SPE 68194
A Mathematical Algorithm for Modeling Geomechanical Rock Properties of the Khuff
and Pre-Khuff Reservoirs in Ghawar Field
Mohammed Y. Al-Qahtani, SPE, Zillur Rahim, SPE, Saudi Aramco
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
Bahrain, 17–20 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Khuff and Pre-Khuff are deep gas condensate
reservoirs under active tectonic stress environment. The
reservoirs are under development using horizontal wells and
vertical wells with hydraulic fracturing. Modeling
geomechanical rock properties accurately is essential for
ensuring a successful frac job design and execution. During
the last two years, a large amount of additional lab and field
information has become available. Integration of all the data
was conducted for better estimation of in-situ geomechanical
rock properties.
This paper presents the results of a mathematical algorithm
for calculating the geomechanical rock properties for the
Khuff and Pre-Khuff reservoirs in the Ghawar field. The
model is derived from the classical poroelastic model in
addition to a tectonic strain component as proposed by Prats
and Warpinski. The model was calibrated to lab data as well
as to the results of several Microfrac and Minifrac field tests.
The model was further improved by calibrating it with actual
history-matched frac data.
The algorithm describes a methodology for systematically
calculating geomechanical rock properties and in-situ
minimum horizontal stress magnitude from sonic shear and
compression log data. The paper also describes a detailed
history-matching algorithm for Minifrac and frac data using a
3-D frac simulator. The results show that the minimum in-situ
stress in the Khuff and Pre-Khuff reservoirs is governed by the
tectonic effect, which is Young’s modulus dependent. Detailed
analysis and well examples are presented.
Introduction
Well stimulation technology has proven to be successful in
improving hydrocarbon recovery. 1 Many wells are stimulated
to increase productivity and recovery. Two types of well
stimulation techniques are generally adopted, viz., hydraulic
fracturing and acid fracturing. The first type is used in
sandstone reservoirs and high-conductivity proppants are used
to keep open the fracture initiated and propagated mainly by
the pad fluid pumped prior to proppants. The second type is
used for carbonate reservoirs where acid is used to react with
the rock once a fracture is created by the viscous pad. The
reaction of the acid etches the fracture walls and matrix rock
creating a conductive path from the reservoir to the wellbore.
Saudi ARAMCO has initiated an acid fracturing program
to treat the Khuff carbonates and Pre-Khuff sandstone
reservoirs in the Ghawar field in the eastern province of Saudi
Arabia. The fracture treatments conducted thus far have
resulted in very encouraging gas rate and well productivity. In
this paper, we discuss some of the main reservoir properties
that impact fracture and production behavior, which are the
geomechanical properties. We will provide a review of the
mathematical models used to generate the data. We will also
provide a systematic approach for calibrating and improving
the model by integrating and history matching field data.
Actual field examples will be provided to illustrate the
process.
Both reservoir properties, particularly the mechanical
properties, and perforation placements dictate the geometry of
the fracture and its effectiveness. Placement of perforations is
controllable and should be based on accurate prediction of
reservoir flow and geomechanical properties. Therefore, it
becomes very important to accurately predict geomechanical
properties.
Reservoir Geology
The focus of this paper is on the Khuff and Pre-Khuff Jauf
reservoirs in Ghawar field. The structure map is presented in
Fig. 1.
Khuff Formation
The Khuff formation belongs to the Permian age and is
encountered at an average depth of about 11,500 ft. Two main
producing intervals of this reservoir, Khuff B and Khuff C,
2 M.Y. AL-QAHTANI AND Z. RAHIM SPE 68194

have tested high quantity of condensate rich gas. Khuff Shear Modulus
reservoir consists mainly of dolomite and limestone sections Shear modulus (G) is the stiffness of a hearing force. As
with streaks of anhydrite that constitute the non-permeable porosity increases shear modulus generally decreases.
and possible fracture barrier zones. The Khuff formation ρb
extends up to several hundred feet in thickness with varying G = 13474.45
∆ t shear 2
quality and production potential.
Bulk Modulus
Bulk modulus (Kbulk) is the inverse of bulk compressibility.
A high compressibility corresponds to a low bulk modulus. As
porosity increases bulk modulus generally decreases.

