TITLE

Methods for Determining Frack Performance

Course Code
SECTION 1: Student to complete
SURNAME/FAMILY NAME: ..
FIRST NAME: ..
ID Number: .
Date submitted: .
Please:

Read the statement on Cheating and definition of Plagiarism contained over page. The full
Code of Practice on Student Discipline, Appendix 5.15 of the Academic Quality Handbook
attach this Cover Sheet, completed and signed to the work being submitted

SECTION 2: Confirmation of Authorship

The acceptance of your work is subject to your signature on the following declaration:

I confirm that I have read, understood and will abide by the University statement on cheating and plagiarism
defined over the page and that this submitted work is my own and where the work of others is used it is
clearly identified and referenced. I understand that the School of Engineering reserves the right to use this
submitted work in the detection of plagiarism.

Signed: _________________________________
Date:___________________________________

Note: Work submitted for continuous assessment will not be marked without a completed Cover Sheet.
Such work will be deemed late until a completed cover Sheet is submitted and will be subject to the
published penalty for late submission)

Abstract
This thesis investigates the role of tracers in determining and monitoring the fracture profile
and penetration depth of a stimulation/hydraulic fracturing job. It also looks at the other
roles the tracers play in the oil and gas industry, like determining inter-well connectivity,
single well residual oil saturation and monitoring of EOR injections like SWAG and
WAG. Different types of tracers: radioactive and chemical (water, oil and gas based) have
been discussed in detail with reference to their properties, efficacy, detection techniques
and potential hazards. Other techniques that are used to understand fracture penetration and
propagation like tilt meter, microseismic, production logging and well testing have also
been reviewed.
Then it discusses how the information from tracers can be related to understanding the
fracturing process, and looks at certain alternatives to the conventional radioactive and
chemical tracers on both technical and environmental grounds. It concludes with what
further research and development is being carried out and how it would affect the industry
and the consumers.

iii

Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ vii
Chapter 1

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1

Background .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2

Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 2

1.3

Research Objectives ................................................................................................. 2

1.4

Outline of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 3

1.5

Hydraulically Induced Fractures .............................................................................. 3

Chapter 2

Literature Review ............................................................................................. 5

2.1

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2

Overcoming Wellbore Damage ............................................................................... 7

2.3

Making Deep-Penetrating Reservoir Fractures ........................................................ 7

2.4

Helping Secondary Recovery Operation ................................................................. 7

2.5

Disposing of Oilfield Brines .................................................................................... 8

2.6

How is a Fracture Made? ......................................................................................... 8

2.7

Formation Damage Mechanisms ............................................................................. 9

2.8

Description of fractures ......................................................................................... 10

2.9

Initiation and Extension of Fractures ..................................................................... 11

2.10

Fracture Orientation ........................................................................................... 11

2.11

Fracture Height and Length................................................................................ 12

2.12

Fracture Width.................................................................................................... 12

2.13

Fracturing Fluid .................................................................................................. 13

2.14

Fracture Conductivity......................................................................................... 13

2.15

Hydraulic Fracturing Models ............................................................................. 14

2.16

Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs.................................... 18

Chapter 3

Fracture diagnostic techniques ....................................................................... 21

3.1

Basic Concepts and Introduction about the techniques ......................................... 21

3.2

The description of common technologies for monitoring fracking penetration .... 24

iv

Group 1 - Direct far field .............................................................................................. 24

Group 2 - Direct near-wellbore .................................................................................... 27
Group 3 Indirect ........................................................................................................ 30
Chapter 4
4.1

Chapter 4: Tracers for determining fracking penetration ............................... 31

Tracers in the Oil industry ..................................................................................... 31

4.1.1

Inter-well Connectivity ................................................................................... 31

4.1.2

SWAG or WAG injection EOR monitoring ................................................... 32

4.1.3

Single Well Residual oil saturation determination ......................................... 33

4.1.4

Cement job integrity ....................................................................................... 35

4.1.5

Multiple zone completion/ Sub-sea well performance analysis ..................... 35

4.1.6

Tracers for fracture profiling .......................................................................... 36

4.2

Types of Tracers .................................................................................................... 40

4.2.1

Radioactive Tracers ........................................................................................ 41

4.2.2

Chemical Tracers ............................................................................................ 41

4.3

Activation/Release of Tracers: ............................................................................... 43

4.4

Detection of Tracers ............................................................................................... 44

4.5

Advantages and Disadvantages of tracers.............................................................. 45

Chapter 5

Alternative Tracers and Conclusions .............................................................. 46

5.1

Alternative Tracers ................................................................................................ 46

5.2

Naturally occurring radioactive tracers :................................................................ 46

5.2.1

Bio Tracers and Nano Rust............................................................................. 46

5.2.2

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 47

References ............................................................................................................................ 49

List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Creation of Propped Hydraulic Fracture [55] ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Fig. 2.2 Damage in Hydraulically Fractured Reservoir [14] Error! Bookmark not defined.
Fig. 2.3 Initiation of Vertical Fracture, the Least Principle Stress is Horizontal [37] .......... 11
Fig. 2.4 Fracture orientation a) Vertical Fracture, b) Horizontal Fracture, and c) Angular
Fracture [39] ......................................................................................................... 12
Fig. 2.5 Fracture Geometry of the KGD Model [41]............................................................ 15
Fig. 2.6 Fracture Geometry of the PKN Model [49] ............................................................ 16
Fig. 2.7 Interaction between the Hydraulic Fracture and Natural Fracturesn [69] ............... 20
Fig.2.1 Creation of Propped Hydraulic Fracture [55] ............................................................ 9
Fig.2.2 Damage in Hydraulically Fractured Reservoir [14] ................................................. 10
Fig.2.3 Initiation of vertical fracture, when stress is horizontal [37] ................................... 11
Fig.2.4Fracture orientation a) Vertical Fracture, b) Horizontal Fracture, and c) Angular
Fracture [39] ......................................................................................................................... 12
Fig.2.5 Fracture Geometry of the KGD Model[41].............................................................. 15
Fig.2.6 Fracture Geometry of the PKN Model[49] .............................................................. 16
Fig.2.7 Interaction between the Hydraulic Fracture and Natural Fractures [69] .................. 20

vi

List of Tables
Table 1 Capabilities of Fracture Diagnostics [70], [72] ....................................................... 23
Table 2Description of borehole images ................................................................................ 29
Table 3The advantages/constraints of some Gas tracers [88] .............................................. 42

vii

Chapter 1
1.1

Introduction

Background

Hydraulic fracturing is an efficient way to improve the flow capacity of reservoirs to

increase the productivity of the well. The first attempt to fracture a formation to improve
the production was not hydraulic in naturepeople actually broke the formation apart by
using high explosives and providing flow channels from the matrix to the wellbore as early
as 1890 [1]. Then, during the 1930s, Dow Chemical Company realized that the rock matrix
could be deformed if large enough downhole fluid pressure was exerted, and the effect of
acid stimulation would become better in the deformed formations [2].
The first hydraulic fracturing without acidization was applied on a gas well in the Hugoton
field, Kansas, in 1947 to compare the results of this technique with the acidization method
[3]. However, the outcome in Hugoton was not significant, and people thought that
fracturing would not replace acidizinguntil the mid-1960s, when propped hydraulic
fracturing became the first stimulation choice in the Hugoton field.
Nowadays, about 70% of the gas wells and 50% of the oil wells which have been drilled in
North America after the 1950s are hydraulically fractured [1], and many fields produce
commercially only because of the hydraulic fracturing stimulation.
Hydraulic fracturing is suitable for a wide range of geological formations from tight gas
fields, weakly consolidated offshore sediments, soft formations such as coal beds, and
naturally fractured reservoirs[4]. A hydraulic fracturing treatment is divided into two steps
as described below [5][3][1].
The first step is to perforate the casing and create finger-like holes. After the perforation, a
viscous fracturing fluid, which is called pad, is pumped into the well, and a fracture will
propagate into the surrounding rock from the perforated interval when the downhole
pressure goes beyond the breakdown pressure of the formation.
The second step is to inject slurry of fluid with proppants.These proppants are solid
material usually made from silica or ceramic and play the role of keeping the fractures open
1

for fluid flow. Such fluid will extend the fracture and carry the proppant deep into the
fracture. Subsequently, the fluid will flow back out of the well and leave the proppant to
support the fracture and create a high-permeability path connecting the matrix and the
wellbore.

1.2

Problem Statement

Hydraulic stimulation is an important technology for extracting hydrocarbons from both

conventional and unconventional reservoirs. For ultralow-permeability shale reservoirs,
now being regularly exploited, hydraulic treatment is absolutely essential to obtain
economic levels of production [6],[7].
A better understanding of fault mechanics and in-situ stress changes during hydraulic
fracturing will increase our ability to better predict the likelihood and characteristic of the
stress field underground allowing for better optimizing hydraulic treatment design.
Using tracers, it is possible to monitor and track the fracture profile and the depth of
penetration. Lacing the fracturing fluid with a tracer can provide valuable information
about the fact that whether the fracking job has contaminated the shallow aquifers or not.
Hence it is important to understand the different types of tracers, how they work, how they
can be detected and what environmental impact they have.

1.3

Research Objectives

Hydraulic fracturing has a key role in improving the productivity of any well. The main
role of determining hydraulic fracturing penetration is to achieve better production of the
reservoir. It helps the producer to optimize field development and well economics.
It is the objective of this thesis to investigate the limitations, advantages and disadvantages
of tracers for determining fracking penetration and to look at some alternative suitable and
more environmentally acceptable tracers.
Previous studies in the literature on fault stability focus on the geological sequestration of
CO2, reservoir depletion and so on. A comprehensive analysis of how hydraulic stimulation
influences the fault stability has not been fully investigated to date. A prediction of how
2

pre-existing faults and fractures respond to hydraulic stimulation can help optimize field
operations and improve recovery[9]. For this, understanding the role and function of tracers
in a hydraulic fracturing job is critical. The main purpose of the study is to investigate the
available tracers and to look at more advanced and environmentally acceptable tracers.

