SPE-184839-MS

Comparison of Multi-Stage Fracture Placement Methods for Economic

Learning and Unconventional Completion Optimization: A Case History

Amit Singh, Lori Soriano, and Manish K. Lal, Chevron

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
The two most popular fracture placement methods in unconventional shale with multiple stages fracturing
completion are wireline plug-n-perf and pinpoint perforating / fracturing using coiled tubing. The debate
regarding which method is better is still unresolved, as each method has its performance and economic
advantages, which make the selection decision very challenging for practitioners and decision makers.
In the Antelope Shale reservoir in Monterey Formation, each of these two fracture placement methods
were implemented for multi-stage fracturing in 4 vertical offset wells to evaluate the benefits and associated
risks, and to identify the preferred method for a full field development plan. The plug-n-perf method had
multiple clusters perforated with wireline for each frac stage, whereas the coil tubing method utilized sand-
jets to create pinpoint perforation holes with single cluster.
In this paper, we discuss the lessons learned and results from application of both fracture placement
methods in Antelope Shale using key performance and economic indicators, including time efficiency,
cost, production, fracture geometry and zonal coverage. The multitude of operational events experienced
during these completion executions demonstrated both the associated benefits related to improved efficiency
(efficient completion execution without trouble, record number of completions in single day, etc.) and
disadvantages in terms of delayed operation (perforation guns not firing, CT parting, multiple fishing
operations during drill out of plugs, ineffective perforation cutting, depth control of CT, etc). The results
from various diagnostics such as microseismic, tiltmeters, Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test (DFIT),
tracers, etc. were used to compare the effective pay zone coverage with multiple fracture stages, fracture
geometry and well productivity for both fracture placement methods.
For multi-stage fracturing completions in tight rock, an understanding of risks, rewards, and economic
impact of both methods is crucial to completion and stimulation strategy.

Introduction
Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing completion technology is instrumental in development of low permeability
reservoir and unconventional resources. It helps to enhance surface area connectivity of low permeable
reservoir to the wellbore via conductive hydraulic fractures. The key technology components of multi-stage
hydraulic fracturing, such as hydraulic fracturing, horizontal well and zonal isolation techniques for multiple
2 SPE-184839-MS

stages, have been available in industry for multiple decades. In the last decade, continuous technology
advancements and operational improvement enabled operators to make many challenging and high cost
unconventional resources economical. The lower oil price in past years has heightened the quest to maximize
productivity of wells by effective placement of hydraulic fractures at minimum cost and time.
Several multistage hydraulic fracture placement techniques are available. The two most popular fracture
placement methods are wireline plug-and-perf and pinpoint perforating & fracturing using coil tubing (CT)
with or without sleeves (Algadi et al. 2014, 2015). Each of these techniques has its own advantages and
disadvantages.
The plug-and-perf is the most widely used multistage fracture placement method in cased-hole for
decades in almost all unconventional basins. The ability to create multiple fractures in individual fracturing
stages is the most beneficial feature of this method allowing it to be still the most economical fracture
placement method. The same advantageous feature, ability to fracture multiple clusters in single stage,
emerges as its biggest challenge also. The advanced diagnostic methods such as fiber optics have shown
inefficient cluster efficiency up to 40% (Holley et al. 2015, Ugueto et al. 2016). The two major reasons
for this uneven fracture distribution are variation of rock mechanical properties along the wellbore and
stress interference during fracturing treatment, as the fractures generally initiate and continue to propagate
along the path of least resistance. It is challenging in plug-and-perf method to achieve fracture initiation
and propagation from all clusters and even distribution of fracturing fluid and proppant in each perforation
cluster across the wellbore. The uneven fracture placement in the reservoir results in reduced production
relative to the formation's full potential as it leaves behind large unstimulated formation.
Fracture placement in single cluster at each fracturing stage is a simple way to achieve 100% cluster
efficiency and evenly stimulation of wellbore (Beatty et al. 2007, Hartley et al. 2013). Several pinpoint
fracture placement methods have been developed and implemented in last few years as single cluster
fracturing with plug-and perf method would be uneconomic. In most of pinpoint fracture placement
methods, CT is used to create a single cluster perforation either by operating frac sleeves or by using sand-
jet perforation to cut holes in casing with sand and fluid pumped through sand-jet nozzles (Lewis, 2015).
The presence of CT in the wellbore during fracturing operation provides opportunity to measure real time
bottomhole treatment pressure and ability to quickly respond and recover from a sandout event, if any
(Stanojcic, 2010).
Plug-and-perf with multiple clusters per frac stage provides an economical fracture placement method
with inherent fracture placement inefficiency in even fracture placement across all clusters. Whereas the
single cluster per frac stage with use of CT and frac sleeves provides almost 100% fracture placement
efficiency with controlled fracture propagation from all clusters with inherent risks and potential higher
cost. The debate regarding which of these methods is better is still unresolved, as each method has its
performance and economic advantages, which make the selection decision very challenging for practitioners
and decision makers.
In the Antelope shale reservoir in the Monterey formation in Bakersfield, California, 4 vertical wells
were drilled and completed with multistage fracturing to identify the most prolific reservoir pay zone and
evaluate its commercial production potential. Each of two major fracture placement methods, multi-cluster
plug-and-perf and single-cluster CT pinpoint fracture placement methods were implemented in 2 wells each.
The objectives to use both fracture placement methods were as follows:

