SPE-187236-MS

Proposed Refracturing Methodology in the Haynesville Shale

Tao Xu, Garrett Lindsay, Jason Baihly, Efe Ejofodomi, Raj Malpani, and Dan Shan, Schlumberger

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 9-11 October 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
During the downturn in the oil and gas industry, many operators have chosen to refracture their previously
underperforming wells to boost economics with lower investment compared to drilling new wells. More
than 100 horizontal wells have been refractured using chemical diverters across multiple basins in North
America since the second half of 2013. Many papers have been published discussing these case studies.
However, the refracturing results have been inconsistent. One of the biggest challenges of refracturing with
chemical diverters is not knowing what is actually happening down hole. To better understand what is
happening, more refracture modeling should be performed to more reliably predict production results before
spending the upfront capital for a refracturing treatment.
A proposed refracture numerical simulation methodology was employed to take into account the
historical production depletion using calculated pressure and stress measurements along the lateral and in the
reservoir. The altered stress fields resulting from reservoir depletion are calculated through a comprehensive
workflow coupling simulated 3D reservoir pressure with a geomechanical finite-element model (FEM)
described in a previous published paper. After the stress and pressure are updated, the new approach outlined
in this paper is validated by production history matching real data from a previously refractured well in the
Haynesville basin to provide more confidence in the end results. The main uncertainty in the process is how
much of the lateral was stimulated. This paper also provides a sensitivity example to show how the model
can be altered to predict different lateral coverage percentages.
Refracture modeling still poses a major challenge for engineers because of the reservoir complexity and
uncertainty downhole while refracturing (i.e. reservoir heterogeneity, isolation efficiency, etc.). However,
this proposed refracturing approach provides a basic guideline on how to model refracturing treatments in
a numerical simulator with the help of altered stress fields caused by reservoir depletion. This can be used
to better understand why previously refractured wells perform the way they do and to better predict the
performance of future refractured wells.

Introduction
The Haynesville shale was discovered by Chesapeake Energy in early 2008 (NGI 2017) and is considered
the third largest current gas producing field in North America (Fig.1); it approximately holds around
500 trillion cubic feet of gas (Clemente 2017). It covers northeast Texas/northwest Louisiana and lies at
2 SPE-187236-MS

true vertical depths between 10,000 to 14,000 ft. It is an over-pressured reservoir with reservoir pressure
gradients ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 psi/ft (Loren C. Scott & Associates, 2010). The Haynesville shale is a
soft formation with a low Young's modulus (1.0E+6 psi to 3.5E+6 psi from Thompson et al. 2010), which
causes proppant embedment and adversely impacts well production, especially over time (Melcher et al.
2015). Fracture conductivity loss and proppant damage are a known issue in the basin and may result
in underperforming horizontal wells and steeply declining production trends; these are ailments that can
be remedied by refracturing to reconnect the initial damaged fracture networks with the wellbore and to
stimulate new rock.

Figure 1—Average daily gas production for seven key U.S. shale plays (Clemente 2017).

Fig. 2 shows the results for 32 refractured wells in the Haynesville shale, the blue bar represented the 5-yr
gas baseline forecast and the orange bar represented the 5-yr gas incremental per refractured well (Lindsay
et al. 2016). The 5-yr gas incremental is between ~200 MMscf and ~2,300 MMscf. The large variation in
results shows the uncertainty behind refracturing and the need to be able to better predict the performance
of these treatments. With the idea of "pad refracturing" on the rise (Will et al. 2015), performance prediction
will be even more valuable because of the additional cost of refracturing multiple wells versus a single well.

Figure 2—Refracturing results for 32 refractured wells in the Haynesville shale (Lindsay 2016).