1.4

Outline of the Thesis

This thesis is presented in a series of manuscripts. This introductory chapter provides

background information. Some basic knowledge involved in this study is provided in
Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents the fracture diagnostic techniques; existing methods for
determining fracking penetration. Chapter 4 investigates characteristics of tracers to
determine fracking penetration, and other uses of tracers in the oil industry. Chapter 5
summarizes the use of tracers in determining the successful monitoring of a hydraulic
fracture job, and discusses the alternative tracers that could be used for fracture
monitoring..

1.5

Hydraulically Induced Fractures

The highly conductive propped path created by hydraulic fracturing is narrow, but it can be
really long. Economides[10] points out that the typical widths of a hydraulic fracture are
around 0.25 in or less, while the length may reach up to 3,000 ft from tip to tip. The
treatment would take place from tens of minutes to a few hours depending on fracture size.
The direction of hydraulically induced fractures is usually normal to the smallest principal
stresses as the fractures tend to open in the direction of the least resistance; thus, most of
the induced fractures are in the vertical plane, since the smallest principal stress is in the
horizontal plane for most reservoirs[11]. If the formation is isotropic and homogeneous, the
in-situ stress is the controlling factor on fracture propagation[5]. For most cases, the
geometry of the hydraulically induced fracture is determined by the rocks mechanical
properties, in-situ stresses, the rheological properties of the fracturing fluid, and local
heterogeneities such as preexisting natural fractures[11].
In addition, for making the natural gas to flow from formations to the wellbore very easily
the fracking method is used by injecting the mixture of water, sand and chemicals. In most
scenarios the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are used together to get a
3

reasonable cost in natural gas production. It is not commercially viable to extract natural
gas from shale formations without combining these two procedures
The use of hydraulic fracturing has four advantages:
(1) overcoming wellbore damage,
(2) creating deep-penetrating fissures in the reservoir for increasing well productivity;
(3) to improve the effectiveness of secondary recovery operations;
(4) to create the smooth path for injection and removal of brine [12].
Guo et al.[13]investigated the conductivity effect and fracture penetration on productivity
of wells with several vertical fractures. Guo and Ghalambor[14] and Zheng-dong et
al.[15]predicted the variables in dimensionless groups for the explanation of the production
behavior in the fractured well which is assumed as an infinite conductivity fracture.
The calculation of the effective wellbore radius which is equal to the half of the fracture
length is demonstrated by Prats et al.[16]. And Abousleiman et al.[17]modeled the first
mathematical model which is suitable inthis kind of applications for using well test data
analysis when wells cross the large fractures. Adachi et al [4]investigated several methods
to predict the production rate in hydraulically fractured horizontal wells.
Rajagopal S et al [18] has estimated the productivity of fractured horizontal wells in low
permeability reservoirs
Finally, Zheng-dong Le idefined a new way for predicting the performance of fractured
horizontal wells which is based on non-steady flow of fracturing pad during production.It
has been done by applying potential function principles, superposition principle and
mathematical method for solving, and coupling seepage flow in the formation and pipe
flow in the well bore [15].
The purpose of this study is to investigate the limitations, advantages and disadvantages of
tracers for determining fracking penetration. Furthermore, we try to investigate more
efficient and environment friendly tracers.

Chapter 2
2.1

Literature Review

Introduction

Tracers are quite commonly used to monitor and evaluate the fracture profile and its depth
of penetration in a formation rock. To understand how tracers work in stimulation /
fracturing job, it is important to understand how rocks fracture. Stimulation fracturing or
fracking is an artificial fracturing where fluids are injected at high pressures to fracture the
rock. Natural fractures also occur in rocks due to geological events like tectonic
movements, faulting and folding.
Once a fault has been formed its further motion is controlled by friction. Friction is a
contact property rather than a bulk property[19]. Friction experiments were first carried out
by Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardos discoveries remained hidden and then were rediscovered
200 years later by Amontons. Da Vinci found that frictional sliding will occur on a plane
when the ratio of shear to normal stress reaches a material property of the material, , the
coefficient of friction[20].
A comprehensive summary of numerous laboratory experiments on friction on a wide
variety of rock types indicates that at intermediate pressure and high pressure (~100
MPa), surface roughness, rock type, normal stress, etc. have little or no effect on friction.
The coefficient of friction is found to be within a relatively small range: 0.61.0.
For example, Morrow, Shi, &Byerlee[21] found that samples of a fault gouge with clays
from the San Andreas fault have coefficients of friction ranging from 0.15 to 0.55. Fault
gouges with a wide range of constituent minerals relevant to natural faults are found to
have a strong influence on frictional stability; the friction of natural faults is strongly
dependent on the composition of gouge[22].
The recent development of unconventional tight gas reservoirs has inspired researchers to
investigate the mechanical properties of gas shale reservoir rocks[23], [24]. Samples tested
differ in their mineralogical composition, the degree of diagenesis, the total organic content
and the degree of maturity of organic material.

It is suggested by laboratory data that Youngs modulus correlates well with the amount of
viscoplastic creep and that frictional strength, coefficient of friction and amount of
viscoplastic creep vary strongly with clay content. Based on rate and state, friction
experiments in the laboratory using shale samples with a large range of clay content
indicate that clay content determines the deformation mechanism of pre-existing fractures
and faults[9]. When shales comprise of about less than 30% clay, slip on faults is expected
to propagate unstably, thus conventional microseismic events are generated.
For shales containing more than 30% clay, fault slip is expected to propagate slowly, which
does not generate high frequency seismic waves. Depending upon the in-situ stress regime,
faults underground may or may not be tectonically active. Generally when active faults are
in critical stress state, even a slight stress perturbations may trigger such faults to slip[25],
[26].
Fluid injection to subsurface reservoirs, such as hydraulic stimulation and geological
sequestration of CO2, raises pore pressure and causes in-situ stress field changes, which
would tend to influence the stability of underground faults. Researchers have done a lot of
work on fault stability for CO2 sequestration[27], [28], [29].
According to the theory of poroelasticity, depleting a hydrocarbon reservoir alters the state
of in-situ stresses, which can sufficiently reactivate and induce the slip of nearby faults[30],
[31], [32], [33], [34]. Horizontal wells with multiple fractures are commonly used in
unconventional gas reservoirs, such as the ultralow-permeability shales. It is absolutely
essential to perform hydraulic stimulation in order to achieve commercial gas production
rates[6], [7].
During this kind of stimulation, the local earth stresses are changed, which affects the
stability of underground faults. For hydraulic treatment, there are two common effects
causing stress change during hydraulic fracturing[35], thus, affecting the stability of faults.
The first one is the increase of minimum stress because of the poroelastic effect. During
hydraulic treatment, fracturing fluid leaks into formations. Pore pressure increases around
the hydraulic fractures due to leakage, resulting in dilation of the formation.

The minimum stress thus increases in this stimulated region. When injection is stopped and
the excess pore pressure spreads out into the formation, these poroelastic effects disappear.
The second effect is the stress increase due to the opening of the fracture. If the induced
fracture is held by proppant, this effect remains. This could mean that the original fracture
changes the in-situ stress, and a subsequent vertical fracture will propagate perpendicular to
the initial vertical fracture.
When a fracture is reoriented, fracture width is expected to be reduced and the dependence
of the degree of reduction in the fracture width from the degree of orientation[36]. A
narrow effective fracture width tends to increase fracture pressure, and consequently greater
fracture-propagation pressure.

2.2

Overcoming Wellbore Damage

Damage to the wellbore is usually one of the main reason to reduce effectiveness of
formations that destructs flow channels of oil and gas from formations into the wellbore.
The main character of the fracturing is to make an effective permeability in reservoirs by
creating channels with short radius. Sometimes depth of channels reach 10-20 ft which
increase the production rate 10 to 50 times over pre-treatment rates. The reason of a
significant progress in production rate is clear by the fractures breaking through a damaged
zone in the immediate surroundings of the well.

2.3

Making Deep-Penetrating Reservoir Fractures

Using advanced fracture systems like as deep-penetrating and high-flow-capacity in most

part of the reservoir increase the production of gas. Additionally, it causes a large drainage
area for reservoir formations to feed gas by utilizing the energy of the reservoir to the
maximum.

2.4

Helping Secondary Recovery Operation

Fracturing plays two important roles in the secondary recovery oil:

It helps to injection well to accept more fluid by enhancing the capacity of well

It also increases the efficiency of water-flooding project by creating efficient

capacity flow channels into the production well.
7

2.5

Disposing of Oilfield Brines

The huge amount of high salinity water produced by certain oil wells causes a significant
reduction in oil production. On the other hand it has been acclaimed in the industry that by
using low-pressure, high-fluid-injection wells, fractures can reduce salinity of water. This
practice is based on improved experience of the Atomic Energy Commission with the
disposal of radioactive materials by using fractured wells.

2.6

How is a Fracture Made?

The following steps are involved:

1.

The initial fracture is created using the pumping pad (the fracturing

fluid) with the required dimensions. Polymer solutions and water-based

chemical are the most common type of fracturing fluids. The most
suitable fracturing fluids display non Newtonian behavior and have
reduced loss rates. The process requires a fair amount of pre-pad, and
usually half the of the Pad volume pumps leaks off to the formation.
Typically, only less than 30% is required to complete the fracking.
2.

For both applications gravel pack sand and proppant are used as they

are similar in size. Once the fracture is large enough to accommodate the
proppant mix and the fracture length is at the desired length, a low
concentration of proppant mix can be used.
3.

The fracturing fluid is injected to the perforations and halted when

the proppant slurry exceeds the fracture tip.

4.

