SPE-184827-MS

Sequenced Fracturing Technique Improves Production from an

Underperforming Lateral: An Interpretation Based on High Frequency
Pressure Monitoring

Richard A. Klem, ConocoPhillips Alaska; Gunther Rutzinger, Schlumberger; Mark Shulman and Sandeep Pedam,
ConocoPhillips Alaska; Adam Keilers, Andrey Bogdan, and Dmitri Oussoltsev, Schlumberger

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.

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
Well "A" was drilled as a horizontal unstimulated producer in the Kuparuk oil reservoir. Though fracturing
was considered during the design phase, the operator wanted to evaluate the well's performance without
stimulation. The well was completed with a liner with 10 perforated pups spaced evenly along the wellbore
without annular isolation. When production from the well fell short of expectations, hydraulic fracturing
was considered, but the completion limited the options to effectively stimulate the lateral.
The chosen fracturing treatment was designed to balance maximum reservoir contact with economic
considerations. In an attempt to place more than a single fracture at the weakest point of the 3,242 ft. lateral,
it was decided to attempt eight fracturing stages separated by diversion pills. High-frequency (200 Hz)
pressure transducers were used on the treating line. The data obtained from water hammers at the end of
each stage allowed the estimation of diversion performance between fractures for each stage.
The stimulation treatment was pumped in the middle of the arctic winter, placing 580,000 lbm of 16/20
mesh ceramic proppant. The amount and placement of sequenced fracturing diversion material, consisting
of a composite fluid with multimodal degradable particles and fibers, was adjusted based upon the surface
pressure responses throughout the treatment. High-frequency pressure monitoring data revealed a shift in
the fracture initiation along the lateral, and post-fracturing production exceeded expectations at 1,500 BOPD
and stabilized near 300 BOPD, which is on par with project expectations.
High-frequency pressure monitoring applied to the evaluation of fracturing operations is still in its
infancy, and there are limitations of this technique for wells with open hole completions. Combining high
frequency pressure monitoring, ISIP data and post frac production data, it appears that sequencing fracturing
diversion material can help to initiate more than one unique fracture.

Introduction
The Kuparuk River Oil Pool was discovered in 1969 by Sinclair Oil Corporation and partner BP Exploration
(Alaska) Inc. Well Ugnu No. 1 had about 30 feet of net pay and testing at 1,056 BOPD from the Kuparuk
horizon. Shortly after discovery, Sinclair was purchased by Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO), and Kuparuk
2 SPE-184827-MS

field delineation and development planning were underway (Jensen et al., 2012). The Kuparuk River
Unit (KRU) is now operated by ConocoPhillips Alaska on behalf of the KRU working interest owners;
ConocoPhillips Alaska, BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron.
The Kuparuk sands are separated into upper and lower units by a regional unconformity. The lower A and
B units are made up of mostly regressive sand and shale sequences with the A sand much more developed
than the overlying B sand. The upper C and D sand units are mineralogically complex and represent a
regional transgressive phase.
The Kuparuk reservoir produces from two horizons. The upper zone, the C sand, is a very fine-to-coarse-
grained quartzose sandstone over 100 ft. thick with over 80 ft. of net pay. With an average permeability of
130 mD and ranging up to 2600 mD, the C sand typically produces at rates from 1,000 to 5,000 BLPD. The
A sand in the lower producing zone, is present throughout the field and contains 65% of the recoverable oil
in place. The average net thickness is typically less than 30 ft. with permeability ranging from 20 to 100 mD.
The moderately permeable A sand has low initial rates due to damage from drilling and completion fluids
resulting in unstimulated production rates of 300 BOPD or less in vertical and deviated wells. (Pospisil et
al., 1992)

Evolution of Kuparuk A sand frac programs

The first Kuparuk A sand fracture program began in 1984 purely as a process to overcome near wellbore
damage created during drilling operations. The combination of mud filtrate, cement filtrate, and water
block from completion fluids as well as possible clay dispersion were measured and determined to have
reduced initial flow efficiency to averaging 55%. Over the next few years, these treatments were small-
scale-single stage fractures pumped out of deviated wellbores. After several phases of optimization, the
standard treatment design for the mid-1980s consisted of 12,000 lbm of 20/40 ceramic proppant pumped in
an average of 218 bbls of gelled diesel along with inert fluid loss additives. (Niemeyer et al, 1986).
Optimization continued in the fracturing campaigns in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Diagnostic testing
through calibration tests and mini fractures led to the removal of 100 mesh sand and the reduction of silica
flour during the pad stages as fluid loss additives, resulting in increases in well productivity. The trend
of increasing fracture conductivity continued with the change to 16/20 and 12/18 mesh highly conductive
ceramic proppant. Treatment sizes also increased exponentially from 20,000-30,000 lbm to over 200,000
lbm of proppant pumped per stage. These changes resulted in flow efficiency from roughly 150% to an
average of 300% (Pearson et al., 1992). In addition to a highly successful stimulation campaign on new
wells, an aggressive re-fracture campaign began to improve productivity on some of the first fractured
wells that were underperforming. This program continued the optimization of increasing the proppant size,
reducing fluid loss additives, and increasing the proppant pounds placed per net pay footage, resulting in
increasing flowing efficiency (Pospisil et al., 1992).
Prior to 1991, all the fracture stimulations in the Kuparuk A sand were single-stage treatments in deviated
wells. Then, in 1991, 1R-21 was drilled as a horizontal well with a 709 ft. cemented lateral perforated
with 2 spf. After 15 months of production, the well was stimulated with 356,000 lbm of 12/18 low-density
ceramic proppant, the largest Kuparuk fracture at the time. The stimulation was viewed as a success because
it increased the pre-stimulation production rate by 250% (Pearson et al., 1996). The success of this well
and many others following led to the current standardized Kuparuk A sand producer design of a horizontal
well with longitudinal fractures. As optimization continued, the designs changed from two-stage toe and
heel fractures pumped with workover rigs, to the current design with multiple ball-activated fracture sleeves
and swell packers.
In 2014, the advancements in multi stage horizontal fracturing technology were applied for the first time
in the operator's Kuparuk A sands with a 7-stage fracture on Well "B". This well utilized ball-activated
fracture sleeves separated by external swellable packers for fracture stage isolation. The fracture stages
consisted of 100,000 to 125,000 lbm of 16/20 mesh low-density ceramic proppant pumped up to 8 ppa in
SPE-184827-MS 3