Evaluate benefit and risks associated with both fracture placement methods.

Select most efficient fracture placement method for full field development plan.

Identify sweet spot or best producing zones and identification of well type (vertical or horizontal)
for full field development plan.
Characterize reservoir and identify potential frac barriers.
SPE-184839-MS 3

Evaluate zonal coverage with hydraulic fracture and fracture geometry for both multiple clusters
and single cluster fracture placement techniques.
Completion and fracture designs were modified as needed for individual fracture placement techniques
but overall stimulation volume (total proppant and fluid quantity in each well) and pay zone coverage were
kept same to compare impact of placement method. Additional diagnostics technologies were used to gather
valuable data and completion results. Downhole microseismic and microdeformation (tiltmeter) along with
surface microdeformation technology were used to measure resultant fracture geometry and zonal coverage
in each of fracture placement types. Oil based chemical tracers were used to measure production contribution
from individual frac stages. DFITs were performed in potential pay zones to calibrate permeability and
fracture models.
Key performance indicators (KPIs) were defined to compare results of both fracture placement methods.
The selection of KPIs metrics had the objective of capturing various different aspects of fracture placement
to evaluate advantages and associated risks. The critical KPIs identified were operation efficiency, economic
efficiency, stimulated reservoir efficiency and production performance (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 KPIs for comparing multi-stage fracture placement techniques

Multi-stage Fracture Placement Methods

The various multistage fracturing fracture placement methods can be mainly grouped into two categories
with fracture placement methodology: 1) multiple clusters per stage fracturing and 2) pinpoint single
cluster per stage fracturing. The plug-and-perf in cased hole and frac sleeves in cased or open-hole fracture
placement methods uses multiple cluster option, whereas the CT pinpoint uses single entry cluster or single
frac sleeve in cased or open-hole completion.

Plug-and-Perf
The plug-and-perf is most widely used cased-hole fracture placement method across all unconventional
resource fields. It is the simplest fracture placement method and provides opportunity to generate multiple
fractures in a single stage as well as the opportunity to delay decision making for perforation placement
depth until just before fracturing.
In this fracture placement method, multiple trips of wireline runs are required to generate fracture entry
points and stage isolation. Generally the fracture entry point for first stage is generated either by perforating
with CT or a pressure actuated sleeve. After first stage fracturing, the isolation of that stage is achieved by
pumping of a plug and perforating gun on wireline to the desired depth. The plug is set, the zone perforated,
4 SPE-184839-MS

and the wireline tools removed from the well (Fig. 2). The fracturing plugs acts as zonal isolation from
the previous fractured zone. Fracture treatment is pumped down the casing. This process is repeated until
all desired fracturing stages are pumped. Then, all frac plugs are milled out with CT to get full wellbore
radius for production.

Figure 2Plug-and-Perf fracture placement

In this method, generally multiple perforation clusters are created with perforation guns at desired depths.
Each of the perforation cluster (typically 2 ft long) acts as a node for fracture initiation and propagation.
The number of multiple perforation clusters for each fracturing stage ranges between 3 5 clusters per stage
with total fracturing pump rate of 60 100 bpm (barrels per minute) in order to keep the pump rate in each
cluster at 15 20 bpm rate. The distance between each fracture cluster can range from 50 100 ft. In last
few years, much more aggressive fracture placement such as larger number of perforation clusters (up to
10) and smaller distance between clusters (15 30 ft) are also attempted in industry.

