SPE-170852-MS

Development of a Stranded Tight Gas Field in the UK Southern North Sea

Using Hydraulic Fracturing Within a Subsea Horizontal Well: A Case Study
Marc Langford and Douglas Westera, SPE; Brian Holland, Centrica Energy; Bogdan Bocaneala, SPE;
Mark Norris, Schlumberger

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2729 October 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
There are more than 100 accumulations in the southern North Sea that are flagged as stranded fields. Tight
reservoirs, distant infrastructure, small volumes, and anomalous gas qualities are amongst the main
reasons why these resources have not yet been developed. One of these stranded tight gas fields has been
successfully developed with the use of a subsea well, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing.
The Kew structure is a northwest/southeast trending horst straddling licenses 49/4c, 49/4a, 49/5a, and
49/5b of the UK sector approximately 2 km east of the Chiswick field. The primary reservoir objectives
are the Carboniferous sandstones of the Caister formation (Westphalian A). This gas field has now been
developed with a singlewell that employs a combination of horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic
fracturing to achieve maximum reservoir contact in this low-permeability and interbedded structure.
The absence of data and analogue wells for the design and execution of the fracturing treatments
necessitated extended injection tests prior to the execution of the stimulation treatments. To maximize the
data acquired from this well, chemical tracers were injected during the stimulation treatments and returns
evaluated to assess the flowback of each individual hydraulic fracture. As this was a subsea development
well, all the hydraulic fracturing operations had to be performed with the rig in place. Hence, the utmost
efficiency of the operations was paramount; otherwise, the economics of the project would be negatively
impacted. Innovative techniques of isolation between each fracturing stage were developed to minimize
the risk and decrease completion time.
The time of massive gas field discoveries has passed, and smaller developments are proving to be the
future, through tying them to existing assets, to boost gas production in the North Sea and extend the life
of the existing infrastructure. This challenge was successfully addressed for the Kew field by combining
existing technologies and developing new techniques.

Stranded Fields in the Southern North Sea

A stranded gas reserve is a reserve of natural gas which has been discovered but remains unusable for
physical or economic reasons. In the southern North Sea, there are a number of this type of accumulations
well documented in literature, especially in the Dutch sector of the southern North Sea (Coghlan et al.
2013; Schulte et al. 2012).

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 1KEW field location in the southern North Sea and proximity to the Dutch sector.

Figure 2Kew field location within the Greater Markham area

The Kew field is a gas field, with small volumes of associated condensate, located in blocks 49/4a,
49/5a, 49/5b, and 49/4c of the UKCS. It lies some 120 km east of the English coast and 5 km west of the
UK/Dutch median line. The field location is pictured in Fig. 1.
The Kew structure had been a proven hydrocarbon accumulation that had not been developed because
of the poor productivity nature of the tight rock, the distance to infrastructure, the hydrocarbon field size
and the commercial climate at the time. Kew became commercially interesting to develop due to the
technical improvements (multiple hydraulic fracturing), the change in economics (tax relief), and the
Greater Markham area infrastructure tie-in point via the Chiswick development (Coghlan and Holland
2009), as can be seen in Fig. 2.

SPE-170852-MS

The solutions applied for the KEW accumulation development, such as subsea completions, horizontal
drilling, and efficient multistage hydraulic fracturing using a dedicated stimulation vessel, position Kew
as a classic success story in the development of stranded fields.

Geological and Geophysical

The southern flank of the Kew field was penetrated in 1988 by the Kew discovery well 49/5-4, which
proved the presence of Carboniferous sandstone units C1, D2, E2, and E4. This well encountered 42 m
of sand with a net pay of 9.5 m from which gas flowed at 0.42 MMscf/D from poor-quality unstimulated
Carboniferous sandstones.
The Kew appraisal well (49/4c-7z) was drilled in Q4 2008 in block 49/4c as a commitment well for
UKCS exploration licence P1186. After drilling difficulties through the Chalk and Zechstein formations
the well was sidetracked in Q1 2009. The Top Rotliegend came in 15 m high to prognosis and the Top
Carboniferous 24 m high to prognosis. The well encountered more net sand (50 m as opposed to 36 m as
prognosed) and higher gas saturation (54% as opposed to 45% as prognosed). Pressures indicated modest
depletion (40 psi) and no flow test was performed.