a borate-based crosslinked gel fluid at 20 bpm. The 3-in. production tubing restricted higher rates due
to excessive friction loss, especially at the higher proppant concentration stages. The success of this well
design and stimulation strategy has become the new standardized completion for Kuparuk A sand producers.
In an effort to better understand the maximum and minimum horizontal stress direction in the southern
extent of the Kuparuk A sand, an array of 53 tiltmeters was installed prior to fracturing operations on Well
"B", as shown on (Figure 1). The fracture azimuth interpreted from these results agreed with previously
measured stress directions from two other wells in the field. The results showed that the average fracture
azimuth was N18W resulting in largely longitudinal fractures as anticipated (Figure 1). This is the direction
of maximum and minimum stresses that were anticipated in the lateral of the candidate well, Well "A".
This is critical since Well "A" is oriented east to west, unlike the standard trajectory of north to south. This
resulted in transverse fractures in Well "A", unlike the standard longitudinal design.

Figure 1 Tiltmeter array and interpretation for Well "B" fracture job.

Candidate Well "A"

Well "A" was drilled as a 3,240-ft. lateral targeting both the Kuparuk C4 and A3 sands in the southwest flank
of the Kuparuk field. The primary objectives for Well "A" were to replace a previously abandoned well,
increase production at the southwestern margin of the field, and to investigate the presence and quality of
Kuparuk C4 and A3 sands beyond the limits of the existing well control. The greatest risk for production of
Well "A" was drilling outside of existing well controls on the western periphery. Initial analysis determined
that the well should meet production expectations without being stimulated.
The initial decision to not stimulate the well was made due to east/west trajectory of the well, the
expected inflow performance of the horizontal lateral, and the production analogs of a nearby well. One
of the considerations for stimulating the well was that Kuparuk's fracture orientations generally propagate
in north-south orientation (Griffin, 1985), and this was verified by the Well "B" tiltmeter analysis. The
production lateral for Well "A" was planned to be drilled with an east-west orientation, which would produce
transverse fractures. An additional reason not to stimulate the lateral initially was the successful inflow rates
of numerous unstimulated long horizontal laterals drilled with coiled tubing.
4 SPE-184827-MS

Well "A" is located in the south-west part of the Kuparuk reservoir, where the deposition of the A and C
sand lay right on top of each other without any barrier. The expected reservoir properties of Well "A" were
approximately 10 ft. of net pay from the C4 sand with an average permeability of 61 mD, average porosity
of 16%, and approximately 15 ft. of net pay from A3 sands with an average permeability of 132 mD and
average porosity of 23%. Young's Modulus for both sands was expected to be in the order of 2.1E+06 psi.
As the well departed from existing well control, reservoir and geologic uncertainty increased. In case of
underperforming production results, the possibility of hydraulic stimulation was considered.

Completion Challenges
There are many challenges to drilling and completing a Kuparuk sand horizontal that has been subjected to
waterflood for over 30 years. Based on offset injectors, the reservoir pressure for Well "A" was estimated
to be in the range of 11.7 to 12.3 ppg for the Kuparuk A3 sand. This elevated reservoir pressure combined
with weak layers in the upper section required the intermediate casing to be set above the sands, landing in
the confining shale layer above the reservoir. These shales are known to be unstable, and the shales below
the intermediate shoe have caused issues while running the production liners in the past. For this reason, the
number of external swell packers run on the liner was limited to increase the chances of landing the liner at
the desired TD. This resulted in a balance between the desired isolation of both faults, and desired offtake
points, and the operational risks of the liner hanging up in the collapsing shales.
Another challenge to Arctic completion operations is the high daily spread rates of the purpose-built
drilling rigs, which are required for year-round operations in the harsh environment, especially as compared
to typical pulling units. These higher spread rates can make simple workovers and tubing swaps less
economical or even uneconomic. As a result, the majority of Kuparuk hydraulic stimulations are pumped
down the production tubing to reduce the costs of swapping tubing from a fracture string to the production
tubing. This severely restricts completion options, as the majority of tubing is 3-in. to support gas lift.