  4G
K bulk = 13474.45 ρ b  −
1
 ∆t 2  3
 compressional 

Poisson's Ratio
Poisson's ratio, υ, is the ratio of the lateral strain to the
longitudinal strain. It represents the amount that the sides of a
cube or core plug bulge out when the top is compressed.
Poisson's ratio is always positive and less than 0.5.

3 K bulk − 2 G
υ=
6 K bulk + 2 G
Young's Modulus
Figure 1 Ghawar Field Structure.
Young's modulus, Y, is the ratio of applied stress to the
Jauf Formation longitudinal strain. It can be interpreted as the rock "stiffness,"
The Juaf formation is an early Devonian sandstone. It or a parameter expressing the resistance of the rock to deform
consists of shallow marine sands, deposited over a broad shelf. under a given loading condition. Young’s modulus is an
The formation includes fine-to-medium grained sandstone and important property that impacts on the fracture geometry.
the hydrocarbon traps are found in simple four-way closures Narrow fractures are induced in formation with high modulus
as well as more complex structural-stratigraphic traps. The whereas wide fractures are created in low modulus formations.
primary source rock for the Jauf reservoir is the basal hot shale Young’s modulus can also be determined from logs or from
of the Lower Siliurian Qalibah Formation. The 3D seismic laboratory experiments on cores. High modulus values create
survey reveals that the reservoir is highly faulted, especially in tall fractures and thus the treatment design must be carefully
the southwestern part of the field. The compartmentalization done to avoid possible breakthrough into undesired intervals.
resulted from the fault system has significantly increased the
complexity of the field development. The field is gradually 9 G K bulk
pinched out toward the west and bounded by major faults at Y=
3 K bulk + G
both west and east. The reservoir fluid samples collected
during the developmental drilling show a high degree of
Rock Strength Computation
variability in gas composition as well as condensate yields.
The following correlations are used to compute rock
strength.
Dynamic Elastic Moduli Computation
Dynamic measurements of elastic moduli are derived from Bulk Compressibility (C b )
measuring the acoustic velocities and bulk density of the The bulk compressibility (C b ) is given by the following
material. Array and dipole sonic logging provide the means to relationship.
obtain continuous measurements of compressional and shear  
1 4
velocities. These data in conjunction with bulk density permit Cb = 1000 ρ b  − 
calculation of rock mechanical properties. It is important to  ∆t 2
3 ∆ t 2
 compressional shear 
calibrate the computed dynamic elastic properties of the rock
against static rock properties obtained from actual
measurements of a material's deformation while being stressed
in the lab.2
 A MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHM FOR MODELING GEOMECHANICAL ROCK PROPERTIES OF
SPE 68194 THE KHUFF AND PRE-KHUFF RESERVOIRS IN GHAWAR FIELD 3

Cohesive Strength ( S o ) 1.0E+07

The Coates-Denoo model relates cohesive strength with

Young's modulus, bulk compressibility and the volume of 8.0E+06

Young's Modulus
shale.
Y
[0.008 × Vsh + 0.0045 (1 − Vsh )]
6.0E+06
So = 0.025 × 10− 6
Cb
4.0E+06
where Vsh is the volume of shale.
2.0E+06
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS )
UCS is equal to the normal (uniaxial) stress required to 0.0E+00
cause failure by crushing an unconfined sample of rock. This 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
can be determined from a uniaxial compressive rock test. Porosity

So Figure 2 Young's Modulus vs. Porosity (Pre-Khuff Reservoir).

UCS =
0.289 Vertical Stress
The vertical stress gradient in the Khuff and Pre-Khuff
Tensile Strength (To ) reservoirs in Ghawar is around 1.1 psi/ft calculated by
Tensile strength is equal to the tensile stress required to integrating density logs from surface to the reservoir in several
cause failure by splitting an unconfined sample of rock. key wells.

