 125525]

Shanley6 et al. described the relationship between capillary pressure and relative permeability in unconventional gas
reservoirs where a “permeability jail” can occur. In this work, the permeability jail concept (after Byrnes) is described as the
area between the critical gas saturation and critical water saturation where, potentially, no fluid or gas can flow. In
conventional reservoirs the difference between the irreducible and critical water saturations can be quite small, while in an
unconventional gas reservoir this area can be quite large. In an unconventional gas reservoir, this understanding is extremely
important to the reservoir and petrophysical assessment of resource quality.
Franz7 et al. uses an integrated approach to analyze production data from the Barnett shale. Their integrated modeling
approach incorporates the geology and geophysics with reservoir characterization, reservoir simulation, and completion and
stimulation design. Their estimate of relevant data to collect includes geology, geophysics, and geomechanics and core
analyses for mineralogy, porosity and permeability, saturations, organic content, and adsorbtion isotherms.
Jacobi8 et al. proposes an integrated approach to petrophysical evaluation of unconventional shale gas reservoirs using only
logging data. Density, neutron, acoustic, nuclear magnetic resonance, and geochemical logging data are used to provide
lithology, stratigraphy, and mineralogy. The approach further differentiates source rock intervals, classifies depositional facies
by their petrophysical and geomechanical properties, and quantifies total organic carbon. One of the objectives of this work
was to identify the optimal completion intervals.
Parker9 et al. conducted a petrophysical evaluation on the Haynesville shale using both core and log data. Their work
describes the starting point for the completion and hydraulic stimulation design as (1) identification of free gas zones, (2)
identification of rock types and lithology, (3) total organic content, (4) quantification of effective shale porosity, (5) estimates
of shale permeability, (6) mechanical stress measurement for fracture design, and (7) fissure identification. This work
incorporates core analysis to validate log measurements and also includes the completion and fracture stimulation design and
post-appraisal process into the work flow where they belong.
Rickman and Mullen10 et al. showed the use of a petrophysical analysis for stimulation design optimization. This work ties
together the rock mechanics, mineralogy, completion, and stimulation design strategy. Their work showed a correlation
between wireline log analysis, petrology, acid solubility, and capillary suction time tests for shale reservoirs. These tests of
mineralogy and fluid sensitivity have proven essential for optimizing completion and stimulation(s) in shale reservoirs. The
authors further demonstrated through mineralogical analysis that all shales are not alike, and in particular, that all shales are
not the Barnett Formation. It further showed that even within the Barnett vertical section there are subtle geomechanical and
mineralogical differences that can make for poor or marginal completions and fracture stimulations.
This paper takes the Rickman and Mullen10 view that mineralogy and brittleness are important to successful shale plays.
More importantly, this work will show the interrelationship between mineralogy, rock mechanics, and geomechanics and how
it can be used to optimally complete and fracture stimulate any unconventional shale reservoir. This work proposes the view
that the standard petrophysical properties expoused in the prior works1-10 are important, but that the key to a successful
unconventional gas play is the integration of the mineralogy, rock mechanics, and geomechanics to the completion and
fracture stimulation design and post-appraisal. There are numerous shales that are producing commercial quantities of gas that
have substandard petrophysical properties such as thermal maturity, organic content, or organic richness, but there aren’t very
many that have poor rock and geomechanics, and those that do have significant questions about their long term economic
viability.

Discussion:

The Integrated Approach To Understanding Shale Prospectivity:

The integrated approach to understanding shale prospectivity involves, as a first step, conducting some core laboratory tests
to relate and integrate the mineralogy, rock mechanics, and geomechanics. The basic suite of core tests recommended by this
work includes:
1. Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy tests for determining the mineral constituents of the core sample,
2. Fluid sensitivity testing to determine the clay sensitivity to salt concentration and frac fluid. A capillary suction
test also provides insight into this phenomenon, as described by Rickman and Mullen10,
3. Triaxial compression testing to determine the static rock properties (Young’s Modulus and Poissons Ratio),
4. Ultrasonic velocity testing to determine dynamic rock properties and shear anisotropy,
5. Embedment testing to determine the conductivity lost due to embedment in ductile shales, and
6. Unpropped crack testsing to determine the flow capacity of an un-propped crack under confining conditions.

