See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235006346

Well Stimulation in Carbonate Reservoirs: The Needs and

Superiority of Hydraulic Fracturing

Article  in  Energy Sources Part A Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects · January 2013
DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2011.644389

CITATIONS READS

5 2,090

3 authors, including:

Mansoor Zoveidavianpoor Ariffin Samsuri

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
64 PUBLICATIONS   260 CITATIONS   
63 PUBLICATIONS   217 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Well Placement View project

Book project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mansoor Zoveidavianpoor on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia]
On: 30 November 2012, At: 19:14
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,

Utilization, and Environmental Effects
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Well Stimulation in Carbonate

Reservoirs: The Needs and Superiority of
Hydraulic Fracturing
a a b
M. Zoveidavianpoor , A. Samsuri & S. R. Shadizadeh
a
Faculty of Petroleum & Renewable Energy Engineering, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Johor
b
Abadan Faculty of Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan,
Iran
Version of record first published: 30 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: M. Zoveidavianpoor , A. Samsuri & S. R. Shadizadeh (2013): Well Stimulation in
Carbonate Reservoirs: The Needs and Superiority of Hydraulic Fracturing, Energy Sources, Part A:
Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 35:1, 92-98

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2011.644389

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Energy Sources, Part A, 35:92–98, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online
DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2011.644389

Well Stimulation in Carbonate Reservoirs:

The Needs and Superiority of Hydraulic Fracturing

M. Zoveidavianpoor,1 A. Samsuri,1 and S. R. Shadizadeh2

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 19:14 30 November 2012

1
Faculty of Petroleum & Renewable Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor Bahru, Johor
2
Abadan Faculty of Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan, Iran

Hydraulic fracturing is probably the most widely used stimulation technique in the world today.
The focus of this article is on choosing a proper method of hydraulic fracturing. In carbonates, a
choice exists between acid and propped fracturing treatments. The main reasons showing why propped
hydraulic fracturing is the choice in carbonate reservoirs will be discussed in detail in this article.

Keywords: acid fracturing, carbonate reservoirs, hydraulic fracturing, propped fracturing, stimulation

1. INTRODUCTION

Well stimulation technology has proven to be successful in improving hydrocarbon recovery

(Gidley et al., 1989). Hydraulic fracturing (HF) is a well-known technology, which was originally
applied to overcome near wellbore skin damage (Clark, 1949). Proppant and acid fracturing are two
types of HF. The main objective in both methods is to create a conductive fracture to enhance well
productivity in the formation. For carbonate formations, there is no quantitative method to provide
a response of whether proppant fracturing or acid fracturing is the right stimulation method. HF
has been expanded to such applications as reservoir stimulation (Economides and Nolte, 2000)
for increased hydrocarbon deliverability, increased drainage area, and decreased pressure drop
around the well to minimize problems with asphaltene and/or paraffin deposition (Rückheim
et al., 2005), geothermal reservoir recovery (Robinson et al., 1971), waste disposal (Shadizadeh
et al., 2011), and control of sand production (Wedman et al., 1999). The same technology has also
been adapted to measure the in-situ stress field (Haimson et al., 1988). HF technology has made
significant contributions to the petroleum industry since its inception (Veatch and Moschovidis,
1989). By 2009, HF activity had increased 5-fold compared to the investment of a decade earlier
and has become the second largest outlay of petroleum companies after drilling (Economides,
2010).
Carbonate reservoirs are by far representing a major portion (more than 65%) of the world’s
oil reserves. Primary recovery methods have produced only about one-third of the world’s original
oil in place, leaving an estimated 891 billion barrels or more (Ahlbrandt et al., 2005). Thus, they
could be assumed as hot prospects for future energy demands. Yet they need some individual

Address correspondence to Dr. Mansoor Zoveidavianpoor, Faculty of Petroleum & Renewable Energy Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Johor 81310, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected]

92
 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR CARBONATE RESERVOIRS 93

treatments so that most of the oil can be recovered in an economic way. Carbonate rocks appear
to be more oil-wet than water-wet (Esfahani et al., 2007), resulting in low ultimate recovery
(Manrique et al., 2007). Furthermore, the presence of fractures affects the dynamics of fluids in
the media and adds new challenges to the fluid flow problems (Farhadinia et al., 2011).
HF creates highly conductive paths from deep in the reservoir to the wellbore and is aimed at
raising the well productivity by increasing the effective wellbore radius for wells completed in
low permeability carbonate formations (Daneshy, 2010; Mukherjee, 1999). The radial well inflow
equation shows that the well productivity rate .Q/ can be increased by:

Kh.Pr Pwf / Kh.Pr Pwf /

QD D  : (1)
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 19:14 30 November 2012

  
re re
141:2Bo ln Cs 141:2Bo ln 0
rw rw

 Increasing the formation flow capacity .K:h/, the fracture may increase the effective forma-
tion height .h/ or connect with a formation zone with a higher permeability .K/.
 Bypassing flow effects that increase the skin .S /, e.g., near wellbore formation damage.
 Increasing the wellbore radius .rw / to an effective wellbore radius .rw0 /, where rw0 is a
function of the conductive fracture length Lf .

This article is organized as follows: Section 2 describes how carbonate reservoirs could take
advantage of HF operation toward increasing the recovery factor. Section 3 presents a comparison
between acid and propped fracturing, and presents the superior type of HF in carbonate reservoirs.
After a detailed discussion in section 4, section 5 sums up the main results in this article.

2. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN CARBONATE RESERVOIRS

In carbonate reservoirs, acidizing and fracturing appear to be the most effective and longest-
lasting treatments currently employed, with fracturing being the most optimal (Brown et al.,
2003). Various advantages make propped HF a superior type of hydraulic fracturing in carbonate
reservoirs (Zoveidavianpoor et al., 2011). HF has been proved to be the best alternative to matrix
acidizing (Pujiastuti et al., 2010), and acid fracturing (Yongping et al., 2009). Actually, HF turns
into a standard stimulation method (Cook and Brekke, 2002), and proved its capability in sustaining
fracture conductivity in carbonate reservoirs (Fredd et al., 2000). Increasing the induced fracture
conductivity is, usually, the objective in acid fracturing treatments, which is believed to have a
direct relationship with the amount of rock dissolution. Moreover, proppant fracturing seems to
provide much better stability over acid treatments (Olson et al., 2003). Propped HF was more
expensive than acid jobs, but provided higher estimated ultimate recovery and typically higher
rates of return (Rajappa et al., 2009). As pointed out by Navarre et al. (1998), this objective is
not achieved by increasing amounts of dissolved rock. Based on the following reasons, HF is
considered to fulfill the needs of a reservoir, because it has longer fracture length and long-term
effective conductivity (Yongping et al., 2009).

3. PROPPED VS. ACID FRACTURING

Proppant and acid fracturing are two well-known types of HF. The main objective in both methods
is to create a conductive fracture to enhance well productivity in the formation. For carbonate
formations, there is no quantitative method to provide a response of whether proppant fracturing or
 94 M. ZOVEIDAVIANPOOR ET AL.

acid fracturing is the right stimulation method. Therefore, the following are a review of advantages
of propped fracturing vs. acid fracturing in carbonate formations.
Acid fracturing has been widely used in carbonate formations. But because of serious acid
leak-off and rapid acid/rock reaction speed, the length of effective acid etched fracture is always
restricted, even when high viscosity acid and emulsified acid were applied. Besides, the effective
duration of etched fracture is short, especially in a deep well. There have been reports that the
effective penetration of acid fracturing was too short to meet the demand of stimulation in a tight
gas reservoir (Roberts and Guin, 1975). Although longer contact periods of acid with formation
results in more etched surface and, thus, higher fracture conductivity, it lowers the compressive
strength of a formation (Gong et al., 1999). Moreover, fracture conductivity does not increase with
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 19:14 30 November 2012