Final Completion
Several alternative lower completion options for Well "A" were evaluated during the planning stage other
than the final design. The first option was preferred if fracture stimulation was to not be considered at all
during the life of the well. This consisted of a slotted liner completion for maximum flow area through the
liner to minimize any flow convergence. The second completion option if a fracture stimulation was to be
completed immediately after drilling with no unstimulated production was the standard Kuparuk A sand
producer design; ball-activated-fracture sleeves with external swell packers. However, this did not meet the
criteria of evaluating unstimulated flow in the lateral as inflow would be limited to the toe section by the
swell packers. A third option that was not thoroughly evaluated due to capital constraints was coiled tubing
shifted fracture sleeves that could be opened and closed multiple times.
The final completion was designed to accommodate initial unstimulated production, while retaining the
ability to stimulate should production not meet expectations. The completion design met these objectives,
while keeping capital costs low during a low-price environment in order to remain a profitable project.
The lower completion consists of a 4-in. liner with 10 pre-perforated pups (Figure 2). The pre-perforated
pups were spaced evenly along the length of the lateral, with consideration to reservoir quality during the
placement. The original design included several external swellable packers for fault isolation, but all swell
packers with the exception of one at the heel were abandoned because of issues encountered during the
drilling phase. The heel swell packer was installed to isolate the confining shale that was prone to collapse
from the producing interval. The liner was tied back to the 7-5/8-in. intermediate casing with a liner hanger
and a liner top packer with seal bore assembly. The upper completion consists of 3-in. production tubing
that was stung into the seal bore assembly on the liner top packer. Multiple gas lift mandrels were run on
the upper completion for artificial lift during production.
SPE-184827-MS 5

Figure 2 Well "A" completion sketch.

This completion presented many challenges for any future hydraulic stimulation along the length of the
lateral. First off, there is no external isolation between each pre-perforated pup. Without adequate isolation,
the ability to initiate multiple unique fractures using conventional dynamic diversion techniques (such as
ball sealers) was doubtful. The use of this completion technique in other fields on the North Slope and
the impact on production were documented by Bond et al., 2015. Further compounding the challenge of
multiple fracture initiation points, the lateral crossed into both the C4 and A3 sands, which have drastically
different rock mechanic properties. The heel of the lateral crossed the C4 sand before crossing into the A3.
The lateral then undulated up back into the C4 before returning back into the A3 prior to crossing into the
western fault block. In the western fault block the lateral was landed in both the A3 and C4 pay (Figure 3).
6 SPE-184827-MS

Figure 3 Well "A" cross section.

Additionally, because the inner diameter (ID) of the tubing is smaller than the liner ID, the options to
selectively and economically isolate specific zones along the lateral for targeted fracture stimulation were
limited.

Production Results
While drilling the well, logging while drilling showed lower quality sands than expected. The resistivity
was not as high as predicted in the A3 sands and was lower in some C4 sands as well. The well's planned in
pay length was 3,117 ft. though the actual was 2,168 ft. The eastern fault block of the well was 88% in zone
and the western fault block was only 30% in zone (see Fault 1 in Figure 3). The C and A sand thickness at
the heel was almost equal to the forecasted thickness of 25 ft. The sand thickness at the toe of the lateral
was forecasted to be 15 ft. and was found to be too thin at approximately 10 ft. with no A3 sands. The
resulting production rate of the unstimulated Well "A" was lower than forecasted (see Figure 4). Well "A"
was forecast to have an average oil production rate of 460 BOPD for the first 12 months (1,362 BLPD).
The actual oil production rate was an average of 185 BOPD for the first 11 months (270 BLPD).

Figure 4Prefracturing production, expected versus actual.

SPE-184827-MS 7

To ensure no obstruction in the wellbore impeded production rates, a coil tubing unit (CTU) was used
to perform a fill cleanout of the lateral. The CTU cleaned out the production lateral to the toe and used
nitrogen to help kick off the well. The fill cleanout returned no solids and it did not result in a production
rate increase. The PTA data was analyzed and modeled and confirmed the extremely high skin. The data
reinforced that even with a 2,200 ft. production lateral, the well was producing similar to a non-stimulated
A-sand vertical well. This finding ultimately triggered the decision to stimulate the well.

Frac Design
Stimulation Planning
During the stimulation planning phase, the operator asset team considered a single-stage fracture, planning
to place 200,000 lbm of 16/20 lightweight ceramic proppant (LWP), in line with recent single-stage fracture
jobs described in the evolution of Kuparuk A sand fractures. However, the completion did not allow the
targeting of certain portions of the reservoir, as is commonly done with new completions using ball-drop
actuated sleeves. Since the conscious choice was made during the well design stage to not install such a
completion, the fracture would be allowed to initiate at the weakest portion of the reservoir. For better
reservoir management, it was desirable to initiate multiple fractures, preferably spaced out evenly along
the wellbore, which would maximize reservoir coverage. A combination of ball sealers and a sequenced
fracturing technique (SFT) was considered (Kramer et al., 2014), but not pursued, because the ball sealers
would only plug the perforated pups. Without isolation in the open hole, there was no way to ensure the
initiation of multiple unique fractures initiation along the lateral. For this reason, near-wellbore diversion
that bridged off inside the fracture itself was desirable. To meet the desired criteria, SFT was chosen for
stimulation.
The sequenced fracturing technique offered the following advantages:

Utilization of degradable materials under in-situ conditions at a bottomhole static temperature of

160F [71C]
Diversion occurs near the wellbore in a perforated pup completion without swell packers

Ability to adjust diversion strategy during stimulation treatment based on surface pressure response

Stage size and rate limitations

Based on field experience, it was understood that pump rate would be limited by the 3-in. tubing. Friction
loss in 3-in. tubing was observed on an array of wells in Kuparuk by comparing the downhole gauge data
with the surface pressure as shown in Figure 5. Especially during high proppant concentration, increasing
friction was seen as illustrated on Figure 5, requiring that the pump rate be lowered while using the high
proppant concentrations, a tactic that resulted in screenout in other wells. The planned rate for the treatment
was 30 bpm, based on the treating pressure that was observed during the mini fracture.
8 SPE-184827-MS

Figure 5 Proppant friction losses for 3-in. tubing in Kuparuk fractures.