The results of these tests can then be used to determine shale prospectivity, and more importantly, design completions and
fracture stimulation(s) to maximize the well performance. This is especially true for horizontal well completions and water-
fracs in unconventional gas reservoirs. The importance of rock and geomechanics to horizontal completions is reviewed in
depth in a paper by Britt and Smith11. The importance of the geomechanical impact of unpropped crack tests to the design,
placement and post-appraisal of water-fracs is documented in a paper by Britt and Smith12 et al. with the underlying theoretical
work done by Bennett13.
This paper supports the following conclusions regarding shale play prospectivity. Prospective shales have:
1. Limited clay constituents- generally less than forty percent,
[SPE 125525] 3

2. Static Young’s modulus in excess of 3.5 x 106 psi,

3. Dynamic to Static Young’s modulus correlations consistent with clastic reservoirs (not shales),
4. Fairly isotropic on the core plug scale (not many/any laminations evident), and
5. Gas flow at effective confining conditions through an un-propped crack.

The subsequent sections will present data that support these five conclusions. Exceptions will also be presented with
implications on the completion and well stimulation highlighted.

Petrology or Mineralogy of Prospective Shales:

One of our favorite petrophysicists describes unconventional gas shale reservoirs as either “shilts or shands.” I can’t think
of a better way to characterize the mineralogy
of shale reservoirs than that. First, these Figure 1: Ternary Diagram of the Mineralogy of Shales
reservoirs all have clay constituents- they just
don’t have all that much. If they do, they are
not very prospective. Based on this work, clay
content in excess of thirty five to forty percent
is too high to be considered widely prospective.
Figure 1 shows a ternary diagram of the
mineralogy of samples from eight different
shales in North America. As shown, most of the

artz

Cla
samples are to the left of the red dashed line

Qu

y
representing forty percent clay constituents. Of
the samples to the right of the line, only two
shales have significant representation. Both of
those shales (represented by diamonds and
boxes) produce some gas, but no viable
economic play has been made in either (at least
Ca rbona te

with gas prices less than $6-$7 per mcfd).

Is this because the pore throats are so small
that water and gas are trapped in “permeability jail?” Is it because the abundant clay mineralogy makes the shale too ductile to
maintain either an induced fracture or natural fissure under confining conditions? We understand the relative “permeability
jail” concept; unfortunately, it is hard to measure in these unconventional sediments. On the other hand, we can and have
tested what happens to the rock mechanics and geomechanics when a sample has “too much” clay. The Haynesville
Formation, for example, has elevated clay content approaching the forty percent level. And although it has more clay than
most of the prospective shales tested, it is still prospective, although the fracture stimulation design is affected as will be
discussed later.
Both the “permeability jail” concept and excess ductility may occur and likely do, but one solution to the geomechanical
effect of shale ductility is to pump gelled fracture stimulations with higher proppant concentrations. This has worked in many
tight gas formations but hasn’t been widely effective in unconventional shale reservoirs. In these reservoirs, water-fracs have
been the stimulation of choice. The use of a
clean, non-damaging fissure dilating fluid, like
Figure 2: Dynamic to Static Young’s Modulus Correlation
water, has distinct advantages over the use of
2.800 4.100
gelled fluids. After all, water-fracs have been 16.000 Clastics 2.400 4.700
the stimulation of choice in naturally fissured Prospective Shales
4.085
3.100
4.600
4.900
reservoirs for nearly sixty years for a reason! 14.000 6.100 6.600
Dynamic E, x 10^6 psi