Reservoir Synopsis
Because of the existing two well penetrations there was a good understanding of the reservoir facies. The
primary reservoir objectives are the Carboniferous sandstone units of the Caister formation (Westphalian
A age). The reservoir interval comprises fluvial channel sandstones up to approximately 15 m thick
interbedded with nonreservoir floodplain, interdistributary bay and swamp siltstones, shales, and coals.
The sandstone grain size ranges from very fine to very coarse and has poor to moderate porosity (~10 to
12%) and expected permeability (0.01 to 90 mD). Reservoir quality is affected primarily by deposition,
with higher-energy braided channel deposits being cleaner and coarse grained, whereas lower-energy
meandering fluvial deposits are finer grained and shalier. Deep burial has resulted in significant reservoir
compaction. Kaolinite and dolomite form the dominant cements as observed in the cores from wells
49/5-4 and 49/4c-7z. Because of erosion at the base Hercynian unconformity, there was uncertainty as to
which of the Westphalian units subcrop away from the wells.
Higher up, in the overlying Rotliegend sequence, the Silverpit Layer B contains a number of thin
sandstone interbeds. These represent thin lake margin sabkha deposits. Additionally, Lower Leman
sandstones had the potential to occur at Kew, as suggested by the 49/5-4 well to the southeast. However,
the 49/4c-7z appraisal well encountered only 1.3 m of net sand in the Silverpit (gas bearing) and no net
sand in the Leman. The 49/4c-7z well encountered a gross Carboniferous section of ~140 m with ~41 m
of net sand.

Well Overview
The planned Kew 49/04c-7Y subhorizontal development well was drilled along the crest of the Kew
structure and is a sidetrack of the existing (suspended) Kew appraisal well, 49/4c-7z. The well trajectory
is presented in Appendix A.
The planned sidetrack 49/04c-7Y was initially intended to target the Lower Carboniferous units (C1,
D2, E2, and E4). To maximize reservoir contact, the well was initially planned to be completed with four
to five hydraulic fractures, with a minimum of one per target unit.
Because of the proximity to the gas/water contact, the decision was made to complete the well using
a cased and cemented liner and plug-and-perf technique for placement and isolation of the hydraulic
fractures. This was an agreed decision by the whole project group as it had a direct impact on the
efficiency of the operations; previous experiences using open-hole un-cemented multistage systems have
positively impacted the efficiency of hydraulic fracturing execution offshore in the North Sea, reducing

SPE-170852-MS

execution time to one fracture per day (Bocaneala et al. 2013). Also, previous experience of spalling and
out-of-gauge hole was another driver towards a cemented system.
Difficulties encountered during the drilling phase cause total depth (TD) to be called early at 5225 m,
meaning a stimulation treatment could not be placed as planned in the E2 sand in the southern section at
the other side of the main fault. This resulted in a change in fracture placement, with only one fracture
placed in the E2 sand in the northern section.

Completion Design
The design of the well was for a subsea completion that could be hydraulically fractured and cleaned up
and would allow for the installation of a downhole pressure/temperature gauge (DHPG) to provide an
accurate understanding during the stimulation treatment. The tubing hanger could not be used whilst
fracturing as the tubing hanger/subsea production tree design did not allow a through-port for the DHPG
cable. As such, the proposed design, excluding the surface frac rig up, was

7-in. (JFE Bear, 32ppf, 110ksi 13Cr) liner

4-1/2-in. (JFE Bear, 15.1ppf, 110ksi 13Cr) production liner
7-in. production packer set below the 7-in. liner packer/hanger
Polished bore receptacle (PBR) above the production packer
DHPG positioned close to but above the PBR
4-1/2-in. (15.1ppf, 110ksi 13Cr) by 5-1/2-in. (20ppf, 80ksi 13Cr) completion string
DHSV at a depth in line with other wells in the area (i.e., Centrica-operated Chiswick field)