This paper provides a further explanation of the refracture modeling approach taken in Xu et al. (2017).
As a continuation, please refer to Xu et al. (2017) for a brief review of other papers and methodologies to
model unconventional plays.
SPE-187236-MS 3

Refracture Modeling Challenges

Many papers have discussed refracturing treatments and unconventional modeling in different basins across
North America (Indras and Blankenship 2016; Thompson et al. 2011; Okouma Mangha et al. 2011; Díaz de
Souza et al. 2012; Ejofodomi et al. 2011; Fan et al. 2010; Gakhar et al. 2016; Ilk et al. 2008; Malpani et al.
2015; Xu and Hoffman 2013; Marongiu-Porcu et al. 2015; Pankaj et al. 2016; Miller et.al 2016; Morales et
al. 2016; Lindsay et al. 2016; McFall et al. 2017). However, very few papers discuss and define a specific
methodology about how to numerically simulate a well that has been refractured with chemical diverters.
This can be a challenging process for well(s) that have been producing for several years because of the
changes in the in-situ stress and pore pressure. In addition, determination of diverter efficiency, or coverage
along the lateral while refracturing can be quite challenging especially without any form of diagnostics like
microseismic, tracers, etc. These can be categorized as two major issues: reservoir depletion and lateral
coverage.

Reservoir Depletion
As the reservoir is depleted, pore pressure decreases, resulting in the decrease of the in-situ stress. This is
shown in the isotropic minimum horizontal stress equation (Eq. 1) (Malpani et al. 2015):

(1)

This altered stress profile (i.e., the heterogeneous stress along the wellbore), will then impact the
refracture geometry and cause possible fracture reorientation during the restimulation process. The
challenge then becomes how to couple the updated geomechanics model with the reservoir depletion impact.
To model a refracture treatment, a pre-refracturing simulation model should be built to properly take into
account the reservoir depletion, and then the reservoir model should be coupled with a finite element
geomechanics model to update the minimum in-situ stress change. This intricate multidisciplinary approach
is discussed in the next section.

Lateral Length Coverage

Another major challenge is the lateral coverage, i.e. the ability to achieve full wellbore coverage with the
treatment, when refracturing with chemical diverters. During the refracturing process, the entire wellbore
is open to flow and it is challenging to understand which perforation cluster or interval is being stimulated
at any given time. Diagnostics such as radioactive (RA) tracer, caliper log, injection log, chemical tracers,
microseismic, fiber optics, etc. may help understand the effectiveness of the diverter and proppant transport
and provide insight into the percent of the lateral that may have been refractured. Table 1 shows results for 9
refractured examples in the Haynesville Shale (highlighted in red). The interval coverages range from 20%
to 100% (Leonard et al. 2016). The majority of the refracturing treatment is limited to the heel 25% portion
for a majority of the wells (Leonard et al. 2016). Without any type of diagnostics to help understand where
the treatment may have gone, the refracture modeling process can become a much larger challenge.
4 SPE-187236-MS

Table 1—Results for 9 refractured Haynesville wells (Leonard et al. 2016).

Workflow
The two challenges described above make the refracture simulation process a very challenging task with
many uncertainties. The workflow described in this section introduces a proposed refracture simulation
approach that considers these two challenges. The approach was validated with an actual refractured well, by
predicting the post-refracture production performance, providing more confidence to use it as a predictive
tool.
The new workflow for multi-well pad refracturing was thoroughly discussed by Xu et al. (2017) (Fig.
3). As discussed in that paper, the workflow was expanded based on an integrated "seismic-to-simulation"
single-well workflow developed by Cipolla et al. (2011). To better explain the different phases, a brief
description below will refer to the project dataset displayed shown in Figs. 4a, 4c, 4e and description shown
in Figs. 4b, 4d, 4f.
Phase 1 of the workflow was to construct a static geomodel with the pilot hole petrophysical and
mechanical properties taken from well A. Treating pressures were then history matched to the microseismic
dataset on well B to better calibrate the generated geomodel. This static model was then used as the basis
for the simulation study.
Phase 2 was consisted of production history matching the refracture study pad. Wells D, E, F, and G
are the four main study wells on the pad However, wells C and H were included to take into account the
reservoir depletion that has occurred from those two wells and its impact on refracturing the four study
wells. This step was the core part of this workflow, which is a multidisciplinary approach that integrates
complex hydraulic fracture models, geomechanical models, and multi-well production simulation models.
During this process, the simulated 3D reservoir pressure and a geomechanical finite-element model (FEM)
were coupled to model the changes of the magnitude and orientation of the in-situ stresses as a result of
depletion. However, one of the challenges was that the six wells in this phase of the study were not initially
stimulated and brought online at the same time. For example, well F was stimulated first. Then wells D, E,
and G were stimulated about 350 days later. Well H was fractured about 540 days after well F. To honor
the geomechanical property changes and reservoir pressure depletion, several iterations of reservoir history
matching had to be simulated separately. These are discussed in greater detail by Xu et al. (2017).
SPE-187236-MS 5