After some discussion between the operator and service company, it was agreed to start with a
conservative fracture design for the first four stages, capping proppant concentration at 6 ppa and 75,000 lbm
of proppant per stage. At the second half of the treatment the maximum proppant concentration and volume
would be increased to 8 ppa and 87,000 lbm of proppant. A key factor in the stage size discussions was the
as drilled azimuth of the lateral. Unlike the standard north-south trajectory of horizontal multi-stage fracture
producers, Well "A" was drilled with an east-west trajectory. This orientation would result in transverse
fractures instead of the more desirable Kuparuk standard longitudinal fractures. As a countermeasure,
minimizing the fracture half-length would reduce the risk of early waterflood breakthrough into the propped
fracture. Limitations on pump timing were an additional reason to reduce the stage sizes; current Kuparuk
fracturing operations are not set up for 24-hour work days for a multitude of reasons, primarily because of
limitations on the supply of water and proppant. The degradation rates of the diversion material required
pumping operations to be completed in one day. This also limited the number and size of stages, along with
the amount of proppant that could be pumped.
Key parameters for the early and late stages are shown in Table 1. The simulations use a cell-based
pseudo-3D fracturing model with one single active fracture per stage.

Table 1A design comparison of stages 1 through 4 and stages 5 through 8.

Stages 1-4 Stages 5-8

Slurry volume (bbl) 980 1,010

Fluid volume (bbl) 900.6 917.6

Proppant quantity (lbm) 75,376 87,755

Maximum proppant concentration (ppa) 6 8

Dirty pad ratio (%) 38% 37%

Propped half-length (ft.) 280.6 282.5

Hydraulic height (ft.) 146.3 147.0

Average propped width (in) 0.090 0.144

FCD 4.4 5.1

Note: Not included in the table above are mini-fractures before stage 1 and flush at the end of stage 8.
SPE-184827-MS 9

Pre-planning
The typical fracturing fluid used in the Kuparuk formation by the operator is a seawater-base, as logistics
makes this choice more attractive than trucking in fresh water. To reduce friction and allow an increased
pump rate, the fluid is a 27 lbm/1,000gal guar-base with a delayed borate crosslinker. Crosslink delay times
are typically 1 to 2 minutes. Special care is taken to ensure shear degradation is minimized and that the
fluid regains full viscosity after high shear in the tubing in less than 1 minute (Hodge et al., 2010; Bjornen
et al., 2011). The target viscosity of the fluid is more than 400 cP at 100 s-1.
The SFT pill uses the same linear gel in the base fracture fluid with the addition of degradable particles
and fibers, which are illustrated in Figure 6. A mix of different particle sizes is used to improve bridging
at the fracture face, aided by fiber, which also prevents the particle from stringing out while being pumped
downhole. With these materials, successful diversion was achieved with small quantities of material,
typically in the 150 lbm range and small pill volumes (Kraemer et al., 2014; Madsen et al., 2015). Up to
250 lbm of particles can be mixed in 5 bbl of linear gel. To aid in field delivery, the particles come pre-
blended to the location, with the fibers added separately.
During the last minute of the final proppant step in each stage, fiber was added in the blender at 20
lbm/1,000gal. This was to aid with diversion, but at the same time to minimize overflush and deployment
of the SFT pill immediately following the last proppant step. A contingency was discussed to start adding
SFT material during the last proppant step, depending on diversion signatures.
To flush the SFT pump from the diversion material, a 20 bbl spacer was scheduled consisting of 27
lbm/1,000 gal guar-base linear gel. Following this spacer, the pad of the next stage was started and used to
displace the previous stage in order to minimize pumping time and the volume of fluid required.

Figure 6 Diversion material and conceptual view of diversion at the fracture face.

Execution
Sequenced fracturing technique rig-up in Arctic conditions
The fracturing equipment was spotted on location and rigged up on the gravel pad. In addition to the standard
equipment for multistage pumping operations, a batch mixer and dedicated triplex pump were rigged in.
The line from this SFT pump joined the main line downstream of the other pumps, as illustrated in Figure
7. Due to the prolonged shut in of the SFT pump, the risk of freezing the line had to be addressed, because
10 SPE-184827-MS

operations continue even in Arctic conditions of -35F (-37C). Since this was not the first treatment of this
kind in Alaska, the following lessons learned / best practices were applied:

Linear gel was prepared in the hydration unit and sent to an insulated vacuum truck, which was
then spotted right next to the SFT batch mixer.
When linear gel was needed in the batch mixer, it could be pulled on and the line vacuumed out
when not in use.
The low-pressure, discharge hose running from the batch mixer to the SFT pump, was covered in
a heater trunk and kept warm with hot air throughout the treatment.
The fluid end on the SFT pump, including the suction and discharge manifold, were covered in a
sturdy plastic tarpaulin, and again kept warm with hot air blowers.
The high pressure lines to the junction with the main line were covered in tarpaulin and kept warm
with hot air blowers.

Figure 7Wellsite rig-up for sequence fracturing technique.

High Frequency Pressure Monitoring Sensor Requirements

For the high frequency pressure monitoring (HFPM) (Bogdan et al,. 2016), two additional sensors are
required; one for the tubing and another for the annulus. These pressure transducers are the same style as
used for regular pressure monitoring of pumping jobs. Contrary to conventional treatment monitoring, where
one pressure data point is recorded per second, the sampling rate with HFPM records data 200 times per
second. The standardized treatment monitoring vans were never designed for such a high-frequency pressure
acquisition. To address this requirement, a standalone data acquisition box was designed and manufactured.
The acquired data from this box is sent to the engineer's laptop for interpretation at the wellsite and stored
for further analysis post-job.