Specific components in the string include, from the bottom up:

Mule shoe, c/w shearable centraliser (WEG)

AF nipple 3.437-in.
Hydrostatic set production packer
Packer bore receptacle (20-ft seal assembly and 90, 000 lbf shear ring)
Pressure/temperature gauge mandrel
Sliding side door c/w AF nipple 3.562-in.
4-1/2-in. tubing (15.1ppf, 110ksi 13Cr)
4-1/2-in . 0078 5-1/2-in. tubing crossover
Downhole safety valve (TSME-8)
5-1/2-in. tubing (20ppf, 80ksi 13Cr)
Tubing hanger

A detailed completion schematic is presented in Appendix B.

As per Centrica Energy standards, a full triaxial tubing stress analysis was completed with the above
string. This would confirm all anticipated load cases during both the fracture stimulation and long-term
production scenarios. All safety factors were to be below the Centrica Energy design safety factors for
collapse, burst, tension, compression, and triaxial stress, confirming sufficient well integrity during the
fracturing operation.

Perforation Design
The number and size of perforations are critical factors in the execution of the hydraulic fracturing
operations. Pressure drop through the perforations can represent a significant part of the total nearwellbore pressure drop experienced in the flow system. The design basis for Kew was to engineer a
maximum of 200 psi pressure drop during the injection phase. This pressure drop number was the
governing factor to determine charge design, both for the required entrance hole in the tunnel and the shots
per foot.

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 3Perforation design for various flow rates

Table 1PLANNED VERSUS ACTUAL HYDRAULIC FRACTURE LOCATIONS
Planned fracture location

Frac
Frac
Frac
Frac
Frac

1
2
3
4
5

Actual fracture location

Target reservoir unit

Notes

E2 sst
E2 sst
D2 & E4 sst
C1 sst
Lower Leman

Placed in southern segment

Placed in northern segment

Target reservoir unit

Frac
Frac
Frac
Frac

1
2
3
4

Notes

Unable to place fracture due to early TD

E2 sst
Placed in northern segment
D2 & E4 sst
C1 sst
Lower Leman

The design basis used in the perforating was to assume a discharge coefficient of 0.75 (i.e., newly
created perforations in the liner). The charge design was also validated using the selected contractors
in-house perforating design tool to ensure the required entrance hole met the requirement to prevent
proppant bridging and ultimately early near-wellbore screen out with the planned 16/30 resin coated
ceramic based proppant. Fig. 3 presents the results of the analysis.

Hydraulic Fracturing: The Key for Maximum Reservoir Coverage

The planned fracture placement, subject to the final LWD data and dedicated repeat formation tester
points, was to initiate fractures along the wellbore in all of the Carboniferous sandstone units to provide
maximum reservoir coverage. The original planned first fracture in the E2 sand had to be canceled because
TD of the well was called early, resulting in a reduced number of fractures being placed along the
wellbore, as presented in Error! Reference source not found.

Hydraulic Fracturing Design

Hydraulic fracturing was seen as one of the key elements to ensure the success of the Kew project. The
created fractures would help maximize contact to the reservoir, increasing production rates and enhance
the ultimate gas recovery.

