Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bob Shelley Livestream Format SGW Wide
Bob Shelley Livestream Format SGW Wide
Bob Shelley Livestream Format SGW Wide
MULTI-STAGE UNCONVENTIONAL
FRACTURE DESIGN
Based on SPE-184816
Bob Shelley, PE
Brian Davidson
Koras Shah
Amir Mohammadnejad, PhD
Stanislav Sheludko
McGuire and Sikora Post Fracture Productivity Increase
Prop. Wt. Fluid Vol. Lateral Length Frac Stages Perf Clusters
Well Prop Description
(Million Lb.) (Million gal.) (ft.) Completed per Stage
3
Well Production Comparison
RCS-Sand
LDC-Sand
LDC
4
Well Performance Modeling Approach
Production History Match Drilling, Reservoir & Geology Frac Pressure Match
Compare Fracture
Characteristics
Frac Model Geometry - Wellbore Profile View
LDC; 94 Fractures
Reservoir Model - Production History Match (Well B)
FP 1 FP 2 FP 3
7
Surface Flowing Pressure & Stress on Proppant (Well B)
Actual Flowing Pressure (psi) Stress on Proppant (psi)
8000
7000
6,800 psi
6000
5000
4,500 psi
4000
3000
2000
-36%
10
-58%
5
-60%
-90%
0
1000 3000 5000 7000 9000 11000
Source: Dynamic Conductivity from PredictK (StimLab)
Stress (psi)
9
Fracture Modeling
RCS - Sand
Fracture RCS- LDC-
LDC
Most Degradation Characteristics Sand Sand
8
Fracture Efficiency vs. Conductivity
Fracture Efficiency (FE) = Effective Area (Aeff)/Propped Area (Aprop)
LDC
LDC-Sand
RCS-Sand
r2=0.965
𝐹𝐸 = 0.01 ∗ 𝐹𝑐 + 0.02
9
Frac Design Production Forecasts
4
3.5
3
Cumulative Gas (BCF)
2.5
1.5
10
Frac Design Economic Forecasts
1 Year NPV Fracturing Cost Total Proppant Fluid Volume Trk Loads 1 Y Cum Gas
Case
(Million $) (Million $) (Million lb) (Thousand BBL) Proppant (BCF)
Low Density Ceramic-Sand $7.92 $2.64 12.1 258 270 3.7
Large Sand $6.69 $2.50 21.3 389 473 3.2
Resin Coated Sand-Sand $6.20 $1.91 10.3 221 229 2.8
Sand $5.03 $1.51 10.3 221 229 2.3
11
2 Well Utica Pad, Belmont Co. OH - TVD 8,600 ft.
o Each Well used Different Frac Designs
Fractures/Stage 5 5
Lprop
Created Half Length 469 342
(ft)
Ceramic Well
Prop HalfLLength (ft) 447 332
Ceramic Frac eff– 206’
Prop Height (ft) 212 202
𝑘𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝
103 ∗𝑤𝑓 158
𝐿
Frac Conductivity
(md-ft) 𝑒𝑓𝑓 ≈
Fcd = 3.6 𝜋∗𝑘∗𝐹𝑐𝑑
Leff
Lprop
Fracture Effectiveness over Time
230 Day Production History Matches
Sand Ceramic
Leff – 140 ft Leff – 190 ft
40% More
Proppant Characteristics Comparison
Laboratory Conductivity Measurements at 1 lb/ft2 Concentration
Fc Ratio≈1.5
Conductivity (md-ft)
Fc Ratio≈2.1
Fc Ratio≈2.8
Stress (psi)
Utica Operator Perspective
• Consol Energy, September 2016, SPE 184078, Dry Utica Proppant and Frac Fluid Design
Optimization; “for the ceramic well to be cost effective, between 20% to 30% uplift in
production is needed to justify the incremental capex in todays markets. Based on the
current production data and BHFP, the ceramic well is on the path to reaching those
expectations.”
• EQT, February 2017, World Oil Shaletech; “We had a view that maybe sand would
work, and at the time would be significantly cheaper than ceramics, so we switched
over,” says new CEO Steven T. Schlotterbeck. “Those next couple of wells were
significant underperformers from the Scotts Run. And then we switched back to
ceramics for the last couple of wells, and they were significantly better than the wells
with sand. Those two wells have gotten us much closer to the target recoveries that
we think we need. Our current plans is to use ceramics for all wells in the future.”
5 Well Eagle Ford Pad, McMullen Co. TX - TVD 10,600 ft.
Fracture Efficiency (FE) = Effective Area (Aeff)/Propped Area (Aprop)
• Significant fracture
inefficiency.
• Apparent fracture
degradation with
aggressive production
drawdown.
• Data indicates that
there is a positive
relationship between
fracture conductivity
and efficiency.
20
3 Well Eagle Ford Pad, McMullen Co. TX - TVD 11,600 ft.
• Significant fracture Fracture Efficiency (FE) = Effective Area (Aeff)/Propped Area (Aprop)
inefficiency
• Apparent fracture
degradation with
aggressive production
drawdown.
• Data indicates that there is
a positive relationship
between fracture
conductivity and
efficiency.
21
Summary
All of the cases presented indicate significant hydraulic fracture inefficiency.
Due to stranding of large portions of the propped fracture area which consequently do not
contribute to well performance.
Increasing fracture conductivity appears to mitigate this issue resulting in improved
fracture effectiveness, greater effective frac length and area.
Proppant placement difficulties which reduce cluster efficiency, proppant and
treatment volumes placed; decrease fracture effectiveness and well
production.
These issues can be caused by formation and/or completion/frac design issues.
This data indicates that a hydraulic fracture’s effectiveness degrades over time.
It was necessary to incorporate fracture degradation to match the production
performance of these wells.
Pressure drawdown due to production which increases the stress on proppants appears to
reduce fracture conductivity and effective fracture area.
22
Thank You!