o In-situ and effective stresses, pore pressure, fracture orientation, and vertical versus horizontal fractures.

o Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, shear modulus, static/dynamic properties, and poroelasticity.

o Tensile strength, fracture toughness, stress intensity, propagation criteria, and coupled fluid–solid mechanics.

o Initiation, breakdown, sustained propagation, bedding planes, anisotropy, and near-wellbore effects.

o Formation evaluation: core porosity/permeability, mechanical testing, XRD, petrography, and SEM.

o Software laboratory: construct a layered geomechanical model, assign uncertainty ranges, audit inputs, and run a base case. Deliverable: input model and data-quality register.

o Fracture half-length, height, aperture, area, volume, and hydraulic versus propped versus conductive extent.

o PKN, KGD, radial, pseudo-3D, and planar-3D models: assumptions, applicability, and limitations.

o Fracture-width calculations and analytical benchmarks; effects of elasticity, rate, viscosity, and leakoff.

o Net-pressure evolution, layered height growth, stress contrast, interface effects, and containment.

o Software laboratory: compare analytical and simulated geometry; vary key inputs and check discretization sensitivity where available. Deliverable: geometry sensitivity study and model-selection justification.

o Fluid-system selection against reservoir and treatment objectives.

o Newtonian/non-Newtonian rheology, temperature and shear effects, fluid loss, efficiency, and cleanup.

o Base-fluid and gel selection; slickwater, linear and crosslinked systems, and relevant alternatives.

o Fluid compatibility: clay sensitivity, retention, emulsions, and formation/proppant-pack damage.

o Laboratory evaluation: immersion, compatibility, core-flow, regained-permeability, and fluid-loss testing.

Proppant size, density, strength, and conductivity under closure stress.

o Settling, suspension, transport, bridging, placement, embedment, and crushing.

o Additives: breakers, clay-control agents, surfactants, friction reducers, and temperature stabilizers.

o Software laboratory: enter laboratory-informed rheology, leakoff, and conductivity inputs; compare fluid/proppant alternatives.

o Deliverable: fluid and proppant selection report supported by placement and conductivity results.

o Translate reservoir objectives into geometry/conductivity targets; size the pad and allocate treatment volume.

o Treatment stages: pre-pad where applicable, pad, proppant concentration ramps, displacement, and flush.

o Pressure budget: hydrostatic pressure, tubular friction, perforation losses, near-wellbore effects, and equipment limits.

o Mini-frac, DFIT, step-rate and step-down interpretation; model calibration and nonunique pressure matches.

o Surface equipment and flow path; fluid storage, mixing, hydration, QA/QC, screenout risk, and contingencies.

o Software laboratory: build a pumping schedule, check operating constraints, calibrate pressure response, and revise the design. Deliverable: calibrated model, pumping schedule, and execution checklist.

o

o Integrate geological, geomechanical, fluid, proppant, and completion inputs into the final case.

o Compare length–conductivity and cost–performance tradeoffs; evaluate low, base, and high uncertainty scenarios.

o Evaluate multistage spacing, cluster allocation, and fracture interactions where supported by the software.

Assess planned versus actual treatment response, expected productivity, and post-treatment monitoring.

o Capstone: compare at least three feasible designs, select a preferred treatment, test uncertain inputs, and present recommendations.

o Deliverable: final report and presentation covering assumptions, model selection, calibration, geometry, placement, pumping schedule, risks, and expected performance.