increasing amounts of dissolved rock (Navarre et al., 1998). On the other hand, propped fracturing
can enlarge the drainage area to a certain extent because of its ability of deep penetration (Ding
et al., 2010).
It was argued that in high reservoir temperatures, fast acid reaction in formations containing
high concentrations of calcite, acid fracture length is shorter than propped fracture length (Ben-
Naceur and Economides, 1988). Fracture length in acid fracturing and proppant fracturing will
be different due to the dissimilar fracture mechanics involved in these techniques. In proppant
fracturing, the fracturing gel is not reactive with the formation and, therefore, can penetrate
deeper as compared to acid fracturing for a given fracturing-fluid volume especially at high
reservoir temperatures. Therefore, it is anticipated to create longer fractures in proppant fracturing
as compared to acid fractures (Abass et al., 2006). Proppant hydraulic fracturing has been a
successful stimulation method used to enhance production in sandstone reservoirs. Applying this
method for carbonate reservoirs has been conducted in certain areas. Its importance in sustaining
fracture conductivity (Fredd et al., 2000), and the ability of deeper penetration and longer duration
of fracture with proppant, the propped fracturing was introduced in some carbonate fields (Li et al.,
2009; Wang et al., 2006).
Proppant fracturing sustaining the effect of the minimum horizontal stress from closing is per-
formed by proppant the fracture. In acid fracturing, the etched, non-smooth surface with sufficient
roughness should leave open channels upon closing. The magnitude of minimum horizontal stress
(fracture closure stress) plays an important role in the selection of the stimulation type. It was
claimed that for reservoirs with a minimum horizontal stress higher than 5,000 psi, proppant
fracturing is the optimum stimulation method because etching caused by fracture acidizing cannot
support such high stress (Valko et al., 1998).
In this article, several field examples are cited to show the success of propped fracturing
technology. In order to get longer effective penetration and increase production rates, hydraulically
propped fracturing was considered in Jingbian gas field (Li et al., 2006). Absolute open flow
(AOF) is the maximum rate of flow, which occurs when bottomhole flowing pressure is zero.
A well known application of AOF is comparing the flow potential of different wells in a field.
To show the effectiveness of propped fracturing against acid fracturing, the values of AOFs were
originated from Li et al. (2009) and compared. A graphical representation of the AOFs in Jingbian
gas field is shown in Figure 1. This figure clearly shows the productivity differences between
propped fracturing and acid fracturing. In Indonesia (Pujiastuti et al., 2010) it has been proved
that proppant hydraulic fracturing is the best alternative to matrix acidizing to stimulate low acid-
soluble and shaly carbonate reservoir (15–20% shale content). In chalk formations, it was shown
that proppant fracturing yielded better results than acid fracturing, sustained production rate, and
became the standard stimulation treatment (Cook and Brekke, 2002). In Valhall Field (Olson
et al., 2003), three different methods were used to determine whether the wells should be acid or
proppant fractured. These consisted of reviewing the historical well performance and analytical and
numerical modeling. All methods clearly showed proppant fracturing was the preferred stimulation
regardless of its location and will result in higher initial rates and recovery even when the rock is
 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR CARBONATE RESERVOIRS 95
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 19:14 30 November 2012

FIGURE 1 AOF of propped fracturing vs. acid fracturing in Jingbian gas field.

more competent and thinner. It should be noted that for many years recommendations for treatment
of carbonate formations were based on zone thickness and solubility.

4. DISCUSSIONS

HF is considered as a proper option for damage removal (Veatch and Moschovidis, 1989), and an
improved hydrocarbon recovery in carbonated reservoirs (Vega et al., 1997; Ortega et al., 1996).
Zoveidavianpoor et al. (2011) recently addressed these needs in carbonate reservoirs. Superiority of
propped fracturing vs. acid fracturing in carbonate reservoir are discussed in this article. However,
for fracturing carbonate formations, the possibility of the existence of natural fractures and the
hardness of the rock can be challenging. Propped fracturing can supply a longer fracture and long-
term effective duration, but its ability of connecting a natural fracture or fissure is poor because the
fracturing fluid is unreactive with the formation. The challenges posed when fracturing limestone
formations compared to sandstone are excessive leak-off when opening a natural fracture and
difficulty creating a fracture due to hardness of the rock. Acid fracturing is less complicated
because no propping agent is employed. However, it is more complicated to design because of
the difficulty in controlling both the fracture length and conductivity. The former is governed by
the chemical reaction between the rock and the fracturing fluid, and the latter by etching patterns
formed by the reacting acid in the formation. In a depleted reservoir, the effect of increased
effective stress, due to reservoir depletion, should investigate not only on fracture and matrix
permeabilities (Lorenz, 1999), but also for accurate measurement of the minimum horizontal
stress. This is important because numerous wells in carbonate rocks are depleting due to damaged
 96 M. ZOVEIDAVIANPOOR ET AL.