During the leak-off process, the viscosity of the fracturing fluid is

decreased by the addition of a chemical breaker, and this assists in the

production of the degraded pad, followed by natural gas production, as
shown in Fig 2.1 [55].

Fig.2.1 Creation of Propped Hydraulic Fracture [55]

2.7

Formation Damage Mechanisms

For creating effective fractures, the fracturing fluid is injected to perforated zone with high
injection rate. The huge portion of this fluid enters the formations around the fractured zone
which possibly damages the formations, creates filter cake and chocking effect near the
wellbore. Fig. 2.2 describes details of this effect.

Fig.2.2 Damage in Hydraulically Fractured Reservoir [14]

2.8

Description of fractures

Underground fractures can be distinguished as follows:

Natural fractures which created by tectonic forces

Manmade fractures caused by hydraulic fracturing at the wellbore

The effectiveness of fracturing during fracture treatment depends on fracture length,

fracture height and fracture flow capacity. [37]. It is extremely difficult to determine the
exact shape of fractures in deep reservoirs
However, by simulating reservoir conditions, all other properties of hydraulic fracturing are
studied based on laboratory tests[12].

10

2.9

Initiation and Extension of Fractures

Hydraulic pressure is caused by fluid column in the well which starts from surface pumping
units. Initiation and extension of fractures is created based on the least principle stress in a
formation which has been described in Fig.2.3.Once the fracture is created, it makes flow
path to fractures and hydraulic pressure applies to the fracture face.When the fracture tip is
high enough to overcome both the rock tensile strength and the least principle stress, the
growth of fractures will continue till the end of this pressure. [37].

Fig.2.3 Initiation of vertical fracture, when stress is horizontal [37]

2.10 Fracture Orientation

Based on least principle stress in the formation the fracture settles in the perpendicular
surface to this principle. On other hand one of the main thing for determining fracture
orientation is formation heterogeneity. Additionally fractures can also lie in the parallel
plane to faults which are characterized by normal faulting [38].

11

2.11 Fracture Height and Length

The fracture area is calculated by multiplying the fracture height and length.If the fracture
area is obvious the fracture length mostly depends on fracture height. In the hydraulically
fractured zone the fracture height is determined by using temperature log and Spectral
Gamma Log Analysis which is run from the perforated zone during fracture treatment,
before and after the completion. When the treatment is continuing the fracture area is
extended by using viscous fracturing fluid and extremely high injection rate (See Fig. 2.4)
[39]. When the fracture encounters barriers, the position of these barriers around the
fractured zone extremely prevent the fracture height.

Fig.2.4Fracture orientation a) Vertical Fracture, b) Horizontal Fracture, and c) Angular Fracture [39]

2.12 Fracture Width

One of the most useful and critical features of the hydraulic fracturing is fracture width
which is calculated by using two different models. These models are described as
following:
(1) Two dimensional
(2) Three dimensional.
Khristianovic, Geertsma and de Klerk developed new model (KGD). When the fracture
height is bigger than its length and also free slippage occurs, the rectangular figure is

12

considered at the wellbore and based on this statement it is considered that the shape of
fracture is not depend on fracture position. [40], [41]. (See Fig.2.4 a).

2.13 Fracturing Fluid

Fracturing fluids (fracturing pad) has a major effect on creating fracture in reservoir and
which relates the final result of fracturing. Van Poollen had concluded from laboratory tests
that fracturing fluid should carry several features for the effectiveness of fractures. These
features have been described as following steps [42]:

Sufficient capacity for carrying proppant material

Very little leak-off rate

Minimum friction to reduce losses during pumping the fracturing fluid.

There are several basic chemical additives used in fracturing fluid. The following order
describes these chemicals with their purpose.

Acids (Helps dissolve minerals)

Sodium Chloride (To break the gel polymer chains)

Polyacrylamide (To reduce the friction between fracturing fluid and pipe)

Ethylene Glycol (To prevent scale deposition)

Guar Gum (To thicken the water suspending sand)

Citric Acid (To prevent precipitation of metal oxides)

2.14 Fracture Conductivity

When fractures are created, they accumulate oil and gas from reservoir rock and make path
for production fluid to move easily into the wellbore. In most cases the effectiveness of the
process is influenced by two critical stages:
(1) During collecting production fluid from the reservoir matrix
(2) Making a path for the fluid into the wellbore.
Overall the limitation in one of these steps is enough to reduce the productivity of the well.
The length and height of the fracture effects the productivity of the first step while the
permeability of the crack effects in the second step.
13

2.15 Hydraulic Fracturing Models

Hydraulic fracturing is a very complicated process. Taleghani identified three procedures
that need to be brought together to model the process of hydraulic fracturing: first,
mechanical deformation of the formation caused by the pressure inside the fracture; second,
fluid flow within the fracture networks; third, fracture propagation[11].
The very first comprehensive modeling study on hydraulic fracturing was done by Hubbert
and Willis[43].They offered results of laboratory experiments and concluded that
hydraulically induced fractures should always propagate in the direction perpendicular to
the least principal stress. Carter presented a formula for the area of a fracture that considers
the injection rate as well as the width of the fracture constant[44].

( )

}
Equation 2.1

Where:
A is the area of the fracture face, Qiis constant injection rate, Wis constant fracture width, tis
total pumping time, and C is a constant describing the flow resistance of the fluid leakoff
from fracture into the formation.Khristianovic and Zheltov[40] first investigated the width
of hydraulically induced fractures with the assumption that the direction of plane strain
state is vertical, which means the width of the fracture does not change along the vertical
direction.
The drawback of their model is that they neglected the leakoff of fluid and the pressure
disparity inside the fracture when solving it. Then, Geertsma and de Klerk [41] improved
the model by including the fluid leakoff. The geometry of the fracture is illustrated
inFig.2.5.

14

Fig.2.5 Fracture Geometry of the KGD Model[41]

Most importantly, they first suggested that the faces of the fracture close smoothly at the
edges, which implied that:(

where w is the width of the fracture and fLis the

fracture length. They also presented a formula to calculate the fracture width at the
wellbore, where the width of the fracture is the maximum:

Equation 2.2

Where:
ww is the width at the borewell, in;
= fluid viscosity, cp;
q = rate of fluid injection, bbl/min
L = fracture length, ft;
G = shear modulus of formation, psi
H = fracture height
15

Daneshy[45] extended the KGD model for the case of power-law fluids, and then Spence
and Sharp[46] included fracture toughness into the model. Another comprehensive study to
determine fracture width was done by Perkins and Kern[47]. They used the classic
Sneddon[48] elasticity plane-strain crack solution to establish the PK model. Nordgren[49]
modified the PK model to the PKN model, which included the fluid leak off from fractures
into the matrix. A schematic illustration of the PKN fracture model is shown in Fig.2.6.

Fig.2.6 Fracture Geometry of the PKN Model[49]

Unlike the KGD model, which assumes the width of the fracture does not change along the
vertical direction, the PKN model made an assumption that the plane strain does not change
with the length, which means that the fracture width varies in the vertical direction and the
pressure at any point is dominated by the height of the section.
This model also assumes that an isotropic, homogeneous, elastic material surrounds the
fracture; the vertical height of the fracture is constant; the width of the fracture is the
maximum at the wellbore; and the cross-section of the fracture at the wellbore is elliptical
with semi axes h and wmax. The width of the fracture is given by

16

| |
| |
Equation 2.3

Where:
w = fracture width, the unit of the fracture;
= bulk Poissons ratio of formation;
G = bulk shear modulus of formation;
h = fracture height;
z = Cartesian coordinate in z direction;
S = normal compressive stress on fracture plane before fracturing
p = pressure in fracture net of S
The difference between the PKN and KGD models is that they have different focuses. The
PKN model primarily studies the effect of fluid flow and pressure gradients within the
fracture, and the condition of the fracture tip is not significant. On the other hand, the
condition of the fracture tip is very important in the KGD model. Both of the models
provide a valuable insight in understanding the parameters and conditions which affect the
propagation of hydraulically induced fractures.
However, for both the PKN and KGD models, the fracture propagation is 2D: the fracture
height was assumed equal to the pay zone that has constant height. Since the 1970s, several
attempts and studies have been done to model 3D fracture propagation (e.g. Clifton and
Abou-Sayed, 1981[50]; Settari and Cleary, 1984[51]). Clifton and Abou-Sayed[50]
formulated elasticity equations by using a method which is similar to the finite-element
method. The difference between this method and the finite-element method is the treatment
of the physical problem which was formulated by integral equations instead of differential
equations.
17

However, the computation is very costly and extremely time consuming. In addition, the
model needs to be improved to deal with the advancing crack and non-Newtonian fluids.
Thiercelin et al.[52]extended their work by analyzing the effect of interfaces in the
formation, allowing the simulation of out-of-plane growth in the vertical direction, and
using the boundary integral method for the displacement field. The drawback of this model
is that it could not incorporate non-planar fractures.
Even though the hydraulic fracturing models are becoming comprehensive and efficient,
they are not sufficient to deal with unconventional gas reservoirs, such as shale gas and
tight gas, which exhibit significant heterogeneity. Another important factor that needs to be
considered is the preexisting natural fractures. Therefore, studies, which incorporate the
characteristics of unconventional gas reservoirs, have been conducted by several
researchers. The next section reviews the literature for hydraulic fracturing in naturally
fractured formations.