Co Minimum Horizontal Stress

To =
12
Dynamic to Static Conversion
Dynamic elastic moduli computed from correlations were
calibrated against static moduli obtained from core analyses.
As a result of this process, the following corrections were
made to convert dynamic to static properties for Khuff and
Pre-Khuff. The relationship between the Young’s modulus
and formation porosity is presented in Fig. 2.
Khuff Formation:
υ static = υ dynamic (No correction was required)
log Ystatic = 0.99 log Ydynamic − 0.15
The most important mechanical property that needs to be
characterized is the in-situ stress profile. In-situ stress impacts
mainly on fracture vertical and lateral growth and shapes the
overall fracture dimension.3-4 Several techniques have been
proposed to calculate in-situ stress profile.5-8 These techniques
include over-coring, analysis of focal mechanisms of induced
seismicity, size of breakouts, core relaxation (Differential
Stress Curve Analysis and Anelastic Strain Recovery) and
Keiser effect. The most common method is acoustic log-based
where the equation that correlates the rock elastic property
with the reservoir pressure and tectonics is used as given by
the following relationship.9-10
υ υ Y υ Ystatic
σx = POB − AV PP + AH PP + static2 E x + Ey
1−υ 1−υ 1−υ 1−υ2

Pre-Khuff Formations (Jauf):

Rock term Fluid term Tectonic term
υ static = 0.5 υ dynamic + 0.13
where
Y static = 1.0 Ydynamic − 2.5 × 10 −6
σx minimum horizontal stress
υ Poisson's ratio
POB overburden pressure
PP pore pressure
AV poro-elastic constant in the vertical direction
AH poro-elastic constant in the horizontal direction
Y static static Young's modulus
Ex strain in the minimum horizontal direction
Ey strain in the maximum horizontal direction
4 M.Y. AL-QAHTANI AND Z. RAHIM SPE 68194

Pore pressure can be measured from transient tests or from
offset well measurements. Tectonic stress will have great
impact on in-situ stress for a tectonically active area.
The most dependable method of calculating in-situ stress is
by analyzing field pressure data from Microfrac and Minifrac
treatments where fluid is pumped at a rate to barely create a
fracture. The pumps are then shut down to measure the initial
pressure drop (ISIP) and pressure drop with time as shown in
Fig. 3. Several researchers have proposed analysis or history
matching techniques for determining fracture closure
pressure.11-13
The work has been verified with recent fracturing data
obtained for Khuff and Jauf. Further calibration was required
to fine-tune the two models as presented above. Fig. 4
illustrates the relationship between in-situ stress and porosity
for the Pre-Khuff Jauf reservoir. Fig. 5 illustrates the
relationship between Young’s Modulus and in-situ stress
indicating a strong correlation between the two properties.
This illustrates the importance of the tectonic term above as
function of Young’s Modulus in addition to Poisson’s ratio.
Several examples will be presented later to illustrate the
calibration process that was used for developing these models.
1.00

0.95

In-Situ Stress, psi/ft

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Porosity

Figure 3 Fracture Pressure History Match for a Well in the Khuff Figure 4 In-situ stress as Functions of Porosity for the Pre-Khuff (Jauf)
Reservoir. Reservoir.
The minimum horizontal stress in the previous equation 1.0E+07

consists of three components: rock, fluid and tectonic stress.