Phase 3 of the workflow was to use a real refractured well to define and calibrate the refracture workflow
for the pad sensitivities, which will be discussed in detail in this paper. The objective of this phase was to
develop a new methodology on how to model a refracture stimulation using chemical diverters and validate
the methodology by history matching the post-refracturing production of a well that had previously been
refractured. This methodology was then applied back to the study well pad to run sensitivities on various
scenarios. To model the well that had actually been refractured, the pre-refracturing production history for
that well and offsets had to be modeled (similar to phase 2) to capture the reservoir production/depletion
and corresponding stress changes before the refracture stimulation. Well J was the well that was refractured
using chemical diverters. Wells I, K, and L were the offsets that were also included in the simulation to take
into account the offset reservoir depletion. Once the pre-refracture history was matched and calibrated in
the model, the new methodology was validated by history matching the post-refracturing production. This
methodology was then used as the basis for running the sensitivities on the study pad in phase 4.
Phase 4 was where the validated refracture modeling methodology was applied back to the original study
pad. Several sensitivities were modeled to understand the optimal number of refractured wells (refracturing
one well versus all four-wells on the pad), refracturing sequence (the order the wells should be refractured
in), refracturing job size, refracturing time (refracturing now versus. waiting several years), and lateral
coverage of the refracturing treatment.
Phases 1, 2, and 4 have been discussed in detail by Xu et al. (2017). This paper will further discuss the
newly developed refracturing workflow outlined in phase 3 that utilizes updated minimum in-situ stress
caused by reservoir depletion.

Figure 3—Pad refracture simulation study workflow (Xu et al. 2017).

6 SPE-187236-MS

Figure 4—Project data, showing a) simulation study well locations, b) well summary, c) study pad well locations, d) study
pad order of history matches, e) refracturing pad well location, and f) refracturing pad order of three history matches.

Proposed Refracturing Methodology

As discussed above, the challenge of modeling refracturing treatments with chemical diverters is not
knowing which perforation clusters took fluid and proppant and how much of the treatment each perforation
SPE-187236-MS 7

accepted. Refracturing treatments with chemical diverters are a continuous operation of multiple hydraulic
fracture stages separated by biodegradable particulates (Lindsay et al. 2016). Without having any type of
diagnostic methodology, it becomes challenging to determine and quantify where the proppant and fluid
may be going. The same can be said for trying to model the actual refracturing treatment in a fracture model/
simulator.
To model the refracturing treatment for this study, a new methodology had to be developed. The first step
in developing this methodology was to understand the pore pressure and stress state before the refracturing
treatment. Fig. 4e shows the lateral of well J that was actually refractured. The in-situ stress was recalculated
based on the previous reservoir depletion. Phases 1 and 2 in the workflow above discussed the initial steps
of building the geological model and pre-refracturing production history matching the well. These were
discussed in detail by Xu et al. (2017). After production history matching the well, the geomechanical
model and stresses were updated to take in to account the depletion effects on pressure and stress. For this
paper, a similar example from Pankaj (2016) is refered to in order to help explain the process (Fig. 5). The
blue measurements at the bottom of Fig. 5 show the initial minimum stress values for the virgin reservoir
before the well was originally stimulated and brought on production. The red measurements shown in Fig. 5
indicate the updated stress profile after the production history. As can be observed, there is a larger contrast
in minimum stress along the lateral as a result of the production history.

Figure 5—Example of stress around perforation clusters for both virgin reservoir and after depletion (Pankaj et al. 2016).