2.16 Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Unconventional gas reservoirs, such as shale gas and tight gas reservoirs possess
tremendous reserves all over the world. However, they are very difficult to produce
commercially due to their extremely tight formation and it increases the importance of
natural fractures to unconventional gas reservoirs[59]. Some of natural fractures are closed
or sealed with minerals; all the cores recovered from the Barnett shale contain cemented
natural fractures[60].
But they cannot be neglected since they can act as weak paths for fracture growth.
Hydraulic fracturing is necessary to naturally fractured formations to make commercial
production possible because it may connect and open the natural fractures. However, the
presence of preexisting natural fractures is not always favorable. For example, in naturally
fractured reservoirs, the leakoff rate is commonly high during the process of hydraulic
fracturing: some reports indicate that fluid leakoff could be as high as five times larger than
the fluid leakoff in unfractured reservoirs[11].
Field observations indicate that leakoff in naturally fractured reservoirs primarily depends
on net treatment pressure and fracture fluid parameters[61], [62]. A typical approach to
18

control high leakoff rate in fractured reservoirs has been to pump large volume of pad, but
the washout process has not been very successful[11]. Many experiments have been done to
evaluate the effect of interaction between hydraulic fractures and natural fractures.
Since this dissertation mainly focuses on the numerical models, experimental studies are
not specifically listed for each study. In one of the first studies in this area, Lamont and
Jessen[63] investigated the effect of rock heterogeneity, especially preexisting natural
fractures, through triaxial laboratory experiments for six different types of rocks.
They concluded that if the aperture of a natural fracture is small, crossing will dominate,
while the possibility of dilation increases if the aperture is large. They also concluded that
both the strength of preexisting fractures and different stress regimes play important roles
in affecting fracture geometry. Besides the experimental research, a lot of studies have been
done on modeling hydraulic fracturing in naturally fractured formations. Lam and Cleary
[64] modeled the effects of bedding planes or frictional interfaces on hydraulic fracture
growth. They approached the solution by using the displacement discontinuity method with
the assumption of a plane-strain condition and the assumption of constant fluid pressure
inside the fracture. The method has been adopted as a boundary-element method. Zhang et
al.[65]improved the model by incorporating fluid flow into it. Jeffrey et al.[66]used the
same method to develop a 2D method to model the slippage along the natural fractures by
using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
They concluded that higher treatment pressures are needed to accommodate the interaction
between the hydraulic fracture and natural fractures. De Park and Beugelsdijk[67] and
Akulich and Zvyagin[68] also completed similar research. Taleghani[11] and Taleghani
and Olson [69] used an extended finite element method (XFEM) to simulate the fracture
propagation and the coupling process in their 2D model. The criterion for interaction
between the hydraulic fracture and the natural fractures was the critical energy release rate
ratio. The effect of natural fractures on the propagation of a hydraulically induced fracture
is demonstrated byFig.2.7.

19

Fig.2.7 Interaction between the Hydraulic Fracture and Natural Fractures [69]

is the approach angle, 1& 3denote maximum and minimum horizontal principal
stresses.

20

Chapter 3
3.1

Fracture diagnostic techniques

Basic Concepts and Introduction about the techniques

One of the main keys to economic success in the oil and gas industry is to get more
advanced hydraulic fracturing treatment of oil and gas fields. Nowadays there has been
several technological advancement in the field of fracture diagnostics. To determining
fracking penetration is very sensitive and difficult with as it is a process which happens
thousands of feet below the surface. Because of the complexity of the earth the fracturing
process is not so clear. It is impossible to change the geological complexity of the Earth
that is why the diagnostic characteristics of the fracture determining methods need to be
improved continuously.

The fracture diagnostic techniques should cover several important questions in the
evaluation process of hydraulically fractured zone which have been described as following
order: [70],

Do fractures cover the pay zone?

What is the optimum treatment size?

What is the optimum proppant?

What is the fracture azimuth & dip?

What direction the horizontal well should be drilled?

What is the optimum well placement?[70]

During measuring the hydraulic fracturing process, it is very important to carrying out an
advanced treatment for protecting the groundwater and preventing any environmental risk.
While certain monitoring parameters are observed, others are derived from observed
parameters. These certain parameters should be continuously monitored.

21

These would contain: P surface injection pressure (psi)

Vs slurry rate (bpm)
C proppant concentration (ppa)
Vf fluid rate (bpm)
Vp sand or proppant rate (lb/min) [71]

All fracture diagnostic techniques cannot cover the important issues of hydraulic fractured
zones. They have their own capabilities that have been shown in the Table 1.

22

Table 1 Capabilities of Fracture Diagnostics.Adopted from [70],[72]

Group

Techniques

Length

Height

Width

Surface tilt fracture mapping

Direct, Far
Field

DH Offset Tilt mapping

Microseismic fracture mapping

Direct
Near
Wellbore

Radioactive tracers
Temperature logging
HIT
Production logging
Borehole image logging
Downhole video
Caliper logging

Indirect

Net pressure fracture analysis

Well testing
Production analysis

- Determine
- May determine
- Cannotdetermine

23

Azimuth

Dip

Volume Conductivity

Assymetry

3.2

The description of common technologies for monitoring fracking

penetration
Group 1 - Direct far field
This group includes mainly two types of fracture diagnostic techniques: tiltmeter fracture
(surface tilt fracture mapping, downhole offset tilt mapping, treatment well tiltmeters) and
microseismic fracture mapping. These techniques are carried out from the surface or from
an offset wellbore. A main limitation of these techniques is that they are not able to get
information about fracture conductivity and width.
Surface tilt fracture mapping
Surface tiltmeter fracture mapping is one of the unique fracture diagnostic technique in oil
and gas industry.It is utilized on more than 2,000 fracture per year and it has been operated
to the depth of nearly 6000 ft.
Surfacetiltmeteris carried out with very simple principles(See Fig. 3.1)the tilt
measurement is done at many points inthe hydraulically fractured zone.It requires
extremely sensitive measurements and is arranged in narrow holes at radial distance starts
nearly from a hundred feet to approximately one mile around the fractured zone.The
surface tiltmeters is too far fromt he fractured zone that is why they are not able to define
fracture height and length.
The arrays of surface tiltmeter measure the fractured zone by creating the map above this
zone. Afterwards by solving the geophysical reverse ,it is possible to get information about
the fractured zone. The fracture orientation can be obtained by using extremely accurate
carpenter levels [70]. The tools for tiltmeter operations are cylindrical metal (diameter =
2in. length = 36 in.) [73].
The main limitations of surface tiltmeter are:

The limitation of depth is nearly 6,000 ft

The Dependence of mapping resolution from the depth (the digression of

fracture azimuth is 1 in each 1000 ft)

The lack of information about fracture length and height

The requirement of large surface area [74]

24

DH (downhole) Offset Tilt mapping

Comparing the DH offset tilt mapping with surface tilt mapping, they are both based on
same tiltmeter fracture mapping principles (See Fig. 3.1). The main difference between
these two tilt mapping is that DH offset tilt mapping is located at the depth of hydraulically
fractured zone by wireline [70]. This technique presents the clear diagram of the field
deformation which is close to the hydraulic fracture. Downhole tiltmeters can be located
very close to hydraulically fractured zone. As a result, it can define fracture length, width
and height depending on time [75].
In most scenarios downhole and surface tilt mapping are used separately or in combination
to cover each other and to get more advanced information about fracture induced zone.
The main limitations of this technique are:

The disability to detail the information about fracture growth Big picture.

There is no information about proppant dispensation.

The uncertainty of the fracture mapping ( 35 ft for fracture length and 25 ft for
fracture height). [76].

Fig. 3.1 Tiltmeter fracture mapping [76]

25

Microseismic fracture mapping

In some cases,the microseismic fracture mapping is used to get information about
hydraulically fractured zone by discovering micro earthquakes with the change in stress and
pore pressure (See Fig. 3.2). The places which the microseismic events happen are detected
by downhole arrays of tri-axial geophones or accelerators at the depth of the hydraulically
induced zone in offset well [77]. The wireline-conveyed and also cemented-in are both used
in this application.
These events are detected by the principle of the time-dependency of P (compressional) and
S (wave) arrivals which is very similar geophysically to seismology. The microseismic
fracture mapping method can easily detect the height, length, azimuth and asymmetry of
fractures.

Fig. 3.2Microsismic fracture mapping [70]

The main limitations of microseismic facture mapping are:

It is not able to give accurate information in all types of formations.

26

The lack of information about the location of proppant.

The difficult and uncertain application in treatment wells.

The requirement for intensive analysis [74]

Group 2 - Direct near-wellbore

In this chapter we are only looking at basic methods of direct near-wellbore techniques.
Radioactive tracers will be discussed detailed in the next chapter. Direct near-wellbore
fracture diagnostic techniques basically are run inside the treatment wellbore by taking into
consideration the physical properties such as conductivity or temperature near wellbore
region. In this aspect the main limitation of these techniques is that they do not provide
exact information about the fracture which is further than 1-2 feet from wellbore. [75].
Temperature logging
Temperature logging is one of the more suitable techniques which have been used for many
years for determining the fracture height at the wellbore. Mainly this technique is based on
the field and laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity. The simple procedure is
carried by measuring the cooling because of fluid injection during incentive treatment by
looking at the comparison of temperature profile of pre-fracture and after 1 to 24 hours of
treatment. [70].
DTS (Distributed Temperature Sensing) is the latest technology for real time fracture
determining diagnostics. The process is based on simple heat transferring rules (See Fig.
3.3).In this technique fibre-optic cable is positioned in the wellbore across the perforated
zone.
The temperature logging fracture diagnostic technique is limited in shallow depth of
investigation and can it can only determine the height of the fractured zone near wellbore.

27

Fig. 3.3The basic thermal processes are observed during fracture treatment [77].

Production logging
When the layers of reservoir are separated by non-producing intervals, the production
logging is run if all intervals are perforated (See Fig. 3.4). The first time when
Schlumberger brothers ran their first electric line, they introduced the production logging
technique to the industry. [72].