CT Pinpoint
The CT pinpoint fracture placement technology uses the single cluster per fracture stage to place controlled
fracture at desired depth. The fracture cluster could be generated either by opening of pre-installed frac
sleeves on casing string with CT or sand-jet perforation with sand and water through sand-jet nozzles run
on CT. Perforation generation and fracturing operation is completed in same trip thereby making operation
more efficient. The zonal isolation of previous fracture stages are achieved with the resettable packer located
at end of CT string, closing previous stage frac sleeves or by setting sand plugs (Fig. 3).
SPE-184839-MS 5

Figure 3CT Pinpoint fracture placement

Since single fracture is generation and propagated in each stage, a relatively low pump rate 20 30 bpm
is used during fracturing job through casing and CT annulus. In order to minimize differential pressure
severity on CT, a cleaner fluid is pumped through CT at low rate of 0.5 1 bpm. This also provides valuable
opportunity to measure real-time bottomhole treatment pressure and ability to quickly recover from sand out.
A typical completion operation sequence for CT single cluster fracturing with sand-jet perforation using
sand-jet nozzles, and zonal isolation with use of packer with anchor system (Fig. 4) is as follows:

Position bottomhole assembly across desired zone.

Cut sand-jet perforations using sand and water through sand-jet nozzles (5 7 holes in 3 ft interval).

Set packer to isolate lower zones.

Fracture treatment down the CT annulus.

Unset packer and move to next desired zone upward.

Repeat process for all desired zones.

6 SPE-184839-MS

Figure 4CT Pinpoint BHA with Sand-jet perforating and packer with anchor system for zonal isolation

Comparison
Each of two multi-stage fracture placement techniques discussed above have benefits and limitations. The
methodology and tools designs for each of placement techniques impact key variables of completion and
fracture design. The plug-and-perf provides higher operational flexibility with less control on fracture
placement, whereas CT pinpoint provides better control on fracture placement and fracture treatment with
limitations on treatment designs parameters. Table 1 shows relative general comparison of both fracture
placement technologies.
SPE-184839-MS 7

Table 1 Comparison of plug-and-perf and CT pinpoint fracture placement methods

Plug-and-Perf CT Pinpoint

Pump rate High rate Limitation

Calculated bottomhole pressure No Yes
Recovery from sandout Poor Good
Number of frac jobs per day Average High
Single entry point / cluster perforation Yes Yes
Multiple cluster perforation Yes No
Need of bridge plugs / frac plugs Yes No
Friction pressure Low Medium

Case History
The Antelope shale in the Monterey Formation is a siliceous shale formation located in San Joaquin Valley,
California (Fig. 5). This formation is thinly laminated, has relatively high porosity (>30%), low permeability
(<1 md), and varying degree of fracturing. It is of Miocene age and lies just below the Pliocene / Miocene
unconformity. Siliceous shales consist mainly of biogenic silica (original diatom frustules) and varying
amounts of clay and silt/sand. The Opal CT and Quartz rocks in this region are approximately hundreds of
ft thick. Historically, economical production of light oil resources in Opal CT and Quartz rocks of Antelope
shale has proven challenging. The recent advancements in multistage fracturing completion technology
have renewed interest in testing economic production capability of Antelope shale.

Figure 5Geographic location of the Antelope shale

8 SPE-184839-MS

In the Antelope shale, 4 vertical Front End Loading (FEL) wells were drilled and completed with
multi-stage hydraulic fracturing to evaluate economic production capabilities. The CT pinpoint fracture
placement method has been frequently used in this region for completion of vertical wells in other thick
formations, whereas plug-and-perf fracture placement has been widely used in the unconventional for
multistage fracture completion in industry. The multi-cluster fracturing option of plug-and-perf provides
an advantage of operation and economic efficiency for vertical wells with less number of fracture stages.
Whereas, the single cluster CT pinpoint fracturing in vertical wells helps pinpoint fracture placement and
simulates vertically single point entry for horizontal well fracture (Fig. 6). An uncertainty regarding future
well deviations (vertical vs horizontal) provided an opportunity and need to evaluate and compare these
fracture placement methods.

Figure 6Single cluster vs multiple cluster fracture placement in vertical well

and ability to transfer the learning for future well options (vertical or horizontal)

Four KPIs were identified to compare the performance of these two (plug-and-perf and CT pinpoint)
multistage fracture placement methods, 1) Operation efficiency, 2) Economic efficiency, 3) Stimulated rock
efficiency and 4) Production performance. Critical parameters for each of KPIs are listed in table 2.
SPE-184839-MS 9

Table 2Critical parameters evaluated for each of 4 KPIs

Key Performance Indicator Parameters Evaluated

Operation Efficiency Number of days to complete well

Economic Efficiency
Stimulated Reservoir Efficiency
Production Performance
Number of fracture stages per days
Non-productive time (NPT) %
Cost to complete per well
Cost for each fracture stage
Fracture height
Fracture length
Pay zone coverage %
Initial production rate per well
90 days production rate and cumulative per well
180 days production rate and cumulative per well