The proposed methodology discussed below was developed around the newly calculated stress
measurements based on a few fundamental assumptions that helped to create a consistent methodology that
can be applied to other refracture simulations. The main assumptions are:
1. The hydraulic fractures during the refracture treatment start propagating in the lowest stress clusters
first.
2. Because the refracture coverage of the lateral is hard to identify without any type of diagnostics, as
previously discussed, another assumption will have to be made on how much of the lateral may be
effectively stimulated using chemical diverters. As a starting point, it was assumed that the entire
wellbore could uniformly be covered, providing an ideal scenario. Then, additional scenarios were run
to understand the impact of not being able to achieve full wellbore coverage of the refrature treatment
along the lateral.
8 SPE-187236-MS

3. All of the clusters/stages that are assumed to be taking fluid are taking an equivalent amount of fluid,
i.e. the same refracturing design is applied to all of the stages. This is likely not the case, but is a good
starting point in simulations without any measurements.
In this workflow, the first step was to rank the newly calculated minimum stress along the lateral. An
example of this process is shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6a shows the updated minimum stress values for each
cluster as it appears along the lateral, and Fig. 6b shows those stress values re-ranked from lowest to highest.
The total number of clusters was then divided by the number of refracturing stages that were pumped. For
example, if there were 20 refracturing stages then the total number of clusters was divided by 20 to determine
the number of clusters that would be treated by each stage of the refracturing treatment (with the assumption
that similar treatment volumes across each cluster as mentioned above). Then, the refracturing treatment is
simulated stage by stage with the actual refracturing treatment pumping schedule. Using the same example,
Stage 1 would consist of the lowest-stressed clusters being stimulated and then progression to Stage 20
where the highest stressed clusters would be stimulated last. Stress shadow impacts were also included from
each previous stage to take into account the impact of the stress change as a result of previously pumped
stages (Weng et al. 2014). Fig. 7 shows an example of the refracture geometry with the application of this
proposed refracturing methodology on a four-well study pad (Xu et al. 2017). It can be observed that most of
the refracture geometry may be constrained to the depleted areas because of the lower stresses and pressures.

Figure 6—Example of original (a) and reranked (b) updated minimum stress because of reservoir pressure depletion.

Figure 7—Refracturing geometry (Xu et al. 2017).

SPE-187236-MS 9

The post-refracture production history match for well J using this approach is shown in Fig. 8. BHP
pressure control mode is used to match the daily gas production. Obtaining a good history match on a real
refractured well gave more confidence in using this proposed approach to predictively simulate the different
refracturing scenarios on an entire pad, as discussed in Xu et al. (2017).

Figure 8—Refractured well production history match results (Xu et al. 2017).

Refracturing Methodology Application

The refracture methodology that was calibrated above was then applied to perform different refracturing
sensitivities on a four-well pad in the Haynesville shale. First, the minimum in-situ stress was recalculated
for the four-well pad as a result of depletion. Then, for every well, stages and clusters were regrouped from
lower minimum stress to higher minimum stress. Each stage was stimulated with the same refracturing pump
design. Various sensitivities have already been thoroughly discussed by Xu et al. (2017). These sensitivities
provided guidance on how many of the four wells should be refractured, the sequence or order the well(s)
may be refractured, how large the refracture job size may be, and the best time (now vs. sometime in the
future) to refracture. In the section below, the wellbore coverage sensitivity is further discussed to better
understand its impact on production.
Table 1 shows the results of 9 refractured wells in the Haynesville shale. The lateral coverage ranges
from 20% to nearly 100% from well to well with the heel half of the lateral showing more coverage. As
discussed, the proposed refracturing methodology started with the assumption that 100% of the lateral could
uniformly be covered during the refracturing treatment (Fig. 9a). To capture and simulate situations in which
full-wellbore coverage may not be achieved, two additional scenarios were generated: 1) only the heel half
of the lateral being covered for all wells as shown in Fig. 9b (highlighted with dotted line) and 2) only the
heel half of the lateral being covered with adjacent laterals drilled in opposing directions as shown in Fig.
9c (highlighted with dotted line). All three scenarios were simulated based on pumping the same amount
of proppant (i.e., the proppant/lateral foot of the 50% coverage scenarios is double that of the 100% lateral
coverage).
10 SPE-187236-MS

Figure 9—Three simulation scenarios. A) Scenario 1, 100% lateral coverage; b) scenario 2,

50% lateral coverage; c) scenario 3, 50% lateral coverage with opposite drilling direction.