Fig. 3.4 The production logging tool and principle [78]

Fluid entry zones to wellbore are identified by noise log to determine the sound of this
fluid. The production logging diagnostic technique can be used only in an open hole. This
28

technique leads to determine the effective height and conductivity of fracture. The
limitation of production logging is that the information about the fracture diagnostic is not
unique and the calibration should be done same as the indirect methods.
Borehole images
There are three type of borehole images (1) Electrical and (2) Acoustic and (3)
[79].Downhole video.First two borehole fracture diagnostic techniques are used in the open
hole, while downhole video can be also performed in cased hole to determine the oriented
images of fracture induced the zone of the wellbore. In most scenarios these techniques are
used in combination of with other logs to get more detailed information about downhole
fractured zone. The main properties of these methods are described in the Table 2.
Table 2 .Description of borehole images

Borehole Image

Place

Estimation of

Main

logging

of use

fracture properties

Limitations

Azimuth and dip

Information only about

fracture orientation near
wellbore

Azimuth and dip

Information only about

fracture orientation near
wellbore

Height

Information only about

perforated zone contribute
participate in production

Electrical

Acoustic

Downhole video

Open hole

Open hole

Mostly cased
hole

Caliper logging
Caliper logging is one of the oldest fracture diagnostic techniques which have been
introduced to commercial well service in 1938 [80]. This technique is also used in open
hole situations to measure the ellipticity of wellbore to determine fracture orientation
[75].The tool for Caliper logging has 2,4 or more expandable arms (See Fig. 3.5) which
changes based on the aim of measurement. The main limitation of this technique is that the
skew of the tool is wash-outed by the formation [70].

29

Fig. 3.5TheCaliper logging tool [81]

Group 3 Indirect
Indirect methods for fracture diagnosis make use of established techniques like well testing
and production analysis to get some information about the fracture. They can be easily run
using wireline tools and then the acquired data can be processed and interpreted.
Well testing and production logging both monitor the pressure and flow rate as a function
of time and use the information obtain to characterise the fracture.
There are three fracture diagnostics (net pressure fracture analysis, well testing and
production analysis) included to the third Group of fracture diagnostic methods. Recently
indirect methods have been one of the widely used techniques because the information for
these operations is ready to process and they can estimate the fracture conductivity, height
and length by taking into account the assumption on indirect measurement such as pressure
and flow rate during production [70].
The disadvantage of these techniques is that they do not produce exact information about
fracture dimensions and it needs to be calibrated with direct observations.

30

Chapter 4
4.1

Tracers for determining fracking penetration

Tracers in the Oil industry

As their name indicates tracers are substances which leave a trace or a signal behind and
can be tracked using different methods. These tracers could be radioactive isotopes,
chemical substances or even biological molecules or proteins. Their detection method
depends on the type of tracer used and could either be an in-situ diagnosis or a surface
analysis of the produced/ back- flow fluid. These tracers can be water based, gas based or
oil based although the first two are the ones most commonly used for several applications,
like

Inter well connectivity

SWAG or WAG EOR monitoring

Single well residual oil saturation determination

Cementing job integrity analysis

Multiple zone completion/ sub-sea wells performance analysis

Fracture profiling

4.1.1 Inter-well Connectivity

In a heterogeneous reservoir, for the purpose of reservoir monitoring, it is very important to
know the connectivity of the reservoir between wells. For example, when designing a water
injection/ chemical injection scheme targeted at sweeping the oil by using water/chemicals
from the injector to the producer, it is absolutely essential to know whether the wells are in
hydraulic communication or not. By introducing water soluble chemical/radioactive tracers
in the injection well, and by sampling the produced fluid at the producer well, the
connectivity between the wells can be easily tested. If the tracer shows up in the production
well(s) fluid, then it means that the injector-producer pair is in communication. Also, if we
have a 5-spot or 9-spot injection pattern, then by comparing the concentration of the tracer
in the produced fluids, it can be guessed that which wells receive more of the injection fluid
and are better swept. This can also give a qualitative estimate of the inter-well directional
permeability.

31

The presence of a thief zone/high permeability channel can also be detected if the tracer
shows up really early in the produced fluid at the monitoring wells [82].

Fig. 4.1: Inter well connectivity determination using tracers [89]

4.1.2 SWAG or WAG injection EOR monitoring

SWAG (Simultaneous Water and Gas) injection or WAG (Water Alternating Gas) injection
are EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) techniques that are used for tertiary recovery of
bypassed oil. The SWAG injection has been successfully used in Siri Field, Denmark and
in the Mumbai High Field, India [83]. While WAG injection has been used in North Sea
fields to recover attic oil [84]. Both these techniques involve injection of water and gas into
the reservoir either simultaneously, or alternately. The effectiveness of these projects can be
monitored by using tracers in both the injected water and the injected gas using suitable
tracers for each phase. They are usually Tritium for the water, and Sulphur hexafluoride
(SF6) for the gas. The produced fluid at the monitor well(s) has to be analysed for any trace
of these tracers once the EOR injection has been started. In case of a higher
32

SF6concentration recorded at the monitor well, it means that gas is breaking through in
the reservoir. If there is a higher concentration of Tritium, it means that there is a high
permeability thief zone where water is bypassing the oil [84].

4.1.3 Single Well Residual oil saturation determination

The Single Well Tracer Test (SWTT) was developed in 1968 by Exxon to determine the
residual oil saturation in well using tracers. The information of residual oil saturation (Sor)
is really important for the financial success of any petroleum project. Typical methods for
determining Sorare wireline logs and core plugs. The limitation of both of these methods is
that the sample size is very small and average values are not representative of the entire
reservoir.
The Single Well Tracer Test is an in-situ method for determining the residual oil saturation.
It uses ester-based (usually ethyl acetate) [85] tracers that are injected into a well that is at
residual oil saturation after a waterflood. The ester based tracers flood is followed by a
tracer free water bank and then the well is shut in for a few days to allow partial hydrolysis
of the ester. The hydrolysis of ester produces ethanol, which is a secondary ester. While,
ester distributes itself in both the oil and the water; the ethanol has an almost exclusive
preference for water. Therefore, when the well is opened for production/flowback ethanol
has a higher velocity than the ethyl acetate which is partitioned in both faces. By
monitoring the arrival time of both ethanol and ethyl acetate, estimates can be made of the
residual oil saturation. The greater the difference in arrival time, the greater is the residual
oil saturation. By using chromatography, the concentrations of the tracers can be quantified.

33

Fig. 4.2 : Schematic of the SWTT procedure [90]

Fig.4.3: Analysis of tracers using chromatography and simulation [90]

34

4.1.4 Cement job integrity

A cement job is considered to be successful if it isolates undesired zones. If it fails, then

there will not be proper sealing between the casing and the borehole, and fluids can leak
through the casing to the surface. Radioactive tracers are used to check the effectiveness of
a cement job. A radioactive tracer is added to the cementing mud before it is pumped
downhole. After the cement job is completed, a logging tool is lowered to record the
radioactivity. The top part of the cemented interval can be identified as the point where the
radioactivity deceases to the level of the background radioactivity of the formation rocks.

Fig.4.4:Determination of the top of cement section [86]

4.1.5 Multiple zone completion/ Sub-sea well performance analysis
The productivity index of the well determines the performance of a well. When the
productivity index of the well goes down, it is due to problems in the reservoir, in the
completion or the surface conditions or a combination of all these . For a well completed in
a single layer, it is quite difficult to pin point the source of decrease in productivity, so for a
well completed in a commingled manner in multiple layers is much more difficult to
analyse which zones are facing problems. A production log could be run for such a

35

scenario. Alternatively, tracers present a solution to this problem. By injecting a unique

tracer in each of these layers, the reservoir fluid would be laced by a unique tracer which
can be identified at the surface. With the commingled completion, the oil/water produced
from all the layers will get mixed up. However by knowing which tracer was injected into
which layer and by determining its concentration in the production stream, the contribution
of each layer to the total flow can be calculated. Hence, the productivity of each layer in a
commingled system can be calculated [86].
In case of sub-sea completions, the production from the different sub-sea wells is tied
through a manifold into a common production line and then separated at a platform/FPSO.
In this case also, it would be difficult to analyse the productivity of individual wells. For
sub- sea wells, production logging would also be technically and economically unfeasible
in most scenarios [86]. Hence, by injecting unique tracers to the different wells connected
to a common production line their productivity indices can be determined.

Fig.4.5 : Schematic of sub-sea wells tied to a FPSO [91]

4.1.6 Tracers for fracture profiling

When hydraulic fractures are created, whether in a conventional or unconventional
reservoir, it is important to know the location and depth of these fractures. This can be
achieved by using tracers, both radioactive and chemical.
In case of radioactive tracers, the proppants, that are used to keep the fractures open, are
coated with a radioactive material. Typically these tracers are gamma ray emitters. A
gamma ray base line log is run before the fracking job, and another log is run after the
36

fracking. A comparison of these two logs will show an increase in the radioactivity
corresponding to the placement of the tracer coated proppants. Hence, a fracture profile can
be created. The radioactivity increases (an increase in the Gamma ray log), due to the tool
detecting the presence of the radioactive isotopes which are embedded or coated on the
proppant. Since the log is always measured versus the depth, an increase in gamma ray
would mean that at that particular depth, proppant containing fractures are present.
The increase in gamma ray is proportional to the concentration of the isotope (in the
proppant). A longer/deeper fracture would have more proppants in place to keep the
fractures open (assuming successful proppant placement). Hence a deeper penentrating
fracture would show a bigger spike in the gamma ray compared to a shallow fracture.

37

Fig.4.6 : Comparison of the gamma ray log, pre and post fracking[92]

The above figure shows significant radioactivity in the zone between X450 and X530,
indicating that this zone has been successfully fractured. X490 has the deepest fracture
because of the maximum increase in gamma ray response.

Chemical tracers can also be used to understand fracture profiles.

