Optimizing Refracture Treatments in Horizontal Shale Oil and Gas Reservoirs

SPE Gulf Coast Section Completions and Production Study Group May 25th, 2011 Robert Barba Integrated Energy Services Inc
1

Horizontal Shale Well History

All shale plays-continuous learning curve in number of frac stages and length of laterals
Bakken-first fracs single stage 1500 ft lateral Recent wells-over 40 stages 11,000 ft laterals

Similar trends in all shale plays

Horizontal Shale Well Issues

How can new wells be set up to take advantage of the inevitable learning curve? What wells are good candidates for refracs? How can treatments be optimized?

Expected Learning Curve

Better performing fluidsSlickwater has major settling issues-is significant unpropped height only in high modulus Barnett?

Expected Learning Curve

Better performing proppantsWidespread use of white sand at high closure stresses -is it too early to see long term effects of drawdown? EFS-S. Tx Vicksburg wells use ISP and Bauxite at lower stress

Expected Learning Curve

Frac spacing based on permeability
Stage spacing of 350-450 ft assumes 4000-10,000 nd Highest published DFIT data 500 nd 180 ft maximum frac spacing at 500 nd maximum perm Is increased production from longer laterals due to number of stages or the length of the lateral?

What Wells are Good Candidates?

Low hanging fruit-single stage openhole laterals

What Wells are Good Candidates?

Low hanging fruit-single stage openhole laterals Next rung-wells with limited number of stages where increased staging has resulted in significant production improvement

What Wells are Good Candidates?

Low hanging fruit-single stage openhole laterals Next rung-wells with limited number of stages where increased staging has resulted in significant production improvement Higher rung-poor performing clusters within stages

What Wells are Good Candidates?

Economics-use offsets completed with current best practices-Bakken example

10

What Wells are Good Candidates?

Challenges-fraccing candidates that are currently still economic and getting crews

11

Refrac Treatment Optimization

DFIT ACA* permeability is the critical input
Ideal-vertical pilot well with external casing DTS fiber optic array for frac height-need to get h from DFIT kh

* Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test After Closure Analysis

12

Refrac Treatment Optimization

Data suggests the key variable is the spacing between dominant fractures in each stage not cluster or stage spacing
Assume frac spacing = stage spacing

Cluster perforating-highly inefficient and unpredictable results-difficult to refrac Single cluster frac stages outperform multiple clusters theoretically and empirically

13

Single vs Multiple Clusters

Multiple cluster average 2.7 clusters/stage this study Industry average 4-5 clusters/stage

*Gord Mayr Apache Horn River May 2011 SPE Tight Reservoir Completions WS Banff 14

Single vs Multiple Clusters

*Gord Mayr Apache Horn River May 2011 SPE Tight Reservoir Completions WS Banff 15

Vertical Well Multiple Cluster Stages

Multiple Zone Stage Single Zone Stage Xf Apparent 259 ft 269ft

1ft

1ft
One of multiple zones perforated (primary frac): Identical to single perforated interval frac stage Secondary fracs: Skin removal only Horizontal wells-exacerbated with stress shadowing
16 Barba and Shook SPE 90483

Horizontal Well Stress Shadowing

H 250-300 ft EFS/Marcellus/HV

Vertical wells-no significant stress shadowing affecting clusters Horizontal stress shadowing-harder to stimulate >1 cluster
SPE 131732 Meyer&Jacot, SPE 125526 Britt&Smith, SPE 90051 Fisher, SPE 138843 Cheng 17

Typical Horizontal Shale PLT

One cluster out of five producing-same for 6 of 7 stages SPE 131732 Schlumberger 200 well study-80% of PLT gas from 20% of perfs Stress shadowing-all perfs within twice the frac height affected For refracs-which cluster was fracced?