Treatment Execution
All the treatment data, including for the mini-fracture, is shown in Figure 8. The maximum allowable treating
pressure was 7,400 psi with 4,000 psi applied on the annulus.
SPE-184827-MS 11

Figure 8 Treatment plot

Due to the cold temperatures on location, the decline of the mini-fracture could only be monitored for
half an hour before pumping had to resume to keep the lines from freezing. The mini-fracture analysis on
location indicated low fluid efficiency, as shown in Figure 9. To compensate, the gel loading of the fluid
was increased from 27 ppt to 30 ppt and the 6 ppa step of the first stage was omitted. These measures
increased the pad ratio from 38% to 44%, thus minimizing the screenout risk. In addition, the pumping rate
was reduced to 20 bpm, in anticipation of rising pressure during the treatment as a result of proppant friction.

Figure 9G-function plot of calibration decline

12 SPE-184827-MS

The first fracture was successful. The diversion pill was pumped by bringing the sequenced fracturing
pump online while maintaining a constant blender rate. This was done to minimize the risk of screenout
while decreasing the rate with 6 ppa slurry still being placed into the formation. When all of proppant and
diversion pill had been pumped into the formation, the pumps were shut down for a short time to obtain an
instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) measurement to evaluate diversion.
Since stage 1 was pumped without problems, stage 2 was modified slightly from the original design by
reducing the 4 to 6 ppa steps to 80 bbl each, increasing the pad ratio to 42%. In addition, the pump rate was
increased to 25 bpm, as pressure during stage 1 was encouraging. The stage was placed without problems
and it was decided to revert back to the original fracturing design for subsequent stages.
For stages 3 and 4 the pump rate was again increased, this time to 30 bpm. Proppant friction is evident
during higher proppant concentration (Figure 8).
To aid with diversion, the decision was made to pump the pills into the formation at 12 bpm during stage
4 and then increase the rate to 20 to 25 bpm before shutdown to obtain a representative ISIP.
Based on the treating pressures of 6,500 psi reached during stages 3 and 4, it was decided to pump the
remaining stages at 25 bpm because higher proppant friction was anticipated during the 7 and 8 ppa steps.
During the 5 ppa step of stage 5, the blender engine shut down. Pumping was resumed at a reduced rate
with linear gel from the SFT pump while the blender was re-started and used to flush the remainder of the
stage. With the SFT pill placed, the pumps were shut down to load additional linear gel on the vac truck
to pump the remaining diversion pills.
Stage 6 was pumped according to the design. For stage 7, the proppant concentration was increased to 10
ppa as the diversion pill was started in an attempt to improve diversion. For stage 8, the pad was increased
by 20 bbl and 80 bbl of 10 ppa slurry were added to the end of the stage to make up for the proppant omitted
during stage 1 and 5.
The well was freeze-protected with an estimated volume of 38 bbl of freeze protect past the wellhead.

Interpretation
Pressure trends
The default method of nonintrusive diversion material monitoring tracks the change in the instantaneous
shut-in pressure (ISIP) after each pill is placed. An increase in ISIP may indicate fluid diversion. An
algorithm ignoring fracture initiation has been developed based on limited entry values to describe how the
diversion material plugs the fractures and changes the pressure (Kraemer et al., 2014). Figure 10 indicates the
ISIP reading after each diversion pill placement. From stages 1 through 3, the ISIP continuously increased,
indicating that fluid was possibly diverted away from the original entry point. At stage 4 a significant
decrease in ISIP occurred. The change in ISIP indicates something happened, but a direct interpretation of
the downhole environment is not available in real-time. Combining this method with HFPM provides some
insight into which fractures are accepting fluid.
SPE-184827-MS 13

Figure 10ISIP trends

Table 2 presents the SFT data recorded during the treatment, with Figure 10 displaying the ISIP data in a
simplified form. It can be seen that that with the exceptions of stages 1 and 4, ISIP had an increasing trend
for the entire treatment. The decreasing trends from the mini-fracture ISIP to after the first SFT pill and
from stage 3 and 4 may indicate that lower-stressed rock was broken.

Table 2Diversion summary

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7 Stage 8

Initial ISIP (psi) 1,865 1,714 1,818 1,988 1,714 1,726 1,927 2,227

Final ISIP (psi) 1,714 1,818 1,988 1,714 1,726 1,927 2,227 2,383

ISIP gain (psi) -151 104 170 -274 12 201 300 156

Pill rate (bpm) 25 25 30 12 12 12 30-12 n/a

Pressure before pill (psi) 4,031 3,764 4,517 2,500 2,605 2,708 3,869 n/a

Pressure after pill (psi) 4,470 4,103 4,631 2,700 2,780 3,013 4,145 n/a

Pressure gain (psi) 439 339 114 200 175 305 276 n/a

Pill volume (bbl) 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 n/a

Diversion material amount 200 250 300 400 400 500 500 n/a
(lbm)

Fiber concentration (ppt) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 n/a

Note: Pill volume refers to the concentrated pill mixed in the batch mixer. The diversion pump delivers this pill at 6.5 bpm into the main fluid stream to achieve
the total rate. In the case of the 30 bpm slurry rate, 5 bbl of pill gets diluted to 23 bbl slurry.