Appropriate fracking fluid and proppant placement is the key for the success of any
fracking job. Fracking fluids have three main roles. First, to create fractures; second to
place proppants into these fractures and third to flowback to the surface. The productivity
of any well, after proppant introduction, depends on how efficiently the fracking fluids
have flown back to the surface. Chemical Tracers can be used to assess and monitor the
flow back of these fracking fluids.
The fracking fluid is tagged with these tracers when it is being pumped into the formation
to create fractures. In case of different zones, unique chemical tracers can be injected into
the different zones. This can also be used to test vertical communication between different
zones, apart from flow back efficiency. Then during the clean- up of the well, the flowback
fluid is sampled and analysed for the presence of these tracers. The detection techniques
have been discussed in detail in section 4.4 of this chapter.
Using mass balance technique, the flow back for each fracking fluid stage is calculated.
Hence, the flow back efficiency for each stage/ zone can be calculated and also for the
overall well. The mass balance technique is a basic scientific concept of mass conservation
used in many sciences and engineering applications. When a particular chemical tracer is
used in a particular quantity (mass), we are interested in keeping track of its mass right
from injection to flow back to understand its distribution in various stages of fracking.
Suppose an initial mass X of the chemical tracer was used and injected along with the
fracking fluid. Then by monitoring the concentration (using the techniques described in
section 4.4) of tracer in the flow back fluid at different fracking stages , the flow back
38

efficiency can be calculated. If the total tracer concentration (measured in ppm or ppb)
multiplied by the volume of flow back fluid gives the mass of tracer as Y, then the total
flowback efficiency is Y/X. This has been shown for different frack stages in figure 4.8
below. The higher the value of Y is, it means proper clean up has been achieved and
fracturing has been efficient.
The same technique can be used by using different chemical tracers for different fracturing
zones, to calculate the flow back efficiency of different zones by monitoring the initial and
final flow-back mass of each tracer.
The mass balance technique can also give a qualitative idea about the depth of a fracture by
monitoring the flow back mass vs elapsed time. Assuming that the clean-up conditions
remain consistent, a deeper fracture will take longer time to flow back the fracking fluid
(and the tracer) compared to a shallow fracture, because it would contain more fracking
fluid in the fracture length. If the time taken to reach the same flow back efficiency is
longer , then the fracture is deeper.
An example of how Chemical tracers have been used to determine flowback efficiency has
been shown in a well from Codell Field below [87].

39

Fig 4.7: Chemical Tracer response of Fry 18-4 well [87]

Fig 4.8 :Flowback efficiency of Fry 18-4 well [87]

By monitoring the concentration of these tracers over time and using mass balance
technique , clean up efficiency, obstacles to flow and contribution of different zones can be
understood [87].

4.2

Types of Tracers

The two main types of tracers that are used in the industry are the radioactive tracers and
the chemical tracers. These can be subdivided into water based, oil based or gas based
tracers. Recent developments and environmental concerns have led to bio-tracers as well
but these are not so widely used as the chemical and radioactive tracers.
Radioactive tracers can be detected in situ using logging tools while the chemical tracers
are detected by sampling the produced fluid at the surface and analyzing it by using
different analytical chemistry techniques.

40

4.2.1 Radioactive Tracers

The easiest way to detect these tracers are by tagging proppants, gravel pack, cement slurry,
injection fluid (depending on the objective) with a radioactive isotope.
Some of the most commonly used radioactive tracers are Antimony-124, Bromine-82,
Iodine-125, Iodine-131, Iridium-192, Argon-41, Xenon-133 and Scandium-46. These are
gamma ray emitters, which are easily identified and measured, compared to alpha and beta
ray emitters [86].
The gamma ray signal of each of these isotopes is unique which can easily identify them.
This requires a logging tool which records the radioactivity of these tracers and hence the
location and depth of these can be accurately mapped.
These isotopes have different half-lives and therefore depending on the requirement of the
job, a suitable tracer can be picked. Iridium, Scandium and Antimony have half-life of a
few days, while for projects that require long term monitoring, Cobalt and Cesium can be
used which have a half-life of a few years[86].

4.2.2 Chemical Tracers

In recent years, the oil industry has started using chemical tracers in place of radioactive
tracers for a lot of applications. One advantage is that these tracers do not have the same
rigorous accountability and environmental regulations that disposal of radioactive tracers
require. Another advantage is that they do not have to be monitored in situ unlike the
radioactive tracers, so it is more economical as logging is not required. Analysis of
produced fluid is required for the monitoring of the tracer.
These chemical tracers can be water based, oil based or gas based depending on the
application. Some of the commonly used water based chemical tracers are [87]

Ammonium Thiocyanate

Fluoro-boric Acid

Potassium Cobalto- cyanide

41

Sodium Chloride (natural tracer)

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Bromide

Potassium Iodide

Alcohols & Esters

Poly fluorinated aromatic carboxylic acids

Sodium Chloride, Fluoro-boric acid and Barium and Strontium are the most commonly
used water based tracers used for monitoring fracking penetration [ 93][94]. They have
been successfully used and monitored in the Marcellus Shale Gas Field [93]. Among the
gas based tracers ,perfluoro carbons have been used along with fracking fluids for fracking
penetration estimates in the Greene County site in Pennsylvania [95].
And some Gas tracers which have been described in Table 3

Table 3. The advantages/constraints of some Gas tracers [88]

Gas Tracers
Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Halo-fluoro compounds (freons)

Constraints
Can be measured in GC using ECD.
Earlier in use, now coming under increasing
regulatory pressure.

Argon

Low cost tracer, can be used in reservoirs where

natural concentration of argon is low enough.

Carbon mono-oxide (CO)

Can be tagged with carbon-14 to have more

sensitivity.
42

Nitrous oxide (N2O)

Perfluoro Methane (CF4)and
Perfluoro Ethane (C2F6)

Can be measured chromatographically using ECD.

Their current limit of detection is about 0.1ppm, No
ultra-sensitive method developed to analyze them
Sampling and analytical procedure are specific.

Cyclic Perfluoro compounds

Having relatively large molecules with substantial

partition into oil phase, hence significant lag of tracer
relative to the gas front.

4.3

Activation/Release of Tracers:

Some applications may require the tracer to be active in the reservoir from the moment that
it is injected (for example: inter well connectivity test, or a single well tracer test), while
some applications may require the tracer to be activated by a particular fluid or event.
Depending on the application, a suitable technique can be employed to activate or protect
the tracer.
For example, in case of a radioactive tracer used with the proppant for fracturing, the tracer
should not be washed away during the flowback period. ProTechnics Zerowash commercial
radioactive tracer has the isotope embedded within a proppant made of ceramic material
which is resistant to flow back periods. The proppant and the embedded tracer are injected
with the fracking fluid. After the fracking job is over and the flow back fluids have been
produced at the surface, the tracer will still be present in the formation with the proppant.
When a gamma ray log is recorded, the tracer can be detected and the fracture profile
understood.
When Chemical tracers are used for fracking applications, they usually need to be activated
by some event like the presence of formation water or oil. They are injected into the
formation along with the fracking fluid.
In case of chemical tracers that need to be activated by some event, like water
breakthrough, the tracer can be encapsulated in a plastic polymer like material. The
polymer resists erosion to high flow rates and remains in passive position, till it is triggered
43

by even 1 % water cut . The water disintegrated the polymer, and releases the tracer which
can then be monitored[83]. Likewise, polymers can be designed to be disintegrated by oil
break through. For example, in a flow back scenario, the tracer will be immune to the flow
back fluid, but will only be activated once oil starts to flow. Often, oil activated and water
activated tracers are used together [87].
Norways RESMAN and UKs Tracerco company are leaders in these oil and water
actuated tracers and claim that these tracers can be detected at levels of parts per trillion
[87].

4.4

Detection of Tracers

Tracers can be detected in situ or at the surface. The radioactive tracers (usually gamma ray
emitters) are detected by lowering a gamma ray logging tool in the formation. The increase
in the radioactivity due to the tracer isotopes accounts for their detection. The chemical
tracers are detected by the analysis of the produced fluid at the surface. By using mass
balance technique, the flow back efficiency of each flow back stage can be calculated.
The main principle behind the detection of the chemical tracers is based on gas and liquid
chromatographic separation. The laboratory techniques that are used to identify the tracers
are [87]:

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy (GCMS)

Gas Chromatography with different detectors like ECD (Electron Capture Detector),
FID (Flame Ionization Detector), ELCD (Electrolytic Conductivity Detector) ,
PFPD (Pulsed Flame Photometric Detector)

High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with different detectors like UV

(Ultra-violet), Fluorescence, Electrochemical

Automatic Thermal Detector (ATD)

44

The water tracers are monitored using HPLC or after separation of the volatile
components using GC-MS, while the gas tracers are detected using GC and ATD
techniques.

4.5

Advantages and Disadvantages of tracers

The tracers are very useful in analyzing stimulation or a hydraulic fracturing job. Their
main advantage lies in accurate determination of the proppant placement compared to other
techniques. This is because

Tracers can be accurately detected even at very low concentrations

They can be analysed both in situ and at surface. This gives flexibility to the
fracking schedule

There are a lot of different types of tracers that can be used to monitor different
zones uniquely

Their release / actuation can be controlled and altered to suit the requirement of the
job

There are also some drawbacks related to the use of tracers. The main ones are listed below.

Radioactive and chemical tracers both present the health hazard when handling on
site

They could find their way into the aquifer and contaminate the drinking water table

Disposal of the produced fluid presents an environmental problem because of the

presence of these chemical and radioactive tracers

Some of the radioactive tracers have a short half-life. So in case of a stuck-up or

other technical constraints, their detection might be difficult and the job may have
to be repeated

45

Chapter 5

5.1

Alternative Tracers and Conclusions

Alternative Tracers

Tracers present a very powerful tool to the oil and gas industry in reducing uncertainty in a
lot of critical areas like reservoir description, residual oil determination, stimulation job
monitoring and of course fracking in Shale gas. The high stakes and economic risks of any
petroleum project make reducing uncertainty an absolute must. Tracers are one of the key
uncertainty reducers.
The need for the industry is to address these concerns by coming up with suitable
alternatives to these tracers that fit the environmentally friendly description. In recent
years, there have been some developments in this direction and below are presented two of
alternative tracer techniques.