SPE-170852-MS

The initial well design contained five hydraulic fractures pumped at rates of up to 40 bbl/min. A
fracture gradient of 0.7 psi/ft was forecasted, which indicated an expected maximum effective stress of
just over 5, 000 psi. The proppant was then selected based on the determined minimum horizontal stress,
cyclic stress loading, and proppant pack permeability considerations.
As Kew was to be developed as a subsea well, proppant flowback was seen as a significant risk for the
overall project, and to mitigate this risk, resin-coated proppant (RCP) was used. An encapsulating stress
coating applied on a traditional curable resin-coated proppant protects the proppant from premature curing
until both the right temperature and closure stresses are applied. This technology makes certain that the
proppant can be properly placed before the curable coating layer is activated for flowback control, and it
eliminates the potential consolidation of proppant in the wellbore, thus allowing for an easy proppant
cleanout. Centrica has adopted a policy of using resin-coated proppant on all North Sea fracturestimulated wells given the good success in previous projects.
Extensive laboratory testing had been performed in the design and preparation phase to ensure
compatibility between the resin-coated proppant and the fracturing fluid. Correct functionality of the
coating in the specific well conditions and with the selected fracturing fluid was tested. All of the tests
were successful, with the proppant having little to no effect on the fracturing fluid properties and the fluid
not influencing the ability of the proppant grains to bond together under stress and remain unbonded when
no stress is applied. The proppant sizing was also designed to reduce any non-Darcy effect, which would
give rise to an unwanted pressure drop in the near-wellbore region that would impair production.
The fracturing fluid used for the treatments was a freshwater-based borate crosslinked guar with a
polymer concentration of 35 pounds of polymer per thousand gallons of fluid.
The 49/04c-7Y wellbore is parallel to the maximum horizontal stress based on the world stress map,
indicating fractures will eventually grow longitudinally to align with the principal maximum stress
direction. This is a general trend in most southern North Sea fracture-stimulated wells and is a
consequence of field and platform orientation.
To acquire more information on the reservoir and decide on the fracture initiation points, a formation
pressure acquisition tool run was attempted to determine the pressure gradient and to confirm the
permeability in the reservoir section, unfortunately this was canceled due to tool communication failures.
Low mobility and tight points were expected to confirm the low permeability Carboniferous sands
(Appendix C). This formed the basis for choice of fracture initiation points in combination with the
petrophysical generated CPI (Appendix D). Overall, there was a wide variation of permeability in the
tested intervals from less than 0.01mD in the E4 and Markham 2a and the C1 sands and potentially up
to 100mD in areas of the D2 sands.

Hydraulic Fracturing Execution

During the execution phase, only four of the five hydraulic fractures initially planned were placed due to
the shorter length of the horizontal section. The four hydraulic fractures were successfully placed in the
Kew reservoir using over a million pounds of 16/30 resin coated intermediated strength ceramic proppant
and over eight hundred thousand gallons of fluid. The isolation in between consecutive stages was
achieved by using soluble-fiber-enhanced sand plugs set at the end of each individual treatment. For the
execution of the fracturing treatments, a purpose built stimulation vessel was used to provided the
versatility and storage of the material volumes required for the execution of the Kew stimulation
campaign.
From start to finish, the stimulation operation for the four stages took 18 days, which translates into one
hydraulic fracture pumped every four and a half days. This is considered extremely efficient for multistage
plug-and-perf fracturing treatments in the southern North Sea considering the interventions required in
between stages, vessel sailing times, and waiting on weather. This level of efficiency was achieved based

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 4 Post closure analysis for zone 1

Figure 5Net height for first hydraulic fracture

on Centricas previous multistage horizontal well experience and by ensuring good communication and
coordination between the rig operations and the stimulation vessel team.
The first fracturing treatment from the Kew stimulation campaign targeted the E2 sands. The treatment
was started on 20 September with an extensive suite of diagnostic injection tests consisting of formation
breakdown, step-rate test (SRT), step-down test (SDT), and calibration injection. The decline from the
initial breakdown was used to perform post-closure analysis (PCA) using the mini-fall-off software.
From the post-closure analysis (see Fig. 4), the reservoir pressure was estimated to be 5, 598 psi
(hydrostatic pressure offset from gage to perforations 647 psi). The transmissibility of the reservoir
(kh/) is 2, 747 mD.ft/cp, and taking the assumptions that the zone has a net height of 11 m (see Fig. 5)
and a reservoir fluid viscosity of 0.023 cp, the permeability can be estimated at 1.75 mD. From the logs,