A 5-yr production forecast was generated for the 3 different scenarios (Fig 10). Scenario 1 with 100%
lateral coverage is the best case scenario and shows the highest production results. Scenario 2 and 3 have
less new surface area contacted and show less gas incremental. However, if the wells on the pad had been
drilled in opposite directions (Scenario 3) compared with drilled in the same direction (Scenario 2), then only
obtaining 50% lateral coverage (heel half) would give higher production results because of the additional
surface area that is able to be contacted.

Figure 10—Lateral coverage scenarios results.

Summary
The proposed refracturing methodology introduced in this paper provides a good method to model new
refractured wells and calibrate real refractured wells with or without any diagnostic tools. Even though this
methodology has underlying assumptions/constraints, it is still a powerful predictive tool to understand the
feasibility of refracturing and evaluate previously refractured wells. Coupling this refracture methodology
with other refracture parameters as outlined in Xu et al. (2017) allows operators to better understand
how the refracturing sequence, refracturing job size, refracturing timing and wellbore coverage during the
refracturing treatment will impact production. Other takeaways include:
– The more years of reservoir depletion, the higher in-situ stress values will be decreased, which will
result in a more heterogeneous stress profile along the wellbore.
SPE-187236-MS 11

– The majority of refracturing geometry may be constrained in the depleted areas following the path
of lowest stress and pressure.
– This new refracturing methodology can be used as a predictive tool to model refractured wells (with
or without any diagnostic tools).
– A newly created comprehensive workflow can be applied to other pad study wells in other basins.
– Many other measurements, such as radioactive (RA) tracers, caliper log, injection log, chemical
tracers, microseismic, fiber optics, etc., will help understand the effectiveness of diverter during
refracturing process.
– Refracturing lateral coverage can vary and should be properly accounted for when predicting
performance.
– Refracturing wells drilled in the opposite direction may provide additional fracture area and result in
higher production if full lateral coverage cannot be achieved.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the operator involved in this study for allowing Schlumberger to publish
this work and also thank Schlumberger management for supporting this effort.

References
Cipolla, C. L., Fitzpatrick, T., Williams, M. J. et al 2011. Seismic-to-Simulation for Unconventional Reservoir
Development. Presented at the SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 9–11 October. SPE-146876-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/146876-MS.
Clemente, J. A. 2017. Natural Gas Reemergence in the Haynesville Shale. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/
sites/judeclemente/2017/03/25/a-natural-gas-reemergence-in-the-haynesville-shale/#e0409ae230c8 (accessed 7 June
2017).
Díaz de Souza, O., Sharp, A., Martinez, R. C. et al 2012. Integrated Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoir Modeling:
A Worked Example From the Haynesville Shale, De Soto Parish, North Louisiana. Presented at SPE Americas
Unconventional Resource Conference – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 5–7 June. SPE-154692-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/154692-MS.
Ejofodomi, E., Baihly, J., Malpani, R. et al 2011. Integrating All Available Data to Improve Production in the Marcellus
Shale. Presented at the SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas,
USA, 14–16 June. SPE-144321-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/144321-MS.
Fan, L., Thompson, J. W., and Robinson, J. 2010. Understanding Gas Production Mechanism and Effectiveness of
Well Stimulation in the Haynesville Shale through Reservoir Simulation. Presented at the Canadian Unconventional
Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 9-21 October. SPE-136696-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/136696-MS.
Gakhar, K., Shan, D., Rodionov, Y. et al 2016. Engineered Approach for Multi-Well Pad Development in Eagle Ford Shale.
Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 1–3 August.
URTEC-2431182-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2016-2431182.
Ilk, D., Rushing, J. A, Perego, A. D et al 2008. Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands:
Understanding the Origin and Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps' Decline Curves. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 14-24 September. SPE-116731-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/116731-MS.
Indras, P. and Blankenship, C. 2015. A Commercial Evaluation of Refracturing Horizontal Shale Wells. Presented at
the SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 28-30 September. SPE-174951-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/174951-MS.
Information on the Haynesville Shale. Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI). http://www.naturalgasintel.com/haynesvilleinfo.
Accessed 2017.
Lindsay, G. J., White, D. J., Miller, G. A. et al 2016. Understanding the Applicability and Economic Viability of
Refracturing Horizontal Wells in Unconventional Plays. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 9–11 February. SPE-179113-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179113-MS.
Loren C. Scott & Associates. 2010. Economic Impact of the Haynesville Shale of the Louisiana Economy in 2009. http://
www.loga.la/pdf/Economic%20Impact%20of%20HS.pdf (accessed 7 June 2017).
12 SPE-187236-MS