The rock and fluid terms are relatively straight forward and 8.0E+06

involve little calibration effort. The poro-elastic constants are

Young's Modulus

widely expressed in the literature between 0.7 and 1.0 or as a 6.0E+06

function of porosity (φ).14

In this work, 4.0E+06

AV = (1 − φ ) , AH = 1.0 for Khuff

2.0E+06
AV = AH = 1.0 for Pre-Khuff (Jauf)
0.0E+00
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
In-Situ Stress, psi/ft
The tectonic term, however, involves elaborate calibration
scheme. This is known as the Warpinski tectonic stress Figure 5 Young’s Modulus as a Function of In-Situ Stress Gradient for
calibration, which implements Young's modulus, Poisson's the Pre-Khuff (Jauf) Reservoir.
ratio and two horizontal strain coefficients. The calibration
takes advantage of available Microfrac and Minifrac data
across selected intervals. Maximum Horizontal Stress
In this work, the strain constants in the minimum and The Khuff and Pre-Khuff formation are under tectonic
maximum horizontal direction are calibrated to be forces acting on the three principal stresses. Strong anisotropy
has been observed in several wells by examining wellbore
E x = 25 × 10 −6 breakouts and shear anisotropy from sonic logs. Fig. 6
E y = 900 × 10 −6 for the Khuff illustrates the strong anisotropy in horizontal stresses using the
wellbore breakout method.
and
E x = 230 ×10 −6
E y = 500 × 10 −6 for the Pre-Khuff (Jauf)
 A MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHM FOR MODELING GEOMECHANICAL ROCK PROPERTIES OF
SPE 68194 THE KHUFF AND PRE-KHUFF RESERVOIRS IN GHAWAR FIELD
YELLOW - BREAKOUTS
RED - INDUCED FRACTURES
Figure 6 Horizontal Stress Anisotropy From Wellbore Breakouts in the
Khuff Reservoir.
The direction of the minimum horizontal stress is generally
N5oW and the maximum horizontal stress is normal to it, i.e.,
N85oE. This is consistent with the state of tectonic forces
acting on the Arabian Peninsula.
In order to predict fracture geometry and direction, one
must have an understanding of the state of stress in a given
reservoir. This is particularly important after observing such
high anisotropy in horizontal stresses. The question is what is
the direction of maximum principle stress? This question was
addressed after examining wellbore breakouts and shear
anisotropy from sonic logs in one of the horizontal wells in the
Khuff reservoir. It is concluded that due to the tectonic
stresses acting on the deep Khuff reservoir, the maximum
principal stress maximum is the maximum horizontal stress
and the intermediate principal stress is the vertical stress (Fig.
7). The minimum principal stress is the minimum horizontal
stress.
5
Maximum Stress Minimum Stress
Horizontal Well
Breakouts
Figure 7 Wellbore Breakouts in a Khuff Horizontal Well.
Calibration with History Matching, Field Examples
In this section, several examples of mechanical properties
for Khuff and Pre-Khuff reservoirs using the models
developed will be presented.15 Integrated calibration process
using Microfracs or Minifracs data will be presented. In
addition, static mechanical properties measurements on cores
will be displayed.
Khuff Formation
Well K-A was a Khuff well which was acid fractured in
two stages with 28% HCl. The porosity profile and
mechanical properties are presented in Figs. 8 and 9,
respectively. Minifrac treatment was conducted for each stage
for injectivity, pressure, closure, and leakoff calculations. We
history matched fracture treatment data to calculate fracture
geometry, near wellbore friction pressure drop, fracture
initiation pressure and fracture closure pressure, in-situ stress
profile and other mechanical properties.
6 M.Y. AL-QAHTANI AND Z. RAHIM SPE 68194

Figure 10 Closure Pressure Calculation – Nolte’s Method.

Figure 8 Porosity Profile for Well K-A. The closure pressure thus calculated is used in the 3D
fracture model as a first estimate for history matching the
Minifrac pressure data. Making some minor changes in the in-
situ stress values, we successfully matched the actual field
pressure data during Minifrac treatment. Fig. 11 presents the
actual data and the history matched obtained with the 3D
fracture model.

Figure 9 Mechanical Properties in the Khuff Reservoir for Well K-A.