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 6 Execution of the main hydraulic fracturing treatment on zone 1

the permeability ranges from 0.1 to 1 mD, which gives a good indication that the analysis provides an
accurate estimate. The above investigation is over a radius of 7.9 m from the wellbore.
The above reservoir pressure estimate of 5, 598 psi matches closely with the Horner plot interpretation,
from which the reservoir pressure was estimated to be 5, 721 psi. The lower bound of closure is 6, 450
psi, less than the determined pressure from the G-function and SRT analysis, which is expected.
The SDT showed the total near-wellbore friction to be approximately 2, 300 psi. Tortuosity was the
main contributor, with 67% of the total near-wellbore (NWB) friction. The remainder was made up of
perforation friction at approximately 759 psi.
Following the SDT, the decision was taken to pump a 1-ppa 100-mesh sand slug; this was pumped prior
to the calibration injection test to remove some of the NWB pressure drop. Following the sand slug, the
resulting instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) showed a total friction decrease of 900 psi at 35 bbl/min.
Following the diagnostic injections, a redesigned pump schedule was generated with a planned total
proppant of 301, 061 lbm pumped at 35 bbl/min and with a maximum concentration of 8 ppa. Because
of bottomhole pressure increases in the 6-ppa stage, the decision was taken to extend the 6-ppa stage and
not continue on to the 8-ppa stage. Following this 243, 125 lbm of proppant were placed in zone 1. The
execution plot of the treatment is presented in Fig. 6, and the estimated conductivity of the executed
fracture is presented in Fig. 7.
Similar workflows were applied for the subsequent fractures, and a summary of the diagnostic
injections is presented in Table 2. The hydraulic fracturing execution parameters are presented in Table
3.
A special mention needs to be given to the diagnostic injection in zone 4 targeting the Markham 2a
where the leakoff was very low and no fracture closure was seen during the decline period.
A summary of the hydraulic fractures placed within the reservoir structure can be seen in Fig. 8.

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 7Post job fracture conductivity profile

Table 2DIAGNOSTIC INJECTION PARAMETER SUMMARY
Fracture
1
2
3
4*

Pr [psi]

kh/ [md.ft/cp]

5, 498
5, 233
5, 360
-

2, 747
4, 965
2, 298
-

Initial NWB pressure drop [psi]

2,
3,
1,
2,

300
300
874
699

Closure pressure
(SRT) [psi]

Leakoff coefficient
[ft/min0.5]

7, 500
6, 200
7, 800
-

0.0031
0.0064
0.0037
0.0023

* no closure was observed in the decline of the 4th hydraulic fracture.

Table 3HYDRAULIC FRACTURING EXECUTION SUMMARY

Fracture

Total
proppant
[lbs]

1
2
3
4

243,
213,
320,
233,

Total clean
fluid [gal]

125
526
625
925

196,
212,
229,
145,

262
394
846
963

Maximum
concentration*
[ppa]
6
6
7
7

Maximum
surface
pressure [psi]
7,
8,
7,
8,

104
010
061
177

Maximum
bottomhole
pressure
[psi]

Maximum
pump rate
[bpm]

Screen out

9, 162
12, 074
10, 076
11, 541

35
40
40
36

N
N
N
Y

* Excluding the sand plug setting stage.

Zonal Isolation
Zonal isolation was successfully achieved by setting sand plugs between the subsequent fracturing stages.
To ensure the success of the plugs, the sand-plug slurry mix dissolvable fibers were added to enhance the
suspension and transport of the sand plug in the horizontal section.
Sand plugs as a method of zonal isolation in multistage fractured wells was pioneered in the North Sea
in the 1990s and was used in high leakoff formations where the dehydration of the slurry and setting of

10

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 8 Summary of hydraulic fracture placement

the sand plug occurred very quickly. In the recent years, this method was extended to tight gas reservoirs
in the southern North Sea, and because of the low leakoff of the formation compared to the sand settling
rates, the method has experienced a reduced rate of success (see Fig. 9) compared to the high-permeability
oil wells where the method was initially employed.
A thorough understanding of the proppant transport and settling mechanisms have helped enhance
sand-plug setting in horizontal wells with the addition of dissolvable fibers that can help transport the high
concentration slurry and keep the proppant in suspension for extended periods of time until the fracture
closes and the plug can be squeezed (see Fig. 10). The fibers dissolve in time, and the plugs can be easily
cleaned using coiled tubing (CT) direct or reverse circulation after all the stages have been placed.

