PINPOINT COMPLETION

TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA

MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY
Luciano Fucello, NCS Multistage
AGENDA:
Introduction
Completion
Production analysis
Completion costs
Conclusions

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

INTRODUCTION
2 wells in the same PAD
o Well BCeCF-101 => Pinpoint
o Well BCeCF-102 => Plug & Perf

Both wells targeting Vaca Muerta

Comparison of completion methodology, RTA

analysis and production simulation k, A, SRV, OOIP
and cluster efficiency (benchmark)
PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY
COMPLETION: Methodology
BCeCf-101h - PINPOINT BCeCf-102h - PLUG & PERF
60 coiled tubing shifted sleeves 18 frac stages / 54 entry points
installed
3 perforation clusters per frac stage
o 58 stimulated
Average spacing ~24.9m between o Isolated by bridge plugs
sleeves 10 perforations per cluster / 0.5 m
Isolation inside casing with resettable Average spacing ~24.5m between
bridge plug on CT BHA
clusters
Annular frac
No frac plug drillout Required frac plug drillout
Pinpoint frac isolation tool (see
schematic)

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

 COMPLETION: Frac Design
Similar treatments Some differences
Hybrid fluid design Fluid volumes and distribution of fluid type
Increasing proppant size 100 mesh to 20/40 Injection Rate
Proppant size distribution
Average per entry point Lateral length
Well BCeCf-101h BCeCf-102h
Entry Point Spacing (m) 24.9 24.5
Slickwater (bbls) 1,636 -24% 1,172
Gel (bbls) - 20
Crosslink (bbls) 915 1,210
Total Fluid (bbls) 2,551 2,403

100 mesh (lbs) 16,144 12,315

40/70 sand (lbs) 45,121 47,220
40/80 Sinterlite (lbs) 40,937
30/50 sand (lbs) 35,739
30/60 Sinterlite (lbs) 26,418 35,433
20/40 Wanli (lbs) 29,028 29,980
+35%
Total (lbs) 157,648 160,687

Injection Rate (bpm) 23.3 17.3

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

 COMPLETION: Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure
7,500 7,500

7,000
>1,000 psi difference 7,000 >600 psi difference

ISIP (psi)
ISIP (psi)

6,500 6,500

6,000 6,000

5,500 5,500

5,000 5,000
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Stage Number Stage Number

BCeCF-101h BCeCF-102h
Individual entry point ISIPs (BH data) Only ISIP data available (surface)
Show end of job pressure variability Shows some variability even with
averaging effect of 3 clusters

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

 COMPLETION: Breakdown Pressure (BH gauge)
8,500

8,000 BCeCF-101h Formation Breakdown

Deadstring Breakdown

Pressure
7,500
Pressure (psi)

7,000 Individual entry point breakdown

pressures
6,500
Show early job pressure variability
6,000 Deadstring data (BH)
58 of 60 zones treated (~96.7%)
5,500 >1,500 psi difference on BCeCf-101h
5,000 NO DATA ON EFFICIENCY ON
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58
BCeCF-102h
Stage Number

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

COMPLETION: Bottom Hole Gauge Data Evaluation

Only available on BCeCf-101h well

Near wellbore restriction
o Indication of fracture
complexity
o Relatively moderate and
declines during the
treatments
Proppant distribution
o Interpreted as being good
o Minimal proppant bridging
Real time net pressure indication
o CT deadstring
o Avoid screen out

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

 COMPLETION: Bottom Hole Gauge Data Evaluation
IMMEDIATE
COMMUNICATION
12%

REGAINED
ISOLATION GOOD
7% ISOLATION
55%

LATE
COMMUNICATION
26%

Communication between stages - Only available on BCeCf-101h well

Zonal pressure isolation evaluation

o Reasonable with most communication being slight in nature

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

 PRODUCTION EVALUATION: Basic Comparison
Comparison of production rate and

Calculated BH Pressure (psi)

Choke management calculated bottomhole flowing pressure
Oil Rate (stb/d)

Similar lateral length (1500 m)

Both wells navigate in the same
section
Both wells exhibit choke change at
different times
Pressures measured at surface (BH
Calc)
No tubing installed
Normalized time (months)

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

PRODUCTION ANALYSIS: Basic Comparison

Cumulative Gas Prod (MMscf)

Cumulative Oil Prod (Mstb)

Normalized time (months) Normalized time (months)

Comparison of oil and gas production volumes

Shows similar profiles with the BCeCF-101 performing slightly better

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

PRODUCTION EVALUATION: Rate Transient Analysis
Linear flow specialized plot analysis

Normalized Pressure (psi/(bbl/d))

Slope inversely
Slope is inversely proportional to proportional to
contacted Area
connected fracture area (Ak)
Geomechanical effects with choke
changes (depletion of the SRV)
Plug & Perf
(102h)
BCeCF-101h (pinpoint) 40% more
connected area Slope is inversely proportional
Pinpoint to connected fracture area
(101h)

Oil Linear Superposition time (d1/2)

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

PRODUCTION EVALUATION: Rate Transient Analysis
Flowing material balance (FMB)

Oil Normalized Rate ((bbl/d)/psi)

Quantifying the contacted Original Pinpoint
(101h)
Oil in Place (OOIP)
Extrapolation of this plot yields a
rough estimate of SRV Plug & Perf
Geomechanical effects with choke (102h)
Geomechanical
changes (depletion of the SRV) effects

BCeCF-101h (pinpoint) 60% more

SRV
Normalized Oil Cumulative Production (Mstb)

Rough Estimate of SRV

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY
PRODUCTION EVALUATION: Benchmark

Enhanced Fracture Region (EFR) model by Stalgorova and Mattar (2012)

Accounting for differences in lateral length, stage count and entry point spacing
Fracture properties (length and conductivity) are assumed to be identical between
the two wells
Geological and geomechanical overprint is identical for these wells

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

PRODUCTION EVALUATION: Benchmark

BCeCF-101h (PINPOINT) - Numerical

model history match well production
data

History matching
Determination K1, K2, Xf, Xi, Le, Ye

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

PRODUCTION EVALUATION: Benchmark
Oil rate - 100% Cluster Efficiency Oil rate - Actual Cluster Efficiency

BCeCF-102h (PLUG & PERF) -

Numerical model history match well
production data

Production simulation
K1, K2, Xf, Xi, Le, Ye as calculated

The cumulative difference in oil

production over the time period
of interest (5 months) is 11,358
STB

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY

COMPLETION COST: Comparison

Comparison of bundled completion costs

Include only those expenditures directly associated with the specific completion
methodology employed
The cost of proppant and other variable costs not associated specifically with the
style of completion were not included in the totals

Savings of approximately 9% for the comparable Pinpoint costs vs the Plug&Perf

completion costs
PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY
CONCLUSIONS
Cost and production benefits were realized by the
application of the pinpoint completion method.

RTA analysis of well performance suggests a

greater stimulated reservoir volume (fracture
area) is produced by the pinpoint completion
method, and that a larger hydrocarbon volume is
contacted by the completion as a result.
PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY
 QUESTIONS

PINPOINT COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY IN THE VACA MUERTA SHALE: A CASE STUDY