Malpani, R., Sinha, S., Charry, L. et al 2015. Improving Hydrocarbon Recovery of Horizontal Shale Wells Through
Refracturing. Presented at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 20–22
October. SPE-175920-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/175920-MS.
Marongiu-Porcu, M., Lee, D., Shan, D. et al 2015. Advanced Modeling of Interwell Fracturing Interference: an Eagle
Ford Shale Oil Study. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA. 28-30
September. SPE-174902-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/174902-MS.
McFall, R., Mullen, K., Baihly. J., et al 2017. Refracturing in the Eagle Ford Shale: One Operator's Quest to Identify and
Rank Candidates, Minimize Well Interference, and Understand Variability in Results. Presented at the Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference, Austin, Texas, USA, 24–26 July. URTEC-2691375.
Melcher, J., Persac, S., and Whitsett, A. 2015. Restimulation Design Considerations and Case Studies of Haynesville Shale.
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 28–30 September. SPE-174819-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/174819-MS.
Miller, G., Lindsay, G., Baihly, J. et al 2016. Parent Well Refracturing: Economic Safety Nets in an Uneconomic
Market. Presented at the SPE Low Perm Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA. 5–6 May. SPE-180200-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/180200-MS.
Morales, A., Zhang, K., Gakhar, K. et al 2016. Advanced Modeling of Interwell Fracturing Interference: An Eagle Ford
Shale Oil Study - Refracturing. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA, 9–11 February. SPE-179177-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179177-MS.
Okouma Mangha, V., Guillot, F., Sarfare, M. et al 2011. Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) as a Function of production
practices in the Haynesville shale. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 30 October–2 September. SPE-147623-MS.
Pankaj, P., Gakhar, K., and Lindsay, G. 2016. When to Refrac? Combination of Reservoir Geomechanics with Fracture
Modeling and Reservoir Simulation Holds the Answer. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 25–27 October. SPE-182161-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/182161-MS.
Thompson, J.M., Okouma Mangha, V., and Anderson, D.M., 2011. Improved Shale Gas Production Forecasting
Using a Simplified Analytical Method-A Marcellus Case Study. Presented at SPE North American Unconventional
Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14-16 June 2011. SPE-144436-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/144436-MS.
Thompson, J. W., Fan, L., Grant, D.. 2010. An Overview of Horizontal Well Completions in the Haynesville Shale.
Presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 19–21 October. SPE-136875-MS. 10.2118/136875-MS.
Weng, X.W., Kresse, O., Chuprakov, D. et al 2014. Applying Complex Fracture Model and Integrated Workflow in
Unconventional Reservoirs. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 124: 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.
Will, H., Mark, T., Jeff, V. et al 2015. System Candidate Selection Improves Haynesville Refracturing Economics. World
Oil Magazine December 2015: 67–71.
Xu, T. and Hoffman, T. 2013. Hydraulic Fracture Orientation for Miscible Gas Injection EOR in Unconventional Oil
Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA. 12–
14 August. URTEC-1580226-MS.
Xu. T., Lindsay, G., Baihly, J. et al 2017. Advanced Modeling of a 4-Well Pad Refracturing Optimization in the
Haynesville Shale. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Austin, Texas, USA, 24–26
July. URTEC-2697463.