Chemical Tracers
To evaluate the clean-out efficiency of the hydraulic fractures in each of the sand bodies and to provide
an overall contribution, qualitatively, of each stimulated zone, chemical tracers have been used for each
of the four fracturing treatments. Two tracers were used for every stage; one in the pad and one in the
slurry stages, which would help in identifying the flowback efficiency and breaker designs for each
fracture post stimulation.
A rigorous sampling schedule was designed at an early stage of the planning phase with a total of 29
samples taken during the clean-up phase of the well. The tracers themselves are chemicals found in nature
and from the family of fluorobenzoic Acids (i.e. non-radioactive).
The samples showed good breaking of the fracturing fluid with tracers recovered from slurry and pad
stages of all the fracturing stages. As was expected, a higher volume of tracer was recovered from the
slurry stages than from the pad. This is in agreement with the volume and amounts of breaker added to
the fluid. Fig. 11 shows the percentage of tracers recovered during the rig-based cleanup.

SPE-170852-MS

11

Figure 9 Example of a failed sand plug

Figure 10 Example of successful sand plug

Rig-based Cleanup
Once all fracturing operations were complete, a rig based cleanup and well test were conducted. As per
platform requirements, there was a maximum limit to both fluids handling and proppant production before
the well was considered clean and could be handed over to the operations group.
The rig cleanout commenced 19 October 2013. The well was gradually opened to limit the drag force
and prevent proppant production, as shown in Fig. 12. At the end of the cleanout, the choke size was
52/64-in. fixed at a flowing wellhead pressure (FWHP) of 3, 370 psi. The final gas rate was~45 MMscf/D,
with a condensate rate of 420 bbl/D and 179 bbl/D water/fracture fluid. The proppant rate traces died off
at the end, and the basic sediment & water (BSW) was at 38%.

12

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 11Tracer return vs flow back time

Figure 12Rig based clean-up parameters

SPE-170852-MS

13

Figure 13AOF well potential plot

During the cleanout, the cumulative condensate was 2, 470 bbl, with cumulative water volume of 5,
325 bbl. The total proppant that flowed back was 639.3 lbm. In addition, pressure/volume/temperature
(PVT) sampling was done.
Based on the overall clean-up and test what can be noted is the minimal amounts of proppant produced
during the test phase. This gave the Centrica team confidence in the resin coating curing process with the
high drawdowns applied to the well. The Centrica team then had sufficient confidence for the well
handover phase once the threshold limits were achieved.
The rig based clean-up also showed the deliverability of the well exceeding expectations and flowing
on a constrained choke setting of approximately 45 MMscf/D. The tubing performance relationship
utilizing the clean-up data indicated that the Kew well was capable of prolific instantaneous gas rates with
a potential AOF ranging 100 - 123 mmscfd (Fig. 13)

Subsea Infrastructure to Place Kew in Production and Normalized

Production Data to Date
The Kew field has been developed with a single subsea production well that is routed via a 3-km 6-in.
flexible pipeline to the Chiswick NUI platform, approximately 3.1 km to the west of the Kew wellhead.
Kew hydrocarbons are exported along with those of Chiswick to J6A, for processing via the existing
Chiswick to Markham 10-in. 18.3-km gas pipeline.

14

SPE-170852-MS

Figure 14 Subsea infrastructure layout

An umbilical provides power, hydraulics, and chemicals to the Kew wellhead. On arrival at the
Chiswick platform, the produced fluid is routed to the proppant removal facilities before comingling with
the Chiswick fluids and then exported to the compression facilities at Markham. The subsea layout is
presented in Fig. 14.