In-Situ Stress Calculation

In this section we present the analysis of the Minifrac
treatment on the Upper intervals as an example. We used the
analytical approach and also the history-match approach to Figure 11 Fracture Pressure History Match, Upper Khuff Interval
analyze the data. We calculated the in-situ mechanical
properties and fluid behavior (leak-off). History Match Results
History Matching Actual Data Following table presents the results obtained from history
The Minifrac treatment consists of step up and step down match.
tests and a shut in test. The tests are analyzed to calculate Table 1 Minifrac Treatments Analysis Results
fracture extension pressure, closure pressure, friction pressures
Interval Closure Pressure, psi Near Well Pressure Drop, psi
(near wellbore tortuosity and perforation friction), and leakoff
Upper 0.9 1,200
coefficient of the particular fluid used. The analysis of the step
Lower 0.85 1,000
up test is to calculate fracture extension pressure. This
calculated pressure is the upper limit of fracture closure
pressure. Using the falloff part of the Minifrac and Horner In-Situ Stress Computed from History Match
approximation, the lower bound of the closure pressure is Fig. 12 compares in-situ stress profile calculated from the
calculated. The near wellbore friction pressure drop is Model and fracture pressure analysis.
calculated from the step down test. This pressure loss is due to
perforation friction and near well restrictions.
Using Nolte G function on the injection and falloff data for
the second part of the minifrac treatment, an approximate
value of bottomhole closure pressure can be calculated. In this
case, we calculate a pressure of about 10,750 psi as closure
pressure. Fig. 10 presents the corresponding graph for this
calculation.
 A MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHM FOR MODELING GEOMECHANICAL ROCK PROPERTIES OF
SPE 68194 THE KHUFF AND PRE-KHUFF RESERVOIRS IN GHAWAR FIELD 7

11,450 Porosity Min. Horizontal Young's Modulus Poisson's Ratio

Stress psi/ft
0 0.5 0.7 1.2 0E+00 1E+07 0.10 0.40
11,500 13900
Depth, ft

11,550
14000

11,600

14100
11,650
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Minifrac 2
History Match In-Situ Stress Gradient, psi/ft 14200
0.8 psi/ft

Model

Depth
14300
Figure 12 In-situ Stress Profile Calculated From History Match. Minifrac 1
0.85 psi/ft
The next step is to calibrate the geomechanical model to fit
14400
the in-situ stress profile calculated from the Minifrac treatment
evaluation. Fig. 13 illustrates how this geomechanical model-
derived in-situ stress compares to history match values. As can 14500

be seen, the calibrated geomechanical model predicts the in-

situ stress with reasonable accuracy. The model also honors 14600

the fact that the vertical stress is the intermediate stress and
does not exceed the 1.1 psi/ft vertical stress gradient across the Figure 14 Geomechanical Properties For Well PK-A.
Khuff reservoir. This information is very critical if we are to
honor the fact that the fracture propagation is vertical and is in Example Well PK-B
the direction of maximum horizontal stress. Fig. 15 shows the geomechanical properties for Well B in
the Pre-Khuff formation. Two Microfrac treatments were
11,450
conducted in the upper and lower sections of the formation.
11,500
This was specifically done to calibrate the mechanical
properties and confirm suspected stress barriers to the top and
Depth, ft

11,550 bottom of the Jauf reservoir for better fracture modeling. The
Microfrac results are presented in Figure-z. The minimum
11,600 horizontal stress Model predicted the stress profile with
minimal changes to the Model.
11,650
Porosity Min. Horizontal Young's Modulus Poisson's Ratio
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Stress psi/ft

History Match In-Situ Stress Gradient, psi/ft 0 0.5 0.7 1.2 0E+00 1E+07 0.10 0.40
13700
Calibrated Model
Microfrac 2
0.88 psi/ft

Figure 13 Calibration of Model to Approximate History Match Results.

13800
Pre-Khuff Formation (Jauf)
The following section presents two example wells in Pre-
Khuff with Model calibration using core data, Microfrac and
13900
Minifrac analysis.
Depth

Example Well PK-A

Fig. 14 illustrates the geomechanical properties of Well
PK-A. The core data for Poisson’s Ratio and Young’s 14000

Modulus are displayed with the calculated properties using the

Pre-Khuff Model. The geomechanical model generated data
generally shows good agreement with core data. 14100