TABLE 1
Acid and Proppant Fracturing Comparison

Acid Propped
Characteristics Fracturing Fracturing

Operational cost Low High

Acid leak-off in formation High Low
Rapid acid/rock reaction speed High N/A
Effective length of induced fracture Low High
Effective duration of etched/induced fracture Low High
Effective penetration of fracturing fluid Low High
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 19:14 30 November 2012

Deep penetration Low High

Fracture conductivity Low High
Effects on increasing the drainage area Low High
Acid reaction in formations containing high amount of calcite Low N/A
Applicable in high minimum horizontal stress N/A High
Sustainable hydrocarbon productivity Low High

natural fracture systems by scaling or natural lack of communication to the wellbore. Proper
stimulation methods and consequently opening of the natural fissures should extend the economic
life of these wells. As presented earlier in this article, HF offers great potential to solve this
problem.
A qualitative comparison is presented in Table 1. Various advantages make propped hydraulic
fracturing a superior type of HF in carbonate reservoirs. The main disadvantage regarding propped
fracturing is operational cost. Skin-bypass fractures are cheap, use minimal equipment, and are
easy to operate. They are of benefit all over the world where limitations, such as cost, deck space,
deck loading, and crane size, often prevent conventional HF. Skin bypass fracturing is a viable
alternative to matrix acidizing. By conducting the HF in the means of skin-bypass, this operation
will be a reasonable alternative to matrix acidizing and acid fracturing, particularly in reservoirs
that suffer from asphaltene precipitation and positive skin values.

5. CONCLUSIONS

1. Hydraulic fracturing is the best choice to fulfill the needs for improved oil recovery in
carbonate reservoirs.
2. In contrast to acid fracturing, various advantages make propped HF a superior type of HF
in carbonate reservoirs.

REFERENCES

Abass, H. H., Al-Mulhem, A. A., Alqam, M. S., and Mirajuddin, K. R. 2006. Acid fracturing or proppant fracturing in
carbonate formation? A rock mechanic’s view. SPE Paper 102590. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, September 24–27.
Ahlbrandt, T. S., Charpentier, R. R., Klett, T. R., Schmoker, J. W., Schenk, C. J., and Ulmishek, G. F. 2005. Global
Resource Estimates from Total Petroleum Systems. AAPG Memoir 86, Tulsa, OK: ProType, Inc. 324 pp.
Ben-Naceur, K., and Economides, M. J. 1988. The effectiveness of acid fractures and their production behavior. SPE Paper
18536. SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, November 1–4.
 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR CARBONATE RESERVOIRS 97

Brown, K. G., Frantz, J. H., Sawyer, W. K., and Heckman, G. C. 2003. Assessment of remediation treatments in
underground gas storage wells. SPE Paper 84393. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
October 5–8.
Clark, J. B. 1949. A hydraulic process for increasing the productivity of wells. JPT 1:1–8.
Cook, C. C., and Brekke, K. 2002. Productivity preservation via hydraulic propped fractures in the Eldfisk North Sea
chalk field. SPE Paper 73725. SPE Symposium on Formation Damage, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 20–21.
Daneshy, A. 2010. Hydraulic fracturing to improve production. The Way Ahead: Tech 101 6:14–17.
Ding, Y., Li, Y., Xu, Z., Cheng, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, F., and Peng, J. 2010. Propped fracturing with a novel surface
cross-linked acid in high temperature deep carbonate formation. SPE Paper 127312. North Africa Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, February 14–17.
Economides, M. J. 2010. Design flaws in hydraulic fracturing. SPE Paper 127870. SPE International Symposium and
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 19:14 30 November 2012

Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 10–12.