Non-Prospective Shales 5.900 6.700

12.000 5.100 6.900
Rock Mechanics of Prospective Shales: 4.800
3.300
7.100
7.300
Triaxial compression tests and ultrasonic 10.000 4.300 7.500
6.000 7.700
velocity tests are important core tests to be used 8.000 5.100 7.800
in the evaluation of shale prospectivity. Tri- 4.600
4.300
7.900
8.100
axial compression tests are used to determine 6.000 5.500 8.300
5.300 8.500
static Young’s modulus and Poisson’s Ratio, 4.000 4.900 8.700
while ultrasonic velocity tests are used to 7.000
5.700
8.900
9.100
determine the dynamic Young’s modulus and 2.000 5.100 9.300
10 4.900 9.500
Poisson’s Ratio. Rickman and Mullen suggest 0.000 5.100 9.700
these are important to establish the brittleness or 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000
5.700
12.000
5.900
9.900
10.000
10.100
ductility of the shale. Low modulus and high Static E, x 10^6 psi 8.300 10.300
6.400 10.500
Poisson’s Ratio shales are generally too ductile
to be prospective. Our view is that there is
another important use of these static and dynamic tests. As an industry, we have a long history of developing dynamic to static
4 [SPE 125525]

Young’s modulus correlations14-19. Most of these correlations are for clastic rocks. We have found that prospective shales tend
to fit the dynamic-to-static clastic correlations of Young’s Modulus. Figure 2 shows a plot of the dynamic Young’s Modulus
versus static Young’s Modulus for clastics, prospective shales and non-prospective shales.
As shown on this figure, the prospective shales have a dynamic-to-static Young’s modulus correlation constistent with the
clastic rocks tested. The non-prospective shales are a group of tests conducted on various “true shales” that presented various
drilling problems in several basins in the Mid-Continent and South Texas. These shales were characterized as having very high
clay content and generally exhibited visible laminations to the naked eye. Also note that there are very few tests in prospective
shales that have a Young’s Modulus less than 3 x 106 psi or in non-prospective shales with a Young’s Modulus in excess of 3
x 106 psi.
Several of the lower modulus data points are from the Haynesville Shale Formation. The Haynesville shale is a relatively
high clay content shale found in East Texas and Northern Louisiana. In such a shale with low modulus, the ductility of the
formation is an issue. As a result, in such a shale an embedment test is recommended to determine the extent of the
conductivity lost to embedment. Figure 3 shows a plot of closure pressure versus displacement. As shown, as the load was
applied from 1,000 to 8,000 psi, the incremental
displacement was linear. Once the load was Figure 3: Haynesville Shale Embedment Test
increased to 10,000 psi, however, the
incremental displacement (embedment) 12000

increased dramatically. For example, at 4,000 At 8,000 psi Closure Stress

69.60 % of a Grain Diameter
and 8,000 psi closure stresses, proppant 10000 Was Lost to Embedment!

embedments of 0.118 lb/ft2 and 0.192 lb/ft2 or Proppant Embedment of At 10,000 psi Closure Stress
0.192 lbs/ft^2 at 8,000 psi 166.10 % of a Grain Diameter
42.6 and 69.6 percent of a grain diameter (20/40 8000
Closure Stress (psi)

Closure Stress W as Lost to Embedment!

mesh in this case) were recorded, respectively.
Proppant Embedment of
At 10,000 psi closure stress, the embedment 6000 0.412 lbs/ft^2 at 10,000 psi

recorded was 0.412 lb/ft2 (166.1%), or over

Closure Stress

twice the embedment seen at 8,000 psi. It 4000

should be noted that this dramatic increase in

displacement was due to the ductility of the 2000

formation at high closure stresses and not failure

of either the core sample or proppant. 0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060
Another comment regarding the ultrasonic Incremental Displacement (inches)
velocity testing is that not only is data obtained
for determination of a dynamic Young’s
modulus, but shear data parallel and perpendicular to the core plug axis is also determined. Such shear travel time information
can be used to assess the anisotropy of the core sample. Many of the prospective shales with Young’s modulus in excess of 3.5
x 106 psi exhibit little shear anisotropy on the core plug level. Thus, it would appear that many of the shales on this scale are
isotropic. For example, data indicates that the anisotropy exhibited by samples with a static Young’s Modulus greater than 3.5
x 106 psi (minimum shale prospectivity criterion) averages less than 6 percent, while the samples with a static Young’s
Modulus less than 3.5 x 106 psi exhibits nearly four times the anisotropy.
One final point regarding the isotropic nature of the prospective shale plugs is that if they are isotropic on this level and
laminations are not visible, core plug orientation
may not be important. That is, either vertical
Figure 4: BRML Built for Purpose Crack Test Equipment
plugs from whole core or horizontal plugs from
rotary sidewall cores may be useable for
determining the rock mechanics19. Several
studies of sample orientation have been
conducted to support this conclusion, although
conduct a fluoroscopic inspection of the plugs
prior to testing in an attempt to detect internal
flaws or laminations in the plugs is always
recommended!