Conclusion
As the age of the massive gas fields comes to an end in the near future smaller reservoirs will need to be
developed to boost gas production in the North Sea and extend the life of the existing infrastructure.
Techniques such as horizontal drilling, subsea completions and hydraulic fracturing have helped
develop the Kew reservoir by boosting production and enhancing recovery to enable justification and
validation of the economics of the project.
The operational execution of hydraulic fracturing in subsea wells is always a challenging undertaking.
The lack of data for hydraulic fracturing design was overcome through extensive diagnostic injection
schedules and all the four fractures planned were successful and are contributing to the production of the
well as observed from the chemical tracer analysis and the excellent production results to date. The post
closure analysis has closely matched the results from the log measurements, and this analysis will be
employed during the diagnostic phase of future wells.
The performance of the well has surpassed Centricas expectations and continues to deliver and
produce at a healthy rate to this day, as can be seen in Appendix E.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the operational staff who were involved in the execution of the treatment
and acknowledge the management of both Centrica Energy and Schlumberger, for their kind permission
to publish this paper.

SPE-170852-MS

15

References
Bocaneala, B., Holland, B., Langford, M. E. et alet al. 2013. Offshore Horizontal Well Fracturing:
Operational Optimisation in the North Sea. Paper SPE 166550-MS presented at the SPE Offshore Europe
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 3 6 September.
Coughlan, G. and Holland, B. 2009. The Chiswick Field: Long Horizontal Wells and Innovative
Fracturing Solutions in a Low Permeability Sandstone Gas Reservoir in the North Sea. Paper SPE
124067-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
USA, 4 7 October.
Coughlan, G., Westera, D., and Ritzeman, K. 2013. The Long Gestation of a Small, Stranded Gas
Discovery in the Dutch Sector, North Sea. Paper SPE 166208-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September2 October.
Schulte, R., Lutgert, J., and Asschert, A. 2012. Stranded Gas in the Netherlands: What is the Potential?
Paper SPE 152357-MS presented at the SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and
Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 20 22 March.

16

SPE-170852-MS

Appendix A

Well Trajectory

SPE-170852-MS

17

Appendix B

Completion Design

18

SPE-170852-MS

Appendix C

Repeat Formation Tester Results for Target Intervals

Point

Sand

0
1

Markham 2a
Markham 2a

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

C1
C1
D2 (Upper Sand)
D2 (Upper Sand)
D2 (Middle Sand)
D2 (Middle Sand)
D2 (Middle Sand)
D2 (Lower Sand)
D2 (Lower Sand)
D2 (Lower Sand)
D2 (Lower Sand)
D2 (Lower Sand)
D2 (Lower Sand)
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4

Depth mMDBRT

Comments

Lower Leman
4370m MD
Very Tight (0.1mD)
4374m MD
Very Tight (0.1mD)
Westphalian A
4460m MD
Extremely Tight (0.01mD)
4467m MD
Extremely Tight (0.01mD)
4490m MD
Fair (1mD - 10mD)
4500m MD
Fair (1mD - 10mD)
4518m MD
Good (10mD - 100mD?)
4530m MD
Good (10mD - 100mD?)
4564m MD
Good (10mD - 100mD?)
4640m MD
Very Good (100mD?)
4677m MD
Very Good (100mD?)
4700m MD
Very Good (100mD?)
4743m MD
Very Good (100mD?)
4753m MD
Very Good (100mD?)
4767m MD
Very Good (100mD?)
4970 m MD
Fair/Good (~ 10mD)
4998m MD
Fair/Good (~ 10mD)
5028 m MD
Fair (1mD - 10mD)
5046 m MD
Tight (~ 1mD)
5076 m MD
Fair (1mD - 10mD)

Hydraulic fracture

FIP# 4
Contingent FIP

FIP# 3

FIP# 2

FIP# 1

SPE-170852-MS

19

Appendix D

Fracture Placement Selection Based on the CPI

20

SPE-170852-MS

Appendix E

Initial Production Data