Economides, M. J., and Nolte, K. G. 2000. Reservoir Stimulation, 3rd Ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Esfahani, M. R., Kazemzadeh, E. A., Hashemi, S. M., and Karimaie, H. 2007. Determination of wettability of Iranian
carbonate reservoir rocks in restored-state. JSUT 33:1–9.
Farhadinia, M. A., Chen, P., Delshad, M., Mohanty, K. K., and Rodriguez, F. G. 2011. A systematic study of oil recovery
mechanisms from a fractured and vuggy carbonate reservoir. SPE Paper 147317. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 30–November 2.
Fredd, C. N., McConnell, S. B., Boney, C. L., and England, K. W. 2000. Experimental study of hydraulic fracture
conductivity demonstrates the benefits of using proppants. SPE Paper 60326. SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, March 12–15.
Gidley, J. L., Holditch, S. A., Nierode, D. E., and Veatch, Jr., R. W. 1989. Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE
Monograph, Vol. 12. Richardson, TX: SPE, pp. 1–38.
Gong, M., Lacote, S., and Hill, A. D. 1999. New model of acid-fracture conductivity based on deformation of surface
asperities. SPE J. 4:206–214.
Haimson, B. C., Roegiers, J. C. and Zoback, M. D. (Eds.). 1988. Proceedings of the Second International Workshops on
Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements (Vols. I and II), Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 15–18.
Li, Y., Wang, Y., Cheng, X., Che, M., and Peng, J. 2009. Propped fracturing in high temperature deep carbonate formation.
SPE Paper 118858. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, January 19–21.
Lorenz, J. C. 1999. Stress-sensitive reservoirs. JPT January:61–64.
Manrique, E. J., Muci, V. E., and Gurfinkel, M. E. 2007. EOR field experiences in carbonate reservoirs in the United
States. SPE Reserv. Eval. & Eng. 10:667–686.
Mukherjee, H. 1999. Fractured well performance: Key to fracture treatment success. J. Pet. Technol. 51:54–59.
Navarre, R. C., Miller, M. J., and Gordon, J. E. 1998. Laboratory and theoretical studies for acid fracture stimulation
optimization. SPE Paper 39776. SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March 23–26.
Olson, K. E., Olsen, E., Haidar, S., Boulatsel, A., and Brekke, K. 2003. Valhall Field: Horizontal well stimulations “acid
vs. proppant” and best practices for fracture optimization. SPE Paper 84392. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 5–8.
Ortega, L., Brito, L., and Ben-Naveur, K. 1996. Hydraulic fracturing for control of sand production and asphaltene
deposition in deep hot wells. SPE Paper 36461. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
October 6–9.
Pujiastuti, S., Wijayanti, E., Nugroho, H. S., Istono, N., Wijaya, R., and Komalasari, N. 2010. Proppant hydraulic fracturing
in low permeability and low acid-soluble carbonate reservoir: A case history. SPE Paper 130518. SPE EUROPEC/EAGE
Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, June 14–17.
Rajappa, B., Brown, D. L., and Lytle, D. M. 2009. Paradigm change: Propped fracture treatments in the lower Green
River Formation of the Altamont-Bluebell Field, Utah. SPE Paper 123526. SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology
Conference, Denver, Colorado, April 14–16.
Roberts, L. C., and Guin, J. A. 1975. A new method for predicting acid penetration distance. SPE J. 15:277–286.
Robinson, E. S., Potter, R. M., McInteer, B. B., Rowley, J. C., Armstrong, D. E., Mills, R. L., and Smith, M. C. (Eds.).
1971. A preliminary study of nuclear subterrene. Report LA-4547, Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory Report.
Rückheim, J., Voigtlnder, G., and Khokhlov, S. 2005. The technical and economic challenge of “mature gas fields”: The
giant Altmark Field, a German example. SPE Paper 94406. SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain,
June 13–16.
Shadizadeh, S. R., Majidaie, S., and Zoveidavianpoor, M. 2011. Investigation of drill cuttings reinjection: Environmental
management in Iranian Ahwaz oilfield. Pet. Sci. Technol. 29:1093–1103.
Valko, P., Norman, L., and Daneshy, A. 1998. Petroleum well construction. In: Well Stimulation. Wiley, p. 506.
 98 M. ZOVEIDAVIANPOOR ET AL.

Veatch, Jr., R. W., and Moschovidis, Z. A. 1989. An overview of recent advances in hydraulic fracturing technology. SPE
Paper 14085. International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 17–20.
Vega, G., Negron-Perez, E., and Abass, H. 1997. Hydraulic fracturing hot, high pressure oil and gas wells in tectonically
active fields in Eastern Venezuela. SPE Paper 38991. Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 30–September 3.
Wang, Y., Zhang, F., Cheng, X., Peng, J., Li, Y., and Li, S. 2006. A case study: Re-fracturing of high temperature deep
well in carbonate reservoir. SPE Paper 106353. SPE Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia, May 21–23.
Wedman, M. L., Lynch, K. W., and Spearman, J. W. 1999. Hydraulic fracturing for sand control in unconsolidated heavy-oil
reservoirs. SPE Paper 54628. SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, May 26–27.
Yongping, L., Yonghui, W., Xingsheng, C., Mingguang, C., Fuxiang, Z., and Jianxin, P. 2009. Propped fracturing in
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 19:14 30 November 2012

high temperature deep carbonate formation. SPE Paper 118858. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, Texas, January 19–21.
Zoveidavianpoor, M., Samsuri, A., and Shadizadeh, S. R. 2011. The needs for hydraulic fracturing in Iranian carbonate
oilfields: Acid or propped fracture? First National Conference of Novel Technologies in Oil & Gas Industries, IAU,
Iran, March 3–4.

View publication stats