Geomechanics of Prospective Shales:

In addition to the petrological and rock
mechanical testing, a series of geomechanical
tests are recommended to evaluate whether an
un-propped hydraulic fracture could retain
conductivity. Residual fracture width has been
observed both in the laboratory and in field
experiments. Surface asperities, or roughness at the fracture face, may account for this residual width. A laboratory study by
Schlumberger20 investigated this aspect of treated water fracture stimulations. Their work showed that fracture displacement
[SPE 125525] 5

and surface asperities were required to provide adequate fracture

conductivity in the absence of proppants and suggested that high Figure 5: Test Cell Head With Piston and Inlet Ports
strength proppants and higher, more conventional concentrations
of proppant were required to mitigate the need for the fracture
displacement and surface asperities’ effect on fracture
conductivity. This work was extended further by conducting
additional laboratory tests. These results showed that an un-
propped induced fracture under effective confining pressure
conditions in excess of what is anticipated in most shale
formations could be expected to have at least 0.1 to 1 mdft of
fracture conductivity.
To conduct this work, the cracked core was placed in our
“built for purpose” equipment and confining pressure was
applied. Figure 4 shows a picture of the equipment that was built
and used in this study. This equipment consists of a test cell that
can handle confining pressures from 0 to 10,000 psi and
temperatures up to 300oF. A piston head is used to apply
confining pressure and includes inlet electronic and flow ports.
In the induced crack testing, the piston is actuated to apply
confining pressure and emulate flow and shut-in conditions.
While confined at pressure and temperature, flow is established
through the inlet ports and the permeability of the core and Figure 6: Schematic of Test Procedures
induced crack measured. Figure 5 displays the head of the test
cell. Shown in this figure is the piston head for applying
confining pressure and inlet electronic and flow ports. During
most studies, effective confining pressures (i.e, difference
between minimum horizontal stress and reservoir pressure) up to
2,000 to 2,500 psi are applied to emulate the field conditions of Induced Crack
most shale formations. Sleeved Core
Flow ports exist both in the core direction and perpendicular Holder Exit
to the core, as shown in Figure 6. In these studies, we attempt to
measure the retained permeability of the core in the direction of
the induced crack as a function of confining pressure.
A series of retained permeability experiments have been Inlet Ports for Fluid
performed for shale core plugs prepared as described in the Gas Injection
Collection
previous paragraphs. These tests were designed to determine the
retained permeability of the crack while flowing wet nitrogen as
the confining pressure was increased to effective confinement conditions. Results of the testing show that for prospective
shales the retained permeability measured at effective confinement conditions can be significant, but for all prospective shales
gas flow was maintained. Conversely, for the
non-prospective shales tested (primarily Atoka Figure 7: Un-propped Crack Tests for Shales
and Wilcox shales), the flow of wet nitrogen
ceased long before effective confining pressure 10.00000 .1824e-3.4197*x
was reached. Further, it has been found for
3.2758e-3.3588*x
several shales near the limit of clay constituents Best Shale Plays
(approximately forty percent) that although gas 1.00000

flow was maintained at effective confining

Normalized k

conditions, the measured permeability in these

0.10000
cases was at least an order of magnitude less Marginal Shale Plays

than the more prospective shales. In other

words, it would appear that the clay mineralogy 0.01000
and rock mechanics (brittleness and ductility)
play a role in the results of the un-propped crack
test. 0.00100
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Figure 7 shows a plot of Normalized Normalized Stress
Permeability versus Normalized Stress. Shown
are crack test results for five different shales in North America. As shown, the upper datasets in black (prospective shales)
have a normalized permeability that is more than an order of magnitude greater than the lower data in red (marginal to non-
prospective shale). From hundreds of such tests coupled with a review of well performance, a geomechanical schematic has
6 [SPE 125525]