5.2

Naturally occurring radioactive tracers:

There are several isotopes of oxygen, hydrogen, strontium, boron and radium that exist in
formation water found in the subsurface rocks. When fresh or saline water used for
preparing the fracking fluids, mixes with the formation water containing these isotopes,
they are diluted, or their concentration changes. Hence, their radioactivity signal
diminishes. Monitoring the change of this signal can give an estimate of the fracture profile
. Thermal ionization mass spectrometry can be used to analyze the radioactivity of the
produced/flowback water.
The combined application of geochemistry, stable isotopes (18O, 2H), strontium isotopes
(87Sr/86Sr), boron isotopes (11B), and radium isotopes (228Ra/226Ra) provides a unique
methodology for tracing and monitoring shale gas and fracking fluids in the environment
[86] [88].
5.2.1 Bio Tracers and Nano Rust
But perhaps the best alternative would be a bio-tracer which is most environmentally
friendly. BaseTrace company claims to have developed a synthetic DNA based tracer that
46

can be used in fracking fluids. It is neither radioactive nor requires a huge amount
(measured by industrial drums) of chemicals to be injected into the rocks.
The amount of BaseTrace tracer needed per frack site is equivalent to a teaspoon, diluted
in several million gallons of water used to frack the gas well. The tracer is detectable in
water at the level of a few parts per quadrillion by means of polymerase chain reaction
analysis, a method of magnifying strands of DNA.
This tracer has no effect on people or animals. It is being subjected to stability tests at
reservoir temperature, pressure and salinity conditions to confirm its use in real field
operations.
Recently Andrew Barron from the Rice University in Texas has come up with an iron-oxide
based tracer that he calls nano rust. This tracer can be injected along with the fracking
fluid. Its detection is based on the principle of magnetism and samples collected from
ground water sources can confirm if they have been contaminated by the fracking
operations [96].
5.2.2 Conclusions and Recommendation
It is quite obvious that tracers are a very important tool in the oil industry to reduce
uncertainty about a lot of critical technical parameters which have a huge impact on the
economic success of any project. The connectivity of a Reservoir, communication between
different producing zones, contribution of different zones, presence of high permeability
channels ; all these questions can and have been successfully answered by using tracers.
In case of hydraulic fracturing also, tracers play a vital role in understanding the fracture
penetration depth and its profile. They have been successfully deployed to evaluate the
efficiency and increased productivity of wells due to fracking. Used along with the other
diagnostic techniques for fracture detection, tracers can help in accurate profiling of a
fracture.
The issue with using tracers is that they might have hazardous impact on humans and the
environment. It could penetrate the underground aquifers that are in vicinity of the
47

formation or at the surface, the radioactive tracer laced fracking fluid is disposed in
wastewater ponds, and radiation could find its way into water used for human consumption.
This leads or requires the industry to look at alternative tracers for fracking jobs that are
environmentally friendly. Most of these tracers have a different half-life depending on
which stage of fracking they are used for. Even with a very short half-life of a few days,
they will still leave behind a concentration which is significantly hazardous.
With increased and stricter environmental regulations and monitoring on the Oil and Gas
industry, the need is to judiciously use the available and alternative tracers based on a
techno-economic-environmental screening criteria. The decision to use tracers may not be
up to the drillers or the fracking companies anymore. Only tracers that are considered and
proven to be environmentally non-hazardous would pass the test.
The Bio-tracers seem to be the best alternative to the radioactive and chemical tracers that
are currently in use. They are used in very small concentrations and are environmental
friendly. Their detection is also done using conventional analytical techniques in very small
traces. After a few field trials, it would be clear that these bio-tracers can replace the
conventional chemical and radioactive tracers. This would be a major step and would lead
the industry to further research in these bio tracers.
It is recommended that as future work, the stability and efficiency of these bio tracers is
studied under different conditions that are found in reservoirs worldwide. For example
variations in salinity, temperature, pressure, presence of certain ions, clays etc. are the
distinguishing characteristics of reservoirs. If these tracers continue to be functional in
these different conditions then it would be a major step for the industry, the environmental
bodies and the government because fracking is one of the biggest tools for acquiring energy
independence for most countries in the foreseeable future.

48

References
[1]

Economides, M. and Martin, T., (2007), Modern Fracturing Enhancing Natural Gas
Production. Houston: ET Publishing.

[2]

Grebe, J. J. and Stosser, S. M., (1935), Increasing Crude Production 20, 000, 000
Barrels from Established Field, World Petroleum 6, vol. 6, no. 8, p. 473.

[3]

Veatch, R. W. J., (1983), Overview of Current Hydraulic Fracturing Design and

Treatment Technology, Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 35, p. 853.

[4]

Adachi, J., Siebrits, E., Peirce, A., et al., (2007), Computer Simulation of Hydraulic
Fractures, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 44, no.
5, pp. 739757.

[5]

Weijers, L., (1995), The Near-Wellbore Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures Initiated

From Horizontal and Deviated Wells, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
Netherlands.

[6]

Sutton, R. P., Cox, S. A., and Barree, R. D., (2010), Shale Gas Plays: A
Performance Perspective, in SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference.

[7]

Warpinski, N. R., Du, J., and U. Zimmer, (2012), Measurements of HydraulicFracture-Induced Seismicity in Gas Shales, in SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference.

[8]

Downie, R. C., Kronenberger, E., and Maxwell, S. C., (2010), Using Microseismic
Source Parameters To Evaluate the Influence of Faults on Fracture Treatments: A
Geophysical Approach to Interpretation, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition.

[9]

Popov, A. A., Sobolev, S. V., and Zoback, M. D., (2012), Modeling evolution of
the San Andreas Fault system in northern and central California, Geochemistry,
Geophysics, Geosystems, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 15252027.

[10] Ehlig-Economides, C. A., (1993), Model Diagnosis for Layered Reservoirs, SPE
Formation Evaluation, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 215224.
[11] Taleghani, A. D., (2009), Analysis of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Fractured
Reservoirs: an Improved Model for the Interaction between Induced and Natural
Fractures, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
[12] Howard, G. C. and Fast, C. R., (1970), Hydraulic Fracturing: Monograph Series.
Dallas: SPE.

49

[13] Guo, B., Lyons, W. C., and Ghalambor, A., (2007), Petroleum Production
Engineering: A Computer-Assisted Approach. Elsevier Science & Technology
Books.
[14] Guo, B. and Ghalambor, A., (2010), How Significant Is the Formation Damage in
Multifractured Horizontal Wells?, in 2010 SPE international Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control.
[15] Lei, Z., Cheng, S., Li, X., et al., (2007), A new method for prediction of
productivity of fractured horizontal wells based on non-steady flow, Journal of
Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 494500.
[16] Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., and Stickler, W. R., (1962), Effect of Vertical Fractures
on Reservoir Behavior: Compressible-Fluid Case, SPE J., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 8794.
[17] Abousleiman, Y., Tran, M., Hoang, S., et al., (2007), Geomechanics Field and
Laboratory Characterization of Woodford Shale: The Next Gas Play, in SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition.
[18] Raghavan, R. S., Chen, C.-C., and Agarwal, B., (1997), An Analysis of Horizontal
Wells Intercepted by Multiple Fractures. .
[19] Scholz, C. H., (2002), The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting. Cambridge
University Press.
[20] Bohnhoff, M. and Zoback, M. D., (2010), Oscillation of fluid-filled cracks triggered
by degassing of CO2 due to leakage along wellbores, Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, vol. 115, no. B11, pp. 21562202.
[21] Morrow, C. A., Shi, L. Q., and Byerlee, J. D., (1984), Permeability of fault gouge
under confining pressure and shear stress, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
Earth, vol. 89, no. B5, pp. 21562202.
[22] Ikari, M., Marone, C., and Saffer, D. M., (2011), On the relation between fault
strength and frictional stability, Geology, vol. 39, pp. 8386.
[23] Sone, H. and Zoback, M. D., (2010), Strength, creep and frictional properties of gas
shale reservoir rocks, in 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US-Canada
Rock Mechanics Symposium.
[24] Zoback, M. D., Kohli, A., Das, I., et al., (2012), The importance of slow slip on
faults during hydraulic fracturing of a shale gas reservoirs, in SPE Americas
Unconventional Resources Conference.
[25] Townend, J. and Zoback, M. D., (2000), How faulting keeps the crust strong,
Geology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 399402.
50

[26] Zoback, M. D., (2010), Climate and intraplate shocks, Nature, vol. 466, pp. 568
569.
[27] Bretan, P., Yielding, G., Mathiassen, O. M., et al., (2011), Fault-seal analysis for
CO2 storage: an example from the Troll area, Norwegian Continental Shelf,
Petroleum Geoscience, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 181192.
[28] Streit, J. E. and Hillis, R. R., (2004), Chiaramonte, Laura and Zoback, MarkD. and
Friedmann, Julio and Stamp, Vicki, Energy, vol. 29, no. 910, pp. 14451456.
[29] Rutqvist, J., Birkholzer, J., Cappa, F., et al., (2007), Estimating maximum
sustainable injection pressure during geological sequestration of CO2 using coupled
fluid flow and geomechanical fault-slip analysis, Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 17981807.
[30] Segall, P., (1989), Earthquakes triggered by fluid extraction, Geology, vol. 17, no.
10, pp. 942946.
[31] Segall, P., (1992), Induced stresses due to fluid extraction from axisymmetric
reservoirs, pure and applied geophysics, vol. 139, no. 34, pp. 535560.
[32] Talwani, P., (1999), Fault geometry and earthquakes in continental interiors,
Tectonophysics, vol. 305, no. 13, pp. 371379.
[33] Yerkes, R. F. and Castle, R. O., (1976), Seismicity and faulting attributable to fluid
extraction, Engineering Geology, vol. 10, no. 24, pp. 151167.
[34] Zoback, M. D. and Zinke, J. C., (2002), Production-induced Normal Faulting in the
Valhall and Ekofisk Oil Fields, in in The Mechanism of Induced Seismicity, C.
Trifu, Ed. (2002)Birkhuser Basel, pp. 403420.
[35] Nolte, K. G. and Economides, M. J., (1989), Fracturing diagnosis using pressure
analysis, Reservoir Stimulation.
[36] Soliman, M. Y., East, L., and Adams, D., (2004), GeoMechanics Aspects of
Multiple Fracturing of Horizontal and Vertical Wells, in SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western Regional Meeting.
[37] Ming-Lung, M., (1977), Performance of Vertically-Fractured Wells with FiniteConductivity Fractures, Stanford University, California.
[38] Martin, F. G., (1967), Mechanics and Control in Hydraulic Fracturing, Pet. Eng.,
vol. 39, no. 13, pp. 6272.