Completion Design
These 4 wells were strategically completed with both fracture placement methods to identify optimal
completion design in early phase with fewer wells for the overall project success. The first two wells (Well:
A and B) were completed with plug-and-perf and next two wells (Well: C and D) with CT pinpoint with
packer with anchor system. The completion and fracturing designs were modified as per fracture placement
type requirement as mentioned in table 3. The plug-and-perf provided multiple perforation clusters per
stage with high pump rate capability with reduced number of fracture stages for fracturing all pay zones.
Whereas, CT pinpoint fracture with packer with anchor system placement provided pinpointed fracture
location with single cluster and reduced number of perforation holes for each fracture stage. This resulted
in reduced pump rate and large number of fracture stages to efficiently stimulate all pay zones.

Table 3 Completion and Fracture design parameters for each of fracture placement methods

Plug-and-perf (Well: A , B) CT pinpoint (Well: C, D)

Number of frac stages per well 7 11 - 12

Number of perf cluster per stage 35 1
Total perforation interval per stage, ft 9 15 ft ~ 3 ft
Number of perforation holes per stage 27 45 6-7
Pump Rate, bpm 30 60 bpm 25 30 bpm
Amount of proppant pumped per stage, lbs 150 300 K 150 K

Diagnostics
Multiple diagnostic technologies such as microseismic, microdeformation (tiltmeter), Diagnostic Fracture
Injection Test (DFIT), tracers, etc were applied to gather required critical parameters for the evaluation of
identified KPIs. The add-on objectives of these diagnostic technologies were to minimize uncertainty and
maximize learning to achieve ability to make decision of future development well designs.
The combination of downhole microseismic, downhole microdeformation and surface microdeformation
technologies were implemented in a well of each of two fracture placement types. The downhole
microseismic and microdeformation measuring tools were placed in the offset wells. The velocity model for
microseismic analysis was calibrated with wireline perforation as part of plug-and-perf fracture placements.
10 SPE-184839-MS

These diagnostic tools provided highly reliable fracture geometry (length and height) information and pay
zone coverage.
The DFITs were performed in both formations Opal CT and Quartz to measure fracture closure stress, frac
fluid efficiency, frac fluid leakoff rate and after closure permeability estimate. These DFIT results helped
3D fracture modeling calibration and future completion optimization.
The oil based chemical tracers were applied during hydraulic fracturing stages. Different oil based
chemicals were used for individual fracturing stage. The results from tracer measurement were used to
measure production from individual fracture stages and to identify most prolific sub-formation for future
horizontal well landing. It also helped to understand the interwell fracture interference and flow connectivity.

Major Execution Challenges

The objective of any fracture placement types is to execute the completion with zero complications.
There were expected advantages and risks associated with each fracture placement types. Project team
reviewed all the potential risks with each fracture placement types and prepared plans to mitigate them.
Despite detailed planning, multitudes of operational events were experienced while executions of multistage
hydraulic fracture completion on both fracture placement types during various stages of completions. These
operational events experienced during each fracture placement types can be categorized in major three
activity groups, a) perforation generation, b) hydraulic fracturing treatment, c) zonal isolation setting and
removal.
In plug-and-perf fracture placement of two wells (Well A and B), most of execution events were related to
the wireline perforation, zonal isolation plug setting and plug removal. In the first well, wireline obstruction
at shallow depth (<1000 ft) was experienced and the rusted wireline was identified as major reason.
Efficiency of perforation gun firing had some challenges too, as there were two stages where perforation
guns misfired and did not shoot holes in casing. Presence of moisture in the internals of perforation gun and
explosive train, and shortening of detonator were root causes of each of two misfires.
Frac plugs are used to achieve zonal isolation of previous stages during fracture execution operation.
A frac plug is run with wireline after each fracture stage after all proppant slurry is flushed and wellbore
is filled with clean fluid. The frac plug is set at desired depth using plug setting tool on wireline, above
previous stage perforations and below new stage perforation. In order to get the well ready for flowback
and removal of zonal isolation, these frac plugs are drilled using CT drill bit. In one of plug-and-perf wells,
the plug setting tool was stuck and frac plug could not get set at desired depth. Subsequently, the frac plug
with setting tool was retrieved to surface, and presence of proppant in the setting tool was observed (Fig. 7).
The under-displacement of proppant slurry in the wellbore was identified as root cause. The drill out of frac
plugs in one of the two plug-and-perf wells became challenging, and multiple fishing operation followed
to remove all the frac plugs from wellbore.