been developed to identify prospective and non-prospective shales which are also shown on this plot as trendlines for “best
shale plays” and “marginal shale plays.”
As another comment regarding these tests, both naturally fissured samples and mechanically cracked samples have been
tested. Results indicate that the natural fissures in the samples are less stress sensitive but also have a smaller flow capacity
than mechanically fractured samples. This relationship is especially evident when a naturally fissured sample is mechanically
cracked and retested. The implication of this may show up when a dilating fracture fluid such as treated water connects with a
natural fissure system and induces further mechanical failure of the system.
Finally, these tests are conducted to effective stress conditions to test the ability of gas to flow in the reservoir away from
the wellbore. At the wellbore, the stress on either natural fissures or induced fractures is the minimum horizontal stress minus
the bottom hole flowing pressure. Thus, for most gas wells, the stress on the natural or induced cracks near the wellbore is the
fracture pressure. At these conditions, we have found no shales and few tight gas sands that can flow gas. As a result, some
proppant is required in the near-wellbore area to maintain flow through the natural fissures and induced fractures. Proppantless
fractures will likely and have failed in these formations in the past. In the Haynesville sample shown in Figure 3, for example,
nearly five times the embedment was seen near wellbore (10,000 psi), as seen in the far field under effective confining
conditions (2,000 psi).

Completion and Fracture Stimulation Design Impacts:

Our proposed methodology for identifying prospective unconventional gas plays originated as a means of understanding
the viability of treated water as a fracturing fluid.12 Water as a fracturing fluid has a long history22-25 (as long as fracturing
itself) but is a unique fracturing fluid due to its poor proppant transport characteristics. The poor transport characteristics result
in a fracture with variable conductivity laterally and vertically. The lateral effects of conductivity have been well studied13,26,
but it is the effect of the vertical component of flow in a fracture where treated water fracture stimulations derive their
benefits.12,13
The primary aspect of this most recent work was coupling numerical simulation studies of fracture flow with a laboratory
investigation to show that hydraulically cracked and un-propped fractures can retain fracture width sufficient to flow gas.
Further, this work showed that as long as the vertical dimensionless fracture conductivity (FCDvert) is in excess of 2, the treated
water frac will act like a fully propped fracture. Should the fracture have an FCDvert less than 2, the gas deliverability and
reserve recovery will be lessened compared to a fully propped fracture. This work was the principal focus of a 2007-2008 SPE
Distinguished Lecturer Tour27 on “The Use of Low Viscosity Treated Water In Fracture Stimulations.”
In recent years, these laboratory results have been applied to shale plays in North America with some very interesting
findings. The shale in these unconventional gas reservoirs, when cracked and subjected to confining pressure (effective stress),
are brittle enough to retain conductivity and flow gas. More ductile shale fail to retain conductivity and as a result fail to flow
gas un-propped. Such a shale is likely a poor water frac candidate and likely not prospective as an unconventional reservoir.
Any formation can be a viable water frac target, but some lend themselves to the use of treated water as a fracturing fluid
better than others. Low permeability naturally fissured formations, for example, make excellent water-frac candidates. This is
because water-frac stimulations differ from more conventional fracture stimulations, as water is a cleaner fluid than
conventional gels and does little damage to any natural fissures present. In addition, water is a poor fluid for transport of the
proppant within the fracture. This latter issue (poor transport fluid) is the basis for our water-frac designs. The resulting
fracture after a water-frac has two distinct components. The first part of the fracture is the bottom, where all of the proppant
settles during the treatment. The second part of the fracture is the upper part that has little or no proppant, as it has all settled to
the bottom of the fracture.
Figure 8 shows a schematic of a water-frac where forty percent of the fracture is filled with proppant and sixty percent of
the fracture is un-propped. Reservoir
simulations of such a fracture provide the basis Figure 8: Schematic Of A Water-Frac
of design for a water-frac treatment. These
simulations show that a water-frac stimulation Assumes Un-Propped kfw!
performs like a fully propped fracture, provided
that the ratio of the unpropped conductivity of
the fracture to the product of the reservoir 100 %
permeability and the height of the un-propped 80 %
part of the fracture is in excess of 2. If this ratio 60 %
is less than a value of 2, it indicates that the
40 %
retained conductivity of the unpropped part of
the fracture is too small for the reservoir = 20 % 40% of Zone Stimulated
== =
permeability and un-propped fracture height. In 0 %
this scenario, the only thing that can be done to
improve the situation is to reduce the unpropped
fracture height by pumping more proppant and
filling up more of the fracture.
[SPE 125525] 7