51

[39] Anderson, J. A., Pearson, C. M., Abou-Sayed, A. S., et al., (1986), Determination
of Fracture Height by Spectral Gamma Log Analysis, in Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition.
[40] Khristianovic, S. A. and Zheltov, Y. P., (1955), Formation of Vertical Fractures by
Means of Highly Viscous Liquid, in Proceedings of the Fourth World Petroleum
Congress, pp. 579586.
[41] Geertsma, J. and Klerk, F. de, (1969), A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and
Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures, Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol.
21, no. 12, pp. 15711581.
[42] Van Poollen, H. K., (1957), Do Fracture Fluids Damage Productivity?, Oil Gas J,
vol. May, pp. 120124.
[43] Hubbert, M. K. and Will, D. G., (1957), Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 153168.
[44] Carter, R., (1957), Derivation of the general equation for estimating the extent of
the fractured area, Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture Extension, pp. 261
269.
[45] Daneshy, A. A., (1973), On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, vol. January, pp. 8397.
[46] Spence, D. A., Sharp, P. W., and Turcotte, D. L., (1987), Buoyancy-driven crack
propagation: a mechanism for magma migration, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol.
174, pp. 135153.
[47] Perkins, T. K. and Kern, L. R., (1961), Widths of Hydraulic Fractures, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 937949.
[48] Sneddon, I. N. and Elliot, H. A., (1946), The Opening of a Griffith Crack Under
Internal Pressure, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 4, pp. 262267.
[49] Nordgren, R. P., (1972), Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture, SPE
Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 306314.
[50] Clifton, R. J. and Abou-Sayed, A. S., (1981), A Variational Approach to the
Prediction of the Three-Dimensional Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures, in
SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium.
[51] Settari, A. and Cleary, M. P., (1984), Three-Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic
Fracturing, Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 11771190.

52

[52] Naceur, K. Ben, Thiercelin, M., and Touboul, E., (1990), Simulation of Fluid Flow
in Hydraulic Fracturing: Implications for 3D Propagation, SPE Production
Engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 133141.
[53] Advani, S., Lee, T., Dean, R., et al., (1997), Consequences of Fluid Lag in ThreeDimensional Hydraulic Fractures, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 21, pp. 229240.
[54] Choate, P. R., (1992), A New 3D Hydraulic Fracture Simulator That Implicitly
Computes the Fracture Boundary Movements, in European Petroleum Conference.
[55] Yew, C. H. and Liu, G. F., (1993), Fracture Tip and Critical Stress Intensity Factor
of a Hydraulically Induced Fractures, SPE Production and Facilities, vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 171177.
[56] Yadav, H., (2011), Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs and the
Impact of Geomechanics of Microseismicity, University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
Texas.
[57] Olson, J. E., (1995), Fracturing from Highly Deviated and Horizontal Wells:
Numerical Analysis of Non-Planar Fracture Propagation, in Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium.
[58] Siebrits, E. and Peirce, A. P., (2002), An Efficient Multi-Layer Planar 3D Fracture
Growth Algorithm using a Fixed Mesh Approach, International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 53, pp. 691717.
[59] Aguilera, R., (2008), Role of Natural Fractures and Slot Porosity on Tight Gas
Sands, in SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference.
[60] Gale, J., Reed, R., and Holder, J., (2007), Natural fractures in the Barnett Shale and
their importance for hydraulic fracture treatments, AAPG Bulletin 91, vol. 91, no. 4,
pp. 603622.
[61] Barree, R. D. and Mukherjee, H., (1996), Determination of Pressure Dependent
Leakoff and Its Effect on Fracture Geometry, in SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition.
[62] Britt, L. K. and Hager, C. J., (1994), Hydraulic Fracturing in a Naturally Fractured
Reservoir, in SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition.
[63] Lamont, N. and Jessen, F., (1963), The Effects of Existing Fractures in Rocks on
the Extension of Hydraulic Fractures, Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol.
February, pp. 203209.

53

[64] Lam, K. Y. and Cleary, M. P., (1984), Slippage and Re-Initiation of Hydraulic
Fractures at Frictional Interfaces, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 8, pp. 589604.
[65] Zhang, X., Jeffrey, R. G., and Thiercelin, M., (2007), Deflection and Propagation of
Fluid- Driven Fractures at Frictional Bedding Interfaces: a Numerical Investigation,
Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 29, pp. 396410.
[66] Jeffrey, R. G., (1987), Mechanical Interactions in Branched or Subparallel
Hydraulic Fractures, in Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium.
[67] De Park, C. J. and Beugelsdijk, L. J. L., (2005), Experiments and Numerical
Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally Fractured Rock, ARMA/USRMS,
pp. 05780.
[68] Akuilich, A. V and Zvyagin, A. V, (2008), Interaction between Hydraulic and
Natural Fractures, Fluid Dynamics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 428435.
[69] Taleghani, A. D. and Olson, J. E., (2011), Numerical Modeling of MultistrandedHydraulic-Fracture Propagation: Accounting for the Interaction between Induced and
Natural Fractures, SPE Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 575581.
[70] Cipolla, C. L., Wright, C. A., (2000), Diagnostic techniques to understand hydraulic
fracturing: what? why? and how? in SPE Proceedings - Gas Technology
Symposium. pp. 205-217.
[71] API Guidance Document. Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, (2009), Well
Construction and Integrity Guidelines
[72] Barree, R. D., Fisher, M.K., Woodroof, R. A., (2002), A Practical Guide to
Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Technologies.
[73] Wright,C. A., Davis, E. J., Minner, W. A., Ward, J. F., Weijers, L., Schell,E. J., et
al., (1998), Surface Tiltmeter Fracture Mapping Reaches New Depths - 10,000 Feet
and Beyond?.
[74]

Warpinski, N. R., (1996), Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics, 48 907-907-910.

[75] Cipolla, C. L., Wright, C. A., (2000), State-of-the-Art in Hydraulic Fracture

Diagnostics,
[76]
Halliburtonhttp://www.halliburton.com/public/pe/contents/Data_Sheets/web/H/H083
16.pdf,

54

[77] Tabatabaei,M., Zhu, D., (2011), Fracture Stimulation Diagnostics in Horizontal

Wells Using DTS Data
[78] Eni Corporate University http://areeweb.polito.it/ricerca/petroleum/presentazioni/0809/13_TENC_Segatto_Presentazione%20Stage%202009.pdf,
[79] George Asquith and Daniel Kygowski, (2004), Borehole Imaging, in: Ernst A.
Mancini (Ed.),Basic Well Log Analysis, Second Edition ed., The AAPG Bookstore,
Tulsa, U.S.A. 74101-0979, , pp. 151.
[80] Hilchie, D. W., (1968), IX Caliper Logging - Theory And Practice.
[81] Baker Huges,
http://www.bakerhughes.com/products-and-services/evaluation/cased-hole-wirelinesystems/well-integrity/imaging-caliper-log-icl
[82] Abdullah Z.Z., Zain Z.M., Anua N.A.,Singhal A., (2011), Application of
Radioactive and Chemical Tracers for offshore WAG Pilot Project, SPE Enhanced
Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala lumpur, Malaysia
[83] Mitra N.K., (2006), Re-engineering of Mumbai High Field, SPE Drilling and
Completions conference, New Delhi.
[84] Quale E.A., Crapez B., StensenJ.A.,Berge L.I., (2000), SWAG Injection on the Siri
Field, SPE European Petroleum Conference, France.
[85] Tomich J.F., Dalton R.L., Deans H.A.,(1973) ,Single-well tracer method to
determine residual oil saturation ,SPE-Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa.
[86] Gore G.L.,Terry L.L., (1956), Radioactive Tracer Techniques, Journal of
Petroleum Technology,vol.8,no.9, pp 12-17
[87] Woodroof R.A., Asadi M., Warren M.A., (2003), Monitoring Fracturing Fluid
Flowback and Optimizing Fracturing Fluid Cleanup Using Chemical Frac Tracers,
SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Hague
[88] Mulkern M., Asadi M., McCallum S., (2010), Fracture Extent and zonal
communication evaluation using gas tracers, SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Mogantown USA.
[89] Institute for Energy Technology : www.ife.no/en
[90] ChemTracers :www.chemtracers.com
[91] Offshore Magazine :www.offshore-mag.com
55

[92] Crains PetrophysicalHandbook :www.spec2000.net

[93] Yamrich, J. M., (2012) "Baseline Water Chemistry Assessment Of Little
FishingCreek, Columbia County, Pa, Preceding

Fracking Of Marcellus Shale."

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs,. 44. 2,p.48

[94] Cuadrilla Resources
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/what-we-do/hydraulic-fracturing/fracturing-fluid/
[95]

National Energy Technical Laboratory

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/rd/R&D167.pdf

[96]

Barron Research Group, Rice University ,Texas

http://www.barron.rice.edu/barron.html

56