Figure 7Frac plug setting tool was stock due to proppant entry in setting tool

In CT pinpoint fracture placement of two wells (Well C and D), most of execution events were related to
CT integrity, bottomhole assembly (BHA) for creation of sand-jet perforation in casing, and packer element
SPE-184839-MS 11

for zonal isolation (Fig. 4). The measurement and management of integrity of CT string need additional
emphasis in hydraulic fracturing environment, where it withstands high treatment pressure and sand slurry
along with frequent cyclic movement of CT while trip in and trip out of wellbore. In one of two wells
completed with CT pinpoint, during a regular pressure test of CT string at surface, the CT wrapped on the
reel parted. The location of parted pipe (CT on reel) and timing (pressure test) of CT parting event minimized
any potential catastrophe and / or significant delays (Fig. 8). The efficient team effort and support by CT
service partner reduced the delay in operation timeline only to 3 days.

Figure 8CT string parted in CT reel during pressure test

The sand-jet perforation in casing is created by pumping sand and water slurry (< 1 ppa) through jet
nozzles. For the pinpoint fracturing, generally 5 7 perforation holes are created in casing at 120 deg
phasing with total of 3 -5 ft of perforation interval for each fracture stage. A larger than expected treatment
pressure was observed in the first well (Well C) with CT pinpoint fracture placement (Fig. 9). In addition
to higher formation breakdown pressure, higher near wellbore pressure drop (perforation friction and near
wellbore tortuosity) was also measured. The continuous treatment pressure decline due to perforation
erosion was observed with sand slurry injection into formation through the perforations causing. This
indicated possibility of ineffective perforation cutting with existing jet perforation cutting design, which
was developed as per best practices for 5" 20# casing at shallower depth. In an effort to minimize the fracture
breakdown pressure, reduce near wellbore tortuosity and reduce perforation friction, the jet perforation
cutting design was modified for 7" 29# casing before second well (Well D) completion with CT pinpoint.
The major design changes were focused on placement of nozzles (phasing and distance) and quantity of sand
12 SPE-184839-MS

injected to effectively increase the cutting efficiency. This helped to significantly reduce the breakdown
pressure and near wellbore pressure drop.

Figure 9High wellbore pressure loss caused high treatment pressure

in well C. Pressure loss was reduced with design modification in well D.

Packer located at the bottom of CT string provides zonal isolation of previous fracturing stages at the
desired depth during fracturing operation. The setting of packer can be controlled with the weight on the CT
string and it provides ability to perform multiple fracturing stages in single trip by moving the CT upwards
and isolating the previous fracturing stages. It is challenging to test and integrity of packer element and
zonal isolation efficiency during the fracturing treatment and in between multiple stages in single trip of CT.
In well C, after completion of 5 stages, severe tool erosion was observed (Fig. 10). The inefficient proppant
clean out of wellbore above packer setting depth and incorrect placement of CT string could have caused
movement of proppant around the packer tool thereby eroding it.

Figure 10Packer with anchor system and packer tool erosion due
to inefficient proppant cleanout and incorrect packer setting depth

In completion of all 4 wells, multiple operation events were experienced which significantly impacted
the overall operation efficiency and economics. These events also highlighted the potential risks associated
with each fracture placement types.

Results
The performance and efficiency evaluation parameters such as, completion data, economic data, diagnostic
analysis and production data, were utilized to compare the results of both fracture placement methods in
4 wells. These parameters were used to categorize information as identified in the KPIs for comparison
purpose.
SPE-184839-MS 13

Operation Efficiency
The number of fracture stages was significantly different in both fracture placement groups of plug-and-
perf and CT pinpoint. But the overall reservoir thickness completed for all 4 wells was similar, therefore
"total time" spent for completion of individual wells was selected as key operation efficiency parameter.
For comparison purpose, this parameter for all 4 wells was normalized against the plug-and-perf fracture
placement method. The average time to complete per well with CT pinpoint was 6% more as compared to
plug-and-perf method in these 4 wells (2 wells with each fracture placement method) (Table 4).