SPE 131732 Meyer and Jacot18

Gas Shale DFIT Permeability

Meyer and Yeager SPE 139067

Maximum average permeability published: 500 nd

19

Optimum Frac Spacing vs Perm

Spacing Between Fractures ft 180 ft frac spacing for 500 nd rock-no published gas shale cases with higher perms 5000 ft lateral with 180 ft spacing=28 frac stages Oil shales-tighter spacing due to lower mobility
20 SPE 131732

Trajectory vs Propped Height

3D simulations and well performance analysis

suggest there is excessive proppant settling with the slick water systems 3D simulations-45 ft of proppant bank above base of Marcellus Atlas DUG East 2010-wells with more stages in proppant bank outperformed those with fewer stages in bank Numerous operators-similar observations and best practices = lower trajectories

21

7830

Stress

Marcellus SPE Example

mD-ft 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

7840

7850

7860

TVD (ft)

7870

7880

7890

7900

7910

7920 5000 6000 7000 8000 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Stress (psi)

Length (ft)
22

45 ft of propped height-200,000 lb 100 mesh 300,000 lb 40/70 white

Marcellus Trajectory Example

8 of 9 stages in proppant bank 9 of 9 stages in proppant bank

7 of 11 stages in proppant bank

Base Marcellus

Wells A&B 5-6 MMCFD IP, Well C 1.5 MMCFD Orange=3D frac model propped height Greene County Pa
Henry Jacot Dug East 2010
23

High Modulus Proppant Wedge

High modulus Barnett-strong evidence of unpropped height Low modulus rock-unpropped frac closes with drawdown EFS, Haynesville, and Marcellus-much lower modulus
Britt and Schoeffler SPE 125525
24

Refrac Zone Isolation Issues

Ideal configuration for new wells-cased cemented

perforated or notched completion with openhole packer type system set in casing Single perf cluster stages-rate down 2 7/8 flush joint tubing should be adequate (20-25 bpm) Stages with poor performance-can set plug below target stage, close sleeves between heel and target stage, refracture target zone Following refrac all sleeves can then be re-opened

25

Can Offset Wells Drain the Gaps?

If stages are too far apart can the gas

inbetween the drainage patterns be effectively recovered?

Where did the existing fracs initiate? (PLT?) What pattern did the offset fracs drain? Did stress shadowing affect the drainage azimuth?

26

Stress Shadowing vs Azimuth

Max stress distribution affected by previous frac stage hmax

Vertical Offset Well

Lower Spraberry 1988 SPE 19721 and 23949 Vertical Offset Well
Stages selected from mud log shows and to avoid lost circulation zones from offsets Fracced into depletion on 3rd and 5th stages

27

Poor Performing Stage Repair

Stages with poor initial connection to frac-refrac

with higher viscosity fluid Hybrid foam probably better choice than linear or crosslinked gel Foams have less water and less gel and should be less damaging than gelled water Initiating with lower viscosity may increase complexity and length vs pumping high viscosity stable foam entire job New fiber Highway Frac promising initial results-is it from reduction of settling or pillars as advertised?
28

Isolating Existing Perforations

Numerous options available to seal off

existing perfs and start refracs with a new wellbore:

Enventure expandable liner Weatherford Metalskin Core Lab Pengo Patch Openhole Packers Plus systems in casing Several other options from other vendors

29

Enventure Expandable Liner

Dave Mayhall presentation May 2011 SPE Tight Reservoir Completions WS Banff 30

Possible New Well Configuration

Single perforation cluster stages-notched or hydrajetted for low tortuosity Frac current number of stages at spacing for 500 nd permeability (180 ft) Frac remaining lateral length at later date as technology improves What is PUD status of remaining lateral length? Same as offset locations??

31

Conclusions
Current and previous industry stage and cluster

spacing practices are probably resulting in significant undrained reservoir volumes with excellent refracture potential Numerous current industry completion practices have limitations that should be overcome with the inevitable learning curve Operators should build flexibility into their current completions to better capture the potential upside from this learning curve
Optimize stage spacing based on permeability Frac distal part of wellbore using this spacing
32