Common stimulation questions being asked today are: How much treated water? How do we treat the water? How much
proppant? These aren’t new questions, but they are important, and the results of the laboratory testing in the first part of the
paper lay the foundation to help answer these and other questions. Prior work12 showed that an FCDvert of at least 2 is required
to maximize well performance from water fracs.

FCDvert = kfwupf / k * Hupf ………………………………………………………………(1)

where kfwupf is the un-propped fracture conductivity (lab tests), k is the reservoir permeability, and Hupf is the un-propped
fracture height.
By setting equation 1 equal to 2 and varying
permeability and un-propped conductivity (lab Figure 9: Un-Propped Height as a Function of Permeability
results), we can estimate the height of an
acceptable un-propped fracture. Figure 9 shows
a plot of un-propped fracture height versus
reservoir permeability.27 This figure shows
several interesting things. First, water-fracs are
truly for use in tight and unconventional gas
reservoirs. In higher permeability (conventional)
reservoirs, the acceptable un-propped fracture
height is potentially less than a foot (un-propped
conductivity of 1 mdft). Second, the acceptable
un-propped fracture height in a 0.0001 md
reservoir may be hundreds of feet, as shown.
Therefore, treated water should be the
stimulation fluid of choice in unconventional
gas reservoirs, provided there is enough
brittleness to maintain an un-propped fracture
width under confining conditions. Even so,
some proppant will always be required, as the
effective stress near the wellbore is always
greater than that in the reservoir. The effective
stress (stress acting to close un-propped induced Figure 10: Effect Of Treatment Design On Productivity
or natural fractures) in the reservoir is the
fracture pressure minus the reservoir pressure,
while at the wellbore it is fracture pressure "Normalized"
Water Fracs Production Data
minus the bottom hole flowing pressure. In most 600
U. S. reservoirs the effective stress in the
Gel Fracs
reservoir approaches 0.2 psi/ft (Salz) while the 500
effective stress at the wellbore approaches 0.6
psi/ft. As a result, proppant will always be 400
MCFPD

needed to prop the fracture in the near-wellbore

area, but how much proppant is needed depends
300
on the un-propped conductivity and the
reservoir permeability, as previously shown.
Therefore, water-frac design is strongly related 200
to the results of the laboratory testing described
in the first part of this paper. 100
Figure 10 shows this effect very well. This
figure is a bar chart of Initial Potential (IP) as a
function of East Texas Cotton Valley area28. Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area
Shown is a comparison of treated water fracs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
versus gel fracs for eight Cotton Valley areas.
As shown, the IP for the water fracs was near that for gelled treatments (six month gas cumulative recoveries were nearly
identical) in all but areas 4, 5, and 7. In areas 4, 5, and 7 the Initial Potential of the water fracs significantly underperformed
those of the gel fracs. It should be noted that areas 4, 5, and 7 represent the Woodlawn and Blocker Fields of East Texas where
the Taylor sand is not 50 feet thick, as it is in each of the other areas studied, but 100 to 150 feet thick instead. The answer to
this problem is not that water fracs do not work in areas 4, 5, and 7, but rather that one can’t use the same water-frac design
without considering the reservoir, rock mechanics, and geomechanics. And, in fact, the water frac treatments in these areas
were modified (more sand pumped to reduce the un-propped fracture height and increase the FCDvert) and the well performance
results were greatly improved as a result.
8 [SPE 125525]

Summary and Conclusions:

This paper clearly shows the importance of linking the mineralogy, rock mechanics, and geomechanics to determine an
unconventional shale play’s prospectivity. Further, through understanding of the laboratory results, the basis of fracture design
can be developed to improve and optimize the completion and stimulation designs. Based on this work, we conclude:

1. Prospective shales have

a. Limited clay constituents generally less than forty percent,
b. Static Young’s modulus in excess of 3.5 x 106 psi,
c. Dynamic-to-static Young’s modulus correlations consistent with clastic reservoirs (not shales),
d. Fairly isotropic on the core plug scale (not many/any laminations evident), and
e. Flow gas at effective confining conditions through an un-propped crack.
2. Therefore, laboratory core tests of mineralogy, rock mechanics, and geomechanics should be conducted on every
potentially viable shale.
3. Results of these laboratory tests can be used to develop optimum water-frac designs for unconventional shale
plays.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the University of Tulsa for their continued support.

Nomenclature
v = Vertical stress
Hmax = Maximum horizontal stress
hmin = Minimum horizontal stress
Effective Stress = hmin - pi
Proppant Stress = hmin – BHFP
FCDvert = Dimensionless Fracture Capacity to vertical flow
kfwupf = Un-propped fracture conductivity, mdft
Hupf = Un-propped fracture height, feet
xf = Fracture half-length, feet
kfw = Fracture Conductivity, mdft
k = Reservoir permeability, md
H = Fracture height, feet
E = Young’s modulus, psi
E’ = Plain strain modulus, psi
Edynamic = Young’s Modulus determined through sonic or ultrasonic measurements
Estatic = Young’s Modulus determined through tri-axial compression measurements (Hydraulic fracturing is a static process)
pi = Reservoir pressure, psi
BHFP = Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
Normalized k = Normalized permeability

References
1. Gunter, G.W., Finneran, J.M., Hartmann, D.J., and Miller, J.D.: “Early Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using
an Integrated Petrophysical Model,” paper SPE 38679 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8, 1997.
2. Gunter, G.W., Pinch, J.J., Finneran, J.M., and Bryant, W.T.:”Overview of an Integrated Process Model to Develop
Petrophysical Based Reservoir Descripotions,” paper SPE 38748 presented at the 1997 Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8, 1997.
3. Newsham, K.E. and Rushing, J.A.:”An Integrated Work-Flow Model to Characterize Unconventional Gas Resources:
Part I-Geological Assessment and Petrophysical Evaluation, paper SPE 71351 presented at the 2001 Annual
Technical Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2001.
4. Rushing, J.A. and Newsham, K.E.:”An Integrated Work-Flow Model to Characterize Unconventional Gas Resources:
Part II-Formation Evaluation and Reservoir Modelling, paper SPE 71352 presented at the 2001 Annual Technical
Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2001.
5. Slatt, R.M., Singh, P., Philp, R.P., Marfurt, K.J., Abousleiman, Y. and Obrien, N. R.:”Workflow for Stratigraphic
Characterization of Unconventional Gas Shales,” paper SPE 119891 presented athe 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production
Conference held in Fort Worth, TX, Nov. 16-18, 2008.
[SPE 125525] 9