Table 4 Operation efficiency comparison of Plug-and-perf vs CT pinpoint

Plug-and-perf CT pinpoint
Operation Efficiency Parameters
Well A Well B Well C Well D

Normalized number of days to complete well 1 1 1.5 0.625

Number of fracture stages per days 3 3 4 8
Non-productive time (NPT) % 30% 30% 40% 0%
Average of normalized of number of days to complete well 1 1.06

Plug-and-perf fracture placement method resulted in "average" operation efficiency with 1 normalized
number of days to complete well and 3 fracture stages per day. The execution events related to wireline
perforation and drilling of frac plugs resulted in cumulative 60% non-productive time (equally distributed
in both wells) for the plug-and-perf fracture placement method.
CT pinpoint fracture placement method had mixed results with efficiency on two extreme boundaries,
"best" with 0.625 normalized number of days to complete well and "worst" with 1.5 normalized number
of days to complete well. In the first well (Well C), CT parting event caused significant delays in well
completion and only 4 fracture stages per day could be performed due to inefficient jet perforation. In second
well (Well D) with CT pinpoint fracture placement, operation were executed as per plan with zero NPT
and it resulted in shortest period to complete well with total 8 fracture stages completed in single day. It
shows that for operation efficiency, plug-and-perf is generally low risk low reward, whereas CT pinpoint
is high risk high reward (Fig. 11).

Figure 11plug-and-perf is generally low risk low reward, whereas CT pinpoint is high risk high reward
14 SPE-184839-MS

Economic Efficiency
The success of multi-stage fracture completion wells in unconventional depends significantly on economic
efficiency by keeping the completion cost low and achieve effective fracture placement. Equal quantity of
sand, water and fracturing fluid chemical additives were placed in all wells. The type of fracture placement
method influences the need of fracturing and completion equipment on location, such as wireline, CT and
fracturing pumps HHP (hydraulic horse power). It also impacts the total time of completion and need for
these equipment to stay on location. Therefore, the variation in total completion cost in these individual
wells was heavily impacted by the type of fracture placement method.
The number of fracture stage in each fracture placement group wells were different, therefore the total
cost to complete individual well was used as key economic efficiency parameter. For comparison purpose,
this parameter for all 4 wells was normalized against the well A of plug-and-perf fracture placement method.
The average cost for well completion per well with CT pinpoint was 4% more as compared to plug-and-
perf method (Table 5).

Table 5 Economic efficiency comparison of Plug-and-perf vs CT pinpoint

Plug-and-perf CT pinpoint
Economic Efficiency Parameters
Well A Well B Well C Well D

Normalized cost to complete per well 1 1.16 1.22 1.02

Normalized cost for each fracture stage 1 1.16 0.71 0.65
Average of normalized cost to complete per well 1.08 1.12

Stimulated Reservoir Efficiency

The ultimate purpose of multi-stage fracture placement is to achieve efficient distribution of fracture and
maximize stimulated reservoir coverage. The multiple diagnostic technique were applied in each of fracture
placement method group of wells to measure the critical fracture geometry parameters such as fracture
length, fracture height and reservoir pay zone coverage. The combination of downhole microseismic and
microdeformation (tiltmeter) technology provided reliable measurements of the fracture geometry and pay
zone coverage.
The fracture height in plug-and-perf fracture placement method was relatively higher as compared with
CT pinpoint (Fig. 12). The incremental fracture height in plug-and-perf fracture placement method is
attributed to availability of multiple perforation clusters (3-4 clusters per stage) which were spread across
average vertical length of 100 ft in vertical well. In CT pinpoint single perforation cluster with average
vertical stage length of 5 ft were available during fracturing.
SPE-184839-MS 15

Figure 12Normalized hydraulic fracture height achieved with Plug-and-perf vs CT

pinpoint ((normalized to CT pinpoint method measured by microdeformation technology)

Fracture length in plug-and-perf fracture placement method was slightly longer as compared with CT
pinpoint (Fig. 13). This small incremental fracture length in plug-and-perf fracture placement method is
attributed to higher pump rate injected in single fracture in plug-and-perf method as compared to CT
pinpoint.

Figure 13Normalized hydraulic fracture length achieved with Plug-and-perf vs CT

pinpoint (normalized to CT pinpoint method measured by microdeformation technology)
16 SPE-184839-MS

The microseismic (Fig. 14) and microdeformation results demonstrated complete pay zone coverage of
desired reservoir intervals with overlaps of fracture in both fracture placement methods. Table 6 shows that
the fracture geometry (height and length) achieved in CT pinpoint are relatively smaller than plug-and-perf.