Post-Fracture Model Match

After the fracturing treatment, a history matched pressure model was generated to understand the fracturing
results for Well "A" and to establish a basis for future design. The modeling software used was a planar 3D
geometry fracture simulator with a fully coupled fluid/solid transport simulator.
The workflow model populated logs for a reference well within range of the Well "A" lateral, projected
logs onto the lateral, populated fracturing data into the model, analyzed the mini-fracture to calibrate grid
14 SPE-184827-MS

stress, calibrated grid leakoff using pressure history matching the mini-fracture, and matched the pressure
history to actual fracturing data. There were several challenges throughout the modeling process. The nearest
pilot hole, was approximately 2.25 miles to the south of the Well "A" wellbore. It is important to note that
both wellbores have different sand packages: Well "A" contains both A and C-sand packages while the pilot
hole contains an A-sand package, but a very minimal C-sand package. Both the distance and the disparity
in sand packages make grid setup rather challenging. In addition to this, the pilot hole has compressional
sonic data (no shear) over the overburden and the Kuparuk A-sand. No core data is available at this time.
Therefore, in order to decrease uncertainty, the modeling workflow mentioned in the paragraph above
was implemented. The mini-fracture (pumped prior to stage 1) was analyzed to determine closure pressure
and calibrate the stress grid. The mini-fracture was shut in for approximately 30 minutes. The maximum
rate achieved was 30 bpm with a maximum pressure of 6,211 psi. Figure 9 shows the G-function plot with a
closure pressure of 4,193 psi at 21 minutes, i.e., a closure pressure gradient of 0.69 psi/ft. This data was used
to calibrate the stress grid in the absence of complete sonic log data. Note that all perforated pups are open
to flow during both the mini-fracture and all fracture stages, making it challenging to determine a single
closure event, given that formation breakdown could have happened at multiple perforations.
After the stress calibration, the mini-fracture itself was also pressure history-matched to calibrate leakoff
in the model. A good match for the entire shut-in period of approximately thirty minutes was generated in
the model. Also, the mini-fracture model indicates primary breakthrough at the heel perforations instead of
the toe perforations. No diversion material was pumped at this time and fluid was taking the path of least
resistance. After the grid calibration process was complete, post-fracturing data from stages 4 and 5 in the
model was used to generate a pressure history match. There were a few challenges related to replicating
diversion technology in the software, given that diversion techniques are not readily available in the software
catalogue. 100 mesh was used in the model as a diversion agent during stages 4 and 5. Model results indicate
a decent match during the shut-in period as seen in Figure 11. Figure 11 also shows a net pressure plot
indicating primary placement at the heel over the toe. The modeled maximum fracture width, at 0.373 in.
for stages 4 and 5 (5 ppa max), coupled with a low Young's modulus of 2.1E+06 psi could have caused
poor bridging of the diversion material.

Figure 11 Pressure history match stages 4 and 5. Net pressure plot (pressure history match results).

High-Frequency Pressure Monitoring (HFPM) Theory

HFPM is a nonintrusive method to monitor multistage operations. The method uses real time analysis of
well pressure recorded at surface at a high frequency. The pressure response for transient flow due to rapid
SPE-184827-MS 15

changes in flow rate (such as the result of rapid shut-in) is of the most interest. When a flowing fluid is
forced to stop or change direction suddenly (e.g., the pump shutdown at the end of a hydraulic fracturing
treatment), a pressure surge (pulse or wave) is generated (Figure 12). This pressure pulse is called a water
hammer (Streeter, 1958). The pressure pulse travels down the wellbore and interacts with any change in
wellbore geometry (such as change in diameter, or the presence of an obstacle or set equipment like a bridge
plug) or wellbore integrity (such as a leak or hydraulic fracture) in its path. The result of each interaction is
an altered pressure wave (reflection) returning towards the surface. The surface is also a reflection point so
waves reemit to the wellbore and the process repeats with gradual attenuation. These periods of oscillations
(see Figure 12) in pressure are often called water hammers.

Figure 12 Water Hammer

The exact period, shape, amplitude, and attenuation time of water hammer oscillations are determined by
the depths and parameters of the reflectors (the hydraulic fractures). In the analysis conducted by HFPM,
a water hammer period is accurately modeled. Its half-period corresponds to the time the pressure wave
takes to travel from the surface to the fracture and back to the surface. However, due to its highly nonlinear
nature, the water hammer requires a nontrivial analysis to accurately determine the depth of reflector. The
water hammer wave attenuates in time with the fluid flow pattern changing from turbulent to laminar with
a corresponding change of friction and drop in pressure. Fluid that continuously leaks to the fracture(s)
should also be accounted for. These factors lead to a continuous increase of the apparent period of the water
hammer wave with the number of oscillations (Bergant et al., 2008).

HFPM Interpretation
HFPM conducted in real-time provides an additional interpretation of the ISIP signatures after each stage.
By extracting the period, we can begin to interpret the primary fracture accepting fluid in real-time on
location to provide diagnostic information at the wellsite. This well marked the first time that HFPM
was implemented on a conventional uncemented liner with perforated pups. This type of completion
presents several challenges for this technology. First, the diameter change from the production tubing to the
uncemented liner cannot be too large. It is possible that this diameter change could cause a large amount
of acoustic impedance that masks the reflections from the fractures near it. Published data indicates that at
a diameter change from 3-in. to 5-in. (2-in. change) reflects approximately 20% of the signal back to
surface (Hutin et al., 2001). The diameter change in this case was only 1-in., therefore more than 80% of
16 SPE-184827-MS