The well was propped fractured in two stages. Minifrac Microfrac 1

0.91 psi/ft

treatment was conducted for each stage. As discussed earlier

in the Khuff example, similar analysis of Minifrac data was 14200
conducted. Excellent pressure match was obtained using the
calibrated with the Minifrac data.
Figure 15 Geomechanical Properties For Well PK-B.
8 M.Y. AL-QAHTANI AND Z. RAHIM
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the study.
1. A mathematical algorithm for calculating geo-
mechanical properties for Khuff and Pre-Khuff
reservoirs has been presented. The Model was
calibrated with core data and Microfrac and
Minifrac analysis.
2. History matching of Minifrac pressure data helped
to fine-tune the Model. An example illustrating the
process has been presented.
3. The tectonic component of the minimum horizontal
stress equation as a function of Young’s Modulus is
critical due to the tectonic forces acting on the deep
Khuff and Pre-Khuff reservoirs. The intermediate
principal stress is the state vertical stress.
4. Wellbore breakout analysis in vertical and
horizontal wells is recommended to understand the
state of stress in active tectonic regions.
5. Designing Microfrac treatments for calibrating in-
situ stress Model proved valuable when placed
above and below the reservoir and helped to address
fracture propagation and containment modeling
issues.
Nomenclature
Y = Young’ modulus
G = Shear modulus
ρb = Density, gm/cc
φ = Porosity, fraction
υ = Poisson’s ratio
∆t = Sonic travel time, micro-s/ft
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Saudi Arabian Ministry of
Petroleum and Mineral Resources and Saudi ARAMCO for
permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., et al.: Recent Advances
in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monograph Vol. 12.
2. Biot, M.A.: “General Solution of the Equations of
Elasticity and Consideration for a Porous Material, J.
Appl. Mech., 23, 1956, pp. 91-96.
SPE 68194
3. Rahim, Z., Holditch, S.A. et al.: “Evaluation of
Fracture Treatments Using a Layered-Reservoir
Description: Field Examples,” SPE Production &
Facilities, February 1998, pp 21-27.
4. Holditch, S.A., and Rahim Z.: “Developing Data Sets
for 3D Fracture Propagation Models,” SPE
Production & Facilities, November 1994, pp. 257-61.
5. Cornet F.H.: “Stresses in Rocks and Rock Masses”,
Comprehensive Rock Engineering, J. Hudson Ed.,
Vol. 3, Chapter 12, 1993.
6. Warpinski, N.R. and Teufel, L.W.: “A Viscoelastic
Model for Determining In-Situ Stress Magnitudes
from Anelastic Strain Recovery of Core”, SPEPE,
August 1989, pp. 273-280.
7. Warpinski, N.R. Branagan P., and Roy Wilmer: “In-
Situ Stress Measurements at U.S/DOE’s Multiwell
Experiment Site, Mesaverde Group, Rifle, Colorado”
JPT, Vol. 37,3, March 1985.
8. Thiercelin, M.J., Plumb, R.A., Desroches, J.,
Bixenman, P.W., Jones, J.K., and Davis W.A.R., “A
New Wireline Tool fo In-Situ Stress Measurements”
Proceedings of the SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, March 1993, pp. 635-646.
9. Prats, M.: “Effect of Burial History on the Subsurface
Horizontal Stresses of Formations Having Different
Material Properties”, SPEJ, December 1981, pp. 658-
662.
10. Warpinski, N.R. and Smith, M.B.: “Rock Mechanics
and Fracture Geometry”, in Recent Advances in
Hydraulic Fracturing, Gidley, J.L. et al. (eds.), SPE
Monograph 12, SPE, Richardson, TX, 1989.
11. Nolte, K.G.: “Fracture Design Considerations Based
on Pressure Analysis”, SPEPE, February 1988, pp.
23-30.
12. Mayerhofer, M.J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and
Economides, M.J.: “Pressure Transient Analysis of
Fracture Calibration Tests”, Paper SPE 26527, 1993.
13. Smith, M.B.: “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise
Hydraulic Fractures”, SPEJ., June 1985, pp. 371-379.
14. Volko, P. and Economides M.J, Hydraulic
Fracturing Mechanics, Jone Wiley & Sons Ltd., New
York, 1995.
15. Saudi ARAMCO Gas Reservoir Management
Division, Internal Documentations.