6. Shanley, K.W., Cluff, R.M., and Robinson, J.W.:”Factors Controlling Prolific Gas Production from Low-
Permeability Sandstone reservoirs: Implications for Resource Assessment, Prospect Development, and Risk
Analysis,” AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 8, August 2004, pp. 1083-1121.
7. Frantz, J.H., Williamson, J.R., Sawyer, W.K., Johnston, D., Waters, G., Moore, L.P., Macdonald, R.J., Pearcy, M.,
Ganpule, S.V., and March, K.S.:”Evaluating Barnett Shale Production Performance Using an Integrated Approach,”
paper SPE 96917 presented at the 2005 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, TX, Oct. 9-12,
2005.
8. Jacobi, D., Gladkikh, M., LeCompte, B., Hursan, G., Mendez, F., Longo, J. Ong, S., Bratovich, M., Patton, G., and
Shoemaker, P.:”Integrated Petrophysical Evaluation of Shale Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE 114925 presented at the
CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference held in Calgary, Albert, Canada, June 16-19, 2008.
9. Parker, M., Buller, D., Petre, E., and Dreher, D.:”Haynesville Shale-Petrophysical Evaluation,” paper SPE 122937
presented at the 2009 Rocky Mountain Technology Conference held in Denver, CO, April 14-16, 2009.
10. Rickman, R. Mullen, M., Petre, E. Grieser, B., and Kundert, D.:”A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for
Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale,” paper SPE 115258 presented
at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, CO, Sept. 21-24, 2008.
11. Britt, L. K. and Smith, M. B.:”Horizontal Well Completion and Stimulation Optimization and Risk Mitigation
Strategies,” paper SPE 125526 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, West Virginia,
Sept. 23-25, 2009.
12. Britt, L. K., Smith, M. B., Haddad, Z., Lawrence, P, Chipperfield, S., and Hellman, T.,: “Water-Fracs We Do Need
Proppant Afterall,” paper SPE 102227 presented at the presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Sept. 24-27, 2006.
13. Bennett, C.O.:”Analysis of Fractured Wells,” PhD Thesis, University of Tulsa, 1982.
14. Yale, D.P., Jamieson, WH:”Static and Dynamic Rock Mechanical Properties in the Hugoton and Panoma Fields,
Kansas,” paper SPE 27939 presented at the Mid-continent Gas Symposium held in Amarillo, Tx, May 22-24, 1994.
15. Tuman, V.S. and Alm, R.F.:”Dynamic and Static Elastic Properties of Saturated Sandstone Samples,” paper SPE 603.
16. Morales, H.H., Marcinen, R.P.:”Fracturing of High Permeability Formations Mechanical properties Correlations,”
paper SPE 26561, presented at the 68th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, tx, Oct. 3-
6, 1993.
17. Farquhar, R.A., Somerville, J.M., and Smart, B.G.D.:”Porosity as a Geomechanical Indicator: An Application of Core
and Log Data and Rock Mechanics,” paper SPE 28853, presented at the European Petroleum Conference held in
London, UK, Oct. 25-27, 1994.
18. Lacy, L.L.:”Dynamic Rock Mechanics Testing for Optimized Fracture Designs,” paper SPE 38716, presented at the
1997 Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8, 1997.
19. Britt, L. K., Smith, M. B., Haddad, Z., Reese, J., and Kelly, P.: “Rotary Sidewall Cores-A Cost Effective Means of
Determining Young’s Modulus,” paper SPE 90861 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, Sept. 26-29, 2004.
20. Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England, K.W.:”Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture
Conductivity Demonstrates the Benefits of Using Proppants,” paper SPE 60326 presented at the 2000 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, CO, March 12-15.
21. Britt, L. K, et al, “Fracture Optimization and Design Via Integration of Hydraulic Fracture Imaging and Fracture
Modeling: East Texas Cotton Valley,” SPE 67205, SPE Productions & Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
March 24-27, 2001.
22. Walker, R.N., Hunter, J.L., Brake, a.C., Fagin, P.A., and 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 held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 27-30.
23. Mayerhofer, M.J., Richardson, M.F., Walker, R.N., and Meehan, D.N., Oehler, M.W., and Browning,
R.R.:”Proppants? We Don’t Need No Stinking Proppants,” paper SPE 38611 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
24. Mayerhofer, M.J. and Mehan, N.D.:”Water-Fracs-Results from 50 Cotton Valley Wells,” paper SPE 49104 presented
at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 27-30.
25. Mayerhofer, M.J., Walker, 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 held in Dallas, texas, Oct. 1-4.
26. Britt, L.K., and Bennett, C.O.:” Determination of Fracture Conductivity in Moderate Permeability Reservoirs Using
Bilinear Flow Concepts,” paper SPE 14165 presented at the 1985 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
27. Britt, L.K.:”Application of Low Viscosity Fracturing Fluids: Water-Frac’s,” 2007-2008 SPE Distinguished Lecture
Series.
28. England, K.W., Poe, B.D., and Conger, J.G.:“Comprehensive Evaluation of Fractured Gas Wells Utilizing Production
Data”, paper SPE 60285 presented at the 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium held in Denver, CO, March 12-15.