the wave's energy remains to reflect from fractures below the transition. If this diameter changed proved to
be the main reflection point during analysis, no significant shift in the reflected signal would occur.
The next challenge is detecting all of the fractures along the length of the wellbore that are taking fluid.
Each fracture that reflects a pressure wave, absorbs some of the acoustic energy. As this wave travels back
to the surface enough energy must remain to measure the reflection point of the signal. Therefore, if many
fractures near the heel exist, they can reflect enough acoustic energy to prevent detection of open fractures
near the toe. The last challenge to consider is the quality of the signal. Each ISIP is generated by the shutdown
of fracturing pumps. A standard shutdown procedure has been developed to prevent additional noise from a
fracturing fleet, but the signal can be further influenced by the completion of the well bore. Figure 2 displays
that several gas lift valves exist along the tubing that can further influence the quality of the signal.
Despite these challenges, HFPM was able to provide valuable information during the progression of
fracture development throughout the job. Figure 13 is a time/space diagram of the fracture initiation points.
The analysis of a water hammer event returns the depth of the stimulated fracture. The width of the bell
shape reflects the estimated error of the fracture depth, which depends on the quality and shape of the water
hammer signal. For simplicity, we will refer to the bell shape as an event. The numbers to the left coincide
to the event number and the labels describe the stage of the well the event occurred in. At the bottom, a
wellbore diagram provides reference to the completion and to the depth of the event.

Figure 13 Time/space diagram of HFPM reflection points.

The water hammer analysis from the mini-fracture (event 1) through stage 3 shows the main reflection
point remained near the heel of the wellbore. At stage 4, a significant shift in the depth of the reflection
occurred, indicating possible diversion. Further analysis confirms a 99% probability that fluid diverted from
stage 3 to 4. This calculated probability is based on the depth and error associated with each event. In
comparison, the probability of diversion between events 5 and 6 is 66% and between stages 7 and 8 is
86%. These indications of diversion correlate well to the decrease in ISIP pressure from Figure 10. The
well had not previously been fractured, so by combining both data sources one can conclude that at least
SPE-184827-MS 17

one fracture initiated below the initial fracture and became the main reflection point, causing the decrease
in ISIP pressure. The remaining events also indicate that the fracturing fluid entered below the original
fracture. This HPFM interpretation is supported by the production results and provided valuable real-time
insight to the diversion material operation.

Results
After the fracture was complete, the well was flowed into a portable test separator. The purpose of the
portable separator was to collect loose proppant and any potentially undissolved SFT particles and fibers.
The largest risk for the facilities identified in pre-job planning was the potential for undissolved fibers to
plug the drillsite permanent separator, downstream pipeline, or the central production facilities. If any of the
major facilities were affected by fibers, the resulting downtime would be very costly. Therefore, a thorough
understanding of the fiber degradation rate was required. Figure 14 shows the degradation rate for the fibers
pumped at two different temperatures.

Figure 14 SFT particle degradation time.

The bottomhole temperature of Well "A" is 160 deg F; therefore, the time from fracturing to flowback
was planned as 10 days minimum. Twelve days after the fracturing operation, a coiled tubing cleanout was
performed to total depth to remove any proppant or diversion material left in the wellbore. There was no
hard tag indication and minimal returns were observed during cleanout, indicating the majority of the job
was pumped into the formation successfully. After cleanout, the well was kicked off with a nitrogen lift and
flowback was routed through a portable test separator.
The well was flowed back through the portable test separator for five days. The flowback procedure called
for the well to be kicked off without artificial lift. After two days of minimal flow, gas lift was initiated and
the flow rate climbed quickly, maxing out at a peak rate of over 4,200 BOPD with 17% water cut (Figure
15). During the flowback, only trace amounts of proppant and fibers were found in the test separator. No
indications of fibers or the diversion material was found downstream indicating adequate degradation.
18 SPE-184827-MS

Figure 15Post-fracturing flowback.

Figure 16 shows the oil production history of the well, with the fracture pumped in March 2016. Post-
fracturing high liquid rates quickly fell off during the month after the treatment. Post-fracture production
rates averaged 460 BOPD, 780 BWPD, with a 61% water cut. Six months after the fracture, the well is
producing more than double the pre-fracture oil rate. Post-frac inflow performance modeling showed the
well producing from ~800 ft. of the lateral with a skin of -4.5 matching the post-frac production rates. This
modeled flowing lateral length compares with the ~650 ft. of stimulated lateral estimated from the HFPM
data, supporting the conclusion of several fractures initiated along the heel 1/3 of the lateral.

Figure 16 Six months post-fracture the well is producing more than double the pre-fracture rate.
SPE-184827-MS 19

Conclusions and Observations

1. While the project was successful in meeting production targets, it did not fulfill the objective of
stimulating the entire length of the lateral. Combining the ISIP, HFPM data and inflow performance
modeling to match post production rates, it is apparent that only the heel section of the lateral was
effectively stimulated. The data does indicate that more than one fracture was initiated, with the
possibility of several unique fractures, all located in the heel portion of the lateral. Inconclusive
pressure indications of bridging were observed when the SFT pill was placed. Ideally a pressure
increase of several hundred psi would occur, but that was not the case for this well. It is possible that
the width of the created fractures in this rock with a low Young's Modulus did not allow for the SFT
pill to bridge easily, even though larger pill sizes of SFT material were pumped.
2. The vast majority of SFT treatments have been pumped in shale or tight rock environment. For rock
with a low Young's Modulus, larger particles and larger pill sizes should be considered. A limitation
for pill size is what can be pumped by injecting a concentrated pill into the main fluid stream, thus
diluting the pill. After the shut down on stage 5, a concentrated pill was pumped, which allowed a
larger pill size and a higher quantity of SFT material.
3. It is possible the friction loss experienced across the lateral limited the fracture initiation to the heel
portion of the lateral.
4. Even though the fluid efficiency obtained during the mini-fracture was low, the entire treatment was
placed, with lower pad ratios than expected during the mini-fracture.
5. The prolonged, forced shutdown during the proppant steps of stage 5 did not negatively impact the
treatment, further indicating that fluid efficiency was high. Even when stage 5 was flushed at reduced
rate, there was no indications of screenout.
6. It was possible to place 16/20 LWP at 10 ppa during the last stage, indicating that fracture width at the
wellbore was wide and near-wellbore effects were small. The possibility of large fracture widths was
supported by the post fracture pressure match with modeled fracture widths approaching 0.373 in.
7. Surface pressure data while pumping was impacted much more by friction than by fracturing different
portions of the horizontal.
8. HFPM will indicate the strongest reflection point. In this well, it successfully detected diversion of
fluid to a fracture below the initial reflection point. This diversion correlates well to the drop in ISIP
pressure. There were many challenges to HFPM interpretation on this project, however combining
HFPM with ISIP helped to evaluate the possible downhole location of fracture initiation.
9. The overall treatment size had to be held back to keep it pumpable in a single day. In Alaska single
shift operations are the norm, as the environmental and regional logistics are not amenable for 24
hour operations. Between fracture days, at least one day is required to reload consumables, which
would lead to the degradation of the SFT material in such a multi-stage fracturing operation spanning
more than one day.