Figure 14Microseismic results showing complete pay zone coverage for both Plug-and-perf and CT pinpoint

Table 6 Stimulated reservoir efficiency comparison of Plug-and-perf vs CT pinpoint

Plug-and-perf (Well A) CT pinpoint (Well C)

Stimulated Reservoir efficiency
Microdeformation Microseismic Microdeformation Microseismic

Normalized Fracture Height 1 1.36 0.85 1

Normalized Fracture Length 1 0.87 1.07 0.64
Pay zone coverage % 100 100 100 100
Average of normalized fracture length 0.93 0.85

Production Performance
The wells came on at high production followed by steep decline and were able to flow on their own before
installation of artificial lift (Fig. 15). All 4 wells experienced very similar decline curve for oil production.
Initial oil production rate of one of CT pinpoint well (Well C) was significantly higher than all other wells,
thereby well C has maximum cumulative production (Fig. 16).
SPE-184839-MS 17

Figure 15Oil production rate plot for all 4 wells

Figure 16Cumulative oil production rate plot for all 4 wells

Table 7 shows the normalized oil production rate as compared to well A (plug-and-perf). It shows that
on average the wells with CT pinpoint method had higher initial oil production rate up to 90 days. But
during later period after 180 days, the production rate of plug-and-perf method is comparatively higher.
18 SPE-184839-MS

Table 7Production performance efficiency (production rate) comparison of Plug-and-perf vs CT pinpoint

Plug-and-perf CT pinpoint
Production Performance Efficiency Parameters
Well A Well B Average Well C Well D Average

Normalized Initial production rate per well 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.7 1.9 3.3
Normalized production rate per well@ 90 days 1.0 2.4 1.7 2.2 1.9 2.1
Normalized production rate per well@ 180 days 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.4 0.8
Normalized production rate per well@ 270 days 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.4

Table 8 shows the normalized cumulative oil production for different time period as compared to well
A (plug-and-perf). The wells with CT pinpoint method had higher cumulative oil production in early period
until 270 days but the wells with plug-and-perf is reducing the gap and their cumulative production is getting
closer with time.

Table 8 Production performance efficiency (cumulative production) comparison of Plug-and-perf vs CT pinpoint

Plug-and-perf CT pinpoint
Production Performance Efficiency Parameters
Well A Well B Average Well C Well D Average

Normalized cumulative production per well @ 30 days 1.0 1.1 1.05 4.6 1.9 3.3
Normalized cumulative production per well @ 90 days 1.0 1.3 1.15 2.5 1.0 1.7
Normalized cumulative production per well @ 180 days 1.0 1.1 1.05 1.9 0.8 1.4
Normalized cumulative production per well @ 270 days 1.0 1.1 1.05 1.6 0.7 1.2

Learning for Future Field Development

The application and comparison of KPIs for the two most widely used multi-stage fracturing placement
techniques helped to evaluate their benefits and associated risks to acquire valuable information to compare
and select the preferred completion method for future full field development planning. The application of
suitable diagnostic techniques in selected wells provided learnings regarding hydraulic fracture parameters
and sweet spot identification for future development wells.

Fracture Geometry in Vertical and/or Horizontal Completion

The impact of multiple clusters (plug-and-perf) and single cluster (CT pinpoint) on fracture geometry in
vertical wells was measured with use of both fracture placement methods. As shown in Fig. 6, the plug-
and-perf method represented multiple clusters vertically spaced out in vertical well for each fracturing
stage, which is an attractive method for completing effectively and economically a thick pay zone intervals
with multi-stage fracturing. Whereas, the CT pinpoint method represented single cluster vertically spaced
out in vertical well as well as single or multiple clusters in horizontal wells, which is an attractive
method for completing effectively and economically a thick zone with presence of thin sweet spots. The
fracture geometry measured with these placement methods even in vertical wells, provided valuable and
representative information for horizontal well fracture geometry for similar normalized fracture design.

Fracture Azimuth and Horizontal Wellbore Direction

Surface microdeformation along with downhole diagnostic tools provided reliable fracture azimuth results,
which is critical to decide the direction of future horizontal wellbore.

Fracture Model Calibration

Fracture diagnostic test results enabled calibration of hydraulic fracture model calibration. DFITs were
performed in these 4 vertical wells before in 3 fracturing stages. The perforations for all the DFITs were
SPE-184839-MS 19

generated with wireline perforation gun. CT sand-jet perforation was not used for DFITs to minimize any
impact of fluid and proppant injected into formation during sand-jet process. The CT pinpoint provided
high quality bottomhole treatment pressure data during hydraulic fracturing treatment because of presence
of CT in wellbore and using CT treatment pressure. Bottomhole treatment was valuable in pressure history
matching of hydraulic fracturing jobs. It removed the uncertainty regarding pipe friction variation with
multiple fluid types and continuous change proppant concentration. The following data and information
measurement helped the calibration of 3D hydraulic fracture model:
DFITs: Closure stress, net pressure matching, fracturing fluid efficiency, fluid leakoff coefficient, and
presence of near wellbore pressure losses
Hydraulic fracturing job data: Representative bottomhole treatment pressure with CT pinpoint, net
pressure matching, fracture geometry from microdeformation and microseismic, and fracture barrier
identification.