Recommendations
1. The best way to ensure fracture initiation along a lateral is through mechanical diversion such as
frac sleeves or plug and perf operations. This should be the top priority during the well design.
Unfortunately, the objectives of this well did not allow this economically.
2. When using dynamic diversion, it is critical to evaluate the generated fracture widths. A larger size
material pumped in a larger pill may have produced better diversion.
3. HFPM can be useful in evaluating possible diversion location along the lateral. If possible, plan a
completion with consistent ID to minimize possible signal interference. A downhole pressure gauge
would also be very useful for data evaluation.
20 SPE-184827-MS

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Schlumberger, and BP Exploration
(Alaska) Inc. for permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
bbl Volume, barrels
bpm Rate, barrels per minute
degC Temperature, degree Celsius
cP Viscosity, centipoise
degF Temperature, degree Fahrenheit
ft Length, feet
gal Volume, gallons
in. Length, inches
ISIP Instantaneous shut-in pressure
lbm Mass, pounds
mD Permeability, milli Darcies
ppa Proppant concentration, pounds of proppant added per gallon of (clean) fluid
ppg Density, pounds per gallon
psi Pressure, pounds per square inch
ppt Concentration, pounds per 1,000 gal
s Time, seconds
s-1 Shear rate, 1/seconds
CTU Coil tubing unit
HFPM High-frequency pressure monitoring
LT Low-temperature
LWP Lightweight ceramic proppant
PTA Pressure transient analysis
SFT Sequenced fracturing technology
spf Shots per foot

References
Bergant, A., Tijsseling, A.S., Vitkovsky, J.P. et al 2008. Parameters Affecting Water-Hammer Wave Attenuation, Shape,
and Timing. Journal of Hydraulic Research 46 (3): 373391.
Bjornen, K. H., Hodge, R. M., Cawiezel, K. E. et al. 2011. Shear Sensitivity of Borate Fracturing Fluids. Presented at
the North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, 14-16 June 2011, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
SPE-143962-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143962-MS
Bogdan, Andrey, et al. 2016. Real-Time Interpretation of Leak Isolation with Degradable Diverter Using High Frequency
Pressure Monitoring?. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 25
27 October. SPE-182451-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/182451-MS
Griffin, K. W. 1985. Induced Fracture Orientation Determination in the Kuparuk Reservoir. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 22-26 September. SPE-14261-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/14261-MS
Hodge, R. M., Cawiezel, K. E. 2010. Performance of Borate-Crosslinked Fracturing Fluid Compromised by Shear-Induced
Phase Separation. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19-22 September, Florence,
SPE-134266-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/134266-MS
Hutin, R., Tennent, R. W., Kashikar, S. V. 2001. New Mud Pulse Telemetry Techniques for Deepwater Applications
and Improved Real-Time Data Capabilities. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 27 February-1 March,
Amsterdam, Netherlands. SPE-67762-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/67762-MS
SPE-184827-MS 21

Kraemer, C., Lecerf, B., Torres J. et al. 2014. A Novel Completion Method for Sequenced Fracturing in the Eagle
Ford Shale, Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, 1-3 April, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
SPE-169010-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169010-MS
Madsen, M., Carlson, J. E., Rondon, J. R. et al. 2015. An Application of Diversion Technique in Un-Cemented Section of
a Horizontal Well in the Williston Basin,. Presented at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference, 20-22
October, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, SPE-175911-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/175911-MS
Niemeyer, B. L., & Reinart, M. R. 1986. Hydraulic Fracturing of a Moderate Permeability Reservoir, Kuparuk River Unit.
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 5-8 October, New Orleans, Louisiana. SPE-15507-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15507-MS
Pearson, C. M., Bond, A. J., Eck, M. E. et al. 1992. Optimal Fracture Stimulation of a Moderate-Permeability
Reservoir - Kuparuk River Unit, Alaska. SPE Production Engineering 7 (3): 259 - 266. SPE-20707-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/20707-PA
Pearson, C. M., Clonts, M. D., & Vaughn, N. R. 1996. Use of Longitudinally Fractured Horizontal Wells in a Multi-
Zone Sandstone Formation. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 6-9 October, Denver,
Colorado. SPE-36454-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36454-MS
Pospisil, G., Lynch, K. W., Pearson, C. M. et al. 1992. Results of a Large-Scale Refracture Stimulation Program, Kuparuk
River Unit, Alaska. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, Washington, D.C.
SPE-24857-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/24857-MS
Streeter, V. L. 1958, Fluid Mechanics (Second Edition), McGraw-Hill Boo Company, New York.