Sweet Spot Identification

Oil based chemical tracers (different for each stages) were injected with the fracturing fluid during hydraulic
fracturing in all 4 wells. Produced fluid samples over time were collected and analyzed to help identify the
distinct pay zones within each pay zone as well as understand inter well connectivity. These results helped
narrow the uncertainty around the potential target zones that should be targeted in field development stage
either with vertical or horizontal wells.

Lessons Learned
Two different fracture placement methods were successfully implemented in vertical wells with many
operational events were experienced during execution. The major lessons learned on basis of these events
and the corrective actions takes are as follows:

Detailed review of process, equipment and experience of personnel is necessary, if a rare

technology for specific region is applied.
The presence of proppant across bottomhole tools should be avoided and proppant slurry should
be efficiently displaced from the wellbore. The displacement volume should be properly reviewed
by all operation personnel on location.
Standard procedure for CT sand-jet perforation should be reviewed if operational condition (casing
dimensions) changes.
Pressure testing of CT reels before the fracturing job is critical.

The CT depth should be calibrated and depths should be compared with electric line logs to ensure
perforations are created at correct depth.

Conclusions
Each fracture placement method (plug-and-perf and CT pinpoint with packer with anchor system)
has advantages and risks associated it. In the field application, depending upon well scenario, these
can offset each other. It is critical to evaluate the risks and plan ahead accordingly to minimize
its impact.
Both fracture placement methods demonstrated similar operation efficiency with CT pinpoint as
high risk - high reward, and Plug-and-perf as low risk low reward.
Total well completion cost for CT pinpoint was 4% more as compared to plug-and-perf method.
20 SPE-184839-MS

Fracture geometry (height and length) achieved in CT pinpoint are relatively smaller (~10%
smaller) than plug-and-perf. These variations are function of variation in completion and fracture
design strategy.
The wells with CT pinpoint method had higher production rate in early period (average initial oil
production rate until 90 days), but wells with plug-and-perf method had higher production rate in
later period (after 90 days). The average cumulative oil production of wells completed with CT
pinpoint was higher in early perod until 270 production days, but with time wells completed with
plug-and-perf are getting closer in cumulative oil production.
The fracture diagnostic results of two fracture placement methods even in vertical wells, provided
valuable and applicable information for both vertical and horizontal well fracture geometry for
similar normalized fracture design.
Fracture placement method comparison in small number of wells can be significantly biased by
specific operational events and may not represent large scale impact of associated risks.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of Chevron Corporation for giving permission to publish this
paper. Special thanks to Lorraine Leon, Larry Drennan and all other colleagues who contributed to this study.

References
Algadi, O. A., Castro, L., & Mittal, R. (2015, September 28). Comparison of Single-Entry Coiled Tubing-Activated Frac
Sleeves vs. Multi-Cluster Plug-and-Perf Completion in the Permian and Anadarko Basin: A Case Study. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/174943-
MS.
Algadi, O. A., Filyukov, R. V., & Luna, D. (2014, October 27). Multistage Hydraulic Fracturing Using Coiled Tubing-
Activated Frac Sleeves: Case Study From The Permian Basin. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/170821-MS.
Beatty, K. J., McGowen, J. M., & Gilbert, J. V. (2007, January 1). Pin-Point Fracturing (PPF) in Challenging Formations.
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, Texas, U.S.A. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/106052-MS.
Hartley, J., & Holden, D. R. (2013, March 26). Evolution of a Pinpoint Stimulation Technology and the Benefits Thereafter.
SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/163902-MS.
Holley, E. H., & Kalia, N. (2015, August 4). Fiber-optic Monitoring: Stimulation Results from Unconventional Reservoirs.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/178520-MS
Lewis, B. J. (2015, November 9). An Evaluation of Coiled Tubing Fracturing Compared to Traditional Completion
Techniques in Horizontal Wells. SPE Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane,
Australia. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/176994-MS">10.2118/176994-MS.
Stanojcic, M., Jaripatke, O. A., & Sharma, A. (2010, January 1). Pinpoint Fracturing Technologies: A Review of Successful
Evolution of Multistage Fracturing in the Last Decade. SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference
and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA . Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/130580-MS.
Ugueto C., G. A., Huckabee, P. T., Molenaar, M. M., Wyker, B., & Somanchi, K. (2016, February 1). Perforation Cluster
Efficiency of Cemented Plug and Perf Limited Entry Completions; Insights from Fiber Optics Diagnostics. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/179124-MS.